TOPIC: The balance between treasure and stats

Endgame wrote:

jpotter wrote:

Endgame wrote:

Fiddy wrote:

Wade Schwendemann wrote: Which is why they said you had to live through it to get max.

I dont like that, as it would be a reversion to the days of treasure stamps imo.

Tying the cap to difficulty would also likely lead to bad behaviors (like pushing PUGs to higher difficulties than they are comfortable with). So I'd be against that.

Tie the higher difficuty to player level? Nightmare requires badge of nobility for example? Or all runs are normal unless they are upgraded to a higher level electronically prior to convention start?

Did you actually like treasure stamps? Cause man, I hated them, and so did the majority. So bringing back that kind of system would probably be met with a LOT of push-back.

Never experienced it. I've run exactly one of each adventure at Gen Con starting in 2015.

Longer answer later when I'm at a keyboard, but I see a really strong divergence between different bits of the community.

Back in the day. No one was guaranteed anything. There were 3 treasure rooms in the dungeon. In Combat focused dungeon two were combat and one puzzle. In a puzzle focused run it was one combat and two puzzle.

It was possible, but rare to fail all three and get nothing. My very first run as a newbie in a PUG got me 1 treasure pull.

To add to the stress, Horn of Plenty made each stamp worth 3 treasure rather than the flat 9 it is now.. So failing a room meant a loss of 3, not 1. Hence some bad behavior and bad feeling. For the epilogue volunteers, it meant having to calculate each players treasure rather then reading a number off the party card. Really slowed things down.

Now that there are no more puzzle or combat runs, I don't know how you would make the old system work.

I certainly don't want to go back to those days. Or anything resembling them.

So, this discussion has got me thinking down to most essential questions...

1. Does there need to be a treasure limit? Or should total treasure just keep going up with a new TE every other year?
I think most of us here agree that there needs to be some limit. The consequences of no limit in the long term seem likely to have disastrous results.

2. If setting a limit, which method is best? Set a cap on treasure/adventure; put treasure enhancers on a reprint cycle; something else?
This one is complicated and difficult to give an easy absolute answer, but my short answer is: set a treasure cap.
Now, i am not saying that TE shouldnt be reprinted, i am actually in favor of it, BUT i dont like that as the treasure cap. For one, it effectively locks those slots; which has been a complaint for years, and i believe was a big part of jeffs decision to make the nuggets, which still leave open ioun stone slots. On the flip side, a treasure cap while printing new TE will potentially free up those locked slots, by letting players equip different TEs.
As for limitations or flexibility on each: the reprint option is very limited with what it can do. Keep reprinting, any new TE will raise the cap...although, that does give a great amount of flexibility if TD wants to raise the cap...of course, doing so opens the door to constant requests for more new TE in the future. As for the treasure cap, you can keep making any TE you want, it will only change which slots people use and gradually close the treasure gap for new dedicated players. The limitation is if TD wants to raise the cap, it requires a rules/policy change that may upset players (ie. 'If i would have known, i would have bought the grabby gloves 5 years ago, now im stuck with the new magnetic boots')...though, i feel this is a minor issue, which will happen no matter what is changed.

3. What should the limit be? 23. Hail Eris!

kurtreznor wrote: So, this discussion has got me thinking down to most essential questions...

1. Does there need to be a treasure limit? Or should total treasure just keep going up with a new TE every other year?
I think most of us here agree that there needs to be some limit. The consequences of no limit in the long term seem likely to have disastrous results.

2. If setting a limit, which method is best? Set a cap on treasure/adventure; put treasure enhancers on a reprint cycle; something else?
This one is complicated and difficult to give an easy absolute answer, but my short answer is: set a treasure cap.
Now, i am not saying that TE shouldnt be reprinted, i am actually in favor of it, BUT i dont like that as the treasure cap. For one, it effectively locks those slots; which has been a complaint for years, and i believe was a big part of jeffs decision to make the nuggets, which still leave open ioun stone slots. On the flip side, a treasure cap while printing new TE will potentially free up those locked slots, by letting players equip different TEs.
As for limitations or flexibility on each: the reprint option is very limited with what it can do. Keep reprinting, any new TE will raise the cap...although, that does give a great amount of flexibility if TD wants to raise the cap...of course, doing so opens the door to constant requests for more new TE in the future. As for the treasure cap, you can keep making any TE you want, it will only change which slots people use and gradually close the treasure gap for new dedicated players. The limitation is if TD wants to raise the cap, it requires a rules/policy change that may upset players (ie. 'If i would have known, i would have bought the grabby gloves 5 years ago, now im stuck with the new magnetic boots')...though, i feel this is a minor issue, which will happen no matter what is changed.

3. What should the limit be? 23. Hail Eris!

I'm not convinced that there needs to be a limit, at least soon. I'm not convinced there shouldn't be one either, I just don't have access to data like how much revenue new TEs produce, how much the additional loot tokens cost, how much it affects player retention, etc.

I do support whatever decisions along those lines TD makes though. If new TE tokens are made I'll happily buy them for the whole group. If after the nuggets it's all reprints and/or cap, I'll support that also (and save some token buying money).

Harlax wrote:

Endgame wrote:

jpotter wrote:

Endgame wrote:

Fiddy wrote:

Wade Schwendemann wrote: Which is why they said you had to live through it to get max.

I dont like that, as it would be a reversion to the days of treasure stamps imo.

Tying the cap to difficulty would also likely lead to bad behaviors (like pushing PUGs to higher difficulties than they are comfortable with). So I'd be against that.

Tie the higher difficuty to player level? Nightmare requires badge of nobility for example? Or all runs are normal unless they are upgraded to a higher level electronically prior to convention start?

Did you actually like treasure stamps? Cause man, I hated them, and so did the majority. So bringing back that kind of system would probably be met with a LOT of push-back.

Never experienced it. I've run exactly one of each adventure at Gen Con starting in 2015.

Longer answer later when I'm at a keyboard, but I see a really strong divergence between different bits of the community.

Back in the day. No one was guaranteed anything. There were 3 treasure rooms in the dungeon. In Combat focused dungeon two were combat and one puzzle. In a puzzle focused run it was one combat and two puzzle.

It was possible, but rare to fail all three and get nothing. My very first run as a newbie in a PUG got me 1 treasure pull.

To add to the stress, Horn of Plenty made each stamp worth 3 treasure rather than the flat 9 it is now.. So failing a room meant a loss of 3, not 1. Hence some bad behavior and bad feeling. For the epilogue volunteers, it meant having to calculate each players treasure rather then reading a number off the party card. Really slowed things down.

Now that there are no more puzzle or combat runs, I don't know how you would make the old system work.

I certainly don't want to go back to those days. Or anything resembling them.

I think the treasure stamps also caused a lot of ill will during and after the Dungeons, when some groups felt that they were cheated out of one or more stamps. I do think they caused a lot more unhappiness than happiness, so I wouldn't want to see treasure tied to Dungeon performance again, or to difficulty level.

I do recall back in the Woodie days, on one run we only got one treasure pull, and mine was a 1 GP token.

Mike Steele wrote:

Rob F wrote: To get people to continue to buy TE's while having a cap in place you just have to make the cap hard to reach. Set a cap and then make future TE's Relic's or Legendaries. Then have the ingredients for them be a bunch of non-TE UR's that have a treasure type feel. Maybe a +2 Gem encrusted sword, a +2 Diamond ring of protection, etc. Still useful in game too. 5 or 6 UR's to make that +4 TE Relic and so on. Would help slow peoples progression to the cap.

It seems like that would make it a lot harder for newer players to get TEs. I like having a TE always available as a PYP, even if it has to be a reprint.

Yes please on reprints, TE equipment just feels odd to me, would be nice as right now i feel like i have to buy URTE's to keep up with inflation/help cost of runs and having tokens do double duty would be nice. Having another relic/legendary when TE's seem must have doesn't sit right with me though.

I’m personally very against having treasures pulls tied to difficulty level. All it takes is one person to say normal and we are all playing normal. I don’t think there should be a direct cap on pulls. If TD wants slow down Treasure pull inflation then they could do that by printing TEs in slots already in use with another TE, or possible reprints. I for one will only buy TEs up to the cap and stop buying at the cap. And while adding a TE every 2 years sounds like a lot, we are only talking about 5 over a 10 year period. If TD keeps the rate similar to today of +2 pulls per a TE, then we are talking about 29 to 31 pulls in 2029, I think the game can handle that just fine.

Wayne Rhodes wrote: I’m personally very against having treasures pulls tied to difficulty level. All it takes is one person to say normal and we are all playing normal. I don’t think there should be a direct cap on pulls. If TD wants slow down Treasure pull inflation then they could do that by printing TEs in slots already in use with another TE, or possible reprints. I for one will only buy TEs up to the cap and stop buying at the cap. And while adding a TE every 2 years sounds like a lot, we are only talking about 5 over a 10 year period. If TD keeps the rate similar to today of +2 pulls per a TE, then we are talking about 29 to 31 pulls in 2029, I think the game can handle that just fine.

The point of pull cap tied to difficulty is exactly to avoid the problem you describe. All it takes is one person to call normal and is normal. In a difficulty based pull rate, you always presume normal and,say, 10 draws, unless you organize a more difficult run before the con.

The worry is well equipped vets trying to push newbies into a difficulty they can't handle.

Most people will bend to peer pressure rather than say they want normal.

Anything tied to difficulty or success has a major potential for issues. We moved away from it for a reason.

Wayne Rhodes wrote: I’m personally very against having treasures pulls tied to difficulty level. All it takes is one person to say normal and we are all playing normal. I don’t think there should be a direct cap on pulls. If TD wants slow down Treasure pull inflation then they could do that by printing TEs in slots already in use with another TE, or possible reprints. I for one will only buy TEs up to the cap and stop buying at the cap. And while adding a TE every 2 years sounds like a lot, we are only talking about 5 over a 10 year period. If TD keeps the rate similar to today of +2 pulls per a TE, then we are talking about 29 to 31 pulls in 2029, I think the game can handle that just fine.

Its probably worth restating that most of us also have a screwed perspective, having been playing long enough (or spent enough money) to have all the previous TEs. The people likely to post on the forms are the exception, the vast majority of players have somewhere between 0 and 2 TEs at most. We might be seeing the problem as worse then it is, only HQ knows for sure.

Picc wrote:

Wayne Rhodes wrote: I’m personally very against having treasures pulls tied to difficulty level. All it takes is one person to say normal and we are all playing normal. I don’t think there should be a direct cap on pulls. If TD wants slow down Treasure pull inflation then they could do that by printing TEs in slots already in use with another TE, or possible reprints. I for one will only buy TEs up to the cap and stop buying at the cap. And while adding a TE every 2 years sounds like a lot, we are only talking about 5 over a 10 year period. If TD keeps the rate similar to today of +2 pulls per a TE, then we are talking about 29 to 31 pulls in 2029, I think the game can handle that just fine.

Its probably worth restating that most of us also have a screwed perspective, having been playing long enough (or spent enough money) to have all the previous TEs. The people likely to post on the forms are the exception, the vast majority of players have somewhere between 0 and 2 TEs at most. We might be seeing the problem as worse then it is, only HQ knows for sure.

I wouldn't be surprised if the biggest concern is how often each TE, especially CoA, is loaned out and reused each convention.

Picc wrote:

Wayne Rhodes wrote: I’m personally very against having treasures pulls tied to difficulty level. All it takes is one person to say normal and we are all playing normal. I don’t think there should be a direct cap on pulls. If TD wants slow down Treasure pull inflation then they could do that by printing TEs in slots already in use with another TE, or possible reprints. I for one will only buy TEs up to the cap and stop buying at the cap. And while adding a TE every 2 years sounds like a lot, we are only talking about 5 over a 10 year period. If TD keeps the rate similar to today of +2 pulls per a TE, then we are talking about 29 to 31 pulls in 2029, I think the game can handle that just fine.

Its probably worth restating that most of us also have a screwed perspective, having been playing long enough (or spent enough money) to have all the previous TEs. The people likely to post on the forms are the exception, the vast majority of players have somewhere between 0 and 2 TEs at most. We might be seeing the problem as worse then it is, only HQ knows for sure.

I personally don’t think pulling what I pull is a problem (19-21) pulls.
Ghosting might be.
Farming might be (I’ll loan you these TEs but I want half the loot in return)
I don’t ghost because I don’t have the extra CoA to use on it.
I don’t like it when vets Farm a group of newbies, it feels dirty to me.

Endgame wrote:

Wayne Rhodes wrote: I’m personally very against having treasures pulls tied to difficulty level. All it takes is one person to say normal and we are all playing normal. I don’t think there should be a direct cap on pulls. If TD wants slow down Treasure pull inflation then they could do that by printing TEs in slots already in use with another TE, or possible reprints. I for one will only buy TEs up to the cap and stop buying at the cap. And while adding a TE every 2 years sounds like a lot, we are only talking about 5 over a 10 year period. If TD keeps the rate similar to today of +2 pulls per a TE, then we are talking about 29 to 31 pulls in 2029, I think the game can handle that just fine.

The point of pull cap tied to difficulty is exactly to avoid the problem you describe. All it takes is one person to call normal and is normal. In a difficulty based pull rate, you always presume normal and,say, 10 draws, unless you organize a more difficult run before the con.

You have it exactly backwards. Its a recipe for coaching room strife.