TOPIC: Safehold Program Details - Feedback Please!

BeLinda Mathie wrote: Page 6 of the PDF states: “There is no limit to the number of Hireling, Follower or Mythic tokens that can be created by a collector so long as they have the required recipe and Benefit tokens. However, your character can only equip one Hireling, one Underling, and one Follower token.”

Should the first Mythic be Underling? And should the second line end with something like “, unless you own Safehold II or Safehold I tokens.”

Thanks! I will fix the above. You can make as many Safeholds as you wish, and other than the secondary market, they are the only way to acquire the helper/trainer tokens.

Questions: Will players be allowed to make more than one Safehold at a given level? Will there be any way to acquire Steward tokens other than by making the associated Safehold? (Besides potentially buying them from another player?) I ask because if each Safehold only comes with 5 Steward tokens, it will not be possible to make more than 5 Hirelings/Underlings/Followers.

I keep seeing people mention Safehold V should be cheaper for newer players. I don't agree with this at all. It totally depends on a players financial situation. If 100 more Trent's come along they won't bat an eye at the current Safehold V cost. In a rewards program the aim is to set the cost floor where you want it for all customers (current and new). And right now the Safehold V looks very cheap.

This isn't a Token that your supposed to get right away, it's a building your constructing over time. It's supposed to cost more. And both new and current players don't need one at all to enjoy the game. It's an added perk. I think the original recipe was low. Hopefully it doesn't come down anymore.

COREY PARISEAU wrote: I like that you added "Safehold V Under Construction" token to the required recipe for "Safehold V". I think "Hireling Steward" needs to be added to the Hireling recipe though.

I still think the recipe is a bit rich for new players given how much is needed between the tower and the actual hireling...BUT...I'm not the boss, lol.

Exciting stuff!

Thanks!

Mike Steele wrote: Hi Jeff,

There are multiple places in the rules where it states you can only equip one follower/hireling/underling. Should those be revised to say something like (at X Safehold level), since at Safehold I (for all 3) and II (for 2 of 3) those bump up to two of each.

Thanks!
Mike

Thanks!

Kenban wrote: I think the recipe should be more generic, that just seems way too specific. As it’s designed it’s not going to help remove excess tokens, it’s just going to make the current problems worse. Instead of specific tokens making it more like the maps and just say
80x if any Trade 1
10x of any trade 2
2x Golden Fleece

Less worry about recipe upkeep from year to year. Lets people get rid of excess tokens. Will help balance the trade tokens.

This is worth considering. I think Ian and a few others mentioned it as well. Much easier to tweak this type of recipe each year however I wonder what this would do to the trade good market..could be bad..????..... where's Matt Hayward when you need a statistical critique.

Rob F wrote:

Kenban wrote: I think the recipe should be more generic,...
80x if any Trade 1
10x of any trade 2
2x Golden Fleece...

This is worth considering. I think Ian and a few others mentioned it as well. Much easier to tweak this type of recipe each year however I wonder what this would do to the trade good market..could be bad..????..... where's Matt Hayward when you need a statistical critique.

It would make it harder to adjust the price of a specific trade good you wanted to target. The result would be the cheapest trade good being (nearly) the only one used and none of the others until all trade 1s and 2s eventually equal out in price within their group (in theory)

Cassie wrote:

Rob F wrote:

Kenban wrote: I think the recipe should be more generic,...
80x if any Trade 1
10x of any trade 2
2x Golden Fleece...

This is worth considering. I think Ian and a few others mentioned it as well. Much easier to tweak this type of recipe each year however I wonder what this would do to the trade good market..could be bad..????..... where's Matt Hayward when you need a statistical critique.

It would make it harder to adjust the price of a specific trade good you wanted to target. The result would be the cheapest trade good being (nearly) the only one used and none of the others until all trade 1s and 2s eventually equal out in price within their group (in theory)

Thanks for the insight and sub'ing in for Matt!

Cassie wrote:

Rob F wrote:

Kenban wrote: I think the recipe should be more generic,...
80x if any Trade 1
10x of any trade 2
2x Golden Fleece...

This is worth considering. I think Ian and a few others mentioned it as well. Much easier to tweak this type of recipe each year however I wonder what this would do to the trade good market..could be bad..????..... where's Matt Hayward when you need a statistical critique.

It would make it harder to adjust the price of a specific trade good you wanted to target. The result would be the cheapest trade good being (nearly) the only one used and none of the others until all trade 1s and 2s eventually equal out in price within their group (in theory)

How about

50x of first stack of trade 1
20x of second stack of trade 1
10x of third stack of trade 1.

This creates 80x of trade 1 but across three distinct trade items. I think across three, it would have enough leverage to normalize

Of course do the same for trade 2
5x of first stack of trade 2
3x of second stack of trade 2
2x of third stack of trade 2


And definitely raise the amount of fleece needed overall. Fleece is actual run experience. Let the safehold recipes reflect that

The link for the pdf is not working for me

I respectfully but strongly suggest that TD sets pricing/recipes by taking a hard look at the target market.

If the goal of Safehold Vs is to excite new folks about transmuting (and coming back more so they can make transmutes happen), you’re talking about occasional players whose builds have a few Rares and often no TEs. Set the recipes so that they can get an appropriately-powered slotless buff with loot from a few runs and they’ll have a goal worth coming back for. Set the starter recipes at the UR (much less Relic) price level and you’re telling them that TD is only for the big spenders—a message that will actively turn potential loyal/happy players off.

Big jumps in recipe costs and benefits between Safehold levels are fine as long as each level matches the target demographic.

Jamie Campbell wrote:

Cassie wrote:

Rob F wrote:

Kenban wrote: I think the recipe should be more generic,...
80x if any Trade 1
10x of any trade 2
2x Golden Fleece...

This is worth considering. I think Ian and a few others mentioned it as well. Much easier to tweak this type of recipe each year however I wonder what this would do to the trade good market..could be bad..????..... where's Matt Hayward when you need a statistical critique.

It would make it harder to adjust the price of a specific trade good you wanted to target. The result would be the cheapest trade good being (nearly) the only one used and none of the others until all trade 1s and 2s eventually equal out in price within their group (in theory)

How about

50x of first stack of trade 1
20x of second stack of trade 1
10x of third stack of trade 1.

This creates 80x of trade 1 but across three distinct trade items. I think across three, it would have enough leverage to normalize

Of course do the same for trade 2
5x of first stack of trade 2
3x of second stack of trade 2
2x of third stack of trade 2


And definitely raise the amount of fleece needed overall. Fleece is actual run experience. Let the safehold recipes reflect that

PLEASE STOP ASKING FOR THIS TO REQUIRE MORE FLEECE. This recipe already requires too much fleece. I run every VTD once and every in person dungeon at least twice (with my wife...net 4-8 persons full treasure per dungeon), and the ONLY reason I could afford safehold V right now is because there was not multi-year monster bit transmute for the past 3 years.
Once we have the multi-year monster bit transmute again, safeholds will be unaffordable unless you run VTD many times each weekend (or don't make the monster bit transmute).

Andy Strassmann wrote: I respectfully but strongly suggest that TD sets pricing/recipes by taking a hard look at the target market.

If the goal of Safehold Vs is to excite new folks about transmuting (and coming back more so they can make transmutes happen), you’re talking about occasional players whose builds have a few Rares and often no TEs. Set the recipes so that they can get an appropriately-powered slotless buff with loot from a few runs and they’ll have a goal worth coming back for. Set the starter recipes at the UR (much less Relic) price level and you’re telling them that TD is only for the big spenders—a message that will actively turn potential loyal/happy players off.

Big jumps in recipe costs and benefits between Safehold levels are fine as long as each level matches the target demographic.

There are transmutes every year aimed at that level of token spending, so hopefully those will act as an entry point for transmuting to get people excited about tokens and transmuting. To me, those are much better as entry points for beginning transmuting than the Safehold program.