HomeFeature Requests

Use this forum to ask for new features or suggest changes to the game.

Selling Structures Messages in this topic - RSS

Hutton
Hutton
Posts: 276


5/21/2017
Hutton
Hutton
Posts: 276
Is there a Game balance reason that we can't sell civilian structures?

Enabling that feature would help with the Moon treaty.

Also, any chance we could have the name of Lewis Change to something more symbolic? It was founded right at the end of the civil war.
0 link
Vulpex
Vulpex
Posts: 390


5/21/2017
Vulpex
Vulpex
Posts: 390
In Beta the moon base was called Ten - would that be better? Cities just have odd names.

The selling structures is good idea the name change ... I would rather not have cities changing names thank you very much it gets too confusing!
0 link
Zip555
Zip555
Posts: 67


5/21/2017
Zip555
Zip555
Posts: 67
Makes it easy to avoid the cost penalty of moving an HQ or liquidating if you can move structues to an alt and back again.
0 link
Vulpex
Vulpex
Posts: 390


5/21/2017
Vulpex
Vulpex
Posts: 390
Moving an HQ does not affect the structures. On the other hand yes it makes it very easy to avoid the impact of a real corp liquidation.
0 link
Hutton
Hutton
Posts: 276


5/21/2017
Hutton
Hutton
Posts: 276
The same could be said about moving your cash or military units to a second account.
0 link
John
John
Posts: 67


5/22/2017
John
John
Posts: 67
It occured to me, people who win gov. won't even be able to finish a lvl 5 lab before being potentially replaced, ouch. You could reduce them to 0% use I suppose, but thats still around 2k a turn wasted on nothing.

Also I nominate the moon city to be renamed "Alamo" or perhaps "Stonewall"


--
Walk the true path, or be trampled beneath it.
0 link
Zip555
Zip555
Posts: 67


5/22/2017
Zip555
Zip555
Posts: 67
Moving HQ puts a 5% tax on the account, which includes structires
0 link
Doctor Dread
Doctor Dread
Administrator
Posts: 1463


5/22/2017
Doctor Dread
Doctor Dread
Administrator
Posts: 1463
I don't like the moving of structures because having 20 people "warp in" their level 10 factories to the city you just founded would be annoying as hell =)

Selling structures where they stand though, I think I can make that happen just like military. Is this a popular idea though?
0 link
Vulpex
Vulpex
Posts: 390


5/22/2017
Vulpex
Vulpex
Posts: 390
There is a fair amount of support for it - selling structures as is.

It is particularly relevant for research centers but not only those. It makes retooling economies a bit easier as a choice if you can at least try to sell your structures for a better deal than the salvage price, and for some that would be quite useful.

It also becomes a valuable tool in diplomacy - it gives a new option to an agreed withdrawal - rather than having to blow everything up or force a salvage assets could be sold (and stay in place.)
0 link
Hutton
Hutton
Posts: 276


5/22/2017
Hutton
Hutton
Posts: 276
When people referred to "moving" structures they meant selling them where they stand. Zip555 was expressing concern that players with multiple accounts might exploit the feature by "moving" structure between accounts so they don't count towards the net worth loss when you liquidate or move your HQ.
0 link
DougJunior
DougJunior
Posts: 2


5/22/2017
DougJunior
DougJunior
Posts: 2
I think its not a bad idear, somethink like a cooldown after you sell a factory would be a nice idear, like in real life, a buyed factory runs not with 100% with the new managment, a prodcution penely and a block that you can not sell the structure for next 250 turns.
0 link
Solara
Solara
Posts: 1


5/22/2017
Solara
Solara
Posts: 1
Being able to transfer ownership of structures where they stand would be a very welcome change.
0 link






Powered by Jitbit Forum 8.3.8.0 © 2006-2013 Jitbit Software