TOPIC: "Ghosting" a run for Treasure - Changed at GenCon?

Raven wrote:

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

Harlax wrote:

Kirk Bauer wrote: I'm strongly against modifying the CoA recipe to use future URs. Unless one of the URs already in it is reprinted.

But i could see a transmute that used the proposed IS Nuggets.

During one of the early series of token posts, I thought Jeff had said they would be part of a multi year transmute.

Many people speculated that the amulet of treasure finding might also be required for said transmute.

Possibly. But debating which tokens go into which transmutes isn't the topic here. Its whether printing new TE's - and thereby Raising the Treasure Cap again - is going to tip the scales to make Treasure Farming profitable. Or even more profitable, if it already is so.

I can't say exactly where that tipping point is, but it's definitely adding weight to the scale.

I think it already is, and I agree some policy should be put in place.

I thought someone was asking about future transmutes, which is what I was talying about.

Either way, I want as many people as want to to have a chance at TD, while those who have invested and supported TD are also taken care of.

I just don't know how to do it.

Kirk Bauer wrote: I'm strongly against modifying the CoA recipe to use future URs. Unless one of the URs already in it is reprinted.

Why?

Wade Schwendemann wrote: I think it already is, and I agree some policy should be put in place.

I thought someone was asking about future transmutes, which is what I was talying about.

Ah, yeah.... I did kinda get that.
My reply was more of a subtle, "let's not start a huge debate about which TEs can or should be transmuted into which Relics/Legendaries, in which slot, for what cost, on what schedule, etc" ... especially since part of that conversation (several pages in fact?) is in a forum area which not everyone has access to yet.

Wait until the 2017 tokens hit the main forum - which will be soon! - and people can make whole new threads about how they feel on the topic of the new/proposed TE(s) and transmute(s) and what that should mean for the existing TEs and transmute recipes.

This thread is for discussion of how TEs affect the likelihood of players engaging in Treasure Farming.

This years treasure mix, if it continues, could be the tipping point. With the nugget, I'll be pulling 19 next year. If you value treasure at a modest $3 per chip, that's $57.

The prevalence of relics and legendaries was greater than I expected.

I wouldn't care if all relics or legendaries were eliminated from the mix. Or maybe just one of each relic in the mix. I'm dubious about trade goods as well.

I'll be quite happy with pulling for monster bits and rares and uncommons that will help me with trade goods.

A 1% chance at a UR is ok. The minor transmutes are good for newbies and I'm fine with some percentage of those.

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

Raven wrote:

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

Harlax wrote:

Kirk Bauer wrote: I'm strongly against modifying the CoA recipe to use future URs. Unless one of the URs already in it is reprinted.

But i could see a transmute that used the proposed IS Nuggets.

During one of the early series of token posts, I thought Jeff had said they would be part of a multi year transmute.

Many people speculated that the amulet of treasure finding might also be required for said transmute.

Possibly. But debating which tokens go into which transmutes isn't the topic here. Its whether printing new TE's - and thereby Raising the Treasure Cap again - is going to tip the scales to make Treasure Farming profitable. Or even more profitable, if it already is so.

I can't say exactly where that tipping point is, but it's definitely adding weight to the scale.

I think it already is, and I agree some policy should be put in place.

I thought someone was asking about future transmutes, which is what I was talying about.

Either way, I want as many people as want to to have a chance at TD, while those who have invested and supported TD are also taken care of.

I just don't know how to do it.

It kinda doesn't matter if it is profitable.

What matters is whether and how many people THINK it is, and what they do based on that belief, and how those actions affect other players.

Given that more than one person has said they plan to buy runs for loot.

Brad Mortensen wrote:

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

Raven wrote:

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

Harlax wrote:

Kirk Bauer wrote: I'm strongly against modifying the CoA recipe to use future URs. Unless one of the URs already in it is reprinted.

But i could see a transmute that used the proposed IS Nuggets.

During one of the early series of token posts, I thought Jeff had said they would be part of a multi year transmute.

Many people speculated that the amulet of treasure finding might also be required for said transmute.

Possibly. But debating which tokens go into which transmutes isn't the topic here. Its whether printing new TE's - and thereby Raising the Treasure Cap again - is going to tip the scales to make Treasure Farming profitable. Or even more profitable, if it already is so.

I can't say exactly where that tipping point is, but it's definitely adding weight to the scale.

I think it already is, and I agree some policy should be put in place.

I thought someone was asking about future transmutes, which is what I was talying about.

Either way, I want as many people as want to to have a chance at TD, while those who have invested and supported TD are also taken care of.

I just don't know how to do it.

It kinda doesn't matter if it is profitable.

What matters is whether and how many people THINK it is, and what they do based on that belief, and how those actions affect other players.

Given that more than one person has said they plan to buy runs for loot.

Assuming that the treasure mix is consistent across Cons, it is already profitable to do this at the smaller cons, and possibly at GenCon.

Even if the mix isn't consistent, based on the price difference it probably is enough to cover that.

If runs are being combined due to lack of interest at the smaller cons, it doesn't seem like there are people who want to play but can't

The trouble comes of course at GenCon.

Unfortunately we have to make some sort of rule about how to handle the same question under 2 fairly different sets of circumstances.

Just based on what we know, it seems like treasure farming is here to stay unless something is done to curtail it.

Several great ideas have been posted here, and I think a lot of them make good sense.

I doubt we will ever agree on a solution, particularly given that we don't all seem to agree that there is a problem.

Why are so many people against treasure farming?? So what if certain people buy entire Runs or load newbies up with TEs and make a deal to get all the treasure except 3 treasures or whatever??

From my understanding, there were quite a few Runs this past GenCon where buyers couldn't be found for extra TD tickets that were suddenly open. Quip spent a month prior to GenCon and during GenCon trying to find players for a Grind Run and a regular adventure Run. So, the argument that buying full Runs to ghost steals TD tickets from newbies and veterans is moot.

And, if someone is pulling 3 Tokens or 100 Tokens out of the Treasure Box it doesn't matter. The Tokens are getting pulled no matter what. Whether by one person or 100 people. With the new system adopted this year with pre-filled bags of treasure loot the argument of holding up the line has been rendered moot, too.

Yes, statistically, pulling more Tokens means a better chance at getting something good. It also gives more chances of getting something worthless (to that person) because the good stuff is a way smaller percentage being in the treasure box.

I just don't see the big deal. Some of you are obsessing way too much over things that don't matter in the bigger scheme.

Like this...

My oldest (13 year old) is in band. She just found out she has to be in a Halloween Parade. Stupidly, the school and borough scheduled the parade at the same time Trick-Or-Treating starts and ends. She wants to go trick-or-treating because being 13 this will probably be the last time she will want to do it. She's heartbroken. My wife won't let her out of the parade because it's her "duty." Me? I say screw it. I just had to pay over $4000 in school taxes as part of my yearly "duty." The school steals enough money from hard working people like me. They can suck it up and find someone to replace her. It's not like the American education system is properly using the money to fund better education programs.

So yeah, you were talking about plastic and metal tokens, right? Get a grip, people.

Here's a further question...

How many of you would encounter the homeless in Indy and help them out? Over the years at GenCon I've often given them my second Pop Tart of the two-pack or a water bottle or even some money. Sticking your hand in a treasure box once or a hundred times and arguing about it?? Stupid.

I never cared how many treasure people got. That's not the problem. That's the CAUSE of a problem.

A lot of newbies complain that they couldn't find tickets ahead of time. They don't know they can find runs on the forum, but I had more trouble finding two pairs of tickets this year than I usually do.

If people are buying runs because they can make a few bucks, and elbow out folks who just want to play, then THAT is the problem. If not for that, I doubt anyone would care if the loot cap went to a thousand.

And yeah, I know that spots come open at the last minute and they're hard to fill, especially last year. Who wants to hang out in the boring LOS basement for hours on the off-chance someone will no-show at the last minute?

Harlax wrote: This years treasure mix, if it continues, could be the tipping point. With the nugget, I'll be pulling 19 next year. If you value treasure at a modest $3 per chip, that's $57.

The prevalence of relics and legendaries was greater than I expected.

I wouldn't care if all relics or legendaries were eliminated from the mix. Or maybe just one of each relic in the mix. I'm dubious about trade goods as well.

I'll be quite happy with pulling for monster bits and rares and uncommons that will help me with trade goods.

A 1% chance at a UR is ok. The minor transmutes are good for newbies and I'm fine with some percentage of those.

I think the Legendary numbers were alright. Out of the 5000+ token pulls added to the google doc only 2 legendaries were pull.
(here if you want to look docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mPCHbtCwDUgO7ZpAnwmn8-9mOza8qVO0RH8ABHAM2v8/edit#gid=0 )

Relics were less than half a percent and UR's were just under a percent. If our numbers are right that means even at 190 pulls you are getting 1 relic and 1.5 UR's. Not saying the the that the mix isn't tool high just that it isn't as high as some seemed to be making it out to be. It appears to be similar to what Jeff said he thought he would make it.

This though I cannot find the post is what Jeff originally proposed
25% Uncommons
35% Rares
35% Monster Bits
1% UR
2.5% low-level Transmute
0.5% Relic
0.5% 5,000 GP Bar
0.5% 10,000 GP Bar

This is (according to the Google Doc) what we got
34.86% Uncommon
38.13% Rare
17.50% Monster Bits (which seemed about right to me)
1.04% level Transmute
0.57% Relic
0.13% 5,000 GP Bar
0.09% 10,000 GP Bar
We also had
2.41% Trade tokens
0.13% Golden Fleeces
0.04% Tooth of Cavadar
0.04% Legendary
0.36% 2,500-500 Gold Bar
0.05% 25,000 Gold Bar

There were reports of a Eldtritch and maybe a Dragon Orb, but not on the Google Doc.

Again not saying the numbers were too high or too low, just want to get folks harder data to go off of vs the random reports of seeing person draw a legendary out of 3 pulls. If it was happening I think it 1 out of 1,000 people that did that based on our numbers.

Kirk Bauer wrote: I'm strongly against modifying the CoA recipe to use future URs. Unless one of the URs already in it is reprinted.

Kirk, I agree 100%

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

Harlax wrote:

Kirk Bauer wrote: I'm strongly against modifying the CoA recipe to use future URs. Unless one of the URs already in it is reprinted.

But i could see a transmute that used the proposed IS Nuggets.

During one of the early series of token posts, I thought Jeff had said they would be part of a multi year transmute.

Many people speculated that the amulet of treasure finding might also be required for said transmute.

I agree, I think they should be part of the recipe for a future consolidating Legendary.

Mike Steele wrote:

Kirk Bauer wrote: I'm strongly against modifying the CoA recipe to use future URs. Unless one of the URs already in it is reprinted.

Kirk, I agree 100%

Do either of you have a reason?

@Mike just because they could be used in the CoA doesn't mean they also couldn't be used in this future Legendary you want so badly.