Page 1 of 16 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 308
  1. #1
    Community Member Nestroy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Europe, and proud of it
    Posts
    2,828

    Default Petition for getting answers to guild renown decay from Turbine

    The whole story can be read up here.

    Shortly said: In the last months of 2012 the devs changed the guild renown decay system as a temporal fix. The change now lasts for more than 6 months. The old system favored more active players over less active and had a small upside for small guilds due to mathematical inconsistencies. The new system now grossly favors larger guilds (the more active players, the better) over smaller guilds based on sheer size alone.

    Corresponding with the change the devs opened a new thread in the Official Turbine Discussions. They asked for player input and discussion. For about 6 months now there had been a lot of discussion. Based on the experiences from the change, the overwhelming majority of contributors in that thread now agrees that there should not be any guild renown decay at all. Several proposed solutions on changes and alternative systems were worked upon and many a good idea were posted. So there is a lot of stuff for the devs to work on. If they like to.

    Several months ago there was a short statement that the devs are still pondering on the topic. Since then - silence. We, Turbines (paying) players, customers and and fan base even miss any hint on what the intended strategy with the whole system now is. We feel we deserve better than silence from Turbines part.

    Therefore, a plead to all the contributors on this forum, please sign this petition:

    We, the signees, herewith petition Turbine for the following: Please give us a more open communications policy regarding Guild Renown, Guild Renown Decay and Guild Renown Changes. At least please ether close the official discussion or give an update on what the Status of your planning is.

    *Signed*
    Last edited by Nestroy; 05-30-2013 at 12:40 AM.

  2. #2

  3. #3
    The Hatchery
    2014 DDO Players Council
    Dandonk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,275

    Default

    /Signed

    Please, Turbine?
    It's definitely an N-word.

  4. #4
    Community Member HotMaarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    381

    Default

    /not signed. against this petition

    I understand that some people are upset guild decay. But guilds MUST decay. Having a 4-man guild hit LVL 70 then 3 of them take off for 3 years? Ya, i want to see that guild sink back to LVL 40.

    Guilds are a dynamic representation of organized activity No organized activity, no high guild level. Deal with it.

  5. #5
    The Hatchery
    2014 DDO Players Council
    Dandonk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HotMaarl View Post
    I understand that some people are upset guild decay. But guilds MUST decay. Having a 4-man guild hit LVL 70 then 3 of them take off for 3 years? Ya, i want to see that guild sink back to LVL 40..
    Why? I do not lose my characters' xp when not playing them, so why should I lose guild xp?

    If people take three years off and come back, I should say we welcome them back - not hit them in the head with a decayed guild and send them back out of the door with a bad feeling right away.

    Decay doesn't even serve the purpose of guild level = activity level anymore. Guild size is a much more important factor in the equation.

    So I say, get rid of decay. The sooner the better.
    It's definitely an N-word.

  6. #6
    Community Member Nestroy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Europe, and proud of it
    Posts
    2,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HotMaarl View Post
    /not signed. against this petition

    I understand that some people are upset guild decay. But guilds MUST decay. Having a 4-man guild hit LVL 70 then 3 of them take off for 3 years? Ya, i want to see that guild sink back to LVL 40.

    Guilds are a dynamic representation of organized activity No organized activity, no high guild level. Deal with it.
    Then you would certainly like to argue against the changes done in order to help large guilds growing as well?

    Nothing against decay, but please some fair System bringing equality for all guilds!

    For a lv. 70 guild getting inactive, in the current system the guild looses about 5 Levels / year. It would take them 6 years to go back to lv. 40. In the current system decay is no instrument to weed out inactive guilds. So according to your argument, there is even too low a decay currently?

    There are many proposed solutions for this in the Official Discussion Thread. Please feel free to contribute there. Your voice will be a welcome addition.

  7. #7

    Default

    Your answer is "it uses 'Turbine math'."

  8. #8
    The Hatchery
    2014 DDO Players Council
    Dandonk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cauthey_No_CCInfo View Post
    Your answer is "it uses 'Turbine math'."
    /sigh

    I wish you weren't right, but it sure feels like it.
    It's definitely an N-word.

  9. #9
    Community Member Charononus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    5,345

    Default

    /signed to getting a real response and possible removal of decay, there really needs to be a better response than we're reading this.

  10. #10
    Time Bandit
    2015 DDO Players Council
    Natashaelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Monaco
    Posts
    1,890

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HotMaarl View Post
    /not signed. against this petition

    I understand that some people are upset guild decay. But guilds MUST decay. Having a 4-man guild hit LVL 70 then 3 of them take off for 3 years? Ya, i want to see that guild sink back to LVL 40.

    Guilds are a dynamic representation of organized activity No organized activity, no high guild level. Deal with it.
    You DID realise, didn't you, that the main purpose of the thread is to ask for feedback and information ? Or what, you LIKE keeping your head in the sand ?

    As for your points, the amount of decay on the small guilds is just unjustifiably HORRID --- and YES, just getting rid of guild decay would be the easiest fix, but I hope that you realise it's NOT the only possible solution !!!

    And NO, "all small guilds must die" or "people returning to the game after a long absence must be punished for their lack of addiction" are NOT acceptable solutions ...

  11. #11
    Community Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Signed

  12. #12

    Default Yes, but low priority

    While I think this is a good and worthy thing to achieve, there are much higher priorities for me:

    - fixing spell casting/targetting bugs
    - updating Cannith Crafting

    would be top of my list.

    I'd actually prefer nothing else gets done until these are fixed/updated.

    So...

    /sort-of-signed-conditionally.

  13. #13
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    451

    Default Agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Charononus View Post
    /signed to getting a real response and possible removal of decay, there really needs to be a better response than we're reading this.

    This. /signed. Most especially to just remove guild decay all together. The experiment in bringing people together to work more as a team has failed. It is time to realize this and just get rid of a mechanic that penalizes people like me that ONLY made a guild so they would stop getting the rude blind invites from when the whole experiment went live in the first place.

    /signed again and again.
    Quote Originally Posted by Codog View Post
    [*]Small evolutionary change that can be completed in shorter stretches of time is more readily achieveable for us than large _revolutionary_ change. Revolutionary change can be rather destabilizing from an engineering and balance perspective.

  14. #14
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,255

    Default

    /signed

  15. #15
    The Hatchery
    2014 DDO Players Council
    Dandonk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Natashaelle View Post
    You DID realise, didn't you, that the main purpose of the thread is to ask for feedback and information ? Or what, you LIKE keeping your head in the sand ?
    Preferably feedback and information beyond "we're not there yet" or "read by a dev". Those do not contain any meaningful information or feedback.
    It's definitely an N-word.

  16. #16
    Community Member lamborgini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    152

    Default

    Signed

  17. #17
    Community Member Forzah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    2,713

    Default

    System is ok now. You can reach lvl 62 and get all good buffs just fine as a small guild. If you want to be bigger and get a bigger ship, get more players.

  18. #18
    The Hatchery
    2014 DDO Players Council
    Dandonk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Forzah View Post
    System is ok now. You can reach lvl 62 and get all good buffs just fine as a small guild. If you want to be bigger and get a bigger ship, get more players.
    Turbine says that they want to support small guilds, too. I'm sad that you don't like us small guilds, but that's the difference I've always found between large and small guilds in this discussion - small guilds want a good system for everyone, but large guilds do not care about small guilds.

    But in any case, this thread is about getting info more than anything else. You don't want info?
    It's definitely an N-word.

  19. #19
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    451

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dandonk View Post
    Turbine says that they want to support small guilds, too. I'm sad that you don't like us small guilds, but that's the difference I've always found between large and small guilds in this discussion - small guilds want a good system for everyone, but large guilds do not care about small guilds.

    But in any case, this thread is about getting info more than anything else. You don't want info?

    Well said. I am glad you said it before I could post, what I typed out might not have gone over so well with the moderators.

    Back to lurking, I know better than to post when drinking.
    Quote Originally Posted by Codog View Post
    [*]Small evolutionary change that can be completed in shorter stretches of time is more readily achieveable for us than large _revolutionary_ change. Revolutionary change can be rather destabilizing from an engineering and balance perspective.

  20. #20
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,371

    Default

    /signed
    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).

Page 1 of 16 1234511 ... 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