Page 168 of 209 FirstFirst ... 68118158164165166167168169170171172178 ... LastLast
Results 3,341 to 3,360 of 4162
  1. #3341
    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 Lowz View Post
    Ad hoc ergo promptus hoc - because large guilds were penalized in the past doesn't give them the right to insist on penalizing everyone else going forward. That is just wrong.

    The medium and smaller guilds that are doing well now are probably just not hitting the wall around level 75 - that gets progressively steeper.

    So you want to punish everyone else because you were hurt in the past and maintain a monopoly that is going to crush the guild system? You make the OPEC and the Standard Oil Company proud!

    I don't want easy - I want fair without favoritism and monopolies - to be able to play with who I want - in a guild I want - of any size, and have a chance that if active enough and enough time we can progress and grow.

    Common thing on the channels in game: want an invite to a guild with +2; you tell people you are in a small casual, laid back guild of mature adults and all they hear now is small and goodbye.

    Everyone wants to be in a large guild because that is where favoritism is.
    +1

    penalize everyone else because we all know two wrongs make a right.

  2. #3342
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    +1

    penalize everyone else because we all know two wrongs make a right.
    Trying to force your system on the devs simply because you want a break for your own tiny guild is one of the wrongs, I'm assuming, and then re-posting it several hundred times the other?

  3. #3343
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lowz View Post
    see below. you are trying to bury a good proposal.



    nice!
    agree with below.
    ERm, I'm trying to bury something?

    But every post of yours reposts the same flawed system, who is burying what, exactly?

    I'm simply ensuring that people are aware of the math behind this selfish system that is designed to give a break to tiny and solo guilds only, because people keep spamming this selfish system multiple times daily!

    And then he reposts it again, trying to bury OUR replies to his nonsense.

    You yourself have reposted it 4 times today on this page alone, so far.

    SPAM GUARD ON!

    Who's burying what, exactly? Again?
    Last edited by eris2323; 03-18-2013 at 11:54 AM.

  4. #3344
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lowz View Post
    Yep - you.

    You keep trying to bury this:
    I am not burying anything, I believe his changes will be an extremely bad move for this game, and I am allowed to post my opinion.

    So, what's that make, you yourself have spammed it 5 times on this page alone? out of, hmmm... what am I set to, 20 posts per page.... 5 of those have been full of the exact same spam from you every time.

    You're not really adding to the conversation, you're just adding to the spam.


    You add 582 words to every post you make, that are solely spam - compared to the... 8 words of your own. 582 words of spam, 8 words of your own.

    Tell me that's not spam.

    But people will still be aware, this system is solely designed to help out the tiny and solo guilds. Because you won't shut me up with your multiple spams per day.

    Its requirements are too low, and it is transparent.

    I do have the right to post, too, you know.

    Who exactly is trying to bury what, again? How many spams per day are you going to post to your own messages? You've already spammed 2910 words on this ONE page of this forum post alone

    I could go back to the last page of posts, and add some more. But I believe my point has been made.

    Last edited by eris2323; 03-18-2013 at 12:08 PM.

  5. #3345
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lowz View Post
    Well - because under the last system a guild with less than 10 members actually had less decay than under this broken system we have now, up to half as much.
    What? Now you're just making stuff up. No guild is getting hit with more decay under the current system than they were under the old decay system. None. The ONLY change to decay was to remove the guild size factor from the formula. The devs even said so themselves in this thread.

  6. #3346
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lowz View Post
    Future system won't and it should be uurlocks.

    Uurlock's idea is the most sound all encompassing idea yet, still needs some work and polish, but yeah, it is fair and allows players to play the way they want and to play with the ones the want to play with without favor or slant.
    His proposal is just a "lite" version of the old decay system. It will still have players who earn less renown than they cost in decay so it will still have all the same incentives to shun/kick those players that the old decay system had. And it will still have guilds that stagnate and are unable to advance because they want to be inclusive and allow all types of players to join their guild. He wants to take us in the wrong direction - toward more decay, more unfun renown farming to stay in place, and toward rewarding guilds for shunning/kicking the lowest renown earners. The current system is already superior to his proposal and it could easily be improved by modifying it to extend decay relief to the smaller guilds that have not got any decay relief yet, without going back to all the problems inherent in the old decay system.

    And his proposal is overly complex and hard to implement, when compared to simply extending the decay relief to the smaller guilds or when compared to eliminating decay entirely.

    In short, it is not a good plan at all and will make things worse, not better.

  7. #3347
    Community Member UurlockYgmeov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere on the waters of this planet.
    Posts
    4,735

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Tshober View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lowz View Post
    Well - because under the last system a guild with less than 10 members actually had less decay than under this broken system we have now, up to half as much.
    What? Now you're just making stuff up. No guild is getting hit with more decay under the current system than they were under the old decay system. None. The ONLY change to decay was to remove the guild size factor from the formula. The devs even said so themselves in this thread.
    See table below comparing level vs decay under old and temporary system. All guilds with fewer than 10 members are experiencing as much as double the decay.

    Sorry took so long - tried to put in a table format - but that was very readable - so had to convert to graphic:



    Quote Originally Posted by Tshober View Post
    His proposal is just a "lite" version of the old decay system. It will still have players who earn less renown than they cost in decay so it will still have all the same incentives to shun/kick those players that the old decay system had. And it will still have guilds that stagnate and are unable to advance because they want to be inclusive and allow all types of players to join their guild. He wants to take us in the wrong direction - toward more decay, more unfun renown farming to stay in place, and toward rewarding guilds for shunning/kicking the lowest renown earners. The current system is already superior to his proposal and it could easily be improved by modifying it to extend decay relief to the smaller guilds that have not got any decay relief yet, without going back to all the problems inherent in the old decay system.

    And his proposal is overly complex and hard to implement, when compared to simply extending the decay relief to the smaller guilds or when compared to eliminating decay entirely.

    In short, it is not a good plan at all and will make things worse, not better.
    No and you know better.

    It fixed the problems currently in the temporary system and makes it unbiased and fair to all guilds. Implementing it is as easy as the prior changes, and most could be done without even bringing the servers down. All the changes take are a few simple minor quick edits to static variables, for the most part.

    The current system is totally biased and only favors the massive guilds and penalizes all other. Just because the system was bad and it was changed to help the 'elite minority' of guilds doesn't mean the system is fixed or favorable.

    The system does NOT shun casual players - rather the current system does for all guilds - because you have to be big to succeed - and once big - they boot because they hit the maximum member cap - and so who goes first are those that earn less renown.

    Current system is exclusive in the fact that it favors large guilds and any half-arsed solution to just lower decay for medium to tiny guilds doesn't help them at higher levels.

    Decay for any guild currently at level 100 is 67,500. No matter how you slice it - that is insane for medium to tiny guilds, while being trivial and meaningless to large guilds.

    Exclusive yes. Inclusive No. Does not promote being able to be in any guild you wish because you wish to.

    Now this is the same issue that was present prior to the temporary patch, just reversed for the majority of guilds and therefor the majority of players. (Majority of guilds are medium or smaller; and they have the majority of players).

    Now the new system I propose is inherently unbiased - does not promote any style or size of guild. Some will try to say this is not accurate; the truth is the only thing that will promote inclusion or exclusion in the new system is the guild leaders and the players.


    This is the best so far:
    The core of the proposal is:

    [b]Eliminate Decay Altogether

    but if Turbine says no, then:
    1. Modify temporary system by making simple and easy 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. Easy to accomplish because mostly only modifying existing code by changing static variables.
      1. member is not counted toward modified guild size until generates renown. (for mail checkers and purely social log ins)
      2. instead of 30 days until considered inactive for guild purposes, change to one day (changed to account for daily dice);
      3. remove the +10 to the modified guild size in the formula, with a modified minimum guild size becoming one - no cap/limit.
      4. adjust decay to affect all guilds of all levels.
      5. Significantly lower decay for higher level guilds by up to 93% (the level multiplier drops from up to 4.5 down to 2.5).
        1. Modified formula would be something like: modified_guild_size[i](1 being the minimum) x (guild_level x 2.5 (two point five)). [i]This change alone reduces decay for high level guilds by up to 93%)
        2. Keep It Simple - keep it transparent and easy to explain, understand, and compute.
      6. 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.
    2. Implement (aka ADD a)simple Provisional (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.
    3. add stiffer booting penalties to discourage mass bootings.


    as you can see - accounts are only included towards decay math if they earn renown - and only for that day; plus for the guilds currently experiencing decay, most will see only a minor shift in decay; but does help all guilds.
    a
    So any perceived inclusion/exclusion is merely that - perceived through own personal bias.

    This system is unbiased and fair, and even in the extreme cases presented - when looked at in context maintains that unbiased nature and fairness allowing players to play with whom they wish, in a guild they wish to play in.

  8. #3348
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    See table below comparing level vs decay under old and temporary system. All guilds with fewer than 10 members are experiencing as much as double the decay.

    Sorry took so long - tried to put in a table format - but that was very readable - so had to convert to graphic:

    I don't know where you got this data. The devs said all they changed is taking out the guild size factor in the formula. If guilds are getting more decay then it has to be a bug. Where did the data come from? Let's see a link to the dev response to it.


    Here's what the devs said about the current system at the start of this thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by Vargouille View Post
    No guild should see more decay than before, with these current changes we're looking at this week.

    I think you just made up this data because you don't understand how the current system works. No wonder your proposals are so whacky.
    Last edited by Tshober; 03-18-2013 at 02:08 PM.

  9. #3349
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tshober View Post
    I don't know where you got this data. The devs said all they changed is taking out the guild size factor in the formula. If guilds are getting more decay then it has to be a bug. Where did the data come from? Let's see a link to the dev response to it.


    Here's what the devs said about the current system at the start of this thread:




    I think you just made up this data because you don't understand how the current system works. No wonder your proposals are so whacky.
    Not only that, he failed to mention yet again that he wants level 100 solo guilds to be able to pay off all renown debt with a simple 250 renown per day, while at the same time bringing back the horribly bad 'renown per character' debts.

    I really don't believe he has the experience to be able to suggest such game-changing mods. The gentleman has no experience whatsoever with running a large guild under the old OR new system; this is simply a transparent attempt to help his own guild out, with no idea of the consequences on the game for the rest of us.

    Gremmlynns system was WAY better, way simpler, and would NOT hurt large guilds. I vote for that, or the removal of all decay for everyone.

    Decay size based on active members/3 (round down)-min:2/max:10
    Last edited by eris2323; 03-18-2013 at 02:35 PM. Reason: to find GREMMLYNNs proposal - see i spelled it right now!

  10. #3350
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,012

    Default

    Dear Turbine:

    Please consider removing all forms of decay from guilds. Just stop it. You're ruining everyones game. Just take what you have, and multiply by 0.

    Imagine. You could close this thread. That alone will save you millions of dollars in the wages you have to pay your forum mods to keep up with it.

    MILLIONS!

  11. #3351
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eris2323 View Post
    Dear Turbine:

    Please consider removing all forms of decay from guilds. Just stop it. You're ruining everyones game. Just take what you have, and multiply by 0.

    Imagine. You could close this thread. That alone will save you millions of dollars in the wages you have to pay your forum mods to keep up with it.

    MILLIONS!
    Oh how I would love to see that happen. Both the decay = 0 and closing this crazy thread!

  12. #3352
    Community Member Charononus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    5,345

    Default

    I'm a member of the largest guild on thelanis (as of myddo a few months ago) we have never booted from max size. Claiming this happens is a lie.

  13. #3353
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tshober View Post
    Oh how I would love to see that happen. Both the decay = 0 and closing this crazy thread!
    It seems like Turbine really did bite off more than it can chew by choosing a horribly bad mechanic like guild renown decay. I now fully agree, all decay should be removed from all guilds immediately.

    Change your 10 variable of max size to 0 so we end up with no decay, anywhere, for anyone, leave the code in for now until you can safely remove it, and get it fixed, Turbine.

    Oh do it quickly, as well. Entice me to buy those astral shards, because the last ship will be within our grasp soon... if you'd like us to actually pay real money... well, this would be a start! Show us you care, by removing all decay for everyone.
    Last edited by eris2323; 03-18-2013 at 02:57 PM.

  14. #3354
    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 don't know where you got this data. The devs said all they changed is taking out the guild size factor in the formula. If guilds are getting more decay then it has to be a bug. Where did the data come from? Let's see a link to the dev response to it.


    Here's what the devs said about the current system at the start of this thread:




    I think you just made up this data because you don't understand how the current system works. No wonder your proposals are so whacky.
    data is straight from the math....

  15. #3355
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    data is straight from the math....
    So you're saying the devs have been lying to us all along, and we actually pay for 20 accounts?

    I do believe when I did the math a few months ago, renown cost was set to 10.

    10 times base value.

    not 20 times base value.

    Can we have confirmation of how it currently works? I haven't been tracking it, and if the devs are lying and we're paying double renown, I'd like to know.

    If Urrly is wrong, I'd like to know that too

  16. #3356
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    data is straight from the math....
    Then how do you explain that the devs said there would be no increase for any guilds? I don't think you understand the math.

  17. #3357
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tshober View Post
    Then how do you explain that the devs said there would be no increase for any guilds? I don't think you understand the math.
    I'm pretty sure we would have seen an immediate uproar here if renown was double what it used to be...

    granted, I've had a busy winter, and haven't been as active... but an uproar like that would have reached my ears....

    I'm almost positive he just does not understand the math.

  18. #3358
    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
    Then how do you explain that the devs said there would be no increase for any guilds? I don't think you understand the math.
    There is a chance I miscalculated in my hurry or state of exhaustion - so kindly double check the math.

    Should be easy enough to do.

  19. #3359
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    There is a chance I miscalculated in my hurry or state of exhaustion - so kindly double check the math.

    Should be easy enough to do.
    You might have forgotten to add ten -

    Guild renown decay formula
    The formula for renown decay is a level-based multiplier times an account-based multiplier (LevelMultiplier * AccountMultiplier). The account-based multiplier is the Modified Guild Size + 10. The level-based multiplier can be looked up in the list below.
    Note: Minimum Modified Guild Size is 10! Account-based multiplier is therefore ( Max(Modified Guild Size,10) + 10 )


    however, that doesn't make the rest wrong since a level 100 guild now pays 67500 decay every day - so no guild less than 200 can possibly make it past level 85.

    Doesn't matter how much she screams and yells, and how much she tries to bury your idea, your ideas have supporters because we want the game to be without slant and fair to all.

    Funny - how it was a supporter that found the error and it still doesn't change the truth behind your ideas.

    Just goes to show that the only one actually looking at the math and the system as a whole are your supporters.
    Last edited by IWMettleblade; 03-18-2013 at 09:57 PM.

  20. #3360
    The Hatchery Enoach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    4,610

    Default

    The problem with the old system was that it based Renown earnings on a per Account basis but never truly defined what the Expected Daily Renown Earnings per person really was. Since this could be a huge fluctuation between different types from the hardcore daily gamers to the few hours a week types. This just was not defined well at all. And because of that it hurt Guilds that had a larger percentage of few hour a week types vs. hardcore.

    The Current system removed the Per Player calculation and standardized it at the 20 Account Level. So yes, smaller than 20 Account guilds would have seen a bump in the Decay, but would not have seen a change in renown earning bonus. This did not level the playing field - It put the potential advantage in larger guilds due to them having more people to "Cover" the decay.

    Any system based on the individual Accounts of a guild cannot be fair when each individual has a different earnings potential, as this would once again push back to the problems of the "Old" system which was less a Large Guild vs Small Guild (even though many wanted to make it out as such) and more Casual vs Not So Casual Guilds.

    Now the 20 Account Guilds have it the hardest as they don't qualify for Bonuses and their Renown Decay stayed the same. The bonus to renown for the smaller guilds was meant to have them be competitive with larger guilds, but instead gave them an advantage in the old decay mechanic. The new mechanic was intended to make them equal to the 20 Account Guild - based on some response here it seems that it missed that mark.

    It is disappointing that we have not heard anything about the next "Phase", but I do not want a renown system that puts Casual vs Non-Casual players. I also don't want a small vs large. So far I have not seen one proposal added by the player base that fits either of those.

Page 168 of 209 FirstFirst ... 68118158164165166167168169170171172178 ... 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