EPTCities: Skylines - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
BurningSera
Ireland19621 Posts
| ||
|
KaiserJohan
Sweden1808 Posts
| ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On March 18 2015 01:55 KaiserJohan wrote: After having played quite abit, I can conclude this is a sandbox, not a game. It's virtually impossible to go negative cash flow and there simply isn't any challenge to be had. It's like you are playing "Very easy". A shame :/ Why is a "sandbox" not a game? I agree that there is little challenge, but that hardly makes it any less of a game. It looks like you didn't do your research if you went in expecting and craving a challenge. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1840 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
MrCon
France29748 Posts
On March 18 2015 01:55 KaiserJohan wrote: After having played quite abit, I can conclude this is a sandbox, not a game. It's virtually impossible to go negative cash flow and there simply isn't any challenge to be had. It's like you are playing "Very easy". A shame :/ You know money wasn't an issue in SC4 either. When I hit 100k my income went from +20k to 0, basically if your city works well you won't have money problems, but it's not a thing you can notice in a small city. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1840 Posts
On a more serious note, my diftricts are working somewhat fine, my slum is mostly level 1 and educated, that's not really the problem. The problem is that the workforce of that slum fluctuates by 20 %, so i can either build 20% too much industry and have crazy demand for workforce in the time they are all seniors, or i could have 20% unemployment in that area and keep the level of industry. I would much prefer a way to balance the aging so that there are always children and always seniors, not either or. But the only way i see that working is by bulldozing houses of seniors when their numbers are high. But that's a bit drastic :D On another note, has anybody figured out how specialized industry works? Do the different shaes of the colors represent efficiency? Will an oilwell on light grey produces less oil then on black? Or less tax? | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
| ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
| ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1840 Posts
 Do the following experiment. Save your city with almost no unemployment. Set speed to highest and check the population tab for unemployment figures. Your unemployment will go up and down all the time. Reason is people get older and become seniors. And as all new citizens are starting as adults or young adults, you don't have a healthy distribution between seniors and adults. Instead, seniors peak at some time, then die off and get replaced with adults again who get kids and so on. You might not even notive it in a big city. I just want my industrial ghettos to work like the machines they are supposed to be so that i don't have to import them goods and make monies by exporting them. Offices are only generating taxes, so in theory they should be inferior to having both. | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
aND destroy it just to see what happens, not enough destruction. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
LaNague
Germany9118 Posts
On March 18 2015 02:29 ZasZ. wrote: Why is a "sandbox" not a game? I agree that there is little challenge, but that hardly makes it any less of a game. It looks like you didn't do your research if you went in expecting and craving a challenge. it has no goal, it has no challenge, it goes out of its way to prtect the customer from consequences of his actions. You just build stuff and look at it, there is very little game in this | ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 Posts
| ||
|
lilwisper
United States2515 Posts
| ||
|
MrCon
France29748 Posts
| ||
Yhamm
France7248 Posts
On March 18 2015 05:04 MrCon wrote: It's not the same dev as cities XL or XXL. It's a new franchise by the dev of crusader kings and heart of iron. what? no it's the same developper (Colossal Order) than Cities in Motion and Cities in Motion 2 Paradox is the publisher | ||
|
Fuchsteufelswild
Australia2028 Posts
I had many games go crappy all of a sudden because health just wasn't quite in check and I couldn't actually get the population high enough to get crematoriums (although a lot if not most/all just seem to go to the cemeteries first anyway and I wasn't quite sure if those ever went to the crematoriums after. There seems to be extremely little instruction in game and the stupid fake social media notes are mostly unhelpful. Exact use of roads makes a big difference and they try to send you on a bad path at the start by limiting you to only the most simple road for your highway connection (starting it anyway) before you get the bigger roads that you'll actually want there. Sure you can create one tile of basic thin road, delete it and then replace it with bigger roads but it encourages starts that will cause tremendous grief in the long run with traffic jams and areas that need to be largely replaced in order to avoid catastrophe and make proper use out of the highway connection IN to your city. The additional land you can buy feels strangely cheap considering how expensive hospitals and fire stations are but worth getting somewhat quickly even if only to be able to change the existing outside roads into the main part of your expanding city and/or add more. Maybe land is that cheap compared to those buildings in real life, I wouldn't know, but balance-wise it feels strange. Percentage rates for crime and fire hazard seem inconsistent as I found one little police station (not headquarters even) gave low crime rates over a very substantial area whereas fire coverage was worse, or at least industry pretty much always has at least medium danger colouring...but despite that, small amounts of crime occur much more often at low crime (under 10%) than any fires at say 20-35% fire danger. Very weird. ...and boy do big roads cost a lot over time. Even a population with over 90% of them university educated seems to need very little commerce, just industry and offices, which I find disappointing. Not as much variety as I'd like. Milestone system is...OK. Might be a bit too harsh in some cases. And no auto-saves! Madness! So after numerous extremely vexing games that will involve slow growth for long periods followed by some BS health/rubbish snowball catastrophe all of a sudden, I had a game where in 2031 I have 6 million in the bank and 40,650 people. I don't know if that's good, but it was drastically better than all the eventual failures prior to that in which I only once managed to get any damn Crematoriums. :/ Grid road placement with just a little extra spacing for breathing room to keep industries safer (not too much fire hazard next to each other) is the only winning style of road placement? Gets dull quickly. Also people are absolutely stupid when it comes to tax expectations. 12% as about the maximum average income tax without getting ticked off? In Australia, you pay about 12% overall if you are on $41250/year, any more than that and you pay over. I don't think everyone earning over that is fuming with rage at the government just for making them pay 13% instead. Oh and this game uses way too much GPU processing power than it should, what the heck?! There are games that seem to have a lot more going on with seemingly fancier graphics that don't force my card (GTX460) to close to 100% so frequently. :S In conclusion, I love the idea of the game but I'm already pretty much over this until we have some decent mods for multiplayer, disasters (although you can intentionally screw up a damn and create a very nice flood disaster ^o^), more features and better functionality (such as auto-saves, moveable information windows (for residences etc.), the ability to change budget amounts in increments of 1% by pressing left or right after having clicked the slider rather than always dragging it and only from 50%-150%. | ||
|
Yacobs
United States846 Posts
On March 18 2015 04:29 SKC wrote: Sandbox games are still games. Some are challenging, some not as much. It doesn't really have much to do with difficulty. Not to kick off a pointless fight but that is very much open to debate. To some (most?), the word game implies the concept of a goal and a winner/loser. | ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 Posts
On March 18 2015 05:15 Yacobs wrote: Not to kick off a pointless fight but that is very much open to debate. To some (most?), the word game implies the concept of a goal and a winner/loser. So Pacman/Donkey Kong/Tetris/etc, the games that started it all, where you can't really win, aren't games? That concept is bullshit even if you are not only talking about sandbox games like KSP/Dwarf Fortress/etc. Plenty of games have no win condition and can go on as long as you can or the game breaks. How do you beat Eve online? I would find it hard to belive the majority of people think all of those, and SimCity and co, aren't games. | ||
| ||
