TOPIC: It's time to eliminate the 3rd level player bonus

I was going to post something about this multiple runs and multiple cons stuff and then realized I was just contributing to the derailing of the original thought of this thread. And since the originality of it really doesn't affect me (I buy out runs or I don't care about which class I play) I am going to bow out. Jerks are going to be jerks whichever system is in place, imo. I hope you guys can figure out something to limit that for we do need a strong community of vets and new players.

jedibcg wrote:

Picc wrote: Even as someone who usually attends multiple cons per year I would be against this. If you want to see people complain about elitism lets put some kind of bonus on taking 5 cross country trips per year. Texas, West coast, Madison aren't exactly close, odds are your basically only giving a bonus to people who can afford air travel in addition to several vacations per year and that doesn't sit right.

I really don't see that is much different than awarding people that were able to play in 2003 vs anyone who could not afford it then. Or that big token purchases get more of a reward than smaller token purchases. This game has rewarded those that support it. I am not advocating for or against a system to reward multiple cons, just pointing out that it does seem odd to me that some are okay with some times of rewards for supporters of the game but not for others.

Rewards for playing multiple cons would not affect how I play at all. I would go to the same cons that I would with or without a reward system. Also if someone got a higher multiple cons leaderboard than me I would not care the same way that I don't care that their were people playing before me. Neither of those things affect how and when and how much I play and enjoy the game. I do understand that there are some that do. Just putting it out there that I do not care.

I don't really think we are rewarding players who have been playing for many years differently then those that started recently. If anything we're treating them worse since it is now way easier to get XP if you are a new player. Further if a player who started playing today got to level X they would get the same reward as a level X player who started years ago.

On the other hand if you started rewarding people who attended multiple cons per year it would create a system heavily biased in favor of those who can afford multiple vacations per year / airfare. Maybe that's what we want, I don't know, but it will do nothing to prevent the idea of elitism that people seem to want to combat so badly. For me at least it would further the impression that TD values different classes of players differently and I don't think that's a good look. Remember as much as you want to go after new business you don't want to alienate your existing base either (it hasn't exactly worked out well for the comic book industry for example)

SnakeEyes (Eric) wrote:
My points are...

1) This is an infrequent issue. We have bigger fish to fry like TE lending sharks, bag check disappointment, and especially vets who spoil the dungeon for new players. (That last one is the #1 complaint that I hear when a new player has had a bad run.)

2) Rules, existing or new will not prevent jerks from being jerks.

3) Any new rule should put both Vets and new players on equal footing to get what they want. As others have said, $80 is $80 no matter who paid it, everyone should have a good time.

Is it in our best interests to grow TD with new players? Yes. But we should also show them the ropes and let them know the community isn't going to bend over backward for them for their TD careers. Both parties should give. And in my experience, most vets are already bending.

I agree that vets are already bending, although I think that, for most of us, it is in our interests to do so. Showing newer players how to become vets by acting like they've been there before has a lot of value. I think that, by my allowing newer players to choose their class, they may do just that the next time they play. I also think that we have to have a rule.

Just because other things seem more important to you (or anyone, not you specifically), doesn't mean this one isn't also important.

I also want to address the other things you feel are more important.
1. "TE lending sharks"
You've mentioned this one in a couple threads. I think that if both parties are agreeable to a split that is even or fair, it is a reasonable thing to do. You may feel it unseemly, and not choose to do it yourself, but that doesn't mean no one should. If you had invested in 10 CoA, 10 ISSN, 10 ISGN, and planned to invest in 10 of ISPN and whatever comes next, you might feel differently.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting that a vet with 10 of each should just use the new players to keep all of the increase and still give them only 3 pulls. Or I hope no one is doing that.
Jeff has already made the ruling that TEs have to go through the entire dungeon, and should not be loaned out to anyone you are not on a run with. I think that settles the issue pretty neatly. Simply put, if you don't like the feel of something, don't do it. Much like if you don't like what's on TV, change the channel or turn it off.
I personally played TD for 13 years before someone "TE loan sharked" me, and it spurred me to become a "Big Token Buyer" now. You never know where the next one will come from. Even if it spurs a newer player to go out and get their own TEs just for themselves, they are helping to support the game.

Bag Check Disappointment
This one is definitely something that is an issue, but if every TD player were allowed to check a bag, we would need more volunteers and much more space. It would be nice, and I think it might be possible, but would certainly require some logistics to work out. In addition, we would then probably need to replace that benefit for those who already enjoy it.

Vets spoiling runs for newer players
I think we can work to be better as a community. I think this community is good about doing things that help make the game better.

Druegar wrote:

Wade Schwendemann wrote: I would like to see TD implement some sort of a reward system that incentivizes multiple cons. We have a system for playing each dungeon once (XP), we have a system for how many tokens you buy (AG/Patron runs), why not a system for those who attend multiple cons?

That's definitely an intriguing idea. I'm sure folks who do multiple cons would appreciate it. However, there's a decent to definite chance that some folks who can't make it to more than one con would feel less than appreciative. I'm not saying it's not a valid concept, but if implemented, we (TD) would need to carefully consider how both camps may react.

That's true. I suppose the first question is whether it is in TD's interests to incentivize this at all or not.
Any benefits would have to be considered against any potential losses or displeasure from those who have played a long time, but only at one place, etc.

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

SnakeEyes (Eric) wrote:
My points are...

1) This is an infrequent issue. We have bigger fish to fry like TE lending sharks, bag check disappointment, and especially vets who spoil the dungeon for new players. (That last one is the #1 complaint that I hear when a new player has had a bad run.)

2) Rules, existing or new will not prevent jerks from being jerks.

3) Any new rule should put both Vets and new players on equal footing to get what they want. As others have said, $80 is $80 no matter who paid it, everyone should have a good time.

Is it in our best interests to grow TD with new players? Yes. But we should also show them the ropes and let them know the community isn't going to bend over backward for them for their TD careers. Both parties should give. And in my experience, most vets are already bending.

I agree that vets are already bending, although I think that, for most of us, it is in our interests to do so. Showing newer players how to become vets by acting like they've been there before has a lot of value. I think that, by my allowing newer players to choose their class, they may do just that the next time they play. I also think that we have to have a rule.

Just because other things seem more important to you (or anyone, not you specifically), doesn't mean this one isn't also important.

I also want to address the other things you feel are more important.
1. "TE lending sharks"
You've mentioned this one in a couple threads. I think that if both parties are agreeable to a split that is even or fair, it is a reasonable thing to do. You may feel it unseemly, and not choose to do it yourself, but that doesn't mean no one should. If you had invested in 10 CoA, 10 ISSN, 10 ISGN, and planned to invest in 10 of ISPN and whatever comes next, you might feel differently.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting that a vet with 10 of each should just use the new players to keep all of the increase and still give them only 3 pulls. Or I hope no one is doing that.
Jeff has already made the ruling that TEs have to go through the entire dungeon, and should not be loaned out to anyone you are not on a run with. I think that settles the issue pretty neatly. Simply put, if you don't like the feel of something, don't do it. Much like if you don't like what's on TV, change the channel or turn it off.
I personally played TD for 13 years before someone "TE loan sharked" me, and it spurred me to become a "Big Token Buyer" now. You never know where the next one will come from. Even if it spurs a newer player to go out and get their own TEs just for themselves, they are helping to support the game.

Bag Check Disappointment
This one is definitely something that is an issue, but if every TD player were allowed to check a bag, we would need more volunteers and much more space. It would be nice, and I think it might be possible, but would certainly require some logistics to work out. In addition, we would then probably need to replace that benefit for those who already enjoy it.

Vets spoiling runs for newer players
I think we can work to be better as a community. I think this community is good about doing things that help make the game better.

When I coach, I always stress that accepting loaned tokens is voluntary.

Player A plays 15 times at GenCon
Player B plays twice at each of the five cons.

Why reward Player B over Player A? I think the cheaper tickets at non-Gen cons is incentive enough.

I don’t mention comp tokens as incentive because I don’t think they realistically are. I agree with whomever said the completion token things has gotten completely out of hand. We’re going to be at what, 32 this year? We need to trim back to like eight good ones. I’m not taking three days off and spending $1k to fly cross country for six tokens. Even if they were all Soul Coffer caliber I’m much better off spending $100-something to buy them, especially with recent events of tokens running out and being left in Carbondale, so I could end up having to buy them anyway. Too many to manage, too confusing, and bad things happen too often as it is.

We need to keep things simple, not keep making things more complicated.

Now that we can get 6-7k experience per year, but the level bands are the same, I don’t think we need a level 3 reward anymore.

Picc wrote:

jedibcg wrote:

Picc wrote: Even as someone who usually attends multiple cons per year I would be against this. If you want to see people complain about elitism lets put some kind of bonus on taking 5 cross country trips per year. Texas, West coast, Madison aren't exactly close, odds are your basically only giving a bonus to people who can afford air travel in addition to several vacations per year and that doesn't sit right.

I really don't see that is much different than awarding people that were able to play in 2003 vs anyone who could not afford it then. Or that big token purchases get more of a reward than smaller token purchases. This game has rewarded those that support it. I am not advocating for or against a system to reward multiple cons, just pointing out that it does seem odd to me that some are okay with some times of rewards for supporters of the game but not for others.

Rewards for playing multiple cons would not affect how I play at all. I would go to the same cons that I would with or without a reward system. Also if someone got a higher multiple cons leaderboard than me I would not care the same way that I don't care that their were people playing before me. Neither of those things affect how and when and how much I play and enjoy the game. I do understand that there are some that do. Just putting it out there that I do not care.

I don't really think we are rewarding players who have been playing for many years differently then those that started recently. If anything we're treating them worse since it is now way easier to get XP if you are a new player. Further if a player who started playing today got to level X they would get the same reward as a level X player who started years ago.

On the other hand if you started rewarding people who attended multiple cons per year it would create a system heavily biased in favor of those who can afford multiple vacations per year / airfare. Maybe that's what we want, I don't know, but it will do nothing to prevent the idea of elitism that people seem to want to combat so badly. For me at least it would further the impression that TD values different classes of players differently and I don't think that's a good look. Remember as much as you want to go after new business you don't want to alienate your existing base either (it hasn't exactly worked out well for the comic book industry for example)

I'm not sure that the people that want to combat elitism have really thought it through. Where is the stopping point? Should we stop making Legendaries (and disallow the use of existing ones) since not everyone can get one? Should we only have Common tokens for everyone (or maybe no tokens, since someone with more Common tokens is more elite than someone that only has one pack)? Because that seems to be where the conversation of elitism is headed. I'm just not sure that "combating elitism" is a useful discussion.

If TD wants to reward people that play at multiple cons, I see that as no different than when Starbucks gives extra points towards their next free drink for visiting multiple locations (which they do sometimes). And like the Starbucks program I don't care whether TD does something like that or not. It isn't elitism, it is rewarding your customers for a behavior you've decided to incentivize them for. Whether TD wants to incentivize more than they currently do is something they have to decide.

Back on the topic of the 3rd level bonus... I'm struggling to remember whether I've actually seen it happen on a run I've been on. I'm fairly sure I've never used it myself, and I'd personally be fine getting rid of it. I just don't see the "first come, first serve" rule being much better. Do most new players even know that they can arrive 30 minutes before their run time? What happens if I plan two runs after each other with a bit more than 30 minutes between them (so I can be in the coaching room as soon as possible) and then lose some of that time due to say the addition of a feedback session to an AC or the first run being the first run of the day and the epilogue treasure is still locked up?

Honestly, as long as there can only be one of each class on a run, I don't see a "good" solution to picking classes being much better than what we have already. Just maybe "slightly less bad" solutions.

IF this is truly a problem that needs to be fixed, then lets actually fix it. I wasn't joking with my earlier comment about changing the party card to replace the names of the classes with the colors of the pucks and have 2 pucks for each color (20 pucks total compared to today's 14). Having rules for "what happens if there are two Bards singing, two Paladins guarding, two Dwarfs taunting, etc" seems like something that can be worked out with little difficulty. TD knowing how many of each card to have available is something they can use data to anticipate (starting with stats of which classes were played most/least often from the party cards of the last few conventions).

Let's kill some sacred cows! While we're at it, we'll solve the "but what if there's more than one Rogue, who gets the treasure" by getting rid of Rogue treasure (I never understood why one class could get 3 extra treasure). We'll also allow Clerics to use pointy weapons, Fighters to cast spells, and Wizards to heal while we're at it.

Ok, maybe I got carried away with that last bit... but seriously, if we want to fix class selection, then getting rid of the limit of one of each class ought to be on the table.

no first come first serve
if the run is at 7pm. classes picked then (you show up after 7pm, you get whats left)..
if people want to play the same class..roll off

The reality is that there is no first come first serve rule today, yet the vast majority of players assume there is. Even if you withhold the character cards until the official start time, players there first will still invoke it as a reason they should pick first. You can inform them that it is not a rule, but you will just create more dissension and arguments than we have today. Any solution that ignores this is doomed to be unpopular.

I suppose I meant to say that I think TD should reward those who do multiple runs, whether they are done at the same Con or across multiple Cons.

I do NOT think that reward should be choosing classes first.

Fiddy wrote:

Picc wrote:

jedibcg wrote:

Picc wrote: Even as someone who usually attends multiple cons per year I would be against this. If you want to see people complain about elitism lets put some kind of bonus on taking 5 cross country trips per year. Texas, West coast, Madison aren't exactly close, odds are your basically only giving a bonus to people who can afford air travel in addition to several vacations per year and that doesn't sit right.

I really don't see that is much different than awarding people that were able to play in 2003 vs anyone who could not afford it then. Or that big token purchases get more of a reward than smaller token purchases. This game has rewarded those that support it. I am not advocating for or against a system to reward multiple cons, just pointing out that it does seem odd to me that some are okay with some times of rewards for supporters of the game but not for others.

Rewards for playing multiple cons would not affect how I play at all. I would go to the same cons that I would with or without a reward system. Also if someone got a higher multiple cons leaderboard than me I would not care the same way that I don't care that their were people playing before me. Neither of those things affect how and when and how much I play and enjoy the game. I do understand that there are some that do. Just putting it out there that I do not care.

I don't really think we are rewarding players who have been playing for many years differently then those that started recently. If anything we're treating them worse since it is now way easier to get XP if you are a new player. Further if a player who started playing today got to level X they would get the same reward as a level X player who started years ago.

On the other hand if you started rewarding people who attended multiple cons per year it would create a system heavily biased in favor of those who can afford multiple vacations per year / airfare. Maybe that's what we want, I don't know, but it will do nothing to prevent the idea of elitism that people seem to want to combat so badly. For me at least it would further the impression that TD values different classes of players differently and I don't think that's a good look. Remember as much as you want to go after new business you don't want to alienate your existing base either (it hasn't exactly worked out well for the comic book industry for example)

I'm not sure that the people that want to combat elitism have really thought it through. Where is the stopping point? Should we stop making Legendaries (and disallow the use of existing ones) since not everyone can get one? Should we only have Common tokens for everyone (or maybe no tokens, since someone with more Common tokens is more elite than someone that only has one pack)? Because that seems to be where the conversation of elitism is headed. I'm just not sure that "combating elitism" is a useful discussion.

If TD wants to reward people that play at multiple cons, I see that as no different than when Starbucks gives extra points towards their next free drink for visiting multiple locations (which they do sometimes). And like the Starbucks program I don't care whether TD does something like that or not. It isn't elitism, it is rewarding your customers for a behavior you've decided to incentivize them for. Whether TD wants to incentivize more than they currently do is something they have to decide.

Back on the topic of the 3rd level bonus... I'm struggling to remember whether I've actually seen it happen on a run I've been on. I'm fairly sure I've never used it myself, and I'd personally be fine getting rid of it. I just don't see the "first come, first serve" rule being much better. Do most new players even know that they can arrive 30 minutes before their run time? What happens if I plan two runs after each other with a bit more than 30 minutes between them (so I can be in the coaching room as soon as possible) and then lose some of that time due to say the addition of a feedback session to an AC or the first run being the first run of the day and the epilogue treasure is still locked up?

Honestly, as long as there can only be one of each class on a run, I don't see a "good" solution to picking classes being much better than what we have already. Just maybe "slightly less bad" solutions.

IF this is truly a problem that needs to be fixed, then lets actually fix it. I wasn't joking with my earlier comment about changing the party card to replace the names of the classes with the colors of the pucks and have 2 pucks for each color (20 pucks total compared to today's 14). Having rules for "what happens if there are two Bards singing, two Paladins guarding, two Dwarfs taunting, etc" seems like something that can be worked out with little difficulty. TD knowing how many of each card to have available is something they can use data to anticipate (starting with stats of which classes were played most/least often from the party cards of the last few conventions).

Let's kill some sacred cows! While we're at it, we'll solve the "but what if there's more than one Rogue, who gets the treasure" by getting rid of Rogue treasure (I never understood why one class could get 3 extra treasure). We'll also allow Clerics to use pointy weapons, Fighters to cast spells, and Wizards to heal while we're at it.

Ok, maybe I got carried away with that last bit... but seriously, if we want to fix class selection, then getting rid of the limit of one of each class ought to be on the table.

+1 to all of the Fiddy-Cent logic here!

- Please, let's leave class warfare out of all aspects of TD. Players who spend a lot help keep the game alive, they should not be demonized.
- I go to 3 cons a year so I would miss two and would not mind at all if there was a tiered reward for attendees of 2-5 cons
- Rolling off is an honorable Gamers duel. Fate is left to the dice, not feelings.
- Multiple classes can be fun, at GC I was the Assassin Sub Class (Thank you Raven!) and the coach allowed another to be the Rogue. I let them do all the lock picking. Adding to your theme of killing Sacred Cows let's make some Tomahawk steaks by opening up the Sub classes to all runs so two people can play the "same"class. They would come in really handy and address a lot of issues brought up here.

lazlo_hollyfeld1985 wrote: no first come first serve
if the run is at 7pm. classes picked then (you show up after 7pm, you get whats left)..
if people want to play the same class..roll off

+1

Simple answers are always best. A sign posted in the coaching room with these simple rules could curtail most conflicts before they escalate.