U know after reading this i take back what i said about Bonuses. if Slarden and his 5 buddies want to play DDO and get a guild to lv 100. Go for it. Because your game play has zero impact on my game play.
Same goes for Bob that wants 200 people in his community guild. Let them Advance and enjoy the game.
As long as ALL are able to advance, it really dont matter the means. And any energy trying to make it perfectly "Balanced" is wasted energy, because again, your guild levels do not effect my guild levels. As long as we BOTH can get them without dramatic differences in effort.
Also changing the bell curve and widening it also makes alot of sense instead of a sharp peak at 6 people.
So that's my final stance I believe. Just make it DOABLE Turbine. I want Inclusivity, a sense of reward for leveling my guild, and a non-detrimental path to Advancement.
You paint it like it is a really simple choice for a guild leader and the reality of it is it is not a simple decision. Either way is harmful. One way harms the casual/social players and the other way harms the people who have been working hard to level the guild up. That is why the old decay policy was so awful, because no matter which choice you made, people were harmed. Thank goodness the devs have finally come to realize that.
Last edited by Tshober; 11-09-2012 at 01:34 PM.
No, what you had was growth till the guild would hit a plateau. That was how the system was designed and still (on live) functions.
If the guild found the rewards worth the effort, then they would have to put effort in, and at a certain point things were going to reach a static peak and choices would be made. Power or Fellowship.
Frankly, it is that simple. To continue to throw out "but" in relation to growth just means you are wanting more power.
To re itterate, I never have once stated the system was a good one. Like others, I look forward to seeing change. However, the guild strife is player caused ultimately. You can let the carrot on the stick divide you or not.
Last edited by Missing_Minds; 11-09-2012 at 01:28 PM.
I am the leader of a quite large guild and we have been though the stagnation and I had to make the decision we are discussing here. We stopped leveling at 63 and, when I decided to not kick out any casual/social players, we dropped to level 60 and stagnated again. We were still stuck between 60 & 61 when the devs made the change to renown decay. Since the change we have managed to get back to up 62.
Does anybody on here remember when Dungeons and Dragons was played on a table with real dice and real friends/family and it was really fun? If so, how often did you get together? Once, twice a week? Did you ever "boot"
somebody from your table because they couldn't make it on a Tuesday night? My point is, the original game, that this game is derived from was and is about getting together with a group, finding an adventure and having fun. Nothing more, nothing less. So why can't we just follow those same ideas here?
CC Casting Druid: https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthrea...C-Summer-Build
Shiradi Wiz Plan for 1st Lifers: https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthrea...r-First-Lifers
U25 Patch 1 Dex Halfling Assassin Build: https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthrea...x-Assassin-1-0
Warlock DC Caster: https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthrea...ld-Blast-Build
Several characters on Sarlona all starting with "Rand" in the Guild "Guardians of House Cannith". My main four characters are Randowl (20 Warlock EA DPS Build), Randslar (Bard 14 / Fighter 4 / Rogue 2 Swashbuckler), Randek (Druid CC Caster 17/Fvs 3) and Randomall (Rogue 20 assassin).
Sure, we look at that number and go "Golly gee... wouldn't it be nice to have a higher level?" Pretty much as all gamers do when looking at stuff that can be advanced. But we are not about to kick people over it.
To have to retort to such a "frankly" question, over a GAME... that is really sad. Will you let a game dictate your moral compass when dealing with other individuals in this situation? I won't.
So the tested system means that
a) Larger guilds level up far easier because they have more people to earn the renown
b) Larger guilds suffer far less from decay as they are more people to share it
c) Larger guilds buy ships and what to put there much easier because they have more people to share the cost.
Whoever figured that was fair clearly needs to rethink the whole system.
The divisions were always there. Turbine just make a system that drove a wedge between them, rather than create the symbiosis this test system does.
How does my Guild Level affect your Guild Level? Do my ship items interfere with your ship items? Or perhaps, I should turn this around into something people would understand better.
I'm guessing you have more than 1 character you play. (assumption... I know...) When you level to 20, do you concern yourself with playing him/her on a rotation to keep him active at level 20? No. You upgrade his gear (or choose not to), yet he remains at 20...play him every day or once a month...he is at 20. No backwards leveling. How would you feel if after not playing your character for a week (out of game or playing other characters) you logged in your character to see he has dropped to level 19. I bet that would not sit to well with you.
On our boat, we upgrade and refresh shrines (which I understand the premise, Turbine needs us to spend Turbine Points and/or Plat). Or, perhaps we could choose not to put one thing on the hook points on our boat...does that impact others? We actually end up inviting people on the boat to use Alters or get buffs before quests...is that a negative impact? Come to think of it, I remember when there were no Ship Buffs available and everyone did Favor runs to get House J and P favor up to get their buffs... hmm... sound familiar? Who here still does that?
As the Devs rolled out Guild Ships and the Renown Decay, I was opposed to it then. In principle, I am still opposed to it. If my guild reaches level 10 or 50 or 100... that is a level of effort me and my guildies did...not *anyone else*. If it takes us a week or month or year to reach level 100, why does that matter to *anyone else*? How does that negatively impact your play style? In all honesty, I don't see the relevance.
This is the Titanic that the Devs put us all on (sorry Tolero/Cordovan), and as they devise a plan to keep us all alive... we as Guild Leaders have to decide who to toss over board to keep the lifeboats all Guilds of various levels got put on floating, while wait for the next wave of changes.
So I say again, set Guild Decay to 0 (I'd leave the code first and test, then comment out the code and test...)...put that out on Lama to see what breaks (again, sorry Tolero/Cordovan) and get some input from the players here.
This is the most obvious answer to this problem since it is one created by them trying to provide benefits to having a Guild in the first place instead of a glorified chat channel. We would have been better off with Guild Houses in the various Houses in Ebberon (I would have loved to have a Guild House in House Kundark...it would have promoted more in House player activity. Instead, people run to the Ship Towers and that is where most of the Player Traffic is.)
My 2 cents and my opinion again.
I have a small guild. Kender on Thelanis.
Leveling to 80 is NOT easy for a small guild btw. We always have 4-6 active players. Some become inactive due to RL issues, but we always manage to maintain a small guild bonus with roughly 6 active accounts at any one time, even though we have more that 6 accounts in the guild. We have good players who are active, and we play together a lot. Currently, we are at level 68, and it has taken quite some time to get there. We are very picky about who we accept. This is partly due to guild reknown, and partly due to the fact that we just prefer 'cool' people.
While I have no intention of 'opening the gates' to the KSS Topknot, I will consider accepting more members once this whole guild reknown/decay mess gets sorted out.
If we must have decay, then please consider having it based upon a percentage of what the guild earns. Say if the guild 'Smellyorcs' earns X amount of reknown in a week, then the Smellyorcs guild will lose Y/X reknown for the next week spread over time. This way the 'Underpants' guild can be on a similar leveling curve as the Smellyorcs guild based on how much effort they put in. Large guilds will still level faster, but smaller guilds with more dedicated players will not be left in the dust either. There are advantages to being in a large guild, and there are several disadvantages to running a large guild.
Once a 'benchmark' is reached, reknown decay cannot cause the guild to go below that level. For guilds that have 'capped', reknown should no longer be an issue. The exception to the rule would be for kicking people to prevent someone from making a large guild, quickly getting to 100, and booting everyone but his/her close friends.
Writing that last statement made me realize why we have decay in the first place. It is a complex issue that needs to be handled carefully to prevent abuse.
Good job guys. I just wish it didn't take over a month for an active guild to get one level. Sometimes it is more like 3 months, or seems like it. I remember being stuck in the mid-30's for 6 months or more.
Every time I see lfm's by people looking to join a 70 something guild or higher, I send them a tell, saying "join a level 20-40 guild and help them get there. You will have more fun, and it will feel like a real guild once you level up." They never listen, and eventually end up joining some large guild. I guess, since I never follow up on it.
Currently, we are on our third ship, and I will always have a fondness for the original KSS Topknot. Getting that first ship at guild level 20 was one of the best feelings I had in this game.
I chose Smellyorcs and Underpants for guild names for an example, and did not intend to refer to any guild. I appologize if one of those names is in use.
KSS Topknot stands for Kender Sky Ship Topknot. Originally, I intended to start a halfling only guild, but had to open it up when all my other characters got booted from the guild I was in 3 years ago when I pulled a halfling out of there to put into Kender. Yes, it has taken me 3 years to get the guild to level 68. There were times when I was the only acitve member.
Last edited by JasonJi72; 11-09-2012 at 09:03 PM.
Jyn... Kender... Thelanis
*Insert clever comment here*
The only thing that needs to be considered is how to prevent abuse and griefing. I remember there was a concern about permitting people from expelling en masse the players who helped them reach a certain benchmark when guild levels were first introduced.
I am glad that they are finally addressing this issue. There are some really good and active large guilds out there that have been perpetually stuck in the 80's due to the reknown decay system.
Jyn... Kender... Thelanis
*Insert clever comment here*
It gives the tight knit, serious players that make up the all important core of a guild a reason to allow a mass of less frequent, less serious players to use their framework to find others to play with in an environment with more accountability than the games general population. So, the tight knit group gets to level faster, while the mass get's better access to better behaved groups in exchange for behaving in a civil manner themselves. Seems like a win, win, win situation to me, with Turbine being the third winner as people with better access to better behaved groups tend to be more likely to keep playing.
If a player choose to leave a Guild (rage quit or changed mind in being in said Guild), no impact to Guild Renown earned at former Guild (as opposed to now with a % hit to Guild Renown.)
If a Guild Leader decides to boot 'Bob' the casual player (or hard core player). Said Guild Leader sees the total Guild Renown 'Bob' has given to the Guild... and would agree to loose a large % (I'd say 50%) that amount from Guild Renown. Call it a Loss or Penalty, but it is the cost of having to make the decision to boot somebody... for whatever reason. To reduce griefing, only the Guild Leader or Successor could actually boot 'Bob'....not Officers or other Members. This clearly puts the responsibility in 2 peoples's hands and also forces the Guild Leader to choose/set a Successor (which is a notorious problem some Guilds have as they lack this!)
If 'Bob' has not logged in (the character, not the account for 'Bob') for over 180 days (as that is a number already being used)... no affect on Guild Renown to boot 'Bob'.
If the account that owns character 'Bob' chooses to Delete 'Bob' not having removed him from the Guild, no impact to Guild Renown of said former Guild. Speaking of which, Devs... could you please group characters by account or have some sort of character relationship mechanism instead of just listing them. The UI sucks for figuring out who is who when 1 player has multiple characters in a Guild. Future consideration ... not a Guild Renown issue... just say'n.
Did I miss anything? I think that covers most of the options of what 'could' happen.
Again, my opinion. I really don't envy the Devs on this topic. But, they (IMO) have an easy solution they are just avoiding. Square peg, round hole...
It's awful watching guild level go down. It's much much worse knowing it's entirely possible for it to fall to level 25. On the other hand its great fun watching guild level go up, may even actually make you play and group more.
Renown decay. How is that fair? How does that encourage people to play?
A question here. I play a lot mostly for fun. Should i as a player seriously have to make sure i earn renown. Really should anyone have to resort to, for example running irestone inlet 2 hrs a day. Am i reading this right that i could cost a guild 1,000's of renown per day. So if i choose to play my 20th level character in some lev 8 quests simply because i want/enjoy them i penalise a guild.
Why penalise people, we get enough of that in real life.
Just awestruck, wether it be a Dragon flying overhead Stormreach, that glowing character who just zoomed in'n'out of the Pub, or that i can drink a Beholder under the table and best of all rescuing Damsels in distress.
Though I would keep some sort of "leave under bad terms" penalty in scenario 1 to prevent trying to avoid the boot penalty by being a big enough jerk to get members to quit. Under the current decay system, anything under 100% would be a gain for the guild in the case of simple bad matches, but would deter any sort of institutional mass invite and get them all to quit schemes.
This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.Reload