PDA

View Full Version : Guild Leveling / Patron Fix


bigmak20
07-29-2005, 08:05 PM
Most debate is around the cap so I guess I'll state the obvious --- Statement of fact: there has to be a cap on denominator or there is actually an advantage when ppl leave guilds because it increases the power of their contribution (the SP stays in guild with a lower denominator).  Note that advantage exists anywhere in guild size up to the cap (from min to max individual contribution has maximum weight... this is countered by the disadvantage of zero contribution having max penalty imo) ... so there must be some other advantage to reach cap.  Cap of 24 makes sense since that's the size of a raid party so obvious desire to have a guild achieve that size. You simply cannot increase the denominator based on guild size above 24 because there is a HUGE penalty increasing that denominator when adding a member with zero SP.  Say; for example; an end-game (L50 atm) member joins -- has done all his HQ so minimal contributor for life -- BUT they are added to the denominator so BIG DILUTION to everyone else's contribution.  Same for adding new members (will drop the guild level until the noob can contribute).  The "top XX" idea is not the answer... that only insures that member (and most others) will never be able to contribute. Any sliding scale plan has the major drawback of punishing guild for adding new members since the denominator goes up but numerator stays the same. Variable guild level based on accounts active or inactive?  Please.  Talk about a nightmare to program. This newly proposed system DOES NOT "Punish" small guilds...  where the heck is that coming from?  From 6 to 24 individuals contributions have MAXIMUM BENEFIT .. 1:1 weight!!!  Advantage: small guild.  So a big guild has more contributors... ummm YEAH.  More members = More contributors.  The small guild contributor's SP has more weight and the large guilds contributors still get to participate in helping their guild. <b>There is simply no happy ground for everyone here.  When that happens... </b><b>simple solution = best solution. Encourage growth and contribution! Hats off to the devs.</b> <div></div>

ErroneousFr
07-29-2005, 11:18 PM
<DIV><FONT size=2>I'd like to flesh out the sliding scale option a little more. Why not have something along the following lines:</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV><FONT size=2>1st x guild members count 100% (where x is 12 say)</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>2nd x guild members count 75% </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>3rd x guild members count 50% etc. etc.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>members at the end of the scale add no less than 10%.</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><FONT size=2>Adjust the percentages as needed to achieve balance. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>This way everyone's contribution counts but there is an element of getting lost in the noise if the guild is very large. </FONT><FONT size=2>A member's position in the rank is determined by their contribution and how active they are. It would be fairly easy to determine an "activity factor" based on login activity and playing time (all of which is currently recorded). People only remember what you did last so I think there has to be something akin to status decay but it should be something that does not impact a reasonably active guild and can be easily undone by a guild member becoming active again.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>For ex-members their contribution no longer increases and will eventually become less important. How you handle new members who already have status is another matter. I like the idea of their status counting but perhaps they start at the bottom of the scale, i.e., 10% even if the guild is small, and they work their way up as time progresses. After a while a star player is recognized for who they are, what they have done and who they are associated with, few remember who they were with in the early days.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Thoughts?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Dythn,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Oggok Fury</FONT></DIV>

Dr. Dr
07-30-2005, 01:42 AM
<DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ErroneousFrog wrote:<BR> <DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT></DIV><FONT size=2></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Thoughts?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Dythn,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Oggok Fury</FONT></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>There have been a couple very similar really good ideas like this, but it seems many people here don't have full capacity to reason and understand, so these ideas always get lost in obscurity.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>To get attention, your idea needs to be overly simplified and favor at least one major group of posters. :smileytongue:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><BR> </DIV>

Zapo_Stormlight
07-30-2005, 01:51 AM
<P>Any cap to the number of accounts used as a divisor helps out larger guilds.  More so depending on how large the guild grows.  There should be no advantage for a Large guild over a smaller guild.  Please remove the cap.<BR></P> <P>Advocate for: No Cap on the number of accounts used as a divisor.</P> <P> </P> <P>Having this in place will place a hardship even on my guild but I still think it will be much more fair overall.</P> <P> </P>

Tockl
07-30-2005, 02:00 AM
<P>Any system that doesn't favor a particular seized guild over another gets my vote.</P> <P>Not that I get a vote.  I don't even get to bribe.</P>

Screamin' 1
07-30-2005, 02:35 AM
<span><blockquote><hr>bigmak2010 wrote:Most debate is around the cap so I guess I'll state the obvious --- Statement of fact: there has to be a cap on denominator or there is actually an advantage when ppl leave guilds because it increases the power of their contribution (the SP stays in guild with a lower denominator).  <font color="#3399ff">I really do not understand this argument,  and it is not obvious that it is a fact. </font><span><font color="#3399ff">There is a much bigger advantage to not having a divisor larger than 24. And if you are saying that if someone leaves a guild, their status contribution goes up, that is simply not true. I have no idea what "power of their contribution" means. If I earn 10,000 points, and leave the guild, the guild still has those 10,000 points. How does the guild gain more power from my 10,000 points? Sure, the guild has a lower divisor once I leave, but it also has one less player contributing. And when a player is added, the divisor goes up. With the cap, when a player is added, the divisor stays at 24. THAT is the advantage.</font></span> Note that advantage exists anywhere in guild size up to the cap (from min to max individual contribution has maximum weight... this is countered by the disadvantage of zero contribution having max penalty imo) ... so there must be some other advantage to reach cap.  Cap of 24 makes sense since that's the size of a raid party so obvious desire to have a guild achieve that size. <font color="#3399ff">Ok, not following you here: "</font><span>this is countered by the disadvantage of zero contribution having max penalty " </span><font color="#3399ff">. HUH? I am not clear on how a cap equivalent to a Raidx4 makes sense. What are the chances all 24 players are of similar level and are on at the same time? Basically, your argument seems to be that there should be incentive to create larger guilds, with 24 active contributing accounts or many more. But since the minimum divisor is 6, this does not seem the goal of the devs, although if they leave the cap in as is, it may be. </font> You simply cannot increase the denominator based on guild size above 24 because there is a HUGE penalty increasing that denominator when adding a member with zero SP.  Say; for example; an end-game (L50 atm) member joins -- has done all his HQ so minimal contributor for life -- BUT they are added to the denominator so BIG DILUTION to everyone else's contribution.  Same for adding new members (will drop the guild level until the noob can contribute).  <font color="#3399ff">This is no different from a guild of 12 adding a new L50 player. In fact, it is worse for the guild of 12. Much worse. The cap insulates larger guilds from the problem, but does not insulate smaller ones. A guild with 24 players, adds a l50 player, the divisor goes to 25. That is a 4% difference. (This is not HUGE) A guild of 12 adds a player, the divisor goes to 13, that is an 8% difference. It is true that the larger a guild, the more inactive players it can have, and an unlimited cap can also have problems with really huge guilds. But a cap effect should apply equally to guilds of any size.</font> This newly proposed system DOES NOT "Punish" small guilds...  where the heck is that coming from?  From 6 to 24 individuals contributions have MAXIMUM BENEFIT .. 1:1 weight!!!  Advantage: small guild.  So a big guild has more contributors... ummm YEAH.  More members = More contributors.  The small guild contributor's SP has more weight and the large guilds contributors still get to participate in helping their guild. <blockquote><font color="#3399ff">It absolutely DOES punish small guilds. You explained it yourself above. A guild with 24 accounts, but with 12 of those accounts being new or casual players, is screwed. It goes from a divisor of 12 (assuming it has 12 patrons) to a divisor of 24 overnight with this change. That is punishment. This has nothing to do with the cap, btw. The cap simply prevents any guild with 24 active contributors from suffering any increase in the divisor. And guilds with more than 24 get a nice boost. One way to solve this is to have the cap be based on the guild size. Accounts    Cap 1-6              6 7-12            Size - 3 (min of 6) 13-18          Size - 4 19-24          Size - 5 etc..... This would allow larger guilds to have more float space for casual members. </font><font color="#6699ff"></font><b> </b></blockquote> </blockquote></span><div></div>

Tockl
07-30-2005, 03:52 AM
Agreed.  Why would raids be capped at a MAXIMUM of 24, but ideal guild size capped at a MINIMUM of 24?

Gorkk00
07-30-2005, 06:23 AM
<span><blockquote><hr>Tockley wrote:Agreed.  Why would raids be capped at a MAXIMUM of 24, but ideal guild size capped at a MINIMUM of 24? <div></div><hr></blockquote>Because it's most likely that with 24 accounts in guild you will nearly never have them logged on at a given time? Or that if you manage to have them all logged, part of them will be at the end of their play time, other part at the beginning? With like 130 members my guild is in the top 10 biggest guild on lucan d'lere, and this would make like maybe 50 accounts (at most). And we never had 24 people online at the same time... Sure lucan is prolly one of the most "worldwide" server, with people from Europe, US/Canada, Australia or Asia (with lots of the 2 first groups), but still it'll prolly need at least 30 accounts to get 24 of them connected at the same time for a period long enough to do a 24 raid, and it'll need even more given that most guilds have not only level 45+. So my bet is that even on other more "local" servers (eg. with people more concentrated in a particular area of the world), you will need more like 40-50 accounts in guild to allow having 24 people raids (going down to like 30-35 if there a level 50 on each account).</span><div></div>

Tockl
07-30-2005, 06:32 PM
<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gorkk00 wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Tockley wrote:<BR>Agreed.  Why would raids be capped at a MAXIMUM of 24, but ideal guild size capped at a MINIMUM of 24? <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Because it's most likely that with 24 accounts in guild you will nearly never have them logged on at a given time? Or that if you manage to have them all logged, part of them will be at the end of their play time, other part at the beginning? With like 130 members my guild is in the top 10 biggest guild on lucan d'lere, and this would make like maybe 50 accounts (at most). And we never had 24 people online at the same time... Sure lucan is prolly one of the most "worldwide" server, with people from Europe, US/Canada, Australia or Asia (with lots of the 2 first groups), but still it'll prolly need at least 30 accounts to get 24 of them connected at the same time for a period long enough to do a 24 raid, and it'll need even more given that most guilds have not only level 45+. So my bet is that even on other more "local" servers (eg. with people more concentrated in a particular area of the world), you will need more like 40-50 accounts in guild to allow having 24 people raids (going down to like 30-35 if there a level 50 on each account).<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Ok, I have to give you that one. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  In EQ1 we needed about 100 people guilded if we wanted to do 50 person raids noramally.  Still, the cap of 24 is not quite right.