TOPIC: End the Combat and Puzzle Variations in 2014?

In regards to a final, combined room, one solution may be to have relatively equivalent battles. This would be easiest in a "double combat" type of room. For example, if battling a hydra two (or more) groups could battle two (or more) heads simultaneously. Or, the end monster could have multiple different parts (a la Final Fantasy or other video game RPG big boss monsters).

That way, no one group could be blamed for being the "cause of failure". If the boards are close enough, both DMs can keep an eye on each other's damage/hp totals and the whole combat could be called once the total damage beats the beast. (Maybe they're fighting an Aspect of Demogorgon or something, I don't know.) To create a feeling of progress and to allow one side to feel extra special for their contribution, you could have some minor effect should damage to a part reach a certain level. For example, knocking off half the hp of one arm of the Sphinx would cause it to lose some of its overall spell resistance.

As another example, there could be a kraken with multiple tentacles. One group attacks the body while another goes for the tentacles. The body is really hard to hit though, as it has all those flailing tentacles helping to block. There might be 2 or even 3 tentacles to possibly fight, but each one would be relatively easy to hit and have low hp. Each time a tentacle is killed off, the body becomes easier to hit. The group targeting the body feels good because their attacks actually kill off the beast, while the tentacle crew feels good because their work actually made the beast killable.

Just an example to illustrate the concept. Not sure how well that particular idea would balance out.

If there's one thing I know from online raids its that people will still blame the other group even for something as simple as failing to carry their weight in terms of dps. If the room ends in a win that's one thing but if the room ends in a fail its only natural to want to look for someone to blame.

True enough. While a combined final room sounds epic if something to pull it off smoothly can be figured out, I am overall in the camp that it's too risky to attempt.

Garrison wrote: That way, no one group could be blamed for being the "cause of failure".

If there's one thing gamers do well, it's place blame. "We did 100HP of damage. It's your groups fault for only doing 20 HP of damage before we ran out of time." or "That group was running on Nightmare and we were only on Normal mode, so the DMs made the Kraken Head AC too high for us to hit. We had no chance."

Basically any time you introduce a variable, people will find a reason that the variable was unfair to them or their party.

EDIT: Er... what Picc said. He just said it a little faster than me

You said it better

Raven wrote:

Garrison wrote: That way, no one group could be blamed for being the "cause of failure".

If there's one thing gamers do well, it's place blame. "We did 100HP of damage. It's your groups fault for only doing 20 HP of damage before we ran out of time." or "That group was running on Nightmare and we were only on Normal mode, so the DMs made the Kraken Head AC too high for us to hit. We had no chance."

Basically any time you introduce a variable, people will find a reason that the variable was unfair to them or their party.

EDIT: Er... what Picc said. He just said it a little faster than me

Yeah, my group apologized to the combat group because we sucked at psudoku.

Question.

In removing the puzzle/combat split, would there still be four dungeons (two copies of each) or would there only be two dungeons?

Either way, my two SP would be three different nine room dungeons, 12 minutes per room. And one of the three should have a branch point, but don't announce which one in advance. Probably not possible, but just throwing it out there.

I assume there would be 4, 2 of each. Same set up.

Xavon wrote: Question.

In removing the puzzle/combat split, would there still be four dungeons (two copies of each) or would there only be two dungeons?

Either way, my two SP would be three different nine room dungeons, 12 minutes per room. And one of the three should have a branch point, but don't announce which one in advance. Probably not possible, but just throwing it out there.

If I understand Jeff's concern, the variation is precisely what he's trying to eliminate, to reduce the demand from the veterans to make more room for the newbies.

Punish Vets, help newbies.... hmmmm

I don't see it as "punish" vets, cmdrworf.

I see it as "allow them to experience the full dungeon(s) without making them sign up for minimum of 4 runs which may or may not conflict with their other GenCon schedules."

I remember when the Puzzle vs Combat dungeons were first created that some folks were against it because it "punished vets/completionists" who would be forced to run more dungeons.

Guess it depends on your point of view.

From the far away telescope view, Jeff Martin looks to be spread pretty thin, and facing growth and development challenges with TD as well as other ventures. Without a solid path toward perpetual improvement, TD will spiral and become even more routine than it is now. Many players worship the tokens, and they are the funding fuel for TD, but for me, and I believe some others, the fun is in the challenge of a cleverly conceived and brilliant dungeon.

I think the bottom line concern about the proposed approach is that it would create less content for veterans in the current configuration. On the other hand, large volumes of new players will supplement ticket sales at the same time as they put pressure on ticket volume. Veterans want multiple runs and buy more tickets than others. Hence the drama.

As a veteran who runs each dungeon twice each year, I have no problem avoiding or discouraging the purchase of tickets for redundant content, but something should compensate for that. I would like to see a full size veteran exclusive dungeon in addition to the two annual dungeons. Preferably, this could be at an alternate location, and it should be something more intense, realistic, tricky, weird, not routine, and mind expanding. The Adventurer's Guild compensation idea started that, but it needs to be expanded, and in some way open to all veteran players, not just those that buy $2000 worth of tokens.

Last year was a fantastic year for new players, as the treasure boxes were filled with expensive relic tokens that veterans had previously paid big dollars for. Veterans got software problems that erased their experience records and forum posts. So, lets see what the next few years brings. I hope it's not just all about tokens.