Page 12 of 16 FirstFirst ... 28910111213141516 LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 308
  1. #221
    Community Member Arnez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    342

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dandonk View Post
    But first and foremost... let's hear something meaningful from Turbine. They've had many months to formulate an opinion, and the implied further changes have yet to materialize. Though I'm not sure why I'm surprised.
    There you go bringing SENSE into this thread.

    Just as I was getting out popcorn to see what Mr "I demand Kindness & Respect, but I'm going to call everyone else a crybaby & flower-sniffer because hypocrisy doesn't apply to me" says.

    FINE. (Puts away popcorn)

  2. #222
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    2,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dandonk View Post
    But first and foremost... let's hear something meaningful from Turbine. They've had many months to formulate an opinion, and the implied further changes have yet to materialize. Though I'm not sure why I'm surprised.
    There seems to be a lot of confusion about what was said. There were no implied further changes. There was an implied we'll evaluate and if we think there should be further changes, we'll make them. The most logical assumption is that they've evaluated and found the system to be acting the way they want it to be.

    IF the system is now working the way they wish, we're left with one conclusion: They want the guild system to be a ranking system, and they view a 50 active member guild as ranking higher than a 5 active member guild. This makes sense to me, and while I can understand why other people wouldn't like it, I don't understand why they don't UNDERSTAND it.

  3. #223
    The Hatchery
    2014 DDO Players Council
    Dandonk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jalont View Post
    There seems to be a lot of confusion about what was said. There were no implied further changes. There was an implied we'll evaluate and if we think there should be further changes, we'll make them. The most logical assumption is that they've evaluated and found the system to be acting the way they want it to be.

    IF the system is now working the way they wish, we're left with one conclusion: They want the guild system to be a ranking system, and they view a 50 active member guild as ranking higher than a 5 active member guild. This makes sense to me, and while I can understand why other people wouldn't like it, I don't understand why they don't UNDERSTAND it.
    https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthrea...=1#post4748497

    "It's not fair. We still feel it's better to address some of the problem now instead of none of the problem. This isn't expected to address all problems immediately. We're sorry some players are still waiting."

    And several other posts in the official thread.


    This does imply, to me at least, that there are further changes coming.
    It's definitely an N-word.

  4. #224
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jalont View Post
    There seems to be a lot of confusion about what was said. There were no implied further changes. There was an implied we'll evaluate and if we think there should be further changes, we'll make them. The most logical assumption is that they've evaluated and found the system to be acting the way they want it to be.

    IF the system is now working the way they wish, we're left with one conclusion: They want the guild system to be a ranking system, and they view a 50 active member guild as ranking higher than a 5 active member guild. This makes sense to me, and while I can understand why other people wouldn't like it, I don't understand why they don't UNDERSTAND it.
    You seem to have completely missed the point of this thread. It is to get answers from Turbine. Turbine's lack of communication on this topic is bizarre.

    Decay is a failure. They should have removed it entirely in October instead of trying to adjust it. The adjustments aren't working for all guilds either. I am sure even Turbine realizes this by now.

  5. #225
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dandonk View Post
    It's not balanced at all. It was somewhat balanced before, but now large guilds have a huge advantage. EDIT: For clarification: I still do NOT want to go back. I want to take what was a good step for large guilds a step further and make it a good step for ALL guilds.
    By already balanced, I meant with the removal of decay as the post I quoted suggested adding larger renown requirements for larger guilds along with the removal of decay to help small casual guilds keep up with large guilds. To me, all that would do is give the more active players, who in my experience are the glue that hold large guilds together, to shed the less active players in order to be a small active guild and thus out pace the advancement rate of large guilds.

  6. #226
    The Hatchery
    2014 DDO Players Council
    Dandonk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gremmlynn View Post
    By already balanced, I meant with the removal of decay as the post I quoted suggested adding larger renown requirements for larger guilds along with the removal of decay to help small casual guilds keep up with large guilds. To me, all that would do is give the more active players, who in my experience are the glue that hold large guilds together, to shed the less active players in order to be a small active guild and thus out pace the advancement rate of large guilds.
    Oh, sorry then! I have no wish to make the system worse for large guilds in any way.
    It's definitely an N-word.

  7. #227
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by unacceptable View Post
    Decay is a failure. They should have removed it entirely in October instead of trying to adjust it. The adjustments aren't working for all guilds either. I am sure even Turbine realizes this by now.
    The only explanation I can come up with is that either it's tied to monetizing the system or they actually think a system where the majority of their customers can only see what they will never be able to obtain is a good thing.

  8. #228
    The Hatchery
    2014 DDO Players Council
    Dandonk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,275

    Default

    Get rid of decay, Turbine. It does not have the purpose it had before, and only serves to discriminate between guilds. Let's get it out, and get on with actually playing the game.
    It's definitely an N-word.

  9. #229
    Community Member Dimack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Pirate Ship
    Posts
    229

    Default

    /s/ removing decay. Doesn't really harm my guild, but I can see it being a pain for 2-12 person guilds and there is no reason they should be prevented from capping due to decay. Though at the same time I support equality for all so I'd remove everything els so that everyone who pulls renown gets the same amount. Sooner or later everyone could hit 100.
    -Die (teh_troll's unofficial legal counsel)
    Captain’s Crew of Ghalanda
    Characters: Diemmak – Dimack – Dianotherday – Dieinafire – Elieath – Inonelite – Nowyoudie - LivenletDie - DIhard


  10. #230
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dimack View Post
    /s/ removing decay. Doesn't really harm my guild, but I can see it being a pain for 2-12 person guilds and there is no reason they should be prevented from capping due to decay. Though at the same time I support equality for all so I'd remove everything els so that everyone who pulls renown gets the same amount. Sooner or later everyone could hit 100.
    I agree with this. The bonus is really not need for a guild like mine if decay is gone.

    I would say that if the size bonus is removed they should consider adding a level bonus to help accelerate progress for guilds started by new players whether they are large or small. Their progress is going to be slow anyhow so a little boost would be helpful. But the boost should be based on level and not size. Perhaps the level bonus could go to at least level 50 and possibly even to 60.
    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).

  11. #231
    Community Member Nestroy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Europe, and proud of it
    Posts
    2,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slarden View Post
    I agree with this. The bonus is really not need for a guild like mine if decay is gone.

    I would say that if the size bonus is removed they should consider adding a level bonus to help accelerate progress for guilds started by new players whether they are large or small. Their progress is going to be slow anyhow so a little boost would be helpful. But the boost should be based on level and not size. Perhaps the level bonus could go to at least level 50 and possibly even to 60.
    The size bonus basically was ment to even out the much higher renown earning potential of the large guilds. I would see this to be a different matter. But yeah! If the price for getting away decay is loosing the small guilds size bonus, that´s OK.

    Personally, I cannot see any way for Turbine implementing anything more complex than changing 2 variables. Any change that costs lots of money to programm and does not bring in at least that money simply will not get done. Even if sticking to the old system makes them loose money.
    Last edited by Nestroy; 06-06-2013 at 11:29 PM.

  12. #232
    The Hatchery
    2014 DDO Players Council
    Dandonk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nestroy View Post
    The size bonus basically was ment to even out the much higher renown earning potential of the large guilds. I would see this to be a different matter. But yeah! If the price for getting away decay is loosing the small guilds size bonus, that´s OK.
    I agree. I want decay to go away, even if (which I do not hope) it means small guild bonus goes away.

    I do think, like Slarden, that in that case, lowlevel guilds (of all sizes) should get a bonus to renown, so that they can get to the useful levels a little easier than otherwise.
    It's definitely an N-word.

  13. #233
    Community Member Forzah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    2,714

    Default

    No decay at all is a terrible idea. Without decay anyone can and will, at some point, reach level 100. That's really boring... then you might as well not have guild levels at all.

  14. #234
    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
    No decay at all is a terrible idea. Without decay anyone can and will, at some point, reach level 100. That's really boring... then you might as well not have guild levels at all.
    At the moment, nearly every large guild can reach level 100. When this is the case, why should small guilds be left out?
    It's definitely an N-word.

  15. #235
    Community Member Forzah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    2,714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dandonk View Post
    At the moment, nearly every large guild can reach level 100. When this is the case, why should small guilds be left out?
    That was meant as a more general comment about decay. I don't see removal of decay as a viable option for the long run.

    If it were up to me I would change the guild system completely anyhow; more in terms of activity and level of play rather rather than just size. I'd massively decrease renown drops on lower level and lower difficulty stuff, and massively increase it on epic elite (especially on epic elite raids). Decay should again scale with the number of players. The decay per person should remain higher for small guilds than for large guilds, though.

    I'd also change the reward structure. I don't think that the best players should be rewarded with higher quality buffs. That only increases the gap between good and bad players further. I'd probably remove all stat and resistance buffs and get other convenience items for higher guild levels, such as teleporting to quest entrances and discounts on using the auction house. It should be extremely difficult to get to lvl 100.
    Last edited by Forzah; 06-07-2013 at 04:25 AM.

  16. #236
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Forzah View Post
    That was meant as a more general comment about decay. I don't see removal of decay as a viable option for the long run.

    If it were up to me I would change the guild system completely anyhow; more in terms of activity and level of play rather rather than just size. I'd massively decrease renown drops on lower level and lower difficulty stuff, and massively increase it on epic elite (especially on epic elite raids). Decay should again scale with the number of players. The decay per person should remain higher for small guilds than for large guilds, though.

    I'd also change the reward structure. I don't think that the best players should be rewarded with higher quality buffs. That only increases the gap between good and bad players further. I'd probably remove all stat and resistance buffs and get other convenience items for higher guild levels, such as teleporting to quest entrances and discounts on using the auction house. It should be extremely difficult to get to lvl 100.
    All decay does is drive people away from the game. I see no reason to keep it all. Most of the people that want to keep decay want it applied in a way that is highly favorable to their guild or doesn't impact their guild's goal. That isn't about creating a mechanism that is fair or fun, it's all about keeping a mechanism to in place that gives other people disadvantages. It's funny to see how people's opinions change once the system is changed to be highly favorable for their guild.

    I don't want to see that because it just means less people to group with and less people playing the game. Putting in this sort of mechanism that takes away progress and prevents future progress doesn't really make sense.

    Let people keep the progress they made. Another person commented in another thread that the only way to apply decay fairly is to do so at the same time renown is dropped so it's always positive. This makes sense to me. I couldn't support any other decay mechanism because it really servers no purpose at the moment.
    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).

  17. #237
    Community Member Nestroy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Europe, and proud of it
    Posts
    2,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slarden View Post
    (...)Let people keep the progress they made. Another person commented in another thread that the only way to apply decay fairly is to do so at the same time renown is dropped so it's always positive. This makes sense to me. I couldn't support any other decay mechanism because it really servers no purpose at the moment.
    This!

    And the Idea presented past in the official thread to have any guild lrvel to lv. 100 eventually only to have the lv. 100s compete for things like "most renown earned per active account" or "most renown earned total". The leaderboards are errased once a month and there is a wandering trophy that gives some small and nice knick-knack like +1% better healing or whatever the like...

  18. #238
    Community Member Forzah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    2,714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slarden View Post
    All decay does is drive people away from the game. I see no reason to keep it all. Most of the people that want to keep decay want it applied in a way that is highly favorable to their guild or doesn't impact their guild's goal. That isn't about creating a mechanism that is fair or fun, it's all about keeping a mechanism to in place that gives other people disadvantages. It's funny to see how people's opinions change once the system is changed to be highly favorable for their guild.
    I've yet to encounter a person that goes away from the game because of decay....

    Decay keeps the system working. Part of the fun of having a high level guild is that you achieve something others are not able to achieve. Not everybody should be able to get the best. There has to be some sort of selection for the system to work. While I agree with you that the current system is by no means perfect... it just won't work without decay. No decay = no guild system.

    I can think of an alternative with no decay, though. In this system people can gain renown indefinitely. Once in a while when too many guilds hit level 100, the total renown needed per level is increased so that people have a new goal to go for. That would work as well, but I guess people will be angry about losing guild levels after each renown update, which is probably worse than daily decay.

  19. #239
    Community Member Nestroy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Europe, and proud of it
    Posts
    2,828

    Default

    Today a necro thread in the official discussions got closed, so at least some mods (namely Cordovan) are still alive in the Forum. Sad to see that there is still no reaction to a lot of threads (this included) in the General Discussion.

    This only adds to my opinion that DDO is headed down the tube and they simply do not want to tell us. Because this would hurt the tactics to gauge the last cent possible from DDO before closing.

  20. #240
    Community Member TBot1234's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    427

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Forzah View Post
    That was meant as a more general comment about decay. I don't see removal of decay as a viable option for the long run.
    Removing decay seems like the easiest and most agreed-upon way to resolve the issues with guilds that are being discussed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Forzah View Post
    If it were up to me I would change the guild system completely anyhow; more in terms of activity and level of play rather rather than just size. I'd massively decrease renown drops on lower level and lower difficulty stuff, and massively increase it on epic elite (especially on epic elite raids).
    Indeed, this makes sense (more renown for higher-level and higher-difficulty content) but this would probably take more resources than other options. I like the idea, but would rather have devs fix bugs, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Forzah View Post
    Decay should again scale with the number of players. The decay per person should remain higher for small guilds than for large guilds, though.
    Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by Forzah View Post
    I'd also change the reward structure. I don't think that the best players should be rewarded with higher quality buffs. That only increases the gap between good and bad players further. I'd probably remove all stat and resistance buffs and get other convenience items for higher guild levels, such as teleporting to quest entrances and discounts on using the auction house.
    It sounds like you associate good players with being in large guilds or higher-level guilds. In my experience, the best players are found in guilds of all shapes and sizes. A high guild level does not mean a player in that guild is good or bad. And low-level guilds are not all filled with bad players.

    Quote Originally Posted by Forzah View Post
    It should be extremely difficult to get to lvl 100.
    Probably true. Currently, however, all you need is a large guild to accomplish this.
    "So maybe it's about time we all get a reality check and realize that if you raid, run epics, and have capped toons and worry about ED's TR's and all that jazz, you are a small part of the population of this game, a very small part in fact." -- Ungood

Page 12 of 16 FirstFirst ... 28910111213141516 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