Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: Con Expansion == Swimming in Fleece?

Con Expansion == Swimming in Fleece? 3 years 2 months ago #109

jedibcg wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

jedibcg wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: I think those that are suggesting addressing the Golden Fleece in recipes to require more of them and/or monster ingredient tokens believe that the amount of them entering the supply is a lot higher than the amount being removed in recipes. I'm one of the people with this opinion.

Evidence of this include dropping values for Fleece and Monster Ingredient Tokens and the large amounts of 2016 Monster Ingredient Tokens many people have.

I totally understand some don't agree it is an issue that needs to be addressed.


I submit that the people that have large amounts of the Monster bits aquired them through trading and therefore want them. I don't know for certain. I can only draw upon data from the google doc. I know according to it I had more MB's than anyone (that submited info). I am telling you I I have 20 sets which I want. And only another 22 or 12 (I cannot remember if I made another GF) and 1 or 2 GF's. At present I could use all of them and 10 sets of the MB I have put aside to make legendaries that I don't have the trade goods for. Yes, I am not everyone but I know I am not flush with GF's or MB's. I was able to trade MB's for trade goods as recently as Origins so there is still a want out there. I have laid my cards on the table. These are the data points I have.

If anyone else wants to share actual data, I would be willing to consider it as well.


That's a pretty large assumption to make of everyone. It is inaccurate in my case, and i suspect in the cases of many other people. I have far more 2016 monster ingredient tokens than I had in past years, and all of mine came from token boxes.



I am making no assumption. I am attempting to draw on data. I haven't been provided any data besides what I have. If you want to give specific data I will consider it. saying you have far more doesn't provide any context.


Your first sentence seemed pretty declarative, perhaps I interpreted it wrong. I'm OK if you remain unconvinced that there is a problem, you're not the person that needs to be convinced. ;)

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

Last edit: by Mike Steele.

Con Expansion == Swimming in Fleece? 3 years 2 months ago #110

jedibcg wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

jedibcg wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: I think those that are suggesting addressing the Golden Fleece in recipes to require more of them and/or monster ingredient tokens believe that the amount of them entering the supply is a lot higher than the amount being removed in recipes. I'm one of the people with this opinion.

Evidence of this include dropping values for Fleece and Monster Ingredient Tokens and the large amounts of 2016 Monster Ingredient Tokens many people have.

I totally understand some don't agree it is an issue that needs to be addressed.


I submit that the people that have large amounts of the Monster bits aquired them through trading and therefore want them. I don't know for certain. I can only draw upon data from the google doc. I know according to it I had more MB's than anyone (that submited info). I am telling you I I have 20 sets which I want. And only another 22 or 12 (I cannot remember if I made another GF) and 1 or 2 GF's. At present I could use all of them and 10 sets of the MB I have put aside to make legendaries that I don't have the trade goods for. Yes, I am not everyone but I know I am not flush with GF's or MB's. I was able to trade MB's for trade goods as recently as Origins so there is still a want out there. I have laid my cards on the table. These are the data points I have.

If anyone else wants to share actual data, I would be willing to consider it as well.


That's a pretty large assumption to make of everyone. It is inaccurate in my case, and i suspect in the cases of many other people. I have far more 2016 monster ingredient tokens than I had in past years, and all of mine came from token boxes.



I am making no assumption. I am attempting to draw on data. I haven't been provided any data besides what I have. If you want to give specific data I will consider it. saying you have far more doesn't provide any context.


Jedi - I am in the same boat with you, I have just enough, after purchasing some Fleece from other players to transmute all the reclics I have to legendary. After making new relics I will not have enough Fleece to transmute those. It is all based on the perception of the person - not fact. You are trying to gather data. Add my data as not having enough Fleece. If EVERYONE was flowing with Fleece then I can see maybe adjusting recipes.

Last year I traded off two Fleece to someone that had NONE, so they could make their legendaries.
Team Legacy
Yes I'm an Arneson you do the math.

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

Con Expansion == Swimming in Fleece? 3 years 2 months ago #111

Mike Steele wrote:

jedibcg wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

jedibcg wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: I think those that are suggesting addressing the Golden Fleece in recipes to require more of them and/or monster ingredient tokens believe that the amount of them entering the supply is a lot higher than the amount being removed in recipes. I'm one of the people with this opinion.

Evidence of this include dropping values for Fleece and Monster Ingredient Tokens and the large amounts of 2016 Monster Ingredient Tokens many people have.

I totally understand some don't agree it is an issue that needs to be addressed.


I submit that the people that have large amounts of the Monster bits aquired them through trading and therefore want them. I don't know for certain. I can only draw upon data from the google doc. I know according to it I had more MB's than anyone (that submited info). I am telling you I I have 20 sets which I want. And only another 22 or 12 (I cannot remember if I made another GF) and 1 or 2 GF's. At present I could use all of them and 10 sets of the MB I have put aside to make legendaries that I don't have the trade goods for. Yes, I am not everyone but I know I am not flush with GF's or MB's. I was able to trade MB's for trade goods as recently as Origins so there is still a want out there. I have laid my cards on the table. These are the data points I have.

If anyone else wants to share actual data, I would be willing to consider it as well.


That's a pretty large assumption to make of everyone. It is inaccurate in my case, and i suspect in the cases of many other people. I have far more 2016 monster ingredient tokens than I had in past years, and all of mine came from token boxes.



I am making no assumption. I am attempting to draw on data. I haven't been provided any data besides what I have. If you want to give specific data I will consider it. saying you have far more doesn't provide any context.


Your first sentence seemed pretty declarative, perhaps I interpreted it wrong. I'm OK if you remain unconvinced that there is a problem, you're not the person that needs to be convinced. ;)


I think you will find it a harder time to convince most without any data to backup your assertions. Just my two cents.
You either discover a star or you don't. You arrogant punk.

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

Con Expansion == Swimming in Fleece? 3 years 2 months ago #112

i am swimming in fleece and always have been

I always traded items of weapons etc for Gold and Monster bits. I have since 2007.
that is not the norm andI have sold fleece for $75 and sold for $50
you cant use ebay as an indicator. Prices on there flux so bad by who sees the auctions/time of day etc
delpchad.blogspot.com/

First solo Nightmare survivor-2014 Viper pit

Allergic to Lori

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

Con Expansion == Swimming in Fleece? 3 years 2 months ago #113

lazlo_hollyfeld1985 wrote: i am swimming in fleece and always have been

I always traded items of weapons etc for Gold and Monster bits. I have since 2007.
that is not the norm andI have sold fleece for $75 and sold for $50
you cant use ebay as an indicator. Prices on there flux so bad by who sees the auctions/time of day etc


Okay big baller! :)

Yes, you are not a casual TD player, those that do are not swimming in fleece. I think I purchased one or two from you over the years.

By making it a requirement for lower items just not seem logical to me, from a none baller status uber Lazlo (love ya like a brother!).

Cheers,
Ed
Team Legacy
Yes I'm an Arneson you do the math.

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

Con Expansion == Swimming in Fleece? 3 years 2 months ago #114

Kaledor wrote:

lazlo_hollyfeld1985 wrote: i am swimming in fleece and always have been

I always traded items of weapons etc for Gold and Monster bits. I have since 2007.
that is not the norm andI have sold fleece for $75 and sold for $50
you cant use ebay as an indicator. Prices on there flux so bad by who sees the auctions/time of day etc


Okay big baller! :)

Yes, you are not a casual TD player, those that do are not swimming in fleece. I think I purchased one or two from you over the years.

By making it a requirement for lower items just not seem logical to me, from a none baller status uber Lazlo (love ya like a brother!).

Cheers,
Ed


just saying the prices vary and ways of getting the bits are not just pulls.
I traded an UR for 2013 bits in 2015. so its sometimes not just rare weaposn
delpchad.blogspot.com/

First solo Nightmare survivor-2014 Viper pit

Allergic to Lori

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

Con Expansion == Swimming in Fleece? 3 years 1 month ago #115

Kaledor wrote:

lazlo_hollyfeld1985 wrote: i am swimming in fleece and always have been

I always traded items of weapons etc for Gold and Monster bits. I have since 2007.
that is not the norm andI have sold fleece for $75 and sold for $50
you cant use ebay as an indicator. Prices on there flux so bad by who sees the auctions/time of day etc


Okay big baller! :)

Yes, you are not a casual TD player, those that do are not swimming in fleece. I think I purchased one or two from you over the years.

By making it a requirement for lower items just not seem logical to me, from a none baller status uber Lazlo (love ya like a brother!).

Cheers,
Ed


Just to clarify, my suggestion wasn't to make it a requirement but to make it an alternative. So those swimming in Fleece could use that alternative, and those that are Fleece deprived could use the non-Fleece alternative. Although I'd also be OK with some sort of recipe like Ring of Heroism. A LOT of those were transmuted, so there were a lot of Fleece available back then also.

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

Con Expansion == Swimming in Fleece? 3 years 1 month ago #116

jedibcg wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

jedibcg wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

jedibcg wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: I think those that are suggesting addressing the Golden Fleece in recipes to require more of them and/or monster ingredient tokens believe that the amount of them entering the supply is a lot higher than the amount being removed in recipes. I'm one of the people with this opinion.

Evidence of this include dropping values for Fleece and Monster Ingredient Tokens and the large amounts of 2016 Monster Ingredient Tokens many people have.

I totally understand some don't agree it is an issue that needs to be addressed.


I submit that the people that have large amounts of the Monster bits aquired them through trading and therefore want them. I don't know for certain. I can only draw upon data from the google doc. I know according to it I had more MB's than anyone (that submited info). I am telling you I I have 20 sets which I want. And only another 22 or 12 (I cannot remember if I made another GF) and 1 or 2 GF's. At present I could use all of them and 10 sets of the MB I have put aside to make legendaries that I don't have the trade goods for. Yes, I am not everyone but I know I am not flush with GF's or MB's. I was able to trade MB's for trade goods as recently as Origins so there is still a want out there. I have laid my cards on the table. These are the data points I have.

If anyone else wants to share actual data, I would be willing to consider it as well.


That's a pretty large assumption to make of everyone. It is inaccurate in my case, and i suspect in the cases of many other people. I have far more 2016 monster ingredient tokens than I had in past years, and all of mine came from token boxes.



I am making no assumption. I am attempting to draw on data. I haven't been provided any data besides what I have. If you want to give specific data I will consider it. saying you have far more doesn't provide any context.


Your first sentence seemed pretty declarative, perhaps I interpreted it wrong. I'm OK if you remain unconvinced that there is a problem, you're not the person that needs to be convinced. ;)


I think you will find it a harder time to convince most without any data to backup your assertions. Just my two cents.


I doubt I'd change any minds no matter how many I said I had. You pretty quickly dismissed the account of the person with over 100 sets. I think there is a lot of confirmation bias going on (which is normal)

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

Con Expansion == Swimming in Fleece? 3 years 1 month ago #117

Mike Steele wrote: I doubt I'd change any minds no matter how many I said I had. You pretty quickly dismissed the account of the person with over 100 sets. I think there is a lot of confirmation bias going on (which is normal)


I did not dismiss it. I said it was impressive. Scroll back and look. I also wondered aloud how they acquired them and I speculated that many were from trade. If you are saying you (or someone else) have pulled 400 2016 Monster Bits from the boxes okay you pulled 400 Monster bits from the boxes. It means you (or they) pulled aprx 2350 pulls over the cons. That is impressive. I would love to have your data for the spreadsheet. I don't have it so I can only work with the data that I do have. Sorry if doesn't make sense. I know you pulled more than you have in the past, but not knowing how many that was means nothing. There is no context. Did you go on more runs? Did you do less transmuting of MB's into things? Did you do less trading of them away?

I provided my data set. How many I pulled and how many I traded away? I can tell you how many I used in transmutes (though I didn't record it and really it would just be a guess). Based upon the data I have what other conclusions can I draw?
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 Banjo 5150 Lover.

Con Expansion == Swimming in Fleece? 3 years 1 month ago #118

  • bpsymington
  • bpsymington's Avatar
  • Offline
  • 9th Level
  • Supporter
  • Follow me on Instagram @runningboardgamer
  • Posts: 14724
I, for one, am not swimming in fleece at all.
Follow me on Instagram @runningboardgamer

Awesome avatar by Mauve Shirt!

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

Con Expansion == Swimming in Fleece? 3 years 1 month ago #119

  • Druegar
  • Druegar's Avatar
  • Away
  • 9th Level
  • Supporter
  • Enjoy Your Burrito
  • Posts: 9082
My grandmother used to have a dog that was swimming in fleas. I couldn't go over to her house it was so bad.
Have you looked it up in the TDb ?
Please post TDb corrections/suggestions in this thread .
If I write something in teal, it should not be taken seriously.

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

Con Expansion == Swimming in Fleece? 3 years 1 month ago #120

  • bpsymington
  • bpsymington's Avatar
  • Offline
  • 9th Level
  • Supporter
  • Follow me on Instagram @runningboardgamer
  • Posts: 14724

Druegar wrote: My grandmother used to have a dog that was swimming in fleas. I couldn't go over to her house it was so bad.


We must scratch out bad puns like this. :P
Follow me on Instagram @runningboardgamer

Awesome avatar by Mauve Shirt!

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

Time to create page: 0.195 seconds