Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 60 of 60
  1. #41
    Community Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,701

    Default

    My small guild was stuck at 81 for two months, and moved to 82 in one week after the changes were made...

    So I'm pretty sure the changes were universally beneficial, or my small guild got oddly lucky. Considering this week most of them were in Mabar, I was carrying them the entire week too. So I don't see what happened (unless they added renown to Mabar kills, in which case awesome, and that would explain it).

  2. #42
    Hatchery Hero BOgre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Middlonowhere, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    3,065

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slarden View Post
    There is certainly no envy I am very happy for my friends in large gulds. I just don't wish to use guild elixirs in a system that penalizes only small guilds with a massive decay tax. It feels like I am paying to cover a penalty that only exists for small guilds and shouldn't even be there.
    I think this right here is where he realizes he has no leg to stand on. I can almost hear the lightbulb buzzing to life...
    Quote Originally Posted by Towrn
    ...when the worst thing that happens when you make a mistake at your job is someone complains on the internet, you probably care a little less!

  3. #43
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BOgre View Post
    I think this right here is where he realizes he has no leg to stand on. I can almost hear the lightbulb buzzing to life...
    Not really. I just noticed in the general discussion a large petition to remove decay. I don't think I am the only person that believes this - in fact the votes for vs. against appear to be greater than 80% in favor of removing decay.

    You are certainly entitled to your veiewpoint.
    Last edited by slarden; 11-07-2012 at 11:18 PM.
    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).

  4. #44
    The Hatchery BruceTheHoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,107

    Default

    The title promised, the thread delivered.
    Often the case with selective reading.

  5. #45
    Community Member Chai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, birthplace of D&D
    Posts
    20,949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slarden View Post
    The same issue exists with small gulids regarding activity, casual players and new players. The math is quite simple each guild needs the same amount of renown to level up. A guild of 6 with a 300% bonus is generating the renown of 24. A guild of 240 is generating the renown of 240 with no bonus. We therefore need to generate 10x more renown to level per account vs a large guild.

    The premise that small guilds are 100% active is also wrong. I never made any assumptions about activity, but there is no real reason to assume small guilds are more active than large guilds. All guilds are made up of individual players that are different.
    I could show you alot of guilds with less than 10 players where all players are active. I bet you could not show me one guild of between 150 and 200 players where all are active. This is why using the assumption that their entire headcount is the multiplier is incorrect. The multiplier would be how many people are active daily on average.

    The math is quite simple, but is incorrect when making blanket statements that do not apply to 95% of the game population. I will also say that if a rare guild leader or two had enough of a type A personality to find 180 always active people for their guild they deserve to earn renown faster than the rest of us. That kind of micromanagement is hard work, and time consuming.
    Last edited by Chai; 11-08-2012 at 09:52 PM.
    Advocating repeated nerfs in the name of "balancing the game" then complaining about how DDO is moving away from D&D, is a direct contradiction in logic - D&D 3.5 (what DDO is based on) is not a balanced game. We can either have a balanced clone MMO with homogenized classes, or we can have a D&D game. We cant have both.

  6. #46
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chai View Post
    I could show you alot of guilds with less than 10 players where all players are active. I bet you could not show me one guild of between 150 and 200 players where all are active. This is why using the assumption that their entire headcount is the multiplier is incorrect. The multiplier would be how many people are active daily on average.

    The math is quite simple, but is incorrect when making blanket statements that do not apply to 95% of the game population. I will also say that if a rare guild leader or two had enough of a type A personality to find 180 always active people for their guild they deserve to earn renown faster than the rest of us. That kind of micromanagement is hard work, and time consuming.
    As I stated I already understood your point and it didn't need to be repeated again. Do we really need to keep this thread going? The question I asked was already answered.

    The problem with your reasoning is that there are also many small gulids where not all players are active and this is why you see so many small guilds below level 50 out there. This is flawed logic, just because some small guilds can get to level 100 doesn't mean leveling to 100 is easy for a small guild. It's like saying just because most professional baseball players are over 6 feet tall it's easy to be a professional baseball player if you are over 6 feet tall. you can't use high achievers and exceptions as your benchmark for a normal small guild.

    99%+ of the small guilds will never reach level 90 and most will never reach 50.

    You would need to make assumptions that small guilds have higher activity rates than large guilds to apply your logic. while this may be true when comparing an average large guild to a high achiever level 100 small guild. It would not be true when comparing an average small guild to an average large guild. Under the latter scenario the small guild would still be at a lower level under the old system. There is no basis to assume that an average small guild will have a higher activity rate than an average large guild.

    I don't have a problem with the extra level up requirements of a small guild. I do have a problem when the individuals in a small guild receive a penalty each day that only individuals in small guilds receive. At the end of the day decay is a penalty on each individual in the guild as it becomes their renown quota to not lose renown.

    I am not proposing penalizing large guilds, I just think penalizing individuals in small guilds makes no sense when one of the stated goals is to not promote a specific guild size.

    I don't wish to take elixirs under a system where I am receiving a large decay penalty that I would not receive if I was in a large 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).

  7. #47
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    6,451

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slarden View Post
    With the guild bonus each person in my small guild still needs to earn 7.5x more renown than a large 200 member guild to cover decay. Without it - it would be 30x. I don't have an issue that small guilds need to earn more to level up even with the bonus, I don't want to use elixirs under a system that only has a high decay tax on small guilds.

    The issue here isn't the change itself - that is the dev choice. The issue here is I no longer want to use these elixirs because using these pots is only really covering decay when decay is only an issue for smll guilds. It has nothing to do with fairness, the reason I purchased the elixirs no longer exists after the change was made.

    ? What kind of math is that?

    Are you assuming that in large guilds, every person logs in every day? It is far more likely in a small guild that each member will log in more often than in a large guild. This "Small guild tax" is a myth you've created.....

  8. #48
    Community Member Bunker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,960

    Default Sell the Elixers

    Refund is out of the question. It would be one thing if the elixers didn't work, and they were bugged. That woudl constitute a refund. However, they do work as intended so you will not and should not get a refund.

    Alternative: Sell them.

    IIRC, the elixers are Bound but you can cast them on self,friend. So negotiate a price, get paid, and cast them on someone that wants them.

    -Bunk

    P.S. Guild decay and guild elixers. Even though they are under the same umbrella topic that is renown, the decay change did not affect the elixers. Elixers still work as they always have.

  9. #49
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bunker View Post
    Refund is out of the question. It would be one thing if the elixers didn't work, and they were bugged. That woudl constitute a refund. However, they do work as intended so you will not and should not get a refund.

    Alternative: Sell them.

    IIRC, the elixers are Bound but you can cast them on self,friend. So negotiate a price, get paid, and cast them on someone that wants them.

    -Bunk

    P.S. Guild decay and guild elixers. Even though they are under the same umbrella topic that is renown, the decay change did not affect the elixers. Elixers still work as they always have.
    Thank you very much, it's nice to see some constructive ideas in between the posts by people that like to argue. I never thought of that.
    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).

  10. #50
    Community Member Chai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, birthplace of D&D
    Posts
    20,949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slarden View Post
    As I stated I already understood your point and it didn't need to be repeated again. Do we really need to keep this thread going? The question I asked was already answered.

    The problem with your reasoning is that there are also many small gulids where not all players are active and this is why you see so many small guilds below level 50 out there. This is flawed logic, just because some small guilds can get to level 100 doesn't mean leveling to 100 is easy for a small guild. It's like saying just because most professional baseball players are over 6 feet tall it's easy to be a professional baseball player if you are over 6 feet tall. you can't use high achievers and exceptions as your benchmark for a normal small guild.
    Youre right, assumptions about active people -vs- total headcount is flawed logic, but as I stated, I can show you quite a few guilds with less than 10 people where all are active where I doubt you could show me ONE with 150-200 people where all are active.

    Smaller guilds tend to be either:

    1. Family members or RL friends who play together
    2. People who share similar playstyle and goals and enjoy playing together.

    Larger guilds tend to be.

    1. Come one come all.
    2. Theme based - permadeath, roleplay,

    Theres a MUCH larger chance that everyone is active in a smaller guild. Theres almost no chance that everyone is active in larger guilds.

    Quote Originally Posted by slarden View Post
    99%+ of the small guilds will never reach level 90 and most will never reach 50.
    This is not true. The path is more linear now because only the level is taken into account for decay purposes. Small guilds might progress more slowly after hitting level 50 or so, but due to the now linear progression rate, they WILL make it eventually.

    Quote Originally Posted by slarden View Post
    You would need to make assumptions that small guilds have higher activity rates than large guilds to apply your logic. while this may be true when comparing an average large guild to a high achiever level 100 small guild. It would not be true when comparing an average small guild to an average large guild. Under the latter scenario the small guild would still be at a lower level under the old system. There is no basis to assume that an average small guild will have a higher activity rate than an average large guild.
    There is quite a bit of basis, some of which I just outlined, as to why smaller guilds will have a much higher probability of having everyone active -vs- larger guilds. SMaller guilds are usually more specialized in their purpose as well as their members being more familiar with other members and all members interact with all other members.

    Quote Originally Posted by slarden View Post
    I don't have a problem with the extra level up requirements of a small guild. I do have a problem when the individuals in a small guild receive a penalty each day that only individuals in small guilds receive. At the end of the day decay is a penalty on each individual in the guild as it becomes their renown quota to not lose renown.
    Small guilds dont receive a penalty. I am currently in a small guild, and each time I loot renown I get a small guild bonus tacked on which larger guilds do not get. Many builds with 2-3x as many people as mine earn a similar amount of renown.

    Quote Originally Posted by slarden View Post
    I am not proposing penalizing large guilds, I just think penalizing individuals in small guilds makes no sense when one of the stated goals is to not promote a specific guild size.

    I don't wish to take elixirs under a system where I am receiving a large decay penalty that I would not receive if I was in a large guild.
    Guild size now has nothing to do with decay.
    Advocating repeated nerfs in the name of "balancing the game" then complaining about how DDO is moving away from D&D, is a direct contradiction in logic - D&D 3.5 (what DDO is based on) is not a balanced game. We can either have a balanced clone MMO with homogenized classes, or we can have a D&D game. We cant have both.

  11. #51
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chai View Post
    Youre right, assumptions about active people -vs- total headcount is flawed logic, but as I stated, I can show you quite a few guilds with less than 10 people where all are active where I doubt you could show me ONE with 150-200 people where all are active.

    Smaller guilds tend to be either:

    1. Family members or RL friends who play together
    2. People who share similar playstyle and goals and enjoy playing together.

    Larger guilds tend to be.

    1. Come one come all.
    2. Theme based - permadeath, roleplay,

    Theres a MUCH larger chance that everyone is active in a smaller guild. Theres almost no chance that everyone is active in larger guilds.



    This is not true. The path is more linear now because only the level is taken into account for decay purposes. Small guilds might progress more slowly after hitting level 50 or so, but due to the now linear progression rate, they WILL make it eventually.



    There is quite a bit of basis, some of which I just outlined, as to why smaller guilds will have a much higher probability of having everyone active -vs- larger guilds. SMaller guilds are usually more specialized in their purpose as well as their members being more familiar with other members and all members interact with all other members.



    Small guilds dont receive a penalty. I am currently in a small guild, and each time I loot renown I get a small guild bonus tacked on which larger guilds do not get. Many builds with 2-3x as many people as mine earn a similar amount of renown.



    Guild size now has nothing to do with decay.
    Thank you for your reply. I stand by what I said about 99% of small guilds never reaching level 90 and most never reaching level 50. With the new decay system, small guilds are the only guilds that get a high decay rate per player. They will hit a wall at some point where their renown earned does not exceed their decay and at that point they will be unable to level. Whether a guild has 200 people or 4 they still have cover just over 10,000 renown at level 69. While I completely agree that will be some small guilds where all members are active, I think that is more the exception than the norm. On Sarlona alone I know of many small gulds that used to have more activity, but people had babies or got busy with work and slowed down their playing or stopped. Our small guild has only 2 active and 2 that likely generate no renown at all but still log in once and a while to chat.

    Even with the optimal small guld bonus @ 6 players, those 6 players much earn 10,000 renown and the guild of 200 must also earn 10,000 renown to cover the daily decay tax. In our small gulid that is 5,000 renown for each of the 2 of us that play regularly - which isn't every day. With the small guild bonus we each need to pull in 25 heroic deeds per day just to cover our decay penalty. I've checked the who tab for one of the largest guilds on Sarlona and they average having more than 30 people on every time I check and often more than that. If those 30 are the only active people in the guild they need to earn 333 earn renown each or just under 7 heroic deeds to cover their decay penalty. Those are real #s of gulidys on for my guild and a large guild on Sarlona. I am sure they have people on other times when I am not on so it's quite clear they have much more playing time than my guild. This also means a small guild will hti the wall much sooner and that was already the case for most small guilds before the change.

    This is a penalty and not a earning comparison. I see no reason why a small guild should have such a huge decay tax assessed. If we want to lower decay we should do it for all guilds not just large guilds. I have no problem with the fact that earning renown will go slower for a small gulid - but penalties keep guilds in place and I do not wish to use renown elxirs under a system where we receive such a large decay tax relative to other guilds.

    This also means that if the 2 of us are only generating 25 heroic deeds per day we hit the wall at level 69. If the 30 active in the other guild can only generate 25 heroic deeds per day they hit the wall at level 90. At level 90 we need to generate 90 heroic deeds per day to cover our decay tax. Even with 2 of us being fairly active I don't see that happening because we have 2 people that do next to nothing and 2 that log in a few times each month.
    Last edited by slarden; 11-09-2012 at 03:20 PM.
    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).

  12. #52
    Community Member Chai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, birthplace of D&D
    Posts
    20,949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slarden View Post
    Thank you for your reply. I stand by what I said about 99% of small guilds never reaching level 90 and most never reaching level 50. With the new decay system, small guilds are the only guilds that get a high decay rate per player. They will hit a wall at some point where their renown earned does not exceed their decay and at that point they will be unable to level. Whether a guild has 200 people or 4 they still have cover just over 10,000 renown at level 69. While I completely agree that will be some small guilds where all members are active, I think that is more the exception than the norm. On Sarlona alone I know of many small gulds that used to have more activity, but people had babies or got busy with work and slowed down their playing or stopped. Our small guild has only 2 active and 2 that likely generate no renown at all but still log in once and a while to chat.

    Even with the optimal small guld bonus @ 6 players, those 6 players much earn 10,000 renown and the guild of 200 must also earn 10,000 renown to cover the daily decay tax. In our small gulid that is 5,000 renown for each of the 2 of us that play regularly - which isn't every day. With the small guild bonus we each need to pull in 25 heroic deeds per day just to cover our decay penalty. I've checked the who tab for one of the largest guilds on Sarlona and they average having more than 30 people on every time I check and often more than that. If those 30 are the only active people in the guild they need to earn 333 earn renown each or just under 7 heroic deeds to cover their decay penalty. Those are real #s of gulidys on for my guild and a large guild on Sarlona. I am sure they have people on other times when I am not on so it's quite clear they have much more playing time than my guild. This also means a small guild will hti the wall much sooner and that was already the case for most small guilds before the change.

    This is a penalty and not a earning comparison. I see no reason why a small guild should have such a huge decay tax assessed. If we want to lower decay we should do it for all guilds not just large guilds. I have no problem with the fact that earning renown will go slower for a small gulid - but penalties keep guilds in place and I do not wish to use renown elxirs under a system where we receive such a large decay tax relative to other guilds.

    This also means that if the 2 of us are only generating 25 heroic deeds per day we hit the wall at level 69. If the 30 active in the other guild can only generate 25 heroic deeds per day they hit the wall at level 90. At level 90 we need to generate 90 heroic deeds per day to cover our decay tax. Even with 2 of us being fairly active I don't see that happening because we have 2 people that do next to nothing and 2 that log in a few times each month.
    The way you are outlining it: this encourages you to invite MORE people into the guild. Thats what a guild system SHOULD do. Before it was encouraging leaders to KICK PEOPLE OUT if they didnt contribute. I dont see a system that encourages you to invite MORE people a bad thing.

    Also: guild renown doesnt only come in the form of heroic deeds (the smallest increment). I see alot of trophys and legendarys when I run, daily, which are getting multiplied by a specific percentage because I am helping run a small guild. In your 6 person guild, renown is amped by 300%. 25 heroic deeds per day you claim? 1 legendary victory is worth 20x heroic deeds (50 -vs- 1000 value comparison). Are you telling me you dont pull 1 legendary or 2 trophies per day?
    Advocating repeated nerfs in the name of "balancing the game" then complaining about how DDO is moving away from D&D, is a direct contradiction in logic - D&D 3.5 (what DDO is based on) is not a balanced game. We can either have a balanced clone MMO with homogenized classes, or we can have a D&D game. We cant have both.

  13. #53
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chai View Post
    The way you are outlining it: this encourages you to invite MORE people into the guild. Thats what a guild system SHOULD do. Before it was encouraging leaders to KICK PEOPLE OUT if they didnt contribute. I dont see a system that encourages you to invite MORE people a bad thing.

    Also: guild renown doesnt only come in the form of heroic deeds (the smallest increment). I see alot of trophys and legendarys when I run, daily, which are getting multiplied by a specific percentage because I am helping run a small guild. In your 6 person guild, renown is amped by 300%. 25 heroic deeds per day you claim? 1 legendary victory is worth 20x heroic deeds (50 -vs- 1000 value comparison). Are you telling me you dont pull 1 legendary or 2 trophies per day?
    One of the state goals is to not encourage guilds to be a spedific size. There is no need to encourage guilds to be large - small guilds are just fine as small.

    Yes I understand the math regarding renown. No I don't play every day so I definitely don't pull 1 every day. I didn't play at all for 4 weeks out of a 6 week period due to heavy overtime. Our guild lost alot of renown during that period.

    You will have to explain to me how a guild leader knew that people weren't contributing to kick them out. Guild leaders have no way of knowing what individual members are contributing and in 1000 character guilds they probably don't even know all the alts.

    The only thing I am aware of is that they were booting people that didn't log in for a long time after being gone 30, 60, 90 days depending on the guild. This appears to have more with the 1000 character limit than anything else. The changes didn't address the 1000 character limit so the need to boot inactives continues if they wish to let new people join the guild. Anyhow the point is that individual people in a small guild must generate much more renown than individual people in a large guld to cover the daily decay penalty that is only significant for small guilds under the new test system. And if it's so easy tp get all these legendary victories why was it necessary to change the system in the first place. Can't those 30 people in the large guild generate 1+ legendary victory each? The assumption that small gulds have some amazing ability to generate more renown is non-sensical.
    Last edited by slarden; 11-09-2012 at 10:30 PM.
    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. #54
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slarden View Post
    One of the state goals is to not encourage guilds to be a spedific size. There is no need to encourage guilds to be large - small guilds are just fine as small.

    Yes I understand the math regarding renown. No I don't play every day so I definitely don't pull 1 every day. I didn't play at all for 4 weeks out of a 6 week period due to heavy overtime. Our guild lost alot of renown during that period.

    You will have to explain to me how a guild leader knew that people weren't contributing to kick them out. Guild leaders have no way of knowing what individual members are contributing and in 1000 character guilds they probably don't even know all the alts.

    The only thing I am aware of is that they were booting people that didn't log in for a long time after being gone 30, 60, 90 days depending on the guild. This appears to have more with the 1000 character limit than anything else. The changes didn't address the 1000 character limit so the need to boot inactives continues if they wish to let new people join the guild. Anyhow the point is that individual people in a small guild must generate much more renown than individual people in a large guld to cover the daily decay penalty that is only significant for small guilds under the new test system. And if it's so easy tp get all these legendary victories why was it necessary to change the system in the first place. Can't those 30 people in the large guild generate 1+ legendary victory each? The assumption that small gulds have some amazing ability to generate more renown is non-sensical.
    If you spent half as much time finding compatible people to play with and join your guild as you do complaining about the temporary changes to the guild system, you'd have a level 100 guild in no time!

  15. #55
    Community Member Artos_Fabril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1,078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slarden View Post
    One of the state goals is to not encourage guilds to be a spedific size. There is no need to encourage guilds to be large - small guilds are just fine as small.

    Yes I understand the math regarding renown. No I don't play every day so I definitely don't pull 1 every day. I didn't play at all for 4 weeks out of a 6 week period due to heavy overtime. Our guild lost alot of renown during that period.

    You will have to explain to me how a guild leader knew that people weren't contributing to kick them out. Guild leaders have no way of knowing what individual members are contributing and in 1000 character guilds they probably don't even know all the alts.

    The only thing I am aware of is that they were booting people that didn't log in for a long time after being gone 30, 60, 90 days depending on the guild. This appears to have more with the 1000 character limit than anything else. The changes didn't address the 1000 character limit so the need to boot inactives continues if they wish to let new people join the guild. Anyhow the point is that individual people in a small guild must generate much more renown than individual people in a large guld to cover the daily decay penalty that is only significant for small guilds under the new test system. And if it's so easy tp get all these legendary victories why was it necessary to change the system in the first place. Can't those 30 people in the large guild generate 1+ legendary victory each? The assumption that small gulds have some amazing ability to generate more renown is non-sensical.
    Here's the difference:

    Under the old system, in your guild of 6 players, if 2 players are earning the bulk of the renown, and the other 4 players log in once a month to say hi, you get a 120% increase in the amount of renown earned, with no additional decay.

    Under the new system, in your guild of 6 players, if 2 players are earning the bulk of the renown, and the other 4 players log in once a month to say hi, you get a 120% increase in the amount of renown earned, with no additional decay.

    Under the old system, in a guild of 100 players, if 34 are earning the bulk of the renown, and the other 66 log in once a month to say hi, they were penalized with 250% additional decay (decay multiplier of 110 vs 44).

    Under the new system, in a guild of 100 players, if 34 earn the bulk of the renown, and the other 66 log in once a month to say hi, they are not penalized with additional decay (in fact, they suffer 55% less decay than they would have by booting the other 66 before the change, but that's because they implemented the easiest fix, rather than the best)

    Because the guild renown multiplier increments down relatively slowly, there has not much incentive to boot semi-active members from guilds with fewer than 20 people, because they didn't add any extra decay. So for the sake of efficiency, all they had to do was produce more renown than the reduction of the multiplier times the ammount of renown other members generated.

    A small guild, (below 20 people) under the old system, would not lose any renown to additional decay by recruiting a new member, and as long as that member gained the same average renown per day as current members, wouldn't cost renown based on the decreased bonus multiplier.

    This is now true of guilds of all sizes.

  16. #56
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Artos_Fabril View Post
    Here's the difference:

    Under the old system, in your guild of 6 players, if 2 players are earning the bulk of the renown, and the other 4 players log in once a month to say hi, you get a 120% increase in the amount of renown earned, with no additional decay.

    Under the new system, in your guild of 6 players, if 2 players are earning the bulk of the renown, and the other 4 players log in once a month to say hi, you get a 120% increase in the amount of renown earned, with no additional decay.

    Under the old system, in a guild of 100 players, if 34 are earning the bulk of the renown, and the other 66 log in once a month to say hi, they were penalized with 250% additional decay (decay multiplier of 110 vs 44).

    Under the new system, in a guild of 100 players, if 34 earn the bulk of the renown, and the other 66 log in once a month to say hi, they are not penalized with additional decay (in fact, they suffer 55% less decay than they would have by booting the other 66 before the change, but that's because they implemented the easiest fix, rather than the best)

    Because the guild renown multiplier increments down relatively slowly, there has not much incentive to boot semi-active members from guilds with fewer than 20 people, because they didn't add any extra decay. So for the sake of efficiency, all they had to do was produce more renown than the reduction of the multiplier times the ammount of renown other members generated.

    A small guild, (below 20 people) under the old system, would not lose any renown to additional decay by recruiting a new member, and as long as that member gained the same average renown per day as current members, wouldn't cost renown based on the decreased bonus multiplier.

    This is now true of guilds of all sizes.
    Thank you for that, but it still doesn't make sense to put a massive decay penalty on the individual members of a small guild exclusively. This is a penalty that occurs daily amd will stop small guilds from advancing. It doesn't make sense to assess a large decay tax on small guilds for the same reasons it doesn't make sense to assess a large decay tax on large guilds. I don't wish to purchase elixirs under a system that assess individual members of a small guild a decay tax much larger than individual members in larger guilds when it's completely unnecessary. I don't believe it's necessary to create decay inequity becasue of a problem that existed in large guilds. Why not just lower decay across the board? or get rid of decay completely?
    Last edited by slarden; 11-10-2012 at 06:27 AM.
    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).

  17. #57
    Community Member SiliconScout's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    1,206

    Default

    Honestly I have read and re-read this thread a couple of times now but I don't get your idea of a small guild having a "tax" on renown.

    Please explain this to me. As an officer of a small guild 7 accounts we have been levelling slowly but steadily from day 1. Currently we are level 75 on the verge of 76.

    The changes made to guild renown have made absolutely no difference to our guild what so ever and we are still looking at probably stalling in the low to mid 80's (precisely where many larger guilds stalled) as we only have a couple of highly active members with the rest being fairly active casuals.


  18. #58
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    6,451

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chai View Post
    Youre right, assumptions about active people -vs- total headcount is flawed logic, but as I stated, I can show you quite a few guilds with less than 10 people where all are active where I doubt you could show me ONE with 150-200 people where all are active.

    Smaller guilds tend to be either:

    1. Family members or RL friends who play together
    2. People who share similar playstyle and goals and enjoy playing together.

    Larger guilds tend to be.

    1. Come one come all.
    2. Theme based - permadeath, roleplay,

    Theres a MUCH larger chance that everyone is active in a smaller guild. Theres almost no chance that everyone is active in larger guilds.



    This is not true. The path is more linear now because only the level is taken into account for decay purposes. Small guilds might progress more slowly after hitting level 50 or so, but due to the now linear progression rate, they WILL make it eventually.



    There is quite a bit of basis, some of which I just outlined, as to why smaller guilds will have a much higher probability of having everyone active -vs- larger guilds. SMaller guilds are usually more specialized in their purpose as well as their members being more familiar with other members and all members interact with all other members.



    Small guilds dont receive a penalty. I am currently in a small guild, and each time I loot renown I get a small guild bonus tacked on which larger guilds do not get. Many builds with 2-3x as many people as mine earn a similar amount of renown.



    Guild size now has nothing to do with decay.
    Stop it Chai.... I can't agree with your posts.... If this happens again, I'm going to have to cut off my "other" ear......

  19. #59
    Community Member Chai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, birthplace of D&D
    Posts
    20,949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slarden View Post
    One of the state goals is to not encourage guilds to be a spedific size. There is no need to encourage guilds to be large - small guilds are just fine as small.
    But it does encourage leaders to add people if they want to play the renown game and are serious about it. Most of us would rather guild up with friends, and not be penalized for having too many people in a guild. I am totally fine if it takes my guild 3x as long to get to 70 as it does for a larger guild, because size doesnt factor into decay anymore, so I no longer need to care about booting people if its better to have MORE people.

    Quote Originally Posted by slarden View Post
    Yes I understand the math regarding renown. No I don't play every day so I definitely don't pull 1 every day. I didn't play at all for 4 weeks out of a 6 week period due to heavy overtime. Our guild lost alot of renown during that period.
    In the old system you would have been far more of a liability renown wise to your guild than you are inthe new system. If you were grouped with acquaintences and not friends or family, they might have booted you after seeing you gone for 4 weeks due to size being a factor in decay loss.

    Quote Originally Posted by slarden View Post
    You will have to explain to me how a guild leader knew that people weren't contributing to kick them out. Guild leaders have no way of knowing what individual members are contributing and in 1000 character guilds they probably don't even know all the alts.

    The only thing I am aware of is that they were booting people that didn't log in for a long time after being gone 30, 60, 90 days depending on the guild. This appears to have more with the 1000 character limit than anything else. The changes didn't address the 1000 character limit so the need to boot inactives continues if they wish to let new people join the guild. Anyhow the point is that individual people in a small guild must generate much more renown than individual people in a large guld to cover the daily decay penalty that is only significant for small guilds under the new test system. And if it's so easy tp get all these legendary victories why was it necessary to change the system in the first place. Can't those 30 people in the large guild generate 1+ legendary victory each? The assumption that small gulds have some amazing ability to generate more renown is non-sensical.
    Its pretty easy to observe who is logged in on a daily basis, and its also pretty easy to keep track of peoples alts. The game doesnt give you the tools to do this, but this can be done rather easily.

    Why change the system in the first place? Because the old system inhibited people from inviting more friends to their guilds. The new system encourages inviting more people. Market research shows that the number one reason why people play the same MMO for a long time is the people they play with.

    Non-sensical? I bet a build of 8-10 TR junkies blows away a guild of 100 casual players in renown generation.

    In your 200 people scenario, someone needs to generate 1 legendary victory per day or slightly more. I just farmed IQ and got legendarys and trophys out of most of the end reward lists. Same with Amrath farming. After TRing Im running fast completions of lower level stuff. Unless a rare ioun stone or something drops, I take renown for end rewards.

    Making decay not based on size was the fair thing to do. Now instead of worrying about the impact of inviting more friends to my guild will be, I am ENCOURAGED to invite those friends. Having decay based on size was a discouraging factor.
    Advocating repeated nerfs in the name of "balancing the game" then complaining about how DDO is moving away from D&D, is a direct contradiction in logic - D&D 3.5 (what DDO is based on) is not a balanced game. We can either have a balanced clone MMO with homogenized classes, or we can have a D&D game. We cant have both.

  20. #60
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    84

    Default Can someone tell me

    So can someone tell me if this change is permanent or not?

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

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