Guild Renown Changes

[eris2323]

Perhaps they just need some more time to develop and implement more money-making features to offset the drop in sales of renown pots. Maybe once they are able to make money in other ways we will see them come around to the conclusion that almost everyone in this thread has reached. That is my optimistic view.

Maybe!

I mean, they keep dropping expansions on us, once a year - surely they must be making money on that, as well!

Maybe some day they will just let us play our guilds how we want; surely that day will only come after Turbine is rich, rich, rich!

And hopefully not after we've all left for other games that are newer, better, faster, prettier, or allow us a social game.

[curiouspilot]

I'd like to begin my explanation/defense by first saying that I've been following the thread and I've only posted a few times. Seeing everyone's argument, I have a pretty good idea of where this thread is going, and just so you guys know that I am not gonna go back and forth to reply for a few pages to endlessly explain what's already been said and obvious.

Vanshilar of the Over Raided, whom I agree with completely, has already explained his point of view in detail earlier on page 142, if any of you would like to re-read it. Since I am not nearly as articulate with words nor as analytical with statistical numbers as him, I'll quote him from time to time to reply some of you(I'll just hope that he does not mind ).

Yes, that is my guild. We were stuck in the low 60's for many months. We are also the most active guild on our server. We ALWAYS have more players logged in playing DDO than any other guild on our server, 24 hours per day and 7 days per week, and we have been the most active guild on the server for more than a year. We have lots of people who play many hours each day. We also have many people who play infrequently. We have people who RP. We have people who spend much of their time online chatting with their friends. We have people who are constantly raiding. We have every type of player in our guild and we all work together to level it up. Our doors are open to anyone who is willing to play by the rules (both of them) as long as we are not full, which we often are.

Don't you think it's fair that the most active guild, by a huge margin, and the most inclusive and open guild on the server ought to be able to level up? Or is it your opinion that extremely active guilds must be stagnated and unable to ever level up, just because they are large and willing to accept all types of players?

No I don't think so, and with all due respect sir, may I say that you don't know what "extremely active" means.

Here's a quote from Vanshilar:
--------------------------------
"As an example, I previously documented that Over Raided averaged 4367 base renown per member per day to reach level 100 within a year -- so that means the average member in Over Raided was getting about 4.4 legendaries a day. As I also calculated in that post, if a 100-account guild had also wanted to hit level 100 within a year, they would've needed to gain 3834 base renown per account per day -- or about 3.8 legendaries, or 88% of our level of effort. For a 200-account guild, it would've been 3488 base renown, or 80% of our level of effort.

Similarly, our level 1-to-85 averaged 4485 base renown per account per day. A large 100-account guild would've only needed 2379 to reach level 85 at the same time as us, or 53% of our level of effort. A 200-account guild would've only needed 1700, or 38% of our level of effort. In other words, if a 100-account guild were working about half as hard as we were, we would've been neck-and-neck to be first at level 85. If a 200-account guild were working about one third as hard as we were, it would've been a close race to level 85. If a 100-account guild had been working as hard as we were, they would've absolutely crushed us at renown; this hypothetical guild would've reached level 100 after about 7 months, when we were still level 86."
--------------------------------
So the conclusion here is, if every member of a large guild work as hard(or as efficient) as members of a small but "extremely active" guild, they would advance faster.

It sounds like you are very bitter and angry towards a group of people who are finally able to enjoy their game.

I for one, am very glad, that this guild who has spent so long stuck is now finally able to move forward, and I am very happy for all of the people in the guild.

Congrats, guys!

Not levelling fast enough? Consider recruiting! It'll do wonders, in this multiplayer online game!

No sir, there's neither sound or tone, and there's no need to be.

Most large guilds has already achieved level 63 or higher, which is the level to get most ship buffs in the game, I'd really doubt that people will only start to be "able to" have fun after they have access to the rest few shrines.

Here's a quote from Vanshilar:
--------------------------------
With the change to renown decay, small guilds are still characterized by small gain and small loss, but large guilds are now characterized by large gain and small loss. Thus large guilds are no longer encumbered by decay and will easily level up, while small guilds still continue to be held in check by renown decay and will not reach the higher levels unless they are among the most active of players. This is in direct contradiction to Turbine's stance that the guild system should not promote any particular guild size, yet there's been little word after nearly 4 months about how they will remedy this situation.
--------------------------------
So the question is, why should small guilds recruit more players just to gain renown, when Turbine doesn't want the guild system to particularly benefit certain guild size? Previous guild renown system already favor large guilds, it's just that most people don't realize it. Now that their gain is so much that their renown loss is near negligible. If small guilds is forced to recruit more players to become, let's say medium guilds, does Turbine favor medium guilds? and if more players in general will make it easier to gain renown, then Turbine certainly favor large guilds, which isn't Turbine's intention whatsoever, and it also isn't fair, because the system should benefit all size of guilds equally.

[eris2323]

I'd like to begin my explanation/defense by first saying that I've been following the thread and I've only posted a few times. Seeing everyone's argument, I have a pretty good idea of where this thread is going, and just so you guys know that I am not gonna go back and forth to reply for a few pages to endlessly explain what's already been said and obvious.

Vanshilar of the Over Raided, whom I agree with completely, has already explained his point of view in detail earlier on page 142, if any of you would like to re-read it. Since I am not nearly as articulate with words nor as analytical with statistical numbers as him, I'll quote him from time to time to reply some of you(I'll just hope that he does not mind ).


No I don't think so, and with all due respect sir, may I say that you don't know what "extremely active" means.

Here's a quote from Vanshilar:
--------------------------------
"As an example, I previously documented that Over Raided averaged 4367 base renown per member per day to reach level 100 within a year -- so that means the average member in Over Raided was getting about 4.4 legendaries a day. As I also calculated in that post, if a 100-account guild had also wanted to hit level 100 within a year, they would've needed to gain 3834 base renown per account per day -- or about 3.8 legendaries, or 88% of our level of effort. For a 200-account guild, it would've been 3488 base renown, or 80% of our level of effort.

Similarly, our level 1-to-85 averaged 4485 base renown per account per day. A large 100-account guild would've only needed 2379 to reach level 85 at the same time as us, or 53% of our level of effort. A 200-account guild would've only needed 1700, or 38% of our level of effort. In other words, if a 100-account guild were working about half as hard as we were, we would've been neck-and-neck to be first at level 85. If a 200-account guild were working about one third as hard as we were, it would've been a close race to level 85. If a 100-account guild had been working as hard as we were, they would've absolutely crushed us at renown; this hypothetical guild would've reached level 100 after about 7 months, when we were still level 86."
--------------------------------
So the conclusion here is, if every member of a large guild work as hard(or as efficient) as members of a small but "extremely active" guild, they would advance faster.


No sir, there's neither sound or tone, and there's no need to be.

Most large guilds has already achieved level 63 or higher, which is the level to get most ship buffs in the game, I'd really doubt that people will only start to be "able to" have fun after they have access to the rest few shrines.

Here's a quote from Vanshilar:
--------------------------------
With the change to renown decay, small guilds are still characterized by small gain and small loss, but large guilds are now characterized by large gain and small loss. Thus large guilds are no longer encumbered by decay and will easily level up, while small guilds still continue to be held in check by renown decay and will not reach the higher levels unless they are among the most active of players. This is in direct contradiction to Turbine's stance that the guild system should not promote any particular guild size, yet there's been little word after nearly 4 months about how they will remedy this situation.
--------------------------------
So the question is, why should small guilds recruit more players just to gain renown, when Turbine doesn't want the guild system to particularly benefit certain guild size? Previous guild renown system already favor large guilds, it's just that most people don't realize it. Now that their gain is so much that their renown loss is near negligible. If small guilds is forced to recruit more players to become, let's say medium guilds, does Turbine favor medium guilds? and if more players in general will make it easier to gain renown, then Turbine certainly favor large guilds, which isn't Turbine's intention whatsoever, and it also isn't fair, because the system should benefit all size of guilds equally.

Under the old system, there was no way out - you either kicked your casuals, or you hit the decay wall and stayed there for years.

My point is that simply there is now a way out: Recruit more.

Or, we could argue back and forth here for years waiting for a change - we could do that, but to me, simply recruiting a few more people is a lot easier.

Sorry you don't agree, and sorry you are so persecuted, but just because you don't want to take the solution that fixes your problem, doesn't mean the solution doesn't exist.

I've already stated I wanted renown lowered for small guilds, or removed completely for everyone.

But the fact of the matter is, you have a way to solve your problem, you just don't WANT to use it. That's not my fault, that's yours, and the only ones who are suffering for that are your guildies.


PS: Griffons Nest on Sarlona is still recruiting, and will continue until we hit the cap. Come be part of our family! With twice weekly scheduled raids, a guild website, and a teamspeak server, our high council has put a lot of work into making our guild attractive to new and old players alike! Come to think of it, we'll probably continue even after we hit the cap, and just rotate out some players who haven't played in a few months, and then rotate them back in if they come back

[Tshober]

No I don't think so, and with all due respect sir, may I say that you don't know what "extremely active" means.

With all due respect, you don't know what extremely active means when it comes to guilds. You are confusing activity per player with overall, sustained activity for the entire guild. They are both measures of activity but the former is a measure of the activity of players, not the activity of the guild. What we are discussing in this thread is a guild leveling system. We need to be careful that we are comparing guilds and not comparing players, as you and Vanshilar mistakenly did. The proper way to compare two guilds on renown earned is to compare the total renown earned by each guild. The amount earned per player is irrelevant when you are comparing two guilds.

[curiouspilot]

Under the old system, there was no way out - you either kicked your casuals, or you hit the decay wall and stayed there for years.

My point is that simply there is now a way out: Recruit more.

Or, we could argue back and forth here for years waiting for a change - we could do that, but to me, simply recruiting a few more people is a lot easier.

Sorry you don't agree, and sorry you are so persecuted, but just because you don't want to take the solution that fixes your problem, doesn't mean the solution doesn't exist.

I've already stated I wanted renown lowered for small guilds, or removed completely for everyone.

But the fact of the matter is, you have a way to solve your problem, you just don't WANT to use it. That's not my fault, that's yours, and the only ones who are suffering for that are your guildies.

There was.

Here's a quote from Vanshilar:
--------------------------------
Let's look at some of the arguments:

The renown system should reward activity
I've said this since day one -- that the key to gaining guild levels in the long run is to maximize gains (encourage fellow players to play), not to minimize losses (remove players that don't log on as often).

Yet previously, what argument did we hear for why renown decay had to be lessened? Because the only option these guild leaders had to continue leveling was to remove less active people from the guild, since they're all working very hard and there's no way they could possibly make the guild more active. Even when I said that they should encourage players to play more instead, and gave Over Raided's strategy as an example, they scoffed at this and said that it was impossible. I invite Turbine to look through the previous renown threads to see this argument in abundance.
--------------------------------
Please read my previous reply to Tshober, same post as my reply to you.

================================

With all due respect, you don't know what extremely active means when it comes to guilds. You are confusing activity per player with overall, sustained activity for the entire guild. They are both measures of activity but the former is a measure of the activity of players, not the activity of the guild. What we are discussing in this thread is a guild leveling system. We need to be careful that we are comparing guilds and not comparing players, as you and Vanshilar mistakenly did. The proper way to compare two guilds on renown earned is to compare the total renown earned by each guild. The amount earned per player is irrelevant when you are comparing two guilds.

Even when comparing guilds, this kind of extreme activity is quite pointless imho. If I am a new player who likes the game and I am looking for an active guild, is it any of help by getting into a guild with 1000 members which most of them play somewhere from 30 minutes to an hour? What percentage of players log on to only play for 10 to 20 minutes? In other words, almost everyone plays for 30 minutes or more, so what would be the point of being in a large guild under the new system when practically nearly everyone you encounter is at least as active as the next person? Here's a simple question for you sir, if you own a company, what would you rather have, 1,000 casual workers or 100 dedicated workers? Which one would be more efficient? and which one would you be more proud of? I'm open to all opinions so let me know your thoughts.

Oh and please read my previous reply to eris2323 also, to get a better understanding of my view point.

[Tshober]

Even when comparing guilds, this kind of extreme activity is quite pointless imho. If I am a new player who likes the game and I am looking for an active guild, is it any of help by getting into a guild with 1000 members which most of them play somewhere from 30 minutes to an hour? What percentage of players log on to only play for 10 to 20 minutes? In other words, almost everyone plays for 30 minutes or more, so what would be the point of being in a large guild under the new system when practically nearly everyone you encounter is at least as active as the next person? Here's a simple question for you sir, if you own a company, what would you rather have, 1,000 casual workers or 100 dedicated workers? Which one would be more efficient? and which one would you be more proud of? I'm open to all opinions so let me know your thoughts.

Everyone wants different things from a guild. Some want a guild that is social and gives them fun and friendly people to chat with. Some players are just in it for the airship and buffs. Some want to find people who are online and playing when they are to group with. Some are new players who don't know the game well and want advice from players who are more experienced. Some enjoy helping out new players and showing them the game. Some want to do serious, hardcore raiding all the time. Some enjoy several of these aspects of guild life at once. Some guilds are very inclusive and have a very diverse membership. To many players, that is extremely appealing. Some guilds are not very inclusive and ensure that all players who join will pretty much play the same way. That also appeals to some players. Neither is better. They both appeal to some kinds of players and they both provide a suitable home for the players they appeal to.

I don't think the company with workers is a good analogy. DDO is a game. People play DDO for entertainment and for fun & relaxation. Most people don't go to work for entertainment or for fun & relaxation. In fact, most everyone I know plays MMO's specifically to escape from the drudgery of work and other real world unfunness. A better analogy might be a social club. Would I rather be a member of a small social club where everyone had the same interests and approached things the same way? Or would I prefer a large social club with many diverse interests and opinions? That would depend on the specific circumstances but I can certainly see the merits of both types of social club and of both types of guild.

All players (who follow the TOS rules) are important to DDO. All players help the game grow and prosper. Even anti-social players that always solo and have a 1-man guild are important to the game, at least from a revenue perspective. If there is a healthy diversity of guilds that appeal to all types of players, that improves DDO overall. What I find destructive, is people who seem to believe that the only "good" way to play the game is their way. That does not help the game at all and actually causes much unnecessary strife.

The problem with the old decay system, and with the system proposed by Uur, is they both divide the player-base into players who are desirable to guilds (because they earn more renown than they cost in decay), and into players who are undesirable to guilds (because they earn less renown than they cost in decay). They both reward guilds for kicking/shunning players who earn negative net renown. That is why the old decay system was rejected and why the Uur proposal should also be rejected. All players are important to DDO, not just those who earn lots of renown.

[Tychagara]

Everyone wants different things from a guild. Some want a guild that is social and gives them fun and friendly people to chat with. Some players are just in it for the airship and buffs. Some want to find people who are online and playing when they are to group with. Some are new players who don't know the game well and want advice from players who are more experienced. Some enjoy helping out new players and showing them the game. Some want to do serious, hardcore raiding all the time. Some enjoy several of these aspects of guild life at once. Some guilds are very inclusive and, to many players, that is extremely appealing. Some guilds are not very inclusive and ensure that all players who join will pretty much play the same way. That also appeals to some players. Neither is better. They both appeal to some kinds of players and they both provide a suitable home for the players they appeal to.

I don't think the company with workers is a good analogy. DDO is a game. People play DDO for entertainment and for fun & relaxation. Most people don't go to work for entertainment or for fun & relaxation. In fact, most everyone I know plays MMO's specifically to escape from the drudgery of work and other real world unfunness. A better analogy might be a social club. Would I rather be a member of a small social club where everyone had the same interests and approached things the same way? Or would I prefer a large social club with many diverse interests and opinions? That would depend on the specific circumstances but I can certainly see the merits of both types of social club and of both types of guild.

All players are important to DDO. All players help the game grow and prosper. Even anti-social players that always solo and have a 1-man guild are important to the game, at least from a revenue perspective. If there is a healthy diversity of guilds that appeal to all types of players, that improves DDO overall. What I find destructive, is people who seem to believe that the only "good" way to play the game is their way. That does not help the game at all and actually causes much unnecessary strife.

-emphasis added

Well spoken.

Now back to getting my Nerd Glaze back on - have two season of something to watch again before Sunday. :P

[Lowz]

Curious - so agree.

Tsboer - agree..

-emphasis added

Well spoken.

Now back to getting my Nerd Glaze back on - have two season of something to watch again before Sunday. :P

What is a "nerd glaze"?????

[UurlockYgmeov]

-emphasis added

Well spoken.

Now back to getting my Nerd Glaze back on - have two season of something to watch again before Sunday. :P

Yes, well spoken Tsober

Curious - so agree.

Tsboer - agree..




What is a "nerd glaze"?????

*chuckle* new term coined by Peter Dinklage on a late night show (search google / Peter Dinklage / nerd glaze) to refer to watching back-to-back episodes of his show and coming back to work all 'glazed' eye..... something like that.

Yeah Tychagara - I gotta do the same thing... for winter is coming!

[Lowz]

I'd like to begin my explanation/defense by first saying that I've been following the thread and I've only posted a few times. Seeing everyone's argument, I have a pretty good idea of where this thread is going, and just so you guys know that I am not gonna go back and forth to reply for a few pages to endlessly explain what's already been said and obvious.

Vanshilar of the Over Raided, whom I agree with completely, has already explained his point of view in detail earlier on page 142, if any of you would like to re-read it. Since I am not nearly as articulate with words nor as analytical with statistical numbers as him, I'll quote him from time to time to reply some of you(I'll just hope that he does not mind ).


No I don't think so, and with all due respect sir, may I say that you don't know what "extremely active" means.

Here's a quote from Vanshilar:
--------------------------------
"As an example, I previously documented that Over Raided averaged 4367 base renown per member per day to reach level 100 within a year -- so that means the average member in Over Raided was getting about 4.4 legendaries a day. As I also calculated in that post, if a 100-account guild had also wanted to hit level 100 within a year, they would've needed to gain 3834 base renown per account per day -- or about 3.8 legendaries, or 88% of our level of effort. For a 200-account guild, it would've been 3488 base renown, or 80% of our level of effort.

Similarly, our level 1-to-85 averaged 4485 base renown per account per day. A large 100-account guild would've only needed 2379 to reach level 85 at the same time as us, or 53% of our level of effort. A 200-account guild would've only needed 1700, or 38% of our level of effort. In other words, if a 100-account guild were working about half as hard as we were, we would've been neck-and-neck to be first at level 85. If a 200-account guild were working about one third as hard as we were, it would've been a close race to level 85. If a 100-account guild had been working as hard as we were, they would've absolutely crushed us at renown; this hypothetical guild would've reached level 100 after about 7 months, when we were still level 86."
--------------------------------
So the conclusion here is, if every member of a large guild work as hard(or as efficient) as members of a small but "extremely active" guild, they would advance faster.


No sir, there's neither sound or tone, and there's no need to be.

Most large guilds has already achieved level 63 or higher, which is the level to get most ship buffs in the game, I'd really doubt that people will only start to be "able to" have fun after they have access to the rest few shrines.

Here's a quote from Vanshilar:
--------------------------------
With the change to renown decay, small guilds are still characterized by small gain and small loss, but large guilds are now characterized by large gain and small loss. Thus large guilds are no longer encumbered by decay and will easily level up, while small guilds still continue to be held in check by renown decay and will not reach the higher levels unless they are among the most active of players. This is in direct contradiction to Turbine's stance that the guild system should not promote any particular guild size, yet there's been little word after nearly 4 months about how they will remedy this situation.
--------------------------------
So the question is, why should small guilds recruit more players just to gain renown, when Turbine doesn't want the guild system to particularly benefit certain guild size? Previous guild renown system already favor large guilds, it's just that most people don't realize it. Now that their gain is so much that their renown loss is near negligible. If small guilds is forced to recruit more players to become, let's say medium guilds, does Turbine favor medium guilds? and if more players in general will make it easier to gain renown, then Turbine certainly favor large guilds, which isn't Turbine's intention whatsoever, and it also isn't fair, because the system should benefit all size of guilds equally.

+1
funny how people's eye's glaze over when they read long posts.

forget about numbers.

[curiouspilot]

I don't think the company with workers is a good analogy. DDO is a game. People play DDO for entertainment and for fun & relaxation. Most people don't go to work for entertainment or for fun & relaxation. In fact, most everyone I know plays MMO's specifically to escape from the drudgery of work and other real world unfunness. A better analogy might be a social club. Would I rather be a member of a small social club where everyone had the same interests and approached things the same way? Or would I prefer a large social club with many diverse interests and opinions? That would depend on the specific circumstances but I can certainly see the merits of both types of social club and of both types of guild.

While I agree with you that DDO is a game, but I don't think it can only be just a game; what I mean is, it's a game just as Chess is a game, or basketball, or boxing, or even Life itself, can be just a game, but it's about the attitude one have towards them. One can always choose be casual or hardcore. One could relax and summon a hire, begin his questing and finish after 40 minutes, while some prefer to finish Frame Work on elite in 3 minutes or raid 4 hours every day, each to his own(I am usually the former ).

Now of course that it doesn't seem possible to live off playing DDO, but that's because DDO isn't as popular as let's say WoW, and I am sure there are some players who could make bank with WoW, and those players are the type of players who take the game very seriously because they have a drive, no matter what kind, to be better than others, to beat the game.

A 6-men guild used to be able to compete with a large guild, it's because of the small guild renown bonus and hard-work. So at 300% more renown gain, 6 accounts actually equal to 24 accounts, and each member just has to play 4 times as hard, to be able to advance nearly as quick as a guild with 100 accounts(24*4). Now with the new system, a large guild no longer has to be afraid to add more members, so a large guild with 100 accounts can easily become a huge guild with 1000 accounts such as Legends of Orien on server Orien(I don't really have grudges against the guild, I am only using it as an example), and in order for a tiny guild to keep up, each member has to play 40 times as hard, and that is nearly impossible, or close to possible for players who do not have jobs and play all day.

Having said all that, I gotta say that I am more of a play-for-fun type. But really, who wanna social and chat all day? Isn't the point of playing games, well, playing games? No matter how much one wants to talk about how corrupted the US government is, or one's experience with chemotherapy, or how wonderful one's family is on general chat, one's gotta step into the dungeon and play the game, and who wants to be bad at the game that they like so much? I know I don't. It's definitely not fun for me to miss three-point shots 9 outta 10 when I play basketball, and for as good and as hardworking as Michael Jordan was, I knew he was having fun in most games, I really think so.

[UurlockYgmeov]

While I agree with you that DDO is a game, but I don't think it can only be just a game; what I mean is, it's a game just as Chess is a game, or basketball, or boxing, or even Life itself, can be just a game, but it's about the attitude one have towards them. One can always choose be casual or hardcore. One could relax and summon a hire, begin his questing and finish after 40 minutes, while some prefer to finish Frame Work on elite in 3 minutes or raid 4 hours every day, each to his own(I am usually the former ).

Now of course that it doesn't seem possible to live off playing DDO, but that's because DDO isn't as popular as let's say WoW, and I am sure there are some players who could make bank with WoW, and those players are the type of players who take the game very seriously because they have a drive, no matter what kind, to be better than others, to beat the game.

A 6-men guild used to be able to compete with a large guild, it's because of the small guild renown bonus and hard-work. So at 300% more renown gain, 6 accounts actually equal to 24 accounts, and each member just has to play 4 times as hard, to be able to advance nearly as quick as a guild with 100 accounts(24*4). Now with the new system, a large guild no longer has to be afraid to add more members, so a large guild with 100 accounts can easily become a huge guild with 1000 accounts such as Legends of Orien on server Orien(I don't really have grudges against the guild, I am only using it as an example), and in order for a tiny guild to keep up, each member has to play 40 times as hard, and that is nearly impossible, or close to possible for players who do not have jobs and play all day.

Having said all that, I gotta say that I am more of a play-for-fun type. But really, who wanna social and chat all day? Isn't the point of playing games, well, playing games? No matter how much one wants to talk about how corrupted the US government is, or one's experience with chemotherapy, or how wonderful one's family is on general chat, one's gotta step into the dungeon and play the game, and who wants to be bad at the game that they like so much? I know I don't. It's definitely not fun for me to miss three-point shots 9 outta 10 when I play basketball, and for as good and as hardworking as Michael Jordan was, I knew he was having fun in most games, I really think so.

+1; would give more rep - but must spread the love first. :P

[Gremmlynn]

So the question is, why should small guilds recruit more players just to gain renown, when Turbine doesn't want the guild system to particularly benefit certain guild size? Previous guild renown system already favor large guilds, it's just that most people don't realize it. Now that their gain is so much that their renown loss is near negligible. If small guilds is forced to recruit more players to become, let's say medium guilds, does Turbine favor medium guilds? and if more players in general will make it easier to gain renown, then Turbine certainly favor large guilds, which isn't Turbine's intention whatsoever, and it also isn't fair, because the system should benefit all size of guilds equally.

Except that outside of the ransack change, small guilds are no worse off than they were before the change. The big thing that changed was that players that actually stood a chance of succeeding in this mini-game are no longer barred from playing with those who didn't and in fact are more likely to succeed if they do.

Granted the ransack system could really use an adjustment. But anything beyond that would be, IMO, little more than oiling the squeaky wheels.

[UurlockYgmeov]

small guilds are no worse off than they were before the change.

Correct - the math clearly shows small guilds are still being penalized for being small, and the higher the level they achieve the more impossible it is for them to continue.

The system didn't change for the guilds with fewer than 20 accounts (modified) - and is still broken for them.

[UurlockYgmeov]

I've seen you state this but don't understand why you feel it MUST do so. As the system, from it's inception has always been mechanically unfair to guilds under 6 (size bonus) as well as guilds under 10 (decay minimum) it seems the developers also don't feel this is something they MUST do.

Just because it is now - doesn't mean that it should be. What is now is not fair, neither was the system before that.

What we need is a system that doesn't favor one size over another for decay purposes. In order to do that - that mean all sizes - from one to cap, and everything in between must be treated fairly when dealing with decay.

Fair doesn't discriminate or favor one for one arbitrary (or non-arbitrary reason) or another.

A system that starts with objectivity and without bias has a chance to remain so - while a system that starts with bias is inherently already started down the path to bias and unfairness. A system can only be as fair as the most basic of its concepts allow it to be.

As far as size bonuses - I am neutral - and believe they are a separate issued to decay.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Merriam-Webster

marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism <a very fair person to do business with>

Consisting of an objective state

Merriam-Webster: Objectivity

expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment>

[Gremmlynn]

A 6-men guild used to be able to compete with a large guild, it's because of the small guild renown bonus and hard-work. So at 300% more renown gain, 6 accounts actually equal to 24 accounts, and each member just has to play 4 times as hard, to be able to advance nearly as quick as a guild with 100 accounts(24*4). Now with the new system, a large guild no longer has to be afraid to add more members, so a large guild with 100 accounts can easily become a huge guild with 1000 accounts such as Legends of Orien on server Orien(I don't really have grudges against the guild, I am only using it as an example), and in order for a tiny guild to keep up, each member has to play 40 times as hard, and that is nearly impossible, or close to possible for players who do not have jobs and play all day.

The problem here is that 6 man guilds are not directly competing with large guilds for anything. They are both playing against the system and it is possible for each to win. Might it be easier for a a very active 6 man guild with a bunch of more casual player to do so than a very active 6 man guild without? Maybe, if enough casuals are added to make up for the loss of size bonus. But what is wrong with that as it encourages those 6 very active players to interact with those casual players?

[UurlockYgmeov]

The problem here is that 6 man guilds are not directly competing with large guilds for anything. They are both playing against the system and it is possible for each to win. Might it be easier for a a very active 6 man guild with a bunch of more casual player to do so than a very active 6 man guild without? Maybe, if enough casuals are added to make up for the loss of size bonus. But what is wrong with that as it encourages those 6 very active players to interact with those casual players?

The game should encourage interaction for gain and social fun, not the system.

And currently a six account guild cannot achieve the highest of guild levels without extreme activity. (67500 / (4 (size modifier) x 6 (accounts) = almost 3000 base renown a day each account (base is before size bonus)

Large guilds have nothing to fear when competing for who can earn the most renown in a given time period simply because the more members earning renown the faster a guild earns renown. A six account, let alone a one account guild cannot keep up (and they don't expect to).

What is the point is that the system is biased against small guilds when it comes to decay. Small guilds are feeling the pressure to remove less active members in order to try to outpace decay.

The system has to be fundamentally fair from the start (for decay purposes) in order for the entire system to be fair.

And forcing a guild to do something just to promote social behavior is wrong, and will only lead to bad will towards others. A small guild usually chooses to be small for many reasons - including the culture (especially). Forcing them to abandon the culture to continue advancement is simply a bad system and will lead to many leaving the game because they aren't having fun.

Case in point. I am a part of a dedicated TR group. I also PUG allot, and do some quests Solo. My TR group is 90% in the same guild. We play together because we have the same style and because we enjoy each others company. We build our TR's based on what the others are doing. I am doing Arty again next life, another is doing Druid mix, and another is doing something else, and another is doing something else. Blended well. Following this next life I plan on doing a 9 rogue - 9 wiz - 2 arty life. And the others in my group will be doing builds that compliment the group. Forcing us to massively expand just to keep up with decay is not fair. We love our culture - and we all contribute to the guild. We aren't small but we aren't big either. We are just where we want to be at this moment - just right - in the 'Goldilock zone.'

[Gremmlynn]

Just because it is now - doesn't mean that it should be. What is now is not fair, neither was the system before that.

What we need is a system that doesn't favor one size over another for decay purposes. In order to do that - that mean all sizes - from one to cap, and everything in between must be treated fairly when dealing with decay.

Fair doesn't discriminate or favor one for one arbitrary (or non-arbitrary reason) or another.

A system that starts with objectivity and without bias has a chance to remain so - while a system that starts with bias is inherently already started down the path to bias and unfairness. A system can only be as fair as the most basic of its concepts allow it to be.

As far as size bonuses - I am neutral - and believe they are a separate issued to decay.

Ah, for it to fit your definition of fair it must be so. Personally, I think fair is far from possible as to be fair the system would have to take into account variations in players interest, ability and availability to play and find a balance for all. I find a much more reasonable target to be reasonably passable for all to succeed with a bias towards anything that helps Turbine to succeed at their goals.

[Gremmlynn]

The game should encourage interaction for gain and social fun, not the system.

And currently a six account guild cannot achieve the highest of guild levels without extreme activity. (67500 / (4 (size modifier) x 6 (accounts) = almost 3000 base renown a day each account (base is before size bonus)

Large guilds have nothing to fear when competing for who can earn the most renown in a given time period simply because the more members earning renown the faster a guild earns renown. A six account, let alone a one account guild cannot keep up (and they don't expect to).

What is the point is that the system is biased against small guilds when it comes to decay. Small guilds are feeling the pressure to remove less active members in order to try to outpace decay.

And I proposed a change that reduced decay for small guilds by a factor of up to 10. As well as support the elimination of decay entirely (no, I don't agree that this would hurt the game as personally, I see leveling to 100 and not having to worry about it ever again as superior to a system that causes anyone any guild to remove members) or remove the whole guild level/perks nonsense completely and return guilds to the social, mutual aid organizations they were before the system was added.