TOPIC: Missed GenCon, Game Hole Con exp for 2016?

I think a lot of good arguments have been put forth in this thread, along with a number of interesting suggestions. i don't envy Jeff having to make a decision around this. No matter which way he goes some people won't like it.

I am interested to see the results of the survey because it will factor out the same people restating their argument multiple times (1 person = 1 survey vote). It will also allow some people who might not otherwise post to anonymously give their opinion. And yes, it's not a perfect survey and probably not a way to reach any definitive conclusions, but it might give an indication of the general leanings of those on the forum.

Harlax wrote: Oh for me personally, getting 4k at GenCon and 1K each at WYC and GHC would be nothing short of spectacular. Based on where I live, where I am in my career path (flexibility and purchasing power) I could crank the XP.

But there are some pretty awesome long term players for whom 3 Cons just won't be possible. And for whom even two would be a stretch.

There are plenty of reasons other than XP to do these additional Cons.

Loot leaps to mind...

doesnt it make sense to reward you with more XP since you are able to support TD even more than some of those long-term players by going to every con that TD is running now?

not to take away from the support that the current long-term players at the top of the XP list have provided in the past, but in my mind, someone that can go to everything that TD is currently offering is providing more support to TD than someone who can't (not counting token sales, which are obviously a huge support, but i think showing up and playing is far more important in terms of keeping the game going since a huge token purchase won't mean much if people aren't showing up to play).

Incognito wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: Here is a survey I invite everyone to take on this topic:

www.surveymonkey.com/r/XVWCGWH

You will see the community results when you complete your survey (absent the free text options).

Once everyone has had a chance to respond, I will post the results, including the free text options, here.

Thanks for doing that.

For #1, I was a bit conflicted so I put down Other:

Personally, it would be advantageous for me to have no XP cap. Although I am in the Top 20 for XP, this would help me catch up with those higher than me who are unable to attend the other cons. However, I benefit from living in the Midwest. It would be rather unfair for those on the East and West Coasts to fall behind in XP because they can't make it to the Midwest *three* times a year!

I was also a bit neutral for Questions #5 & #6. There weren't any good answer options so I just went with a compromise "Partial" answer.

is it really unfair to them though? if they aren't going to all the events that TD is offering, shouldn't the people that *do* go to all those events eventually be considered to be at the top?

bpsymington wrote: People make a good argument against raising NM XP higher than HC (people might run NM even if notm prepared for it).

Still opposed to being able to earn extra XP at alt cons. Yes, partly for selfish reasons, but there are also other valid arguments that have already been made.

I haven't seen one?

What is the reason to not be able to earn XP at alt cons (excepting speculative reasons like "it might be against TDs contract with Gen Con")?

I understand the reason for capping XP to one con per year - although I think it's debatable. I don't understand why someone who goes to WyC and GHC and runs both dungeons at hardcore for three years should be level 0.

Matthew Hayward wrote:

bpsymington wrote: People make a good argument against raising NM XP higher than HC (people might run NM even if notm prepared for it).

Still opposed to being able to earn extra XP at alt cons. Yes, partly for selfish reasons, but there are also other valid arguments that have already been made.

I haven't seen one?

What is the reason to not be able to earn XP at alt cons (excepting speculative reasons like "it might be against TDs contract with Gen Con")?

I understand the reason for capping XP to one con per year - although I think it's debatable. I don't understand why someone who goes to WyC and GHC and runs both dungeons at hardcore for three years should be level 0.

I meant EXTRA XP - I'm in favor of the annual cap allowing XP at eny of the cons up to it.

Dave wrote: I think a lot of good arguments have been put forth in this thread, along with a number of interesting suggestions. i don't envy Jeff having to make a decision around this. No matter which way he goes some people won't like it.

I am interested to see the results of the survey because it will factor out the same people restating their argument multiple times (1 person = 1 survey vote). It will also allow some people who might not otherwise post to anonymously give their opinion. And yes, it's not a perfect survey and probably not a way to reach any definitive conclusions, but it might give an indication of the general leanings of those on the forum.

I shared the survey link among my group on facebook of which depending how many fill out the survey are 6+ players who aren't active on the forums. Posting the link in a few places not a bad idea for input. We all know players in our groups who arent on the forums.

bpsymington wrote: People make a good argument against raising NM XP higher than HC (people might run NM even if notm prepared for it).

Still opposed to being able to earn extra XP at alt cons. Yes, partly for selfish reasons, but there are also other valid arguments that have already been made.

Raising NM XP higher encourages token sales (which is the primary revenue stream for True Dungeon).

As it is, there is minimal incentive to do Nightmare:

1. You get both participation tokens
2. More of a challenge?

As it is, a lot of players have been downgrading their token collections. Selling off tokens, not buying anything more - all because they can get most of the same benefits by just playing Hardcore.

Even Nightmare may not be sufficiently hard for some players. I have heard several players say that True Grind is the only reason for them to buy top tokens for top of the line builds.

Matt wrote:

Dave wrote: I think a lot of good arguments have been put forth in this thread, along with a number of interesting suggestions. i don't envy Jeff having to make a decision around this. No matter which way he goes some people won't like it.

I am interested to see the results of the survey because it will factor out the same people restating their argument multiple times (1 person = 1 survey vote). It will also allow some people who might not otherwise post to anonymously give their opinion. And yes, it's not a perfect survey and probably not a way to reach any definitive conclusions, but it might give an indication of the general leanings of those on the forum.

I shared the survey link among my group on facebook of which depending how many fill out the survey are 6+ players who aren't active on the forums. Posting the link in a few places not a bad idea for input. We all know players in our groups who arent on the forums.

Thank you - I posted to my Twitter, Facebook, and on the Gen Con forums.

Matthew Hayward wrote:

bpsymington wrote: People make a good argument against raising NM XP higher than HC (people might run NM even if notm prepared for it).

Still opposed to being able to earn extra XP at alt cons. Yes, partly for selfish reasons, but there are also other valid arguments that have already been made.

I haven't seen one?

What is the reason to not be able to earn XP at alt cons (excepting speculative reasons like "it might be against TDs contract with Gen Con")?

I understand the reason for capping XP to one con per year - although I think it's debatable. I don't understand why someone who goes to WyC and GHC and runs both dungeons at hardcore for three years should be level 0.

You could make the argument that the WYC/GHC events aren't likely the same events as the GenCon ones.

So far, WYC/GHC have all been Redoubt/Redux events. It's a separate discussion/argument whether Redoubt/Redux events should have the same XP (bearing in mind that some past GenCon events have been Redoubt).

However, it might seem odd if that person who has done WYC all 3 years has only done Redoubt/Redux events has the same XP as someone who has been doing all of the newer events.

---

Adding XP to WYC/GHC adds an additional level of logistics.

IIRC at WYC, there is no formal Epilogue room. You just bring the party card to the front desk / ticket area, where it is often Lori who handles that - giving you treasure chips and your participation token.

Once you start adding more - XP codes (if different types), pins, etc., it becomes more and more of a burden. They might need extra volunteers just for the Epilogue.

Not to mention that different XP codes increase the chance of mistakes being made - just look at this year when Epilogue volunteers messed up and were handing out the wrong XP cards!

---

Another argument is that the smaller cons are supposed to be introducing TD to newer players, possibly filtering them into attending GenCon.

Newer players are much less interested in XP. I know lots of new players who never even bother to enter the XP cards they get at GenCon!

Allowing XP to be earned at smaller cons could result in experienced players crowding out the newer players at the smaller cons. For example, Brian the Sinister Wizard would rather do other stuff at GenCon. So instead of playing TD at GenCon, he can get the XP by doing TD at the smaller cons - but this might crowd out newer players at those smaller cons.

Speaking of which, why don't we also float the previous XP proposal that at the smaller cons, XP is offered only for players that are below a certain player level (for example, only 0th, 1st, and 2nd level players, etc.)?

Incognito wrote:

bpsymington wrote: People make a good argument against raising NM XP higher than HC (people might run NM even if notm prepared for it).

Still opposed to being able to earn extra XP at alt cons. Yes, partly for selfish reasons, but there are also other valid arguments that have already been made.

Raising NM XP higher encourages token sales (which is the primary revenue stream for True Dungeon).

As it is, there is minimal incentive to do Nightmare:

1. You get both participation tokens
2. More of a challenge?

As it is, a lot of players have been downgrading their token collections. Selling off tokens, not buying anything more - all because they can get most of the same benefits by just playing Hardcore.

Even Nightmare may not be sufficiently hard for some players. I have heard several players say that True Grind is the only reason for them to buy top tokens for top of the line builds.

I am having trouble with part of your logic. If Nightmare isn't sufficiently hard for some players then they why are going to buy tokens to play it?

I don't know this but I have a suspicion that most of the big token buyers buy tokens to have the tokens not because of the difficulty of the dungeon they may be facing. Again don't have any hard evidence or data, and I admit that, just a gut feeling after talking to many of them.

bpsymington wrote: People make a good argument against raising NM XP higher than HC (people might run NM even if notm prepared for it).

In that case, why should Hardcore have more XP than Normal? Why should Normal have more XP than Non-Lethal?

Proposal: All difficulty levels - Non-Lethal, Normal, Hardcore, and Nightmare should all have the same XP.

We have to save people from themselves. Some players might run Normal even if they are not prepared for it. So let's make sure that Normal has the same XP as Non-Lethal....

jedibcg wrote:

Incognito wrote:

bpsymington wrote: People make a good argument against raising NM XP higher than HC (people might run NM even if notm prepared for it).

Still opposed to being able to earn extra XP at alt cons. Yes, partly for selfish reasons, but there are also other valid arguments that have already been made.

Raising NM XP higher encourages token sales (which is the primary revenue stream for True Dungeon).

As it is, there is minimal incentive to do Nightmare:

1. You get both participation tokens
2. More of a challenge?

As it is, a lot of players have been downgrading their token collections. Selling off tokens, not buying anything more - all because they can get most of the same benefits by just playing Hardcore.

Even Nightmare may not be sufficiently hard for some players. I have heard several players say that True Grind is the only reason for them to buy top tokens for top of the line builds.

I am having trouble with part of your logic. If Nightmare isn't sufficiently hard for some players then they why are going to buy tokens to play it?

I don't know this but I have a suspicion that most of the big token buyers buy tokens to have the tokens not because of the difficulty of the dungeon they may be facing. Again don't have any hard evidence or data, and I admit that, just a gut feeling after talking to many of them.

Nightmare players are not monolithic.

Some Nightmare players don't think Nightmare is sufficiently hard.

Some Nightmare players buy tokens to play at higher difficulty levels.

Similarly, some players really really don't want to die in the dungeon. While some players don't really care if they die in the dungeon. Some players readily use lots of consumables. Some players will never use consumables.

(On a separate note, I do think that Nightmare difficulty should be jacked up in terms of difficulty. And then there should be greater rewards. That would encourage players to buy more tokens if they want to go that route).