Proposed Change: Structures No Longer Cost $$ To Build (3.0)

[taekwondokid42]

The logic is simple: at high level play this cost is not even considered. At low levels of play it's very annoying because you may be in the red and still run out of cash, or you may be in the green and prevented from building, even though by the time you spend the turns you will actually have enough money.

Basically, it just makes things simpler for the newer players, and it doesn't affect the high level players at all.

edit: additionally, once build cost is removed, you will also no longer get money when you demolish buildings

[Drakus]

So, if I wanted to build a house, or a tower, or a market, it would be free? Be realistic man.

[taekwondokid42]

it's already essentially free. When was the last time you worried about spending $10,000,000 to build your buildings?

On the other hand, we could make it more expensive, to the point that it's something you actually think about as you restructure your land.

[Drakus]

I don't like that idea, though; it would make player have to think about too many variables.

[Shadow]

building cost is a good way to ljmit land flow. im certainly open to playing with the cost, as well as variables that affect it, but I don't think free is a good idea

[taekwondokid42]

As a minimalist, I like the idea of getting rid of anything that doesn't really add complexity to the game. That's why I'm also in favor of getting rid of tents, because they don't serve a ton of purpose.

From my perspective, thinking about all the variables is what makes the game fun, as long as the variables are easily connected to game outcomes. Mastery of these variables separates the good players from the great players.

I think I also like the idea of making buildings more expensive as opposed to getting rid of the cost. Maybe if we changed the equation to $10,000 + .2 * land. 10k buildings on 10k land would be $120,000,000, and building 50k buildings on 50k land would cost $1 bil.

Of course then building 150k buildings on 150k land would cost $6 bil.

It's enough that you'd have to think about it, and players with lots of land would need to plan around building costs if they were restructuring.

I was thinking about players that might experience fluctuations such as going from 10k land to 150k land, which would come at a large price tag, but in theory you are doing most of the building as you acquire the land, so the first 50k actually costs less than $1 bil and the whole cost is only $2-3 bil. And if you are running on 150k land you should be able to afford the costs.

[Uiblis]

3.0 or reg?

Because leaders are overpowered enough as it is on reg.

I don't like the idea of increasing the costs, it would both hurt indy players as well as make it very difficult for players just starting out.

EDIT: I'm blind and didn't read your entire post
DOUBLE EDIT: I skimmed and my point still stands

[taekwondokid42]

These changes are proposed for 3.0.

I guess I should clarify that in the title

[Shadow]

my worry is that this would put more power in the hands of lockers, since people who break them would have a hard time doing anything with the free land, leaving it open to being retaken. we could change the variables that affect it to avoid this, if need be, but just upping the numbers in the current formula won't have the desired effect.

[Uiblis]

Could have the cost scale with networth

[Shadow]

we ciuld, but to what end? changes need a purpose.

[Uiblis]

my worry is that this would put more power in the hands of lockers, since people who break them would have a hard time doing anything with the free land, leaving it open to being retaken. we could change the variables that affect it to avoid this, if need be, but just upping the numbers in the current formula won't have the desired effect.

I was responding to this