Johnny B. Goode
Well-Known Member
Those are not facts, they're opinions. And they are not based in fact, they are based in your fantasy sandbox game world. What's baseless is your claim that this proposal doesn't change the game.Again, this proposal does nothing to change the game.
Just to be clear I shall repeat a few points which I have considered.
Let us review these facts;
You own the land and all the property on the land. It makes zero difference to the game how that land is arranged. Repositioning land you already own cannot have any effect upon the game itself.
Moving land around, or allowing repositioning has no effect on the game, and can never have any effect.
A hypothetical example might be that I could buy any number of plots of real estate and move them to form geometric patters or words and never put anything on them, and whether there are or are not any building on those chunks of real estate makes no difference to the game itself.
No matter how I might arrange the parcels there is no effect upon the game.
The resistance to this proposal is baseless.
The rules weren't changed. I'm assuming you're talking about them expanding the grid. They've only done that twice that I remember in the almost 8 years I've been playing. And expanding the grid doesn't affect previous placement plans. It only expands the possibilities going forward. The rare grid expansion is the worst excuse to vote for this idea.The problem is, the optimal way to setup and use expansions has changed because of the way the possibilities were altered after the fact. When the meta changes, you have to allow all players to be able to use the meta if they so desire.
Implementing a 1 time use item per new age or per time Inno changes the map for people to use or not use doesn't do anything to the player base besides potentially help.
There are people out there, myself included, that are likely to lose interest if they cant play a game optimally because the rules were changed after the decision was made.