Thanks for responding in detail. Here are my thoughts in response:
kurtreznor wrote: Wow lots. Im going to type some thoughts as i read, else they will be forgotten.
First thought: any change to the XP system is going to meet some harsh criticism. The current system is less like true XP and more of a rewards program for loyal customers...with a built in bonus for those who make an effort (with skill and/or money) to play a harder level.
Not to be discouraging, because i am very interested in where this goes, but i think this needs to be separate from the current XP. In fact, i think the current system should shift to being called 'player rewards' rathen than XP. And your new system can be called 'player XP'. The big question to me is whether everyone starts from 0, or if you port in the current player rewards points as a starting point to show who at least has the longest running experience in TD.
Yes, I didn't realize I was opening a can of worms by even mentioning XP. I agree with your characterization of the XP as a rewards program rather than true XP. At this point, I'm really disregarding whether the token points would ever be used in conjunction with some kind of revamped XP.
Im not sure what you mean about considering the character card when measuring points. Are you suggesting that some classes would 'cost' more points than others? Ie wizard and rogue are only 5 points, the fighters are 6, but ranger and druid are 7. Or is it just your mention of 4th vs 5th level?
In either case, i dont think this should be considered in a point system. We should work towards all classes having value (during card design every few years) and not rely on a handicap system after design. As for 4th vs 5th level; that bonus is granted by tokens, so just point the tokens appropriately and all is good.
Note: please dont assign overly high point costs to +1 level. It should cost something because it is a power boost, but i would hate to see players discouraged from using 5th level characters since they can add a lot of interesting things.
By this I mean two things. First, the fact that different character cards come with different base stats, but also with different spells/abilities etc. I haven't really compared them to see if there is a material point difference. But it might be that the ability to cast spells is more valuable than the increase in base stats for melee-type characters (or vice versa). Second. there is the fact that 5th level is stronger than 4th level. I agree that the ability to play 5th level is granted by a token and we could just assign the points to the token. But to do that, we'd need to value the increase in stats on the character card itself (for example, increase in HP). And to do that, we'll we're back at considering the character card itself. I agree we don't want to discourage use of certain characters/levels, but I doesn't seem correct that completing a dungeon with the same token set (other than the 5th level token) as someone else playing 4th level has the same degree of difficulty.
As for making general rules and there being exceptions to those, such as a player figuring out that using poison prevention while equipping the gauntlets of midgard serpent is undercosted for its net effect...well, good. Isnt that the kind of thing that a point system is measuring? A players ability to equip themselves effectively. If something is found to be too good for its cost, then you increase the point cost of some component.
Agree we want to encourage smart play. It's just very difficult to figure out the point cost of something like your example of poison prevention. We want to assign it enough points that it is treated as superior to the same token without that characteristic. But at the same time not so many points that it completely discourages using it. To me, the key is to figure out a rough estimate of how often such a characteristic would come into play.
Oh, on a similar line of thinking; set bonuses might need a point cost assigned to them, else some set pieces would have to be too many points to be any good outside the set.
Agree on this. I just haven't gotten to the point of trying to assign points to sets (or to tokens from years other than 2018) yet. It does add a level of complexity as you can't just assign a number to the tokens in the set as they may not be used as part of the set.
Knowledge: i dont think the point system should assume any detailed knowledge of the specific dungeons. Partly because you have to change point values for every single dungeon. To me, this again gets into rewarding players for equipping well. Although, this one stretches a bit into rewarding multiple runs/scouting, but im not convinced that is bad. Though, a system like this may cause us to be more critical during token design; for example rare weapons that have +3 damage in current year dungeons might be too good as the cost independent of dungeon will be well below UR, making it an easy choice over UR weapons for that year.As to the value of situational bonuses, it should have a small cost, but nowhere close to 'always on'. Off the top of my head, i would estimate somewhere between 1/5th to 1/4th the additional points.
Agree that we shouldn't assume detailed knowledge of a dungeon just based on the difficulty of reworking the numbers for each dungeon (and not knowing the details ahead of time to even assign points). Agree that "Always on" isn't the correct assumption. I think maybe 1/4 is about right because from the dungeon theme I think it safe to assume that if a player chooses that ability, it will probably be used at least once during the dungeon.
Point calculations...uh, wow. I, uh...hmmm...ok, i dont like it, but i am trying to sort out if it is the method i dont like or some of you base numbers/assumptions. But as i think on it a bit, im not sure that matters. More importantly, i dont think a calculation can be the final answer on all tokens. Whatever calculation is used (within reason, which yours are) can be fine as a starting point. So long as it is only the starting values for discussion, and adjustments are made to tune everything, i am good.
For example, if the numbers say that the rare +2 save cloak is equal to cloak of shadowskin, we definitely dont want to be locked in to that; there are numbers that need tweaking.
This is just a first draft of the numbers as a starting point. I do think we need to be consistent on making sure that points are assigned apples-to-apples between tokens. For example, one token with +2 AC should not have different points than another token with +2 AC for that characteristic alone. Of course, those tokens may end up with different point values because they each do something other than +2 AC that justifies a difference in overall points.
Calculating points for stat bonuses? These should be 0 base, plus whatever bonus is gained due to stat increase. Also, dont round up; meaning you should not treat +1 con as a 4hp and +1 fort increase, instead it shpuld be that value divided by 2. This method will more accurately capture stacking multiple odd bonuses. Think of it this way; four +1 items should be half the points of four +2 items.
I think your suggestion is fair to give half the points for +1 rather than rounding up.
Points based on rarity instead of quality of the effect is nonsensical to me. For one thing, you have the same ability awarded at different rarities, sometimes because that ability is only part of the total effect. For example, boots of free action vs boots of marauder - the free movement ability on the marauder boots is costing more points than the rare boots due only to rarity. It is the same ability in the same slot, the difference is points should be because marauder also has another ability.
I only did this where I was at a loss to figure out the value of a particular function of a token. As it is, the points assigned to many UC are more than some R, and some R are worth more than some UR. I just used the rarity as a default when I couldn't really come up with an explanation for the assigned points. These situations usually involved tokens that were, for example, 1 point or 2 points so in the grand scheme of the overall point total probably wouldn't have that much of an effect.
So, +1 max hp is definitely worth more than 1 pt healing, but not 7 times more. If i had to follow that point system, i would try to keep my hp as low as possible without risking getting killed in a single round of combat, then bring a bunch of healing.
Yes, I agree 7 times is probably too much. The character will only get that at the start, and every time the character is healed to the maximum. Maybe 3 to 4 times is more accurate. I would appreciate input from experienced players as to how many times they would be healed in the average dungeon.
This also brings up a concern i have for consumables in general. Are the points added when you use them, or just to take them with you? Because if it costs points just to have them, that starts to seem like encumberance rules (which typically suck). But not adding the points unless used means the point total for builds is variable until the dungeon is over. I dont have a suggestion off the top of my head, but i will think on it.
This is a tough one. I'll focus on the practical first. If we could whatever you take in regardless of whether it is actually used, you can compute your total ahead of time which is easier and more accurate. If it is only counted when consumed, is the player really going to keep track of each consumable they used during dungeon in the heat of battle? I suppose they could write down what they took it at the start and then look at what is left at the end to make the determination, but that does impose an extra burden on the player. Also, what about slotless items that you take in but don't use. Should those count?
I agree the idea isn't to create encumbrance rules. At the same time, a player that takes 25 tokens in to cover every eventuality should not be treated the same as one that goes in with 5 tokens. I'm not sure what the correct answer is but I like the simplicity of whatever you take in costing points regardless of whether you use it.
Thanks for all the great feedback. I'll try to incorporate it after hearing suggestions from everyone else.
