TOPIC: On Reprint URs

Rob F wrote:

Fiddy wrote:

Rob F wrote:

Joshua Baessler wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Joshua Baessler wrote: If you don't want a reprint, come up with a functional replacement (Gloves of the Brute = Mithral Gauntlets) or convince everyone a reprint would be detrimental to game balance.

Neither of these solves the problem (fiscal concerns of new and existing collectors misaligned).

Creating a functional replacement craters the value of the original just as effectively as a reprint (moreso in many cases, ask anyone who owned a UR +2 weapon before the Viper Strike Fang).

Arguing that a classic token can't be reprinted due to balance reasons is I think disingenuous, if it's so bad it should be nerfed or errated. Simply keeping a broken token with those who got there first does not make for a good situation in the player base.

You're missing my point and that quote is being used out of context.

The intended point was "find another reason other than your money" to avoid reprints.

Everything you're suggesting comes across as "screw over the small collectors to protect my investment." All I'm reading is how this benefits you and other resellers.

Do you have a suggestion that is mutually beneficial?

I am aggressively against new players being charged more or having less of a chance to get a reprinted UR just because a handful of people (albeit large spenders) do not want their collection to lose value. It's wildly unfair. Tokens exist for people to play True Dungeon with. Not as an investment vehicle.

The only thing I've read anyone say that sounds even remotely fair is place UR reprints on a cycle so that everyone knows when they're coming back again. Resellers can enjoy a little appreciation for a few years and new players aren't hosed out of ever getting older tokens at a normal price.

I think my idea is fair. Include the reprinted UR's in current year Legendary transmutes. New players would still be able to acquire the UR just like they can now via $250 orders, lucky pulls from 10 packs, treasure draws, etc.

Are you basically just wanting to extend what happened this year with the Charm of Synergy (needed for Legendary Redoubt Shield)? Or am I missing your point?

Yep the CoS is a good example. New players have access to it at reasonable prices but it's value should hold a bit more since it's part of a recipe for a Token that can always be transmuted (Legendary). What's also nice is that players can use the UR reprints from any year for the Legendary which makes it more economical when looking for the ingredients. Just look at how the prices of the +2 Sacred Sling and +2 Drow Blood Mace have shot up recently.

Of course, those two examples show that maybe it's best to use lesser URs for the recipes rather than reprinted URs that are already pretty popular. I doubt there would be much demand at all for those two URs if they weren't part of those recipes. The reprinted URs will likely still be in high demand, and might still regain much or all of their secondary market value just based on how popular they are.

Mike Steele wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: As we begin the exciting discussion of UR reprints, I've been mulling something over that I wanted to put forward.

The below only pertains to non-URTE tokens, URTEs have their own challenges, but I don’t consider them relevant to immediate discussion as the printing schedules for URTEs is set through at least 2020. So let the remainder of this discussion refer to non-URTEs UR reprints.


Overview of Problem

The topic of reprinting Ultrarares brings a few reasonable player perspectives into direct conflict:

• Newer collectors want access to some of the best tokens ever printed
• Longtime collectors don’t want to see the value of their older UR tokens drop substantially

This conflict primarily exists due to True Dungeon’s “Ultra Rare Value Pack” where any current or prior year ultra rare may be acquired as a purchase bonus for the $250 price tier, and the secondary market which has put around a $95 price point on reselling PyP URs.

Diagnosis

This current system ensures that any time a valuable token is reprinted its market value immediately goes to ~$95, where it stays for ~2 years, before may begin to appreciate again, if ever.

This system also inhibits secondary market appreciation of older tokens, because many buyers are aware of the potential for reprints and won’t consider buying a non-URTE for more than $200 or so.

Goals and Ideas

I’d like to discuss some ideas that achieve the goal of:

Allow new collectors access to older tokens, without periodically crashing the value of existing collections most valuable tokens.

If you don't agree with this goal, I'd also be curious to hear what you think a good goal of a reprint policy would be.

Idea 1 - UR Only Random Reprints

Tokens could be reprinted, but not available as a Ultra Rare of your choice selection for $250 at all - only as a randomly found token in 10 packs or treasure generators.

Idea 2 - UR Reprints "Cost" Multiple PyP Selections

Reprinted tokens could be set to require 2, or even 3 or 4 UR selections. For example, a reprint of Charm of Brooching could be made that requires three $250 orders worth of PyP selections in order to receive one Charm of Brooching.

Idea 3 - UR Reprints Selections are Limited to One Per 1/2/4/8k Order :

A reprinted token would still count for only one PyP selection, but buyers would be limited to one reprint selection per 1k/2k/4k/8k order. For example, Charm of Brooching could be reprinted, but no more than 1 could be selected as a UR selection per 2k order.


My Preference

To varying degrees all of these options would increase the amount of older, highly desirable UR tokens while also reducing the chance that their values would drop to ~$95 upon reprinting.

I like Idea 2 the best. It’s direct and flexible, it allows True Dungeon to adjust things easily - e.g. a reprint of Girdle of Hill Giant strength could cost 1 pick, Gloves of Glory 2, and Charm of Brooching 3.

I don’t think Idea 1 would introduce enough new supply to meet the demands of new collectors.

I think Idea 3 is interesting - but might add a bunch of complication and not really solve the problem of values of existing tokens dropping - as even with this restriction there might be enough supply to meet all demand and still crash the prices down to ~$95 for reprinted tokens.


What are your thoughts?

I've put up a poll to solicit votes towards these options, "no change", and some "none of the above" options, feel free to vote there, I'll announce the results once new submissions slow down.

www.surveymonkey.com/r/62XNRZM

Matthew, I agree with you that URTEs are a separate category, in that none of them have been reprinted so far, and won't be for at least another 10 years or so, since Jeff has set out the URTE print schedule through 2026 (although the last two URTEs in that schedule are still TBD).

"Due to many factors and the development of the "Nugget" Ioun Stones, I thought it would be best to go ahead and make these clarifications.

1) We will publish an Ioun Stone Silver Nugget (+2 Treasure Coins) in 2017, an Ioun Stone Gold Nugget (+2 Treasure Coins) in 2019, and an Ioun Stone Platinum Nugget (+2 Treasure Coins) in 2021. These three tokens will stack with each other because they have slightly different names. They will stack with the Charm of Avarice.

2) There will be no transmuted token that uses any of the three Ioun Stone Nuggets in its recipe.

3) Assuming Gen Con and TD is still around in about ten years (2026) , the Amulet of Treasure Finding will be used in a transmuted token recipe to make a better treasure-enhancing token. It will be combined with whatever TE-tokens come out in 2023 and 2025.

I know it is a bit crazy to make these pronouncements this far into the future, but it appears to be needed. Thanks for your patience and support. "

Can you link to that quote from jeff? I thought the amulet of treasure finding was a 'maybe' in the future TE legendary. And even if it is definitely included, i will start arguing now that the future TE legendary have 2 recipes, one of which does not include the amulet.

kurtreznor wrote: Can you link to that quote from jeff? I thought the amulet of treasure finding was a 'maybe' in the future TE legendary. And even if it is definitely included, i will start arguing now that the future TE legendary have 2 recipes, one of which does not include the amulet.

Found it

Jeff Martin wrote:
3) Assuming Gen Con and TD is still around in about ten years (2026) , the Amulet of Treasure Finding will be used in a transmuted token recipe to make a better treasure-enhancing token. It will be combined with whatever TE-tokens come out in 2023 and 2025.

I know it is a bit crazy to make these pronouncements this far into the future, but it appears to be needed. Thanks for your patience and support.

Mike Steele wrote:

Rob F wrote: Just look at how the prices of the +2 Sacred Sling and +2 Drow Blood Mace have shot up recently.

Of course, those two examples show that maybe it's best to use lesser URs for the recipes rather than reprinted URs that are already pretty popular. I doubt there would be much demand at all for those two URs if they weren't part of those recipes.

I suspect the mace would still be popular. In my small sample size of three runs, I know I saw at least one other person swinging it in combat. I had no idea it was in a Legendary recipe when I traded for mine.

Picc wrote: Can you define Thrown weapon & Monk/Ranger dual weapon sleaze. I'm not familiar with those two?

At a guess:

Thrown weapon sleaze:

Put a +2 Thrown weapon in the ranged mainhand, let the character builder calculate your bonus based on STR, then go into the dungeon using a non-mighty ranged weapon with a better damage wheel or crit range?

Or maybe it's just using the same thrown weapon token over and over in one combat?

Dual weapon sleaze:

You get the stats of the better weapon on both, so get one +5 Viper Strike Fang and it automatically conveys a +5 to hit on whatever is in your other hand?

GaryM wrote: The other thing is doing a couple reprints each year of tokens that people are really looking for is sure to drive token sales.

Absolutely! I think all of the proposals here (except possibly Idea 3) might stimulate more token sales than the current system, as to get in demand tokens you'd have to buy more tokens than you would today.

Joshua Baessler wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Joshua Baessler wrote: If you don't want a reprint, come up with a functional replacement (Gloves of the Brute = Mithral Gauntlets) or convince everyone a reprint would be detrimental to game balance.

Neither of these solves the problem (fiscal concerns of new and existing collectors misaligned).

Creating a functional replacement craters the value of the original just as effectively as a reprint (moreso in many cases, ask anyone who owned a UR +2 weapon before the Viper Strike Fang).

Arguing that a classic token can't be reprinted due to balance reasons is I think disingenuous, if it's so bad it should be nerfed or errated. Simply keeping a broken token with those who got there first does not make for a good situation in the player base.

You're missing my point and that quote is being used out of context.

The intended point was "find another reason other than your money" to avoid reprints.

Everything you're suggesting comes across as "screw over the small collectors to protect my investment." All I'm reading is how this benefits you and other resellers.

Do you have a suggestion that is mutually beneficial?

I am aggressively against new players being charged more or having less of a chance to get a reprinted UR just because a handful of people (albeit large spenders) do not want their collection to lose value. It's wildly unfair. Tokens exist for people to play True Dungeon with. Not as an investment vehicle.

The only thing I've read anyone say that sounds even remotely fair is place UR reprints on a cycle so that everyone knows when they're coming back again. Resellers can enjoy a little appreciation for a few years and new players aren't hosed out of ever getting older tokens at a normal price.

You are making lots of assumptions about my motivations and what would benefit me that are not accurate.

I only started collecting in a big way in 2014, not a single UR I've gotten direct from TD has ever been reprinted, nor is likely to be reprinted this year.

If you look back over my comment history in design threads you'll see I rarely express much of an opinion on reprints at all, and I've written long and detailed comments about the reprint history in early TD and how players had no expectation whatsoever that every token wouldn't be reprinted annually early on.


My interest is in creating a healthy secondary economy, which is I believe is beneficial to all players.

I think that a secondary market where there is an established baseline price for anything in print, and every year some of the tokens whose values have appreciated the most have their value reset to that number overnight not a healthy state of affairs for a secondary market.

If I understand your perspective correctly, it's something like: New players should always have the opportunity to get UR tokens them at the same cost as when they were first introduced.

I just don't agree with that. I do agree that new players should always have the opportunity to get UR tokens. I disagree that they necessarily should be able to do so at the same cost as when they were first introduced. I feel that way because I think TD is a collectible. If TD weren't a collectible, I wouldn't feel that way - just put everything on the shelf and make it always in print.

Well, only one new poll response in the last 24 hours or so, here are the results thus far:

–
Reprints should only be available in random 10-packs and treasure boxes
0.00% 0
–
Reprints should be available as a PyP option, but should "cost" multiple PyP selections
13.33% 2
–
Reprints should be available as a PyP option, but there should be a limit of 1 reprint per 1/2/4/8k order (TBD by TPTB)
13.33% 2

Comment 4: Treat them like teeth. Place a big enough order, you are entitled to a certain number of reprints. And limit the available reprints in a given year so that it doesn't get out of hand.
–
Something should be done to make reprints less available than any PyP, but none of the first 3 ideas are the right ones
6.67% 1
–
No change to current reprint policy
66.67% 10

Comment 1: TD should not be beholden to the secondary markets concerns.

Comment 2: This is only an issue for the token stores. Most players value their tokens by how they fit in builds, and intend to trade and share for the good of the game; not for profit.

Comment 3: I say leave it as is. The whole point of reprints is to drive down values and raise availability. We shouldn't mess with it just to preserve the values of our collections.

I'm so torn on my thoughts in this. I for one definitely appreciate the secondary market. I have bought tokens for all ten of my builds through the sellers and I do want to see a secondary market economy that encourages them to keep doing what they do. On the other hand not reprinting causes either A: New players to fork out a ton of money for the Good tokens. B: New players to never obtain the cool tokens that the older players are using.

GaryM wrote: I'm so torn on my thoughts in this. I for one definitely appreciate the secondary market. I have bought tokens for all ten of my builds through the sellers and I do want to see a secondary market economy that encourages them to keep doing what they do. On the other hand not reprinting causes either A: New players to fork out a ton of money for the Good tokens. B: New players to never obtain the cool tokens that the older players are using.

I think I have bought tokens from most of the major resellers here on the forums SO, I appreciate the secondary market
I just sometimes feel like I'm being charged Obscene prices because I didn't start collecting until recently. I would like there to be some balance. I understand token resellers aren't in business out of the goodness of their hearts and need to make a profit. I don't believe they need a pound of flesh or a first born to maintain their businesses.

I don't sell anything so perhaps my opinion would be different if I did however, I agree with one of Josh's earlier posts that new players shouldn't be penalized for recently starting. (Sorry Josh for the paraphrasing)

If you compare the token business to MtG, us resellers pay 100% of retail for new tokens, and regularly pay well over 50% of retail when buying used tokens.

In MtG dealers buy everything at 50% or less of retail.

Without the occasional goldmine like Boots of the North Wind, I don't think I'd be able to stay in business without some other big changes.

Either way, I never want to screw anybody, but I do follow supply and demand. As my supply dwindles, my prices go up. This is because my goal is to have as many different tokens in stock as possible, because many players appreciate that I'm a source with all or most of the tokens in one place.

Hopefully that sheds a little light on things.

What do you think of a reprint of the Ring of Riches?