Page 14 of 15 FirstFirst ... 4101112131415 LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 292
  1. #261
    Community Member Loraven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4

    Default thanks 4 askin

    Quote Originally Posted by Emizand View Post
    Enhancements, dont come to the table till you have a full set. I have waited a long time, can wait longer till its complete..
    agree totally

    Guild decay, way tough on smaller guilds

    Pet peeve - fix the broken things before creating new broken things that lovely airship destination choice that stays on has been broken about a year now
    and as a VIP I'm just a LITTLE ticked I've had to pay for the last 2 updates....I already pay all the time if this continues...p2p for me bye bye VIP

  2. #262
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    516

    Default

    Things that bug me about the current game as-is:

    1. You're not facing X - Go to Orchard in the area near the Wheep and stand and fight the wraiths. By default when in melee range they and shadows are roughly in your position, but often are at just the backside (flanking bonus). Also, there are plenty of cases where monsters will rapidly orbit the player. For casters, this wastes resources/melee simply time and strikes. Demonstrable by heading to the orchard/wheep area with melee and stand and swing. Count the frequency with which you need to adjust position to attack and hit something.

    2. Following from the Wraith example, I am current in fighter lives for a twf character. Given the change in AI of wraiths and similar monsters to charge up a special attack out of melee range and then move in to proc it, I think all of the anti-twitch/anti-melee kiting code for twf has become ridiculous. The monsters move in ways that cause the melee player to update their position more frequently, which triggers the anti-twitch/anti-kite mechanisms to reset attack chains and start dropping attacks. Funny thing about all of the anti-kiting implementations is that kiting has just been moved to a caster/ranged only thing where melee run after swinging to try to find the right offset from the monster being kited by ranged/casters.

    3. Following the movement example. Fighting with a radiance 2 or equivalent gets hilarious at times. My current case being twf with radiance 2. When monsters get blinded then they start moving more frequently and more irregularly. Through the aforementioned anti-kiting you can stand still swinging and not be able to hit a fidgeting monster until they stop their current movement path. Sometimes they will move like an asterisk where they move one player width in a direction, move back to original position, then repeat in another random direction until their movement order is done. Best way to replicate the frustration: high hit point self healing monster such as a loremaster (GH quest) or drow cleric (SotO). Fight one on one. By all means try to lock them in a corner. When they walk through you that will make things even more fun for you. ^^

    4. Bat Anti-Trap Spray. Run Cabal for One with traps on with a highly geared rogue. Trigger traps via stealth and watch monsters simply walk through them unharmed. Additionally, when you fight them, they will gravitate to the trap areas for tactical advantage due to scaling damage based on adventure difficulty. Removing quid pro quo for monsters in traps will cause massive frustration due to the fact that the flame jet sure hurts the player well enough. Also Bat Anti-Trap Spray removes one way a thinking player can solve a scenario. Flexibility in solving problems is what makes this game shine. I am sure that it can be frustrating from the dev side of the house when an enterprising player figures out a good strategy.

    5. High monster DCs against skills/feats. DCs often require a binary approach to character development. Try tripping your average monster later in game with a reasonably strengthed melee. Rarely happens. From a step back and look at the situation, a character who can lift 28000 lbs cannot unseat a 300 lb monster. At 28000lbs lift you should be able to pick up the monster by the leg and slam it back and forth with ease. The best part being, if the trip is successful you get maybe 1-3 seconds of trip effect.

    6. Bear Traps. Goes back to the reasonably strengthed melee. To begin to break out of a bear trap period, you need a +18 (or at least a 36 strength) iirc. That is borderline requiring rage boost to shorten a 15 second quest disruption in quest tempo. Plus, how do the bear traps reset themselves? (granted they are immune to the above mentioned anti-trap spray)

    7. Things that have made this game shine tend to be thoughtful ideas that do or at least used to work. Vorpals, stat damagers, banishers, etc. were things that rewarded preparation. Those have been systematically removed. However, rewarding a player for coming up with a well thought out solution is the way to keep them coming back. Punish them and the opposite effect comes in to play.

    8. I understand this is used to deliver exposition, but having monsters that remain gold to force a plot element can be incredibly frustrating. Case in point the lizardman from quest 2 in the new quest. Please try to avoid those situations where you should be able to interact but can't because of quest mechanic. Please avoid mechanisms that enforce the "Player, you failed because we made you fail." story mechanic because there is another adage: "You tried and you failed, so the moral of the story is... never try."

    9. Being 2nd to the exposition in the quest you are undertaking is annoying and others have mentioned that. Elminster's bask in my awesomeness, and the Harpers' we are teh awesomesauce bardz rule 4 evar will blunt the player's purpose. Others have mentioned this before. There is even a note in the King's Forest where Elminster says he needs the help of other adventurers because he can't be everywhere at once. Yet based on quests, he is sure able to show up after the work is done and claim credit. A.K.A the Pikeminster references. I am waiting for the Drizzt quest where he cameos and does nothing except look awesome, relate his awesomeness and claim credit for the player's actions. Remove that tactic from quest production and have the groups/factions/people actually show genuine appreciation, then the FR content may be enjoyed by more people. Grand scale Netherese quests in a nutshell: You claim evil scroll pieces and hand them to Harpers. Harpers screw up. You fix harpers' mistake. Harpers pop in with Elminster, steal the scroll and vanish.

    That's all I can think of for now...

  3. #263
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRobai View Post
    1) Most of the forumites are not so active players, so obviously they don't like decay.

    2) The original guild decay was well thought and well done (the true decay means that not every guild should be able to get lvl 100, but at the current decay rate EVERY large guild = lvl 100, eventually).

    3) More large guilds = Less pug runs = Less LMF's = Death of the game

    4) Who likes the fact that you need more xp when you TR a first lifer?
    Is is a good thing? Yes.
    Similar thing is for renown decay, i.e. nobody will say that they like it, despite it's a good thing for the game.

    5) If decay is to be removed then guild levels will have no meaning since all guilds will be lvl 100 eventually.
    Moreover, this can be abused:
    a group of active friends join a guild and get it to lvl 100, then drop that guild and join other guild, etc.
    Actually this might become even this: <player> in harbor tells you: please join my guild, help our guild get lvls, you are in lvl 100 so don't waste renown please.
    From what I've seen the forumites are much more active than the average player. just look at the nerdrage in the epic tr thread because people will lose all their maxed out destinies. Very few people in game actually have all their destinies maxed out.

    I do agree that the decay measurement, if it stays, needs to be based on players to have any meaning at all and to be fair.

    i just don't like decay because it prevents new players from sticking with the game and it angers some people enough they stop playing the game. it also keeps people from that took a break from coming back to the game.

    No other game besides DDO loses so many people because of the guild system. It's by far the worst system out there and there is only reason why that is - decay. Decay frustrates people for the same reason losing ED progress loses people - they want to keep what they earn. The average player won't come to the forums to complain about decay - they will just stop playing.

  4. #264
    Community Member ssgcmwatson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charononus View Post
    But the other side of this is that it makes players less likely to want to group with new players who will just cost them 10%xp on a tr life that already needs a lot of xp and farming. Getting rid of it makes grouping more friendly for new players.
    Compromise - If you die, lose the 10%. If someone else dies, lose 5% (like hireling deaths).
    UDR Loot Rules:
    1) No griefing people for pulling loot that dropped in their name
    2) When rolling, classes for which the item is "useful" get +10 to the roll
    example: Wiz and Barb both roll on a Torc, the barb saying "I'm TRing into an arcane next week"
    Wiz gets +10 on his roll

  5. #265
    Community Member redspecter23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    3,688

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ssgcmwatson View Post
    Compromise - If you die, lose the 10%. If someone else dies, lose 5% (like hireling deaths).
    I already hear too many stories about how the "healer" was so horrible. If players lost personal potential xp when they died, the whining from those that can't keep themselves alive would be directly thrown at the "healer"

    Now personally while leveling up, I rarely have a "healer" in my groups, but I know that not everyone plays that way. Having players lose their bonus when they die will lead to butthurt toward healers in groups that play traditional roles.
    Kaarloe - Degenerate Matter - Argonnessen

  6. #266
    2015 DDO Players Council Seikojin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    gamertown usa
    Posts
    6,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MajMalphunktion View Post
    Hey

    Give me your thoughts on the following. Be verbose, but not 'it sucks' I need 'it sucks because of'

    Enhancements

    Guild Decay

    Whatever your pet peeve is.

    Thanks.
    Enhancements:
    The current/old system:
    I dislike it because it is a chore to shore up and build out a character. Also the enhancements can, but don't offer much flavor to any given build; save the pre's.
    The new/unreleased system:
    I loved it 95% of the way through. The UI is sweet, the option to pick multiple pre trees from the same class is nice. I loved the new gameplay features it all added. Some really nice combos came out of it in test. However, I think the costs need to be shored up, maybe have tierable abilities give per level mark instead of AP spent into it, class features should be free (AP spent in tree and level req), racial points should count towards class req's as well... Maybe more pre's? But it was awesome.

    Guild Decay:
    I am fine with my guilds decay. At level 81, it is taking time to get to 82, given how few of the members are playing. Luckilly, we are ahead of the decay. I think maybe a locked in stone or baked level should be in place, so no matter how inactive some guildies are, you cannot decay back to level 26. Say you can decay 10 levels before it stops?

    Pet Peeve:
    Feats:
    I think we need a few melee combat feats. Like bullrush and overrun. We have mechanics for dashing, now we need trip procs.

    Loot:
    I would like to see junk loot useable in craftier ways. Like gems used in player made augments. I would like to see items that allow more resources from deconning items.

    Epic content:
    I personally feel every quests should have an epic version. But that is a pipe dream as so far. Hopefully Epic Vale comes soon. With Epic GS.

    Heroic content:
    I really wish every difficulty included an expanded version of the quest. Like Casual and norm are the same map/mob distro (distribution), hard had more rooms, traps, puzzles, encounters, elite had even more, with some difficult boss fight in it guaranteed. Maybe up the exp rewards to account for it, but make it feel unique and worth the effort. Definitely make Hard and elite something you question with any solo build.

    Player made content:
    I would like to see it exist. Neverwinter is showing how Player made content can exist, is viable, and worth every effort to utilize, both community side and player side.

  7. #267
    Community Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    15

    Default

    Enhancements:
    AP costs are just bad, hopefully that will be sorted.
    Like the UI definitely improvement on old had to happen.
    Three tree restrictions and class abilities costing AP have to go.
    Wait and see on borking of classes, as some if it is true are so bad it must be a ploy at the same time see real possibilities for others if with point 1 is taken into account.

    Decay has to go never have i seen so much anger and frustration over something that is easily fixed.

    ETR: safe to say my 1 fully capped first life tune who was built to tr will never be doing that just maxed Destinies ready to tr, was really painful played one session in 10 for fun the rest was "working" on capping dest def not fun but with a goal. Now goal posts been moved will stay at level.


    Peeves: More focus on content! Epic level existing quests would be nice new content would be better.
    Now TR is out of the picture will just keep leveling up first lifers without tr xp pen i guess until i stop having fun.

    Genuinely love the game is my favorite downtime activity.
    It's great to see Turbine actually interacting with fanbase as they can probably deduce there is a lot of passionate ddo gamers if Turbine is actually listening and moves the game forward taking the fans into account hopefully we will have a great timekiller, escapist game for years to come.
    If they just break it... well ESO is out next year and myself and my money goes were i'm having fun.
    OH and BTcoe random gear really has to go.

  8. #268
    Community Member Singular's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,792

    Default Nice

    Wow, it's great you're asking the player base for our opinions! Thank you.

    Pet Peeves:
    1. the targeting issue for casters - few things are more annoying and difficult to work with.
    2. broken class feats/enhancements. Why release Combat Archery, for eg, when it doesn't work?
    3. the lack of communication - would love more investment in the community. I'd like to see Turbine reply to our questions more - For eg., "why is Combat Archery not working?" "We are trying to get it up and running, but running into these kinds of problems...(list)." etc. That would immediately tell us you're working on these issues, how, and why they take so long to fix.
    4. The XP grind from levels 18-20. There are just too few xp quests (or too few quests with good xp) for these levels to not drag on.
    5. The lack of a raid in the new "expansion" and that, as a VIP, I'm asked to pay for that. Please note, as a caveat, the expansion might be totally worth real cash in the form of entertainment and level cap increase, maybe new classes. If so, I'd like to also see content that is simply new, available to VIPs, and not "expansion" to remind me why I stay VIP.
    Last edited by Singular; 06-16-2013 at 07:54 PM.

  9. #269
    Time Bandit
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,028

    Default

    Enhancements
    Never bothered to look at them, so no comments.

    Guild Decay
    I think very few things demonstrate Turbine's missteps in design direction as clearly as how it implemented the guild renown system and the subsequent changes to it. This focus on renown decay rather than other aspects of the system shows how Turbine continues to focus on the wrong issues with the system.

    Turbine has stated multiple times that its intention is for a "size-neutral" guild renown system, that the renown system shouldn't favor guilds of one size over another. Plainly, this means that the size of guild a player joins shouldn't directly affect the benefits that he gets from the system, so that players can decide which size of guild they want to join without worrying about the renown system distorting that decision.

    However, from the start, the system has always been heavily stacked in favor of large guilds. This can be shown both on a mathematical basis from how the guild renown system works, as well as on an observational basis from empirical data from the MyDDO leaderboards.

    From a mathematical standpoint, the easiest way to see this is to consider how much renown is needed to reach certain benefits. For example, to get the benefits of guild level 50, a guild needs a total of 6,250,000 renown. If the guild has 100 players, each will need to pull in 62,500 renown, or 62.5 legendary victories (each worth 1000 renown). If the guild has 6 players, then each legendary victory is worth 4000 renown thanks to the small guild size bonus, but since there are only 6 people, each will have to pull 6,250,000/6/4000 = 260.4 legendary victories, over 4 times more than a 100-account guild. This is akin to Turbine saying that you need 1.9 million XP to hit level 20 as a first-lifer -- or 7.9 million XP if you prefer grouping with close-knit friends. Even multiple TR XP isn't this bad.

    Thus Turbine effectively told players, regardless of if they were casual or powergamer, that under the renown system, the more members they recruit, the less effort they'd have to put in to get a certain level of benefits. The system rewarded guilds for simply being large, contrary to Turbine's stated position.

    This trend can be seen even from the earliest days of when the guild renown leaderboards were put up. At the end of August, 2010, two months after the release of the renown system (which was near the end of June, 2010), the median guild level of active large guilds (which I will define as guilds having 501 or more characters; the effect exists regardless of which number of characters you use, although the resulting values will of course change) was already level 41. The median guild level of all other active guilds? Level 9. Just by having lots of characters, presumably meaning more players (although the correlation isn't perfect), a guild could just about guarantee being at the top. In fact, out of the 14456 other guilds with 500 or less characters, only 41 were level 38 or higher -- that's 0.28% of everybody else, while half of large guilds had already hit level 41.

    Fast forward to two years after the renown system was released, to a dataset from July 1, 2012. Only guilds that were already present in August 2010 were included (thus, excluding guilds that were created after the original dataset), so it's only looking at "old" guilds. Also, only guilds whose renown had changed in June, 2012, indicating they were still active, were included (thus, excluding guilds which were no longer active). Of this "reduced" dataset, the median level for all guilds with 500 or less characters was level 32. In other words, guilds with 501 or more characters were at a higher guild level on average after two months than all other guilds on average after two years of effort. And in the time it took those other old guilds to reach level 32, the median guild level for those old active large guilds was level 71. In contrast, only 6.3% of all other old active guilds were level 71 or higher (and only 3.9% of old guilds with 150 or less characters, which I'll typically call "small").

    Furthermore, the lowest old large guild was level 49. What this means is that if a guild were around in August 2010, still active in June 2012, and had 501 or more characters, it was guaranteed to be level 49 or higher, no matter how casual it was or how little effort it put into renown or how little it understood about how the renown system worked. Again by contrast, only the most active 23.6% of all other old guilds was level 49 or higher.

    It's against this backdrop that complaints about renown decay exploded in June/July of 2012. Supposedly large guilds couldn't compete and deserved help because they had casual players while small guilds were all powergamer guilds and large guilds were the ones supporting Turbine's casual players (despite the most casual large guild already at a higher guild level than all but a small fraction of the most active of all other guilds). Supposedly the renown system was rigged against large guilds, even though the math and the evidence showed otherwise. But the forums were treated with thread after thread from the same group of people complaining about decay, even though their guilds were already at a higher level than almost everybody else, and they simply belittled and disparaged anyone who disagreed, without bothering to actually substantively answer evidence that refuted their opinions.

    If Turbine or anyone else doubts that this is what occurred, they can simply look through the renown threads that cropped up at the time, not to mention the renown thread in this forum, to see these tactics still being actively used.

    Of course, what actually happened at the time was that the Build Your Guild event ended. Because large guilds leveled so quickly, many of them were already at or near their equilibrium level in the 60s-80s range, far above the vast majority of the rest of the playerbase. Build Your Guild boosted guilds at their equilibrium above what they would normally have been able to achieve, so the decay was just performing its restorative function for an equilibrium, similar to the 30% auction house cut. (The AH gives only 70% of what the buyer paid to the seller. The remaining 30% is the AH's cut. When there's a sudden influx of plat, such as if there's a plat exploit, the AH prices will spike, thus more plat gets removed from the system. After the exploit is fixed, over time the higher amount of plat being removed means more plat is exiting the system than what people gain, so eventually the prices will come down to their original levels where the 30% AH cut roughly matches how quickly people are normally able to gain plat.) Some people ascribe the renown loss to the release of MOTU, but while that also had an effect, the daily renown totals of many guilds at their equilibrium shows that they were already losing renown in the several weeks between when the Build Your Guild event ended and when MOTU was released.

    Hence the complaints about the system were coming from the players that were already hugely benefiting from the system, already in the top 5% of all active guilds. While most guilds were still struggling with how to get to those levels in the first place, the forum was inundated was complaints about how the system was working against those who were already the most successful under it.

    Thus it was pretty inscrutable for Turbine to change renown decay in October so that the one segment of guilds who were already highly rewarded under the system could accrue more benefits even more easily -- and ignored everybody else who were still struggling under the system. Renown decay for the most part affected just higher-level guilds, because it's vanishingly small at the lower levels. Furthermore, renown decay scaled by size because the other half of the renown points system, renown gain, also scaled by size -- the more members a guild had, the more renown it could gain. So under the current system, a member of a large guild not only gets benefits more quickly (the guild levels up faster since there's more people gaining renown), he also has less upkeep to maintain those benefits (since an upkeep that's constant regardless of number of accounts means that there's less that each account has to achieve if there are more accounts).

    To add insult to injury, Turbine changed renown ransack so when a guild gained a level, its renown gain would decrease. But wait a minute. At the mid-high levels (which is where most of the renown decay complainers were already at), there's upwards of over a million renown between levels. This change isn't going to affect mid-high level guilds very much. At the lower levels, however, the renown needed at each level is very small by comparison. To get from level 19 to level 20, a guild needs about 57k renown. To get from level 79 to level 80, a guild needs about 948k renown, or 16.6 times more. So (although I'm stating this sloppily) a guild near level 20 will encounter this ransack about 17 times more frequently than a guild near level 80.

    Hence, the effect of this change is that it would be even harder for low-level guilds to level up, while it didn't have much of an impact on established guilds that were already at the higher levels. Since large guilds were already at the higher levels just by sheer size, the effect of this change was to make it even harder for others to gain the same kind of benefits that large guilds could take for granted.

    So Turbine took a system which already highly encouraged people to join large guilds (join a guild with 501 or more characters and you would be 100% guaranteed at least level 49 benefits, with median level 71 benefits, after two years; join a guild with 500 or less characters and you would have a 23.6% chance of reaching level 49 or above, with median level 32), and introduced two changes that further skewed the system to benefit large guilds even more.

    The most baffling part about this is that people have already "voted with their feet" about which type of guild size they prefer. Certainly, different types of players will prefer different types of guilds; some prefer small guilds, some prefer large guilds, some prefer permadeath, some prefer social (as opposed to questing), some prefer end-game raiding, etc. But from a size perspective, Turbine has already stated and the MyDDO data shows that the majority of players are in smaller guilds.

    So by skewing the guild renown system away from most people's natural interests, Turbine is effectively shunting players toward a social structure which doesn't match what they prefer in a game, alienating the majority of players who prefer a social system where they are recognized individually and that helps build individual relationships between players. This falls far short of Turbine's statements about what the system is supposed to do.


    Turbine should consider some fundamental questions about the game regarding the guild renown system (and the guild system in general): What is the purpose of the guild renown system? How does the guild renown system help Turbine's bottom line? Does the renown system as it is currently implemented help Turbine achieve their intent for the system? If not, what changes should be made so that it does?

    Turbine should come up with their own answers, but I'll suggest some here:

    * Purpose of the guild system:
    The guild system should complement the server system. The server system has a variety of chat channels (general, advice, trade, etc.) as well as an LFM system for players to meet unfamiliar players (i.e. PUGs). The guild system should complement this by providing an environment where players can self-organize around their own interests, whether permadeath, roleplaying, social chatting, raiding, exploring quests, whatever. Thus, players can develop closer relationships with those that match their interests most closely. Different players will have different playstyles, and that also includes how many fellow players they prefer to be with them in the guild. Some people will prefer small static groups, some will prefer more people to interact with, and that's perfectly fine.

    * How the system helps Turbine's bottom line
    Ultimately, Turbine is a for-profit company, and so its every action should boil down directly or indirectly to how it helps Turbine increase their profitability in some form. Under the original incarnation of the renown system, Turbine's stated intent was that most guilds should be able to reach the mid-levels so that they are able to enjoy most of the benefits of the system, and that the levels beyond that were intended to be difficult to reach and maintain, with the benefits being fewer and less significant, so that it's more about social "bragging rights" rather than in-game benefits.

    The form this took was that guilds could gain renown by playing, but renown decay would take away some of the gains periodically (daily), and increasingly at the higher levels. Thus, guilds would eventually settle down to a guild level where the average renown gain of the guild each day roughly matched the renown decay each day. If the guild wanted to access better benefits or wanted the social prestige of a higher level, it would have to be more active, i.e. encourage its members to play more, by making its members more interested in the game. Thus, Turbine's bottom line is improved because with players more interested in the game, they'll presumably also send more money Turbine's way.

    The function that renown decay served in this scheme was to encourage activity: a guild where people played more and got more renown each day, would be a guild that was rewarded with higher levels and thus, better benefits. As a side feature, a guild's level would serve as a signal of how active the members of a guild were: a higher guild level would indicate that the members on average logged in more than members of a guild with a lower guild level.

    Under the present system, because renown decay no longer scales with the number of accounts, there is no longer any incentive for (large) guilds to encourage its members to be more active and be more interested in the game. Because renown decay no longer scales, there is never any drawback from a renown perspective for large guilds to induct an additional person; they cannot decrease the guild's renown in any way (for a small guild under a size renown bonus, an additional person would reduce the size bonus and thus everyone's renown gain, so an additional person can still hurt the guild's renown, and the incentive to motivate the player be more interested in the game still exists). Any renown the member gains is the guild's to keep; even if the member is booted for not logging on, the guild will still keep 75% of whatever the member gained. Because any additional member will always mean a net renown gain (or at worst, 0 net gain if they didn't gain any renown), from a renown standpoint there is no need to consider if the additional member is a suitable fit for the member, if they have matching interests, or if the guild is the right guild to help the additional member become more excited about the game (and in the process, send money to Turbine to see more of the content). Since it is much easier effort-wise to mass recruit and mass expel than to take the time to personally engage each member and give them a reason to continue logging in, this is now the dominant strategy for guild leveling under the present system. Without the incentive to keep its members interested, however, and thus not spending much effort in this regard, such guilds don't really help Turbine's bottom line.

    * Does the renown system as it is currently implemented help Turbine achieve their intent for the system?
    The importance of this question is to ascertain if Turbine's implementation of the renown system matches their stated goals for the system. There's a difference between a designer's intended outcome for a system, and its actual implemented behavior.

    Turbine has stated multiple times since the renown system was first introduced that the system should be accessible to all types of players and guilds, and specifically that it shouldn't cater to one particular size over another (i.e. it should be size-neutral).

    Under both the previous system and the current system, each member of a 100-account guild only has to gain half as much renown to reach a given guild level as each member of a 50-account guild. Alternatively, the 100-account guild would get to a guild level and start enjoying its benefits twice as quickly. Although guilds below 50 accounts get a size bonus on the renown gain, the guild's effective size for renown gain (i.e. taking the bonus into account) always increases with more players. That is, a 6-account guild has a +300% bonus so it effectively gains renown like a 24-account guild, but a 7-account guild has a +285% bonus so it effectively gains renown like a 26.95-account guild, etc. So under both the previous system and the current system, renown gain rewards guilds for being larger, contrary to Turbine's stated intent.

    After Turbine's change in October, renown decay now depends only on a guild's level, rather than also scaling by size as it used to. This means that a guild at a certain level has the same upkeep regardless of if it has 6 members or 600 members gaining renown. Since a guild's renown gain is what counters renown decay, the above about renown gain now also applies to renown decay. Each member of a 50-account guild has to put twice the effort into renown as each member of a 100-account guild, in order to maintain the same level of benefits.

    So under the current system, if you are deciding between a 50-account guild or a 100-account guild, consider that in the 50-account guild you will have to earn twice as much renown to get the same benefits as the 100-account guild, and that you will also have to pay twice the upkeep each day in order to maintain those benefits. And I've been using 50- and 100-account guilds for comparison, but in reality, there are guilds of size 1 all the way up to over 600 accounts in the game. So is the system size-neutral? Obviously not, despite what some people continue to claim about the system.

    * If not, what changes should be made so that it does?
    This depends on Turbine's answers to the previous questions. Does Turbine believe that people who play the game more should get greater rewards? That was the essence of the original system, even though it already favored guilds for simply being large (because it took so long for the vast majority of smaller guilds to reach those levels where renown decay would have a sizable effect). Does Turbine still believe that the guild renown system should be relatively size-neutral, or do they believe that the system is working as intended in giving overwhelming advantages to guilds for simply being large without regard to their quality or activity?

    Beyond that, I think enough people have made suggestions into the mathematical structure of the guild system, that would be much more relevant once Turbine has decided on the above. For example, if Turbine no longer feels like guild levels should be a signal of member activity, but instead just guild longevity, then Turbine should just do away with guild decay, so that guilds eventually reach level 100 just having members put renown into the guild pot for a long enough time. If Turbine feels like the guild renown system really should be (relatively) size-neutral, then it should adjust the bonuses based on guild size so that it would more reflect current realities. Currently, the size bonus ends at 50 accounts; Turbine when implementing the system probably felt that 50 accounts was considered pretty large, and Fernando Paiz's own words implied this as well. Turbine probably didn't foresee the rise of 100-, 200-, and 600-account guilds due to how much the renown system favored guilds for simply being large, who got to the top 1-2% of all guilds in guild levels and then promptly spammed the forums complaining about how the system disfavored them, once the higher levels was more about how well a guild engaged its members rather than sheer size (which implies more things about such guilds than anything else). Enlarging the size bonus range and increasing its magniture is the easiest way (least coding changes needed) Turbine could make the guild renown system more size-neutral, if that is still one of Turbine's objectives.

    For guild upkeep, rather than renown decay, there are a variety of different possible systems. For example, Turbine could switch to a system where renown is essentially guild currency, which is deducted whenever a member uses a ship amenity. This will automatically adjust the upkeep between infrequent and active players; casual players bring in less renown but presumably, also don't use ship buffs much. It will also automatically adjust for the number of members of a guild; more members mean more people gaining renown but also more people deducting renown, so it will be size-neutral. By making the top-notch amenities more expensive, this can also allow players to adjust their costs based on their type of guild: a guild filled with lower-level, newer players probably don't need the top-notch amenities as much, so they could use cheaper "good enough" amenities, while an end-game powergamer guild may want every last bit of advantage they can get out of the guild system, and be willing to pay top dollar and expend more effort for the best amenities. This will also directly tie in a guild's upkeep to its benefits, just like how people are accepting of spending plat to repair gear after questing (so no questing means no repair costs); for example, the AH cut is more acceptable to players because it directly ties in to people who use it, rather than automatically deducting a certain percentage of plat from people every day.

    There are other possible systems. However, it comes down to Turbine's vision for guilds, and it is difficult for players to give constructive advice without Turbine giving feedback on their vision first. In the meantime, Turbine should consider what changes they can easily make to the current renown system as it is, to make it more balanced while Turbine works on possible new systems.

    Pet Peeves
    There are a variety of them. Let's see:

    How Turbine takes input from the forum community
    When filtering forum community comments to pass on to developers for design changes, Turbine should consider what types of players are providing the feedback, and filter accordingly. Although Turbine should try to have DDO appeal to as wide of a customer base as is profitable, design changes can affect the entire customer base, so Turbine should consider them carefully, including their source if the design changes are from the community.

    For example, Turbine should consider:

    * Does the player simply provide unsupported statements/opinions, or does he give justification and evidence for his position? If a player does not or cannot provide some support for what he is saying, it implies that he hasn't actually thought through what he says, he doesn't know how something works, and/or that his statement is actually wrong. It also implies that the player doesn't actually understand the subject matter at hand. Presumably, Turbine should be more receptive of advice that comes from understanding of the facts and thoughtful consideration than from knee-jerk reaction. For example, if a player says "I don't get why this is even in the game. Turbine should get rid of it!" he is demonstrating the fallacy of Chesterton's fence, and that he isn't competent to discuss the issue, so Turbine shouldn't bother considering him with regards to a design change (Turbine should, however, consider him with regards to better communicating Turbine's intent on it). The reason briefly stated is that if the person doesn't understand something's purpose, then he isn't knowledgeable enough to determine whether or not its purpose is relevant (i.e. whether it should be there or be removed).

    * Does the player present fallacious arguments? If Turbine can catch a player making them, then it should wonder how many the player made that Turbine didn't catch. It also implies that at best the player is confused about the issue, or at worst trying to find any reasoning to support his position (i.e. "grasping at straws") rather than having his position be based on the the facts of the matter. Turbine should give thought to whether or not a player's reasoning is sound, and whether or not a player's position is defensible and has merit.

    * Does the player present inconsistencies? For example, does the player advocate an "this should be easy for me, hard for thee" position on issues? If a player presents one standard for himself or his own type of player, but yet presents another (higher) standard for others, it shows he's just advocating what would be good for himself, not necessarily what would be good for the game. If a player is being inconsistent in his positions, it also shows he isn't reliable as a source of advice since his assumptions keep changing.

    * Does the player obscure the issues, or does he elucidate them? Does the player address the topic at hand, or does he bring up lots of tangential side issues and erroneous arguments to try and derail the thread or mislead others? If a player can't discuss an issue clearly, but simply brings in histrionics, then it shows he hasn't thought through the logic, and/or he has but does not want its implications known and is thus trying to maneuver the topic away from its logical conclusions, making it harder for people to understand the issues.

    * Does the player disparage other players without addressing the substance of their arguments? Ad hominem attacks are ostensibly against the forum rules, although they occur often and don't get moderated. From Turbine's standpoint in terms of getting advice, however, a player who resorts to ad hominem instead of addressing another player's arguments shows that he is unwilling to actually address the issues at hand, which implies that they know their position is unreasonable (but naturally, doesn't want to admit it). The same goes for someone who only superficially addresses opposing points (such as simply saying it's wrong without having a substantive explanation of why). Such behavior indicates that the player is only trying to frustrate and waste other players' time (i.e. trolling) rather than rationally discuss the subject. Note that there's a difference between showing that a player's arguments are wrong, and disparaging the player.

    * Does the player respond to criticisms and opposing viewpoints, or does he simply ignore or dismiss them out-of-hand without providing a reasoned defense, and then repeat his position? There's a difference between someone addressing the logic or the evidence behind someone else's position, and simply saying "<So-and-so> is wrong. <My position> is right." Similar to the above, if someone is unwilling to confront rebuttals to their position, then it implies they know their position is untenable, and simply repeating their position without substantively addressing opposing arguments is argument by repetition rather than defending their viewpoint, not to mention possibly against the forum's spam rules. For example, in Turbine's renown thread here, from the first 3995 posts prior to the forum change, there were a total of 323 different posters. It is a straightforward matter to write a script to tabulate just how many posts each poster made. The top 13 posters were:

    Code:
    Name		Posts	%OfPosts
    Tshober		402	10.06%
    Gremmlynn	347	8.69%
    slarden		331	8.29%
    eris2323	304	7.61%
    UurlockYgmeov	292	7.31%
    Dandonk		214	5.36%
    Chaos000	196	4.91%
    Hendrik		164	4.11%
    Nestroy		136	3.40%
    theslimshady	131	3.28%
    smatt		99	2.48%
    DocBenway	91	2.28%
    Charononus	84	2.10%
    I truncated the list here because there's a significant gap between that and the next person (Artos_Fabril at 57) and that's the last big gap, so the remainder is the main body of the distribution (i.e. this is the tail). So out of the first 3995 posts, about 70% were made by the same 13 people, or 4% of the 323 contributors. I leave it to Turbine to determine how many different points they actually brought up and how substantively they've addressed the issues being brought up, especially opposing viewpoints; I would venture to guess that for some, there were probably less than 5 to 10 different points presented, with the rest simply dismissing other players and restating already-made points, without further evidence or substantiation. I also leave it to Turbine to determine whether or not this is representative of the forum community (or even just of the 323 people that have posted in the thread), and of the playerbase community in general, for Turbine to consider feedback on renown.


    Figuring out which points from the forums are worth passing on to the developers for further consideration is a daunting task, due to the amount of posts that are generated by the forum community every day. Because of this, it would serve Turbine's forum team to figure out which players can demonstrate understanding of the facts and provide useful feedback, and which are simply generating noise for their own selfish purposes. Although this filter should be applied broadly to the various issues discussed on the forums especially regarding changes to the game, one thread where it would be especially fruitful would be the renown thread, where examples of all of the above are plentiful. For example, the same people who were previously saying that renown decay was forcing them to remove members from their guild (in other words, they do not consider encouraging members to be more active to be a reasonable option for them, and it's the system's fault and not the players' responsibility) are now telling others that they their guilds just need to be more active (in other words, encouraging members to be more active is a reasonable option for other guilds, and it's the players' responsbility and not due to the system, despite the renown system requiring members of other guilds to collect multiple times the renown in order to get the same benefits).

    How Turbine moderates the forums
    From an enforcement standpoint, Turbine should consider moderation to be rewarding good behavior and punishing bad behavior, and consider their actions in light of this. For example, moderation tends to be fairly uneven, with some people violating the rules multiple times each week yet are still allowed to post week after week, while others get infractions for misspelling a word. Turbine also tends to close threads that get derailed, rather than just remove the offending posts and hand out infractions to the people responsible for derailing the thread. This is damaging to the forum community by encouraging the forum's version of heckler's veto: If someone doesn't like how a discussion is going or doesn't want the issue to be discussed in the first place (in both cases likely because he doesn't want to deal with rebuttals to his position, he knows that the issue isn't favorable to him, or he has an indefensible position and wants to steer attention away from that), he can simply start a flame war or derail the thread with irrelevant side points or personal attacks until the moderators lock it. This thus stifles discussion on what may be a valid issue since people will be uncertain if they are allowed to make a new thread on it to continue discussion, but more importantly, rewards disruptive players because their objective of stopping the discussion has been achieved, and they are free to continue being disruptive to the community the next time there's something they don't like, rather than advancing the discussion forward.

    Instead, Turbine should remove offending posts, give infractions to those who made them, and leave the thread open for further discussion. Turbine should also hand out successively heavier infractions for repeated instances of this (as well as other rule-breaking) to discourage this type of disruptive behavior.

    Design consideration
    Turbine should more thoroughly access the effects of its design changes. For example, the stated reason for increasing renown ransack was to "prevent large guilds from completely dominating the field in terms of levels per-day." In reality, large guilds were already at too high of a level to be gaining multiple levels each day, while it's almost everybody else, i.e. most small guilds, that were and are still at the lower levels and hence negatively impacted by this change. So the change on its face was supposedly to help even the field and reduce a large guild's exorbitant advantages over a smaller guild, while in reality it predominantly ends up hurting smaller guilds.

    The design consideration should consider social consequences of the changes. I've already discussed above how the change to renown decay no longer rewards guilds for making members more interested in the game but instead fosters a "pump and dump" mentality toward new players (decreasing player retention and thus hurting Turbine's bottom line), so I won't repeat it here. But there are plenty of other examples. Take the stones of XP, which boosts characters from level 8 to level 16. Ostensibly it helps people bypass early content so people can get to the endgame more quickly. However, level 8 content is substantially different from level 16 content; higher level quests are more difficult, where players should have an adequate understanding of things like heavy fort, deathblock, DR, the different roles of people in a group and how to work together, to ensure success. That DDO experience and knowledge was originally built up by players working through progressively more difficult content during those levels; a level 16 was an indicator that the person has (hopefully) gone through that experience and learned about some of those game mechanics in doing so, although this was of course not universal.

    By letting characters jump directly from level 8 to level 16, Turbine has mixed in players that haven't gone through that experience, and built up those DDO skills and knowledge. Furthermore, those players have a different expectation for how hard elite difficulty is and the scope of quests for their level. Essentially, some level 16 players will treat level 16 quests as if they were level 8 quests. Thus, for a level 16, it becomes more difficult to take in other unknown level 16's than before, since they may not be prepared for the content, mentally if not in terms of gear as well. So the social consequence of this is that people will become less likely to take an unknown character into the group, since there is now a wider range of preparedness and expectation for level 16+ content -- in other words, less LFMs.

    Miscellany
    * Hireling AI should be improved (already mentioned). I personally would want a "don't move no matter what, but continue doing actions" option as well as a "don't attack enemies, but continue other actions such as healing" options, so that the healer hireling I purposely placed in a safe spot doesn't run forward and begin attacking monsters when I run back to it for heals, thereby drawing aggro and dying and more importantly, not healing me when I need it.
    * Inventory management (already mentioned) -- do we really need a set of new ingredients/collectables every update? They simply lead to more clutter.
    * Lag. It's frustrating to wipe not because of bad strategy or unpreparedness but simply because the whole group freezes up until everyone is dead. We were told we would have more information and improvements on this issue, but I don't think I've seen any.
    * Guild system. Other than the points aspect of the renown system, the system itself could stand some improvement. For example, there should be more ranks with different abilities at each rank, rather than simply leader/officer/member. There should also be some way to input which player owns each character, although I imagine there may be some privacy issues with that so it may not be automatic, but the field should be available (even if the value needs to be manually put in). Others have discussed this elsewhere.

  10. #270

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seikojin View Post
    Player made content:
    I would like to see it exist. Neverwinter is showing how Player made content can exist, is viable, and worth every effort to utilize, both community side and player side.
    I agree as long as it does not grant xp.

  11. #271
    Community Member SteeleTrueheart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,710

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MajMalphunktion View Post
    Enhancements
    New or Current Enhancement system?

    5 years already since the enhancement revamp was announced. Come off it, get it finished already.
    Paladin enhancements seem a bit outdated now, since they were the first to get a revamp and all the others got 'bigger and better' as more thoughts were put into the abilities.
    New system. 1 tree per class please, not 1 per PrE as core class ability enhancements can not be divided into PrE trees. Look at Swtor, they managed big trees, your playerbase will figure it out, we are not completely stupid (just the ones who fill in the exit survey 2 days after starting)

    Quote Originally Posted by MajMalphunktion View Post
    Guild Decay
    I am in a large guild that has quite a few non active members, especially between updates. We have gotten to the level of renown earned = renown decay at level 69. Though there is not that much at high level that we really need to aspire to so not too worried.

    Quote Originally Posted by MajMalphunktion View Post
    Whatever your pet peeve is.
    Bugs and lack of content.

    Content
    Quests > system changes. Let me make sure you understand properly, for me (and anyone else like me) more new quests is 10x more important than yet another new system change. All quests should have a time taken (measured objectively) vs xp reward that is equal across all quests of the level.

    Bugs
    I have bug reported the Endless Smiting ability in the Paladin epic destiny as it does not reduce the timer on the regeneration of smites. (It is supposed to reduce the smite regeneration time of 90 secs by 10% each tier, it remains 90 secs at any tier) I have bug reported this in EVERY update since the original destiny was released. EVERY UPDATE. I know I have because I have the canned email responses in a folder in my email account. Fixed? no. Acknowledged? No. Makes me want to fill in bug reports to help this game? No.
    Last edited by SteeleTrueheart; 06-16-2013 at 08:25 PM. Reason: typos
    Khyber - Officer in The Stormreach Thieves Guild
    Steeles (TR 1 Paladin 20 / 8 Epic - TWF) - Steeley (Monkadin - Pal 18/Monk 2/ 8 Epic - Unarmed) - Steeltruhart (TR1 Paladin 17 - S&B Bastardsword) - Steelforged (Pal 20 / 8 Epic - SWF) - Steeltruhurt (TR1 - Pal 8 / Ftr 2 - THF) Steelsouls (Clr 17 / Pal 3 /8 Epic)

  12. #272
    Community Member Oxarhamar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    5,555

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MajMalphunktion View Post
    Hey

    Give me your thoughts on the following. Be verbose, but not 'it sucks' I need 'it sucks because of'

    Enhancements

    Guild Decay

    Whatever your pet peeve is.

    Thanks.


    Enhancements. I have no problems with the enhancement system

    Guild decay. It could be less. the system as it is now lets small guils grow faster than others but mostly rewards large guilds with the recent changes.

    Pet Peeve. BANK SPACE. with level cap increasing and new options for TRing coming that means more gear for more levels and there just is not enough space.

  13. #273
    The Hatchery
    2014 DDO Players Council
    Dandonk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,275

    Default

    Thank you, Vanshilar, for once again posting a detailed view on many topics, especially including the guild renown decay issue.
    It's definitely an N-word.

  14. #274
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    451

    Default It"s monday!!!!!

    And I just realized this is not the thread I thought it was.
    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.

  15. #275
    Community Member SilkofDrasnia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,490

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MajMalphunktion View Post
    Hey

    Give me your thoughts on the following. Be verbose, but not 'it sucks' I need 'it sucks because of'

    Enhancements

    Guild Decay

    Whatever your pet peeve is.

    Thanks.
    * I really dislike the proposed new enhancement pass it seems designed to bring us closer to 4e and force us into cookie cutter build choices. Kill it!

    * Guilds are suppose to be about finding like minded people, a social thing if you will. Decay has no place in it, stop wasting dev time on this and set decay to "0".

    *Bank space, there are more and more items with new content as you grind your way along yet we still are stuck with the same limited space, what is so hard about adding bank pages?

    *This is a new one, the proposed lets kill peoples previous efforts in the game by wiping their Epic destiny XP on a ETR or HTR, read the other thread if you want to know more. Think about it, I have rarely if ever seen people so unified in their dislike of something, in any thread on these forums, as the proposed Epic TR system. I mean minus a very very small handful of players everyone wants this gone.

    You know what they say, "the enemy of my enemy......"
    Last edited by SilkofDrasnia; 06-17-2013 at 12:39 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cordovan
    Insulting the development team is not allowed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jendrak
    Somebody should definitely explain to Turbine that when they roll up a new GM that INT is not dump stat.

  16. #276
    Community Member mons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MajMalphunktion View Post
    Hey

    Give me your thoughts on the following. Be verbose, but not 'it sucks' I need 'it sucks because of'

    Enhancements

    Guild Decay

    Whatever your pet peeve is.

    Thanks.

    I personally have not gone to Lama to investigate the new Enhancement proposal but given the time its been worked on and how many delays associated with it, I'd say leave them the way they are.

    Cant say much about the Guild Renown/Decay.

    I actually have many pet peeves concerning Turbine and DDO.

    - Fernando/Kate and/or the next to be thrown under the bus coming to these forums and making proclamations that are either flat out lies/empty promises or things that don't even exist. (Specifically Vast and Mysterious - Cannith Crafting to lvl 200)

    - Communication communication communication - Not just an issue on theses forums but also in Game. What is the point of having GM's if they cant/wont do anything 50% of the time let alone even reply to the issue at hand? Im not even gonna start on the supposed Customer Service.

    - Release of Content - Imo theres simply not enough of it, especially end game. Turbine has the habit of taking what exists every few years and shuffling the deck and calling it new. On top of that, a lot of things get broken that were working fine previously but get left alone because its either a) not game breaking or b) advantageous to Turbine. I understand things get broken and I understand it takes time to fix those things. What I don't understand is why they are still broken after years of being informed they are broken.

    - Game Mechanics:
    - How many times has someone tried using a scroll/wand via umd and for the life of (insert your god here) ya couldn't roll that 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 until its too late. I swear its a typo where it says you have an 85% chance of succeeding using this scroll, it should mean 85% to fail.
    - How many times has one failed a concentration check over 100 in a heroic quest. Im not sure what the constitution formula is for concentration but im pretty sure it needs reworked. A monster that is blurred has a 20% chance of you missing him, I could swing 10 times and miss on 5 of them, a displaced monster gets a 50% chance yet I miss 7 out of 10. Now flip the rules and they hit us every time.
    - Whats the percentage of a Mephit respawning after its killed? .03 or .04? How is it I see them respawn as many as 5 times consecutively?
    - I don't think I have to say anything concerning ladders.
    - One of my favorite is:
    "You are not standing in front of the trap to disable it" or "You must be standing in front of (insert here) to cast that spell"

    I have been here since day 1 and must say its the best game I've played that pertains to an MMO. It's definitely not the same game that was released in 2006 yet not much content has been added over 7+ years, just a lot of changes to what already exists. TBH im really sick and tired of the let's talk threads, what I really want to see from Turbine is more action based on the feedback given to them by the players that PAY the money to play the game and more importantly spend their time doing so. Please don't continue wasting it by implementing things we obviously don't want, we may just force ourselves to go somewhere else.
    Zerg of Thelanis


    Nepalm - 27th life completionist ~ Mons
    ~ Pandomonium - 40th life Tripletionist™



    Tyrs Paladium of Ghallanda

  17. #277
    Community Member UurlockYgmeov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere on the waters of this planet.
    Posts
    4,710

    Default

    pet peeve....

    Guild Vendor Potions.... cannot be used on others even from hotbar.... have tried this many times with remove curse, poison, etc. - they say they can..... seems like a simple fix.... not listed in known issues - is WAI or bug? If bug - kindly fix.

  18. #278
    Community Member UurlockYgmeov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere on the waters of this planet.
    Posts
    4,710

    Default

    Also- new Monday - so new thread? new question? how about some polls? Keep it up MajMal!

  19. #279
    Community Member Matsu_Ieyasu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MajMalphunktion View Post
    Hey

    Give me your thoughts on the following. Be verbose, but not 'it sucks' I need 'it sucks because of'

    Enhancements

    Guild Decay

    Whatever your pet peeve is.

    Thanks.
    Enhancements: I doubt you will find an individual that believes more the system needs to be updated than me; however what was presented as an Alpha on Lamannia left me cold and wondering if I have a future playing DDO.
    My first compliant is so many unique items in the current system were left out, I felt pigeon holed when "updating" my characters. Even though there is "more" choices in the new system there were far less usable choices for most characters. Yes I could spend some action points on flavor (and occasionally had to) but really there was so little choices.
    My second compliant is that Character Race was really left out of the choices. Well there is Dwarf of course, you have Mountain Dwarf, Hill Dwarf, Deep Dwarf....
    It would also have been nice to see Cleric Domains added to the system.
    It is my hope next time we see the system it is much more robust and streamlined (point value) as many of my builds would require 100 to 120 action points to meet their current level.

    Guild Renown: I totally understand why we have renown loss, my problem is the formula very much benefits certain type of guilds. I have four friends who play regularly, between us we play 20 to 30 hours a week. We have five others in our guild that play 5 to 10 hours, yet we are stuck in the mid 60's guild level. Are we a top guild, no but Guilds of like 500 people shouldn't fly by us either. my answer is the formula needs to change, not be scrapped.

    Pet Peeve: The number of incomplete projects in game. Where are the other two Amrath Zones, where is the rest of the Green Steel Crafting (promised to us years ago), where is...

    Pet Peeve: The lack of content in a game that is over seven years old.

    Pet Peeve: Bugs that have been around for so long that... I mean I happened to fall through the Bridge in Waterworks the other day, what's that been 8 years now since first reported.

  20. #280
    Community Member UurlockYgmeov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere on the waters of this planet.
    Posts
    4,710

    Default

    I love the fact that all quests are hand made; however sometimes DDO had better internal tools to mass make quests. Take a year and make the tools - then mass spam quests - 10 a month forever.

Page 14 of 15 FirstFirst ... 4101112131415 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