TOPIC: Con Expansion == Swimming in Fleece?

Fred K wrote: I like the idea of monster bits as completion rewards for runs. I would recommend have both and the players choose which they want.

In terms of treasure bloat, I had a thought about that. Why not have two treasure draw boxes? The first box is normal, as is, distribution of everything. The second box costs 10 times as many treasure draws as the regular one (i.e. normal 1 treasure = 1 draw, this one would be ~10 treasures = 1 draw). The distribution of rewards in the second box would exclude all uncommon and rare tokens (possibly lower amounts of other less valuable tokens as well). The end goal would be to have the same probability of good rewards but not having to transmute a ton of draws into trade goods for the more expensive box. If people still wanted to do 21 draws, they could but I think a lot of vets would choose 2 draws from the expensive box and 1 draw from the normal one.

Personally, when I'm doing 200+ draws at a con, I would prefer to only have 20 tokens to carry away with most being something interesting/cool rather than the extra 5-10 pounds of stuff that I then have to transmute (if I am lucky at the show, otherwise carrying them home then shipping them back again to have TD then ship to me the end result). The extra steps are wasteful in terms of everyone's time and the natural resources we're consuming to make them happen (and sometimes, a sack of tokens can be really heavy.)

Fred

I think the idea of having 2 treasure pools is a logistics nightmare for TD. I also don't think it is an easy math conversion. Someone with much better math skills than me can figure out how easy it would be. For 2019 Rares and Uncommons were about 80% of the total treasure based on the numbers we have. If you suddenly removed that 80%, the percents of what is left move around in a way that I don't know (maybe it easy but doesn't seem so to me). Monster bits make up just of 50% of what is left. So when 100 pulls would have got you 10 bits (10% or so for 2019). Your new model should result in 10 bits. At 10:1 it doesn't work because doesn't leave you a chance for anything else. 10:2 seems to make sense to me until I start applying to other things and that is where I think it might go wacky. So in 500 pulls you should get an UR. In enchance 10:2 though your 500 translates into 100 pulls. That means that there should be 1% chance of getting a UR in the new mix. I don't thinking pulling out the enhance pull works out though to the same percentage. I think it is slightly higher....again I could be very wrong about that though.

jedibcg wrote:

Fred K wrote: I like the idea of monster bits as completion rewards for runs. I would recommend have both and the players choose which they want.

In terms of treasure bloat, I had a thought about that. Why not have two treasure draw boxes? The first box is normal, as is, distribution of everything. The second box costs 10 times as many treasure draws as the regular one (i.e. normal 1 treasure = 1 draw, this one would be ~10 treasures = 1 draw). The distribution of rewards in the second box would exclude all uncommon and rare tokens (possibly lower amounts of other less valuable tokens as well). The end goal would be to have the same probability of good rewards but not having to transmute a ton of draws into trade goods for the more expensive box. If people still wanted to do 21 draws, they could but I think a lot of vets would choose 2 draws from the expensive box and 1 draw from the normal one.

Personally, when I'm doing 200+ draws at a con, I would prefer to only have 20 tokens to carry away with most being something interesting/cool rather than the extra 5-10 pounds of stuff that I then have to transmute (if I am lucky at the show, otherwise carrying them home then shipping them back again to have TD then ship to me the end result). The extra steps are wasteful in terms of everyone's time and the natural resources we're consuming to make them happen (and sometimes, a sack of tokens can be really heavy.)

Fred

I think the idea of having 2 treasure pools is a logistics nightmare for TD. I also don't think it is an easy math conversion. Someone with much better math skills than me can figure out how easy it would be. For 2019 Rares and Uncommons were about 80% of the total treasure based on the numbers we have. If you suddenly removed that 80%, the percents of what is left move around in a way that I don't know (maybe it easy but doesn't seem so to me). Monster bits make up just of 50% of what is left. So when 100 pulls would have got you 10 bits (10% or so for 2019). Your new model should result in 10 bits. At 10:1 it doesn't work because doesn't leave you a chance for anything else. 10:2 seems to make sense to me until I start applying to other things and that is where I think it might go wacky. So in 500 pulls you should get an UR. In enchance 10:2 though your 500 translates into 100 pulls. That means that there should be 1% chance of getting a UR in the new mix. I don't thinking pulling out the enhance pull works out though to the same percentage. I think it is slightly higher....again I could be very wrong about that though.

Based on the treasure pull spreadsheets, the number wouldn't be exactly 10:1 to make it all work but there is a simple math conversion that gets you to pulls without uncommons and rares but still has everything else (and can be adjusted if it makes sense to pull some other things out as well). If monster bits are still in it, it becomes something like 3:1 or 4:1. I was combining my idea with the idea of monster bits being an option instead of completion tokens that someone else suggested. At 3 or 4 to 1, I'm not sure it's worth doing 2 separate boxes.

The bonus for TD in doing separate boxes would be reducing the amount of tokens needed for treasure for the experienced players, faster handling of drawing lines (especially when people do 21 draws 1 at a time), and reduction in costs associated with shipping and handling for transmutes for unwanted uncommon and rare draws.

The benefits outweigh the nuisance if you could cut 10 hours of labor per con in transmutes and reduce inventory of unneeded tokens by 10%-20%. It just comes down to how much of a benefit would it be. I'd argue Origins would be the right place to test the idea as it seems to have a high percentage of veteran players (moreso than GenCon). Combine that with not being as busy at Origins with not every run selling out and it seems like a good test-bed to try new ideas.

jedibcg wrote:

Fred K wrote: I like the idea of monster bits as completion rewards for runs. I would recommend have both and the players choose which they want.

In terms of treasure bloat, I had a thought about that. Why not have two treasure draw boxes? The first box is normal, as is, distribution of everything. The second box costs 10 times as many treasure draws as the regular one (i.e. normal 1 treasure = 1 draw, this one would be ~10 treasures = 1 draw). The distribution of rewards in the second box would exclude all uncommon and rare tokens (possibly lower amounts of other less valuable tokens as well). The end goal would be to have the same probability of good rewards but not having to transmute a ton of draws into trade goods for the more expensive box. If people still wanted to do 21 draws, they could but I think a lot of vets would choose 2 draws from the expensive box and 1 draw from the normal one.

Personally, when I'm doing 200+ draws at a con, I would prefer to only have 20 tokens to carry away with most being something interesting/cool rather than the extra 5-10 pounds of stuff that I then have to transmute (if I am lucky at the show, otherwise carrying them home then shipping them back again to have TD then ship to me the end result). The extra steps are wasteful in terms of everyone's time and the natural resources we're consuming to make them happen (and sometimes, a sack of tokens can be really heavy.)

Fred

I think the idea of having 2 treasure pools is a logistics nightmare for TD. I also don't think it is an easy math conversion. Someone with much better math skills than me can figure out how easy it would be. For 2019 Rares and Uncommons were about 80% of the total treasure based on the numbers we have. If you suddenly removed that 80%, the percents of what is left move around in a way that I don't know (maybe it easy but doesn't seem so to me). Monster bits make up just of 50% of what is left. So when 100 pulls would have got you 10 bits (10% or so for 2019). Your new model should result in 10 bits. At 10:1 it doesn't work because doesn't leave you a chance for anything else. 10:2 seems to make sense to me until I start applying to other things and that is where I think it might go wacky. So in 500 pulls you should get an UR. In enchance 10:2 though your 500 translates into 100 pulls. That means that there should be 1% chance of getting a UR in the new mix. I don't thinking pulling out the enhance pull works out though to the same percentage. I think it is slightly higher....again I could be very wrong about that though.

First, I agree that having two sets of treasure would likely become at least a large hassle if not a huge pain.

But, if that was the desired route, I think you'd want to go the route of the super-condensed orders. In that case, if 100 pulls would have gotten you 10 bits from the normal treasure (1 GF), in the 10x condensed box, you'd replace that with a 10% chance of a GF. Rares and Uncommons could likewise be condensed down to their corresponding trade goods. If UR was at 1 in 500 draws in normal box, it becomes 1 in 50 in the 10x box.

Or at least I think that logic works out?

Brad Mortensen wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: A GF just sold on eBay for $71.

Looks good - although we still have to absorb all the 2016-18s that will be fleeced in the next year or two.

I sincerely don’t understand your obsession with the price of bits,

After leaving this topic alone for 1 year 8 months I posted updates after big changes. That's not obsession.

But no matter what you call it, I correctly called a multi year price decline in fleece, while others disagreed or said there wasn't enough information to draw such conclusions.

I also successfully advocated for TD to do things to increase demand for monster bits. TD's agreement that this was in order as reflected in their implementing the exact proposals I called for regarding fleece requirements in Eldritch and Relic tokens was personally very gratifying to me.

I'm sorry you choose to view my contributions to secondary market analysis so negatively.

and why you set a Fleece target about twice the historical average.

I'm not sure I do. I don't think I do. Can you provide the historical average fleece pricing / definition that you are using to base this statement off of?

When I started playing in 2009, bits went for $5. I realize you started 4 years later.

I started playing in 2007.

One of your first data points was the $20 bits from 2014.

It was not.

And yes, Fleece got to around $100, but that was an anomaly, and you’re convinced it should be the new norm.

I said I'd be happy with fleece in the $80-100 range. Why wouldn't you be?

Why aren’t we doing anything to drive up the prices of trade goods and URs? That’s a much broader problem.

I agree with trade goods anyway. I'm not sure higher UR prices are good.

So I strongly disagree that $71 Fleece “looks good.” I think we’ve overshot the mark. And I also strongly disagree with whole concept of TD setting price targets and intentionally manipulating the market to try to achieve them. It feels immoral to me.

TD sells tokens. The value of tokens and therefore demand for them relates partially to their secondary market value. TD ought as a matter of good business to consider the supply and demand, and values of things in the secondary market.

I feel on some level you agree with this, because you often weigh in with opinions and analysis about the loot cap.

Besides, $40 Fleece is about right relative to the price of other goods

How do you figure?

I’ll respond in L&L per Laz’s request.