TOPIC: Build Diversity:"Give us Choices.No Not like That"

Raven wrote:

Matt wrote: Glad to see you back Raven

Thank Matt & Ed

i'm more than a bit bitter when all the other eldritch items combined and at least were or felt better than sum of the parts ...(snip)

Yeah. I can see how that's a downer.

Myself, I'm a bit bitter that these URs were so much better than some of the other URs we've had to collect over the years, in the hopes that their eventual Transmute would be worthwhile. Okay - the slotless Rod pieces were good on their own... but the Elemental Rings were "meh," the Wind Boots were only so-so compared to some of the other great footwear out there (and Rogues couldn't even wear the first couple boots because the Boots of Elvenkind were locked in!) and hey those Teeth of Cavadar don't even do anything at all on their own! So yeah, I'm really kinda bitter that the Kilts were so awesome individually that they've created this awful debate when we should just be happy with what we've got, and go yell at kids to get off our lawn.

...

Okay, sorry - that wasn't aimed at you. I may be channeling some pent-up aggression about how people's expectations have fueled power creep in the last years.


I'm glad TPTB have given us so much opportunity to influence token development... and at the same time, I think we're our own worst enemies.

I still remember my first TD experience (back in the TD tavern days) and seeing the vets open these elaborate displays of wooden tokens, proudly displaying their ultra rare +1 cloaks and +1 weapons. Things have definitely come a long way from those days.

But I def wouldn’t sell the Ro7P or the (presumed) ‘grill of cavadar’ short - slotless items that add into any set are pretty busted, even if they on their own don’t do much (and it’s ramped up more when they do!) (also assuming the mind dentures are slotless and not put into some slot eventually).

I’m happy people try to keep a lid on the boiling pot, but it will always be a fight. And with every new slot, the challenge multiplies.

Raven wrote: and at the same time, I think we're our own worst enemies.

Actually, I'm pretty sure my worst enemy is chocolate. Sweet, sweet chocolate.

And I wouldn't say the Rings or Boots were that bad. Nor are the Kilts, when taken as a whole. The problem with the kilts is they are a min-maxer's dream. If the system could guarantee that the penalties had the same weight as the benefits (i.e. all those Wizards using Tavernbane that don't really care about DEX), then they wouldn't be viewed as quite so powerful.

Xavon wrote:

Raven wrote: and at the same time, I think we're our own worst enemies.

Actually, I'm pretty sure my worst enemy is chocolate. Sweet, sweet chocolate.

And I wouldn't say the Rings or Boots were that bad. Nor are the Kilts, when taken as a whole. The problem with the kilts is they are a min-maxer's dream. If the system could guarantee that the penalties had the same weight as the benefits (i.e. all those Wizards using Tavernbane that don't really care about DEX), then they wouldn't be viewed as quite so powerful.

Yes. UR Kilts were a min-maxers dream. And those are the voices of the people who are the most unhappy with the transmute.

Rob F wrote:

Xavon wrote:

Raven wrote: and at the same time, I think we're our own worst enemies.

Actually, I'm pretty sure my worst enemy is chocolate. Sweet, sweet chocolate.

And I wouldn't say the Rings or Boots were that bad. Nor are the Kilts, when taken as a whole. The problem with the kilts is they are a min-maxer's dream. If the system could guarantee that the penalties had the same weight as the benefits (i.e. all those Wizards using Tavernbane that don't really care about DEX), then they wouldn't be viewed as quite so powerful.

Yes. UR Kilts were a min-maxers dream. And those are the voices of the people who are the most unhappy with the transmute.

So your telling me that if you had say a +2 long sword UR and Jeff proposed that you could transmute it into a legendary +1 long sword for a not insignificant cost you'd be all over that?

Please dont assume intent.

Picc wrote: Please dont assume intent.

Well said.

If I’m a “min-maxer” for wanting to keep using the legendary I built less than a year ago without jumping through hoops or changing classes then yes, I guess I’m a min-maxer.

Being offended takes a lot of energy, so I’ll try not to be.

Brad Mortensen wrote: [

Picc wrote:

Rob F wrote:

Xavon wrote:

Raven wrote: and at the same time, I think we're our own worst enemies.

Actually, I'm pretty sure my worst enemy is chocolate. Sweet, sweet chocolate.

And I wouldn't say the Rings or Boots were that bad. Nor are the Kilts, when taken as a whole. The problem with the kilts is they are a min-maxer's dream. If the system could guarantee that the penalties had the same weight as the benefits (i.e. all those Wizards using Tavernbane that don't really care about DEX), then they wouldn't be viewed as quite so powerful.

Yes. UR Kilts were a min-maxers dream. And those are the voices of the people who are the most unhappy with the transmute.

So your telling me that if you had say a +2 long sword UR and Jeff proposed that you could transmute it into a legendary +1 long sword for a not insignificant cost you'd be all over that?

Please dont assume intent.

Well said.

If I’m a “min-maxer” for wanting to keep using the legendary I built less than a year ago without jumping through hoops or changing classes then yes, I guess I’m a min-maxer.

Being offended takes a lot of energy, so I’ll try not to be.[/quote]

Agreed. All I really want is to not lose anything in the process. In the end, for a min-maxer prospective, the only thing gained from a "+6 choice" version of the kilt would be the potential to only bring one token to the cons instead of three.

But that is not really the topic here. Or is it?

Xavon wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote: [

Picc wrote:

Rob F wrote:

Xavon wrote:

Raven wrote: and at the same time, I think we're our own worst enemies.

Actually, I'm pretty sure my worst enemy is chocolate. Sweet, sweet chocolate.

And I wouldn't say the Rings or Boots were that bad. Nor are the Kilts, when taken as a whole. The problem with the kilts is they are a min-maxer's dream. If the system could guarantee that the penalties had the same weight as the benefits (i.e. all those Wizards using Tavernbane that don't really care about DEX), then they wouldn't be viewed as quite so powerful.

Yes. UR Kilts were a min-maxers dream. And those are the voices of the people who are the most unhappy with the transmute.

So your telling me that if you had say a +2 long sword UR and Jeff proposed that you could transmute it into a legendary +1 long sword for a not insignificant cost you'd be all over that?

Please dont assume intent.

Well said.

If I’m a “min-maxer” for wanting to keep using the legendary I built less than a year ago without jumping through hoops or changing classes then yes, I guess I’m a min-maxer.

Being offended takes a lot of energy, so I’ll try not to be.

Agreed. All I really want is to not lose anything in the process. In the end, for a min-maxer prospective, the only thing gained from a "+6 choice" version of the kilt would be the potential to only bring one token to the cons instead of three.

But that is not really the topic here. Or is it?[/quote]

Well, you gain the ability to not take a negative while maintaining the positive.

If you are "Min/Maxing" that still leaves you either +2 Str and +2 Con, +4 Dex, or whatever this year's Str kilt negatives end up being.

Also, you gain part of that eldritch set.

I'm at the point where I think we should set the UR to +4 Str/-2 Dex/-2 Con, and set the Eldritch to +4 Str or +6 Dex or +6 Con.

I think this appeases Wizards, Clerics, and keeps power creep as much in check as we can.

I would be THRILLED to open a +4 Str item as a rare level player, even at the cost of 2 Dex and 2 Con. Particularly in a set where I might also open a belt of ogre power.

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

Xavon wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote: [

Picc wrote:

Rob F wrote:

Xavon wrote:

Raven wrote: and at the same time, I think we're our own worst enemies.

Actually, I'm pretty sure my worst enemy is chocolate. Sweet, sweet chocolate.

And I wouldn't say the Rings or Boots were that bad. Nor are the Kilts, when taken as a whole. The problem with the kilts is they are a min-maxer's dream. If the system could guarantee that the penalties had the same weight as the benefits (i.e. all those Wizards using Tavernbane that don't really care about DEX), then they wouldn't be viewed as quite so powerful.

Yes. UR Kilts were a min-maxers dream. And those are the voices of the people who are the most unhappy with the transmute.

So your telling me that if you had say a +2 long sword UR and Jeff proposed that you could transmute it into a legendary +1 long sword for a not insignificant cost you'd be all over that?

Please dont assume intent.

Well said.

If I’m a “min-maxer” for wanting to keep using the legendary I built less than a year ago without jumping through hoops or changing classes then yes, I guess I’m a min-maxer.

Being offended takes a lot of energy, so I’ll try not to be.

Agreed. All I really want is to not lose anything in the process. In the end, for a min-maxer prospective, the only thing gained from a "+6 choice" version of the kilt would be the potential to only bring one token to the cons instead of three.

But that is not really the topic here. Or is it?

Well, you gain the ability to not take a negative while maintaining the positive.

If you are "Min/Maxing" that still leaves you either +2 Str and +2 Con, +4 Dex, or whatever this year's Str kilt negatives end up being.

Also, you gain part of that eldritch set.

I'm at the point where I think we should set the UR to +4 Str/-2 Dex/-2 Con, and set the Eldritch to +4 Str or +6 Dex or +6 Con.

I think this appeases Wizards, Clerics, and keeps power creep as much in check as we can.

I would be THRILLED to open a +4 Str item as a rare level player, even at the cost of 2 Dex and 2 Con. Particularly in a set where I might also open a belt of ogre power.

You don't seem to understand the point of min-maxing. You literally don't care about those other stats. If I can get +6 STR, it doesn't matter if the DEX is -0, -2, or -10. The min-maxer does not care. Don't get me wrong, they would take the -0 as an option. but if it was not an option it would not effect their decision. So +6/-2 is better (for them) than +4/-0 every time. +6/-10 for the min-maxer is better than +4/+0. So from that perspective, even the +6/+0 version (which is not even the current version) is a lateral move.

But even from the non-min-max perspective, upgrading to a lesser number does not make a ton of sense. Especially for what is supposed to be a high end upgrade.

Picc wrote:

Rob F wrote:

Xavon wrote:

Raven wrote: and at the same time, I think we're our own worst enemies.

Actually, I'm pretty sure my worst enemy is chocolate. Sweet, sweet chocolate.

And I wouldn't say the Rings or Boots were that bad. Nor are the Kilts, when taken as a whole. The problem with the kilts is they are a min-maxer's dream. If the system could guarantee that the penalties had the same weight as the benefits (i.e. all those Wizards using Tavernbane that don't really care about DEX), then they wouldn't be viewed as quite so powerful.

Yes. UR Kilts were a min-maxers dream. And those are the voices of the people who are the most unhappy with the transmute.

So your telling me that if you had say a +2 long sword UR and Jeff proposed that you could transmute it into a legendary +1 long sword for a not insignificant cost you'd be all over that?

Please dont assume intent.

Your example with the sword is not the same thing at all. There's no negative. Straight +2 is better then +1. Agree with you there. And if all that matters on the Kilt is the +6 stat then I'd say your a min maxer

Solution for the Kilt - Downgrade the first two UR Kilts to what they should have been and exchange them for corrected UR's. Then everyone will be happy with the transmute!! Seriously folks, people got spoiled with the first two OP UR Kilts. If you don't want to transmute and still run with the OP UR Kilts there's nothing stopping you!

People push for OP Tokens. Then a year later they complain about them being OP and the dungeons being too easy. That's why were reprinting two of them this year. Lets reprint the first two Kilts as well to make everyone happy.

Xavon wrote: But that is not really the topic here. Or is it?

Point to Xavon.

As much as I understand folks' desire to reiterate issues surrounding the Kilt, the question on this thread isn't whether the kilt transmute is a good one.
It's whether giving players choices such as Min/Max-able tokens (with negatives) contributes to power creep during token design. And I think the answer is a pretty resounding "YES"

It's not even because the tokens themselves are bad. (I think the first 2 kilts were pretty decent offerings, stat-wise.) It's that the past history of token design (Eldritch tokens being more than the sum of their parts; Relics losing their negatives in the transmute process) has set up the expectation that those tokens will get *better* ... and there's a lot of loud voices pushing for a BETTER kilt. ... thus, Power Creep.

I am hoping that - going forward - we can consider this as we design tokens (ie, not using min/max tokens as the base for a Transmute) or that Jeff will provide some information to help manage people's expectations (such assaying this particular Eldritch could be a step down from any single component.Or, as in the case of the Teeth, lay out the eventual powers early on, so people know what they are building towards.

Rob F wrote:

Picc wrote:

Rob F wrote:

Xavon wrote:

Raven wrote: and at the same time, I think we're our own worst enemies.

Actually, I'm pretty sure my worst enemy is chocolate. Sweet, sweet chocolate.

And I wouldn't say the Rings or Boots were that bad. Nor are the Kilts, when taken as a whole. The problem with the kilts is they are a min-maxer's dream. If the system could guarantee that the penalties had the same weight as the benefits (i.e. all those Wizards using Tavernbane that don't really care about DEX), then they wouldn't be viewed as quite so powerful.

Yes. UR Kilts were a min-maxers dream. And those are the voices of the people who are the most unhappy with the transmute.

So your telling me that if you had say a +2 long sword UR and Jeff proposed that you could transmute it into a legendary +1 long sword for a not insignificant cost you'd be all over that?

Please dont assume intent.

Your example with the sword is not the same thing at all. There's no negative. Straight +2 is better then +1. Agree with you there. And if all that matters on the Kilt is the +6 stat then I'd say your a min maxer

Solution for the Kilt - Downgrade the first two UR Kilts to what they should have been and exchange them for corrected UR's. Then everyone will be happy with the transmute!! Seriously folks, people got spoiled with the first two OP UR Kilts. If you don't want to transmute and still run with the OP UR Kilts there's nothing stopping you!

People push for OP Tokens. Then a year later they complain about them being OP and the dungeons being too easy. That's why were reprinting two of them this year. Lets reprint the first two Kilts as well to make everyone happy.

I think any down grades of existing tokens should be handled incredibly carefully as a last resort only. You can only pull that kind of switcharo once or twice before your consumers loose all confidence. I dont get how you cant see that?

Ok LoDs are OP, extreme case etc etc. No one is happy but they will live with it. Do it again next year and speaking for myself I'm selling all my UR+ tokens and playing normal.

Picc wrote:

Rob F wrote:

Picc wrote:

Rob F wrote:

Xavon wrote:

Raven wrote: and at the same time, I think we're our own worst enemies.

Actually, I'm pretty sure my worst enemy is chocolate. Sweet, sweet chocolate.

And I wouldn't say the Rings or Boots were that bad. Nor are the Kilts, when taken as a whole. The problem with the kilts is they are a min-maxer's dream. If the system could guarantee that the penalties had the same weight as the benefits (i.e. all those Wizards using Tavernbane that don't really care about DEX), then they wouldn't be viewed as quite so powerful.

Yes. UR Kilts were a min-maxers dream. And those are the voices of the people who are the most unhappy with the transmute.

So your telling me that if you had say a +2 long sword UR and Jeff proposed that you could transmute it into a legendary +1 long sword for a not insignificant cost you'd be all over that?

Please dont assume intent.

Your example with the sword is not the same thing at all. There's no negative. Straight +2 is better then +1. Agree with you there. And if all that matters on the Kilt is the +6 stat then I'd say your a min maxer

Solution for the Kilt - Downgrade the first two UR Kilts to what they should have been and exchange them for corrected UR's. Then everyone will be happy with the transmute!! Seriously folks, people got spoiled with the first two OP UR Kilts. If you don't want to transmute and still run with the OP UR Kilts there's nothing stopping you!

People push for OP Tokens. Then a year later they complain about them being OP and the dungeons being too easy. That's why were reprinting two of them this year. Lets reprint the first two Kilts as well to make everyone happy.

I think any down grades of existing tokens should be handled incredibly carefully as a last resort only. You can only pull that kind of switcharo once or twice before your consumers loose all confidence. I dont get how you cant see that?

Ok LoDs are OP, extreme case etc etc. No one is happy but they will live with it. Do it again next year and speaking for myself I'm selling all my UR+ tokens and playing normal.

Some what overly stated, but yes.

It is a matter of both faith in TPTB, and cost. Tokens are not cheap. The event itself is not cheap And while mistakes are inevitable, if they happen too often, we have to wonder why we are spending all of this money on these URs (or better) if we can't be sure they will do the same thing next year.