Ability to Downgrade a Building

[OIM20]

Summary:

Where in the past users have requested the ability to downgrade a building for the purposes of saving time/resources on selling and then rebuilding the structure, the suggestion is put forth by @The Fairy and @Darielle to be able to downgrade event or set buildings (specifically referenced is the Moonstone Library) for the purposes of being able to obtain the items offered by the building in a chapter which one has already passed.

Maybe we should suggest that it is possible to chapter downgrade buildings - that could solve the gum/bismuth problems and I find that e.g. gum trees are a lot more useful when they give seed instead of gum!

I really wish we could do that. I'm lucky I didn't accidentally upgrade the wrong thing the other day, when I would have gone from seeds to moonstone. I agree; seeds are so much more useful.

(Yes, I did speak with both @Darielle and @The Fairy before posting this thread. Credit where credit is due, and they both said they were agreeable to my posting the thread for greater community discussion.)

____________________________________​

Proposal:

For those (like me) who do not have a full ML or aren't that far into the game, please reference this page: https://elvengems.com/spire-new-buildings/. Thank you to the lovely folks at ElvenGems for maintaining their wonderful resources. (I mean that sincerely.) Our focus is on the first three pieces of the set, not the library proper or endless scrolls.

As you can see at that link, the resource output for the Gate, the Gum Tree, and the Mana Plant all change at chapter 9. The Gate changes again at chapters 12 and 14. The Tree changes again at chapters 11 and 12. The Plant remains the same after chapter 9 per that chart, though it hasn't been updated past chapter 15.

The issue at hand in this example is oversupply. Though this can be a regional issue with how cities are moved together on the map when, for lack of a better term, server defragmentation is underway, there seems to be an overall consensus that the library as a complete set has deregulated the markets in certain items. The proposition put forward is to make it possible to regress the building to help ameliorate the issues of oversupply and of trade-hoarding. (See this suggestion thread by @ET-inf3rno for an understanding of that concept if you have not encountered it.)

The ability to downgrade, though, should not be limited just to fixing unforeseen issues (such as market glut). Making the option available to players on all event/set buildings would give them more freedom in structuring their city, allowing them to take full advantage of the output of buildings which did not exist in earlier chapters of their play.

____________________________________​

Visual Mock-up, Screen:

Obviously this isn't professional, though I did play with Inno's innate visuals. This is just a potential of what the screen could look like. It is, however, where I would expect the option to appear. Since this would be a tab on the building's attributes pages, it would be visible to all players, though any restrictions on its use would be applied as they are applied to upgrades currently.

In this example, an instant is used to downgrade, and it is applied in the same way that upgrades are with the Royal Restorations. This should allow for easy transfer of code. This method, 1 square=1 instant, is the method @The Fairy told me she prefers and had in mind with her suggestion of the feature.

____________________________________​

Pros:
- Improved player happiness. The more control players have over the buildings in their city in a city building game, the happier they are. The happier they are, the more likely they are to continue to play. The more they continue to play, the more likely they are to spend money. (Inno is a business with a bottom line; realism is key.)

- Access to a building's function in a chapter the player has already completed but which is more beneficial to them in their city. Consequently, players can then fully appreciate the range of amenities each event/set building developed by Inno's team provides. This will also increase the likelihood that players in later chapters of the game will be interested in more event/set buildings as they will be able to do more with them than simply gain ten buildings that all do the same basic thing at their current chapter. More interest translates into more attempts to obtain event currency in order to obtain more of the buildings, which likely means a influx of income for Inno.

- With respect specifically to the ML, allowing downgrades may alleviate some of the stress on the markets as certain items have glutted market availability.

- Inno would be able to offer players buildings more suited to city development based on how the feature is used. As a background function, I'm sure that Inno collects data on how players interact with the features in their cities and which buildings are used most often. Adding in data from the downgrade feature would allow Inno to see where players are experiencing the highest demand for goods and create new and exciting buildings for future events that provide for that market. Obviously improved buildings/sets in events would encourage players to spend money on diamonds to obtain event currency for a greater chance of winning it.

- The opportunity for Inno's sound effects and animation creation teams to develop unique and intriguing sound effects and animations for the downgrading of buildings.

____________________________________​

Cons:
- The time to/for:

1. code the ability itself, including debugging;
2. code any restrictions on the ability, such as earliest chapter in which it can be accessed;
3. code the cost to the player for accessing the ability - e.g. a new item that works similarly to a Royal Restoration.
4. creation of any new animations or sound effects (though this can be fun).
5. customer service to answer e-mails regarding the feature once implemented (complaints, oopsies, etc.)
6. the graphics team to modify the current RR icon or create a new icon for a new 'demolition' item
7. the graphics team to modify goods images to show them with a diminishing arrow as in the mock-up screen above

 

[OIM20]

Miscellany / For the discussion:

What would players consider to be a fair trade off for this ability?

• Should this be accessible with an item, such as an “Antiquing Application” (please feel free to coin a better name) that is only available through tourneys/events and is rarer than a Royal Restoration but more common than a Blueprint?
• Should this be limited in accessibility? For example, only players having completed the first research in chapter nine would have the ability available to them? Would there be a reason to allow it for players earlier than this?
• Should this be limited to buildings that have a defined output that changes by level, such as the event buildings named above?
• Should it include the unstoreable buildings (barracks, training ground)?
• Should there be any building(s) completely restricted from this ability? For example, the Main Hall, any buildings that are solely culture/pop shouldn't need to be regressed for any reason. Regressing the trader, though I understand it could free up space, would be detrimental to a player past the T1, T2, T3 goods level, I think. But should there be other exceptions, like evolved buildings?

@The Fairy advised that the majority of threads addressing the possibility of building downgrades were posted prior to the Spire's creation and prior to the advent of Teleport spells. For those players who would want a downgrade ability to be applied to all buildings: with the exception of the unstoreables, does the Teleport spell resolve the issue where a downgrade was desired with respect to non-event buildings?

____________________________________​

Research:

So I did some searching to see if this was suggested previously and rejected. What I found is below. I will offer a disclaimer that there is a particular user whose posts I have set on ignore, so if s/he has posted anything about this, I have no knowledge of it.

Idea/Suggestion by Unknown Deleted User 782, 2015-08-13 (archived, no replies, so quoted)

I think that the same way we are able to upgrade buildings, we should be able to downgrade buildings. As of right now, our only choice is to sell the entire building. I am suggesting that when you click on the sell icon and mouse over a building it gives you the option to sell the entire building or just downgrade it one level. This will allow city builders the ability to get back smaller amounts of population, culture, space, and resources without losing all the time invested in the building.

Idea/Suggestion by Guest: Weagle, 2016-02-26 (Archived, so relevant quotes included below)

With limited population, culture, etc there are times when you upgrade one thing and it hampers you from upgrading a different structure later. It would be useful to downgrade a building (sort of an undo) to increase population, culture limits to build something else. I know this goes against the logic that bigger is better, but it could be beneficial from time to time.

I was thinking the same thing today because I needed a little extra space and downgrading would have brought my building down to 2x2 from 3x2, which would have been perfect. So I was left with the choice of waiting for another expansion or knocking down a perfectly good building and then having to rebuild it up to the lower level I wanted. This really would be a great feature.

I've wished for building downgrades on more than one occasion. I personally like the idea and agree with the points Weagle and Thraxus Grymwulf have made.

Idea/Suggestion by Dhurrin, 2016-09-02 (archived, and no replies, so quoted)

Can't it be made possible to downgrade buildings again? Sometimes when I'm stumped for space I'd gladly downgrade some buildings so their size becomes smaller again instead of having to sell them (at a great loss) and then have to rebuild than from scratch when I have the space again. Or when I am in need for those goods/supplies/population.

Having to rebuild them from scratch really is not much fun

Idea/Suggestion by Draconomicon, 2016-11-12 (Archived, so relevant quotes included below)

Would it be possible to have a downgrade option for buildings? There's an upgrade option and a sell option so I think it would be easy to have a middle ground. Doing so will allow players to get back a fraction of their goods (like getting back half when you sell a building) and also to correct any mistakes they may have made.

I would really appreciate this feature since my barracks is too big to fit in one expansion and fighting is no longer viable for me. Space is too precious to waste on what is now a mostly useless building for me.

This thread included feedback from Dhurrin:

And it's perfectly ok with me if I have to use the builders for that, at about twice the speed for upgrading a level.

Idea/Suggestion by ajqtrz, 2018-12-15 (Archived, so relevant quotes included below)

I constantly find myself in a situation where my city is full, my residences, supplies and goods production buildings are at their maximum and I suddenly am told to "upgrade" one of these to level X (11, 12, 15 etc.) Since my building are usually above that I end up deleting a building to make room for a new one -- and then spending the time getting it up to the proper level. Argggg. Wouldn't it be nice if we could "downgrade" buildings? If you could actually just have the quest says "bring a boosted mfr to level x" and come at it from either direction it would be nice. The price of downgrading would be that you had to build it back up once you were done. The advantage would be that the downgrades might take 1/2 the time (or even instant? --- said hopefully) of the original build.

@SoggyShorts did reply in that thread, and the issue that was at play there - quest completion - has been addressed as far as I can tell in my gameplay. I often see "Complete x# of upgrades on [building]" (have one of those right now, actually and will complete once the FA is over).

In discussion of Idea/Suggestion to delete MA, 2019-07-14 - the last post here states that this suggestion was made repeatedly in Ideas/Suggestions forum – and that thread is linked above (3rd suggestion link).

In discussion of Idea/Suggestion requesting the ability to entirely remove the barracks, 2019-12-21

Idea/Suggestion by Palavyn, 2021-01-27, a possibility as it would be specific to the deconstruction of Ancient Wonders

__________________________​

There were also some places where the possibility was mentioned, but not as part of a separate suggestion/idea thread:

• With respect to a change in battles, 2016-11-21
• With respect to release version 1.21, 2017-01-18
• With respect to requirements in the Halflings chapter, 2017-06-24

And, of course, the term "downgrade" can be found in any number of complaining posts, especially ones which have ripped the scales from my eyes and made me even more leery about spending more than the paltry amount I have on this game already. (No, seriously, just $20 US plus taxes - paltry in most anyone's book who isn't solely F2P. I spent that because I am enjoying the game, and I would have paid as much if I bought it back in the store in the days when games came on CD-ROMs in huge waste-of-space super-thin cardboard boxes for $20 a pop.) Specifically, if you're wondering, this thread has quite a few issues with how players' cities were affected as a result of an extreme change in cultural/population buildings (Father Tree of Candy Canes being one).

 

[Alram]

I do not think that that the ability to downgrade is necessary. Players learn very early in the game that upgrading buildings can cause a size change and can cause building output to change.

 

[Lelanya]

Thank you @OIM20 for your comprehensive review of this issue. And for your mention of ElvenGems, I will pass on your mention to those who work directly on the site. To address your issue raised, I have a city in Chapter 16, and a friend with a city in Chapter 17, I will collect/acquire stats for these buildings and post them for you, and request an update on the website. The issue with the site is the increased pace of game content release compounded by the loss of our site designer.

I love your idea. I think the debate here should be on applicable buildings, not simply an outright dismissal. Thank you again

 

[OIM20]

@Lelanya - thanks! I try to learn from my mistakes, and when I saw the comments in the scrolls discussion from The Fairy and Darielle suggesting a downgrade for ML buildings, it occurred to me that such a tool would likely have been suggested previously. There wasn't really any discussion in those prior suggestion threads save for a couple, and not any response from a mod about the idea having been discussed by anyone at Inno. As The Fairy pointed out, the suggestions were made before players had the ability to store buildings, so I think that might have actually resolved the largest part of the "all buildings" issue as it hasn't really been brought up since.

I am very sorry to hear that the site designer is no longer with you. I remember the ancient days of Geocities and how maintaining a site there proved difficult for many. I can't imagine how much more difficult it is now, and I have a great deal of respect for those of you who try to do so. Especially in light of new content being rolled out regularly from Inno.

So, again, a heartfelt thanks to your group of truly lovely people for all that you do. (And I pass the platter of virtual sweets to you all for you to partake at your leisure. There's even a rather nice arrangement of no sugar added no-bake cookies for those who have a sweet tooth but need to watch their sugars. )

_________________________________________​

@Alram, I wasn't aware that event and set buildings change size. I'd actually rather gotten the impression that they don't. Otherwise, I'm not really certain what the whole issue about the Lava Egg was, since there was talk about how it was a great building for production of its good at its 4x4 size. I know it's a long post, but I had hoped that people would at least read the summary portion, or the words in bold. I even made use of the ability to change the color of the text to make the different sections stand out, hoping folks wouldn't tl;dr. Because, believe it or not, this is actually the short version.

Since it had been brought up so many times previously, and always with respect to regular city constructions save for the thread earlier this year, I wanted to address that part of the discussion, which is why those questions are in the second post. Otherwise, it's likely to receive an outright dismissal from Inno just as it has from you. I believe that the general consensus will likely be that it should be limited to event/set buildings, but I wasn't going to start out with some blanket "Don't apply this to anything else!" statement. Especially not with the idea of downgrading being one of the many suggested solutions in @Palavyn's thread on Ancient Wonders. (Incidentally, I'd gotten the impression those don't change size either. Is that also incorrect?)

Perhaps it's the stilted language of the initial post? I tried to be a bit warmer in the follow-up, but as the "read me" thread for this forum says that the opening post of the thread is what's going to be forwarded to Inno (if the idea is sent forward to Inno), I approached it from the perspective of a business proposal. It rather kind of is, if you think about it, because when we're making suggestions for changes in the game, we are asking for a seat at the table in their innovation meetings and we need to be prepared to defend our work against detractors in absentia. Hence my focus in the "pros" portion on the creativity of Inno's team and how this ability, should the discussion gain any traction, would allow players to enjoy aspects of that creativity that are closed to them now simply by virtue of having played the game to the point they have.

Regardless, since your response related only your opinion with respect to regular city buildings (manufacturies, workshops, residences, and the like), do you have an opinion regarding event or set buildings having an encoded downgrade feature?

 

[The Fairy]

Thanks for all your work on turning this into a proper suggestion @OIM20!

@Alram when I suggested this in another thread I was mainly thinking of the gum trees and moonstone gates. To me the gum trees are a lot more useful if they are in chapter 11 where they produce seeds compared to later chapters where they produce gum, but that may just be me?

I am "lucky" that I got most of my library set in my big city in chapter 11 or earlier, so I have spent quite a few RR spells upgrading my gum trees to chapter 11 for seeds. And the few gum trees I have from chapter 12 are in storage. But I assume that many larger cities got most of their gum trees in chapter 12 or later? So they would never had got the chance to have them in chapter 11 even if they never upgraded them. So if they would like them to produce seeds instead of tree gum then they would need to downgrade them.

 

[AtaguS]

I like any idea which brings out more choices for the city building aspect.
Love the slide puzzle tetris aspect...and would still like to see more options for the city building aspect.
If evolves are thrown into the equation I'd take my owl down to level 9 purely for aesthetic reasons.

 

[Alram]

Regardless, since your response related only your opinion with respect to regular city buildings (manufacturies, workshops, residences, and the like), do you have an opinion regarding event or set buildings having an encoded downgrade feature?

People learn early in the game that permanent buildings change size when upgraded and event/set buildings change output when upgraded. We learn to check before we upgrade buildings we value highly.
A downgrade feature defeats the whole purpose of having chapter specific buildings in the first place.

 

[Sprite1313]

I like this idea for the event buildings; I am not as keen on making it an option for regular buildings (though that addition would not make me vote against it) so I like it, as written. It wouldn’t interfere with the city design challenge aspect of the game (since event buildings don’t change size).

People learn early in the game that permanent buildings change size when upgraded and event/set buildings change output when upgraded. We learn to check before we upgrade buildings we value highly.
A downgrade feature defeats the whole purpose of having chapter specific buildings in the first place.

I will give an example of why I disagree with this. If you were in chapter 12 when the moon bear was the event building, you automatically received a building that produced sentient goods. But, what if you wanted the seeds that it gave for a chapter 11 bear? (I haven’t upgraded my bear, because I would rather have the seeds than the S1 goods). If you had a downgrade feature, you could still participate in the event, win the prize, and then downgrade it to the chapter where it gave the resources you wanted. Or, what if you had bad luck and weren’t able to craft enough Festival Merchants at the chapters you wanted? Why not be able to downgrade to get the resources you want from the building? You still have the challenge of fitting it into your city and balancing resource requirements from other sources to ensure you can progress.

What do you see as the purpose of chapter-specific buildings? That almost seems to assume that all players have exactly the same needs in all chapters. I don’t think this is an accurate statement (since we have folks who fight only, cater only or do combos).

• Should this be accessible with an item, such as an “Antiquing Application” (please feel free to coin a better name) that is only available through tourneys/events and is rarer than a Royal Restoration but more common than a Blueprint?
• Should this be limited in accessibility? For example, only players having completed the first research in chapter nine would have the ability available to them? Would there be a reason to allow it for players earlier than this?
• Should this be limited to buildings that have a defined output that changes by level, such as the event buildings named above?
• Should it include the unstoreable buildings (barracks, training ground)?
• Should there be any building(s) completely restricted from this ability? For example, the Main Hall, any buildings that are solely culture/pop shouldn't need to be regressed for any reason. Regressing the trader, though I understand it could free up space, would be detrimental to a player past the T1, T2, T3 goods level, I think. But should there be other exceptions, like evolved buildings?

As far as the mechanics - why not just have RR spells be usable either to upgrade or downgrade a building? I’m not a programmer, but I would think it would be fairly easy to code that in, and give two boxes to select from (“downgrade” or “upgrade”). That seems simpler to me than adding another resource to acquire somewhere.

I think it should be available once chapter 3 is open. The only reason I would limit it like that is because that gives players a little time to get a feel for the game, understand the mechanics, and make fewer bad decisions. I doubt, though, that anyone would want to waste these spells that early on (assuming event buildings, not regular buildings). Those mainly become an issue as you transition from quantities produced, to changing the items produced (e.g. changing from supplies to dust)

I do think it should be limited to event buildings and craftable buildings. I agree with @Alram on regular city buildings. Players absolutely have control over whether or not they upgrade a regular building. You don’t have a choice about the chapter in which you win a building, or craft it.

I think you should be able to downgrade evolved buildings (devolving them is probably a separate thread), crafted buildings, event buildings, etc.

I really like this suggestion; and @OIM20 did a great job consolidating it and pulling together input from a lot of different discussions. Kudos.

 

[Iyapo1]

I think the debate here should be on applicable buildings, not simply an outright dismissal.

Okay. What buildings should it be applied to?

I would object to any suggestion that might increase the usefulness and lifespan of boneyards.

 

[Alram]

@Sprite1313
All event/set buildings have never been useful for all players. Most players pick the ones they want and replace them when something more useful comes along. No one is stuck with these buildings.

 

[The Fairy]

As far as the mechanics - why not just have RR spells be usable either to upgrade or downgrade a building?

This was how I imagined it without thinking too much about it. This would also mean that the buildings that can be downgraded would be those that can be upgraded today with RR spells (or it could be different buildings, but that would probably be both confusing and harder to implement).

 

[Sprite1313]

Okay. What buildings should it be applied to?

I would object to any suggestion that might increase the usefulness and lifespan of boneyards.

I see your point, but I don't know that the ability to downgrade them is going to have any bearing on whether or not people keep them. It might reduce the flood of moonstone, gum and bismuth if players chose to downgrade those back to mana and/or seeds. It won't fix the scrolls problem, but nothing is going to unless the devs adjust the T2 outputs (which they aren't going to). I don't know that you could have this idea and exclude the ML. I think the upside is greater than the downside.

Edit: I'm scrolls-boosted, so I have a love/hate relationship with the library set.

 

[Lelanya]

I would agree with @The Fairy, that this should be limited to buildings that can upgrade with RRs.
Not sure why we should all be limited, because some object to collections of buildings.

 

[hvariidh gwendrot]

wouldn't it be easier to just not upgrade it if you want the lower chapter productions ? or are we saying for example if i get something in say ch 13 but want the ch 11 production i can downgrade it ?

edit add: excellent presentation

 

[ajqtrz]

From reading all this it appears almost all of us can see an advantage to being able to downgrade some buildings. We don't always agree which buildings because we have several goals:

1) Meet a quest more easily (my personal favorite ).
2) Adjust market conditions by changing what we are receiving from buildings so that surpluses in some goods are lessened.
3) Get the building to produce (or look) the way we wish it to for our city.
4) To adjust space by returning to a smaller building.
5) Lower the cost of tournaments by lowering the number of AW levels. (This may have not been mentioned here, but has been elsewhere).

Each of these focuses on different buildings. The first on the standard buildings: residences, mfrs and workshops, because those are the ones quests usually ask about. The second focuses on set buildings because that appears to be the source of the imbalances. The third is about event buildings because those are the ones we use to get boosts in our seeds, mana, sentient and other goods. The fourth is probably not about any particular building but is also probably something a smaller player would need as the cities can become very crowded in the mid-chapters. My experience is that later not so much. And the last is about tournament and spire calculations so it focuses on AW's.

Given that all the building types have a potential to effect our cities if we could lower them, it seems the same coding for lowering one could be used to lower them all AND it would lower the cost of that coding as a universally applicable feature doesn't have to check to see if it's applicable "here" or not.

So I suggest we ask for a Royal Demolition ability -- either using the Royal Restoration (badly named as you only "restore" things to where they were before if they've been damaged). So Royal Restoration spell which actually does "restore" you building to where it was before you upgraded it, and A Royal Remodelling spell to upgrade (whoever heard of a person remodeling to make things like they were before?).

And I think it would be best to have these early as a research item, perhaps in chapter 2. Make it optional and it could be skipped -- then gone back and completed once a player finds they need it.

Those are my thoughts. Hope they help.

AJ

 

[hvariidh gwendrot]

if you need space you don't have to sell bldgs they can be teleported, so that's not a problem that needs a 2nd fix and if you build right the downgrading of a wonder isn't a needed function either, i think i'm missing the point here i don't see a need unless again it's the getting the bldg in a later chapter and wanting earlier chapters productions . the using these for events for upgrade quests after downgrading seems silly when there are RR enchantments with 1 and 2 square pop/cul bldgs and worst case for an upgradeable bldg would be to sell it rebuild it and stop at the lower chapter .. game workarounds that fit the problems described

 

[OIM20]

This is a bit of a lengthy response, but given that this is a proposal for change, I wanted to be sure I'd thought it through before posting. That is to say, every time I found myself typing something that might be a bit muddled or meandering, I stepped away to collect my thoughts. It helps no one to go round in round in circles in discussions such as this.

________________________________​

@The Fairy: honored to be of service, milady. *curtsies*

To you and @Sprite1313 (and thank you! ) on using RRs for this feature: the main reason I considered using a different item is simply because people, on the whole, are easily confused. [For the record, I am not separating myself from this group. When something is unfamiliar to me, I can become easily confused.] The current graphic for the RR has an arrow that points upward, so changing that graphic (not onerous if you're in the file with the multiple layers; just move the arrow and platform layers upward above the tile some more and add an arrow in the opposite direction under the platform) would be added to the cons list.

However, instead of a ticky box, would either of you object to the separation of the ability to a new tab? (Mock up in first post.) This, I think, would help keep customer support from having to field, “But I did tick the box!”, “Blast and spit! I wanted to downgrade – can you fix it for me?”, “I didn't mean to actually use my RRs, I just wanted to know what the tab was... How was I meant to know without checking? I know my fat fingers aren't your fault, but...”, etc. and so on messages.

Regardless, I'll add 'customer service fielding e-mails re: new feature mistakes' to the cons list.

Also, thanks for answering the question about event/set buildings changing size. I really was curious as to whether I'd completely misunderstood how the metric worked because I count on those remaining the same dimensions, tbh.

________________________________​

or are we saying for example if i get something in say ch 13 but want the ch 11 production i can downgrade it ?

edit add: excellent presentation

Thank you. And yes to the second question (quoted above) – that is the proposal as presented. Having said that, if the majority consensus were to allow it for all buildings, then I would rewrite the proposal to reflect that… eventually. I didn't want to stifle discussion by immediately saying how it should/shouldn't be applied – that would be counteractive to the purpose of this forum, yes?

“All buildings” is how prior threads (with the sole exception of the thread on Ancient Wonders) presented the feature. Basically, an “undo” button for any construction undertaken. I do think that perhaps those proposals which gave the reason for the feature as being space were resolved once Teleport Spells were introduced to the game. @The Fairy pointed out the timing, and I believe she's correct.

I also wonder if previous requesters for the “undo” option were playing early enough chapters initially that they had expanded themselves out as far as they were able on the world map and had managed to hit the orc wall I've read about. But those threads are archived, so I shall simply have to wonder.

________________________________​

(continued responses in next post)

 

[OIM20]

@ajqtrz – I don't think using the RR for this and creating a new item for upgrades would be beneficial ultimately, but only because I really see people complaining about that. I can see customer service's e-mail inbox now, filled with time wasters for a day where they eventually set up a filter and shunt all the e-mails about the downgrade feature into a separate box and the person who draws the short straw for the day is the one who has to answer those for two hours before they can go back to their regulalry scheduled grind.

As much as I'd like to see this feature, adding to the frustration of being a person in customer service isn't one of my goals. (Been there, done that – though not for Inno, and if you've never worked in a customer service position you don't know the true joy of being multiple someones' punching bag for eight hours. If I didn't think they'd just consider it a nuisance, I'd send them an e-bouquet every day with some silly little joke to try and crack a smile. [That actually worked wonders for the morale of my teams when I worked in a call center.])

I do like the name “Royal Demolition”. I have, though, actually known someone who “remodeled” something to the way it had been 'before'. They didn't much care for the 'more modern' feel. (It had been a gift from someone else to have the room modernized, so your argument still holds. )

To be fair to Inno on the naming of the current RR though, I think it may have been perceived as “restoring to newness” where the building is upgraded and 'brought up to speed', so to say. 1c in Webster's online dictionary. Counterintuitive to 1a, actually.

Out of curiosity, where on the tech tree do you see this fitting as an optional research? I know you said chapter two, but where, exactly? I had initially thought chapter 9 as the demarcation line, not just because that's where the event/set buildings can move into mana, but also because that's far enough into the game to have a feel for how you want to grow and shape your city and whether it would be of any benefit to you to downgrade your buildings. That said, I do appreciate that it might be infinitely easier on coding to simply make a tab available from the get, like the upgrade tab is.

I hadn't actually considered adding it to the tech tree – events aren't a part of the tech tree so that's likely why it hadn't occurred to me. Having acknowledged that, I do think that the main question there would be why add downgrading to the tree if it's to be done with RRs (RDs) when upgrading with the RRs is not a part of the tech tree?

However, any placement on the tree would, of course, require me to overhaul the proposal as written. So after you reply and there's discussion, please be patient with me if there's support for that idea.

Finally, I do agree with your assessment that a universal code for all buildings would probably be the easiest to implement for the developers – from the outside. But we can see that events and set buildings are handled differently within the code from the game graphics. In fact, it appears that they have their own code; even set buildings which weren't part of an event, such as the ML, show that they are categorized as event buildings:

As I understand the history of it, the Moonstone Library and its components were solely offered as a part of the Spire – something that could be won in chests – and not part of an event. I wasn't around then, so I'm relying on the wiki to be correct. The wiki also separates the Magical Chess Set as being solely available through crafting. Those buildings also show the event coding:

So, I'm not certain if it's separate coding entirely or merely a subset of overarching “building code”. If they are part of a subset code, then it's likely you're correct and a universal code could be written. If, however, they are a separate code, it might prove more difficult for a universal feature code to be implemented. They have to be handled separately to some degree, just as AWs are (their upgrade procedure is entirely reliant on relics and rune shards). But where AWs appear more likely to be a subset of “city buildings” code because they can be built, I think event/set buildings might be a bit trickier. They are handled as instants and don't require a builder to interact with them.

Either way, you've presented me with the reality that debugging will be an issue. I will add that to the cons list.

________________________________​

(continued responses in next post)

 

[OIM20]

@Alram – please understand that the proposal as initially written (only the cons have been updated as mentioned above) is not presented as an undo button. As @Sprite1313 pointed out in her reply, the feature would present a means of obtaining goods from a building that you don't obtain until you pass the chapter in which those goods are offered.

Plain English, I guess? Pretend I'm a chapter 18 player and I was around when the Spire was introduced. Pretend I obtained a Gum Tree at chapter 14 but I would really rather have the seeds it produces at chapter 11. I didn't upgrade anything. I'm not asking for an undo button. I'm asking for the ability to get a chaptered building in a chapter I had already passed when the building popped into existence.

If you'd like a longer scenario:

Consider that Inno reads the forums, lurks on public chat sites and Facebook groups where their games are discussed. They would see what the most vocal people are clamoring for. That would be, as a good business practice, where to focus their attention. But, for argument's sake, let's say they get a bit overzealous (ML) and in their attempts to give players what they want they inadvertently neglect creation of buildings that would replace older stock.

So, in event A (chapter 9, let's say) you got a building that made 10,000 mana every 48 hours. You're happy with this building, so you don't spend time/event currency trying to get the replacement for it that's offered in event B. You upgrade your event A building for chapter 10, increasing its mana output. You're glad you did, but sorry you passed on the event B building because now, several months later, you're in chapter 11 and Inno didn't offer a comparable mana producing building for events C, D, E or F.

Now it's time to start event G. Inno has apologized to Elvenar's players for their oversight in not providing a comparable mana-producer and does so in this event. But it's limited to chapters 9 and 10. And when you're looking at the building, yes, it has good seed production, but you've found yourself more in need of mana, which your world map encounters are demanding in increasing amounts and you've pretty much given up on getting past the High Halls in the Spire because you can't convince the spirits without mana and you need what you have to maintain your city.

If only Inno would let you get that event G mana producer in a chapter 10 model…

(That entire situation is hypothetical; I've only been playing since February 2021, so I've no evidence – anecdotal or otherwise – that Inno would neglect to make a comparable building for half a year's worth of events. Or that they'd actually apologize rather than just slide something players want into the rota.)

Now that's done…

As introduced above, this feature doesn't currently benefit me in any way. I'm about to start chapter 5 and any building I have is simply less useful at earlier levels (less coins/supplies/goods, less pop, less culture). But down the road, a year, two years from now, this feature may be of personal benefit. Until then, it really is about what would benefit the community as a whole.

Does it serve a purpose to embitter older players by offering buildings with excellent stats to newer players and denying those who have been around since the beginning/nearly the beginning the ability to take full advantage of those buildings? I don't think it does. I don't think there's any community benefit to forcing players into a love/hate relationship with the beauty of a building's aesthetic and the general uselessness of it for their position in the game. I think that Inno would actually benefit from players staying with the game longer by offering up this type of freedom. Sure, those folks who create a city and then disappear aren't going to change their ways. But I've got several cities in my new neighborhood where there's obvious intent to continue with gameplay, but something happened – and I'm going to hope that it was a benign something like ennui and not anything more permanent. There are mid-size cities that are like this, not just chapter 2 folks.

And who knows? Maybe now that chapter 18 is open, the Gum Tree produces A1 goods. It would defeat the purpose of it being called the Gum Tree, I suppose, but there's no telling what Inno will choose to do with the building further on. Maybe at some point they'll have it on a rotation – on Mondays it produces mana, on Tuesdays it produces seeds, on Wednesdays it produces gum… etc. (Not advocating that one.)

But as @Sprite1313 also said, different players and play styles have different needs in different chapters. I'll add to that: different world map communities have different needs, period. My old neighborhood needed a lot of items I didn't produce and produced a lot of what I do, for the few people who traded. I got moved a few weeks ago. My new neighborhood has a dearth of some of the items I produce, and a wealth of ones I need. So it works much better for me, even though I can't trade in their quantities yet.

Further, your argument that anyone can just replace an old building with a new one doesn't really fit. The point here is that the feature that makes the building useful is available in a chapter they've already passed. They're still going to have passed that chapter when the next event rolls around, and they're still not going to be able to access the output they want from the new building. In other words, getting the next model of a building that would have given them great output on a needed item if they had never progressed beyond chapter “A” doesn't help because they're still in chapter “B” and can never go back to chapter “A”.

Also, maybe I've been unclear in what I mean by set? In this instance, I'm referring to a group of buildings which, when connected, provide multiple or increased products. So, the chess set (Tome Bishop, Solar Rook, Flame Knight, Golden King) which is craftable in the MA produces coins/supplies [I don't know about the Golden King; it's the one piece I'm missing] which increase in amount by placing the buildings so that they touch. I am not referring to the barracks or the MA when I say “set”; that is, I am not indicating a building which, once placed in your city, cannot be removed from it. I brought those up in the second post because they were the subject of other threads where the proposal for a downgrade feature had been made. It would be in poor taste for me to not acknowledge prior thoughts on this subject, or to indicate that I had some great epiphany that led me to conclude this would be an awesome feature.

That said, if something is off in the presentation of the idea, that can be fully blamed on me. But credit where credit is due: the idea for being able to downgrade an event/set building to a chapter output prior to the chapter you are/were on when you obtain/ed the building belongs to @The Fairy, seconded by @Darielle.

________________________________​

I would object to any suggestion that might increase the usefulness and lifespan of boneyards.

I'm afraid I might be destined to disappoint you in this. I wouldn't want to try to ask the developers to write code that specifically excluded a building from the event/set list. A class of buildings is one thing (evolving buildings are a distinct class of event buildings), but a specific set or part of a set is a different matter if the set class of event buildings is to be included.

________________________________​

(continued in next post)