TOPIC: Endgame 2019 Transmuted Recipes

I'm TOTALLY against having Golden Fleece be part of the Kilt Recipe, much less two of them. For those of us that have been buying multiple Kilt URs to transmute multiple Kilts (I have a group of 10, plus I'd like extras), we've been doing that based on the transmute pattern for these Eldritch tokens. If Golden Fleece were going to be required, it should have been stated up front. Requiring 20 Golden Fleece to outfit my group with Kilts is entirely unreasonable, especially in the year the Story Arc token is issued.

I think it's better to add Golden Fleece to transmutes such as Relics and Legendary tokens where it's unlikely someone that outfits an entire group will be transmuting them.

The Kilt Recipe should be consistent with the Eldritch Ring and Boots recipes. If it is going to vary from that, it should have been announced two years ago.

Fiddy wrote:

Hawk Fingle wrote: I'm against any relics needing any Golden Fleece, and any legendaries needing two or more need some serious justification other than "more pulls at the box means more fleece!", especially in a year where there is a recipe requiring 18 monster bits and another recipe requiring 4 bits.

I didn't like it last year, and I doubly don't like it this year.

I blame the maybe half-dozen people complaining about having too many monster bits and lamenting that they couldn't sell them for prices as high as they used to.

Price of Golden Fleece has gone from 80+ to under 40 in about a year, and stayed there.

Monster bits are a substantial value component of each treasure pull.

As a result the value of treasure pulls has dropped substantially, which hurts everyone who pulls treasure.

I like all the 3-4 star transmutes.

I think all the relic and legendary transmutes should have fleece reduced by 1 at the minimum. I have been saving all my bits for 3 years to make the Bead, so to then need to buy another 20 bits to make the Kilt will be insanely expensive, on top of already requiring the 3 URs.That and I need to save several to make the 3-4 star transmutes which all but one require at least 1 monster bit as well. except for the single common transmute.

Phil

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Fiddy wrote:

Hawk Fingle wrote: I'm against any relics needing any Golden Fleece, and any legendaries needing two or more need some serious justification other than "more pulls at the box means more fleece!", especially in a year where there is a recipe requiring 18 monster bits and another recipe requiring 4 bits.

I didn't like it last year, and I doubly don't like it this year.

I blame the maybe half-dozen people complaining about having too many monster bits and lamenting that they couldn't sell them for prices as high as they used to.

Price of Golden Fleece has gone from 80+ to under 40 in about a year, and stayed there.

Monster bits are a substantial value component of each treasure pull.

As a result the value of treasure pulls has dropped substantially, which hurts everyone who pulls treasure.

I'm ok with some Fleece. but two for a relic/eldritch and 3 for legendary is high.

Matthew Hayward wrote:
Monster bits are a substantial value component of each treasure pull.

As a result the value of treasure pulls has dropped substantially, which hurts everyone who pulls treasure.

Those people were not thinking ahead to the story arc transmute. Or the addition of Fleece to more recipies last year. I've been hoarding bits like crazy and may still not have enough to do what I want.

Xavon wrote: That's a lot of Fleece, especially considering its a Story transmute year and extra especially on the Kilt.

Apparently we only cater to the token hoarders these days; further alienating the newer players.

The falling price of a trade good is just part of the open market system.
It should not be Jeff's prerogative to secure the market price of any token.
At best the kilt should only require a single fleece.

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Fiddy wrote:

Hawk Fingle wrote: I'm against any relics needing any Golden Fleece, and any legendaries needing two or more need some serious justification other than "more pulls at the box means more fleece!", especially in a year where there is a recipe requiring 18 monster bits and another recipe requiring 4 bits.

I didn't like it last year, and I doubly don't like it this year.

I blame the maybe half-dozen people complaining about having too many monster bits and lamenting that they couldn't sell them for prices as high as they used to.

Price of Golden Fleece has gone from 80+ to under 40 in about a year, and stayed there.

Monster bits are a substantial value component of each treasure pull.

As a result the value of treasure pulls has dropped substantially, which hurts everyone who pulls treasure.

And yet the price to attend a con and the price to play TD has gone up.

I don't see more bits being available as a valid argument to increase fleece requirements in recipes when the price to gain them in the first place goes up each year.

Relics should not have fleece, legendaries should have 1, and any more than that needs to be debated on a per-recipe basis that is based on the power of the token and not on current speculation of fleece pricing. I understood the reasons for the hammers last year. I didn't agree with it, but I understood it.

This batch of recipes is ridiculous in its bits and fleece requirements, and I'm going to say so.

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Fiddy wrote:

Hawk Fingle wrote: I'm against any relics needing any Golden Fleece, and any legendaries needing two or more need some serious justification other than "more pulls at the box means more fleece!", especially in a year where there is a recipe requiring 18 monster bits and another recipe requiring 4 bits.

I didn't like it last year, and I doubly don't like it this year.

I blame the maybe half-dozen people complaining about having too many monster bits and lamenting that they couldn't sell them for prices as high as they used to.

Price of Golden Fleece has gone from 80+ to under 40 in about a year, and stayed there.

Monster bits are a substantial value component of each treasure pull.

As a result the value of treasure pulls has dropped substantially, which hurts everyone who pulls treasure.

6 months ago
People were complaining that
GF are everywhere, maybe now they
Will go up in value a bit.

Aothos wrote:

Xavon wrote: That's a lot of Fleece, especially considering its a Story transmute year and extra especially on the Kilt.

Apparently we only cater to the token hoarders these days; further alienating the newer players.

The falling price of a trade good is just part of the open market system.
It should not be Jeff's prerogative to secure the market price of any token.
At best the kilt should only require a single fleece.

I disagree:

True Adventues controls the supply of monster bits / fleece by deciding what the treasure mix is.

True Adventures controls the demand of fleece by deciding what recipes are.

If the price of bits/fleece goes to 0, the value of a treasure pull declines by:
old_price*odds_of_getting_bit

As treasure pulls get devalued:

A. Total effective cost to play the Dungeon increases
B. Demand for URTEs would be predicted to decline
C. Demand for PyPs and tokens would be predicted to decline

Under basic economic assumptions.


It is good business for TD to monitor the value of a treasure pull, and managing the value of monster bits is an effective way of doing it, as player behavior changes in token purchases don’t impact the supply of bits.

Fiddy wrote:

Hawk Fingle wrote: I'm against any relics needing any Golden Fleece, and any legendaries needing two or more need some serious justification other than "more pulls at the box means more fleece!", especially in a year where there is a recipe requiring 18 monster bits and another recipe requiring 4 bits.

I didn't like it last year, and I doubly don't like it this year.

I blame the maybe half-dozen people complaining about having too many monster bits and lamenting that they couldn't sell them for prices as high as they used to.

I have a CoA and don't have that much laying around.

Harlax wrote: Maybe I misunderstood the purpose of the Treasure Boosting Charm.

How likely is it that a newbie with a single rare Treasure Enhancer will have the monster bits to make one of these?

Good point, I love this token in concept, really needs to be more achievable though,

Ogre belt, i guess thematically a ogre would need a silk factory to keep up but ouch, rather see a 5 silk or up the gp.

Whetstone, the correct answer here is buy a discount UR weapon instead of making this, I get that it uses all the trade goods of weapons. Maybe consider just having this be: steel/bismuth/aragonite plus the set rare? Still seems steep.

Bead, as expected, i don't like the bead but recipe is predictable and what a combo should be, all bits plus a rare.

Going to see how many folks have been sitting on bits and how many fleeced over the past few years. Slightly regretting dumping bits for a kilt this season.

Overall i realize not my year, now have zero interest in the kilt. 3 UR's plus the trade goods for that?!

Obviously more valuable feedback is lining up recipes against historicals, but one of the things I was looking out for is need for AI and AP as they seemed to be in shorter supply than normal. The AI, AP, MS demands on these are massive. And, it's repetitive.

I get that a belt uses MS, though I would imagine thematically an Ogre Magi belt would use PS and DS/MH or EB/OE. But, there is a huge bias towards AI, AP, MS even when it makes no thematic sense. For example, why wouldn't a Lute take like 25x DP and 5x MS given that instruments turn into DPs? That would help upvalue DP more, as well.

I'm fine with Kilt being one GF, but relics at 2 and legendaries at 3 does sound like trying too hard to correct the fallen monster bit market. GF should mean something - I certainly stopped making any as soon as Ring of Heroism was not something I was going to be transmuting, but it's less disruptive on a go forward basis to focus on cleaning out a ton of DPs from folks. I sit on so much stuff no one will ever use as transmuting to DP doesn't do anything.

Only the Dog is an unusually high number of DPs.

The legendary necklaces would make far more thematic sense to me absorbing PSs at a much higher rate than AIs and APs.

As for Widseth's, first impression is that I really like recipe #2. There's nothing wrong with having people retain one of their three UR instruments (and selling them to people who don't make legendaries, aka vast majority of people who play, if they feel the need to not own them). I personally would be advantaged if it were 3x Aragonite and 1x EB/OE, but it doesn't kill me that a legendary recipe looks like that.

Aside from the Golden Fleece on the kilt the others look good I think. I looked back and Eldritch items didn’t normally require gold or Golden Fleece. So adding Golden Fleece is a surprise and will be a problem for many.