TOPIC: Run Profit Calculator

Mike Steele wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote:

jedibcg wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: People purchasing TE URs that won't purchase them if they are already at the cap. Not people cancelling their entire token orders.

That is not what you said, but I will accept it might have been what you meant. So then you agree they may buy other tokens. Like whenever we do a reprint, someone already have the token may not buy that one but may purchase a different token.

Plus we’re operating in at least three more conversations, and a (conservatively) doubling of the player base. And people who used to play at GC are shifting some of their demand to other cons, freeing up tickets at GC (which continue to sell out.)

The game isn’t static. I would wager that token sales will continue to sell briskly, with it without stackable TEs, because the base is growing.

It’s why I hate when anyone tries to use token sales as a justification for “moar greed!” What was true three years ago is no longer reality. We just don’t know. Jeff does. Unless sales-related points come from Jeff, I ignore them completely.

You realize you just made sales related points in the same post where you said you will ignore them completely.

Not at all. I provided reasons why I no longer give any weight to sales-related arguments.

Mike Steele wrote: Would you support additional TE URs with no cap if Jeff thinks that's the best approach for TD?

Support yes, agree with no.

Brad Mortensen wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote:

jedibcg wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: People purchasing TE URs that won't purchase them if they are already at the cap. Not people cancelling their entire token orders.

That is not what you said, but I will accept it might have been what you meant. So then you agree they may buy other tokens. Like whenever we do a reprint, someone already have the token may not buy that one but may purchase a different token.

Plus we’re operating in at least three more conversations, and a (conservatively) doubling of the player base. And people who used to play at GC are shifting some of their demand to other cons, freeing up tickets at GC (which continue to sell out.)

The game isn’t static. I would wager that token sales will continue to sell briskly, with it without stackable TEs, because the base is growing.

It’s why I hate when anyone tries to use token sales as a justification for “moar greed!” What was true three years ago is no longer reality. We just don’t know. Jeff does. Unless sales-related points come from Jeff, I ignore them completely.

You realize you just made sales related points in the same post where you said you will ignore them completely.

Not at all. I provided reasons why I no longer give any weight to sales-related arguments.

Your second paragraph makes a clear sales related point. Otherwise how could you be sure sales will still be brisk even without new TE URs?

You do have a fair point about possible increased sales from additional players. As you say, only Jeff has all the numbers, so he's the only one that can make an informed decision. Although, even with all that data, I doubt even Jeff can fully predict the impact on sales from a cap or going to reprints.

Mike Steele wrote: Your second paragraph makes a clear sales related point. Otherwise how could you be sure sales will still be brisk even without new TE URs?

I can’t be “sure,” which is why I DIDN’T SAY THAT!

I said I would “wager.”

Why are you quibbling about this?

jedibcg wrote: I also question whether half or even a third of all players have UR TE. Maybe they do but it would surprise me.

Based on what I've seen coaching, I would be surprised if more then 30% of the player base owned a single UR. We all need to remember, we are the outliers.

Mike Steele wrote: Would you support additional TE URs with no cap if Jeff thinks that's the best approach for TD?

I would support/buy whatever Jeff thinks is best. That said I feel like the right call after the nuggets would be a reprint of COGF since it delays raising the cap, helps out old charm holders, bla bla bla

As for effecting token sells the best feedback I can give is that I ran a auction last year after gencon to complete a 8k on my account over the year.

As for the PYPs all but 1 was ISSN
The other 1 was kilt of tavernbane.

So yes I believe PYPs positivity effect token sales.

Wayne Rhodes wrote: As for effecting token sells the best feedback I can give is that I ran a auction last year after gencon to complete a 8k on my account over the year.

As for the PYPs all but 1 was ISSN
The other 1 was kilt of tavernbane.

So yes I believe PYPs positivity effect token sales.

Meanwhile, I bought and sold more tokens last year, with zero Nuggets, than I did this year, when I sold exactly one Nugget and kept one out of my 8k. From my data, URTEs had a negative effect on sales. No, I don’t believe that’s true universally. Just pointing out the dangers of extrapolation from a small data set.

I’m sure the truth is somewhere in between. There’s no way you or I will ever know what the actual total was. One guy does, and I’m sure he’s always paying plenty of attention.

Brad Mortensen wrote:

Wayne Rhodes wrote: As for effecting token sells the best feedback I can give is that I ran a auction last year after gencon to complete a 8k on my account over the year.

As for the PYPs all but 1 was ISSN
The other 1 was kilt of tavernbane.

So yes I believe PYPs positivity effect token sales.

Meanwhile, I bought and sold more tokens last year, with zero Nuggets, than I did this year, when I sold exactly one Nugget and kept one out of my 8k. From my data, URTEs had a negative effect on sales. No, I don’t believe that’s true universally. Just pointing out the dangers of extrapolation from a small data set.

I’m sure the truth is somewhere in between. There’s no way you or I will ever know what the actual total was. One guy does, and I’m sure he’s always paying plenty of attention.

That’s fair, but I feel that it’s data I have, and the conversation could use some data. I feel ok sharing my data, even though it’s not a massive sample size.
But we all form out opinions based on the data at hand. So my opinion based on my data is TEs boost token sales at least to some level. I respect your data doesn’t show the same trend.

Wayne Rhodes wrote:
...many reasonable things...

Yup

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

jedibcg wrote:

John Franczyk wrote:

Fred K wrote: If your odds at Gencon (the worst odds of any con) to draw an UR are 0.5% this year, adding another 2 draws to a third to half of the players means the overall draw rate will be reduced to 0.4% or lower.Fred

Is it true that the chance of getting an UR is different depending on the con? Why would that be? Shouldn't the odds be the same regardless of the con (there are just more tokens being drawn at some cons compared to others)?

Not from that I have seen. It is about the same at Origins .33 and Gen Con .3. At GHC it was only .2 but I think that might have been because of too little data. Not sure where Fred K is getting his .5 number from.

I also question whether half or even a third of all players have UR TE. Maybe they do but it would surprise me.

The .5% was a guess. The actual numbers from last year:
Origins: .44%
GenCon: .41%
Gamehole Con: .25% (limited sample size could have skewed that number)
Paxsouth: .99% (again - limited sample size could have skewed the numbers)

I'm sure someone saved the historical data to look at years past. My point was increasing TE's means the token draw rate of UR+ is likely dropping year to year. I could be wrong there but it seems to be the pattern I'm seeing. The more people have UR+ TE's, that means new players have an increasingly lower chance of getting something really cool in their draws. Alternately, TD could keep static rates of UR+ tokens in the treasure draw mixes but that will encourage more doing runs for farming by people getting 21 (next year 23) draws (ok when not everything is sold out - bad when it is sold out).

Fred

Wayne Rhodes wrote: As for effecting token sells the best feedback I can give is that I ran a auction last year after gencon to complete a 8k on my account over the year.

As for the PYPs all but 1 was ISSN
The other 1 was kilt of tavernbane.

So yes I believe PYPs positivity effect token sales.

I saw something similar this year. If the two $8K orders I did, I believe people (both my group and people buying into the order off the forums) claimed 18 ISGN's this year.

I doubt limiting TEs would have much of an impact on overall sales, though. I'm saying have a hard cap on TE bonuses but let there be a number of ways to get there. Worst case, you'd have 500 or so people already maxed out who don't buy the new TE that year. Those same people will likely just buy other tokens and are usually part of larger orders.

Fred

Fred K wrote: The .5% was a guess. The actual numbers from last year:
Origins: .44%
GenCon: .41%
Gamehole Con: .25% (limited sample size could have skewed that number)
Paxsouth: .99% (again - limited sample size could have skewed the numbers)

I'm sure someone saved the historical data to look at years past. My point was increasing TE's means the token draw rate of UR+ is likely dropping year to year. I could be wrong there but it seems to be the pattern I'm seeing. The more people have UR+ TE's, that means new players have an increasingly lower chance of getting something really cool in their draws. Alternately, TD could keep static rates of UR+ tokens in the treasure draw mixes but that will encourage more doing runs for farming by people getting 21 (next year 23) draws (ok when not everything is sold out - bad when it is sold out).

Fred

That is not the UR data from last year. We do have historical data for pulls. You are correct chances for a UR seem to be decreasing.