Page 3 of 209 FirstFirst 12345671353103 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 4162
  1. #41

    Default

    So if its based on a guild of 6 then my guild of 4 with 2 inactive will have higher decay?
    Fallen former minion of the Gelatinous Cube
    Proud Member of Ascent
    Arko Highstar
    Arckos Highstar

  2. #42
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Annexia
    Posts
    1,264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ArkoHighStar View Post
    So if its based on a guild of 6 then my guild of 4 with 2 inactive will have higher decay?
    No because your guild of 4 was decaying as a guild of 10 anyway. 10 was the minimum size used in decay math. (MAX(Modified Account Size,10) +10) * Levelmultiplier.

    20 was the smallest number ever resulting from the outer bracket set. No one has ever said why.

  3. #43
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    39

    Default

    I'm not sure I like the idea of low-end blind recruitment guilds getting to the same levels of high end quality guilds who have earned their rank. With the old system casual and so-so guilds would peter out and be forever trapped at whatever level while the active quality guilds would continue on. If a guild can recruit the whole of Korthos everyday and be able to mathmatically make 100, why even have ranks? They'd be meaningless.

  4. #44

    Default

    Thank you devs for hearing us. I don't know how much this will help, looks like it still heavily favors small guilds. Guild size was important back when the modern incarnation of guilds were introduced. Now days, with less players, less new players, I don't think it is as much.

    My hope is that I can stop worrying about guild level. I don't care if it takes a month to go up a level. I don't want to micro-manage it anymore.

    Back when there were many players, many guilds, we had 50 active members, we would amass outside the airship dock to all go on when we got a new ship. We ran around chatting about what should go where. I know those days will never be again, it saddens me that it is lost.

    Some think the system should stay the way it is now. I disagree, all of my guildies have jobs, have families, decay has sucked the fun out of guilds.

    Hopefully this will help, time will tell.
    Completionist Lighthardtt Tuisian of Sarlona
    leader, Bridge Burners

    "Just another day in pair-o'-dice"

  5. #45
    Community Member bbqzor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,034

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vargouille View Post
    There were only two changes relating to Guilds and renown made at this time as mentioned in Tolero's post. Nothing else should be different, and we'd like to know if it is.
    Let me begin by saying this is a positive direction... regardless of the impact this change has (which I think will be beneficial but even if not), simply working to come up with a better system is a good-faith decision.

    Now my question: There are effectively two penalties for removing a player from a guild. One, you lose a percentage of their earned renown; and two, they count towards guild size for a month. As guild size is now no longer used to calculate decay (if I am reading Toleros post right), I presume your post refers solely to the first case, losing a percentage of their renown.

    So basically, people who never log in, or log in once a year, who are removed in the current environment, can be done so safely? If they have a zero to nominal renown value, losing a percentage of it is very small, and the change in guild size will have no adverse effect? If so this would be quite a positive feature for many guilds looking to clean up inactive rosters but previously paralyzed to inaction from the potential size penalties.

    Second question, any hints as to what sized decay we should be looking at by level? I ask because we had the old formula, and were able to go look and see if it was working correctly. As it stands now, with decay based solely on guild level, it would be a simple matter to verify it was working correctly if you gave us a chart/formula to reference. Perhaps just the 10 level benchmarks, like telling us its set to 5k/day at 30, 10k/day at 40 etc (those are totally made up values but you get the idea).

    In other words, it would be helpful to know what we should be seeing, so we can offer feedback in regards to both what is actually happening, and how well balanced what should be happening feels. Obviously posters from all guild levels could compare renown values and decipher this, but providing it as is simply saves everyone a lot of time and results in more feedback, in a quicker timeframe. Thanks

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthios888 View Post
    Please consider other ways to get renown. For example, a varying amount for certain accomplishments like achieving level cap, completing an epic elite quest, completing a raid, or finishing an epic destiny. Perhaps upgrading an epic item, a green steel, an alchemical, a dragon armor. The idea would be that building effective characters and accomplishing some “renowned” signifies your guild’s success. Moreso than mindless chest farming.
    I just wanted to say, I had never considered adding a "renown gain" to successful crafting recipes, experience totals, or (if I may suggest) favor totals. But thats a really good idea. Alchemical items, Epic items, perhaps every 1k favor, and Epic Elite raids are certainly good candidates for something like a free Impressive or free Legendary. I mean, they are the sorts of things that would either make you known to the in game npcs from a fluff point of view, or that spawns actual threads on the boards for essentially peer renown now... why not model that into the game? Props on the suggestion, its certainly a keeper in my book.

  6. #46
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Denmark, Koge
    Posts
    166

    Default

    So, a guild of level 55 with 6 players and a guild of 55 with 100 players both now have 3k renown decay?

    If so, yea for big guilds, no need anymore to kick out players.

    But for small guilds who as of current rules (old rules) who struggle to remain the same level or to advance, no ease for them?
    -- Celben 20/5 Cleric -- Dhoh 20 Barbarian -- Ghorgal 20/3 Fighter -- Mhysterious 20 Sorcerer - Perfekto 20 Bard -- Phatality 20/5 Wizard -- Proque 16 Rogue -- Roboarcher 16 Artificer -- Slithis 20 Ranger -- Tiarana 17 Barbarian, 4th Life -- Ugok 13 Fighter -- Xhenophobe 20/2 Wizard -- Yeung 9 Monk -- Zaturn 13 Favored Soul, 4th Life --

  7. #47
    Developer Vargouille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Flying overhead
    Posts
    1,771

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HunkyDane View Post
    But for small guilds who as of current rules (old rules) who struggle to remain the same level or to advance, no ease for them?
    Nothing directly aimed at this situation at this time. We're still looking into possible future changes. Today's change was something we could feasibly try sooner rather than later, and potentially solve one Guild issue we perceived, which was the feeling that some Guild members would need to be kicked for the good of the guild as a whole in order to advance the guild.

  8. #48
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Denmark, Koge
    Posts
    166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vargouille View Post
    Nothing directly aimed at this situation at this time. We're still looking into possible future changes. Today's change was something we could feasibly try sooner rather than later.
    Here is a suggestion me and a few friends where discussing the other day, this would be for guilds of all sizes

    For every day a guild do not gain any renown, reduce the renown decay by 10% so that after 10 days of no renown gained, a guild would seize to lose renown untill a renown would increae by either kill bonus or loot bonus.

    That would benefit guilds of all levels.
    Last edited by HunkyDane; 10-22-2012 at 05:10 PM. Reason: Spelling
    -- Celben 20/5 Cleric -- Dhoh 20 Barbarian -- Ghorgal 20/3 Fighter -- Mhysterious 20 Sorcerer - Perfekto 20 Bard -- Phatality 20/5 Wizard -- Proque 16 Rogue -- Roboarcher 16 Artificer -- Slithis 20 Ranger -- Tiarana 17 Barbarian, 4th Life -- Ugok 13 Fighter -- Xhenophobe 20/2 Wizard -- Yeung 9 Monk -- Zaturn 13 Favored Soul, 4th Life --

  9. #49
    Community Member Xezrak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    348

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthios888 View Post
    A tentative thank you for addressing this issue.

    Please consider other ways to get renown. For example, a varying amount for certain accomplishments like achieving level cap, completing an epic elite quest, completing a raid, or finishing an epic destiny. Perhaps upgrading an epic item, a green steel, an alchemical, a dragon armor. The idea would be that building effective characters and accomplishing some “renowned” signifies your guild’s success. Moreso than mindless chest farming.
    Excellent idea I would love to see this, and I think higher level/difficulty quests should give more renown
    "Focus on Adventure Not Grind"

  10. #50
    Hero AZgreentea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Lost in the Swamp
    Posts
    3,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthios888 View Post
    A tentative thank you for addressing this issue.

    Please consider other ways to get renown. For example, a varying amount for certain accomplishments like achieving level cap, completing an epic elite quest, completing a raid, or finishing an epic destiny. Perhaps upgrading an epic item, a green steel, an alchemical, a dragon armor. The idea would be that building effective characters and accomplishing some “renowned” signifies your guild’s success. Moreso than mindless chest farming.
    or Monster Manual achievements.
    The problem is never how to get new, innovative thoughts into your mind, but how to get old ones out. Every mind is a building filled with archaic furniture. Clean out a corner of your mind and creativity will instantly fill it.
    Dee Hock

  11. #51
    Community Member djl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,652

    Default

    These changes will open it up for a LOT of abuse...

    For example, if all having a large guild does is reduce your bonuses there is no reason at all to not "mass invite" people and then boot them after a certain amount of time.

    Assuming I am understanding everything correctly, the way things will work now:

    In a six-man guild, each person gains the work of three people because you get 300% bonus to renown. So, with a large guild all you need are 18 people who pull their weight and the rest of the guild can be slackers who bring in very little each day and it will still come out way ahead of a small guild.

    All this will do is change things where there is no benefit to having a small guild anymore, and you'll have a bunch of really large, really awful guilds.

  12. #52
    Community Member Postumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    SW Wheloon
    Posts
    6,868

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by djl View Post
    These changes will open it up for a LOT of abuse...

    For example, if all having a large guild does is reduce your bonuses there is no reason at all to not "mass invite" people and then boot them after a certain amount of time.

    Assuming I am understanding everything correctly, the way things will work now:

    In a six-man guild, each person gains the work of three people because you get 300% bonus to renown. So, with a large guild all you need are 18 people who pull their weight and the rest of the guild can be slackers who bring in very little each day and it will still come out way ahead of a small guild.

    All this will do is change things where there is no benefit to having a small guild anymore, and you'll have a bunch of really large, really awful guilds.
    Why would they kick anyone if there is no benefit to do so? Just to be evil?

    I honestly think that would be rare.

  13. #53
    Community Member LeoLionxxx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    871

    Question Inactives?

    So we still get a penalty for removing inactive players, but with this there is no real reason to remove them because they WILL NOT contribute to decay.
    If we remove them, we are penalized. But if we just leave them, the list of inactives will grow and grow. My guild just did a cleanup in order to counteract the dead weight decay. Under this new system, there will be absolutly no reason to do this in the future.

    I guess what i'm saying is: we no longer have incentive to remove inactives other then to shorten the member list. In the future, could some-thing be added to allow us to remove clearly inactive, abandoned-DDO players (assuming something like this is pernament)? Something like 'after 2 monthes, removing the player will not cause additional decay of loss of earned renown'.
    Because DDO content is created by hand, some issues cannot be fixed with a global change. We must fix these issues one-by-one by hand with the help of bug reports. This includes:
    Ladder issues: please include the /loc when reporting a ladder issue

  14. #54
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Denmark, Koge
    Posts
    166

    Default

    'after 2 monthes, removing the player will not cause additional decay of loss of earned renown'

    /signed
    -- Celben 20/5 Cleric -- Dhoh 20 Barbarian -- Ghorgal 20/3 Fighter -- Mhysterious 20 Sorcerer - Perfekto 20 Bard -- Phatality 20/5 Wizard -- Proque 16 Rogue -- Roboarcher 16 Artificer -- Slithis 20 Ranger -- Tiarana 17 Barbarian, 4th Life -- Ugok 13 Fighter -- Xhenophobe 20/2 Wizard -- Yeung 9 Monk -- Zaturn 13 Favored Soul, 4th Life --

  15. #55
    Community Member Anthios888's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    3,150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HunkyDane View Post
    'after 2 monthes, removing the player will not cause additional decay of loss of earned renown'

    /signed
    Great idea. As a leader of a large guild, it is important to maintain guild continuity.
    If someone was not in the guild for a long time, and then takes a long break, and would not be a true "guildie" if they returned to the game, why leave them on the roster?
    Rockan Robin . Rocka Red Emma . Roq Star . RockCandy Mountain . Rockna Delaflote | Build Index
    Co-Leader, Ghallanda ReRolled
    Quote Originally Posted by Tarrant View Post
    it might make more sense for the player to re-roll.

  16. #56
    Community Member FranOhmsford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Staffs, England
    Posts
    9,288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LeoLionxxx View Post
    So we still get a penalty for removing inactive players, but with this there is no real reason to remove them because they WILL NOT contribute to decay.
    If we remove them, we are penalized. But if we just leave them, the list of inactives will grow and grow. My guild just did a cleanup in order to counteract the dead weight decay. Under this new system, there will be absolutly no reason to do this in the future.

    I guess what i'm saying is: we no longer have incentive to remove inactives other then to shorten the member list. In the future, could some-thing be added to allow us to remove clearly inactive, abandoned-DDO players (assuming something like this is pernament)? Something like 'after 2 monthes, removing the player will not cause additional decay of loss of earned renown'.
    This ^

    I'm sorry but people do leave the game - Why should we have to keep them in our guilds forever just so we don't lose what renown they did earn?
    It all adds up.

    As for the suggestion about other ways to earn renown - I notice it didn't mention explorers - I am one of those people who likes to max Slayer Zones {But I get virtually zero renown for doing this - WHY?}.

  17. #57
    Community Member djl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Postumus View Post
    Why would they kick anyone if there is no benefit to do so? Just to be evil?

    I honestly think that would be rare.
    There is no penalty for doing so now, so there is nothing in place to encourage people to get along. Someone ****es someone else off who is an officer or friends with an officer then BAM, that person is gone.

    Also, in the process of mass-recruiting, you will pick up a lot of really bad, really annoying players. You leech their renown til 85 and get your big boat, and then send all of them packing so that you'll have your core of people you actually enjoy being around. You can have your cake and eat it too.

    I know a lot of large "legitimate" guilds will greatly appreciate this change, but I think there would have been better ways to fix it that simply remove guild size from the formula.

  18. #58
    Community Member Xandrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    126

    Default

    Nice start... but it doenst even come close to clutting through the butter

    Give us a way to distinguish characters!

    Whos character belongs to what account, this in its self is a mess.

    A gazelion characters without knowing who own which one. We have to keep a seperate webpage just for this and it is a pain, when it should be something we can see in-game.
    "No quarter to stowaways!"
    Captain's Crew

  19. #59
    2014 DDO Players Council
    SirValentine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Korea (temporarily)
    Posts
    5,427

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tolero View Post
    Renown decay no longer takes guild size into account. This should ease the pressure for guild leaders to “kick” members from the guild to offset daily renown decay rates. Renown decay now only takes a guild’s level into consideration rather than its size.
    Wow, this change is huge.

    You know, those same renown threads on the forums had prompted me, just last week, to run an exhaustive mathematical analysis of guild renown decay. I had reached my conclusions, and I had planned to clean up the presentation and post it this week. But plugging in this change for analysis was easy to do.

    The old system, though primarily based on ACTIVITY (actually pulling renown from chests, end rewards, etc.), DID have a bias for and against certain sizes of guilds. It turns out the ideal guild size for reaching a high level was 11 accounts. Very tiny guilds (4 or fewer accounts) were worst off, and the worst possible size other than very tiny, was exactly 50 accounts. As you increased accounts from 4 to 11, your guild level potential rose rapidly, then decreases moderatly from 11 accounts up to 50, then increased again very slowly from 50 up to 1000. A guild size of 11 had about twice the anti-decay guild renown earning power of a size 50 guild.

    This new system...well, I think if you leave it in place long, you will see many, many high-level, including level 100, guilds. The boost that large guilds get from this is incredible.

    Here, let me give some concrete examples:

    First...a guild of 10 or fewer accounts will see no change.

    Next...consider a 50-account guild, previously the absolute worst off for decay. This change gives them 3 times the decay-fighting power. Here's some benchmarks on how the level decay would previously have stalled them at corresponds to their new such level:

    Code:
     
    Previous   New
    81         100 (max level)
    76          93 (max ship amenities)
    68          85 (largest ship)
    62          80 (2nd largest ship)
    56          70 (large augment slots)
    51          63 (most good ship buffs)
    And that's just for a 50-account guild. Larger guilds are even better off. A hypothetical 1000-account guild that could never hold on to level 47 before will easily hit level 100 now.

    Someone mentioned in this thread that decay is supposed to fight the "Korthos Army"-invite-anyone guild. Well, with this change, it won't. There is now no reason not to fill your guild roles to the maximum they hold, from a renown point of view. Non-renown-productive players, while still not helping, no longer actively hurt AT ALL. If they earn even a tiny bit of renown, you're better off than without them.

    If this change sticks, guilds won't need to at all to be selective on the basis of player activity. And I predict there will be many more very large and very high-level guilds.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tolero View Post
    Renown ransack has been increased. Previously when a guild earned levels in a day, it would gradually reduce the renown drop rates. We’ve increased the rate so that a guild can only earn roughly 3 levels in a single day. This should prevent large guilds from completely dominating the field in terms of levels per-day.
    I have to say, except maybe adding a few extra days to a guild's initial climb, this change is pretty irrelevant. Large guilds WILL completely dominate under the first change you mentioned above.

  20. #60
    Founder Nysrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,329

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spoonwelder View Post
    I read this as meaning the decay numbers will be:
    Level decay
    26 44
    27 49
    28 55
    29 61
    30 68
    31 149
    32 164
    33 180
    34 197
    35 214
    36 350
    37 380
    38 412
    39 445
    40 480
    41 827
    42 889
    43 954
    44 1,022
    45 1,094
    46 1,460
    47 1,557
    48 1,659
    49 1,765
    50 1,875
    51 2,388
    52 2,531
    53 2,680
    54 2,834
    55 2,995
    56 3,688
    57 3,889
    58 4,097
    59 4,313
    60 4,536
    61 6,355
    62 6,673
    63 7,001
    64 7,340
    65 7,690
    66 9,056
    67 9,474
    68 9,905
    69 10,348
    70 10,805
    71 12,527
    72 13,064
    73 13,616
    74 14,183
    75 14,766
    76 16,901
    77 17,577
    78 18,270
    79 18,982
    80 19,712
    81 25,509
    82 26,466
    83 27,446
    84 28,450
    85 29,478
    86 33,075
    87 34,242
    88 35,437
    89 36,658
    90 37,908
    91 42,200
    92 43,607
    93 45,044
    94 46,513
    95 48,013
    96 53,084
    97 54,760
    98 56,472
    99 58,218
    100 67,500

    .
    These numbers still seem a bit high. According to the guild renown calculator, my level 64 guild of 6 should only have 5872 decay a day and not 7340. So which number is correct?
    ... a soldier,
    Full of strange oaths, and bearded like the pard,
    Jealous in honor, sudden and quick in quarrel,
    Seeking the bubble reputation,
    Even in the dragon's mouth.

Page 3 of 209 FirstFirst 12345671353103 ... 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