Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 308
  1. #101
    The Hatchery
    2014 DDO Players Council
    Dandonk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charononus View Post
    I think the point is that the posts were poorly written if the goal is to create more support for small guilds getting a break. Ambivalent players reading the posts would read it and go, "I don't see the problem" and move on. If that happens enough small guilds will be petitioning alone and the issue will never end as Turbine will feel no pressure to change anything.
    Well, once again, large guilds got it changed anyway, so I'm not sure why small guilds shouldn't be able to. But I agree, the more people on board with this the better, so if being careful with wording will help, by all Means let's be that.
    It's definitely an N-word.

  2. #102
    Community Member Lilliana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Snoozing at the pond
    Posts
    258

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    I believe LOTRO has decay in one form or another. Just called something else for their 'kinships'.
    No, Lotro does not have decay for their guilds. You can't loose your guild levels, even if you take a break from the game.
    The leveling of the guild is Lotro is based on age. The older the guild is, the higher level it has. You don't actually have to do anything to level it. As a note, there are not many guild levels in Lotro (10?).
    ---

    I'm in a small guild myself. To us it is not important to gain a high level, but the decay is what is killing us. As long as we are online and playing, it is not a problem yet, but we can't take a break from the game without it hurting us.
    I don't understand why it is a good idea that guilds can loose levels. I have been taking a break from DDO and when I came back, we had lost a good amount of guild exp.
    By logging in and seeing this, I lost my inclination to play and I logged out again. This _is_ hurting Turbine bottom-line.

    I have played a good amount of mmorpgs in my time, and I don't remember games punishing me in this way for taking a break.
    At most I have tried to loose gold to pay upkeep/rent for my house (which I could have sold before I took my break to avoid rent).

    We don't find it easy to level up (we are around lvl 40), but it's fine. We don't mind slow, we don't have to reach lvl 100 either. But we really really dislike the whole loosing guild levels thing. It makes us feel unwanted in the game and makes us say 'why bother?'.

    I would prefer there were no decay at all. I would give up the bonus from being a small guild. Things would go slower, but we could take breaks and not loose anything.
    Or keep decay/bonus as is, but make it so you can only loose exp down to the start of the guild level, but not actually loosing a level. I could live with that one also.

    Punishing people for taking breaks from a game can end up hurting you, because they can end up leaving for good. Why return if you have lost too much while you were gone?
    Last edited by Lilliana; 05-31-2013 at 01:30 PM.

  3. #103

    Default

    I think guild renown decay should be changed so decay is caused by player inactivity and not a fixed number based upon the guild level. Now a small guild with everyone active struggles to keep up with the decay when they get above level 60.

    Why not instead alter the decay rules so only accounts flagged as inactive (i. e. 2 weeks without logging into to DDO) will contribute to decay. Each character that is flagged as inactive loses a percentage of guild renown and the accumulated renown for that character is reduced accordingly. Once the accumulated renown had dropped to 0 the inactive character won't contribute to decay anymore.

    Active characters / players will not contribute to decay.

    Booting inactive characters should have an immediate drop in guild renown equal to a percentage of the earned renown by that character (>50%). So it should not be cheaper for the guild to boot inactive toons that keeping them over time. A character leaving the guild should cost a lot less guild renown.

    You can have the current rule of decay set as MAX decay possible each day. This decay is based upon guild level. This way large guilds won't lose lots of decay as they used to because of inactive players.

    The purpose of decay is to let inactive guilds start dropping in level. Decay should not be intended to prevent active small guilds from advancing.

    The old guild renown rules were altered because many guilds started to boot inactive players since they cost them renown. If the cost of booting an inactive member is high enough compared to the renown lost from decay caused by that character then you won't boot member just because of inactivity.

    If you want a simple rule you could e. g. say that each account flagged as inactive and with accumulated guild renown remaining loses 10 renown per guild level for the guild. Then the inactive account is reduced by this number.

    Let's say a 15 man level 70 guild has 11 active accounts and 4 inactive accounts. 1 of the inactive accounts has 0 guild renown accumulated. So 3 accounts will contribute to decay.

    Lost guild renown = 3 * 10 * 70 = 2100 renown

    Each of these 3 accounts lose 700 renown of their accumulated renown.

    Max decay for a level 70 guild is 10805 (as of today). So if the sum from inactive accounts > max number the max number is used instead. Still the inactive accounts lose the guild renown mentioned.

    With such a change you allow active small guilds to grow even at higher levels. Then won't advance fast due to the sheer number of renown needed for new levels, but that's part of being a small guild. So you could see small guilds get to level 80+ and maybe get the large ships. Level 100 would take a lot of time. You need almost as much guild renown to get from 80 to 100 as from 0 to 80.
    Last edited by Peter_Stauffenberg; 05-31-2013 at 06:53 AM.

  4. #104
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,391

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UurlockYgmeov View Post
    agree

    btw:

    so how many days worth of decay did we just get hit with?? how many restarts?

    appreciate the +15% and the lesser guild renown elixir groupon --- but will that make up for it?
    I didn't keep track of renown before the patch this time so I am not sure. Historically it's been at least one extra day of decay every time I checked except once when we weren't hit with the extra decay for reasons I don't understand.

    As for how you made out with the extra downtime and the guild bonus weekend- it depends mostly on your size.

    If we take two examples:

    Level 81 guild, 8 members
    Level 81 guild 400 members

    Each guild would 127,546 decay from Thursday - Sunday (assuming 1 extra day of decay from the downtime). If both guilds averaged 750 renown drops per person (before bonuses).

    The 8 person guild would earn 108,396 renown which includes the "unfair" size bonus
    The 400 person guild would only earn 1,380,000 renown since they didn't get this "unfair" bonus

    The 8 person guild would lose 23,650 for the 4 day period due to the extra downtime.
    The 400 person guild would net 1,252,454 for the 4 day period after day and would gain a level even if they were at the start of the level on Thursday morning.

    The 8 person guild would gain 15,096 renow from the 15% bonus and lose 25,974 from the extra day of decay due to downtime. So they would lose ground because of it

    The 400 person guild would gain 180,000 renown from the 15% bonus and lose 25,974 from the extra day of decay due to the downtime. So they would gain 154,026 net of the downtime.
    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).

  5. #105
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,391

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lilliana View Post
    But we really really dislike the whole loosing guild levels thing. It makes us feel unwanted in the game and makes us say 'why bother?'.

    I would prefer there were no decay at all. I would give up the bonus from being a small guild. Things would go slower, but we could take breaks and not loose anything.
    Or keep decay/bonus as is, but make it so you can only loose exp down to the start of the guild level, but not actually loosing a level. I could live with that one also.

    Punishing people for taking breaks from a game can end up hurting you, because they can end up leaving for good. Why return if you have lost too much while you where gone?
    +1 excellent points. It seems odd for a game to offer a disincentive for returning players. I never thought of that way.
    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).

  6. #106
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dandonk View Post
    Large guilds did that and still got a break, so why is it worse for small guilds? /puzzled
    I have a lot more sympathy for a complaint that the 6 active members of a large guild can't make up for the renown decay generated by the 100 less actives they allow in, but now feel the desire to boot. Than that the 6 "active" members of their guild can't make up for the new, much lower, static decay that exists.

    Unlike some around here, I feel every guild should need an active element in order to succeed. I just don't feel that they should be penalized for allowing less active players to come along for the ride, as that is IMO good for the game. Under the current system small high level guilds have to work at maintaining their levels, while the active cores of large guilds have to work hard at maintaining their large casual memberships. It's those who feel they and their 5 casual friends shouldn't have to do much of anything and still keep up with the others that I have a hard time supporting.

    I'm all for eliminating decay. But have trouble shedding a tear for someone who seems to feel that gaining less than 1/3 what I got yesterday...just from end rewards...from 4 quests...before the temporary bonus was applied...is some kind of onerous task.

  7. #107
    The Hatchery
    2014 DDO Players Council
    Dandonk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gremmlynn View Post
    I have a lot more sympathy for a complaint that the 6 active members of a large guild can't make up for the renown decay generated by the 100 less actives they allow in, but now feel the desire to boot. Than that the 6 "active" members of their guild can't make up for the new, much lower, static decay that exists.

    Unlike some around here, I feel every guild should need an active element in order to succeed. I just don't feel that they should be penalized for allowing less active players to come along for the ride, as that is IMO good for the game. Under the current system small high level guilds have to work at maintaining their levels, while the active cores of large guilds have to work hard at maintaining their large casual memberships. It's those who feel they and their 5 casual friends shouldn't have to do much of anything and still keep up with the others that I have a hard time supporting.

    I'm all for eliminating decay. But have trouble shedding a tear for someone who seems to feel that gaining less than 1/3 what I got yesterday...just from end rewards...from 4 quests...before the temporary bonus was applied...is some kind of onerous task.
    Personally I don't see a problem with a system that would make things equal: If a 95% casual large guild can level up easily, so should a 95% casual small guild.

    But I'm not sure we'll ever agree on that. So let's stick to getting decay removed, where nearly everyone agrees.
    It's definitely an N-word.

  8. #108
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,391

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gremmlynn View Post
    I have a lot more sympathy for a complaint that the 6 active members of a large guild can't make up for the renown decay generated by the 100 less actives they allow in, but now feel the desire to boot. Than that the 6 "active" members of their guild can't make up for the new, much lower, static decay that exists.

    Unlike some around here, I feel every guild should need an active element in order to succeed. I just don't feel that they should be penalized for allowing less active players to come along for the ride, as that is IMO good for the game. Under the current system small high level guilds have to work at maintaining their levels, while the active cores of large guilds have to work hard at maintaining their large casual memberships. It's those who feel they and their 5 casual friends shouldn't have to do much of anything and still keep up with the others that I have a hard time supporting.

    I'm all for eliminating decay. But have trouble shedding a tear for someone who seems to feel that gaining less than 1/3 what I got yesterday...just from end rewards...from 4 quests...before the temporary bonus was applied...is some kind of onerous task.
    That's great that there is so much common ground and so many are in favor of getting rid of decay.

    What I've observed is that small guilds get stuck about the same levels that large guilds were stuck at before the change. That would imply that activity and renown generation are fairly consistent regardless of guild size. Obviously the guilds that have a small group of highly active fast players will have no problem getting to 90, but that represents such a tiny percentage of guilds they are definitely not the norm. For people that play a moderate amount and don't play as fast, please keep in mind they will be more like the 94 for you referred to in your post. There is just a high percentage of those folks in small guilds as there are in large guilds. So if the decay was too high for large guilds before October 2012 it is too high for tiny guilds now.

    You shouldn't be required to play fast to be considered active. I don't think it makes sense to hold small guilds to a higher or faster activity level requirement than other guilds.

    Just let people play how they want and advance at a slower pace rather than having guilds move backwards because Turbine thinks they should play faster.
    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).

  9. #109
    Community Member Arnez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    342

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lilliana View Post
    I have played a good amount of mmorpgs in my time, and I don't remember games punishing me in this way for taking a break.
    At most I have tried to loose gold to pay upkeep/rent for my house (which I could have sold before I took my break to avoid rent).

    We don't find it easy to level up (we are around lvl 40), but it's fine. We don't mind slow, we don't have to reach lvl 100 either. But we really really dislike the whole loosing guild levels thing. It makes us feel unwanted in the game and makes us say 'why bother?'.

    I would prefer there were no decay at all. I would give up the bonus from being a small guild. Things would go slower, but we could take breaks and not loose anything.
    Or keep decay/bonus as is, but make it so you can only loose exp down to the start of the guild level, but not actually loosing a level. I could live with that one also.

    Punishing people for taking breaks from a game can end up hurting you, because they can end up leaving for good. Why return if you have lost too much while you were gone?
    THIS.

    Also- was pretty much what I was trying to say before Mr Anti-Guild-Dude took me completely out of context and assumed I meant Guild Decay was punishing ONLY small guilds. First of all- I need to put the word ONLY in my statement, One can NOT assume I meant ONLY small guilds.
    " A built-in mechanic that punishes being social doesn't fit whether you have a large guild or small." Wait- my bad. "whether you have a large guild" Clearly means to exclude large guilds and thus means ONLY small guilds.

    Daily (and sometimes HOURLY) decay is punishment for being social. That punishment is in the form of losing guild renown that will lose your access to items that you worked HARD for (and sometimes even paid real $ in the form of renown pots- or bypassed LOOT for to pick up a renown reward from a quest end).

  10. #110
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dandonk View Post
    Personally I don't see a problem with a system that would make things equal: If a 95% casual large guild can level up easily, so should a 95% casual small guild.

    But I'm not sure we'll ever agree on that. So let's stick to getting decay removed, where nearly everyone agrees.
    Yes, lets get the decay removed.

  11. #111
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slarden View Post
    What I've observed is that small guilds get stuck about the same levels that large guilds were stuck at before the change. That would imply that activity and renown generation are fairly consistent regardless of guild size. Obviously the guilds that have a small group of highly active fast players will have no problem getting to 90, but that represents such a tiny percentage of guilds they are definitely not the norm. For people that play a moderate amount and don't play as fast, please keep in mind they will be more like the 94 for you referred to in your post. There is just a high percentage of those folks in small guilds as there are in large guilds. So if the decay was too high for large guilds before October 2012 it is too high for tiny guilds now.
    Actually, a small highly active group getting the job done, likely represent most of the guilds that are currently succeeding, regardless of size. The big difference between a small successful guild and a large successful guild is mostly that the large guild lets a lot of other come along for the ride (granted those others do contribute something).

    This is the major reason I'm wary about giving to much to small guilds. Most successful large guilds would also succeed without bring along a lot of players who simply wouldn't be able to succeed on their own and would lose the incentive they currently have to keep the others around (or would gain one not too). Too me it is better for the game for a small core of active players to be better off forming the anchor around with 100s of casual players settle, than for it not to.

  12. #112
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arnez View Post
    THIS.

    Also- was pretty much what I was trying to say before Mr Anti-Guild-Dude took me completely out of context and assumed I meant Guild Decay was punishing ONLY small guilds. First of all- I need to put the word ONLY in my statement, One can NOT assume I meant ONLY small guilds.
    " A built-in mechanic that punishes being social doesn't fit whether you have a large guild or small." Wait- my bad. "whether you have a large guild" Clearly means to exclude large guilds and thus means ONLY small guilds.

    Daily (and sometimes HOURLY) decay is punishment for being social. That punishment is in the form of losing guild renown that will lose your access to items that you worked HARD for (and sometimes even paid real $ in the form of renown pots- or bypassed LOOT for to pick up a renown reward from a quest end).
    To me, decay is bad as it splits the player base into to those than play "right" and those that play "wrong" based solely on how much one plays.

  13. #113
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    2,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gremmlynn View Post
    To me, decay is bad as it splits the player base into to those than play "right" and those that play "wrong" based solely on how much one plays.
    This isn't the case though, just like completionist doesn't split the player base into these two groups. If someone wants to play the guild game and wishes to build their guild, they simply have to build their guild. If a guild doesn't want to play the guild game, they don't have to. People that simply want a social guild can have one, no matter if it's a level 1 guild or level 100 guild.

  14. #114
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,391

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gremmlynn View Post
    Actually, a small highly active group getting the job done, likely represent most of the guilds that are currently succeeding, regardless of size. The big difference between a small successful guild and a large successful guild is mostly that the large guild lets a lot of other come along for the ride (granted those others do contribute something).

    This is the major reason I'm wary about giving to much to small guilds. Most successful large guilds would also succeed without bring along a lot of players who simply wouldn't be able to succeed on their own and would lose the incentive they currently have to keep the others around (or would gain one not too). Too me it is better for the game for a small core of active players to be better off forming the anchor around with 100s of casual players settle, than for it not to.
    You get this same variation in small guilds. Small guilds consist of a mix of people just like large guilds. Small guilds should be supported and encouraged by Turbine for the exact same reason large guilds are. You just made an excellent case for it in your post. This exact same dynamic happens in guilds of all sizes.
    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).

  15. #115
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Signed.

    The issue is that trying to maintain a small guild under the current system is a full time job. I play this game to have fun and watching my guild constantly struggle to outrun the daily renown loss is not fun.

    The current system punishes small guilds based on RL friends.

  16. #116
    Community Member Nestroy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Europe, and proud of it
    Posts
    2,834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gremmlynn View Post
    Actually, a small highly active group getting the job done, likely represent most of the guilds that are currently succeeding, regardless of size. The big difference between a small successful guild and a large successful guild is mostly that the large guild lets a lot of other come along for the ride (granted those others do contribute something).
    (...)
    May I turn your own arguments against you this time, please?

    Big guilds complained first hand exactly because the were stalling. The concept "core of active palyers and lots of casuals" did not work out then.

    Small guilds now have to cull any players not contributing, they have to dwindle down to the base core, in order to succeed. So they have to be anti-social by definitiion now just to hold the Level or advance slowly.

    Adding mockery to the damage, small guilds since the renown ransack rework now really have problems upon gaining a level to get enough renown afterwards to keep the level. Last time it took our guild the better part of seven days elevatoring up and down until we got hold on the Level.

    So all the arguments from the big guilds from last time now hold true for the small guilds as well. They would have held true last time already. Alas, with some big guilders very vocal about change, the voices from the small guilds did not get heard. Some of us (Vanshilar, Slarden, Dandonk, me) already voiced our opinions then. But Turbine decided the other way. And then got into hibernation mode on the topic.

  17. #117
    The Hatchery
    2014 DDO Players Council
    Dandonk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,283

    Default

    Take decay away already. You've already nearly taken it away for large guilds, please do the same for the rest of us.
    It's definitely an N-word.

  18. #118
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jalont View Post
    This isn't the case though, just like completionist doesn't split the player base into these two groups. If someone wants to play the guild game and wishes to build their guild, they simply have to build their guild. If a guild doesn't want to play the guild game, they don't have to. People that simply want a social guild can have one, no matter if it's a level 1 guild or level 100 guild.
    It's still splitting the player base. Being a completionist doesn't mean you can't group with others. While a mechanic that causes some players to be incompatible with some guild types means they pretty much can't be in the same guild. IMO all guilds should be social guilds first and no mechanics should get in the way of that, just supplement it.

  19. #119
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slarden View Post
    You get this same variation in small guilds. Small guilds consist of a mix of people just like large guilds. Small guilds should be supported and encouraged by Turbine for the exact same reason large guilds are. You just made an excellent case for it in your post. This exact same dynamic happens in guilds of all sizes.
    I believe I said that. While I'm a fan of eliminating decay because it's simply a bad mechanic. I'm of the belief that any guild that should succeed should have little problem beating the current decay. Those that can't, don't because they are missing the element that makes any guild successful, a reliable core. before anyone says, "well large guilds can do so" I'd like to add that guilds that don't have that core are rather unlikely to attract enough members to ever get to be large.

  20. #120
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheylostmyID View Post
    Signed.

    The issue is that trying to maintain a small guild under the current system is a full time job. I play this game to have fun and watching my guild constantly struggle to outrun the daily renown loss is not fun.

    The current system punishes small guilds based on RL friends.
    The thing is, trying to maintain any successful guild is pretty close to a full time job, a serious hobby at the least. That's the point most seem to be missing, if you want your guild to succeed you either have to treat it that way, or be in a guild in which other do so.

Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... 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