Relax permit placement limitations

I completely understand limiting placement options for some things, but some things should be reconsidered, especially as the game grows. Examples:

Here, I have no choice but to mix road types if I want the road inland:

​

The result is unattractive. My alternative for uniformity is piers along the outside. Generally, apart from the snowy road and piers, I don't see a point in restricting road/square placement. The mountain terrain really suffers from lack of diversity because you can't place any squares or most decorations. The trees and park lamps would fit nicely on the mountain terrain, among others. Gravel paths would make for nice park elements, especially with boxwoods and some of the sculptures, but they are restricted to the beach.

Here we see the map screen and official promotional art where permits are placed where they cannot be (in red). Sometimes it makes sense: lighthouse, alpine lodge, pier home (maybe), flags, fishery. Sometimes it doesn't: ski hut, frosty firs (maybe), and pretty much the entire second image, which even places things where we can't build anything at all (above the red lines). Magically the clouds are gone and we can see across the river as well.

In blue is one of the elusive permits. I use this opportunity to demand updates.

​

​

Yes, the last two are just representations, but they are official images that are terribly inaccurate and potentially misleading.

 

Arsuru I agree that some of the restrictions should be reconsidered and definetly the pictures should reflect reality.

 

Ummm...errrr....wow. Just agreeing with Arsuru and Bilyjim...because this just makes my little bird brain ache.

 

Hmm, interesting. I would love to see some of the placement restrictions lifted in respect of the different playing fields.

As for the map screen and promotional Art, I think some Artistic Licence would have been reasonably granted. More diagramatic than meant as anything else.

I actually found a link to the guy that did the original artwork for Bigpoint (RC) in 2012, but not sure if a html link would be allowable here ?

 

Artistic license is one thing (not granted to us, unfortunately), but this just feels unprofessional and seems like false advertising as it suggests in-game footage with no disclaimer. Plus it's just messy. It appears as if whoever did the images actually isn't that familiar with the game. But it serves my purpose well and gives me a chance to have a little fun and make references that I guess nobody gets.

I think I know what artist you're talking about (came across him long ago). I much-preferred the original style of the main playfield, unless it was just a concept. That was before my time actually playing though. As it's an outside link, it's probably not allowed. As it's the artist's professional site/portfolio, it does reference other games and companies (particularly, rivals) and display work that may not be to everyone's idea of acceptable. Not to mention, it's practically a direct service advertisement. However, searching for images of RC, it should be easy to find the one that looks markedly different. Guy sure can make buildings.

Funny, you can see just how not-new the designer family home is. Must have a nice stash of unused assets. Also proves without a doubt that rotation would be easily implemented, as long as they still have the original assets, as they are indeed 3D models.

 

Why should you be unable t move production facilities and power plants between fields if you can move other buildings? Why can't we put pier houses out in the water further? Why can't a house you can build on grass go on ground that just has snow on it? U agree, the restrictions need to be rethought.

 

And where are the aircraft ?

 

Still waiting for the airplanes.

 

Actually, those two are on a pic-nic, that's a remote controlled plane flown by their son (other side of truck) and I'm more concerned with the fact my construction expert is a swarthy guy and not the cute redhead shown above

 

Geflin you are being a chauvinist again. Be good you old owl and remember it is the twenty first century not an episode of "Mad Men"!

 

Not being chauvinist...just heard she is a way better construction expert than the guy. She's probably on strike because he gets better pay because he's a man. She should come work in my city, we love redheads (I mean, competent employees, ahem) here. Back on topic...that 'prototype' looks like a slate manor from L. 46 but I could be wrong. It goes in the mountains only, btw. Of course, we should not gripe overmuch when it's mere concept art. But I am agreeing some of the placement rules are pretty arbitrary; like you can move a skyscraper from one filed to another but not a simple barn (because it's a farm?) Seems it would be harder to move a condo than it would be to move a farmhouse.

 

Nah, I think it's the bed & breakfast: has a cup & saucer on it, but otherwise looks mostly the same as what we have. The production FAQ even shows an older version of the ranch, for some reason.

 

why so it is, upon a closer look

 

Here's the first from the Bigpoint Press Office. Will post one a day so you don't get too excited!! Arsuru (at the least) would have seen all these I'm sure as he has already eluded to them. Looks like the Buildings were just about complete but the landscape in design phase. I must admit to preferring the look of the ploughed fields over the current brown