Page 158 of 209 FirstFirst ... 58108148154155156157158159160161162168208 ... LastLast
Results 3,141 to 3,160 of 4162
  1. #3141
    Community Member UurlockYgmeov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere on the waters of this planet.
    Posts
    4,736

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eris2323 View Post
    Everyone wins!
    No - does not fix the inherent bias.

  2. #3142
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    No - does not fix the inherent bias.
    Or is it just your perceived bias - that you expect a guild of 1-10 to be equal to a large guild in time required to gain levels?

  3. #3143
    Community Member Charononus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    5,345

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tychagara View Post
    Actually let's quote the reason:



    Thanks Tolero! Couldn't have said it better myself!
    Quote Originally Posted by Tolero View Post
    Greetings! We are putting forth modifications currently trying out some temporary adjustments to the Guild Renown system and monitoring the outcome and feedback this week. The intent is to address concerns from guilds and guild leaders regarding the impact of optimizing guild size in order to gain or maintain guild levels.
    Important part in red.

    The important part here has been public relations speaked but it comes down to casual players should be in guilds and our system discourages that.
    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    Bzzzz.... wrong. Actual reason was 'to ease the pressure from guild leaders to 'kick' members from guilds to offset daily renown decay rates.'

    And I hereby name you Supreme Emperor of the World. Done.

    Late January quote from a Developer:


    As I have said, hints recently dropped in Lamannia strongly indicate Turbine is actively working on revising the guild system for implementation later this year.



    so to answer your post with your own post....



    So the only way to truely have casual players be included is to remove the bias completely from the decay system.
    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.
    Once again the important part's in red

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    You mean you guess, and according to Turbine they didn't fix the bias or the problem.



    Wrong. Only those who earn renown in the last 24 hours are counted toward decay math.

    So players do not count on days they don't play and earn renown - so therefore there is no pressure to remove accounts based upon play style.

    And when an account does affect decay - it is at most 250 - which is much less than the current system which has as its most 67,000 per account.
    I'm going to try to illustrate to you why people would still be booted. A casual player might log in and play for an hour or so midweek lets say. They run 3 quests for a total of 6 chests they pull 500 renown. (4 heroic deeds, 2 tales of valor) They contribute 1k decay a day now for 2 days, they hurt the guild and will be booted in guilds that care about such things. THIS IS WHY THE OLD SYSTEM BEFORE THE FIX WAS HORRIBLE AND SHOULD NEVER BE REPEATED.
    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    No - does not fix the inherent bias.
    Your inherent bias is more people can accomplish more, this is just basic logic. If the great pyramid only had 6 people working on it instead of thousands do you think it would have been finished?

  4. #3144
    Community Member Drakesan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charononus View Post
    Important part in red.
    Thank you! This illustrates very well and clearly, why the old system was not optimal, and hurtful to many overall. Please, all keep this post in mind when proposing any changes to the renown system. If it will be counterproductive to the ideas and goals illustrated here, imo it will be a bad idea.

    Thanks again for putting this together.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyr View Post
    Guild members should be chosen based upon social factors and not game mechanics.

  5. #3145
    Community Member UurlockYgmeov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere on the waters of this planet.
    Posts
    4,736

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charononus View Post
    I'm going to try to illustrate to you why people would still be booted. A casual player might log in and play for an hour or so midweek lets say. They run 3 quests for a total of 6 chests they pull 500 renown. (4 heroic deeds, 2 tales of valor) They contribute 1k decay a day now for 2 days, they hurt the guild and will be booted in guilds that care about such things. THIS IS WHY THE OLD SYSTEM BEFORE THE FIX WAS HORRIBLE AND SHOULD NEVER BE REPEATED.
    Kindly review the proposal - since it does address these concerns completely. In the proposal - that player only affects renown decay for one day, and the decay under this proposal is at most 250 for a level 100 guild; so if that player belonged to a level 50 guild - the actual amount would be 125 (guild level * 2.5) netting the guild a positive amount of net renown. You also did not include the other trophies dropped by mobs, and I understand that because most people don't think it adds up - but over the course of 3 quests in the course of an hour or so this will add up to several hundred renown as well.

    So to update your hypothetical scenario to reflect the math in the proposal:
    A casual player might log in and play for an hour or so midweek lets say. They belong to a level 50 guild. They run 3 quests for a total of 6 chests they pull 500 renown. (4 heroic deeds, 2 tales of valor) plus an additional ~200 from mobs and bosses. Since they logged in and earned renown during the guilds 24 hour decay windowthey are counted in the guilds decay They are counted towards decay just for that day and their affect on the guilds decay is 125, so after all is said and done, they have had a positive net impact on the guilds renown of at least ~357-500+. They helped the guild and will be showered in riches.
    (ok maybe not showered in riches) They also log in twice that week to play the daily dice, check mail, post auctions and chat with guildies. Since they haven't earned renown they are not counted at all towards modified guild size and therefore do not affect the guild's decay, even if they log in.

    Just for clarity:
    Definition of Decay Window: time of assigning of decay to 1 second prior to assigning decay 24 hours later. e.g. so if the guild is assigned decay at 11:00 and 00 seconds (a.m.) the decay window is from 11:00 and 00 seconds to 10:59 and 59 seconds (a.m.) the following day.

    So if casual players would be booted, it probably would be because the guild has grown too big and has hit its member cap; and that is an hidden problem this current temporary change has added due to its bias. Now since never before in recent history (say the last 6 updates) has there been a guild with that many players on at once, this could be (and probably) is adding to some of the crushing lag. (Speculative and Off topic)

    As to the pyramid question - depends on the people, and the tools they had at their disposal. Merlin could have done it with 5 Knights of the Round table to direct traffic in a day; while Scotty (The Miracle worker) could have done in a mere hour... :P

    For additional references to this - look up the mystery of the crystal castle in Florida.

  6. #3146
    Community Member Charononus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    5,345

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    As to the pyramid question - depends on the people, and the tools they had at their disposal. Merlin could have done it with 5 Knights of the Round table to direct traffic in a day; while Scotty (The Miracle worker) could have done in a mere hour... :P

    For additional references to this - look up the mystery of the crystal castle in Florida.
    gotchya you're this guy

  7. #3147
    Community Member UurlockYgmeov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere on the waters of this planet.
    Posts
    4,736

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    Kindly review the proposal - since it does address these concerns completely. In the proposal - that player only affects renown decay for one day, and the decay under this proposal is at most 250 for a level 100 guild; so if that player belonged to a level 50 guild - the actual amount would be 125 (guild level * 2.5) netting the guild a positive amount of net renown. You also did not include the other trophies dropped by mobs, and I understand that because most people don't think it adds up - but over the course of 3 quests in the course of an hour or so this will add up to several hundred renown as well.

    So to update your hypothetical scenario to reflect the math in the proposal:
    A casual player might log in and play for an hour or so midweek lets say. They belong to a level 50 guild. They run 3 quests for a total of 6 chests they pull 500 renown. (4 heroic deeds, 2 tales of valor) plus an additional ~200 from mobs and bosses. Since they logged in and earned renown during the guilds 24 hour decay windowthey are counted in the guilds decay They are counted towards decay just for that day and their affect on the guilds decay is 125, so after all is said and done, they have had a positive net impact on the guilds renown of at least ~357-500+. They helped the guild and will be showered in riches.
    (ok maybe not showered in riches) They also log in twice that week to play the daily dice, check mail, post auctions and chat with guildies. Since they haven't earned renown they are not counted at all towards modified guild size and therefore do not affect the guild's decay, even if they log in.

    Just for clarity:
    Definition of Decay Window: time of assigning of decay to 1 second prior to assigning decay 24 hours later. e.g. so if the guild is assigned decay at 11:00 and 00 seconds (a.m.) the decay window is from 11:00 and 00 seconds to 10:59 and 59 seconds (a.m.) the following day.

    So if casual players would be booted, it probably would be because the guild has grown too big and has hit its member cap; and that is an hidden problem this current temporary change has added due to its bias. Now since never before in recent history (say the last 6 updates) has there been a guild with that many players on at once, this could be (and probably) is adding to some of the crushing lag. (Speculative and Off topic)
    So after proving that the proposal is valid using your own scenario - all you got was that?

    ROTFLOL!

  8. #3148
    Community Member Charononus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    5,345

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    [*]Modified formula would be something like: modified_guild_size[i](1 being the minimum) x (guild_level x 2.5 (two point five)).
    Unless I'm greatly mistaken you're ignoring half the formula in your rebutal. Going to use myself and my guild as an example in this.

    300x(90x2.5) = 67,500 reknown loss

    300 accounts at level 90

  9. #3149
    Community Member UurlockYgmeov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere on the waters of this planet.
    Posts
    4,736

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charononus View Post
    Unless I'm greatly mistaken you're ignoring half the formula in your rebutal. Going to use myself and my guild as an example in this.

    300x(90x2.5) = 67,500 reknown loss

    300 accounts at level 90
    no didn't forget - for your argument it was about that account and therefor any and all accounts impact on decay using the proposed math.

    So take that and extrapolate out for all your accounts and it shows that the proposal works, and works very well to eliminate the bias and remove all traces of impetus to boot based upon activity level (except for when the guild hits the member max ceiling)

    and with 300 accounts at level 90 (if all logged in and generated renown and therefor were included in the calculation of decay for that day) would still be a very positive net amount, in fact better than the current temporary system which as you pointed out is 35,437 decay for the guild, especially when less than 20 members generate renown.

    edited for clarity - sorry was knee deep in monsters when initially replied. They are all dead now.. :P
    Last edited by UurlockYgmeov; 03-17-2013 at 04:30 PM. Reason: my kobold powered spell checker is on a Union Break

  10. #3150
    Community Member Charononus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    5,345

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    no didn't forget - for your argument it was about that account and therefor any and all accounts impact on decay using the proposed math.

    So take that to all your accounts and it shows that the proposal works, and works very well to eliminate the bias and remove all traces of impetus to boot based upon activity level (except for when the guild hits the member max ceiling)

    and 300 accounts at level 90 (if all logged in and generated renown and therefor were included in the calculation of decay for that day) would still be a very positive net amount, in fact better than the current temporary system which as you pointed out is 35,437 decay for the guild, even when less than 20 members generate renown.
    You so don't get it. Having that casual member just lost that guild renown, that means that their is 110% incentive to boot not almost no reason to boot. Your bias argument is so logically inane that it almost leaves me speechless. Look at renown like money as far as your "bias" goes. Two groups want to raise a million dollars, group A has six people, group B has 300. Assuming that both groups are full of people that can only help raise say 1-200 dollars a month each which group will complete it's goal first. (hint 300>6)

    Edit*
    I'm done.
    Last edited by IWIronheart; 03-18-2013 at 12:18 AM.

  11. #3151
    Community Member UurlockYgmeov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere on the waters of this planet.
    Posts
    4,736

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charononus View Post
    You so don't get it. Having that casual member just lost that guild renown, that means that their is 110% incentive to boot not almost no reason to boot. Your bias argument is so logically inane that it almost leaves me speechless. Look at renown like money as far as your "bias" goes. Two groups want to raise a million dollars, group A has six people, group B has 300. Assuming that both groups are full of people that can only help raise say 1-200 dollars a month each which group will complete it's goal first. (hint 300>6)

    Edit*
    I'm done, this has become a case of wrestling with a pig.
    I see your point - but is moot until the guild hits it member cap at 1000, until then having more bodies generally means faster progress.

    At the level cap - then some guilds might start to be selective, but through natural ebb and flow of the players coming and going will have room to add more players.

    Until a guild hits its level cap - it behooves them (if they want faster progression) to add more - and this proposed system doesn't 'penalize' them for that - even if they add an account that never earns renown and is logged in every day just to be social.
    Last edited by UurlockYgmeov; 03-17-2013 at 04:27 PM. Reason: my kobold powered spell checker is on a Union Break

  12. #3152
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    So the only way to truely have casual players be included is to remove the bias completely from the decay system.
    Which the current system does. Low renown earning players are no longer biased against by it.

  13. #3153
    Community Member UurlockYgmeov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere on the waters of this planet.
    Posts
    4,736

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gremmlynn View Post
    Which the current system does. Low renown earning players are no longer biased against by it.
    That is partly true and partly false. Depends upon the size of the guild.

  14. #3154
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    That is partly true and partly false. Depends upon the size of the guild.
    Well then in the interest of removing this remaining bias, maybe size bonuses should be removed.

  15. #3155
    Community Member UurlockYgmeov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere on the waters of this planet.
    Posts
    4,736

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gremmlynn View Post
    Well then in the interest of removing this remaining bias, maybe size bonuses should be removed.
    Agree, if that is something that will help - but only if the rest of the proposal is accepted (the core at least)

  16. #3156
    Community Member Charononus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    5,345

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    Agree, if that is something that will help - but only if the rest of the proposal is accepted (the core at least)
    Are you employed by nwo and trying to eliminate competition?

  17. #3157
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,264

    Default

    It would seem something as simple as this:

    Decay size based on active members/3 (round down)-min:2/max:10

    keeping everything else as is, would give those smaller guilds relief from decay without disadvantaging casual players.

    Though I do like the idea that an account actually has to earn renown every day to be counted as being active.

  18. #3158
    Community Member UurlockYgmeov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere on the waters of this planet.
    Posts
    4,736

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gremmlynn View Post
    Though I do like the idea that an account actually has to earn renown every day to be counted as being active.
    Watch your own guild for a couple of days and you will see that at most 1/3 log in everyday - so maybe only 1/4 actually generate renown - so only about 1/4 would be counted toward decay.

  19. #3159
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gremmlynn View Post
    It would seem something as simple as this:

    Decay size based on active members/3 (round down)-min:2/max:10

    keeping everything else as is, would give those smaller guilds relief from decay without disadvantaging casual players.

    Though I do like the idea that an account actually has to earn renown every day to be counted as being active.
    That suggestion sounds more fair to me, as long as we get rid of the small guild bonus at the same time.

    I'd vote for that.

    Min 2, Max 10 - and no more unfair small guild bonus.

  20. #3160
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eris2323 View Post
    It seems to me, that they can remove the problem immediate by doing two things:

    1) Okay, make all guilds a modified guild size of 1, because apparently 10 is too much for tiny guilds.

    2) Remove all small guild bonii. Everything.

    Everyone is on the same level, problem solved, only 1 variable to change, the devs can then be re-assigned to bug-fixes!

    Everyone wins!
    Quote Originally Posted by eris2323 View Post
    Or is it just your perceived bias - that you expect a guild of 1-10 to be equal to a large guild in time required to gain levels?
    Hi,

    I'd prefer that the modified guild size for decay purposes be equal to the number of members, with a cap to prevent medium and large guilds with casual players from being harmed.

    That way, people in tiny guilds, such as mine (a solo guild) would not decay as if they had more people in the guild than they do. That number is completely arbitrary and harmful to those whose guilds are under that size.

    So far I've resisted the temptation to create more accounts to maximise my small guild bonus, but now that I'm on a decay rate of around 4000 per day, I may give in. I don't see why I should have to game the system like that.

    It's a weird situation, to be eligible for a small guild renown bonus only to have renown taken away as if I had nine other active members. I have to be very active to maintain a steady rate of growth; if I just stood still, at my current guild level with the current rate of decay I lose over 1.4 million in renown every year. I'll eventually make it to 62, which is my goal, but it will be a pain in the backside, bearable rather than fun.

    The people who seem against the removal or reduction of decay are ignoring the fact that it's pretty much impossible not to level in even a moderately active larger guild. I am glad to see those guilds doing so well. but what I don't understand is why the same opportunity can't be made available to smaller guilds.

    Apparently it's okay for larger guilds, even with many casual players, to get the best ships and ship buffs but not for the smaller guilds to be able to do that. And that is what bugs me so much when I read this thread; some of its main contributors seem to think it is fine for them to claim the advantages of the current system for themselves but deny them to other people. Or at least deny them unless they play their way.

    I suspect that a reduction of decay and a removal of the small guild bonus would leave some smaller guilds further behind than they are. That may be okay for people who are in larger guilds and have stated in this thread that they dislike smaller guilds, but for those on the other side of the fence, not so much.

    I think if your starting position is that you actively dislike small guilds, then you don't have a lot of credibility in this discussion. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it becomes unpleasant when you are advocating harm to that group.

    The renown requirements for levelling are steep for small and single person guilds, and those people are not being carried by a large number of fellows, who in the main are permitted to play as casually as they like. The work required to advance still has to be done by small guild members, and per person it is considerably more than those who have the option of coasting along in a larger guild.

    Thanks.
    Last edited by blerkington; 03-17-2013 at 06:35 PM.
    Astrican on Khyber

Page 158 of 209 FirstFirst ... 58108148154155156157158159160161162168208 ... 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