TOPIC: 2024 Special Token Images < Feedback Please!

Kirk Bauer wrote: But then I realized that the Paths to Enlightenment also transmute into a "Mark", so that makes it even worse if I'm understanding everything correctly. Anybody who buys $2ks will get a Mark of the Tenants but that won't be useful for anybody who is going for a Mark of Enlightenment. It seems contradictory.

I'd push back a bit on this. You are correct from the perspective of an individual buyer. But, from the perspective of a group who pools together for an $8k order, you now have:
- One person who will get a Mark of Enlightenment
- Four people who will get Mark of the Tenets
- 8 people who can go to Ring Con (assuming they bought the previous rings)

It also provides a path for those of us who may not spend $2500-$3000 (total) for Enlightenment and the special event, but might spend $150-$300 (total) for Tenet.

Maybe allow a Path of Alignment Fragment to be turned in as a wild card substitute for any of the 2k Tenant components. This could be similar to the two options we got with the dragon eggs.

Regardless of what in game powers Mark of Enlightenment will have, please remember it also has benefits that the Mark of Tenets will not; name personalization on the token, and a side event at Ring Con.

AAckeret wrote: Regardless of what in game powers Mark of Enlightenment will have, please remember it also has benefits that the Mark of Tenets will not; name personalization on the token, and a side event at Ring Con.

It still should have a power equal to the general cost post event when compared to another token in the same slot at a much cheaper price point.

Kusig wrote:

AAckeret wrote: Regardless of what in game powers Mark of Enlightenment will have, please remember it also has benefits that the Mark of Tenets will not; name personalization on the token, and a side event at Ring Con.

It still should have a power equal to the general cost post event when compared to another token in the same slot at a much cheaper price point.

I kinda tend to agree, tho they way you said it made my head hurt a bit 😂

Tyraël The Just wrote: I’m against limiting slotless items that each player can use. I have spent a long time collecting any that could help and even those that couldn’t for my current class just Incase I shifted to a different one. Limiting slotless will have made my last decade of collecting a complete waste.

Perhaps I wasn't clear -- I'm not suggesting we limit "slotless". I'm suggesting that we re-classify a few specific slotless tokens as "limited" (e.g. tomes) and then limit both the per-type count and total count of those tokens.

This would allow a larger number of additional tokens of existing types (tomes, lamps, etc) and the creation of new types in the future, without people being able to equip an infinite number of these future tokens. That opens up some design space without infinite power creep.

Kirk Bauer wrote:

Tyraël The Just wrote: I’m against limiting slotless items that each player can use. I have spent a long time collecting any that could help and even those that couldn’t for my current class just Incase I shifted to a different one. Limiting slotless will have made my last decade of collecting a complete waste.

Perhaps I wasn't clear -- I'm not suggesting we limit "slotless". I'm suggesting that we re-classify a limited number of slotless tokens as "limited" (e.g. tomes) and then limit both the per-type count and total count of those tokens.

I guess for me to fully understand it I’d have to see it further in development. I’m much more of a hands on learner. As we have progressed I have printed every version of the safehold since release ( 3rd revision )because it helps me see things better. They only issue I can see at this point is how those who who’s those tomes or things like them feel about them being reclassed and then a limiter put on it. Or it could be only future ones are “ limited “. Still kinda uneasy about it, mostly because I’m trying to wrap my head around it

Tyraël The Just wrote:

Kusig wrote:

AAckeret wrote: Regardless of what in game powers Mark of Enlightenment will have, please remember it also has benefits that the Mark of Tenets will not; name personalization on the token, and a side event at Ring Con.

It still should have a power equal to the general cost post event when compared to another token in the same slot at a much cheaper price point.

I kinda tend to agree, tho they way you said it made my head hurt a bit 😂

My bad, currently in a meeting that has gone an hour past scheduled time. Brain has started to turn into mush.

Mark of Enlightenment should be more powerful than Mark of Tenets as it costs essentially 4x the price of Tenets and has more parts. The additional benefits of name on token and Ring Con event should not limit the in game effect dramatically unless the Ring Con event grants something in game as well.

Kirk Bauer wrote:

Tyraël The Just wrote: I’m against limiting slotless items that each player can use. I have spent a long time collecting any that could help and even those that couldn’t for my current class just Incase I shifted to a different one. Limiting slotless will have made my last decade of collecting a complete waste.

Perhaps I wasn't clear -- I'm not suggesting we limit "slotless". I'm suggesting that we re-classify a few specific slotless tokens as "limited" (e.g. tomes) and then limit both the per-type count and total count of those tokens.

This would allow a larger number of additional tokens of existing types (tomes, lamps, etc) and the creation of new types in the future, without people being able to equip an infinite number of these future tokens. That opens up some design space without infinite power creep.

As proposed, this would absolutely decrease the number of total slitless items one could equip, as you can currently have 7 horns, however many tomes, chalice, etc.

We can debate whether that is a good thing or not, but if we limit tome to one, that effectively cuts off 3 "slotless" tokens.

Your plan wouldn't reduce overall slotless numbers, but it would limit the choices.

I'd be fine with this, but I'd bet others would disagree.

Kirk Bauer wrote:

Tyraël The Just wrote: I’m against limiting slotless items that each player can use. I have spent a long time collecting any that could help and even those that couldn’t for my current class just Incase I shifted to a different one. Limiting slotless will have made my last decade of collecting a complete waste.

Perhaps I wasn't clear -- I'm not suggesting we limit "slotless". I'm suggesting that we re-classify a few specific slotless tokens as "limited" (e.g. tomes) and then limit both the per-type count and total count of those tokens.

This would allow a larger number of additional tokens of existing types (tomes, lamps, etc) and the creation of new types in the future, without people being able to equip an infinite number of these future tokens. That opens up some design space without infinite power creep.

Can I carry more than the limit but be encumbered, and have to move half speed?

Marc D wrote:

Kirk Bauer wrote: But then I realized that the Paths to Enlightenment also transmute into a "Mark", so that makes it even worse if I'm understanding everything correctly. Anybody who buys $2ks will get a Mark of the Tenants but that won't be useful for anybody who is going for a Mark of Enlightenment. It seems contradictory.

I'd push back a bit on this. You are correct from the perspective of an individual buyer. But, from the perspective of a group who pools together for an $8k order, you now have:
- One person who will get a Mark of Enlightenment
- Four people who will get Mark of the Tenets
- 8 people who can go to Ring Con (assuming they bought the previous rings)

It also provides a path for those of us who may not spend $2500-$3000 (total) for Enlightenment and the special event, but might spend $150-$300 (total) for Tenet.

Although I am loath to disagree with Kirk, I find myself in Marc D's camp on this. As long as there's only one Mark/Tattoo slot, I think it's fine to offer something for both the $8k buyer and the $2k buyer. I'm the quartermaster for my group. I hope to make 2 Marks of Enlightenment, one for me and one for my husband. I'll use any Mark of the X Tenet tokens for other members of our party. They'll get something nice (but presumably not as nice as the Mark of Enlightenment) for their Mark/Tattoo slot. Buyers of $8k packages who don't have a party/don't want to subsidize party members can always sell their Mart of the X Tenet tokens. People who spend $2k/year on tokens will get Marks of the X Tenet, but I could also see demand for them for people who just buy tokens from auctions/on the secondhand market.

Kirk Bauer wrote: Sorry, just wanted to double-down on my previous post. I love the idea of a $2k bonus (since we don't have modules any longer and AG badges are virtually useless for anybody making large purchases since we get so many of them). So I like the idea of a good UR, and I like the idea of a transmute for those (otherwise we'll just get too many of the same tokens that we can't use). But I didn't like introducing another new slot right now.

But then I realized that the Paths to Enlightenment also transmute into a "Mark", so that makes it even worse if I'm understanding everything correctly. Anybody who buys $2ks will get a Mark of the Tenants but that won't be useful for anybody who is going for a Mark of Enlightenment. It seems contradictory.

I have a BIG suggestion for handling these new slot concepts (marks, spirit pets) and some older ones (tomes, lamps, chalice) and I'd like to get some opinions. Today we have "slots" and we also have "slotless" tokens, and then things like tomes that feel kind of in the middle to me -- there isn't a tome slot, yet there are a bunch of tome tokens.

What if we have a new type of token called "limited" -- it doesn't take a slot, nor is it slotless. By default, you can have ONE of each type of limited token (tome, mark, spirit pets, lamps, chalices), but there is also a limit on the TOTAL number of "limited" tokens, say 3 by default. Then you can have some tokens or attributes that independently affect each parameter -- you could have a token that lets you equip an additional mark in the future, but a separate token that expanded your max "limited" slots.

Kirk I think this is a great idea! +100! Would help with build diversity, Token design space, and slowing power creep. Hopefully Jeff considers it.