Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 6121314151617 LastLast
Results 301 to 320 of 321
  1. #301
    The Hatchery SHOCK_and_AWE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    The Moon


    I still think that the best solution is a checkpoint system - once you get to level 55, you can't decay down past 55. Once you get to level 60, you can't decay down past 60, and so on. That way it still requires an active and dedicated guild to get to high levels but a guild isn't really "punished" if/when players slow down their efforts.
    "Freedom is the sovereign right of every American!"
    -Liberty Prime™

  2. #302
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010


    Quote Originally Posted by Ungood View Post
    It takes 50 million Renown to get to 100.

    If you had a 100 person guild, each player would have to earn, 500,000 Renown.

    A guild of 10 players, and that is 5 Million Renown.

    That is no meager Trophy Pull difference.
    I was talking about renown decay per account per day. 50 million renown is not the renown required to get your guild to level 100.

    It is 50 million + decay for each day, but the 100 man guild is going to require a considerable amount more renown to achieve 100 then a smaller guild.
    Last edited by IWZincedge; 02-09-2012 at 11:25 AM.

  3. #303
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010


    Quote Originally Posted by Gorbadoc View Post
    1.47 million pre-bonus. With 10 members, all renown gains are increased 240%. The difference between the 10 member guild and the 100 member guild is still nearly a factor of three. I assume the point of all this ****ering is to unearth what's actually going on, though; proving McFlay wrong is a secondary consequence, so there's no need to exaggerate his wrongness.
    It's not that your proving me wrong, its just that you need a more complete understanding to be on my level.

    I already replied to you last thread how you neglect to take decay into account, so what do you do, come up with another meaningless post in which you neglect to take decay into account.

    When you can do this then you'll understand why larger guilds, like I already stated for you, can both level faster, but decay harder, which is why its generally members of large guilds who get raped by decay and not small guilds.

    There were people earlier in the thread complaining their guild lost 3 levels during the mabar festival. Losing that much renown in a small guild in that amount of time simply isn't possible.

  4. #304
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010


    Oh yes and I almost forgot to mention that I clicked and read through both of the links you provided, and my take on them was quite simple.

    In one of the links the system was summed up perfectly by a user known as Keybreaker.

    "Why such a heavy-handed solution OP? The problem is not small/med guild renown bonus... the problem is not large guild renown decay...

    The real secret to renown gain is active members. It's easier or more likely for a small guild to have 100% or nearly 100% active members who are questing/raiding almost every day. Mega-guilds that are close to 1,000 toons and 100s of accounts are likely to have a lot of inactive or less active members. If a mega-guild's members were 100% active, they would skyrocket to the top of the guild pile.

    OP, you like math. Do the math. Is it really "easier" for 20 players to pull more renown than 200 players? If you had a 20 player guild and a 200 player guild and in each guild, each player pulls 5,000 base renown in trophies per day, that would be 100k vs 1,000k base renown gain per day. Small/med guild bonus and decay does NOT give anywhere near 10x an effective bonus.

    What are you whining about? The system does not need to be tweeked just to reward pikers in large and mega guilds. If you want renown and the associated perks... be more active. Play the game more. (Don't recruit on Korthos island!)"

    If you've actually read through this thread, this is pretty much what I've been saying in it. I guess someone beat me to it.

    The other link contained a lot of graphs. Now I'm not really sure what your trying to prove with them, and quite honestly the only two guilds I have experience with are the two Orien guilds on the graphs, which are Over Raided and The Fallen Knights.

    Over Raided are simply good players that have strict recruiting requirements and I assume some rules on activity level to stay guilded. I'm not in OR but if anyone from OR would waste the 15 seconds it would take to verify it would be appreciated.

    The Fallen Knights are the polar opposite. They were at one time the biggest guild on the server who would recruit anyone. They had zero requirements and quickly ended up with a lot of inactive and super casual players. In fact I even had the leader of TFK sending me in game mails crying about a guild mate of mine who was parking alts in TFK to increase their decay and bragging about it in runs whre TFK members were present. True story, and quite hilarious if you ask me. They even placed a freeze on recruitment for a while becuase of that.

    Now what happened with these two guilds...OR hit level 100 and is still there.

    TFK lost a lot of levels, could not deal with the decay, and fizzled. Just like I said...big guilds can both level faster, as proven by TFK flying through early levels, but they also get hit harder by decay, again demonstrated by TFK losing levels and hitting a plateau due to their bloated roster roster and ineffictive leadership.

    I'm not really sure what you were trying to prove with those links, am I missing something?

  5. #305
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011


    Maybe it is not time to remove guild renown decay but the decay should be rethink.

    Quote Originally Posted by Levonestral View Post
    When renown first came out I decided that my guild would just take it in stride, not worry about the results at all, and just enjoy what we could get during the ride. Amazingly to me, we've actually pushed to a lot higher level than I had ever expected us to.

    We've always been a "casual atmosphere" kind of guild, containing both the most casual player and one's that play 8+ hours a day. It's a good mix for us. We float between 30-45 active accounts depending on how many people recently logged in. We've never removed anyone for the sole purpose of "decay" and never intend to; and that works for us.

    That said, I do understand and see where others are coming from. The ability to gain levels in a guild, especially for larger one's, while trying to keep the more "casual" players in guild is an issue; both for gaining levels and socially, which stands out strong in this thread.

    Although turbine does not *require* you to boot your more casual players, the peer pressure to be able to push past higher levels and get the better goodies quite often takes precedence.

    Suggestion to help the "casual" player issue

    Create an ability to "flag" a players account in guild as a "casual". This could be done either through the leader of the guild actively choosing the flag, or something setup internally by turbine based on the number of hours a character plays in a single week.

    I won't get into technical details on how the flag would be activated, but for sure there would have to be measures put into place to avoid abuse of it.

    Once an account is flagged as a "casual", it won't be counted towards decay, BUT also will not be able to provide any renown gains to the guild either. Nothing else changes, they'll still have access to everything like any other guild member.

    This would allow you to keep your "Friends" in guild, but still be able to do the "push" to higher levels despite they only play 1-2 times a month, or just pop in to say hello once in a while.

    If later on they become more active, the flag can be turned off, once again making them count for both decay and gains.

    Suggestion to help guild maintenance

    Over time, your guild will gain characters that have not logged in for a really long time. The one thing I've never liked is that removing these people, even after MONTHS of not being active, still causes your guild losses when you remove them.

    I think that after 90 days, a character should be able to be removed without any penalty at all. Let's face it, most cases, they're probably not coming back after that long. This would go a long way in allowing leaders of larger guilds to be able to better maintain their sizes without the fear of constant losses.

    If a guild successor can take leadership within that period from the leader, because their absence is considered "too long", then why shouldn't any regular play also fall under the same time frame rules in reference to their renown and be able to be removed without any penalty at all.
    This idea is really good!

  6. #306
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010



  7. #307
    Community Member ferd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008


    /Signed again!

  8. #308
    Community Member Ungood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009


    I know this will never become popular, but still I think the best mechanic is to make Renown bound to the Character (or Account), and each character (or account) deals only with their personal gain and decay, without the burdens or boons of guild size which they may have no control over, and the activity level of the other members which they may have no control over.

    I realize that allowing me as a player to be solely responsible for maintaining or progressing in my "fame" levels without being tossed around by arbitrary mechanics or the antics of other players, will not catch on. But, I still feel it would be the best option for resolving all the drama and issues around and abound with guild renown horse races and decay.

    I simply believe that keeping renown contingent to the person would make a guild a collection of people, of varying differtnt ranges of "fame" as opposed to having different people needing to be forced to conform to a uniform fame and decay mechanic which they have little control over.

  9. #309
    Community Member brickwall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    In Door's


    signed in favor of removing renown decay.
    Vertabreaker On Steam
    Vertabreaker's Power Hungry Quest TR 29 Of 40
    Encourage Self Sufficiency
    Power Gamer - Meta Gamer Since 1985

  10. #310
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009


    My two cents:

    This week we lost a few good friends from the guild only because they did not like the fact that we were reaching the plateau and other members were "too casual", as they felt for some time that they are getting nothing for all their hard work at guild renown, so they created a new "more hardcore" guild. Of course this has also put a lot of strain to the rest of the guild, to the extent that one of the guildies avoided inviting two of his friends to try the game, out of fear that he would have them join the guild and if they didn't like the game and quit after a while they would cost even more renown. If this is acceptable, then I am quite worried about the direction of the game.

    To my opinion, the main advantage of DDO to other MMORPGs is the encouragement to rely on others - you trust the healer to save your life while the rogue is disarming a trap, effectively allowing you to progress to an otherwise unattainable quest reward. The guild renown system is doing exactly the opposite - you are rewarded if you get rid of the "dead weight", other fellow players who are often your friends! If there was no renown decay, then every player would be useful, even a casual one, as their little contribution would only make the guild that extra bit better off, so rather than being suspicious of new potential guild recruits or avoiding them altogether, you would have a much more open and wellcome company, which is exactly what it has been about all along.

    I don't buy the excuses that it is not possible to have the same results with a system that is inclusive and not exclusive or indifferent to casual players - it may take a bit extra work from the developers as they would have to eventually build on it, but I would prefer such a system even if the difference between guild levels was increased by the total renown loss you would expect from a 1000 active accounts guild if it had remained in that level for a year... At least I would know (or I would have the hope) that I would be getting somewhere eventually...

    Please end it.

  11. #311
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Newcstle, Australia


    Quote Originally Posted by Calebro View Post
    If they were to simply remove renown decay and remove the loss upon dismissal/departure there would be no point in having guild levels.
    Like there would be no point to having character levels if they removed xp decay? Oh wait, xp doesn't decay...

    If there would be no point in having guild levels then every guild should automatically and permanently be level 100.
    If all guilds were automatically and permanently level 100 then all ship buffs would be available to everyone.
    If all buffs were available to everyone then they should become permanent.
    Just like every character should be should automatically be level 20, right?

    Your assumption is that somehow you are obliged to keep earning the right to maintain our guild level. Why? I earned the right to a level 20 character. How does the guild differ?
    Do you see how this spirals out of control if there is no decay?
    Do you see how your take on the usefulness of guild decay is disproved by existing systems?

    So, no, I don't see that.

    A little competition between your guild and other guilds, or even with yourself to better your guild, isn't always a bad thing.
    Seems to be a somewhat irrelevant point. There is no meaningful "leveling" competition between guilds. Any more than there is a competition between your level 10 character getting to 20 before my level 5 character.

    There were no ship buffs for a very long time and we managed just fine. As long as you enjoy your guild and it's members, the extra stuff is just a bonus. Enjoy the bonus rather than attempting to get the BEST bonus, because it isn't even necessary. That's why it's a bonus.
    Ship buffs are undeniably usefull for content of all levels. At low levels that allow you to push you cahracters through more difficult content, or simply do at level stuff very easily, which all adds up to time saved (an important feature for multiple TR characters we so often see these days).

    At high levels they are just as important for tackling end game content.

    The BEST bonus might not be neccessary, but it would be nice to think that one day, I could acheive it. Currently, I don't even think about it as it will NEVER...NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER happen in my guild.

    We are decent players, run epics, isn't too many of us, but a number of members don't log enough hours, and we certainly are not interested in devoting good portions of our game time into simply _maintaining_ a high guild level. We'd rather play and have fun.

    Why do you feel the need to impose rules about renown gathering? Why can't you just be happy with what you've gained, and not worry about getting Teh Uberz Boatz?
    Why do you keep phat lewts in your bank, or gear your character out, why not just run through the game with your starter gear?

    He isn't upset that someone else has the awesome guild ship. He is upset, that unless he didtches his friends and dedicates more hours than he really has available to playing DDO, he will *never* have access that aspect of the game.

    Decay punishes casual players. The guild system (and the crafting system, for different reasons) in this game are a joke.

    Every single guild in existence will eventually see the point where they plateau. Only the very small or extremely active guilds will ever be able to attain, let alone stay at, level 100. It appears that you may have plateaued, as my guild probably has as well.
    Which sucks. I pay the same money as them every month, play the same amount of time, have the same skill level, gear, etc...

    Yet, because i choose to not belong to a guild of 10 people that makes deliberate reknown farming runs, I don't get access.

    Furthermore, if they were to remove decay in all of it's forms, the renown levels needed to advance levels would need to be increased exponentially, which would create the same problems that you see now about not being able to earn enough to advance.
    It would also drop your guild from level 60x down to who-knows-where instead.
    That's *one* way to deal with it.

    I'm not claiming to have the solution, but there is no denying that the system as it stands is detrimental to the casual/social aspect of the game.

  12. #312
    Community Member drathdragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009


    i didn't read the whole thread yet (it is very huge now lol) but i totally agree with the idea.

    And more.

    I must say that this game is amazing but is not ''perfect''.
    Where is the lack from perfection ?

    simple, whenever a player get into attrition with others players because of the game.

    and the guild renown decay is one of the way to create attrition within the players.
    Why in the hell a leader of a guild must write in the message of the day '' please don't recruit low levels ppl, we are goin to check the players list and kick off some''

    that's a pure shame.

  13. #313
    Community Member thebeast1985's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Thumbs up

    as far as i'm concerned, i think that this should be a problem to think about.

    i'm leader of a veeeery small guild too and yes, it would be convenient to many to have this removed, also beacause for a small guild it would be nearly impossible to have a high level guild if the active players are low.

    i think we should all get the chance to get our high level of guild, like for xp death penality.


  14. #314
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010


    Quote Originally Posted by Aristomenes View Post
    This week we lost a few good friends from the guild only because they did not like the fact that we were reaching the plateau and other members were "too casual", as they felt for some time that they are getting nothing for all their hard work at guild renown, so they created a new "more hardcore" guild.
    So if you guys were such a tight knit group...what prevents you from still being friends even though you are no longer in the same guild? Simple solution...start your own channel that only members of your two guilds get on, and use that instead of guild chat. If you have a guild web site or, invite both guilds to it. When you group amongst the two guilds, you now have a more hardcore faction with a higher level ship that the more casual players can benefit it that complicated?

    If you are in one of those giant 500 man guilds complaining, then I bet you have guildies you've never even grouped with. If that is the situation, then good, im glad turbine has a system in place that frowns upon a few mega guilds hitting 100 and staying there forever.

  15. #315
    Community Member sheepface's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Cambs, England


    Doesn't sound like your guild is all that casual or drama free if this is an issue.
    Omnipresence, Ghallanda
    Trellon // Trelala

  16. #316
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009


    I have been part of guild for over two years now that has struggled since the inception of renown to maintain a steady pace. We retained members who were friends beyond a few months, and this seemed to hurt the guild. Then the mass removals happened just to try and gain some progress. Yet, you still have those who maintain there is nothing broken about the renown system, when it requires you to chose progress over friends.

    I know some would argue that if friends were that important guild progress means nothing, but that isn't true and everyone in this game knows it. Just like in life you have to make the hard choices.

    The problem is, this game is hard enough with trying to level and get the good gear you want, without having to worry about losing innactive friends, Or backbitting new players who feel the guild is going nowhere and jump ship causing more loss, and then the loss of renown by those who were removed from a guild that gained so much of the renown for that guild.

    Honestly, if it did have a higher requirement to get to certain levels, but maintained a no loss, I believe many would find it acceptable. After all, in table top you normally don't need xp for five levels worth of class just to hit second level. The xp system adapted to take a little longer to get to 20, and add some bonus perks to each class over the length of leveling. This should be the case with guild renown. Possibly make something available at each level, slightly increase the amount of renown needed for each level, but impose no loss.

    If a guild earns 100, and a players earns level 20, then they are awesome, but that should not mean to penalize those who spend what time they can trying every last minute just to get enough renown to get to guild level 28.

    I know there are a lot of people in the game who feel guild renown just makes everyone work harder, but in some cases it is causing some to devote more time than should be necessary on a game, that it is straining some relationships and interactions.

    The guild I am in recently had a blow up because new members felt our loyalty to players who have been gone a while (including me being gone for a month helping my mother with cancer treatment), needed to go because we were holding the guild back. When I returned, some of these members who had also been officers, had not only removed members without the guild leaders permission, but left the guild in mass after convincing others their time was being wasted. Our guild lost a few levels, and has been stagnant for over a month now, because a few jerks decided they were right, rather than trying to stay the course.

    Sadly this was a cause of the guild renown issue. A guild should be there when you are available, and when you are not. It should be like a family, not a group of people who only believe in mutual benefit as long as it is possitive. That to me sounds more like work, than a game.

    So for some this guild renown issue has become more than personal, it has become a constant sickness that needs a fix.

  17. #317
    Community Member Okram's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006


    I really think renown decay can exist as long as it starts about level 70. Anything above level 70 is really just for bragging rights, and not exactly necessary. Yeah the larger ships at 80 and 85 are nice, but also not necessary as you can get most of the buffs you need on the mid level ships. The main problem is renown decay starting at 40, a more casual based guild like my own will never make it past 45 as we have a large number of inactive accounts, even if we regularly kick people who have been inactive for 6 months.
    Thelanis - Sunky lvl 20 TR'd Rogue - Dorrfl TR'd lvl 20 Barbarian - Markoss lvl 20 Monk - Ormollien TR'd Arcane/Zen ARcher - Frodarick lvl 20 Artificer

  18. #318
    Community Member Calebro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    In a van down by the river


    Quote Originally Posted by Okram View Post
    The main problem is renown decay starting at 40, a more casual based guild like my own will never make it past 45 as we have a large number of inactive accounts, even if we regularly kick people who have been inactive for 6 months.
    Yet another person complaining about how decay affects his guild when he obviously has no idea how the system works.

    Say it with me:
    Inactive accounts have ZERO affect on renown decay.
    Only active accounts factor in. Once an account goes inactive, it's the same as not having that account in the guild as far as decay is concerned. Kicking those members is actually worse than just letting them collect dust, because a moment ago that account didn't affect decay, and once you kick them it does count them for two weeks.
    You're complaining about decay, but by kicking inactives you're actually adding more decay than was intended. Unless kicking them would drop you to a lower guild size than you were before then it's actually more harmful to give them the boot than to just let them stay.

    What this means is that either your active members simply aren't collecting enough renown, or your "regular" purges are causing more decay than you can earn. Either way, the fault doesn't lie with the inactive players, nor does it lie with how the system treats those players.

    Look at decay like your electric bill when the AC is running. Inactive accounts do not affect decay, just like closed windows do not affect your electric bill. If you open those windows while the AC is running, what happens? The AC keeps running, but now it's trying to cool off the whole world instead of the house.
    When you kick inactive members, it opens the windows for two weeks. After the windows get closed, your bill goes back to exactly what it was before. You're still working the same job and earning the same money, so nothing has changed, except for those two weeks when you spent way more than you needed to spend on the electric bill.
    If you want things to get better, you need a smaller house, higher household income, or both.
    If you want renown to get better, you need a smaller guild (measured by guild size modifiers), more income (more renown intake), or both.

    Let's say that your guild has 100 accounts, 50 of which are inactive.
    For total guild size you have 100 accounts.
    For renown earning, you have 50 accounts.
    For decay purposes, you have 50 accounts.
    Looks about right to me. 50 accounts pulling renown, decay factored for 50 accounts.

    Now you kick 35 of those inactives, leaving you at 65 accounts, the same 50 of which are active.
    For the next two weeks, you have a total guild size of 65 accounts.
    For renown earning, you have 50 accounts.
    For decay purposes, you have 85 accounts (50 active + 35 recent departures).
    So for two weeks you have 50 accounts trying to pull enough renown to cover the loss of decay for a guild with 85 members.
    Are you surprised that you can't make any headway?!? You put yourself behind the eight ball!

    Inactives are not hurting you. You are hurting yourself.
    Last edited by Calebro; 03-31-2012 at 06:18 PM.

  19. #319
    Community Member Perspicacity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Ketchikan, AK


    Quote Originally Posted by Karranor View Post

    Dungeons and Dragons Online players should never be punished for not playing the game. Period.
    I support the op's position. Of everything I read this was the one statement I think hits the nail on the head because that is exactly what guild erosion is; a punishment for having a real life. I am successor of a small guild, our size has fluctuated between 6 and 20 members. We understand how the renown system works and as such do not boot inactive accounts (our current guild size is around 11 active) or do anything else that exacerbates guild decay.

    Guild leveling is very difficult as is. I'm in college and work full time; my guild leader has several children of varying ages and a job that requires him to travel allot, there are other members of my guild that have wives or girlfriends jobs and other commitments that normal people have and as a result I don't think I have ever seen more than 3 guild members logged on at the same time for more than 10 minutes. The decay system inherently requires us to make a choice between the guild and our real lives and that's an absurd choice; it's no choice at all.

    There is simply no logical reason why guild erosion needs to exist. It adds nothing of significance to the game and removing it wont break the game in any way, and if it would then why erode only guild level? Why not erode character level or crafting level? Any argument that could be made for why guild erosion is needed (and I have yet to hear one) could be made doubly or triply for exp and crafting. It's completely arbitrary and unprecedented and like many I believe it needs to go.

    Even if it made sense from a game balance perspective (which I argue it does not) I certainly doesn't from a financial perspective. This is the sort of thing that will only anoy casual players (you know, the ones who cant play more because they have jobs and thus money to spend) and enough of that will drive them away from the game and lets be honest, if they did removed it would any one really be sad to see it go? Sure they would be a few sticks in the mud but even the people who don't want it gone right now would gladly capitalize from it's absence. This is like saying I don't want to remove a cancerous tumor from the side of my head because it matches my shoes. There may be some minor benefits but ultimately they are negligible and, like it or not, vastly out weighed by the strain it puts on the players in a non game-mechanical way.
    Last edited by Perspicacity; 04-01-2012 at 05:14 PM.

    Eternium (Art 18), Tatooine (Bard 19), Technodrome (Wiz 18 / Rog 2), Thanigar (Brb 14)

  20. #320
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011

    Default Sounds like government to me??

    Quote Originally Posted by Calebro View Post
    This is where you're wrong.
    Every single thing that renown offers is an added bonus. Losing a bonus is not the same as a penalty, so guild decay is not penalizing anyone of anything.
    You, as the guild leader, are the one that's choosing to penalize that player if you impose renown quotas and/or boot people that aren't active enough.
    That isn't Guild Renown penalizing the players. That's Guild Leaders penalizing the players.

    But that's exactly what you're doing. You're acting differently within your guild's stucture now than you have ever acted, and you're doing so because of renown. You have already allowed renown to change the outlook of your guild, so to claim it's never going to happen is ridiculous. It has already happened. So stop acting like that, revert to your previous ways, continue to act as you always have for the past 10 years, ignore renown, and CHOOSE be comfortable wherever you happen to plateau.
    Take this and eat it and be happy I gave it to you. Even though you hate it. To bad!!!!!
    Sorry it sucks. The main focus should not be on decay. Building a guild is apart of the game and a goal which members work for. When you buy a car and pay for it. Does anyone have the right to come up and say hey give me the keys. I havent recieved money from you this month. You say yea but I have the pink slip and alreay paid it off. Their reply so what we made a thing called Decay and now you need to repay for that. IE we need to keep the money comin in!!!!
    Sorry it's a bad thing and needs to go. Once youve earned it it should be yours. IE guild level. Its ddo & Devs over thinking the situation. Leave well enough alone and let guilds have fun. Quit trying to make everything about a buck!!

Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 6121314151617 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.