Page 9 of 39 FirstFirst ... 567891011121319 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 770
  1. #161
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McFlay View Post
    We need a renown/decay system that is fair, not one that is negligible for guild A and buttrape for guild B, which is what the current system is.
    Do we really need to be subjected to vulgar imagery here? Can't you make your points with some civility and manners?

  2. #162
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    491

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkForte View Post
    I like the current system as is. Rewarding larger guild size encourages bringing more people into your guild, bringing new players and bringing old players back.

    - It rewards greater socialization instead of only playing within a small clique of 6 people.
    - It rewards not kicking Johnny B. Casual because he can only play on the weekends.
    - It makes possible to maintain a large guild past level ~85 or so;

    Of course, mass invites WILL increase your guild level over time, but it's impossible to tell if you entered a guild just for an airship or if you're actually participating in guild activities. Your small guild will continue leveling just fine, and will grow even faster if you call some friends to play with you.

    If you want to get higher in level, make some more friends ingame, get them in your guild and have fun with them! It's not hard (unlike the choice under the old system, which was kick everyone that isn't hardcore), and it's not punitive to ANYONE. Want to keep your guild with 3 people? Sure, and you will continue leveling.
    I only see one problem with the logic. Being a smaller guild may make recruiting more challenging. The mentality of most players I meet is to look for high level guilds with tons of active members. The current system, while FAR superior to the old system, does not give enough incentive to play as a smaller, tighter group. It favors heavily massive amounts of players, many of which you barely know.

    Both guild types are fine. But players should choose their guild based on the environment that they prefer. Not the speed at which rewards can be reached. While some players will not mind the disadvantages of leveling it may not be enough for them to play in the smaller guild though they prefer that environment. They may go with the rewards.

    Especially if turbine adds more useful amenities for higher level guilds. If this happens, smaller guilds MIGHT find recruiting nearly impossible. I already see this with my guild. We are 27 players strong. Level 68. Gaining renown every day. Slowly but surely moving forward. But many people just are not interested in joining the guild because Guild X is recruiting and they have level 80+ amenities. And who can blame them?

    I do not think going back to the old system is the answer. I think the new system is the answer. But it does need some kind of tweaks.

  3. #163
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by berlinetta84 View Post
    Look at it this way, let's push 2 buses up a hill.
    6 people to push bus A
    150 people to push bus B

    if all 150 pushing bus B put in the same amount of effort, it will be easier for each of them than it will for the 6 people pushing bus A. If 144 of them are just walking along with their hands on the bus but not actually pushing the effort would be the same. However, under the system we have here, the 6 people pushing bus A have a winch attached to their bus giving them a 300% assist to their efforts.

    Yes, the 6 people in guild A may put in the same amount of effort as the active players in guild B, but if guild B has more active players each looting the same number of chests per day as players in guild A, then they should be expected to raise faster. Membership has it's privileges.

    If you have something you want to get done, pushing a bus, moving, etc, in general terms, the more people you have to help, the easier the burden on each of them. That's just how life/games/most everything works.
    Why not look at it this way. There is a zombie apocalypse and a lot of the world's population is wiped out. You and a group of people fortify a farm and decide to live on the farm and work the farm for a few years until all the zombies decay and aren't a threat anymore, and its safe to go look for other survivors. Now you have two choices of which group you could be in.

    A. 6 people, all of which are more then willing to pitch in and do whatever work needs to be done around the farm.

    B. 150 people. 6 of them are more then willing to pitch in and do whatever needs to be done around the farm. the other 144 just want to sit around, not do anything, and expect to be fed.

    The whole concept that more members should always be better is a bit ridiculous.

  4. #164
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alcedes View Post
    I do not think going back to the old system is the answer. I think the new system is the answer. But it does need some kind of tweaks.
    I agree. The main tweek needed is something to address the tiny guilds with < 10 accounts that got no relief from decay at all from the recent change in decay policy.

  5. #165
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    491

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McFlay View Post
    Why not look at it this way. There is a zombie apocalypse and a lot of the world's population is wiped out. You and a group of people fortify a farm and decide to live on the farm and work the farm for a few years until all the zombies decay and aren't a threat anymore, and its safe to go look for other survivors. Now you have two choices of which group you could be in.

    A. 6 people, all of which are more then willing to pitch in and do whatever work needs to be done around the farm.

    B. 150 people. 6 of them are more then willing to pitch in and do whatever needs to be done around the farm. the other 144 just want to sit around, not do anything, and expect to be fed.

    The whole concept that more members should always be better is a bit ridiculous.
    Let's assume the same buss must be pushed 5,000 miles. Now that bus must carry enough food for everyone to keep eating. Enough water to keep folks from dehydrating. And other various supplies to support those 150 people.

    The 6 on the other hand have much less cargo to load into the bus and can effectively live off the land.


    In this case, more people is NOT an advantage.

  6. #166
    The Mad Multiclasser Failedlegend's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Canada,Ontario, GTA
    Posts
    6,864

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jhadden30 View Post
    Just for good measure, here's my idea that i posted on another thread, some of you may or may not have seen it:

    Here's a solution: why not just dissolve guild levels and sizes and just let everyone pay for ships and buffs with turbine points or platinum or even favor for the matter? That would stop making it a gigantic competition and bragging rights showdown. This way we could all get back to playing and having fun which is what we're supposed to be doing in the first place. Guilds would still exist of course, but just eliminate all the hassle. A guild is supposed to be almost the same thing as a social network, nobody has this much hassle logging on to their facebook. Just something to consider.

    Now, some will argue that since guilds have worked so hard to gain levels and maintain those levels that it would be an outrage to take that away from them. Saying that, I must point out that alot of those same people on here are claiming that levels, recruiting people or who they group with or anything else similar does not matter to them, until a solution like this comes along. Then it's whole different story.
    The leveling shouldn't be removed It's fun to work towards a goal its NOT fun to have to fight to keep what you put into your guild from disappearing this applies to smaller guilds AND large guilds.

    That said I do know some people think this is fun and I know the devs like it cause it encourages people to keep playing...so make the "Bragging Rights" levels (75-100 IIRC) have decay...the ones that don't get anything new and is for pure epeening and for the people who like that more power to them just don't let it affect the people who aren't. This is IMO the best compromise
    Quote Originally Posted by Cordovan
    There is little value in getting into an edition debate; as with anything, we create what we believe works best for DDO.

  7. #167
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McFlay View Post
    Why not look at it this way. There is a zombie apocalypse and a lot of the world's population is wiped out. You and a group of people fortify a farm and decide to live on the farm and work the farm for a few years until all the zombies decay and aren't a threat anymore, and its safe to go look for other survivors. Now you have two choices of which group you could be in.

    A. 6 people, all of which are more then willing to pitch in and do whatever work needs to be done around the farm.

    B. 150 people. 6 of them are more then willing to pitch in and do whatever needs to be done around the farm. the other 144 just want to sit around, not do anything, and expect to be fed.

    The whole concept that more members should always be better is a bit ridiculous.

    Your analogy is very flawed. The 144 casual players ARE earning renown. If they were not earning any renown at all then the two guilds would level at exactly the same speed under the new system, since they both have 6 equally active members. What is confusing you is total renown versus average renown per player. It is perfectly appropriate to compare two guilds on total renown, but when you divide by the number of players, you are no longer comparing guilds, you are comparing players. A guild leveling system should be comparing guilds, not comparing players.

    Think of it like this. If you were going to rank countries on economic power, would you first divide GDP by population and then rank them? Of course not, you would just use plain old GDP to rank them. That is because you are comparing countries, not the people in the countries. It is exactly the same when you want to compare guilds on renown. The appropriate way to do that is to use plain old total renown earned, which is exactly what the new system does. One of the many, many flaws of the old guild leveling system is it never really compared guilds to each other appropriately.

  8. #168
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alcedes View Post
    Let's assume the same buss must be pushed 5,000 miles. Now that bus must carry enough food for everyone to keep eating. Enough water to keep folks from dehydrating. And other various supplies to support those 150 people.

    The 6 on the other hand have much less cargo to load into the bus and can effectively live off the land.


    In this case, more people is NOT an advantage.
    Your analogy introduces a variable that is not present in the game. Where in DDO is the equivalent of limited resources that must be conserved?

  9. #169
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    491

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tshober View Post
    Your analogy introduces a variable that is not present in the game. Where in DDO is the equivalent of limited resources that must be conserved?
    right next to the bus we are all pushing of course.

  10. #170
    The Mad Multiclasser Failedlegend's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Canada,Ontario, GTA
    Posts
    6,864

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alcedes View Post
    right next to the bus we are all pushing of course.
    Admittedly fighting renown does feel like pushing a bus up an icy hill and for a small group of people that's is nigh impossible to do...again I say remove guild decay for all but the "bragging rights" levels (75-100 no amenities gained, just epeen). Casual guilds/players wont feel like their being punished and the people who like fighting decay for fame and glory still get to
    Quote Originally Posted by Cordovan
    There is little value in getting into an edition debate; as with anything, we create what we believe works best for DDO.

  11. #171
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hutoth View Post
    Probably need to move to a system with no decay, that does not unduly reduce someone's net renown contribution just because they are in a guild of a particular size, and that does not encourage kicking of casual players.

    By personal inclination I'd suggest nice simple mathematics too.

    My suggestion is to base guild size on the peak number of guildies online at any one time in the previous 24 hours (would suggest this to actually be the number online at the instant renown is awarded, but that could be exploited). I believe this would be a far more accurate reflection of each guild's presence in the world.

    I'd go further to suggest the only adjust to renown awarded should be based on this new measure of guild size, and nothing else (no decay). Preferably such a system would use a simple exponential curve that gives diminishing but not negligible returns for ever larger guilds.

    This rest of this post is an example system using the above criteria:

    No decay.

    Example Alternative Renown Formula:
    Re = Ra / √G

    Where:

    Re = Renown Earned (amount of renown actually added to the guild)

    Ra = Renown Award (base renown award, e.g. 50 for heroic deeds)

    G = Maximum number of guildies online in the last 24 hours (i.e. your peak online population in the last day).

    In text:
    Renown Earned = Renown Award divided by the square root of the max number of guildies online in the last 24 hours.

    The large guild will get there faster, but no one's contribution is reduced to virtually nothing.

    Sample Results
    If a guild usually has:

    4 people online at peak time.
    *All renown is halved (because √4 = 2)
    **This would be a small guild.

    9 people online at peak time.
    *All renown is at 1/3 (because √9 = 3)
    **This would be an active small guild, or a casual medium guild.

    16 people online at peak time.
    *All renown is at 1/4 (because √16 = 4)
    **This would be an active medium guild, or a casual large guild.

    25 people online at peak time.
    *All renown is at 1/5 (because √25 = 5)
    **This would be a very active medium guild, or a casual to typical large guild.

    36 people online at peak time.
    *Renown is cut to 1/6 (because √36 = 6).
    **This would be a pretty big guild.

    Under this system:
    • you'd need to increase the base renown awards to account for the fact that renown is reduced for all but guilds of size 1.
    • large guilds earn renown faster, which is fair - you don't want to penalise membership of a large guild.
    • The earning gap between guilds of different sizes is much smaller


    To Earn 1,000,000 renown under this example system:
    Guilds with:
    • 4 max. actives need to get a maximum of 500,000 each*
    • 9 max. actives need to get a maximum of 333,333 each*
    • 16 max. actives need to get a maximum of 250,000 each*
    • 25 max. actives need to get a maximum of 200,000 each*
    • etc.


    (*it's a maximum, because this number assumes only the peak active accounts are online, whereas there may be other people online at different times of the day, just never more than the peak number)

    Anyhoo - this isn't the "you must adopt the above or get flamed" thing, just an example of one direction you could go to reduce the disparity between guilds - tweaking the numbers and amounts using a simple formula to ensure there is no easy path to glory, and no impossible path. The idea is try and make a better fairer system that doesn't leave small guilds in the dust, and doesn't leave members of huge guilds having their contributions reduced to zip.

    PS I hope my maths aren't off.
    Very interesting and simple formula.
    To be clear, is G = # of active account in the last 24 hours or max online at the same time?
    Maybe you could rework it so it's a bonus instead of a penalty based on G?

    If G is just the active accounts and there's a small size bonus, then I think the system will be almost equivalent to the current system with the inactive account reduced from 30 days to 24 hours.

  12. #172
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Great White North
    Posts
    101

    Default

    I respectfully disagree with the OP. I admit that the current test system is not perfect, but in my opinion, it’s better than the old one. Let’s look at numbers from old decay system, for guild A (6 members) and guild B (150 members), both level 70, they would both have a daily “guild level multiplier’ of 540.225 (as per wiki). If I am wrong in math, feel free to correct me!

    Guild A: 540.225 x 20 = 10 804.5 lost of renown daily. 10 804.5 / 6 members = 1800.75 renown needed per member (before small guild bonus). If we divide 1800.75 by 4 (the 300% bonus), it would technically take 450.19 renown from each members to keep up.
    Guild B: 540.225 x 160 = 86 436 lost of renown daily. 86 436/ 150 members = 576.24 renown needed per member... no guild bonus possible!

    The problem with the old system is that at a certain level (mid 60s i would estimate), it just became better math wise to join a smaller guild. Again, i am not saying that the current system is perfect, but i do think it to be more fair than previous one. Before, the higher level a guild would get, the more the disadvantage became apparent for the big guilds and the more the advantage would appear for small guilds.

    Currently, small guilds are disadvantaged a little, but the disadvantage remain the same as guild levels go up, the gap does not increase more for each guild level which it did in the past! In my opinion, renown is kind of like fame. Worldwide, McDonald is more “famous” than Dairy Queen, not because it has a better product, but simply because it has more stores all around the world. A level 100 guilds with 200 members is in no way automatically better than a level 50 guild of 10 members...but it definitely is more famous!

    The only suggestion i can think of to try and make it more “fair” for small guilds would be for them not to go back in levels. Like, if you getting any kind of small or medium size guild bonus, your guild should never have to worry about going down a level. If you hit level 55, then good for you, you should be able to keep it forever! I would also do something similar for big guild, but more like every 5 levels.In the end, i much prefer that Turbine tweaks the new current system than go back to the old one!

  13. #173
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tshober View Post
    Think of it like this. If you were going to rank countries on economic power, would you first divide GDP by population and then rank them? Of course not, you would just use plain old GDP to rank them. That is because you are comparing countries, not the people in the countries. It is exactly the same when you want to compare guilds on renown. The appropriate way to do that is to use plain old total renown earned, which is exactly what the new system does. One of the many, many flaws of the old guild leveling system is it never really compared guilds to each other appropriately.
    So what are you saying? If you had to chose a country to live, you would chose India over Denmark? I mean, India has a bigger GDP, it must be a better place to live. Who cares if the per capita in Denmark is much higher, they have access to better healthcare, better education, the whole country actually has enough food, running water, electricity, and is actually sanitary. Clearly everyone would prefer to live in India simply because their GDP is higher.

  14. #174
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kanuk View Post
    The problem with the old system is that at a certain level (mid 60s i would estimate), it just became better math wise to join a smaller guild. Again, i am not saying that the current system is perfect, but i do think it to be more fair than previous one. Before, the higher level a guild would get, the more the disadvantage became apparent for the big guilds and the more the advantage would appear for small guilds.
    Can you please stop repeating this false hood. The sole factor in the previous system if you wanted a level 100 guild is that you join an active guild.

  15. #175
    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 eris2323 View Post
    I'm sorry, that is not a 'small guild' that is by DDO defintion, a TINY guild.

    In their words.

    In my words, a guild of one isn't a guild.

    If the gentleman wants his 1 person guild to get to level 100, I'm sure it's possible, he'll just have to work hard.

    And he should HAVE to work hard.
    Wasn't that your argument against the old system? You had to work to hard to make up for the casual players in your guild so you booted them?
    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

  16. #176
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Failedlegend View Post
    Admittedly fighting renown does feel like pushing a bus up an icy hill and for a small group of people that's is nigh impossible to do...again I say remove guild decay for all but the "bragging rights" levels (75-100 no amenities gained, just epeen). Casual guilds/players wont feel like their being punished and the people who like fighting decay for fame and glory still get to
    That's pretty pretty much what the system already is. Past level 70 in terms of guild buffs, what do you gain 2% xp? You just have a certain segment of players that feel entitled to everything and can't stand the fact that someone might have something they don't, which unfortunately often results in devs adding easy buttons and making the game boring.

    They could just add in levels 101-200 that add no buffs or perks other then a pointless number above your characters head, and make it so decay doesn't start til 101, and I gurantee you after a year people would be complaining its stupid their guild hit a plateau at 157 and can't get any higher, and dropped back to 154 during mabar

  17. #177
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Great White North
    Posts
    101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McFlay View Post
    Can you please stop repeating this false hood. The sole factor in the previous system if you wanted a level 100 guild is that you join an active guild.
    I agree that a active guild levels up faster than a less active guild, but what was not fair in the old system is that a guild with 40 active members + 10 casual would not go up at same rate as guild of 6 active members. Also, why is it that your math is valid to display test system as bad, but you ignore my math about the old system ?

  18. #178
    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 eris2323 View Post
    Yes, I am. (albeit within the rules).

    Why shouldn't some people put effort into helping our newest players find homes?
    So 1 or 2 friends isn't a guild but a rabble of new players that don't know each other is?
    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

  19. #179
    2016 DDO Players Council eris2323's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    2,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Falco_Easts View Post
    Wasn't that your argument against the old system? You had to work to hard to make up for the casual players in your guild so you booted them?
    Nope. You're incorrect.

  20. #180
    2016 DDO Players Council eris2323's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    2,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Falco_Easts View Post
    So 1 or 2 friends isn't a guild but a rabble of new players that don't know each other is?
    Yes.

    To put it simply.

Page 9 of 39 FirstFirst ... 567891011121319 ... 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