Page 138 of 209 FirstFirst ... 3888128134135136137138139140141142148188 ... LastLast
Results 2,741 to 2,760 of 4162
  1. #2741
    Community Member Nestroy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Europe, and proud of it
    Posts
    2,829

    Default

    Holy crow, what the thread has become the last 1+1/2 pages... An all-against-Slarden thread...

    Do you really want to have this thread closed finally? Send a message to Tolero, I am sure the thread can be closed on short notice.

    Slarden might be incorrect on very marginal things or does not have the exact numbers to the 3rd place behind the comma, he is rooting for a change in the system he regards as broken for the style of play and there is no need to attack him that way you do at the moment. This is trolling, gents, and do not say that Slarden did start the troll war. You are all trolls at the moment, at that.

    Fire and Acid to you!

    I herewith declare openly my support for the cause of Slarden. I want a change to the renown decay system that gives small guilds a better chance to anyhow get forward, as the same was wanted by the big guilds when the system was working against them. I want at least a clear statement from the DEVs on what rules or on what strategy they want us to play guilds. If they want us to pay for pots to get the best buffs / largest ships / greatest XP shrine, tell us so. Make a system where we have to pay for getting higher levels than lv. 55. Fine, it is a strategy. But not telling anything only gets me angry. And angry means me leaving. Less money for turbine - check my account and get a glimpse for what you will loose. And be warned - I am one person that will tell a lot of people that DDO is BS. Even less customers.

    Have fun, Turbine. I do not have it at the moment.

  2. #2742
    Community Member Nestroy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Europe, and proud of it
    Posts
    2,829

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zargarx View Post
    Mucking around with Excel...
    old system multiplier was about 12.5% too high when comparing best case size of 13 versus worst case 50.

    With decay changed to ignore accounts, calculations became much more dependent on guild level. I picked level 61 as representitive, reader can extrapolate.

    With the new system, to match a level 13 guild back up to a level 50 would need to increase multiplier by 30%. The higher the guild level, the larger the multiplier.

    If remove decay, then it benefits smaller guilds more than larger guilds. Compare a worst case guild size of 10 with a 50 has the decay reduction benefit of 60%,with an infite size guild approaching 50%. Based on this, the renown bonus should be halfed if removing guild decay.
    Or made ten-fold for making up for the hand out bonus given to big guilds with reducing their decay in the new system, as already stated. and by the way - least renown decay at 300 members, so guodl size bonus should get up to 300 members (slowly decreasing per member) up until 301 members there is nothing. Already posted 10 times.

  3. #2743
    Community Member Charononus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    5,345

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nestroy View Post
    Make a system where we have to pay for getting higher levels than lv. 55. Fine, it is a strategy. But not telling anything only gets me angry. And angry means me leaving.
    This attitude by you and Slarden has me shocked. A little background I'm a member of a very large guild and have been so since well before the decay changes. We were large then and are large now, in fact we have grown very little since the change. That said before the change I didn't care for how we were stuck at 82-83 but it didn't impact my ability to have fun in the game. I am a member of the guild I'm in for the company not the ship buffs. If you feel that you can't have fun in this game without a high level ship you might want to reexamine how you are playing and why. Ship buffs make things easier that is all.

  4. #2744
    Community Member Nestroy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Europe, and proud of it
    Posts
    2,829

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charononus View Post
    This attitude by you and Slarden has me shocked. A little background I'm a member of a very large guild and have been so since well before the decay changes. We were large then and are large now, in fact we have grown very little since the change. That said before the change I didn't care for how we were stuck at 82-83 but it didn't impact my ability to have fun in the game. I am a member of the guild I'm in for the company not the ship buffs. If you feel that you can't have fun in this game without a high level ship you might want to reexamine how you are playing and why. Ship buffs make things easier that is all.
    Carononus, I am happy for you that you do not care for if your guild grows or shrinks in level. But I will tell you a few things.

    1st, I care. I had been one of the more vocal voices for doing away with the decay when the large guilds where going for a change. I am still of the opinion that decay is something to be done away completely.

    2nd, I am of the strong opinion that anybody (any guild) should have the right to get the best the game has to offer, given time. Especially for (constantly) paying customers like VIPs.

    3rd, personally, I would understand a high level version of the decay concept for the purpose of leaderboards, bragging rights and anything similar. I would prefer not to have any meaningfull buffs or ships in that level range.

    4th, I would totally understand a rework of the guild size bonus when there is no decay. The idea some pages earlier to bind a renown bonus on individual activity has a certain appeal to me. I could even live with the bonus-in-pots idea or no bonus at all. I am by no means married to any guild size bonus.

    5th, I would even understand if there are less buffs or no buffs at all, depending on guild level. This would hurt sales for Turbine, though, so I do not see this will happen any time soon.

    6th, your guild at least was able to reach level 81. And to continue growth now. My guild will hit the ceiling at about lv. 70 to come, because we are small, do not have big time activity (players with 10 hours / day, 7 days 7 week - our average is about 2 hours / player / day) and do like to run other things than renown grind low level quests most of our times. For the epic ransack, the level ransack and the no-renown-for-challenges really are hitting hard on our guild - so most of the time my fellow guildies do not bring in more than about 1 hour / day of renown farming... We currently average at about 1k / net renown before bonus / day per active player.

    You will grow with your guild now, even if slowly. I am happy for you. We will not. Simple as that. And now please do not start with the "then do farm / grind / multibox / get large" as well - I already got these tips from the likes of Smatt and Hendrik here and it really gets anoying. And if the same argument would have been valid before the last system change, the system change never would have occured - because the exactly reverse line of arguments (get small - get more active - multibox) could have been said about large guilds then.
    Last edited by Nestroy; 02-07-2013 at 02:16 PM.

  5. #2745
    Community Member Charononus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    5,345

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nestroy View Post
    Carononus, I am happy for you that you do not care for if your guild grows or shrinks in level. But I will tell you a few things.

    1st, I care. I had been one of the more vocal voices for doing away with the decay when the large guilds where going for a change. I am still of the opinion that decay is something to be done away completely.

    2nd, I am of the strong opinion that anybody (any guild) should have the right to get the best the game has to offer, given time. Especially for (constantly) paying customers like VIPs.

    3rd, personally, I would understand a high level version of the decay concept for the purpose of leaderboards, bragging rights and anything similar. I would prefer not to have any meaningfull buffs or ships in that level range.

    4th, I would totally understand a rework of the guild size bonus when there is no decay. The idea some pages earlier to bind a renown bonus on individual activity has a certain appeal to me. I could even live with the bonus-in-pots idea or no bonus at all. I am by no means married to any guild size bonus.

    5th, I would even understand if there are less buffs or no buffs at all, depending on guild level. This would hurt sales for Turbine, though, so I do not see this will happen any time soon.

    6th, your guild at least was able to reach level 81. And to continue growth now. My guild will hit the ceiling at about lv. 70 to come, because we are small, do not have big time activity (players with 10 hours / day, 7 days 7 week - our average is about 2 hours / player / day) and do like to run other things than renown grind low level quests most of our times. For the epic ransack, the level ransack and the no-renown-for-challenges really are hitting hard on our guild - so most of the time my fellow guildies do not bring in more than about 1 hour / day of renown farming... We currently average at about 1k / net renown before bonus / day per active player.

    You will grow with your guild now, even if slowly. I am happy for you. We will not. Simple as that. And now please do not start with the "then do farm / grind / multibox / get large" as well - I already got these tips from the likes of Smatt and Hendrik here and it really gets anoying. And if the same argument would have been valid before the last system change, the system change never would have occured - because the exactly reverse line of arguments (get small - get more active - multibox) could have been said about large guilds then.
    Don't get me wrong, if decay went away tomorrow I think that'd be great. However saying your going to quit because of it just seems really extreme to me, and it makes me wonder how honest the poster is when saying such things.

  6. #2746
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tshober View Post
    Okay, there are a few posters who have said they oppose your poropsal. You quoted 3 and claim you could have found more. I can quote more than that who have said clearly that they want to see decay eliminated entirely. So why don't we stop the quote wars and just agree that you should have said "some people from large guilds", rather than just saying "large guilds", and implying that all people from large guilds oppose you.


    Can you at least be that honest about it?
    I never said all guilds and I gave you the examples you asked for. I was being honest. Here is what you said

    Quote Originally Posted by Tshober View Post
    Who are these "large guilds" that are opposed to your proposal to reduce decay even more? Name some names. Because everyone I see posting has said (some of us many, many times) that we want to see decay reduced for everyone, including tiny guilds like yours. Your recent proposals are good and I support them. Your attempts to portray large guilds as opposing your suggestion are just fantasy.
    You asked for examples I gave a few and there are plenty more. What I said was not fantasy and I just proved it. What you said that "everyone I see posting..." which is clearly not true based on the few examples I gave.

    Just saying....
    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 (18 rogue 2 artificer mechanic - hope to go back to DC casting some day), Randslar (Bard 14 / Fighter 4 / Rogue 2 Swashbuckler), Randek (Druid CC Caster 17/Fvs 3) and Randomall (Rogue 20 assassin).

  7. #2747
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hendrik View Post
    Since he is moving on to Star Wars, maybe that will work over there.
    I dabble a bit in Star Wars, but I am really more interested in the new D&D MMO since D&D is the reason I really started playing an MMO in the first place (not mentioning name as a courtesy to Turbine).

    I like that neither of these games penalizes based on my grouping preference. I went ahead and signed up for a pre-purchase package for the new D&D game and will be beta-testing it starting tomorrow.

    I am not rage quitting really, just kind of facing the fact that the guild system will continue to be a source of frustration for me and it's rather foolish to pay for a game that doesn't work with my way of grouping is all. I wish Turbine and all the DDO players nothing but the best.

    The new game isn't out until April at the earliest so you won't be rid of me yet

    I think you said it best in this quote below. Gamers like progress. I never thought of it that way, but it is likely a source of why the game is less fun for me now. The fact that my guilds progress will be completely halted at some point soon due solely to decay despite our high activity level that was demonstrated. The quote below was obviously made before the guild change was made

    Quote Originally Posted by Hendrik View Post
    I do not think that every Guild should be 100. But I do not think a Guild should stagnate in advancement, even if that advancement is small. 100 should be an achievable goal. It may take some longer then others, but so long as everyone is making progress I think we all would be happy.

    Gamers like to make progress, it is in our nature. If we are not making progress in what we are doing, even if that progress is small, we find something else.

    We = generic we.
    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 (18 rogue 2 artificer mechanic - hope to go back to DC casting some day), Randslar (Bard 14 / Fighter 4 / Rogue 2 Swashbuckler), Randek (Druid CC Caster 17/Fvs 3) and Randomall (Rogue 20 assassin).

  8. #2748
    Founder Chaos000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Plano Texas
    Posts
    1,244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slarden View Post
    The issue never has been about the ability to earn renown. Large guilds will always earn more renown and that is fine. The issue is about decay and the fact that my guild has 14x more decay/person than one of the other guilds on Sarlona. It's not dramatized, it's a comparison to an actual guild that is within 1 level of my guild.
    Sorry I've been working so haven't been able to visit the forums as often.

    If you think about it, the issue IS about the ability to earn renown. The only way decay/person is reduced is if a guild earns more renown.

    For example:
    A guild of A size without size bonus adds a player. Added player gains 0 renown. Decay per player decreases. Increase in renown gain potential has 0 effect on renown needed by guild to advance past decay.

    A guild of B size with size bonus adds a player. Added player gains 0 renown. Decay per player decreases. Increase in renown gain potential has 0 effect, lowered size bonus increases renown needed by guild to advance past decay.

    result: The assumption that reduced decay when factored per person translates to less work per player in increased numbers is flawed.

    A guild will only face reduced decay ONLY if renown generation increases. I would love to see math showing otherwise. If increased numbers counter intuitively result in decreased renown generation overall, unrealized potential does not translate into unfair advantage.

    Unrealized potential at a certain point increases as a guild size increases. If there is an adjustment made to help smaller guilds, it should be between the largest small guild that get stuck and the smallest large guild experiencing diminishing returns for each added player.


    Feel free to disprove that a guild with 14x more decay/person will outpace a guild with 14x less renown generation/person unless the guild happens to exceed 14x the size of the guild with more decay/person.
    Daishado

    "drink triple ... see double ... act single! uh oh wife aggro" *hides*

  9. #2749
    Community Member UurlockYgmeov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere on the waters of this planet.
    Posts
    4,712

    Default so

    is this modified renown decay system still working?

    cause the guild I am in got hit with renown decay 4x greater than normal several days in a row.

  10. #2750
    Community Member Nestroy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Europe, and proud of it
    Posts
    2,829

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    is this modified renown decay system still working?

    cause the guild I am in got hit with renown decay 4x greater than normal several days in a row.
    Server restarts as usual do the double hit, but I do not have the impression of getting more hit. My guild currently has 16 active members. Please feel free to add impression and guild size, please. A stealth nerf as usual is possible.

  11. #2751
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    is this modified renown decay system still working?

    cause the guild I am in got hit with renown decay 4x greater than normal several days in a row.
    Yes, it is still working. If it were not working, my guild would be losing levels like crazy and we are still advancing so it has to be working.

  12. #2752
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nestroy View Post
    And now please do not start with the "then do farm / grind / multibox / get large" as well - I already got these tips from the likes of Smatt and Hendrik here and it really gets anoying. And if the same argument would have been valid before the last system change, the system change never would have occured - because the exactly reverse line of arguments (get small - get more active - multibox) could have been said about large guilds then.
    That is exactly what many guilds did under the old decay formula. They got small and got super-active, which means they became much more exclusive, and that is fundamanetally why the change was made. Inclusive guilds are far better for the game's social health than exclusive guilds. Players hate to feel that they are holding back their guild because they can't spend a lot of time farming renown daily. The new decay system encourages inclusiveness, just as the old system encouraged exclusiveness. The difference is one formula makes for a healthy social environment and the other did not. Under the new decay formula, no players are unwelcome in guilds because of how much renown they earn each day. Under the old formula, many players were unwelcome in most guilds simply because they did not earn enough renown each day. And the few established guilds that would take them in large numbers went down in levels for doing so.

    The problem with the "get large" advice is it will not work for all guilds. There are just not enough DDO players for all guilds to get large, even if they all wanted to. Some have said that small and tiny guilds will die and will be forced to merge into large guilds. Maybe. I have seen little evidence of that so far. We have been under the new inclusive decay formula for several months now. Has the number of small and tiny guilds dropped drastically? or even noticably? Perhaps that is what the devs are waiting to see?
    Last edited by Tshober; 02-08-2013 at 12:39 AM.

  13. #2753
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chaos000 View Post
    Sorry I've been working so haven't been able to visit the forums as often.

    If you think about it, the issue IS about the ability to earn renown. The only way decay/person is reduced is if a guild earns more renown.

    For example:
    A guild of A size without size bonus adds a player. Added player gains 0 renown. Decay per player decreases. Increase in renown gain potential has 0 effect on renown needed by guild to advance past decay.

    A guild of B size with size bonus adds a player. Added player gains 0 renown. Decay per player decreases. Increase in renown gain potential has 0 effect, lowered size bonus increases renown needed by guild to advance past decay.

    result: The assumption that reduced decay when factored per person translates to less work per player in increased numbers is flawed.

    A guild will only face reduced decay ONLY if renown generation increases. I would love to see math showing otherwise. If increased numbers counter intuitively result in decreased renown generation overall, unrealized potential does not translate into unfair advantage.

    Unrealized potential at a certain point increases as a guild size increases. If there is an adjustment made to help smaller guilds, it should be between the largest small guild that get stuck and the smallest large guild experiencing diminishing returns for each added player.


    Feel free to disprove that a guild with 14x more decay/person will outpace a guild with 14x less renown generation/person unless the guild happens to exceed 14x the size of the guild with more decay/person.
    Of course I understand that and I also understand that Turbine wanted to incent guilds to grow. However, the reality is that it is extremely rare that I run across an unguilded person either before or afer this change. Before and after this change whenever I've run into an unguilded person I've run with a few times - I've always invited that person to the guild. It just comes up so rarely. And most of the unguilded are unguilded by choice and have no interest in joining or guild.

    The notion that people couldn't get into guilds prior to this change was patently false because I almost never ran into anyone unguilded prior to this change and almost never run into anyone unguilded now. Penalizing very small guilds with higher decay/player because a tiny percentage of guilds gamed the system is not only unnecessary it's ridiculous.

    I made a decision long ago not to recruit from other guilds because it's absolutely pointless. Regardless of what guild a person is in I can still group with them. In other words, there has never been a large pool of unguilded people at end game to recruit from period. When I was a new player in a new low level guild we made more invites because we ran across more unguilded people. Most of those people also left for a guild with higher level ship buffs.

    So I have to ask what is the point of trying to force the numerous small guilds to grow when almost nobody is unguilded at end game in the first place. That was the case before and after this change.

    As for growing, we will do so naturally not to because of some ridiculous decay calculation that punishes the people in my guild for being in a small guild. If Turbine wants to discourage people from people being in small guilds so be it. However my move won't be from a small guild to a large guild, it will be to a different game. There is no sense banging my head against a decay system I have no control over and dislike strongly.

    I am not going to start randomly recruiting new players in korthos and the harbor to fight high decay/person because those folks are better served by being in a start-up guild with newer players at their own level.
    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 (18 rogue 2 artificer mechanic - hope to go back to DC casting some day), Randslar (Bard 14 / Fighter 4 / Rogue 2 Swashbuckler), Randek (Druid CC Caster 17/Fvs 3) and Randomall (Rogue 20 assassin).

  14. #2754
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tshober View Post
    That is exactly what many guilds did under the old decay formula. They got small and got super-active, which means they became much more exclusive, and that is fundamanetally why the change was made. Inclusive guilds are far better for the game's social health than exclusive guilds. Players hate to feel that they are holding back their guild because they can't spend a lot of time farming renown daily. The new decay system encourages inclusiveness, just as the old system encouraged exclusiveness. The difference is one formula makes for a healthy social environment and the other did not. Under the new decay formula, no players are unwelcome in guilds because of how much renown they earn each day. Under the old formula, many players were unwelcome in most guilds simply because they did not earn enough renown each day. And the few established guilds that would take them in large numbers went down in levels for doing so.

    The problem with the "get large" advice is it will not work for all guilds. There are just not enough DDO players for all guilds to get large, even if they all wanted to. Some have said that small and tiny guilds will die and will be forced to merge into large guilds. Maybe. I have seen little evidence of that so far. We have been under the new inclusive decay formula for several months now. Has the number of small and tiny guilds dropped drastically? or even noticably? Perhaps that is what the devs are waiting to see?
    I've already seen 2 guilds lose their active players to large guilds. The guild doesn't go away, just their renown generators. The casual folks are left in that guild and are still not desired by the large guilds on Sarlona commenting here.

    Nobody ever said they will die completely - some don't care about the level and/or ships. The # of vets in small guilds will reduce which will lead to less end-game players available for open pugs, raids, etc. This means more guild-only runs and less open lfms for raids/pugs - and it will take longer for those lfms to fill.

    My guild leader already left over this guild change. That is one less vet that used ro form open raids/quests. I am soloing now to earn enough renown to make up for him leaving so I am joining open lfms less than before. And shortly I will leave the game completely over this issue. As Hendrick said, gamers like progress. If they can't progress, they move on to something else. This is even more true when others can progress without a problem but your guild can't.
    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 (18 rogue 2 artificer mechanic - hope to go back to DC casting some day), Randslar (Bard 14 / Fighter 4 / Rogue 2 Swashbuckler), Randek (Druid CC Caster 17/Fvs 3) and Randomall (Rogue 20 assassin).

  15. #2755
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    6,451

    Default

    Guilds come, guilds go....

  16. #2756
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    6,451

    Default

    If a VERY small guild or any guild for that matter sits in it's cozy little bed, that very small guild will stay right where it's at. It won't gain players, it won't gain guild levels. I really find it hard to believe that people are leaving the game because they can't bother to move their own guild forward in any meaninful way. Those people are more likely leaving because they're bored with the game as whole. Blaming outside sources for ones own guild problems is folly...

    Guilds that want to advance in level take steps AS A GUILD to do so....

  17. #2757
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smatt View Post
    If a VERY small guild or any guild for that matter sits in it's cozy little bed, that very small guild will stay right where it's at. It won't gain players, it won't gain guild levels. I really find it hard to believe that people are leaving the game because they can't bother to move their own guild forward in any meaninful way. Those people are more likely leaving because they're bored with the game as whole. Blaming outside sources for ones own guild problems is folly...

    Guilds that want to advance in level take steps AS A GUILD to do so....
    That may apply to some guilds, but certainly not my guild or many others I've seen commenting here. We spent alot of time on this game but decay will prevent us from moving forward very soon just as it stopped your guild from moving forward when your guild had roughly the same decay/player my guild has now.

    I finally faced the fact that despite my optimism Turbine will fix this broken system- it probably won't happen any time soon based on developer comments which showed a definite bias towards the new system. I no longer wish to beat my head against the daily decay wall (sometimes twice in a day). While people like yourself make false claims about my guild doing nothing to move forward, my guild has continued to be earn plenty of renown / player. The problem is we have so much more of it taken away in the form of decay. Recruiting? Who is it I should recruit? I rarely run across unguilded players that want to join a guild.

    As I said before I don't suspect a lot of people to quit the game over the guild issue, some will. Some will quit because the pool of small guild folk available for open lfms declines when some switch from small to large guilds. We shall see.

    One thing is for certain is that I no longer wish to have decay suck the fun out of the game for me. I am moving on.
    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 (18 rogue 2 artificer mechanic - hope to go back to DC casting some day), Randslar (Bard 14 / Fighter 4 / Rogue 2 Swashbuckler), Randek (Druid CC Caster 17/Fvs 3) and Randomall (Rogue 20 assassin).

  18. #2758
    Community Member UurlockYgmeov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere on the waters of this planet.
    Posts
    4,712

    Default Old system must be back

    took screenshots of guild renown before and after renown hit - made sure nobody was earning renown at that point - guild lost exactly what wiki said it would: (modified guild size +10) * multiplier.

    http://ddowiki.com/page/Guild_renown

    thought that this system was on hiatus?

    Guild level: 53
    9 modified accounts
    7508445 - 7505767 = 2678
    2678 / 133.9893 = 19.9867
    19.9867 - 10 = 9.9867
    Rounddown(9.9867)= 9 modified accounts

  19. #2759
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    took screenshots of guild renown before and after renown hit - made sure nobody was earning renown at that point - guild lost exactly what wiki said it would: (modified guild size +10) * multiplier.

    http://ddowiki.com/page/Guild_renown

    thought that this system was on hiatus?

    Guild level: 53
    9 modified accounts
    7508445 - 7505767 = 2678
    2678 / 133.9893 = 19.9867
    19.9867 - 10 = 9.9867
    Rounddown(9.9867)= 9 modified accounts
    Yes, because the new guild change actually made things worse for your guild since you have 10 or less active accounts. You hae the same decay as always based on 20 accounts, plus there is a more severe guild renown ransack penalty when you gain a level. Your guild will get significantly less guild renown for one day.

    The benefit is for large guilds. A guld of 300 now has decay based on 20 just like your guild.
    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 (18 rogue 2 artificer mechanic - hope to go back to DC casting some day), Randslar (Bard 14 / Fighter 4 / Rogue 2 Swashbuckler), Randek (Druid CC Caster 17/Fvs 3) and Randomall (Rogue 20 assassin).

  20. #2760
    Founder Chaos000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Plano Texas
    Posts
    1,244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slarden View Post
    The notion that people couldn't get into guilds prior to this change was patently false because I almost never ran into anyone unguilded prior to this change and almost never run into anyone unguilded now. Penalizing very small guilds with higher decay/player because a tiny percentage of guilds gamed the system is not only unnecessary it's ridiculous..
    The notion is that guilds were penalized for retaining people of low renown gain prior to this change. If booted, these people could then get into any guild that did not find the penalty they bring objectionable.

    Growth may translate into increased potential, but increased potential does not translate into increased renown gain. Very small guilds should gain increased potential (eliminate renown ransack or increase renown drops) without directly increasing the renown gain (higher size bonus).
    Daishado

    "drink triple ... see double ... act single! uh oh wife aggro" *hides*

Page 138 of 209 FirstFirst ... 3888128134135136137138139140141142148188 ... 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