A call for Guild Leaders to state your support for the current renown system

[eris2323]

Not sure why some people use this thread as an excuse to pad postcount, but I am appreciating this thread and the information it is bringing from guild leaders. The extra bits from post-padders are starting to get annoying though.

Thank you Drakesan.

[Drakesan]

While I appreciate those of you (all of you) that post here with your thoughts, please help to keep it civil so that those who are posting their views are not getting grief just for posting their views. Thank you.

[Thrudh]

the guild decided to push the rest of the way from 65+ to 85. I was thinking about leaving so as not to drag down the guild, knowing I was going to be extremely busy for a couple months (and that I wasn't able to renew VIP), and instead let the guild leader talk me into staying, promised me that my renown would be covered if I couldn't get on, that there was absolutely no way I'd be kicked, etc.

Logged on two days ago to see 'you have been expelled from your guild' and a sorry excuse for an explanation from the guild leader in my mail.

So not only do I dislike the renown system for punishing people for having a life, but for the simple fact that it does **** weird things to people.

That seems to be the rub of the matter... People who play video games are apparently only motivated by bigger numbers.

I cannot comprehend what Turbine was thinking

I can guess what they were thinking. They were thinking that people would recognize that there is nearly ZERO functional difference between a level 65 guild and a level 85 guild, and therefore kicking all your friends for a near zero return would be a pretty stupid thing to do.

But they under-estimated how much MMO players want another +1.

Based on all the people in this thread who have level 70+ guilds WITH casual members and STILL hate this system because they can't get to 100, the numbers (not the benefits) is what motivates people.

Like you said, people are weird. Turbine should probably re-design the guild renown system taking into account the weirdness of MMO players.

[Spoonwelder]

Based on all the people in this thread who have level 70+ guilds WITH casual members and STILL hate this system because they can't get to 100, the numbers (not the benefits) is what motivates people.

My real issue is that we have to sprint to stay still.....I don't care about 71-100. I just want us to stay at 70 (large guild slots primarily). Right now it almost feels like none of the active players can take a day off.....I just saw that with Sunday - we had been toying with 71 all week - just passing it then decay would hit. Sunday (football games, baseball playoffs, family commitments) and now we are basically 50k behind. It won't take many weeks of that and we will lose our 70 UNLESS we start booting casual players which alienates Turbine customers.

Creating a system that causes drama, hurt feelings, exclusion etc.....sounds like a bully's paradise and since many of us are nerds (or partial anyway) then most of us know that where bullies flourish we tend to avoid the space.

[Chai]

But they under-estimated how much MMO players want another +1.

Based on all the people in this thread who have level 70+ guilds WITH casual members and STILL hate this system because they can't get to 100, the numbers (not the benefits) is what motivates people.

Like you said, people are weird. Turbine should probably re-design the guild renown system taking into account the weirdness of MMO players.

All that needs to happen is get rid of all decay, and penalize for kicking members. If one or two dbags need to be dealt with, kicking one or two people wont destory the guild, it just spreads the burden a little more on everyone else to earn slightly more renown for a period of time. Kicking 25 people at a time however, would result in loss of alot of renown. This would discourage people from inviting alot of unknown people for the sole purpose of farming their way to a specific level quickly, then booting 90% of those people so their small number of friends can then enjoy the guild themselves.

Heaven forbid someone wants to take a 2 week vacation, or gets deployed etc. I know people whose guild is their entire family and no one else. If they all go on a RL trip for a bit they shouldnt come back to a guild with less levels, possibly less benefits, etc. Maybe theres a good case for this only happening once in a while, but it would happen zero times using my suggestion, unless of course the leader got crazy and booted a bunch of people.

[dterror]

Level 59 guild, 15 accounts, 10 active.

Strongly dislike the system...though I find it a little surprising to see as many small guilds that feel as I do, since the system is strongly skewed in favor of the small / very small guild

[phillymiket]

Level 31 guild, 6 or 7 accounts, ALL HATRED ALL THE TIME for renown decay(count that at a 'dislike' for the current renown system).

To the point where I have instructed my guild to stop retrieving renown from chests or taking it as quest rewards as we are refusing to use the renown system until they remove renown decay.

This is what I don't understand. ^

My solo guild has decayed only two (maybe 3) levels with ZERO renown income in going on two months now.

Also 6 accounts.

What are you talking about?

By myself I was getting a guild level every few days until lv 10-15, every week until 25 or so then a guild level every couple/few weeks until mid 30s.

By myself.

How fast are you looking to advance?

I respect your point of view but just don't understand how that math works like that for you.

And also...

The six of you would have a nice little ship already if you just chilled out and let what happens happen.

Doesn't it bother you to have think about your boycott every time you don't loot renown?

If you want to boycott maybe just stop worrying about it.

But it's your guild and you should run it how you want and I don't intend offence and don't intend to imply that what you are experiencing isn't true for you.
.

[Spoonwelder]

Trudh - one point you keep making is that it is easy to get to L60ish......aside from the fact that that depends highly on guild size and frequency of play it ignores the decay system entirely.....

Say a large guild at 65 each account needs to pull in 400renown a day to maintain guild level - at 70 that maintain is about 600 (i am rounding up to take into account the +10 to total modified account size). For the same small guild they only need to get about 150 or 200 per day (due to size bonus). Then add in the hidden casual player modifier (mostly for large guilds) and you active players need to pull in 2000 or so a day. Translate that to 14k per week and if a person plays 3-4 days per week thats not insurmountable. But 1-2 days per week and it can be if you don't go out of your way to play in a way that gains renown.

It's just.....unfun to think about.

[brickwall]

many of turbines choices have damaged the community of this game. turbine needs to understand we like to be able to win. they make this to hard and then they make that to easy in hopes that at some point it may all balance out. they change this they change that an sooner or later where just fed up with it. one day its to easy next day its to hard next day its just redundant ddo has become schizophrenic pick something and commit would you.

[RaidMR]

I mildly dislike the decay system.

I get the concept of decay; the fame and influence of a guild will wane if it no longer does 'great things' (i.e. collect renown), however I think the current system is harshly punishing larger guilds.

I also get why that's happening; a big guild should be able to do more 'great things' (and collect more renown), but there seems to be a disproportionate rate of decay.

I don't think Turbine wanted to create a system where all guilds could reach 100 eventually, or keep levels permanently. Under the concept of guild renown I don't think they should! But the problem is big, active guilds are having trouble maintaining their levels. Perhaps the solution is to impose a base decay rate and lower the level multiplier so that activity must be maintained but large guilds have a fighting chance to grow, and smaller guilds are kept on an even footing.

I'm Tegor, leader of the Rogue Saints and I approve this message.

P.S. Also for the purposes of full disclosure, my guild has about 4 active accounts and 3 or 4 quasi-active accounts. We are by no means a large guild, just an observation on what I see happening.

[Hendrik]

Maybe just change the Decay math?

Right now it is +10 to account size. This is to 'balance' Small/Medium vs Large.

Maybe it should be changed to +10 Small, +5 Medium, and +0 to Large.

[Loromir]

I'm the leader of a lvl 66 guild with about 35 accounts. I'm kind of neutral regarding the current renown system.

One change I would like to see is allow me to boot inactive toons with no renown penalty. I will leave it up to the devs to decide what constitutes "Inactive".

Not that it really matters, but I like things to look clean and my guild list with toons with 3 months inactivity just looks "Unclean".

[Double_O]

I'm the leader of a lvl 66 guild with about 35 accounts. I'm kind of neutral regarding the current renown system.

One change I would like to see is allow me to boot inactive toons with no renown penalty. I will leave it up to the devs to decide what constitutes "Inactive".

Not that it really matters, but I like things to look clean and my guild list with toons with 3 months inactivity just looks "Unclean".

Amen!

[Thrudh]

Trudh - one point you keep making is that it is easy to get to L60ish.....

It seems easy to me... But I admit I could be wrong, and there are some people here who state they are stuck in the mid 50s.

If it's NOT easy to get to and maintain mid 60s, even with a bunch of casual players, and just taking renown rewards every once in a while, then I agree there's a problem.

If it is easy, then it seems to me there's no problem...

BUT... since it appears many people cannot stand to be stuck at a number lower than 85 or 100, maybe I was wrong. Being stuck in the mid-70s is apparently enough to make people kick casuals from their guild even though the benefits for going higher are extremely tiny.

So I guess the system doesn't work too well for the type of people who play MMOs. Chai's idea seems to have merit.

I'm certainly okay with every single guild hitting 100 someday.

[Arnez]

So.... about 150 replies (and 2500 views) later- and not a single one in favor of (at least) the Decay formula- factor in that forum folks only account for some small percentage of the population-- What do we do now? How do you get a Dev to notice this and take umbrage on our behalf?

[Hendrik]

I'm the leader of a lvl 66 guild with about 35 accounts. I'm kind of neutral regarding the current renown system.

One change I would like to see is allow me to boot inactive toons with no renown penalty. I will leave it up to the devs to decide what constitutes "Inactive".

Not that it really matters, but I like things to look clean and my guild list with toons with 3 months inactivity just looks "Unclean".

I would be happy with 60 or 90 days of inactivity to be removed without them going to active status. Still allow for the decay hit on booting, but for inactives to go active for two weeks, knowing they do not play anymore, is adding insult to injury.

And I am of the same mind, I do not like a roster populated with inactives.

[HowlingVoyager]

Level 29 - Disciples of the Six Demon Bag

6 members, obviously a VERY small guild. We've no complaints for the current system, save one: It is ridiculously difficult for small guilds to gain and hold any traction. I know it's been tweaked a bit to fix that, but... a smidge more?

Other than that, it's okay.

[Tshober]

My real issue is that we have to sprint to stay still.....I don't care about 71-100. I just want us to stay at 70 (large guild slots primarily). Right now it almost feels like none of the active players can take a day off.....I just saw that with Sunday - we had been toying with 71 all week - just passing it then decay would hit. Sunday (football games, baseball playoffs, family commitments) and now we are basically 50k behind.

Just wait till Mabar hits! Unless your members already have all the epic stuff they want from Mabar, a week of them earning basically no renown at all in Mabar will show you what it looks like to be behind. I have a very large guild and the first day of Mabar last year we lost nearly 1/3 of a level. The 2nd day was almost as bad. After that it settled down some, thank goodness, but by the end of Mabar week we had lost almost a full level.

CC is worse.

[Tshober]

Heaven forbid someone wants to take a 2 week vacation, or gets deployed etc. I know people whose guild is their entire family and no one else. If they all go on a RL trip for a bit they shouldnt come back to a guild with less levels, possibly less benefits, etc.

Exactly. No other aspect of DDO takes away your progress after you have earned it. Character exp does not decay over time. Raid flags and GS mats don't vanish if you go on vacation for a few weeks. Not even the tiniest little bit of progress is ever taken away once earned, except for guild renown. Why should guild renown work so completely differently from every other part of DDO?

[TPICKRELL]

...
BUT... since it appears many people cannot stand to be stuck at a number lower than 85 or 100, maybe I was wrong. Being stuck in the mid-70s is apparently enough to make people kick casuals from their guild even though the benefits for going higher are extremely tiny.

I'm one of those with a guild level in the 70's that are not happy with the system.

While the rate of bennies is much lower after 70, three are still substantial bennies. Better XP shrines for example. For my guild, the biggest one is getting to 85 and a larger ship so there are enough slots for sonic resistence and a stone of change.

In my guild of 77 or so accounts, there are 15 accounts that generate that vast majority of the reknown. The others are casuals, or come and go, generating at a high rate for bit and then disappearing for a couple of weeks due to RL. If I cherry picked the top 20 and kicked everyone else, we would easily be level 100 by now. That's not what our guild stands for, so we DON'T KICK based on reknown decay. We are cautios with new members though, as I am unwilling to further punish the 15 actives by taking on someone who might stop playing or switch guilds in a few weeks.

The 15 or so very actives are reminded by every guild level announcement of a small guild getting level 80 that they personally are contributing enough to sustain a level 100 guild, not a level 77 guild. Then events like Mabar come along, and we loose a full guild level because there is no reknown in the event and most of our actives are working on gear for alts.

Everyone, including me tends to break down the reknown decay to a figure per active account. That figure is roughly 1100/active account/day for my guild. But the reality is that the very active accounts have to cover 45K+ decay each day before we can make any progress. My family is 3 of those 15 very active accounts, so if we are traveling for a weekend it can take a couple of weeks of the entire guilds contributions to make up for that lost time.

That's why I hate the system. Not necessarily the concept of decay, but the reality of how the current decay system works.