Bur from many plyers point of view something like that is:
Why i should build (put effort) something and loose something that I already have.
I saw Sid Meier speech and he talk about good game design. He said something like this
It is better to add smaller bonus to building than add negative effects to others.
With negative effects from buildings we have a pack of it that many avoid
Sid also says that the game should provide 'interesting choices' everywhere possible.
If every building is perceived as a great thing to build by all players then all we have is a matter of preferences determining the order in which we carry out little more than a mad race to build every building available.
But with a few extremely minor and highly rational negatives coming with many buildings, it
really tests the player to judge what they value, possibly how badly they need to address an immediate problem and what sacrifices they will make to do so, and their ability to make a more intricate judgement call when choosing to select to build or not build a particular option. THAT is a more significant 'interesting decision' imo.
Particularly when we have a feature that allows the truly clever to sell buildings at critical junctures to remove negatives they took for the sake of short term needs that are now otherwise resolved. Making a truly clever player even more enabled by his wisdom.
And Sid himself probably had minimal input on Civ5. It reeks of the scars of a corporate driven game design seeking to tear apart the foundations to make it somehow more appealing, and thus more profitable, to the vast majority of less educated, lower attention spanned, mindless zombie public our media has given rise to with flash imagery, blurb advertising, stimulant addictions and the byproduct of idiots breeding at a greater rate than intelligent folks. Our games are getting dumbed down for us because too few really WANT an intellectual challenge. The vast majority of humanity wants to THINK they're thinking without having to really THINK!
Sid's games never really appealed to that mainstream audience. Just not enough killing and slaughter per second for most and far too much planning and real strategy. So I personally believe they were doomed to complete failure even trying to widen its appeal by making every effort to gloss over any real planning necessary with features like embarqing, 1 unit tile limits and less overall build options, because they were only going to shave off the amount of players who found it entertaining without really significantly adding many new ones.
No version of Civ will never be a high adrenaline driven game the whole way through, and thank god for that because I find that it takes an EBB of adrenaline in a game experience to truly achieve a strong impact when things do get truly interesting. This process just makes it all more... 'worth it' to me.
So to get back on the topic, I think having those buildings expressing a negative, and having some players decide not to EVER build them as a result, is not a failure of the rationale of the game design, but a success. And those players who make such static determinations about what they will and will not build are not willing to take a step out of self determined policies to more fully evaluate the benefits versus the penalties and are, as a result, utilizing a less than perfect strategy. And that's exactly the trap we challenge our players to see past when looking at a building with a negative value on a highly important yield. And that's exactly why it was a great, no... ingenious... game design concept to have those minor penalties present on those buildings in the first place.
and +
were just not enough to counter -
. People just did not want to build them.
effect but i understand - 
. first let him learn how to create a good games and not spoil it
its another thing making the game more easy to be learned by newbies but its another thing simplifying the game in order to gather some farmvile players( of course i am not refering to you)
