TOPIC: No definitive BIS token

Mike Steele wrote: Another complication with the "standard format" proposal is that it would likely make it more difficult for coaches (people who are coaches probably have a better feel for this than I do). For everyone wanting to play "standard format", the coach would have to verify that all their tokens were from the specified years, and them mark it somehow on the party card.

Not only does it make coaches jobs more difficult, it also makes balancing the dungeons more difficult, as you'd be need to balance combats (at least) for both formats. And if this means effectively doubling the number of difficulty levels, you've just made the DMs job more difficult too.

Mike Steele wrote:

Ro-gan wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: I like this idea, but I think ultimately it will hinge on mechanical changes in the dungeon making other builds viable, not token design.

Tokens (basically) only matter in combat. So you're looking at using tokens for the ~12 rounds of combat you'll get per dungeon.

The revealed preference of what players what out of tokens is generally to deal lots of damage - which makes perfect sense given the above.

You can design other token build paths out to wazoo, but if those paths don't deal the same amount of damage then players generally won't be interested.

For the players who will be interested, they can already do that today. If you want to build a retribution based low AC paladin or taunting drawf fighter nothing is stopping you - and some people do that - more power too them!


To see truly different build paths I think you'd need to see one of these two things:

A. A games workshop style treadmill (hey - has anyone seen Steve recently? I miss him) where TD rotates over every few years what the most powerful mechanic is. E.g. really push wands for 2 years, then really push scrolls for 2 years, then really push ranged for 2 years, etc.. This is annoying, exhausts most players, and leads to rapid power creep.

B. Add a different thing _in the game_ that people want to do as badly as they want to kill monsters, and add tokens to support it. For example, you could add branching paths where the party can split and those who want combat go left, and those who want a sneak/diplomacy interaction go right - then you can make tokens that support sneak/diplomacy and you'll see variation in build.



I do like the trend we've been seeing recently to try to goose ranged up to similar power level to Melee - at the very least "ranged, melee, or spell" should be choices, where today really only "melee or spell" (or Bard or Healer) are choices (I know, I know, ranged ranger - more power too you - that's the exception that proves the rule).

The thing that would keep things fresh would be a sort of "Magic the Gathering Standard" approach, where tokens rotated out of use after a couple of years. But, Jeff floated an idea like that once and there was a near riot, for obvious reasons. That's the real problem True Dungeon has to deal with - nothing ever rotates out. So, in order to keep spurring sales, new tokens have to keep obsoleting old tokens. And, like Matthew said, the one key element is dealing damage to the monsters, so tokens that do more of that will be more highly prized and will usually be "best in slot".

That's a great idea (I mean... barring the riots).



Certainly you could follow the magic analogy further:

1. If you want, you can play "Epic TD" - in which all tokens are allowed.

2. But also, the party can opt into "Arc TD" - where only tokens from the current arc (or older versions of reprinted tokens).

There are two XP tracks, one for Epic and one for Arc.

Maybe Arc has different treasure (e.g. 6 or 9 baseline to account for lack of legal TEs). Maybe Arc completion tokens are worth 10,000 GP in the TD Auctions.


Obviously a lot to be hammered out here. But if you could make this appealing to players it would absolutely create a lot of build variety (at least among those who chose to play Arc).

Matthew, I was thinking of something very similar, a bit more streamlined.

What if Jeff added a rule along the lines of "if you're only using tokens printed in the last two years, you get +6 Treasure Coins on the run"? I think something like that might really work.

I think there would have to be an exception that all TE tokens can be used, regardless of the year.

And, what about those players that aren't on the TD Forum? They spend months building the "perfect" character with the Tokens they have only to find out during the Coaching Session they can't use certain Tokens or will be "punished" for using what they have.

I remember being a Judge for Heroclix quite a few years ago. There were so many FAQs it was ridiculous. Players would show up with their teams and be so disappointed when I'd tell them (Figure So-And-So) no longer works like that. They weren't on the HC Forums and didn't know there was a website devoted to the FAQs.

That isn't really what I was proposing. Nobody would be punished for using older tokens, and nobody would ever be told that they can't use any tokens. There would just be an extra bonus if they used just tokens from the past two years (or whatever was decided on). And I would expect that if something like this was enacted Jeff would include it in a Newsletter and not just on the forums.

There were still folks trying to turn in gold backed avarice charms this year despite avarice holders presumably representing an elite sample in terms of interested TD players and TPTB making every effort to notify them. If we want even get players to pay attention to a nightmare vs normal run we dont have a hope of getting them to be aware of token years.

Further regardless of how it was spun it would still feel that way if the PTB were pushing/incentivizing one format over another. It would also represent a fundamental shift in the design of the game that would sour a lot of people (my self included) as fundamental shifts always do since "the game just isn't the same anymore".

Finally consider that even if went with a 6 year rotation and everything worked out great we would still only have 6 sets to work with vs mtgs 3x3 significantly larger sets per block plus core. I suspect you would quickly see a less diverse BIS standard composed of more expensive less potent copies of certain BIS classic builds. Classic would be the place for more build diversity that everyone would end up on their 7th year at which point they would feel like they had lost something in the form of either the incentive or the tokens they were forced to remove from their build.

I guess I just dont think it's worth rocking the boat since in my experience most BIS builds change over time anyway.

Issues that have been identified - Power Creep, Best in Slot lock, Need for token sales.

Power Creep. One way to deal with this is to gradually increase the level of characters and monsters. 15 years, only two level increases so far. At some point move to 5th level as standard and level boosts to 6. Ramp up the monsters in proportion. Existing gear becomes somewhat less powerful as a result. New gear can be somewhat more powerful.


Best in Slot locks. New character classes that give incentives for different builds. Maybe rotate the available selection from time to time.



Need for token sales to continue/expand. Increased level, new character classes, rotate classes available, etc.

Fiddy wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: Another complication with the "standard format" proposal is that it would likely make it more difficult for coaches (people who are coaches probably have a better feel for this than I do). For everyone wanting to play "standard format", the coach would have to verify that all their tokens were from the specified years, and them mark it somehow on the party card.

Not only does it make coaches jobs more difficult, it also makes balancing the dungeons more difficult, as you'd be need to balance combats (at least) for both formats. And if this means effectively doubling the number of difficulty levels, you've just made the DMs job more difficult too.

You would just use the same difficult inside the Dungeon for both token styles.

It might be functionally impossible to beat epic that way - but so what.

The coaching problem is pretty easy too: here are the symbols that are allowed in the tokens, there are only a few, and here is a list of exceptions - it wouldn’t be that long. Or, since you would be opting into this system anyway, you could just require that players bring pregen charachters from builders that enforce the rules if they want to play standard with reprints whose symbols don’t match.

And - let me try to garner support for the Sliding Window token variant with a different approach:

If there were a (say) 6 year sliding window format, at the same time we could announce a rule that no UR would be reprinted while it was still leagal in the sliding window format.

Two birds, one stone .

Matthew Hayward wrote: And - let me try to garner support for the Sliding Window token variant with a different approach:

If there were a (say) 6 year sliding window format, at the same time we could announce a rule that no UR would be reprinted while it was still leagal in the sliding window format.

Two birds, one stone .

Let me try and come at it from the other side. If you want to play with a limited token base, say current year, current story arc, or last 6 years, what's stopping you? Does it really need TPTB to support the format with some manner of reward at the apparent risk of alienating a large percentage of the entrenched player base? And if the answer is yes what about the other player driven formats, should double down and or green with envy have official support too?

Picc wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: And - let me try to garner support for the Sliding Window token variant with a different approach:

If there were a (say) 6 year sliding window format, at the same time we could announce a rule that no UR would be reprinted while it was still leagal in the sliding window format.

Two birds, one stone .

Let me try and come at it from the other side. If you want to play with a limited token base, say current year, current story arc, or last 6 years, what's stopping you? Does it really need TPTB to support the format with some manner of reward at the apparent risk of alienating a large percentage of the entrenched player base? And if the answer is yes what about the other player driven formats, should double down and or green with envy have official support too?

Picc's view pretty much mirrors my own. Apply restrictions to your own build if that's what floats your boat. TPTB shouldn't need to incentivize a handicap like Arc or Green with Envy.

The Arc solution doesn't solve the issue at hand anyway - there will still be BIS, albeit with a later starting line. For Arc to truly work, TD would need some serious R&D to flesh out ~22 unique builds (lumping wizards and fighters together). Then, you'd need to cram all of that design into relatively small windows within the token releases. R&D would have to constantly be cycling in new variations as tokens drop off. Finally, R&D would have to create new niches that challenge Strength, AC, & damage.

All of this needs to happen while powerful tokens continue to be printed to keep the folks not partaking in Arc buying. Then how do you keep this subset of "legacy" targeted tokens from not just becoming the new BIS?

If all of that were to happen, it still wouldn't make sense to mix Arc players with non-Arc players. A good amount of veterans already pull their punches to accommodate new players in PUGS. I see no reason why anyone should do this for players that voluntarily handicap their builds in the interest of chasing down a treasure incentive. The line will become super blurred if there's treasure attached.

Arnold wrote:

Picc wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: And - let me try to garner support for the Sliding Window token variant with a different approach:

If there were a (say) 6 year sliding window format, at the same time we could announce a rule that no UR would be reprinted while it was still leagal in the sliding window format.

Two birds, one stone .

Let me try and come at it from the other side. If you want to play with a limited token base, say current year, current story arc, or last 6 years, what's stopping you? Does it really need TPTB to support the format with some manner of reward at the apparent risk of alienating a large percentage of the entrenched player base? And if the answer is yes what about the other player driven formats, should double down and or green with envy have official support too?

Picc's view pretty much mirrors my own. Apply restrictions to your own build if that's what floats your boat. TPTB shouldn't need to incentivize a handicap like Arc or Green with Envy.

The Arc solution doesn't solve the issue at hand anyway - there will still be BIS, albeit with a later starting line. For Arc to truly work, TD would need some R&D to flesh out ~22 unique builds (lumping wizards and fighters together). Then, you'd need to cram all of that design into (relatively) small windows within the token releases. R&D would have to constantly be cycling in new variations as tokens drop off. Finally, R&D would have to create new niches that challenge Strength, AC, & damage.

If all of that were to happen, it still wouldn't make sense to mix Arc players with non-Arc players. A good amount of veterans already pull their punches to accommodate new players in PUGS. I see no reason why anyone should do this for players that voluntarily handicap their builds in the interest of chasing down a treasure incentive. The line will become super blurred if there's treasure attached.

I think you're completely right.

If you want a different challenge, there are a TON of runs on the forums (100 HP, Turkey Leg, Green with Envy, Bloody Nightmare, Sealed, etc) that will fill that niche.

Since the original question was how to support more build variation at the top levels, its going to be tough to do with what we have.
Anything slotless goes on every build, because, why not?
Charm of Avarice
Boots of the Four Winds
Cloak of Shadowskin
Phracus' Greater Cloak of Destiny
etc

The more "useable by all" tokens we have at high levels, the more each class will start to look like the others in their builds.

One problem is the single class BiS tokens by their definition won't drive token sales the way useable by all tokens will.

Picc wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: And - let me try to garner support for the Sliding Window token variant with a different approach:

If there were a (say) 6 year sliding window format, at the same time we could announce a rule that no UR would be reprinted while it was still leagal in the sliding window format.

Two birds, one stone .

Let me try and come at it from the other side. If you want to play with a limited token base, say current year, current story arc, or last 6 years, what's stopping you? Does it really need TPTB to support the format with some manner of reward at the apparent risk of alienating a large percentage of the entrenched player base? And if the answer is yes what about the other player driven formats, should double down and or green with envy have official support too?

Nothing is stopping anyone from doing that.

However the lack of a sanctioned format for something like that means there is limited demand for tokens that would play well in that setting, and hence limited build diversity.

The point is: if you want build diversity, you’ll need to get it by putting in incentives players want to build diversely. The reason for the lack of build diversity is that there is only one set of incentives in play for token use right now (e.g. deal damage to monsters quickly from a token pool of all tokens ever printed).

To make a concrete example, +2 war shillelagh is an unloved token. In a format without 2014 or earlier tokens it becomes the best option for many classes at UR.

Another concrete example: there would be very slight demand today for a new “lesser cloak of shadow skin” - as cloak of shadow skin but also consumes a ring slot, and can’t be worn with COSS UR. However in a format where COSS is not allowed there would be substantial demand for it.

It’s fine if you don’t agree having substantial build variety is a worthwhile goal - I’m just “yes anding” the OP here and trying to articulate what it might take to get to a place where there was substantial (e.g. double digit percentages of the player base, and supported in token design).

The fact that people can do turkey leg and hide armor runs if they want is neither here not there.

Matthew Hayward wrote: To make a concrete example, +2 war shillelagh is an unloved token. In a format without 2014 or earlier tokens it becomes the best option for many classes at UR.

Another concrete example: there would be very slight demand today for a new “lesser cloak of shadow skin” - as cloak of shadow skin but also consumes a ring slot, and can’t be worn with COSS UR. However in a format where COSS is not allowed there would be substantial demand for it.

It’s fine if you don’t agree having substantial build variety is a worthwhile goal - I’m just “yes anding” the OP here and trying to articulate what it might take to get to a place where there was substantial (e.g. double digit percentages of the player base, and supported in token design).

The fact that people can do turkey leg and hide armor runs if they want is neither here not there.

Your two examples involve unloved & perhaps underpowered tokens. What happens to the rest of the player base? No new toys for the folks who've been buying tokens for the past X years?

Nobody has argued that substantial build variety is not a worthwhile goal. We are just saying that you don't need a sanctioned format to spurn one. This entire BIS argument has a black and white fallacy. There are plenty of people who do not run BIS, nor are they striving for it.

I was trying to think of some items that would mitigate slot lock at least for my two main characters (Monk/Druid).

I took a look at my Monk and the only tokens there really are always on my builds are (ignoring slotless):

Weapon - Legendary Viper Fang
Waist - Legendary Girdle
Hands - Gloves of Flying Fists (not always depends on year)*
Feet - Boots of Four Winds
Shirt - Blessed Strength

So how do you provide a token(s) that could beat these BiS slot locked tokens without significant power creep. The only method I see is an alternate build that isn't strength based.

In my opinion, TD has 3 categories of player roles: Traditional DPS, Traditional Healer, and Non-Traditional Support (Bard, Rogue, Paladin)

So if my Monk is in the DPS role the only other options are: create a new role, change my DPS role, change to an existing role.

All are viable options if the game is relatively balanced but all require work, planning, and a new set of tokens for.

No conclusions here - just my opinions.

Ed

Matthew Hayward wrote: To make a concrete example, +2 war shillelagh is an unloved token. In a format without 2014 or earlier tokens it becomes the best option for many classes at UR.

Ok, I am starting a support group for owners of +2 War Shillelagh's.

It actually is a VERY good token even including 2007+ tokens. It is 1 handed, has a 7.5 average damage wheel (tied for highest for 1 handers with +2 Dread Sword, +2 Slayer Sword, and +2 Viper Strike Fang).

Stop bagging on my Shillelagh! Probably a new teenager phrase that means something else.

Ed