Landmark Status

[Axlrose]

I've played so many games of Transport Tycoon Deluxe patched over the years that at this point, I play the game as one large sandbox: no competition, establish routes that are pleasant upon the eyes instead of practical, etc. And using Zimmlock's building replacements intertwined with the old buildings, many times I will see a city that look "cool". Yet the game seems to randomly replace buildings on a whim. Even with me restricting myself during game play, eventually money becomes secondary that anything I want to build will not make a dent. Looking around my cities, I noticed that certain buildings like the bank can not be cleared nor will the town remove them. Thus I had a thought - why not buy landmark status for buildings?

If the cost to clear a building is x amount, then purchasing landmark status at 10x the amount. Thus the building is now ~locked~ where you can not destroy it nor can the town remove it to build some old houses. While this can be abused, I feel the benefits would be greater. As an example, beer as a good for a town would have the potential for stability. Currently it is nearly pointless to establish a beer route to a stadium if within months the stadium is removed for a house. But make the stadium a landmark status and all the beer that can be drunk is now locked. Zimmlock's hospitals that are destroyed then missing as the game seeks another spot in a packed town to build a new one - landmark the building to those four squares so destroy it, but build the new one in the same position. Begin a game in 1925 and in 1975 wish to look upon "Old Town" - landmark numerous old buildings (especially those that Oz created recently) early enough before they are removed and the city shall grow around this slice of the past.

While I am no coder (and hack artist), short of an interface issue, I would think if certain buildings and industries can appear without the means to remove them, then landmark status should be possible, I hope.

Thanks for reading,
>>>>>Axlrose - ...<<<<<

[Redirect Left]

I hate the fact that TTD seems to build a new buildind then within a few years its gone again. i think the buildings should last at least 50 years, with the option to landmark them, as suggested above, (great idea btw).
also i would like to think it would be possible to add a switch that would make the buildings not dissapear, without compromising the growth of a town.

[Csaboka]

If newhouses is turned on, the build year of every building is stored already. It wouldn't be too difficult to conditionally "protect" buildings based on that, but I'm not sure how well it would work for longer periods of time.

Protection by the player would be more difficult, on the other hand. All the landscape bits are already used for houses, so I have nowhere to store whether the building is protected or not.

[krtaylor]

I think a slick plan would be to prevent buildings from being destroyed by the city, if they were younger than 10 years, or older than 50 years.

[Csaboka]

This sounds like a good idea. We could have a minbuildingage switch that prevents removing houses newer than the given age. Unfortunately, I'm too busy now to work on something like that, but it may be a good idea to implement later.

[Redirect Left]

I hope it gets implememented at some point then.

[George]

This sounds like a good idea. We could have a minbuildingage switch that prevents removing houses newer than the given age. Unfortunately, I'm too busy now to work on something like that, but it may be a good idea to implement later.

I'd prefer to see it as a callback, that happens on destroy building event. Then it would be possible to code a more complicated behaviour.

[michael blunck]

I'd prefer to see it as a callback [...] Then it would be possible to code a more complicated behaviour.

Why does this not surprise me?

SCNR
Michael

[Aegir]

I for one would prefer it not to be a callback, but just a minbuildingsage switch. I'm already up to my arm-pits in callbacks with my housing sets, I don't need yet more pointless complications.

[wallyweb]

minbuildingage switch ... now this is sensible but would it have to be controlled by a switch in the patch config?
Could it perhaps be done in game with a sign cheat placed on a building's tile? That way it could be turned on and off at will and selectively per building, and perhaps with a variable age.

Cht:minBldAge x where x is any value, perhaps within a reasonable range and 0 turning the cheat off. If Sign cheats cost money is enbled, this could have a reasonable cost applied to it perhaps reflecting a renovation cost.

Excellent suggestion Axlrose!

[krtaylor]

Naah, I'd rather have it automatic; not many people are going to take the time to manually flag which buildings they want to protect. Anyway, you're only allowed so many signs.

[Csaboka]

I for one would prefer it not to be a callback, but just a minbuildingsage switch.

We don't have to choose one, we can have both. We can have a callback, and apply the switch setting if the callback is disabled/fails.

Could it perhaps be done in game with a sign cheat placed on a building's tile?

As I've already said, I'm out of landscape bits for houses. I can't even mark them for protection (that would need one free bit), let alone storing things like remaining protection time. (Unless we add yet another landscape array, that is.) And, as krtaylor has pointed out, very few people would mark buildings one by one anyway.

[SuperTycoon]

I for one would prefer it not to be a callback, but just a minbuildingsage switch.

We don't have to choose one, we can have both. We can have a callback, and apply the switch setting if the callback is disabled/fails.

Could it perhaps be done in game with a sign cheat placed on a building's tile?

As I've already said, I'm out of landscape bits for houses. I can't even mark them for protection (that would need one free bit), let alone storing things like remaining protection time. (Unless we add yet another landscape array, that is.) And, as krtaylor has pointed out, very few people would mark buildings one by one anyway.

Wouldn't adding a new landscape array be a good long term 'investment' we can use it for storing data on future patch features

[Axlrose]

I'm glad my idea has generated further responses for potential future creativity in patching. Hopefully something can be designed to benefit all types of ~saving~ buildings - even my original idea of picking and choosing certain ones. Using all the various building graphics has generated some pretty looking buildings. And with future graphics eventually arriving - like Oz's early buildings, I would not mind preserving some of those old architec designs to look upon in the later years.

A thought as I was writing - would it be possible to "lock" or reserve the square the building resides upon and thus forcing the game to look elsewhere on adding and removing buildings? I was thinking if I possess the square, then the building as it stands could not be then changed - similar to industries and whatnot.

Again, I appreciate the responses.

[LittleHelper]

I'm glad my idea has generated further responses for potential future creativity in patching. Hopefully something can be designed to benefit all types of ~saving~ buildings...

Your idea is great .... ... i`m also not happy, if I have lost some of these very nice looking buildings (thx to all who have created ... and hopefully will create some more new sets).

regards
LH

[Lockwood]

Old buildings attract tourists, as such you get more passengers around the old building as well?

[Aegir]

I for one would prefer it not to be a callback, but just a minbuildingsage switch.

We don't have to choose one, we can have both. We can have a callback, and apply the switch setting if the callback is disabled/fails.

That would work for me .

[wallyweb]

Over the short term I can live with a switch in the patch. However, the ideal would be selective protection as it might be desirable to allow some of the buildings to evolve. The idea of being able to create a "historical section" in a town is intriguing. This may well be worth that extra array. Have any other suggestions fallen by the wayside because of the same limitation? Perhaps with another array they would now be possible.