Page 151 of 209 FirstFirst ... 51101141147148149150151152153154155161201 ... LastLast
Results 3,001 to 3,020 of 4162
  1. #3001
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    SO here is the revised proposal
    Eliminate Decay Altogether.

    but if Turbine says no, then:
    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 three significant changes that take away 95% of the pressure away to boot. Is fair for all guilds of all sizes of all styles of play.
      1. instead of 30 days until inactive, change to three days;
      2. remove the +10 to the modified guild size in the formula, with a modified minimum guild size becoming one.
      3. member is not counted toward modified guild size until steps into quest, slayer area, on any guild ship, uses guild vendor, or generates renown in any form.
    3. Ransack set to 500K per day instead of current temporary 3 levels and instead of the original 7 levels.
    4. adjust decay to affect all guilds of all levels.... this allows for entropy to hit (level 1 to 100). (Lowest level guilds only having ~ 1 for a multiplier.)
    5. lower decay for higher level guilds by 10-15% (the level multiplier).
    6. VIP's should get 250? renown a day per account - first character to log in receives - this renown is not subject to size or other boost modifiers.
    7. there needs to be a new form of friends list - one that acts like facebook in most basic essence. You ask someone to be on your friends list (or offer) - and can select to be public, private; to show online status - last log, show all or just one characters in account; and an easier way to talk with them in game without having to be in a guild.


    While you are getting significantly closer to a system that will not make any players undesirable due to the renown they earn, you still don't quite get there. And you are now advocating for a great deal of change and complexity.

    I would suggest that the following strategy would accomplish much of the same end results, without ANY players being undesirable because of the renown they earn, and would be a lot simpler to implement:

    1) Convince the devs to eliminate renown decay entirely. This would benefit all guilds but the biggest benefit would be to small and tiny guilds that have not had any relief from decay yet.

    2) If the devs can't be convinced to eliminate decay entirely, then reduce decay by lowering the guild size portion of the decay formula from 20 to min(20,actual modified guild size). This would greatly help small and tiny guilds that are still struggling with decay.

    3) If the devs can't be convinced to do any further reduction in decay at all, then raise the small guild bonuses for small and tiny guilds that are still struggling with decay so that those guilds will at least be viable and able to advance.


    The main advantage here is simplicity. None of these options would require any new coding. All of these could be achieved with very trivial changes to the decay formula or to the small guild bonus multipliers, much like the initial change the devs made at the start of this thread. Every guild that has more than 10 players in it got some relief from decay from the initial change. It's time we expanded that relief to the tiny guilds that have got none so far.
    Last edited by Tshober; 03-01-2013 at 11:32 PM.

  2. #3002
    Community Member Nestroy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Europe, and proud of it
    Posts
    2,829

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    SO here is the revised proposal
    Eliminate Decay Altogether.

    but if Turbine says no, then:
    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 three significant changes that take away 95% of the pressure away to boot. Is fair for all guilds of all sizes of all styles of play.
      1. instead of 30 days until inactive, change to three days;
      2. remove the +10 to the modified guild size in the formula, with a modified minimum guild size becoming one.
      3. member is not counted toward modified guild size until steps into quest, slayer area, on any guild ship, uses guild vendor, or generates renown in any form.
    3. Ransack set to 500K per day instead of current temporary 3 levels and instead of the original 7 levels.
    4. adjust decay to affect all guilds of all levels.... this allows for entropy to hit (level 1 to 100). (Lowest level guilds only having ~ 1 for a multiplier.)
    5. lower decay for higher level guilds by 10-15% (the level multiplier).
    6. VIP's should get 250? renown a day per account - first character to log in receives - this renown is not subject to size or other boost modifiers.
    7. there needs to be a new form of friends list - one that acts like facebook in most basic essence. You ask someone to be on your friends list (or offer) - and can select to be public, private; to show online status - last log, show all or just one characters in account; and an easier way to talk with them in game without having to be in a guild.


    The death for the best ideas here in the forum is as always the complexity to implement. Anything that does not bring in money (like adventure packs, skins, companions or pots) has to be simple or else will not get done. Simple as that. So as long as your idea does not bring in more money for Turbine as before it will not get implemented. And wile I really like your idea, really, I do not see any possibility of getting this done any time soon. Not before either management policy changes or the sun burns out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tshober View Post
    While you are getting significantly closer to a system that will not make any players undesirable due to the renown they earn, you still don't quite get there. And you are now advocating for a great deal of change and complexity.

    I would suggest that the following strategy would accomplish much of the same end results, without ANY players being undesirable because of the renown they earn, and would be a lot simpler to implement:

    1) Convince the devs to eliminate renown decay entirely. This would benefit all guilds but the biggest benefit would be to small and tiny guilds that have not had any relief from decay yet.

    2) If the devs can't be convinced to eliminate decay entirely, then reduce decay by lowering the guild size portion of the decay formula from 20 to min(20,actual modified guild size). This would greatly help small and tiny guilds that are still struggling with decay.

    3) If the devs can't be convinced to do any further reduction in decay at all, then raise the small guild bonuses for small and tiny guilds that are still struggling with decay so that those guilds will at least be viable and able to advance.


    The main advantage here is simplicity. None of these options would require any new coding. All of these could be achieved with very trivial changes to the decay formula or to the small guild bonus multipliers, much like the initial change the devs made at the start of this thread. Every guild that has more than 10 players in it got some relief from decay from the initial change. It's time we expanded that relief to the tiny guilds that have got none so far.
    You are perfectly right. If anything it has to be a solution that can be done by a first year junior in programming on a tryout. So your ideas most likely will make it live.

  3. #3003
    Community Member UurlockYgmeov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere on the waters of this planet.
    Posts
    4,733

    Default

    the core of the proposal is very simple and elegant. the stuff that makes it complicated is the optional.

    I will rewrite it so show the core vs the would be nice.

  4. #3004
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    If you want something free - then look elsewhere. The game might be free - but as has been said numerous times - the elation and intrinsic benefits for success are often proportional to the struggles to achieve greatness. Because if everyone could do it - what is the actual achievement?
    It's a freaken video game. If people want to achieve something, maybe they are the one's who should be looking elsewhere. It's those who think they are actually achieving something noteworthy that are getting in the way of the majority who are just looking for entertainment here. If one finds personal achievements in the game, I'm happy for them. But if they are allowed to define my game and get in the way of my entertainment by what they want to achieve, I'm most likely to look elsewhere for my entertainment. I'm not fool enough to pay Turbine to tell me how much I have to play in order to enjoy their product. I'll find someone who is willing to provide me with enjoyment on my time scale.

  5. #3005
    Community Member UurlockYgmeov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere on the waters of this planet.
    Posts
    4,733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gremmlynn View Post
    I'll find someone who is willing to provide me with enjoyment on my time scale.
    cool beans.

    yes - you don't like decay who does? I don't. noted and included in proposal. Now do you have anything constructive to add?

  6. #3006
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    cool beans.

    yes - you don't like decay. noted and included in proposal. Now do you have anything constructive to add?
    Some would say that expressing your opinion on the subject is a constructive contribution.

    Decay is a hard thing to like. Decay is worse than taxes. Almost no one likes paying taxes but most people like at least some of the things that taxes pay for; like schools, roads, bridges, national defense, food safety, police, firefighters, clean water, public parks, etc. Decay is a tax that pays for nothing at all. There is no redeming value to decay. Decay makes you work harder with no additional return for that extra work. To like decay you basically have to like pain and suffering. There just are not that many people who want to spend their entertainment/leisure time farming renown for no other reason than to fight back daily decay. It's just a really hard thing to like.

  7. #3007
    Community Member UurlockYgmeov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere on the waters of this planet.
    Posts
    4,733

    Default 2 Mar 2013 - Current Proposal - Prioritized

    SO here is the revised proposal - prioritized easiest to implement first to the most difficult last.

    Eliminate Decay Altogether.

    but if Turbine says no, then:
    1. Revert to pre-change except for following significant changes that take away 99% of the pressure away to boot. Is fair for all guilds of all sizes of all styles of play. Booting will still occur - but not because of the system.
      1. instead of 30 days until inactive, change to two days (changed to two to account for weekend);
      2. remove the +10 to the modified guild size in the formula, with a modified minimum guild size becoming one - no cap/limit.
      3. lower decay for higher level guilds by 10-15% (the level multiplier).
      4. adjust decay to affect all guilds of all levels. and lower decay for higher level guilds by 10-15% (the level multiplier).
        1. New formula would be something like: modified_guild_size(minimum 1) x (guild_level x 2.5 (two point five)).(corrected - forgot decimal) - this change alone reduces decay for most guilds by up to 93%)
        2. Keep It Simple - keep it transparent and easy to explain, understand, and compute.
      5. Ransack set to start at 500K per day or at 2nd level - whichever is easier to implement. Ransack doesn't start to kick in until (500K) or (2nd level) is reached.
      6. member is not counted toward modified guild size until steps into quest, slayer area, on any guild ship, uses guild vendor, or generates renown in any form.
    2. VIP's should get +10% renown - this is now in line with what Fernando stated about new benefits starting with +10% xp for VIPs that begin next patch(s.i.c. below).
    3. 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.
    4. there needs to be a new form of friends list - one that acts like facebook in most basic essence. You ask someone to be on your friends list (or offer) - and can select to be public, private; to show online status - last log, show all or just one characters in account; and an easier way to talk with them in game without having to be in a guild.



    Quote Originally Posted by Fernando View Post
    add 10% boost to all earned XP for VIP accounts.

  8. #3008
    Community Member Nestroy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Europe, and proud of it
    Posts
    2,829

    Default

    Personall, I would like to see the following quick fixes as soon as possible:

    + Ransack set to kick in after 2nd level of the day instead of 1st as of now. Since this has been changed on the short run in the past, this should not be too difficult to do.

    + Minimum renown decay modifier calculated as either max(true active accounts;10) or min(true active accounts;20) instead of the current 20. There already has been a system working at max(accounts+10;20) so this should not be too hard to switch either. Alternatively, set the 20 threshold to 10.

    With that in place, until a major rework of the renown system gets done the living for especially smaller guilds would be made easier. Of course this again would hand the big guilds some marginal bonus as well, but I am sure they will hardly notice anyway. But for small guilds this would make a huge diference.

  9. #3009
    Community Member UurlockYgmeov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere on the waters of this planet.
    Posts
    4,733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nestroy View Post
    Personall, I would like to see the following quick fixes as soon as possible:

    + Ransack set to kick in after 2nd level of the day instead of 1st as of now. Since this has been changed on the short run in the past, this should not be too difficult to do.

    + Minimum renown decay modifier calculated as either max(true active accounts;10) or min(true active accounts;20) instead of the current 20. There already has been a system working at max(accounts+10;20) so this should not be too hard to switch either. Alternatively, set the 20 threshold to 10.

    With that in place, until a major rework of the renown system gets done the living for especially smaller guilds would be made easier. Of course this again would hand the big guilds some marginal bonus as well, but I am sure they will hardly notice anyway. But for small guilds this would make a huge diference.
    2nd level? ok - so you are a 1st level guild - and so you get ransacked after one victory? Sorry - the 500K better and just as easy to implement. Same idea - better fix. Better to fix it all the way the first time than to try and slap on a band-aid..... on top of a band-aid.... on top of an green puss ridden band-aid.

    I want relief for all. and instead of wasting time on stop-gap measures just to do it right. It will take the same amount of time and code - and save time/code/headaches in the long-run; plus advantages are that one change instead of multiple.... rip the band-aid off once.

    Most of the proposal are just that - minor edits to the code - like they did for this temporary change. Most are literally changing the same code.

    just my two thoughts.

  10. #3010
    Community Member Charononus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    5,345

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    SO here is the revised proposal - prioritized easiest to implement first to the most difficult last.

    Eliminate Decay Altogether.

    but if Turbine says no, then:
    1. Revert to pre-change except for following significant changes that take away 99% of the pressure away to boot. Is fair for all guilds of all sizes of all styles of play. Booting will still occur - but not because of the system.
      1. instead of 30 days until inactive, change to two days (changed to two to account for weekend);
      2. remove the +10 to the modified guild size in the formula, with a modified minimum guild size becoming one - no cap/limit.
      3. lower decay for higher level guilds by 10-15% (the level multiplier).
      4. adjust decay to affect all guilds of all levels. and lower decay for higher level guilds by 10-15% (the level multiplier).
        1. New formula would be something like: modified_guild_size(minimum 1) x (guild_level x 2.5 (two point five)).(corrected - forgot decimal) - this change alone reduces decay for most guilds by up to 93%)
        2. Keep It Simple - keep it transparent and easy to explain, understand, and compute.
      5. Ransack set to 500K per day instead of current temporary 3 levels and instead of the original 7 levels. Ransack doesn't start to kick in until 500K reached.
      6. member is not counted toward modified guild size until steps into quest, slayer area, on any guild ship, uses guild vendor, or generates renown in any form.
    2. VIP's should get +10% renown - this is now in line with what Fernando stated about new benefits starting with +10% xp for VIPs that begin next patch(s.i.c. below).
    3. 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.
    4. there needs to be a new form of friends list - one that acts like facebook in most basic essence. You ask someone to be on your friends list (or offer) - and can select to be public, private; to show online status - last log, show all or just one characters in account; and an easier way to talk with them in game without having to be in a guild.

    I don't see how this makes it any less likely to boot than the old system 2 or 30 if you don't earn the reknown you would get booted in the old system same with your proposal, your proposal is a step backwards.

  11. #3011
    Community Member Nestroy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Europe, and proud of it
    Posts
    2,829

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    2nd level? ok - so you are a 1st level guild - and so you get ransacked after one victory? Sorry - the 500K better and just as easy to implement. Same idea - better fix. Better to fix it all the way the first time than to try and slap on a band-aid..... on top of a band-aid.... on top of an green puss ridden band-aid.

    I want relief for all. and instead of wasting time on stop-gap measures just to do it right. It will take the same amount of time and code - and save time/code/headaches in the long-run; plus advantages are that one change instead of multiple.... rip the band-aid off once.

    Most of the proposal are just that - minor edits to the code - like they did for this temporary change. Most are literally changing the same code.

    just my two thoughts.
    Well, I am not sure. The ransack thing seems to be level based (not renown gain based), since it got set down from 7 to 3 levels. So any change has to be level based. When ransack kicks in after 2nd lv. gained and max level is 4, this helps most guilds except the absolute startups. Personally, I would like to see something like your idea but I fear that this is a major venture for changing the code so it simply will not get done.

    Why I would go after the stop-gaps now? Because they can be done easily. Setting a variable like "set renown ransack min level = 2" is something to be done by the intern. No need to have true programmers to be occupied by anything that does not bring money. Any minute your ideas will bring Turbine 5 % more turnover and money, they will immediately stop doing new skins and instead will be doing a new renown system along your ideas. Until then, only minor changes the intern can do will get done. And that´s why I want the stop gaps done. At least they have a realistic chance of getting done.

  12. #3012
    Community Member UurlockYgmeov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere on the waters of this planet.
    Posts
    4,733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charononus View Post
    I don't see how this makes it any less likely to boot
    Because if you don't log into the game, or if you don't do renown generating activities, you don't affect decay.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nestroy View Post
    Well, I am not sure. The ransack thing seems to be level based (not renown gain based), since it got set down from 7 to 3 levels. So any change has to be level based. When ransack kicks in after 2nd lv. gained and max level is 4, this helps most guilds except the absolute startups. Personally, I would like to see something like your idea but I fear that this is a major venture for changing the code so it simply will not get done.
    Let's face it - the whole concept of ransack seems to be a waste of time. We just want it to be fair for everyone, not just 75%. But I'm game with whatever - so will change the proposal to read: changed ransack to kick in at 500K or 2nd level - whichever is easier to implement. —done.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nestroy View Post
    Why I would go after the stop-gaps now? Because they can be done easily. Setting a variable like "set renown ransack min level = 2" is something to be done by the intern. No need to have true programmers to be occupied by anything that does not bring money. Any minute your ideas will bring Turbine 5 % more turnover and money, they will immediately stop doing new skins and instead will be doing a new renown system along your ideas. Until then, only minor changes the intern can do will get done. And that´s why I want the stop gaps done. At least they have a realistic chance of getting done.
    Something everyone has to realize about the free-to-play model, this is something Turbine already knows. That it is on the developers to make the game great so that people want to play them day in and day out. So it is in their best interest to not band-aid these things. Recent experiences have taught them this - just look at the 'extended' beta for the revises enhancements. So I firmly believe that the developers (who also play the game) want a permanent solution that is firmly grounded with player support. The developers need to be (and they know it) focused on making a quality game that people enjoy, especially the free-to-play because if people enjoy playing the game then the money will follow.

    Finally, in any proposal you should always go for the gold, because it not only is the right thing to do, but because they might only accept the silver. If you start out shooting for the silver you might only get the copper.

  13. #3013
    Community Member Nestroy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Europe, and proud of it
    Posts
    2,829

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    (...)Finally, in any proposal you should always go for the gold, because it not only is the right thing to do, but because they might only accept the silver. If you start out shooting for the silver you might only get the copper.
    So far, I would say, we already have had our share of copper solutions. Anything that improves the current status quo can only be silver (the silver linen on the horizon). Of course one should always strife for gold but we are here in order to have a non-functional situation mended. And since the introduction of renown decay any solution so far implemented has been copper at best.

    While I am of your opinion that the devs will like to present us a good and enjoyable product, the devs are managed by MBAs that simply have their numbers and do not give a dime on what players may enjoy or not enjoy as long as the money comes pouring in. And as soon as the money stops, they stop the game. So everything that keeps pouring in the money will get done. Anything that costs time and / or money and does not bring in at least as much as it costs to implement will not get done. Please check the list of what has been done in the last months:

    New skins, new gimmicks, new companions? Check!
    New bug fixes?`Nope (with the exception of things keeping DDO from making more money or things that would have been a legal liability - pouring out new content that does not work...).
    New items in the store to help getting DDO p2w? Check! (I only say Birthday Box.)
    New items ingame for the f2p content? Nope. (For the p2p content at least 3BC got some love...)
    A new renown decay system that got the big guilders back on the game? Check!
    A working renown / renown decay system for everybody? Nope.
    More p2p content? Check!
    More f2p content? Nope.

    Do you want to continue the list?

    While I am very positive about what the devs would like to do themselves, I am at the same time absolutely sure they will not get the go for their ideas if this does not bring in at least the same amount of money as the current system. And that´s the end of the discussion.
    Last edited by Nestroy; 03-03-2013 at 01:47 PM.

  14. #3014
    Community Member UurlockYgmeov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere on the waters of this planet.
    Posts
    4,733

    Default

    So where to begin. First I understand and commiserate your feelings. I don't want to sidetrack the thread, but am willing to put one rebuttal up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nestroy View Post
    So far, I would say, we already have had our share of copper solutions. Anything that improves the current status quo can only be silver (the silver linen on the horizon). Of course one should always strife for gold but we are here in order to have a non-functional situation mended. And since the introduction of renown decay any solution so far implemented has been copper at best.
    Well - they might appear to be copper solutions, but they might have been the gold (best possible) at the time. We are presenting a rounded approach with several different scenarios that allow for the best possible outcome. That is as much as we can do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nestroy View Post
    While I am of your opinion that the devs will like to present us a good and enjoyable product, the devs are managed by MBAs that simply have their numbers and do not give a dime on what players may enjoy or not enjoy as long as the money comes pouring in. And as soon as the money stops, they stop the game. So everything that keeps pouring in the money will get done. Anything that costs time and / or money and does not bring in at least as much as it costs to implement will not get done.
    Here is where I would like to teach free-to-play MMO 912 - economics.

    F2P MMO's are dependent upon the free only players to make money. The developers and producers must ensure to have a quality enjoyable product - especially for the F2P player. It is the F2P player who makes the core and who makes the overall ambiance. They are the vast majority that spend time in the game - they are the ones who if happy bring in other players, and help them enjoy the game. Without the F2P player, there really isn't a game.

    How does a developer make money from a F2P player? Not directly. Since they are the core and the atmosphere - the F2P player are the ones who encourage those who are willing and able to spend money on the game to come and play.

    So it isn't about direct ROI or CBA - rather it is what fits in the time and budget to make the greatest impact. There is always expectations to push P2P content - but that isn't what pays the salaries at the developer, and it isn't the VIP subscriptions. What pays the bills and keeps the lights on at the developer is the F2P player stimulating the universe to make the game desirable for P2P players.

    Since the majority of players are in at least one guild, it is in Turbines best interest to make the guild system as good as possible, starting with what we are trying to achieve here in this thread. We also need to start envisioning what we desire the overall guild system to be in the future - just not in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nestroy View Post
    New skins, new gimmicks, new companions? Check!
    New bug fixes?`Nope (with the exception of things keeping DDO from making more money or things that would have been a legal liability - pouring out new content that does not work...).
    New items in the store to help getting DDO p2w? Check! (I only say Birthday Box.)
    New items ingame for the f2p content? Nope. (For the p2p content at least 3BC got some love...)
    A new renown decay system that got the big guilders back on the game? Check!
    A working renown / renown decay system for everybody? Nope.
    More p2p content? Check!
    More f2p content? Nope.

    Do you want to continue the list?
    New skins, new gimmicks, new companions? Check! All of which can be purchased from other players with Plat. They could have made these things BtA or BtC, but they didn't.

    New bug fixes? `Nope Lots and Lots of bug fixes. Just read the U17 Release Notes - and will see F2P crystal cove with bug fixes, Challenge bug fixes and improvements (F2P through daily free token)

    New items in the store to help getting DDO p2w? Check! (I only say Birthday Box.) You forgot Raid Timer Bypass, Superior XP Elixir, and many others. Many, if not all, drop from random loot and breakables.

    New items ingame for the f2p content? Nope.
    Birthday Battlebox?
    Entire Augment system overhaul and almost 300 revised and improved named loot - most from F2P quests like Tempest Spine. Random loot now has 5% chance to drop slotted equipment.
    • The Waterworks
    • Irestone Inlet and some other Harbor and Marketplace Quests
    • Redwillow’s Ruins including: A locked chest was previously unpickable. Players may now pick the lock on this chest.
    • Tear of Dhakaan
    • Caverns of Korromar
    • Gwylan’s Stand
    • Stormcleave Outpost
    • Tempest’s Spine


    And the augment crystals drop in random loot and are not bound... Correct me if I am wrong but can't everyone now access the GH public area and purchase augment crystals with relics (which can usually be reasonably purchased from other players)

    A new renown decay system that got the big guilders back on the game? Check! Can't disagree here. Thank the Gods that it is only temporary.

    A working renown / renown decay system for everybody? Nope. Agree... hence my active participation in this thread.

    More p2p content? Check! Yes

    More f2p content? Nope. Yes - Crystal Cove (took lots of resources to get this back) - other than that - last new free was the Spinner of Shadows Chain to allow everyone to get to EStar/FR.

    How about the incoming enhancement system? Totally F2P and is consuming allot of dev time and resources?

    Do you want to continue the list? Do we have to? I'm not defending - just pointing out to be fair.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nestroy View Post
    While I am very positive about what the devs would like to do themselves, I am at the same time absolutely sure they will not get the go for their ideas if this does not bring in at least the same amount of money as the current system. And that´s the end of the discussion.
    It is the MBA's that tell the Dev's to keep the game great so that all players, especially the F2P are playing day in and day out.

  15. #3015
    Community Member UurlockYgmeov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere on the waters of this planet.
    Posts
    4,733

    Smile Revised proposal

    SO here is the revised proposal - prioritized easiest to implement first to the most difficult last.

    Eliminate Decay Altogether.

    but if Turbine says no, then:
    1. Revert to pre-change except for following significant changes that take away 99% of the pressure away to boot. Is fair for all guilds of all sizes of all styles of play. Booting will still occur - but not because of the system.
      1. instead of 30 days until inactive, change to two days (changed to two to account for weekend);
      2. remove the +10 to the modified guild size in the formula, with a modified minimum guild size becoming one - no cap/limit.
      3. lower decay for higher level guilds by 10-15% (the level multiplier).
      4. adjust decay to affect all guilds of all levels. and lower decay for higher level guilds by 10-15% (the level multiplier).
        1. New formula would be something like: modified_guild_size(minimum 1) x (guild_level x 2.5 (two point five)).(corrected - forgot decimal) - this change alone reduces decay for most guilds by up to 93%)
        2. Keep It Simple - keep it transparent and easy to explain, understand, and compute.
      5. Ransack set to start at 500K per day or at 2nd level - whichever is easier to implement. Ransack doesn't start to kick in until (500K) or (2nd level) is reached.
      6. member is not counted toward modified guild size until steps into quest, slayer area, on any guild ship, uses guild vendor, or generates renown in any form.
    2. VIP's should get +10% renown - this is now in line with what Fernando stated about new benefits starting with +10% xp for VIPs that begin next patch(s.i.c. below).
    3. 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.
    4. there needs to be a new form of friends list - one that acts like facebook in most basic essence. You ask someone to be on your friends list (or offer) - and can select to be public, private; to show online status - last log, show all or just one characters in account; and an easier way to talk with them in game without having to be in a guild.



    Quote Originally Posted by Fernando View Post
    add 10% boost to all earned XP for VIP accounts.

  16. #3016
    Community Member UurlockYgmeov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere on the waters of this planet.
    Posts
    4,733

    Default

    Well part of this seems moot - with the incoming 'Daily Dice'
    - good news is Guild Renown pots drop like rain from it.

    So far the Daily deal is one per account - so for those who have multiple guilds...

  17. #3017
    Community Member Blue100000005's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    281

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    Well part of this seems moot - with the incoming 'Daily Dice'
    - good news is Guild Renown pots drop like rain from it.

    So far the Daily deal is one per account - so for those who have multiple guilds...
    where do i read about these daily dice? never heard about them.
    "Eye of the Dragon" on Argonessen. "Quest with the best"


  18. #3018
    Community Member UurlockYgmeov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere on the waters of this planet.
    Posts
    4,733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue100000005 View Post
    where do i read about these daily dice? never heard about them.
    In the Lamannia thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by SqueakofDoom View Post
    Please post here with your feedback on the Daily Dice!

    Daily Dice

    Earn daily rewards from the Dungeon Master just for logging in! When you log into the game each day, you'll get a notification that a daily reward is available. The Daily Dice system can be accessed from the start menu, or by clicking the icon that displays in your health bar when a free roll is available (this small icon appears next to the mail icon). Each player gets a free roll on the Silver Chest loot table once per day (this is one free roll per account per server), and can spend Astral Shards for additional rolls if desired. Players can also choose to use their free Silver Chest roll to reduce the cost of a roll on the Gold Chest table. Players can spend Astral Shards to roll on the Gold Chest table.

  19. #3019
    Community Member Blue100000005's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    281

    Default

    Cool, i checked it out. from what i read, i still think the decay needs to be fixed. renown pots will still not be enough to offset decay.
    "Eye of the Dragon" on Argonessen. "Quest with the best"


  20. #3020
    Community Member UurlockYgmeov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere on the waters of this planet.
    Posts
    4,733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue100000005 View Post
    Cool, i checked it out. from what i read, i still think the decay needs to be fixed. renown pots will still not be enough to offset decay.
    I agree - and still think our proposal covers it. I really don't think that the daily dice will cause a significant number of people to log in more frequently - and even if it does - using the daily dice doesn't generate renown - so they shouldn't be counted toward the modified guild size.

Page 151 of 209 FirstFirst ... 51101141147148149150151152153154155161201 ... 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