Deleted buildings/building storage

[SoggyShorts]

Dude, try scrolling up and reading again.
First off, you are conflating things that Ashrem and I said. He and I are not the same poster.
Second, now that I have explained the sliding puzzle, and the guest races I think I've given you answers to your question about negative impact, so feel free to actually address those issues.
Thirdly if you have a look around the forums, you'll find dozens of my calculations across various threads, so if you care to even explain just a little of what you mean by this:

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

I would happily run the numbers. Or you can post a link to a google doc, or paste it in here, any little piece of context would help. 1.8% over 6 events of what? Bananas per triangle?

Edit: as far as "questioning motives" you must understand that letting us know why you would like something implemented can only help move an idea forward. something like this:
1. I would like _______.
- What would you do with it if you got it?
2. I would do this with it.
- I see, perhaps then we could do _____ or _______ might work better.

In fact if you look at the actual ideas and suggestions forum on Beta (link), "motive" is part of the standard suggestion form.
Summary, Description, Motive, possible downsides.

 

[mucksterme]

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

 

[Sir Squirrel]

Timon did say in one of the Q&A's that if players kept asking, they might do some sort of a storage thing, lol!!

 

[SoggyShorts]

Timon did say in one of the Q&A's that if players kept asking, they might do some sort of a storage thing, lol!!

I saw that, and he did say "no, no , no, no, but anything can happen I guess."
Hopefully enough players realize it's not only unnecessary, but potentially harmful to the game, and can drown out the rest so that the devs don't get worn down into making a poor decision.

 

[DeletedUser6807]

Soggy,

I have a private message that indicates I've made an error,..
I did read back and I did confuse the posters,..

I apologize for addressing you in such a manner.

My interpretation of "puzzle aspect" had nothing to do with the "movement" of buildings but rather the puzzle of placing buildings of specific dimension in order to achieve maximum utilization of space/output.

In order to determine the effect a storage pod would have on the game without actual observation I needed to establish a way to set the value of a square in order to determine the effect the manipulation of it would have.
I used my city as an example for number of squares occupied by event/purchased buildings. The next thing I needed to establish was the number of squares that could be vacated by the use of pods.
I'm leary at this point to say who, but someone offered a scenario describing abuse,.. I realized I had assumed they understood the storage I was describing from another game was not reuseable. I corrected my post.
Another post prompted the question of how to implement storage.
I gave a possible scenario for the acquisition of storage as one per event per choice, that is also in this thread. I believe every time I spoke about storage I added "as described"
I thought that was understood.
Anyway, back to the calculation, the number of squares that could be freed up would represent the percentage of that cities "puzzle effect"
In the case of my city that is 1.8% if I could remove 6 event/purchase buildings. I chose the number 6 for the number of events that could possibly happen in any six month period, most likely it wouldn't be that many but I was trying to give latitude to the opposing side of the argument.
Six buildings removed from my city would be 1.8% of the real estate.
The point of citing it as ludicrous was that the system I envisioned for incorporating storage would make it almost impossible.
I should add that as I have stated in this post I saw "puzzle effect" to be more than a space thing but a space/yield thing.
If the event/purchase buildings that had previously occupied that space were removed other non event buildings with similar attributes could occupy the space. Subtracting one from the other in relation to building yield effect left .5%

That said I will also acknowledge that after reading the post above your slide puzzle post I pretty much stopped reading your content.
I viewed the puzzles wondered if it was some kind of a joke and moved on to Kaylee's

Again I would apologize for what I said, I thought you were the other guy.

I'll read through your post tomorrow and give what ever feedback I have.

Azurax

 

[Ashrem]

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.

You didn't cite any criteria to calculate. No-one but you knows what size your city is, or what area you were permitting, or what buildings.

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.

No, I'm not kidding. Using words like "viable argument" in a debate is a tried-and-true technique for casting aspersions on the other person's argument without actually addressing it. Since the discussion is a mix of fact and opinion, the facts are either true, or not true, and the opinions are all valid, whether or not we agree about them. To apply the term "viable" to either is invalid. If we get to the point where we are discussing methods of implementing storage, then the question becomes whether any given method is viable within the constraints agreed to.

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.

You ignored my expressed concern that either the storage needs to be ubiquitous, or it will represent yet another advantage to those with lots of money or time. The former makes the game easier, not necessarily better, the latter will be yet another discouragement for the average player and therefore bad for the game. The background you may have missed in your extensive perusal of previous discussions is that there is not broad agreement that making the game easier is better for the game. Since the sole purpose of storage is to make an aspect of the game easier, there will be a number of us who are resistant to the assumption that it is a good idea, regardless of how many of us wish it existed.

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.

Most of us are getting all too familiar with this tactic, which breaks down to "I'm going to start accusing people of being bad so I can ignore anything I don't have an answer for"

I'd appreciate if you'd point out the insults and personal attacks so we can avoid them in the future.

 

[DeletedUser6807]

Ashrem,

This is going to require me making multiple post as I can't seem to figure how to retrieve multiple quotes during a post with out them all repeating as I insert them.

I'm going to work backwards through your post addressing every point. Although your post has nothing to do with op subject but rather your views or perception of how I operate, tactics motives etc. I will try to be thorough. If you feel I miss anything feel free to point it out.

Most of us are getting all too familiar with this tactic, which breaks down to "I'm going to start accusing people of being bad so I can ignore anything I don't have an answer for"

I'd appreciate if you'd point out the insults and personal attacks so we can avoid them in the future.

"Most of us are getting all too familiar with this tactic" < this is an accusation,... of,.. "I'm going to start accusing people of being bad so I can ignore anything I don't have an answer for" < deceit

Where in you have determined my motive to be less than honorable, deceitful, not at face value but rather untrue. And if I applied the same perception of motive to you that you have applied to me, the statement "Most of us are getting all too familiar" would be a "tactic" someone uses trying to garner validity to their statement because of support from a fictitious majority group.

more to come

Ashrem,

You ignored my expressed concern

This is an accusation,..

You have made an assertion without evidence.


more to come

 

[DeletedUser4671]

This thread has been derailed. Locking it now.