@markp27
I actually think Inno made the right call on that one. With only two new buildings per era, people would get bored too quickly, advance too quickly, and we'd all end up in OF too early. Strategies would also become more uniform; everyone would build the same GBs, in the same order, at the same pace. Currently, their method for pressuring people forward in eras is mostly space restriction and quests, otherwise leaving players with a lot of strategic options. It works, as most players will eventually find that the restrictions of staying too long in one age are too onerous.
It might be an idea to place some era related restrictions on buildings, though, where a GB can reach its full potential only once the player reaches the appropriate era. That would maintain the wealth of options, while having some of the effect you want. I believe it would also be technically simpler than storing GBs, and a lot less upsetting to players. It could be implemented simply by removing and replacing the GB with another GB with the same size, same name, similar appearance, and similar, though better, stats.
Storage of GBs should be possible, but probably not easily done. The database would have to be altered, since I doubt they can be stored in the same tables as other buildings. Introducing a new table means the schema would have to be expanded. Some new code would have to be written, both for the server and client, though that might be the easier part of it. It may be possible to tie it into the functions existing for BPs, FP packs, and/or upgrade kits, but it would still be a significant effort, I believe.
The idea in this thread, introducing the entirely new concept of using both other buildings, and FPs, to upgrade a GB, will also present technical problems. It may entail creating an entirely new class of buildings, with many of the same problems. It would be more of a novelty, though, which should make it more attractive to Inno.
Considering how many, much easier ways there are to create new content, most without upsetting too many players too much, and most without the need for overcoming many technical problems, most or all of the ideas here are unlikely to be put on a fast track. At best, it will take a good, long while. Still, players giving ideas attention, and discussing them, can't hurt. I'm on record as being convinced they have some function in place, to make them aware of anything they consider relevant, happening on the forums.
Colosseum, as it is today... I wouldn't build it, with or without Deal available. It's simply not a good building, worth neither it's space, or the necessary FPs. It's outclassed by other sources of medals, even in the early eras. They need to do something about the building itself, if they want it to be anything other than a punishment for bad judgement. Mind you, I don't mind bad judgement being punished in a strategy game.
Colosseum is no part of the original idea.
It's on topic, because it's an expansion on the original idea. It's about it. That's pretty much the definition of being "on topic" in a discussion. You, on the other hand, were getting entrenched in a meta-discussion, absolutely refusing to address anything directly on-topic, and moving further and further away from the topic. It was barely a meta-discussion of the discussion of the topic, towards the end. Well, not the end, as you're still on about it.
