• 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

Approved for Voting Rearrange Land Expansions in Reconstruction Mode

Would you like to see this improvement added to the game?

  • Yes

    Votes: 64 63.4%
  • No

    Votes: 37 36.6%

  • Total voters
    101
  • Poll closed .

Ebeondi Asi

Well-Known Member
Yeah, but everything else is a building...an expansion is not, it's the land buildings go on. You can't move the land.
The reasoning is in error. It is true one cannot usually move land without major effort..., but moving developed areas is a reality, and is done in cities all the time. basically the 'land' we use is marked for residential use. in real life a city may decide to close an area and revert it to it's natural state. Change zoning laws. etc.
So the game area we play and want to move is not 'moving land' in any way. IMO.
 

Johnny B. Goode

Well-Known Member
The reasoning is in error. It is true one cannot usually move land without major effort..., but moving developed areas is a reality, and is done in cities all the time. basically the 'land' we use is marked for residential use. in real life a city may decide to close an area and revert it to it's natural state. Change zoning laws. etc.
So the game area we play and want to move is not 'moving land' in any way. IMO.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
 

Xerosaur

Well-Known Member
I am NOT attempting to resurrect this topic to rekindle disagreement or hash through staid points of view. I did have 1 more thing that's potentially relevant to INNO: customer retention.

It's been said a few time in the 5 pages behind me, that if you make a mistake by placing land squares haphazardly, or without the prescience needed for better future game growth, just abandon the city and its mistakes, and just build another city where you can do it better, do it right, etc.

That's a flawed perspective. Personal financial investment in a city means the decision to abandon it doesn't come easily as you try to grind up in the game on top of your errors. It begins to take more energy than it's worth, and that's risky for Inno - it's a red flag if customers they spent marketing dollars to get into the game, and one that's spent real money ingame, may more strongly consider leaving FOE for this unfixable error.

Customer gone.

Many people thoughtfully spend money to begin with, then do something non-optimal (wrong?). They are not willing to cavalierly respend the same or more, to start again. I propose that it could actually make players in that situation leave the game, because they are not willing to re-spend again to overcome their city design problem.

The thinking goes like this: Well, I played the game for a year, but...I can NOW see why my foolish layout makes me screwed. I can't move my city squares around because I didn't KNOW to place them intelligently enough to accommodate the new buildings I want to put down. A year's enough - I'm not starting again.

Thanks for the memories, Inno.

Inno should be motivated to retain customers, and I maintain that if squares could be moved to ameliorate early game mistakes in their placement, customers would continue on vs potentially be lost - having had enough of trying to make a city that works for them.
 
Last edited:
Its so funny to see the same types of personalities you see everywhere in life “negative Nancys” and positive Pete’s lol
i personally think that sort of ability would be Great but worry about if the edit servers could handle all that change.
 

perceptivePanda

New Member
Inno should be motivated to retain customers, and I maintain that if squares could be moved to ameliorate early game mistakes in their placement, customers would continue on vs potentially be lost - having had enough of trying to make a city that works for them.
I do understand where you’re coming from, but I just can’t imagine a substantial amount of players would abandon a city they’ve invested so much time and effort into because they can’t rearrange the city’s entire layout. I could be wrong about how many people would leave, but that seems to me like a drastic response to an issue that can be resolved over time (and better planning).

Imo, the fun of the game is researching, planning ahead, and learning from mistakes. Long-term strategy and whatnot. Any new player has access to the wiki and forums to do those things: research, plan ages/events ahead, and learn from others’ mistakes. I think the suggested feature could discourage players from researching and really thinking ahead about those choices.

I will say: it wont rustle my jimmies an incredible amount if the feature is implemented, but I am personally of the ‘equal challenge for all’ camp.
 

Xerosaur

Well-Known Member
@perceptivePanda

It's not a binary decision like that - one day wake up and say - this sucks, I"m leaving.

It's a slow gradual decline that culminates in frustration that you made a fundamental mistake and fixing it is not possible. That creates multiple "decision points" in the game - spend less time, spend less money, have less interest, and move on when you finally "snap" from 1, 2 or all of those. Boom!

Why do you think there is so much going on concurrently in FoE? If you'e not here, you can't spend money, and they don't have a chance to even entice you.

The goal of adding the ability to move land squares around to support city growth, aside from the proselytizing that's going on here, has another quiet basis - reduce or remove impediments to gameplay for the "on the fence" weekend warriors. If you're not convinced, look at your hood each 2 weeks, and I'll tell you flat out - it's a shade of it's former self - even 1 year ago. Lot's of tumbleweed cities - which is a VOTE on the game's cost, time and interest level.

People are already leaving the game, and while I don't have quantitative numbers to prove it, the qualitative texture of gameplay now vs 2 years ago, is definitely palpable.

The augmented energy in the game's interest and investment that came from the world's Covid hibernation is now gone, and that is darn apparent.

Retaining marginal gaming patron opportunities is well worth corporate evaluation of an idea that appeals to a vast majority of people. If game die-hards don't want to take advantage of it due to adherence to some fundamental doctrine of gameplay that's sacrosant, they don't have to participate, but I bet many of them will, if given the opportunity.
 
Last edited:

Pericles the Lion

Well-Known Member
I don't have a strong opinion either way. I read, early on, that a square(ish) city layout was best and pretty much went that way. If the ability to move expansions was implemented, I would not need to make use of it. Regardless, I don't think that noobish placement of expansions is a big deal. If done in the early ages, it's an easy mistake to get past as new expansions are placed. I think that the #1 mistake players make (despite lots of warnings) is moving through the ages too quickly. I am amazed at what I see each time the hood resets. Players in SAV with only a few low level GBs and less than 30MM points. After allowing expansion repositioning, what next? Allow players to regress to an earlier age in order to make them happy?
 

Xerosaur

Well-Known Member
What's next? Whatever is required to balance gamed design deficiencies we had to live with, but don't if we all agree that they are better fixed, vs staying the way they are.

I remember pages of discussion when there was NO reconstruction tool. This was eventually fixed to be a feature of the game, but there were zealots that said the same thing - you should be smart enough to not make the mistakes that bind you into a corner on item placement. Be prescient enough to see what you could need, and plan for it.

Come on now... Inno saw the light on this (hooray!) and bit the bullet to create a darn good reconstruction tool that is a staple of gameplay now. I applaud the product manager that had to fight back negativity on getting this feature created and engineering management screaming what it would cost to design. Sanity prevailed, we have it now, and it was the right decision for the game, and product feature to have in the game.

For some... adding land squares isn't that level of revolutionary, it's just mildly evolutionary.

PS: I've been sitting in meetings like that my entire professional life, ON BOTH sides - as an advocate for my prospects and customer as a Product manager, and as an Engineer discussing (debating) why it's needed and what it would cost.
 
Last edited:

Pericles the Lion

Well-Known Member
What's next? Whatever is required to balance gamed design deficiencies we had to live with, but don't if we all agree that they are better fixed, vs staying the way they are.

I remember pages of discussion when there was NO reconstruction tool. This was eventually fixed to be a feature of the game, but there were zealots that said the same thing - you should be smart enough to not make the mistakes that bind you into a corner on item placement. Be prescient enough to see what you could need, and plan for it.

Come on now... Inno saw the light on this (hooray!) and bit the bullet to create a darn good reconstruction tool that is a staple of gameplay now. I applaud the product manager that had to fight back negatively on getting this feature created and engineering management screaming what it would cost to design. Sanity prevailed, we have it now, and it was the right decision for the game, and product feature to have in the game.

For some... adding land squares isn't that level of revolutionary, it's just mildly evolutionary.

PS: I've been sitting in meetings like that my entire professional life, ON BOTH sides - as an advocate for my prospects and customer as a Product manager, and as an Engineer discussing (debating) why it's needed and what it would cost.
The reconstruction tool is a nice feature but it did not introduce an ability to players that they didn't already have. It just made a very painstaking process much easier. Same with aiding without actually visiting the city and, later, Aid All.
 

Meat Butcher

Well-Known Member
I voted "no" but if the yes vote wins I will not be unhappy as it would be cool to be able to be able to re arrange my city grid if needed.

However I voted no coz I just think you should do your research and have a plan before you place the expansion.
Expansion placements is one of the most important things you do in the game. Folks that do not buy diamonds on the regular in most cases will use whatever diamonds they save up for expansions. So this is not an act you just pencil whip, you think and plan before placing.
 
Top