Guild Renown Changes

[slarden]

What you call bullying, I call 'finally understanding how the system works' and working with it, instead of against it.

They saw the light, and will grow because of it!

You should be happy for them.

But instead, you are jealous of them - and it's so easy, easy, easy to fix your problem.

Recruit more. Play more.

Make some friends ingame!

It's actually quite sad to see. The people I know that moved to a large guild don't really seem to like it. One hasn't logged in weeks and told me he regretted leaving and now lost so much renown it's not worth trying to revive his guild. LFMs are down significantly. One person that used to lead a lot of PUGS moved to a big guild and no longer does.

The people hurting most are the casual players that aren't desired by the guilds that have their own organized raids. The vets in their guilds "saw the light" and moved to a big established guild to get out decay hell. The guilds the vets go to never wanted and still don't want the casuals. So it's really a consolidation of vets to the big established guilds.

This is what happens when you create an imbalance. It's playing out differently than I first expected, but not for the better.

Perhaps this is what Turbine wanted. A consolidation of the vets to a few big established guilds and a the rest get left behind.

Being in a small guild doesn't mean you don't have friends. Is it necessary to throw at least one insult in with every post?

[Tshober]

So it's really a consolidation of vets to the big established guilds.

I run a big established guild. We will take any casual or social player who wants to join us and is willing to play by our rules (both of them), as long as we have room. We will strive to give them a fun and friendly home. And thanks to the change, we are now progressing.

[Charononus]

Should be fun to see this thread still going strong in four years

God I hope not.

I run a big established guild. We will take any casual player that wants to join us and is willing to play by our rules (both of them), as long as we have room. And thanks to the change, we are now progressing.

Same here, the only rules we have are needing a sponser not because of player skill ext, but to make sure they fit personality wise and aren't likely to cause drama.

[Arnez]

Here's a slogan that you "large" guilds should get on why you too should be concerned about Small Guild Math.


"Winter is coming."





(For the slow- SEE what I did there? With the current show theme and the play on phrases in this context to mean Neverwinter and it's effect on the population of regular players in DDO?)

[Tshober]

(For the slow- SEE what I did there? With the current show theme and the play on phrases in this context to mean Neverwinter and it's effect on the population of regular players in DDO?)

Meh, there has always been a next big MMO that is going to kill all its competitors. A few months ago it was GW2. Before that it was SWTOR. There will be another one after Neverwinter too. And another one after that too.

And every large guild poster here has endorsed totally removing renown decay for all guilds. Yes, including small guilds, hard as that might be to believe for you.

[UurlockYgmeov]

I don't think the system should tell me who to play with, how many to play with, and how to organize my guild. That's a really, really bad thing, IMO.

It was bad when the system told large guilds to kick or not advance, and it's bad now.

Get rid of decay. It only leads to aggravation.

agree! and if they refuse to eliminate decay - make it fair and make it membership dues....

[UurlockYgmeov]

I'm pessimistic/realistic enough to acknowledge that it may take forever for decay to get removed. But some traitorous part of me still holds out hope.

I still think it is bad for the system to be so skewed towards one kind of guild, but we'll see what happens. I'll keep posting here until Turbine does something. Should be fun to see this thread still going strong in four years

*chuckle*

I hold hope for change before 2014, heck even before the expansion.

But if the thread is still here in 4 years. lmfao it will be a sight to see!

[UurlockYgmeov]

I doubt anything will be done for small guilds. This change was a quick decision based on developer preference. They proved they could make a change very quickly by making this change a few weeks after the developer noted "read by devs" in the thread that prompted this change. Notice that the same developer didn't put a single empathetic comment regarding the current situation for tiny guilds. Nor has any action been taken in 6 months and most likely never. Instead we saw comments like "It's just a day" regarding the ransack penalty. Those actually playing the game in small guilds actually understand it's multiple days because of the bouncing back and forth until you can actually overcome decay and hold that level.

On the plus side Neverwinter starts open beta on April 30 and there will be no character wipes after that point. It will be really nice to have a D&D MMO option without crushing decay. The guild mechanic is purely social in Neverwinter and regardless of guild size you won't lose any in-game benefits because of the size guild you choose to be in.

You win some and you lose some. Many times in life one door closes and another opens and when you look back you are glad the other door closed on you. Perhaps this will be one of the times. 3 people from my guild and 4 from other small guilds have told me they are switching because of the guild system. And I never initiated the topic with a single person. I can't imagine I just happened to run into the only people switching because of the guild system.

I plan on trying it, but am here for DDO.

Maybe we need to add kinships... which serve a purely social function - and can belong to one guild and many kinships (or one and none, or one and one, or none and many) at the same time.

This should be fun to read the comments on that one!

[UurlockYgmeov]

Here's a slogan that you "large" guilds should get on why you too should be concerned about Small Guild Math.


"Winter is coming."





(For the slow- SEE what I did there? With the current show theme and the play on phrases in this context to mean Neverwinter and it's effect on the population of regular players in DDO?)

lol!

+1 thanks for the laugh and great statement!

[UurlockYgmeov]

It's actually quite sad to see. The people I know that moved to a large guild don't really seem to like it. One hasn't logged in weeks and told me he regretted leaving and now lost so much renown it's not worth trying to revive his guild. LFMs are down significantly. One person that used to lead a lot of PUGS moved to a big guild and no longer does.

The people hurting most are the casual players that aren't desired by the guilds that have their own organized raids. The vets in their guilds "saw the light" and moved to a big established guild to get out decay hell. The guilds the vets go to never wanted and still don't want the casuals. So it's really a consolidation of vets to the big established guilds.

This is what happens when you create an imbalance. It's playing out differently than I first expected, but not for the better.

Perhaps this is what Turbine wanted. A consolidation of the vets to a few big established guilds and a the rest get left behind.

Being in a small guild doesn't mean you don't have friends. Is it necessary to throw at least one insult in with every post?

+1+1+1

Very well written and expressed. concur with all.

And exactly why I have so many squelched. Tired of reading all the personal flaming and mud slinging.

[Lowz]

I run a big established guild. We will take any casual or social player who wants to join us and is willing to play by our rules (both of them), as long as we have room. We will strive to give them a fun and friendly home. And thanks to the change, we are now progressing.

Good. And Thank You from all us casual players. Hope all guilds are like yours but don't believe so.

[Charononus]

Here's a slogan that you "large" guilds should get on why you too should be concerned about Small Guild Math.


"Winter is coming."





(For the slow- SEE what I did there? With the current show theme and the play on phrases in this context to mean Neverwinter and it's effect on the population of regular players in DDO?)

See you say that, and it may loose some small guild players if nothing is ever done over time. However if we go back to a system where casual players are unwanted in any guild because they can potentially cost more decay than they earn you lose their business as well. That's why the best plan is to eliminate decay, or significantly lower it for small guilds just like it was for larger guilds. Going back to the old system in just a "lite" form may help the small guild players stay but then you lose a different segment of the population. There needs to be a change but decay per player is not it.

[Charononus]

Good. And Thank You from all us casual players. Hope all guilds are like yours but don't believe so.

All probably not, several per server definately. I'd be shocked if there weren't, players just have to find them but they are there.

[Tychagara]

It's only an advantage if you insist on comparing apples to oranges.

It in no way needs to be per capita and is better off not being per capita as that eliminates the need to judge the worthiness of every "capita".

Is that "unfair" to smaller guilds? Probably, if it's important to them. But, IMO, with a choice between those it's important to having to play more or recruit more to avoid and those it's important to having to exclude those it's not important to I'll take the former.

The way I see it, you want high guild levels, but you don't want to do what it takes to get them. What you want is for those who are ambivalent about guild levels to change to conform to a system they likely have little interest in in order to retain the benefits from a guild they do want, the social and play aspects.

If it's that important to you simply play enough to beat that decay (I generally more than cover my guilds decay every time I play, without a size bonus) and if other in your guild feel the same way they should do likewise. But don't push the onus for your desires for those levels on anyone in your guild who doesn't desire them enough to do what it takes to get them. That's what per capita does.

That is the most backward set of statements I've seen in a while...

What you are saying is apples and oranges = is that small and large guilds are two different things and cannot be compared. Wrong.

Play enough? Jimmy H. Crickets. You are just being blantently discriminatory by forcing your beliefs and play styles down others throats. You are now flat out saying that small guilds must grow or die an that small guilds need to get more active and boot casual players to fight decay. Plain wrong.

You know nothing about me or the guild I may or may not belong to. You know nothing about my play style, or how much renown I generate with or without a size bonus. ANd most certainly you cannot tell me how to play, who to play with or what type or size of guild I should belong to.

A guild should not have to choose between having who it wants as members and decay. Exactly the same argument the large guilds did to achieve the temporary change.

Guess if you are unable to prove the facts wrong, like the effects of the current decay and the proposed system you will just devolve and spew bigoted and biased nonsense.

Onus - hmmm... someone did the grotto recently

Gotta get back to getting my nerd glaze on 'cause winter is coming.

[Lowz]

See you say that, and it may loose some small guild players if nothing is ever done over time. However if we go back to a system where casual players are unwanted in any guild because they can potentially cost more decay than they earn you lose their business as well. That's why the best plan is to eliminate decay, or significantly lower it for small guilds just like it was for larger guilds. Going back to the old system in just a "lite" form may help the small guild players stay but then you lose a different segment of the population. There needs to be a change but decay per player is not it.

Two Words 'Membership Dues' - and uurlock's plan is well thought out and is currently the best solution. It fixes everything including removing all pressure to boot because of decay.

AND it even gives even more decay relief to the big and mighty large guilds. So the system helps everyone. Is only fair if you have 1000 horses pulling a wagon that you have to feed 1000 horses. :P

[Lowz]

All probably not, several per server definately. I'd be shocked if there weren't, players just have to find them but they are there.

another good reason for uurlocks suggestion for improved in-game guild information with built in we're accepting applications and email asking for invite, optional provision invitiations, and guild managent tools.

[Charononus]

another good reason for uurlocks suggestion for improved in-game guild information with built in we're accepting applications and email asking for invite, optional provision invitiations, and guild managent tools.

While more guild systems is a good thing they are also not part of a true discussion on decay. Also the membership due argument only proves that people could become unwanted and become a problem yet again. If it's possible for a new member to cause more decay than they earn in renown new players and casual players will be shunned once again. It comes down to something called risk aversion in Psychology. Here is a basic description of it on wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_aversion

Yes wikipedia isn't a full proof research source but it does provide some starting background for anyone serious in trying to learn more.

Provisional invites as mentioned in Uur's proposal are only useful because they could be used to see if a player is unwanted and thus reinforce the problem of unwanted players, and reinforce to the general playerbase that avoiding some players is a good idea.

This problem actually has nothing to do with large guilds or small guilds as in the previous system and in Uur's system all sizes of guilds participated in this process. It is my and many other posters in this threads contention that this whole process is unhealthy for guilds, the playerbase, and turbine's bottom line.

Uur's and his supporters arguments have been to deny that this occurs and not give it serious weight. This is a mistake. Reducing this process by having decay per player very small does not unfortunately eliminate it. Only eliminating it is healthy.

[Nestroy]

Just for info. GW2 cost my guild 7 out of 14 very active players. NWO will cost us 5 out of 12 as far as I can see at the moment. Just to ponder for a moment - if the numbers from my guild are any representative (they may not because we mostly have Germans playing and there might be some diferences between different player bases from different countries) DDO will lose 1/3 of the active player base.

And all we get is a lousy expansion?

In my guild the long term motivation to grow the guild to level 100 has diminuished a lot since decay AND ransack kicked in most brutally and my fellow guildies are realizing that trying to level to 100 is futile.

Well, if DDO does not want an expanding fan base and instead prefer to gouge these that are left, they will see what it will get them in the long run.

[eris2323]

Just for info. GW2 cost my guild 7 out of 14 very active players. NWO will cost us 5 out of 12 as far as I can see at the moment. Just to ponder for a moment - if the numbers from my guild are any representative (they may not because we mostly have Germans playing and there might be some diferences between different player bases from different countries) DDO will lose 1/3 of the active player base.

And all we get is a lousy expansion?

In my guild the long term motivation to grow the guild to level 100 has diminuished a lot since decay AND ransack kicked in most brutally and my fellow guildies are realizing that trying to level to 100 is futile.

Well, if DDO does not want an expanding fan base and instead prefer to gouge these that are left, they will see what it will get them in the long run.

In my opinion, all guilds have this sort of problem - almost all player will, sooner or later, get tired of DDO, and 'finish' it - let's face it, there's only so many times you can level your guys up doing the same adventures, right?

That's why small guilds shoot themselves in the foot, in my opinion - unless they are die-hard uber-fans, sooner or later, they will leave and find another game.

It's just something you have to deal with. We have to deal with it, too; as a large guild, it happens a lot - people lose interest, and move on. We have a buffer, you see - and a larger guild, in my opinion, will help people stay longer, as they decide to play with their friends. Hey, I could be wrong - but on the other hand, I'm also not worried about new games coming out and destroying our guild; our base of players is enough I am pretty sure it won't happen!

New games come out all the time. If you're going to insist on a having a tiny guild, you're going to need to make sure they are hardcore ddo addicts who will never, ever leave.

Or, you might as well join a big guild When GW2 came out, yeah, a few people went to play that for a while... and then came back Since we were a big guild, it was no problem for us, or for them - they came back to welcoming arms, ready to play with their friends again....

[Gremmlynn]

Gremmlynn - you often seem to have, in my humble opinion - two different minds - one set posts one way, another mind another way.

In your last couple of posts you have again decided that your way of playing is superior than all others, and therefor only that style should be given a fair shake.

You also completely don't understand my playing style, or of the guild I play in. I have purposely not spoken in details because of the hateful spiteful nature of this thread and how everything imho gets twisted back as a personal aside or slight or snide comment or just plain lies.

I do not play in a single account guild. The current system of decay is worse for the guild I am in than the previous because of the pressure to boot. The current system of decay is only getting worse and worse as the guild I belong to ascends the level ladder. I PUG as much as I play static, and am considered by many a very helpful knowledgeable skillful player. I do not like decay and agree that it would be nice to have it go away; however I understand two major things: the need for decay (what it represents and why) and that Turbine will never agree to its removal. I do believe that membership dues/fees are a good way to explain decay and that like dues/fees - decay needs to be computed based upon an unbiased method - which is per member that has earned renown in the last twenty-four hours.

The information posted from the wayfinder guild (thank you Gremmlynn) demonstrates exactly how my system would benefit all guilds and how with the additional improvements suggested in the full proposal - how all players, all guilds, the game, and turbine would be in a much better place.

Now I don't expect Turbine to change the decay system before the next expansion - so I have dug in with my K-Bar and dictionary and popcorn - my abacus and earplugs.

Small guilds will continue to have a voice that like decay, has teeth.

The only incentive small guilds have to boot right now is caused by the small guild bonus and those who perceive a need to maximize that at the expense of those who can't or wont adjust their play to better succeed gaining guild levels. Which is the same problem ANY per capita decay system would have. Both give the incentive to take what guilds were before there was any such thing as guild levels and twist them into something different. As I don't play in small guilds, I will withhold comment on the small guild bonuses except where they are used as justification to change things in guilds that don't get them. But I refuse to budge on the issue of per capita decay as it forces those that are unable or have no interest in obtaining them, regardless of how easy that might be, to do so or be liabilities to guilds if they don't.

You see my point of view is that I don't care what your play style is, as long as it doesn't interfere with that of others. If you only want to guild with high renown earners, or just TRs or just zergers, or just EE runners, or just raiders, go for it. But no game mechanic should put you at a disadvantage by not doing any of those things. That is close to what we have right now. Outside of the small guild bonuses (and maybe the member cap) players can guild with all the high renown earners they want yet are not disadvantaged by also guiding with players who can't or simply aren't interested in gaining guild levels as well.

You see I'm less interested in how the guild leveling system works than I am in making sure it doesn't interfere with the social structure or game play for those who can't or simply aren't interested in complying to whatever that is. Your whole "dues" idea does this because everyone is forced to pay them regardless of ability or inclination to play in that style. The level only based system we have, while still not good IMO as it gives players an incentive to join guilds with a better ability to reach it, at least doesn't give guilds an incentive to avoid potential members who don't. No decay would be better yet.