TOPIC: Crazy Suggestion: More URs

What's the argument for more URs?

I understand the argument for more CUR to account for more slots existing, though I don't want there to be an increase. CUR don't have to cover every slot every year and a lot of the tokens are close substitutes for each other, where we probably only think of those that stand out as being particularly good rather than the large amount of banal filler. Even if really interested in having a year's worth of tokens cover every slot, can have a slot only covered by an uncommon one year or whatever, like we've seen.

I already think it's difficult coming up with anything interesting at common. Could largely print the same commons every year and it would have minimal impact on play, even if it bored people who bother to look at them to just see the same tokens again.

As for percentage of reprints, for URs, 20-25% of the 20 feels like a reasonable amount. I'd be fine with a much higher percentage of CUR reprints, but, then, last time I cared about commons was back when bunches of tokens used to get reprinted year after year. Obviously, new slots don't lend themselves to reprints, where have to keep churning out beads or whatever.

Endgame wrote: Do we really need to increase the total UR count, even with 5ish reprints per year? Are we regularly creating sets with all highly desirable URs in the UR group?

I would actually go the the other way - power creep is best contained by releasing fewer new things for the sake of being new. We should identify the number of new, interesting, and non power creeping (or acknowledge that the creep is OK for reasons XYZ) URs by draft 2 or 3, and then fill the rest with reprints. It’s OK if this means we only end up with 10 new URs.

One of the problems I see with the status quo number is that there will always be a strong desire to support the default build strategies. And then, due to how few URs we get each year, we wind up consistently lacking room for tokens that would allow alternative build strategies to actually grow to be effective alternatives to the default (which then leads to people not wanting to include a token for the alternative build, because it still won't make the alternative attractive enough). Part of the reason I was suggesting ten reprints is to help support people wanting to build down the standard paths. That would hopefully allow a majority of the new tokens to focus on allowing alternative build strategies to grow.

Things like:
Retribution builds
Wands/scrolls builds
Turn Undead improvements
Additional benefits when Rogue is flanking
Additional benefits to Barbarian while raging
Improved Paladin Guard
Bonuses to Taunt
Wizard spellbook
Different bonuses while polymorphed

Fiddy wrote:

Endgame wrote: Do we really need to increase the total UR count, even with 5ish reprints per year? Are we regularly creating sets with all highly desirable URs in the UR group?

I would actually go the the other way - power creep is best contained by releasing fewer new things for the sake of being new. We should identify the number of new, interesting, and non power creeping (or acknowledge that the creep is OK for reasons XYZ) URs by draft 2 or 3, and then fill the rest with reprints. It’s OK if this means we only end up with 10 new URs.

One of the problems I see with the status quo number is that there will always be a strong desire to support the default build strategies. And then, due to how few URs we get each year, we wind up consistently lacking room for tokens that would allow alternative build strategies to actually grow to be effective alternatives to the default (which then leads to people not wanting to include a token for the alternative build, because it still won't make the alternative attractive enough). Part of the reason I was suggesting ten reprints is to help support people wanting to build down the standard paths. That would hopefully allow a majority of the new tokens to focus on allowing alternative build strategies to grow.

Things like:
Retribution builds
Wands/scrolls builds
Turn Undead improvements
Additional benefits when Rogue is flanking
Additional benefits to Barbarian while raging
Improved Paladin Guard
Bonuses to Taunt
Wizard spellbook
Different bonuses while polymorphed

We can absolutely break default build strategies by stacking desirable tokens in the same slots. Wrist is currently interesting due to charm bracelets, arcane bracelets, reckless fury, supreme archery, and guided strike. Keep piling stuff in there! Add beaded bracelets (+2 beads), update bracelets of the Cabal, etc.

Beyond that, Can we pick one path to discuss in depth so I can understand the full argument here? I could certainly see add a IS Siren’s pearl (+2 poly, scroll, and wand damage), and this would be added to the UR set for that year. But we probably shouldn’t release 6 poly, scroll, and wand items at once as that will make a glut one year and a long gap till another such item comes out.

Now, let’s say we only come up with 14 items that are new like the sirens pearl, and also support the Arcanum UR for the year. Great, we do 5 reprints. Next year, we aren’t as clever, so we make 13 items and do 7 reprints. The year after that we are awesome and come up with 16 items and 4 reprints. If, however, it boils down to reprint RoSS vs charm of the Faerie, I’d rather cut the charm than print it to just have something “new”.

Endgame wrote:

Fiddy wrote:

Endgame wrote: Do we really need to increase the total UR count, even with 5ish reprints per year? Are we regularly creating sets with all highly desirable URs in the UR group?

I would actually go the the other way - power creep is best contained by releasing fewer new things for the sake of being new. We should identify the number of new, interesting, and non power creeping (or acknowledge that the creep is OK for reasons XYZ) URs by draft 2 or 3, and then fill the rest with reprints. It’s OK if this means we only end up with 10 new URs.

One of the problems I see with the status quo number is that there will always be a strong desire to support the default build strategies. And then, due to how few URs we get each year, we wind up consistently lacking room for tokens that would allow alternative build strategies to actually grow to be effective alternatives to the default (which then leads to people not wanting to include a token for the alternative build, because it still won't make the alternative attractive enough). Part of the reason I was suggesting ten reprints is to help support people wanting to build down the standard paths. That would hopefully allow a majority of the new tokens to focus on allowing alternative build strategies to grow.

Things like:
Retribution builds
Wands/scrolls builds
Turn Undead improvements
Additional benefits when Rogue is flanking
Additional benefits to Barbarian while raging
Improved Paladin Guard
Bonuses to Taunt
Wizard spellbook
Different bonuses while polymorphed

We can absolutely break default build strategies by stacking desirable tokens in the same slots. Wrist is currently interesting due to charm bracelets, arcane bracelets, reckless fury, supreme archery, and guided strike. Keep piling stuff in there! Add beaded bracelets (+2 beads), update bracelets of the Cabal, etc.

Beyond that, Can we pick one path to discuss in depth so I can understand the full argument here? I could certainly see add a IS Siren’s pearl (+2 poly, scroll, and wand damage), and this would be added to the UR set for that year. But we probably shouldn’t release 6 poly, scroll, and wand items at once as that will make a glut one year and a long gap till another such item comes out.

Now, let’s say we only come up with 14 items that are new like the sirens pearl, and also support the Arcanum UR for the year. Great, we do 5 reprints. Next year, we aren’t as clever, so we make 13 items and do 7 reprints. The year after that we are awesome and come up with 16 items and 4 reprints. If, however, it boils down to reprint RoSS vs charm of the Faerie, I’d rather cut the charm than print it to just have something “new”.

For the wand/scroll example, simple bonus damage is just one thing to consider. We could also do things like:
Hat of the Protected Sage - +1 to all saves and an additional +1 until the start of your next turn for each each wand/scroll used this turn
Earcuff of the Precise Sage - Reduce monster DR by 5 when using a wand/scroll
Earcuff of the Dancing Sage - Apply Bardsong bonus to wand/scroll damage
Charm of the Sundering Sage - Monster hit by your wand/scroll attacks suffer -1 AC penalty
Limitless Wand of Thunder - 12 Sonic damage to 1 monster, do not turn in
Endless Scroll of Fire - 8 Fire damage to all monsters, do not turn in

(caveat: all the above are just spur of the moment ideas not calculated for balance)

And I agree, we wouldn't want all those in 1 year, but spread out. The way we've been going though, we'd be lucky to see 3 of them in 10 years. And I'd like to still be alive when the build is finally viable.

I think the reason for lack of build diversity is that people keep wanting more power! More power!!

When all the game is is having people with better tokens that do the same thing as other tokens then build diversity becomes a player responsibility rather than being about the game offering it.

Nowadays, I consider playing Nightmare playing down. Prior to that, Hardcore interested me because I could play either less tokens or worse tokens and seek the balance level. Prior to that, goofy Normal builds had some interest for me. Builds are already way too powerful for the game, thus the arguing over what different challenge levels mean, including occasional proposals for another level above Epic because Epic not challenging enough for what's possible.

Try to suggest a class specific UR now and get claims that those won't increase sales. Anything that isn't best thing ever = "won't generate sales". Yet, at what point isn't that sustainable? I don't know when that point is, but it was Matthew Hayward who pointed out a couple years ago a problem with everything new being great.

My interpretation of the problem, to let MH off the hook for anything I say, is, if new is always better, then there's not really an incentive to get new anymore as the new thing after that will just be even better, so you can try to spike short terms sales, but it's only "healthy" if there's a constant influx of players breaking into URs, that even the new purple player of a few years ago will run into the "why bother?" mentality.

I think an obvious example was that Shirt of the Fae got obsoleted in one year by Shirt of Focus. While there are those who will argue Shirt of the Fae was never so great that it wouldn't eventually be obsoleted, the current philosophy appears to be that it's perfectly okay if people change a dozen URs every year. If it works, it works, though I speculate it's accelerating a bubble, even if a bubble is being reined in by new purple players who have reasons to chase better builds.

So, my view is that like 25% of URs should be reprints as that has no bettering impact at the Suitcase level but catches up those who missed out previously. 50% of URs should do something interesting, your diversity tokens, that may be worse than what's currently available but for average power level to remain the same some things have to be below average in order for anything to be above average. 25% of the URs are your new TEs, new power UR, whatever equates to "you will spend money to be one of the in crowd, spend money ..."

Fiddy wrote:

Endgame wrote:

Fiddy wrote:

Endgame wrote: Do we really need to increase the total UR count, even with 5ish reprints per year? Are we regularly creating sets with all highly desirable URs in the UR group?

I would actually go the the other way - power creep is best contained by releasing fewer new things for the sake of being new. We should identify the number of new, interesting, and non power creeping (or acknowledge that the creep is OK for reasons XYZ) URs by draft 2 or 3, and then fill the rest with reprints. It’s OK if this means we only end up with 10 new URs.

One of the problems I see with the status quo number is that there will always be a strong desire to support the default build strategies. And then, due to how few URs we get each year, we wind up consistently lacking room for tokens that would allow alternative build strategies to actually grow to be effective alternatives to the default (which then leads to people not wanting to include a token for the alternative build, because it still won't make the alternative attractive enough). Part of the reason I was suggesting ten reprints is to help support people wanting to build down the standard paths. That would hopefully allow a majority of the new tokens to focus on allowing alternative build strategies to grow.

Things like:
Retribution builds
Wands/scrolls builds
Turn Undead improvements
Additional benefits when Rogue is flanking
Additional benefits to Barbarian while raging
Improved Paladin Guard
Bonuses to Taunt
Wizard spellbook
Different bonuses while polymorphed

We can absolutely break default build strategies by stacking desirable tokens in the same slots. Wrist is currently interesting due to charm bracelets, arcane bracelets, reckless fury, supreme archery, and guided strike. Keep piling stuff in there! Add beaded bracelets (+2 beads), update bracelets of the Cabal, etc.

Beyond that, Can we pick one path to discuss in depth so I can understand the full argument here? I could certainly see add a IS Siren’s pearl (+2 poly, scroll, and wand damage), and this would be added to the UR set for that year. But we probably shouldn’t release 6 poly, scroll, and wand items at once as that will make a glut one year and a long gap till another such item comes out.

Now, let’s say we only come up with 14 items that are new like the sirens pearl, and also support the Arcanum UR for the year. Great, we do 5 reprints. Next year, we aren’t as clever, so we make 13 items and do 7 reprints. The year after that we are awesome and come up with 16 items and 4 reprints. If, however, it boils down to reprint RoSS vs charm of the Faerie, I’d rather cut the charm than print it to just have something “new”.

For the wand/scroll example, simple bonus damage is just one thing to consider. We could also do things like:
Hat of the Protected Sage - +1 to all saves and an additional +1 until the start of your next turn for each each wand/scroll used this turn
Earcuff of the Precise Sage - Reduce monster DR by 5 when using a wand/scroll
Earcuff of the Dancing Sage - Apply Bardsong bonus to wand/scroll damage
Charm of the Sundering Sage - Monster hit by your wand/scroll attacks suffer -1 AC penalty
Limitless Wand of Thunder - 12 Sonic damage to 1 monster, do not turn in
Endless Scroll of Fire - 8 Fire damage to all monsters, do not turn in

(caveat: all the above are just spur of the moment ideas not calculated for balance)

Absolutely! Lots of design space in buffing scrolls and wands available and they don't push the balance or power creep anything compared to existing items. However, I don't think you would want to release all of those at the same time. That could very well be 5 years of releases!

We could mix and match add 5 playstyle items per year (ex: 2023 has Wand/scroll, taunt, retribution, guard, flank URs), add 1 multi year transmute, create 10x new URs, and still reprint 4. If we don't do a great job with those 10 new URs in 2023, in the "Final" version declare "whoops - UR slots 9 and 10 suck, add 2 reprints!".

We would just need coordination at the "Final" version of token design.

Endgame wrote:

Fiddy wrote:

Endgame wrote:

Fiddy wrote:

Endgame wrote: Do we really need to increase the total UR count, even with 5ish reprints per year? Are we regularly creating sets with all highly desirable URs in the UR group?

I would actually go the the other way - power creep is best contained by releasing fewer new things for the sake of being new. We should identify the number of new, interesting, and non power creeping (or acknowledge that the creep is OK for reasons XYZ) URs by draft 2 or 3, and then fill the rest with reprints. It’s OK if this means we only end up with 10 new URs.

One of the problems I see with the status quo number is that there will always be a strong desire to support the default build strategies. And then, due to how few URs we get each year, we wind up consistently lacking room for tokens that would allow alternative build strategies to actually grow to be effective alternatives to the default (which then leads to people not wanting to include a token for the alternative build, because it still won't make the alternative attractive enough). Part of the reason I was suggesting ten reprints is to help support people wanting to build down the standard paths. That would hopefully allow a majority of the new tokens to focus on allowing alternative build strategies to grow.

Things like:
Retribution builds
Wands/scrolls builds
Turn Undead improvements
Additional benefits when Rogue is flanking
Additional benefits to Barbarian while raging
Improved Paladin Guard
Bonuses to Taunt
Wizard spellbook
Different bonuses while polymorphed

We can absolutely break default build strategies by stacking desirable tokens in the same slots. Wrist is currently interesting due to charm bracelets, arcane bracelets, reckless fury, supreme archery, and guided strike. Keep piling stuff in there! Add beaded bracelets (+2 beads), update bracelets of the Cabal, etc.

Beyond that, Can we pick one path to discuss in depth so I can understand the full argument here? I could certainly see add a IS Siren’s pearl (+2 poly, scroll, and wand damage), and this would be added to the UR set for that year. But we probably shouldn’t release 6 poly, scroll, and wand items at once as that will make a glut one year and a long gap till another such item comes out.

Now, let’s say we only come up with 14 items that are new like the sirens pearl, and also support the Arcanum UR for the year. Great, we do 5 reprints. Next year, we aren’t as clever, so we make 13 items and do 7 reprints. The year after that we are awesome and come up with 16 items and 4 reprints. If, however, it boils down to reprint RoSS vs charm of the Faerie, I’d rather cut the charm than print it to just have something “new”.

For the wand/scroll example, simple bonus damage is just one thing to consider. We could also do things like:
Hat of the Protected Sage - +1 to all saves and an additional +1 until the start of your next turn for each each wand/scroll used this turn
Earcuff of the Precise Sage - Reduce monster DR by 5 when using a wand/scroll
Earcuff of the Dancing Sage - Apply Bardsong bonus to wand/scroll damage
Charm of the Sundering Sage - Monster hit by your wand/scroll attacks suffer -1 AC penalty
Limitless Wand of Thunder - 12 Sonic damage to 1 monster, do not turn in
Endless Scroll of Fire - 8 Fire damage to all monsters, do not turn in

(caveat: all the above are just spur of the moment ideas not calculated for balance)

Absolutely! Lots of design space in buffing scrolls and wands available and they don't push the balance or power creep anything compared to existing items. However, I don't think you would want to release all of those at the same time. That could very well be 5 years of releases!

We could mix and match add 5 playstyle items per year (ex: 2023 has Wand/scroll, taunt, retribution, guard, flank URs), add 1 multi year transmute, create 10x new URs, and still reprint 4. If we don't do a great job with those 10 new URs in 2023, in the "Final" version declare "whoops - UR slots 9 and 10 suck, add 2 reprints!".

We would just need coordination at the "Final" version of token design.

As long as we're talking about opening up playstyles, I think something that would be a great way to help influence and guide token design for the community would be to spend the "forum offseason" (outside of design solicitation) soliciting new playstyle ideas that the community can tweak (Melee battlemage or Vampire Healer anyone?). TPTB can gather data and decide which if any they want to add, which is then published at the start of design solicitation.

This would help guide token design over the course of several years:
"Melee battlemage got a weapon last year, let's design armor this year"
"How much health drain should the Vampire cloak grant?"

Additionally, by narrowing the design space, you can create powerful effects that don't increase power creep. On top of that, it keeps the theory-crafters busy ensuring that the powerful effects stay balanced with the existing top end builds.

Endgame wrote: We could mix and match add 5 playstyle items per year (ex: 2023 has Wand/scroll, taunt, retribution, guard, flank URs), add 1 multi year transmute, create 10x new URs, and still reprint 4. If we don't do a great job with those 10 new URs in 2023, in the "Final" version declare "whoops - UR slots 9 and 10 suck, add 2 reprints!".

We would just need coordination at the "Final" version of token design.

Thinking along these lines is great for helping with the reprint discussion. There can certainly be flexibility in the number of reprints in a given year. "These are the 15 most popular new UR ideas and these are the 8 most popular UR reprints, when we combined these two lists, which ones are the bottom 3?"

Exbalz wrote:

Endgame wrote: We could mix and match add 5 playstyle items per year (ex: 2023 has Wand/scroll, taunt, retribution, guard, flank URs), add 1 multi year transmute, create 10x new URs, and still reprint 4. If we don't do a great job with those 10 new URs in 2023, in the "Final" version declare "whoops - UR slots 9 and 10 suck, add 2 reprints!".

We would just need coordination at the "Final" version of token design.

Thinking along these lines is great for helping with the reprint discussion. There can certainly be flexibility in the number of reprints in a given year. "These are the 15 most popular new UR ideas and these are the 8 most popular UR reprints, when we combined these two lists, which ones are the bottom 3?"

The problem with combining everything like that is that you go right back to some people seem to want nothing but new tokens and some people seem to want as many reprints as possible. And "most popular overall"/"least popular overall" quickly falls apart.

Fiddy wrote:

Exbalz wrote:

Endgame wrote: We could mix and match add 5 playstyle items per year (ex: 2023 has Wand/scroll, taunt, retribution, guard, flank URs), add 1 multi year transmute, create 10x new URs, and still reprint 4. If we don't do a great job with those 10 new URs in 2023, in the "Final" version declare "whoops - UR slots 9 and 10 suck, add 2 reprints!".

We would just need coordination at the "Final" version of token design.

Thinking along these lines is great for helping with the reprint discussion. There can certainly be flexibility in the number of reprints in a given year. "These are the 15 most popular new UR ideas and these are the 8 most popular UR reprints, when we combined these two lists, which ones are the bottom 3?"

The problem with combining everything like that is that you go right back to some people seem to want nothing but new tokens and some people seem to want as many reprints as possible. And "most popular overall"/"least popular overall" quickly falls apart.

What about a floor/ceiling on reprints, say 4-7 depending on how well the new UR's stack up vs alternatives to reprint?

Fiddy wrote:

Endgame wrote: Wouldn’t the change in artwork and date stamp on the back of the token remove the need for the word “reprint” in the title? I get the intent, but it’s slightly immersion breaking to toss “reprints” in the name. So much so it may damage sales.

And

Picc wrote: It's silly but I dont think I would want to purchase something labeled "reprint" it just makes it seem lesser somehow.

I am by no means tied to having "Reprint" text literally be there. I do think a quick way of identifying them at a glance would be nice though. Heck, it could be an "!" since we're all excited to see these reprints, right?

Yes, I'm sure we all have every year symbol (and artwork) memorized along with which year was the first year every token came out. But every now and then it'd be nice to not have to think through all that.

I like how there was an option on the Paladin relic to use the older UR or the new UR.

Also there seems to be several reprints every year in the UR set. Making more UR choices will complicate orders for TD.

If the design space narrows, this will result in more reprints. If not, then I prefer to see as many new URs as possible in each years set.

A larger set seems like an issue for onyx sets and price points.

What if there was an unlimited set that was always purchasable that was 20 c /20 u / 20 r / 10 UR (changing reprints every year). It had no gold in the set, maybe no platinum, and were “yearless” except the URs.

Oh I don’t like this idea either.