TOPIC: Standardization of trade token transmutes & more

Once we get into February 2017, could True Dungeon look into standardizing trade token transmutes?

Currently:

www.truedungeon.com/trade-token-redemption

Below is the list of all currently available Trade tokens and which tokens are required to make them. Some of the Trade Tokens require 25 "units" of tokens to make one Trade Token. These 25 units are determined by the formula below:

Unit Conversion:
Rare = 6 units
Uncommon = 3 units
Common = 1 unit

This formula works for these tokens:

Alchemist's Ink: 25 units of any Potion, Elixir, Salve, or Oil
Alchemist's Parchment: 25 units of any Scroll
Darkwood Plank: 25 units of any Gear and/or Item
Enchanter's Munition:25 units of any Ammunition (Arrow, Bolt, Bullet, or Sling Stone)
Mystic Silk: 25 units of Cloaks, Clothing, Bracers*, Girdles, Belts, or Gloves
Philosopher's Stone: 25 units of any Amulet, Bracelet*, Earcuff, Earring, Circlet, Crown, Necklace, Ring, or Wand

The other recipes fall into a "25 units" category:

Aragonite: 25 of any Rare Weapon and/or Armor
Dwarven Steel: 25 of any Common Weapon
Elven Bismuth: 25 of any Uncommon Weapon
Minotaur Hide: 25 of any Common Armor
Oil of Enchantment: 25 of any Uncommon Armor

Instead of having 2 different exchange rates, why not make it all one exchange rate?

Aragonite: 150 units of any Rare Weapon and/or Armor
Dwarven Steel: 25 units of any Common Weapon
Elven Bismuth: 75 units of any Uncommon Weapon
Minotaur Hide: 25 of any Common Armor
Oil of Enchantment: 75 units of any Uncommon Armor

The exchange rate would be identical (it's still 25 rare weapons or armor) but it puts all trade tokens on the same exchange rate, unit-wise. It doesn't happen often here (but it does happen) where one of us newer folks mistakenly thinks (albeit temporarily) that 6 rare weapons = 30 points (and therefore 1 trade token with a 5 point remainder).

Right now we have two separate exchange rates, basically two different currencies. This change would still weight the higher value trade tokens appropriately but would eliminate the need to remember which trade token follows which exchange rate.

Additionally, it has been suggested many, many times to include a method to make quick conversion easier to avoid the hassle of looking up what each token converts to.

Thermal printing has come a long way in a short amount of time (look at 2015/2016 token images compared to any year prior, the difference is striking). We have the ability to place high resolution images with little to no clarity loss or additional cost.

Why not miniaturize the images used on the trade tokens themselves and place that symbol above the name of the token?



(forgive my hack job, Paint is all I have here at work)

It would make quick sorting easier and could potentially spark interest in transmuting in new players asking what the symbol means.

Additionally, when the transmute labels print out, could we get the listing of eligible components printed with the labels? For example, instead of just a slip of paper that says Aragonite, it would say "Aragonite: 25 Rare Weapons and/or Armor" (or "150 units, see above ).

Thank you for any consideration/feedback/responses.

-Joshua

I love the idea of putting the Trade Token symbol on the Tokens. There have been too many times that I've had to open up the TDdb to remember what R/UC/C Token transmutes into what.

I like both ideas - standardizing the exchange rate and identifying the trade token on the token. If the printing of the trade token image is problematic, a simple alphabetic designation could be used (ex: on the top of the token, opposite of the class designations).

Alchemist's Ink = AI
Alchemist's Parchment = AP
Argonite = AG
Darkwood Plank = DP
Dwarven Steel = DS
Elven Bismuth = EB
Enchanter's Munition = EM
Golden Fleece = GF
Minotaur Hide = MH
Mystic Silk = MS
Oil of Enchantment = OE
Philosopher's Stone = PS

Love it.

Excellent ideas. I will add my support (not that it means anything) . My only suggestion is the transmute icon not be placed above the title.

Ed

MasterED wrote: Excellent ideas. I will add my support (not that it means anything) . My only suggestion is the transmute icon not be placed above the title.

Ed

Yeah, it does look a little off there, I agree. Open real estate is at a premium though, I'm not sure where else it could go.

Joshua Baessler wrote:

MasterED wrote: Excellent ideas. I will add my support (not that it means anything) . My only suggestion is the transmute icon not be placed above the title.

Ed

Yeah, it does look a little off there, I agree. Open real estate is at a premium though, I'm not sure where else it could go.

It could go on the left or right side of the token where the year marker is, reducing the year marker to only the left side.

I was personally thinking the same thing.

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Joshua Baessler wrote:

MasterED wrote: Excellent ideas. I will add my support (not that it means anything) . My only suggestion is the transmute icon not be placed above the title.

Ed

Yeah, it does look a little off there, I agree. Open real estate is at a premium though, I'm not sure where else it could go.

It could go on the left or right side of the token where the year marker is, reducing the year marker to only the left side.

Not sure if there is a possibility of new trade goods ever being released but that would make things less dynamic cause now you would have a bunch of tokens that COULD possibly be used for the new trade good but no symbol.

The only issue I see with the "units of" for items that require a specific rarity of items, is there could be some confusion that ONLY rare can be used for Aragonite, etc. You know there are going to be a couple newer people who turn in 150 common weapons for an Aragonite only to have to have it shipped back to them. Maybe I'm not putting enough faith in peoples ability to read properly.

Maybe just do both, like:

Argonite - 25 rare armor and/or weapon tokens (150 units)

mattnaik wrote: I'm not putting enough faith in peoples ability to read properly.

This!

Druegar wrote:

mattnaik wrote: I'm not putting enough faith in peoples ability to read properly.

This!

No, of course you shouldn't try to read to a porpoise