New Guild Decay Rules

[slarden]

Here is the math for a 6 member guild vs a 100 member guild. The reason I used 4 and 200 is that someone on another thread said it was much easier for a guild of 4 to level than a large guild of 200. His 200 person guild was stuck at level 60

example with the following assumptions
- guilds start at minimum of level 60
- 30 days in the month
- large guild gets 50 renown per heroic deed and small guild gets 150 per heroic deed with 6 person small guild bonus

UNDER THE OLD SYSTEM

Level 60 guild with 6 accounts trying to get to level 61 in one month
-Needs to earn 5.04 heroic deeds per account per day to cover renown loss
-Needs to earn 25.38 heroic deeds per account per day to level to 61

Level 60 guild with 100 accounts trying to get to level 61 in one month
- Needs to earn 4.99 heroic deeds per account per day to cover renown loss
- Needs to earn 8.65 heroic deeds per account per day to level to 61

UNDER THE NEW SYSTEM THAT IS IMPLEMENTED UNTIL AT LEAST U16

Level 60 guild with 6 people trying to get to level 61 in one month
-Needs to earn 5.04 heroic deeds per account per day to cover renown loss
-Needs to earn 25.38 heroic deeds per account per day to level to 61

Level 60 guild with 100 accounts trying to get to level 61 in one month
- Needs to earn less than 1 heroic deed per account per day 0.91) to cover renown loss
- Needs to earn 4.57 heroic deeds per account per day to level to 61

Although the 4 vs 200 example is more extreme, the same issue exists. Since decay is a fixed value regardless of how many accounts are in the guild, the larger the guild, the less that will be required per account to cover decay and to advance. It used to be that decay was based on the number of accounts and the renown to advance was fixed, now both are fixed.

I would have liked to have seen more thought put into the new system, but I accept the changes. I know the developers were just trying to help big casual guilds and they did that. I am happy for those guilds.

[Spoonwelder]

Here is the math for a 6 member guild vs a 100 member guild. The reason I used 4 and 200 is that someone on another thread said it was much easier for a guild of 4 to level than a large guild of 200. His 200 person guild was stuck at level 60

See here is the problem - you are arguing with fixed values when everyone knows that the number of active accounts varies wildly each day - the person with a 200 person guild stuck at 60 likely only has 10-20 daily actives - the only thing that could account for them not moving forward in the old system. My guild that was 200 accounts (but modified guildsize of 70) got stuck at 70/71 again due to actual daily actives of 20-30ish. If a small guild had that same ratio - its not a guild its one guy....

example with the following assumptions
- guilds start at minimum of level 60
- 30 days in the month
- large guild gets 50 renown per heroic deed and small guild gets 150 per heroic deed with 6 person small guild bonus

UNDER THE OLD SYSTEM

Level 60 guild with 6 accounts trying to get to level 61 in one month
-Needs to earn 5.04 heroic deeds per account per day to cover renown loss
-Needs to earn 25.38 heroic deeds per account per day to level to 61

Level 60 guild with 100 accounts trying to get to level 61 in one month
- Needs to earn 4.99 heroic deeds per account per day to cover renown loss
- Needs to earn 8.65 heroic deeds per account per day to level to 61

UNDER THE NEW SYSTEM THAT IS IMPLEMENTED UNTIL AT LEAST U16

Level 60 guild with 6 people trying to get to level 61 in one month
-Needs to earn 5.04 heroic deeds per account per day to cover renown loss
-Needs to earn 25.38 heroic deeds per account per day to level to 61

Level 60 guild with 100 accounts trying to get to level 61 in one month
- Needs to earn less than 1 heroic deed per account per day 0.91) to cover renown loss
- Needs to earn 4.57 heroic deeds per account per day to level to 61

Although the 4 vs 200 example is more extreme, the same issue exists. Since decay is a fixed value regardless of how many accounts are in the guild, the larger the guild, the less that will be required per account to cover decay and to advance. It used to be that decay was based on the number of accounts and the renown to advance was fixed, now both are fixed.

I would have liked to have seen more thought put into the new system, but I accept the changes. I know the developers were just trying to help big casual guilds and they did that. I am happy for those guilds.
I agree with you that this change isn't a finished product....but it wasn't sold as that - it was sold as a temporary test to see the results....If it goes live exactly as it is with no change in U16 as you purport then I could well see it being locked in for a good long time (ie. it gets backburnered until a bunch of players cause a fuss like was done to get the current change). I do HOPE that Turbine comes out with a slightly more polished version of this change OR an unequivocal statement of the goals of the renown system (ie. do they really want to promote large guilds - whyso...etc..)

Comments in red

[slarden]

Comments in red

The purpose of this thread wasn't to debate the merits of the new system. Inactive accounts (those inactive for 30 days) don't count towards the decay formula. All accounts count that have logged in during the last 30 days.

The math doesn't attempt to include any speculative asumptions, but that does not make it flawed. It is only attempting to show "per active account" requirements and that's it. I was only showing this second set of #s because you brought up the comparison of a 6 member guild (often considered to be the ideal size) vs. a 100 member guild.

Anyhow if anyone is interested in exploring the idea of merging small guilds to make it easier to advance levels, please PM me.

[Spoonwelder]

The purpose of this thread wasn't to debate the merits of the new system. Inactive accounts (those inactive for 30 days) don't count towards the decay formula. All accounts count that have logged in during the last 30 days.

The math doesn't attempt to include any speculative asumptions, but that does not make it flawed. It is only attempting to show "per active account" requirements and that's it.

I understand that but if you are applying that math in a discussion with a person saying it is easier to level a small versus large guild. Then the use of the math as you have applied it is not indicative of the real issue. In general terms that argument is that a small guild is much more likely to have a high proportion of active members thus they gain renown with the bonus at a faster pace than a large guild, _were_ hit with less renown and as such it was possible to move forward more quickly than your 'average' large guild with many casual players.

The counter argument to that really is that the generalization is wrong and that not all small guilds are proportionately more active than large guilds. That is a nearly unassailable position (generalizations generally fail to supercede specifics....most of the time ).

Throwing a bunch of math at that doesn't change the facts for his (or my) specific guilds which had hit a wall just like your guild did....maybe at different levels but effectively we all got to a point where we were treading water against the decay. That isn't fun for guilds.....and we are here for fun right. Now this gets to the point of if the change doesn't help small guilds THEN they will remain stagnant AND not having fun. That also needs fixing or we really haven't got a whole fair and balanced solution have we (this is me agreeing with you ).

As I have said before decay based upon daily account activity is, IMO, the solution - hits small, med and large guilds equivalently AND then the guild size bonus makes up for the size disparity allowing small guilds to grow at rates in the same ballpark as medium or large guilds.....that said there would never be a way to make it 100% equal in growth rate as a super large very active guild can way out earn anyone else which I would think we can agree is reasonable.

[madmaxhunter]

I understand that but if you are applying that math in a discussion with a person saying it is easier to level a small versus large guild. Then the use of the math as you have applied it is not indicative of the real issue. In general terms that argument is that a small guild is much more likely to have a high proportion of active members thus they gain renown with the bonus at a faster pace than a large guild, _were_ hit with less renown and as such it was possible to move forward more quickly than your 'average' large guild with many casual players.

The counter argument to that really is that the generalization is wrong and that not all small guilds are proportionately more active than large guilds. That is a nearly unassailable position (generalizations generally fail to supercede specifics....most of the time ).

Throwing a bunch of math at that doesn't change the facts for his (or my) specific guilds which had hit a wall just like your guild did....maybe at different levels but effectively we all got to a point where we were treading water against the decay. That isn't fun for guilds.....and we are here for fun right. Now this gets to the point of if the change doesn't help small guilds THEN they will remain stagnant AND not having fun. That also needs fixing or we really haven't got a whole fair and balanced solution have we (this is me agreeing with you ).

As I have said before decay based upon daily account activity is, IMO, the solution - hits small, med and large guilds equivalently AND then the guild size bonus makes up for the size disparity allowing small guilds to grow at rates in the same ballpark as medium or large guilds.....that said there would never be a way to make it 100% equal in growth rate as a super large very active guild can way out earn anyone else which I would think we can agree is reasonable.

Well, then let me add some facts for you. My guild is 12 active but only three really play much at all. A friend guild is less than 9 and has no one playing consistantly. The problem with small guilds is that where a year or two ago, all members were "hard-core players", most have left. Only the few survivors remain to keep the guild going.

I can't say that is the norm, but I'd have to think it's at least common.

[slarden]

The math isnt flawed.

The assumption of 100% participation is flawed and skews the numbers in favor of his argument. However...

Division is easy. If 20% of everyone in that guild logs in daily they will have to gain 5x the renown / person he reported, etc...

The new system doesnt bone lower population guilds as much as he says it does. It just helps higher population guilds if that population is ACTIVE. The less active they are, the more renown the rest of the guild has to earn. Encouraging people to stay active is THE ENTIRE POINT.

If someone is able to keep 60 players in a guild active daily, good for them. They deserve to be rewarded for their management skills. They are the exception and not the rule however.

I make no participation assumption in my math. It is simply showing the requirements per active account without respect to what the accounts are doing in game. Inactive accounts that haven't logged on in the past 30 days are already excluded from the decay calculation.

I think what you are saying is that you want to include activity level in the calculation, but that data is not available. Both small and large guilds have to make up for the guild members that don't generate renown but continue to log in.

[vyvy3369]

If you're really that concerned about guild level, i believe zonixx was willing to take anyone willing to pull their weight into his level 100 guild. That was a while ago, but search through the Sarlona guild section if interested.

Personally I don't see the big deal. There's almost no new benefits in guild level after a certain point (other than bragging rights, and we saw how that turned out for EW way back), and guilds that grow very fast just seem to cause lots of drama. I don't see QE caring even if we lost a bunch of levels.

[moops]

If you're really that concerned about guild level, i believe zonixx was willing to take anyone willing to pull their weight into his level 100 guild. That was a while ago, but search through the Sarlona guild section if interested.

Personally I don't see the big deal. There's almost no new benefits in guild level after a certain point (other than bragging rights, and we saw how that turned out for EW way back), and guilds that grow very fast just seem to cause lots of drama. I don't see QE caring even if we lost a bunch of levels.

yep. I personally don't care, we are on the cusp of small guild and medium guild bonus ( we go back and forth since we don't kick people for inactivity) and even tho I have personally seen less reknown drop in quests, less activity in guild, we are actually starting to gain again. But we could stay stuck at 88 till the end of time for all I care.

Also, OP
In most threads I've read, the number used is 6 or 10 for small guild averages.

I think that people should go out and get their own information, and experience what is happening, before jumping on the "merge" ship.

I highly doubt you will see any vet guilds merging due to the diastaster we obbserved with this when reknown first came out.

Also, asks yourself what you really get from a higher level ship...Many great Vet players are in one man guilds that are less than lvl 40, would they really do this if Ship Buffs were the end all be all? Would many of us actually skip buffs most of the time? I rarely get buffs unless Im already on the ship, and even then our XP shrine is right next to the teleporter and that is all I hit.

So you get a lot more Drama most of the time, for things that you don't even need.

At least this is the first thread or suggestion I've seen for this, including live game. Thats a bonus.

[rest]

How do I guild?

[slarden]

Thanks for the feedback. I don't care that much about the level really. I would like to get a larger ship with a few more amenites but as you said those aren't necessary to enjoy the game.

There are many guilds on Sarlona that are alot like us. I am just exploring the idea of merging guilds to make decay less of an issue, possibly get some regular raids going, etc. It may or may not happen, but the worst that come out of it is that we get to know a few more small guilds on Sarlona.

Thanks to those of you that responded via PM as well

[Munkenmo]

I highly doubt you will see any vet guilds merging due to the diastaster we obbserved with this when reknown first came out.

I was fairly sure I was just involved in a merger of multiple high level guilds.

[moops]

I was fairly sure I was just involved in a merger of multiple high level guilds.

I think that is completely different than the OP's situation and proposition.
1-You guys did this a couple months ago before a change to Reknown was announced, and you were already a high level guild.
2-From what I understand not every member of said guilds was taken, and some just left their current guilds, for instance QE lost 2 players to Endgame.
3-Many of you had grouped together quite a bit, some, for years.

In a merger of guilds, every single member that wants to come is taken, there is no cherry picking.

[slarden]

I think that is completely different than the OP's situation and proposition.
1-You guys did this a couple months ago before a change to Reknown was announced, and you were already a high level guild.
2-From what I understand not every member of said guilds was taken, and some just left their current guilds, for instance QE lost 2 players to Endgame.
3-Many of you had grouped together quite a bit, some, for years.

In a merger of guilds, every single member that wants to come is taken, there is no cherry picking.

For the most part yes, but it's very premature to say for sure. We are looking at partnering/collaborating and not trying to build a kingdom so whatever we do will be my mutual agreement. I have run with a lot of people on Sarlona including all the people that contacted me except one. And that person is close to a guild that we also have close ties to.

I do not want to be in the same guild with people that are abusive, demeaning, excessively critical, pikers, etc. Other than that I suspect most of the guilds we talk with will also be folks that play regularly and have capped at least one character. But if there are a few folks that never made it past the harbor and barely log in, I am not going to suggest that we kick those folks out. For the most part once there is a guild merger, it would be unethical to boot people unless their behavior is really bad. If there is a merger that means either our guild or another guild is disbanding their guild and there is no undo feature for that. Once the renown from leaving is gone - it is gone. So I am not going to mess with someone by booting them because they caused us to all die in a quest. If we end up leaving to join another small guild, i would hope the guild leader would show us the same courtesy.

If someone wants to exclude our group from their EH raid because they didn't think someone in the harbor from the merged guild had good enough dps, I am fine with that. That is their mistake not mine. If someone doesn't like our guild because they think we are mean spirited, condescending or elitist, I am not ok with that. That is our mistake and I do not want that reputation for any guild I am in.

So yes we are not cherry picking, but if there is someone with a behavior problem, that might be the only exception.

[Barium]

My guild is roughly 30 people with about 19 active. Of those 19, around 8 are daily players. My guild is also fanatical in that there would be no other home for these people. They are absolutely dedicated to one another as a "guild" should really be. It has been my experience that while running with a few of the very large, very diverse guilds here on the Khyber server that they ignore heroic deeds in chests. Ignoring tales of valor rewards slightly less often. I've witnessed one of the extremely large guilds leaving impressive and legendary victory rewards in chests. When I asked about it, they said they had a full inventory and aren't trading a plat source for a guild renown.

While this certainly doesn't apply to everyone, this is going on. It happens most often in the "race to cap" type mindset of players. XP/Min above all else. I would very much like a mechanic as a guild leader to hover on my players and see both their lifetime and perhaps even weekly totals of renown. If you have a player that is consistently online, running quests, and leveling quickly and have a weak total, they are receiving far more benefit than contribution. Thus, as a leader, something can be done. Renown decay can be overcome quite easily with only a handful of active players. Surprising running through slayers as a guild for about an hour can generate an incredible amount of renown.