TOPIC: Monster Trophies at Origins - Can we get an official response before Gen Con?

Matthew Hayward wrote: It's unwise to get strongly attached to the particular ratios of treasure being any certain way.

Long-term, I would agree.Things change.

But when we have a pronouncement, and it is unexpectedly (and accidentally) voided a few months later, it’s disconcerting.

What you seem to be saying is that we can avoid disappointment if we just stop having confidence in anything TPTB tell us. And I don’t think that’s what you or anyone else really wants.

jedibcg wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

jedibcg wrote:

jedibcg wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: This is also not the first time something like this has happened - a few years back - maybe 2015? There was an announced proposed mix. It had monster bits at some percentage.

Then, at the cons according to our tracking spreadheets, it seems the monster bit percentage was considerably lower (I'm talking like a 10% difference).

I think it's wise to temper any expectations about what the mix should be.

i will look but i don’t recall that. nice that we still have the data to look.

I don't have a spreadsheet that goes back further that 2016 so I don't we were tracking back in 2015. That said I compared the data we have for all the cons and within each season the difference for Monster Bits between cons NEVER varies more than 5% (I think it was 3% but I don't have them up any more). Just wanted to clear that up. Though I may have misunderstood what you were saying.

I got the year wrong - this is what I was referring to:

truedungeon.com/forum?view=topic&catid=53&id=234348#234348

In 2016 it was proposed (announced?) that the monster bit percentage would be 35%

Subsequently it was changed to 25% or so and we found out at Gen Con by tracking or discussion with volunteers who made the mix.

Some people, self included, made plans, traded tokens, bought and sole treasure pulls, etc. on the premise of 35% monster bits.

This is why I was saying I think it’s wise to take everything re: the mix with a grain of salt and see what it actually is at the event.

As I recall we (or at least I) argued against having that high of MB. Maybe he listened would need to look through the thread because I don’t think that is what it settled on, but I could be remembering wrong.

Yes, as I recall 15% was suggested as a good number.

Kirk Bauer wrote: I'd be cautious on modifying the recipe for the Bead of the Lucky Traveler because a decent number of them were already transmuted at Origins. I'm sure there is a fair option but that should be considered before making a change.

I don't think any changes are needed to the Lucky Traveler Bead or any sort of fix needed for the lower percentage of monster ingredient tokens. Maybe it's for the best in the end, there were going to be a huge glut of the beads. I know I'm scaling back my expectations for my group, rather than figuring out how many extras to make, I'm just hoping we'll get enough to cover the entire group.

It is interesting that the amount of treasure went up that significantly. The additional conventions must be driving a lot of additional runs this year. I'm sure the Golden Nuggets have an impact also, but I'd think probably a lesser one to the number of additional runs sold.

Mike Steele wrote:

Kirk Bauer wrote: I'd be cautious on modifying the recipe for the Bead of the Lucky Traveler because a decent number of them were already transmuted at Origins. I'm sure there is a fair option but that should be considered before making a change.

I don't think any changes are needed to the Lucky Traveler Bead or any sort of fix needed for the lower percentage of monster ingredient tokens. Maybe it's for the best in the end, there were going to be a huge glut of the beads. I know I'm scaling back my expectations for my group, rather than figuring out how many extras to make, I'm just hoping we'll get enough to cover the entire group.

It is interesting that the amount of treasure went up that significantly. The additional conventions must be driving a lot of additional runs this year. I'm sure the Golden Nuggets have an impact also, but I'd think probably a lesser one to the number of additional runs sold.

Its somewhat anecdotal but I kind of feel like we as a community are pushing more people towards higher gear levels (a $100 pyp also starts to look a lot more reasonable when compared to an $80 ticket). Maybe its just me but it feels like ever since that first pax there have been a lot more unfamiliar names looking for runs and gear at the UR level. Don't know if that's good or bad, just what I've observed.

Picc wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Kirk Bauer wrote: I'd be cautious on modifying the recipe for the Bead of the Lucky Traveler because a decent number of them were already transmuted at Origins. I'm sure there is a fair option but that should be considered before making a change.

I don't think any changes are needed to the Lucky Traveler Bead or any sort of fix needed for the lower percentage of monster ingredient tokens. Maybe it's for the best in the end, there were going to be a huge glut of the beads. I know I'm scaling back my expectations for my group, rather than figuring out how many extras to make, I'm just hoping we'll get enough to cover the entire group.

It is interesting that the amount of treasure went up that significantly. The additional conventions must be driving a lot of additional runs this year. I'm sure the Golden Nuggets have an impact also, but I'd think probably a lesser one to the number of additional runs sold.

Its somewhat anecdotal but I kind of feel like we as a community are pushing more people towards higher gear levels (a $100 pyp also starts to look a lot more reasonable when compared to an $80 ticket). Maybe its just me but it feels like ever since that first pax there have been a lot more unfamiliar names looking for runs and gear at the UR level. Don't know if that's good or bad, just what I've observed.

I think it’s a sign that the new cons are bringing in new players. I know the increased Treasure/bits was a concern for some, but they were just being impatient. Most new players aren’t going to jump to the UR level immediately. It takes a year or two before they work up the ladder and start increasing demand on the high end, and that’s exactly what we’re seeing now.

People who advocated for throttling bits to prop up Fleece prices didn’t believe it when it was brought up last year. I don’t believe there was going to be a glut of Beads, because they would have been absorbed by the new players. Instead we’ll have a shortage, and there won’t even be enough supply to meet the demands of existing players like me or Mr Steele (and others whose names I will hold in confidence) because about a third of those that were being planned can’t be made with the existing ‘19 bits.

Oh well. Nobody is going to die over it.

Brad Mortensen wrote: .

Oh well. Nobody is going to die over it.

Missed saving throw?

Oh, you mean in real life....

Mike Steele wrote: I don't think any changes are needed to the Lucky Traveler Bead or any sort of fix needed for the lower percentage of monster ingredient tokens.

I definitely disagree with you on this point.

The approximate number of runs required to get 1 of each monster bit for 2016/2017/2018 was fairly static.

2019 we are moved from 4 bits to 6 bits. An odd decision to make that change in the middle of a story arc.

That pushed the required runs up by 50% to complete the bead.

Doubling the standard treasure mix without also doubling the monster bits causes that number to double.

One factor might have been understandable but having both? That's seriously off balance.

The effective cost of the bead skyrocketed this year with these two changes. The cost increased by 50%, the TOTAL cost increased by 50%. That's not a small change.


*Insert math vomit*

If we assume (purely for the math) That in order to pull one each of the 2016/2017/2018 monster bits required 10 tickets with full treasure (again purely for the math)

That places the value of 2016/2017/2018 monster bits, 1 of each for a total of 12, at 30 runs.

Given that same exact valuation. 10 runs = 4 monster bits. 2019 hits a requirement of 15 runs at base due to 6 bits. Add into that the doubling of treasure without affect to the number of monster bits and that number jumps to 30 runs.

So that puts the cost of 1 set of 2019 tokens at the exact same number as the cost of all three previous years. The Monster bits this year have gone up by 300%

The total cost to make one bead, as assumed when the bead was started in 2016 would have been (10 runs X 4 years) 40 runs

The total cost to make one bead today actually is 60 runs.

That's a 50% increase in the total cost of the token overall and a 300% increase for 2019 alone.


This is NOT minor, this is NOT something that can just be ignored. It's a HUGE change, caused by a mistake in printing that is currently being shouldered by the community. A massive triple financial burden on the players.


This is EXACTLY the wrong time for the community to be hit with a massive financial punch like this. This is the kind of thing that pushes all those new players climbing towards UR level out of the token game.

Take every one of those brand new token fanatics, who've just started to get into the token hunt and feel the token fever. Take every single one of them who spent last year gathering together their first big multi-year token and kick em right in the junk with requiring TRIPLE the cost to finish their new token.

Changing from 4 to 6 monster bits didn't have to be a hit on the community if the % of bits was increased 50% to compensate for the additional requirements. Changing the mix next year, when it doesn't influence the cost of a token in process would have been fine.


What happened here is not fine. It really is not, not if increasing the playerbase is truly a goal.

Please stop saying this is fine

I'm not disagreeing that it makes completing beads a lot harder, it clearly does. It's not unprecedented though. Sets of monster tokens from 2006 and 2007 were going for $100 per set for each year to complete the Medallion of Greyhawk. The 2013 monster tokens for the Icecrag Earcuff were selling at a big premium since lots of people pulled from the special Relic box that year.

I'm just saying that the reality this year is a lower percentage of monster tokens, and it's probably too late to adjust either the percentage of monster tokens in the boxes or the Bead recipe (particularly since some Beads have already been transmuted). I'm totally with you that I wish the percentage hadn't dropped, it's going to make transmuting both Beads and Kilts a lot harder for me for my group, but I think it's something I'm going to have to adjust to. I'll definitely be transmuting fewer of both than I'd been planning on.

Maybe next year will be kind of like the year after the Icecrag was available for transmuting, where a bunch of them found their way into the Treasure Boxes since far fewer were transmuted than anticipated.

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: I don't think any changes are needed to the Lucky Traveler Bead or any sort of fix needed for the lower percentage of monster ingredient tokens.

I definitely disagree with you on this point.

The approximate number of runs required to get 1 of each monster bit for 2016/2017/2018 was fairly static.

2019 we are moved from 4 bits to 6 bits. An odd decision to make that change in the middle of a story arc.

That pushed the required runs up by 50% to complete the bead.

Doubling the standard treasure mix without also doubling the monster bits causes that number to double.

One factor might have been understandable but having both? That's seriously off balance.

The effective cost of the bead skyrocketed this year with these two changes. The cost increased by 50%, the TOTAL cost increased by 50%. That's not a small change.


*Insert math vomit*

If we assume (purely for the math) That in order to pull one each of the 2016/2017/2018 monster bits required 10 tickets with full treasure (again purely for the math)

That places the value of 2016/2017/2018 monster bits, 1 of each for a total of 12, at 30 runs.

Given that same exact valuation. 10 runs = 4 monster bits. 2019 hits a requirement of 15 runs at base due to 6 bits. Add into that the doubling of treasure without affect to the number of monster bits and that number jumps to 30 runs.

So that puts the cost of 1 set of 2019 tokens at the exact same number as the cost of all three previous years. The Monster bits this year have gone up by 300%

The total cost to make one bead, as assumed when the bead was started in 2016 would have been (10 runs X 4 years) 40 runs

The total cost to make one bead today actually is 60 runs.

That's a 50% increase in the total cost of the token overall and a 300% increase for 2019 alone.


This is NOT minor, this is NOT something that can just be ignored. It's a HUGE change, caused by a mistake in printing that is currently being shouldered by the community. A massive triple financial burden on the players.


This is EXACTLY the wrong time for the community to be hit with a massive financial punch like this. This is the kind of thing that pushes all those new players climbing towards UR level out of the token game.

Take every one of those brand new token fanatics, who've just started to get into the token hunt and feel the token fever. Take every single one of them who spent last year gathering together their first big multi-year token and kick em right in the junk with requiring TRIPLE the cost to finish their new token.

Changing from 4 to 6 monster bits didn't have to be a hit on the community if the % of bits was increased 50% to compensate for the additional requirements. Changing the mix next year, when it doesn't influence the cost of a token in process would have been fine.


What happened here is not fine. It really is not, not if increasing the playerbase is truly a goal.

Please stop saying this is fine

Arcanist - the problem in your reasoning is that a huge number of runs is the only way to get the 2019 bits and complete the bead. At their least expensive, a run is $40. If it takes 10 runs to complete the 2019 set (rather than the 30 you presented), that is at a cost of $400. Right now, you can buy a completed bead off Trent’s site for $200 and Kirk’s for $300.

It’s odd but the secondary market appears to be selling these for less than cost. My guess is because a significant number of collectors made quite a few beads and are now selling them now rather than waiting a year or two. I suspect that we’ll see prices stay between $200 and $300 for a year or two.

I get the frustration from the bit drop rate being lower than the past year. Last year was an anomaly, though. We’re back to normal or slightly below normal drop rates on monster bits. The increase in number of bits was announced more than a year ago with the bead recipe. I suspect that the decision to go to 6 was more strategic and we’ll see that long term. Recipes being more run exclusive content rather than just various trade items forces more runs being bought out. It’s not a bad idea, really.

Jeff was honest that the percentage of bits was based on lower treasure distribution than turned out would happen. It sounds like he had data that more runs would sell than in prior years (that appeared accurate for Origins and Gencon is selliing out as usual) and the increase in TEs would increase draws as well (probably not unrealistic to expect 10% more draws just from TE increases from the two stones). Rather than come down on Jeff and crew, the community can resolve this without much problem. The stores tacitly agree not to sell completed beads for more than $300 or 2019 bits for more than $15 or $20. Wosrst case, someone pays $30 more to complete their bead than originally anticipated. Compare Jeff’s transparency to WoTC changing organized play rules then refusing to explain why or similar industry behavior.

We’re very fortunate to have such an open community and game designers who do their best to work with us.

If a solution is really needed, I liked the earlier suggestion of two treasure boxes, One monster bit heavy, and one with higher URs, etc.. we could even skip to the chase a bit and do 7:1 exchange of treasure draws to draw from a box of only monster bits (the 7:1 was a random number but the idea is the same.) The monster bit only box solves the challenges tied to the bits immediately.

That’s my 2 cents...

Fred

Are Bits the only Tokens worth anything in the treasure boxes? That's my take away from this thread. For those so worried about not getting your bits why not just ask Jeff to come up with a certain treasure trade in ratio for them. Turn in X number of pulls and get X number of bits. Or turn in a ton of pulls and get a relic? Why not forget treasure draws altogether and just have a system like this. Would that be fun? The mix may have changed but no where does it say players are guaranteed anything from a treasure pull. It's a chance at something that's it. You might get what you want you might not. And maybe this year you get less of what you wanted. If someone wants a guarantee then I highly suggest selling your pulls every single year and using those funds to buy what you want. Only way you'll be happy with your pulls.

Or I don’t know. Do what I suggested. Trade with new players get them hooked and you can get your missing bits ( if you are missing game any from runs you have not even done yet)

But it’s fine.

Those of us likely not doing ANY runs this year might be plain out of luck then in transmuting the bead.

I have bought 35 draws that I am going to have someone pull for me at Gen Con. So if I am average I will get 3 2019 bits. Have to be lucky to miss duplicates tho.

Being on a limited budget for the foreseeable future means I will like NOT get the 6 bits to make the bead. Not too thrilled with that thought, as +2 to all saves is pretty sweet to have. The same limit means I will likely not get to buy more draws this year.

I guess I will see what kind of luck I have with those pulls.