Full destructibility could be really interesting (or rage-inducing), and would be in line with other adversarial building games, so I definitely think it’s something that should be considered.
It could be that Grid-installations are cheaper than their Citaadel counterparts, or maybe there could be an implementation where a Grid-installation is “deployed” onto a certain Grid coordinate but the actual installation NFT would be soulbound and remain locked in the user’s wallet, and if the game-twin gets blown up by Liquidators the Gotchiverse could submit a tx to the contract that would allow the NFT to be redeployed after a certain time interval has passed. I don’t know how secure that would be, but I think theoretically it could be possible.
Some kind of mechanism to preserve the player’s progress while still allowing installations to be destroyed could solve the problem of permaclutter on free-build regions.
I think Licks are intended to be a mostly free-to-play feature, but I too am an advocate for “strong Lickquidator” gameplay and I had a few ideas that would allow for both F2P and pay-to-win. That’s a good point about Great Battles, they are intended to happen at planned intervals so I wonder how Lickquidator players will be enticed to take up arms (tongues?) en masse to strike Gotchi civilization. We’ll see what Pixelcraft has planned.
I’m also curious about how Lickquidators will be rewarded - I agree that destruction and mayhem should translate into some kind of reward. The idea of using invested haarvester costs to fund Lick rewards could work. Instead of only waiting a time interval, players with “destroyed” NFTs in their wallet would have to pay an Alchemica fee to redeploy them. Cheaper than building from scratch, but still a cost that would offset Lickquidator rewards.
Indeed, I also think the difference in building styles could help further distinguish the difference in “feel” between the safe Citaadel and the more wild and dangerous Grid.