TOPIC: 2019 Transmuted Token Suggestions (Non-Kilt)

Mike Steele wrote:

Beertram wrote:

MasterED wrote:

Beertram wrote: I think a transmute of the "+1 treasure token, cannot use any other TE's" to a "+2 treasure token, cannot use any other TE's" would be great for the less token-addicted players.

I see the value here but would rather have them invest in a IS Nugget for the +2. If there going to spend money on any PYP it is probably going to be a Weapon or TE.

Ed

Sure, but I think there are many (majority?) players who will play with the tokens they get and trade for -- and will never buy large amounts of tokens outright. This was aimed at them. They still support TD by playing.

I still think that the less-than-UR TE tokens should be capped at +1, which provides an entry level to the +2 or more UR TE tokens. Letting it get up to +2 and non-stackable, greatly reduces the incentive for some players to make a token purchase for a UR TE token, since for the next four years it will just be a lateral move from +2 TE to +2 TE.

Again, these proposed tokens are aimed at newer players. Some will become whales, but most won’t. These are for the latter group.

This opinion appears to be based on the assumption that all players will eventually spend hundreds or thousands of dollars a year on tokens. In my opinion, there are a lot of players who are discouraged from buying URs because of their modest budget. Limiting loyal players to +1 TC isn’t going to squeeze blood from stones. It’s just mean, in both senses of the word.

I just don’t like the “no soup for you” approach. It feels more elitist than it needs to be.

Besides, if people have token money burning a hole in their pocket, and suddenly a Nugget doesn’t seem a good idea, maybe they’ll spend it on tokens with an actual in-game effect. In my experience, there are always more tokens to buy than money to buy them with. Maybe that alone would stabilize the market for non-TE URs. TEs suck all the oxygen out of the room.

But this is all metagame stuff, so squarely in Jeff’s realm.

Brad Mortensen wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Beertram wrote:

MasterED wrote:

Beertram wrote: I think a transmute of the "+1 treasure token, cannot use any other TE's" to a "+2 treasure token, cannot use any other TE's" would be great for the less token-addicted players.

I see the value here but would rather have them invest in a IS Nugget for the +2. If there going to spend money on any PYP it is probably going to be a Weapon or TE.

Ed

Sure, but I think there are many (majority?) players who will play with the tokens they get and trade for -- and will never buy large amounts of tokens outright. This was aimed at them. They still support TD by playing.

I still think that the less-than-UR TE tokens should be capped at +1, which provides an entry level to the +2 or more UR TE tokens. Letting it get up to +2 and non-stackable, greatly reduces the incentive for some players to make a token purchase for a UR TE token, since for the next four years it will just be a lateral move from +2 TE to +2 TE.

Again, these proposed tokens are aimed at newer players. Some will become whales, but most won’t. These are for the latter group.

This opinion appears to be based on the assumption that all players will eventually spend hundreds or thousands of dollars a year on tokens. In my opinion, there are a lot of players who are discouraged from buying URs because of their modest budget. Limiting loyal players to +1 TC isn’t going to squeeze blood from stones. It’s just mean, in both senses of the word.

I just don’t like the “no soup for you” approach. It feels more elitist than it needs to be.

Besides, if people have token money burning a hole in their pocket, and suddenly a Nugget doesn’t seem a good idea, maybe they’ll spend it on tokens with an actual in-game effect. In my experience, there are always more tokens to buy than money to buy them with. Maybe that alone would stabilize the market for non-TE URs. TEs suck all the oxygen out of the room.

But this is all metagame stuff, so squarely in Jeff’s realm.

I'm certainly not trying to be elitist or mean. I'm just aware that token sales are a big reason True Dungeon is successful, and UR TE tokens are one of the bid token sales drivers. Creating a new non-UR TE token that is just as good as UR TEs , and non-stacking , seems very counter productive to encouraging token sales. I think that's exactly why the rare TE tokens have been capped at +1 token draw, to lead into UR token sales instead of competing with them.

I’m not suggesting you’re “trying” to be anything. I’m just saying how the effects of that position strike me.

Mike Steele wrote: Creating a new non-UR TE token that is just as good as UR TEs , and non-stacking...

That’s an oxymoron. If they don’t stack, or have a stacking limit, then they are clearly inferior to the existing URTEs, and nowhere “as good.”

I actually think it would have the opposite effect you predict. It would drum up interest in the less-affluent players, and give them a step that costs tens vs hundreds of dollars. Stacking limits mean they’d outgrow them, and maybe encourage them to go the UR route sooner than they would have without that step.

People who can’t afford $100 for a single UR can’t afford a UR. Period. People who can will opt for the URs because they stack without limit. I honestly don’t see this having any negative impact on token sales.

And people with limited funds should be better off with a fun token with an in-game effect instead of instantly steering them into greed. It’s the wrong message to send new players.

And since they don’t stack well, the day they upgrade they’ll pass them along to the next generation. Contrarywise, any Nuggets they buy will be locked in forever and will seldom if ever have any downstream benefit.

And that’s all Jeffs issue anyway. It always feels presumptuous when we say we should do this or that because of finances. I agree 100% that it should be Jeff’s concern, but we have no data so it seems pointless for us to say anything about it. He doesn’t need our advice on something where he and we are on opposite ends of the “Jon Snow to 10” scale.

Edit: I’ll freely admit a transmute TE could negatively affect the secondary market, but we don’t take that into account when planning reprints, so we should ignore it for this discussion as well.

Brad Mortensen wrote: I’m not suggesting you’re “trying” to be anything. I’m just saying how the effects of that position strike me.

Mike Steele wrote: Creating a new non-UR TE token that is just as good as UR TEs , and non-stacking...

That’s an oxymoron. If they don’t stack, or have a stacking limit, then they are clearly inferior to the existing URTEs, and nowhere “as good.”

I actually think it would have the opposite effect you predict. It would drum up interest in the less-affluent players, and give them a step that costs tens vs hundreds of dollars. Stacking limits mean they’d outgrow them, and maybe encourage them to go the UR route sooner than they would have without that step.

People who can’t afford $100 for a single UR can’t afford a UR. Period. People who can will opt for the URs because they stack without limit. I honestly don’t see this having any negative impact on token sales.

And people with limited funds should be better off with a fun token with an in-game effect instead of instantly steering them into greed. It’s the wrong message to send new players.

And since they don’t stack well, the day they upgrade they’ll pass them along to the next generation. Contrarywise, any Nuggets they buy will be locked in forever and will seldom if ever have any downstream benefit.

And that’s all Jeffs issue anyway. It always feels presumptuous when we say we should do this or that because of finances. I agree 100% that it should be Jeff’s concern, but we have no data so it seems pointless for us to say anything about it. He doesn’t need our advice on something where he and we are on opposite ends of the “Jon Snow to 10” scale.

Edit: I’ll freely admit a transmute TE could negatively affect the secondary market, but we don’t take that into account when planning reprints, so we should ignore it for this discussion as well.

I agree more with mike than brad on this. But i think the real issue with the '+2 treasure and no other treasure bonus' is the treasure limit. The ioun stones only being +2 make it difficult to create a lower level transmute...BUT, what if it focussed on the treasure limit instead of the bonus? Have the transmute still only give +1 treasure, but it can stack with other treasure enhancers up to a limit. AND give it the ability to not interfere with equipping a rare treasure enhancer.

So, yes, players can equip new item and one rare for +2 treasure. But they still have incentive to get a nugget; they will have to give up the rare, but get to keep the new transmute for total +3...then they can get more URs over years until they hit the limit and have to drop the +1 transmute.

kurtreznor wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote: I’m not suggesting you’re “trying” to be anything. I’m just saying how the effects of that position strike me.

Mike Steele wrote: Creating a new non-UR TE token that is just as good as UR TEs , and non-stacking...

That’s an oxymoron. If they don’t stack, or have a stacking limit, then they are clearly inferior to the existing URTEs, and nowhere “as good.”

I actually think it would have the opposite effect you predict. It would drum up interest in the less-affluent players, and give them a step that costs tens vs hundreds of dollars. Stacking limits mean they’d outgrow them, and maybe encourage them to go the UR route sooner than they would have without that step.

People who can’t afford $100 for a single UR can’t afford a UR. Period. People who can will opt for the URs because they stack without limit. I honestly don’t see this having any negative impact on token sales.

And people with limited funds should be better off with a fun token with an in-game effect instead of instantly steering them into greed. It’s the wrong message to send new players.

And since they don’t stack well, the day they upgrade they’ll pass them along to the next generation. Contrarywise, any Nuggets they buy will be locked in forever and will seldom if ever have any downstream benefit.

And that’s all Jeffs issue anyway. It always feels presumptuous when we say we should do this or that because of finances. I agree 100% that it should be Jeff’s concern, but we have no data so it seems pointless for us to say anything about it. He doesn’t need our advice on something where he and we are on opposite ends of the “Jon Snow to 10” scale.

Edit: I’ll freely admit a transmute TE could negatively affect the secondary market, but we don’t take that into account when planning reprints, so we should ignore it for this discussion as well.

I agree more with mike than brad on this. But i think the real issue with the '+2 treasure and no other treasure bonus' is the treasure limit. The ioun stones only being +2 make it difficult to create a lower level transmute...BUT, what if it focussed on the treasure limit instead of the bonus? Have the transmute still only give +1 treasure, but it can stack with other treasure enhancers up to a limit. AND give it the ability to not interfere with equipping a rare treasure enhancer.

So, yes, players can equip new item and one rare for +2 treasure. But they still have incentive to get a nugget; they will have to give up the rare, but get to keep the new transmute for total +3...then they can get more URs over years until they hit the limit and have to drop the +1 transmute.

Sounds like the discussion around the charm of fair fortune

@kurtreznor - Why do you say we don’t agree? What you’ve proposed sounds pretty close to what I’ve been talking about ever since post #101.

Like you, I never wanted it “no-stack,” just a loot cap limit.

Brad Mortensen wrote: @kurtreznor - Why do you say we don’t agree? What you’ve proposed sounds pretty close to what I’ve been talking about ever since post #101.

Like you, I never wanted it “no-stack,” just a loot cap limit.

You just spent about 5 paragraphs arguing how a transmute for +2 treasure is a good thing...or, at least why you disagree with mikes reason that it is bad. Technically not the same, i suppose.

kurtreznor wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote: @kurtreznor - Why do you say we don’t agree? What you’ve proposed sounds pretty close to what I’ve been talking about ever since post #101.

Like you, I never wanted it “no-stack,” just a loot cap limit.

You just spent about 5 paragraphs arguing how a transmute for +2 treasure is a good thing...or, at least why you disagree with mikes reason that it is bad. Technically not the same, i suppose.

Right... guess I’m missing something.

My understanding is that Mike only wants a +1 that won’t stack with anything. You and I want a +1 (or +2) that stacks with URTEs (and maybe the red ones) up to some limit much lower than the current max. At least that’s what I thought you said.

Brad Mortensen wrote:

kurtreznor wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote: @kurtreznor - Why do you say we don’t agree? What you’ve proposed sounds pretty close to what I’ve been talking about ever since post #101.

Like you, I never wanted it “no-stack,” just a loot cap limit.

You just spent about 5 paragraphs arguing how a transmute for +2 treasure is a good thing...or, at least why you disagree with mikes reason that it is bad. Technically not the same, i suppose.

Right... guess I’m missing something.

My understanding is that Mike only wants a +1 that won’t stack with anything. You and I want a +1 (or +2) that stacks with URTEs (and maybe the red ones) up to some limit much lower than the current max. At least that’s what I thought you said.

My ideal would be

rare te+1 chip, does not stack.

cheap transmute te+2 chips, does not stack, recipe requires rare te.

still not quite ur quality charm of fair fortune 1-3 chips, stacks, cap of 11 chips, recipe requires cheap transmute te. Maybe this stage could require a few years completion tokens similar pattern to RoH.

Brad Mortensen wrote:

kurtreznor wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote: @kurtreznor - Why do you say we don’t agree? What you’ve proposed soundfs pretty close to what I’ve been talking about ever since post #101.

Like you, I never wanted it “no-stack,” just a loot cap limit.

You just spent about 5 paragraphs arguing how a transmute for +2 treasure is a good thing...or, at least why you disagree with mikes reason that it is bad. Technically not the same, i suppose.

Right... guess I’m missing something.

My understanding is that Mike only wants a +1 that won’t stack with anything. You sddand I want a +1 (or +2) that stacks with URTEs (and maybe the red ones) up to some limit much lower than the current max. At least that’s what I thought you said.

I thought mikes point was that a +2 treasure transmute that couldnt stack would disincentivize players from buying the nuggets. And while that wouldnt apply to everyone, i do agree that the only difference it would make is to discourage someone from buying an UR...at best, it makes no difference at all (or only changes which UR someone purchases). Your line of thinking that a +2 no stacking will increase UR sales makes no sense to me.

kurtreznor wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote:

kurtreznor wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote: @kurtreznor - Why do you say we don’t agree? What you’ve proposed soundfs pretty close to what I’ve been talking about ever since post #101.

Like you, I never wanted it “no-stack,” just a loot cap limit.

You just spent about 5 paragraphs arguing how a transmute for +2 treasure is a good thing...or, at least why you disagree with mikes reason that it is bad. Technically not the same, i suppose.

Right... guess I’m missing something.

My understanding is that Mike only wants a +1 that won’t stack with anything. You sddand I want a +1 (or +2) that stacks with URTEs (and maybe the red ones) up to some limit much lower than the current max. At least that’s what I thought you said.

I thought mikes point was that a +2 treasure transmute that couldnt stack would disincentivize players from buying the nuggets. And while that wouldnt apply to everyone, i do agree that the only difference it would make is to discourage someone from buying an UR...at best, it makes no difference at all (or only changes which UR someone purchases). Your line of thinking that a +2 no stacking will increase UR sales makes no sense to me.

I agree, a no-stack TTE will not encourage token sales. That’s why I don’t want no-stacking. I don’t think I ever said I did. I think a +1 no-stacking TE would be 100% pointless, and a +2 no-stacking almost equally so. If those are the only two options, I’d as soon save the slot for something useful.

I’m talking about something along the lines of what Picc wrote: +2, but with a max loot cap of +10. New players can still by Nuggets(the only TEs the Jeff makes money on nowadays) and maybe a couple of older ones, but the day will come when they trade in their TTE for an AoTF or CoA or something.

If you can afford a Nugget now, and you know that every URTE in history so far has at least doubled within a year of going OOP, you’d be silly not to get them now. A limited-cap transmute TE (TTE), whether it’s +1 or +2, whether it stacks or not, won’t stop people who can afford a PYP from getting one, so won’t have any negative effect on token sales.

If you’re saying someone would get a TTE instead of a URTE, I don’t see it. Maybe “as well as.”

The limited- or no-stacking TTEs are mostly going to appeal to newbies or people with a smaller budget. And, if we let it stack with Nuggets as Picc suggests, new players will buy them too, if they can afford them. Excited players will hang around longer and will have a chance to get to the point they move up to URTEs. So, in my mind, if there is any effect on token sales, it’ll be positive.

Brad Mortensen wrote:

kurtreznor wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote:

kurtreznor wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote: @kurtreznor - Why do you say we don’t agree? What you’ve proposed soundfs pretty close to what I’ve been talking about ever since post #101.

Like you, I never wanted it “no-stack,” just a loot cap limit.

You just spent about 5 paragraphs arguing how a transmute for +2 treasure is a good thing...or, at least why you disagree with mikes reason that it is bad. Technically not the same, i suppose.

Right... guess I’m missing something.

My understanding is that Mike only wants a +1 that won’t stack with anything. You sddand I want a +1 (or +2) that stacks with URTEs (and maybe the red ones) up to some limit much lower than the current max. At least that’s what I thought you said.

I thought mikes point was that a +2 treasure transmute that couldnt stack would disincentivize players from buying the nuggets. And while that wouldnt apply to everyone, i do agree that the only difference it would make is to discourage someone from buying an UR...at best, it makes no difference at all (or only changes which UR someone purchases). Your line of thinking that a +2 no stacking will increase UR sales makes no sense to me.

I don’t want no-stacking. I don’t think I ever said I did.

What about here?...

Brad Mortensen wrote: I’m not suggesting you’re “trying” to be anything. I’m just saying how the effects of that position strike me.

Mike Steele wrote: Creating a new non-UR TE token that is just as good as UR TEs , and non-stacking...

That’s an oxymoron. If they don’t stack, or have a stacking limit, then they are clearly inferior to the existing URTEs, and nowhere “as good.”

I actually think it would have the opposite effect you predict. It would drum up interest in the less-affluent players, and give them a step that costs tens vs hundreds of dollars. Stacking limits mean they’d outgrow them, and maybe encourage them to go the UR route sooner than they would have without that step.

People who can’t afford $100 for a single UR can’t afford a UR. Period. People who can will opt for the URs because they stack without limit. I honestly don’t see this having any negative impact on token sales.

And people with limited funds should be better off with a fun token with an in-game effect instead of instantly steering them into greed. It’s the wrong message to send new players.

And since they don’t stack well, the day they upgrade they’ll pass them along to the next generation. Contrarywise, any Nuggets they buy will be locked in forever and will seldom if ever have any downstream benefit.

I now see multiple times in this quote that you reference a stacking limit, as opposed to no stacking. Though, you seem to be using them interchangeably in some cases. But the difference is the crux of this whole discussion. Mike specifically called out +2 no stacking. You cant change the scenario to +2 limited stacking to prove him wrong.

In your most recent post, you say +2 no stacking would be nearly pointless, so it seems that we ALL agree that it shouldnt be made. Perhaps for different reasons.