Save Game Checklist | Economy 2.0 - 1.1.4.f1

[ilan InSky]

Nice !! Perfect !! And now we are waiting for a better traffic AI to be very perfect

 

[Scanz]

Nice !

 

[co_avanya]

I like this idea in general - But why not just add an option to specifically turn off this upkeep cost? Why not give players choices, other than "the full experience" and "completely sandbox"?

While it doesn't just turn off the Tile Upkeep Cost, the newly added option "Unlock Map Tiles" will do that.

The community has asked for a more challenging, more difficult game since the beginning. This is the end result.

Let's wait and see how tough the game will be first, and then we can make additional tweaks later in the next patch.


Does this mean, per #2, if the tile is mostly water, the water will not be counted towards the Tile Upkeep Cost?

This would be wonderful if it's officially confirmed. Because you can't build on water. I guess that means, we can buy out the tiles full of water, and we would have no tile upkeep costs associated because of 0% buildable areas.

Tiles with mostly water have a significantly lower purchasing cost and as a result will have a lower Tile Upkeep Cost.

Be careful with this - it does not mean that you can play on the "entire map" (in the graphic below named "C:S II: Maximum Available Area" - available but not playable).

Actually the playable area stays the same with the outside regions being just cosmetic.
The C:S2 completely buildable area is a bit smaller than the 81 tiles area of C:S1:

View attachment 1150236

Also the area which is unloackable from the normal gameplay perspective is 441 tiles (bright green) which is what Avanya is referring to

To make the maximum available area playable mods will be needed, just like in C:S1.

Just to make sure there are no misunderstandings: Unlock Map Tiles unlocks all the 529 tiles.

 

[[Delta ²k5]]

Unlock Map Tiles unlocks all the 529 tiles.

That's actually pretty neat - thank you for the clarification

 

[Cryolemon]

The most straight forward way I can think of would be to let map creators decide how much upkeep each tile costs per month

That would definitely be cool

 

[TetraDax]

While it doesn't just turn off the Tile Upkeep Cost, the newly added option "Unlock Map Tiles" will do that.

That is neat, but it doesn't answer my question - Why not give an option to just turn off specific parts of the new added difficulty elements? Countless management games give you a precise choice over which elements you want to add and which you want to leave out, and you would have an excellent opportunity here to give players choice. Subsidies, yay or nay? Tile Upkeep Cost, yah or nah? External city services cost money, yeah nah or nah yeah?
Just slapping a bunch of these options into a single toggle that then changes too many things at once is one way of choice, but I don't think it's the right way. Players like being able to costumize their experience.
Hell, slap it under a "advanced settings"-menu and specifically tell the players 'These options are not balanced and not tested, proceed at your own peril'. But leave the choices.

 

[Civ5rako]

It depends on the tile. It varies because of the Buildable Area, the available Natural Resources, and the available Groundwater.

The Tile Upkeep Cost is also based on the Tile Cost, but we apply a multiplier that varies depending on how many tiles are owned. The multiplier changes based on a set curve, so the first few tiles you buy have a lower multiplier, which then increases more and more as you expand until it levels off toward the last few tiles.

The Tile Upkeep Cost is shown when the player purchases a tile, so you can see what you end up paying for it.

We think of it as a land tax paid to the government that increases as your city grows and is expected to have a larger income.

To me this doesn't make much sense.

In the context of the game the city exists in an uncontested area of land. Nobody else does even have the chance to have some kind of interest in that area.
But the government will increase costs for a given tile based on how many other tiles you already have while at the same time the land is just unused?
Such a strange concept.

I get it that you want to increase the financial pressure on players who are looking for more challenges.
But there would have been so many other ways to do this in a way which would be understandable and mimic real life experiences.
You could have added a "department" (coming with noticable costs) for each brand of services which would be able to manage a certain amount of sub agencies. For instance, a police "department" can manage say 10 police stations or 5 police headquarters (or any mixture of those). When you establish more stations, they will work at lower efficiency.
Then the player would have had a real choice: do I build the "department" now, or do I fight the lower efficiency with higher budget allocation? Where is the optimal point to switch from one to the other? And so on.

Instead you are confronting the players now with something which isn't really a choice: either no costs at all for ALL tiles or an artificial and unrealistic additional cost per tile. But luckily, that he cannot influence either.

I regard that as a bad idea, sorry.

 

[MayorWanze]

The version will be 1.1.5f1.

thanks. topic title mentions 1.1.4f1 though

 

[Ekim101]

To me this doesn't make much sense.

In the context of the game the city exists in an uncontested area of land. Nobody else does even have the chance to have some kind of interest in that area.
But the government will increase costs for a given tile based on how many other tiles you already have while at the same time the land is just unused?
Such a strange concept.

I get it that you want to increase the financial pressure on players who are looking for more challenges.
But there would have been so many other ways to do this in a way which would be understandable and mimic real life experiences.
You could have added a "department" (coming with noticable costs) for each brand of services which would be able to manage a certain amount of sub agencies. For instance, a police "department" can manage say 10 police stations or 5 police headquarters (or any mixture of those). When you establish more stations, they will work at lower efficiency.
Then the player would have had a real choice: do I build the "department" now, or do I fight the lower efficiency with higher budget allocation? Where is the optimal point to switch from one to the other? And so on.

Instead you are confronting the players now with something which isn't really a choice: either no costs at all for ALL tiles or an artificial and unrealistic additional cost per tile. But luckily, that he cannot influence either.

I regard that as a bad idea, sorry.

I disagree with you.

It makes sense to have this upkeep as an kind of maintenance costs. I find the idea great because now I really think about which tile I unlock and if it is useful. Till now I just unlocked everything... Not challenging.

 

[Civ5rako]

I disagree with you.

It makes sense to have this upkeep as an kind of maintenance costs. I find the idea great because now I really think about which tile I unlock and if it is useful. Till now I just unlocked everything... Not challenging.

The point is less in the "land tax" (although even that is questionable) but more in that it increases based on the number of tiles you already own.

A given tile might cause "land tax" of 1000 (just as an example) when bought as 10th tile, but 1500 when bought as 12th tile. That just doesn't make much sense, even less considering the fact that you have to pay for getting access to that tile anyway.

 

[Ekim101]

The point is less in the "land tax" (although even that is questionable) but more in that it increases based on the number of tiles you already own.

A given tile might cause "land tax" of 1000 (just as an example) when bought as 10th tile, but 1500 when bought as 12th tile. That just doesn't make much sense, even less considering the fact that you have to pay for getting access to that tile anyway.

I get what you mean, but keep in mind that in real life land value raises when more buildings and so on get constructed.

You can buy a field for a special prize. 1 year later the land value might raise because of some new buildings so the second field is more expensive.

And that's the matter in this case. You build a city starting with low costs because the land value isn't high. And then with an growing city the value for the unlocked tiles raises. And because of this the maintenance costs/taxes raise, too.

 

[Civ5rako]

I get what you mean, but keep in mind that in real life land value raises when more buildings and so on get constructed.

You can buy a field for a special prize. 1 year later the land value might raise because of some new buildings so the second field is more expensive.

And that's the matter in this case. You build a city starting with low costs because the land value isn't high. And then with an growing city the value for the unlocked tiles raises. And because of this the maintenance costs/taxes raise, too.

Your first line actually would make sense - if it were implemented that way.

But as far as we know it isn't. You will have to pay a certain amount of "land tax" for a tile regardless of the number of cells used (by streets, buildings, you name it). But it will cause a different amount of "land tax" if the same tile was bought earlier. And again a different amount if it was bougth later.
You see the problem?

Make tiles become more expensive in terms of "land tax" based on land value - I am fine with that. Make them more expensive based on cell usage - I am fine with that also.
But make them more expensive because they have been bought later? That appears to be just haphazardly.

 

[Ekim101]

Your first line actually would make sense - if it were implemented that way.

But as far as we know it isn't. You will have to pay a certain amount of "land tax" for a tile regardless of the number of cells used (by streets, buildings, you name it). But it will cause a different amount of "land tax" if the same tile was bought earlier. And again a different amount if it was bougth later.
You see the problem?

Make tiles become more expensive in terms of "land tax" based on land value - I am fine with that. Make them more expensive based on cell usage - I am fine with that also.
But make them more expensive because they have been bought later? That appears to be just haphazardly.

How you explain the reason for the taxes, doesn't matter.

The mechanic is the same. But it's a big difference and easier to break when you combine the tile tax with something like land value and used tiles. The easier and and less error-prone way is the one chosen.

And even the time of buying can make the difference.

If you buy Field B first and later field A, it's a high possibility that field A will be more expansive than than if you would have bought it first.

I think it's an easy way, to bring in a little bit more challenge, without creating a rule which is difficult to understand and tricky to code.

 

[Civ5rako]

How you explain the reason for the taxes, doesn't matter.

The mechanic is the same. But it's a big difference and easier to break when you combine the tile tax with something like land value and used tiles. The easier and and less error-prone way is the one chosen.

And even the time of buying can make the difference.

If you buy Field B first and later field A, it's a high possibility that field A will be more expansive than than if you would have bought it first.

I think it's an easy way, to bring in a little bit more challenge, without creating a rule which is difficult to understand and tricky to code.

I am in complete disagreement with you.

a) it is very important how you explain reason and kind of taxes. Immersion would be the key word. The more believable, the more realistic it appears, the better the player experience will be.

b) Calculating the "land tax" based on something which the player can see and understand like either land value or cell utilization isn't error prone at all. It is a simple matter of calculation, of multiplying a known value with the tax rate.

c) why a given tile should be more expensive in terms of "land tax" because it has been bought later is completely beyond me. There is simply no reason for that, except that "it has to be that way".

I will give you an example.
The player wants to buy four additional map tiles, A, B, C and D.
Costs will be 1000, 1100, 1200 and 1300, depending on the sequence of purchase. Here one might argue that the cost increase is due to supply and demand.
Now we will assume that "tax rate" increases incrementally by 100 per tile bought.
In addition, due to the different size of buildable area, ressources and so on, the tax rate for the the four tiles (before purchase) will be
100 for A, 200 for B, 200 for C and 400 for D.
So, if you purchase those four tiles in the order of A, B, C and D you tax costs will be:
100 (A) + (200 + 100) for B + (200 + 200) for C + (400 + 300) for D = 1500 in total.
If you buy in the order of D,C,B,A, the tax costs will be
400 (D) + (200+100) for C + (200 +200) for B + (100 +300) for A = 1500 in total.

At first glance it looks like there isn't any difference, right?
Wrong.
The metric for the tax value of a map tile tells us that D is the much more valuable tile. However, based on the sequence of purchase it costs much less in the latter case. And tiles B and C are of equal "value" but will be costing differently per tile.
It doesn't make any sense at all. It is purely an arbitrary setting which is causing that effect.

And that is simply contradictory to anything even remotely connected to "simulating reality" which should be one of the main aspects of a city building game.

 

[Ekim101]

I am in complete disagreement with you.

a) it is very important how you explain reason and kind of taxes. Immersion would be the key word. The more believable, the more realistic it appears, the better the player experience will be.

b) Calculating the "land tax" based on something which the player can see and understand like either land value or cell utilization isn't error prone at all. It is a simple matter of calculation, of multiplying a known value with the tax rate.

c) why a given tile should be more expensive in terms of "land tax" because it has been bought later is completely beyond me. There is simply no reason for that, except that "it has to be that way".

I will give you an example.
The player wants to buy four additional map tiles, A, B, C and D.
Costs will be 1000, 1100, 1200 and 1300, depending on the sequence of purchase. Here one might argue that the cost increase is due to supply and demand.
Now we will assume that "tax rate" increases incrementally by 100 per tile bought.
In addition, due to the different size of buildable area, ressources and so on, the tax rate for the the four tiles (before purchase) will be
100 for A, 200 for B, 200 for C and 400 for D.
So, if you purchase those four tiles in the order of A, B, C and D you tax costs will be:
100 (A) + (200 + 100) for B + (200 + 200) for C + (400 + 300) for D = 1500 in total.
If you buy in the order of D,C,B,A, the tax costs will be
400 (D) + (200+100) for C + (200 +200) for B + (100 +300) for A = 1500 in total.

At first glance it looks like there isn't any difference, right?
Wrong.
The metric for the tax value of a map tile tells us that D is the much more valuable tile. However, based on the sequence of purchase it costs much less in the latter case. And tiles B and C are of equal "value" but will be costing differently per tile.
It doesn't make any sense at all. It is purely an arbitrary setting which is causing that effect.

And that is simply contradictory to anything even remotely connected to "simulating reality" which should be one of the main aspects of a city building game.

Of course, it is more error-prone if the tax of a tile is linked to the built-up area or the land value. This means that many calculations are necessary. And with every change, this system would also have to be recalculated. This makes it much more likely that an imbalance will occur or that a miscalculation will take place.

This way is a simplification of this process. It is unrealistic to create a 100% reality simulation. Only an approximation is possible. And in some places, a complex topic is simply simplified.

Basically, the following situation is depicted:

I have the choice of buying plot A or B. The decision is in favor of plot A. I buy plot B later. Due to inflation, higher land value, etc., plot B is somewhat more expensive at a later date.

If I had opted for plot B and bought plot A later, plot A would have become more expensive for the same reasons.

Given the many other complex systems in the game, I think it's justifiable to take a shortcut here.

It won't detract from the enjoyment of the game. At least not for the majority of players.

 

[Civ5rako]

Of course, it is more error-prone if the tax of a tile is linked to the built-up area or the land value. This means that many calculations are necessary. And with every change, this system would also have to be recalculated. This makes it much more likely that an imbalance will occur or that a miscalculation will take place.

This way is a simplification of this process. It is unrealistic to create a 100% reality simulation. Only an approximation is possible. And in some places, a complex topic is simply simplified.

Basically, the following situation is depicted:

I have the choice of buying plot A or B. The decision is in favor of plot A. I buy plot B later. Due to inflation, higher land value, etc., plot B is somewhat more expensive at a later date.

If I had opted for plot B and bought plot A later, plot A would have become more expensive for the same reasons.

Given the many other complex systems in the game, I think it's justifiable to take a shortcut here.

It won't detract from the enjoyment of the game. At least not for the majority of players.

Simply not true.
The values for "land value" are calculated anyway. Alternatively, the number of cells used is known to the game as well as that is what determines size and look of the buildings, streets, whatever.

And you even have to introduce the concept of inflation to your "explanation" to make it sound right. Inflation though isn't in the game.

But anyway, I have said my piece and we should agree to disagree.

 

[Ekim101]

Simply not true.
The values for "land value" are calculated anyway. Alternatively, the number of cells used is known to the game as well as that is what determines size and look of the buildings, streets, whatever.

And you even have to introduce the concept of inflation to your "explanation" to make it sound right. Inflation though isn't in the game.

But anyway, I have said my piece and we should agree to disagree.

I understand what you mean.

In my opinion it's a good solution. Not perfect, and probably worth to optimise at an other time, but right now, totally fine.

So I Agree in your agree to disagree statement

 

[ryeguy93]

So....are we not getting the patch today?

 

[ryeguy93]

While it doesn't just turn off the Tile Upkeep Cost, the newly added option "Unlock Map Tiles" will do that.


Tiles with mostly water have a significantly lower purchasing cost and as a result will have a lower Tile Upkeep Cost.


Just to make sure there are no misunderstandings: Unlock Map Tiles unlocks all the 529 tiles.

How about an update for your players? It is 6/19 and no info/news...

 

[boorkie]