TOPIC: NO Legendary Transmute Recipes to be Altered EVER

At the first of the year, you may notice that we tweaked some of the cost of older transmute tokens. I am specifically looking at you -- Charm of Avarice. This is fair warning that we might adjust some popular older Legendaries a bit to reflect changes in the market.

(cough...Charm of Avarice...cough)

Jeff, great idea! That CoA recipe was created when PYPs were running around $110 I think so it was based on that price, and now they're about half that amount.

29 days is NOT fair warning to players who have been gradually saving up for legendary recipes over months and years, secure in the knowledge that that those recipes were timeless.

If you absolutely must do this, please consider giving fair warning now for a change in 2027, not 2026.

Agreed! I have a baggie started for one legendary and was thinking about starting one for CoA. I guess I'll wait off on that.

I'll chime in to agree with Dave and Jadzia, I don't think its a very good precedent to set.

I vaguely recall the CoA recipe being designed stating it could change at the start of each year, though either my memory is making that up or it didn't make it into TokenDb. If my memory is good, I think its still a sudden change since it wasn't on tokendb and should have more notice for folks who weren't on the forums. Plus some changing on an recipe whose time limited components can still be acquired that was made before the 2k Patron Bonus item existed isn't unreasonable either. I think there should just be a guaranteed date the recipe is valid for communicated on tokendb so people can plan for things.

Changing older legendaries costs when historical precedent was they never change does leave a bad taste in my mouth personally. They are already limited by their Relics and UR components, and if too many are being made then perhaps its the costs of Omni Orbs and Omni Cubes are too low. I don't think meddling in the second hand market for old legendary costs is a terribly good look. I know the initial reaction of the few people I know getting into the game is huge disappointment that their plans for crafting may go awry and I worry they may just give up on them now and step further away from the game.

Recipes shouldn't be created, or adjusted, based on the market.

I'm also a bit worried about the sudden change in recipes, since it either hurts people that have already made it or hurts people building up over time for something.

If I could just get a heads up before any of these ones change, I'd appreciate it! Been chasing them for a bit because I like transmuting the legendary versus just outright buying it on the secondary market.

Bryan/OddSquirrel wrote: Recipes shouldn't be created, or adjusted, based on the market.

Why not?

What should recipes be based upon?

Ian Lee wrote:

Bryan/OddSquirrel wrote: Recipes shouldn't be created, or adjusted, based on the market.

Why not?

What should recipes be based upon?

Game design, ideally.

Could you be more specific?

Yeah. What I mean is that this stuff should be based on the game, not on the market. TD shouldn't really ever acknowledge the secondary market and definitely shouldn't let it influence how they make the game.

Recipes should be constructed in a way that makes sense both diagetically and mechanically. A cloak should use silks and hides and fleece, perhaps; a sword should use steel and so on and so on. That's the diagetic. Then, the numbers and additions should be based on desired difficulty and time to collect the pieces to make it.

And then, you don't change that recipe. You might add more recipes - options are always great - but changing a recipe, and especially for this reason, feels manipulative, both of players, and of the secondary market.