1. Originally Posted by MrkGrismer
Very small guild leveling is measured in months or quarters. I am not sure if that is "Working As Intended".
Neither would it be WAI by hitting the plateau and never being able to move past it.

I'll take small amount of advancement over none at all any day.

There will never be a fair decay system for all but what we have now is a step in the right direction by removing the account based multiplier.

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.
The obvious failure in your numbers assume that in those large guild you have every member online every single day playing and opening chests. Fact is, that is no where near how it is. Not even close.

3. Originally Posted by Hendrik
The obvious failure in your numbers assume that in those large guild you have every member online every single day playing and opening chests. Fact is, that is no where near how it is. Not even close.
This is not restricted to large guilds.

4. Originally Posted by Viisari
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.
Right on! Why even have leveling for characters either? Everyone should start at level 25, and have all epic destinies maxed out! They'll fill out eventually too, right?

5. There are at least two other systems suggested in the suggestions and ideas forum as well, you might go over there to check them out as well, since few have commented either in any way. Yes, one of them IS mine.

6. 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.

7. While I'm not sure what the solution to this dilemma is, I have seen some interesting points made already.

There seems to be two different lines of thought here:

• One line wants to make it easier for everyone and ensure that all guilds get a shot at level 100 no matter how much work (or lack thereof) is put into it.
• The other line wants guilds to be rewarded based on the amount of work put into building the guild. The harder all the members work, the faster a guild climbs.

I'm in support of the latter line of thinking. I think that ultimately one can take a great deal of pride in knowing your guild got to the next level based on the amount of hard work put into it, instead of having it handed to you. "Easy buttons" for all is not a good solution.

IMO, a renown system based on the theology of "work = rewards" is the direction Turbine should be looking to go.

8. Originally Posted by Dandonk
This is not restricted to large guilds.
Of course not, but a LOT easier to get 6 online every day vs 150.

Don't ya think?

In reality, a Guild of 150 would have less then 1/3rd of the membership online a day.

9. Originally Posted by Hendrik
Of course not, but a LOT easier to get 6 online every day vs 150.

Don't ya think?

In reality, a Guild of 150 would have less then 1/3rd of the membership online a day.
But punished harder than a group of 6 people with only 1/3 of the membership online a day because they don't get a renown boost for being a small guild.

Edit: I'm a stupid, ignore this.

10. Originally Posted by Hendrik
Of course not, but a LOT easier to get 6 online every day vs 150.

Don't ya think?

In reality, a Guild of 150 would have less then 1/3rd of the membership online a day.
So t's OK to be casual in a large guild, but not in a small one? I don't understand that point, sorry.

11. Originally Posted by Dandonk
So t's OK to be casual in a large guild, but not in a small one? I don't understand that point, sorry.
It's much easier to get 6 people to log on every day than 150. That's pretty much a fact, and if you're contesting this, it's probably because you never tried to do so.

12. Originally Posted by Dandonk
So t's OK to be casual in a large guild, but not in a small one? I don't understand that point, sorry.
Ignore my last comment, I thought they were talking about the old system. -should have really paid more attention-

13. Originally Posted by McFlay
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?
What does fair have to do with it? It's all about demographics. If, for example, 80% of the people who play DDO don't play enough to viably form their own guilds and are liabilities to invite to a guild under the games current system, the devs are going to change the system so that's not the case.

The old system didn't punish large guilds. It punished those small guilds that let casual players come along for the ride.

14. Originally Posted by DarkForte
It's much easier to get 6 people to log on every day than 150. That's pretty much a fact, and if you're contesting this, it's probably because you never tried to do so.
Again, it's OK to be casual in a large guild, but not a small one?

I have never managed a large guild, no. I'm not contesting that getting people to play a lot could be a problem, either.

What I'm trying to do is show the doublestandard - that it for some reason is OK for large guilds to have casual players, but not for small guilds.

15. Originally Posted by Dandonk
Again, it's OK to be casual in a large guild, but not a small one?

I have never managed a large guild, no. I'm not contesting that getting people to play a lot could be a problem, either.

What I'm trying to do is show the doublestandard - that it for some reason is OK for large guilds to have casual players, but not for small guilds.
And I just stated why. Since it's much harder for a big guild to keep everyone on, it's only natural that they be cut some slack in that respect, otherwise, you end up with a situation where it's advantageous to boot everyone who isn't 'hardcore enough' - however the system in question defines it.

16. I have a ONE person guild (me) of level 56.9 (approx).
It's not really fun to fight the decay day by day.
And yes, I'm not going to join a large guild after investing 1.5 year of work in my guild.

17. Originally Posted by DarkForte
And I just stated why. Since it's much harder for a big guild to keep everyone on, it's only natural that they be cut some slack in that respect, otherwise, you end up with a situation where it's advantageous to boot everyone who isn't 'hardcore enough' - however the system in question defines it.
Again, it's OK to be casual in a large guild, then. Since small guilds have it "easier" (I'm sorry, our guild does not have it easier getting people to be online atm - RL and so on takes precendence for most atm), large guilds simply do not have to work at it at all?

So, in a small guild we have to, say, have 4 out of 10 active to keep up with decay. And in a large one, 4 out of 100 would net more renown gain. And this is fair? Sorry, I don't get it.

I'm sure large guilds need a break, but the test version is somewhat over the top, IMO. Small guilds need a break, too.

18. Originally Posted by Hendrik
The obvious failure in your numbers assume that in those large guild you have every member online every single day playing and opening chests. Fact is, that is no where near how it is. Not even close.
No, the obvious flaw in his numbers is that he assumes anyone who can't "pull their weight" by being online and opening chests shouldn't be in a guild in the first place.

19. I think the renown system needs to be more individually oriented.
We as players are making a choice to take renown as end rewards, chest rewards, use renown pots, etc...

This would make Guild size irrelivent, renown by player whether it is a 10 person guild or 1000 person guild.
Each person receives a renown goal when they first login. something like 25 renown/Guild level.

If a player drops below their required contribution amount they can no longer access the boat without invitation.(marked as an inactive guildie)
Locked out player can be invited by another guildie at the cost of reactiviating the boats daily decay for that person(can log in/out on the boat but if they exit the boat they cannot reenter without invitation or achieving their personal daily renown requirement).

Quit a guild lose 50% of your renown the remaining 50% gets applied to your new guild. quit again lose 50% again.
that way reforms, merges are not a lose lose situation.

Caclulate guild level decay based on entire guilds days earned renown(tally of all active guildies) vs total required for day to determaine a net guild growth or decay.

Active members that did not reach their individual goal for the day lose ship access and no longer count towards the next days guild daily decay(unless reinvited back onto the boat then they are reactivated for another day).

Players that don't generate renown are readily identified since they have to ask for ship invite or have the opportunity to go farm renown to achieve their requirement or go without guildship buffs.

Apply achievement benchmarks
- player achieves 1 million Guild Renown gets a 25% reduction in personal decay.
- player achieves 2 million Guild Renown gets a 50% reduction in personal decay.
- player achieves 5 million Guild Renown player no longer generates decay(automatically awarded daily quota).
Only applies to renown earned while in that specific guild, leave the guild and you lose your benchmarks.

This I think would go a longer way towards balanced guild activity.

~

Other issues:...
-Decay should apply only for active players that enter a quest not those that log in and dont even run anything.
-Inactivity should apply 24 hours after you have logged out not 4 weeks later.
-Epic Raids should be dropping much more significant renown rewards.
-Upgrade House P Favor to allow purchases of all available ship buffs (with appropriate favor of course) at a premium cost.

20. I would like to get an idea if the change will be permanent or not. I personally think its a good change, it will allow guilds to not boot folks who are more casual and not be "afraid" to take on new members. For example, our guild isnt very keen on taking on new players to move past the "medium" guild threshold. This system would allow guilds to expand and grow and not to turn out casuals or turn away new players for fear of being "stuck" at level for extended periods of time.

However, we arent planning on doing much of anything different until we get some idea from Turbine if this system will remain like this. No reason to add players and move past the "medium" guild threshold if the system will revert to the old way and put us back at square one...not moving the bar forward and struggling to hold level.

So IMO the bigger issue is the waiting game to see if it will change again or stay like this.

I do think that a smaller guild should level more slowly. If you want to level fast, grow.

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.