# Thread: Guild Renown Changes

1. Originally Posted by slarden
In your example, if I add a person and they only earn 24% of the renown of the average member in my guild they are still adding renown. 24% of the Average.
Correct. By the same example should the new member be earning 23% of the renown of the average member in the theoretical guild, they are doing “next to nothing” and because of the decrease in guild size bonus when adding a person, the guild stands to benefit more by “jettisoning” the dead weight. The point I make is that guild size bonuses if increased will result in sharper decreases when adding a member.

Taking the same example: take a theoretical guild of 6 and assume each player gains (43.94) x10 the amount of renown with a +600% small guild bonus. Net total: ~440 + a bonus of 2640 = 3080. Adding an additional member reduces the small guild bonus by 30% (600 - 15= 570%). New total: ~440 + a bonus of 2508 = 2948. That translates to roughly 132 less guild renown each member is earning from before despite the same level of activity (3080 - 2948)

In order for the added member to be considered beneficial they will make up the net loss for the guild (132 x 6 members = 792). The guild would actually net a loss to add a new member that does not gain more than (43.94) x2 the amount of renown with a +570% small guild bonus (118.2 + a bonus of 675 = ~792.)

You’ll notice that a player considered to be doing “next to nothing” just went up by +3% (less than 26% of the renown of the average member translates to doing next to nothing).

The guild size bonus continues to diminish the value of adding a person to the guild. For guilds that do not have a guild size bonus this is not the case. They do not stand to lose anything by adding a person, therefore there is no worth assigned to a player based on their level of activity.

I’m actually fine with reducing decay to insignificant levels for small guilds and eliminating guild size bonuses. At least then, there is a higher retention of the renown earned, and renown ransack when gaining a level would not be as big of an issue.

For example: Take a theoretical guild of 6 and assume each player gains (43.94) x10 the amount of renown is 1,760 (43.94x10 = ~440 +1,320 (300%)) per player. Net total of the guild is 10,560 per day which means even with the bonus, the guild will only be able to advance as far as lvl 69 (decay rate of 10,348/day) without increasing the rate of renown they gain. Current system: net gain after decay = 212

Renown gain without the bonus in retrospect would net a guild total of: 2,640/day (~440 x6). Should the lvl 69 guild of 6 receive an 88% discount to the 10,348, it would translate to a much more manageable ~1,242/day decay rate. Net gain after discount = 1,398

I will admit that guilds that benefited the most from the optimum guild size bonus is likely to lose the most under this proposed system. The gradual 2% increase for added members requires less work at lower guild levels but more work at higher guild levels. Example: 23% of the theoretical average of (~440) is 101.2. The player’s activity doesn’t start counting against the guild renown gain until after lvl 60 (2% of lvl 61 decay of 6,355 = 127.1) However, it is an improvement from the current system, doesn’t affect guild sizes 50+ (capping out at 100%) and is equitable between guild sizes 1-50.

2. just a thought but if decay was erased what would keep the already 100 level guilds from recruitting the whole servers and forming the mega guilds that everyone was so scared of ?

3. Originally Posted by Chaos000
Correct. By the same example should the new member be earning 23% of the renown of the average member in the theoretical guild, they are doing “next to nothing” and because of the decrease in guild size bonus when adding a person, the guild stands to benefit more by “jettisoning” the dead weight. The point I make is that guild size bonuses if increased will result in sharper decreases when adding a member.

Taking the same example: take a theoretical guild of 6 and assume each player gains (43.94) x10 the amount of renown with a +600% small guild bonus. Net total: ~440 + a bonus of 2640 = 3080. Adding an additional member reduces the small guild bonus by 30% (600 - 15= 570%). New total: ~440 + a bonus of 2508 = 2948. That translates to roughly 132 less guild renown each member is earning from before despite the same level of activity (3080 - 2948)

In order for the added member to be considered beneficial they will make up the net loss for the guild (132 x 6 members = 792). The guild would actually net a loss to add a new member that does not gain more than (43.94) x2 the amount of renown with a +570% small guild bonus (118.2 + a bonus of 675 = ~792.)

You’ll notice that a player considered to be doing “next to nothing” just went up by +3% (less than 26% of the renown of the average member translates to doing next to nothing).

The guild size bonus continues to diminish the value of adding a person to the guild. For guilds that do not have a guild size bonus this is not the case. They do not stand to lose anything by adding a person, therefore there is no worth assigned to a player based on their level of activity.

I’m actually fine with reducing decay to insignificant levels for small guilds and eliminating guild size bonuses. At least then, there is a higher retention of the renown earned, and renown ransack when gaining a level would not be as big of an issue.

For example: Take a theoretical guild of 6 and assume each player gains (43.94) x10 the amount of renown is 1,760 (43.94x10 = ~440 +1,320 (300%)) per player. Net total of the guild is 10,560 per day which means even with the bonus, the guild will only be able to advance as far as lvl 69 (decay rate of 10,348/day) without increasing the rate of renown they gain. Current system: net gain after decay = 212

Renown gain without the bonus in retrospect would net a guild total of: 2,640/day (~440 x6). Should the lvl 69 guild of 6 receive an 88% discount to the 10,348, it would translate to a much more manageable ~1,242/day decay rate. Net gain after discount = 1,398

I will admit that guilds that benefited the most from the optimum guild size bonus is likely to lose the most under this proposed system. The gradual 2% increase for added members requires less work at lower guild levels but more work at higher guild levels. Example: 23% of the theoretical average of (~440) is 101.2. The player’s activity doesn’t start counting against the guild renown gain until after lvl 60 (2% of lvl 61 decay of 6,355 = 127.1) However, it is an improvement from the current system, doesn’t affect guild sizes 50+ (capping out at 100%) and is equitable between guild sizes 1-50.
Yes, I realize that anything is possible. However, it's not very likely that a new recruited member that is actively playing will earn less than 24% of the renown of the average player. The more likely scenario is that various members will take breaks - some long and some short - during the course of their membership in the guild. My experience is that newly recruited members are more active than average, but they won't alway remain that way - it goes in cycles.

The point is I don't think about the low possibility of lowered renown when we invite a member. I am sure the others in the guild don't. We think about whether we want this person to be part of our guild. If we do, we invite the person. If we don't think it's a good fit, we don't.

I am sure it is considered by some guilds - probably the higher level guilds. The ordinary small guild - no - I doubt it is considered very often. When building a player base you focus on the player, not renown. Renown takes care of itself. To the extent the system is rigged against a guild of our size - it is what it is - my options are to stop playing the game, play the game but stop spending money or just live with it. Around 100 guilds commened - I am not sure Turbine even read the comments are were interested in what small guilds thought.

The proposed system and guild bonus are completely unrelated. The new system simply favors a large guild period. The larger the guild the more the benefit. The system really doesn't make sense "as is" but can be improved with many adjustments that have been suggested by several different people.

The bottom line is that I think guilds were motivated to get UP to 6 due to get the renown bonus (with bank accounts or other people), but I seriously doubt it stopped any guilds from expanding beyond 6 because the odds of a benefit are much gerater than a detriment by adding people. I know people from many small gulids and I don't know any that ever suggested being exactly at 6 people to optimize guild bonus. I do know of some 2-3 person builds that are 6 with backpack toons. That is one of the reasons I think they should change the bonus to a flat 200% for guild sizes 1-12.

4. Originally Posted by theslimshady
just a thought but if decay was erased what would keep the already 100 level guilds from recruitting the whole servers and forming the mega guilds that everyone was so scared of ?
Well, the 1000 member cap, for one thing. There are not that many level 100 guilds yet. If decay is removed entirely, there will be lots of level 100 guilds eventually. That is why I have also advocated raising the guild level cap. That gives those that have hit 100 something to do. As long as the rewards for leveling beyond 100 are purely for "bragging rights" and don't have an impact on the the rest of the game, there will be little incentive to dump casual/social players because most guilds will opt out of the race once all the "real" benefits are achieved. I can tell you with certainty, that is what my guild will do, if we ever get there. We would still be advancing, of course, but we would not be trying to beat other guilds to the highest levels.

5. Originally Posted by Tshober
Well, the 1000 member cap, for one thing. There are not that many level 100 guilds yet.
good so the tooncap does stop the feared korthostyle armies and we all reconize that this is fear mongering when we read the 300 posts about how large guilds are going to ruin the servers by recruiting everyone

6. Originally Posted by theslimshady
good so the tooncap does stop the feared korthostyle armies and we all reconize that this is fear mongering when we read the 300 posts about how large guilds are going to ruin the servers by recruiting everyone
The fear, as I understand it, is not the mass recruiting, it's the mass recruiting to power to 100 quick and booting all but those who were there before the recruit spam drive. Hence the focus on % renown loss on booting.

As I understand it.

7. Originally Posted by DocBenway
The fear, as I understand it, is not the mass recruiting, it's the mass recruiting to power to 100 quick and booting all but those who were there before the recruit spam drive. Hence the focus on % renown loss on booting.

As I understand it.
That is my understanding as well, but I am convinced it is way overblown. The new system does not reward you for kicking players like the old one did. It only punishes you. So there would be no reason to kick most of the guild, other than pure meanness, and you would have to be willing to take a renown loss to do it.

The other reason it is way overblown is there are just not enough new players and unguilded players to go around. If all, or even 1/3, of the current guilds start mass recruiting, very few of them would get more than 50 new players before the supply is completely gone. There just are not THAT many new players arriving in Korthos each day. And many of those who are new are just trying out a free game and they will play for a day or two (if that long) and then never return. New and unguilded players will be in demand under this new system. A guild leader who trys to invite them and then just ignore them will find out very quickly, in that kind of environment, that he can't keep them and they will go to the guilds that treat them better.

I am not opposed to having a higher penalty for kicking members, as long as there is a reasonable time limit after which the penalty no longer applies. However, I am far from convinced that such additional penalties are needed.

8. Originally Posted by Tshober
...
The other reason it is way overblown is there are just not enough new players and unguilded players to go around. If all, or even 1/3, of the current guilds start mass recruiting, very few of them would get more than 50 new players before the supply is completely gone. There just are not THAT many new players arriving in Korthos each day. And many of those who are new are just trying out a free game and they will play for a day or two (if that long) and then never return. New and unguilded players will be in demand under this new system. A guild leader who trys to invite them and then just ignore them will find out very quickly, in that kind of environment, that he can't keep them and they will go to the guilds that treat them better.
I don't think the limit or lack of new players plays to the fear as much as someone building a guild of 10 (so far) for 6 months, just managed 25 and dumped cash on a Stormglory finds their ranks pilfered by "Level 85 Guild, recruitment doors wide open" folks. They fear the quick access to what would take them 5 years to get, if they don't decay too much and make it 6 years, will tempt their members away.

As an aside, lets just think about the word decay:
It is defined as a breaking down, or collapse.
It has some ugly Synonyms including: adulteration, atrophy, blight, caries, consumption, corrosion, crumbling, decadence, decline, decomposition, decrease, decrepitude, degeneracy, degeneration, depreciation, deterioration, dilapidation, disintegration, disrepair, dissolution, downfall, dying, extinction, fading, failing, gangrene, impairment, mortification, perishing, putrefaction, putrescence, putridity, putridness, rot, rotting, ruin, ruination, rust, senescence, spoilage, spoilation, wasting, wasting away, withering

But its Antonyms: development, flourish, germination, growth, improvement, ripening, strength, strengthening

Now which grouping of words there would you like applied to your guild?

9. Originally Posted by Tshober
The other reason it is way overblown is there are just not enough new players and unguilded players to go around. If all, or even 1/3, of the current guilds start mass recruiting, very few of them would get more than 50 new players before the supply is completely gone. There just are not THAT many new players arriving in Korthos each day. And many of those who are new are just trying out a free game and they will play for a day or two (if that long) and then never return. New and unguilded players will be in demand under this new system. A guild leader who trys to invite them and then just ignore them will find out very quickly, in that kind of environment, that he can't keep them and they will go to the guilds that treat them better.
this is nothing new the only thing new is all guiilds can recruit without worry about cas players and that to stay small is a choice
i dont think this debate is going much farther because most of the posts are about speculation or comparisons and not about internal guild data
i think real data would be something like the old system 80 percent of guilds walled or was bleeding out and decaying levels and new system maybe 20percent{i have no real evidence of this by the way even in my post asking all guilds in genral if they was walled or bleeding i got very little saying they was seemed most was progressing forward } so the real data i think would show a 60 percent swing in the right direction

10. Originally Posted by DocBenway
I don't think the limit or lack of new players plays to the fear as much as someone building a guild of 10 (so far) for 6 months, just managed 25 and dumped cash on a Stormglory finds their ranks pilfered by "Level 85 Guild, recruitment doors wide open" folks. They fear the quick access to what would take them 5 years to get, if they don't decay too much and make it 6 years, will tempt their members away.

As an aside, lets just think about the word decay:
It is defined as a breaking down, or collapse.
It has some ugly Synonyms including: adulteration, atrophy, blight, caries, consumption, corrosion, crumbling, decadence, decline, decomposition, decrease, decrepitude, degeneracy, degeneration, depreciation, deterioration, dilapidation, disintegration, disrepair, dissolution, downfall, dying, extinction, fading, failing, gangrene, impairment, mortification, perishing, putrefaction, putrescence, putridity, putridness, rot, rotting, ruin, ruination, rust, senescence, spoilage, spoilation, wasting, wasting away, withering

But its Antonyms: development, flourish, germination, growth, improvement, ripening, strength, strengthening

Now which grouping of words there would you like applied to your guild?
i am not sure it is clear to say that if long time members left a guild to go to a large guild that has anything to do with levels or renown maybe it has to do with the internal working of that guild
maybe if you take away the high end rewards and weigh the options that guild isnt as great as you once beleaved it was and is not the best fit anymore

11. Originally Posted by theslimshady
i am not sure it is clear to say that if long time members left a guild to go to a large guild that has anything to do with levels or renown maybe it has to do with the internal working of that guild
maybe if you take away the high end rewards and weigh the options that guild isnt as great as you once beleaved it was and is not the best fit anymore
What is considered a "long term member" in an example guild that's 6 months old? There are people who are driven to get the best of what they can and when the scene changes from mostly just start-up guilds recruiting, to every 2nd guild and half of their dogs recruiting, those still trying to build fear they can't compete with bigger numbers after a name in brackets.

This is all speculation as I have none of those fears about my guild or those in it as we still adhere to the principles it was founded on, before renown tried to decay that aspect of the game.

Mine was just an attempted sympathetic example, to what I'd deem reasonable fears as much as fear can be reasonable.

12. Originally Posted by slarden
Oh it is not speculation, it's clear that only small guilds are bleeding decay now. The system would be fine if they can address the small guild problem.
what are the problems ? did decay go up or something

13. Originally Posted by theslimshady
what are the problems ? did decay go up or something
They still decay at size or more and even some who got a minor reduction will not benefit since their playstyle will eventually dictate that renown income < decay. They will be forced to play strictly for renown, then for fun, or forced to give up on the idea of progressing their guild, as it is and how they like it, to the next "plateau." I don't know why Turbine doesn't want to sell more stacks of Astral Diamonds for a metric crapload of TP plus a whole chicken to every guild out there, regardless of size.

Since renown's inception, through the initial no bonus, and the log on all your alts or they act like another account for bonus/decay time, my guild of anywhere between 2 and 21 active in a given month, has reached level 51. We've already bought one AD boat and would buy the next as soon as Turbine stops making the journey there a treadmill and provides even a steep staircase. All progress is better than progress decayed and at still artificial sizes.

Potion income loss, maybe, but the top ship requires what, 10000tp in astral diamonds minimum with Windspire trade in discount? I don't see why Turbine wouldn't want a 1 man guilds only

14. Originally Posted by slarden
Well in my guild 2 tells were received from large guilds with invitations to join recently. The same thing was reported by someone else on the other thread. We didn't ask to join their guild or even inquire about it.

I don't think this is a big problem. My guild participates in many high level raids and EE runs so it doesn't shock me that guilds would want our members. They are well trained, well geared and nice people.

I think people can leave a small guild they like once they realize their guild has no chance to advance Each person has to weigh whether it's worth the effort to stick with a small guild that gains levels slowly when you can join a large guild that can level fast without having to worry about getting stuck at a level. Guild members of small guilds usually take renown as end rewards, pay more for the ship amenities, etc. it's more work and plat loss to be in a small guld. At some point you just accept that Turbine stuck a dagger through the back small guilds and live with it or move on.
again i am not sure this whole idea wasnt anything but fear-mongering

15. Originally Posted by theslimshady
again i am not sure this whole idea wasnt anything but fear-mongering
When I tell you things that happened it's not fear mongering.

Fear mongering is saying things such as "if decay is removed for small guilds they will all go to 100 - they have it to easy" when every fact proves otherwise. You aren't looking for any sort of reasonable discussion you simply want to try and keep small guilds from leveling. Why is beyond me - it is completely illogical.

16. Originally Posted by slarden
When I tell you things that happened it's not fear mongering.

Fear mongering is saying things such as "if decay is removed for small guilds they will all go to 100 - they have it to easy" when every fact proves otherwise. You aren't looking for any sort of reasonable discussion you simply want to try and keep small guilds from leveling. Why is beyond me - it is completely illogical.
you tried to paint a picture of large guilds stealing players and it turns out you raid with lots of other people and it could be just a normal aspect of the game that sir is fear mongering

17. Originally Posted by slarden

Small guilds only received an increased ransack penalty due to the benefits other guilds received.
i think i seen one post on this is over 3000 posts on 3 different threads

Originally Posted by slarden
If you don't see the problem, it's only because you want large guilds to be be favored greatly rather than having a fair system for all.
or another idea would be alot more peeps are saying what a great system this is now and we understand there might be some data that needs to be collected and some tweeks done
however it dosent appear that you have posted a single day of your renown gain or loss down is pretty easy to screenshot or even write the numbers down so we could have real data not fantasy percentages maybe you could try my example instead of bashing large guilds

for loot and glory
modified account size 197 recent departures 6
level 77
current renown 23174082 at 11:52 pm 12-07-2012 see its easy

then follow it up a few days in a row and so we can see the trouble of all guilds that are in trouble that way the devs have some real feelings of what you are dealing with

18. Originally Posted by theslimshady
i think i seen one post on this is over 3000 posts on 3 different threads
You missed some. I have made at least 2 in at least 2 threads myself about it being a noticeable decrease in drops hitting us when we hit 51 and wanted the buffer.
or another idea would be alot more peeps are saying what a great system this is now and we understand there might be some data that needs to be collected and some tweeks done
however it dosent appear that you have posted a single day of your renown gain or loss down is pretty easy to screenshot or even write the numbers down so we could have real data not fantasy percentages maybe you could try my example instead of bashing large guilds

for loot and glory
modified account size 197 recent departures 6
level 77
current renown 23174082 at 11:52 pm 12-07-2012 see its easy

then follow it up a few days in a row and so we can see the trouble of all guilds that are in trouble that way the devs have some real feelings of what you are dealing with
My Number pre change = X
My number post change = X

Fill in your favourite value for X (I like 12, for ladybug picnics and such) it doesn't matter as it hasn't changed. The post of mine on the last page you ignored or skipped over explained this.

The fact some get Y% off of X now is good and there is no reason ALL shouldn't get Y% off X if X has to exist at all.

19. Originally Posted by slarden
I didn't try to paint any picture, we had 2 instances where a large guild did try and recruit members of our giuld. It never happened one other time in the past year - so yes I do believe it is related to the change. What I said is that we participate in alot of raids and EE runs so people know our guild has players that are good contributors.
and again why bring it up then it has nothing to do with the new renown system except to distract
Originally Posted by slarden
Like a few others from large guilds, you aren't quite happy with the great benefits you received. You also want to ensure that small guilds don't receive anything. I have no idea why. When large guilds were trying to get a change made I never fought or argued to make it harder for large guilds. In fact when I look at that the thread the only real debate was that some people liked the competitive aspect of the guild system. They weren't simply trying to prevent others from getting a benefit, they just believed the old system was better.
again nothing to do with what system does for you or your guild at all just adistraction
Originally Posted by slarden
The folks arguing here want no decay for large guilds, but want to see decay continue for small guilds. What is the point?
no again nothing to do with the system and your guild and for the record i was just tring to get all decay equal for all guilds which it currently is
it has never made sense on why it wasnt why should the values to decay per guild be different at all just like leveling each guild needs the exsact same amount of renown to hit 100 each guild decays same amount how you get renown and deal with decay is up to guild correct

Originally Posted by slarden
The irony is that some of the same people making this argument were arguing strongly to eliminate decay for all guilds just a few months ago with no strings attached.
again nothing to do with your issues or your guild only serves to distract i dont really see anyone attacking you you are just saying anyone who cant understand your statements is attacking which is silly
Originally Posted by slarden
I am not fear-mongering, but you are attacking. If you don't like what I have to say you just attack.
this again is nothing but a distraction you like to try and discredit people by saying if they dont agree with you then they are attacking you this in itself is a fear-mongering tool the idea of this whole thread was what new system did for your guild and just about every one of your posts is about other peoples guilds not your own or what large guilds got and why didnt you not any substance at all and i mean 0 about what system had changed with the internal workings of your guild at hand

20. Originally Posted by theslimshady
and again why bring it up then it has nothing to do with the new renown system except to distract

again nothing to do with what system does for you or your guild at all just adistraction
no again nothing to do with the system and your guild and for the record i was just tring to get all decay equal for all guilds which it currently is
it has never made sense on why it wasnt why should the values to decay per guild be different at all just like leveling each guild needs the exsact same amount of renown to hit 100 each guild decays same amount how you get renown and deal with decay is up to guild correct

again nothing to do with your issues or your guild only serves to distract i dont really see anyone attacking you you are just saying anyone who cant understand your statements is attacking which is silly

this again is nothing but a distraction you like to try and discredit people by saying if they dont agree with you then they are attacking you this in itself is a fear-mongering tool the idea of this whole thread was what new system did for your guild and just about every one of your posts is about other peoples guilds not your own or what large guilds got and why didnt you not any substance at all and i mean 0 about what system had changed with the internal workings of your guild at hand
The point is that small guilds should also get a decay reduction. I would like to see the complete removal of decay. This is not fear mongering. Around 100 people from small guilds commented and there were many common themes:

1) the system is unfair for small gulds
2) remove decay (although some prefer the old system
3) small guilds don't want to be forced to recruit

These are valid concerns raised by many small guilds. They should be reviewed by Turbine.

#### 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.