Guild Renown Changes

[Nestroy]

What? Almost every poster in this thread from large guilds has endorsed at least one suggestion that would be very helpful to small guilds that are struggling against decay. No one that I know of has been more vocal in advocating for the complete elimination of decay than I have. Go ahead and do a forum search and try to find anyone who has been more consistent on that than I have over the last 12 months! And I am the leader of a quite large guild. I want all guilds to be able to advance and reach the highest levels and the suggestions I have supported would ensure that all guilds can and will be able to advance and reach the highest levels. The people I have spent the most time arguing with in this thread have said, over and over, that "some guilds should NOT be able to reach level 100". Most people from large guilds want all guilds to be able to advance because we know what it is like to not be able to do so. It is most certainly NOT large guilds who want guilds to stagnate and be unable to level. It is those who liked the old system and wish we would return to it who want that.

Well, you have to admit that there are posters like Eris... Of course this cannot be said for ALL the people from big guilds. And as far as I can remember there had been seceral posts in the old thread then from small-guilders arguing against change. "Big guilds only have to raise their activity", "big guilds could always advance, they only Need to do away with non-contributing members"... Sound familiar?

Well, not for you in special, look at these arguments:

"Big guilds can grow, they only Need to get more active" - "small guilds can grow, they only need to get more active!"
- Answer: In theory this sounds solid but in reality this does not work, except for having players from Chinese prisons. We cannot force anybody to contribute more if that person does not like to. And there would be only one other solution left then - the kick.

"Big guilds can grow, they only need to kick noncontributing players" "small guilds can grow, they only need to add new members!"
- Answer: Again, in theory sound advice. Practivally the suggested solution would have been as bad for big guilds, as it is now for small ones. Kicking players from big guilds has beenn the big argument against decay last time. And how to grow from stagnating / shrinking server player-bases for small guilds? Small guilds could build up Korthos Armies - well, I do not want to discuss that. They can canibalize other guilds. They can go for the few players that are not guilded. Always without guarantee that the added member will contribute anything.

"Big guilds need to add contributing members, the rest will be done by math" - "small guilds only need to add contributing members, the rest will be done by math!"
- Answer - this is a variant from what already has been said above, except it has the charme of beeing backed by actual calculations. Again, in theory this would be sound. Practically the solution is lacking due to the fact that there is no endless supply of contributing players for any guild to add.

So basically the only positive upside is the fact that meanwhile no member needs to be kicked from big guilds in order for them to grow. There still is no solution for the small/medium guilds and due to bonus needed for combatting decay they now need to kick all the inactive mebers in order to generate growth...

[Charononus]

What? Almost every poster in this thread from large guilds has endorsed at least one suggestion that would be very helpful to small guilds that are struggling against decay. No one that I know of has been more vocal in advocating for the complete elimination of decay than I have. Go ahead and do a forum search and try to find anyone who has been more consistent on that than I have over the last 12 months! And I am the leader of a quite large guild. I want all guilds to be able to advance and reach the highest levels and the suggestions I have supported would ensure that all guilds can and will be able to advance and reach the highest levels. The people I have spent the most time arguing with in this thread have said, over and over, that "some guilds should NOT be able to reach level 100". Most people from large guilds want all guilds to be able to advance because we know what it is like to not be able to do so. It is most certainly NOT large guilds who want guilds to stagnate and be unable to level. It is those who liked the old system and wish we would return to it who want that.

Agreed the problem isn't reducing small guild decay it's wanting to return to a version of the old system where decay is per player and creates social problems for new and casual players. The good news is I guess I won't need to care soon as I won't be playing a game where a hacker can get my cc information with a vBulletin hack.

[UurlockYgmeov]

well, you have to admit that there are posters like eris... Of course this cannot be said for all the people from big guilds. And as far as i can remember there had been seceral posts in the old thread then from small-guilders arguing against change. "big guilds only have to raise their activity", "big guilds could always advance, they only need to do away with non-contributing members"... Sound familiar?

Well, not for you in special, look at these arguments:

"big guilds can grow, they only need to get more active" - "small guilds can grow, they only need to get more active!"
- answer: In theory this sounds solid but in reality this does not work, except for having players from chinese prisons. We cannot force anybody to contribute more if that person does not like to. And there would be only one other solution left then - the kick.

"big guilds can grow, they only need to kick noncontributing players" "small guilds can grow, they only need to add new members!"
- answer: Again, in theory sound advice. Practivally the suggested solution would have been as bad for big guilds, as it is now for small ones. Kicking players from big guilds has beenn the big argument against decay last time. And how to grow from stagnating / shrinking server player-bases for small guilds? Small guilds could build up korthos armies - well, i do not want to discuss that. They can canibalize other guilds. They can go for the few players that are not guilded. Always without guarantee that the added member will contribute anything.

"big guilds need to add contributing members, the rest will be done by math" - "small guilds only need to add contributing members, the rest will be done by math!"
- answer - this is a variant from what already has been said above, except it has the charme of beeing backed by actual calculations. Again, in theory this would be sound. Practically the solution is lacking due to the fact that there is no endless supply of contributing players for any guild to add.

So basically the only positive upside is the fact that meanwhile no member needs to be kicked from big guilds in order for them to grow. There still is no solution for the small/medium guilds and due to bonus needed for combatting decay they now need to kick all the inactive mebers in order to generate growth...

+1

[UurlockYgmeov]

well, i could tell you something now about servers like wayfinder i am on with my guild but i will save my breath now because i alread got through the discussion that will certainly follow about 500 - 1000 posts past in this discussion thread and i do not want to repeat. Let me put it this way: From about 80 accounts that went through our guild alone on wayfinder i have a core group of 7 playing regularly and about 60 that after more or less time playing left the game completely and on very different reasons. And even the guys from superiority complex are not that overstuffed with players...

There is just not a player base on any server that allow any guild to grow endlessly. Even with homepage, teamspeak, guild raids (very funny on a 7 active acount guild, really!), etc. Else all guilds would be 1000 members strong. And now please stay with your big guild and stop talking about things you do not know anything about like playing in small and underleveled struggling startup guilds.

+1

[Tshober]

Okay. Judge for yourself:

yes - it should be possible to loose guild levels because of decay.

Not every guild should be 100 and not every guild should be at the level they are already.

Again, not all guilds should be able to reach level one hundred.

The point is to make it so all guilds can make it to level 100, but not all guilds will.

Because if everyone could do it - what is the actual achievement?

Decay should be a set amount, and that amount should be zero. All guilds should be able to eventually reach level 100.

Who wants guilds to stagnate and be unable to advance and who does not? Who really wants ALL guilds to be able to advance and who does not? Who is clear about it and who is trying to obfuscate?

[Dandonk]

Decay should be a set amount, and that amount should be zero. All guilds should be able to eventually reach level 100.

I couldn't agree more.

[UurlockYgmeov]

I couldn't agree more.

Agree - but what if Turbine doesn't? Since they probably won't?

[Vargouille]

Devs still trying to keep up with this thread.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Devs still trying to keep up with this thread.

Thank you Vargouille for posting - but more importantly for trying to keep up with us busy posters.

Have a lovely day and look forward to hearing more SOON™

[Starla70]

The decay is a issue for our small guild. It seems the more we play the more we loose. This gets frustrating very quickly. However fact is we have lives outside of the game. We were moving pretty well, until these changes, now, since the first of the year, we have made one level, even with 3 to 6 playing daily, weekends it can go to 12 or more. 57 to 80 seems like 2 years away.

[Tshober]

The decay is a issue for our small guild. It seems the more we play the more we loose. This gets frustrating very quickly. However fact is we have lives outside of the game. We were moving pretty well, until these changes, now, since the first of the year, we have made one level, even with 3 to 6 playing daily, weekends it can go to 12 or more. 57 to 80 seems like 2 years away.

Decay is a pain. And, honestly, I have not really heard a convincing reason to justify it. The changes the devs have made should not have increased the decay for your guild, but gaining a level would definitely increase your decay. Decay increases with each guild level. So as your guild advances, your progress slows. For many guilds, it will eventually not just slow but actually stop. For my guild, it stopped at level 61. The change the devs made allowed us to start leveling again. But the change they made only reduced decay for guilds with more than 10 active accounts. If we could convince them to eliminate decay entirely, then the smaller guilds would get the greatest benefit of that change and, even more importantly, all guilds would be able to continue to advance without ever coming to a stop until they reach the highest level.

[Charononus]

Devs still trying to keep up with this thread.

How about an update on how you(Turbine) feels the changes are doing, how you feel the state of guilds are with large and small guilds. Do you(Turbine) feel that additional changes are worth it. What steps you feel might be undertaken if any ext. There have been many suggestions in this thread from the very good to the very horrible and honestly everything that can be said has without further input from you(Turbine).

[UurlockYgmeov]

Suggestion to handle dead guilds that are just cluttering up the data files, consuming server resources and adding to the ship amenity repopulation times after a server restart.


very rough

• Normal decay until 30th day without any logins. At the thirtieth day without a guild login, the modified guild size becomes thirty for purposes of decay. Each successive day the modified size is incremented by one.
• If at any time there is a guild login - then the modified guild size is reset, and so is the timer.
• Timer pauses during server down times greater than 3 hours.
• If guild reaches negative renown and no active members, then the guild is deleted or archived.
• If a guild with no members and negative renown - guild is deleted permanently.
• if a guild with negative renown has a login - renown is reset to zero and guild level is 1
• if guild had a ship - is not lost unless guild is permanently deleted.

A guild of level 100 will take over a year-an-a-half to atrophy until being mothballed, once the process has begun.

By making the system wait until no members to delete permanent - is a guaranteed ?six months? of safety net (game waits that long to delete/archive inactive accounts)

[Charononus]

Suggestion to handle dead guilds that are just cluttering up the data files, consuming server resources and adding to the ship amenity repopulation times after a server restart.


very rough

• Normal decay until 30th day without any logins. At the thirtieth day without a guild login, the modified guild size becomes thirty for purposes of decay. Each successive day the modified size is incremented by one.
• If at any time there is a guild login - then the modified guild size is reset, and so is the timer.
• Timer pauses during server down times greater than 3 hours.
• If guild reaches negative renown and no active members, then the guild is deleted or archived.
• If a guild with no members and negative renown - guild is deleted permanently.
• if a guild with negative renown has a login - renown is reset to zero and guild level is 1
• if guild had a ship - is not lost unless guild is permanently deleted.

A guild of level 100 will take over a year-an-a-half to atrophy until being mothballed, once the process has begun.

By making the system wait until no members to delete permanent - is a guaranteed ?six months? of safety net (game waits that long to delete/archive inactive accounts)

Seems like a solution in search of a problem. Unless turbine says dead guilds eat resources, I think dead guilds are a non-issue, and a derailment of the thread.

[Tychagara]

Seems like a solution in search of a problem. Unless turbine says dead guilds eat resources, I think dead guilds are a non-issue, and a derailment of the thread.

It is a solution to a known issue. All items in code consume resources. Friend of mine went to change name of his guild and spent hours on phone to tech support and they explained just how many dead guilds are out there - thousands. Dead as in no members, no leader and been that way for quite some time, causing many headaches.

Now if something exists, then it consumes resources. common sense. Even if just another tik of server processor time per each while doing daily maintenance; or during a server reboot for repopulating ship amenities.

I like. Simple and elegant, probably could be refined more.

[Tychagara]

Devs still trying to keep up with this thread.

+1

If the Dev's are unwilling to remove decay completely, then Uurlock's plan still the best so far.

[Charononus]

It is a solution to a known issue. All items in code consume resources. Friend of mine went to change name of his guild and spent hours on phone to tech support and they explained just how many dead guilds are out there - thousands. Dead as in no members, no leader and been that way.

Now if something exists - then it consumes resources. common sense. Even if just another tik of server processor time per each while doing daily maintenance; or during a server reboot for repopulating ship amenities.

I like. Simple and elegant, probably could be refined more.

It's a question of scale, putting a feather on my foot increases its weight and makes it take more energy to move. Put a car on my foot and I can't move. Until there is a direct quote from turbine stating otherwise I think dead guilds are a feather.

[Tychagara]

It's a question of scale, putting a feather on my foot increases its weight and makes it take more energy to move. Put a car on my foot and I can't move. Until there is a direct quote from turbine stating otherwise I think dead guilds are a feather.

they will never state it directly, to do so violates internal security.

Still, clean code is happy code; and a compact database is an effecient database. Since there are thousands of dead guilds just cluttering up the database, the database cannot be effecient.

Even if that common sense is not enough for you, then there are many many guilds that would like to change their names to something that is currently occupied by a guild that has been dead for over a year. Since the name is taken, they can't.

[Tychagara]

****

How dare you post such filth!!!!

reported for filth, blantant rudeness, and inappropriate language.

[UurlockYgmeov]

now you understand why that user is on my /squelch list.