Deleted buildings/building storage

[DeletedUser6807]

This appears to be a subject much visited,... and I do mean MUCH visited. Although there is a variety of viewpoints regarding the subject, there seems to be 2 basic schools of thought regarding the "puzzle aspect"/ challenge of the game and how building storage would positively/negatively affect such.

Both sides have valid points.

Why not a controlled compromise that allows both sides to retain what they want?

I play another inno game which is currently celebrating its 5th year,... I can't remember if it was a guild expedition, an event quest or a standard game quest, but I acquired a "device" that allows the permanent storage of 1 building of choice.

I would suggest that an item such as this be available (not by purchase) but by limited, (without being overly rare) achievement/event scenarios, where in some circumstances it might as well be presented as a choice item. I would think different avenues of attainment to keep it exciting

This would have a limited negative impact on the game.
Its not a purchase item so one could "coin" it to excess, nor would it be easily obtainable so it couldn't be exploited. However it could not be near as hard to achieve as a third tier grand prize building, more like somewhere between a 1st and 2nd tier.
The challenge factor would remain, its an "achieved" item. Since its not an "open door" storage facility, strategy would continue to be a factor, ie. "I have two (lets call them storage pods) and I have 5 diamond/event buildings that need to move. Or,.. " I've won a tier 1 grand prize building, the next tier is either a building I'd like to have, or a storage". And as in all events the revenue possibility is right there. "I want both"
The positive effect is clear, but again it is limited.

Does this sound like something that is feasible?

Cheers,

Azurax

 

[SoggyShorts]

The thing is you can always just keep one expansion empty to use for storage, and that is pretty easily attainable. An extra 6-10 provinces scouted and cleared should do it, and take less than a week which is about the time/effort you are recommending (unless you already cleared 250+ provinces)

 

[DeletedUser6807]

"The thing",.... what does that mean, objection?

I understand the mechanics of what you are saying, a method to achieve and use an expansion.

That is not storage,... that is a location to place a building,an empty lot that doesn't require infrastructure.
An expansion would be capable to place 1 building, well,... one average building (3x3).
And it would require the method described to achieve that expansion if one couldn't be researched.
Unfortunately besides being restrictive in capacity, it is restrictive to individual game play.
In other words "Bob" would have to engage in territorial conquest, which he doesn't want to do for a whole other block of research for numerous reasons regarding the industrialization of his city and the ability to make cost effective progression.
ie. "Bob" can not play his game,... he has to play someone else's.
And for what,... so he could manage to hang on to 1 building he could not use at this point? A building he may have spent real money for?
I do not see this as a positive solution.

I would ask if you might cite any game play issues my recommendation would have. I would like to hear them if they exist as I can see no way such a feature could have a negative impact.

Azurax

 

[DeletedUser2963]

there seems to be 2 basic schools of thought regarding the "puzzle aspect"/ challenge of the game and how building storage would positively/negatively affect such.

I would ask if you might cite any game play issues my recommendation would have. I would like to hear them if they exist as I can see no way such a feature could have a negative impact.

I have been playing for a year, lets say in that time I have only won 2 storage pods. If I want to re-arrange my city all I have to do is plop my two biggest buildings into storage and then re-arrange to my hearts content without any advanced planning or difficulty. When I am done I can then just plunk the building in storage back out. I can do this every day if I like. Personally, since re-arranging my city is a favorite thing, I have no problem with the above scenario.

The Developers do have a problem with it. The limited space in a players city is a design feature of this game. Building storage without severe limitations would absolutely reduce the "puzzle aspect"/ challenge of the game. There is no question about this.

The biggest question is, would re-arranging my city be as much fun if it were so easy to do? Would I keep playing? The Devs think not. Some players agree with the Devs and some players do not.

 

[DeletedUser6807]

I have been playing for a year, lets say in that time I have only won 2 storage pods. If I want to re-arrange my city all I have to do is plop my two biggest buildings into storage and then re-arrange to my hearts content without any advanced planning or difficulty. When I am done I can then just plunk the building in storage back out. I can do this every day if I like. Personally, since re-arranging my city is a favorite thing, I have no problem with the above scenario.

The Developers do have a problem with it. The limited space in a players city is a design feature of this game. Building storage without severe limitations would absolutely reduce the "puzzle aspect"/ challenge of the game. There is no question about this.

Actually you couldn't do it every day. If the "storage pods" or whatever they would be called were modeled after the ones I've seen in another inno game, they are a one time usage. It would be impossible for the scenario described above to exist.

I've read back and I realize I did not explain that the device to store is a one time item, only that it will store permanently which is not accurate. What I should have said was "indefinitely".

I am sorry for the confusion. If the storage units could be used repeatedly it would most definitely have a negative impact.

Having explained myself above, I would add something here regarding "puzzle effect"/challenge. I'll use my own city as an example as it seems to trend with the same level of development in my neighborhood.

About 75 buildings not counting small decorative items. There are 7 purchased or won buildings, generously 10%. If by some way, coining events, territorial achievement or pure luck I managed to get SEVEN storage devices that means I would have the ability to manipulate 10% of my city 1 time, IF,.... those seven buildings occupied 10% of my real estate.
In my city those seven buildings occupy about 2%. So in reality I would be able to have a 1 time manipulation of 2% of my city. That is of course if I managed to get seven storage devices.

Cheers,

Azurax

 

[DeletedUser2963]

I've read back and I real the device to store is a one time item, only that it will store permanently which is not accurate. What I should have said was "indefinitely".

Ah, that would fall under the category of a severe limitation

I haven't actually seen anyone in this forum object to restricted storage of some kind or another. The event buildings alone are pushing players to a favorable opinion of this. We (forum people) have yet to come to any kind of consensus regarding what form or what restrictions would work. What most of us agree on is that the Devs will not go for anything that could have an impact on the "puzzle aspect/challenge" of the game, we agree on this because the Devs have said it, over and over again. Still two schools of thought, people who want a storage or display or a delete but keep or a let me keep my event building in some way even if its not in my city vs. the Developers.

 

[DeletedUser6807]

Before I made the op I read pages of this discussion. There were several ideas that in my opinion seemed workable.

My own preference would be storage available in every event as a choice item at second tier reward building. If your choice was storage the second and third tier would then require the addition of accomplishment it took to get from 1st to second.

To clarify, if it took 100 "ice cubes" to get building 1, and 300 to get building 2, choosing the storage instead of building 2 would make it so it took an additional 300 ice cubes to get building 2,.. and by doing so it puts building 3 that much farther away.

Azurax

 

[SoggyShorts]

Maybe it would help me understand if I knew why you would want this kind of storage.
Is it just so you can re-arrange your city more easily by using up one of these pods for a few minutes?
Is it to store seasonal event buildings, and bring them back next season?
Or is there some other motivation?

 

[DeletedUser6807]

Maybe it would help me understand if I knew why you would want this kind of storage.
Is it just so you can re-arrange your city more easily by using up one of these pods for a few minutes?
Is it to store seasonal event buildings, and bring them back next season?
Or is there some other motivation?

I asked if you would cite some negative impacts regarding my suggestion.

Did you have some?



Azurax

 

[Ashrem]

I asked if you would cite some negative impacts regarding my suggestion. Did you have some?

Yes. There are two ways that new features can be made available. Either they are available to anyone who wants them, or they are only available to people who have large amounts of time or money. A design that puts them as an upper layer in event rewards makes them the latter. Like real life, the game already has a number of functions that cause the best rewards to go to those with the most time and money. Adding more shifts the peak of the bell curve to the right, disillusioning those who play casually. In the same way that society is transferring wealth to a smaller-peak curve and creating discontent, an item that will only be available to a small sub-set of players who already have the advantages (Tournament chests, trading options, land expansions, etc) will cause discontent in the larger body of players and increase the likelihood of the game's failure. If, on the other hand, the item is made ubiquitous, then it already fails the test of not interfering with the layout-puzzle aspect of the game.

TLDR: Adding yet another advantage to those with money or above-average time availability is bad for the game's longevity.

 

[DeletedUser2963]

I'm actually curious about how it is being used by players on FOE. If it is not being abused over there ...

 

[SoggyShorts]

I asked if you would cite some negative impacts regarding my suggestion.

Did you have some?

OK fine, I'll answer my own question and yours:

Maybe it would help me understand if I knew why you would want this kind of storage.
Is it just so you can re-arrange your city more easily by using up one of these pods for a few minutes?
As stated this removes some of the puzzle challenge, and isn't needed anyways as you can just wait until you get an expansion from the world map, or tech tree. Also whenever you complete chapters 6,7,8,9,or 10 you get 9-15 empty expansions to work with.
Is it to store seasonal event buildings, and bring them back next season?
This is relatively useless since by the time the season comes back around your buildings will be horribly outdated compared to your current chapter, and you will be able to get newer better versions in the current seasonal event.
Or is there some other motivation?
Unless you can answer this one, I see the whole storage pod concept as a waste of programming time, and a pointless feature.

 

[DeletedUser6807]

OK fine, I'll answer my own question and yours:

Maybe it would help me understand if I knew why you would want this kind of storage.
Is it just so you can re-arrange your city more easily by using up one of these pods for a few minutes?
As stated this removes some of the puzzle challenge, and isn't needed anyways as you can just wait until you get an expansion from the world map, or tech tree. Also whenever you complete chapters 6,7,8,9,or 10 you get 9-15 empty expansions to work with.
Is it to store seasonal event buildings, and bring them back next season?
This is relatively useless since by the time the season comes back around your buildings will be horribly outdated compared to your current chapter, and you will be able to get newer better versions in the current seasonal event.
Or is there some other motivation?
Unless you can answer this one, I see the whole storage pod concept as a waste of programming time, and a pointless feature

Thank you for at least attempting to answer my question.

I asked what NEGATIVE IMPACT the storage concept could have on game play. Of every thing stated above only one line vaguely addresses this,...

"As stated this removes some of the puzzle challenge" . Lets look at this for a moment.

Since the Subject matter of this concept is in regards to buildings that are purchased or won, the "puzzle challenge" pertains to the dynamic of those buildings that set them apart from other buildings,... this may seem basic, but sometimes folks can glaze over the simplest things.
We all know, or will know that these buildings require money or event participation to achieve. This has nothing to do with the puzzle aspect, it does however affect the challenge portion of the game. Ironically the introduction of a storage device as described would increase the challenge if it was the players choice in an event.
The second aspect of these buildings is their unchangeable attributes. They cannot upgrade so what bonuses a player receives or the space they take up remains the same. Everything in a city game is always space vs benefit.
Space vs Benefit is the only true measure regarding "puzzle aspect" of the game. The space value of a city changes as it progresses, as well the benefit value of those spaces. This means there is a ratio in effect. This ratio can have fluctuations but must have caps in either direction to maintain a user friendly environment.
The point you have made is in regards to this dynamic.
From everything I can see even the most ludicrous stroke of luck by every player in the game, the maximum amount the puzzle aspect of the game could only be altered for each player IF THEY WERE ALL AT MY LEVEL would be 1.8% every six events IF I all changes were made simultaneously and IF the city in question never grew, AND you did not factor in "comparative values" ie. the value per square of a rebuildable structure that could be placed in the same space vs. those that can not be rebuilt.
If the later were interjected the percentage falls well below 1%.
To say that storage as described would have NO impact on the puzzle aspect of the game would be incorrect. To say that it would have impact at any level of significance that it could be negative is also incorrect.

The rest of your post is in regards to game play style.
I don't really want to spend pages of response making clear things that have nothing to do with the subject matter.
Nor do I wish to be dismissive, as perhaps I have come off that way previous.
I will try to be brief.
The bulk of your post is in regards to what you state as things being pointless, useless, or a waste of time.
Lets start with the later,..
The folks who have brought this game to us have spent maybe thousands of hours developing and implementing artwork into the game.
Obviously it was not "pointless", and when they collect their salary hopefully the don't see it as "useless"
Aesthetic value sells the game. Being this is a city game in which the player views their city almost constantly it is with reason one could assert that of the thousands of people who play, many find the aesthetics to be important.
Maybe quite a few of those people want to hang on to their Christmas or Easter decorations til next year. To those people the buildings in question are not "useless".


What I have yet to see is any viable argument that the introduction of storage would have a negative impact on the game
If someone could substantiate a negative impact the suggested storage would have on the game I would very much like to see it.

Azurax

 

[Ashrem]

What I have yet to see is any viable argument that the introduction of storage would have a negative impact on the game

Only because you are choosing to either ignore the negative impacts identified, or (in other cases) belittling them as not worthy of consideration. Even presuming your calculations were in any way correct, a 1.8% change is the difference between many things being possible vs impossible. In practice, your 1.8% might as well be a random number pulled out of a hat. By my calculations, having the ability to store any one building makes it 99.962% likely that I can make any change I want to my city without tearing anything down, while the inability to store one building reduces that to 44.79% without tearing something down.

Injecting the word viable is nice touch, though, since it lets you pretend to be the final arbiter of what counts by deciding what constitutes a viable argument.

 

[DeletedUser6335]

When all is said and done - no matter what we think, or ask for it all relies on what the DEVS think and are willing to allow us. So far they have cited the "puzzle aspect" of the game as their reasoning for not allowing any kind of storage. It doesn't mean they will never decide something different, it just means as of now - regardless of what is or isn't in other INNO games - Elvenar will not be allowing storage of any kind.

Personally, I wish they allowed more options for the differing play styles folks have, but I can see why they don't; it could be seen as (and possibly would be used as) an advantage. I am one of the people who wishes they would allow for storage and I have asked "why not?" myself - but I understand they have their reasons (like them or not) - I just wish they would give more answers and/or more *thorough* answers to our questions and requests.

Just remember, none of us here have any "say" - we are simply letting you know what we and others have been told numerous times. And, as was pointed out - giving something that would inherently produce/be more of an "edge" to folks with more time/money to give the game would drive many others away. Elvenar already has so many issues with dead/abandoned cities as it is.

 

[SoggyShorts]

From everything I can see even the most ludicrous stroke of luck by every player in the game, the maximum amount the puzzle aspect of the game could only be altered for each player IF THEY WERE ALL AT MY LEVEL would be 1.8% every six events

What are you even talking about? I'm not sure you understand what we mean when we say "puzzle aspect". If you want to re-arrange your city whether for aesthetics, or to accommodate an upgrade that causes your building to change shape, that can only be done with free space. Giving players your storage pod is effectively giving them the free space needed to shift things around.

Sliding puzzle with some degree of challenge :

Sliding puzzle with GREATLY REDUCED degree of challenge :

I asked what NEGATIVE IMPACT the storage concept could have on game play.

Aside from the "sliding puzzle" aspect, another major abuse that your idea would allow is for players to temporarily store buildings to make room for guest race buildings(since they require no pop or culture).
For example a player in chapter 6 could place their event buildings in pods and use that free space to crank out a bunch of granite/copper while ignoring their negative pop/culture. Same goes for chapters 7,8,9, and even 10.

The folks who have brought this game to us have spent maybe thousands of hours developing and implementing artwork into the game.
Obviously it was not "pointless", and when they collect their salary hopefully the don't see it as "useless"

I was obviously referring to your idea, and not the artwork or their jobs. If you stick around long enough, you will find that the artwork does repeat, and you can get the same building next season with greatly enhanced stats, which kinda does make hoarding outdated replaceable buildings "pointless"

 

[DeletedUser3297]

Even though Timon said this for the rotating building aspect, the same holds true for storage.


"This is a question we actually receive quite often. Now, the short answer is no. But here is why. Every city builder needs features that make placing buildings challenging. In Elvenar, this challenge comes mainly from two sources: The one is that most buildings need a street connection, and the other is that every building has a fixed shape. The combination of this makes it challenging to build an efficient city. Of course, the downside of every challenge is that sometimes it feels like a burden. If you could rotate the buildings, this would make things much easier. But the downside of a low challenge is: when it gets too easy, it also gets boring quite fast. So, since this "city puzzling" is a core mechanic in Elvenar, we never implemented any technical base to make it possible to rotate buildings."

Since the "city puzzling" is a core aspect of the game, I do not think the devs would allow a loophole that would act in a manner to remove that aspect

 

[edeba]

The sliding puzzle story is excellent coverage for being land locked is motivation to purchase land and I actually think that's the real reason they are tight on the land.

 

[DeletedUser3297]

There is no reason to be land-locked, unless you want every building there is and you want millions of goods. The game is very playable and much more fun when you finally realize score/rank are meaningless unless you pay tens of thousands of dollars.

I've been in chapter 8 for less than a month with 4 techs left to go. I did the settlement on 27 expansions, I have 3 city expansions available that I have not placed. It would also take another 40 expansions to own the game grid. With that said, I still have all the room I want, always run a 170% culture bonus with 44,000 surplus and dump 2 million coins in the wholesaler per day!

Maybe instead of trying to cram more crap in, people should look at what they do not need (residences, manufatories, workshops, etc )

Current layout:
http://www.elvenarchitect.com/city/planner/c42e5b51edd243cc9d78c2e9b8be0543/

S&D layout:
http://www.elvenarchitect.com/city/planner/3adf76312a3f4708ad97251465d3d258/

 

[DeletedUser6807]

Soggy,.. yer way off base when you try to hang that jacket. If you had actually pulled out a calculator and ran the numbers based on criteria cited you would get the same. But somehow I doubt that will happen.
And like trying to put a character slide on me for using the word "viable",... are you kidding me?
I guess you missed that part right next to it where the desire was to see something substantiated.

You said I "ignored" the reasons cited. Where on earth did you get that? I did exactly the opposite, a detailed analysis of what was being cited.
And the things that I did not address were statements, somewhat detailed statements, describing another way to accomplish a goal,.. which were NOT citing a reason that the storage would negatively impact the game,.. which was the question!

Even the most detailed explanation I have read leaves me wondering a bit.

Regardless this thread has degraded to the point of insults and personal attacks, folks trying to question motives or even making up and interjecting their own.
It is unlikely that anything good can possibly come of it.
Its like the best possible out come of a kindergarten squabble is when it stops.

To all of those who have had positive input, thank you. And I was glad to hear that folks could win back the same artwork the next year

Regards

Azurax