"Change in the costs of magic spells - The current cost of balancing Enchantments leads to an uneven spending of relics. This is a disadvantage for all players, but it gets more and more critical the further a player progresses in the game. As an example a player might spend all his relics for Ascended Goods and then is stuck for a very long time on higher chapters. With changing the costs of spells, we hope to take away that problem."
Is there a schedule for this change?
I think the change has already been made, since the non-CC Enchantments in my Magic Academy (browser version) have been altered so that they now all require 2, 3, or 4 of a combination of
only my Boost+1 Relics, with none of them now requiring, as was the case, the Boost+2 Relics which
are still demanded by CCs (no change in quantities). If so, though, and as I've already stated (in far more words, which probably means nobody read it!) in my earlier post in this thread, the net effect of the Enchantments change upon my own usage of Boost+2 Relics will be zero, since I will continue, as I always have done, to produce no Enchantments at all in my MA other than constant CCs (using those same 3 x Boost+2 Relics, of course - one of each Tier), with a relatively uncommon and largely insignificant one-in-five to one-in-ten IM Spell included to cover those days when I don't log in for 24 hours.
As I've also said in my (again, probably largely unread!) much longer earlier post, the
other recent change, to the Tournament - i.e. the spreading of the necessary three types of CC-producing Relics across all nine Tournaments, rather than acquiring them from three 'push' weeks out of every nine - will actually
decrease my ability to store up Boost+2 Relics for use in my Ascended Goods Boost, since I do not see enough of the 5-day Combat Boosters in my Crafting location (and I win a negligibly small number of DAs in the Spire) to enable me to put in constant effort over a nine-week repeating Tournament cycle rather than being able to focus my Boosters on the three weeks of nine upon which I formerly relied to acquire enough Boost+2 Relics both to support my Crafting and to build up an adequate stockpile of these same Relics to achieve a full 700% Ascended Goods Boost.
Therefore, while the alteration to Relics used in making Enchantments has had no effect at all, since I make (almost) only CCs (other Enchantments being won from Tourneys and other sources) and the Boost+2 Relics used for those have not changed, the other and far more significant change to the availability of those same Relics - and my lack of enough Combat Booster buildings to acquire them over all nine weeks rather than only three weeks out of nine - has actually made my situation considerably
worse as far as my Ascended Goods Boost and my Crafting ability, equally, are concerned. As such, I can only say that if the aim was, as I have highlighted in bold above, to prevent players from spending most (if not all - I will still have some) of their Ascended Goods Relics and thus ending up stuck in higher Chapters for a long time, then to change the Enchantment requirements on one hand (negligible effect) but to noticeably increase the difficulty of acquiring Boost+2 Ascended Goods-supporting Relics on the other hand by spreading these across all nine Tournaments (significant detrimental effect), then that aim, in my own case at least, has not succeeded - quite the reverse.
If there is to be another, different change, which will mean either that CCs no longer have to be produced so frequently (e.g. if the CC cost of Recipes in the Crafting rotation were to be reduced), or that it will become possible to make CCs with either Boost+0 [preferably] or Boost+1 Relics as well as or instead of only Boost+2 Relics, then I, too, would much like to know when such a change will be implemented - and if there are no plans to do so, why at the very least using Boost+0 Relics as well as/instead of Boost+2 Relics for CCs has not been considered, since that would solve the CC-producing and/or any incipient Ascended Goods Relics shortage problems entirely.