View Full Version : Demolishing Level 5 buildings
Thejollyone
17.02.14, 18:27
I demolished a load of storehouses to make room for the new Improved ones, and was gutted at the lack of resources we get back for that.
Now BB have introduced the epic woodyards, there will be people who will be deleting a load more L5 buildings, and this will be on the increase I guess with the advent of the other planned epic buildings.
Surely we should be getting back a percentage of the "total" resources we have used to level these up? And yes, even gems for those silly enough to have used them at L5 (lol).
It was our own choice to upgrade, and it is our own choice to tear the upgraded buildings down when new buildings are available. I am in the same situation myself, but I do not think we should get anything back. We can choose not to tear down buildings if we think it is unfair :p
Thejollyone
17.02.14, 18:58
I do understand that, honest ;) But BB want us to invest with (perhaps) gems for the new epic workyards, they gotta give something back, surely?
I feel for you jollyfog. Many of us have done the same and its a really bad decision from BB not to refund a % of the total cost of developing a building. I recently deleted well in excess of 150 L5 Nobles and replaced them with Frozen Manors. That really hurt.
And before anyone says I shouldn't have upgraded them with the new features coming, like many long established L50 players they had been fully upgraded for about 12 to 18 months now.
Its going to be the same debacle when the new improved silos come online, unless the developers have a drastic rethink and adopt some of the suggestions posted on the forums.
I do understand that, honest ;) But BB want us to invest with (perhaps) gems for the new epic workyards, they gotta give something back, surely?
Why?
That would be like going to McDonalds and ask for a refund on the burgers you ate before when they start offering a bigger better burger.
Thejollyone
17.02.14, 19:02
thanks fishslice, the angle you have added with regards to not previously knowing this would happen just adds to my argument :)
Thejollyone
17.02.14, 19:08
Why?
That would be like going to McDonalds and ask for a refund on the burgers you ate before when they start offering a bigger better burger.
Because they give the players no incentive to invest in the new buildings for gems...?
New buildings are better. It is our choice to trash the old ones and buy new. We can all choose to keep the old buildings if we do not think the upgrade is worth it.
Thejollyone
17.02.14, 19:14
"New buildings are better" thats a contentious statement Im afraid. But the game has never been fair IMHO in giving resources back for those invested. But hey-ho..
Bluesavanah
17.02.14, 19:26
Life is full of choices, you got a good trade off on the storehouses by way of vastly improved capacity and a license back, if you bought the workyard its still a pretty good trade off being as what your likely to demolish (foresters and coking) weren't that expensive in the first place and you've had good use most likely from them. Your still getting a load of licenses back.
Now silo is the choice of all choices if yours are lvl 5. They cost quite a bit to upgrade, you only get space back so you have a big dilemma, but given that 1 improved silo can nearly run 6 farms (buffed silo/unbuffed farm) it can be a considerable amount of space.
Chances are this will become more frequent sooner rather than later, who would bet against improved watermills sometime soon and workyards that replace at least parts of other chains. No one forces you to upgrade (except for rare quest requirements) and no one forces you to tear stuff down. I have torn down many lvl 5 buildings and never really regretted doing so, just be a little more cautious before you upgrade stuff and you'll have no regrets.
Why?
That would be like going to McDonalds and ask for a refund on the burgers you ate before when they start offering a bigger better burger.
But after I have eaten the burger I have nothing left.
I think of it more like buying a house for 20k and investing 100k in it. Now its hopefully worth 120k. My family needs a bigger house though so what do I do? Rather than spending another 200k on a new house, I sell my old house for 120k and buy next one for 200k making my new investment 80k. Whilst I recognise this isn't real life, getting back a % of your investment in a building seems a solid approach to me!
Brankovics
17.02.14, 20:18
I sell my old house for 120k and buy next one for 200k making my new investment 80k...
If there is no mortgage crisis... Further, here is not deterioration, so you you don't have to spend on maintains regularly. The burger simile is better...
I really don't understand this refund ideas. When was not possible to move a building, just destroy and rebuild, was not so much complaints...
Thejollyone
17.02.14, 20:38
the complaint remains, BB want us to possibly spend gems on an over-inflated building (in my eyes) yet give those that may want to go down this route no incentive to do so in giving just the basic resources back for knocking old level 5 buildings that these replace down.
Why?
That would be like going to McDonalds and ask for a refund on the burgers you ate before when they start offering a bigger better burger.
The point is that some things are an investment that don't pay back straight away such as spending large amounts of coin/granite to get one more resource per cycle. You buy a burger, you get a burger straight away, you know exactly what you're buying. BB gives little warning before dropping changes on the game that mean people's investments are worthless. This gives advantage to newer players and disadvantage to older players who have invested more time/money.
They should be introducing new building levels rather than new replacement gem buildings, they could even have the new building levels gem buy only for their profit line. This would be better for the game but as it would exclude newer players from being able to buy it BB wouldn't do this as it's all about milking as much cash from as many players as possible and if you keep that in mind it explains just about all of BB's actions.
Brankovics
18.02.14, 09:01
I think, here are a lot of misunderstanding. New buildings are NOT replecement buildings. They just similar to, or do better what other buildings do. These old buildings are NOT obsoleted, so they can be used furthermore as well. To replace them is a personal choose. Contest, if there any, is NOT a designed element of the gameplay, mostly you don't know nothing about other players, nor you depend on others position or state. So such complaints are looks like childish expectation of presents for nothing, or you simply say, give us everything free --- meanwhile the whole game could be played really free...
I'm replacing all my old lvl5 silos with the new ones when they come out. I could keep the old ones but I want the new ones, I don't care about what I invested in the old ones and I can sell most of the old ones for more than I bought them for anyway.
What would I do with a partial refund from destroying the old ones when I can easily upgrade all of the new ones just by farming adventures for a couple of weeks? I suppose the best idea would be to offset that partial refund against what I need to farm for the new upgrades and therefore I don't need to farm as many adventures! That is absolutely awesome and gives me the time to... Do more adventures ?
Personally, I can't find a problem here no matter how hard I try.
if u pIay for the next 10yrs u wiII start to see a profit asIong as u dont keep knocking down aII ur buiIdings for better ones hehe, i think if u got granite and gcs and extra ewp back then think it wouId make everything cheaper in T0 as it is their are aIot of res on the servers and their needs to be a way of using it up or everything wiII be 2 cheap and easy to get
I still can’t see the logic of introducing a better version of a building we already have, how about a better bakery that doesn’t take a licence? Or better still a bakery with a mill attached saving 2 licences and a bit of space? Or if they insist on a better silo how about adding the farm to it saving even more space and licences? It’s just lazy bringing out an improved version while there are other building they could add first.
As for getting hardly anything back from demolishing a level 5 building to make way for a new better version that’s just silly, do they won’t us to buy gems or not? Because I will be thinking twice before buying more with the way things are going
The point is that some things are an investment that don't pay back straight away such as spending large amounts of coin/granite
If you think that buying special buildings on Settlers Online is an investment then I have some very interesting business propositions for you ;)
Sure I'm interested, now what real world stuff are you offering me for my imaginary game coin/granite? 50k granite for your car ok?
"The point is that some things are an investment that don't pay back straight away such as spending large amounts of coin/granite to get one more resource per cycle." Nice out of context quote though ;)
As said - I don't think BB should offer refunds; but, I do think they should consider in the future introducing new content in such a way that it's not smashing previous up to do it I.e level 6 xxx not 'improved' xxx.
People can say that these new buildings don't make the older ones redundant but to most players they do.
How much profit has that level 5 building already made for you?
You can't expect to make a profit AND get a refund!!
BB gives little warning before dropping changes on the game that mean people's investments are worthless. This gives advantage to newer players and disadvantage to older players who have invested more time/money.
Really? New players lack resources and knowledge compared to older players, because of the time spent.
Whatever money you spend in this game doesn't matter here. It's not like you must replace your old buildings with improved ones.
If you'd really care about the market price of your old buildings, you'd know it's fluctuating like anything else in a market.
A lot of players are quitting this game because of the tedious struggle in building new fields and wells to get some more bread. Now old silos will be more available to new players so more will stay, giving us a bigger market and by that a more stable one.
I'm not sure who that's directed at Tierazt but in most cases the L5 upgrade is not worth the investment but is rather done for island/game completeness just the same as most of the expert buildings. As said, I don't think any refund should be given, just more thought needs to go into the improvements format.
Really? New players lack resources and knowledge compared to older players, because of the time spent.
Whatever money you spend in this game doesn't matter here. It's not like you must replace your old buildings with improved ones.
If you'd really care about the market price of your old buildings, you'd know it's fluctuating like anything else in a market.
A lot of players are quitting this game because of the tedious struggle in building new fields and wells to get some more bread. Now old silos will be more available to new players so more will stay, giving us a bigger market and by that a more stable one.
Fluctuating like map frags for instance? from 4.5 to 1 overnight? Making any investment in explorers adventure skills redundant.
"Whatever money you spend here in the game doesn't matter?" How so? What does that even mean?
When the gem buyers all dry up because they are tired of being mugged by BB, what then for the leeches?
Fluctuating like map frags for instance? from 4.5 to 1 overnight? Making any investment in explorers adventure skills redundant.
BB's lack of info about those skills really messed any investment up in the first place.
BB gives little warning before dropping changes on the game that mean people's investments are worthless. This gives advantage to newer players and disadvantage to older players who have invested more time/money.
Whatever money you spend in this game doesn't matter here
"Whatever money you spend here in the game doesn't matter?" How so? What does that even mean?
How so? What does that even mean?
Please, tell me why you bought some buildings by gems and how that would really matter compared to new players' options..
When the gem buyers all dry up because they are tired of being mugged by BB, what then for the leeches?
Mugged, really?
Are you forced to spend more money now?
So in what are BB supposed to earn some money? Free contributions?!?
People can say that these new buildings don't make the older ones redundant but to most players they do.
I disagree.
If you have, for example, twenty silos and those twenty are covering your farm needs then introducing a building that performs the same task but at a little more than double the speed changes nothing. The entire playerbase could completely ignore the new silo and absolutely nothing would change, there would be no negative impact to anyone. With that in mind, I can't see how it can possibly be argued that the new silo makes the old one redundant. The old silo doesn't stop working forcing you to buy the new one, it will continue to do the same job as it always has.
Definition of redundant in English:
not or no longer needed or useful; superfluous:
If you need to replenish your fields then the old silo is still useful and therefore, by definition, they are not redundant.
Saying that the old one has been superseded would even be a stretch as when you compare the price tags the improvement the new one offers isn't substantial enough to make the old one obsolete... It's an alternative.
Here, we get very little returned for the 'upgrade' portion of our investment in Silos... but we do get a lot in return for the initial cost of the silo. In fact, (at least on NewFoundland), the price of Silos has gone up a lot over time. Rough maths on my part suggest that the 'profit' I make for selling a silo now versus when I bought it first cover the amount I lose for upgrades.
So yes, the initial shock of 'all my time/money/granite for upgrade is lost' does hurt. Then the secondary realization: 'Wow, I just sold my silo for double what I paid for' should kick in. And given the fact that the new silos cost a lot of money, there should be enough of a market to buy the 'hand-me-downs' of the Generation 1 Silos.
Now, from a game mechanic point of view.... I would have preferred if they just made it possible to go beyond Level 5.
Brankovics
19.02.14, 23:41
The only problem with refund for me is that many are looking it from BB. Why? Old buildings mostly tradeable, so the above simile (sell a house and buy a bigger) can be carried out. Here are plenty of gamers, those have no too much if at all e.g. silo, and they can live with/without them. Also costs of upgrading can show a positive balance, compared with resources produced by them in long term...
Edit: Ah, exuse me, it has already been said. I get stucked on the bottom of previous page...
Silos are more or less an equivalent cost by production against improved silos so my point is, before improved silos player A spends say for example 37,500 gems on buying 50 silos. Now player B will be able to buy just 20 improved silos which will produce around the same as 50 silos, it will cost them around the same gems but give an extra 30 spare building spaces! It will cost player B 30k less granite not to mention coins and time to get them all up to level 5.
The old silo has higher upgrade costs per output, lower building space density and equivalent gem price per production as improved silo. Tell me, how is it not obsolete? Would anyone buy three (2.5) silos or one improved silo given the gems and free will?
So what should player A do, try to sell silos while there'll be a big surplus and a shortage of improved silos and an imbalance between their prices with a lot of people trying to do the same for the foreseeable future? Or, do nothing and forever be at a disadvantage because he just so happened to have been playing longer and bought earlier? Or, spend another 40k gems/ upto £100 on improved silos but always in mind how long before there's a silo epic work yard?
Just because some of you're not a 'player A' does not make it right.
BB is proving that it introduces intentionally hobbled buildings so that they can introduce the 'improved' version afterwards so that twice as much gems get spent. Yes, it is a money making business but it could do this in a lot fairer way (i.e. building level 6+ gem buy only).
How long before those ridiculously bulky under producing watermills get a make over too?
There's a simple answer to all of this, no more gem buying for me. I am tired of being taken advantage of and it's now time to join the leeches.
Evolution, brighteyes. :)
The old silo has higher upgrade costs per output, lower building space density and equivalent gem price per production as improved silo. Tell me, how is it not obsolete?
Well you originally said they were redundant, not obsolete, but my stance hasn't changed.
(...snip..) do nothing and forever be at a disadvantage because he just so happened to have been playing longer and bought earlier?[/i]
I'm an example of your "Player A" and I don't see the problem.
It seems that you're annoyed that you bought in to the game earlier than some other people and now, as per your example, you might have the same output but with less building space and that lack of building space, should you choose not to invest in it, would be putting you at some kind of disadvantage over other players..?
That might be true if space were a necessity to reach a competitive level of resource production but it isn't and there is no such thing as a competitive level of resource production in TSO. Our resources merely facilitate running adventures and upgrading buildings which, in turn, increase production and speed up the cycle. Running adventures allows players to level and obtain epic items, true, but there is a fixed level cap, there are no kind of rankings to speak of and aside from the bragging rights of saying you have an epic structure they are just another resource converter.
You can't be at a disadvantage over other players from this change unless you can tell me, as we're both on the same server, how I can look you up in-game and see that either of us is "better" than the other... If we added as friends we could view each others island and debate who was better than the other but that's entirely subjective, what works for you might not work for me and vice versa.
I've got fifteen licenses left to get from the epic section of the shop and that's it, I can't get any more at the moment. I can't even fill my current spare space with those fifteen additional deeds and the silo isn't a building that consumes a deed so the change in space is merely a change in space for consumables that produce more stuff that I don't need.
Not swapping your silos and not buying any more gems will not result in me, or any other player, overtaking you in the rankings... :o
How long before those ridiculously bulky under producing watermills get a make over too?
The sooner the better and I'd swap the lot of them for the new ones of those too but it's not because I want to or need to... It's because I've nothing better to do.
It's a resource/economy game, I'm not talking about rankings or comparing one against the other. Someone who has 30 extra building spaces extra can produce more and sell more. With others producing more it devalues your own resources unless you follow suit. If I were to buy 30 extra building spaces through rock removal it would cost me at least 10k gems I'd estimate from when I tested it. I'd say that plus the 30k granite and coins is a considerable hit.
Anyway, enough said, people have differing opinions but I for one will not be buying any of these 'improved' buildings with gems.
It's a resource/economy game, I'm not talking about rankings or comparing one against the other.
I know it is and, like it or not, yes you are and you're doing it to try to make your point.
You can't be at a disadvantage without comparing yourself against something else so it either puts you at a disadvantage over another player, meaning that talking about comparing one against the other is precisely what you are doing, or is doesn't... It can't be both.
Someone who has 30 extra building spaces extra can produce more and sell more.
The ability to place buildings and having the available space to place buildings are not the same thing, not even close.
If the player with the thirty extra spaces somehow wasn't able to max out their building licenses with the normal amount of space then that is bad map design, nothing more. The new and old silos consume the same number of building licenses and that number is zero, therefore the player with the thirty extra spaces can produce more water and sell more water by placing thrity more wells than another player.
Take the case of two identical level fifty players who have both used up all of their deeds, both bought all limited production buildings from the shop, both have precisely the same economic output and both have thirty silos each. One player swaps the silos giving them an extra fifteen space and the other doesn't... The player with fifteen extra spaces can now place fifteen extra wells or say five watermills, who cares ? It doesn't even make any difference.
With others producing more it devalues your own resources unless you follow suit.
That is only a negative in that it devalues the excess resources that you sell, that has the flip-side of being beneficial to people who buy in and don't run an excess to sell and all of this only makes any difference at all if you need to sell your excess resources in order to progress within the game which you don't.
I've got about 400k pinewood, 400k water, 400k of coal and so on... What should I do with it ? I've got about 200k gold coins sat in my stores and I'm producing far more coin and ore than I can use. I suppose I could sell it for granite but I'm almost completely upgraded so I don't need it anyway... Once I've bought and upgraded to those new silos I'll have put a little dent in some areas of my stores that I'll probably spend a few days filling up, when I've done that I'll be right back to trading stuff I don't need for other stuff I don't need so I don't cap out on producing stuff I don't need so that I can pointlessly push myself closer to the top of a playerbase that isn't ranked.
I agree with you completely that this is a resource/economy game but this "game" is missing some very simple, very critical mechanics that mean it's not a game... It's a time sink that we pay for.
ATHTHEMANIAC
27.02.14, 14:43
i've been reading of the + and - points about this for some time,surely all players (or at least all those wanting pvp) will be forced to upgrade to new buildings when they are introduced to keep up thier economy,the arguement about free choice as i see it dont come into it for when pvp is introduced (if ever) surely the players with the improved buildings will be able to create bigger/better armies then the ones without the improved buildings ?
your economy is the building block for your armies so if i switch all my silos to improved ones i have more space to create a better economy therefore a better/more army....unless i am missing something if i am then i am sure a more experience player will explain to me why i am wrong :)
of course if you have no intention of participating in pvp then the introduction of new/better buildings has no impact on you apart from the "keeping up with your neighbours" idea.
tbh i have never seen the point of investing money in a pixel, in the end i think maybe BB should introduce a build upgrade voucher that take the old building to the same preformance of the new buldings that way they have 2 streams of profit not just 1 stream which upsets so many lvl 50 player :)
I would like to know Baggis opinon about Improved Silo being a limited time offer. Is it fair or do new players have any advantage here?
I would like to know Baggis opinon about Improved Silo being a limited time offer. Is it fair or do new players have any advantage here?
Improved Silo will be available in the shop permanently.
http://prntscr.com/2wbgg9
Improved Silo will be available in the shop permanently.
http://prntscr.com/2wbgg9
Yeah, I've seen that too now.. Still I would like know.. =)
My opinion is stated above, unchanged. If you want me to form a new one it'll cost you improved silos.
Bluesavanah
28.02.14, 08:46
i've been reading of the + and - points about this for some time,surely all players (or at least all those wanting pvp) will be forced to upgrade to new buildings when they are introduced to keep up thier economy,the arguement about free choice as i see it dont come into it for when pvp is introduced (if ever) surely the players with the improved buildings will be able to create bigger/better armies then the ones without the improved buildings ?
your economy is the building block for your armies so if i switch all my silos to improved ones i have more space to create a better economy therefore a better/more army....unless i am missing something if i am then i am sure a more experience player will explain to me why i am wrong :)
of course if you have no intention of participating in pvp then the introduction of new/better buildings has no impact on you apart from the "keeping up with your neighbours" idea.
tbh i have never seen the point of investing money in a pixel, in the end i think maybe BB should introduce a build upgrade voucher that take the old building to the same preformance of the new buldings that way they have 2 streams of profit not just 1 stream which upsets so many lvl 50 player :)
I would expect PVP if it ever comes to tiered into level brackets, so not really a chance of a lvl 26 facing a lvl 50 for example.I would also imagine there would be a cap to units that is appropriate.
On the question of never seeing the point of investing money in pixels, for me the game brings endless hours of enjoyment if I chose to invest a few pounds it's usually to make it more enjoyable. You probably think nothing of renting a movie or going to the cinema, you have nothing to show for it and neither have I in a physical sense. You have paid for entertainment and so have I.
I agree PVP would need to be tiered but equally as there's not been any new levels introduced in over two years there is considerable difference between level 50 players. For example some have over 20k troops yet some newer L50s could have as little as 2000. It's difficult to know how they could introduce a well balanced PVP.
As for PVP, I'd like to see it implemented as wild zones where territory with exploitable resources could be fought for and defended possibly with a guild related aspect to it. Something akin to the premise of the original games. To me that would be far better than any 1 v 1 fight where it would be difficult to balance out the individual differences in player resources and avoid the potential elements of 'who's biggest wins' or random luck scenario.
Mortallicus
28.02.14, 11:59
PVP in other games is tiered. i.e. entering a battle field on WOW is in tiers of 10 levels. But balanced no. Not only could you have a mismatch of levels within that 10 but some have better armour etc as well. Some have had pvp experience some not. To me its what makes it enjoyable you can still win because just sometimes the ones with all the kit are not so clever :D
Considering all the whining about this and that being unfair to whoever surrounding the recent, relatively minor, changes to this completely unranked and non-competitive game, I can't see them ever introducing PvP unless they are going to try and harness an extremely abundant source of renewable energy.
BAAAHHHHHJJJAAA
14.03.14, 02:52
tbh, why should we ? if you are knocking down half the island for something you probably are in the position, resource wise, to obtain the required upgrades easily.
tbh, why should we ? if you are knocking down half the island for something you probably are in the position, resource wise, to obtain the required upgrades easily.
?
I have never understood the rational behind the idea of only returning a small % of the original build cost in terms of resources, but not even a stone for any lvled up buildings.
Even in the days before we could move buildings! Then the only way to move something was to demolish it and then rebuild . . . fortunately I made sure I never had anything above a lvl 3 to move then!
Lvling to lvl 4 and/or onto lvl 5 does for us running mini-economies, unlike some, does cost us a significant amount (most are at least 500 coins to lvl 4 and then 1000 granite to lvl 5) so is it unreasonable to want a % back? - especially as BB are trying to make us go certain ways with their relentless new quests. Why can't you have say 20% of the resources you used to upgrade for each lvl? Is the code too difficult to write?
In my mini-economy, space is never a real issue, but resources always are - and the time lost when upgrading to lvl 5 - to get enough beans for an epic yard, it will probably take me around 50 days of trading, not to mention the resources and then the loss of resources from the upgraded buildings when they come down - a real double whammy - so i don't follow those quests which means I get penalised by not getting the quest rewards!
So a few resources back might be an incentive :)
cant see why pvp is a big probIem for some pIayers for instance if u had a system that u couId opt in/out be made so u can opt in/out ur pIayer name you didnt Iose any troops and their was no rankings BUT winner gets buffs/xp Ioser get haIf xp? think that pretty much soIves everyones probIems rest is up 2 BB and getting granite back is not a good idea for reasons stated before :)
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.4 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.