TOPIC: "Ghosting" a run for Treasure - Changed at GenCon?

Raven wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: Regarding policing ghost tickets as a community, the first step in that is a clearly stated policy from True Dungeon. Which I hope happens.

Yes. This is what I'm hoping to see:

A clearly stated policy, which is communicated (a) to Registration desk staff in printed form so they have a piece of paper to refer to if uncertain, (b) to Treasure Desk staff, so they have the same understanding & expectations, (c) to the Players - preferably by posting it in rulebooks & on the forum - so everyone knows what to expect going in.

I think it would also be very helpful if True Dungeon would consider its stance on ideas like selling "Treasure Runs" and/or letting players buy out "empty runs / empty slots" to use solely for the treasure. I'm not sure I'm entirely in favour of the idea, but if it's already happening (buying out an empty slot of 10 tix on the premise that, "TD shouldn't lose money on the tickets" and then not running the slot but immediately flipping it for the Treasure Coins = effectively a DIY Treasure Run) I'd like people to know that it's an option.

I'm really uncertain about the wisdom of having the option to just buy Treasure Coins. I see the advantages of it, and also some risks. An advantage is added revenue for True Dungeon, and another advantage is reduced reasons for people to buy out runs for ghost tokens. Disadvantages include an unknown impact on the token economy, possible negative impact on ticket sales, and maybe anger if a few people buy out the whole available stock of treasure coins available from this avenue leaving others unable to participate. Another disadvantage is taking away from the whole uniqueness of only being able to get treasure pulls from doing Dungeons (although I guess we're already away from that with the treasure coins given for token purchases).

I'd still require the person to have the Treasure Enhancing tokens, instead of just saying something like $60 for 20 treasure coins. I could see a lot of abuse of this though, of people loaning out their loot tokens for a couple of minutes for people to use on these purchases - maybe for a cut of the loot. Or people with max loot tokens buying huge quantities of these, and reselling them at a profit to people that don't have the necessary loot tokens. I'd prefer something like $50 for the amount of treasure coins you can get from your treasure-enhancing tokens +3 (the +3 is to account for the three you get automatically on runs). I wouldn't include Completion Tokens, I'd worry that might end up in a shortage of completion tokens on the runs.

If it were something like a straight $50 for 20 treasure coins, without the need to show the loot tokens, that could have a negative impact on the sale of loot tokens, which I think is a huge revenue driver for True Dungeon.

I'd also put a limit on it. I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone were to buy thousands of dollars of treasure coins, I'd actually be surprised if one or more people didn't .

One downside on this is the effect on the market of monster ingredient tokens. I could easily see something like this doubling the amount of treasure draws, creating a big glut for that year on monster ingredient tokens.

I'm back to selling the bubbles.

There are two bubbles every, what, 3.5 hours? You're talking about a 10% increase in ticket sales.

Which, by the way, is less than the 12% increase in the treasure cap from the first Nugget, with two more to go.

If you're worried about treasure deflation, you should oppose the Nuggets.

Brad Mortensen wrote: I'm back to selling the bubbles.

There are two bubbles every, what, 3.5 hours? You're talking about a 10% increase in ticket sales.

Which, by the way, is less than the 12% increase in the treasure cap from the first Nugget, with two more to go.

If you're worried about treasure deflation, you should oppose the Nuggets.

Personally I don't care about treasure deflation. I care about making sure that as many people as possible get to play the game, so this works well for me.

I would like to see them sold almost at an auction, so that their true value could be aasessed.

I would also like to see other limits to ensure that people don't buy out runs instead of going to the purchase/auction of the bubbles, but those have been well covered here.

Brad Mortensen wrote: I'm back to selling the bubbles.

There are two bubbles every, what, 3.5 hours? You're talking about a 10% increase in ticket sales.

Which, by the way, is less than the 12% increase in the treasure cap from the first Nugget, with two more to go.

If you're worried about treasure deflation, you should oppose the Nuggets.

What do you mean, "selling the bubbles?" (I haven't read this entire thread.) Do you mean sell tix to treasure farmers who then don't go on the runs, but get treasure packs instead? If you mean sell buuble tix so there are more runs, we can't do that - the volunteers really need those breaks.

My apologies if this was already explained.

Brad Mortensen wrote: I'm back to selling the bubbles.

There are two bubbles every, what, 3.5 hours? You're talking about a 10% increase in ticket sales.

Which, by the way, is less than the 12% increase in the treasure cap from the first Nugget, with two more to go.

If you're worried about treasure deflation, you should oppose the Nuggets.

At this point i'd be all for keeping the CoGF and AoTF on continous reprint where it works out 1 is always avail as pyp. This keeps treasure enhancers in print and allows a usable path to the CoA. Helps build a bridge on have and have nots regarding treasure. That way if someone wants to spend the money and time collecting they can get there and not be shut out. Adding the IS: nugget is just pushing that bridge wider and longer.

Here's a possible idea, at end of con auction off the extra treasure pulls/'unsold tickets/runs'. Let people put money where mouth is and offer a way to TD to get money and the treasure hawgs to get their extra treasure.

Reprinting the CoGF is slightly challenging due to the Charm of Avarice recipe. You wouldn't want a current PYP to be worth 2 points in that recipe.

But it could be updated so that only the 2013 CoGF counts as 2 points, the newer one counts as 1 point.

Kirk Bauer wrote: Reprinting the CoGF is slightly challenging due to the Charm of Avarice recipe. You wouldn't want a current PYP to be worth 2 points in that recipe.

But it could be updated so that only the 2013 CoGF counts as 2 points, the newer one counts as 1 point.

Common sense practical logic +1!

Matt wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote: I'm back to selling the bubbles.

There are two bubbles every, what, 3.5 hours? You're talking about a 10% increase in ticket sales.

Which, by the way, is less than the 12% increase in the treasure cap from the first Nugget, with two more to go.

If you're worried about treasure deflation, you should oppose the Nuggets.

At this point i'd be all for keeping the CoGF and AoTF on continous reprint where it works out 1 is always avail as pyp. This keeps treasure enhancers in print and allows a usable path to the CoA. Helps build a bridge on have and have nots regarding treasure. That way if someone wants to spend the money and time collecting they can get there and not be shut out. Adding the IS: nugget is just pushing that bridge wider and longer.

Here's a possible idea, at end of con auction off the extra treasure pulls/'unsold tickets/runs'. Let people put money where mouth is and offer a way to TD to get money and the treasure hawgs to get their extra treasure.

That seems reasonable.

The big question (which only Jeff knows) is whether he needs the influx of revenue generated from a new UR Treasure Enhancer. Or whether the amount generated from a reprinted CoGF/AoTF will be sufficient (cause you probably won't see people like jedibcg and Mike Steele buying 10 of those).

Incognito wrote:

Matt wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote: I'm back to selling the bubbles.

There are two bubbles every, what, 3.5 hours? You're talking about a 10% increase in ticket sales.

Which, by the way, is less than the 12% increase in the treasure cap from the first Nugget, with two more to go.

If you're worried about treasure deflation, you should oppose the Nuggets.

At this point i'd be all for keeping the CoGF and AoTF on continous reprint where it works out 1 is always avail as pyp. This keeps treasure enhancers in print and allows a usable path to the CoA. Helps build a bridge on have and have nots regarding treasure. That way if someone wants to spend the money and time collecting they can get there and not be shut out. Adding the IS: nugget is just pushing that bridge wider and longer.

Here's a possible idea, at end of con auction off the extra treasure pulls/'unsold tickets/runs'. Let people put money where mouth is and offer a way to TD to get money and the treasure hawgs to get their extra treasure.

That seems reasonable.

The big question (which only Jeff knows) is whether he needs the influx of revenue generated from a new UR Treasure Enhancer. Or whether the amount generated from a reprinted CoGF/AoTF will be sufficient (cause you probably won't see people like jedibcg and Mike Steele buying 10 of those).

Eventually I would pick them up for my backup builds (owning 20 CoA's seems crazy), but it doesn't matter because I don't buy extra because of TE token. I would spend the same amount on 10 other tokens or whatever my budget for tokens for the year is. At least for me.

I should note my group ran with 1 HoP for a long time, then a couple HoPs and a few RoR's. The 10 CoA's did not become a thing until my budget (my career took off) changed.

Reprints would definitely encourage me to get enough to build up to 10 CoA, but never build or buy TE again, unless a new one was released.

This is a generic statement about tokens in general not specifically about TE tokens. I would think reprints would make money for Jeff and Co, but not at the same rate as new tokens. And not at the same rate as tokens for a new slot. But I really don't want to derail this conversation. So sorry if I did.

You could have a treasure auction after the con, but at the end of the con people are either fried or working on tearing it all down or both.

Changes to the wait list this year (presumably due to GenCon) required people to wait near the entrance. This reduced the desire of people to be on the wait list. Some were, but I saw some inquire and walk away. Not sure why the call method was not allowed.

Aside from the wait list, quite a few tickets got returned and many people knew to keep checking the GenCon site to recapture those, lowering the number of unfilled spots.