[City] Allow buildings to be replaced when moving

[DeletedUser317]

I'd hate if this was implemented, part of the joy of the game for me is playing "building tetris", you have limited space so it forces you to make the most of it and if you run out of space then you have a choice of selling something or working for another expansion. Whats the point of making you work for expansions if you always have a floating point?

I agree with you about the Tetris part, but there is one thing that's bothering me. Imagine you're at the end of your expansions and your city isn't placed right and you babe little missed spaces everywhere. How are you going to use them? You'll have to remove very high ranked buildings(considering sinse youve finished the expansions you're at a high level) You wouldn't have any other option. Which to me doesn't sound that good...

 

[DeletedUser98]

not playing the game anymore, but i still support the suggestion to ease the placement and re-placement of buildings, like in Forge of Empires. those who reasoned that the top 10 players looked like they have planned ahead missed the following facts (i know because i have been looking at their layouts either for inspiration or tips with regards to city planning)

• they might have bought all the expansions already, but they haven't placed any buildings there yet, so there's still room to temporarily place a building
• they might have bought lots of buildings using real world cash (e.g. Goddess of Fertility - with free 510 population) that, in a way, don't force them to utilize every nook and cranny, every empty cell in the grid, unlike me where every empty cell is gold and worth every opportunity and i usually fill all the new empty cells with buildings as long as i have the money to buy or upgrade the building.
• the only opportunity i have to rearrange my buildings is when i have bought a new empty expansion, but usually 4x4 (or is it 5x5) is not enough. you can't temporarily place the town hall there, so you have to reorder the buildings the hard way if you want to move your town hall from point A to point B. imagine if the whole city has been filled already. then there's a new building upgrade that you have not anticipated: from a 3x3 residence house, it would become 5x2 upon upgrade. i'm not happy with someone's idea of "planning ahead" leaving empty cells just to be filled after a month of playing the game.

this aspect of the game shouldn't what makes it hard to play. it should be the missions, the earning gold/research points for upgrades, and the proper balance of population and culture

 

[DeletedUser]

The above argument initiated by Kazobel (or those who responded/reacted to what she said) seems to me to be about nothing very much substantive.
You get temporary storage space every time you get a new expansion IF you use it as such BEFORE filling it up with all the stuff you have been waiting to build.
So what is the issue?

 

[Deleted User - 13667]

I think the intention would be to allow players to edit their own cities whenever they made a new breakthrough in research rather than wait till they have cleared an expansion. The wait could be long and boring from time to time.

Moreover, not every player enjoys battle encounters. There could well be those who refuse to fight at all

 

[DeletedUser98]

thanks s5carrot for a most direct-to-the-point explanation of what i was trying to say

 

[DeletedUser]

There could well be those who refuse to fight at all

*Drops by and whistles*

Seriously though, I like this idea and am glad it's been forwarded. As Da Twista mentioned several months ago - you don't want to demolish a level 15 (or more up-to-date level 17) building to place it somewhere else. Imagine having to move a level 10 Ancient Wonder... Do you delete the AW or the 3-4 level 17 residences? A painful thought. As for the argument you can plan ahead by looking in the wiki to see how much space you'll need: my crystal ball won't let me see the amount of space we'll need when we get the chapter VII building upgrades... The image just keeps fading.

We won't ever be able to rotate buildings, and an in-game city planner just isn't going to happen either. This might as well be the compromise.

 

[Rimella]

Hi - relatively new to all this- only started Elvenar less than 2 months ago. I suggested a few things on a different threads and one of them was could we have a "storage" option. I was pointed to this thread - so I agree with the posters!

 

[Deleted User - 13667]

I think the storage option has potential to an extent But definitely not suitable if a building in storage can continue to produce.

To make it a fair for everyone, it may be the best to have only the storage option during the move. Nothing must be stored in order to end. It may be a better choice.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think the storage option has potential to an extent But definitely not suitable if a building in storage can continue to produce.

Agreed. It would make sense to have a separate option to store a building in the inventory with a pop-up appearing stating that the current production will be cancelled (such as when upgrading).

In contrast to an option to swap buildings where the space allows, an inventory makes things much more complicated. The question of whether the points granted for a building need to be deducted while that building is stored away is another issue that comes to mind here. Otherwise there's room for abuse (even if it's not really gaining the player anything).

An inventory option has a lot of potential when trying to move buildings that are quite large. In this case it's possible to store several smaller buildings temporarily to then move the larger building, or store the larger building and move the smaller buildings first. With a swap option, it's really only possible to move buildings of similar size. Which, as the game progresses (so far), is decreasingly the case.

 

[Deleted User - 13667]

Kudos!

could not have said it better, Valerius!

 

[Andy1000]

[Details] - When moving a building it can only be placed in an empty section. It would be better if a building could be set down if the foot print allows and the building already there is then picked up.

[Reasons for implementing] - Space is always an issue and considering the buildings increase in foot print size when being upgraded, a shifting of buildings may be required. May not always have that open space to deposit something temporarily considering the size of some items.

[Impact on other game features] - No clue

Alternatively, could you 'rent' a new larger space for say 1 hour. This would allow the player to make whatever manoeuvres were required.

 

[DeletedUser]

'rent' a new larger space for say 1 hour.

What happens when the rent expires, and there's not enough room because of the new buildings? Going back to a checkpoint won't work, because of Trades and interactions with other players, like visits.

Why not just park one of your expansions some place awkward, so that you won't steal it, and use it as your buffer?

 

[DeletedUser]

Agreed. It would make sense to have a separate option to store a building in the inventory with a pop-up appearing stating that the current production will be cancelled (such as when upgrading).

In contrast to an option to swap buildings where the space allows, an inventory makes things much more complicated. The question of whether the points granted for a building need to be deducted while that building is stored away is another issue that comes to mind here. Otherwise there's room for abuse (even if it's not really gaining the player anything).

An inventory option has a lot of potential when trying to move buildings that are quite large. In this case it's possible to store several smaller buildings temporarily to then move the larger building, or store the larger building and move the smaller buildings first. With a swap option, it's really only possible to move buildings of similar size. Which, as the game progresses (so far), is decreasingly the case.

There really isn't any question about whether stored buildings can still produce or anything like that - it should be a distinct 'no'. You get a pop-up warning like Valerius stated, that any production, upgrades or such will be cancelled, and then it just gets stored away - essentially making it so that building doesn't exist in your game until you bring it out again. I would imagine it should be as simple as deleting a building while saving a line of code that you have access to placing a level <xx> building of <type> - it's not like anything in here is customisable, everything is set in appearance. I'm not a programmer though, so I don't know for sure, but that's how I'd see it. Storage like this will simply make it easier to rearrange cities while allowing people to keep their hard earned building upgrades.

 

[DeletedUser1701]

The option to replace buildings, like in the FoE game (same maker) would be a major stap forward. I started the game about a month ago and was surprised that this function, which is available in FoE, isn't available here, while the game play is based on the same principles.

Having an edit option like CoC, storage,... would be a lot of work, but I expect the replace building option should be less work, as it's already done by developers in the same company. I just had to rearrange and sell several buildings to be able to do so. The swap option would have helped a lot. (even for the one road tile that was in the way when moving a building...)

 

[DeletedUser2101]

I think if you paid diamonds for a building or culture, you should be able to recoup the diamonds if sold, or store the building somewhere until you have need of it or room for it later. I like the idea of a trading space to allow for city revision...for me the fun is deciding where to put things and making my city the way I want it laid out, reminds me of playing with legos and blocks when I was a kid.

I am in the game to relax and to visit with people around the world. I enjoy the ranking too.

 

[DeletedUser2886]

FoE implemented this and it's been very useful. Even if it's just switching two buildings of the same size - though that might just be me, I like certain buildings in certain places But yeah it does help with the moving element of building - it's not always feasible to have the space necessary spare just to move something and in my opinion it doesn't take away any of the challenge of planning a city.

most of the cities ive seen all look the same. you cant rotate or place diagonally etc. everything is in rows with the same sort of look/feel. Its rather boring tbh

 

[DeletedUser2886]

This has been mentioned on both US Servers, and Beta. A holding area, or temporary storage for buildings while rearranging your cities. Also, mentioned, and defeated, was the ability to 'rotate' buildings to fit in spaces in your cities. I would support both ideas here.
thank you.

You wouldnt need a storage facility if you just had a feature where placing a building on top of another swaps their location. This would be far less time consuming to add and their fan base would appreciate it more. Also regarding rotation I support it. Creating space and having your own design feel is what these games should be about. Most of the cities look exactly the same and/or cluttered with just rows and rows of the same crap. Stifling the design process and the problem solving aspect seems rather counter intuitive to me.

 

[DeletedUser2886]

I think if you paid diamonds for a building or culture, you should be able to recoup the diamonds if sold, or store the building somewhere until you have need of it or room for it later. I like the idea of a trading space to allow for city revision...for me the fun is deciding where to put things and making my city the way I want it laid out, reminds me of playing with legos and blocks when I was a kid.

I am in the game to relax and to visit with people around the world. I enjoy the ranking too.

I would imagine if you start the game now its impossible to ever get to the top ranks. This is waht I hate about ranking in certain games. If you have been playing longer certain people will never have a chance to get up to the top which makes the rank thing pointless. Like I started this game a few days ago...there is no way I am ever gonna get #1 no matter how long I play. Maybe...if I spend an obscene amount of real money on diamonds...but yeah no

 

[DeletedUser2886]

It seems to me that if you have a look at the cities created by people ranked in the top 10 they didn't have a problem with the placement system so why is it all of a sudden an issue now? just keep some free space available and play tetris with your buildings. If your suggestion was implemented then it would remove the element of forward planning and to be honest make working for expansions pointless. <---Sorry was I being "testy" there

you cant play tetris lol....the analogy is like playing tetris but you cant rotate the blocks...and thats just dumb. This is the first builder game I have played so I may be talking out of my ass here but no rotation stifles not only the problem solving aspect but the design element in a way. Most of the cities i have visited are very bland and just rows and rows of the same buildings and lack any sort of character. I have a few other issues with the game and will be trying out other builder games just to see whats what across the board

 

[DeletedUser2886]

I think if you paid diamonds for a building or culture, you should be able to recoup the diamonds if sold, or store the building somewhere until you have need of it or room for it later. I like the idea of a trading space to allow for city revision...for me the fun is deciding where to put things and making my city the way I want it laid out, reminds me of playing with legos and blocks when I was a kid.

I am in the game to relax and to visit with people around the world. I enjoy the ranking too.

I also agree with the concept of recouping some of your real money spent on diamonds XD