Page 122 of 209 FirstFirst ... 2272112118119120121122123124125126132172 ... LastLast
Results 2,421 to 2,440 of 4162
  1. #2421
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    6,451

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dandonk View Post
    Turbine, we are still waiting. Three months later. Can we have some sort of time frame for this? Weeks, months, years, or decades?

    Months...

  2. #2422
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    6,451

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dandonk View Post
    Well, you're free to your opinions, of course.

    Personally, I'm glad that Turbine sees that there should be room for every kind of player, not just players who like large guilds.

    Edit: Large guilds had control over their own situations before, too. This didn't make the system right - not at all. Likewise, the current system having options for small guilds to change doesn't make it right, either.

    I can see that perhaps settign the level of decay where they have is perhaps unfair to small guilds... But where SHOULD they set it, so as to not encourage a particular guild size?

    I'm sorry, and this maybe an unpopular opinion, but I agree with deacy.... The maintainance idea behind it is sound.

  3. #2423
    The Hatchery
    2014 DDO Players Council
    Dandonk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smatt View Post
    I can see that perhaps settign the level of decay where they have is perhaps unfair to small guilds... But where SHOULD they set it, so as to not encourage a particular guild size?

    I'm sorry, and this maybe an unpopular opinion, but I agree with deacy.... The maintainance idea behind it is sound.
    Well, Slarden has proposed halving the current rate, as a stop gap measure. That would be nice.

    Decay... well, I would like it to go away. If I don't play my character for 2 months, he's still level 25. I don't like the idea of glevels going away, after having worked for them.
    If the cost of that is small guild bonus, or doubling the renown needed to get levels (or both, even)... I could learn to live with that.

    Fixing the issues with some stuff giving no renown would be cool, also.

    You could also take renown away below level 85 or so, and only have it for the top competitive guilds. Or even completely decouple renown and buffs, and let people who like to compete in guild level races do that, and let the rest buy whatever ship they want.

    I have no holy grail of ideas. I just want what Turbine said they wanted too - a system that promotes no specific guild size.

    Edit: Oh, and +1 for actually talking sensibly about this, even when we do not necessarily agree.
    It's definitely an N-word.

  4. #2424
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dandonk View Post
    Well, Slarden has proposed halving the current rate, as a stop gap measure. That would be nice.

    Decay... well, I would like it to go away. If I don't play my character for 2 months, he's still level 25. I don't like the idea of glevels going away, after having worked for them.
    If the cost of that is small guild bonus, or doubling the renown needed to get levels (or both, even)... I could learn to live with that.

    Fixing the issues with some stuff giving no renown would be cool, also.

    You could also take renown away below level 85 or so, and only have it for the top competitive guilds. Or even completely decouple renown and buffs, and let people who like to compete in guild level races do that, and let the rest buy whatever ship they want.

    I have no holy grail of ideas. I just want what Turbine said they wanted too - a system that promotes no specific guild size.

    Edit: Oh, and +1 for actually talking sensibly about this, even when we do not necessarily agree.
    A more likely change would be to decouple ships (via the black market methad, i.e. paying an inflated AD cost for all ships if below the nominal guild level) and gold seal amenities from the system while raising decay levels to allow everyone to spend TPs to their hearts content, but making it harder for most to get the buffs they want without doing so.

  5. #2425
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    6,451

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dandonk View Post
    Well, Slarden has proposed halving the current rate, as a stop gap measure. That would be nice.
    But where's the line so that you dont' encourage a specifc number of plaeyr sin a guild, the level that is most advantagious.

    Decay... well, I would like it to go away. If I don't play my character for 2 months, he's still level 25. I don't like the idea of glevels going away, after having worked for them.
    If the cost of that is small guild bonus, or doubling the renown needed to get levels (or both, even)... I could learn to live with that.
    But the idea behind the guild ship system is to reward ACTIVE players, and active guilds.

    Fixing the issues with some stuff giving no renown would be cool, also.
    This they should do
    You could also take renown away below level 85 or so, and only have it for the top competitive guilds. Or even completely decouple renown and buffs, and let people who like to compete in guild level races do that, and let the rest buy whatever ship they want.
    I'm not suere how many people these races you speak of are important to... Not me... I could careless what level some other guild is too be honest... Just as I could careless how fast so and so did whatever.... But that's just me, some people might find such measures fun.
    I have no holy grail of ideas. I just want what Turbine said they wanted too - a system that promotes no specific guild size.
    You see and this is a problem, it's not an easy fix. Any tweaks they do will invariably give someone a way to game the system. That's why they put the ransack thing in, in such a heavy handed way. Taht is combating a particular way that a good number of guilds were gaming the system.

    Edit: Oh, and +1 for actually talking sensibly about this, even when we do not necessarily agree.
    Amongst my flipant responses you will see such things on occasion.

    I think the basis of the system as it sits now, is that it encourages guilds to become larger, to be more inclusive. That's not to say that small guilds don't get anything, but part of their choice to be a small guild is that they have to live with not having all the advantages of a large guild in this particular aspect.

  6. #2426
    The Hatchery
    2014 DDO Players Council
    Dandonk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smatt View Post
    But where's the line so that you dont' encourage a specifc number of plaeyr sin a guild, the level that is most advantagious.
    It's a tough one, yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by smatt View Post
    But the idea behind the guild ship system is to reward ACTIVE players, and active guilds.
    It seems like it, yes. But currently it's not active players, but a mass of active players that counts. Players in small guilds are less worth, due to higher decay per player in mall guilds, than players in large guilds.

    But then, we may never agree on my views there

    Quote Originally Posted by smatt View Post
    I'm not suere how many people these races you speak of are important to... Not me... I could careless what level some other guild is too be honest... Just as I could careless how fast so and so did whatever.... But that's just me, some people might find such measures fun.
    Yup. it may work for some, but not for others. I don't know

    Quote Originally Posted by smatt View Post
    You see and this is a problem, it's not an easy fix. Any tweaks they do will invariably give someone a way to game the system. That's why they put the ransack thing in, in such a heavy handed way. Taht is combating a particular way that a good number of guilds were gaming the system.
    No, I do not think it will be easy. But I do think three months ought to have been enough time to give us a clue as to what direction they're taking, and some sort of time frame.

    Quote Originally Posted by smatt View Post
    I think the basis of the system as it sits now, is that it encourages guilds to become larger, to be more inclusive. That's not to say that small guilds don't get anything, but part of their choice to be a small guild is that they have to live with not having all the advantages of a large guild in this particular aspect.
    I do not think we, as small guilds, should level up quite as fast as large guilds. There has to be some sort of bonus for large guilds over small - so they do not go back to kicking people for renown reasons. That's good sense.

    But I do not think we as small guild players should be forced to cap out at a lower level than same activity players in large guilds. And that's what decay is doing currently.

    So lower small guild bonus, and get rid of decay. Then we can all keep levelling up - even if it takes small guilds a little longer.

    One thing I do NOT agree with, is that small guilds should inherently be overly penalized for choosing to play their way. Just as large guilds should not be penalized for playing their way.
    It's definitely an N-word.

  7. #2427
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smatt View Post
    But the idea behind the guild ship system is to reward ACTIVE players, and active guilds.
    Personally, I think this was a mistake on their part. Anyone who is into the game enough to care about how their activity effects their guild level is already probably playing the game for a fair amount of their free time. That's just the nature of MMOs.

    All it really did was cause those who don't care enough and those who were unable to play more to be booted from guilds (at least they fixed that) or feel they simply don't have the time to play the game at all. Sort of drawing a line in the sand as to who has enough time to play and who should, maybe, find something that more fits their time to do. A line that kept moving up with every guild level.

    Even now it's having the effect of alienating those players who are both casual, relative to where Turbine defines "active" at their guild level and not interested in expanding their tight knit family style guild.

  8. #2428
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    6,451

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gremmlynn View Post
    Personally, I think this was a mistake on their part. Anyone who is into the game enough to care about how their activity effects their guild level is already probably playing the game for a fair amount of their free time. That's just the nature of MMOs.

    All it really did was cause those who don't care enough and those who were unable to play more to be booted from guilds (at least they fixed that) or feel they simply don't have the time to play the game at all. Sort of drawing a line in the sand as to who has enough time to play and who should, maybe, find something that more fits their time to do. A line that kept moving up with every guild level.

    Even now it's having the effect of alienating those players who are both casual, relative to where Turbine defines "active" at their guild level and not interested in expanding their tight knit family style guild.
    Well I suppose for those that see things like guild ships etc as an entitlement, and not an earned reward. Surely the system isn't perfect. I think this is one of the downsides of DDO development to be honest..... The game is so complicated and messy to code, that it takes them a long time to make needed and quik adjustments to problematic systems. The game design is such that, while they can guess what players will do within a system, often times players out think them...... And the intended consequinces dont' come about....

    I don't think people that find the guild ship/renown system as enough of a problem that it causes them to leave the game, are people that were going to be around for long in any case.

  9. #2429
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smatt View Post
    Well I suppose for those that see things like guild ships etc as an entitlement, and not an earned reward. Surely the system isn't perfect. I think this is one of the downsides of DDO development to be honest..... The game is so complicated and messy to code, that it takes them a long time to make needed and quik adjustments to problematic systems. The game design is such that, while they can guess what players will do within a system, often times players out think them...... And the intended consequinces dont' come about....

    I don't think people that find the guild ship/renown system as enough of a problem that it causes them to leave the game, are people that were going to be around for long in any case.
    I would be more inclined to think of them as something earned if earning them involved more than simply having more time to play the game (or nothing better to do with that time). Frankly, I see them more as a salve to make people, myself included, feel better about not having anything better to do. Oh, and to get the rest to buy those gold seals to make up for the fact that often they do have something better to do (wine, women, song and full buffs! oh to be young again).

    The problem is that most guilds aren't segregated along those lines.

  10. #2430
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    6,451

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dandonk View Post
    It's a tough one, yes.



    It seems like it, yes. But currently it's not active players, but a mass of active players that counts. Players in small guilds are less worth, due to higher decay per player in mall guilds, than players in large guilds.

    But then, we may never agree on my views there
    I doubt we will, sicne I'm still of he opinion that all guilds are not equal, different guilds have different goals, shared and individual. They also have different advantages and disadvantages.




    No, I do not think it will be easy. But I do think three months ought to have been enough time to give us a clue as to what direction they're taking, and some sort of time frame.
    Thsi is a back bench type of thing, something a particular Dev works on when they finish another task. Right nwo it's all about E-GH, the augment slot system changes, and then of course the Enhancement pass...


    I do not think we, as small guilds, should level up quite as fast as large guilds. There has to be some sort of bonus for large guilds over small - so they do not go back to kicking people for renown reasons. That's good sense.

    But I do not think we as small guild players should be forced to cap out at a lower level than same activity players in large guilds. And that's what decay is doing currently.
    But you see if they removed decay... Here's what would happen.. Guilds would invite invite invite... As soon as they cap or reach lvl 85, it would be boot boot boot...

    One thing I do NOT agree with, is that small guilds should inherently be overly penalized for choosing to play their way. Just as large guilds should not be penalized for playing their way.
    You see I dont' think they're overly penalized... Perhaps a bit right now... But they get the FREE bonus... If that were not the case then I could agree... If a small guild REALLY wants to advance, to have the earned advantaqges of a high level airship and the amenities on it, then there are ways other than buying things form the store that can be done to increase their renown intake. But if they refuse to do those things then they should languish at whatever guild level cap they hit.

    The only thing that will change any of this is a perceived +/- revenue stream. That is the drving force...

  11. #2431
    The Hatchery
    2014 DDO Players Council
    Dandonk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smatt View Post
    Thsi is a back bench type of thing, something a particular Dev works on when they finish another task. Right nwo it's all about E-GH, the augment slot system changes, and then of course the Enhancement pass...
    Personally I would rather see this addressed, but I acknowledge that I'm likely in the minority.

    Still, taking at hour or two out to think up some kind of response wouldn't set any timetable much back - over three months.

    Quote Originally Posted by smatt View Post
    But you see if they removed decay... Here's what would happen.. Guilds would invite invite invite... As soon as they cap or reach lvl 85, it would be boot boot boot...
    There would be no incentive to boot anyone, so I'm not sure how many would. But for those that would, I'm sure some stiff decay penalties would help - perhaps make decay kick in on top of a stiff straight deduction?

    Quote Originally Posted by smatt View Post
    You see I dont' think they're overly penalized... Perhaps a bit right now... But they get the FREE bonus... If that were not the case then I could agree... If a small guild REALLY wants to advance, to have the earned advantaqges of a high level airship and the amenities on it, then there are ways other than buying things form the store that can be done to increase their renown intake. But if they refuse to do those things then they should languish at whatever guild level cap they hit.
    This is where we will never agree. I think that the same level of activity should count for the same, no matter what guild the player is in. So if the player's in a small guild are as active as those in a large guild, they should get more or less the same advancement - and level.


    Quote Originally Posted by smatt View Post
    The only thing that will change any of this is a perceived +/- revenue stream. That is the drving force...
    Personally, I think more high level guilds buying their level 85 ship will make up for a lot, if not all or more than, any loss (if there will be any) in guild pot sales.
    But it is hard for anyone to know for sure, so this will be up to Turbine, as always.
    It's definitely an N-word.

  12. #2432
    Founder Chaos000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Plano Texas
    Posts
    1,244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dandonk View Post
    I think that the same level of activity should count for the same, no matter what guild the player is in. So if the player's in a small guild are as active as those in a large guild, they should get more or less the same advancement - and level.
    If the same number of players in a small guild are as active as the same number of players in a large guild they DO get more or less the same advancement - and level. Assuming the guild size bonus produce approximately the same as the little no renown gain of the extremely casual players in the large guild, progression is exactly the same.

    Unless you are saying that a large guild needs a higher number of players to count as having the same level of activity of a small guild? Wouldn't that make the efforts of each active member of larger guilds worth less than the efforts of each active member of smaller guilds?

    Don't get me wrong. I want smaller guilds to be helped out in some way to make their lives easier. But it's not due to the misguided notion that the current system is unfair. A large guild of 51 can outpace a large guild of 200 with no size bonus. A guild of 200 may have a higher renown earning potential but usually guilds are built on players with similar playstyles that get along. It is highly unlikely to get more than a handful active power gamers and even harder to retain them in a guild full of casual players.
    Last edited by Chaos000; 01-25-2013 at 05:10 PM.
    Daishado

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

  13. #2433
    Developer Vargouille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Flying overhead
    Posts
    1,757

    Default

    This is not forgotten. We are still considering the changes so far and intend further changes as we don't necessarily consider that everything perfect, but don't have specifics to share at this time. Sorry there isn't greater detail to share right now!

  14. #2434
    The Hatchery
    2014 DDO Players Council
    Dandonk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vargouille View Post
    This is not forgotten. We are still considering the changes so far and intend further changes as we don't necessarily consider that everything perfect, but don't have specifics to share at this time. Sorry there isn't greater detail to share right now!
    Thank you for daring to stick your head into this thread again.

    I'm sad that there isn't anything more to say at this point in time, but I'll content myself with this for now.

    The rest of you will likely be happy to know that I'll take a little break from this topic... at least until I get impatient again
    It's definitely an N-word.

  15. #2435
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    6,451

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dandonk View Post
    Thank you for daring to stick your head into this thread again.

    I'm sad that there isn't anything more to say at this point in time, but I'll content myself with this for now.

    The rest of you will likely be happy to know that I'll take a little break from this topic... at least until I get impatient again

    See you tomorrow...

  16. #2436
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    6,451

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vargouille View Post
    This is not forgotten. We are still considering the changes so far and intend further changes as we don't necessarily consider that everything perfect, but don't have specifics to share at this time. Sorry there isn't greater detail to share right now!

    See they are watching and taking notes....

    Thanke for the update Vargouille, I guess those kittens slarden had duct taped to the wall will now live another day

  17. #2437
    The Front Side Gratch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Sunnyvale, Cactus Area
    Posts
    2,871

    Default

    I will say I much prefer the current setup of
    Bonus attaining renown for smaller guilds.
    Even decay regardless of guild size.

    If the decay whip becomes overly guild size dependent again it makes larger guild want to toss casual players.... that's lame. If the smaller guilds are having too much of an issue, feel free to increase the BONUS side of the equation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cordovan View Post
    DO NOT DO THIS. We are investigating.

  18. #2438
    Community Member Hendrik's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bell's Brewery, MI.
    Posts
    10,991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vargouille View Post
    This is not forgotten. We are still considering the changes so far and intend further changes as we don't necessarily consider that everything perfect, but don't have specifics to share at this time. Sorry there isn't greater detail to share right now!
    Thank you Varg for the post, nice to know you are still thinking about it!

    /respect!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by hsinclair
    I heard the devs hate all wizards, bards, clerics, fighters, and fuzzy bunnies and only want us to play halfling barbarian/paladin shuriken specialists!

    It's totally true, I have a reliable source. You better reroll now.
    Adventurer, Bug Reporter, Mournlander.

  19. #2439
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smatt View Post

    But you see if they removed decay... Here's what would happen.. Guilds would invite invite invite... As soon as they cap or reach lvl 85, it would be boot boot boot...
    100% renown loss for booting would solve that and without decay there would be no reason not to have that in.

  20. #2440
    Community Member Nestroy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Europe, and proud of it
    Posts
    2,829

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gremmlynn View Post
    100% renown loss for booting would solve that and without decay there would be no reason not to have that in.
    +1 - very good idea!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Vargouille View Post
    This is not forgotten. We are still considering the changes so far and intend further changes as we don't necessarily consider that everything perfect, but don't have specifics to share at this time. Sorry there isn't greater detail to share right now!
    Thank you Vargouille, for at least any sign the dev team is working on the renown system and does not turn out to be a deaf (or worse, mute) team.

    I still do not understand why you devs are sticking to the decay system so much that you cannot set the minimum decay counter account size to zero with any hotfix or server downtime on the short way. But I really do hope you can come up with something nice and working any time soon. If you need any advice, I am sure you will find a lot of good or not so good ideas in this thread.

    Looking forward to hearing from you on a better system!

Page 122 of 209 FirstFirst ... 2272112118119120121122123124125126132172 ... 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