This topic is elaborate of chapter "biggest problem", from my previous post about dCrops Beta balancing needs. It's a part of my suggestions and can be used as a draft for the upcoming balancing patch.
Lore
Recipes are handed down from generation to generation. And old ladies swap them on the village square bench while gossiping. The Burn for recipes mechanism brings these exchanges right into the game. Support babushka with a seed for her kick-aas garden, or give her a new fridge. She'll repay you by teaching you secrets from her Kitchen.
Beta cards list
8x common seeds
8x rare seeds
4x epic seeds
4x legendary seeds
4x legendary Tree
1x Trinity Land
4x rare blueprint
4x epic blueprint
6x legendary blueprint
4x common recipes
10x rare recipes
9x epic recipes
4x legendary recipes
These cards im suggesting to remove from packs opening card pool (27 out of 66 cards). Yeah... it's a lot.
.
How it works
Burn 2x random same rarity cards => you get 1x recipe of the same rarity.
Example: Burn 2x Fridge blueprint => you have 100% chance for 1x random rare recipe drop
Burn 10x random same rarity cards => you get 1 recipe of the higher rarity.
Example: Burn 5x Toaster blueprint + 5x Microwave BP => you have 100% chance for random legendary recipe drop.
Burn 1x higher rarity card => you get 5x lower rarity recipes.
Example: Burn 1x Kiln blueprint => you have 100% chance for 5x random common recipes drop.
.
We can't keep the same ratio for burn/swap mechanism at higher, lower or same rarity, because of the chance to drop a random card. If the ratio was the same, i.e. 10:1 higher rarity, 1:1 same rarity and 1:10 lower rarity, we could swap until we get exactly what we need. And we don't want that. That's what the market is for in the game.
The main reason for implementing this mechanism is to remove recipes from the card pool, which drop when packs are opened, to better distribute them according to current player needs, and to be able to more conveniently burn unneeded blueprints that can't be used in the game due to by-design utilities.
Only cards from the same edition should be swapped in this way, and it should be charged with a fee that the market loses. I suggest 50Crops higher rarity, 25Crops lower rarity, 10Crops same rarity (5Crops per burned card). Not being able to swap cards from the next expansion for Beta recipes will preserve some card exclusivity.
If necessary, this burn mechanism can expand the recipe list with new recipes without negatively affecting the %drop of seeds and blueprints.
Ingame impacts
The droprate of the seeds rises. Especially rare and common seeds, which we all like and need a lot. For example, anyone who cooks Smoky Bean Soup and Classic Sandwich, or Cauliflower Steaks, needs over 100pc of Cilantro seeds for all seasons-long production. Those who produce mead need 2x Bee Hive and over 100 flower seeds. We like these seeds because they harvest in 1-3 days, so they are not as land intensive.
Hundreds of unneeded blueprints disappear from the marketplace, which players swap for recipes. They burn for the recipes they need and level up their cooking skills. The ones they don't need will probably end up on the market, mainly as legendary recipes, which will put downward pressure on the price to a more acceptable limit and could revive the market overall. All seeds should be more affordable. Likewise, droprate of most wanted cards (Windmill, Trinity Land, Cask) should be better.
So the main benefit will be for new players, but also for everyone else. Bigger droprate for seeds will make crafting more attractive, which doesn't require recipes. It could also make Cooking more attractive, as ingredients will be more available and there will be better distribution of recipes.
There will be negatives as well. Especially players who have opened multiple packs recently may feel cheated. Alternatively, those who have joined recently and dropped a lot of recipes. It will also bring the possibility of arbitration, which a few speculators may see. But in the long run, everyone should benefit. New players and existing ones alike.
