TOPIC: Horn of Plenty and other such OOP tokens

Fizzikx wrote: I'm posting this just because I have not yet seen this mentioned yet.

I also believe the introduction of more treasure + tokens was to encourage more out-of-game events. If you recal back in 2012 they tried with TrueCraft and I thought last year there was supposed to be smilar type events that cost treasure draws to perform/participate.

I havnt (personally) seen much in the way of these treasure coin events but if Jeff was to implement some of those as a treasure draw sink then that would also help balance out the need for more treasure + tokens.

Just a thought.

Ok Because you requested it,
TruePlinko will now accept Treasure Coins to play.

LOL

But yes, I think there was some of that in the thought processes. And those games were indeed effective.

Personally Im against reprint lists as they tie Jeffs hands, but since the promise to not reprint the HOP has been made I thinks its important to keep it. People plan years out in some cases based on what Jeff says, sudden reversals undermine confidence and make it hard to take the game seriously.

Full disclosure, I came in in 2011, built trade stock and acquired a HOP in 2013. X hundred dollars seems like a lot of money but its also equivalent to X URs so its not actually like its impossible to build towards a HOP trade.

To the HOP issue, I think we have enough treasure draw enhancers. Maybe we could talk about something to fill in a missing stamp this year, and the idea of taking a hit to your treasure coins to help out the group with their missing coins is interesting but no more straight draw enhancers please.

COGF is still available, and both it and ROR can be reprinted whenever Jeff feels like the prices are getting out of reach.

Maybe some kind of upgrade path for the HOP could be interesting, (now isnt really the time of year to discuss it) but it could be interesting. A relic that costs more real world dollars to produce then a HOP does to buy and directly replicates its effect leading into a legendary that enhances it in some kind of sideways manner stamp insurance might be ok in terms of economic impact. But I doubt it would address the issues of people who feel the HOP is to expensive.

End of the day we need to remember the HOP is in a weird place because it has no in game effect. Only an economic one so it has to be handled with extreme caution and a good deal of thought to its real world financial impact to TD.

TLDR: Now isn't really the time for this discussion, lets not poke the bear.

Brad Mortensen wrote: My point with 100 was that there is a breaking point somewhere between where we are and there. I was just trying to get people to concede that point exists with an extreme example. Now that you do, the debate is where that point is. And if we don't have a good idea of where it breaks, we should proceed with caution because there is no backtracking.

TD is a very cyclical economy. There is basically one datapoint per year. We won't know we went over the cliff until two years after the fact.

Oh, I haven't conceded necessarily that there is a breaking point, just that at some point there might be. What I am saying is that I don't think that if there is a breaking point that we are anywhere near one, or that even a few more RoR/CoGF type tokens would get us there. And you're not quite right about there being no backtracking. True - Jeff can't pull back tokens like that once they are issued. But, if the token draws did become problematic, he could revert back to a less rich token mix. If he made 50% of the tokens in the boxes commons for instance, that would significantly reduce the value of token pulls.

If we hit a breaking point on the Token Economy, I suspect it will come from somewhere other than too many draws from the token boxes. I suspect instead it would come from a glut of UR's, or power creep of tokens that finally goes too far, or some other factor. And hopefully none of those things happen and token sales will remain healthy for ages to come.

Dumping commons in the generators will hurt newbie players severely.

I agree that dumping commons in would not be good. But fiddling with the balance of Uncommon, Rare and Monster bits might not be so bad.

For new players Rares can be a big deal. Even the right uncommons can be helpful.

At some point, new players have a decision to make. Are they going to try to move up to Nightmare? Will they start to transmute? At that point most uncommons and even a lot of rares are nothing but raw materials.

Inflation can happen in a lot of ways. Cost of transmuting could go up. If Jeff increases monster and character levels, new ultra rares could be more powerful (obsoleting older gear, as happens in actual D&D campaigns). There are many ways to adjust the system.

Which is right? That one is beyond me.

Picc wrote: TLDR: Now isn't really the time for this discussion, lets not poke the bear.

After 8 pages of discussion, I'm thinking the bear was poked long ago.

Harlax wrote:

Picc wrote: TLDR: Now isn't really the time for this discussion, lets not poke the bear.

After 8 pages of discussion, I'm thinking the bear was poked long ago.

Brad Mortensen wrote: Dumping commons in the generators will hurt newbie players severely.

Agreed, remember, your typical formite is not your typical player. Id say 80% of the folks who came through my coaching room last year weren't even equipped in optimal rares. Cutting the mix would likely do mo.re to hurt them then high end players.

Pre 2008 there were commons if I remember correctly. I don't think it would hurt that much. Especially because of trade tokens.

darkangel866 wrote: Pre 2008 there were commons if I remember correctly. I don't think it would hurt that much. Especially because of trade tokens.

The average player has no treasure enhancers and may only get 1 run in the year. Being new they may miss a treasure. That's 2 draws. If one is a common that's really negative

Why? What makes that a negative? If it is something they can use to improve their class or help solve a puzzle, does it really matter what color it is?

The vast majority of players probably don't have more than 20-30 tokens. A common could fill a slot they previously didn't use.

I think lowering the rarities hurts people like me a lot more. I need those reds for Aragonite, and the greens for Elven Bismuth. It hurts "re-sellers" who wouldn't have that sale money to re-invest in tokens.

darkangel866 wrote: Why? What makes that a negative? If it is something they can use to improve their class or help solve a puzzle, does it really matter what color it is?

The vast majority of players probably don't have more than 20-30 tokens. A common could fill a slot they previously didn't use.

I think lowering the rarities hurts people like me a lot more. I need those reds for Aragonite, and the greens for Elven Bismuth. It hurts "re-sellers" who wouldn't have that sale money to re-invest in tokens.

It's perception of reward. Getting a Rare token from the treasure at the end is a happy thing for most people. Getting a common token from treasure would be disappointing to most.