TOPIC: Just a thought

Two of the common complaints are the group size and limited time in the room. Just a thought, but if TD were 6 rooms instead of 7, the rooms could be bigger, allowing an easier fit for the groups. Time per room could move to 14 minutes instead of 12, and keep the adventure the same length. Fewer volunteers would be needed, as there would be 4 fewer rooms to run.

The downside, besides 1 fewer room, is that there would be fewer runs. Runs could only start every 14 minutes instead of 12. The lower number of volunteers would help defray the cost, but this kind of change would likely result in another price increase. The extra time and space would be worth it to me, but that is just one opinion.

Like I said, it's just a thought.

I'm thinking most people wouldn't be happy with fewer rooms for more cost...

I was not a fan of the move from 8 to 10 players but honestly the business has to make money. I think the price is nearing the upper end of the range unless something is done to justify it.

Just my opinions.

Ed

MasterED wrote: I was not a fan of the move from 8 to 10 players but honestly the business has to make money. I think the price is nearing the upper end of the range unless something is done to justify it.

Just my opinions.

Many of us always thought that crossing the $50 line would lead to a massive drop in demand but this year proved us wrong!

Why a price increase? If you only build 24 rooms, you save the cost of building four rooms. I'm not certain what other costs are involved that would be impacted, but more time and space per room is intriguing.

I hate to say it, but I always seem to sense that one room struggles to keep up, or perhaps doesn't survive first contact with the players. This idea deserves discussion beyond just fear of losing one room.

One option: split the 10 tickets over 8 people. Smaller parties mean faster combat and less bickering while solving puzzles, which is almost like getting a few extra minutes per room.

That gives you the option of paying extra for the experience you're describing while still letting others go through at a lower price. Plus, you still get seven rooms and extra loot from the ghosts.

7 rooms, please. I'd love a return to 8 players, but don't see it happening. Buying and setting aside a dedicated run is a fairly easy way to get that if you want it.

60 is not evenly divisible by 14 so that would cause a timing nightmare. Think about the coaching rooms. The signs would have to change every hour.

I think the system currently in place works pretty well. People who want to run with less than 10 can buy out a full run and control that.

TJRat wrote: Why a price increase? If you only build 24 rooms, you save the cost of building four rooms. I'm not certain what other costs are involved that would be impacted, but more time and space per room is intriguing.

You also reduce the number of volunteers needed, and all of their associated costs (badges, hotels, etc.).

While I'm all for more space per room (or a more expansive cityscape, or a mini-dungeon that newbies can play for cheap) I find the current amount of time per room to be pretty balanced and appropriate.

Brad Mortensen wrote: One option: split the 10 tickets over 8 people. Smaller parties mean faster combat and less bickering while solving puzzles, which is almost like getting a few extra minutes per room.

While I think you meant split the cost of the 10 slots amongst your smaller group, I think this idea might also make smaller groups possible without increasing the per-player cost.

With 8 players in a room, things do indeed go quicker. Many times, dealing with the crowd is a greater challenge than the room itself! If reducing players allows 10 minutes per room to become doable, then you could fit an extra run in each hour to counteract the loss of revenue from having fewer players in each run.

Now: 10 players x 5 teams per hour = 50 tickets per hour, per dungeon
Maybe: 8 players x 6 teams per hour = 48 tickets per hour, per dungeon

Yeah, that works out to a decrease in revenue of $408 per hour (for the four dungeons total), but these are just example numbers to illustrate the idea. Various fiddling might create something more viable.

On the other hand, while I think 12 minutes per room is plenty, I realize going down to 10 (or even 11) would be a pretty significant change, even if there are fewer people in the room to wrangle with. The entire way room challenges are designed would need to be reconsidered.

TJRat wrote: Why a price increase? If you only build 24 rooms, you save the cost of building four rooms. I'm not certain what other costs are involved that would be impacted, but more time and space per room is intriguing.

Depends on what portion of their costs are found in the rooms, and what is involved in having an entire Hall to themselves.

Even if they aren't building a couple of rooms, they're still paying for all that square footage. And assuming they would want to keep the production values up (ie; not just have extra blank space), they'd still need props and decorations for some of that space all the same.

Which isn't to say that they wouldn't remove some of the overhead, but I'm doubting it'd be an equivalent fraction. 1/7th less rooms to save 1/20th the price (or whatever) isn't much of a tradeoff, especially if it leads to higher ticket prices to offset the lower number of groups per hour.

If you run 6x14 or 7x12, you need the same number of volunteer-hours, so the same number of volunteers

Cutting one room off each dungeon runs would let you build a 4 room retro dungeon, much like the one that was held at WYC two years ago. Charge half price, offer no XP/badge, and a max of 2 treasure tokens (yes, exclude enhancers). This would be fun for new players without having to invest as much time or money, would give vets a chance to catch rooms they may have missed, and the capped treasure might keep the farmers from hogging multiple runs.

This being said, I would be sad to see the dungeons go from 7 to 6 rooms, but would be happy to see something old presented in a new way.