Demolishing Level 5 buildings

[Splotch]

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...

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.

[Baggis]

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.

[Splotch]

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]

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

[SmurfAsH]

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?

[corona88]

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

[SmurfAsH]

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.. =)

[Baggis]

My opinion is stated above, unchanged. If you want me to form a new one it'll cost you improved silos.

[Bluesavanah]

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.

[Baggis]

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.