Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: Con Expansion == Swimming in Fleece?

Con Expansion == Swimming in Fleece? 3 years 2 months ago #97

jedibcg wrote:

Adam Guay wrote: What if there was an exchange of a certain number of fleece could be used to replace an ultra rare needed for a recipe .....for example 2:1 for in print.....and 5:1 for out of print.


You would be hurting Jeff's token sales by doing that. I don't think that is a good idea.


It would be problematic to allow something to substitute for tokens like a HoP or Rod Segments 1 or 2. And yes, I did think the Mithral Coin of Fate was a terrible idea, it was a backdoor reprint of the HoP or Rod Segments.

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

Con Expansion == Swimming in Fleece? 3 years 2 months ago #98

Mike Steele wrote:

jedibcg wrote:

Adam Guay wrote: What if there was an exchange of a certain number of fleece could be used to replace an ultra rare needed for a recipe .....for example 2:1 for in print.....and 5:1 for out of print.


You would be hurting Jeff's token sales by doing that. I don't think that is a good idea.


It would be problematic to allow something to substitute for tokens like a HoP or Rod Segments 1 or 2. And yes, I did think the Mithral Coin of Fate was a terrible idea, it was a backdoor reprint of the HoP or Rod Segments.


Rod segments wouldn't be an issue at present since you cannot transmute them into anything. However just something like the current Relics that require a UR. Sub 2 Fleeces and Jeff never sold the UR.
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 #99

Before agreeing on a solution, we have to agree on (1) is there a problem, (2) what is the problem, (3) can we solve the problem without creating new ones, (4) how, and (5) is it worth it.

I'm not sure we're past step (1) yet.

Otherwise, we're just throwing out random changes
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.

Con Expansion == Swimming in Fleece? 3 years 2 months ago #100

With all of this excitement about the fleece, I'm wondering what are we gonna do about the planks? With so many of them out there, what can we possibly do to make their value increase?
Please visit my fledgling token store.
truedungeon.com/forum?view=topic&catid=583&id=247486

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

Con Expansion == Swimming in Fleece? 3 years 2 months ago #101

Brad Mortensen wrote: Before agreeing on a solution, we have to agree on (1) is there a problem, (2) what is the problem, (3) can we solve the problem without creating new ones, (4) how, and (5) is it worth it.

I'm not sure we're past step (1) yet.

Otherwise, we're just throwing out random changes


Though I agree there might not be a problem, in general I don't agree that you need everyone to agree there is a problem.
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 1 month ago #102

jedibcg wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote: Before agreeing on a solution, we have to agree on (1) is there a problem, (2) what is the problem, (3) can we solve the problem without creating new ones, (4) how, and (5) is it worth it.

I'm not sure we're past step (1) yet.

Otherwise, we're just throwing out random changes


Though I agree there might not be a problem, in general I don't agree that you need everyone to agree there is a problem.


I think this thread indicates it will be difficult to get everyone to agree there's a problem. It's difficult to get everyone on the forums to agree on anything. :)

That shouldn't stop those that think there is a problem from suggesting solutions. Jeff can decide if he thinks there's a problem that should be addressed.

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

Con Expansion == Swimming in Fleece? 3 years 1 month ago #103

jedibcg wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

jedibcg wrote:

Adam Guay wrote: What if there was an exchange of a certain number of fleece could be used to replace an ultra rare needed for a recipe .....for example 2:1 for in print.....and 5:1 for out of print.


You would be hurting Jeff's token sales by doing that. I don't think that is a good idea.


It would be problematic to allow something to substitute for tokens like a HoP or Rod Segments 1 or 2. And yes, I did think the Mithral Coin of Fate was a terrible idea, it was a backdoor reprint of the HoP or Rod Segments.


Rod segments wouldn't be an issue at present since you cannot transmute them into anything. However just something like the current Relics that require a UR. Sub 2 Fleeces and Jeff never sold the UR.


I understand Rod segments aren't relevant now, that was just an example. Perhaps Tooth Token #1 will be in a similar situation in a few years. The HoP is still certainly relevant.

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

Con Expansion == Swimming in Fleece? 3 years 1 month ago #104

jedibcg wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote: Before agreeing on a solution, we have to agree on (1) is there a problem, (2) what is the problem, (3) can we solve the problem without creating new ones, (4) how, and (5) is it worth it.

I'm not sure we're past step (1) yet.

Otherwise, we're just throwing out random changes


Though I agree there might not be a problem, in general I don't agree that you need everyone to agree there is a problem.


True. Nothing wrong with proposing changes, with or without a purpose. And, "everyone" is a lofty goal. "Critical mass" is more reasonable.

When I say "problem" I just mean, answer the question "why are we thinking of doing this?" What are we trying to achieve?

It can be specific ("increase the value of Planks to $5") or more vague ("bring more stability to the trade good market").

Of course, the problem statement can bring up more "whys," as in "why do we want Planks at $5?"

In my experience, it's easier to get people to agree on a course of action if they share common goals. The US Congress is a great counter-example. (Full stop. Not an invitation to attack or defend any politician, policy, or party. Just sayin'.)

This assumes we're looking for consensus, of course, not just trying to shout down those who disagree. :)
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.

Con Expansion == Swimming in Fleece? 3 years 1 month ago #105

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.

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

Con Expansion == Swimming in Fleece? 3 years 1 month ago #106

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.
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 1 month ago #107

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.

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

Con Expansion == Swimming in Fleece? 3 years 1 month ago #108

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.
You either discover a star or you don't. You arrogant punk.

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

Time to create page: 0.329 seconds