TOPIC: 2023 Transmuted Recipes Proposals

Josh M. wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Wade Schwendemann (Dr. Uid) wrote: I'd agree that with the arcanum set can come a new precedent. I wouldn't be opposed to 2 of each. Adding fleece could help the market as well.

With the announcement of Ring Con, I'd expect the price of rings to go up a bit.

Every legendary sells for less than the sum of its parts. Relics as well. At this point, it feels like if you just want the thing, buying it is far better (see recent Ebay Auctions as proof). If you have more than 50% of needed trade goods, then purchasing can be worth it.

Wade, I missed this announcement. What is Ring Con, and when is it? Is it similar to Skull Con, the transmuted Ring gets you entry?

I forget when it was announced, but TPTB put out that transmuting the rings would allow entry to a special event similar to Skull Con.

That's super cool, I'm really glad to hear it. Something to look forward to in four years.

Ian Lee wrote: The number of URs is irrelevant to the amount of TG or gold that should go into these recipes. Though, on a tangent, if someone wants to argue for removing URs from legendary recipes going forward, I'm all for that.

Each UR adds $80-$120 to the transmute cost of the item. I feel like that's fairly relevant to discussions of what else the item should cost.

Josh M. wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Wade Schwendemann (Dr. Uid) wrote: I'd agree that with the arcanum set can come a new precedent. I wouldn't be opposed to 2 of each. Adding fleece could help the market as well.

With the announcement of Ring Con, I'd expect the price of rings to go up a bit.

Every legendary sells for less than the sum of its parts. Relics as well. At this point, it feels like if you just want the thing, buying it is far better (see recent Ebay Auctions as proof). If you have more than 50% of needed trade goods, then purchasing can be worth it.

Wade, I missed this announcement. What is Ring Con, and when is it? Is it similar to Skull Con, the transmuted Ring gets you entry?

I forget when it was announced, but TPTB put out that transmuting the rings would allow entry to a special event similar to Skull Con.

Jeff revealed it the burning the May 28th Trent Talk on YouTube,

Yes, during the May 28 episode of True Dungeon Talk with Trent, Jeff said he is planning to hold a Ring Con for people who make the transmuted rings. Ring Con will be similar to Skull Con, but it’s too soon to know where it will be held or exactly when. Jeff anticipates it will happen in 4 years when the transmuted ring is available.

Josh M. wrote:

Ian Lee wrote: The number of URs is irrelevant to the amount of TG or gold that should go into these recipes. Though, on a tangent, if someone wants to argue for removing URs from legendary recipes going forward, I'm all for that.

Each UR adds $80-$120 to the transmute cost of the item. I feel like that's fairly relevant to discussions of what else the item should cost.

By that argument the TG should have been higher for the Kilt than any of the other Eldritch since it took the fewest URs. The two just have no relationship to each other, and it makes some sense that they don't in that these are multiyear transmutes where time is a component to the recipe. Whatever the Shirt recipe comes out to is what I expect every Arcanum TG amount to be.

Keep in mind that the argument isn't in a vacuum. Everything is interconnected. The more these items pull on TGs, the less other transmutes can. Jack up these to 3x Golden Fleece, and the demand for MB will skyrocket as I expect at least 900 Shirts to be made. That can reduce the usefulness of any other outlet for GF for a while.

Anyone able to view the beta document, the link in post 1 gives me a 404 error.

I do not want to see Arcanum costs increased. It’s difficult enough to stick with orders over a few years or track down inflated cost URs. Shouldn’t patience be rewarded? It’s fairly often that we buy these URs or bonus tokens without using them. A couple of the shirts have made it into my builds, but that isn’t always the case.

Ian Lee wrote:

Josh M. wrote:

Ian Lee wrote: The number of URs is irrelevant to the amount of TG or gold that should go into these recipes. Though, on a tangent, if someone wants to argue for removing URs from legendary recipes going forward, I'm all for that.

Each UR adds $80-$120 to the transmute cost of the item. I feel like that's fairly relevant to discussions of what else the item should cost.

By that argument the TG should have been higher for the Kilt than any of the other Eldritch since it took the fewest URs. The two just have no relationship to each other, and it makes some sense that they don't in that these are multiyear transmutes where time is a component to the recipe. Whatever the Shirt recipe comes out to is what I expect every Arcanum TG amount to be.

Keep in mind that the argument isn't in a vacuum. Everything is interconnected. The more these items pull on TGs, the less other transmutes can. Jack up these to 3x Golden Fleece, and the demand for MB will skyrocket as I expect at least 900 Shirts to be made. That can reduce the usefulness of any other outlet for GF for a while.

I think we're looking at this from very different perspectives. I'm looking at this as a consumer. Cost of the transmute should, in theory, equal the utility I get from the transmute. I don't make my token decisions based on the good or ill it will do TDHQ. I like True Dungeon, and I did increase my spend during the pandemic because I wanted to help them stay afloat. But I'm their customer, I spend my money to get value back for myself. Money I spend on tokens is to increase the fun I have on runs, and a sense of satisfaction in my collection. If the cost to me to transmute an item is higher than what I get from the item, why would I transmute it? The Kilt had arguably the lowest utility of any of the eldritch items, so it made sense for it to be cheapest. I wouldn't pay for the kilt anywhere near what I'd pay for the Boots. I imagine most consumers make their decisions much closer to where I make them than make them based on what it'll do to the macro trade good balance in the community.

Josh M. wrote: I think we're looking at this from very different perspectives. I'm looking at this as a consumer. Cost of the transmute should, in theory, equal the utility I get from the transmute. I don't make my token decisions based on the good or ill it will do TDHQ. I like True Dungeon, and I did increase my spend during the pandemic because I wanted to help them stay afloat. But I'm their customer, I spend my money to get value back for myself. Money I spend on tokens is to increase the fun I have on runs, and a sense of satisfaction in my collection. If the cost to me to transmute an item is higher than what I get from the item, why would I transmute it? The Kilt had arguably the lowest utility of any of the eldritch items, so it made sense for it to be cheapest. I wouldn't pay for the kilt anywhere near what I'd pay for the Boots. I imagine most consumers make their decisions much closer to where I make them than make them based on what it'll do to the macro trade good balance in the community.

This is a feedback thread on the presented recipes though - so our feedback needs to include looking at it from the perspective of TD.

Questions I think we should be asking (but can't be sure without guidance)
Is this token more desirable than existing slot options?
a. If yes, does this recipe maximize the amount of trade goods for its perceived slot value?
b. If no, does the final price encourage creation by being less expensive than more desirable options, but more expensive than lesser options?

Do the full set of transmutes reasonably map to a specific purchase price? For example, can any of the relics reasonably be made from the desired X size purchase. Can the legendaries be made from Y size purchase.

Do the transmute ingredients match the role playing components for creation? For example, does a weapon use sufficient amounts of Steel, Bismuth, and Argonite, while does a cloak use sufficient amounts of Silk and Hide?

Is it intended for the transmute to address potential imbalances in the outstanding trade good pool? If yes, does it adequately include over supplied item X while containing minimal under supplied item Y.

I’m late to this party, but the link to the proposed transmutation isn’t working? Did they take it down?

I think others have said it, but it is worth repeating. A lot more shirts are going to be made than boots. So a small bump in TGs used to create the shirts might allow for a larger reduction in TGs for the boots - it doesn't need to be a 1:1 TG change between the two recipes.

Kentastic wrote: I’m late to this party, but the link to the proposed transmutation isn’t working? Did they take it down?

Same here. +1