TOPIC: Treasure Inflation

Lequinian wrote:

lazlo_hollyfeld1985 wrote:

jedibcg Banjo 5150 Lover wrote:

lazlo_hollyfeld1985 wrote: I have done a pick up group. Walked in and someone was negotiating the treasure cut. Me being the ass I am..said use mine You can keep all the treasure. I don’t want anything

That is what happens when an ahole (me) shows up unexpectedly

There is a reason that I like laz and that we sometimes butt heads. We both can be an ass...lol.

At least we know dark knight is best super hero movie

Endgame.

Or Casino Royale if you prefer something “older”.

Ooh, Casino Royale definitely! Great film

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Singsalot wrote: In this modern era of apps and such, there's no reason a vet can't have a proper NM build ready and a high-defense, lower-damage build in case of a Normal run. No Str/spell damage boosts, Turkey leg, etc.

As a Wizard I just stop using my MEC and undercut my +spell damage bonuses (and drop my HP by 25ish)

And a high-damage melee hero could just go first and backstop the board.

jedibcg Banjo 5150 Lover wrote:

edwin wrote:
Neither of you are ass....

I am definitely an ass. Don't just my dealings with TE's to be a sign that I am not one. I am usually a smartass, sometimes a dumbass, but generally always an ass.

I’m a jackass...pain in the ass and the above as
Well

Guedoji wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Guedoji wrote: This isn't directly related to TEs, but a word of caution for everyone from personal experience around loaning tokens.

While loaning tokens seems nice, in the early days I was often geared out with higher level tokens by vets that joined the runs. Vets joining pugs and decking out players to the point that people are killing monsters in one shot, or one round in normal difficulty is not a good thing. When monsters go down before people are able to attack, be attacked, or even understand what happened, it actually hurts the experience more than it helps. Initially I didn't understand why anyone needed tokens, it was just all too easy.

Players don't want to sit around for 5-6 minutes after the monster is killed. This is akin to vets coming in and answering the puzzle they have already done. There is no danger involved if someone is just going to solve it.

Whenever I am running with newbies, a pug, or the crew of 20ish that I sponsor on runs I privately ask combat GM's to signal me when the monster is dead so I can stop burning spells but to allow the party to fight to the warning timer and claim victory. I've been doing that for the last 5 years. One of my friends figured it out the third year and thanked me for making it more epic for the group/

Being a Wizard is an advantage because I already have to talk to the GM to cast spells and I already skip casting rounds to conserve ammo if the monster is nearly dead, so it doesn't seem odd that I'm chatting with the DM for a moment.

That's cool, its much more exciting when it runs the clock and someone makes that last ditch heroic kill!

Yeah.

2014 or 2015 my group of 3 figured out we could clear nightmare 3 man in 1-2 rounds of combat so we had to figure out a way to not ruin the fun when we're running with a group of newbies or hosted players.

First I sold off the UR built loaner builds and created my 12 BIS rare loaner builds.
Second I started asking DMs to let the fights drag on.

Both seemed to be solid requests.

Singsalot wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Singsalot wrote: In this modern era of apps and such, there's no reason a vet can't have a proper NM build ready and a high-defense, lower-damage build in case of a Normal run. No Str/spell damage boosts, Turkey leg, etc.

As a Wizard I just stop using my MEC and undercut my +spell damage bonuses (and drop my HP by 25ish)

And a high-damage melee hero could just go first and backstop the board.

play the game of can you land the nat 1

lazlo_hollyfeld1985 wrote:

jedibcg Banjo 5150 Lover wrote:

edwin wrote:
Neither of you are ass....

I am definitely an ass. Don't just my dealings with TE's to be a sign that I am not one. I am usually a smartass, sometimes a dumbass, but generally always an ass.

I’m a jackass...pain in the ass and the above as
Well

There's a big difference between being an ass in general and being the kind of asshole who ruins the game for other players.

I assume all three of us are the "in general" kinds of ass but none of the three would ever intentionally ruin the game for someone else.

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

lazlo_hollyfeld1985 wrote:

jedibcg Banjo 5150 Lover wrote:

edwin wrote:
Neither of you are ass....

I am definitely an ass. Don't just my dealings with TE's to be a sign that I am not one. I am usually a smartass, sometimes a dumbass, but generally always an ass.

I’m a jackass...pain in the ass and the above as
Well

There's a big difference between being an ass in general and being the kind of asshole who ruins the game for other players.

I assume all three of us are the "in general" kinds of ass but none of the three would ever intentionally ruin the game for someone else.

Woah woah woah neither of said we were assholes.

Singsalot wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Singsalot wrote: In this modern era of apps and such, there's no reason a vet can't have a proper NM build ready and a high-defense, lower-damage build in case of a Normal run. No Str/spell damage boosts, Turkey leg, etc.

As a Wizard I just stop using my MEC and undercut my +spell damage bonuses (and drop my HP by 25ish)

And a high-damage melee hero could just go first and backstop the board.

I just go ranged in that circumstance. My ranged is sad enough to look ok on normal.

jedibcg Banjo 5150 Lover wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

lazlo_hollyfeld1985 wrote:

jedibcg Banjo 5150 Lover wrote:

edwin wrote:
Neither of you are ass....

I am definitely an ass. Don't just my dealings with TE's to be a sign that I am not one. I am usually a smartass, sometimes a dumbass, but generally always an ass.

I’m a jackass...pain in the ass and the above as
Well

There's a big difference between being an ass in general and being the kind of asshole who ruins the game for other players.

I assume all three of us are the "in general" kinds of ass but none of the three would ever intentionally ruin the game for someone else.

Woah woah woah neither of said we were assholes.

Mike Steele wrote:

Anthony Barnstable wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

macxdmg wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

sarielv wrote: > When I loan them out whatever people get is theirs. It doesn't feel comfortable otherwise - just a shady feel to it.

On the other side of that, I was a little disgusted when a whale benefactor came up to me at the end of a run with his palm out and I had to inform him I had a full set of boosters of my own, so I didn't need his largesse.

The end of the run part of that is a bit confusing. Wouldn't you have told the Coach that you had your own TE tokens when the person was trying to loan them out to the group in the coaching room?

If the gentleman was looking for anything more than a handshake and there wasn't an agreement ahead of time, that is pretty presumptuous.

I agree. I don't have a problem with the person loaning the TE's to get a share of the treasure chips, but only if it's agreed to ahead of time very clearly, with no type of pressure or strong-arming.

It has always seemed to me like it was taking advantage of TD a bit for someone to get a set of 10 TE tokens and then jump into pick up group after pick up group to share their TE tokens with everyone and take a portion of everyone's treasure chips in each run. I'd actually like to see more restrictions on loaning TE tokens, like each one can't be used by more than one person per convention, or even just no more than one person per day. But, that approach was discussed, and I think there was just no way to track the TE token usage or enforce it.

The way to do that would be to rfid all TEs (rares and URs included), then give a unique voucher for each day for that specific rfid. That seems incredibly tedious and will really mess up packs.

I don't think Rares would be necessary. Even if the rule were just CoA, which already has the chips, would help. Eventually maybe it could all be done electronically, matching the RFID to someone's badge for the convention or day.

That would, in a word, suck. A friend and I have split a CoA. We obviously make sure to schedule our runs so we don't overlap, which is easy enough, but it would seriously be annoying to have to schedule entirely different days to do runs to make sure we got to use our TEs.

NightGod wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Anthony Barnstable wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

macxdmg wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

sarielv wrote: > When I loan them out whatever people get is theirs. It doesn't feel comfortable otherwise - just a shady feel to it.

On the other side of that, I was a little disgusted when a whale benefactor came up to me at the end of a run with his palm out and I had to inform him I had a full set of boosters of my own, so I didn't need his largesse.

The end of the run part of that is a bit confusing. Wouldn't you have told the Coach that you had your own TE tokens when the person was trying to loan them out to the group in the coaching room?

If the gentleman was looking for anything more than a handshake and there wasn't an agreement ahead of time, that is pretty presumptuous.

I agree. I don't have a problem with the person loaning the TE's to get a share of the treasure chips, but only if it's agreed to ahead of time very clearly, with no type of pressure or strong-arming.

It has always seemed to me like it was taking advantage of TD a bit for someone to get a set of 10 TE tokens and then jump into pick up group after pick up group to share their TE tokens with everyone and take a portion of everyone's treasure chips in each run. I'd actually like to see more restrictions on loaning TE tokens, like each one can't be used by more than one person per convention, or even just no more than one person per day. But, that approach was discussed, and I think there was just no way to track the TE token usage or enforce it.

The way to do that would be to rfid all TEs (rares and URs included), then give a unique voucher for each day for that specific rfid. That seems incredibly tedious and will really mess up packs.

I don't think Rares would be necessary. Even if the rule were just CoA, which already has the chips, would help. Eventually maybe it could all be done electronically, matching the RFID to someone's badge for the convention or day.

That would, in a word, suck. A friend and I have split a CoA. We obviously make sure to schedule our runs so we don't overlap, which is easy enough, but it would seriously be annoying to have to schedule entirely different days to do runs to make sure we got to use our TEs.

To solve his problem TPTB could also post rules that you cannot negotiate for tokens in coaching, and that it’ll turn your token count to 0 if you do. There could also be an agreement that if you need an AC to remove a player because of badgering about splitting treasure that you can call them and remove a person from the run. There probably is already something that if an individual is causing a problem with the group that an AC can be called to correct the issue.

Actually, it could be done potentially with a server and back end work that a CoA could be turned off for a day. This is highly dependent on how the verification app works, a CoA of someone bartering or badgering another player could be turned off for the rest of the day / convention weekend. You have 10 on you when you’re asked about the situation, you have 10 turned off. It doesn’t work for unchipped TEs obviously for reasons. I’m also making a big assumption about server backend for the verifier app and potential communications to it that could be made from AC or higher accounts. Oh the life of a good product owner, pie in the sky ideas with no concern for the development until the bid comes back, to the bottom of the backlog you go.

Or you could rely on coaches to do what I do. When ever token loaning conversations start, inform everyone that its perfectly ok to accept or decline such offers.

I have never had to call a coach coordinator (thats who we call, not ACs) in this sort of situation.