• 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

Jackshat

Active Member
You have my vote. Just as we're free to rearrange our city whenever we want, why not the spaces the city rests upon? It's not like after CENTURIES of advancing civilizations someone said, "No! We can't change the landscaping to adjust to changing technologies; that would be too easy! Build where your forefathers did 1000 years ago!"

If your suggestion makes things too easy, what were they thinking allowing peeps to get GBs centuries ahead of one's age? Now, THAT was too easy and watered down the gameplay and challenge of earning your way through the ages. And siege camps? No need to have to actually solve the logistics of sustained warfare with the dumbing down of attrition.

Your request only affects those who choose to use it, unlike future GBs for cavemen and siege camps, etc. that actually affect inter-player aspects of the game.
 
Last edited:

Johnny B. Goode

Well-Known Member
Build where your forefathers did 1000 years ago!"
You do know that cities in much of the world are in the same places that they were 1000 years ago, right? And that for most of human history new cities have frequently been built on the sites of older cities? Also that you can't "move" a developed piece of land in real life? You can let a developed piece of land be overtaken by nature and develop a new piece of land somewhere else, but that is not at all the same thing, and would require obtaining a new expansion for the new development and much time for the abandoned land to go completely back to wilderness. Of course, this is a game and Inno can do whatever they want regardless of real life comparisons, but to cite real life as justification for a game change, the real life example cited needs to be relevant and actually support your stance.
 

The Lady Redneck

Well-Known Member
In real cities people do not move chunks of land around. They add more land as they expand. (AS happens in the game) In the real world empty land for development is either a green field site (never been built on before) or Brownfield (previously developed land awaiting redevelopment) The land in both cases stays put. It is the buildings that move.
 

Nakijima

New Member
for most of human history new cities have frequently been built on the sites of older cities? Also that you can't "move" a developed piece of land in real life?

Yes, I understand your reasoning here, whereas in real terms we can't pick up a chunk of real estate and plop it down somewhere else. I am following your reasoning without error.

I would not knowingly support or do anything which could adversely affect the basic foundations of the game. These foundations have the objective of communicating concepts about development; both physical and intellectual.

Will giving people the option of moving their real estate around alter those basic foundations? My answer is I don't think it will and am looking to see any explanations or arguments which show it could.

The integrity of the game is what really matters in all proposals.

In real life most cities are in the wrong locations for the age we are now living in. In other words, they really should be on other chunks of real estate because their growth has destroyed the farmlands that were necessary for those same cities to exist before the time of refrigeration, rail roads, and motorized transport. Cites were built on waterways or near rivers and were sustained by local farming and that farm land was often the best farm land.

So in the game you own the available real estate and the building that are on those chunks of land. This proposal only asks that you be allowed to rearrange the land you already own. Allowing this will not increase or give any unfair advantage and I do not see how allowing this would be detrimental.

In real life we obviously can't rearrange the surveyed property but the proposal isn't harmful, doesn't give any advantage, whereas not allowing this only impedes what would eventually happen anyways. So from my perspective not allowing this actually is a little underhanded since those with the most existing real estate profit more by preventing those with less real estate to optimize it for their own use, and it is their real estate.
 

Johnny B. Goode

Well-Known Member
Yes, I understand your reasoning here, whereas in real terms we can't pick up a chunk of real estate and plop it down somewhere else. I am following your reasoning without error.

I would not knowingly support or do anything which could adversely affect the basic foundations of the game. These foundations have the objective of communicating concepts about development; both physical and intellectual.

Will giving people the option of moving their real estate around alter those basic foundations? My answer is I don't think it will and am looking to see any explanations or arguments which show it could.

The integrity of the game is what really matters in all proposals.

In real life most cities are in the wrong locations for the age we are now living in. In other words, they really should be on other chunks of real estate because their growth has destroyed the farmlands that were necessary for those same cities to exist before the time of refrigeration, rail roads, and motorized transport. Cites were built on waterways or near rivers and were sustained by local farming and that farm land was often the best farm land.

So in the game you own the available real estate and the building that are on those chunks of land. This proposal only asks that you be allowed to rearrange the land you already own. Allowing this will not increase or give any unfair advantage and I do not see how allowing this would be detrimental.

In real life we obviously can't rearrange the surveyed property but the proposal isn't harmful, doesn't give any advantage, whereas not allowing this only impedes what would eventually happen anyways. So from my perspective not allowing this actually is a little underhanded since those with the most existing real estate profit more by preventing those with less real estate to optimize it for their own use, and it is their real estate.
The burden of proof on whether an idea does or does not fundamentally change the game is on the idea's proposer. And the question has never been about anyone having an advantage one way or the other, that is not the issue. The issue is that placement of expansions is a fundamental challenge of the game that has been here from the start, or at least for the almost 8 years that I've been playing. Other than making the game easier, how would allowing the movement of expansions make this a better game? Not an easier game, a better game.
 

Johnny B. Goode

Well-Known Member
Historic cities may be in their same geographic positions, but that doesn't mean developed plots weren't excavated for example, from flood prone areas further inland and redeveloped. Earth is always being moved to create a foundation for new development, regardless of the age. Some city squares may rest where they did 1000 years ago, others have likely been gutted and earth moved elsewhere for better development--unless you believe they just imported the land from neighboring cities, or made due with the existing ground and hoped for the best?

Excavation, a beautiful, real world, logical solution to better use land from one place, to another. The op's suggestion simulates such movement of land, regardless of whether the land area was previously developed.

Now, let's fire up that Space Carrier to magically create previous age special goods...do you have one of those?
This is ridiculous. Cities do not expand by moving earth from one location to another unless they're reclaiming wetlands, which is not very common. Yes, there is excavation that is done, but that has nothing to do with moving one plot of land to a different location, it is done to conform the land that is already there to the requirements of the building(s).
 

Johnny B. Goode

Well-Known Member
It's relevant if you have one relative to your claims of expansions are supposed to make the game challenging. But, YOU would never have such an incredulous piece of tech making special resources from pixie dust, to make your development easier. Off topic...unless you have one.
From what I've heard, they're not that great, so why would I want one? But that's beside the point. The fact that a Great Building makes getting special goods a little easier has absolutely nothing to do with moving/not moving expansions. It needs to be justified by showing how it makes this a better game, or at least more profitable for Inno. Allowing players to move expansions does neither.
 

The Lady Redneck

Well-Known Member
So, he excavates his "expansion", and moves it to a new industrialized sub-division. Grass now grows where once his factories stood, the city has declared it "a natural reserve (as it was before development)", and his redesigned, more eco-friendly factories, now sit on newly-developed land, buoyed by re-use of the previous "foundation", aka: "expansion", the previous factories sat on.
Does not happen. If a Company decides it needs a new more eco friendly factory It does not go to the huge expense of having its old un-eco friendly factory dismantled and moved to a new area. How would that make any sense? He puts it up for sale to help fund his new development.

And grass does not just grow in abandoned brownfield sites. They do not miraculously turn into a natural reserve. Whoever takes it over has to remove all the rubble and rubbish left behind, pay for any decontamination work, (previous owner will be held accountable for much of the bill) and cordon it off to stop fly tipping, until they have raised the money to be able to hire the landscapers to bring in the huge amount of new topsoil that will be needed and then begin to landscape it. Otherwise it is left a derelict and dangerous eyesore.
 
Last edited:

Jackshat

Active Member
Does not happen. If a Company decides it needs a new more eco friendly factory It does not go to the huge expense of having his old un-eco friendly factory dismantled and moved to a new area. How would that make any sense? He puts it up for sale to help fund his new development.

And grass does not just grow in abandoned brownfield sites. The do not miraculously turn into a natural reserve. Whoever takes it over has to remove all the rubble and rubbish left behind, pay for any decontamination work, and cordon it off to stop fly tipping, until they have raised the money to be able to hire the landscapers to bring in the huge amount of new topsoil that will be needed and then begin to landscape it. Otherwise it is left a derelict and dangerous eyesore.
 

Johnny B. Goode

Well-Known Member
Applying "real world" ways to a fantasy game, attempting to justify one's position, is beyond silly. I'll endeavor to avoid being drawn into such silliness in the future.
"Drawn into"?!? Perhaps you've forgotten your very first post in this thread.
You have my vote. Just as we're free to rearrange our city whenever we want, why not the spaces the city rests upon? It's not like after CENTURIES of advancing civilizations someone said, "No! We can't change the landscaping to adjust to changing technologies; that would be too easy! Build where your forefathers did 1000 years ago!"

If your suggestion makes things too easy, what were they thinking allowing peeps to get GBs centuries ahead of one's age? Now, THAT was too easy and watered down the gameplay and challenge of earning your way through the ages.

At least your suggestion DOESN'T affect the gameplay of anyone else like future GBs for cavemen do. I'd vote yes, twice, if I could.
Notice that you were the first one to bring the "real world" ways into this discussion. And you've found that you can't support this idea that way. Which we knew from the start. And you are right in one thing, it's beyond silly to attempt to justify one's position by applying real world ways. My position all along has had nothing to do with real world ways, it has to do with the basic fundamentals of this game. One of which is immovable expansions and the need to deal with that restriction.
 

Kaidi

Active Member
Based on what I've been reading, I'm sure I'm gonna get yelled at for this, but I like this idea. I don't need it for myself, because I keep my cities rectangular/square...because I'm an experienced player.

I sometimes help people rearrange their cities, and I've seen some that not-so-newbies basically totaled very early on, and have just been limping along, and they're now in LMA->PE...and someone explains about keeping cities square-ish, assuming they haven't figured it out on their own yet. Sometimes it is really difficult to come back from that, unless they want to age WAY up really quickly to get expansions to square stuff off, which is almost never a good idea (IMNSHO, lol).

Sure, they could delete their city and start over, but some of these people have months in, months where they've been paying for a mistake (with inefficiency) they didn't know was a mistake, until someone told them or they figured it out, much too late. They have guildies who have become friends on their world, and without the ability to move at least SOME expansions, they have four choices:
  • Keep limping along, advancing much more slowly than their friends/neighbors/guildies.
  • Age up really fast to get those extra expansions, which comes with it's own set of problems.
  • Abandon their world and their friends, and start a new city.
  • Quit the game.
I'd much rather have them stay in the game, not age up too fast, have an efficient city - which is its own challenge with or without moveable expansions -and enjoy their friends...especially if they are my friends. lol.

I will say that someone mentioned limitations, which aren't part of this proposal and I agree that would be a good idea, but it would be programmatically more complex than just letting people move stuff.

I will also say that if the tutorial warned people that once you place an expansion you can never ever move it, so to make sure you're placing it efficiently, or something like that...I'd probably have voted no. But it doesn't, and I voted yes.
 

Johnny B. Goode

Well-Known Member
I don't get it. It appears to me that you all want "sandbox mode." Where every mistake can be fixed or reversed. Only trouble is, the games I've seen with a sandbox mode, it was separate from the main game and didn't earn you any permanent benefits or rewards. It was for practice. And I've seen cities where mistakes have been made with expansions, but never when that was the only major mistake. What I'm saying is that this proposal is basically to enable bad players to not pay the price for mistakes. And I know that players can avoid paying the price for many, many mistakes in this game, but it isn't much of a game if every mistake has no price to pay. This is one of the few immutable mechanics of FoE, there is no good reason to change that.
 

The Lady Redneck

Well-Known Member
My 1st city attempt was in B world. I made a real mess and it did not take me long to realize trying to sort it out would take more effort than it was worth. And that to continue playing like that would get me no where. So I simply closed that world down and moved to C world and started over fully believing I had learned from my mistakes and now knew what to do to get a good city going. Well guess what..... I made a different mess. So did the same again and moved to another world for my 3rd attempt. And this time I managed to get a city going. Not once did it enter my head to come to the Forum to ask that something in the game be changed so I could sort out my mess. I am an adult, it was my mess so it was up to me to decide what to do to sort it out.
 

Nakijima

New Member
The burden of proof on whether an idea does or does not fundamentally change the game is on the idea's proposer.
Already proved that point and you've shown nothing to the contrary.

the question has never been about anyone having an advantage one way or the other
This is another valid point that should be considered but which once again you have failed to address and simply dismissed.
Pointing out the possible unfairness of the existing system maybe a reason in your mind to dismiss the point.
I doubt that's the case for most others.

So far you have offered nothing to support your contention that this proposal fundamentally changes the game.
Even if this were the case it must be acknowledged that evolving the game is a part of it's nature and changes
are intended and necessary for the game to continue to appeal and survive.

Maybe you just don't want it survive or get better. I don't know but I don't see you being helpful at all in regards to honestly dealing with the proposal.

I think this is a good proposal and that people should have the ability to reposition their own property;
This proposal is perfectly in line with the reconstruction tools function and would have no effect on the game.
 

Nakijima

New Member
My 1st city attempt was in B world. I made a real mess and it did not take me long to realize trying to sort it out would take more effort than it was worth. And that to continue playing like that would get me no where. So I simply closed that world down and moved to C world and started over fully believing I had learned from my mistakes and now knew what to do to get a good city going. Well guess what..... I made a different mess. So did the same again and moved to another world for my 3rd attempt. And this time I managed to get a city going. Not once did it enter my head to come to the Forum to ask that something in the game be changed so I could sort out my mess. I am an adult, it was my mess so it was up to me to decide what to do to sort it out.

This reminds me of talking with my late father about a 1941 dodge army truck that didn't have any heater, and not missing a beat he replied; "course not, what's wrong with you, dress appropriately."

The point is that yea, maybe in the gold ole day's we had no heaters, no anti-freeze, and no snow tires either.

There's nothing wrong with this proposal that I can see. I see the opposition to this proposal in the same light as the analogy.
 

Johnny B. Goode

Well-Known Member
Already proved that point and you've shown nothing to the contrary.
No, no you haven't.
This is another valid point that should be considered but which once again you have failed to address and simply dismissed.
Pointing out the possible unfairness of the existing system maybe a reason in your mind to dismiss the point.
I have never pointed out the possible unfairness of the existing system..because it's not unfair. It treats every player exactly the same. And I also have never said that fairness/unfairness has anything to do with why I oppose this idea.
So far you have offered nothing to support your contention that this proposal fundamentally changes the game.
Yes, I have. Expansions being fixed in position once placed is a basic feature/mechanic of the game, which is what you're denying with no proof.
Even if this were the case it must be acknowledged that evolving the game is a part of it's nature and changes
are intended and necessary for the game to continue to appeal and survive.
While this is true, such a fundamental change needs more than such a generic justification. Changes need to be intentional and beneficial to the game. This is neither. This change would not bring new players to the game, it would just make it easier for existing players, which is one of the reasons ideas like this used to be on the Do Not Suggest List. And "survive"? LOL This game is ten years old and going strong...with fixed expansions.
Maybe you just don't want it survive or get better. I don't know but I don't see you being helpful at all in regards to honestly dealing with the proposal.
Of course I do. I have almost 8 years invested in this game. That's one of the more ridiculous statements I've seen. And just because I'm opposed to this idea does not equate to "dishonestly dealing with it". I'm not sure where you got that from.
I think this is a good proposal and that people should have the ability to reposition their own property;
And I think it is not a good proposal, and expansions should continue to stay fixed once placed.
This proposal is perfectly in line with the reconstruction tools function and would have no effect on the game.
No, it is not in line with the reconstruction tools function, and yes it would have an effect on the game. The Reconstruction Mode only made easier what you could already do without it. This completely changes a basic mechanic of the game. It is ludicrous to say it would have no effect on the game. (Incidentally, if it would have no effect on the game, then why make the change?)
This reminds me of talking with my late father about a 1941 dodge army truck that didn't have any heater, and not missing a beat he replied; "course not, what's wrong with you, dress appropriately."

The point is that yea, maybe in the gold ole day's we had no heaters, no anti-freeze, and no snow tires either.

There's nothing wrong with this proposal that I can see. I see the opposition to this proposal in the same light as the analogy.
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.)
 

Channel4News

New Member
I don't get it. It appears to me that you all want "sandbox mode." Where every mistake can be fixed or reversed. Only trouble is, the games I've seen with a sandbox mode, it was separate from the main game and didn't earn you any permanent benefits or rewards. It was for practice. And I've seen cities where mistakes have been made with expansions, but never when that was the only major mistake. What I'm saying is that this proposal is basically to enable bad players to not pay the price for mistakes. And I know that players can avoid paying the price for many, many mistakes in this game, but it isn't much of a game if every mistake has no price to pay. This is one of the few immutable mechanics of FoE, there is no good reason to change that.
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.
 

Nakijima

New 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.
 
Last edited:
Top