1. Originally Posted by Hendrik
You cannot misquote basic math. And you are not in a Small Guild, you are Very Small unless you added 2 more accounts.

All from the Wiki;

Accounts 1 to 9 are Very Small.
11 - 25 are Small.
26 - 50 are Medium.

Old Decay : (LevelMultiplier * AccountMultiplier). The account-based multiplier is the Modified Guild Size + 10.

New : Account-based multiplier is therefore ( Max(Modified Guild Size,10) + 10 )

OLD: 9+10 * 845.028800 (L76) = 16055
NEW: 10+10 * 845.028800 (L76) = 16900

Difference = 845 More in new

Lets continue by adding 1 account each time;

OLD: 10+10 * 845.028800 (L76) = 16900
NEW: 10+10 * 845.028800 (L76) = 16900

Difference = 0

OLD: 11+10 * 845.028800 (L76) = 17745
NEW: 10+10 * 845.028800 (L76) = 16900

Difference = 845 Less in new

OLD: 12+10 * 845.028800 (L76) = 18590
NEW: 10+10 * 845.028800 (L76) = 16900

Difference = 1690 Less in new

OLD: 13+10 * 845.028800 (L76) = 19435
NEW: 10+10 * 845.028800 (L76) = 16900

Difference = 2535 less in new

OLD: 14+10 * 845.028800 (L76) = 20280
NEW: 10+10 * 845.028800 (L76) = 16900

Difference = 3380 less in new

OLD: 15+10 * 845.028800 (L76) = 21125
NEW: 10+10 * 845.028800 (L76) = 16900

Difference = 4225 less in new

See the pattern yet? As you have 10 accounts and add more, the less Decay in the new system you have. That means the inverse is true, the less accounts you have from 10, the more Decay you have.

Those small guild you are campaining for have either no change in decay or are seeing less. It is the very small that seem to have more. It is only the very small that need some attention, if any.

Since you have proven that your very small is overcoming the larger decay there may or may not be a case for further changes for very small guilds only.

I welcome you to use the wiki information to back up your claims with math.
I would provide the wiiki that shows your error but it is the same source you are using. It's not worth the time and numerous arguments to explain it to you.

200 members
OLD: (200+10) * 845.028800 (L76) = 177,456
NEW: (10+10) * 845.028800 (L76) = 16,900

Difference = 160,566 Less in new per day. Prior to the change the daily decay/member was roughly the same as a guild of 5 and now after the change it is reduced by over 90% for the guild of 200.

2. Originally Posted by Chaos000
Smaller guilds also had to make some unpleasant choices to cull members if they wanted to advance. With the change, not factoring in size bonuses, all guilds gain no benefit for reducing in size because there is no penalty per account being removed.

Very small guilds can and have reached the maximum rank. Very large guilds could not. With the change now very large guilds can reach the maximum rank as can very small guilds. I'm in agreement that there could be steps to make it easier for MORE very small guilds reach the maximum rank provided bonuses cannot be gained by reducing in size.

I agree that renown ransack should not apply after a first level gained, that there should be something additional to help out small guilds (example: decay multiplier from 20 to 10, boost guilds of 10 and under to that of a guild of 11, apply a x20 multiplier on existing renown potions, introduce a ddo store item that suspends decay for a day, change bonuses to not be based on size...)

What I have an issue with is complaints that decay no longer exists for large guilds due to renown decreasing per each added player with the assumption that there is no decline in activity the larger a guild gets or that non renown gaining players do not exist. Then there is the comparison between tiny guilds to extremely large guilds when a large guild to a far larger guild deals with the same argumentative issue.
Here is the flaw with that argument. The only effective change for guilds of 10 or less is the increased ransack penalty which is a very difficult obstacle for small guilds. If these guilds were motivated to reduce members prior to the change, there is no reason why they wouldn't be motivated to do so now. Adding or removing a member prior to this guild change never impacted decay because were always impacted by the min(20, x) part of the calculation.

The argument isn't that "decay is no longer exists"- of course it exists it is just very tiny compared to what small guilds face. The facts show that decay is no longer a factor that will prevent many large guilds from reaching 100. This includes Hendrick and Smatt that were already at level 80 prior to the change.

It's an important point because we have a situation where some guilds get the benefit of a low decay/player rate and other guilds that have a very high decay/player rate. This means the in-game benefits associated with guild levels is a cakewalk for some guilds and nearly impossible for others even though the guilds may have the same renown generation rates per player.

3. Originally Posted by slarden
here is the flaw with that argument. The only effective change for guilds of 10 or less is the increased ransack penalty which is a very difficult obstacle for small guilds. If these guilds were motivated to reduce members prior to the change, there is no reason why they wouldn't be motivated to do so now. Adding or removing a member prior to this guild change never impacted decay because were always impacted by the min(20, x) part of the calculation.

The argument isn't that "decay is no longer exists"- of course it exists it is just very tiny compared to what small guilds face. The facts show that decay is no longer a factor that will prevent many large guilds from reaching 100. This includes hendrick and smatt that were already at level 80 prior to the change.

It's an important point because we have a situation where some guilds get the benefit of a low decay/player rate and other guilds that have a very high decay/player rate. This means the in-game benefits associated with guild levels is a cakewalk for some guilds and nearly impossible for others even though the guilds may have the same renown generation rates per player.
+ 1

4. Originally Posted by slarden
But again, this issue exists in guilds of all sizes and isn't exclusive to only large guilds. Unless Turbine redefines the term "Active" then we have to live with their definition since it's all we have. Of course people in guilds of all sizes log in and don't play and/or play very little. However, the larger guild still has more renown earning power. The test we are running illustrates this very clearly.
The solution therefore is to limit a larger guild's earning power or to increase a smaller guild's earning power. This is not to say that the efforts of a single player in a smaller guild should be multiplied to match the equal efforts of multiple players in a larger guild correct?

To be realistic, renown earning power should be weighed against guild meeting or exceeding their renown earning potential. If there is a decrease as a guild's size increases, this should be factored in.

The issue of decay exists in guilds of all sizes and isn't exclusive to only small guilds. Unless Turbine decides to remove decay then we have to live with that and make suggestions around decay.

5. Originally Posted by slarden
Here is the flaw with that argument. The only effective change for guilds of 10 or less is the increased ransack penalty which is a very difficult obstacle for small guilds. If these guilds were motivated to reduce members prior to the change, there is no reason why they wouldn't be motivated to do so now. Adding or removing a member prior to this guild change never impacted decay because were always impacted by the min(20, x) part of the calculation.
I feel that the ransack penalty should be removed as an obstacle for guilds that fall below the minimum.

Because of guild size bonus, adding or removing a member prior to this guild change did impact decay (on the side of increased renown earning power) despite always being impacted by min (20,x) part of the calculation.

Are you saying that guilds motivated to reduce members prior to the change would STILL be motivated to do so now when it is now ALWAYS more beneficial to increase in size?

6. Originally Posted by slarden
I would provide the wiiki that shows your error but it is the same source you are using. It's not worth the time and numerous arguments to explain it to you.
Figured you would go right to the large guild instead of explaining where, if any, my error is.

Your refusal to do so is very telling.

The information is correct, the account size numbers are correct, the math is correct.

Even your sig states the same and agrees with the math I posted.

Your crusade is against every guild with account size 10 or more, more targetted toward the ones that got the most benefit.

Center your anger not on what others got but what you need as a guild of 10 or less as a very small guild.

Have fun with it.

7. Originally Posted by blerkington
i am personally very glad that the larger guilds got a break from decay, because it's clear they had to make some unpleasant choices to cull members if they wanted to advance. I'd just like to see similarly opportunities for very small guilds, and also see a lot less effort being devoted in this thread towards keeping other people down.
This. I think I tuned out after about 50 pages of "You guys merely don't know how to make friends- that's the real reason you are a small guild."
Also- the other big "elephant in the room" is that the previous topic that even lead to Guild Renown changes -"A Call For Guild Leaders to State Your Support for the Current Renown System"- The majority opinion (both Large & Small Guilds) was that there was little to NO support and a change was needed.
Once a "hotfix" was implemented that benefited Large Guilds, they viciously turned on the Small guilds. Declaring "all is good with DDO, move along".

I know a lot of the chatter now sounds redundant, but I for one am glad that more small guilds are still speaking up.

Also- another thing to take into consideration: Whereas Large Guilds had to make unpleasant choices to cull members- Small Guild have a similar choice now- "Do I chance adding more people and will they be worth losing my Small Guild Bonus?" I wonder how many small guilds are purposely not adding more (or for that matter- suggesting other large guilds to join as we have done)

8. Originally Posted by Hendrik
Aren't you already by being so worried about your Guild not advancing as fast as others and so worried about every other Guild below you on every other server?

How fun is it for you to solo zerg content to gain renown so your other Guild members don't have to?

Keep taking the advice given, or not, and you will continue to advance. Stop being so overly worried about Guild level and worry about beating quests with your guildmates.

No matter what change comes, if any, you will still need your Guildmates online and playing content to get past ANY decay. Right? If you are the only one online for a couple days, all that decay is now on your shoulders to overcome. With a casual guild membership like you have, you will plateau at a far lower level. Changing the system to suit your casual gameplay is not the full answer. While if there is a change to do that, yes, it will help you, but on the other hand, every other guild that is not casual will gain a huge benefit. Are you ready to accept that while you may gain a very small benefit, everyone else will gain a huge one? You already don't with what we have now.

Keep making those gains and get to L85 if you can then you don't have to worry about renown anymore. But when you get close, you might have to up your game to get there at the end.
Once again you just resort to attacking and making false statements. As you know my guild is more active than your guild as measured by renown earned / account (after removing the bonus).

Activity is certainly not the problem but crushing decay is. As you indicated your own advice didn't work for you for 2 years when you had the high decay small guilds have now - so I don't think I will follow it. Why would I follow advice we know doesn't work with the crushing decay we currently have.

You can call my guild casual if you wish - that is accurate as far as people having balanced lives. However we are more active than your guild so casual doesn't mean we aren't playing.

Despite your dishonest attempts to portray my guild and others as not playing and wanting a free ride, my guild does not have a problem earning renown. We do get alot more renown/person taken away from us than your guild which received a massive decay reduction.

You can continue to try and dishonestly portray my guild and others as not playing much, but I will continue to call you on it because it's not true.

The issue we have is the same issue your guild had prior to the change. High decay/player. If your guild had the same decay/player that we have you would be in the same situation as my guild and many other small guilds.

9. Originally Posted by Arnez
This. I think I tuned out after about 50 pages of "You guys merely don't know how to make friends- that's the real reason you are a small guild."
Also- the other big "elephant in the room" is that the previous topic that even lead to Guild Renown changes -"A Call For Guild Leaders to State Your Support for the Current Renown System"- The majority opinion (both Large & Small Guilds) was that there was little to NO support and a change was needed.
Once a "hotfix" was implemented that benefited Large Guilds, they viciously turned on the Small guilds. Declaring "all is good with DDO, move along".

I know a lot of the chatter now sounds redundant, but I for one am glad that more small guilds are still speaking up.

Also- another thing to take into consideration: Whereas Large Guilds had to make unpleasant choices to cull members- Small Guild have a similar choice now- "Do I chance adding more people and will they be worth losing my Small Guild Bonus?" I wonder how many small guilds are purposely not adding more (or for that matter- suggesting other large guilds to join as we have done)
+1. The main reason I don't want to add people right now is that the large guilds on Sarlona are recruiting vets from small guilds (and other large guilds in some cases). If I add someone and they are then recruited by a large guild, they still count as an active account for 2 weeks.

It's just not worth adding people to the guild when the system highly favors large guilds. The odds of a new member being recruited by a larger guild is just too high since we don't know those folks as well as the people already in the guild.

I think some people were driven away by getting the neg reps for commenting.

10. Originally Posted by Arnez
Also- another thing to take into consideration: Whereas Large Guilds had to make unpleasant choices to cull members- Small Guild have a similar choice now- "Do I chance adding more people and will they be worth losing my Small Guild Bonus?" I wonder how many small guilds are purposely not adding more (or for that matter- suggesting other large guilds to join as we have done)
I wonder about this everytime I add someone... But the first question I ask is, "Is this person going to mess up the chemistry of the guild." I ask that because I have a cool guild. We have about 25 active accounts. We all play about the same time and group frequently. We have two static groups that meet weekly. We exchange emails and post to the guild website, sharing our insights into the game or just funny stuff we come across during the week.

So would it be cool to have a guild with a really big number next to it? Sure it would... but it is even cooler to have good guildies to run with.

11. Originally Posted by Chaos000
I feel that the ransack penalty should be removed as an obstacle for guilds that fall below the minimum.

Because of guild size bonus, adding or removing a member prior to this guild change did impact decay (on the side of increased renown earning power) despite always being impacted by min (20,x) part of the calculation.

Are you saying that guilds motivated to reduce members prior to the change would STILL be motivated to do so now when it is now ALWAYS more beneficial to increase in size?
I am sure you sincerely believe this and I am not trying to be argumentative. If you have 8 people and removed a person under the old system:

BEFORE: min (8 +10, 20) = 20
AFTER: Min (7 +10, 20) = 20

No change

Under the new system it is also 20 before and after the reduction from 8 members to 7 members.

I saw other people repeat that same argument, not just you. It's a very confusing system. However, decay for a guild of 9 or less never changed when adding or removing a member before/after the guild system change.

This is part of the reason I stated I thought it was ridiculous that people were arguing under the old system tiny guilds were dumping members to reduce decay.

What I am saying is that if you argue the old system encouraged small guilds to dump members, nothing changed for those guilds except the ransack penalty increase so they would be just as motivated to do that now. I never believed guilds were dumping members over the guild system before/after the change. It's so rare I ever run into unguilded people looking for a guild in end game content now and before the change. There has always been guilds willing to take in members.

12. Originally Posted by Arnez
Also- another thing to take into consideration: Whereas Large Guilds had to make unpleasant choices to cull members- Small Guild have a similar choice now- "Do I chance adding more people and will they be worth losing my Small Guild Bonus?" I wonder how many small guilds are purposely not adding more (or for that matter- suggesting other large guilds to join as we have done)
There are some notables who believe that it is not very likely that a new recruited member that is actively playing will earn less than 24% of the renown of the average player (higher than 24% = net renown gain over bonuses lost). "odds of a benefit are much greater than a detriment by adding people" Therefore lowered size bonus is doubted to be even a consideration when building a player base because renown will take care of itself.

If the guild size bonus IS a consideration for small guilds to purposely not add any more, the proposed system and guild bonus is now no longer completely unrelated AND increasing the willful act of booting less active players to game the system.

Consider this. If they increase the guild size bonus will small guilds then start to consider "Do I chance adding more people and will they be worth losing my Small Guild Bonus?" while medium sized guilds wonder "Is it beneficial to boot people and will it be worth increasing my Guild size bonus?"

To this I say. Yes to increasing the guild size bonus but no to booting resulting in a higher guild size bonus. Another suggestion would be to delay a decrease in guild size bonus for a time to allow for trial membership without having to worry about a lowered size bonus.

13. Originally Posted by slarden
I am sure you sincerely believe this and I am not trying to be argumentative. If you have 8 people and removed a person under the old system:

BEFORE: min (8 +10, 20) = 20
AFTER: Min (7 +10, 20) = 20

No change

Under the new system it is also 20 before and after the reduction from 8 members to 7 members.

I saw other people repeat that same argument, not just you. It's a very confusing system. However, decay for a guild of 9 or less never changed when adding or removing a member before/after the guild system change.
It's cool, I understand the point you are making. This is what I was trying to point out.

BEFORE: min (8 +10, 20) = 20 (270% size bonus)
AFTER: Min (7 +10, 20) = 20 (285% size bonus)

No change in terms of overall decay but a +15% increase in size bonus that applies to the renown gain for every member of the guild. Without the guild size bonus taken into account I agree that there is no change.

I also agree that the renown ransack that was designed to reign in the advancement of large guilds hurt small guilds more. Therefore if there is a way to lift or eliminate ransack for small guilds it will help them out immensely.

14. Originally Posted by Chaos000
It's cool, I understand the point you are making. This is what I was trying to point out.

BEFORE: min (8 +10, 20) = 20 (270% size bonus)
AFTER: Min (7 +10, 20) = 20 (285% size bonus)

No change in terms of overall decay but a +15% increase in size bonus that applies to the renown gain for every member of the guild. Without the guild size bonus taken into account I agree that there is no change.

I also agree that the renown ransack that was designed to reign in the advancement of large guilds hurt small guilds more. Therefore if there is a way to lift or eliminate ransack for small guilds it will help them out immensely.
Yes, the way I look at it is dropping from 8 to 7 reduces the renown earning power from 29.6 to 26.6.

15. OK, aside from the ongoing discussion on guild sizes and game mechanics we can always only guess because nobody cares to tell us anything real, I think it´s time to start collecting ideas of what to change and generalize it.

Please feel free to add anything I missed. Please do not discuss sense or sensibility of these ideas - that has been done at lenth in the last 133 pages in here.

I think it is ok to summarize most ideas along these general headlines:

+ Reduce decay...
- for small guilds like they did for large guilds.
- for all guilds the same %.
- to ten accounts counting.
- to Zero.
- to activity of guild members alone, e.g. certain % from renown earned the higher the guild.

+ Reduce / eliminate / set at 2 levels gained the ransack penalty.

+ Give more renown for...
- end reward lists (epic, heroic), challenges, repeated quests (ransack / epic).
- pots (higher bonus).
- size bonus -higher to make up for the benefit handed to the large guilds.
- renown bonus for more and larger guilds as well.

+ Completely change the system by...
- changing the mechanics of how members are counted active / passive and their renown is handled on booting / leaving on their own.
- getting away completely with renown decay and bonuses.
- making the system based on activity alone.
- getting away with guild levels - any guild can have any buff / ship and pay with either renown, astral shards or whatever.
- binding renown and decay thereof on the member - changing guild would elvy a tax (none at boot) and the member would bring the renown to a new guild.

I am sure, I left out several Ideas, please feel free to add.

16. Week 1 Results of the Test Hendrick Requested

Renown Totals:
Guardians of House Cannith: 22,308,219
Eternal Wrath: 31,106,685
Bathory Hordes: 20,267,059

Renown Earned Per Member For The Week (measure activity level of players in guild before guild bonus is applied)
Guardians of House Cannith: 12,214
Eternal Wrath: 12,202
Bathory Hordes: 2,815

Decay Per Member For the Week (measures the penalty on players of each guild)
Guardians of House Cannith: 16,900.58
Eternal Wrath: 3,332
Bathory Hordes: 332

Decay Per Member For the Week if all Guilds were Level 76 for the whole week
Guardians of House Cannith: 16,900.58
Eternal Wrath: 1,925
Bathory Hordes: 413

Level Gains For the Week:
Guardians of House Cannith: 0
Eternal Wrath: 1
Bathory Hordes: 2

Net Renown Gain For the Week
Guardians of House Cannith: 238,136
Eternal Wrath: 700,687
Bathory Hordes: 926,838

17. Originally Posted by slarden
Yes, the way I look at it is dropping from 8 to 7 reduces the renown earning power from 29.6 to 26.6.
The way I look at it is dropping from 8 to 7 increases the renown earning power +15% if the player being removed is failing to meet their renown earning potential.

For example: If the guild of 8 is removing a retired bank character gaining 0 renown for example. I don't see how renown earning power still decreases.

How would you account for the disparity between renown earning potential and actual renown earned by accounts defined as "active" by Turbine?

18. Originally Posted by Nestroy
I am sure, I left out several Ideas, please feel free to add.
+ Reduce decay...
- smaller ship, smaller (easier to overcome) decay
- lower # of amenities, lower decay
- ddo store item to suspend decay for a day

+ Reduce / eliminate ransack penalty only for guilds 10 or smaller.

+ Give more renown for...
- challenges
- events

+ Completely change the system by...
- bonuses based on level and not size

19. Originally Posted by slarden
Week 1 Results of the Test Hendrick Requested

Renown Totals:
Guardians of House Cannith: 22,308,219
Eternal Wrath: 31,106,685
Bathory Hordes: 20,267,059

Renown Earned Per Member For The Week (measure activity level of players in guild before guild bonus is applied)
Guardians of House Cannith: 12,214
Eternal Wrath: 12,202
Bathory Hordes: 2,815

Decay Per Member For the Week (measures the penalty on players of each guild)
Guardians of House Cannith: 16,900.58
Eternal Wrath: 3,332
Bathory Hordes: 332

Decay Per Member For the Week if all Guilds were Level 76 for the whole week
Guardians of House Cannith: 16,900.58
Eternal Wrath: 1,925
Bathory Hordes: 413

Level Gains For the Week:
Guardians of House Cannith: 0
Eternal Wrath: 1
Bathory Hordes: 2

Net Renown Gain For the Week
Guardians of House Cannith: 238,136
Eternal Wrath: 700,687
Bathory Hordes: 926,838
I should also note that if the fixed account multiplier was changed from 20 to 10 my guild would have advanced 314,189 for the week instead of 238,136. My guild is active as the #s show. The major impact of such a change would be on small guilds stuck in place. This reduction in decay would allow them to move forward like Hendrick's, Smatt's and many other large guilds can do now due to the reduction in decay. I am glad to see those guilds moving forward now after being stalled for so long due to decay. It's now time to help the small guilds stuck in place get the same type of benefit.

20. Originally Posted by slarden
I should also note that if the fixed account multiplier was changed from 20 to 10 my guild would have advanced 314,189 for the week instead of 238,136. My guild is active as the #s show. The major impact of such a change would be on small guilds stuck in place. This reduction in decay would allow them to move forward like Hendrick's, Smatt's and many other large guilds can do now due to the reduction in decay. I am glad to see those guilds moving forward now after being stalled for so long due to decay. It's now time to help the small guilds stuck in place get the same type of benefit.
While I fully support the reduction or elimination of decay, I have to ask, if you are (as you previously asserted) okay with smaller guilds progressing less quickly, and the decay you are experiencing is neither causing you to fall backwards, nor is it an incentive for you to remove players from your guild, what problem are you trying to demonstrate here?

#### 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.