Bakery(ies) please

It wouldn't be a completely different game. But it might improve this one. It will also help the market - I'll post on that later.
And why shouldn't it apply to houses and commercials? The constraints should be land available, cash available, resources available.
As I've said before; are we living in a communist command and control economy where big brother determines only 5 of these buildings are allowed, or is it a free market where entrepreneurs can find their own strategy?

 

I think this has clearly been answered already - not communist, but virtual. It's just game rules. Every game has it's rules. You not liking them is ok, but it doesn't make the current rules wrong or incorrect by any means, nor is comparison with communist or capitalist ideology reasonable here. On one side it can be transformed into a completelly different game by substantial change of rules, on the other side there is no general law or "truth" demanding it "should not" be as it is. In fact somebody else could argue on exactly the same basis that "the land available shouldn't be the constraints" but something else. More carefull use of modifiers and comparisons might greatly improve your presentations.

 

I'm just trying to highlight how the rules could be BETTER.

Let me make a guess.....
You have 6 farms, 5 mills, 3 bakeries and 5 brick yards?
Maybe an extra one here and there if you've spent cash.

I also bet that 75% of people playing have exactly the same, and those that don't are working towards it.

So what's your strategy? Build as many as you are allowed or can currently afford.

I'd like to be able to balance production against which houses I have and what the market is doing. I'd like my choices to affect other players (in the market) and for theirs to affect me.

I'm guessing we have to agree to disagree on this, but I really think this change would the game much more depth.

 

I've been hesitating to respond as I tend to spend too much time on considering different aspects of such suggestions. As much as I like these analysis, debates and insight sharing on one side, I still have much weightier projects to focus on in RL. So, I'll try to be sooooooo brief if I can manage ............. lol

This certainly is an interesting idea with some potential, but not sure better one, not in this raw state. It would have to be developped further and carefully thought through as in this simple form it might cause more problems then benefits or would need many other changes in the game to complement that.

For example one of the "problems" being that this system would require a lot more planning and knowledge of the game. It can be expected that new players without experience would make a lot of "bad" choices and considerably slow their progress down (as if it wasn't slow and challenging enough for those new starters). Other "problem" aspects would start to be obvious to you if you follow and model your idea carefully through different stages of game development taking all other aspects like quests and needs into account.

Also reasons given "in favour" of this system would need some further evaluation and "modeling". Like the idea of responding to market changes by modifying production portfolio would be difficult to implement other than using L1 Facilities or using MM to upgrade them as market changes rather quickly, would probably do so even more with this floating production portfolio system, yet getting Facilities to L3 in current system is slow and costly, effectively hindering swift reactions. So while the "theoretical" option for flexibility would be present, the practical and meaningful usability in responding to market changes would imo be rather questionable. Most probably people would just make their choice of portfolio as they grow, and then hardly ever change it, unless they made some really really bad decisions at the start. Of course mid and high level players could play with changing L1 facilities swiftly, if they still had some free permits when they could afford these rebuildings, but again the real effect and use of it would not probably be as groundbreaking.

Taking just from those few above mentioned points, if anything, the original idea would probably have to be modified into some kind of hybrid system, like introducing this flexibility at rather high level while keeping it fixed as it is up untill say level 20 or 25 or even higher after players had enough time to master the game. I could have included a lot more details in above paragraphs making the point a lot clearer, but the time limitations prevent me from writing a scholarly paper on this promissing concept. What I am hoping to get through is an awarenes that implementing a conceptual change like this one into a game already well under progress is not as straightforward and simple as it might seem at first and when done without probably weeks of re-thinking on developers side might easily result in more problems then benefits (and we know that BP game makers can make a lot of mess with features much easier to implement). The task is certainly not impossible, but as certainly not wise to be implemented thoughtlessly without much much consideration.

Well, I did try to be brief, so many ponts omitted .......... and yet.......... wonder if anybody will read it at all............... lol

 

You are right if are in lower level and use up all your building and then you get in level 39 and you have to build the new sort of farm and then you have a problem.

 

I think we agree more than we disagree nortoncommander

You are right that what I have put forward is raw and needs refining. I'm sure the developers have the knowledge and experience to smooth off the rough edges and create a workable solution.
You are also right that some testing would be needed.

I also agree that perhaps early in the game there should be less flexibility to make sure that inexperienced players don't make a mess of things, so I'll compromise and say that flexible permits become available at level 13 when bakeries become available. Most people should have a pretty good handle on the game by then.

I think it is good thing that more planning and knowledge would be required; that's my point, I want a strategy game, not just a build it as it becomes available one dimensional slog.

This would change the market, and as you say, it will take time to react as it takes time to construct buildings; but that's OK too as the market will only change slowly precisely because it takes time to change buildings.
I think new players would be assisted because I expect that higher level players will move out of farms ( and mills to some extent) to bakeries and brickyards, meaning they will need to purchase more farm goods, increasing their demand and therefore price. I know I got a bit of a boost early on selling tomatoes and potatoes and this would likely make the price go up.

This would be a significant change, but adding the shore and upgradeable commercial building was big change too, and this happened without too much hassle. And remember, at the point of change, NOTHING would be different, it would take time for people to change or add to their commercial buildings.

And just to re-iterate, this is not a whining moan; I like this game and think it has potential to become a great game, otherwise I wouldn't be bothered to write these posts.

 

I like the above idea. And of course we are in agreement in many respects. I'm helping to develop your idea.

As to lvl 13, imo it's too low as you can get there realy quickly - possibly two or thre days of intense gaming? Not sure if I remember it well, but it was fast when I started, and is faster now with added tutorial and other low level quests. I don't expect a deep knowledge of the game from average player after such a short time. Usually at that level they don't know more then just bare basics. Often times with more advanced strategies gamers only become excellent when playing for the second or third time. With the slow progress of this game it's not likely people will start one game to learn it, then abandon it and start another game utilising the knowledge they gained.

As to more complex strategy, for many players it's complex enough already. I think BP will rather target a majority average player than a few high advanced strategy seekers. Another by no means less important aspect is the game makers skills as they sometimes make a mess of things even with this more simple strategy. Advanced strategy requires advanced game makers. From what I've seen so far I would't dare to claim this team is up to the challenge. But I'd be pleased to be proven wrong.