• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

Submitted Rearrange Land Expansions in Reconstruction Mode

Johnny B. Goode

Well-Known Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
 

Nakijima

New Member
That is such a poor analogy. Especially in response to the post you're quoting. An analogy that explains her point would be that if you mistakenly bought a vehicle without a heater, sell it and buy another one that does. And having fixed expansions is not in any way, shape of form like a vehicle not having a heater. (Incidentally, if you're riding in a "1941 dodge army truck" and you expect the comforts of a modern vehicle, then you're a little off.)
Your response was a significant improvement right up to this point~
I too started this game just like everyone else. I also never thought to propose a game change. The fact that we all have played the game without the proposed change doesn't mean the proposal is not a good idea and it certainly isn't a reason to deny the proposal.

The analogy was just used to demonstrate the sillyiness of the opposition based on my perspective, and I used that analogy because times change and so do our expectations. I am attempting to keep a civil discussion with a bit of humor by way of this analogy.

Do more explaining behind your reasoning and less responses designed to inflame people whom you presumably are attempting to communicate with and in order to find what's best. Even where I disagree at least the explanations provide the readers with an opportunity to visualize how you see the issue.

I think that so far Channel4news has provided the best explanation as to why this should be considered for adoption.
 

Ebeondi Asi

Well-Known Member
I didn't write down my vote. So i redi it to yes. None of he 'against' reasons so far have any value except to see how rigid the players are who wrote those opinions. And several of the yes reasons do have value for the game. So i made sure i voted yes.
Personally I think it would add more complexity to the game. Which in my opinion is a good thing. Plus the playful aspect! Players can whimsically change the layout, knowing they can put it back It would bring a bit more fun into the game.
 

Jackshat

Active Member
I didn't write down my vote. So i redi it to yes. None of he 'against' reasons so far have any value except to see how rigid the players are who wrote those opinions. And several of the yes reasons do have value for the game. So i made sure i voted yes.
Personally I think it would add more complexity to the game. Which in my opinion is a good thing. Plus the playful aspect! Players can whimsically change the layout, knowing they can put it back It would bring a bit more fun into the game.
While I don't need to alter my grid lay out, I'm intrigued to see what layouts others create to have the fantasy city of their dreams. The "you do you" players and thematic city owners will likely excel here! It's a practical, fun use of a resource we own...as has been pointed out by others.

Hope to see it allowed.
 
Last edited:

Channel4News

New Member
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.

If you think that adding and changing the layout of the grid and adding possibilities doesn't change the meta, then I'm not sure I or anyone else can help you. One grid has an optimal layout... another has a different optimal layout... and you only have access to the first one when making permanent decisions for the second grid? And then can't change anything when the new one comes? It's non-sensical.

Giving players a 1 time use item is a huge deal? Come on.
 

Johnny B. Goode

Well-Known Member
If you think that adding and changing the layout of the grid and adding possibilities doesn't change the meta, then I'm not sure I or anyone else can help you. One grid has an optimal layout... another has a different optimal layout... and you only have access to the first one when making permanent decisions for the second grid? And then can't change anything when the new one comes? It's non-sensical.

Giving players a 1 time use item is a huge deal? Come on.
You are acting like they completely redesign the grid. They don't. They add more area around the outside. That's all. Doesn't change anything except how big you can make your city (assuming you have more expansions).
 

Pericles the Lion

Well-Known Member
If you think that adding and changing the layout of the grid and adding possibilities doesn't change the meta, then I'm not sure I or anyone else can help you. One grid has an optimal layout... another has a different optimal layout... and you only have access to the first one when making permanent decisions for the second grid? And then can't change anything when the new one comes? It's non-sensical.

Giving players a 1 time use item is a huge deal? Come on.
I have to agree with @Johnny B. Goode that expanding the grid changed nothing with regard to the preceding grid. It only added more potential expansions to the existing ones. Instead of attempting to rationalize the "need" to be able to rearrange expansions how about simply calling it what it is...something "nice", not "needed". INNO might find that argument more persuasive than talk about "meta".
 

Channel4News

New Member
What 1 time use? Thought the idea was for every time you reconstruct.

It actually doesn't say as far as I can see. I'm in favor of 1 time use items, but not in favor of multiple.

I have to agree with @Johnny B. Goode that expanding the grid changed nothing with regard to the preceding grid. It only added more potential expansions to the existing ones. Instead of attempting to rationalize the "need" to be able to rearrange expansions how about simply calling it what it is...something "nice", not "needed". INNO might find that argument more persuasive than talk about "meta".
You can argue both, but the meta and optimal setups has to be part of the discussion because it does get changed with every configuration change.

You are acting like they completely redesign the grid. They don't. They add more area around the outside. That's all. Doesn't change anything except how big you can make your city (assuming you have more expansions).
They literally changed the possibilities. Before they added this recent group, you could not make your city a perfect square as there was always going to be a weird cut in the right side... now you can minimize or completely negate that impact if you place the expansions correctly. In a game where everything is a square, seems pretty obvious to me that a way to allow those players a way to adapt is needed.
 

Johnny B. Goode

Well-Known Member
to allow those players a way to adapt is needed.
Should read: "to allow those players a way to adapt is wanted." Not "needed". And honestly, what you're saying here only applies to players in the higher ages who bought all the Diamond expansions. Neither you nor I knows how many players fit that category. But you want to change a fundamental mechanic of the game just to suit those players. And yes, I have a city where I am in a high enough era and have bought all the Diamond expansions. But I don't believe that a fundamental game mechanic needs to be changed to make the game easier for me. I guess that's the difference between you and me.
 

Channel4News

New Member
Should read: "to allow those players a way to adapt is wanted." Not "needed". And honestly, what you're saying here only applies to players in the higher ages who bought all the Diamond expansions. Neither you nor I knows how many players fit that category. But you want to change a fundamental mechanic of the game just to suit those players. And yes, I have a city where I am in a high enough era and have bought all the Diamond expansions. But I don't believe that a fundamental game mechanic needs to be changed to make the game easier for me. I guess that's the difference between you and me.

Fundamental mechanic? Who says that's a fundamental mechanic? If it was a fundamental mechanic, they would have never added more spaces...

The difference between me and you is actually that I can look outside of my own needs and desires and see that a change that impacts others in a good way without harming anyone is a good thing...
 

Johnny B. Goode

Well-Known Member
Fundamental mechanic? Who says that's a fundamental mechanic? If it was a fundamental mechanic, they would have never added more spaces...
That statement is completely lacking in logic. One has nothing to do with another. And it's self-evident that it's a fundamental mechanic of the game. Not to mention that Forum staff has confirmed that fact over the years. Unfortunately, when they redesigned the Forum we lost much of the historical content. Otherwise I'd find references to back that up. But I've been an active Forum member for most of my almost 8 years and I've seen words to that effect from them multiple times over that period.
 

Jackshat

Active Member
I believe there were 32 "no" votes yesterday. Now there are 30...more players seem to be embracing the suggestor's idea.

What more could be said, that hasn't already been said, to persuade or dissuade others?

Later, Folks.
 

MKPapa

Active Member
I would not support the free 'move' function, and would prefer the 'sale' option.
Expansions are marked as "Sale", i.e. we buy the lot.
If we could sell an empty expansion lot for, say, 50% of the last purchased expansion lot price (and had it available for purchase for the full price in the Building menu), we would get the ability to rearrange our city, but not for free.
 

Emberguard

Well-Known Member
I would not support the free 'move' function, and would prefer the 'sale' option.
Expansions are marked as "Sale", i.e. we buy the lot.
If we could sell an empty expansion lot for, say, 50% of the last purchased expansion lot price (and had it available for purchase for the full price in the Building menu), we would get the ability to rearrange our city, but not for free.
I like this idea
 

Geoni

New Member
I would not support the free 'move' function, and would prefer the 'sale' option.
Expansions are marked as "Sale", i.e. we buy the lot.
If we could sell an empty expansion lot for, say, 50% of the last purchased expansion lot price (and had it available for purchase for the full price in the Building menu), we would get the ability to rearrange our city, but not for free.
I also like this idea, not a free move, but more like a "land swap" at a significant cost. Since this is not what the OP suggested, I'm gonna vote no. If the suggestion fails, perhaps they'll re-submit.
 

Jackshat

Active Member
To the suggestor:

It is time to address a very practical supposition, that I also agree with (but will keep my yes vote, depending on your intent):

Your idea is solid. However, the issue of such movement of expansions, after placement, NOT be free is as practical as being allowed to move them.

You do need to address your intent on whether you expect these expansion moves to be free, or at cost. My vote hinges on your answer.

You should address this, because I'd also support a cost to using the construction tool in general.

So, some peeps are under the impression your intent is the moves be free. If so, Goode's dead horse beating gets revived, and I vote no. Unless, the issue of HOW to implement your otherwise reasonable suggestion is left solely up to the developers, but I still wouldn't agree with free movement.
 

Jackshat

Active Member
To the peeps who asked or brought up the issue of expansion moves be at cost, nicely done! That is how debate should work! I didn't think there was an argument left that would change my vote from YES to NO. This would.

Need to hear the suggestor's response, but it's not unreasonable to assume the intent is free since we already use the construction tool free of charge.

And as MKPapa and Geoni stated, I'd vote NO, too, pending the suggestor's clarification of intent...or resubmission.

Goode, if this is why you've been impassionately arguing against, this argument should've been your wedge--I'd have agreed. :)
 
Last edited:
Top