TOPIC: NO Legendary Transmute Recipes to be Altered EVER

Jeff, thanks for the additional information! I agree, Charms of Avarice are a huge ongoing cost for True Dungeon, especially when people with sets of 10 go on a large amount of runs using all 10 each time. I think making the recipe more expensive is a better solution than removing it from circulation completely. Perhaps you hold off for awhile (or permanently) on creating additional recipes for it beyond these three - that would eventually slow down new transmutations of it.

Have you considered whether the Coin of Wealth is a good idea? It's a lot more expensive to make, but it would also potentially be a bigger drain on True Dungeon. If someone got 10 of them, given that they are both slotless and give even more tokens per run, they could do numerous pick up runs and easily outfit the entire group with them each time.

Regarding the other Legendary tokens, are you only looking at reducing the recipes for them, or might some recipes become more expensive. I'd think most players would be OK with the recipes being less expensive, except perhaps for players that already transmuted them at the higher price (and it sounds like that would have been awhile ago since you said some of these are almost never transmuted).

Jeff Martin wrote:

ini wrote: What problem are you trying to solve here? This feels like changing stuff "just because".

Some visibility into the type of change and magnitude would probably help people at least understand what and why

Good question! I appreciate your curiosity. I should have given more info in the first post.

Charm of Avarice - CoA's have gotten too cheap for players to transmute based on historical secondary-market prices. I used these prices back in 2023 when the newest recipe (#3) was created to allow folks with the Amulet of Treasure Finding (and Beads) to use them to make the CoA. Every CoA created is a big liability for TD as some players use them to collect 100's or even 1,000's of treasure pulls in a year. And I hope that TD sticks around for a long time. Therefore, we want to make sure we keep CoA relatively rare. The alternative is just to remove the CoA entirely from the Transmute Program once the final Bead is out next year.

Other Legendaries - The tone of my post was to let folks know we are changing the recipe for the CoA -- and MAYBE other Legendaries. I thought it would be worth taking a look at old Legendaries that were hardly NEVER (or completely never) made due to their low desireability and recipes. TaMor's +4 Mithral Bracers come to mind in this case, and maybe lowering it might be good so newer folks have a way to equip a Legendary. I can run a report to see what Legendaries were rarely made -- if at all, and see what we can do to make them more desireable by reducing the recipe for a 15 year old Legendary. Or, maybe we just leave them as is?

I like the idea of reducing lesser-used recipes, for sure.

However.

Why are you making changes based on the secondary market? This is not a healthy approach to the game, or frankly, the business.

Bryan/OddSquirrel wrote:

Jeff Martin wrote:

ini wrote: What problem are you trying to solve here? This feels like changing stuff "just because".

Some visibility into the type of change and magnitude would probably help people at least understand what and why

Good question! I appreciate your curiosity. I should have given more info in the first post.

Charm of Avarice - CoA's have gotten too cheap for players to transmute based on historical secondary-market prices. I used these prices back in 2023 when the newest recipe (#3) was created to allow folks with the Amulet of Treasure Finding (and Beads) to use them to make the CoA. Every CoA created is a big liability for TD as some players use them to collect 100's or even 1,000's of treasure pulls in a year. And I hope that TD sticks around for a long time. Therefore, we want to make sure we keep CoA relatively rare. The alternative is just to remove the CoA entirely from the Transmute Program once the final Bead is out next year.

Other Legendaries - The tone of my post was to let folks know we are changing the recipe for the CoA -- and MAYBE other Legendaries. I thought it would be worth taking a look at old Legendaries that were hardly NEVER (or completely never) made due to their low desireability and recipes. TaMor's +4 Mithral Bracers come to mind in this case, and maybe lowering it might be good so newer folks have a way to equip a Legendary. I can run a report to see what Legendaries were rarely made -- if at all, and see what we can do to make them more desireable by reducing the recipe for a 15 year old Legendary. Or, maybe we just leave them as is?

I like the idea of reducing lesser-used recipes, for sure.

However.

Why are you making changes based on the secondary market? This is not a healthy approach to the game, or frankly, the business.

It seems like Jeff was fairly clear on that in his post for CoA. Each CoA transmuted represents an ongoing cost to True Dungeon in additional tokens to players, in some cases 100's or more. If the cost to transmute each CoA is too low, too many of them are transmuted which results in even more cost to True Dungeon. By raising the transmute cost, fewer are transmuted, keeping the ongoing cost to True Dungeon more limited.

I concur that the secondary market price shouldn't be the baseline.

What if a large scale player that has 10+ CoAs decides to liquidate them for $700 each? Does that mean the CoA recipe cost should go up?

What if the cost of OE goes up to $300 each in 8k auctions, because of a severe shortage, and it pushes the cost of PYPs down to $40? Does that mean the CoA recipe cost should go up?

Mike Steele wrote: Have you considered whether the Coin of Wealth is a good idea? It's a lot more expensive to make, but it would also potentially be a bigger drain on True Dungeon. If someone got 10 of them, given that they are both slotless and give even more tokens per run, they could do numerous pick up runs and easily outfit the entire group with them each time.

Coin of Wealth is only an extra +1 treasure over its constituent parts. And it's VERY expensive. Each player needs a Safehold 1 to equip it also.

I agree with this wholeheartedly There were a number of factors which pushed down the cost of PYP's this year, to people making their Mark's of Enlightenments, to making their rings, and other Marks, with the cost of EB and OE skyrocketing. Since there's a cap on funding for these kinds of auctions, it means some things come down in price. I don't like that these recipe changes are being made due to the secondary market.

.

Jeff Martin wrote:

ini wrote: What problem are you trying to solve here? This feels like changing stuff "just because".

Some visibility into the type of change and magnitude would probably help people at least understand what and why

Good question! I appreciate your curiosity. I should have given more info in the first post.

Charm of Avarice - CoA's have gotten too cheap for players to transmute based on historical secondary-market prices. I used these prices back in 2023 when the newest recipe (#3) was created to allow folks with the Amulet of Treasure Finding (and Beads) to use them to make the CoA. Every CoA created is a big liability for TD as some players use them to collect 100's or even 1,000's of treasure pulls in a year. And I hope that TD sticks around for a long time. Therefore, we want to make sure we keep CoA relatively rare. The alternative is just to remove the CoA entirely from the Transmute Program once the final Bead is out next year.

Other Legendaries - The tone of my post was to let folks know we are changing the recipe for the CoA -- and MAYBE other Legendaries. I thought it would be worth taking a look at old Legendaries that were hardly NEVER (or completely never) made due to their low desireability and recipes. TaMor's +4 Mithral Bracers come to mind in this case, and maybe lowering it might be good so newer folks have a way to equip a Legendary. I can run a report to see what Legendaries were rarely made -- if at all, and see what we can do to make them more desireable by reducing the recipe for a 15 year old Legendary. Or, maybe we just leave them as is?

I definitely think looking at less desirable legendaries and "buffing" them by reducing transmute costs would be a good idea, as I am sitting on my +3 Mithral Bracers and other Relics where for a single stat boost it is not worth the 40K in gold and other resources. This would help keep some of these timeless tokens around longer without having to errata them, and make certain choices like Omni Cubes more desirable.

I think the need to adjust certain Legendaries up to reduce liability for the company also makes sense for long term health, my concern is with the communication and no set policy. I was going to suggest something like Fred's approach, the changes would be announced on 1/1, but not go into affect until ~ 4/1. This gives people who were saving up for years to make one the ability to review the effort it would take to get it done, or how much additional it would cost them to wait until after the increase. With only a few weeks notice and no visibility to the changes right before the holiday, it feels out of the blue. I'm going to try and get mine submitted this month and have to delay my Stronghold instead, but I'm fortunate in having most of what I need on hand. If others are a few trade goods short, then they have to try to purchase/order/trade for them in the next week or two and submit before the unannounced change hits.

Going forward, a policy of how they would be addressed built in, with announcement, grace period, etc similar to Omni, would help keep things consistent.

Phil

Given all this information Coin of Wealth should be the top end of Treasure Enhancers going forward. No new TEs and cap treasure at whatever coin of wealth + nuggets gives you. The reason so many CoA are getting made is because the URs this year and last were fairly lackluster from a power creep standpoint and given how many people are pushing for Ring Con fragments / Rings / Marks the drop in price had to go somewhere which hit PYPs. From the 2x 8ks I bought I think all of them were beads and I made multiple CoA from it because the recipe is cheap and it was the easiest way to get my investment back out so I could get my fragment pieces.

When you ultimately change the recipe for CoA I would be very very cautious not to add more crunch to the already desperate need for EB / DS / OE and probably just bump up the quantities of the lesser used materials like DP / MS / PS.

I would also be in favor of reducing the mythic transmute cost for Coin of Wealth if the idea is to reduce the excess number of treasure tokens that just get wasted and turn into transmute fodder.

Someone with max treasure at that point would be able to opt in to condensed treasure without having to make sure everyone else in the group has a CoA to cap themselves out thus reducing the chance they have to take a big ole chunk of normal treasure thus created more output from TDHQ of stuff thats just going to get sent back and broken down.

#ReduceTheLandfillWaste

Really good explanation, thanks.

I think many of us were reading the phrase you initially used, "popular old legendaries" to mean things like Pharacus and Drue's. Based on your clarification, that's clearly not what you meant.

Totally understand trying to keep CoA transmute costs at a high level for business reasons. I also agree that looking at reducing the recipe on less popular legendaries like TaMor's that no one is making makes good sense.

I think if you give 60 days notice of any increase in the COA recipe, or change that isn't a straight up reduction in a recipe, with specific details on what those changes are, this would be much better received.

Jeff Martin wrote:

ini wrote: What problem are you trying to solve here? This feels like changing stuff "just because".

Some visibility into the type of change and magnitude would probably help people at least understand what and why

Good question! I appreciate your curiosity. I should have given more info in the first post.

Charm of Avarice - CoA's have gotten too cheap for players to transmute based on historical secondary-market prices. I used these prices back in 2023 when the newest recipe (#3) was created to allow folks with the Amulet of Treasure Finding (and Beads) to use them to make the CoA. Every CoA created is a big liability for TD as some players use them to collect 100's or even 1,000's of treasure pulls in a year. And I hope that TD sticks around for a long time. Therefore, we want to make sure we keep CoA relatively rare. The alternative is just to remove the CoA entirely from the Transmute Program once the final Bead is out next year.

Other Legendaries - The tone of my post was to let folks know we are changing the recipe for the CoA -- and MAYBE other Legendaries. I thought it would be worth taking a look at old Legendaries that were hardly NEVER (or completely never) made due to their low desireability and recipes. TaMor's +4 Mithral Bracers come to mind in this case, and maybe lowering it might be good so newer folks have a way to equip a Legendary. I can run a report to see what Legendaries were rarely made -- if at all, and see what we can do to make them more desireable by reducing the recipe for a 15 year old Legendary. Or, maybe we just leave them as is?

Daniel White wrote: Really good explanation, thanks.

+1

I think if you give 60 days notice of any increase in the COA recipe, or change that isn't a straight up reduction in a recipe, with specific details on what those changes are, this would be much better received.

I still think 60 days notice is too short for the sea change of putting an expiration date on previously-timeless recipes.

Once it's announced (and published in tokenDB) that e.g. "This recipe is subject to change with 60 days notice" or "This recipe is subject to change each year", players can adapt their future buying decisions based on whatever new expectation you set. But for this initial highly sudden and unexpected change, I think the current recipes should still be honored for the next 6-12 months.

David Zych wrote:

Daniel White wrote: Really good explanation, thanks.

+1

I think if you give 60 days notice of any increase in the COA recipe, or change that isn't a straight up reduction in a recipe, with specific details on what those changes are, this would be much better received.

I still think 60 days notice is too short for the sea change of putting an expiration date on previously-timeless recipes.

Once it's announced (and published in tokenDB) that e.g. "This recipe is subject to change with 60 days notice" or "This recipe is subject to change each year", players can adapt their future buying decisions based on whatever new expectation you set. But for this initial highly sudden and unexpected change, I think the current recipes should still be honored for the next 6-12 months.

Let's extend the change in the CoA recipe to 6/1/26 -- so folks can have about 6 months notice AND some can make them at Ring Con. Thanks for the feedback all!