Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: Final MEC, Mage Medallion and Arch-Mage Medallion

Final MEC, Mage Medallion and Arch-Mage Medallion 7 months 1 week ago #241

Mike Steele wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

BrainScan wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

BrainScan wrote: Here is a possible starting point for something that doesn't explicitly use HP as a resource but still encourages having a lot of it (if desired).

*Important Note* the numbers below are off the cuff and will probably need to be tweaked by those who are good at such things.

Wizard card change includes the following:
Mage Power: As a free action use a mage power to augment the next spell cast. Each available Mage Power may be used 1 / room. 3 boxes.
Mage Power (Empower Spell): Adds 10 points of damage to spell.

Mad Evokers Charm:
Allows 1 additional use of Mage Power. Can use Mage Power (Evokers Wrath): Adds 20 points of damage to spell but monster gets a free attack against caster next round (this attack cannot be avoided or negated in any way).

Relic:
As MEC. Allows 1 additional use of Mage Power. Adds two new Mage Powers.

Legendary:
As Relic. Allows 1 additional use of Mage Power. Adds two new Mage Powers.


This is not possible to design as the player cards are not designed yet and that change has not been made, examined or validated to not be overly strong (it's WAY too strong on the class card)


As Jeff stated in the first post

Jeff Martin wrote: Since I am going to re-do the Wizards player cards next week to basically double the spell damage, then the need for the standard MEC is quite moot.

The damage on the Wizard cards is going to increase. We HAVE to consider that as part of this token design. My perspective is that it doesn't matter if that damage comes from a literal doubling of the spell base damage or from a new ability we can use in the token design.


Design 2021 tokens so they can go to print

THEN design the Wizard card.

DO NOT try to force card changes INTO the token design and DO NOT try to change the fundamental design of what the Mad Evoker's Charm is meant to do. Leave the token core design alone.


If Jeff has already said that the damage on the Wizard character cards is going to double, it seems that fact has to be taken into account when designing these tokens. If we design them around the current spell damage on the Wizard Character cards, it seems that the end result would be too powerful (by 100%).


Mike could you please try to advocate for druids and their class card instead of trying to nerf our abilities.
Fall down......Go boom!
The topic has been locked.

Final MEC, Mage Medallion and Arch-Mage Medallion 7 months 1 week ago #242

My group has never used a MEC and I don't think we'll use this one either, so I don't have much personal experience with it, but I have heard on the forums a common expression for using the MEC is cutting yourself. I think this conversation probably has many second thinking that terminology. I'm glad that Jeff has expressed his thoughts on the subject and that it is a Wizard using his personal energy to power spells. I'm sure he is now or soon will be reading all of the comments on this thread in a very thoughtful and considerate manner, because that's the type of person Jeff is.
The topic has been locked.

Final MEC, Mage Medallion and Arch-Mage Medallion 7 months 1 week ago #243

Adam Guay wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

BrainScan wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

BrainScan wrote: Here is a possible starting point for something that doesn't explicitly use HP as a resource but still encourages having a lot of it (if desired).

*Important Note* the numbers below are off the cuff and will probably need to be tweaked by those who are good at such things.

Wizard card change includes the following:
Mage Power: As a free action use a mage power to augment the next spell cast. Each available Mage Power may be used 1 / room. 3 boxes.
Mage Power (Empower Spell): Adds 10 points of damage to spell.

Mad Evokers Charm:
Allows 1 additional use of Mage Power. Can use Mage Power (Evokers Wrath): Adds 20 points of damage to spell but monster gets a free attack against caster next round (this attack cannot be avoided or negated in any way).

Relic:
As MEC. Allows 1 additional use of Mage Power. Adds two new Mage Powers.

Legendary:
As Relic. Allows 1 additional use of Mage Power. Adds two new Mage Powers.


This is not possible to design as the player cards are not designed yet and that change has not been made, examined or validated to not be overly strong (it's WAY too strong on the class card)


As Jeff stated in the first post

Jeff Martin wrote: Since I am going to re-do the Wizards player cards next week to basically double the spell damage, then the need for the standard MEC is quite moot.

The damage on the Wizard cards is going to increase. We HAVE to consider that as part of this token design. My perspective is that it doesn't matter if that damage comes from a literal doubling of the spell base damage or from a new ability we can use in the token design.


Design 2021 tokens so they can go to print

THEN design the Wizard card.

DO NOT try to force card changes INTO the token design and DO NOT try to change the fundamental design of what the Mad Evoker's Charm is meant to do. Leave the token core design alone.


If Jeff has already said that the damage on the Wizard character cards is going to double, it seems that fact has to be taken into account when designing these tokens. If we design them around the current spell damage on the Wizard Character cards, it seems that the end result would be too powerful (by 100%).


Mike could you please try to advocate for druids and their class card instead of trying to nerf our abilities.


First, I think everyone is free to comment on all of the tokens in the set. Second, in what way am I trying to nerf your abilities? Do you not think it is reasonable to take into consideration the fact that Jeff has said the spell damage on the Wizard character cards is going to double? I don't think I've advocated for a reduction in the power of these tokens in this entire thread.
Last edit: by Mike Steele.
The topic has been locked.

Final MEC, Mage Medallion and Arch-Mage Medallion 7 months 1 week ago #244

Jamie Campbell wrote: Can someone point me to the thread where this issue of self-mutilation was brought up in the past year? Past two years? What about when it was “designed”?

Why suddenly is it an issue that if nothing more than to say...this legendary doesn’t fit the play style of a non-MEC?

Because if that is really what this is about, I have a wizard play style using wands and MoMM and I think this legendary pathway is killing the effective use of wands...which I have about 70 rare wands of all various damage types...so that As wizard I can adapt the damage types produced by the wand. As it stands now, the legendary will certainly be considered but probably not going to happen because I would rather use my wands and get a nice damage blast and save $1500 too. Oh and to the anti-consumable crowd...4 wands per run...$2 per wand...$8 total...even 100 runs and I am just over 50% of the cost albeit consumed versus “invested”...if I want investment, I will go to Robinhood.


I started playing in 2011, I definitely didn’t participate in token design in 2014. I didn’t personally have any experience in life with someone contemplating suicide or self-mutilation in 2014 anyways. When the Crazed Evoker’s was designed, I certainly missed it too. After having personal experience with it and learning more about professional inclusivity, my perspective on sensitive topics like that one changed (well after 2014). I was also much less confident in being willing to speak out about a hard topic like this at that time. Very few token erratas have ever happened and generally they have been minor, so I never considered the possibility of it getting errataed. Very few of these tokens were in circulation, so I chalked it up to “an out of print token could have been designed better, luckily it is out of print”. Now with the new printing, that gave reason to talk about it. Now with Jeff acknowledging MEC has to fundamentally change for gameplay reasons, it is particularly easy to add in changing it for social reasons as well. And now, I am more culturally aware to be observant and confident enough to speak out against things like this. So, it kind of just all culminated in the perfect combination of things coming together at the right time to facilitate this discussion now.
I play Wizard.
The topic has been locked.

Final MEC, Mage Medallion and Arch-Mage Medallion 7 months 1 week ago #245

Miathan wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Miathan wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Dave wrote: Once again, I step away for a few hours and come back to see things heading in a different direction. When I left, I know there were concerns around using hp as the resource, I thought Jeff expressed his thoughts for why that made sense to him. I'm not completely opposed to going in another direction, but we have a long history of tokens that impact hp which give me a lot of flexibility. I'm afraid that moving to another resource will provide very few options and we'll just end up with cookie-cutter wizards who all look the same because only a handful of tokens (at most) can impact their ability. Anyway, that's just my high level thought.

Go ahead and continue to brainstorm new ideas understanding we probably have only around 48 hours to lock this down. Was the prior proposal unworkable? Was it broken? Was it going to cause a mass flight of players from the game? Not trying to be a stop to any of this, but am trying to understand the necessity of creating a whole new dynamic in such a short period of time. In any event, appreciate all the passion people seem to have in this. I'm certain everyone is trying to do what they think is right.


The previous change to Mad Evoker's Charm would have cost the game a minimum of at least 2 Legendary level Wizards permanently as it invalidated their entire builds. It would also cost a Relic legel Bard, Monk and Rogue because I would have no reason to host token builds for my friends if I no longer play the game.


The current design is perfectly fine to me and Jeff's explanation removed any worry on my end of the design promoting self harm in any way.

That doesn't seem to be the case for Anthony but he's demanding the game change to meet his personal needs instead of just changing how he plays the game to protect the mental health of his group.

I don't agree with changing the entire game to protect 2 players from an occurrence they've so far never encountered (per his own words saying they've never run with an MEC wizard) and that can easily be protected against forever by simply not joining random groups and making sure that groups they join don't have MEC build Wizards in them. I see no reason why EVERYONE should change their gameplay and how they enjoy playing the game just to allow two people to freely join random PUG groups when they would be at no risk of triggering if they simply formed their own play groups


I don’t understand this post. You have stated that design shouldn’t be based around two peoples feelings for their interpretation of the mechanic of channeling but yet have threatened that two high lvl players will quit if you don’t get something that you like.

1 why is it that your 2 people’s feelings on the token are more important than the other two
2 why are we accepting threats of quitting to validate token design ?


There is no design reason to change the Mad Evoker Charm's effect to something other than channeling health into damage.

Changing the design of the Mad Evoker's Charm to no longer channel health into damage makes at least 1/3 of my build no longer usable in the current form and means I lose probably $500 in token value over a change that has no mechanical reason to happen and is only being looked at due to two players misinterpreting the design of the token to promote self harm when they have been offered multiple alternative solutions that does not require changing the design intention of an existing six year old token and invalidating the build design of dozens of players.

Asking for the entire game to change because they are unwilling to actively protect themselves from a potential random triggering event that could EASILY be avoided as it's only usable by two classes is incredibly selfish.

My thoughts on the token does not inflict massive changes on all Wizards in the group.
There are multiple players who play Mad Evoker's Charm as a core design of their build.

There are FAR more than 2 voices who disagree with changing the core design of the token.

The TWO voices currently speaking for a change of the Mad Evoker's Charm are doing so because of personal issues that could be mitigated on their own without requiring dozens of other players changing playstyles. Yet they choose to press for the game to change to their whim instead of handling the issue on their own.


I do not wish to force my viewpoints or design choices onto anyone else.

They are asking to force their viewpoints onto my and force my design choices to change.

That is NOT OK


I was in agreement with you through most of this because as you said I do feel that alt solutions were offered that were suitable from my point of view but by you threatening to quit if your not satisfied, well you are just doing the same thing just with a different medium.

So I see it as you not liking others to impose their will to affect the game but at the same time imposing your will to affect the game


If a change to the game is made, with no functional reason for the change, that costs me hundreds of dollars in token value do to that change I'll likely walk away.

That would indicate to me that the design team of the game has no care for the investment of it's players and would indicate to me that other changes make for non design reasons would always be at risk in the future that could also cost me hundreds of dollars in value and that's not a risk I would consider acceptable.

I have no issue with Jeff changing the Mad Evoker's Charm for balancing reasons as long as that change still embraces the design of the token allowing additional damage at the cost of HP. Because my token choice as a Wizard is built #1 around spell damage and #2 around HP/Saving Throws as the three core stat values for my build.

If HP is suddenly no longer a stat that provides me any benefit beyond the amount to survive one hit in combat it means that 3-10 tokens in my, and every other Mad Evoker Wizard's builds are no longer of value to me and no longer wanted in my build. It also means that the main source of buyers I would expect to have for that token, other Mad Evoker Wizards, would also not want the token and also be looking to sell their copies thus dropping the value for the token itself due to the laws of supply vs demand.

So yes. If the Mad Evoker Charm is changed in such a way as to fundamentally change my entire class build design and class identity for a reason of potentially upsetting an extremely small minority of players who may be mentally triggered by ending up in a group with me when they could proactively avoid the entire situation but choose not to? I would have a very hard time trusting TD to not make other arbitrary changes that completely change my build and playstyle with no mechanical reason to do so and I would likely at that point cut my losses and leave the game.

That's not meant as a threat by any means. It's ultimately Jeff's call. But as Anthony had been indicating that if his changes are not implemented he would be quitting the game I thought it wise to show that a change in either direction has a chance of losing the game players, but for very different reasons.
The topic has been locked.

Final MEC, Mage Medallion and Arch-Mage Medallion 7 months 1 week ago #246

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Miathan wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Miathan wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Dave wrote: Once again, I step away for a few hours and come back to see things heading in a different direction. When I left, I know there were concerns around using hp as the resource, I thought Jeff expressed his thoughts for why that made sense to him. I'm not completely opposed to going in another direction, but we have a long history of tokens that impact hp which give me a lot of flexibility. I'm afraid that moving to another resource will provide very few options and we'll just end up with cookie-cutter wizards who all look the same because only a handful of tokens (at most) can impact their ability. Anyway, that's just my high level thought.

Go ahead and continue to brainstorm new ideas understanding we probably have only around 48 hours to lock this down. Was the prior proposal unworkable? Was it broken? Was it going to cause a mass flight of players from the game? Not trying to be a stop to any of this, but am trying to understand the necessity of creating a whole new dynamic in such a short period of time. In any event, appreciate all the passion people seem to have in this. I'm certain everyone is trying to do what they think is right.


The previous change to Mad Evoker's Charm would have cost the game a minimum of at least 2 Legendary level Wizards permanently as it invalidated their entire builds. It would also cost a Relic legel Bard, Monk and Rogue because I would have no reason to host token builds for my friends if I no longer play the game.


The current design is perfectly fine to me and Jeff's explanation removed any worry on my end of the design promoting self harm in any way.

That doesn't seem to be the case for Anthony but he's demanding the game change to meet his personal needs instead of just changing how he plays the game to protect the mental health of his group.

I don't agree with changing the entire game to protect 2 players from an occurrence they've so far never encountered (per his own words saying they've never run with an MEC wizard) and that can easily be protected against forever by simply not joining random groups and making sure that groups they join don't have MEC build Wizards in them. I see no reason why EVERYONE should change their gameplay and how they enjoy playing the game just to allow two people to freely join random PUG groups when they would be at no risk of triggering if they simply formed their own play groups


I don’t understand this post. You have stated that design shouldn’t be based around two peoples feelings for their interpretation of the mechanic of channeling but yet have threatened that two high lvl players will quit if you don’t get something that you like.

1 why is it that your 2 people’s feelings on the token are more important than the other two
2 why are we accepting threats of quitting to validate token design ?


There is no design reason to change the Mad Evoker Charm's effect to something other than channeling health into damage.

Changing the design of the Mad Evoker's Charm to no longer channel health into damage makes at least 1/3 of my build no longer usable in the current form and means I lose probably $500 in token value over a change that has no mechanical reason to happen and is only being looked at due to two players misinterpreting the design of the token to promote self harm when they have been offered multiple alternative solutions that does not require changing the design intention of an existing six year old token and invalidating the build design of dozens of players.

Asking for the entire game to change because they are unwilling to actively protect themselves from a potential random triggering event that could EASILY be avoided as it's only usable by two classes is incredibly selfish.

My thoughts on the token does not inflict massive changes on all Wizards in the group.
There are multiple players who play Mad Evoker's Charm as a core design of their build.

There are FAR more than 2 voices who disagree with changing the core design of the token.

The TWO voices currently speaking for a change of the Mad Evoker's Charm are doing so because of personal issues that could be mitigated on their own without requiring dozens of other players changing playstyles. Yet they choose to press for the game to change to their whim instead of handling the issue on their own.


I do not wish to force my viewpoints or design choices onto anyone else.

They are asking to force their viewpoints onto my and force my design choices to change.

That is NOT OK


I was in agreement with you through most of this because as you said I do feel that alt solutions were offered that were suitable from my point of view but by you threatening to quit if your not satisfied, well you are just doing the same thing just with a different medium.

So I see it as you not liking others to impose their will to affect the game but at the same time imposing your will to affect the game


If a change to the game is made, with no functional reason for the change, that costs me hundreds of dollars in token value do to that change I'll likely walk away.

That would indicate to me that the design team of the game has no care for the investment of it's players and would indicate to me that other changes make for non design reasons would always be at risk in the future that could also cost me hundreds of dollars in value and that's not a risk I would consider acceptable.

I have no issue with Jeff changing the Mad Evoker's Charm for balancing reasons as long as that change still embraces the design of the token allowing additional damage at the cost of HP. Because my token choice as a Wizard is built #1 around spell damage and #2 around HP/Saving Throws as the three core stat values for my build.

If HP is suddenly no longer a stat that provides me any benefit beyond the amount to survive one hit in combat it means that 3-10 tokens in my, and every other Mad Evoker Wizard's builds are no longer of value to me and no longer wanted in my build. It also means that the main source of buyers I would expect to have for that token, other Mad Evoker Wizards, would also not want the token and also be looking to sell their copies thus dropping the value for the token itself due to the laws of supply vs demand.

So yes. If the Mad Evoker Charm is changed in such a way as to fundamentally change my entire class build design and class identity for a reason of potentially upsetting an extremely small minority of players who may be mentally triggered by ending up in a group with me when they could proactively avoid the entire situation but choose not to? I would have a very hard time trusting TD to not make other arbitrary changes that completely change my build and playstyle with no mechanical reason to do so and I would likely at that point cut my losses and leave the game.

That's not meant as a threat by any means. It's ultimately Jeff's call. But as Anthony had been indicating that if his changes are not implemented he would be quitting the game I thought it wise to show that a change in either direction has a chance of losing the game players, but for very different reasons.


How can I avoid ever being in a party with you? I currently buy a portion of the tickets for a handful of runs each weekend I am able to play in TD. When I buy the ticket, I have no option to leave a footnote for other ticket buyers and I have no way to contact other token buyers who don’t post about it on the forums. I can email Jeff/Lori and ask them to email the other ticket holders on my behalf?
I play Wizard.
The topic has been locked.

Final MEC, Mage Medallion and Arch-Mage Medallion 7 months 1 week ago #247

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Miathan wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Miathan wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Dave wrote: Once again, I step away for a few hours and come back to see things heading in a different direction. When I left, I know there were concerns around using hp as the resource, I thought Jeff expressed his thoughts for why that made sense to him. I'm not completely opposed to going in another direction, but we have a long history of tokens that impact hp which give me a lot of flexibility. I'm afraid that moving to another resource will provide very few options and we'll just end up with cookie-cutter wizards who all look the same because only a handful of tokens (at most) can impact their ability. Anyway, that's just my high level thought.

Go ahead and continue to brainstorm new ideas understanding we probably have only around 48 hours to lock this down. Was the prior proposal unworkable? Was it broken? Was it going to cause a mass flight of players from the game? Not trying to be a stop to any of this, but am trying to understand the necessity of creating a whole new dynamic in such a short period of time. In any event, appreciate all the passion people seem to have in this. I'm certain everyone is trying to do what they think is right.


The previous change to Mad Evoker's Charm would have cost the game a minimum of at least 2 Legendary level Wizards permanently as it invalidated their entire builds. It would also cost a Relic legel Bard, Monk and Rogue because I would have no reason to host token builds for my friends if I no longer play the game.


The current design is perfectly fine to me and Jeff's explanation removed any worry on my end of the design promoting self harm in any way.

That doesn't seem to be the case for Anthony but he's demanding the game change to meet his personal needs instead of just changing how he plays the game to protect the mental health of his group.

I don't agree with changing the entire game to protect 2 players from an occurrence they've so far never encountered (per his own words saying they've never run with an MEC wizard) and that can easily be protected against forever by simply not joining random groups and making sure that groups they join don't have MEC build Wizards in them. I see no reason why EVERYONE should change their gameplay and how they enjoy playing the game just to allow two people to freely join random PUG groups when they would be at no risk of triggering if they simply formed their own play groups


I don’t understand this post. You have stated that design shouldn’t be based around two peoples feelings for their interpretation of the mechanic of channeling but yet have threatened that two high lvl players will quit if you don’t get something that you like.

1 why is it that your 2 people’s feelings on the token are more important than the other two
2 why are we accepting threats of quitting to validate token design ?


There is no design reason to change the Mad Evoker Charm's effect to something other than channeling health into damage.

Changing the design of the Mad Evoker's Charm to no longer channel health into damage makes at least 1/3 of my build no longer usable in the current form and means I lose probably $500 in token value over a change that has no mechanical reason to happen and is only being looked at due to two players misinterpreting the design of the token to promote self harm when they have been offered multiple alternative solutions that does not require changing the design intention of an existing six year old token and invalidating the build design of dozens of players.

Asking for the entire game to change because they are unwilling to actively protect themselves from a potential random triggering event that could EASILY be avoided as it's only usable by two classes is incredibly selfish.

My thoughts on the token does not inflict massive changes on all Wizards in the group.
There are multiple players who play Mad Evoker's Charm as a core design of their build.

There are FAR more than 2 voices who disagree with changing the core design of the token.

The TWO voices currently speaking for a change of the Mad Evoker's Charm are doing so because of personal issues that could be mitigated on their own without requiring dozens of other players changing playstyles. Yet they choose to press for the game to change to their whim instead of handling the issue on their own.


I do not wish to force my viewpoints or design choices onto anyone else.

They are asking to force their viewpoints onto my and force my design choices to change.

That is NOT OK


I was in agreement with you through most of this because as you said I do feel that alt solutions were offered that were suitable from my point of view but by you threatening to quit if your not satisfied, well you are just doing the same thing just with a different medium.

So I see it as you not liking others to impose their will to affect the game but at the same time imposing your will to affect the game


If a change to the game is made, with no functional reason for the change, that costs me hundreds of dollars in token value do to that change I'll likely walk away.

That would indicate to me that the design team of the game has no care for the investment of it's players and would indicate to me that other changes make for non design reasons would always be at risk in the future that could also cost me hundreds of dollars in value and that's not a risk I would consider acceptable.

I have no issue with Jeff changing the Mad Evoker's Charm for balancing reasons as long as that change still embraces the design of the token allowing additional damage at the cost of HP. Because my token choice as a Wizard is built #1 around spell damage and #2 around HP/Saving Throws as the three core stat values for my build.

If HP is suddenly no longer a stat that provides me any benefit beyond the amount to survive one hit in combat it means that 3-10 tokens in my, and every other Mad Evoker Wizard's builds are no longer of value to me and no longer wanted in my build. It also means that the main source of buyers I would expect to have for that token, other Mad Evoker Wizards, would also not want the token and also be looking to sell their copies thus dropping the value for the token itself due to the laws of supply vs demand.

So yes. If the Mad Evoker Charm is changed in such a way as to fundamentally change my entire class build design and class identity for a reason of potentially upsetting an extremely small minority of players who may be mentally triggered by ending up in a group with me when they could proactively avoid the entire situation but choose not to? I would have a very hard time trusting TD to not make other arbitrary changes that completely change my build and playstyle with no mechanical reason to do so and I would likely at that point cut my losses and leave the game.

That's not meant as a threat by any means. It's ultimately Jeff's call. But as Anthony had been indicating that if his changes are not implemented he would be quitting the game I thought it wise to show that a change in either direction has a chance of losing the game players, but for very different reasons.


Did I suggest leaving the game? Or just changing from Wizard to another class and having a conversation in coaching with pick up groups? Now, I honestly don’t remember and I will admit I was much more heated in my opening post with the strongest reaction to these proposals. That being said, even though I am not as heated now, I still have strong opposition to 3 tokens being made in one year for our (myself and my partner’s) preferred classes that causes people to describe it on the forums and in the dungeon as “cutting myself” and “killing myself”. As Mike also pointed out was similar to the experience he had with it on the forums.
I play Wizard.
The topic has been locked.

Final MEC, Mage Medallion and Arch-Mage Medallion 7 months 1 week ago #248

Anthony Barnstable wrote: [
Did I suggest leaving the game? Or just changing from Wizard to another class and having a conversation in coaching with pick up groups? Now, I honestly don’t remember and I will admit I was much more heated in my opening post with the strongest reaction to these proposals. That being said, even though I am not as heated now, I still have strong opposition to 3 tokens being made in one year for our (myself and my partner’s) preferred classes that causes people to describe it on the forums and in the dungeon as “cutting myself” and “killing myself”. As Mike also pointed out was similar to the experience he had with it on the forums.


I'm cutting out a lot of the quote because it was getting really long and wasn't overly relevant to what I wanted to say.

It almost feels like a lot more of the problem here is related to the culture that's built up on the forums around MEC than the tokens themselves. I can absolutely see how talk of cutting, self mutilation, etc could be triggering or harmful to some people, and that's something that should be addressed. At the same time, none of that is really built into the tokens themselves. The MEC doesn't say anything about blood magic, mutilation, killing oneself, etc. It trades HP, which is a measure of not just health but also energy, luck, endurance, stamina, etc, for extra power. The token creator, who would have the best insight into the purpose and flavor of the tokens, has stated that they aren't meant as cutting but instead representing mortals pushing themselves beyond their limits to channel power greater than they can really handle, and leaving themselves weakened/vulnerable as a result. The tokens themselves aren't about cutting or suicide in any way.

I wonder if this is something that can/should be addressed more within forum culture and moderation rather than through changing a mechanic. It sounds like the problem isn't so much making one number go down to make another go up as it is the jokes you see on the forums and may encounter in the dungeon.
The topic has been locked.

Final MEC, Mage Medallion and Arch-Mage Medallion 7 months 1 week ago #249

Jamie Campbell wrote: Jeff, I think I understand what you are wanting to achieve...so To that end, here is a possible construct:

1. Instead of doubling the damage of spells on the cards, double the boxes.
2. At the beginning of the run in the coaching room, the wizards must mark one box for every AC they have beyond 13 (the current pregen level)
3. Instead of channeling HP, they now can use any other box Conduct the “sacrifice”

It was stated earlier that mana in TD is in the form of the spell boxes. To make this come alive, mana is its purest without the trappings of the physical world (aka AC)...

This gives you the same mechanic of creating the glass cannon while adjusting the flavor of the sacrifice.

-or-

Variant: to create the same glass cannon effect, establish a mana pool off the base HP in the coaching room. This mana pool can only be boosted back to full strength when the wizard returns to max HP. Anytime the wizard comes to maxHP, the mana pool also returns to max...from there burn the mana pool. This variant keeps the resources burning and through strong teamwork, the keeping the wizard maxed is really important. The mana pool Size can then be adjusted per run as well as the construct of the wizard creates an intense balance to maintain strong proper levels of AC and HP for maintaining a strong mana pool.

-or-

we go with channeling. I personally love this so much in this format, I can assure you this years purchase will start me down the complex build of a wizard. It’s intriguing and super cool. My friends went against the grain on wizard and built a construct using wands who many on here despise but we love it because it created a complexity to how the wizard could mix damages quite easily. When the dust settles, we hope that MMM shows up as a ring slot in the future so we can bring this wand characteristic back.


Just gonna bump this thread back into the chat so we can perhaps find a balance without people just thrashing the card change
Jamie
AureliusBP


Ranger
tdcharactercreator.com/#/character/edit/b4b81c8d-c52e-4ffa-b291-a2eba22a6a8c

Am on Discord as AureliusBP if you want realtime chat.
The topic has been locked.

Final MEC, Mage Medallion and Arch-Mage Medallion 7 months 1 week ago #250

Anthony Barnstable wrote: How can I avoid ever being in a party with you? I currently buy a portion of the tickets for a handful of runs each weekend I am able to play in TD. When I buy the ticket, I have no option to leave a footnote for other ticket buyers and I have no way to contact other token buyers who don’t post about it on the forums. I can email Jeff/Lori and ask them to email the other ticket holders on my behalf?


Well #1 I generally completely buy out my runs and buy into pre-built runs for 90% of the runs I am on. So if you avoid buying into a run I am hosting or a run I have already bought into that would avoid about 90% of the chances of you ending up on a run with me.

#2 If you DO end up on a run with me and you expressed concern about how the MEC/Relic/Legendary was referenced and asked me to avoid any self harm comments or jokes I would be completely OK with avoiding any referencing in that manner. I generally am very minimalistic in my speech in combat rooms as it is currently anyway and do not actively RP the use of the MEC or anything of that nature so a simple, polite request would avoid the issue.


We have both been overly emotional in our responses and that's pushed into negative territory. I apologize for my words, I'm sure I was an asshole at a few points.


I completely understand the reasoning behind your concerns with the MEC and it's related tokens and can see where it might be viewed in a negative light for some people and I completely support your requests to other players to avoid referencing it in a self harm manner. But I do not agree with the push to ban the token or change it's fundamental design due to a misinterpretation as to the intent of the token design.

Additionally, as mentioned previously, the design of the MEC has caused any players using it to completely readjust their stat values to raise +HP and +Con bonuses to signifigantly higher levels than they would have done otherwise. For many players this includes paying a premium for Volunteer Specific +CON UR tokens over several different years and to the tune of at least $500 on average if they purchased all of the +Con UR volunteer tokens that have come around.

A change to the Channeling ability of the Mad Evoker to remove the HP being used as the fueling of the power would fundamentally affect the design of the Mad Evoker Wizard best in slot token design in an extreme way. Doing so would cost the affected players a much larger sum of token value than any other token change in the game has due purely to the interaction between the MEC and +CON/HP tokens.

Again I see where you are coming from and I understand your concerns. I simply ask that you understand where we are coming from and try to find an acceptable solution that does not result in numerous other players having to redesign their whole characters.

I hope I've been civil in my response and I hope it gives you more understanding of the reasoning behind my responses thus far. And ultimately I hope that we can find a middle ground that makes you and your team feel safe while allowing me and my team to continue to play the game with the class design we've chosen to select.
The topic has been locked.

Final MEC, Mage Medallion and Arch-Mage Medallion 7 months 1 week ago #251

Hoping we can all work this out. I'm certainly trying to listen (read) and self-evaluate changes I can make. I don't play this game for mechanics or token value, I play it because of caring/friendly TD staff and the cool people I meet playing. That's what really makes this fun and what I hope people focus upon. Rules to games change all the time. I'm sure we all want them to change for the best.

One recommendation I am making. No matter how we pay for MEC, Mage Ability or Arch Mage Ability, we should remove any mechanic that allows a player to go to 0 hp on their own. Gamers are always looking for loopholes. We found one and it may have gotten out of hand. Close the loophole and we'll just move on. It's what we do. Everyone have a great rest of the weekend.
The topic has been locked.

Final MEC, Mage Medallion and Arch-Mage Medallion 7 months 1 week ago #252

Josh M. wrote:

Anthony Barnstable wrote: [
Did I suggest leaving the game? Or just changing from Wizard to another class and having a conversation in coaching with pick up groups? Now, I honestly don’t remember and I will admit I was much more heated in my opening post with the strongest reaction to these proposals. That being said, even though I am not as heated now, I still have strong opposition to 3 tokens being made in one year for our (myself and my partner’s) preferred classes that causes people to describe it on the forums and in the dungeon as “cutting myself” and “killing myself”. As Mike also pointed out was similar to the experience he had with it on the forums.


I'm cutting out a lot of the quote because it was getting really long and wasn't overly relevant to what I wanted to say.

It almost feels like a lot more of the problem here is related to the culture that's built up on the forums around MEC than the tokens themselves. I can absolutely see how talk of cutting, self mutilation, etc could be triggering or harmful to some people, and that's something that should be addressed. At the same time, none of that is really built into the tokens themselves. The MEC doesn't say anything about blood magic, mutilation, killing oneself, etc. It trades HP, which is a measure of not just health but also energy, luck, endurance, stamina, etc, for extra power. The token creator, who would have the best insight into the purpose and flavor of the tokens, has stated that they aren't meant as cutting but instead representing mortals pushing themselves beyond their limits to channel power greater than they can really handle, and leaving themselves weakened/vulnerable as a result. The tokens themselves aren't about cutting or suicide in any way.

I wonder if this is something that can/should be addressed more within forum culture and moderation rather than through changing a mechanic. It sounds like the problem isn't so much making one number go down to make another go up as it is the jokes you see on the forums and may encounter in the dungeon.


I think that, for the most part, if someone is referencing the Mad Evoker's charm in a way that causes another player issue it's fairly likely that they would change if asked it.

I don't know if it's right to ask forum moderators to violate free speech first amendment rights to police the speech of players on the forum in relation to how they choose to play the game.

Asking someone to refrain from using speech that might inadvertently trigger a negative response when you are together for two hours and have paid to be there is a much different ask than asking everyone to refrain from using speech in a public forum that you do not have to participate in, have not paid money to be there and is not actually related to speaking about self harm of your actual person but how you play a character. I don't feel those two things are equivalent.
The topic has been locked.
Time to create page: 0.227 seconds