Page 148 of 209 FirstFirst ... 4898138144145146147148149150151152158198 ... LastLast
Results 2,941 to 2,960 of 4162
  1. #2941
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    It isn't Turbine's responsibility (nor should it ever be) to prevent players from being a burden. Only players can make themselves a burden or to choose to not be one. I guess it all depends upon the philosophy of each individual guild.
    This is a horrible philosophy. If what you espouse here were really true, then there would have been no reason to change the old decay system at all. If Turbine wants to attract all types of players to DDO, then their guild leveling policies should not encourage the shunning of some types of players. Thankfully, the devs have recognized that reality, even if some posters here have not.

  2. #2942
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    We sympathize that the current system is advantageous to you - and is not our desire to penalize you or others. Just want a system that is fair to all.
    Then stop proposing more penalty (decay) and join us in advocating less penalty (less decay) for everyone.

  3. #2943
    Community Member UurlockYgmeov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere on the waters of this planet.
    Posts
    4,735

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tshober View Post
    completely incorrect about the current decay system. Under the current decay system there is no penalty at all for players who log in
    ...
    That is because the number of active accounts in the decay formula is fixed and never changes. Ever.
    ...
    No one is penalized for logging in currently.
    again, you are incorrect. Not choosing to see other than your branch.

    For all guilds - this is incorrect. Kindly take some time to think why - I've explained it several ways in multiple posts.

    Your understanding of the temporary changes is incomplete. The modified guild size is not static - it can and does fluxuate. All logins are included and count for a month.

    So the basic premise of the post quoted above is blatantly false.

    Also - no one is ever penalized for playing the game - that statement is inflammatorily incorrect.

    Please, Kobold's too busy playing with new shineys to deal with smoke screens.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tshober View Post
    Then stop proposing more penalty (decay) and join us in advocating less penalty (less decay) for everyone.
    Kobold's Shiney!

    my quoting a kobold makes as much sense as the quoted statement.

    we aren't advocating for more decay - rather fair decay.

    Decay is not penalty. Decay just is.

    c'est la décadence

    Finally - multiple posts quoting same post is extremely rude - and seemingly just for inflating post count. Kindly combine your posts.

    Makes it easier to see the smoke you are trying to use to hide the real topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tshober View Post
    This is a horrible philosophy. If what you espouse here were really true, then there would have been no reason to change the old decay system at all. If Turbine wants to attract all types of players to DDO, then their guild leveling policies should not encourage the shunning of some types of players. Thankfully, the devs have recognized that reality, even if some posters here have not.
    Turbine should be and is responsible for the game - not how people play it.

    Again - you are putting words into my mouth and blatantly misquoting and spinning my posts in a vain attempt to elicit emotional response and to put negative spin. Kindly stop it.

  4. #2944
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    Your understanding of the temporary changes is incomplete. The modified guild size is not static - it can and does fluxuate. All logins are included and count for a month.
    This statement is completely incorrect for the current decay system. The guild size in the current decay formula is fixed and never changes. Your understanding is incorrect.

    The devs even said so in the very first post in this thread. Take a look for yourself:

    Quote Originally Posted by Tolero View Post
    As of today, you will notice two changes to your renown rates:

    1. Renown decay no longer takes guild size into account. This should ease the pressure for guild leaders to “kick” members from the guild to offset daily renown decay rates. Renown decay now only takes a guild’s level into consideration rather than its size.
    2. Renown ransack has been increased. Previously when a guild earned levels in a day, it would gradually reduce the renown drop rates. We’ve increased the rate so that a guild can only earn roughly 3 levels in a single day. This should prevent large guilds from completely dominating the field in terms of levels per-day.

    I have bolded the relevent part, so you won't miss it this time. Renown decay no longer takes guild size into account. Guild size does not matter at all in the current decay system so there can never be a decay penalty for logging in. Only the old decay system and your proposed system penalize players with extra decay for logging in and generating no renown. No player is ever penalized with more decay for logging in under the current system.


    Edit: Changed to clarify that I was referring to decay penalty only and not to the loss of small guild bonuses.
    Last edited by Tshober; 02-24-2013 at 01:42 PM.

  5. #2945
    Community Member Nestroy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Europe, and proud of it
    Posts
    2,832

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tshober View Post
    This statement is correct for the old decay system but it is completely incorrect about the current decay system. Under the current decay system there is no penalty at all for players who log in and do not gain any renown. That is because the number of active accounts in the decay formula is fixed and never changes. Ever. Only under the old decay system and under your proposed system are these players penalized for logging in. Again, this is one of many reasons why the current system is superior to both the old system and to your proposed system. No one is penalized for logging in currently.
    Well, Tshober, I usually do like your statements, but here you are plain wrong. While you are perfectly correct in regard of renown decay itself, you still do not take into account the guild size bonus. Since for small guilds the guild size bonus now is necessary to combat decay (in proportion to members, smaller guilds still have much higher decay hits), any casual member that decreases size bonus but does not contribute is a liablility. So small guilds now (as they in truth had always) have two possibilities - to any day reach the ceiling or to grow by weeding out sub-par contributors.

    Well, I am sure your guild does not need to boot inactive members. Mine has to in order to grow, sad as it is. We are small @ curently 16 active members. And NO, growing is not a possibility, at least not on Wayfinder.

  6. #2946
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nestroy View Post
    Well, Tshober, I usually do like your statements, but here you are plain wrong. While you are perfectly correct in regard of renown decay itself, you still do not take into account the guild size bonus. Since for small guilds the guild size bonus now is necessary to combat decay (in proportion to members, smaller guilds still have much higher decay hits), any casual member that decreases size bonus but does not contribute is a liablility. So small guilds now (as they in truth had always) have two possibilities - to any day reach the ceiling or to grow by weeding out sub-par contributors.
    You are correct that I was only addressing decay in my statements and, in that context, I stand by them. It is my preference to see decay further reduced for small and tiny guilds to make it easier for them to advance. Also, I have no problem at all with retaining the small guild bonuses and even, if needed, increasing them within reason if it is necessary to keep small and tiny guilds viable. The argument I was making was against adding MORE decay back into the system.


    Quote Originally Posted by Nestroy View Post
    Well, I am sure your guild does not need to boot inactive members. Mine has to in order to grow, sad as it is. We are small @ curently 16 active members. And NO, growing is not a possibility, at least not on Wayfinder.
    Actually, we very much are forced to boot inactive members because we are up against the 1000 member cap constantly and so we must remove those that have been inactive for a long time (currently it is 1 month) to make room for new members who want to join us right now and for active members to make new alts. We often have a waiting list for slots to open up.
    Last edited by Tshober; 02-24-2013 at 01:28 PM.

  7. #2947
    Community Member UurlockYgmeov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere on the waters of this planet.
    Posts
    4,735

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nestroy View Post
    Well, Tshober, I usually do like your statements, but here you are plain wrong.
    ...
    So small guilds now ... have two possibilities - to any day reach the ceiling or to grow by weeding out sub-par contributors.

    Well, I am sure your guild does not need to boot inactive members. Mine has to in order to grow, sad as it is. We are small @ curently 16 active members. And NO, growing is not a possibility, at least not on Wayfinder.
    +1 (emphasis added)

    Quote Originally Posted by Tshober View Post
    It is my preference to see decay further reduced for small and tiny guilds to make it easier for them to advance.
    yes, we know of your broken record - remove decay. That is like saying remove gravity because of kobold's back pain not funny.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tshober View Post
    Actually, we very much are forced to boot inactive members because we are up against the 1000 member cap constantly and so we must remove those that have been inactive for a long time (currently it is 1 month) to make room for new members who want to join us right now and for active members to make new alts. We often have a waiting list for slots to open up.
    Glad to hear you are a member of the 1% that benefited from the temporary changes. If your guild hasn't hit 100 months ago - it probably did weeks ago.

    Now the smoke clears, and the truth emerges.
    Here's your shiney!"

    I understand that it might be hard to understand but you have just proven our point. Your statement is ironically proof enough that this temporary system is unfair and should be corrected - and that our proposal is the best solution so far.

  8. #2948
    Community Member UurlockYgmeov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere on the waters of this planet.
    Posts
    4,735

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vargouille View Post
    Nothing directly aimed at this situation at this time. We're still looking into possible future changes. Today's change was something we could feasibly try sooner rather than later, and potentially solve one Guild issue we perceived, which was the feeling that some Guild members would need to be kicked for the good of the guild as a whole in order to advance the guild.
    applaud attempt - but shifted paradigm to unfair - and more to the point - now it is the guilds with fewer members rather than the huge membership guilds that are feeling the need to boot players.

  9. #2949
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    Now the smoke clears, and the truth emerges.

    I have never hidden my guild size. I have clearly stated many times in this thread that my guild is very large. We are currently level 85. Before the change we were stuck at level 61.

    The people arguing for going back to the old decay system are mostly from small guilds that benefited from the old decay system. Many of them are in guilds that were level 100 even before the change to decay was made.


    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    yes, we know of your broken record - remove decay. That is like saying remove gravity because of kobold's back pain not funny.

    The change the devs have already made removed a great deal of decay. Every guild with more than 10 active players got a reduction in daily decay from the change the devs made. That is a lot of decay reduction. I see no reason that more decay reduction could not happen, given that so of it much has happened already. And the logical place to do that further decay reduction is to extend it to the guilds with 10 players or less that did not get a decay reduction initially.
    Last edited by Tshober; 02-24-2013 at 02:34 PM.

  10. #2950
    Community Member UurlockYgmeov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere on the waters of this planet.
    Posts
    4,735

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vargouille View Post
    We're all for new ideas and brainstorming solutions (truly, really, not just tossing buzzwords). This particular idea is problematic, because it promotes kicking players from your guild to reduce decay, which is where we were before and a situation we want to avoid.

    We are certainly still considering other changes and have never said that the current changes being tested were considered any kind of final solution. We'd love to have more ideas to consider.

    Ideas that are more likely to work out are ones that feel fair, promote playing together with people you like and have fun with, and where the system itself isn't promoting who you play with. We don't want to promote any particular guild size. And we don't want incentives for kicking players you enjoy playing with, or for players who might like to come and hang out or play occasionally to feel like they are hurting their guild or harming their friends in any way. If these goals seem wrong, we're willing to hear ideas on that too. This isn't an exhaustive list, but current thinking is leaning us strongly towards including these goals.
    Thought I saw specific goals... Our proposal satisfies them all to 95% or even 99% of players and guilds.

    1. implement (aka ADD a)simple probationary (two-week) guild invite - invitee does not affect guild renown. So doesn't earn renown, and isn't counted toward modified guild size. Allows guild and prospect to try each other out and see if the fit is right.

    2. Revert to pre-change except for two significant changes - instead of 30 days until inactive, change to 24 hours; and remove the +10 to the modified guild size in the formula, with a modified minimum guild size becoming one. Takes 95% of the pressure away to boot. Is fair for all guilds of all sizes of all styles of play.

    3. Ransack set to 2 instead of current temporary 3 and instead of the original 7.

    4. adjust decay to affect all guilds of all levels.... this allows for entropy to hit.

    5. adjust decay for higher level guilds - lower it by 10-15% (the level multiplier).

  11. #2951
    Community Member UurlockYgmeov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere on the waters of this planet.
    Posts
    4,735

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tshober View Post
    I have never hidden my guild size.
    guess I have better things to do than read the same broken record. OHHHH! KOBOLD SHINEY!

  12. #2952
    Community Member UurlockYgmeov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere on the waters of this planet.
    Posts
    4,735

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vargouille View Post
    This is not forgotten. We are still considering the changes so far and intend further changes as we don't necessarily consider that everything perfect, but don't have specifics to share at this time. Sorry there isn't greater detail to share right now!
    thank you for checking in and keeping up with the discussion. Seems this is one of the most active threads..

  13. #2953
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    1. implement simple probationary (two-week) guild invite - invitee does not affect guild renown. So doesn't earn renown, and isn't counted toward modified guild size. Allows guild and prospect to try each other out and see if the fit is right.
    There is no need for this that I can see. If it were to be implemented, I would want it to at least be optional so I could turn it off because it just discriminates against new players if it is made mandatory.


    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    2. Revert to pre-change except for two significant changes - instead of 30 days until inactive, change to 24 hours; and remove the +10 to the modified guild size in the formula, with a modified minimum guild size becoming one. Takes 95% of the pressure away to boot. Is fair for all guilds of all sizes of all styles of play.
    This is better than the old decay system but it is not as good as the current system. This system penalizes players (with extra decay) for logging in to DDO when they cannot dedicate a large block of time to farming renown. Renown farming just to fight decay is unfun to begin with. But in addition to that, many players who might want to log in briefly on weekdays, just to check the AH/mail and say "HI" to their guild friends, will be strongly discouraged from doing so because they (and their guild) will know that logging in when you can't take the time to farm for renown will cause additional decay for the guild. I don't think we should be structuring the decay system to penalize players for logging in each day, even if it is briefly. The current decay system does NOT penalize players with extra decay for logging in without farming any renown. This proposal does.


    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    3. Ransack set to 2 instead of current temporary 3 and instead of the original 7.
    This will be a killer for small guilds at higher levels. It means that the ransack penalty to renown earned will be 50% greater than the current system and 250% greater than the old system. A small guild that is barely able to get enough renown in a day to overcome decay will find themsleves in a "ransack loop". They level up and then can't overcome the daily decay because of the higher ransack penalty so they drop back down the next day and then do it all over again. The ransak should not be reduced to 2. It should stay at 3 but only be implemented after the 2nd level is gained in a single day so that the "ransack loop" can be avoided.



    As long as you keep reposting your proposals, I will keep telling you what I see as the problems with them.
    Last edited by Tshober; 02-24-2013 at 03:54 PM.

  14. #2954
    Community Member UurlockYgmeov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere on the waters of this planet.
    Posts
    4,735

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tshober View Post
    eliminate decay

    ok - tell you what - will humour you.

    lets take your logic to a very simple and common sense conclusion:

    eliminate decay. renown becomes worthless and meaningless.
    since renown meaningless and worthless - and to make it fair to all guilds - eliminate guild levels....

    now all guilds are the same - all have the same ship (or now just two ships - the platinum version and the turbine point version) and all have access to all the same amenities.

    Heck - I'd support that! Every Kobold knows that free stuff good stuff!

    from your last post it has become evident that you are completely out of touch with reality, especially the reality of guilds with small membership pools. Earn more than a level a day? Haha! funnny! Only at low levels maybe... but high levels? nope - not possible.

    So... adding to that last post of mine ---

    1. added the word ADD for those who have memory or reading issues. Kobold needs glasses?!?

    4. adjust decay to affect all guilds of all levels.... this allows for entropy to hit.

    5. adjust decay for higher level guilds - lower it by 10-15% (the level multiplier).

    Quote Originally Posted by Tshober View Post
    discriminates against new players

    penalizes players (with extra decay) for logging in to DDO
    Add the word Tshober before each of your statements..... the only thing that makes the proposal unfair is the actions of the guild, not the system. Please look in a mirror.
    Kobold has a date with a shiney!

    Quote Originally Posted by Tshober View Post
    current decay system does NOT penalize players
    no it rewards guilds (like yours) for having 1000 members and penalizes any guild that doesn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tshober View Post
    This will be a killer for small guilds at higher levels.
    hence my statement about sadly out of touch with reality. Small membership guilds at higher level will probably never even come close to earning enough renown for even a single level. The only size guilds that this affects are uber large humongoid sized guilds.

  15. #2955
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    ok - tell you what - will humour you.

    lets take your logic to a very simple and common sense conclusion:

    eliminate decay. renown becomes worthless and meaningless.
    since renown meaningless and worthless - and to make it fair to all guilds - eliminate guild levels....
    Eliminating decay does not render renown worthless or meaningless. There is no decay of character exp but exp is hardly worthless or meaningless. Nor does the lack of exp decay eliminate the need for character levels or make all characters the same. Your simple logic is very basically flawed.

    Renown, without any renown decay at all, is still how you earn guild levels. Just as exp, without any exp decay at all, is how you you earn character levels. Eliminating renown decay brings the renown system into line with every other aspect of DDO. No other part of DDO takes away any of your progress once you have earned it. Why should renown behave completely differently from all other parts of DDO?

  16. #2956
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    hence my statement about sadly out of touch with reality. Small membership guilds at higher level will probably never even come close to earning enough renown for even a single level. The only size guilds that this affects are uber large humongoid sized guilds.
    You did not even read my comment did you? I clearly pointed out how a small guild could get into the "ransack loop" by only gaining 1 level, not 2.

    And just so you will know, my very large guild is currently earning about 1 level every 1.5 weeks so we will be totally unaffected by the setting of the renown ransack. It will be a killer for small guilds though, if you lower it.
    Last edited by Tshober; 02-24-2013 at 03:42 PM.

  17. #2957
    Community Member UurlockYgmeov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere on the waters of this planet.
    Posts
    4,735

    Default

    First combine your posts. forum etiquette.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tshober View Post
    You did not even read my comment did you?
    Again I find your posts to be redundant and the stuff of kobold legends.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tshober View Post
    And just so you will know, my very large guild is currently earning about 1 level every 1.5 weeks so we will be totally unaffected by the setting of the renown ransack. It will be a killer for small guilds though, if you lower it.
    Again happy and glad for your guild. Really doesn't affect smaller or small member guilds. So again - just another reason why modified system is unfair.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tshober View Post
    Eliminating decay does not render renown worthless or meaningless.
    It does - just at a different level of understanding than you currently possess.

    In effect - lets just level the playing field - no more renown, more more decay, no more guild levels - just everyone have same ship and same access to amenities.

  18. #2958
    Founder Chaos000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Plano Texas
    Posts
    1,244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    It isn't Turbine's responsibility (nor should it ever be) to prevent players from being a burden. Only players can make themselves a burden or to choose to not be one. I guess it all depends upon the philosophy of each individual guild.
    Oh I agree to a certain extent. However, it does not make sense for Turbine to change the system back to making individual players a burden after eliminating the per/player decay mechanic.

    If a player chooses to join a guild with the intention of using the ship and amenities - then they also choose (de facto) to help upkeep the guild, in at least the renown.
    If a player chooses to join a guild with no intention of using the ship and amenities but merely to keep in touch with friends they should not be penalized. I guess booting is like being metaphorically being stabbed with a red-hot poker, but comparing casual players to leeches or mosquito’s?

    I think the line of reasoning that a player should join a like-minded guild and know what they’re getting into is unfair. Small guilds that choose not to recruit with the knowledge that larger guilds have it easier, players in small guilds can either choose to remain in a non-recruiting status of the guild or leave for a larger guild… system shouldn’t have to cater to everyone?

    However, a singular character can only affect the guild they are in, and that character (or another from the same account that is also in the same guild) cannot affect any other guilds modifed size unless they leave and join another.

    For those that have storage toons, or Hagglebots, or AH bots - do they need to be part of the guild? If one says yes - because need the CHR shrine, or this or that amenity - then they are benefiting from being in the guild and should affect decay.
    I used to play a lot, I always (short of a choice of unbound stat tome) select the renown option as an end reward, keeping at least one character in-guild allows for them to retain all the renown I’ve gained instead of 75% of it. My storage AH toons don’t use any amenities or shrines. By your reasoning since I am not benefiting from being in the guild I should not affect decay.

    My account will always be active, that being said, only the character that I’m gaining renown on should be affected by decay should it change from guild level back to guild size.

    I’ve also had an active (monthly not yearly) subscription since the inception of the game. Perhaps VIP’s should be gaining renown passively to nullify per account decay

    The current temporary system is not a per/character burden system for all the guilds. Only for the smaller guilds. Once a guild gets past 20 accounts - then it isn't, which isn't fair for 95% of guilds and players.
    Where are you getting the 95%? I can accept that a high number of guilds are small but by no means does that mean server population reflects that percentage especially if the bar is set at 20+ accounts.

    The current temporary system is not a per/character burden system for any guilds. Even for smaller guilds. Removing a player in a tiny guild may raise the size bonus but it has absolutely no effect on decay. Replacing a player with a more active player is a form of recruitment, and that’s what I find inherently wrong with bonuses and decay that can be raised or lowered based on the removal of a player.

    I would prefer a sliding scale… you benefit when you’re small and it may be a disincentive to grow. However, bonuses and decay reductions due to size changes can only be gained when the player decides to leave and not when the guild decides to boot.
    Daishado

    "drink triple ... see double ... act single! uh oh wife aggro" *hides*

  19. #2959
    Founder Chaos000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Plano Texas
    Posts
    1,244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    In effect - lets just level the playing field - no more renown, more more decay, no more guild levels - just everyone have same ship and same access to amenities.
    Base access to plat cost amenities based on total TP spent by guild members? I mean if they're giving something away for free, they have to keep the revenue stream up somehow. XP shrines will only be purchased at the DDO store? Is that what's to come of all of this?
    Daishado

    "drink triple ... see double ... act single! uh oh wife aggro" *hides*

  20. #2960
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    eliminate decay. renown becomes worthless and meaningless.
    since renown meaningless and worthless - and to make it fair to all guilds - eliminate guild levels....
    [/i].
    You make no sense here sir eliminating guild levels would make renown worthless not eliminating decay. Guilds would still have to earn renown to advance in levels decay or no decay. Once your guild hits level 100 it would make it worthless, but my level 25 toons no longer get xp but I still play them. So what's the problem with guilds topping out as well? Oh I get it so if my small guild of 12 members does someday finally get to level 100 (which is not our goal, our goal is to have fun playing) we need decay to keep us busy earning renown so we don't decay backwards. That seems to be the argument here over getting rid of decay. Really? You really think that a guild no matter what the size that finally hits level 100 will just sit by and watch it decay backwards. Give me a break!

    The other argument here seems to be over some guilds gaining levels faster than others. Why should my guild or any other guild care about that? You are not the winner of this game if your guild hits level 100. This is a game where there is no winner or loser. This is a game of having fun, a time wasting hobby.

Page 148 of 209 FirstFirst ... 4898138144145146147148149150151152158198 ... 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