Politician Archive
Thread: Player Building Terrain Tolerances increased?
In the last patch notes, there was a line about 'player buildings will be more tolerant of terrain,' or something like that. Has anyone noticed that this is actually the case or not? I have not noticed any improvement, and we are finding that anything from merchant tents to small and medium houses to a cantina are all just as intollerant as they used to be with regards to terrain.
Has anyone else experienced the same frustration? Or has anyone found this to not be the case? I haven't seen any posts one way or the other on this.
-Jarmo/Mohenjo
Unfortunately, it wont fit a large there but further up the hill it will.
weird.
The patch notes do indeed say that housing placement restrictiuons have been eased, but I have yet to see any indication of this. As the designated city planner, I know almost every square inch of our land inside city limits. Every single spot that I had tried to place a house in before the patch is still very much unusable.
They NEED to fix this. Our city has 5 guilds in it and is laid out like a pie. In addition, we have many unguilded people. The unguildeds have no more room in which to place houses and we have to keep using land allocated for guilds, which causes conflicts. The guilds then point to all the empty land in other places and we have to tell them that although that land looks perfectly fine, it is unbuildable.
/crossfingersandhopesoestopslying
I know for certain that the placement rules have relaxed over the past few months. I originally placed a large tat house on a hill N of anchorhead - I had to turn it 90 to place it. Once it was place, the only other thing that would go up there was a single food and chem factory.
2 weeks ago, a guy put a small house a few spaces away. I was able to put another house on it , and a chemical extractor.
The rules have relaxed, though they still may not be great.
Here's an interesting subject for discussion, I think. There are two ways of looking at the building terrain tolerance issue:
A) Player-city buildings and homes should be allowed on much steeper grades of land and the land should flatten out under the buildings so that players in cities can "terra-form" the land in their city areas. Not being able to place buildings in steep areas makes it too difficult to maintain city designs, is unfair to player-cities in less level areas, and leaves player cities with large natural gaps where buildings should go.
B) Scouting out a good level city location and building around natural impediments is a part of the city-building game. There are plenty of places where a city hall might be legal to place but where the natural landscape does not permit a metropolis to be built, and that is as it should be so that some areas remain mountainous and sparsely populated only by small villages. Removing natural impediments to building will result in monotonous, flatcity design instead of forcing player cities to accomodate the landscape and thus create unique designs in harmony with the landscape.
What do you guys think? Of course it would be easier and more convenient to be able to place buildings anywhere and have the land flatten to meet them; however,proper city-site scouting and the ability to build around natural landscape features does add planning and design challenges that might make the game more interesting. What is the right balance?
The land rush race to get cities made point B all but moot in my opinion.
Bajeezus wrote:
Here's an interesting subject for discussion, I think. There are two ways of looking at the building terrain tolerance issue:
A) Player-city buildings and homes should be allowed on much steeper grades of land and the land should flatten out under the buildings so that players in cities can "terra-form" the land in their city areas. Not being able to place buildings in steep areas makes it too difficult to maintain city designs, is unfair to player-cities in less level areas, and leaves player cities with large natural gaps where buildings should go.
B) Scouting out a good level city location and building around natural impediments is a part of the city-building game. There are plenty of places where a city hall might be legal to place but where the natural landscape does not permit a metropolis to be built, and that is as it should be so that some areas remain mountainous and sparsely populated only by small villages. Removing natural impediments to building will result in monotonous, flatcity design instead of forcing player cities to accomodate the landscape and thus create unique designs in harmony with the landscape.
What do you guys think? Of course it would be easier and more convenient to be able to place buildings anywhere and have the land flatten to meet them; however,proper city-site scouting and the ability to build around natural landscape features does add planning and design challenges that might make the game more interesting. What is the right balance?
Bej,
I see your point. I have faced the terrain on Talus for many months. Took 2 days to find a place for a PA hall before the city patch.And it is a challenge. I appreciate the hills, and think it makes a more organic looking village. However, we could be thrown a bone here. I don't think streets that or paths that float are going to work at all. It would be nice to be able to smooth out small dips and not have the grass show thru. But I regress.
Reea
BIither wrote:
Well, I know for certain that Corellia hasn't changed one bit. Every spot that was unbuilable before is still totally unbuildable.
Not true for us(Vesania, Corellia:Chilastra). There are many, many, MANY ravines in the area we selected for our city. Pre-City-Patch we could not build in dozens upon dozens of locations in that area due to the ravines, now though we can easily place houses of all sizes in locations that previously weren't allowed.
The tolerances have been eased from what I've seen.
I wouldn't want land to flatten. Natural areas like hills and ravines make interesting additions.
But it seems that the relaxation of building restrictions didn't work the same for everything. For some house types, it seems to be working perfectly. For others it isn't.
I know due to my terrain scouting, that shallow gradients and ditches that would not take small/medium naboo houses before the patch (the one that claimed to fix it), now does. The placement was relaxed, and these buildings place just fine. The same goes for various of the civic structures we tried it with.
Large naboos are a nightmare. Even the smallest ditch, that others houses will place over with no issues, can sometimes block their placement. The foundation of the house seems to be more shallow than smaller houses. I understand a large house wouldn't be able to go on a true hill, but a shallow ditch that no other building has a problem with? Something seems out of place here. They are still being blocked by areas that harvesters can't place on, but other buildings can.
You can sometimes see the foundation of a house when the land around is flattened by a random spawn or GCW base. At these times the building is way up in the air and you can see how far its foundation goes down.
Not all buildings were given this huge foundation. Harvestors, factories and Merchant tents are the most notable exclusions. When they are next to a random spawn, they are floating in mid air. This is unfortunate because they are small buildings and you wouldn't think the terrain would bother them as much.
Naboo has many ditches criss crossing the country side, and when you try and build a marketplace in your city, it is **edit** hard to get nice straight lines of merchant tents because a little ditch will be in the way.
They really need to go through and increase the building tolerances for the rest of the player buildings.
Well I don't care about that... I think that any lot of land in a city, should have a house in it, no exceptions, player cities should get a bonus to terrain, this keeps players from building houses all over, but allows player cities to expand my main big beef is this......
Dropped a shuttle port, dropped a HQ to the west, no probelm, dropped a HQ to the east,
LAND SHIFTS 50FT IN THE AIR, the shuttleport is half buried
swell......
can't redeed shuttleport, won't fit back down anyways, due to new terrain, and def won't fit back down because once a HQ is laid, the footprint expands