Page 4 of 17 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 321
  1. #61
    Community Member gerardIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,150

    Default

    Where is the money?

  2. #62
    Community Member HarveyMilk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    718

    Default

    I think a few posts have hit upon the solution, namely, ensuring marked progress and a reasonable pathway to advance.

    Here's one simple solution: Keep the decay, but make every 5th level safe, sort of like on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, go ahead and try to answer the question, because if you lose now, you'd walk away with how much you've already banked.

    So every 5th level is a plateau level, once you reach it, you will not go down. You're safe. You've achieved it (grats).

    Now, if you want to focus on it, your guild could become more active, and work hard to get to the next plateau. Of course, as someone else suggested, there should be some point where this stops, to give the highest echelons of guild renown the competitive edge it demands... maybe the highest guild level should be 99 instead of 100? Make the level 99 award something AWESOME, something guild characters can wear to show off how uber they are, perhaps?

    With focused effort, every guild should be able to work HARD to get to lvl 95. Higher than that may just be unattainable. And that's just fine, the highest echelons shouldn't be accessible to anyone but the most dedicated.

    But the lower echalons (everything up to 95 I say here, but really any threshold is fine, as long as it's not too low) should be absolutely reachable for guilds willing to put the hard work in. And taking breaks from the game, due to the myriad of reasons that normal people would take a break from a computer game, shouldn't make or break a guild's renown.

    PS- I am in the OP's guild and it is a wonderful kind of mix of people that highlights how DDO's player skill-over-grinded-out-gear gameplay makes it one of, if not the, best MMO's out today. Things like guild renown should be structured in a way that encourages team-work and organization, but doesn't punish when people have to take breaks from the game.

  3. #63
    The Hatchery SHOCK_and_AWE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    The Moon
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HarveyMilk View Post
    ...Here's one simple solution: Keep the decay, but make every 5th level safe, sort of like on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, go ahead and try to answer the question, because if you lose now, you'd walk away with how much you've already banked.

    So every 5th level is a plateau level, once you reach it, you will not go down. You're safe. You've achieved it (grats)...
    This is the best idea I've seen for dealing with guild renown.
    "Freedom is the sovereign right of every American!"
    -Liberty Prime™

  4. #64
    Community Member ka0t1c1sm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Posts
    536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HarveyMilk View Post
    Here's one simple solution: Keep the decay, but make every 5th level safe, sort of like on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, go ahead and try to answer the question, because if you lose now, you'd walk away with how much you've already banked.

    So every 5th level is a plateau level, once you reach it, you will not go down. You're safe. You've achieved it (grats).
    I think this is my favorite idea so far.

    I am the guild leader of level 49 guild, knocking on the door of 50. We have about 170+ accounts, probably less than 50 of those active, with only a handfull of us that play on a nearly daily basis. To this date we have not experienced any notable decay and are slowly but steadily progressing.

    I think for us, the expectations for this guild were set from the beginning, even before the renown system was implemented. We are a casual guild for casual players and will remain that way. If that means our guild level will never progress beyond a certain point due to renown decay, then so be it. Everyone knows that when they decide to join. I, nor any of our officers, have ever booted (and will ever boot) a guild member for not being an active player. They will always have a home in our guild regardless of how long they may be absent. We have some accounts that are getting close to 2 years of inactivity. But, should that person decide to log back in, they will have a guild and an airship and friends to group with when they do.

    I can agree with both sides of the discussion and I see both the drawbacks and the necessity behind the decay system.

    I love the idea of every 5th level being a safe plateau that you cannot regress below. Definitely /signed to that idea and +1 to you good sir.

    Edited because I don't like typos.
    Last edited by ka0t1c1sm; 11-06-2011 at 03:53 PM.
    Morgulion Romenion Zandrine Zeldaryne The Order of Cygnus Sarlona
    Quote Originally Posted by BitkaCK2
    There are no bugs in this game, only unintended features.

  5. #65
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karranor View Post
    The only reason we have hit the "cap" is because we are nice enough not to boot players that don't play 10 hours a week or more. Why should that then cap us? Should we be "rewarded" by booting out someone who is serving in Afghanistan and can only play once every couple of weeks? Should we be "rewarded" by booting someone who is in the hospital? Should we be "rewarded" by booting a college student that is studying for finals? Absolutely not.

    I would accept the "guild cap" argument if everyone played the exact same amount of time in the guild. If they did the exact same thing all the time then it may work out. But the fact of the matter is everyone plays for different reasons and plays a different amount of time and this guild decay system punishes that. Simple as that.

    I see where people are trying to be elitists with this guild renown system. Without decay or not you will still be elite. You will have more completionists, you will have more epic gear, you will have more money, you will have more because you play more. That is the mechanic that allows you to be uber.

    The base guild renown mechanic should not, in any way, punish a guild and its players for playing the game. Whether they are playing for 2 hours a month or 20 hours a day.

    As stated before but I want remind. I'm not asking for extra favors or to lower the XP to get to Level 100. I'm asking to not be punished by allowing part time players and casual players in my guild.

    When level 60 is taken away, everyday, for three weeks in a row. That is punishment. We get on, we take renown instead of loot we could use to get us to level 60. The next day decay takes that away. That is completely demoralizing and frustrating. I'm not asking to be granted 60, we EARNED 60! We earned it everyday for almost a month and it was taken away the very next day. That is not right. That feels very much like a punishment to my players and my guild for playing the game.

    And to those that are "happy" to have 25th be there cap I am sorry for them. Why should a group of 4 real life friends that want to have a RP guild have to be stuck at 25? Why should they not have the opportunity to build a guild ship up to 100? I think they should. I think that every player and every guild should have a chance to hit the top. It will still take them much longer. But they will still feel that they are progressing in the game.

    When it boils right down to the basics of game play. The main purpose most players play for is to advance in some way. Through gear, levels and even exploring it all. When you throw an artificial wall in front of a players advancement it takes away from that players fun and gaming experience. Do it to a guild and it takes away the fun to the whole gorup. Taking the fun out of the game directly equals pushing players out of the game. There is simply too many other games out there and when people feel the fun is gone, so will they.

    I'm trying to stop that because I have seen this mechanic over the last year do just that. I love this game and I want it to be better. I think removing guild renown decay will do just that.
    See what your really saying then is you need to be in a different MMO that works the way you think it should.

    A good example would be city of heroes maybe the best MMO for social gameplay and working as a team. Its Super Group systen functions alot like how you want it to. Even a single player can eventually through time and effort aquire as good a super base as anyone else no matter how big a group they may have and some there have truly huge groups.

    The difference is that in CoH the bonuses that come from the base buffs are very minor and far different from XP boosts or superior Resistances that can for low lvl players make content so trivial as to be truly game breaking. here on DDO. High lvl guilds are in fact meant to be for groups of high lvl players who tend to fit the description of power gamer here, they infact almost even NEED the ship Buffs.

    If your guild values friendship you forsake needless power, if you put power first then accept that is YOUR CHOICE AND DEFINES YOU and live with it.

    Or you know accept DDO is clearly not working out for you and move on to another MMO like I mentioned above that will mesh more with your personal wants.

  6. #66
    The Motivator Karranor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    http://www.ddmsrealm.com/
    Posts
    946

    Default

    I would rather not move onto another MMO. DDO rocks and I have been a fan from the start. The recent addition of guild stuff is great but the renown decay is terrible. If I didn't love this game I wouldn't put the effort into the game, the guild, DDM's Realm, this post, or the myriad of other things I have spoken up about in this game.

    I don't think "go to a different game" is any kind of solution at all. That just means give up and do something else. I love this game and I want to see it get better. This is the only mechanic in the game that forces you to play or LOSE what you have gained.

    Everything else in the game you keep when you earn it. XP, loot, raid flags... everything except guild renown. Why should guild renown be different?
    • Should you lose your raid flag if you do not run the raid every week?
    • Should you lose XP and your level because you decided to work on crafting instead of questing?
    • Should you lose your gear if you do not equip it every 3 days?
    • Should House Favor go away if you don't do any House P quests in a month?
    • Should you lose access to Gianthold if you have not done a quest there in 14 days?
    • Should your guild lose XP it earned during the Holidays when people are visiting family?

    The answer is NO.

    The argument that only a certain kind of guild/player should get the best fall flat and are very bad for this game. They are bad for any game.

    I think it is fundamentally wrong to say that only some players deserve the best of what a game has to offer. Every player, no matter how big or small should have access to the best. The difference is power gamers will have more of the best, not be the only ones with the best.

    I know I am not the only one struggling with this. I know we aren't the only guild fighting this.

    To turn around after 5 years building a game for everyone and then turn around and say only a certain group of power players get access to the best, while the rest of the gaming population doesn't is not right.

    It will drive people away. It has already driven many away. If this silly mechanic is stopped it will dramatically increase moral in DDO. The power players will still be the first to the top but even that small guild of a few dedicated players still get the chance to get there some day.

    Lastly, to classify the guild buffs and benefits as needless or pointless is far from what they really are. You don't need to have equipment or spells to enter a quest either. No, you don't have to have them to go into a quest, but they are incredibly beneficial. Let's not forget about the guild gear as well. I am continually reminded of this on Lammania with I suddenly have a pile of unusable gear. Those guild slots can make a difference.
    Quest walkthroughs, guides and more on DDM's Realm --> www.ddmsrealm.com - Guides, Tips, and Quest/Magic Item Database! Details here!
    Twitter: @DDMs_Realm
    ~ Like DDM's Realm on Facebook

    The Fyxt RPG system is a static universal tabletop RPG rule set! Play the Fyxt RPG now for free!

    Play Smarter, Not Harder! ~ Karranor

  7. #67
    Community Member Ungood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    7,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karranor View Post
    I know I am not the only one struggling with this. I know we aren't the only guild fighting this.
    That is true. You are not alone. Don't listen to the people that try to brow beat you or tell you, you are wrong. You are not wrong, nor are you the only one that has an issue with Renown Decay.

    To turn around after 5 years building a game for everyone and then turn around and say only a certain group of power players get access to the best, while the rest of the gaming population doesn't is not right.
    True this!

    No one wants to settle for level 50th, they my realize that is as high as they can get, but no one is happy with this, it is discouraging, not encouraging.

  8. #68
    Community Member Calebro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    In a van down by the river
    Posts
    5,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ungood View Post
    Don't listen to the people that try to brow beat you or tell you, you are wrong. You are not wrong.
    This, as with everything else in this thread, is a matter of opinion.
    .

  9. #69
    Community Member Aaxeyu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,836

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanquishedfo View Post
    See what your really saying then is you need to be in a different MMO that works the way you think it should.
    So if anyone dislike anything in DDO they should leave? Well that's ridiculous.
    Asking for things to change to the better is a good thing. Telling them to find another game is not.

    Saying that "it should stay as it is because that's the way it is" is silly. If you even consider that argument you know you have lost.

  10. #70
    Time Bandit
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,028

    Default

    I don't feel like rehashing out what I've already said before on it. Suffice it to say if you feel like getting a better idea about renown you can search for my posts about it, as well as other stuff like here. In fact I even predicted somewhere along the line that people would start complaining about renown decay when they start hitting their limit and the guild level stops advancing, without really understanding why it's in place, except I'm too lazy to dig up the link now.

    But anyway, there seems to be two main complaints:

    1. We want better stuff. But we don't want to work for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Karranor View Post
    We are a founders guild that strives to be a casual, no drama adult gaming guild. Our members range from college students to parents of college students. We have no playing requirements and we play all of the content in the game. This allows for a wide variety of players and different playing styles.

    ...

    Dungeons and Dragons Online players should never be punished for not playing the game. Period.

    We should not be penalized for having real life commitments. The game should fit into our lives, our online friends welcoming us in to play, regardless of our level of time commitment.
    Quote Originally Posted by Karranor View Post
    The only reason we have hit the "cap" is because we are nice enough not to boot players that don't play 10 hours a week or more. Why should that then cap us? Should we be "rewarded" by booting out someone who is serving in Afghanistan and can only play once every couple of weeks? Should we be "rewarded" by booting someone who is in the hospital? Should we be "rewarded" by booting a college student that is studying for finals? Absolutely not.

    I would accept the "guild cap" argument if everyone played the exact same amount of time in the guild. If they did the exact same thing all the time then it may work out. But the fact of the matter is everyone plays for different reasons and plays a different amount of time and this guild decay system punishes that. Simple as that.

    The base guild renown mechanic should not, in any way, punish a guild and its players for playing the game. Whether they are playing for 2 hours a month or 20 hours a day.

    As stated before but I want remind. I'm not asking for extra favors or to lower the XP to get to Level 100. I'm asking to not be punished by allowing part time players and casual players in my guild.

    ...

    And to those that are "happy" to have 25th be there cap I am sorry for them. Why should a group of 4 real life friends that want to have a RP guild have to be stuck at 25? Why should they not have the opportunity to build a guild ship up to 100? I think they should. I think that every player and every guild should have a chance to hit the top. It will still take them much longer. But they will still feel that they are progressing in the game.
    I'm not quite sure how it's supposed to make logical sense. Saying not having something is "punishment" makes sense only if you assume it should be given automatically, whether you work for it or not. I don't assume not getting straight A's to be "punishment" if I didn't work at an A-level in my classes. I do assume getting my driver's license taken away, if I didn't maintain a good driving record (i.e. "working for it"), to be punishment (yeah yeah, privilege vs right and all that). Yet here the argument is that people who don't play the game much should still freely get the benefits.

    Stuff like not losing character XP when you don't play for a few months is trotted out, for why there shouldn't be a decay. But this loses sight of that if you don't play a character for a long time, that character will get outdated because the game is continually changing, not to mention that level 20 is no longer the apex of character development in this game; now it's TRs and the newest gear. A character from a few years ago who was level 20 and had the best gear back then would be considered mediocre now; not only are there TRs now, but the top-of-the-line DR-breakers has changed from Min2 GS to +5 holy burst of greater bane, there is now epic gear (ESoS, claw set, etc.), new prestige enhancements and changes to them resulting in different "good" builds (for example, changing from 18 ranger / 1 other / 1 other to 12 ranger / 7 fighter/rogue / 1 other), and so forth. In fact, I would expect that any game business would find reasons to keep people playing and continuing to put in time, specifically by obsoleting previous and current player progress. The decay system simply makes it explicit, rather than implicitly through the release of new packs and changes to game mechanics.

    In short, the idea that guild renown shouldn't decay -- that a level 80 guild two years ago (if the renown system had been in place back then) should still be level 80 now and enjoy the same benefits, even with no one putting effort and pulling renown the past few years -- is functionally equivalent to the idea that a decked-out level 20 that hasn't logged in for the past 2 years should automatically be given the current top-of-the-line gear like ESoS, +5 holy burst of greater bane, epic gear, etc. upon logging in.

    Add to that the guild happily proclaims that it's "casual" and "no playing requirements" and yet at level 62 is already in the top 1% or so of all guilds by renown, and complaining that it's too hard to maintain its level. Yet doesn't advance any reason for why a self-proclaimed casual guild with lots of inactives should be in the top 1% in the first place, and is now complaining about how hard it is to maintain its level.

    Quote Originally Posted by Karranor View Post
    The argument that only a certain kind of guild/player should get the best fall flat and are very bad for this game. They are bad for any game.

    I think it is fundamentally wrong to say that only some players deserve the best of what a game has to offer. Every player, no matter how big or small should have access to the best. The difference is power gamers will have more of the best, not be the only ones with the best.
    Really. So the flip side of the argument that "only a certain kind of guild/player should get the best" is "any kind of guild/player should get the best". You are arguing that any newbie, any casual, any random player in the game should get the best stuff in the game, as an argument for why renown decay is bad? That it's fundamentally wrong to say that only some players (i.e. those who are the most dedicated and work the hardest toward something) deserve the best?

    Do you argue this position in any other aspect of real life? That it is fundamentally wrong for only some employees (the most hard-working ones) to get promoted and get raises? That it is fundamentally wrong for only some students to get A's? That it is fundamentally wrong for only some companies to make a profit? I'm not sure what your last sentence is supposed to mean (is "more of the best" not better than "the best", but therefore "the best" is not really "best"?) as there seems to be some semantical issues there.

    2. It's the system's fault that I have to choose between my friends and my ambitions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Karranor View Post
    Our guild has recently begun struggling with instituting rules or policies to address these problems. The only solution seems to be booting player from the guild if they do not reach a certain minimum play time along with mandating players to take Renown for rewards.
    This is sort of an attractive argument, because duh, the system is the one with renown decay. But this obscures the fact that it is you making the choice. I do not blame God or Nature or whatever you may believe in for my dental problems, because it is my own choices and actions that affect how well my teeth are maintained. If I get a cavity, I do not then shake my fist at God (or whatever you believe etc.) and say "it's your fault for creating tooth decay!" because God (etc.) created the choices for me, and I am the one who chooses. Either I take the time to maintain my teeth properly and reap the benefits or I neglect my teeth and suffer the consequences. Blaming "the system" obscures the fact that your own actions affect the outcome. "The system" gives you different alternatives, sure, but you are the one choosing between the alternatives. If you choose to establish minimum play time requirements to increase or maintain a guild level, that is your own choice to make. If you're serious that:

    Quote Originally Posted by Karranor View Post
    To say that we need change our entire outlook as a guild, that has been running together in one form or another for over 10 years, is not going to happen. We aren't changing our ways, we will change games if that is the only choice. We love who we are. We are all friends in game and real life. We allow people to have lives outside of the game and our one true goal is to have fun. In DOA its OK to log in once a month when you get a change. It's OK to raid or not. It's ok to play how you want to play just because we all want the chance to hang out with friends and have fun. The decay systems in erroding that fun and testing friendships because we do have different styles and goals. That should be OK.
    then why is renown decay and getting more guild levels such a big deal? This is arguing both sides of the issue here, saying that your "one true goal" is to have fun but then causing strife by implementing activity policies for your guild to see bigger guild numbers. You are making the choice as to whether you value having those friends in the same guild or getting a few more guild levels. In doing so, you are the one choosing the outcome, not Turbine.

    (As an aside, I notice this a lot; quite oftentimes, it is usually guild leaders and officers that want to see higher guild levels for their guild, while the average guild member doesn't care so much. Except in fairly small guilds where the leader/officers make up a substantial proportion, how quickly the guild actually levels will already depend largely on how much effort the average member puts in to the renown system. So if a guild isn't leveling as fast as a a guild leader wants, it's already a clue to an astute guild leader regarding their own ambitions for the guild versus what the average guild member actually wants and is willing to do. In many ways it's not unlike the CEO of a company just wanting to maximize profits and the company's bottom line while the average employee just wants a paycheck.)

    Blaming the system obscures a more fundamental issue, that your own interests may not match up with others in your guild. To give a car analogy, you would like a Ferrari (who doesn't) and is willing to put in the time to earn money to make one, while your spouse isn't willing to commit the time to earn one and would be fine with a Toyota. This only causes friction if neither side is willing to compromise, and now you're blaming the car dealer for not being willing to give a Ferrari for a (Ferrari + Toyota)/2 price, since he's only willing to offer a Ferrota for the price. To wit:

    Quote Originally Posted by Karranor View Post
    I am disturbed and frustrated that this game even has me considering booting a good friend from the guild because they can't play as much as DDO says they should. My friends with new babies, sick families, college finals, or any other thing going on should not be penalized for being responsible adults!
    You are the one putting requirements on how much a guild member "should" be playing, not the game. The game only sets up the conditions; you are the one making the choice. It's a nice shift of responsibility to claim otherwise, but ultimately, it's your choice as guild leader, not the game's.


    I think the fundamental issue with the guild renown decay system is that it's too progressive. There's virtually no decay early on, and then it ramps up very quickly, so guilds don't know what hit them when it starts ramping up. Most systems in the game are quadratic, that is, they scale as lvl^2. For example, character XP (1st lifes) is quadratic, and crafting XP is quadratic. Yet the renown needed to reach a guild level is cubic (scale as lvl^3), and the decay the guild sees is quintic (scales as lvl^5). If you took these different systems, normalized them to be between 0 and 1 for both the level and the XP (or level-based multiplier for renown decay), it looks like:



    You can see that for a first-life character XP it ramps up the least. When you are halfway to level 20 in terms of ranks (rank 48), you are 25.5% of the way to level 20 in terms of XP. For a multiple TR, being halfway through rank-wise is 18.5% of the way there -- so yeah, it's pretty slow going at the higher levels. But a guild that's level 50 is ostensibly halfway through the guild levels, but by guild renown, it is only 12.5% of the way there (6250k renown out of 50000k total). And in terms of decay, at level 50 the level-based part is 93.75 (representing about 2 heroic deeds per account per day), which is less than 3% of its eventual maximum of 3375 (representing about 3.5 legendaries per account per day). The guild system is set up to be so progressive that quite a few (large) guilds will fly through the lower levels -- then be completely unprepared for when decay starts hitting them at the higher levels. Because large guilds level so quickly, this becomes a big shock to the guild; small guilds do not have such a dramatic shock because the leveling is so slow for the most part anyway.

    The solution? Probably to make it less progressive, but making it less progressive means either to decrease the decay at the higher levels or to increase the decay at lower levels (so it resembles the other curves more). Unfortunately, the number of guilds at the higher levels shows that it is perfectly feasible for players to reach those renown/day amounts necessary (i.e. that it's not too "high" or difficult), while I'm sure everyone would complain about renown decay being higher at the level 40s and 50s, although it would be in order to acclimate people to decay being a significant factor at the later levels specifically to decrease these kinds of "shock" complaints.

    Quote Originally Posted by herzkos View Post
    well off the beaten track:
    I would prefer to see the decay go away totally.
    In conjunction with this, I would change the purchase mechanism for buffs.
    You want a greater fire resist shrine, ok, that'll be 30000 renown to purchase it.
    you want a altar of "whatever", thats 20k renown.
    you want to upgrade to a Windspyre "dreadnaught" with 25 hookpoints? no problem sir
    that'll be 200 mil renown.
    Intriguing idea -- but that's what renown decay already is. If you want to be able to purchase those buffs, it "costs" you that much renown that members have to earn, to get it. So if you're level 50 (level-based multiplier of 93.75), each account in your guild on average has to get around 2 heroic deeds per day as the price of being able to purchase level 50 and below buffs. The difference would be whether you intended for it to be permanent (i.e. once you buy a greater fire resist shrine, it never goes away) or for there to be an upkeep.

  11. #71
    The Hatchery BrightAsh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    488

    Default

    If guild renown decay is affecting your relationships and real life friendships... You've got your priority's all wrong
    Thelanis: Botar, Klogar, Saludar, Shantarr, Karygon

  12. #72
    Community Member Aaxeyu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,836

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanshilar View Post
    I'm not quite sure how it's supposed to make logical sense. Saying not having something is "punishment" makes sense only if you assume it should be given automatically, whether you work for it or not. I don't assume not getting straight A's to be "punishment" if I didn't work at an A-level in my classes. I do assume getting my driver's license taken away, if I didn't maintain a good driving record (i.e. "working for it"), to be punishment (yeah yeah, privilege vs right and all that). Yet here the argument is that people who don't play the game much should still freely get the benefits.
    My opinion, and also how I understand the OP, is very different from that.
    No one is asking to get everything for free, just that if I invest 100 hours into the game over 6 months it should yield the same results as doing it over 1 month.
    Those who play less are punished.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanshilar View Post
    Stuff like not losing character XP when you don't play for a few months is trotted out, for why there shouldn't be a decay. But this loses sight of that if you don't play a character for a long time, that character will get outdated because the game is continually changing, not to mention that level 20 is no longer the apex of character development in this game; now it's TRs and the newest gear. A character from a few years ago who was level 20 and had the best gear back then would be considered mediocre now; not only are there TRs now, but the top-of-the-line DR-breakers has changed from Min2 GS to +5 holy burst of greater bane, there is now epic gear (ESoS, claw set, etc.), new prestige enhancements and changes to them resulting in different "good" builds (for example, changing from 18 ranger / 1 other / 1 other to 12 ranger / 7 fighter/rogue / 1 other), and so forth. In fact, I would expect that any game business would find reasons to keep people playing and continuing to put in time, specifically by obsoleting previous and current player progress. The decay system simply makes it explicit, rather than implicitly through the release of new packs and changes to game mechanics.

    In short, the idea that guild renown shouldn't decay -- that a level 80 guild two years ago (if the renown system had been in place back then) should still be level 80 now and enjoy the same benefits, even with no one putting effort and pulling renown the past few years -- is functionally equivalent to the idea that a decked-out level 20 that hasn't logged in for the past 2 years should automatically be given the current top-of-the-line gear like ESoS, +5 holy burst of greater bane, epic gear, etc. upon logging in.
    They could add new guild rewards.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanshilar View Post
    Add to that the guild happily proclaims that it's "casual" and "no playing requirements" and yet at level 62 is already in the top 1% or so of all guilds by renown, and complaining that it's too hard to maintain its level. Yet doesn't advance any reason for why a self-proclaimed casual guild with lots of inactives should be in the top 1% in the first place, and is now complaining about how hard it is to maintain its level.



    Really. So the flip side of the argument that "only a certain kind of guild/player should get the best" is "any kind of guild/player should get the best". You are arguing that any newbie, any casual, any random player in the game should get the best stuff in the game, as an argument for why renown decay is bad? That it's fundamentally wrong to say that only some players (i.e. those who are the most dedicated and work the hardest toward something) deserve the best?
    Again, if you do the same amount of work (IE gather the same amount of renown), only one takes longer to do it I don't think he should be punished.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanshilar View Post
    2. It's the system's fault that I have to choose between my friends and my ambitions.
    Just because it's your choice doesn't mean it's good. You are avoiding facing the real problem.
    That the game even asks you to make such a choice is really really bad.
    What good does it bring?

    Comments like: "don't blaim the system", why not blame the system? The system can easily change. You can't argue that the system should not change "because it's the system, don't blaim it, blame yourself".

  13. #73
    Community Member Luis_Velderve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Sembia now all over the place
    Posts
    345

    Default

    I do not like GR my reasons are similar of those of the OP.I think the only solution for everybody is to stop GR decay once you hit 100 lvl . Until that survive if you can but having a reward that finally stops decay will focus and motivate everyone to work harder.

    Playing Black Jack with a shoe brings more players than playing it with an automatic shuffler because cards will end and you can have a smoke brake.
    Last edited by Luis_Velderve; 11-07-2011 at 07:07 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by justagame View Post
    I assume you're joking.

    (But just in case you're not, posts like this don't help, don't pretend to speak for others.)

  14. #74
    The Motivator Karranor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    http://www.ddmsrealm.com/
    Posts
    946

    Default

    Precisely. I'm not saying I am not willing to work for it. I'm not saying I want something foro free.

    Is what I am saying is I have worked for it. I have gained it. But because of the renown decay system it has been taken away.

    If it takes 40 hours of game time to get to Guild Level 40. Why should someone who plays 40 hours a week get level 40 but the person that plays 40 hours a month, NOT get it? We both played the same amount of time. We both put the same effort into it. Why should this be different?

    You're assuming that we don't work hard and play hard. You're assuming I'm asking for something I have not earned. That is absolutely not the case. We have worked and earned it but because of some arbitrary time limit it is then taken away. That isn't right.
    Quest walkthroughs, guides and more on DDM's Realm --> www.ddmsrealm.com - Guides, Tips, and Quest/Magic Item Database! Details here!
    Twitter: @DDMs_Realm
    ~ Like DDM's Realm on Facebook

    The Fyxt RPG system is a static universal tabletop RPG rule set! Play the Fyxt RPG now for free!

    Play Smarter, Not Harder! ~ Karranor

  15. #75
    The Hatchery Urist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HarveyMilk View Post
    Here's one simple solution: Keep the decay, but make every 5th level safe, sort of like on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, go ahead and try to answer the question, because if you lose now, you'd walk away with how much you've already banked.

    So every 5th level is a plateau level, once you reach it, you will not go down. You're safe. You've achieved it (grats).
    The problem I see with this is that it will result in a situation where groups of a few hardcore players can get their guild to level 95, and then invite all and sundry to the guild because; why not? So then the game ends up with a handful of level 95 guilds with 1000s of members (free uber-buffs all round!).
    Furthermore, little would improve for any guild which doesn't have the ability to get to level 95 (they reach their soft cap at 63, for example), and they will surely only wind up losing players to one of the level 95 guilds, where players can get better buffs without having to expend any effort.
    So the end result would likely be the handful of level 95 guilds, a plethora of single-man or family guilds, and a few mid-level guilds which haven't caught on to how the system works yet.

  16. #76
    Hero
    Knight of Movember
    2014 DDO Players Council
    Hafeal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    at a keyboard
    Posts
    5,560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanquishedfo View Post
    The fact is Renown decay is a needed evil because the guild ship buffs are very substantial and meant as a carrot to help encourage the small and most isolated elite community together.
    Ah, to benefit the few at the expense of the masses! But really, guild buffs should NOT be necessary - but, in fact, I agree with you, many groups make them 'mandatory.' HOWEVER, as has been stated, if you have put the work in, taken the time and selected the end rewards, they should not be taken away from you.

    Your individual 'favor' rewards do not decay, neither should your guild renown.

    Quote Originally Posted by AtomicMew View Post
    The alternatives of no decay would lead to 1) the ability to trivially reach level 100 or 2) having Turbine implement a colossal extended grind to keep people interested (cf TR/completionist) . Maybe decay could be tweaked a little to be more fair, but the concept absolutely needs to be there.
    Eh? Trivially reach 100? Even without decay, the amount of renown needed to get to 100 is far from trivial. You are talking a year or more of play as the amount you need scales with the size.

    Quote Originally Posted by AtomicMew View Post
    It rewards active play and not simply how long you've been playing.
    It rewards selective components of play. It does not reward you for any participation in the game besides being in quests. Further it is random chance as to the reward when it is granted and forces you to choose favor before game items. Bad design in my book. I do not want my play experience to be dictated by grinding quests zerg style in order to randomly earn renown. At least with the normal 'favor' their is a model in place, which is why I really like a concept like Urists (quoted at the end of this post).

    Quote Originally Posted by AtomicMew View Post
    The only reason new guilds can pop up and surpass older guilds is due to the fact that older guilds have experienced more decay. This needs to be possible, otherwise it'll just lead to stagnation and elitism based on how long a guild has been around.
    Huh? Are you saying big guilds have become old, slow and inactive?

    To me the elitism has occurred in a system of renown which has encouraged 'elite' or 'power gaming' players to abandon guild relationships to form small guilds to take "advantage' of the system which makes it easier for smaller guilds to get to level 100.

    As I stated before, the current system has too many anti-social ramifications, which has been a repeated theme in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by AtomicMew View Post
    Guild level should approximate how active and how skilled a guild actually is, not how long it's been around and not how many people you can recruit out of korthos.
    How skilled? Really? Since when has random chance = skill? Further, the current system does exactly what you disdain - it rewards people who grind quests the most; please do not necessarily confuse that for skill.

    Quote Originally Posted by Urist View Post
    Why is this in the "Fansite News" forum?

    Suggestion: Replace guild renown with guild favour.
    Whenever a guild member does something which is worth favour (ie. complete a quest), their guild gets an equivalent amount of favour. This includes things which would not increase a character's favour, such as running a quest for which the favour has already been granted.
    So a character does a quest on hard, gets 6 Coin Lords favour, and the guild gets 60 (or whatever) favour. Then the character does the same quest again on normal, gets no additional favour themselves, but their guild gets 40 favour.
    The guild favour could be either generic, or specific (Coin Lords, Jorasco, Twelve, etc.). If specific, then each ship amenity probably needs to be assigned to a faction (though a lot of them already name a faction, so it shouldn't be that hard). Though some more permanent perks (like new ships) could come from total favour gained, as happens with total character favour.

    Then we get to decay, which would come from factions doing the guild favours in return. That is; Having a banker on your ship is a significant favour from House Kundarak, so their continued assignment aboard would gradually use up your accumulated good-will with the house (so much favour lost per day/week/whatever).
    Though players may grow to resent certain factions, if the quests aren't there (or are too tedious) to support that faction's amenities.

    Remove "u"s to taste.
    Last edited by Hafeal; 11-07-2011 at 11:46 AM. Reason: fomatting, extra text deleted
    Gamma Tester, Dungeons & Dragons Online
    Beta Tester, DDO: Eberron Unlimited
    Alpha Tester, DDO: Stormreach

  17. #77
    The Hatchery Barazon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Wherever I go
    Posts
    582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Urist View Post
    The problem I see with this is that it will result in a situation where groups of a few hardcore players can get their guild to level 95, and then invite all and sundry to the guild because; why not? So then the game ends up with a handful of level 95 guilds with 1000s of members (free uber-buffs all round!).
    Furthermore, little would improve for any guild which doesn't have the ability to get to level 95 (they reach their soft cap at 63, for example), and they will surely only wind up losing players to one of the level 95 guilds, where players can get better buffs without having to expend any effort.
    So the end result would likely be the handful of level 95 guilds, a plethora of single-man or family guilds, and a few mid-level guilds which haven't caught on to how the system works yet.
    This ignores the fact that there are other reasons to invite or not invite people to a guild. No matter whether guild level decays or not, I don't want to be in a guild full of poor players who give our entire guild a bad name. I don't want players who are racist, abusive, etc, etc, etc. Any guild's leadership will still determine who they want to associate with, and if someone wants to have a "we invite anyone because they generate renown" policy, then the guild will become known for that. There was a guild on Khyber that adopted that policy (alas, I do not have a gravestone on which to write about the memory of the deceased), and their name became synonymous with "poor player".

  18. #78
    Community Member Calebro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    In a van down by the river
    Posts
    5,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barazon View Post
    This ignores the fact that there are other reasons to invite or not invite people to a guild. No matter whether guild level decays or not, I don't want to be in a guild full of poor players who give our entire guild a bad name. I don't want players who are racist, abusive, etc, etc, etc. Any guild's leadership will still determine who they want to associate with, and if someone wants to have a "we invite anyone because they generate renown" policy, then the guild will become known for that. There was a guild on Khyber that adopted that policy (alas, I do not have a gravestone on which to write about the memory of the deceased), and their name became synonymous with "poor player".
    Exactly this.
    I wouldn't be opposed to the concept of offering a few static levels, where once you reached them you could not degrade below, but I certainly think that every five levels is far too often for that to happen. More like every twenty levels sounds better, excluding level 100.
    So 20, 40, 60 & 80 sounds about right to me.

    The large guilds that don't care about their recruitment policies, and the really large guilds that do, will have a tough time getting to 80, or in some cases 60. Only the very dedicated will have a shot at 100.
    By the effort it took to get there, hopefully these guilds will recognize that completely opening their doors at that point would actually hurt the guild more than help it. So I don't see the issue he spoke of being a large one, and in the few cases where it does happen it's quite obvious.... and quite detrimental to the guilds' reputation.
    .

  19. #79
    Community Member Ungood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    7,154

    Default

    For the Record I was against Renown Decay from Day One, upon it's implementation, I am still against today, even tho my guild continues to grow. I think renown decay is stupid mechanic that offers nothing to the game in the sense of making it enjoyable for the player base. I firmly believe that it is probably one of the dumbest things Turbine has done to date (barring putting in things that were horribly busted)

    But to clear up a point: Yes. Guild renown decay is a Punishment, in many forms and in every way players do not like to be punished.

    Would players like to loose their loot over time? Would they like to loose their Exp? How about their Epic Tokens? Why not have everything decay?

    Oh right. Because, players would have a hissy fit to have to give up what they earned.

    First and Foremost: Renown is Earned. In the same way Adventuring EXP must be earned, or crafting Exp must be sought after, Renown is no different in that department. It is not a freebie provided by Turbine to everyone, no matter what they do. It is provided after accomplishing things, typically killing mobs.

    Secondly: Renown is Loot: The very choice to take a Renown Reward places Renown into the Loot Category. Anyone want to start having their loot just vanish on them? You may not keep it in your inventory any more, like a used Tome. but it was taken as a Loot Reward.

    Third: Plateauing a Guild: This has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard of, ever. The Game designers thought it would be a good idea to make people have to choose between getting a game reward or keeping casual playing friends? Really? Kick my Friend or Do without? What kind of Game Designer thinks its' a good idea to make players make that Choice?

    DDO Was Great, because up till renown decay, it did not matter if you could only play one day a week or every day, everything was obtainable to you with time and effort. No gear, level, or reward was denied to any player at all, regardless of how much or little they played. That is good Game Design.

    Renown Decay, pretty much anyone who has really looked at it realizes that it is just poorly thought out stop-gap to keep power games playing and farming.

    Thus The Real question is not "is Renown Decay a Good thing?", but "How long will it be before it will have served its purpose of creating grind for the sake of grind" or put another way "How long before it starts to do harm to the general gaming population and removed out of Necessity"
    Last edited by Ungood; 11-07-2011 at 02:06 PM.

  20. #80
    Community Member herzkos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,404

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanshilar View Post
    /snip for brevity sake

    Intriguing idea -- but that's what renown decay already is. If you want to be able to purchase those buffs, it "costs" you that much renown that members have to earn, to get it. So if you're level 50 (level-based multiplier of 93.75), each account in your guild on average has to get around 2 heroic deeds per day as the price of being able to purchase level 50 and below buffs. The difference would be whether you intended for it to be permanent (i.e. once you buy a greater fire resist shrine, it never goes away) or for there to be an upkeep.
    that is correct as far you inferred.
    /edit for clarity
    In my view, renown should be changed from a total like favor to a commodity more like plat.
    you're exchanging your fame and respect for goods or services (depending on the buff).
    /end edit.
    In my theory the length of time for the buff purchased would be the same
    as it is now or around two weeks if that time was different.
    The main difference between my idea and the current implementation would be that guild "levels" wouldn't matter
    for the purchasing of buffs. A guild would no longer need to be level 93 to have a non-store bought major
    experience shrine. A level 20 guild could purchase it with (as an example) 93k renown.
    A level 12 guild could purchase a greater electric resist shrine (currently level 59 required) for 59k renown.
    Sure purchasing the shrine could drop the level 12 guild down to level 7 or lower, but at least they would be
    able to run the harbor elite with the same benefit as a level 59 guild.
    I went with 10K * current guild level required just for an example.
    The upkeep/renewal is a different matter. my intial thought is to just have the guild re-purchase it but
    now that i think about it, a 50% cost reduction for maintaining might be a better plan.
    like I said in my initial post, that would be a matter for the devs/turbine to figure out. I do not have
    access to all the info that they do about guild renown gained vs guild size.

    combined with the removal of the renown decay mechanic, the most active guilds would still have a higher guild
    level whilst the others would still have access to the same buffs without having to boot their casual playing
    friends and dedicate themselves to the renown grind to the exclusion of fun.
    Last edited by herzkos; 11-07-2011 at 02:16 PM.
    The Office of the Exchequer. 1750 on all live servers via Pure pugging. Thank you very much to all who helped carry a gimp . (wayfinder was a soloist build)


Page 4 of 17 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload