TOPIC: Power Creep Discussion

Fred K wrote:

Flik wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote: These issues are exactly why we pretty much stopped doing PUGs. We set up every run on the forums ahead of time, so we know what we’re doing weeks before the run. No squabbling over classes, no unexpected power disparity, and the coaches just pull our builds off the app.

I enjoyed this at Origins this year with BeLinda's guild. But how do you do this at Gen Con? This year I have four people in my group and would love to play on at least Hardcore, but I know once again I will be lumped in to a normal PUG. And my Nightmare cleric and wife's Hardcore rogue (and another Hardcore barbarian) will crush normal. But I'm forced to play there because the tickets are so scarce and I was lucky to even get a run of each module. I had zero chance to buy out a run and didn't want to bank playing on finding a group on the forums to accept four people (with two relatively newbies). I had to pull the trigger on getting tickets and made all our other events slotted around those times.

But yeah, for Origins (the only other con we go to) I will start always trying to get in on complete forum runs.

Hey - I have extra tickets available for E3 at 10:02a on Friday. We only have 5 people out of the 10 tickets - we’d be happy to have you join us for a harder difficulty run

Fred

Fred if you still have 2 left I would like to grab them.

Ed

I have written this a few times.

Tokens should not be made that make dungeon design more difficult/limiting, imo. This would include making tokens that are too powerful vs existing tokens.

Beyond that I don't we as players need to worry about coming up with maxes or limits on other players. If someone buys out all 10 tickets and wants to solo normal are we saying that you cannot do that because there is a limit on your stats?

There are bad situations that arise in True Dungeon. Players that one shot monsters on normal and ruin other players fun and those that convince a group of to play on a higher difficulty than would be enjoyable for them. I honestly don't know what you do about this. If you put a limit on normal then someone that is geared higher than that is going to push harder for a group to play at a higher difficulty. This also makes an not enjoyable experience. I also have a hard time calling either set of players out (except in circumstances where I have been on the run).

If you are decked out player and only play 1 dungeon and find yourself in a PUG with a bunch of players with little gear. Sure we can all say here that you should pull your punches, but should you get to enjoy the dungeon and all your acquired toys as well? Either by pushing for a difficulty closer to one you will enjoy or by using them on whatever difficulty you get to play? It is a bad situation for all those involved.

I wanted to say that if there was a better ticketing system that could match players and difficulties better then that would work, but I don't think that would work 100% either. In 2013 my group was still building up our token pool. We had a few relics from 2012. A Set of CoS and CoGF but I am pretty sure we had mostly rare weapons and armor (short of a few older UR melee weapons think +2 Great Axe that I had picked up cheap). We had always struggled in Combat. So when I bought my 4 runs. We did Lycan Combat on Normal and Puzzle on Hardcore. As I recall we did okay on combat not great. The next day pretty much the same group of folks (more or less) with the exact same tokens tackled Golemnbane Combat on Normal and we blew it up. We took out most of the monsters in 1 round. We definitely were over gear for Normal combat on that run but combat felt appropriate just the day before. That was the last year we did Normal, but if our only experience had been the Lycan side we would have been doing Normal combat one more year. My point is dungeons don't always seem balanced on the same difficulty. I also remember on year of playing Grind where I actually was part of an organized Grind (more or less). Where as a group we picked the wrong difficulty and were so overpowered that Adeya as wizard (of course) and I as Druid started casting damage spells against each other.

What exactly is attempting to be solved because it seems like there are multiple things that I don't think you can solve with 1 solution?

Is it preventing overpowered players from dominating lower difficulties? Is it preventing Stats from getting to certain levels that make dungeon design ever more difficult? Is it to keep token purchases flowing? Is it to keep the secondary market stable? Is it to keep previous token purchasers happy? Is one of a bunch of other things that I haven't meantioned?

Picc wrote: Sorry the existence of bad actors does not convince me we need to apply what I consider to be draconian rules to literally everyone.

Would you feel the same way about applying them to literally only those bad actors, i.e. people who are playing default Normal PUGs with way too much gear and would otherwise be highly likely to ruin the fun for up to 9 other people?

(I think it's a different story if your entire party enjoys and consents to a cakewalk. For that reason I'm ambivalent about capping HC/NM, and I would be fine allowing even the Normal caps to be disabled if the entire party agrees.)

Fiddy wrote: I keep wondering how many problems would go away if ticketing could be improved? Making it easier to buy out full runs, having some algorithm that matches up PUGs based on times that work for the players as well as their experience/gear/etc. (Experience meaning familiarity with TD, not actual XP)

One problem this would definitely help with is making it easier for high-end players whose style would be cramped in Normal PUGs to avoid ending up in Normal PUGs in the first place.

Rob F wrote: if you were a brand new player walking into TD for the first time and the game had caps on the difficulties (except for the hardest one) do you think you would still enjoy the game and continue down the TD path of playing/Token purchases to where you are today?

Great question!

I think a potential side benefit of capping Normal is to let people know when their equipment has outgrown Normal, thus providing a extra nudge to encourage those players to try moving up to HC (though of course not forcing them to).

David Zych wrote:

Rob F wrote: if you were a brand new player walking into TD for the first time and the game had caps on the difficulties (except for the hardest one) do you think you would still enjoy the game and continue down the TD path of playing/Token purchases to where you are today?

Great question!

I think a potential side benefit of capping Normal is to let people know when their equipment has outgrown Normal, thus providing a extra nudge to encourage those players to try moving up to HC (though of course not forcing them to).

This is the best argument I have seen so far for a cap on normal.

I am adamantly against a cap on any other level of difficulty. The entire group must decide on those levels of difficulty, so if they are making a group decision to play something either too hard or too easy for them, that decision is on them.

David Zych wrote:

Picc wrote: Sorry the existence of bad actors does not convince me we need to apply what I consider to be draconian rules to literally everyone.

Would you feel the same way about applying them to literally only those bad actors, i.e. people who are playing default Normal PUGs with way too much gear and would otherwise be highly likely to ruin the fun for up to 9 other people?

(I think it's a different story if your entire party enjoys and consents to a cakewalk. For that reason I'm ambivalent about capping HC/NM, and I would be fine allowing even the Normal caps to be disabled if the entire party agrees.)

As soon as someone can come up with a rule that defines bad actors sure go for it. The problem is that what defines a bad actor is different based on your perspective. One size does not fit all.

If your looking at it from the low gear players perspective then sure the over geared guy trying to ruin your fun by being insisting on this or that is the bad actor. On the other hand if you are the lone over geared guy maybe the "gang" of people trying to bully you into into a roll you don't want because they're buddy always plays cleric are the bad ones.

No matter what general rule we come up with the other side will always be able to point to people who got hurt by it. Lets go back to your example. You defined bad actors as "people who are playing default Normal PUGs with way too much gear" and you assume they "would otherwise be highly likely to ruin the fun for up to 9 other people?" what about the ones who don't hurt anyone by being over geared? Why should we punish them for not having friends to run with? Do clerics get a pass? How about druids, they can heal too but they can also do OP damage? And more importantly why do our value judgments on this trump anyone elses?

Picc wrote: As soon as someone can come up with a rule that defines bad actors sure go for it. The problem is that what defines a bad actor is different based on your perspective. One size does not fit all.

If your looking at it from the low gear players perspective then sure the over geared guy trying to ruin your fun by being insisting on this or that is the bad actor. On the other hand if you are the lone over geared guy maybe the "gang" of people trying to bully you into into a roll you don't want because they're buddy always plays cleric are the bad ones.

No matter what general rule we come up with the other side will always be able to point to people who got hurt by it. Lets go back to your example. You defined bad actors as "people who are playing default Normal PUGs with way too much gear" and you assume they "would otherwise be highly likely to ruin the fun for up to 9 other people?" what about the ones who don't hurt anyone by being over geared? Why should we punish them for not having friends to run with? Do clerics get a pass? How about druids, they can heal too but they can also do OP damage? And more importantly why do our value judgments on this trump anyone elses?

Thank you that is what I was trying to say. There are definitely bad actors, but I have a hard time calling anyone that unless I know all the circumstances. If you are running a run multiple times doing this then I would say yes. If it is your only run, maybe not.

jpotter wrote:

David Zych wrote:

Rob F wrote: if you were a brand new player walking into TD for the first time and the game had caps on the difficulties (except for the hardest one) do you think you would still enjoy the game and continue down the TD path of playing/Token purchases to where you are today?

Great question!

I think a potential side benefit of capping Normal is to let people know when their equipment has outgrown Normal, thus providing a extra nudge to encourage those players to try moving up to HC (though of course not forcing them to).

This is the best argument I have seen so far for a cap on normal.

I am adamantly against a cap on any other level of difficulty. The entire group must decide on those levels of difficulty, so if they are making a group decision to play something either too hard or too easy for them, that decision is on them.

Just like we require a unanimous vote for difficulty, I'd think a unanimous vote to ignore the caps should be allowed. That addresses the concerns around solo'ing the dungeon on a lower difficulty or the "no, we really want a cakewalk" concerns.

Fiddy wrote: Just like we require a unanimous vote for difficulty, I'd think a unanimous vote to ignore the caps should be allowed. That addresses the concerns around solo'ing the dungeon on a lower difficulty or the "no, we really want a cakewalk" concerns.

ICK!!! So a number of players end up on a pug run, they are 'forced' to play normal by 1 player (okay, sure) and they are 'forced' to neuter their builds by 1 player.

Picc wrote:

David Zych wrote:

Picc wrote: Sorry the existence of bad actors does not convince me we need to apply what I consider to be draconian rules to literally everyone.

Would you feel the same way about applying them to literally only those bad actors, i.e. people who are playing default Normal PUGs with way too much gear and would otherwise be highly likely to ruin the fun for up to 9 other people?

(I think it's a different story if your entire party enjoys and consents to a cakewalk. For that reason I'm ambivalent about capping HC/NM, and I would be fine allowing even the Normal caps to be disabled if the entire party agrees.)

As soon as someone can come up with a rule that defines bad actors sure go for it. The problem is that what defines a bad actor is different based on your perspective. One size does not fit all.

If your looking at it from the low gear players perspective then sure the over geared guy trying to ruin your fun by being insisting on this or that is the bad actor. On the other hand if you are the lone over geared guy maybe the "gang" of people trying to bully you into into a roll you don't want because they're buddy always plays cleric are the bad ones.

No matter what general rule we come up with the other side will always be able to point to people who got hurt by it. Lets go back to your example. You defined bad actors as "people who are playing default Normal PUGs with way too much gear" and you assume they "would otherwise be highly likely to ruin the fun for up to 9 other people?" what about the ones who don't hurt anyone by being over geared? Why should we punish them for not having friends to run with? Do clerics get a pass? How about druids, they can heal too but they can also do OP damage? And more importantly why do our value judgments on this trump anyone elses?

My working definition (I wrote about this in another post but left out an important detail in this one) specifically concerns excessive damage output which leads to killing a monster so fast that the other players in a Normal PUG don't get to enjoy the experience of combat -- a scenario which we know actually occurs often enough to get posted on the forums from time to time. I borrowed your phrase "bad actor", but of course it's also possible to do this without intentional malice. I personally am less concerned about people with lots of AC, HP, healing, etc; I'm inclined to agree with you that large numbers in those stats probably aren't hurting anyone else.

You make the point that any rule we come up with always has the possibility to disappoint someone; that's true, but I don't see it as a reason to give up and impose no rule at all. In my opinion, a default Normal PUG with a mix of newer/low-end players and veteran/high-end players should err on the side of making sure the low-end players' fun isn't ruined, because (1) the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and (2) veterans who don't have their own friends to run with can fairly easily get on the forums and pre-plan a higher difficulty run with a party of like-minded people, whereas it's not reasonable to expect most new players to do that.

David Zych wrote:

Picc wrote:

David Zych wrote:

Picc wrote: Sorry the existence of bad actors does not convince me we need to apply what I consider to be draconian rules to literally everyone.

Would you feel the same way about applying them to literally only those bad actors, i.e. people who are playing default Normal PUGs with way too much gear and would otherwise be highly likely to ruin the fun for up to 9 other people?

(I think it's a different story if your entire party enjoys and consents to a cakewalk. For that reason I'm ambivalent about capping HC/NM, and I would be fine allowing even the Normal caps to be disabled if the entire party agrees.)

As soon as someone can come up with a rule that defines bad actors sure go for it. The problem is that what defines a bad actor is different based on your perspective. One size does not fit all.

If your looking at it from the low gear players perspective then sure the over geared guy trying to ruin your fun by being insisting on this or that is the bad actor. On the other hand if you are the lone over geared guy maybe the "gang" of people trying to bully you into into a roll you don't want because they're buddy always plays cleric are the bad ones.

No matter what general rule we come up with the other side will always be able to point to people who got hurt by it. Lets go back to your example. You defined bad actors as "people who are playing default Normal PUGs with way too much gear" and you assume they "would otherwise be highly likely to ruin the fun for up to 9 other people?" what about the ones who don't hurt anyone by being over geared? Why should we punish them for not having friends to run with? Do clerics get a pass? How about druids, they can heal too but they can also do OP damage? And more importantly why do our value judgments on this trump anyone elses?

My working definition (I wrote about this in another post but left out an important detail in this one) specifically concerns excessive damage output which leads to killing a monster so fast that the other players in a Normal PUG don't get to enjoy the experience of combat -- a scenario which we know actually occurs often enough to get posted on the forums from time to time. I borrowed your phrase "bad actor", but of course it's also possible to do this without intentional malice. I personally am less concerned about people with lots of AC, HP, healing, etc; I'm inclined to agree with you that large numbers in those stats probably aren't hurting anyone else.

You make the point that any rule we come up with always has the possibility to disappoint someone; that's true, but I don't see it as a reason to give up and impose no rule at all. In my opinion, a default Normal PUG with a mix of newer/low-end players and veteran/high-end players should err on the side of making sure the low-end players' fun isn't ruined, because (1) the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and (2) veterans who don't have their own friends to run with can fairly easily get on the forums and pre-plan a higher difficulty run with a party of like-minded people, whereas it's not reasonable to expect most new players to do that.

Exactly! +1 to this.

If you are a vet and have a ton of Tokens it's easy to find a run to use them on. When new players spend $80 a ticket on TD, TPTB better find a way to make it fun for them to keep them coming back for more. And if it means telling an old time vet he/she can't use all their Tokens because it very well may ruin it for them then I have no problem with this. But most vets scale back anyway when it's a normal/hardcore run so I don't see caps bringing that much anguish to the player base.

I think stat caps at normal is a terrible idea. As several other people mentioned, some players may want to play normal and just be able to enjoy the run without dying. The price of a run has basically doubled since I started playing and I don't want to pay $80 to be dead and not be able to participate for three rooms. I understand that there's non-lethal, but no one wants to play that. Like I said before, my group keeps hoping each year this will be the year the coach says, "yeah, I think you could try hardcore."

Someone mentioned scaling back normal and maybe hardcore and I agree. I think maybe non-lethal should just be gone and normal should be something a run where you can get to the last room alive with your starting back of tokens. That's how it was 8 years ago, and now I have a party decked out in mostly reds who is being told in the coaching room that they recommend normal. We listen, because we want to have a pleasant experience.

I agree too that the leveling between adventures seems to be way off sometimes. Like last year at Gen Con, having a run where most of us took no damage the whole run and the next we were all dead in room five.

A lot of people are asking what percentage of runs are at each difficulty level. That's a question I've asked before and I've yet to see an answer. Coaches/DMs might be able to ballpark what they've seen, but I don't think there's any real data on this. Maybe it would be a good idea to start getting some real data on this. If TD keeps the party cards (which I think they take them from you at the end) they can see what difficulty people are playing on, what classes, and their stats. If you add maybe a little survey at the end like someone mentioned, you can find out how many people died, how much life they had left, you can ask them how they enjoyed it, if it was too easy or too hard, what they liked and what they thought wasn't fun. Relying mostly on the forums for feedback, does not cover the views/options of most players, and I think that's to the detriment of the average player.