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

[Buddrow]

This is a monster thread so I haven't read all the replies.

In case any failed to mention it, you get very frequent renown drops (the kind without opening chests or end rewards)

just for being grouped with your fellow guild members.

I have done my share of pugging, and I have floated around guilds to know that "many" players do not group with fellow members.

If you were to do this you might be surprised at the difference that could make. The current system of guild decay is

only part of the problem from reaching higher levels. The other part of the problem lies in leadership.

The rules are what they are, and they are attainable. You are an active player and on frequently, but are you an

"active" leader or a "casual" leader.

You might try grouping with a casual player when you see them on. Instead of the "Welcome to the guild. Now go

do your own thing to make us bigger." style of invite.

IMHO there is nothing wrong with the rules of the game, just the players.

[Postumus]

Our L64 guild on Sarlona has about 20 accounts and 11 active accounts.

Most of our players belong to a static group and only play once or twice a week. A few altoholics like myself, about four of us, play most nights during the week as well. Our rise from 50 to 64 has been very slow and it has taken about 2 years to get to level 64.

We don't kick members unless they have been inactive for a looong time, and then it is primarily just to clean up the guild roster.

We aren't overly concerned with the guild rankings, although I think most of us would like to see 70 some day for the large guild slot.

I think I slightly dislike the guild decay system as I personally don't subscribe to the idea of losing levels you have attained and I don't like how optimizing for guild renown encourages renown farming over playing or kicking members who play infrequently or seasonally.

I would like to see a change in the decay mechanic where you can not lose a guild level, and at the worst your renown is simply reset to the bottom of the highest level you have achieved.

I also don't believe that a guild ranking really means anything since there are so many work arounds, including taking advantage of special events, available to boost the guild level if that is a guild's priority. So I don't see any reason for a guild to lose levels.

[Ungood]

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

By your Logic, everything you pull from a chest (IE: Plat, Items, Raid Gear, Renown, Etc, etc) is not a Grind, so it all can decay away like renown does now and everything would be peachy in your game world.

Thankfully, the Developers do not share your logic.

[Hendrik]

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)

Very true.

Once your Guild hits that plateau, no matter what type of players you have, it is advancing beyond that point is not really all that possible without some change in gameplay.

We have plateaued at 80. Can maintain that without any problem - minus trimming accounts that no longer play. L81 decay is to much for us to overcome just by normal Questing. With that, the system works as they want. It is our desire to advance and to do so without making some drastic changes in how we play (that would make things not so much fun anymore) and start having everyone run C challenges for Renown pots and then start playing as we normally do.

Sure, we can kick everyone out but the 6 most active, abuse the small bonus, and put all the weight on those 6 to advance to 85 then re-invite everyone back. Something we have discussed, but then shortly dismissed as we are not going to risk loosing friends/family to reach our original goal of L85. Not to mention the huge decay we would have removing 75+ accounts....

[Chai]

Very true.

Once your Guild hits that plateau, no matter what type of players you have, it is advancing beyond that point is not really all that possible without some change in gameplay.

We have plateaued at 80. Can maintain that without any problem - minus trimming accounts that no longer play. L81 decay is to much for us to overcome just by normal Questing. With that, the system works as they want. It is our desire to advance and to do so without making some drastic changes in how we play (that would make things not so much fun anymore) and start having everyone run C challenges for Renown pots and then start playing as we normally do.

Sure, we can kick everyone out but the 6 most active, abuse the small bonus, and put all the weight on those 6 to advance to 85 then re-invite everyone back. Something we have discussed, but then shortly dismissed as we are not going to risk loosing friends/family to reach our original goal of L85. Not to mention the huge decay we would have removing 75+ accounts....

This is where my suggestion comes into play. Renown decay = 0. The only time you lose renown is kicking people (or them leaving just like current). People could then get a level and keep it. Kicking one or two people wouldnt be a big deal, but if some guild leader decided to get crazy and use the "come one come all" strategy to level the guild then boot everyone, they would be right back to low level.

People would then not need to even think about removing a specific amount of people so they sit on the cusp of tiny or small guild status. They could level at their own pace, knowing that the renown earned isnt going anywhere, guild up with their friends, and not be worried that someone is going on vacation, needs a few weeks away from the game etc.

[Thrudh]

This is where my suggestion comes into play. Renown decay = 0. The only time you lose renown is kicking people (or them leaving just like current). People could then get a level and keep it. Kicking one or two people wouldnt be a big deal, but if some guild leader decided to get crazy and use the "come one come all" strategy to level the guild then boot everyone, they would be right back to low level.

People would then not need to even think about removing a specific amount of people so they sit on the cusp of tiny or small guild status. They could level at their own pace, knowing that the renown earned isnt going anywhere, guild up with their friends, and not be worried that someone is going on vacation, needs a few weeks away from the game etc.

I like your idea, but are we agreed that every guild should hit 100? I'm okay with it.

[Gremmlynn]

I like your idea, but are we agreed that every guild should hit 100? I'm okay with it.

I'm also okay with it, but I'm not one who thinks anyone should have special status for trading in their life for a video game.

Turbine might think differently. Or maybe not now that they've seen that their master plan of letting "those who can, do and those that can't, buy their shinnies from the store" turned into "those that can't, boot less active players until they can". With some, likely many, of those booted becoming former players.

[Cyr]

I like your idea, but are we agreed that every guild should hit 100? I'm okay with it.

I am good with that. My guild is 90 atm so not like we would be the primary benefactors from a change like this.

Basically everyone would benefit from this because no one would need to be concerned about playing X amount of time to earn back their renown loss.

Guild members should be chosen based upon social factors and not game mechanics.

[Eilierie]

Not the leader but...

145 modified guild size, 217 accounts - 73 inactive and 1 recent departure

Most everyone I've talked to in guild could care less about guild level and cares more about social and being casual friendly, though no one would mind a change and keeping and maintaining 70

[Ebuddy]

I like your idea, but are we agreed that every guild should hit 100? I'm okay with it.

Perhaps not every player should hit level 25 then.

[EllisDee37]

I still think the best way to retain the original design (assuming the devs want the decay mechanic) while not alienating casual players is to have renown decay moved from a guild level to an account level. Decay occurs on your first alt's login that day. A little message saying "your renown decay is #" would be a nice touch.

Meaning if you don't log in for a week, no decay from you. Once you do log in, you see your decay and know how much you need to farm up to pull your weight.

[Kaytis]

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.

His numbers were more favorable than yours. He said the 15 active accounts had to each earn 3000 a day to keep up. He has access to the modified account size which probably explains the difference. All you did was say that a much worse situation is not that bad, when the current one for him is already abysmal.

And must you post basically the same thing 20 times in each and every thread? What is the point? When a thread devolves into the Chai and Trudh show, I know I personally just give up on it. I would much rather hear from others what their opinions are.

[Dalsheel]

i still think the best way to retain the original design (assuming the devs want the decay mechanic) while not alienating casual players is to have renown decay moved from a guild level to an account level. Decay occurs on your first alt's login that day. A little message saying "your renown decay is #" would be a nice touch.

Meaning if you don't log in for a week, no decay from you. Once you do log in, you see your decay and know how much you need to farm up to pull your weight.

+1

[noobinberg]

I'm not a guild leader--
I'm not in a guild...(anymore)
I joined a guild when they were level mid 60ish. I ran with them till they reached mid70ish...at that point real life caused a hiatus for about 8 months. After returning to playing real life only allowed play time of 2 to 3 hours per week. The guild was up to lvl 82 and 2 of our leaders have passed on. I was considerably close to my guildies by this point. Well I noticed we were dropping levels and then all the sudden the guild message of the day was something like "raid with the guild once a week and put in enough time to make you valuable to the guild." Evidently my play time was hurting the guild and the leader asked me to step down in an email. When I left I did NOT leave on bad terms but was very sad to leave. We don't always talk about the game in-game...sometimes we talk like real life friends. Now I'm a rogue player (no pun intended) and really miss them. I put them all on my friends list but, it's not the same. For what my opinion is worth, I can't say if the topic of this thread is what's wrong but, something definitely is.........

Thank you,

Kuranjahsin

[Tshober]

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.

The guild I was in when I played DAOC was hardly large and I don't remember it being all that active but I do remember participaring many times in the defense of keeps and artifacts against other realms. I also remember getting the nice realm buffs for having artifacts. I was not the guild leader and it was a long time ago, but I don't recall noticing any loss of guild level or status, except when another realm succeeded in capturing one of the artifacts, in which case the entire realm lost some status. It seems a bit of a stretch to compare that to losing guild renown daily because you don't log in and play enough in a game that has no realms and no PvP beyond tavern brawls. Sure, if most of our realm did not log in then the other realms would likely get the artifacts. But still, it seems like it made little difference at the guild level.

If you want to include realms/nations (conglomerations of many guilds) and PvP into the equation then several games I have played had ways to lose realm/nation status. Not guild status though and not as an automated periodic decay.

[Inouk]

True, I'm assuming that most people have the same appreciation of cost/benefit ratios that I do...

Which may be a bad assumption...

I'm still not sure why anyone cares if their guild is 63 or 89 when there are very few benefits past 63. But then I also don't understand the people who grind two hundred hours for one more +1.

P.S. Why would you not invite your friend to play even if your guild is restrictive? There's such a thing as a friend list you know.

I did invite him to play, just not join my guild. I felt like I should invite him to join the guild and felt guilt that I could not reasonably do so. Explaining it to him, becuase it's crappy, would probably make him even LESS likely to stick with the game *sigh*.

[PuppiesAndRainbows]

Since this subject seems to be drawing only the attention of players....

How about another approach?
Start complaining about some things that would make renown farming easier.

Example:
Gee; I sure wish they would get around to putting an Airship Tower on the Isle of Forgotten Dreams.
An Airship Tower right next to Raiding the Giants' Vault sure would help out a bunch.
Oh; and the Giants' Vault needs more loot too!

If I can't get a pool table, a dart board on the airship would be nice.

...but seriously I'm sick of running the Giants' Vault

[Ungood]

Perhaps not every player should hit level 25 then.

Don't talk logic with him, he might not like it.

[Thrudh]

His numbers were more favorable than yours. He said the 15 active accounts had to each earn 3000 a day to keep up. He has access to the modified account size which probably explains the difference. All you did was say that a much worse situation is not that bad, when the current one for him is already abysmal.

3000 renown a day is nothing for an active player. And that amount covers a guild that is 20% active and 80% casual. Again, with numbers like that I don't think the system is broken. Do you know what abysmal means?

All that said, I'm fine with taking away all decay and letting everyone get to 100 with minimal effort. Guilds should be social, not a meta-game.

And must you post basically the same thing 20 times in each and every thread? What is the point?

Well, when someone refutes my comment by saying something silly like "3000 renown a day is an abysmal situation for an active player!", I feel the need to respond.

[Thrudh]

Perhaps not every player should hit level 25 then.

Heh, touche'.

Point taken indeed.