1. Originally Posted by Gremmlynn
(...)Anyway, good luck with the new game. Though I can't see how someone could find anything about the current guild system that would make one leave the game. Which wasn't the case under the old.
Gremmlynn, what Slarden roots for and what reluctantly is admitted by most in here (even from the large guilds) is the fact that for small guilds the system change was for the worse.

Why worse? Mathematically there has not changed much for smaller guilds, did it?

Well, the larger guilds got handed a hefty bonus by not paying decay proportionally. So now all a guild has to do is getting as large as possible while staying fairly active to marginalize decay. Any added player with at least marginal activity is a net gain now for large guilds.

While the smaller guilds still are hit by the full 20 accounts min decay. So in proportion to the larger guilds, the smaller guilds were set to the worse. It´s the same effect if you have two kids and you give one 10\$ and tell the other "you get nothing". Try this once and watch the reactions.

The same reaction you would expect from the two kids you get in here. The one kid will be complaining why it did not get anything, while the other is full of joy and tells the one kid that got nothing to look out for somebody to hand out 10\$ for that kid as well. And the arguments in here are following these very same lowly lines sometimes (e.g. "make your guild grow that big as ours...").

Even from a mathematical point of view the small guilds got the worse side of the system change, There always is an equilibrium where you profit max out of a certain set of rules. Where Bonus against Decay turns into maxed profit. Under the old system if not hyperactively multiboxing to lv. 100 (where max bonus is needed anyway) depending on the calculus the equilibrium was reached anywhere between 9 - 12 accounts as stated several times in this thread so far. The estimates for the new system go into the range of 30 - 35 active accounts. So only from moving the equilibrium point upwards one can conclude that small guilds got the worse of the new system.

While there always will be those that profit from a complex system as the guld renown in DDO, there always will be the loosing side. Switch the rules and those that did profit before now are on the loosing side. But no wonder, take away from the profiteers and they will complain. And that´s what Slarden does here.

And I can understand him very well.

2. Originally Posted by Gremmlynn
More than it took me to put down the 3e PHB and walk away shaking my head.

It's really more a difference in play styles than anything. AD&D was very player centric, whereas 3e made things more character centric with the player being more of a meta strategist and 4e streamlining that meta-strategy.
I had been reluctand for 3E first, too. But with 3.5e I finally did switch. While I still think AD&D 2nd ed. or the 2.5 rules sets were very well thought and done (with realism in fantasy in mind), I have to admit that I like the charactercentric heroic fantasy possibilities from 3.5e. There is not that much micromanagement as with AD&D 2nd.

But mixing a trade card system with WoW-like character development and call this 4e??? While 3e and especially 3.5e clearly had been inspired by the original D&D boxed rules, I cannot see any of them in 4e. So on pen&paper, the 4e rules will get a pass by me.

3. Originally Posted by Nestroy
Gremmlynn, what Slarden roots for and what reluctantly is admitted by most in here (even from the large guilds) is the fact that for small guilds the system change was for the worse.

Why worse? Mathematically there has not changed much for smaller guilds, did it?

Well, the larger guilds got handed a hefty bonus by not paying decay proportionally. So now all a guild has to do is getting as large as possible while staying fairly active to marginalize decay. Any added player with at least marginal activity is a net gain now for large guilds.

While the smaller guilds still are hit by the full 20 accounts min decay. So in proportion to the larger guilds, the smaller guilds were set to the worse. It´s the same effect if you have two kids and you give one 10\$ and tell the other "you get nothing". Try this once and watch the reactions.

The same reaction you would expect from the two kids you get in here. The one kid will be complaining why it did not get anything, while the other is full of joy and tells the one kid that got nothing to look out for somebody to hand out 10\$ for that kid as well. And the arguments in here are following these very same lowly lines sometimes (e.g. "make your guild grow that big as ours...").

Even from a mathematical point of view the small guilds got the worse side of the system change, There always is an equilibrium where you profit max out of a certain set of rules. Where Bonus against Decay turns into maxed profit. Under the old system if not hyperactively multiboxing to lv. 100 (where max bonus is needed anyway) depending on the calculus the equilibrium was reached anywhere between 9 - 12 accounts as stated several times in this thread so far. The estimates for the new system go into the range of 30 - 35 active accounts. So only from moving the equilibrium point upwards one can conclude that small guilds got the worse of the new system.

While there always will be those that profit from a complex system as the guld renown in DDO, there always will be the loosing side. Switch the rules and those that did profit before now are on the loosing side. But no wonder, take away from the profiteers and they will complain. And that´s what Slarden does here.

And I can understand him very well.
Nestroy. I realize exactly what the changes did. I just don't see anything about the guild system that is worth quitting the game over. Maybe it's that I played the game before the system and see anything that anyone get's from it as a plus.

Really, the only why to make this system fair for everyone is to eliminate decay and renown rewards and replace it with a daily renown ration that is the same for every guild.

4. Originally Posted by Nestroy
I had been reluctand for 3E first, too. But with 3.5e I finally did switch. While I still think AD&D 2nd ed. or the 2.5 rules sets were very well thought and done (with realism in fantasy in mind), I have to admit that I like the charactercentric heroic fantasy possibilities from 3.5e. There is not that much micromanagement as with AD&D 2nd.

But mixing a trade card system with WoW-like character development and call this 4e??? While 3e and especially 3.5e clearly had been inspired by the original D&D boxed rules, I cannot see any of them in 4e. So on pen&paper, the 4e rules will get a pass by me.
2.5? If by that you mean that horrible "player's option" stuff where the best fighters were clerics I'm going to have to say that's where things really took a turn down the wrong road IMO. Not only was it a poorly done job of trying to shoehorn a new system onto the game, it took it in the wrong direction for me. Though, I'm sure market research showed that I was in the minority and most players wanted more detailed "carrier planning" options than the good old Conan style "take what life sends you and come out on top".

5. Originally Posted by Gremmlynn
Nestroy. I realize exactly what the changes did. I just don't see anything about the guild system that is worth quitting the game over. Maybe it's that I played the game before the system and see anything that anyone get's from it as a plus.

Really, the only why to make this system fair for everyone is to eliminate decay and renown rewards and replace it with a daily renown ration that is the same for every guild.
First of all I haven't "quit" the game. DDO was my first and only MMO and now I am checking out two other games is all. The money I am spending on those games would have likely been spent on DDO otherwise.

Although I have continued to comment in this thread - my gut feeling (which has been incredibly accurate in the past) is telling me that the developer leading this initiative is a also a player that has a bias favoring large guilds. I am guessing that any change made will continue to make it disadvantageous to be in a small guild vs. a large guild. The comments, the choice of test period, the way this change was communicated (or not communicated) all reinforce my belief that this is the case. I could be wrong, but I am doubting it.

If a game doesn't support a person's grouping style (or in this case outright punishes it with high decay), then over time the game will end up with less of those people. While people in guilds of 10 or less may be small in #, most of the ones I know spend alot on the game compared to those I know in large guilds. Almost all of them have expressed frustration with decay and the guild system.

Quite frankly decay isn't fun and having to adjust my play to combat decay is even less fun. While I enjoy the game, there is a point where a person sits back and wonders why in the world would a company penalize me with such high decay for simply being in a small guild.? And then why I am spending boat loads of money supporting a company that is doing this to me?

Up to this point I've continued to spend money on the game and play the game, although I've also joined our guild leader playing Star Wars. However, I am only spending the money on DDO because I have plenty of it to spend. I likely would have stopped my spending otherwise.

One thing I did decide is that I only want to focus on one MMO as I used to at some point soon, but for now I have my hand in a few. Both the other games I am playing have guilds systems that don't favor any size guild. I like both guild systems because I can group and play as I wish without a penalty, without having to make changes so my guild doesn't go backwards and without the people in my guild getting frustrated that we can't move forward at a decent pace even though we play alot.

This is by far the worst guild system of the 3 for someone that prefers a small guild like myself. To me it only makes sense that some DDO folks will try out the new D&D MMO. I am sure even some of the folks criticizing me will try it out

Even when I switch fully to another MMO I will keep my acct and use my existing points to buy packs on sale as I can. I will still play once and a while but it's doubtful I will have a reason to spend money on the game.

You may not like my reasons, but that's how I feel about it.

6. Originally Posted by slarden
Although I have continued to comment in this thread - my gut feeling (which has been incredibly accurate in the past) is telling me that the developer leading this initiative is a also a player that has a bias favoring large guilds. I am guessing that any change made will continue to make it disadvantageous to be in a small guild vs. a large guild. The comments, the choice of test period, the way this change was communicated (or not communicated) all reinforce my belief that this is the case. I could be wrong, but I am doubting it.
My gut tells me it was someone in marketing that came up with the framework and passed it on to the game designers and told them to "make it work". Really I don't even think the devs were thinking in terms of large guild/small guild, but active player/casual player after someone saw data saying more players were being booted than previously and told them to "fix it".

Personal bias seems one of they least likely reasons for it to me actually.

7. Here are a few quotes from the thread that lead to this guild change, including a post from a person that said I was crying wolf. Crying wolf eh?

It is interesting to see how both the tone and the statements change after a system that is highly desirable to large guilds is implemented.

Originally Posted by Thayion516
Stuck at level 64/65 guild due to a BAD guild decay/renown loss SYSTEM.
Originally Posted by eris2323
Well, I'm all for removing guild renown decay entirely.

Originally Posted by Tshober
Remove renown decay.

Originally Posted by Gremmlynn
I see no reason every guild shouldn't have access to all the goodies in their own time. Getting rid of the cap would let those who like the whole competitive thing continue to race each other. While dumping decay would take away a reason for guilds that just want the upper level goodies from alienating the underperformed and casual players in order to get them.
Originally Posted by Hendrik
I do not think that every Guild should be 100. But I do not think a Guild should stagnate in advancement, even if that advancement is small. 100 should be an achievable goal. It may take some longer then others, but so long as everyone is making progress I think we all would be happy.

Gamers like to make progress, it is in our nature. If we are not making progress in what we are doing, even if that progress is small, we find something else.

We = generic we.
Originally Posted by Hendrik

Once your Guild hits that plateau, no matter what type of players you have, it is advancing beyond that point is not really all that possible without some change in gameplay.

We have plateaued at 80.
Originally Posted by Hendrik
Friendly reminder to all.

Stay civil or once again our desire for a conversation with the DEVs will go ignored.

Within a few weeks of this thread the developers made the change to the guild system which highly favors large guilds. It has now been several months with no change for small guilds.

8. Originally Posted by slarden
Here are a few quotes from the thread that lead to this guild change, including a post from a person that said I was crying wolf. Crying wolf eh?

It is interesting to see how both the tone and the statements change after a system that is highly desirable to large guilds is implemented.

Within a few weeks of this thread the developers made the change to the guild system which highly favors large guilds. It has now been several months with no change for small guilds.

So you think that the Devs did all this after jsut a few weeks? LOL, they can barely do a server restart with a few weeks notice.... Seriously, this had to be in the works for sometime, likely many months.

Just as any further adjustment will be.... And I'm sure that soem will complain if they aren't "given" everything they seem to be entitled to.

So let me ask you, if they reduce the base decay level to 10 accounts, which would be almsot perfect for YOU. What about the 5 account guild? What would be perfect for them... Save for removign decay altogether, which I doubt is going to happen? What about the 1 person guild?

9. Originally Posted by smatt
So you think that the Devs did all this after jsut a few weeks? LOL, they can barely do a server restart with a few weeks notice.... Seriously, this had to be in the works for sometime, likely many months.

Just as any further adjustment will be.... And I'm sure that soem will complain if they aren't "given" everything they seem to be entitled to.

So let me ask you, if they reduce the base decay level to 10 accounts, which would be almsot perfect for YOU. What about the 5 account guild? What would be perfect for them... Save for removign decay altogether, which I doubt is going to happen? What about the 1 person guild?
The devs already said they implemented this change because it was something they can do quick. And it was done a few weeks after the developer posted "read by devs" in that thread.

As I said, my reason for wanting the account multiplier changed from 20 to 10 is so that ALL guilds get at least a 50% reduction in decay even though obviously big guilds would continue to be the biggest beneficiaries of the overall system change. I see many small and start-up guilds stuck below level 55 and unable to get the level 55 ship.

Whether the guild is 1, 5, 10 or 100 they would get at least a 50% reduction vs. the old system. Large guilds like yours can already level to 100 without a problem. This change would only slightly hasten that march to 100 for the guilds like yours that already received a much bigger reduction in decay.

Despite your claim that this change would be perfect for my guild, it benefits all guilds exactly the same. A 50% reduction in decay would allow all guilds that are stuck to advance and all guilds to advance a little faster. It would allow a level 60 small guild stuck at level 60 to advance 1 or 2 levels in 1 year. One guild on Sarlona has already increased by 15 levels since the change due to the massive reduction in decay. Why do you wish to keep this small level 60 guild from gaining 2 levels?

10. Originally Posted by slarden
The devs already said they implemented this change because it was something they can do quick. And it was done a few weeks after the developer posted "read by devs" in that thread.

As I said, my reason for wanting the account multiplier changed from 20 to 10 is so that ALL guilds get at least a 50% reduction in decay even though obviously big guilds would continue to be the biggest beneficiaries of the overall system change. I see many small and start-up guilds stuck below level 55 and unable to get the level 55 ship.

Whether the guild is 1, 5, 10 or 100 they would get at least a 50% reduction vs. the old system. Large guilds like yours can already level to 100 without a problem. This change would only slightly hasten that march to 100 for the guilds like yours that already received a much bigger reduction in decay.

Despite your claim that this change would be perfect for my guild, it benefits all guilds exactly the same. A 50% reduction in decay would allow all guilds that are stuck to advance and all guilds to advance a little faster. It would allow a level 60 small guild stuck at level 60 to advance 1 or 2 levels in 1 year. One guild on Sarlona has already increased by 15 levels since the change due to the massive reduction in decay. Why do you wish to keep this small level 60 guild from gaining 2 levels?

Again, waht are you talkign about.. Hwo do YOU know what I want? My point all along ahs been for YOU to EARN a bigger ship.... And that all guilds were never meant to be able to hit level 100. That's all I've said time and again... When my guild wants to do soemthing, sucha s advance in guild level we DISCUSS ways we can do that within our guild... Then we take action if neccesary, such as concentrating on gathering renown or not... We NEVER chose to kick even the msot casual players, nor do we headhunt like as you portray large guilds.....

You dont's eem to want your guildies to be bothered by working on gatherign more renown... So why should YOUR guild move higher in level? It's a big game, lots to do.. Do you NEED a bigger ship? If you WANT a particular in game item what do you do? Complain that it's not fair that you can't just have it? Or do you go run that quest(s) till you get it... See you cahnge your game play to get that item? Your guildies I'd imagine do the same, so why won't THEY help you? It sure doesnt' sound like you have much of a guild.... Or you don't have one that wants to go in the direction that YOU want to go....

I see ships and the buffs they provide as a reward for dedication to the game... For dedication to THAT goal... Not as an entitlement...

11. as usual late to the show...why shouldnt large guilds have advantage over smaller ones? its like a big union vs a small one...may not be "fair" but is logical. i mainly use my own low lvl guild for specific buffs to get even stat score n added dmg and healing amp...love it when a someones toon dies and cant find/disable traps or cc sucks once they die and are not benefiting from lvl 60+ ship buffs...just sayin...

12. Originally Posted by blerkington
What is surprising is the amount of venom that this request has attracted. Especially since at no point has he asked for anything to be taken away from medium sized or larger guilds.
.
Oh really? Then what was he saying here?

Originally Posted by slarden
We also have casual people that don't play often in our small guild. They need to scrap this horrible change and put something in place that is fair to guilds of all sizes rather than help large guilds and penalize small guilds.
or here?

Originally Posted by slarden
I dislike the old system. The proposed replacement system is far worse.

To me, it sounded very much like he wanted to go back to the old decay system, which would help his tiny guild not at all, but would increase the daily renown decay for all non-tiny guilds (not to mention make casual/social players undesirable again). Since those posts he has moderated his language some, but he still tries to portray the issue as one of tiny guilds versus large guilds, when the vast majority of posters from large guilds are supportive of suggestions to help out tiny guilds. My guild is very large and I am quite supportive of further reducing decay and I am even open to slightly increasing small guild bonuses to keep small and tiny guilds viable. But I an NOT open to going back to the horribly anti-social old decay system.

13. Originally Posted by smatt
Again, waht are you talkign about.. Hwo do YOU know what I want? My point all along ahs been for YOU to EARN a bigger ship.... And that all guilds were never meant to be able to hit level 100. That's all I've said time and again... When my guild wants to do soemthing, sucha s advance in guild level we DISCUSS ways we can do that within our guild... Then we take action if neccesary, such as concentrating on gathering renown or not... We NEVER chose to kick even the msot casual players, nor do we headhunt like as you portray large guilds.....

You dont's eem to want your guildies to be bothered by working on gatherign more renown... So why should YOUR guild move higher in level? It's a big game, lots to do.. Do you NEED a bigger ship? If you WANT a particular in game item what do you do? Complain that it's not fair that you can't just have it? Or do you go run that quest(s) till you get it... See you cahnge your game play to get that item? Your guildies I'd imagine do the same, so why won't THEY help you? It sure doesnt' sound like you have much of a guild.... Or you don't have one that wants to go in the direction that YOU want to go....

I see ships and the buffs they provide as a reward for dedication to the game... For dedication to THAT goal... Not as an entitlement...
You keep deceptively arguing that those of us from small guilds are not earning and asking for a free ride. As for my guildies, we have a mixture of casual and more active players just like many guilds. How is it you can't understand that after I remove our small guild bonus - my guild members are earning over 3x renown/player than a large level 75 guild. They gained 3 levels in the last week and we gained 0. We are treading water and they are rocketing to 100.

The issue isn't earning, dedication, entitlement or goals. The issue is that the members of my guild have 14x more decay/member than the other guild has. That is AFTER small guild bonus is factored in to compare apples to apples.

I don't mind that our small guild needs to earn more renown to level up, but I dislike the fact that the people in our guild have 14x more renown taken away from us each day due to a decay mechanism.

The people in my guild are doing nothing wrong. They are just faced with the same high decay/player that large guilds used to face. And I posted earlier the type of comments made by the people in large guilds when decay was an issue for them. These same people that now argue decay is necessary and/or beneficial asked for the complete elimination of decay when they had roughly the same decay/player we now have.

It's called hypocracy, you can look up the defintion yourself.

14. Originally Posted by Tshober
Oh really? Then what was he saying here?

or here?

To me, it sounded very much like he wanted to go back to the old decay system, which would help his tiny guild not at all, but would increase the daily renown decay for all non-tiny guilds (not to mention make casual/social players undesirable again). Since those posts he has moderated his language some, but he still tries to portray the issue as one of tiny guilds versus large guilds, when the vast majority of posters from large guilds are supportive of suggestions to help out tiny guilds. My guild is very large and I am quite supportive of further reducing decay and I am even open to slightly increasing small guild bonuses to keep small and tiny guilds viable. But I an NOT open to going back to the horribly anti-social old decay system.
The horrible change I was referring to was the fact that small guilds like mine are subject to the increased ransack penalty even though we got none of the decay reduction associated with it. People like you that complained vehemently about the old system and it's high decay are treating anyone that complains about the new system as a competitor. You have no idea how hard it is to work around the ransack penalthy for a small guild. The only way my guild can even hold our level is by banking renown as end rewards prior to gaining a level and then taking that renown after we level. I doubt most small guilds have figured that out as a way to stop the leveling/dropping a level cycle.

Your approach is that we should be happy with what we have and not complain. No, it's not right that small guilds have high decay and it's not right that it's so difficult for small casual guilds to hold levels because of a ransack penalty put in place to offset the easy leveling ability that large guilds have.

As always, you aren't interested in a balanced system, you are only interested in ensuring the system stays exactly as it is now.

By the way the last quote of mine was in regard to a poll whether I liked the decay system. It had nothing to do with any proposals. I absolutely believe the system we have now is worse than the old system because it is out of balance. We created a situation where vets from small guilds are being recruited from picky large guilds that don't have many (if any) casual players at a time when the system heavily favors large guilds. While the old system was frustrating for many large guilds, this change will effectively wipe out several small guilds that have a mixture of casual players and more active players.

All of my suggestions have included ensuring that large guilds keep their large decay reduction. I have many friends in large guilds and I am happy they received a decay reduction. Even when people from large guilds have proposed that we eliminate the small guild bonus, I have not followed suit and suggested that Turbine make it harder for large guilds.

I can tell you looked really hard for the example of me trying to make it harder for large guilds. I am sorry but it's not there. I don't wish to make it harder for my friends in large guilds.

15. Originally Posted by slarden
All of my suggestions have included ensuring that large guilds keep their large decay reduction. I have many friends in large guilds and I am happy they received a decay reduction.
I don't have a problem with your more recent suggestions. I am all for reducing decay more, as with your suggestion to drop the fixed guild size to 10 in the decay formula. Heck, I would like to see it dropped to zero. So would nearly everyone who has posted here!

My problem is not with what you are now suggesting, my problem is when you make statements like this:

Originally Posted by slarden
The fact that large guilds argue against this has nothing to do with inclusiveness, but rather exclusiveness. They wish to deny small guilds the same opportunity to level that their guilds enjoy..
Who are these "large guilds" that are opposed to your proposal to reduce decay even more? Name some names. Because everyone I see posting has said (some of us many, many times) that we want to see decay reduced for everyone, including tiny guilds like yours. Your recent proposals are good and I support them. Your attempts to portray large guilds as opposing your suggestion are just fantasy.

16. Originally Posted by Tshober
I don't have a problem with your more recent suggestions. I am all for reducing decay more, as with your suggestion to drop the fixed guild size to 10 in the decay formula. Heck, I would like to see it dropped to zero. So would nearly everyone who has posted here!

My problem is not with what you are now suggesting, my problem is when you make statements like this:

Who are these "large guilds" that are opposed to your proposal to reduce decay even more? Name some names. Because everyone I see posting has said (some of us many, many times) that we want to see decay reduced for everyone, including tiny guilds like yours. Your proposals are good and I support them. Your attempts to portray large guilds as opposing your suggestion are just fantasy.
Have you not seen smatt' posts or Hendricks? or Eris? Others say a decay reduction should only occur only if guild bonus is eliminated. They are all over the place.

Originally Posted by smatt
You dont's eem to want your guildies to be bothered by working on gatherign more renown... So why should YOUR guild move higher in level? It's a big game, lots to do.. Do you NEED a bigger ship? If you WANT a particular in game item what do you do? Complain that it's not fair that you can't just have it? Or do you go run that quest(s) till you get it... See you cahnge your game play to get that item?
Message is quite clear.

all the ideas of this revamping the renown system and changeing it so dramactically seems like far to much work then the side effects of the current system in place spez when we are talking about 2 important factors
first is all guilds can make it to level 26 without any decay {regardless of size}
second decay is only a factor with the current system for guilds with 1-10 members who not only have a renown boost but have no real reason to stay under 10 except choice to stay that way
message is quite clear

Originally Posted by eris2323
No - no bonus is needed. None

And no change is needed, to the current system at all.

And I don't agree with you, because I do not really think decay will ever go away, and nor should it.
message is quite clear

Originally Posted by eris2323
I've already stated I don't consider 3 casual players to be a real guild, and that is my stance; I don't believe solo and tiny guilds should get any more advantage than they already have, because I believe it hurts our society in game when any single player can solo their way to GUILD level 100.

It cheapens the experience for all; and with a world full of kings, who will be the knights?

Or to put it into grade school terms... 'ITS STUPID OKAY'
nessage is quite clear

It took me just a few min to find these few examples out of the many of similar comments

17. Originally Posted by slarden
Have you not seen smatt' posts or Hendricks? or Eris? Others say a decay reduction should only occur only if guild bonus is eliminated. They are all over the place.

Message is quite clear.

message is quite clear

message is quite clear

nessage is quite clear

It took me just a few min to find these few examples out of the many of similar comments
Okay, there are a few posters who have said they oppose your poropsal. You quoted 3 and claim you could have found more. I can quote more than that who have said clearly that they want to see decay eliminated entirely. So why don't we stop the quote wars and just agree that you should have said "some people from large guilds", rather than just saying "large guilds", and implying that all people from large guilds oppose you.

18. Originally Posted by slarden
Have you not seen smatt' posts or Hendricks? or Eris? Others say a decay reduction should only occur only if guild bonus is eliminated. They are all over the place.
Where di I say... That decay reduction should only occur if guidl bonus is eliminated... See... Who's being dishonest.... I've NEVER said that.... I don't Hendrik has ever said it either. You're making things up, just to make things seem more dramatic...

19. Originally Posted by Tshober
Okay, there are a few posters who have said they oppose your poropsal. You quoted 3 and claim you could have found more. I can quote more than that who have said clearly that they want to see decay eliminated entirely. So why don't we stop the quote wars and just agree that you should have said "some people from large guilds", rather than just saying "large guilds", and implying that all people from large guilds oppose you.

Can you at least be that honest about it?
No.

That would show the system is working as intended at this time.

This is for Very Small Guilds and NOT Small.

20. Mucking around with Excel...
old system multiplier was about 12.5% too high when comparing best case size of 13 versus worst case 50.

With decay changed to ignore accounts, calculations became much more dependent on guild level. I picked level 61 as representitive, reader can extrapolate.

With the new system, to match a level 13 guild back up to a level 50 would need to increase multiplier by 30%. The higher the guild level, the larger the multiplier.

If remove decay, then it benefits smaller guilds more than larger guilds. Compare a worst case guild size of 10 with a 50 has the decay reduction benefit of 60%,with an infite size guild approaching 50%. Based on this, the renown bonus should be halfed if removing guild decay.

#### 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.