Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 41
  1. #1
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default Another Option For Guild Leveling

    The current guild leveling mechanism with renown decay makes DDO into a very unfriendly place for casual/social players and encourages abuse of new players by greedy guild leaders. So here is my proposal for fixing the problems permanently:

    1. Remove renown decay.
    2. Make guild levels (practically) unlimited. Perhaps have a hard cap at level 4,000,000.
    3. Make level 101 require the same additional renown that it takes to go from 99 to 100 now plus 1%. All levels after 101 would require the same additional renown as the previous level required plus 1%.
    4. For every 100 levels a guild attains after level 100, they get an in-game announcement and a 1% discount on all airship ammenities rental contracts - capped at 60%.
    5. Any guild that kicks out or forces out more than 60% of their total members over a period shorter than 6 months and does not replace them with new members in another 6 month period, goes back to level 25. Members leaving voluntarily on good terms do not count for this but members leaving on bad terms do count.
    6. Leave everything else about guild leveling as it is now.

    That's it.

    Item #5 is to prevent abuse of new players by a greedy guild leader. It would prevent such a guild leader from inviting a ton of new players to his guild to level it up and then kicking all of them later so he is left with a higher level guild all to himself and maybe a few of his friends.

    Under this plan, ALL guilds would be able to advance (practically) indefinitely. No guilds would be forever stuck in place. Most guilds would not try to shoot for the crazy high level cap so there would be no incentive to kick out casual and social players. DDO would be a more casual and social player friendly place. Guilds that are stable and have been around a long time will be able to achieve high levels regardless of whether or not they have lots of casual players in their ranks. In fact, guild stability becomes an advantage in this scenario and guilds that are not stable will never achieve high levels.

    Thoughts?

  2. #2
    Community Member Xynot2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,243

    Default

    too complex.

    They just need to eliminate decay based on membership size.
    Why? You dont want to boot friends who may have other pressing matters but are going to return. But the current method forces you to either do that or limit the number of accounts to 25ish. Not good.
    They also need to make hard levels that you cannot drop below. 25, 50, 75.

  3. #3
    Community Member akash's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Spellbinders' Land
    Posts
    464

    Default

    Casual and Social friendly guilds and guild leaders never think about reknown decays, they consider guilds as meeting place where everyone can meet and hangout, gossip, talks about RL issues etc. I think DDO fears if every guild bumps to level 85+ there will be no competition or what so ever, even though DDO will end up making a lot of cash by selling Astral Diamonds for the level 85 ships. IMHO this policy will shift DDO to f2p -> p2w. However I do want to see a positive change because DDO's current guild levelling policies are still flawed.

  4. #4
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xynot2 View Post
    too complex.

    They just need to eliminate decay based on membership size.
    What you suggest would be a huge improvement over what we have currently, but it does not address the issue of greedy guild leaders abusing new members.

    And I didn't think my proposal was all that complex.

  5. #5
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,012

    Default

    If the information in http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?p=4601110 is true, then before we make any changes to the current system, then the devs have to fix the formula to match what it was before the pack was released.

    Current theories indicate that all guilds are back to paying full renown decay based on unmodified guild size.

    IE: All of those people that are idle more than 30 days, that shouldn't count anymore, are counting and penalizing guilds again.

    This needs confirmation, and it needs a dev to come out of their hole and speak.

  6. #6
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eris2323 View Post
    If the information in http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?p=4601110 is true, then before we make any changes to the current system, then the devs have to fix the formula to match what it was before the pack was released.
    I agree that DDO should address this, if indeed it is being calculated incorrectly. However, this section of the forums is for suggestions and ideas for changing DDO to make it a better game so, suggestions for change are very appropriate here regardless of whether the current implementation is buggy or not.

  7. #7
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,012

    Default

    Well, I'm all for removing guild renown decay entirely.

    However, if the formula is broken - this is a major bug, and anyone interested in guild renown is going to need to speak up to get it fixed.

    Or they'll ignore us like they always do.

  8. #8
    Community Member Xynot2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tshober View Post
    What you suggest would be a huge improvement over what we have currently, but it does not address the issue of greedy guild leaders abusing new members.

    And I didn't think my proposal was all that complex.
    Good guilds dont want just anyone. Yeah, there will always be the mebership spammers in the harbor. but slower leveling should be the issue of smaller guilds not large ones.

    I speak from having been in a large guild where there was a HUGE decay due to the number of accounts in the guild. That's not greed, that's popularity. And they shouldn't be penalized for being popular. Cap membership? But the original idea was to promote group play for all. With decay, it penalizes the casual player. (Casual defined as not playing every day for several hours). Renown decay should be based on quest failures and other things that would actually cause renown to decrease. Not how many people are in it. Change that part and you fix the guild problem.

  9. #9
    Community Member V_mad_jester_V's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xynot2 View Post
    Good guilds dont want just anyone. Yeah, there will always be the mebership spammers in the harbor. but slower leveling should be the issue of smaller guilds not large ones.
    My thought exactly, with the current system of renown, it is much easier for a small dedicated guild to out pace the high level guilds. and when i say eaiser i mean it, Had a guildie left last week cuz he wanted to start his own guild and his 4 man guild is now level 26 while my 20 member guild just hit level 32 (one inactive account with all others being fully active members)

  10. #10
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xynot2 View Post
    Good guilds dont want just anyone. Yeah, there will always be the mebership spammers in the harbor. but slower leveling should be the issue of smaller guilds not large ones.

    I speak from having been in a large guild where there was a HUGE decay due to the number of accounts in the guild. That's not greed, that's popularity. And they shouldn't be penalized for being popular. Cap membership? But the original idea was to promote group play for all. With decay, it penalizes the casual player. (Casual defined as not playing every day for several hours). Renown decay should be based on quest failures and other things that would actually cause renown to decrease. Not how many people are in it. Change that part and you fix the guild problem.
    Everyone wants different things from a guild. What makes for a good guild for you might make for a poor guild for someone else.

    If I understand you correctly, you favor decay, just not decay based on guild size. Your preference would be to use some other metric to calculate the decay amount. But the one meteric you mentioned, quest failures, seems problematic to me. First, what constitites a quest failure? And then how do you assign it to a guild? And I have trouble coming up with other meaningful metrics that would, as you said "actually cause renown to decrease". The few that I can think of are frought with problems when you think about how to translate them into a meaningful number that could be used to calculate a decay amount.

    You said my suggestion was too complex, but I see tons of complexity in just coming up with another meaningful metric (other than guild size) to use to calculate the decay amount. To my way of looking at it, my suggestion is far less complex because you don't need a new metric to measure decay. You just make it equal zero.

  11. #11
    Community Member MsEricka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Winnipeg Canada
    Posts
    3,069

    Default

    The current guild leveling mechanism with renown decay makes DDO into a very unfriendly place for casual/social players
    False. Join a casual guild. Hint - There's thousands of them that aren't random invite guilds that hit the member cap daily and can manage their own renown to a level where they have a nice ship.

    and encourages abuse of new players by greedy guild leaders.
    Abuse? Explain how new players are being "abused". Blanket statements like this with no qualifier are simply conjecture. Also note you stated "leaders" which implies multiple guild leaders are guilty of "abuse".

    /not signed with your overly complicated ideas and obscure references.

  12. #12
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MsEricka View Post
    False. Join a casual guild. Hint - There's thousands of them that aren't random invite guilds that hit the member cap daily and can manage their own renown to a level where they have a nice ship.



    Abuse? Explain how new players are being "abused". Blanket statements like this with no qualifier are simply conjecture. Also note you stated "leaders" which implies multiple guild leaders are guilty of "abuse".

    /not signed with your overly complicated ideas and obscure references.
    You must be playing a different game than the rest of us. On my server casual and social players are unwelcome in nearly every guild. The only guilds that will take them are guilds that just started up and likely won't be around for more than a month. Established guilds, guilds that have had the same leadership for more than a few months, almost universally screen out casual and social players because the leaders of these guilds know that having a significant number of such players in their guild means that their guild will stop leveling forever at some point. They screen out casual and social players mostly by requiring that players log in nearly every day and play. They kick out anyone who does not login really often. This is well documented in many threads here.

    Further, the devs are already aware that this is a problem. The recent "Build Your Guild" was obviously an attempt to try to find ways to make new players and casual players more welcome in DDO's guilds by adding incentives (bonuses) for guilds that accept them. Unfortunately, the implementation of it was such that the guilds that benefited the most from the bonuses were guilds that do lots of reincarnations, and not guilds that take in new players. But at least the devs are trying to find a solution for the problem.

    As to abuse, that too is well documented in many threads here. Here http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=384818 is one example from the first page of this very forum section where a guild leader admits that he kicked out 700 people from his guild just so he could level it up a little more and get a few more buffs. If that isn't abusing new players, I don't know what is. Many other such examples are available.

    I see, on myddo.com, that you are the leader of a level 40ish guild. Your guild is just now getting to the level that it will start to see the effects of renown decay. Since you seem to know so much about casual players, I assume your guild has many of them. If so then, in the next 15 levels or so, you will begin to see that renown decay is going to prevent your guild from leveling up at some point. When you realize that this means either kicking out your casuals or giving up on leveling forever, then you can come back here and tell us the current system is all goodness. Kudos to you for accepting casual players in your guild so far though.

    Now as to the complexity of my suggestion, I don't see it as complicated at all. There are no new measurements or metrics required in my suggestion. No one has to research a new method of measuring renown decay and then try to convert that measurement into a meaningful number that can be used to calculate a daily renown decay amount. The only thing my suggestion requires is some very basic math, addition and multiplication. That's it. Very clean and very simple. And it gets right to the heart of the problem and cuts it out entirely, rather than dancing around it and putting bandaids on it.


    Here are a few other threads to get you up to speed on the problems caused by renown decay:
    http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=368680
    http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=382752
    Last edited by Tshober; 07-22-2012 at 09:50 AM.

  13. #13
    Community Member V_mad_jester_V's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tshober View Post
    1. Remove renown decay.
    Okay i dont think it should be completely removed, cuz then the power guilds will just suck up more players leaving smaller guilds with thumbs up their third point of contact. Those owners of smaller guilds who are premium would probably loose more members to higher guilds who are less selective (not necessarily bad with being less selective) but then people who spent real life money on their guild name will loose said real life money. The decay is there so that others can create guilds (but not to a point where there is a **** ton o dead guilds) what they should do is lessen the decay for small guilds, but large guilds still should work for off setting it (but not as much as it is now)

    3. Make level 101 require the same additional renown that it takes to go from 99 to 100 now plus 1%. All levels after 101 would require the same additional renown as the previous level required plus 1%.
    eh i guess i can go with that, but i also think that would encourage more guild leaders to be about the grind rather than the guild just for measuring tape purposes. Nothing will change with your said "player abuse" below, if not it would only increase player abuse.

    4. For every 100 levels a guild attains after level 100, they get an in-game announcement and a 1% discount on all airship ammenities rental contracts - capped at 60%.
    I would have to agree with this, but lets start the discounts for level 50 guilds. Before creating my current guild i ran a level 55 guild (before taking a 2 year break from the game)

    5. Any guild that kicks out or forces out more than 60% of their total members over a period shorter than 6 months and does not replace them with new members in another 6 month period, goes back to level 25. Members leaving voluntarily on good terms do not count for this but members leaving on bad terms do count.
    I think this is where it gets complicated for some posters, and while i can see where your coming from, this is a pretty dumb idea. Those who get kicked from power guilds tend to go find smaller more accommodating guilds that will most likely form friendships. On orien i have gotten members from Staal Yssta, Legends of Orien, Blood Bath and Beyond, The Matrix, and what ever other large guilds you can think of. Many have stayed for good (level 32 currently) while others left to be with power guilds again (assuming their not black listed from said power guild).
    However the point of this post for item 5 is the fact that many of those guilds still bust their bums for level 50+, why punish the players of the guild when it was the officer/leader. Thats why i think this part is the absolute dumbest cuz an entire guild who worked hard for level is going to be punished for the leaders/officers decision....no sir.
    [/QUOTE]

  14. #14
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V_mad_jester_V View Post
    I think this is where it gets complicated for some posters, and while i can see where your coming from, this is a pretty dumb idea. Those who get kicked from power guilds tend to go find smaller more accommodating guilds that will most likely form friendships.
    ...
    Thats why i think this part is the absolute dumbest cuz an entire guild who worked hard for level is going to be punished for the leaders/officers decision....no sir.
    I would like to be able to drop #5. I wish it were not necessary. But there are greedy people who would abuse new players if there were nothing to stop them from doing so. They do so now, even though decay is supposed to prevent them from it. Decay is not doing its job on that front though. What you complain about happens now and my #5 item is intended to prevent exactly what you are complaining about.

    Here, read this thread http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=384818 and make note of the guy who kicked 700 people out of his guild. Now think about those 700 people. Don't you think that many of them worked hard to level their guild? And then they were kicked out by the guild leader so he could level the guild up a little bit more with his 6 friends. This HAPPENED with renown decay, not with my suggestion. If my suggestion had been in place would he have kicked those 700 people out of his guild, knowing that it would drop to level 25 because my suggestion was in place? Of course he would not, because then he would suffer along with his guild members. With the current system, he gets to benefit while his guild members suffer. With my suggestion, he does not get to benefit from their suffering. See the difference?

    Do you have a different or better suggestion that would prevent the kind of abuse that #5 is intended to prevent? If so, then I would love to hear it.

    Your complaint is that all members of the guild are punished for the decisions of the guild leaders. But that is true even without my suggstion. If a guild leader disbands a guild, all members suffer. If a guild leader poorly manages a guild and it drops 15 levels, all members suffer. If a guild leader stops playing the game and does not name a good successor, the entire guild suffers. If a guild leader kicks 700 people out of his guild so he can have a high-level guild all to himself, all 700 members suffer. Guilds die all the time and all their members suffer. All this stuff happens all the time without my suggestion.

    Without my suggestion bad leadership means the whole guild suffers.

    With my suggestion bad leadership means the whole guild suffers.

    So how does my suggestion make things any worse than they are now?

    If you are in a guild with poor leadership, you are going to eventually sufffer. That's just how it is. My suggestion does not change that at all. The trick is to find a guild with good leadership that won't make you suffer. IMO, that is pretty easy to do. Just choose a guild that is well established with stable leadership. If a guild has been around for more than 6 months and has had the same leadership the whole time, then the chances are pretty good it will stay around and be stable for a long time. There are no guarantees, of course, but the odds are far better than joining a guild that just started up and may or may not be around in another month.

    The other way to avoid suffering from poor guild leadership is to start your own guild. Of course that is much more work than just joining an existing guild, especially if you want that guild to be successful.

  15. #15
    Community Member V_mad_jester_V's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tshober View Post
    I would like to be able to drop #5. I wish it were not necessary. But there are greedy people who would abuse new players if there were nothing to stop them from doing so. They do so now, even though decay is supposed to prevent them from it. Decay is not doing its job on that front though. What you complain about happens now and my #5 item is intended to prevent exactly what you are complaining about.

    Here, read this thread http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=384818 and make note of the guy who kicked 700 people out of his guild. Now think about those 700 people. Don't you think that many of them worked hard to level their guild? And then they were kicked out by the guild leader so he could level the guild up a little bit more with his 6 friends. This HAPPENED with renown decay, not with my suggestion. If my suggestion had been in place would he have kicked those 700 people out of his guild, knowing that it would drop to level 25 because my suggestion was in place? Of course he would not, because then he would suffer along with his guild members. With the current system, he gets to benefit while his guild members suffer. With my suggestion, he does not get to benefit from their suffering. See the difference?

    Do you have a different or better suggestion that would prevent the kind of abuse that #5 is intended to prevent? If so, then I would love to hear it.

    Your complaint is that all members of the guild are punished for the decisions of the guild leaders. But that is true even without my suggstion. If a guild leader disbands a guild, all members suffer. If a guild leader poorly manages a guild and it drops 15 levels, all members suffer. If a guild leader stops playing the game and does not name a good successor, the entire guild suffers. If a guild leader kicks 700 people out of his guild so he can have a high-level guild all to himself, all 700 members suffer. Guilds die all the time and all their members suffer. All this stuff happens all the time without my suggestion.

    Without my suggestion bad leadership means the whole guild suffers.

    With my suggestion bad leadership means the whole guild suffers.

    So how does my suggestion make things any worse than they are now?

    If you are in a guild with poor leadership, you are going to eventually sufffer. That's just how it is. My suggestion does not change that at all. The trick is to find a guild with good leadership that won't make you suffer. IMO, that is pretty easy to do. Just choose a guild that is well established with stable leadership. If a guild has been around for more than 6 months and has had the same leadership the whole time, then the chances are pretty good it will stay around and be stable for a long time. There are no guarantees, of course, but the odds are far better than joining a guild that just started up and may or may not be around in another month.

    The other way to avoid suffering from poor guild leadership is to start your own guild. Of course that is much more work than just joining an existing guild, especially if you want that guild to be successful.
    it is worse did you read your own suggestion? No one would go for that, cuz those who are devoted members to high end guilds wouldnt want this, and those who arent devoted to them wouldnt care for this, maybe a lil to see em put in their place, but if they are subject to such a holery then like i said they tend to find smaller guilds with better leaders and higher chance of making long term in game friends. Cuz i have kicked out 60% of my members recent that range from inactive accounts to other peoples bank toons, and i sure as hell dont want to re-recruit to make up for lost membership. I just got back into small guild status (from large guild) after being in medium guild for a while.
    5. Any guild that kicks out or forces out more than 60% of their total members over a period shorter than 6 months and does not replace them with new members in another 6 month period, goes>>>> back to level 25.<<<<<<
    cuz the remaining members who were once part of a level 50+ guild now have to devote their time again to making it 50+ cuz the booting of 60% would make it back to a level 25 guild, again dumb idea.

  16. #16
    Community Member V_mad_jester_V's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    398

    Default

    oh and that guy who booted 700+ members, those members probably werent all active, dead accounts, bank toons that just sat around adding to decay, crafting toons haggle bots, are you even taking into account all the bs toons people make join high level guilds for the shrines, and then just let the toon sit there only benefiting from teh shrines to do small task, no leveling, no renown, just decay?

  17. #17
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V_mad_jester_V View Post
    Cuz i have kicked out 60% of my members recent that range from inactive accounts to other peoples bank toons, and i sure as hell dont want to re-recruit to make up for lost membership. I just got back into small guild status (from large guild) after being in medium guild for a while.
    .
    Ah, this explains much.

  18. #18
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V_mad_jester_V View Post
    oh and that guy who booted 700+ members, those members probably werent all active, dead accounts, bank toons that just sat around adding to decay, crafting toons haggle bots, are you even taking into account all the bs toons people make join high level guilds for the shrines, and then just let the toon sit there only benefiting from teh shrines to do small task, no leveling, no renown, just decay?
    All of this would be completely and totally irrelevent under my suggestion because there would be no decay and thus no reason to get rid of them or care about them at all. See how much easier it would be? People could just play the game the way they want to play it. What a concept!
    Last edited by Tshober; 07-22-2012 at 06:13 PM.

  19. #19
    Community Member V_mad_jester_V's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tshober View Post
    All of this would be completely and totally irrelevent under my suggestion because there would be no decay and thus no reason to get rid of them or care about them at all. See how much easier it would be? People could just play the game the way they want to play it. What a concept!
    and regardless of decay those massive guilds who has capped members are still goign to filter the same exact way, bank toons, haggle bots, crafters, and dead accounts dosent change the fact that there will always be massive amounts of boots from guilds, and to punish those who cut the fat like that is STUPID, i think any leader of a large guild could agree to that. I dont care about loosing or keeping casuals, i have casuals in my guild, i do care that there is dead weight in my guild, two accounts were someones unused bank toons, 7 accounts in my guild were peoples unused alts. 1 was a high end crafter (only logged on to craft once in a blue moon), and just recently 6 inactive accounts, so yes your system is still stupid,

  20. #20
    Community Member V_mad_jester_V's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V_mad_jester_V View Post
    and regardless of decay those massive guilds who has capped members are still goign to filter the same exact way, bank toons, haggle bots, crafters, and dead accounts dosent change the fact that there will always be massive amounts of boots from guilds, and to punish those who cut the fat like that is STUPID, i think any leader of a large guild could agree to that. I dont care about loosing or keeping casuals, i have casuals in my guild, i do care that there is dead weight in my guild, two accounts were someones unused bank toons, 7 accounts in my guild were peoples unused alts. 1 was a high end crafter (only logged on to craft once in a blue moon), and just recently 6 inactive accounts, so yes your system is still stupid,
    let me correct that item number 5 is still stupid

Page 1 of 3 123 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