Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: Treasure Inflation

Treasure Inflation 1 month 2 weeks ago #49

True hero of time (THOT) wrote: As somebody who just invested in COA's. Changing to two mixes is a big **** &&& . Maybe I am the only one who feels that way because I just invested and have not had a chance to see ROI.

I picked up a second CoA, silver nugget, gold nugget set for ghosting so I definitely understand the bad ROI issue.
Probably would not have picked them up if it were not for diluted bits this year. Either way I’m not in favor of a second mix that is worse.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Treasure Inflation 1 month 2 weeks ago #50

Wayne Rhodes wrote:

True hero of time (THOT) wrote: As somebody who just invested in COA's. Changing to two mixes is a big **** &&& . Maybe I am the only one who feels that way because I just invested and have not had a chance to see ROI.

I picked up a second CoA, silver nugget, gold nugget set for ghosting so I definitely understand the bad ROI issue.
Probably would not have picked them up if it were not for diluted bits this year. Either way I’m not in favor of a second mix that is worse.


I probably have more CoAs than most people. I’ve gotten nearly zero ROI on most of them because they get loaned out to the rest of my party members and get nothing in return.

The way I look at it is this: the treasure is getting diluted anyway, whether there are two mixes or not. Having one mix only masks this fact, it doesn’t change it. So the only question is, can we dilute the treasure in a way that the newbies aren’t affected so much?

If we continue the way we are, we’re basically hurting people who don’t have max loot just to keep the rest of us at a reasonable level.

A single TC used to be much more valuable when I started accumulating CoAs. It doesn’t bother me so much that dilution is making them less valuable every year. If we’re honest, that’s true of almost every token.

Feeding greed created this situation, so someone has to shoulder the consequences. Why should it be the newbies? It’s not their fault. They’re already facing higher ticket prices every year without the mitigation of 20+ loot. They get 3. Maybe we can offset that with slightly better loot.
barkley.neo.rr.com -->see my trade thread HERE , my eBay store HERE or my web store HERE
"Ceci n'est pas une pipe" - Magritte

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Last edit: by Brad Mortensen.

Treasure Inflation 1 month 2 weeks ago #51

Brad Mortensen wrote:

Wayne Rhodes wrote:

True hero of time (THOT) wrote: As somebody who just invested in COA's. Changing to two mixes is a big **** &&& . Maybe I am the only one who feels that way because I just invested and have not had a chance to see ROI.

I picked up a second CoA, silver nugget, gold nugget set for ghosting so I definitely understand the bad ROI issue.
Probably would not have picked them up if it were not for diluted bits this year. Either way I’m not in favor of a second mix that is worse.


I probably have more CoAs than most people. I’ve gotten nearly zero ROI on most of them because they get loaned out to the rest of my party members and get nothing in return.

The way I look at it is this: the treasure is getting diluted anyway, whether there are two mixes or not. Having one mix only masks this fact, it doesn’t change it. So the only question is, can we dilute the treasure in a way that the newbies aren’t affected so much?

If we continue the way we are, we’re basically hurting people who don’t have max loot just to keep the rest of us at a reasonable level.

A single TC used to be much more valuable when I started accumulating CoAs. It doesn’t bother me so much that dilution is making them less valuable every year. If we’re honest, that’s true of almost every token.

Feeding greed created this situation, so someone has to shoulder the consequences. Why should it be the newbies? It’s not their fault. They’re already facing higher ticket prices every year without the mitigation of 20+ loot. They get 3. Maybe we can offset that with slightly better loot.


I'm sure you're right that there are a lot of people eager to get more tokens that grant more treasure pulls, but I wouldn't say that "created this situation". True Dungeon has made the decision to print all of these Treasure Enhancing Tokens, so they clearly thought that the positives outweighed the negatives.

Going forward, I'd be fine if they printed more new TE URs after the Ioun Stone Platinum Nugget, or if they did something different, because TPTB have more info on what the correct course of action for the future of True Dungeon is than any of us do. I do know, if they do print any additional new uncapped TE URs, I'll buy at least 10 of each. :)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Treasure Inflation 1 month 2 weeks ago #52

Bob Chasan wrote:

jedibcg wrote: This would require everyone to get their treasure as soon as the exit the dungeon. Or else there would not be a way to know if someone is coming back with 3 they got as extra. Not the worst thing, but it would complicate things for those doing back to back runs or any other event after their TD run.

I am still not convinced though that this year's mix was the intended mix. Though it is true the treasure has been more diluted for UR+'s
Gen Con Only UR+ percentages
2019 .30% on 7417 draws
2018 .41% on 5604 draws
2017 .64% on 9554 draws
2016 1.65% on 5507 draws

Gen Other (non pack rares and uncommons & non monster bits)
2019 8.22%
2018 11.71%
2017 5.93%
2016 6.05%

Other and Monster bits
2019 17.55%
2018 34.87%
2017 23.92%
2016 23.77%

We know there about half as many monster bits as Jeff wanted in the treasure box, I think it is possible there was half as much Other as well. Maybe not half as much UR+ but at least half as much other. If Other and Monster bits were what they were Gen Con 2018 then with 3 pulls a play would likely get something besides a pack rare/uncommon. Just a thought that we don't need to do anything or worry about anything if last year was just a mistake for the treasure, imo. We just don't have enough knowledge to make any suggestions, imo. Treasure is something that only 1 year has Jeff told us what the percentages were likely to be. Every other year we have had to guess, which is why I created the google doc so we would have some sort of idea after the fact. Nor am I suggesting we should now the percentages before any given year. In the tiny data set we have 4 years out of all the years of treasure I think we don't know much especially given 1 of those 4 years we know at least the monster bits were off.


I agree with this in that In the tiny data set we have 4 years out of all the years of treasure I think we don't know much especially given 1 of those 4 years we know at least the monster bits were off.

The one thing I would really like to see is more of the low level transmutes for 2 reasons:
1. With the Blue backing they are IMMEDIATELY identifiable to newer players as something different as opposed to a UR which might be confused as just another token.
2. If more were in circulation, I think it would drive demand up from all the resellers. I think it's the problem that newer players simply don't know what's available. Since most of them are less than $7 (or in that range) a parent with kids trying out the the run might not be too put out to spend $15-$20 on tokens since they were willing to put out for the price of admission.
2b. If the above happens, it would also use up some of the extra trade goods of which people have so many leftover since resellers would have more incentive to transmute to those tokens.


I have to disagree with the comment of "tiny data set." This is an incredibly large sampling size - many times larger than would be needed to create modelling for scientific or medical statistical models. By my math, the margin of error on this large a sample size should be less than 4%.

These are accurate numbers. The one that is a variable is the monster bits since Jeff told us it was an accident to not have more bits last year (we can assume it is fixed for this year).

Fred
What do we want? Evidence based science! When do we want it? After peer review!

Wizard build
truedungeon.com/forum?view=topic&catid=570&id=247398

Rogue build
truedungeon.com/forum?view=topic&catid=569&id=245490#287189

Items for Sale or Trade
truedungeon.com/forum?view=topic&catid=583&id=247555

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Treasure Inflation 1 month 2 weeks ago #53

  • jedibcg
  • jedibcg's Avatar
  • Away
  • 8th Level
  • Supporter
  • What is personal text?
  • Posts: 7957

Fred K wrote:
I have to disagree with the comment of "tiny data set." This is an incredibly large sampling size - many times larger than would be needed to create modelling for scientific or medical statistical models. By my math, the margin of error on this large a sample size should be less than 4%.

These are accurate numbers. The one that is a variable is the monster bits since Jeff told us it was an accident to not have more bits last year (we can assume it is fixed for this year).

Fred


The comment about the tiny data set is not about each year but of all the years of treasure. We don't have enough data to know how treasure has or hasn't been trending because we only have 3 years worth of data we trust. Basically we have 3 solid points on a graph. But we don't know about any of the points before those 3 years and the 4 year we know at least some of the numbers are off from what they should be.
You either discover a star or you don't. You arrogant punk.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Last edit: by jedibcg.

Treasure Inflation 1 month 2 weeks ago #54

I couldn't find who suggested it in this thread but I want to second the idea of capping max treasure permanently with the next enhancer. Have the max be +25. Keep doing new TE's but have the market for those be newer players. Perhaps even another whole path to COA that would allow players who aren't as big spenders to build a CoA but with different components and repeat that every 8 or so years.

Yes, the older players wouldn't necessarily buy the new TEs but that is ok if it can set the stage for improving the quality of the overall draws for everyone (especially new players). If alternate slots were used for the TE's - even the vets would likely buy them. Could you picture not switching to a slotless TE if one became available?No question I would. I could even see replacing my CoA(s) with an unslotted version. For people who aren't at the CoA level yet - having something as good as the ATF but not a neck slot would be hugely valuable. Even now, we're starting to see competition for Ioun Stone Stots (now that they are capped). What if new TEs could replace the Ioun Stones but using slots we don't have critical items (shins ("golden shin guards +2 treasure - does not stack with golden nugget"), possibly ring slots, head slots, etc..)

I'd say the top priority would be to improve draws for new players. Yes, a rare is cool for them but a UR gathers a small crowd. I've seen it dozens of times. It happened to me on my very first run. In my case, that helped earn TD many, many thousands of dollars over the past several years.

For the vets, carrying 10 pounds of tokens is an annoyance but it isn't the end of the world. It would be nice to not see increasingly declining value of those draws, though.

Fred
What do we want? Evidence based science! When do we want it? After peer review!

Wizard build
truedungeon.com/forum?view=topic&catid=570&id=247398

Rogue build
truedungeon.com/forum?view=topic&catid=569&id=245490#287189

Items for Sale or Trade
truedungeon.com/forum?view=topic&catid=583&id=247555

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Treasure Inflation 1 month 2 weeks ago #55

Fred K wrote: I couldn't find who suggested it in this thread but I want to second the idea of capping max treasure permanently with the next enhancer. Have the max be +25. Keep doing new TE's but have the market for those be newer players. Perhaps even another whole path to COA that would allow players who aren't as big spenders to build a CoA but with different components and repeat that every 8 or so years.

Yes, the older players wouldn't necessarily buy the new TEs but that is ok if it can set the stage for improving the quality of the overall draws for everyone (especially new players). If alternate slots were used for the TE's - even the vets would likely buy them. Could you picture not switching to a slotless TE if one became available?No question I would. I could even see replacing my CoA(s) with an unslotted version. For people who aren't at the CoA level yet - having something as good as the ATF but not a neck slot would be hugely valuable. Even now, we're starting to see competition for Ioun Stone Stots (now that they are capped). What if new TEs could replace the Ioun Stones but using slots we don't have critical items (shins ("golden shin guards +2 treasure - does not stack with golden nugget"), possibly ring slots, head slots, etc..)

I'd say the top priority would be to improve draws for new players. Yes, a rare is cool for them but a UR gathers a small crowd. I've seen it dozens of times. It happened to me on my very first run. In my case, that helped earn TD many, many thousands of dollars over the past several years.

For the vets, carrying 10 pounds of tokens is an annoyance but it isn't the end of the world. It would be nice to not see increasingly declining value of those draws, though.

Fred


If True Dungeon went the route of capping after the Ioun Stone Platinum Nugget, wouldn't the cap be 23 and not 25?

I'm guessing one factor True Dungeon would consider is how sales would be impacted by having a cap. How many sales would be lost due to people that are already at the cap and won't need the new URs. True Dungeon probably has much better data than we do on how many of the people that might buy a new TE UR are also the people already at the cap. The cost of those token pulls is also a factor - if it costs True Dungeon just pennies to produce the 25+ tokens for the token pull, it might still be cost effective for them to continue to do new TE URs without a cap.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Treasure Inflation 1 month 2 weeks ago #56

Fred K wrote: I couldn't find who suggested it in this thread but I want to second the idea of capping max treasure permanently with the next enhancer. Have the max be +25. Keep doing new TE's but have the market for those be newer players. Perhaps even another whole path to COA that would allow players who aren't as big spenders to build a CoA but with different components and repeat that every 8 or so years.

Yes, the older players wouldn't necessarily buy the new TEs but that is ok if it can set the stage for improving the quality of the overall draws for everyone (especially new players). If alternate slots were used for the TE's - even the vets would likely buy them. Could you picture not switching to a slotless TE if one became available?No question I would. I could even see replacing my CoA(s) with an unslotted version. For people who aren't at the CoA level yet - having something as good as the ATF but not a neck slot would be hugely valuable. Even now, we're starting to see competition for Ioun Stone Stots (now that they are capped). What if new TEs could replace the Ioun Stones but using slots we don't have critical items (shins ("golden shin guards +2 treasure - does not stack with golden nugget"), possibly ring slots, head slots, etc..)

I'd say the top priority would be to improve draws for new players. Yes, a rare is cool for them but a UR gathers a small crowd. I've seen it dozens of times. It happened to me on my very first run. In my case, that helped earn TD many, many thousands of dollars over the past several years.

For the vets, carrying 10 pounds of tokens is an annoyance but it isn't the end of the world. It would be nice to not see increasingly declining value of those draws, though.

Fred

I’m cool with the treasure cap at 25. I would NOT decrease slot competition however - in all honesty the Charm of Avarice was likely a mistake to let players have their cake and eat it too. With the recent batch of IS slot expanders, I don’t think we have meaningful competition for the IS slots, even with 3 reserved with nuggets.

On the TE front, I would be in favor of the post nugget TEs being a 3 chip ring and a 3 chip charm none of which stack with RoR and CoGF. Allow these 2 to be merged with the AoTF into a charm that does not stack with a CoA.

This new charm would yield more treasure than a CoA if you have less than 6 in the party, the same as the CoA if You have 6-9. In a party of 10 CoAs, you would get 1 extra treasure, which is a nice little perk for the vets without being Over the top. You could even make a 1 treasure item that stacks with the new charm that does not stack with the COA to allow Max treasure for the new charm, but costs 1 extra slot - maybe a ioun Stone.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Treasure Inflation 1 month 2 weeks ago #57

Fred K wrote:

Bob Chasan wrote:

jedibcg wrote: This would require everyone to get their treasure as soon as the exit the dungeon. Or else there would not be a way to know if someone is coming back with 3 they got as extra. Not the worst thing, but it would complicate things for those doing back to back runs or any other event after their TD run.

I am still not convinced though that this year's mix was the intended mix. Though it is true the treasure has been more diluted for UR+'s
Gen Con Only UR+ percentages
2019 .30% on 7417 draws
2018 .41% on 5604 draws
2017 .64% on 9554 draws
2016 1.65% on 5507 draws

Gen Other (non pack rares and uncommons & non monster bits)
2019 8.22%
2018 11.71%
2017 5.93%
2016 6.05%

Other and Monster bits
2019 17.55%
2018 34.87%
2017 23.92%
2016 23.77%

We know there about half as many monster bits as Jeff wanted in the treasure box, I think it is possible there was half as much Other as well. Maybe not half as much UR+ but at least half as much other. If Other and Monster bits were what they were Gen Con 2018 then with 3 pulls a play would likely get something besides a pack rare/uncommon. Just a thought that we don't need to do anything or worry about anything if last year was just a mistake for the treasure, imo. We just don't have enough knowledge to make any suggestions, imo. Treasure is something that only 1 year has Jeff told us what the percentages were likely to be. Every other year we have had to guess, which is why I created the google doc so we would have some sort of idea after the fact. Nor am I suggesting we should now the percentages before any given year. In the tiny data set we have 4 years out of all the years of treasure I think we don't know much especially given 1 of those 4 years we know at least the monster bits were off.


I agree with this in that In the tiny data set we have 4 years out of all the years of treasure I think we don't know much especially given 1 of those 4 years we know at least the monster bits were off.

The one thing I would really like to see is more of the low level transmutes for 2 reasons:
1. With the Blue backing they are IMMEDIATELY identifiable to newer players as something different as opposed to a UR which might be confused as just another token.
2. If more were in circulation, I think it would drive demand up from all the resellers. I think it's the problem that newer players simply don't know what's available. Since most of them are less than $7 (or in that range) a parent with kids trying out the the run might not be too put out to spend $15-$20 on tokens since they were willing to put out for the price of admission.
2b. If the above happens, it would also use up some of the extra trade goods of which people have so many leftover since resellers would have more incentive to transmute to those tokens.


I have to disagree with the comment of "tiny data set." This is an incredibly large sampling size - many times larger than would be needed to create modelling for scientific or medical statistical models. By my math, the margin of error on this large a sample size should be less than 4%.

These are accurate numbers. The one that is a variable is the monster bits since Jeff told us it was an accident to not have more bits last year (we can assume it is fixed for this year).

Fred


Just a comment on the 2019 Bits. I have seen a number of posts stating the "reduced" number of 2019 Bits. I believe Jeff's post about the Bits stated that he ordered the same amount of 2019 Bits as prior year. It's just that the boxes were diluted with other stuff. So..as long as all treasure gets pulled there will be the same number of Bits in the market as prior years.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." - Albert Einstein

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Treasure Inflation 1 month 2 weeks ago #58

I recall seeing the same number of monster bits but with twice as much overall treasure. So roughly 1/2 the odds of pulling.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Last edit: by edwin.

Treasure Inflation 1 month 2 weeks ago #59

Picc wrote: 4) We could try to invent additional treasure sinks. Maybe in the form of items or class abilities. For example a new rogue ability that lets you get the clue after a box failure by turning in a treasure chip. Or an items that consumes treasure in order to activate (similar to how the death pouch consumes gold). The trick would be to make sure they were ongoing and didnt require staff (which is my understanding of what largely hindered the mini games)

5) I would also like to bring up the idea of community group quests again. Perhaps something like if the community can collectively turn in 1000 treasure chips, we can create a horde large enough to revive the spirit of Wirts Cache the following year, which would result in say an arcane recipe being given to the largest single contributor and enhanced treasure the following year. Not a permanent solution , but more “fun” and it kicks the can down the road a bit.


I’m a fan of these ideas. A group treasure drive for community bonuses sounds engaging and is a controllable way to get treasures. There could alternatively be a charity drive, e.g. 50k treasures donated = $50k donated to Child’s Play or wherever. That’s good publicity as well!

Treasure eating items are an interesting concept as well, such as “Cleric’s Holy Altar” for rezzing or a shrine for healing boosts. (OT, does game lore have a legendary Cleric?) The biggest question I have is how to handle old treasure tokens. Unlike gold, these things have a “use by” date. Would old treasures be allowed?

As a newer player, I can affirm that getting primo rares is an exciting event. At the last con I got a couple Devilward Amulet that I thought was pretty good, then the volunteer told me that was a treasure exclusive and I thought “oh SWEET!” I feel like I have some good trading material and bragging rights with other new players. It would be nice if the exclusives had a different backing, like onyx or yellow to help set them apart. I might have threw one in the mulch pile otherwise :p

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Last edit: by BasicBraining.

Treasure Inflation 1 month 2 weeks ago #60

Rob F wrote:

Fred K wrote:

Bob Chasan wrote:

jedibcg wrote: This would require everyone to get their treasure as soon as the exit the dungeon. Or else there would not be a way to know if someone is coming back with 3 they got as extra. Not the worst thing, but it would complicate things for those doing back to back runs or any other event after their TD run.

I am still not convinced though that this year's mix was the intended mix. Though it is true the treasure has been more diluted for UR+'s
Gen Con Only UR+ percentages
2019 .30% on 7417 draws
2018 .41% on 5604 draws
2017 .64% on 9554 draws
2016 1.65% on 5507 draws

Gen Other (non pack rares and uncommons & non monster bits)
2019 8.22%
2018 11.71%
2017 5.93%
2016 6.05%

Other and Monster bits
2019 17.55%
2018 34.87%
2017 23.92%
2016 23.77%

We know there about half as many monster bits as Jeff wanted in the treasure box, I think it is possible there was half as much Other as well. Maybe not half as much UR+ but at least half as much other. If Other and Monster bits were what they were Gen Con 2018 then with 3 pulls a play would likely get something besides a pack rare/uncommon. Just a thought that we don't need to do anything or worry about anything if last year was just a mistake for the treasure, imo. We just don't have enough knowledge to make any suggestions, imo. Treasure is something that only 1 year has Jeff told us what the percentages were likely to be. Every other year we have had to guess, which is why I created the google doc so we would have some sort of idea after the fact. Nor am I suggesting we should now the percentages before any given year. In the tiny data set we have 4 years out of all the years of treasure I think we don't know much especially given 1 of those 4 years we know at least the monster bits were off.


I agree with this in that In the tiny data set we have 4 years out of all the years of treasure I think we don't know much especially given 1 of those 4 years we know at least the monster bits were off.

The one thing I would really like to see is more of the low level transmutes for 2 reasons:
1. With the Blue backing they are IMMEDIATELY identifiable to newer players as something different as opposed to a UR which might be confused as just another token.
2. If more were in circulation, I think it would drive demand up from all the resellers. I think it's the problem that newer players simply don't know what's available. Since most of them are less than $7 (or in that range) a parent with kids trying out the the run might not be too put out to spend $15-$20 on tokens since they were willing to put out for the price of admission.
2b. If the above happens, it would also use up some of the extra trade goods of which people have so many leftover since resellers would have more incentive to transmute to those tokens.


I have to disagree with the comment of "tiny data set." This is an incredibly large sampling size - many times larger than would be needed to create modelling for scientific or medical statistical models. By my math, the margin of error on this large a sample size should be less than 4%.

These are accurate numbers. The one that is a variable is the monster bits since Jeff told us it was an accident to not have more bits last year (we can assume it is fixed for this year).

Fred


Just a comment on the 2019 Bits. I have seen a number of posts stating the "reduced" number of 2019 Bits. I believe Jeff's post about the Bits stated that he ordered the same amount of 2019 Bits as prior year. It's just that the boxes were diluted with other stuff. So..as long as all treasure gets pulled there will be the same number of Bits in the market as prior years.


I believe it was the same total bits but more cons and also there were 6 bits instead of 4. But I expect that since the new arc is starting that the bits will be about the same as they were this year in the new arc.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.195 seconds