Guild Renown Changes

[Gremmlynn]

And here we go again...

Two (?) people claiming the old system favoured large guilds, when it is clear that it did not.

Sorry, you're just wrong, and you weren't paying attention then, when the numbers favoured small guilds, were you?

Two people who don't understand the guild system or its history who have grand designs of re-designing it to favour solo and tiny guilds?

Not interested. Do your homework. And stop suggesting changes that will solely benefit you while destroying large guilds.

You're not qualified to change the system, and your suggestions have been shouted down quite a few times as harmful to the game as a whole.

And you use too much text to try to 'snowjob' it past us....

Not. Interested. Not even gonna read.

Actually in theory it could favor large guilds if you could get a large enough group of serious players to stick together long enough to do it. The problem is that serious players have a tendency to disagree on the most minor of points as well as hold ambitions that are less likely to be fulfilled by such a group. So your typical large guild has a core of serious players small enough to get along and a majority of less serious, generally less active players who, under the old system, contributed much more to decay than they generally did to renown.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Then the system we now have will work. As small guilds can and have succeeded by being active enough and casual players can succeed simply by either hitching their wagon to active players or getting a large enough group of other casual players (unlikely). Now small guilds of casual players may not be able to succeed, but I'm not the one insisting decay has to remain.

If Turbine doesn't eliminate decay, then decay will remain - but be overhauled.

No small guilds haven't succeeded - in fact the success stories after level 70 are very limited and only to those uber active guilds.

And trying to spin this to twist my words is not productive.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Only if they made it a point to either boot, or encourage casual players to quit. I laugh at the idea that a guild could encourage players to play more, as anyone who would actually want to do that would if they were able and anyone who didn't simply wouldn't. Better to let players play as much as they can or want to and design a system that lets then contribute when they do, than tell them they must play this much to break even and see them simply finding a game that fits the amount of time they are willing or able to play. Seems pretty obvious to me.

The desire of wanting to play with friends is very powerful and is more effective a tool to encourage active play than any other.

The culture of a small guild can be one of tight knit group that promotes people to come online the same time everyday and look for one another. This draws people in.

The current and prior system tells small guilds that they have to play this much in order to just maintain - that is wrong. A system needs to be fair to all size guilds and should be designed to allow for different play styles.

[Lowz]

He absolutely insists that his plan MUST allow guilds to lose levels. He wants his guild to be able to advance and he insists that other guilds must be allowed to lose levels. When offered a very small change, by his own numbers, that would ensure that no guilds would lose levels, he rejected that option because he feels very strongly that guilds must be able to lose levels. Which guilds do you think those are?

His plan adds more decay for every player in your guild, which the current system does not do. Which guilds will incur the most decay under his plan?

He has been extremely evasive about why his plan must be allowed to have guilds lose levels. But those of us who see how his plan adds more decay for every player you add to your guild, can see who it is that his plan will allow to lose levels, and it won't be his small guild.

All guilds - uurlock has said it over and over and over and over. some just seem to read large guilds. no all guilds. should be able to loose renown through decay.

I am fine with decay per player. I am fine with the chance that with neglect a guild can loose a level (if enough time is there)..

That isn't a small change. You wanted to tie decay directly to the individual players. You want to make it impossible to loose renown. No, you just wanted to try and sneak in something that Turbine would flat reject. He included it already first option eliminate decay or if that won't fly then....

I can tell you that you haven't even looked at the numbers. Most guilds would actually have signifigantly less decay under his system than now. All guild sized treated equally. Only those that actually earn renown during a day caount for decay. Fair playing feild where yes more members can mean more decay - but playing an hour in a quest easily earns more renown than decay. law of averages say that since only those earning decay affect decay then those that earn more renown will make up for those that earn less. The more players a guild has the faster they will progress and the more likely they will not decay.

And as far as loosing a level? It can happen now. Under Uurlock's idea if a guild doesn't log in for a day they might loose a hundred renown at level 50, or even 250 at level one hundred - a day.... wow.. how long will it take to loose a level at level 100 when you when a guild has 51.5 million renown .... how about 16 years.

Sit down and think about the idea instead of doing a knee jerk. Open your guild panel and count the number of characters that show hours instead of days and hours since last log in. Divide that by 4 and you will get accounts (rule of thumb). Multiply that number buy guild level and by 2.5. Compare that to the existing decay. You will be surprised. Show you math.

I see no evasiveness in Uurlock so far, just straight pure logic. Seen a mistake in math which he owned up to and corrected. seen a common misconception that based upon a simple common sense thing, where hard fact is nowhere to be found. Evasive no. Uurlock has explained it numerous times, but me thinks that you just skipped the brain and just went directlyto knee jerk.

I don't like decay. but understand its function.

No wonder why uurlock has said so little about his own guild with the haters flaming him for even posting something, bending and twisting and flat out lying and then attacking him personally.

I have read and think I understand uurlock's idea. very well thought out and if you read back through the pages you will see it has evolved through discussion. It isn't just one thing, it is many things that should be simple to do (he claims many can be done without bringing down the servers), and even some ideas that improve the quality of life for guilds and members, some that even earn some revenue for the company.

Sitting here and yelling down with decay has gotten you exactly nowhere. Trying to bend a good idea by putting a badly hidden attempt to remove decay rider on it is not good either. Yes, we don't want decay but what do we want if the devs insist on keeping it. that is what we should be working on, that and Tychagara's idea about a guild framework.

If you don't have the time or whatever reason to just do the math to see how it would affect your guild then send me the information and i will it for you. you count, I multiply. How many people have logged into your guild in the last 24 hours, divide by 4 to eliminate multicharacters and mail/ah/dd checkers; and multiply by 2.5 times guild level. Going to about the same, probably less.

[Lowz]

No it heavily favored very active players to form into small groups in order to magnify their gains with size bonuses. It was very prejudiced against anyone for whom the game is a diversion rather than a devotion and any guild that included them as a member.

no look at the charts. guild were forced to use the size bonus in order to fight the really unfair decay that had wicked rows of shark teeth and the appetite of a blue whale.

I like a system that if a guild wants to remain small that is good, but if they run into another player they like they have no pause to just invite them. That is uurlocks. current system and previous system everyone did the min-max game just to survive. now the only ones that have that luxury is the large guilds.

[eris2323]

All guilds - uurlock has said it over and over and over and over. some just seem to read large guilds. no all guilds. should be able to loose renown through decay.

I am fine with decay per player. I am fine with the chance that with neglect a guild can loose a level (if enough time is there)..

That isn't a small change. You wanted to tie decay directly to the individual players. You want to make it impossible to loose renown. No, you just wanted to try and sneak in something that Turbine would flat reject. He included it already first option eliminate decay or if that won't fly then....

I can tell you that you haven't even looked at the numbers. Most guilds would actually have signifigantly less decay under his system than now. All guild sized treated equally. Only those that actually earn renown during a day caount for decay. Fair playing feild where yes more members can mean more decay - but playing an hour in a quest easily earns more renown than decay. law of averages say that since only those earning decay affect decay then those that earn more renown will make up for those that earn less. The more players a guild has the faster they will progress and the more likely they will not decay.

And as far as loosing a level? It can happen now. Under Uurlock's idea if a guild doesn't log in for a day they might loose a hundred renown at level 50, or even 250 at level one hundred - a day.... wow.. how long will it take to loose a level at level 100 when you when a guild has 51.5 million renown .... how about 16 years.

Sit down and think about the idea instead of doing a knee jerk. Open your guild panel and count the number of characters that show hours instead of days and hours since last log in. Divide that by 4 and you will get accounts (rule of thumb). Multiply that number buy guild level and by 2.5. Compare that to the existing decay. You will be surprised. Show you math.

I see no evasiveness in Uurlock so far, just straight pure logic. Seen a mistake in math which he owned up to and corrected. seen a common misconception that based upon a simple common sense thing, where hard fact is nowhere to be found. Evasive no. Uurlock has explained it numerous times, but me thinks that you just skipped the brain and just went directlyto knee jerk.

I don't like decay. but understand its function.

No wonder why uurlock has said so little about his own guild with the haters flaming him for even posting something, bending and twisting and flat out lying and then attacking him personally.

I have read and think I understand uurlock's idea. very well thought out and if you read back through the pages you will see it has evolved through discussion. It isn't just one thing, it is many things that should be simple to do (he claims many can be done without bringing down the servers), and even some ideas that improve the quality of life for guilds and members, some that even earn some revenue for the company.

Sitting here and yelling down with decay has gotten you exactly nowhere. Trying to bend a good idea by putting a badly hidden attempt to remove decay rider on it is not good either. Yes, we don't want decay but what do we want if the devs insist on keeping it. that is what we should be working on, that and Tychagara's idea about a guild framework.

If you don't have the time or whatever reason to just do the math to see how it would affect your guild then send me the information and i will it for you. you count, I multiply. How many people have logged into your guild in the last 24 hours, divide by 4 to eliminate multicharacters and mail/ah/dd checkers; and multiply by 2.5 times guild level. Going to about the same, probably less.

And what YOU don't understand is it's not the numbers, I don't care if you are proposing to lower the decay rate by 93%, I only care that the system allows the casual and new players a place in guilds, and a return to 'everyone pays renown debt based on number of accounts' is counter productive to what I believe is good for the game.

I'm not interested in his mess of a system; it's flawed at its very core by not understanding the problem. There have been MANY better suggestions.

MANY.

You won't be able to force your flawed system down my throat, I see it is flawed, and I hate it. I would quite literally rather quit the game forever than allow your system to take hold; it's that bad.

Sorry about that.

The changes you want will be an easy button for tiny, small, and solo guilds, at the expense of large guilds.

That disgusts me, luckily, others have seen right through it too.

[Lowz]

Improving what in this case though? All it is is a "competition" to see who plays the most, or maybe spends the most on renown elixirs. I really don't think renown awards are going to make anyone better at opening chests faster.

improving oneself is always a good thing. seeing if one can do things better. i don't know, if possible I skip aggro i don't need to kill in order to complete. that I learned from others in a PUG. learned different tricks like arrow skipping and how to actually do certain quests on elite at level from others. competition is inate to human beings, we do it all the time. better to have it out in the open and optional than through proxy.

and if a guild wants bragging rights then that is all good. if you aren't interested - don't look. but I betcha you will look, and have already.

[Lowz]

No it heavily favored very active players to form into small groups in order to magnify their gains with size bonuses. It was very prejudiced against anyone for whom the game is a diversion rather than a devotion and any guild that included them as a member.

system still does except now it is prejudiced toward large guilds.

[eris2323]

system still does except now it is prejudiced toward large guilds.

Actually, now, there is an option for those who don't make the game their life; they can join a large guild, where they are welcome, because the renown debt per day is already taken care of, based on the max amount. Every new person can only help us.

Or, they can join a small, very active guild, and enjoy the same bonus they always got.

THere was no option for large guilds with casual players before, except to remove the casuals.

And you still don't understand this?

Wow.

[Lowz]

What? That makes no sense. Under the current system, no player can ever earn less renown than they cost in decay. Under the old system, many players did earn less renown than they cost in decay. And that gave guilds an incentive to kick/shun such players. And that is why we have the current system and not the old system .

under the current system nothing has changed for small guilds. players earn less than they earn all the time. you just don't see it by choice or because your are in a very large guild.

we have the current system because it is what the devs could do without downtime. they wanted something they could do without downtime that is akin to putting a donut on a semi's front tire under heavy load.

[eris2323]

under the current system nothing has changed for small guilds. players earn less than they earn all the time. you just don't see it by choice or because your are in a very large guild.

we have the current system because it is what the devs could do without downtime. they wanted something they could do without downtime that is akin to putting a donut on a semi's front tire under heavy load.

And that 'emergency measure' was needed after a vast majority of guild leaders complained for a very long time and finally made turbine understand the damage their old system was causing.

That's no reason to go back to a flawed, broken system. Just because we're using an emergency system, it works 1000 times better than it did before!

And with all the new ways to make renown - if your players are making less renown, they're playing less. That's a problem when your guild is too small and too casual, I will admit - and others have suggested some great changes to fix that.

[Tshober]

under the current system nothing has changed for small guilds. players earn less than they earn all the time. you just don't see it by choice or because your are in a very large guild.

Under the current system, adding a player to a guild, any guild of any size, NERVER EVER causes more decay. Never.

The fact that you can't see that, is not my problem. It is however, true.

Adding a player to a guild in the old system, quite often caused more decay for the guild than the added player earned in renown. That is why the old system encouraged exclusiveness and smaller guilds.

Uur's proposed plan would go back to where adding a player to a guild could and would increase the decay for the guild by more than the added player earned in renown, just like in the old system. That is why it needs to be rejected like the old system was.

Just because Uur's proposal is flawed at its core, does not mean all hope for small guilds is lost. There have been many other solutions proposed that would greatly benefit small guilds without going back to a system that adds more decay with every member you add to your guild.

[Lowz]

Under the current system, adding a player to a guild, any guild of any size, NERVER EVER causes more decay. Never.

The fact that you can't see that, is not my problem. It is however, true.

Adding a player to a guild in the old system, quite often caused more decay for the guild than the added player earned in renown. That is why the old system encouraged exclusiveness and smaller guilds.

Uur's proposed plan would go back to where adding a player to a guild could and would increase the decay for the guild by more than the added player earned in renown, just like in the old system. That is why it needs to be rejected like the old system was.

Just because Uur's proposal is flawed at its core, does not mean all hope for small guilds is lost. There have been many other solutions proposed that would greatly benefit small guilds without going back to a system that adds more decay with every member you add to your guild.

I see what you are saying - but you are only including half of the equation.

and the other solutions are just remove decay, and those are already included in his proposal, in big bold words. However, Turbine will probably never remove decay and you will be stuck on a dead end street.

And the system doesn't add more decay for each member that you add. only those members that earn renown are counted, and only for the day the earn renown.

Did you do the simple excercise I asked? The count and I will do the basic math for you to proove the point? Didn't think so.

[eris2323]

Excellent. Looks like myddo will soon be gone. Now people can stop trying to take its broken numbers and using them for broken arguments!

Guild leaderboards gone, too... I approve!

http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p...96&postcount=1

[Tshober]

Excellent. Looks like myddo will soon be gone. Now people can stop trying to take its broken numbers and using them for broken arguments!

Guild leaderboards gone, too... I approve!

http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p...96&postcount=1

Myddo.com data going away = YAY!! About time.

More focus on social media = Boo!

[Tshober]

And the system doesn't add more decay for each member that you add. only those members that earn renown are counted, and only for the day the earn renown.

This only means there will be fewer players who will be discriminated against by the system. It does not eliminate them. It only reduces the number of them. They will still exist and there will be just as much incentive to discriminate against them as there was in the old system. If his plan actually made it impossible for such players to exist, then there would be no such problem. I even suggested such a modification to his plan and he rejected it because he felt strongly that guilds must be allowed to lose levels. Why they must be able to lose levels is completely unclear. When I asked exactly why they need to lose levels, he tried to blame Turbine, somehow. His rationale made no sense at all to me.

Did you do the simple excercise I asked? The count and I will do the basic math for you to proove the point? Didn't think so.

If I thought it were valuable to the debate, I would. But it is not. Making the numbers work out so that on average (with very gross assumptions about average play amounts) a system allows guilds to level, completely glosses over the discrimination that would still be inherent toward players who earn less renown than they cost their guild in decay. It is very much like the way that using average renown per player completely hides which guilds actually earned the most renown. You are hiding the problems inherent in your system behind averages, and worse yet behind assumed averages.

So I will not waste my time plugging numbers in to do a calculation that does not address the problem at all.

[eris2323]

Myddo.com data going away = YAY!! About time.

More focus on social media = Boo!

Meh, there's a choice - facebook (with real names) or twitter (with fake ddo cool names) - it's super easy to set up an twitter account solely to follow DDO, as well as the few websites on twitter that actually have draws and give out free turbine points!

I've already won a few batchs of TP via twitter, without exposing my real names to anyone

It's actually the reason I got into twitter, to get free turbine points - and now I can't stop twittering, it is actually one of the best real-time news outlets for things the media is either too slow to report on, or don't want to report on

I'm okay with it.

myddo was broken, they didn't care for years, time for it to go.

I was kind of horrified to find out anyone could just look up my characters any time they wanted on myddo, unless I knew enough to go turn it off.

Now I am super glad it is being removed - as it is full of bad data, and people don't understand that, and they use the bad data to explain away anything they want to explain.

I hate bad data.

Should be illegal.

[Gremmlynn]

If Turbine doesn't eliminate decay, then decay will remain - but be overhauled.

No small guilds haven't succeeded - in fact the success stories after level 70 are very limited and only to those uber active guilds.

And trying to spin this to twist my words is not productive.

Not an attempt to spin. But you are right, in order to succeed small guilds would have to consist of very active players and under the old system that's the only type of guild that could succeed. The reason I like the way things are now is that it also allows those very active players to drag less active players with them, even gives them a faster track for success to do so. While I'm not really a big fan of either system, I prefer the one that gives those very active players an incentive to play with less active players while playing their guild leveling mini-game much more than than the one that gives them an incentive not to play with them due to their guild leveling mini-game.

As long as decay exists all the guild leveling system will be is a mini-game for the very active players IMO. I just would rather it have a positive effect on the game for the rest than a negative one. Remove decay and it becomes a mini-game all guilds can play for however long it takes them to win. From what I see those are the two options that best salvages some positive functionality from what was initially a rather bad system. Either a perpetual system in which most players have to adjust to conform to or a temporary system that they don't.

I have yet to see any proposals that change that. Just a few trying to make the winning conditions be whatever best fits their personal preference.

[Gremmlynn]

The desire of wanting to play with friends is very powerful and is more effective a tool to encourage active play than any other.

The culture of a small guild can be one of tight knit group that promotes people to come online the same time everyday and look for one another. This draws people in.

The current and prior system tells small guilds that they have to play this much in order to just maintain - that is wrong. A system needs to be fair to all size guilds and should be designed to allow for different play styles.

The desire to want to play with friends is what was keeping some guilds from succeeding under the first system. Because it doesn't change the fact that some people simply can't do so due to real life priorities. Or to stop playing completely in order to not let one's real life responsibilities hold back their friends.

The desire to play with others in a more stable and mutually responsible environment than the LFM panel offers is also quite desirable. Not allowing those who don't play the game as actively as a "serious" player is a good way to get those players to do so in some other game. Very few of the people I play with started playing with friends and very few made many friends puging. Most of the friendships came from joining a guild.

I'm all for a system that works for both those who want to guild with friends and those who want to guild to make friends. I just don't see a way of bending the system we were given into something that supports both without removing decay and making it temporary.

[Gremmlynn]

improving oneself is always a good thing. seeing if one can do things better. i don't know, if possible I skip aggro i don't need to kill in order to complete. that I learned from others in a PUG. learned different tricks like arrow skipping and how to actually do certain quests on elite at level from others. competition is inate to human beings, we do it all the time. better to have it out in the open and optional than through proxy.

and if a guild wants bragging rights then that is all good. if you aren't interested - don't look. but I betcha you will look, and have already.

So, you say skipping one's child's soccer game to make your renown quota is a way of improving oneself? This whole system is really little more competitive than a hair growing contest. It's most basic premise was to see who could spend the most money on the game, either directly through renown elixirs or indirectly through all the other pay to win **** people buy to not have to actually improve due to simply playing more to meet their quotas. While spending more to buy those amenities the system was slanted to not let the average guild rise high enough to get the plat versions of. It was defiantly NOT set up to make the game better however one chose to play it.