Page 20 of 39 FirstFirst ... 1016171819202122232430 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 400 of 770
  1. #381
    Community Member jhadden30's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Old Forge. Pa
    Posts
    85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eris2323 View Post
    Feel sorry for me all you want.

    But please realize I said none of that, you simply posted in my name.

    Don't put words in my mouth.

    You're also wrong.
    Putting words in your mouth? The posting history that comes up after clicking on your name is all anybody needs to prove that most of your comments are full of snide remarks and negitivity towards anybody that has an opinion that doesn't match your own. Come on man, the stuff you say on here is absolutely ridiculous. But then when someone like me comes along and starts putting you in your place, all of the sudden you start running out of foolish remarks and resort to accusing people of bullying you. If you can't argue properly than maybe you should reconsider trying to argue in the first place.

  2. #382
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,380

    Default

    In trying to keep with the OP goal of stating whether or not people wish to remove decay, here are a few other quotes from some of the folks criticizng small guilds - these are from the 2-3 threads that led to the current change. Ironically, 3 guilds of under 10 people were some of the first to chime in and show their displeasure for the old system and the decay.

    Quote Originally Posted by eris2323 View Post
    Well, I'm all for removing guild renown decay entirely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tshober View Post
    Remove renown decay.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gremmlynn View Post
    Then ditch the cap too. I see no reason every guild shouldn't have access to all the goodies in their own time. Getting rid of the cap would let those who like the whole competitive thing continue to race each other. While dumping decay would take away a reason for guilds that just want the upper level goodies from alienating the underperformed and casual players in order to get them.
    So while people disagree with what guild size they want to be in, it appears everyone agrees that decay should be removed. Why don't we just ask Turbine to remove it and ask them to explain what positive function it serves in the game?

    Lets just let everyone be in the size and type of guild they want to be in without arguing they should be disadvantaged. How about rewarding ships and amenities based on time the guild is active so everyone wins. Isn't time served a reasonable approach.

    Why do we need winners and losers in a guild system.
    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).

  3. #383
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jhadden30 View Post
    Putting words in your mouth? The posting history that comes up after clicking on your name is all anybody needs to prove that most of your comments are full of snide remarks and negitivity towards anybody that has an opinion that doesn't match your own. Come on man, the stuff you say on here is absolutely ridiculous. But then when someone like me comes along and starts putting you in your place, all of the sudden you start running out of foolish remarks and resort to accusing people of bullying you. If you can't argue properly than maybe you should reconsider trying to argue in the first place.
    I'm sorry sir, you are wrong.

    Does it really bother you that much that you must try to personally attack me on the forums?

    You're wrong.

    Deal with it.

    "The fact is, none of this really does bother you at all"

    Entirely wrong, right there.

    Therefore, sir, you're wrong. I don't know how many different ways I need to say it; but if you continue to resort to personal attacks based on a prior hatred of me, I'll end this conversation now, as I have no wish to talk to anyone so clouded with hatred.

  4. #384
    Community Member cpito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Under the Disco Ball
    Posts
    2,242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Falco_Easts View Post
    We went through all this before. Don't blame Turbine blame ******bag guild leaders. It wasn't a 2 choice decision. The easy 3rd option was to keep your friends in the guild and play the game ignoring the number that meant nothing. The ******'s chose guild levels over friendship.
    Just because you said it before and used bad words this time doesn't make you right. Many of us DID choose number 3 and ignored the numbers game in favor of the social game and we got punished daily for putting friends before Turbine's ridiculous decay system. It's a position Turbine should never have put Guild Leaders in.... choose between advancing in the game or keeping a guildies' bunk ready for when RL lets him come back.
    "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and it may be necessary from time to time to give a stupid or misinformed beholder a black eye." - Miss Piggy
    Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back.~ Cpt. Mal Reynolds
    ~Peechie Keene~ THAC0

  5. #385
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jhadden30 View Post
    Its nothing personal at all, just stating the facts of what you post. Somebody brings up a subject or suggestion that doesn't go along with how you feel the game should be run and you spout off a million reasons why you are right and they are wrong. I'm just doing my part at giving you a taste of your own medicine. You don't like the way that I am bothering you so what makes you think that other people like the way you push them down every chance you get.

    If you are still wondering why at this point it seems like nobody on this thread can stand large guilds, its because of people just like you. This has nothing to do with hatred, I just enjoy a good old fashioned argument. Especially one that I am currently dominating.
    You're mean, and I think I'll go cry now.

    My very soul is wounded.

  6. #386
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jhadden30 View Post
    Its nothing personal at all, just stating the facts of what you post. Somebody brings up a subject or suggestion that doesn't go along with how you feel the game should be run and you spout off a million reasons why you are right and they are wrong. I'm just doing my part at giving you a taste of your own medicine. You don't like the way that I am bothering you so what makes you think that other people like the way you push them down every chance you get.

    If you are still wondering why at this point it seems like nobody on this thread can stand large guilds, its because of people just like you. This has nothing to do with hatred, I just enjoy a good old fashioned argument. Especially one that I am currently dominating.
    Well, If in your mighty wisdom you think you can speak for me, I guess there's no need for me to be here, is there?

    Just because you think you're winning an 'argument' in which I simply state that you are wrong, and there is no argument - means nothing.

    There's no argument. You're wrong.

    But since you seem to want to talk for me, you feel free now... I think I'm done with you for a while.

  7. #387
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Falco_Easts View Post
    We went through all this before. Don't blame Turbine blame ******bag guild leaders. It wasn't a 2 choice decision. The easy 3rd option was to keep your friends in the guild and play the game ignoring the number that meant nothing. The ******'s chose guild levels over friendship.
    The old renown decay system encouraged and rewarded that behavior. Yes, people made the final choices, but that does not mean it was right for the system to reward those anti-social choices. Thankfully, those days are behind us and we now have a system that always rewards inviting new members, and always rewards keeping members rather than kicking them. There will always be people who behave poorly, but at least our new decay system will no longer reward them for it.

    As far as the number meaning nothing, just look at all the posts in these threads about the decay change complaining about the new system and all those defending it. And look at all the posts that preceeded this change where almost everyone complained about the old system and some defended it. Obviously a great many people care quit a bit about that number that you say means nothing. The truth is many DDO players do care about guild level. I am a guild leader who had to go through the choice you are describing and it was not nearly as easy a choice as you make it sound. I decided not to kick the casual/social players, but it cost my guild a good number of active players who left for higher level guilds as soon as they saw we were not going to level up anymore. And we dropped levels becasue of that and even more active players left. It's one of those things where you are losing players either way. I felt bad for the active players who stuck with the guild knowing all their hard work would get us nowhere. And I am sure our casual/social players felt bad about holding the rest of the guild back, even though it was not their fault at all. It was just an awful social environment all around. Thankfully it is behind us and we have a new sytem that does not force such poor choices on us.
    Last edited by Tshober; 11-23-2012 at 09:49 PM.

  8. #388
    Community Member Falco_Easts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Tasmania - Yes it's an actual place and no, Tasmanian Devils don't spin around and eat people
    Posts
    2,220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cpito View Post
    Just because you said it before and used bad words this time doesn't make you right. Many of us DID choose number 3 and ignored the numbers game in favor of the social game and we got punished daily for putting friends before Turbine's ridiculous decay system. It's a position Turbine should never have put Guild Leaders in.... choose between advancing in the game or keeping a guildies' bunk ready for when RL lets him come back.
    /shrug

    To me it is similar to people who won't take new players because they don't want "lose" 10% XP.
    Their choice to exclude new players, not Turbine's fault for giving them that choice.

    Again, not arguing for or against the new or old system. I thing rewarding on size alone either way is not the best option.
    Last edited by Falco_Easts; 11-23-2012 at 11:30 PM.
    A friend will bail you out of jail.
    A mate will be sitting in there beside you saying "Damn that was awsome!!!"

    Unguilded of Orien

  9. #389
    Community Member Nestroy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Europe, and proud of it
    Posts
    2,832

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tshober View Post
    The old renown decay system encouraged and rewarded that behavior. Yes, people made the final choices, but that does not mean it was right for the system to reward those anti-social choices. Thankfully, those days are behind us and we now have a system that always rewards inviting new members, and always rewards keeping members rather than kicking them. There will always be people who behave poorly, but at least our new decay system will no longer reward them for it.

    As far as the number meaning nothing, just look at all the posts in these threads about the decay change complaining about the new system and all those defending it. And look at all the posts that preceeded this change where almost everyone complained about the old system and some defended it. Obviously a great many people care quit a bit about that number that you say means nothing. The truth is many DDO players do care about guild level. I am a guild leader who had to go through the choice you are describing and it was not nearly as easy a choice as you make it sound. I decided not to kick the casual/social players, but it cost my guild a good number of active players who left for higher level guilds as soon as they saw we were not going to level up anymore. And we dropped levels becasue of that and even more active players left. It's one of those things where you are losing players either way. I felt bad for the active players who stuck with the guild knowing all their hard work would get us nowhere. And I am sure our casual/social players felt bad about holding the rest of the guild back, even though it was not their fault at all. It was just an awful social environment all around. Thankfully it is behind us and we have a new sytem that does not force such poor choices on us.
    Then again, Tshober, I do not understand why the devs did not do away with guild renown completely. You were one of the most advocate posters for change and now you got a system you may live in. I can understand that. But the battle still is only half won. Decay is still in place and may be tweaked with any time even to go up again for the larger guilds. And most other solutions suggested in the original discussions were not even ignored by the Turbine staff.

    While I do understand a certain decay might be necessary to weed out inactive guilds, there would be a better system than a daily trickle of decay that hampers smaller guilds still and does not mean anything for larger guilds. The trickle does kill inactive guilds comming time, but much too slow. If Turbine would like to get working ideas of how to check inactive guilds, they would be well advised to refer to the discussions against renown decay from the past. The current renown decay system would not work for this.

    And while I do understand the need to have working leaderbords with only a few guilds on the top, the new change in system just made it possible to reach the level with large guilds eventually, while doing nothing for smaller guilds to help. So eventually all large guilds may reach that top level and while I am really happy for you large-guild guildies out there that you will have the best guild level available eventually, this does not help the small-is-beautiful playstile in any way. And absolutely most guilds are small! I am not so sure if most players play in small guilds but I would guess that about at least half of a server population is organized in guilds with less than 100 accounts. If Turbine would be interested in setting in place a working system for this as well, there were a lot of good suggestions in the past, from decay kicking in on highest levels to leveling indefinitively without getting any bonuses from level 101 on.

    Conclusion, with the exception of the new system smelling of "quick fix" to silence the most prominent critics from the large guilds, the new system does not solve anything and brings new problems. Work half done, battle against decay half won.
    Last edited by Nestroy; 11-24-2012 at 12:19 AM.

  10. #390
    Community Member Charononus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    5,345

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nestroy View Post

    Conclusion, with the exception of the new system smelling of "quick fix" to silence the most prominent critics from the large guilds, the new system does not solve anything and brings new problems. Work half done, battle against decay half won.
    Not saying this is right but,

    I don't think the other half is winnable. I think that to turbine decay represents a way to get people to buy reknown elixers. I think this system is the best we are likely to get.

  11. #391
    Community Member Nestroy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Europe, and proud of it
    Posts
    2,832

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charononus View Post
    Not saying this is right but,

    I don't think the other half is winnable. I think that to turbine decay represents a way to get people to buy reknown elixers. I think this system is the best we are likely to get.
    Turbine might be somewhat short-sighted here, imho. With the change on the decay system, now large guilds and their guildies do not need any pots anyway. They will all eventually reach lv. 100. So only the small guilds left?

    Abolishing guild renown decay all together and getting new goals to go for - all this already has been discussed into every detail in the treads before the system got overhauled. Now, they basically exempted 1/2 of the server populations (those in the large guilds) from using pots. I wonder what their sales of pots are now?

    Since leveling guilds is so much easier now in big guilds, even if they abolished the decay for all guilds the small guilds to keep up still would needs thousands of pots. But again, even this already has been discussed.

    So why only making it easier for big guilds while putting the whole burden of pot sales on small guilds and forcing them even more to use pots eludes me completely.

    As written several statements above in this tread, time and money efficient now within the new system would be to form the biggest possible active guilds.

    So the job for Turbine is still half done anyway - and they even hurt their sales in the process, I am sure.

  12. #392
    Community Member cpito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Under the Disco Ball
    Posts
    2,242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Falco_Easts View Post
    /shrug

    To me it is similar to people who won't take new players because they don't want "lose" 10% XP.
    Their choice to exclude new players, not Turbine's fault for giving them that choice.
    How is essentially "rewarding" anti-social behavior by large guilds beneficial for Turbine, the game or the community?
    "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and it may be necessary from time to time to give a stupid or misinformed beholder a black eye." - Miss Piggy
    Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back.~ Cpt. Mal Reynolds
    ~Peechie Keene~ THAC0

  13. #393
    Community Member Falco_Easts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Tasmania - Yes it's an actual place and no, Tasmanian Devils don't spin around and eat people
    Posts
    2,220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cpito View Post
    How is essentially "rewarding" anti-social behavior by large guilds beneficial for Turbine, the game or the community?
    Having less guild mates for them to run with is rewarding them?

    I know what you are saying and agree with it, but at the end of the it was the GL decision. The renown system in general is flawed in my mind, not just that part of it.
    A friend will bail you out of jail.
    A mate will be sitting in there beside you saying "Damn that was awsome!!!"

    Unguilded of Orien

  14. #394
    Time Bandit
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,028

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nestroy View Post
    So eventually all large guilds may reach that top level and while I am really happy for you large-guild guildies out there that you will have the best guild level available eventually, this does not help the small-is-beautiful playstile in any way. And absolutely most guilds are small! I am not so sure if most players play in small guilds but I would guess that about at least half of a server population is organized in guilds with less than 100 accounts. If Turbine would be interested in setting in place a working system for this as well, there were a lot of good suggestions in the past, from decay kicking in on highest levels to leveling indefinitively without getting any bonuses from level 101 on.
    Oh it's not even close to half. For the period from 11/16 to 11/23, there were a total of 9845 active guilds. By "active" I mean the guild's renown changed during this time. (For a guild that's level 26 or over, someone logging in will update their MyDDO renown totals, which will then update their values due to renown decay. For all guilds, if they gained renown during this week their MyDDO totals will update. So this potentially excludes guilds level 25 and under where somebody logged in but they didn't get any renown, but otherwise includes all guilds where someone has logged in.) Out of those 9845 guilds, 9475 had 150 or fewer characters (which I call "small"), 321 had between 151 and 500 characters ("medium"), and 49 had 501 or more characters ("large"). My size points are fairly arbitrary. Obviously I can only see character amounts (from MyDDO) and not actual account amounts, but it should be fairly obvious that there's a correlation between character amount and account amount.

    Those 9845 active guilds contain a total of 342714 characters. Now obviously many guilds will have inactive characters, so this isn't meant to be a count of actual active characters. However, it's useful as a relative metric. Out of those 342714 characters, 227073 (66.3%) are in small guilds, 81832 (23.4%) are in medium guilds, and 33809 (9.9%) are in large guilds. So basically, guilds that have 500 or more characters only make up roughly 10% of the playerbase.

    Now undoubtedly they'll say but large guilds have to trim their rosters, because of the 1000 character limit. But consider this: There are only 10 guilds in all of DDO that even have 800 or more characters. Concerns about hitting the 1000-character limit is a non-issue for almost all guilds.

    The average large guild is currently level 72 (24 out of 49 active large guilds are level 72 or above). The average small guild is level 27 (4640 out of 9475 active small guilds are level 27 or above). Yet Turbine decided to cater to the one segment of guilds that are already at the mid-high levels and don't need any help, while almost everyone else is still sputtering along at the low levels.

    For the concern that hey maybe these small guilds are new startup guilds, of course they're still low level, it doesn't even matter if you only look at guilds that have been around for a long time, say guilds that have been around since August 2010 (which is the oldest extant data that I have for all the guilds at the time). Taking just those guilds, the average (median) median large guild is currently at level 73 (21 out of 42 are level 73 or above), while the average (median) active small guild is at level 40 (1302 out of 2628 are level 40 or above). This is after over two years of the original renown system. I know there's been player turnover in guilds but if you look at the 193866 characters currently in active guilds which were around on August 2010, 102318 (52.8%) of them are in active small guilds, 62759 (32.4%) of them are in active medium guilds, and 28789 (14.8%) of them are in active large guilds. Large guilds still form a sharp minority of players for older guilds.

    According to these large guilds though being able to eventually reach level 100 is much better than never reaching level 100 at all, even though reaching level 40 (3.2 million renown) after 2.4 years means reaching level 100 (50 million renown) after 37.5 years, and it would take 14.6 years to reach level 73 (about 19.45 million renown) which the large guilds are currently at for those small guilds, even if renown decay were set to 0. But since Turbine set renown decay to be a static amount based on level and not based on size, those small guilds will still eventually get stagnated and hit the renown decay wall. They're just not affected by it right now because most of them are not even at the levels yet where it matters that much.

    So the original system -- before the renown decay change -- already highly catered to guilds which had a lot of characters. Even with the promise of easy levels if you were in a large guild under the original (and even more so under the current) system, the majority of players have opted to be in small guilds. I'm at a loss as to why Turbine would keep encouraging players into one type of guild size when the vast majority of players had already "voted with their feet" under the original system. Certainly though the change will change the equilibrium, but this goes against what Fernando Paiz and the developers have said about the system, that they're not meant to "promote specific guild sizes". Yet not only did the original system push players in one direction, but the change pushed players in the same direction even harder.

  15. #395
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nestroy View Post
    Then again, Tshober, I do not understand why the devs did not do away with guild renown completely. You were one of the most advocate posters for change and now you got a system you may live in. I can understand that. But the battle still is only half won. Decay is still in place and may be tweaked with any time even to go up again for the larger guilds. And most other solutions suggested in the original discussions were not even ignored by the Turbine staff.

    While I do understand a certain decay might be necessary to weed out inactive guilds, there would be a better system than a daily trickle of decay that hampers smaller guilds still and does not mean anything for larger guilds. The trickle does kill inactive guilds comming time, but much too slow. If Turbine would like to get working ideas of how to check inactive guilds, they would be well advised to refer to the discussions against renown decay from the past. The current renown decay system would not work for this.
    .
    Yes, you are correct here. I have always advocated for the complete removal of decay and that is still my preference. But the change the devs have made is an excellent start and was achieved with no real coding changes. It is far better than I had even hoped for. Not only did it greatly reduce the incentive to shun casual/social players, which was my main concern, it also made every guild's renown earned count roughly equallly toward leveling up! The only exception to both of these is tiny guilds with less than 10 players. But, hopefully, the new system can be tweaked to bring tiny guilds into line as well. At that point we would have an even better guild leveling system that is equitable across the board and provides incentive to be inclusive, rather than exclusive.

    I still prefer to eliminate decay entirely. And I do want tiny guilds to remain viable and able to advance so I will continue to advocate for those things in the future. But what has already been achieved with this simple change is really excellent, in more ways than just what I had been advocating for.

  16. #396
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanshilar View Post
    For the concern that hey maybe these small guilds are new startup guilds, of course they're still low level, it doesn't even matter if you only look at guilds that have been around for a long time, say guilds that have been around since August 2010 (which is the oldest extant data that I have for all the guilds at the time). Taking just those guilds, the average (median) median large guild is currently at level 73 (21 out of 42 are level 73 or above), while the average (median) active small guild is at level 40 (1302 out of 2628 are level 40 or above). This is after over two years of the original renown system. I know there's been player turnover in guilds but if you look at the 193866 characters currently in active guilds which were around on August 2010, 102318 (52.8%) of them are in active small guilds, 62759 (32.4%) of them are in active medium guilds, and 28789 (14.8%) of them are in active large guilds. Large guilds still form a sharp minority of players for older guilds.
    .
    I applaud your efforts to put numbers to this stuff. However, I am skeptical, to say the least, about the accuracy of myddo data, having looked at the wildly inaccurate data it shows for my guild. My guild shows people as current officers that have not been in the game for years, much less officers. My acccount and character data are equally garbage on myddo. But that is not your fault, it is the only data we non-devs have access to. I just don't think it is worthy of much trust, when it is so blatantly and obviously incorrect about my guild, account, and characters.

    The bottom line is the old decay system encouraged having lots of players in your guild at lower levels and then rewarded shunning casual/social players once you reached roughly level 55. Guilds that reached mid-levels were given a choice of shedding casual/social players or never advancing again. The system rewarded those guilds that shunned casual/social players and that is why it was ultimately rejected, IMO. It has little to do with guild size. You yourself point out that many small guilds have not yet reached those mid-levels. Had we stayed with the old decay system, then when they did, they too would have been rewarded for dumping their less active members. A guild system that divides the playerbase into two classes of players and rewards guilds that shun one of those classes of players is just not a good system.

    In contrast, the new system always rewards (never punishes) guilds for inviting players into their guild, and never rewards (only punishes) kicking a player versus keeping them. This is why the change was made, IMO. The new system also has other very desirable benefits, but those are not why a change was made, though they may have been why this particular change was selected.
    Last edited by Tshober; 11-24-2012 at 05:23 AM.

  17. #397
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,380

    Default

    I continue to be skeptical that the new system will completely stop the booting of players especially those at or near the 1000 character limit. A guild at the limit can still replace players that play less and replace those with players that might play more and level faster. Guilds can still add a bunch of players to grow faster and then boot those players and come out ahead on renown under the new system.

    I think if we want to discourage this there should be a 100% penalty for booting players. This wouldn't apply of course if someone leaves the guild by their own choice. People inactive for a long timer would still not result in lost renown.

    This sounds harsh, but when you look at the new rules, there is no additional decay added when recruiting a member, the gulids earns 100% of the renown while they are in the guild and only lose 25% of the guild when booting someone for a net gain of 75% of the renown while a person was in the guild. If the booting penalty is changed to 100%, a gulid gains nothing and loses nothing when a player is booted. That seems fair to me.

    The only reason to be against a 100% penalty would be if a guild plans to continue booting players.
    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. #398
    The Hatchery
    2014 DDO Players Council
    Dandonk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,282

    Default

    Once again Vanshilar puts facts on the table. Nice work once again. I sincerely hope that Turbine will start to listen soon.
    It's definitely an N-word.

  19. #399
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanshilar View Post
    Taking just those guilds, the average (median) median large guild is currently at level 73 (21 out of 42 are level 73 or above), while the average (median) active small guild is at level 40 (1302 out of 2628 are level 40 or above). This is after over two years of the original renown system. I know there's been player turnover in guilds but if you look at the 193866 characters currently in active guilds which were around on August 2010, 102318 (52.8%) of them are in active small guilds, 62759 (32.4%) of them are in active medium guilds, and 28789 (14.8%) of them are in active large guilds. Large guilds still form a sharp minority of players for older guilds.
    I run in many raids every week. All I have to do is look around and small guilds make up around 75% of the raids - consistently. The median level is well below 60 for the smaller guilds. The mediam level is above 60 for the large guilds.

    Certainly Turbine has enough information to realize how substantial the small guild player base is.
    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. #400
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slarden View Post
    I continue to be skeptical that the new system will completely stop the booting of players especially those at or near the 1000 character limit.
    Of course it will not completely stop that. Some people will still be mean and spiteful. But the new system does not reward such behavior, like the old decay system did.

    It is precisely the guilds that are at the 1000 character cap that MUST kick inactive characters to make room for players who want to join their guild right now. That is because inactive characters still count toward the cap. I have no problem with your suggestion of a 100% renown penalty for kicking characters IF the penalty only applies to active characters. There is no reason at all to punish a guild for kicking characters that are inactive. Another option would be to make inactive characters not count toward the 1000 character cap.



    Quote Originally Posted by slarden View Post
    Guilds can still add a bunch of players to grow faster and then boot those players and come out ahead on renown under the new system.
    Not nearly as far ahead as they would be if they kept them.

Page 20 of 39 FirstFirst ... 1016171819202122232430 ... 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