Guild Renown Changes

[Arnez]

The only thing that has been demonstrated is your misunderstanding of the change that was made. The change the devs made did nothing at all to guilds with less than 10 players. The change reduced decay for all guilds with more than 10 players. And the change completely removed any possible decay increase from adding new members to ALL guilds of all sizes. It did nothing at all to "put the pressure on" any guild of any size at all. No guild has any more pressure on it than it had in the old system and many guilds have less.

Incorrect.

The change affected guilds of less that 10 players by making the Minimum Modified Guild number 10.
Current - ( Max(Modified Guild Size,10) + 10 )
Old - ( Max(Modified Guild Size) + 10 )

So for a guild of 6 accounts- we're now paying decay for 4 more accounts than under the old calculation. Hence the "pressure" on small guilds (i.e. "do we recruit and lose our small guild bonus?")
Going to post simple numbers-
My Level 56 guild of 6 Active Accounts under the old system : 2950
My Level 56 guild of 6 Active Accounts under the new system: 3688
By the time we hit 85 (if ever):
Old - 23582
New - 29478

Someone check my math. Please. Took the calculations from these sources:
Old- http://filespace.amitykeepers.eu/Jontas/GRDCalc.html
New- http://ddowiki.com/page/Guild_Renown

[Nestroy]

The current system has totally eliminated that bias due to decay for large guilds. Your plan would put that decay bias back into place.

May I ammend your posting a little bit?

The new System helps large guilds and large guilds only. Hell, Tshober, for one second listen to yourself and then please tell us slowly that you do not use the same arguments the small-guilders where using when you were combatting decay (for large guilds) several months past.

Decay Bias on what? 120 decay / daily per player on lv. 80? Linearity between different guild sizes? On what grounds there should be less decay per active member for a large guild than for a small guild? On what? One single valid point, please! On grounds of "we are larger, hehe!"? Does it really boil down to that? On grounds of "the small guilds get therefore their bonus"? Bonus as a concept has been older than the decay formula and was set to even out the much higher potential for renown gain by large guilds.

As long as the DEVs are not willing to kill the decay all together, any solution that does not give any form of linearity in decay can and will be challenged. Only a linear decay per active account - and we may discuss models where that decay cannot get negative or where activity is measured daily, or whatever - guarantees some sort of equality.

I fully understand that large guilders are happy now with the new system. If my guild would sport 500 active members, I would be happy too. But to combat below the belt line a proposal for a linear system, especially if letting off hook further the large guilds in terms of renown decay, on what grounds do you dare to do this? We may of course openly discuss any points from the proposed system, but with argumets against it, not with personal flaming.

[Charononus]

May I ammend your posting a little bit?

The new System helps large guilds and large guilds only. Hell, Tshober, for one second listen to yourself and then please tell us slowly that you do not use the same arguments the small-guilders where using when you were combatting decay (for large guilds) several months past.

Decay Bias on what? 120 decay / daily per player on lv. 80? Linearity between different guild sizes? On what grounds there should be less decay per active member for a large guild than for a small guild? On what? One single valid point, please! On grounds of "weare larger, hehe!"? Does it really boil down to that? On grounds of "the small guilds get therefore their bonus"? Bonus as a concept has been older than the decay formula and was set to even out the much higher potential for renown gain by large guilds.

As long as the DEVs are not willing to kill the decay all together, any solution that does not give any form of linearity in decay can and will be challenged. Only a linear decay per active account - and we may discuss models where that decay cannot get negative or where activity is measured daily, or whatever - guarantees some sort of equality.

I fully understand that large guilders are happy now with the new system. If my guild would sport 500 active members, I would be happy too. But to combat below the belt line a proposal for a linear system, especially if letting off hook further the large guilds in terms of renown decay, on what grounds do you dare to do this? We may of course openly discuss any points from the proposed system, but with argumets against it, not with personal flaming.

Decay per account if that amount is kept low, and personal decay can not bring personal renown below zero is ok. When a player can in any circumstance create a negative in net renown that is what brings social problems that will hasten the closure of the servers.

[Nestroy]

The only thing that has been demonstrated is your misunderstanding of the change that was made. The change the devs made did nothing at all to guilds with less than 10 players. The change reduced decay for all guilds with more than 10 players. And the change completely removed any possible decay increase from adding new members to ALL guilds of all sizes. It did nothing at all to "put the pressure on" any guild of any size at all. No guild has any more pressure on it than it had in the old system and many guilds have less.

The argument grows dead cold by now. The 20 minimum accounts was set with U14, as far as I know (max(active accounts+10;20)). Before this the minimum decay was 10 accounts + the number of active accounts, before this upon introduction of the decay system the minimum was exactly at the number of active accounts. So 20 minimum accounts decay is an artificial number without any real backing except for the need of Turbine to make the most Money out of sales from pots.

On countrary, with the ransack penalty forced immediately after gaining one level, small guilds now get an extra blow. We need to get enough renown to combat decay for one day after gaining a Level but with ransack this is near to impossible on a marginally growing guild. Last time it took my guild a whole 3 days of elevator leveling (one up, one down, up, down, up, down) to finally secure our Level. When we made 15k renown before ransack, we did about 4k after... i know what the DEVs posted regarding ransack. I cannot say if they are right. I feel to be on the downward side of their 50%+ they mentioned. So ransack has to be fixed - at least to allow to get 10% more renown than the renown needed to level before kicking in for the day.

And with the shift in decay marginalization for large guilds the small guilds in proportion got the bigger decay loads. Why to burden a small guild with 500 decay / day / player when in a large guild of the same Level this is only 100 decay / day / player. On what grounds?

[UurlockYgmeov]

Incorrect.

The change affected guilds of less that 10 players by making the Minimum Modified Guild number 10.
Current - ( Max(Modified Guild Size,10) + 10 )
Old - ( Max(Modified Guild Size) + 10 )

So for a guild of 6 accounts- we're now paying decay for 4 more accounts than under the old calculation. Hence the "pressure" on small guilds (i.e. "do we recruit and lose our small guild bonus?")
Going to post simple numbers-
My Level 56 guild of 6 Active Accounts under the old system : 2950
My Level 56 guild of 6 Active Accounts under the new system: 3688
By the time we hit 85 (if ever):
Old - 23582
New - 29478

Someone check my math. Please. Took the calculations from these sources:
Old- http://filespace.amitykeepers.eu/Jontas/GRDCalc.html
New- http://ddowiki.com/page/Guild_Renown

Nope - you math is spot on.

Thank you by the way - have never seen that first link before.

Nestroy - well said!

Also on a general note - decay is not a penalty. Rather more a membership dues/fee. Looking at it like a penalty is completely incorrect. One pays dues to their local health club or Y - and gets the benefits. Guilds are just like that, except the guild pays the fees per member.

[Tychagara]

wow the mud flew and people certainly tried to hit below the belt-line after some simple math was posted.

I believe this meant that the information provided was beyond refute and the only way to try to disprove it was to attack the poster(s) in very rude, inflammatory, harassing ways.

[Artos_Fabril]

Incorrect.

The change affected guilds of less that 10 players by making the Minimum Modified Guild number 10.
Current - ( Max(Modified Guild Size,10) + 10 )
Old - ( Max(Modified Guild Size) + 10 )

So for a guild of 6 accounts- we're now paying decay for 4 more accounts than under the old calculation. Hence the "pressure" on small guilds (i.e. "do we recruit and lose our small guild bonus?")
Going to post simple numbers-
My Level 56 guild of 6 Active Accounts under the old system : 2950
My Level 56 guild of 6 Active Accounts under the new system: 3688
By the time we hit 85 (if ever):
Old - 23582
New - 29478

Someone check my math. Please. Took the calculations from these sources:
Old- http://filespace.amitykeepers.eu/Jontas/GRDCalc.html
New- http://ddowiki.com/page/Guild_Renown

You're two iterations off, however.

The change being discussed in both the original post by Turbine (Tolero), and by the posters who are paying a modicum of attention is the change from the ( Max(Modified Guild Size,10) + 10 ) formula to (20)

This change, the one actually being discussed, did not have any impact on the decay calculation for guilds of fewer than 10 accounts. If you would like to argue the change from the old old formula, to the new old formula, you'll have to go back in time and create a thread about it, because the change was not even discovered immediately, let alone announced with a request for input.

[Gremmlynn]

Evidence is experiential - the hour plus it takes to repopulate the ship amenities after a restart shows that the server must cycle through all the guilds - including the dead guilds.

Common sense.

Seems like the whole rest of the game reloading first, combined with a spike in player log-ins and quest instance generation, could also have that effect. Your theory is about as valid as assuming the moon is made of cheese because it has the same apparent texture.

That said, even if this were the case, the devs are free to "decommission" any airships they find are causing the problem without having to tie it to a guild leveling system. Why add the needless complication of complying to extra conditions when they can set up an independent system to handle the problem better?

[Gremmlynn]

has been demonstrated many many many many times that current system only shifted the favoritism and put the pressure on the medium and smaller guilds to boot. the plan removes it.

So would simply removing the bias added with the guild size renown bonuses without effecting any guilds than those with an incentive to boot.

[Gremmlynn]

Decay Bias on what? 120 decay / daily per player on lv. 80? Linearity between different guild sizes? On what grounds there should be less decay per active member for a large guild than for a small guild? On what? One single valid point, please! On grounds of "we are larger, hehe!"? Does it really boil down to that? On grounds of "the small guilds get therefore their bonus"? Bonus as a concept has been older than the decay formula and was set to even out the much higher potential for renown gain by large guilds.

On the grounds that it works better for less active players to not make them detrimental to every guild? You seem to think this is going to work out to be fair to every player in the game. It's not, it's going to work out to be as fair as possible while best serving Turbines interests. Hell fair can't even be defined here. Is it fair that some players simply don't play enough to be worth a guild spot? Is it fair that only those players who play the most don't get more from it? Is it fair that a six man static guild that plays one day a week doesn't advance as fast as some "no life" everyday player?

Is it fair that everyone can't do everything exactly how they want while getting the most from the system? Because that's what most here seem to be looking for. Personally, I'm just looking for a system that is the least intrusive and thus causes the least disruption on the rest of the game in general and the social structure of guilds specifically.

[Charononus]

Is it fair that everyone can't do everything exactly how they want while getting the most from the system? Because that's what most here seem to be looking for. Personally, I'm just looking for a system that is the least intrusive and thus causes the least disruption on the rest of the game in general and the social structure of guilds specifically.

Well said, on a side note I said a few pages back that fair is complete myth.

[Gremmlynn]

wow the mud flew and people certainly tried to hit below the belt-line after some simple math was posted.

I believe this meant that the information provided was beyond refute and the only way to try to disprove it was to attack the poster(s) in very rude, inflammatory, harassing ways.

No, the information provided only proved that it was possible in that system for a player to have a renown debt greater than the minimum renown that could be earned. Thus making it possible for them to cost their more renown than they earn. So still unacceptable in my book.

[Tshober]

As long as bonus is needed to combat decay there will be kicks from the small guilds. So there needs to be a change.

I don't disagree with this statement. And it does not change my position against plans that increase decay for each player you add to your guild.

[Tshober]

Incorrect.

The change affected guilds of less that 10 players by making the Minimum Modified Guild number 10.
Current - ( Max(Modified Guild Size,10) + 10 )
Old - ( Max(Modified Guild Size) + 10 )

So for a guild of 6 accounts- we're now paying decay for 4 more accounts than under the old calculation. Hence the "pressure" on small guilds (i.e. "do we recruit and lose our small guild bonus?")
Going to post simple numbers-
My Level 56 guild of 6 Active Accounts under the old system : 2950
My Level 56 guild of 6 Active Accounts under the new system: 3688
By the time we hit 85 (if ever):
Old - 23582
New - 29478

Someone check my math. Please. Took the calculations from these sources:
Old- http://filespace.amitykeepers.eu/Jontas/GRDCalc.html
New- http://ddowiki.com/page/Guild_Renown

No, you are incorrect. And the devs agree. See here:

No guild should see more decay than before, with these current changes we're looking at this week.

The correct formulas are:

Old: ( Max(Modified Guild Size,10) + 10 )
New: (20)


Source for both is ddowiki.


Notice that the new formula does not have guild size in it at all. This also matches with what the devs have said about it here:

Renown decay no longer takes guild size into account.

[Dandonk]

Just to be clear: Tshober is correct. There is NO change in decay from the old system to the new temporary system for guilds of 10 accounts or fewer.

The only renown change for those guilds is the higher ransack penalty, but this is not renown decay.

Still, let's just remove decay altogether. That way casuals are not penalized for being that, and everyone is encouraged to be part of every kind of guild there is out there - on the level that they can. No guild will be hugely favored over another, and everyone can reach the highest levels eventually.

This may result a some fewer renown pots being used down the road (though I'm not too certain this is true, what with new guilds starting and recreating all the time), but on the other hand with so many small guilds (and guilds in general) at higher levels, there will be a lot more call for TP used on guild ships. I don't think the end result will be bad for Turbine, and if nothing else - happy customers ought to be better (and spend more) than unhappy ones.

[Tshober]

May I ammend your posting a little bit?

The new System helps large guilds and large guilds only. Hell, Tshober, for one second listen to yourself and then please tell us slowly that you do not use the same arguments the small-guilders where using when you were combatting decay (for large guilds) several months past.

Decay Bias on what? 120 decay / daily per player on lv. 80? Linearity between different guild sizes? On what grounds there should be less decay per active member for a large guild than for a small guild? On what? One single valid point, please! On grounds of "we are larger, hehe!"? Does it really boil down to that? On grounds of "the small guilds get therefore their bonus"? Bonus as a concept has been older than the decay formula and was set to even out the much higher potential for renown gain by large guilds.

As long as the DEVs are not willing to kill the decay all together, any solution that does not give any form of linearity in decay can and will be challenged. Only a linear decay per active account - and we may discuss models where that decay cannot get negative or where activity is measured daily, or whatever - guarantees some sort of equality.

I fully understand that large guilders are happy now with the new system. If my guild would sport 500 active members, I would be happy too. But to combat below the belt line a proposal for a linear system, especially if letting off hook further the large guilds in terms of renown decay, on what grounds do you dare to do this? We may of course openly discuss any points from the proposed system, but with argumets against it, not with personal flaming.

On the grounds that I have stated many times. Using averages per player is not the proper way to compare guilds. The proper way to compare guilds on renown is to compare total renown earned by each guild. And assuming the devs will not reduce decay further is, in my opinion, assuming we will never get a significantly better guild leveling system. So I refuse to go there until the devs make it clear in their statements that further decay reduction is off the table. And even if they do that I will protest. Any system that makes it so that some players earn less renown than they cost their guild in decay is a poor system and suffers from the exact same problems the old decay system suffered from. I reject such plans as not substantially better than the old plan and far inferior to the current system.

As far as my arguments being the same as those used against large guilds before the change, the main arguments I remember hearing from those who wanted to keep the old system were:

1) You need to make your players more active somehow.
2) You need to learn to live with never leveling anymore and be happy with what you have now.
3) You need to get rid of low activity players in your guild.

I have never said any of those things to the people who are now arguing for help for small guilds. If something I have said is viewed as the same as one of those, then you need to spell it out more clearly because I just don't see it being equal at all. And, most importantly, I am in favor of more change to help out small guilds! The people arguing against us before were absolutely insisting that there be no change at all and we should just live with the system as it was then.

[Tshober]

Still, let's just remove decay altogether. That way casuals are not penalized for being that, and everyone is encouraged to be part of every kind of guild there is out there - on the level that they can. No guild will be hugely favored over another, and everyone can reach the highest levels eventually.

This may result a some fewer renown pots being used down the road (though I'm not too certain this is true, what with new guilds starting and recreating all the time), but on the other hand with so many small guilds (and guilds in general) at higher levels, there will be a lot more call for TP used on guild ships. I don't think the end result will be bad for Turbine, and if nothing else - happy customers ought to be better (and spend more) than unhappy ones.

Excellent suggestion.

To further expand on this, if Turbine needs more store sales to make up for a loss of renown pot sales, they could simply add more stuff that guilds can get only from the store. They would, of course, need to be careful about what they add and how much they cost and at what levels they are available so as to not unbalance the game, but when is that not the case?

And for those who say how awful it will be if many guilds are level 100 and have nothing further to accomplish, they could always just raise the guild level cap. If this is done in such a way that it does not add any rewards that provide a permanent or endlessly repeatable game advantage after level 100, then guilds will have levels to strive for but there will be no rewards and very little incentive for dumping low renown earners from your guild.

[Robai]

Devs still trying to keep up with this thread.

1) I actually like decay (... neg reps incoming ... ).
It's something that keeps me farming that renown.

2) If I stay logged in with my unguilded bank toon for more than 5 min than I always get blind invites to some guilds.
Of course I always accept invites and drop that guild, but sadly such guilds don't suffer any additional decay because of that, i.e. blind invites are welcome now.
(the option about auto-decline guild invites is not enabled for that purpose )

3) Since large guilds (50+ members) gets negligible decay now they are becoming even larger at no cost at all.
Which in return makes small guilds tend to lose some players, and sadly, the active ones.
The more large guilds = the less pugs = slow death of the game (imho)

[Nestroy]

(...) Is it fair that everyone can't do everything exactly how they want while getting the most from the system? Because that's what most here seem to be looking for. Personally, I'm just looking for a system that is the least intrusive and thus causes the least disruption on the rest of the game in general and the social structure of guilds specifically.

Well noted. I will post exactly your comment now next time the pendulum swings against large guilds again and they are complaining again. And happy will be this day.

There are several possible sytems and most of them suggested into detail in here already that would both be fair for all guild sizes and enable Turbine to go along with sales. The current system is not, take it any way you want.

[Arnez]

No, you are incorrect. And the devs agree. See here:





The correct formulas are:

Old: ( Max(Modified Guild Size,10) + 10 )
New: (20)


Source for both is ddowiki.


Notice that the new formula does not have guild size in it at all. This also matches with what the devs have said about it here:

I sincerely hope I am wrong, but for some reason I feel we small guilds are being 1984'd by the Ministry of Truth (aka Large Guilds)
It's not that I don't trust large guilds. I just don't trust large guilds.