Storing constructed GB's

[NWWolverine]

I know, I know. Seen it, heard it all before, but this should be allowed with the constant changes Inno is introducing in both the way the game is played and what's needed to be competitive in this new game play. Alot of players store event buildings instead of selling them because Inno has been revamping them with greater stats that are in line with where the games headed. The same option should be there for out dated GB's. Inno has to update most of the existing GB's or they're just worthless in most cities. (I deleted my Traz because of all the troops my Pyramids generate.) An event building is now better than 2 of the older GB's that reached mid levels. People are deleting them to make room for the never ending addition of large event buildings. Soon, we could get notified that Inno is revamping them and they need to be rebuilt. Go ahead, let's hear it, tear me up....

 

[Dominator - X]

I actually sent such a request to INNO. I mean, why stop at CS buildings? Event buildings and quite possibly a GB is being boosted, so we should get them all back also. Let's be fair, INNO.

I will let you know how they respond.

 

[Sharmon the Impaler]

I actually sent such a request to INNO. I mean, why stop at CS buildings? Event buildings and quite possibly a GB is being boosted, so we should get them all back also. Let's be fair, INNO.

I will let you know how they respond.

It would be more fair if we can get back any GB that we ever leveled in the game (5 year limit so it doesn't take too long to implement) .

 

[NWWolverine]

I'm in a guild with a lot of billionaires and this a big issue. New event buildings are better than a GB's they spent a long time building and if they delete any of them to make room....what's Inno's future for GB value?

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

You know, there are always choices to be made in playing a game. And if the players that have this issue are "billionaires" (in game terms, I'm assuming), then rebuilding them later shouldn't be an issue. I mean, power leveling GBs quickly has been a thing for years in top guilds...and even in some that aren't so "top". I don't see this as anything near a "must-have".

I mean, why stop at CS buildings? Event buildings and quite possibly a GB is being boosted, so we should get them all back also. Let's be fair, INNO.

Unlike event buildings and GBs, there has only ever been one chance to get Cultural Settlement buildings. Which is why it's reasonable to replace some of them, but not so much with event buildings (which you can still get) or GBs (which you can just rebuild).

 

[Dominator - X]

You know, there are always choices to be made in playing a game. And if the players that have this issue are "billionaires" (in game terms, I'm assuming), then rebuilding them later shouldn't be an issue. I mean, power leveling GBs quickly has been a thing for years in top guilds...and even in some that aren't so "top". I don't see this as anything near a "must-have".

Unlike event buildings and GBs, there has only ever been one chance to get Cultural Settlement buildings. Which is why it's reasonable to replace some of them, but not so much with event buildings (which you can still get) or GBs (which you can just rebuild).

I stated earlier on another thread, that the restriction on building them again could be removed, giving everyone who purposely sold or deleted a CS building the chance to gain them again. It would be at a cost of their time. That would be a fair resolution.

If the boost to the Obs goes live, why would it be fair to those who built, leveled and then deleted it, for whatever reason, to not have INNO replace it at the very level they deleted it at?

As far as EB's that were later boosted: If the AD was actually random and the chance to gain all levels of EB's were available, that would be fair too. However, the AD is not open to random chance. I have not seen a Sleigh Builder for over a year. I saw them all the time in the past. When I decided to buy several and filled my city, they disappeared. Same with the Sentinel Outpost. Once I bought several and filled my city with them, they also disappeared. That is not showing a random chance. It is definitely (in some way) tied to or dependent on what I have, not on what I want or need. Same with a few other items. I see the same stuff that I have no need nor desire rotate through regularly. Some I buy for CP's but then sell them back. However, they keep showing up all the time. I am talking older buildings than the SB and SO. Coincidence? Possibly. However, not likely. Again, if it were completely random chance, that would be fine. It might take some time, but it would be possible. Regardless, by the time you get all the levels, boosted or not, they would probably be outdated anyways. So, why not just return them if they were boosted after being removed?

The free return benefits me, so this isn't me complaining because everyone else benefits. I sold a few CS buildings myself. I am just pointing out another issue where INNO is either being hypocritical and partial or just did not think this through very well ahead of time. I just do not trust that they have a very strong brain trust that makes these decisions. Time after time and issue after issue proves that out on a regular basis.

 

[Angry.Blanket]

I believe they are going to update all GBs some day, I am not willing to delete any GB I don.t want to have to rebuild.
The same with cultural buildings. I knew there was no way they could leave them as they were and still be a part of the game.
Getting redoo's on everything because "I didnt know" changes the whole strategy of the game.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

If the boost to the Obs goes live, why would it be fair to those who built, leveled and then deleted it, for whatever reason, to not have INNO replace it at the very level they deleted it at?

For the very reason I stated, you can always rebuild a GB. You can't with a Cultural Settlement building.

 

[Dominator - X]

For the very reason I stated, you can always rebuild a GB. You can't with a Cultural Settlement building.

Covered that in my response. You could rebuild CS buildings if they removed the restriction and allowed us to go through the steps again to acquire the levels in the Settlement. If INNO can replace a building that was purposely deleted years ago, they could just as easily remove the CS restriction. Why is it fair to replace a fully leveled CS building that was purposely deleted or sold, but then in the same breath require someone who wants the Obs boost, to rebuild an Obs and then spend the time and FP's to level it up again?

 

[Dominator - X]

I believe they are going to update all GBs some day, I am not willing to delete any GB I don.t want to have to rebuild.
The same with cultural buildings. I knew there was no way they could leave them as they were and still be a part of the game.
Getting redoo's on everything because "I didnt know" changes the whole strategy of the game.

Exactly. They should either remove the inventory altogether or not allow anything to be deleted/sold from it. Allowing some buildings to be placed back in inventory that were purposely removed from our city or inventory and not others is at a minimum, dopey. I should go and sell all of my CS buildings and just wait for the new settlement to go live and have them replaced. At least I can make something from them. Why not allow it to be done perpetually? It would be a nice resource flow.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

Covered that in my response. You could rebuild CS buildings if they removed the restriction and allowed us to go through the steps again to acquire the levels in the Settlement. If INNO can replace a building that was purposely deleted years ago, they could just as easily remove the CS restriction. Why is it fair to replace a fully leveled CS building that was purposely deleted or sold, but then in the same breath require someone who wants the Obs boost, to rebuild an Obs and then spend the time and FP's to level it up again?

So your definition of fairness hinges on something that Inno has never shown any indication of ever doing? If they removed the restrictions, that would fit your definition of fairness? So then all the whales could have multiples of each CS building. Unless you're thinking that your "simple" solution would also include programming the game to check that the player doesn't already have one (in Inventory or in their city) before allowing them to start another one. Not so simple now, is it? And still not fair. Personally, I don't think you have the faintest idea of what "fair" means. "Fair" is accomplished by one entity (the player) asking politely if a deleted building could possibly be returned, given a massive change in that building's stats (something that would not be the case with event buildings or GBs), and the governing entity (Inno) deciding whether to grant that request on a one time basis, and then the first entity (player) graciously accepting whatever the governing entity (Inno) decides to do.

And therein lies another basic reason not to do the same for event buildings or GBs. Their stats for the same level rarely change, and never by much. The CS buildings are being massively buffed, to an extent never seen without adding levels/upgrades to a building. It's a one-off situation all around and throwing around the ridiculous idea of replacing sold GBs that have not changed is not helping your cause logically at all. Give it up.

 

[Angry.Blanket]

So your definition of fairness hinges on something that Inno has never shown any indication of ever doing? If they removed the restrictions, that would fit your definition of fairness? So then all the whales could have multiples of each CS building. Unless you're thinking that your "simple" solution would also include programming the game to check that the player doesn't already have one (in Inventory or in their city) before allowing them to start another one. Not so simple now, is it? And still not fair. Personally, I don't think you have the faintest idea of what "fair" means. "Fair" is accomplished by one entity (the player) asking politely if a deleted building could possibly be returned, given a massive change in that building's stats (something that would not be the case with event buildings or GBs), and the governing entity (Inno) deciding whether to grant that request on a one time basis, and then the first entity (player) graciously accepting whatever the governing entity (Inno) decides to do.

And therein lies another basic reason not to do the same for event buildings or GBs. Their stats for the same level rarely change, and never by much. The CS buildings are being massively buffed, to an extent never seen without adding levels/upgrades to a building. It's a one-off situation all around and throwing around the ridiculous idea of replacing sold GBs that have not changed is not helping your cause logically at all. Give it up.

Some people felt the buildings were worthless and deleted/sold them, I felt Inno may eventually update them so I kept mine in inventory.
I feel my COA and CDM are not up to par with my event buildings, but I am not ready to delete them yet because I feel Inno is likely to give them an update.
Others have deleted some of their GB for the same reason and now will expect them to be returned when Inno updates them.
(Edited to add) , I am glad they returned the CS buildings for folks, but I do feel a bit irritated that I made the right decision and others made the wrong decision and were rewarded for it.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

Some people felt the buildings were worthless and deleted/sold them, I felt Inno may eventually update them so I kept mine in inventory.
I feel my COA and CDM are not up to par with my event buildings, but I am not ready to delete them yet because I feel Inno is likely to give them an update.
Others have deleted some of their GB for the same reason and now will expect them to be returned when Inno updates them.

That doesn't follow logically from this occurrence with the CS buildings. As I said, GBs can simply be rebuilt if they were sold. I've actually done this several times over the years. I never asked for, nor expected, Inno to return the deleted GBs, because of the ability to replace them myself. I can (and have) also done this with some event buildings, as they also can be replaced by me. We can't replace CS buildings by ourselves, and therein lies the fundamental difference.

I'm actually kind of sorry now that Inno is replacing the CS buildings, because of all the sour grapes nonsense we're now seeing here on the Forum. I'd gladly delete the two buildings (out of 13 cities) I got back if you all would just shut up about it and quit putting forth these ridiculous "ideas".

 

[jaymoney23456]

That doesn't follow logically from this occurrence with the CS buildings. As I said, GBs can simply be rebuilt if they were sold. I've actually done this several times over the years. I never asked for, nor expected, Inno to return the deleted GBs, because of the ability to replace them myself. I can (and have) also done this with some event buildings, as they also can be replaced by me. We can't replace CS buildings by ourselves, and therein lies the fundamental difference.

I'm actually kind of sorry now that Inno is replacing the CS buildings, because of all the sour grapes nonsense we're now seeing here on the Forum. I'd gladly delete the two buildings (out of 13 cities) I got back if you all would just shut up about it and quit putting forth these ridiculous "ideas".

Yes, deleting a GB isn't the same thing as deleting CS building as you can simply rebuild GB. Also, if you accidentially delete a GB and contact support promptly you are likely to have it returned. Not sure why so many people are having a hissy fit over CS being returned to players since it doesn't even impact them, but apparently lots of people like to like to ride their high horse and can't stand it when anyone gets a break over anything.

 

[Angry.Blanket]

Yes, deleting a GB isn't the same thing as deleting CS building as you can simply rebuild GB. Also, if you accidentially delete a GB and contact support promptly you are likely to have it returned. Not sure why so many people are having a hissy fit over CS being returned to players since it doesn't even impact them, but apparently lots of people like to like to ride their high horse and can't stand it when anyone gets a break over anything.

No they will not replace a GB if you accidently delete, They will give you one set of BPs,

 

[Dursland]

No they will not replace a GB if you accidently delete, They will give you one set of BPs,

Even if it's been maliciously deleted by another person they can't/won't replace it.

I think it's more of a case of "cant" than won't, because it involves contributors on levels with their fp amounts.

 

[Dominator - X]

So your definition of fairness hinges on something that Inno has never shown any indication of ever doing? If they removed the restrictions, that would fit your definition of fairness? So then all the whales could have multiples of each CS building. Unless you're thinking that your "simple" solution would also include programming the game to check that the player doesn't already have one (in Inventory or in their city) before allowing them to start another one. Not so simple now, is it? And still not fair.

I can't figure out if you argue just to argue or if you are just concerned about "thinking" you are right over actually being right. Regardless, my post is both fair and simple. The restriction of having 1 main CS building per CS would remain in effect. If someone, anyone (whale or not) deletes their CS building intentionally and later decide that they want it, they can go through the CS steps to build another one. Simple and fair. The programming restriction is already there. If they have 1 in inventory or in their city, they may not obtain nor build another one. Simple and fair. Everyone would be bound by the same rule. No one can build 2 of the same GB's right? Not in the same city. So the same would apply to the main CS buildings. This is not complicated, so quit trying to make it so.

PS: I realize this will never happen. INNO has proven to lack sense time and again. So, we can guarantee it will never be heard by them nor implemented. I am just pointing out another example of this, which is entertaining to me. You don't have to agree.

 

[Angry.Blanket]

That doesn't follow logically from this occurrence with the CS buildings. As I said, GBs can simply be rebuilt if they were sold. I've actually done this several times over the years. I never asked for, nor expected, Inno to return the deleted GBs, because of the ability to replace them myself. I can (and have) also done this with some event buildings, as they also can be replaced by me. We can't replace CS buildings by ourselves, and therein lies the fundamental difference.

I'm actually kind of sorry now that Inno is replacing the CS buildings, because of all the sour grapes nonsense we're now seeing here on the Forum. I'd gladly delete the two buildings (out of 13 cities) I got back if you all would just shut up about it and quit putting forth these ridiculous "ideas".

To me it does follow logically, the CS buildings could have been stored and saved for later, GBs cant be stored.
If I feel a CS building isnt up to snuff I just store it, cant do that with a GB.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

I can't figure out if you argue just to argue or if you are just concerned about "thinking" you are right over actually being right. Regardless, my post is both fair and simple. The restriction of having 1 main CS building per CS would remain in effect. If someone, anyone (whale or not) deletes their CS building intentionally and later decide that they want it, they can go through the CS steps to build another one. Simple and fair. The programming restriction is already there. If they have 1 in inventory or in their city, they may not obtain nor build another one. Simple and fair. Everyone would be bound by the same rule. No one can build 2 of the same GB's right? Not in the same city. So the same would apply to the main CS buildings. This is not complicated, so quit trying to make it so.

It is more complicated than that. They would have to reprogram the Settlement rewards themselves, because presently you cannot get a main building unless you start there from scratch. So they would have to figure out how to program the ability to procure a replacement by somehow resetting the Settlement rewards without a loophole allowing more than one main building. The programming restriction isn't on whether you have one or not, the restriction is in the Settlement rewards. This isn't simple (like them just replacing them), so quit trying to make it so.

To me it does follow logically, the CS buildings could have been stored and saved for later, GBs cant be stored.
If I feel a CS building isnt up to snuff I just store it, cant do that with a GB.

Sure, they could have been saved, but once power creep set in there was no reason to assume they would get the massive upgrade needed to make them relevant again. GBs can't be stored, but you always have the ability to replace them. Always. CS buildings=Can't replace. GBs=Can replace. Simple as that.

 

[Darkest.Knight]

I've never heard anyone comment on trying to restart a settlement after having deleted the first. It would be easy enough to program to either be only 1 ever or only 1 at a time, personally I have no idea which it is since I have all of them and never curious enough to try it myself.