Free buildings from Wonders after conquest

[Vodun]

@ExpiredReign

What you just said, sounds little bit rude in my oppinion, like explaining child stuff to a adult. It feels like just getting pumped up over things we can't control, Gazebo is in control after all. If it is that big of deal, why can't we mod this thing out instead of asking Gazebo to do it?

I am new to this forum (both in reading it and posting) so I might be mistaken how things work here but I feel we suggest/comment what should be/is put in Community Balance Patch and not decide what to actually modify/insert.

-----------
About the topic, I never felt it's a problem, feels like natural mechanic of conquering the city, you get a new city but you destroyed buildings getting it. I actually feel the artillery, bombard ships and bombers (all siege weapons) should destroy buldings. That would be hard thing to implement but would help in softening up the civ, make long term siege helpfull and also force player to use non siege weapons to get city. The world wonder free buldings could be solved by giving properties of those buildings to the wonders (like Great Lighthouse working also like Lighthouse), that would make Hanging Gardens actually worth something because I think their free garden is more useful than actual wonder.

Although losing those Tradition buildings, painfull.

 

[Gazebo]

A word of advice then, in the future try saying something like:


Would've saved a lot of discussion if it was said straight up that it isn't currently doable.

It's similar to saying to a child:

rather than:

You were talking about design, and I offered my input on why it is designed as-is (i.e. why Firaxis created the logic as it is). No one asked about feasibility of changing it.

If we're in the business of offering advice, don't leap to the "Gazebo said 'no' thus the VP is now a dictatorship" line when I turn down an idea. It's a low-blow for no particular reason.

G

 

[Funak]

If we're in the business of offering advice, don't leap to the "Gazebo said 'no' thus the VP is now a dictatorship" line when I turn down an idea. It's a low-blow for no particular reason.

It was a rather annoying way to say no however, he wasn't the only one getting triggered by it.

 

[Gazebo]

It was a rather annoying way to say no however, he wasn't the only one getting triggered by it.

I said no like I always do. I explain why something is from a balance/design standpoint, and then I look at the code. If the code won't work for it, I explain that too. The last time I looked at the functions under consideration was when I made Rome's UA, and that was over a year ago. Looking at it again, I remember why I didn't change any of it further.

A good rule of thumb is not to get attached to a change/idea until I have had a chance to respond and/or look at the code. Nothing is ever an easy fix.

G

 

[Funak]

I said no like I always do. I explain why something is from a balance/design standpoint, and then I look at the code. If the code won't work for it, I explain that too. The last time I looked at the functions under consideration was when I made Rome's UA, and that was over a year ago. Looking at it again, I remember why I didn't change any of it further.

A good rule of thumb is not to get attached to a change/idea until I have had a chance to respond and/or look at the code. Nothing is ever an easy fix.

You're not even seeing the problem.
No one cares that you're not going to do it. It's really simple, if it can't be done, it can't be done, end of story. What's annoying here is that you made some nonsense-excuses comparing free buildings to great people and policies instead of just telling us that it can't be done.
"It can't be done" is easy to deal with, being lead on by weak arguments followed by a "It can't be done" bothers people. For the exact reason ExpiredReign said "Would've saved a lot of discussion if it was said straight up that it isn't currently doable."

 

[Gazebo]

You're not even seeing the problem.
No one cares that you're not going to do it. It's really simple, if it can't be done, it can't be done, end of story. What's annoying here is that you made some nonsense-excuses comparing free buildings to great people and policies instead of just telling us that it can't be done.
"It can't be done" is easy to deal with, being lead on by weak arguments followed by a "It can't be done" bothers people. For the exact reason ExpiredReign said "Would've saved a lot of discussion if it was said straight up that it isn't currently doable."

I don't see a problem with the current design. I think it is balanced that wonders are slightly less useful if captured than if originally built. This was obviously Firaxis's intent, and I agree with them. The code reflects this, and there is no simple change. This is what I've been saying all along. The fact that you disagree with me does not place any element of weakness on my argument. You simply disagree. And that's fine. But my decision not to pursue this is not an indication of my claiming fiat, anymore than any of my other refutations are a fiat. If someone else feels up to the challenge, feel free.

G

 

[ExpiredReign]

@ExpiredReign

What you just said, sounds little bit rude in my oppinion ...
I am new to this forum (both in reading it and posting) so I might be mistaken how things work here but I feel we suggest/comment what should be/is put in Community Balance Patch and not decide what to actually modify/insert...

Thank you for your opinion.

You were talking about design, and I offered my input on why it is designed as-is (i.e. why Firaxis created the logic as it is). No one asked about feasibility of changing it.

If we're in the business of offering advice, don't leap to the "Gazebo said 'no' thus the VP is now a dictatorship" line when I turn down an idea. It's a low-blow for no particular reason.

G

Regarding the "dictatorship" line, I did temper it with an emoji designed to show my attempt at humour, perhaps you missed that.

The code reflects this, and there is no simple change. This is what I've been saying all along.

The only time anything remotely like this was said was well into a long discussion. We would have shut up about this long ago if we had known of any restrictions imposed by the code.
All discussions have a two-pronged element to the discussion: design and feasibility.
Surely if a suggestion is doomed to fail because of feasibility it is prudent to nip the design discussion in the bud by stating this?

 

[Gazebo]

All discussions have a two-pronged element to the discussion: design and feasibility.
Surely if a suggestion is doomed to fail because of feasibility it is prudent to nip the design discussion in the bud by stating this?

Not necessarily - the forums are littered with discussions that bore enough fruit that I found myself compelled or forced to rework the DLL in substantial ways. I just don't see this as one of those times, as I genuinely do not feel that wonder sniping should become more powerful than it already is.

G