Iwan
Boldtown
No harm done.
You're absolutely right, Mars, when you ask for clarification.
We do not wish to set precedent for any project to overrule any other for no apparent reason other than that the newer project is like to be better. We're not going to operate like that.
Blackcrown and Three Towers are sacrificed for the sake of Oldtown, which, and I think we can all agree on that, is of a much higher importance than any of the other projects around it. This is a very special circumstance, and this procedure now does certainly not set precedent for any random project to overrule another.
Same counts for Highgarden. Have we made a mistake in allowing other projects as close to Highgarden as Holyhall to start before we knew how the lands were to look like? Yes, absolutely. We did not have this much foresight, but we should have anticipated it. We tried to intervene as soon as we realized the significance of the mistake and we offered a workaround that would not necessitate the removal of the project. The removal of an abandoned, only partially completed project does however not set any precedent that wasn't already established.
These are very special circumstances that do not apply to many other places on our map (if any). That we sacrifice something for the sake of King's Landing or Oldtown or Highgarden does not mean we'd sacrifice something similar for the sakes of Harvest Hall, Fairmarket or Horn Hill or any of the other 'regular' projects.
Other projects are removed because there are huge efforts underway to significantly improve the landscape that they happen to be located in. The work done on the Mander will make the river infinitly better. The efforts in the Vale brought a new kind of realism to this part of the map, that IMO is worth the hard work that's put into it. We try wherever we can to work around existing builds or re-integrate them in the new context. Sometimes, that can not achieved. Sometimes it's a matter of considering cost-benefit ratios (i.e. 'how much work does it require to bring this up to date' vs 'how much work would it be to open it again').
I agree that for these latter processes we need to establish clear, reliable rules. This debate deserves its own space on the forums however, I reckon.
You're absolutely right, Mars, when you ask for clarification.
We do not wish to set precedent for any project to overrule any other for no apparent reason other than that the newer project is like to be better. We're not going to operate like that.
Blackcrown and Three Towers are sacrificed for the sake of Oldtown, which, and I think we can all agree on that, is of a much higher importance than any of the other projects around it. This is a very special circumstance, and this procedure now does certainly not set precedent for any random project to overrule another.
Same counts for Highgarden. Have we made a mistake in allowing other projects as close to Highgarden as Holyhall to start before we knew how the lands were to look like? Yes, absolutely. We did not have this much foresight, but we should have anticipated it. We tried to intervene as soon as we realized the significance of the mistake and we offered a workaround that would not necessitate the removal of the project. The removal of an abandoned, only partially completed project does however not set any precedent that wasn't already established.
These are very special circumstances that do not apply to many other places on our map (if any). That we sacrifice something for the sake of King's Landing or Oldtown or Highgarden does not mean we'd sacrifice something similar for the sakes of Harvest Hall, Fairmarket or Horn Hill or any of the other 'regular' projects.
Other projects are removed because there are huge efforts underway to significantly improve the landscape that they happen to be located in. The work done on the Mander will make the river infinitly better. The efforts in the Vale brought a new kind of realism to this part of the map, that IMO is worth the hard work that's put into it. We try wherever we can to work around existing builds or re-integrate them in the new context. Sometimes, that can not achieved. Sometimes it's a matter of considering cost-benefit ratios (i.e. 'how much work does it require to bring this up to date' vs 'how much work would it be to open it again').
I agree that for these latter processes we need to establish clear, reliable rules. This debate deserves its own space on the forums however, I reckon.
