TOPIC: On Reprint URs

Joshua Baessler wrote: How about no?

Jeff has stated before that he doesn't want to allow the secondary market to affect token sales.

Making PYPs a random chance at a reprint UR completely changes that incentive. It takes away the choice and leaves you with just a guaranteed UR. Resellers have the resources to buy whole sets. Small timers often have to save or pool resources just to get a $250 pack. "Okay guys, thanks, that's everyone. I sure do hope we get a UR we need!"

Will we need to ask Jeff to hire someone to keep track of every sale so that we can be sure the current "market value to PYP" ratio stays accurate and current? Should we be required to report all UR sales and trades?

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.

Come up with something better than "please protect my investment", "please keep me from losing money."

The current situation pits the fiscal concerns of new players against the fiscal concerns of existing collectors.

Your perspective seems to be "the fiscal concerns of existing collectors don't matter."

Is there any good reason why all tokens shouldn't be in print at all times?

Bob Chasan wrote: Matthew Hayward Wrote
Overview of Problem

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.

Matthew,
I like how you have succinctly identified the problem however, the solutions you propose seem to cost the newer players more. There doesn't seem to be a solution that would be palatable to all involved. If you could come up with that, I would invite you to join the group attempting to solve unrest in N. Korea or the Middle East.
It's a very difficult and sticky situation for many folks. I don't sell tokens so Perhaps I would see it differently if I did. As previously pointed out in this thread, Like any commodity relative prices can fluctuate to zero almost instantly. Take a look at penny stocks. Some soar to ridiculous returns while most languish and die. Which ones should I buy????
How am I to know?
Everything in life is a risk and so is purchasing and holding tokens for sale.

Well - I feel that the current situation is:

When a valuable token is reprinted (or obsoleted / substantially overlapped), it's value goes from $x to $95.

I'm trying to engineer a system where it would go from $x to less than $x, but not all the way down to the base price of a new in print UR.

Every collectible game I can think of that issues reprints masters this by one or both of:

* Random distribution
* Limited availability

Of reprints.

Matthew Hayward wrote:
Is there any good reason why all tokens shouldn't be in print at all times?

Because the fiscal concerns of existing collectors do matter and Jeff is trying to strike a balance...

Or, another option:

Reprinted URs could be available only in some kind of a "Treasure Chest of Destiny" which would cost $150 an include maybe:

12 current year random rares
24 current year random uncommons
1 current year random UR

Or something.

Picc wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:
Is there any good reason why all tokens shouldn't be in print at all times?

Because the fiscal concerns of existing collectors do matter and Jeff is trying to strike a balance...

Not according to Josh, which was my point.

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.

jedibcg wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: I see what you mean.

I was thinking of how this works in Magic, where they reprint high value cards in limited edition sets, they can thus introduce supply while only dinging the value of the existing cards by maybe 20% on average.

Of course, with Magic:

a. You get any given card MUCH more often than once in 2,000 packs!
b. You ONLY get cards in random packs.

Magic has some other factors involved in cardboard crack economy.

They are WAY bigger than TD. I didn't find current numbers but in 2014 it was over 20 million players. That makes for a much bigger robust card economy.

They have a competitive element. Magic is a competitive game even if you are only playing against your friend you are still playing against him or her. Therefor being able to get cards that beating your opponent can help drive sells on secondary markets. This valuable not because of its rarity but because it helps you win. TD doesn't exactly have that element. You can play and be successful without getting any 'chase' tokens. Not saying this is good or bad just different.

MtG has a pro element. This is VERY much tied to the competitive nature of the game. But from what I have seen there is another layer to it. The very best MtG players don't spend money on cards. If they are good enough they don't spend money on tournament because someone sponsors them. It is the guy at his local gamestore buying all the cards to hopefully one day be good that is paying for everything at the very top. It is almost like a pyramid scheme. TD is almost the opposite. Those that spend oodles of money on tokens are the ones that help fund all the awesome props that the rest of us get to enjoy. I know my 2k-4k a year token purchases wouldn't pay for 1 room in the dungeon.

Sorry I know this isn't on point, but just thought it interesting when comparing the two imo very different models. Not saying one is bad and one is good. I will say I like one more than the other, but there are 20 million folks that play MtG so there is that.

Yeah - magic is a different beast for sure.

I'm just impressed at Wizard's ability to mine the secondary market for value by reprinting desirable cards in limited quantities in premium products without damaging (too much) the secondary market.

What both Wizards and TD have in common I think is that people are largely willing to spend $$$ on tokens under the (possibly wrong) premise that they can resell them later and recoup some of their investment.

Therefore both should be careful about undermining the confidence of the secondary market in the durable values of tokens.

Periodically resetting the value of the most expensive tokens seems to be a problem in this analysis.

Lowering the price of OOP tokens affects a small portion of the community. If there are going to be identical reprints, making them cost more benefits that same small portion. Yeah, that portion accounts for a decent portion of token sales, but they are already getting bonuses based on the size of their purchases.

Jeff can print functionally identical tokens and keep that small portion happy while not having to worry about propping up the prices of collections. I would prefer that there be a 2-3 year break after a token goes out of print before reprinting. Keep the reprints at 3(?) per year and give everyone notice one year before the token comes back into print.

There is one option that I am NOT advocating but would keep collection values more stable that it doesn't appear you have considered. If all tokens were available as PYP all the time. Collection values would take a one time dip but then would be locked at your $95 per UR (more or less at some UR's are more desirable than others. Again not advocating it but it would prevent the need for reprints because everything would be in print.

jedibcg wrote: There is one option that I am NOT advocating but would keep collection values more stable that it doesn't appear you have considered. If all tokens were available as PYP all the time. Collection values would take a one time dip but then would be locked at your $95 per UR (more or less at some UR's are more desirable than others. Again not advocating it but it would prevent the need for reprints because everything would be in print.

No thanks.

The current PYP was already a compromise after the short-lived mistake of allowing Any Year PYP....

Matthew Hayward wrote:
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.

Fair point

Matthew Hayward wrote: 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.

I am in favor of LOTS of nerfing....

Viper Strike Fangs
Relic/Legendary Bows
Mighty Bows
Gloves of the Flying Fist
Lenses of Divine Sight
Eldritch set healing
Cloak of Shadowskin
Druegar's Death Die
Artifacts (particularly those with no or minimal drawbacks)
Offhand sleaze
Polymorph sleaze
Thrown weapon sleaze
Monk/Ranger dual weapon sleaze