TOPIC: "Ghosting" a run for Treasure - Changed at GenCon?

jedibcg wrote: I do believe you are attempting to help but you ARE bashing the wrong folks. Everyone here wants what is best for TD. We definitely disagree what is best, but I can guarantee you that those on this thread bend over backwards for this game that we love.

Lots that buy full runs are going for a group because it is a pain in the ass for individuals to get into the same group if they had to buy them as individuals. Gen con knows this and that is why 1 person is allowed to buy 10 tickets.

I'm not trying to bash anyone. Any offense was unintentional, I assure you.

I'm aware of *why* people do it, I'm simply noting that there are other potential ramifications in play. What if there aren't just 5 or 10 people buying out multiple runs in a few years? What if it's dozens. 50. 100.

If that becomes the primary way to play, it impacts the ability of non-forum participants to play at all.

TD still makes their money, but is that actually healthy for the game? That it's not about signing up through Gencon's system, but knowing people who have tickets to spare?

I don't actually have the answer to that, nor to I expect anyone here to. It's a musing, not an accusation.

If the number of runs is capped by logistics/volunteers, if the size of the runs are capped by space/DM attention demands (and more matters of course, these aren't exhaustive lists), then factors like double downs and bought out runs and treasure farming ventures have an impact on that starting point, and possibly one that's counter productive to the reason the runs were increased in number in the first place, if I'm not mistaken.

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Forar wrote: Wow, lots to read/comment on, let's start from the beginning.

Please - I'm begging - let's not

Too late. >.>

jedibcg wrote: You are way off the mark. I am pretty sure I am the only one to mention giving away free tickets. I do not do it for profit. I fill tickets eith ny group, if I wanted to profit I wouldn't worry about filling them at all.

You may have been the only one to mention it, but it's a fact that some people buy out runs, and then go looking for new players to fill the runs, free of charge, in exchange for lending those new players CoA and taking most of the treasure generated this way.

You may see this activity as ambassadorship, philanthropy, exploitation, or anywhere in between, but it occurs.

Matthew Hayward wrote:

jedibcg wrote: You are way off the mark. I am pretty sure I am the only one to mention giving away free tickets. I do not do it for profit. I fill tickets eith ny group, if I wanted to profit I wouldn't worry about filling them at all.

You may have been the only one to mention it, but it's a fact that some people buy out runs, and then go looking for new players to fill the runs, free of charge, in exchange for lending those new players CoA and taking most of the treasure generated this way.

You may see this activity as ambassadorship, philanthropy, exploitation, or anywhere in between, but it occurs.

Thank you, this was my larger point. I wasn't speaking exclusively of the 'free runs, but no treasure' aspect, that's simply one part of the larger notion that people want to control their groups.

And that's not wrong! 2 hours and that kind of money per player, it's entirely sensible.

I'm simply noting other aspects in play here. Take it to a more extreme conclusion; TD becomes popular enough with well funded people to have nothing but double downs! They're still making their money, but instead of ~8000 players, they have ~4000 players (presumably less as people double up on trying both dungeons, or puzzle vs combat, etc).

The outcome in sold tickets is the same, but their actual number of bodies walking through is considerably shifted.

Again, that's an extreme conclusion, that's probably never going to happen, but it's a musing regarding just how that kind of player based adjustment might have wider impacts, even if it's only 1% or 5% or 10%, it's still a change in how many people can play (and thus the demand for those tokens, such as the farming run issue that started things off here).

Matthew Hayward wrote:

jedibcg wrote: You are way off the mark. I am pretty sure I am the only one to mention giving away free tickets. I do not do it for profit. I fill tickets eith ny group, if I wanted to profit I wouldn't worry about filling them at all.

You may have been the only one to mention it, but it's a fact that some people buy out runs, and then go looking for new players to fill the runs, free of charge, in exchange for lending those new players CoA and taking most of the treasure generated this way.

You may see this activity as ambassadorship, philanthropy, exploitation, or anywhere in between, but it occurs.

Just a data point.

This year was the first year I did this, and my motives were ambassadorship. But the treasure made it possible. I offered the players to either pay half price ($28) and keep their normal treasure draws (3) or full price ($56) and keep all 16 treasure draws. With how valuable the treasure ended up I could have just made it free, but I didn't know that in advance. But still I preferred for them to have some skin in the game, but I also know that $56 is intimidating for many new players.

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Dave wrote:
This is my fear. If it goes too far and the game takes a downturn, it may never recover. And then all those farmers are left holding worthless tokens. So I think we all have an interest in making sure the game remains popular and thriving. Within reason I'm sure ghosting has minimal effect. But who decides what's within reason?

I propose a committee of Brad and Mike, with Jeff to break ties

Kirk Bauer wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

jedibcg wrote: You are way off the mark. I am pretty sure I am the only one to mention giving away free tickets. I do not do it for profit. I fill tickets eith ny group, if I wanted to profit I wouldn't worry about filling them at all.

You may have been the only one to mention it, but it's a fact that some people buy out runs, and then go looking for new players to fill the runs, free of charge, in exchange for lending those new players CoA and taking most of the treasure generated this way.

You may see this activity as ambassadorship, philanthropy, exploitation, or anywhere in between, but it occurs.

Just a data point.

This year was the first year I did this, and my motives were ambassadorship. But the treasure made it possible. I offered the players to either pay half price ($28) and keep their normal treasure draws (3) or full price ($56) and keep all 16 treasure draws. With how valuable the treasure ended up I could have just made it free, but I didn't know that in advance. But still I preferred for them to have some skin in the game, but I also know that $56 is intimidating for many new players.

I wasn't aware of the 50/50 split. In any case, I thought of your program as ambassadorship as well, certainly the new players seemed to like it.

I think this sort of arrangement is the most benign possible one (although I can imagine downsides).

I'm dead against rolling into a PuG and saying: here - if you equip this CoA it'll generate +14 treasure for you, you can have 2 of them and I'll take the other 12 (or whatever) - as that I think has a strong potential to generate hard feelings, and make the game feel "pay to win" or whatever.

The way you arranged it on the other hand let people come to you, and seems likely to generate a win/win (or possibly a win/lose with you losing if the pulls are sucky).

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Kirk Bauer wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

jedibcg wrote: You are way off the mark. I am pretty sure I am the only one to mention giving away free tickets. I do not do it for profit. I fill tickets eith ny group, if I wanted to profit I wouldn't worry about filling them at all.

You may have been the only one to mention it, but it's a fact that some people buy out runs, and then go looking for new players to fill the runs, free of charge, in exchange for lending those new players CoA and taking most of the treasure generated this way.

You may see this activity as ambassadorship, philanthropy, exploitation, or anywhere in between, but it occurs.

Just a data point.

This year was the first year I did this, and my motives were ambassadorship. But the treasure made it possible. I offered the players to either pay half price ($28) and keep their normal treasure draws (3) or full price ($56) and keep all 16 treasure draws. With how valuable the treasure ended up I could have just made it free, but I didn't know that in advance. But still I preferred for them to have some skin in the game, but I also know that $56 is intimidating for many new players.

I wasn't aware of the 50/50 split. In any case, I thought of your program as ambassadorship as well, certainly the new players seemed to like it.

I think this sort of arrangement is the most benign possible one (although I can imagine downsides).

I'm dead against rolling into a PuG and saying: here - if you equip this CoA it'll generate +14 treasure for you, you can have 2 of them and I'll take the other 12 (or whatever) - as that I think has a strong potential to generate hard feelings, and make the game feel "pay to win" or whatever.

The way you arranged it on the other hand let people come to you, and seems likely to generate a win/win (or possibly a win/lose with you losing if the pulls are sucky).

For better or for worse i've seen it more than once in a pug where a vet with the binder of treasure enhancer's offers to equip party for a price. I tend to buy out 1-2 runs for my core group and then pug a few more as i play more than my main group. I give the player credit, he stated this is what you're getting and what i'm getting 'i'm not forcing anymore, purely your choice but now i'm getting X out of the deal we make now'. Still not sure on my feelings regarding the player who i've done business with and admire quite a bit in other capacities.

Matt wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Kirk Bauer wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

jedibcg wrote: You are way off the mark. I am pretty sure I am the only one to mention giving away free tickets. I do not do it for profit. I fill tickets eith ny group, if I wanted to profit I wouldn't worry about filling them at all.

You may have been the only one to mention it, but it's a fact that some people buy out runs, and then go looking for new players to fill the runs, free of charge, in exchange for lending those new players CoA and taking most of the treasure generated this way.

You may see this activity as ambassadorship, philanthropy, exploitation, or anywhere in between, but it occurs.

Just a data point.

This year was the first year I did this, and my motives were ambassadorship. But the treasure made it possible. I offered the players to either pay half price ($28) and keep their normal treasure draws (3) or full price ($56) and keep all 16 treasure draws. With how valuable the treasure ended up I could have just made it free, but I didn't know that in advance. But still I preferred for them to have some skin in the game, but I also know that $56 is intimidating for many new players.

I wasn't aware of the 50/50 split. In any case, I thought of your program as ambassadorship as well, certainly the new players seemed to like it.

I think this sort of arrangement is the most benign possible one (although I can imagine downsides).

I'm dead against rolling into a PuG and saying: here - if you equip this CoA it'll generate +14 treasure for you, you can have 2 of them and I'll take the other 12 (or whatever) - as that I think has a strong potential to generate hard feelings, and make the game feel "pay to win" or whatever.

The way you arranged it on the other hand let people come to you, and seems likely to generate a win/win (or possibly a win/lose with you losing if the pulls are sucky).

For better or for worse i've seen it more than once in a pug where a vet with the binder of treasure enhancer's offers to equip party for a price. I tend to buy out 1-2 runs for my core group and then pug a few more as i play more than my main group. I give the player credit, he stated this is what you're getting and what i'm getting 'i'm not forcing anymore, purely your choice but now i'm getting X out of the deal we make now'. Still not sure on my feelings regarding the player who i've done business with and admire quite a bit in other capacities.

I have to say, as a player who experienced this, I simply considered it a benefit.
In fact, it has encouraged me to get my own CoA so I don't have to split the bonus, if I were ever to experience playing with that person again.

I think it's totally fine to offer it to the other players, and to takensure a cut. They can always decline it.
I assume no one ever turns iit down, and was told so by the player who loaned them to us.

I strongly consider this a huge benefit, and it encouraged me to get more invested in TD.

@Matt my point was Forar was saying multiple people were offering free tickets. Multiple people may be doing it but I am the only saying I am doing it.

@Forar seems like you are concerned about the number of bodies going through the dungeon but don't like players getting tickets into the of those without tickets through this forum and the Gen Con forum. I am having trouble reconciling the two.

I also agree that someone strong arming or just offering treasure deals in the coaching room feels wrong to me. Anyone working oit deals ahead of the run without the pressure of going into the run seems fine to me any if it was the same deal. Just my two cents on deals.

jedibcg wrote: @Matt my point was Forar was saying multiple people were offering free tickets. Multiple people may be doing it but I am the only saying I am doing it.


I also agree that someone strong arming or just offering treasure deals in the coaching room feels wrong to me. Anyone working oit deals ahead of the run without the pressure of going into the run seems fine to me any if it was the same deal. Just my two cents on deals.

I know you've been straight forward and posted, i've seen (few) others post newbie style runs with discounted tickets for loot.

I admire (also admittedly jealous) the straight up way i've seen it done from one vet on the treasure. I've also seen it go the other way where in the end you had hurt feelings as you had new players who didn't understand how treasure actually worked and the vet made no motion to explain till after the fact and 'they had a deal'.

Honestly after seeing it done last year (2015) was the mental push for me to find the pennies (sell mtg) to get what i needed to make my own CoA.

Sorry when I said Matt I meant Matthew Hayward, I should have been more clear.

Mike Steele wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Dave wrote:
This is my fear. If it goes too far and the game takes a downturn, it may never recover. And then all those farmers are left holding worthless tokens. So I think we all have an interest in making sure the game remains popular and thriving. Within reason I'm sure ghosting has minimal effect. But who decides what's within reason?

I propose a committee of Brad and Mike, with Jeff to break ties

In other words, it's all up to Jeff