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

Incognito wrote:
Tokens not really being necessary (especially since you get 99% of the benefits at just Hardcore level where you can survive "with a pickup group and a starter pack of tokens").

You keep saying this, and I can't tell if you think it's a ridiculous statement but you are using it to make a point, or you agree with it.

I'll say that while you can survive hardcore with a PuG and a token 10-pack, it would be exceptionally unlikely that the entire party survives.

Even with experienced forumites I don't think it's particularly likely.

With a token 10-pack the typical person is:

1. Using a common or uncommon weapon (so not to-hit bonus, average damage of around 3).
2. Using a common or uncommon armor, perhaps with a shield or helm here or there (so perhaps an average AC mod of +5)
3. Without substantial save or HP boosters.

So we're talking about a group whose hit bonus ranges from +0 to +6 and whose average melee damage ranges from 3-9 on a hit (maybe 13 of the Barbarian has a two handed weapon).

Looking at Into the Underdark's module as an example, the Hardcore end boss:

a. Hit an AC of 26. This means that even with bardsong and bless from the priest (a somewhat unlikely boon in a PuG) most players will need a 20 to hit the thing, best case a Fighter or Barbarian needs only a 17 to hit.

b. Has 300 HP. So... the party only needs to rack up around 50 hits on it to kill it at the damage levels involved (sure - Wizard, Druid, Cleric can lay down maybe 150 of this over 4 rounds or so if they saved spells).

c. It gets 2 attacks per round at +12 - with player AC ranging from 10 to 18 that means it's hitting maybe 1.5 players per round (and it's probably smart enough to start with the 11 AC wizard who is actually capable of damaging it).

After a hit players make a DC-18 fort save vs. death.

Without save boosters (unlikely - in 2016 which was a particularly good year for saves there is probably 0 or 1 either +1 or +2 cloak of resistance in the party) party members fort save bonuses range from 1-8. Let's estimate a hit character has a 2/3 chance of dying.

First off, over 4 rounds a combat a PuG is likely to lose 4*1.5*.66 = 4 players

Second, it is exceedingly improbable that the party will deal 300 points of damage over 4 rounds.

All that is to say nothing of the 3 other monsters they encountered on the way - each of whom had AC 20-24 and HP 150-200.

Harlax wrote:

balthasar wrote: 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.

I think it s highly likely the XP needed per level would increase.

People keep saying this - and it baffles me.

Looks like Acme Airlines just opened a new route from Columbus to Phoenix - they are going to have to increase the frequent flyer miles needed to redeem a free ticket.

Looks like Beta Bread Co. just opened a new location at the mall - they are going to have to increase the stamps you need to get a free sandwich from 10 to 12.

Looks like TD expanded to 2 new cons, where they may grant XP - they are going to need to increase the XP needed to hit rewards tiers.

The first two are obviously silly.

I'm not sure why the third isn't obviously silly.

Right now you need to run X dungeons to hit level Y.

Suddenly if more XP dungeons became available, you should need to run more than X dungeons to hit level Y?

Because...?

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Harlax wrote:

balthasar wrote: 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.

I think it s highly likely the XP needed per level would increase.

People keep saying this - and it baffles me.

Looks like Acme Airlines just opened a new route from Columbus to Phoenix - they are going to have to increase the frequent flyer miles needed to redeem a free ticket.

Looks like Beta Bread Co. just opened a new location at the mall - they are going to have to increase the stamps you need to get a free sandwich from 10 to 12.

Looks like TD expanded to 2 new cons, where they may grant XP - they are going to need to increase the XP needed to hit rewards tiers.

The first two are obviously silly.

I'm not sure why the third isn't obviously silly.

Right now you need to run X dungeons to hit level Y.

Suddenly if more XP dungeons became available, you should need to run more than X dungeons to hit level Y?

Because...?

I fully agree with you on this one, I don't get it either. Maybe it will be factored into how much it will take for future levels, but I see no reason for current levels to change.

In fact, if you changed the exp requirements, its quite possible that some players would actually be dropped a level. What are you going to do, ban them from Lords and Ladies forum and have them mail their token back?

Incognito wrote:

jedibcg wrote:

Incognito wrote:
I disagree given that TD (GenCon at least) is consistently short on good volunteers. And the current rewards aren't sufficient to compel a lot of players to help out.

Here I fixed that for you.

Agreed!

I considered clarifying that myself but didn't want to introduce another controversial topic.

There are a good chunk of TD volunteers who range from "meh" to "absolutely terrible." (A large proportion of them have never played TD, and probably don't even care about XP).

I think the best volunteers are those who play and know the game. But a lot of such players do not volunteer. I think more incentives are needed to convince these players to cross the threshold.

I must admit Eric that you got me to really think about pushing for XP at other cons (not changing xp needed for lvls, another argument). I'd be curious and would think someone with higher standing to ask Lori to see what percentage of volunteers play or at least report they play as according to the sign-ups we select have we played and if so how many times.

I guess by forum noise I'm in the relative minority. I started volunteering to give back to the game that i played 2 years before signing up. Since then i've volunteered part time in some coaching staff capacity since. I only do part time as i want to play as much as i reasonably(cost/time) can during gencon. If i was able to get xp at other cons or have other con's have full dungeon i might reconsider not doing full time volunteering. I admit I like the goodies we get but that's not my primary motivator.

I would be curious to see if we get the info of according to sign-ups how many play. Question is how many of us would switch to full time at gencon if we can pickup our xp and missed runs at other cons?

MetaphoricDragon wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Harlax wrote:

balthasar wrote: 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.

I think it s highly likely the XP needed per level would increase.

People keep saying this - and it baffles me.

Looks like Acme Airlines just opened a new route from Columbus to Phoenix - they are going to have to increase the frequent flyer miles needed to redeem a free ticket.

Looks like Beta Bread Co. just opened a new location at the mall - they are going to have to increase the stamps you need to get a free sandwich from 10 to 12.

Looks like TD expanded to 2 new cons, where they may grant XP - they are going to need to increase the XP needed to hit rewards tiers.

The first two are obviously silly.

I'm not sure why the third isn't obviously silly.

Right now you need to run X dungeons to hit level Y.

Suddenly if more XP dungeons became available, you should need to run more than X dungeons to hit level Y?

Because...?

I fully agree with you on this one, I don't get it either. Maybe it will be factored into how much it will take for future levels, but I see no reason for current levels to change.

In fact, if you changed the exp requirements, its quite possible that some players would actually be dropped a level. What are you going to do, ban them from Lords and Ladies forum and have them mail their token back?

I think the point people were making that if more XP were available, future levels should require more XP to achieve them. I don't think they were advocating to change current levels.

bpsymington wrote:

MetaphoricDragon wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Harlax wrote:

balthasar wrote: 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.

I think it s highly likely the XP needed per level would increase.

People keep saying this - and it baffles me.

Looks like Acme Airlines just opened a new route from Columbus to Phoenix - they are going to have to increase the frequent flyer miles needed to redeem a free ticket.

Looks like Beta Bread Co. just opened a new location at the mall - they are going to have to increase the stamps you need to get a free sandwich from 10 to 12.

Looks like TD expanded to 2 new cons, where they may grant XP - they are going to need to increase the XP needed to hit rewards tiers.

The first two are obviously silly.

I'm not sure why the third isn't obviously silly.

Right now you need to run X dungeons to hit level Y.

Suddenly if more XP dungeons became available, you should need to run more than X dungeons to hit level Y?

Because...?

I fully agree with you on this one, I don't get it either. Maybe it will be factored into how much it will take for future levels, but I see no reason for current levels to change.

In fact, if you changed the exp requirements, its quite possible that some players would actually be dropped a level. What are you going to do, ban them from Lords and Ladies forum and have them mail their token back?

I think the point people were making that if more XP were available, future levels should require more XP to achieve them. I don't think they were advocating to change current levels.

Shrug... I'm not sure what people mean - only what they say, and what they said was "XP needed for each level" and "XP needed per level".

So.... they mean the XP tiers of hypothetical future levels that don't exist should take into account the hypothetical and nonexistant XP granted from non-GC dungeons? Reasonable - but I'm not sure why anyone would feel the need to make a point of that.

I'll be closing the survey this evening, so vote while you still can if you haven't!


www.surveymonkey.com/r/XVWCGWH

MetaphoricDragon wrote:
In fact, if you changed the exp requirements, its quite possible that some players would actually be dropped a level.

That is exactly what happened this spring when Jeff changed the XP needed for 9th level. He also changed the XP needed for 8th.

The rationale Jeff gave was pretty much what or there's have been saying, to control the pace of level increase

Matthew Hayward wrote:

bpsymington wrote:

MetaphoricDragon wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Harlax wrote:

balthasar wrote: 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.

I think it s highly likely the XP needed per level would increase.

People keep saying this - and it baffles me.

Looks like Acme Airlines just opened a new route from Columbus to Phoenix - they are going to have to increase the frequent flyer miles needed to redeem a free ticket.

Looks like Beta Bread Co. just opened a new location at the mall - they are going to have to increase the stamps you need to get a free sandwich from 10 to 12.

Looks like TD expanded to 2 new cons, where they may grant XP - they are going to need to increase the XP needed to hit rewards tiers.

The first two are obviously silly.

I'm not sure why the third isn't obviously silly.

Right now you need to run X dungeons to hit level Y.

Suddenly if more XP dungeons became available, you should need to run more than X dungeons to hit level Y?

Because...?

I fully agree with you on this one, I don't get it either. Maybe it will be factored into how much it will take for future levels, but I see no reason for current levels to change.

In fact, if you changed the exp requirements, its quite possible that some players would actually be dropped a level. What are you going to do, ban them from Lords and Ladies forum and have them mail their token back?

I think the point people were making that if more XP were available, future levels should require more XP to achieve them. I don't think they were advocating to change current levels.

Shrug... I'm not sure what people mean - only what they say, and what they said was "XP needed for each level" and "XP needed per level".

So.... they mean the XP tiers of hypothetical future levels that don't exist should take into account the hypothetical and nonexistant XP granted from non-GC dungeons? Reasonable - but I'm not sure why anyone would feel the need to make a point of that.

It's really not complex. It's about controlling the pace of level increase. Whether that is good, bad, neccessary, or irrelevant is, of course, subject to debate

Would I personally benefit from being able to get 6,000 XP per year with the current level point table in place? Sure. Is it a big deal? I currently 7th level with exactly21k XP. I if the cap was 6k, I would get to 8th one year sooner, 9th one year sooner and 10th two years sooner? God bad or indifferent? Depends on Jeff's game design philosophy.

Harlax wrote:

MetaphoricDragon wrote:
In fact, if you changed the exp requirements, its quite possible that some players would actually be dropped a level.

That is exactly what happened this spring when Jeff changed the XP needed for 9th level. He also changed the XP needed for 8th.

The rationale Jeff gave was pretty much what or there's have been saying, to control the pace of level increase

I had not known that one. Though that would also have effected a remarkably small percentage of TD players and there is no posted award for 9th yet to have to take back.

If he changed 8 in such a way that it dropped someone to 7,. that must have been very awkward for someone who got one of the pins.

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Incognito wrote:
Tokens not really being necessary (especially since you get 99% of the benefits at just Hardcore level where you can survive "with a pickup group and a starter pack of tokens").

You keep saying this, and I can't tell if you think it's a ridiculous statement but you are using it to make a point, or you agree with it.

I'll say that while you can survive hardcore with a PuG and a token 10-pack, it would be exceptionally unlikely that the entire party survives.

Even with experienced forumites I don't think it's particularly likely.

I am paraphrasing Raven, who said:

Raven wrote: 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 you want, you two can have a discussion of just how feasible Hardcore is with a pick-up group and a starter pack.

MetaphoricDragon wrote:

Harlax wrote:

MetaphoricDragon wrote:
In fact, if you changed the exp requirements, its quite possible that some players would actually be dropped a level.

That is exactly what happened this spring when Jeff changed the XP needed for 9th level. He also changed the XP needed for 8th.

The rationale Jeff gave was pretty much what or there's have been saying, to control the pace of level increase

I had not known that one. Though that would also have effected a remarkably small percentage of TD players and there is no posted award for 9th yet to have to take back.

If he changed 8 in such a way that it dropped someone to 7,. that must have been very awkward for someone who got one of the pins.

I don't think anyone went around collecting pins.

Also see the edit to my earlier post about the effect of a 6k cap on my pace of leveling.