TOPIC: 2020 Ultra Rare Token Images

jpotter wrote:

Endgame wrote:

jpotter wrote:

Endgame wrote: Still think the -1 con should be put on the arcane items, and then add the +3 con should be part of the set bonus.

Let's starting making a cost to slot expanders. In this case either pay a con penalty or lock in 3 slots for the set (not much of a penalty considering it has 2 expanders and an awesome belt)

Do you not feel that putting a cost on slot expanders now is unfair to newer players? Essentially the older players got all of their slot expanders w/out a negative side-effect, but we aren't giving that option to the new players? I totally get what you are saying, but I feel negatives on the tokens now would more adversely affect new players. Old players will just stick with their out of print tokens that didn't hurt them.

I'm thinking on the new slot expanders like the charm earcuff or IS bracers. That is new expansion to everyone. When we Reprint the existing expanders, don't change them.

And that makes sense. I just feel bad making them wait years to get those reprints. They could have some nice slot expanders now. I just worry if they have a negative attached to them now, many new players will simply look at that and compare them to the oop ones their older counterparts are wearing. The old players won't bother with the new ones depending upon the negatives, and we still have a 'second class TD citizen' kind of thing going on. Then a few years down the line when they reprint the old ones, the people who bought the ones with the negative effects are like "What the heck? Mine have negatives! Why do the new players always get all the good stuff?!"

Your argument makes total sense, and if we were restarting from day one I would be all about it. But as is, we already have slot expanders in the wild with no drawbacks.

As someone who is newish to TD I can tell you that the difference in top tier to the lower tier used to bother me a little and kinda got that “I’m never gonna catch up” feeling bit now that I have been around to see how the game works a little better i honestly don’t care how strong you guys get at the top. This game isn’t P2P or P2W is simply pay to be on top which changes nothing except your personal experience. And to say that the price gap on the secondary market would cost them to much and we have to try and get them up to the top is moot imo. The only difference is the old vets got to send the huge amount of money over time and maybe save a few bucks by getting it early.

So on these new tokens I’ve been trying to look at how they help me be more in the range of HC, which is where I am , or help me move up to NM. I would only look into it being to strong with legendarys if the elite don’t want to become any stronger.

I am content with the current iteration of almost all of the UR tokens.

I do think that the +3 rod of the meek is overly complicated, I think that capping the STR at 18 is probably enough. I don't see myself using it either way, so I might not be the best judge of it, however.

Also, I am a bit unsure of the bracers of reckless fury. I suspect that the current one is fine, but I don't really know if the effect is overpowered for any 1H Melee class.

The other tokens I feel are pretty good as they stand.

What if rod of the meek just said "cannot crit"?

I don't think there are any 4th level powers that would effect?

Edit, maybe max 18 str and Cannot crit would work too?

Both seem easier than something tied to +hit or +damage

Chris Wiemer wrote: I do think that the +3 rod of the meek is overly complicated, I think that capping the STR at 18 is probably enough

+1

Lenses of Seer Sight is an 100% straight upgrade. It isn’t in a different slot compared with the previous Vital Insight. There is no choice to make (like +2 DEX, along with a -2 STR penalty for example). It’s a complete improvement- why would you ever use Lens of Vital Insight ever again?

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Xavon wrote:

WaterSomePlants wrote: Hmmm.... Can the Lenses of Vital Insight be swapped for Lenses of Seer Sight?

I don't see why this keeps coming up. I would not expect to be able to swap my old Woody +1 Plate Mail be swapped for Lucky Plate Armor.

Because of TD's prior generosity in allowing 2 URs that I can think of to be traded in when they were eclipsed.

Steven wrote:

jpotter wrote:

Endgame wrote:

jpotter wrote:

Endgame wrote: Still think the -1 con should be put on the arcane items, and then add the +3 con should be part of the set bonus.

Let's starting making a cost to slot expanders. In this case either pay a con penalty or lock in 3 slots for the set (not much of a penalty considering it has 2 expanders and an awesome belt)

Do you not feel that putting a cost on slot expanders now is unfair to newer players? Essentially the older players got all of their slot expanders w/out a negative side-effect, but we aren't giving that option to the new players? I totally get what you are saying, but I feel negatives on the tokens now would more adversely affect new players. Old players will just stick with their out of print tokens that didn't hurt them.

I'm thinking on the new slot expanders like the charm earcuff or IS bracers. That is new expansion to everyone. When we Reprint the existing expanders, don't change them.

And that makes sense. I just feel bad making them wait years to get those reprints. They could have some nice slot expanders now. I just worry if they have a negative attached to them now, many new players will simply look at that and compare them to the oop ones their older counterparts are wearing. The old players won't bother with the new ones depending upon the negatives, and we still have a 'second class TD citizen' kind of thing going on. Then a few years down the line when they reprint the old ones, the people who bought the ones with the negative effects are like "What the heck? Mine have negatives! Why do the new players always get all the good stuff?!"

Your argument makes total sense, and if we were restarting from day one I would be all about it. But as is, we already have slot expanders in the wild with no drawbacks.

As someone who is newish to TD I can tell you that the difference in top tier to the lower tier used to bother me a little and kinda got that “I’m never gonna catch up” feeling bit now that I have been around to see how the game works a little better i honestly don’t care how strong you guys get at the top. This game isn’t P2P or P2W is simply pay to be on top which changes nothing except your personal experience. And to say that the price gap on the secondary market would cost them to much and we have to try and get them up to the top is moot imo. The only difference is the old vets got to send the huge amount of money over time and maybe save a few bucks by getting it early.

So on these new tokens I’ve been trying to look at how they help me be more in the range of HC, which is where I am , or help me move up to NM. I would only look into it being to strong with legendarys if the elite don’t want to become any stronger.

It's not just new players, I've been playing since the very first Dungeon and have played every single one, and have bought a TON of tokens, and I gave up years ago on trying to get BIS builds. Of course, I am outfitting the entire group, if I were just outfitting myself I probably would be pretty close to BIS. I found my enjoyment of the game went up a lot once I got off the constant upgrade habitrail.

This table shows the odds of a Monk stunning a monster with their 16-20 stun range in the first or second round of combat, assuming they are X% likely to hit on each puck:

It seems to me that we're going to see a stunned monster in round 1 or 2 at least two thirds of the time with this token.

To stun the monster 1/2 the time on round 1 or 2 you'd want the odds of a single puck stunning the monster to be around 16%.

I might shrink this range to 18-20 (but I don't know how often the stun is desired to be triggered, or how common non-stunnable monsters are).

Matthew Hayward wrote: This table shows the odds of a Monk stunning a monster with their 16-20 stun range in the first or second round of combat, assuming they are X% likely to hit on each puck:

Odds of      Odds of 
Scoring 16+  Stunning in 
Per Puck     Round 1 or 2
10%          34%
20%          59%
30%          76%
40%          87%
50%          94%
60%          97%
70%          99%
80%          99.8%
90%          99.99%

It seems to me that we're going to see a stunned monster in round 1 or 2 at least two thirds of the time with this token.

To stun the monster 1/2 the time on round 1 or 2 you'd want the odds of a single puck stunning the monster to be around 16%.

I might shrink this range to 18-20 (but I don't know how often the stun is desired to be triggered, or how common non-stunnable monsters are).

Stun locking a monster is already a think the rosp character can already do that with a spell, with cleric helping I think we could keep something stunned for 8 rounds with the right build.

Matthew Hayward wrote: This table shows the odds of a Monk stunning a monster with their 16-20 stun range in the first or second round of combat, assuming they are X% likely to hit on each puck:

Odds of      Odds of 
Scoring 16+  Stunning in 
Per Puck     Round 1 or 2
10%          34%
20%          59%
30%          76%
40%          87%
50%          94%
60%          97%
70%          99%
80%          99.8%
90%          99.99%

It seems to me that we're going to see a stunned monster in round 1 or 2 at least two thirds of the time with this token.

To stun the monster 1/2 the time on round 1 or 2 you'd want the odds of a single puck stunning the monster to be around 16%.

I might shrink this range to 18-20 (but I don't know how often the stun is desired to be triggered, or how common non-stunnable monsters are).

Matthew, did you mean to post this in the transmute thread?

Fiddy wrote:

Philip Goodman wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Rob F wrote:

Jeff321 wrote:

Flik wrote:

Matt Goodman wrote: The barbarian bracers should probably have 2H weapons only.

I’m inclined to agree, otherwise they become BIS for all melee classes? Maybe not for ranged ranger or most rogues that actually want to sneak attack.

Agreed

Also agree

Also agree.

Alternatively, just limit it to: Barbarian, Fighters, Paladin.

Another agreement from me and class limiting would also work.

I'd go for either suggestion, but I'd prefer the class limitation.

I had another thought and haven't seen it posted yet.

What about playing into the name Bracers of Reckless Fury and having a self- damage penalty?

• +6 damage with melee weapons.
• Take 4 damage on successful melee hits

I'd think that would be pretty reckless especially for a ranger. I would probably still keep monk off of it as I don't think it makes sense for them to be reckless.

I'm still okay with the other suggestions; I just like this idea more for flavor.

Philip Goodman wrote:

Fiddy wrote:

Philip Goodman wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Rob F wrote:

Jeff321 wrote:

Flik wrote:

Matt Goodman wrote: The barbarian bracers should probably have 2H weapons only.

I’m inclined to agree, otherwise they become BIS for all melee classes? Maybe not for ranged ranger or most rogues that actually want to sneak attack.

Agreed

Also agree

Also agree.

Alternatively, just limit it to: Barbarian, Fighters, Paladin.

Another agreement from me and class limiting would also work.

I'd go for either suggestion, but I'd prefer the class limitation.

I had another thought and haven't seen it posted yet.

What about playing into the name Bracers of Reckless Fury and having a self- damage penalty?

• +6 damage with melee weapons.
• Take 4 damage on successful melee hits

I'd think that would be pretty reckless especially for a ranger. I would probably still keep monk off of it as I don't think it makes sense for them to be reckless.

I'm still okay with the other suggestions; I just like this idea more for flavor.

I don’t think a measly 4 dmg is enough of a drawback for BIS melee bracers.

I like the previous suggestions to nerf it. Either make it 2h dmg only or make it +4 for 1h and +6 for 2h. Keeping the negative ac as well (except for barb).

If these UR's go through as proposed I see my wife and I picking up close to 11 of these and multiples of. Time to line up a side job.