TOPIC: Missed GenCon, Game Hole Con exp for 2016?

ok, so I shared the survey link with my group that I'm doing a run with. Many of them haven't had the chance to get to Gen Con or run TD in the past. Below is the reaction of one player when I informed them there was no xp for the runs at GHC.

"Oh, that is super lame! I assumed we were getting credit for it
I'm still look I g forward to trying it for sure, but it makes me glad I didn't spend money on more time slots."

You have to wonder how many casual players are out there who don't come to this forum, may have heard about xp and have no idea they aren't getting any for GHC.

Dave wrote: ok, so I shared the survey link with my group that I'm doing a run with. Many of them haven't had the chance to get to Gen Con or run TD in the past. Below is the reaction of one player when I informed them there was no xp for the runs at GHC.

"Oh, that is super lame! I assumed we were getting credit for it
I'm still look I g forward to trying it for sure, but it makes me glad I didn't spend money on more time slots."

You have to wonder how many casual players are out there who don't come to this forum, may have heard about xp and have no idea they aren't getting any for GHC.

I didn't know till I saw this thread and its soured me a bit on TD

Sargonnax wrote:

Dave wrote: ok, so I shared the survey link with my group that I'm doing a run with. Many of them haven't had the chance to get to Gen Con or run TD in the past. Below is the reaction of one player when I informed them there was no xp for the runs at GHC.

"Oh, that is super lame! I assumed we were getting credit for it
I'm still look I g forward to trying it for sure, but it makes me glad I didn't spend money on more time slots."

You have to wonder how many casual players are out there who don't come to this forum, may have heard about xp and have no idea they aren't getting any for GHC.

I didn't know till I saw this thread and its soured me a bit on TD

Xp's been a touchy subject ever since the expansion (which is mostly agreed to be good for td overall) was announced.

Aside from gauging responses we as the forum are nearing a point (where we've been before on various topics) that once all the options/sides/rants are over it comes to waiting and seeing what Jeff and company ultimately decide.

Incognito wrote:

bpsymington wrote: People make a good argument against raising NM XP higher than HC (people might run NM even if notm prepared for it).

In that case, why should Hardcore have more XP than Normal? Why should Normal have more XP than Non-Lethal?

Proposal: All difficulty levels - Non-Lethal, Normal, Hardcore, and Nightmare should all have the same XP.

We have to save people from themselves. Some players might run Normal even if they are not prepared for it. So let's make sure that Normal has the same XP as Non-Lethal....

I realize you're being a bit tongue-in-cheek here, Eric, but I'm going to answer your questions as if they were being asked realistically.

Why should HardCore have more XP than Normal? Because it's still doable with a pick-up group, and a starter pack of tokens per person. It's hard - but it isn't impossible - and those people who feel up to the challenge (as a group) should get some reward for pushing their comfort zone and trying the challenge.

This is different than encouraging people to run Nightmare when they're not prepared for it, because "being prepared for Nightmare" generally means "having invested a few hundred dollars in tokens." This is not something we should assume an average group of 10 players is up to.

When a single player - or let's say a couple friends - wants to get extra XP, but can't buy out a whole slot, they can join a pick-up group, and cross their fingers that the group might be convinced to do HardCore. It's not actually that hard to find a group capable of HC, especially if you're willing to share a handful or reds (yay, everyone has a +1 weapon! and gauntlets of Ogre power!) and help get the team running like a well-oiled machine. Odds are even pretty good that a couple other people in the pick-up group have played before, and know what they're doing. It's not a guarantee that everyone will have fun, but it's well within the realm of possibility.

A couple of people joining a pick-up group and trying to convince everyone to do Nightmare - when only the well equipped duo have a chance of hitting the monster's AC - is a recipe for disaster.

So why should Normal have more XP than Non-Lethal? Because the module is designed for a group to be able to play it through on Normal. If people decide - unanimously - that they want a different experience, because living is more important than the challenge of failure, then they are making the choice to forego XP for a Haunted-House style of game instead.

Your comment that "Some players might run Normal even if they're not prepared for it" is making the assumption that we should cater to the lowest common denominator. Of course some people aren't going to be prepared for it. Some people aren't prepared to walk and chew gum at the same time. But modules are designed with the assumption than the majority of people can handle Normal Mode.

Modules are not designed with the assumption than an average pick-up group of 10 people will have spent $1k per person on tokens, and can take on Nightmare.

In that same vein, you said...

Incognito wrote: Yet plenty of other forumites seem all too eager to adopt a patronizing attitude that players need to be protected from themselves from doing a difficulty level that is too hard for them (that was the argument against more XP for Nightmare).

I think you're missing something significant here:

It's not that players need to be protected from themselves doing a difficulty to hard for them - it's that players need to be protected from being brow-beaten by other players into doing a difficulty level that is too hard for them.

If you make it impossible to get that extra XP without playing on the hardest settings, you'll get players trying to drag the unready & unwilling with them on overly difficult runs. And while I'm okay with people torturing themselves and ruining their own fun (or redefining "fun" as "a brutal TPK") I don't want to see them doing it to new players for the sake of their own gain.

We'll put Raven, as usual.

Raven wrote:

Incognito wrote:

bpsymington wrote: People make a good argument against raising NM XP higher than HC (people might run NM even if notm prepared for it).

In that case, why should Hardcore have more XP than Normal? Why should Normal have more XP than Non-Lethal?

Proposal: All difficulty levels - Non-Lethal, Normal, Hardcore, and Nightmare should all have the same XP.

We have to save people from themselves. Some players might run Normal even if they are not prepared for it. So let's make sure that Normal has the same XP as Non-Lethal....

I realize you're being a bit tongue-in-cheek here, Eric, but I'm going to answer your questions as if they were being asked realistically.

Why should HardCore have more XP than Normal? Because it's still doable with a pick-up group, and a starter pack of tokens per person. It's hard - but it isn't impossible - and those people who feel up to the challenge (as a group) should get some reward for pushing their comfort zone and trying the challenge.

If it's doable with a pick-up group and a starter pack of tokens, then what is the purpose of having lots of tokens? This causes a disincentive to buy tokens.

And if these people are getting a reward for pushing their comfort zone and trying the challenge, why shouldn't the same apply to Hardcore players who push their comfort zone and try the challenge of Nightmare? Shouldn't they get rewarded too?

Your comment that "Some players might run Normal even if they're not prepared for it" is making the assumption that we should cater to the lowest common denominator. Of course some people aren't going to be prepared for it. Some people aren't prepared to walk and chew gum at the same time. But modules are designed with the assumption than the majority of people can handle Normal Mode.

That seems to be the argument that other posters are making (cater to the lowest common denominator) which is why I was extending that logic. I personally do NOT think we should do that.

Raven wrote:

Incognito wrote: Yet plenty of other forumites seem all too eager to adopt a patronizing attitude that players need to be protected from themselves from doing a difficulty level that is too hard for them (that was the argument against more XP for Nightmare).

I think you're missing something significant here:

It's not that players need to be protected from themselves doing a difficulty to hard for them - it's that players need to be protected from being brow-beaten by other players into doing a difficulty level that is too hard for them.

If you make it impossible to get that extra XP without playing on the hardest settings, you'll get players trying to drag the unready & unwilling with them on overly difficult runs. And while I'm okay with people torturing themselves and ruining their own fun (or redefining "fun" as "a brutal TPK") I don't want to see them doing it to new players for the sake of their own gain.

Simple solution - have a minimum level requirement to play Nightmare. Then newbies are automatically protected because they *aren't allowed* to play Nightmare. And pseudo-newbies uncomfortable with Nightmare could always claim that they aren't of sufficiently high level.

Course then some newbies are going to be whining about how they are being denied the opportunity to do Nightmare. (If it comes down to it, you could allow special permission from a Director or AC in special circumstances).

Alternatively, create some sort of incentive for all the party members to survive (extra treasure? extra XP?). That way people have a vested interest in keeping the whole party alive!

Who is going to police this "minimum" level requirement?

Is anyone currently policing the minimum level requirement for grind? Did anyone ever police the dedicated nightmare runs?

I don't care for this idea from both a philosophical and practical standpoint.

Incognito wrote: Alternatively, create some sort of incentive for all the party members to survive (extra treasure? extra XP?). That way people have a vested interest in keeping the whole party alive!

If there is for all party memebers that survive how is that going to create a vested interest in keeping the whole party alive?

Eric, I know your playing devils advocate, and maybe we do need an epic difficulty in the main dungeon (subject for another thread). But the vast majority of what your proposing would be a pr nightmare.

like Halrax said its going to be impossible to police level requirments. Its not like dedicated nightmare runs were very effective at filtering.

If treasure becomes tied to survival people will have major issues with the current last room boss difficulty model. If people are upset about being short changed largely meaningless xp imagine how they will react to being denied the bonus treasure they were prommised when something like Smoak oneshots the last room.

Try and remember as much as we on the forums wish TD was more game like, we run a lot more then most.

The typical group frankly needs to be pandered to. They're paying a lot of money to pretend to be heros once a year. It doesnt take much to spoil that experence for them and they dont see the same cracks in the logic we do after several runs per year.

If they get to the point where they want a challange its there for them. If we encourage them to run into it by dangling rewards or telling them they are not cool enough for higher difficulties human nature will kick in and theyre going to have a bad time.

Incognito wrote:

travis wrote:

Incognito wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: Here is a survey I invite everyone to take on this topic:

www.surveymonkey.com/r/XVWCGWH

You will see the community results when you complete your survey (absent the free text options).

Once everyone has had a chance to respond, I will post the results, including the free text options, here.

Thanks for doing that.

For #1, I was a bit conflicted so I put down Other:

Personally, it would be advantageous for me to have no XP cap. Although I am in the Top 20 for XP, this would help me catch up with those higher than me who are unable to attend the other cons. However, I benefit from living in the Midwest. It would be rather unfair for those on the East and West Coasts to fall behind in XP because they can't make it to the Midwest *three* times a year!

I was also a bit neutral for Questions #5 & #6. There weren't any good answer options so I just went with a compromise "Partial" answer.

is it really unfair to them though? if they aren't going to all the events that TD is offering, shouldn't the people that *do* go to all those events eventually be considered to be at the top?

By that logic, then XP should be awarded for True Grind (though I personally don't agree with that). Grind is an event that TD is offering, so shouldn't you have to play Grind to be considered to be at the top?

You could argue that big token buyers support TD much more than a casual attendee. So maybe there should be XP for sufficiently big token purchases? (I personally would be against that but it's an interesting argument).

Or here's a proposal that I have made before and will make it again: How about a small amount of XP for volunteers? Say 100 XP, or even 1 XP (which would raise the cap) just for volunteering? So if you really wanted to be in the top, then you would have to give back by volunteering for TD as well!

if jeff wanted to offer xp for true grind, i'd have no problem with it.

i would argue that big token buyers already get sufficient bonuses for that sort of support to TD in the form of additional tokens that are only available to people who spend that kind of money.

i've also got no problem with volunteers getting xp. they support TD more than most. however, some have already argued that they are compensated well enough through the unique tokens they get, which is a fair point.

who is really getting hurt by giving additional xp at other cons? if the answer is TD in general because it lessens the amount of revenue and participation that they see overall, then by all means, don't offer xp. but i don't think that argument has been made, or if it has it wasn't made well enough for me to remember it.

if the only ones being hurt are those people at the top of the xp list, then i think its a poor reason to not give xp just because some of them won't be at the top anymore.

i'd like to disclaim that i think you should only get xp once for a particular dungeon, regardless of where it is offered, however, if a new dungeon is offered at a non-gen-con event, i think that should give xp, without any sort of artificial cap.

If you increase the XP per year that a player can earn, wouldn't you have to change the XP needed for each level? Jeff may have planned for it to take a certain amount of time for players to reach each level, and purchased the items needed to reward those players. If people start hitting lv6 faster, that means more medallions needed. He would also need more 'elite' lanyards and lv8 pins, as people would get to those levels faster as well.

jedibcg wrote:

Incognito wrote: Alternatively, create some sort of incentive for all the party members to survive (extra treasure? extra XP?). That way people have a vested interest in keeping the whole party alive!

If there is for all party memebers that survive how is that going to create a vested interest in keeping the whole party alive?

I said "create some sort of incentive for all the party members to survive" NOT "create some sort of incentive for all the party members that survive".

So the incentive would either only apply when everyone survives, or it scales based on the number of people surviving.

I am personally against more treasure enhancers, but hypothetically, what if there was:

Charm of Good Teamwork
Extra Treasure Chips per number of surviving players:
1-5: 2 Chips
6-9: 3 Chips
10: 4 Chips

Suppose there was a party of 2 experienced players with the CoGT and 8 newbies. The experienced players have a strong and vested interest in keeping the whole party alive (whereas right now, sometimes they are just focused on keeping themselves alive).