Guild Renown Changes

[UurlockYgmeov]

But if all you want to do is hang out in the bar, why would one pay dues as if the were on the pool team? What you don't seem to get is that the guild level mini-game was an add on, not an original part of guilds. So I see no reason why those guild members who choose to partake in this new mini-game should expect those that don't to pay dues. You see the guild isn't the pool team, it's the tavern. The pool team are just those members that choose to play for guild levels.

If you want to hang out at the bar you aren't part of the pool team so no dues. To translate - if you want to hang out in the game - you don't pay dues, unless you are part of a guild - and receive the benefits of the guild. Now if you don't care about level or ship amenities - then don't have a ship and don't worry about renown period.

You want the milk without the cow - but doesn't work that way.

If you don't want to partake in the guild system - don't, am confident many don't. If you do want to partake in the guild system, then fair unbiased decay should be expected.

[Nestroy]

Gremmlynn, Uur, can you both please stop the bickering?

You both agree that renown decay shouldbe done away completely. So does the overwhelmingly vast majority of posters in here.

In case the devs think that decay should remain, the idea of Uur can be easily altered to work just fine, in regard of the renown decay.

1.) There is decay per capita / active player. (Decay seems to be an imperative for the devs.
2.) That decay needs to be as low as possible. (Uur formula. What we players want!
3.) There should not be any decay for casual / noncontributing / very low activity plyers. (I think the vast majority of posters in here will concur.)

Solution:
1.) Introduce the "decay per capita per day" concept (Uur formula).
2.) Introduce a column into the guild member roster list, named "DailyRenownEarned". Any renown before activated into total renown for the guild for the day is collected in that column. Personally, I am against making this data public. It is something that should not be the base of decissions within any guild. So this column is for internal calculations only.
3.) Upon deducting decay for the day, do the following: Take all members from the memberlist, deduct decay per capita from DailyRenownEarned. Set to Zero if the result would be negative.
4.) All that is left in "DailyRenownEarned" is then summed up and given to the guild total. Then and only then the guild gains their levels or whatever.

And do away with the idiotic ransack penalty! Make a formula with the above proposed idea where any guild could not get more renown than is needed to get the one level a day and stay 1 renown point below next level, if need be. This at last would confer to the XP system anyway and might be acceptable for most people in here.

I think this would give some sort of fairness to the renown (decay) and would make introducing much more complicated systems unnecessary.

And this should be not too hard to implement.

of course, setting the 20 active accounts threshold for decay to something between 0 and 6 would even be easier...

[UurlockYgmeov]

gremmlynn, uur, can you both please stop the bickering?

You both agree that renown decay shouldbe done away completely. So does the overwhelmingly vast majority of posters in here.

In case the devs think that decay should remain, the idea of uur can be easily altered to work just fine, in regard of the renown decay.

1.) there is decay per capita / active player. (decay seems to be an imperative for the devs.
2.) that decay needs to be as low as possible. (uur formula. What we players want!
3.) there should not be any decay for casual / noncontributing / very low activity plyers. (i think the vast majority of posters in here will concur.)

solution:
1.) introduce the "decay per capita per day" concept (uur formula).
2.) introduce a column into the guild member roster list, named "dailyrenownearned". Any renown before activated into total renown for the guild for the day is collected in that column. Personally, i am against making this data public. It is something that should not be the base of decissions within any guild. So this column is for internal calculations only.
3.) upon deducting decay for the day, do the following: Take all members from the memberlist, deduct decay per capita from dailyrenownearned. Set to zero if the result would be negative.
4.) all that is left in "dailyrenownearned" is then summed up and given to the guild total. Then and only then the guild gains their levels or whatever.

And do away with the idiotic ransack penalty! Make a formula with the above proposed idea where any guild could not get more renown than is needed to get the one level a day and stay 1 renown point below next level, if need be. This at last would confer to the xp system anyway and might be acceptable for most people in here.

I think this would give some sort of fairness to the renown (decay) and would make introducing much more complicated systems unnecessary.

And this should be not too hard to implement.

Of course, setting the 20 active accounts threshold for decay to something between 0 and 6 would even be easier...

+1

agree on if that is coded not being able to see it (hidden private variable) -

as far as negative renown - can't ever have negative renown earning; earning renown and decay are two separate things - but will be quite and just nod my head.

this is very fair and a good compromise.

[Gremmlynn]

If you want to hang out at the bar you aren't part of the pool team so no dues. To translate - if you want to hang out in the game - you don't pay dues, unless you are part of a guild - and receive the benefits of the guild. Now if you don't care about level or ship amenities - then don't have a ship and don't worry about renown period.

You want the milk without the cow - but doesn't work that way.

If you don't want to partake in the guild system - don't, am confident many don't. If you do want to partake in the guild system, then fair unbiased decay should be expected.

Guild levels are not guilds. They are a mini-game that was added to them and for some reason you seem to think it shouldn't be an optional part. I see this little different than mechanics requiring one to run a raid every week or TR every month if they want to avoid being a liability to one's guild. It's Turbine telling us, if don't want to be a liability to your guild then you must play this way.

Frankly, I see removing the whole guild level system as preferable to Turbine telling players how much they must play if they simply want to play with others in a stable environment.

FYI, the taverns the guild. The pool team are the "gotta get more levels" sub set of the guild, generally the serious hobbyists who play on a regular basis. My guild has a few...and a whole lot of occasional players who mostly wouldn't play at all if we told them they had to play more or even farm X renown every time they do play.

[Tshober]

Guild levels are not guilds. They are a mini-game that was added to them and for some reason you seem to think it shouldn't be an optional part. I see this little different than mechanics requiring one to run a raid every week or TR every month if they want to avoid being a liability to one's guild. It's Turbine telling us, if don't want to be a liability to your guild then you must play this way.

Frankly, I see removing the whole guild level system as preferable to Turbine telling players how much they must play if they simply want to play with others in a stable environment.

Yes, I feel the same way. I would much rather have no guild levels at all than have a system that mandates a certain way of playing and a certain amount of play per time period in order to avoid being a liability to your guild. It's fine if guilds want to make such rules for their players, but the game system itself should not try to force such rules on all guilds. Guilds should have the option to opt out of any such mechanism with no loss of status or opportunity at all, just like DDO provides for PvP.

[eris2323]

Gremmlynn, Uur, can you both please stop the bickering?

You both agree that renown decay shouldbe done away completely. So does the overwhelmingly vast majority of posters in here.

In case the devs think that decay should remain, the idea of Uur can be easily altered to work just fine, in regard of the renown decay.

1.) There is decay per capita / active player. (Decay seems to be an imperative for the devs.
2.) That decay needs to be as low as possible. (Uur formula. What we players want!
3.) There should not be any decay for casual / noncontributing / very low activity plyers. (I think the vast majority of posters in here will concur.)


of course, setting the 20 active accounts threshold for decay to something between 0 and 6 would even be easier...

It is not bickering; grem is opposed to the idea of a cost-per-player, as are many of us.

Urr refuses to even realize the danger, and wants to force everyone to play 'his way or the highway'.

Urr keeps posting his proposal, day after day, week after week, and month after month; we keep complaining that it is not what we want.

And it continues.

It'll continue, probably, until the devs make a decision... or we all get bored.

But some won't get bored - as we are basically fighting to preserve our large guilds in the face of constant reposts of a system that would destroy the game, in our opinion.

The changes proposed are bad enough that yeah, I wouldn't want to play anymore. It's not my job to force people to play - it's not turbines job to tell us how much we have to play and it's not urrs job to re-design the renown system, when he has no experience with it as a large guild, and doesn't understand the problem his system would bring back.

For instance, I would never accept urrs proposal - but yes, switching the decay modifier from 20, to 6 - I'm fine with.

If the problem is renown decay, fight renown decay - don't try to change the system to destroy the game solely because small guilds are facing problems; especially when the problems for small guilds can be fixed simply by recruiting.

Don't ruin my game just so small guilds can level to 100 quicker.

[Lowz]

Gremmlynn, Uur, can you both please stop the bickering?

You both agree that renown decay shouldbe done away completely. So does the overwhelmingly vast majority of posters in here.

In case the devs think that decay should remain, the idea of Uur can be easily altered to work just fine, in regard of the renown decay.

1.) There is decay per capita / active player. (Decay seems to be an imperative for the devs.
2.) That decay needs to be as low as possible. (Uur formula. What we players want!
3.) There should not be any decay for casual / noncontributing / very low activity plyers. (I think the vast majority of posters in here will concur.)

Solution:
1.) Introduce the "decay per capita per day" concept (Uur formula).
2.) Introduce a column into the guild member roster list, named "DailyRenownEarned". Any renown before activated into total renown for the guild for the day is collected in that column. Personally, I am against making this data public. It is something that should not be the base of decissions within any guild. So this column is for internal calculations only.
3.) Upon deducting decay for the day, do the following: Take all members from the memberlist, deduct decay per capita from DailyRenownEarned. Set to Zero if the result would be negative.
4.) All that is left in "DailyRenownEarned" is then summed up and given to the guild total. Then and only then the guild gains their levels or whatever.

And do away with the idiotic ransack penalty! Make a formula with the above proposed idea where any guild could not get more renown than is needed to get the one level a day and stay 1 renown point below next level, if need be. This at last would confer to the XP system anyway and might be acceptable for most people in here.

I think this would give some sort of fairness to the renown (decay) and would make introducing much more complicated systems unnecessary.

And this should be not too hard to implement.

works for me!

[Gremmlynn]

Solution:
1.) Introduce the "decay per capita per day" concept (Uur formula).
2.) Introduce a column into the guild member roster list, named "DailyRenownEarned". Any renown before activated into total renown for the guild for the day is collected in that column. Personally, I am against making this data public. It is something that should not be the base of decissions within any guild. So this column is for internal calculations only.
3.) Upon deducting decay for the day, do the following: Take all members from the memberlist, deduct decay per capita from DailyRenownEarned. Set to Zero if the result would be negative.
4.) All that is left in "DailyRenownEarned" is then summed up and given to the guild total. Then and only then the guild gains their levels or whatever.

Is this "set to zero" a per player or total effect? I'm mean, if the per capita decay for my level 52 guild is 5000 and I gain 6000 but guildy Bob only gets 3000 (with us being the only two to play) would the guild gain 1000 or would Bob being 2000 below his per capita quota nullify any gains from my exceeding it?

[Kadran]

Do we really still need decay?

Decay was a means to slow down the guild rewards a bit. It has done its job, but now it's just a pain.

Remember in '06 when we got negative exp every time we died? Remember how most people hated it, and it disappeared? Do you know any casual players that feel guild decay, which is negative exp for your guild with no way to avoid it, is a fun mechanic that enhances their gameplay?

I am a member of a high level guild on Ghallanda. We were first on server to 100, but have since fallen to 97 from decay and we lost some members to break for various reasons. I have 3 real life friends that I play with infrequently. Once, maybe twice a month. They would love to be in the same guild as me, and I'd love to have them. However with the current structure there is no way I can invite them, knowing they will simply be the cause of bigger decay. They don't play frequently enough to make up the difference.

We created our own guild, and are leveling it up slowly but surely. However, it would have been more fun for me and them if they could just join me from the start w/o feeling like they were sinking the ship. The end result is the same - I invite them to the boat for buffs. So why have the hoops anymore?

Why can't we just eliminate guild decay, but increase the amount of total exp needed to level. This way, even the most casual guild can eventaully get good buffs and feel like they are progressing. Scale the renown based off guild size, but honestly so long as the bar is moving forward, I think a lot of casuals would be quite happy...

[Nestroy]

Is this "set to zero" a per player or total effect? I'm mean, if the per capita decay for my level 52 guild is 5000 and I gain 6000 but guildy Bob only gets 3000 (with us being the only two to play) would the guild gain 1000 or would Bob being 2000 below his per capita quota nullify any gains from my exceeding it?

Gremmlynn, as I already posted some times past, this would be a per capita system, so the renown set to Zero would be for each member done individually. So either a member brings in more renown per day as the decay hit per capita then the decay hit is deducted and the rest is then summed up with the other contributors, or the member does not (inactive for the day, gains less renown) so there is no renown added but none deducted extra. So the member simply does not count towards renown gained by the guild for the day.

Advantages of my proposed system:

+ No negative renown due to decay. No negative renown for the member. None for the guild either. The worst case is Zero renown for the day from any given member.
+ All guilds may advance eventually. They continually gain renown from each member that gains more renown / day than the per capita renown decay hit for the day. Each single day. Of course this may slow down some guilds a little bit. On the other hand all guilds have any opportunity to reach the highest levels eventually.

To go back to your example, you would bring in 1000 renown, Bob would bring in nothing, but does not cost anything. Personally I would like to see a per capita hit of something along 500 - 1000 maximum / day for any single member, so Bob actually would bring in 2000 and you would bring in 5000, this would look much better. For the best levels 1.000.000 renown points are needed to level so a per capita hit of 5000k would be much too high - even the best players do not bring in much more than 4- 6k renown gain / day under normal (no bonus) conditions on a regular base.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Gremmlynn, as I already posted some times past, this would be a per capita system, so the renown set to Zero would be for each member done individually. So either a member brings in more renown per day as the decay hit per capita then the decay hit is deducted and the rest is then summed up with the other contributors, or the member does not (inactive for the day, gains less renown) so there is no renown added but none deducted extra. So the member simply does not count towards renown gained by the guild for the day.

Advantages of my proposed system:

+ No negative renown due to decay. No negative renown for the member. None for the guild either. The worst case is Zero renown for the day from any given member.
+ All guilds may advance eventually. They continually gain renown from each member that gains more renown / day than the per capita renown decay hit for the day. Each single day. Of course this may slow down some guilds a little bit. On the other hand all guilds have any opportunity to reach the highest levels eventually.

like it but still need to add one thing - it will sugar coat the 'no one can cost the guild more in decay than they earn in renown' (yes worded it very carefully because renown earning must not be tied to decay)

here is the one thing - add a flat static per guild decay hit (10*guild level) that hits no matter what - even if no one is on. This would give 10 decay for a level 1 and 1000 decay for a level 100; this is addition to the per capita decay.

reason - guild still must experience daily decay - else the dev's will never accept this proposal. So by doing these - two separate decays (per capita membership dues) and the per guild we sugar coat the blatantly obvious attempt to remove decay altogether, in a way the dev's will probably like and agree to.

[Charononus]

like it but still need to add one thing - it will sugar coat the 'no one can cost the guild more in decay than they earn in renown' (yes worded it very carefully because renown earning must not be tied to decay)

here is the one thing - a flat static per guild decay hit (10*guild level) that hits no matter what - even if no one is on. This would give 10 decay for a level 1 and 1000 decay for a level 100; this is addition to the per capita decay.

reason - guild still must experience daily decay - else the dev's will never accept this proposal. So by doing these - two separate decays (per capita membership dues) and the per guild we sugar coat the blatantly obvious attempt to remove decay altogether, in a way the dev's will probably like and agree to.

No there is absolutely no good reason for this, and goes against what everyone else is trying to accomplish with this thread. Only you seem to be set on making sure that guilds can go backwards.

[Gremmlynn]

Gremmlynn, as I already posted some times past, this would be a per capita system, so the renown set to Zero would be for each member done individually. So either a member brings in more renown per day as the decay hit per capita then the decay hit is deducted and the rest is then summed up with the other contributors, or the member does not (inactive for the day, gains less renown) so there is no renown added but none deducted extra. So the member simply does not count towards renown gained by the guild for the day.

Them I can't support your proposal. Sorry, but as long as one player possibly increasing the personal burden for another I can't get behind an it as it makes non-renown farmers detrimental the efforts to renown farmers in guilds.

I could sign off on a system that changes decay to a personal benchmark one must hit before gains are added to the guild total though as long as not hitting the mark doesn't subtract from a guilds total. So would go something like Joe 6000/5000=+1000, Bob 3000/5000=0, Pete 5/5000=0, Mary 7500/5000=+2500, Bob and Pete don't cover their decay so don't add to total, but Joe and Mary do so guild gains 2500 that day. Otherwise you have a situation where Joe and Mary would be better off booting Bob and Pete for causing them to be unable to make gains.

[Gremmlynn]

To go back to your example, you would bring in 1000 renown, Bob would bring in nothing, but does not cost anything. Personally I would like to see a per capita hit of something along 500 - 1000 maximum / day for any single member, so Bob actually would bring in 2000 and you would bring in 5000, this would look much better. For the best levels 1.000.000 renown points are needed to level so a per capita hit of 5000k would be much too high - even the best players do not bring in much more than 4- 6k renown gain / day under normal (no bonus) conditions on a regular base.

Personally I'd like to see the per capita decay be 0/member. But as I don't have the ability to set the values any more than you (or Uur, despite what he seems to think) I can't support any system where any value can make guilds better off without low earning members.

[Gremmlynn]

like it but still need to add one thing - it will sugar coat the 'no one can cost the guild more in decay than they earn in renown' (yes worded it very carefully because renown earning must not be tied to decay)

here is the one thing - a flat static per guild decay hit (10*guild level) that hits no matter what - even if no one is on. This would give 10 decay for a level 1 and 1000 decay for a level 100; this is addition to the per capita decay.

reason - guild still must experience daily decay - else the dev's will never accept this proposal. So by doing these - two separate decays (per capita membership dues) and the per guild we sugar coat the blatantly obvious attempt to remove decay altogether, in a way the dev's will probably like and agree to.

As long as one member's gains can't be reduced by another member not meeting their personal quota, this is actually something I could support.

Though in the interests of fairness, size bonus should only effect renown gains, not that needed to meet one's personal decay quota.

[UurlockYgmeov]

As long as one member's gains can't be reduced by another member not meeting their personal quota, this is actually something I could support.

Though in the interests of fairness, size bonus should only effect renown gains, not that needed to meet one's personal decay quota.

Basically what Nestroy is suggesting is exactly what you want - not affecting casual players in any way. I will let Nestroy explain it better - but it does what you want.

I will try: a member cannot cause the guild to loose renown through decay in any way - period. If what they earn in renown is less than the decay caused by them - the decay caused by them is zero; if they earn more renown than the decay caused by them then subtract the decay from the renown earned and that is what the guild gets at the end of the day. Poorly explained - but will make it so that a guild is better off by having more members if earning renown is what they want.

[Gremmlynn]

Basically what Nestroy is suggesting is exactly what you want - not affecting casual players in any way. I will let Nestroy explain it better - but it does what you want.

I will try: a member cannot cause the guild to loose renown through decay in any way - period. If what they earn in renown is less than the decay caused by them - the decay caused by them is zero; if they earn more renown than the decay caused by them then subtract the decay from the renown earned and that is what the guild gets at the end of the day. Poorly explained - but will make it so that a guild is better off by having more members if earning renown is what they want.

I'm less concerned about guilds being better off with more members than I am about them being better off without certain members. So this proposal seems to address my concerns.

[Tshober]

Gremmlynn, as I already posted some times past, this would be a per capita system, so the renown set to Zero would be for each member done individually. So either a member brings in more renown per day as the decay hit per capita then the decay hit is deducted and the rest is then summed up with the other contributors, or the member does not (inactive for the day, gains less renown) so there is no renown added but none deducted extra. So the member simply does not count towards renown gained by the guild for the day.

Advantages of my proposed system:

+ No negative renown due to decay. No negative renown for the member. None for the guild either. The worst case is Zero renown for the day from any given member.
+ All guilds may advance eventually. They continually gain renown from each member that gains more renown / day than the per capita renown decay hit for the day. Each single day. Of course this may slow down some guilds a little bit. On the other hand all guilds have any opportunity to reach the highest levels eventually.
.

I have recommended this before several times, so I still support it. It does not go as far as my preferred solution (total elimination of decay) but it solves the biggest discrimination problem of the old system and of Uur's proposed system. This is almost certainly moving in the right direction, especially if it is added on top of the current system. It is not infallible though. For example, if it were to be implemented in conjunction with large increases in decay per player, it could lead to a system where guilds still stagnate and cannot advance. But as long as no one is envisioning large increases in decay versus the current system, it is a good option to deal with the possibility that the devs may be unwilling to eliminate decay entirely.

[Nestroy]

Them I can't support your proposal. Sorry, but as long as one player possibly increasing the personal burden for another I can't get behind an it as it makes non-renown farmers detrimental the efforts to renown farmers in guilds.

I could sign off on a system that changes decay to a personal benchmark one must hit before gains are added to the guild total though as long as not hitting the mark doesn't subtract from a guilds total. So would go something like Joe 6000/5000=+1000, Bob 3000/5000=0, Pete 5/5000=0, Mary 7500/5000=+2500, Bob and Pete don't cover their decay so don't add to total, but Joe and Mary do so guild gains 2500 that day. Otherwise you have a situation where Joe and Mary would be better off booting Bob and Pete for causing them to be unable to make gains.

Perhaps my English is too bad to exlain correctly but I think you somewhat misunderstood my proposal, actually. I still think my System is exactly what you would like to see from a renown and renown decay system. I will try to clear:

+ A per capita system does add or deduct anything on individual members, so nothing is deducted from the guild total.
+ Any player that logs in for the day and earns renown gets hit by the individual daily per capita decay hit.
+ Any hit kann not go below Zero renown so the worst case is that said individual member does not contribute any renown for the day. But renown can´t go negative.
+ Any renown that is left after the hit gets then added up into the guild total renown.

So no member, be it as casual as it is, can earn the guild negative renown. Never ever!

And any member overcoming the decay hit brings in net renown. Any day the decay hit is overcome.

I have recommended this before several times, so I still support it. It does not go as far as my preferred solution (total elimination of decay) but it solves the biggest discrimination problem of the old system and of Uur's proposed system. This is almost certainly moving in the right direction, especially if it is added on top of the current system. It is not infallible though. For example, if it were to be implemented in conjunction with large increases in decay per player, it could lead to a system where guilds still stagnate and cannot advance. But as long as no one is envisioning large increases in decay versus the current system, it is a good option to deal with the possibility that the devs may be unwilling to eliminate decay entirely.

The daily decay hit per capita would be something to watch carefully, true.

We do not have exact numbers. These only the devs have. Several hundrets posts past there had been a discussion about averages of renown earned per capita for different guilds. If these stats have any meaning and if I can remember correctly some of the bigger guilds are advancing now with averages of about 1000k renown per capita. So this has to be the absolute barely acceptable maximum ever. For a level 100 guild, perhaps. Any guild below lv. 100 would then have much less decay hit, perhaps starting with 5 at lv. 1 and going up in increments of 5 per Level of guild up to 500 for a lv. 99 guild. This is just a proposal and even these numbers might be too high. I would see the Uur proposal (decay formula divided by 300 members of a fictional big guild = individual per capita hit) as another possible way. There are many possible formulas for such a system.

[Tshober]

The daily decay hit per capita would be something to watch carefully, true.

We do not have exact numbers. These only the devs have. Several hundrets posts past there had been a discussion about averages of renown earned per capita for different guilds. If these stats have any meaning and if I can remember correctly some of the bigger guilds are advancing now with averages of about 1000k renown per capita. So this has to be the absolute barely acceptable maximum ever. For a level 100 guild, perhaps. Any guild below lv. 100 would then have much less decay hit, perhaps starting with 5 at lv. 1 and going up in increments of 5 per Level of guild up to 500 for a lv. 99 guild. This is just a proposal and even these numbers might be too high. I would see the Uur proposal (decay formula divided by 300 members of a fictional big guild = individual per capita hit) as another possible way. There are many possible formulas for such a system.

Yes, our knowledge of any such system's effects is very limited. That is exactly why eliminating decay entirely is a much better option. Even further reducing the guild size portion of the decay formula is a better option because we know what the impact of that will be with far greater certainty. But if the devs absolutely insist that those are off the table, then I see this as a fall-back option that at least addresses the discrimination and the backsliding, if not necessarily the lack of progress for some guilds.