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

[Arianrhod]

Of the 3 guild systems I've experienced from Turbine I'd say I like AC1's pyramid scheme least, LOTRO's lifetime system best, and DDO's renown system lands in the middle. I'd prefer either a straight guild experience system (in which the numbers only go up, no decay/loss), or some sort of dual system which awards ship amenities based on experience and uses the renown (which can go up or down based on how actively the guild is accomplishing things in game) for cosmetic stuff - guild-only armor kits, flags for the ship, titles, etc. Granted, the chances of something like this ever being implemented are next to nil, but it's what I would like better, anyway.

[Tshober]

Of the 3 guild systems I've experienced from Turbine I'd say I like AC1's pyramid scheme least, LOTRO's lifetime system best, and DDO's renown system lands in the middle.

I have never played AC. I have played UO, EQ1, CoH/CoV, DAOC, WoW, Atlantica, LOTRO, and Vanguard, in addition to DDO. Of all of those I played, DDO's current guild system is easily the worst. How did AC guilds work? It's hard for me to imagine an MMO actually sticking with something substantially worse than DDO's decay system.

Oh, and in addition to not having crappy guild decay, all of those other MMO's had much better guild management tools than DDO has. Honestly, I was shocked at how bad they are. But that is off-topic in this thread.

[Ranncore]

do you honestly think turbine could implement a better, working system?
looking at how the other series of "fixes" are going... the state of the ED system months after implementation...

[Thrudh]

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.

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.

Your numbers seem off... 77 accounts at 1100 a day is 84700 a day of decay... Your 15 active players only have to generate 5600 renown a day to cover everyone.

[Tshober]

do you honestly think turbine could implement a better, working system?
looking at how the other series of "fixes" are going... the state of the ED system months after implementation...

The current system is bad enough that even a super simple fix like just setting the daily decay amount to zero would be an improvement. Or just capping it at say 100K, if you don't want to totally eliminate decay. Either of those could be done in no time with no new code at all.

If you want to go a bit further and give the level 100 guilds something to achieve, then some coding would be needed.

[Vellrad]

So, do we must have spent 150TP on guild charter, or got that funny crown near name to be cool enough to say what we thing about it?

[Spoonwelder]

Of the 3 guild systems I've experienced from Turbine I'd say I like AC1's pyramid scheme least, LOTRO's lifetime system best, and DDO's renown system lands in the middle. I'd prefer either a straight guild experience system (in which the numbers only go up, no decay/loss), or some sort of dual system which awards ship amenities based on experience and uses the renown (which can go up or down based on how actively the guild is accomplishing things in game) for cosmetic stuff - guild-only armor kits, flags for the ship, titles, etc. Granted, the chances of something like this ever being implemented are next to nil, but it's what I would like better, anyway.

This made me think.....scrap decay but make renown earned be what you use to maintain your ship amenities (all types). You still need to be X level to earn the types of amenities, but once you have earned them they don't get lost (ie. level effectively sticks). But you guild needs to earn/bank renown to replenish the amenities....TP can still be used as an alternate to renown OR to get items you haven't earned yet similar to how it is now.

[Tobril]

74, growing only after trimming 20+ casual accounts.

Active acounts: 8
Inactive accounts: 4
Actual breadwinners: 3
People who log every 29 days to say hi: 5


I have a strong dislike for the system for reasons previous posters
have mentioned regarding not recruiting and/or retaining due to
bonus and decay.


There is a big opportunity to address the many issues with renown.

[Dysmetria]

I have never played AC. I have played UO, EQ1, CoH/CoV, DAOC, WoW, Atlantica, LOTRO, and Vanguard, in addition to DDO. Of all of those I played, DDO's current guild system is easily the worst. How did AC guilds work? It's hard for me to imagine an MMO actually sticking with something substantially worse than DDO's decay system.

Oh, and in addition to not having crappy guild decay, all of those other MMO's had much better guild management tools than DDO has. Honestly, I was shocked at how bad they are. But that is off-topic in this thread.

IIRC only the large active guilds in DAOC could acquire the keeps and artifacts that earned their guild and factions certain buffs and bonuses...small guilds and large guilds with lots of casual players had no hope of capturing or holding them. I don't see how that is better than here where even large semi casual guilds and small active guilds can earn most all of the buffs.

[Arianrhod]

How did AC guilds work? It's hard for me to imagine an MMO actually sticking with something substantially worse than DDO's decay system.

Oh, AC1 was a real winner

Its Alliance system was a tree of sorts, with the guild's founder being on top, followed by direct recruits, then those recruited by the next tier, and so on. Each tier gained bonus XP (character, not guild) from any XP earned by anyone on a lower tier. So the guild leader got XP from every active guild member, the next tier from everyone but the leader, and so on. Anyone who hadn't recruited anyone below them got nothing. The only "good" thing about it really was that no one lost anything for being in an Alliance. The XP that got generated for the higher levels was a bonus, not subtracted from XP earned. There were no other guild management tools, or benefits of any kind (other than guild chat). Some other benefits may have been added with (or after) the Dark Majesty expansion - my experience with AC1 is only prior to that point.

[TPICKRELL]

Your numbers seem off... 77 accounts at 1100 a day is 84700 a day of decay... Your 15 active players only have to generate 5600 renown a day to cover everyone.

Your right they are off slightly I hadn't run the numbers in a while and was working from memory, and we've added some members.

At level 77/ with 77 adjusted members decay is 76,458 according to my spreadsheet, so its 1000/account/per day. not 1100

The 45K number is a guesstimate of how much the 15 have to average each day to cover what's left after the casuals who are on that day get what they get. It's just a guess, but it is in the ball park. So they have to average 3K a day to break even. But since many of them have jobs they are not on every day, so they really have to average 5-6 K per day when they are on.

If everyone is running highs and doing at level content, 5-6k isn't that hard to reach. But on average factoring in doing challenges (almost no reknown), events(almost no reknown), the low level portions of TR cycles (takes a lot of heropic deeds to get to 5K) and finally days away form the game, its a lot to cover.

Many weeks we end up break even or losing groumd M-F and only actually add to our reknown on the weekend.

[MysticElaine]

@Thrudh

I invite you to join my very small guild and see how we strain to stay at lvl 59. We have been stuck for a very long time. I have lots of inactives. We are a very casual guild with me being the most active. We need about 4-5k renown a day to not move. I only get to play a few hours a night and some of those nights are raid nights that I have joined others in a weekly run for items I wish my main(s) to have. So a lot of the time, I only make maybe 2k a night. Now if it is so easy for even casual small guilds to make 63, why can't I make even lvl 60? I choose renown all the time unless an item that is hard to get pops up.

Soon, Mabar is coming, and since I don't have a lot of time to play, I will be spending my entire time doing that when I am on. So, my guild is going to be punished for me wanting to have a bit of fun as I am the main renown getter (so I will probably be ransacking Irestone, Gwylans, and Tear for a while after that with a **** toon to get the renown back, which is not fun in the least).

And with the system the way it is now, I don't feel like adding anymore ppl to the guild. I don't want to explain that I have so many inactives still in the guild because they were 24/7 players and got so much renown that to boot them would be a drastic lvl drop. I don't want any more casual players as I have a hard enough time keeping us at where we are right now. I am in a tough spot. I would love to add ppl I play with who ask for a guild invite, but I just can't manage. If I could boot the inactives (3+ months) without losing renown, I would, and then be able to add anyone who wants to join...but I don't think it would be fair to those who have tried to keep the renown up to see all their hard work gone in moments.

[kafrielveddicus]

I like the renown system very much!!!

[Gossamerblade]

I lead a level 45 guild of 9 accounts (2 inactive), all RL D&D friends. This guild has existed since launch, first on Xoriat, now on Thelanis. Most of us are on a few times a week for 2-3 hours at a time, longer on weekends.

I HATE renown decay, and I'm not crazy about the whole renown system. A long-lived, regularly active guild should reach level cap in a decent amount of time, but we're just hanging out here close to halfway up the ladder.

Guild renown should be set for each quest, with a possible additional percentage for favor gained. Wilderness area and challenge objectives would also have a set amount of renown.

Amenity rewards should be (or have the option to be, for more TP) permanent until replaced, not just short-term rentals.

Convenience items like guild storage, taverns and mailboxes should have different hooks than buff shrines. Maybe those convenience items should already be in place on ships, just unlocked at the correct level.

There should be no bonus or penalty for guild size, either from number of accounts or of characters. Renown is gained from requisite activity only. Since this would mean larger, more active guilds would reach higher levels sooner, many higher level rewards would relate to having more room for more players at a time.

I like the idea of each character having its own renown within the guild. Personal guild renown would get you access to the game room and spa.

[Hendrik]

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.

Friendly reminder to all.

Stay civil or once again our desire for a conversation with the DEVs will go ignored.

[EllisDee37]

Leader of a level 64 guild with 22 modified account size. This used to be a level 67 guild with 50+ accounts, but we had a mass exodus for various reasons. During that purge is when I was given leadership.

Not a fan of the renown decay system. I'd like to actively recruit, but decay gives us strong incentive to stick with what we have now and not let anyone else in.

[Ungood]

The largest failing on the renown decay system is that the only purpose it serves is to generate grind for the sake of grind.

It is in every aspect and in it's purest form an in-game Hamster Wheel for players to run on with no use other then for the sake of running in a circle and no end in sight.

IE: you can't make 100 and stop, or you can't make 63rd and just lock the guild up and say "Ok that was good enough".

[Coyopa]

I think this is the best suggestion I've seen:

1. Guild renown no longer decays.
2. Total guild renown ever accrued is applied toward the guild level.
3. Guild renown becomes the currency with which you purchase ship amenities. This expenditure does not detract from total renown as per #2. Thus, if you have no renown left to spend, then you are out of ship amenities and have to gather additional renown in order to acquire amenities.
3a. The amount of renown accrued to spend on amenities in #3 does not necessarily have to match the total guild renown in #2. This can be a percentage of the total guild renown.

This would be similar to how epic levels and epic destinies are leveled. Your overall renown/experience counts toward your guild level (epic level for this analogy). In the case of guilds, the epic destiny experience bar (in this analogy) would be the renown available to spend on amenities - but (again) would not take any renown away from your guild level experience bar.

One point of using platinum on ship amenities, however, is to create a use for all that platinum we accrue. I know it runs my bard between 120k and 150k per month, but I haven't stopped to calculate the precise amount in some time and have forgotten it.

Also, if they switched to using renown to pay for amenities, then amenities should still have an expiration. This will help casual players because if they don't log on for a while and no one has re-upped the amenities, then the drain on their renown does not continue and they can re-equip their ship when they are ready to play again. The alternative to this would be having amenities cost you a set amount of renown per day, which is automatically deducted and your amenities never expire unless your guild does not have the renown to pay the maintenance cost that day. Obviously, if you are one of those who buys their amenities from the store, then your renown would never be used to pay for maintaining those amenities.

Probably the best option is that each amenity contract has a certain renown cost in addition to its platinum cost. I feel this would be the best option because it would keep the renown cost lower than it would otherwise be if no platinum cost were attached. Also, it keeps us burning platinum on amenities and this is a good thing, even if you're struggling to earn the platinum to pay for the amenities.

In the end, the upshot would be that guild levels would no longer decay, but if you haven't got any spare renown to spend (because your renown gathering activities have fallen short of your renown expenses for amenities), then you've got no amenities on your airship. Casual players may still struggle to gather enough renown to cover their expenses (though I doubt it), but at least everyone's guild levels would no longer decay - enabling everyone to purchase the amenities for their airship that they can afford. It would remove the penalty for semi-active, casual, and very casual players as members and that would be fantastic. Plus, if you run out of renown to spend on amenities, then at worst you shrug and have no ship buffs (and have to ask party members for buffs if you care about such things).

Finally, the only amenities that should have no renown cost attached would be chests. Those should have only a platinum cost attached so as to enable guilds to always have access to these amenities. My rationale for this is that our guild chest is never empty (nor it is ever nearly empty) and to attach a renown cost to these amenities would still be punishing guilds with mainly casual (or only casual) players in them.

[Thrudh]

The largest failing on the renown decay system is that the only purpose it serves is to generate grind for the sake of grind.

It is in every aspect and in it's purest form an in-game Hamster Wheel for players to run on with no use other then for the sake of running in a circle and no end in sight.

IE: you can't make 100 and stop, or you can't make 63rd and just lock the guild up and say "Ok that was good enough".

Well, it's zero grind for me since I get renown from chests I would open anyway.

My guild gets enough just playing the game normally to maintain a mid 70s guild level. Which is 99% as good as all the guilds higher than us.

Now, it sounds like my guild is in the sweet spot. I agree with all of you that all types of guilds should be able to achieve that level without having to cut casual players... (I do assume at least a minimal effort to pick up renown now and then - i.e. take that Legendary end-reward if nothing else on the list is very good)

[moo_cow]

***If your gonna whine that I typed a big block of text just read the last two lines***



This is very dependant on the type of guild whether it be a casual guild or a high end guild or the guilds inbetween. As the leader of a level 80 guild on Argo I see no problem with the current system as we have a certain amount of players on sorta similair time zones. With about 10 members in the guild we usually show up to raids/ quests with about 2-4 slots left over in our group that we generally fill with our guild channel or a pug lfm. The reason I say this is because if a guild is a high end guild that runs end game raids than I don't think there is a reason to have more than 16 players (assuming you aren't all on the same time zones) or you would be excluded members of the guild from running with you. Also with that said if you like to run any content from level 1-25 than you still don't need so many players in the guild where you are going to be excluding others from runs you are doing. This is still very dependant on the type of guild though.


IMO I think the current renown system is just fine, thats just the opinion from my view which is to play high end content. Others views maybe different as they make a guild to teach and learn with each other which is fine. But when you learn what you need, are you still going to be in a casual guild? I see lots of splits off from guilds being the reason they are a casual guild, with that why would you make a guild with more than 20 players anyway? A group of friends sure, which still isn't a problem as with about 25 (I think) active players in my old guild they have now reached level 72 which is high enough.



IMO as the game currently stands I like the current renown system as level 100 is not achiveable by everyone and almost everything good that comes from shipbuffs is the level 65 range which is not hard to achieve. If you want to be in a guild of friends and only play for 2-3 hours a week I can see that, but it only depends on the gameplay choice of the guild, whether it was meant to be a casual guild, a guild of friends, or a guild of high end players.