1. ## Dear Turbine, Please fix the broken renown decay system

So let's compare 3 guilds and see how they get treated by the current system, a 6 man guild, a 50 man, and a 150 man. I'm going to use a level 70 guild as my example, but the raw numbers are sort of irrelevant, its more the ratio of what is going on with renown that is important.

So first, lets start buy seeing how much renown each member would have to pull to go from level 70 to 71. It would require 17, 895, 550 renown to achieve.

6 person - 17895550/6 = 2,9825,250 per person. This guild size would get a 300% renown bonus so to figure the base renown each person would have to pull to level /4 = 745,648 per person

50 person - 17895550/50 = 357911 per person to level

150 - 17895550/150 = 110304 per person to level

So clearly, in terms of how much each person needs to pull, even with small guild bonuses applied, larger guilds have an advantage here and could level by doing a fraction of the work.

Now lets look at decay. Assuming spoonwelders post in the decay discussion thread is correct, and all level 70 guilds have 10805 decay per day, lets examine how that impacts guilds.

6 man - 10805/6/4 = 405 base renown per player per day to beat decay after the 300% bonus is factored out

50 man - 10805/50 = 216 per player per day

150 man - 10805/150 = 72 per player per day

Again, bigger has a massive advantage.

Under the older system people complained about being unfair larger guilds had an advantage with being able to pull less renown per person per level, and smaller guilds had an advantage with being able to pull less renown per person per day to overcome decay thanks to small guild bonuses. Now the scales are tipped entirely in favor of one guild size and one guild size only, which happens to be as many people as you can possible recruit.

Please turbine fix this skewed, broken, and biased decay system. I'd prefer for decay to actually mean something to all guilds again rather then just small guilds, but if it is the intent of the devs to make decay irrelevant and let every guild waltz their way up to 100 then small guild bonuses should all be multiplied by 10x so small guilds don't have to pull such a ridiculous amount of trophies more per player per level AND be expected to deal with a heavier amount of decay per player then large guilds. Basically nobody gets an easy button to a level 100 guild(which admittedly is my preferred method) or give every guild regardless of their size an easy button so we can all feel special with our level 100 guilds.

2. Originally Posted by McFlay
So let's compare 3 guilds and see how they get treated by the current system, a 6 man guild, a 50 man, and a 150 man. I'm going to use a level 70 guild as my example, but the raw numbers are sort of irrelevant, its more the ratio of what is going on with renown that is important.

So first, lets start buy seeing how much renown each member would have to pull to go from level 70 to 71. It would require 17, 895, 550 renown to achieve.

6 person - 17895550/6 = 2,9825,250 per person. This guild size would get a 300% renown bonus so to figure the base renown each person would have to pull to level /4 = 745,648 per person

50 person - 17895550/50 = 357911 per person to level

150 - 17895550/150 = 110304 per person to level

So clearly, in terms of how much each person needs to pull, even with small guild bonuses applied, larger guilds have an advantage here and could level by doing a fraction of the work.

Now lets look at decay. Assuming spoonwelders post in the decay discussion thread is correct, and all level 70 guilds have 10805 decay per day, lets examine how that impacts guilds.

6 man - 10805/6/4 = 405 base renown per player per day to beat decay after the 300% bonus is factored out

50 man - 10805/50 = 216 per player per day

150 man - 10805/150 = 72 per player per day

Again, bigger has a massive advantage.

Under the older system people complained about being unfair larger guilds had an advantage with being able to pull less renown per person per level, and smaller guilds had an advantage with being able to pull less renown per person per day to overcome decay thanks to small guild bonuses. Now the scales are tipped entirely in favor of one guild size and one guild size only, which happens to be as many people as you can possible recruit.

Please turbine fix this skewed, broken, and biased decay system. I'd prefer for decay to actually mean something to all guilds again rather then just small guilds, but if it is the intent of the devs to make decay irrelevant and let every guild waltz their way up to 100 then small guild bonuses should all be multiplied by 10x so small guilds don't have to pull such a ridiculous amount of trophies more per player per level AND be expected to deal with a heavier amount of decay per player then large guilds. Basically nobody gets an easy button to a level 100 guild(which admittedly is my preferred method) or give every guild regardless of their size an easy button so we can all feel special with our level 100 guilds.
It makes perfect sense that the more people you have working towards a common goal, the faster you will achieve it.

If a small guild wants to get to 100 faster, they simply have to recruit more people to help them do so like all the larger guilds did.

3. Are you suggesting that every guild should be able to gain renown at the same rate regardless of their membership?

So the renown bonus should scale to allow a 5 member guild to earn renown at the same rate as a 150 member guild? By applying something like a 30x bonus to their renown? So if they killed a typical mob, instead of earning 5 renown they would gain 150 renown? And a Legendary Victory instead of earning them 1,000 renown should be 30,000 renown?

And the conclusion from your arithmetic is that this would be a fairer system?

If that's your conclusion then I would have to disagree.

4. The "fairest" system is subjective to everyone. Some think large is the way to go, some think small.

To my mind, the "perfect" system would be that every guild would advance at the same level if all people in their guild pulled the same # of chests/day. Every guild member hitting 20 chests/day (140/wk) would equal the same relative growth rate whether the guild was 5-member or 100-member.

My preferred solution would be to flip the system and give guilds of 51+ members a penalty to their renown all the way down to 100-members. Change the size of the trophies and scale them the same so that nobody gets a penalty, if you want. Instead of granting 1k for a Legendary, make it 300, with 99 members getting 303, and 6 members getting 4k, or whatever.

5. Originally Posted by Dysmetria
It makes perfect sense that the more people you have working towards a common goal, the faster you will achieve it.
Actually you should do some research on social loafing. Research shows the more people you have working towards a common goal, the more people tend to slack off and not perform as well as if they were in a smaller group.

There are also quite a few examples I could give where having too many people either just causes people to get in your way. For example, if your preparing dinner at home in your kitchen. One person helping might be awesome. Two might be even better, but ten and you'd just end up getting in each others way and getting confused and frustrated. They could all be working towards the same goal of preparing a delicious meal but its not actually helping them achieve it.

Not to mention there are also a ton of situations where more people is an irrelevant factor, like on a basketball team. You can only have 5 on the court at a time. If you have 15 people, which provides plenty of players to rotate to keep everyone fresh and not have to worry about forfeiting if a player or two get hurt. Adding another 15 players isn't really going to help your team play better, even though they all want to work towards the goal of winning. In fact that could even have the opposite effect, considering you might go from playing with a group that you have chemistry with to a bunch of people you don't really know how to play.

But yeah I suppose its far easier to just throw out the generic statement that more is better.

Originally Posted by Dysmetria
If a small guild wants to get to 100 faster, they simply have to recruit more people to help them do so like all the larger guilds did.
I'd alost buy this argument, if it wasn't for the fact that the recent decay overhaul was entirely due a few large guilds crying about the old decay system.

Now they had the idea that if they wanted to level, they had to be in a smaller guild, which was false, they simply had to be in an active guild regardless of the guilds size. But let's assume that was correct, the system was overhauled to avoid trying to force thsoe players in those casual large guilds from trimming the fat a bit and sizing down.

If you had that perception, how can you honestly think it was poor design if the system encouraged sizing down a bloated guild, but it is good design for the system to basically do the same thing in reverse, and now encourage small guilds to pad their rosters? Isn't that just like saying I hate when you pull my hair but don't complain if I pull yours?

I also can't really figure out why it should be optimum for me to stuff as many people into my guild as I can if I want to take the easiest path to leveling it. So what if I have a 200 person guild, and on an average night 60 people are on. I can't ever group with more then 11 of them anyhow. With that aside, some people prefer small guilds for various other reasons, as some people prefer large guilds for various reasons. Personally, I prefer to be in a small guild for my own reasons, if you don't thats cool. I'm not asking for a decay system where the raw math gives small guilds a ridiculous advantage, yet here you are, acting like a system that gives large guilds a ridiculous advantage is somehow fair.

6. The guild systen was supposed to be fair for everyone, large or medium or small.

I don't mind it taking a lot longer to level up for my small guild. That's entirely fine by me. But suddenly renown is a small-guild-only-penalty (more or less), so we have to pay twice for choosing a small guild. This I do not find fair. I do not believe a guild system chould inherently penalize one configuration over another.

Are you suggesting that every guild should be able to gain renown at the same rate regardless of their membership?

So the renown bonus should scale to allow a 5 member guild to earn renown at the same rate as a 150 member guild? By applying something like a 30x bonus to their renown? So if they killed a typical mob, instead of earning 5 renown they would gain 150 renown? And a Legendary Victory instead of earning them 1,000 renown should be 30,000 renown?

And the conclusion from your arithmetic is that this would be a fairer system?

If that's your conclusion then I would have to disagree.
Yes, I am. Why is it fair that a member of a small guild should have to pull 5-10x the renown as compared to a member of a large guild to level? Why is it fair a member of a small guild should have to pull 5-10x the amount of renown per day to beat decay?

If you were one of those players that held the perception that under the old system, the renown/decay system unfairly "punished" large guilds in comparison to small guilds, why do you now think it is a good idea that the renown/decay system "punish" small guilds in comparison to large guilds?

8. Originally Posted by Dandonk
The guild systen was supposed to be fair for everyone, large or medium or small.

I don't mind it taking a lot longer to level up for my small guild. That's entirely fine by me. But suddenly renown is a small-guild-only-penalty (more or less), so we have to pay twice for choosing a small guild. This I do not find fair. I do not believe a guild system chould inherently penalize one configuration over another.
Agreed. At least the old system had an impact on both large and small guilds that had too high of a ratio of players that don't pull their weight vs players that do. The new system still hurts small casual guilds every bit as much, but takes the sting out of large casual guilds. This wasn't a step towards a more fair decay system, it was a step towards a more skewed decay system.

9. Originally Posted by McFlay
Agreed. At least the old system had an impact on both large and small guilds that had too high of a ratio of players that don't pull their weight vs players that do. The new system still hurts small casual guilds every bit as much, but takes the sting out of large casual guilds. This wasn't a step towards a more fair decay system, it was a step towards a more skewed decay system.
Yep.

And Turbine is still running this "test", without any communication about when/if it will end, what their intentions further on are, or... well, most anything.

10. My 18 active account guild is doing great since the changes, we were stuck in the middle of lvl 88 for months, now we are well enough into 89 to not worry about losing a lvl.

But you know what I realize that we do different than most guilds?
We run most content either Heroic Elite, or EE.
We run quest chains without going to get ship buffs, just going quest to quest, often times I don't get buffs at all in a night.
When doing chain quests, we run from quest to quest, and don't recall after every single one for the end reward.
We shortman stuff if no one hits the LFM in a few mins.
We will take 30 seconds to get a chest even if it's a zerg run.
We don't take 20 mins getting to a 10 min quest by running around an explorer area looking for rares, etc.

We manage our time better, and run harder content...Shouldn't we be leveling faster?

* Our guild is a mix of people who play almost everyday, people who log on once or twice a week, and some who log on once a month. We have never kicked anyone for non activity.

11. Originally Posted by McFlay
Actually you should do some research on social loafing. Research shows the more people you have working towards a common goal, the more people tend to slack off and not perform as well as if they were in a smaller group.

There are also quite a few examples I could give where having too many people either just causes people to get in your way. For example, if your preparing dinner at home in your kitchen. One person helping might be awesome. Two might be even better, but ten and you'd just end up getting in each others way and getting confused and frustrated. They could all be working towards the same goal of preparing a delicious meal but its not actually helping them achieve it.

Not to mention there are also a ton of situations where more people is an irrelevant factor, like on a basketball team. You can only have 5 on the court at a time. If you have 15 people, which provides plenty of players to rotate to keep everyone fresh and not have to worry about forfeiting if a player or two get hurt. Adding another 15 players isn't really going to help your team play better, even though they all want to work towards the goal of winning. In fact that could even have the opposite effect, considering you might go from playing with a group that you have chemistry with to a bunch of people you don't really know how to play.

But yeah I suppose its far easier to just throw out the generic statement that more is better.
Obviously unlike basketball, everyone can play at once in DDO.

Strangely you now seem to be arguing that large guilds don't have as much of an advantage as you originally claimed in the OPsince many of their members are apparently doing this "social loafing."

Originally Posted by McFlay
I'd alost buy this argument, if it wasn't for the fact that the recent decay overhaul was entirely due a few large guilds crying about the old decay system.

Now they had the idea that if they wanted to level, they had to be in a smaller guild, which was false, they simply had to be in an active guild regardless of the guilds size. But let's assume that was correct, the system was overhauled to avoid trying to force thsoe players in those casual large guilds from trimming the fat a bit and sizing down.

If you had that perception, how can you honestly think it was poor design if the system encouraged sizing down a bloated guild, but it is good design for the system to basically do the same thing in reverse, and now encourage small guilds to pad their rosters? Isn't that just like saying I hate when you pull my hair but don't complain if I pull yours?

I also can't really figure out why it should be optimum for me to stuff as many people into my guild as I can if I want to take the easiest path to leveling it. So what if I have a 200 person guild, and on an average night 60 people are on. I can't ever group with more then 11 of them anyhow. With that aside, some people prefer small guilds for various other reasons, as some people prefer large guilds for various reasons. Personally, I prefer to be in a small guild for my own reasons, if you don't thats cool. I'm not asking for a decay system where the raw math gives small guilds a ridiculous advantage, yet here you are, acting like a system that gives large guilds a ridiculous advantage is somehow fair.
The recent changes were due to more than just a few large guilds "crying." It's not an argument you have to "buy," it is a statement of fact you yourself proved with the math you did in the OP. Besides, you already bought it, judging by the new recruitment thread you posted for your guild.

The simple fact of this matter is that most guild reward systems in most MMORPGs reward the large guilds over the small. Many even exclude those small guilds from obtaining some or all of the guild rewards that the large guilds do. DDO is afaik unique in that it does offer a bonus to small guilds. Yet oddly you have done more "crying" on behalf of small guilds here in just a few weeks then all the members of all the small guilds that are completely excluded from many of the rewards large guilds get in some of those other MMMORPGs have done in all the years those games have been around.

12. I like how it is now way better.

Guilds are supposed to be "people who you like to play with" to raid, to joke together, to just talk.
Earlier with around 100 members we were standing in one place and sometimes even falling down - and was forced to choose:
- kick member who play less
or
- never get higher in lvl

It really sucks if u have to kick out a person you like only cause he/she plays only at weekends/to less - so hes.shes making guild loose renown.
It sucks that newbies couldnt gt into guilds with big lvl and experienced players cause they would be a renown loss.
Guilds should encourage big communities. Not kicking people out cause they dont play enough.

I know that I like it better now and I do not want to go back to what was earlier.
Yeah... changing sth again - to help all big and small guilds - yes.
But I really find "mass recruiting" from now better thing than "mass kicking out" from before :P

13. /signed

14. I don't see the problem, eventually everyone who's active is going to reach 100 with this system.

nobody is worse off compared to the old decay system.

The complaints made here now are always based on the concept that guild levels are a competition, where the other team just got a boost that my team didn't.

Guild levels are not a competition, they're a byproduct of being in a system that rewards all guilds for looting chests, killing trash, and taking renown from end rewards.

15. Originally Posted by fTdOmen
I don't see the problem, eventually everyone who's active is going to reach 100 with this system.
Small guilds with casuals are not.

Originally Posted by fTdOmen
nobody is worse off compared to the old decay system.
Small guilds getting a level will be hit for slightly more decay, but no, not a huge issue.

Originally Posted by fTdOmen
The complaints made here now are always based on the concept that guild levels are a competition, where the other team just got a boost that my team didn't.

Guild levels are not a competition, they're a byproduct of being in a system that rewards all guilds for looting chests, killing trash, and taking renown from end rewards.
Fairness is still fairness. A system that gives rewards like the guild system does should be fair.

The old system rewarded average activity in a guild, whether large or small guild. The new system rewards size above all other factors. This is not fair to small guilds, especially those with casual players.

I don't particularly want to go back to the old system, but I don't think the test version should be final, either.

16. 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.

17. The purpose of small guild bonus is not to make it as easy to level as large guild, but to prevent people from joining a guild and not contributing. To prevent people from going away for a long time and so on.
If you think you can keep a guild with 150 people in it as active as a guild with 6 people in, where you can supervise each person, you're greatly mistaken. It takes good and active 150 people to keep such guild going forward fast.

Also notice how all level 85+ guilds are small?

18. Originally Posted by McFlay
Agreed. At least the old system had an impact on both large and small guilds that had too high of a ratio of players that don't pull their weight vs players that do. The new system still hurts small casual guilds every bit as much, but takes the sting out of large casual guilds. This wasn't a step towards a more fair decay system, it was a step towards a more skewed decay system.
That sounds like someone wanting reduce the height of a table so you start cutting the legs shorter, and then after making one of the legs shorter you then complain that it wasn't a step in the right direction, you've just made it wonky.

19. Very small guild leveling is measured in months or quarters. I am not sure if that is "Working As Intended".

20. Originally Posted by fTdOmen
I don't see the problem, eventually everyone who's active is going to reach 100 with this system.
Which is stupid, might as well remove guild levels and renown completely instead of making it just another xp bar that'll fill out eventually.

#### 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.