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.
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.
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.
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
Originally Posted by Cordovan
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.
Originally Posted by Cordovan
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.
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!
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
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
This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.Reload