• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

Shouldn't running a city be challenging?

Emberguard

Well-Known Member
In my suggestion I mentioned that I'd like to see this introduce as a mechanic around PE. this was basically to address the issue you raise here. I believe that by the time someone has reached PE they probably arent a 'new' player and have a basic understanding of the game and its challenges as well as a strategy they've built. So it would only be able to affect those that are at least on their way to becoming well established.
Progressive Era is already a transitioning Era before you get to refined goods. Progressive introduces 2 lane roads and completely changes the battle triangle. It’s a much harder age then what predated it already which makes it a bad choice for introducing a additional difficulty spike. When players quit for the game being “too hard” that’s usually around the time they do it due to mechanic changes
 

Emberguard

Well-Known Member
Maybe. I was hear for the change to the tech tree and remember that. I vaguely remember being told about how plundering led to GBs being changed since the attacker couldn't be stopped as there was some holdovers that still were unhappy that their attack GBs got sent capped at 10 if i recall right (could of been a reduction in their boosts though it has been awhile since I had conversations about it).
Those things are true too, but for additions to the game that would impact plundering. Plundering was already in the game.

Virgo Project for example, that was changed to be removed from attacking neighbourhoods for balancing reasons as there’s just no way to defend against having half your defending army removed before the battle begins
 

DevaCat

Well-Known Member
I offered the ge example as an illustration of how a change made to benefit the bored may have negative implications for other players, not as any presentation in favor of a ge5, which opens up its own can of worms.

I personally fall into the camp of having no interest in micromanagement. Having solved the problem of pop/happiness (in my youngest two cities by early EMA without a mid-level Traz), I have no interest in revisiting that particular challenge in PE or elsewhen-- there are other fish for me to fry. Just as having enough coins and supplies to produce goods is an issue for very early cities, dealing with population and happiness is an issue for a slightly older city. Anyone seriously believe revisiting it at a later stage is going to be fun?

I can understand the desire for a greater challenge once one has mastered something (if in fact one has). I simply do not want to have to deal with the consequences of a change made to the basic game which caters to someone's notion of what would be fun or challenging for them and which also changes the game for everyone else. Limiting the change to begin at a given era is simply the equivalent of saying well, we can put in an on/off switch to get the idea passed. No thanks.

If you are obsessed with your excess population and feel that doing something about it would lead to personal happiness, how about suggesting an addition to the game which could lead to that end without the potential negative consequences? I don't know, how about using the existing Settlements-type mechanism but as Colonies needing population and happiness. Instead of the insane grinds and uber reward building at the end, you'd have a need/outlet for excess population, perhaps lesser rewards but more direct interaction with your main city and the opportunity to play with new (ersatz) expansions. Riots, rebellions, mayhem anyone? I would probably want to play something like that, but if I was not interested I could simply ignore that challenge as I now can choose to ignore a given Settlement.

Thing is, I want that choice.
 

DeletedUser

If you would like it to be really challenging for you then get rid of all your great buildings. Most of the people I know worked for years to make certain aspects of the game easier so they can focus on what they want. To move the goal post this late in the game would kill the game off.
 

Expletive Deleted

Active Member
An enthusiastic population freed from the drudgery of working for a living, all because of your planning and hard work. That sounds like Utopia, not unemployment.
This might be the argument that has convinced me more than anything else to see the issues with a system like the one I proposed.

OP can set this challenge for their city. No need for Inno to impose it on us all. Set a goal of having under 5% unemployment and work to achieve it. Just as other players set limits of size, having no GBs, no fighting except what the game requires. Players can find their own set of challenges to overcome based on their play style.

I have built myself challenges to face within my non-farm towns, I get that everyone can build a city and set challenges for themselves. In my main I have built all 41 GBs and am working to bring them all to 80 without using the 1.9 threads. The intention within my proposal isnt to say I dont like the freedom this game provides but to recognize that at some point in development, the only real challenges to face are the ones that we set for ourselves and the time restrictions that are built in.

If you would like it to be really challenging for you then get rid of all your great buildings. Most of the people I know worked for years to make certain aspects of the game easier so they can focus on what they want. To move the goal post this late in the game would kill the game off.

Im a collector/hoarder I have all the GBs instead of none. By devoting a lot of space to the 'worthless' ones like Colosseum, space needle and Notre dame, I'm forcing myself to play with less space than most others in SAAB.
I don't disagree that a radical change like that would have a negative response by a lot of players. But if you dig into any of the threads here you'll notice any change or suggestion of change results in negative feedback, be it a new GB isnt good enough or the next events special building is a waste. Adjusting the age of something like the Galta tower. So a negative response is nothing new to the player base here.
 

Expletive Deleted

Active Member
The problem is all the Event buildings add population. Inno clearly WANTS players to have 50,000 to 500,000 too many population. So they would probably not flip that around and suddenly say having extra population is a hazard.'

But if Inno did. I would suggest instead of a tax.. make all of those population need FOOD. LOL But the way to do it would be to start making all new Event buildings include feeding xx(so many) pop. definitely more than the pop that building adds. just like happy.. and that alone would give folks the understanding there is a reason... And for old event buildings as the are recycled in new Events, add food to those being offered in Events. (but no retroactive to already placed building from previous years. Thus having a reason to replace old event buildings with new versions that include food.
And most importantly add a new GB to a low Era. like Iron Age that feeds Pop as it is leveled. Also would give a warning that food requirements will be coming. then after maybe a year. the food need for every citizen is included. Perhaps a big penalty too, So even ONE staving person would drop your happy to (a new low level of 'hungry' and cut production 70%
Because everyone was given warnings, and a lot of time to prepare.a whole year, that might be a worth while thing.
IT would certainly shake the "Who moved my Cheese" worriers.

Yes! This is exactly the kind of idea I was hoping to come across.
Something that is built to add that challenge and 'realism' in some way. I agree that the core issue is the population offered by special 'houses' is often too much while any special 'supply's buildings require next to zero population creating this huge imbalance.
As was stated earlier
"tax" is a four-letter word

So I know the unemployment idea isnt going to be popular, I was hoping it could shake loose a few alternate opinions and ideas to help fuel a better version of what this would accomplish. Thank you for that one, I'm gonna have to sit on it for a minute and give it a think.
 

wolfhoundtoo

Well-Known Member
And how exactly is requiring you to feed the population going to benefit the game? You've made a basic error in your position which is that you are still believing that what you believe is how something should work is how it should work. Inno's calculation for changes have to be (admittedly I don't know their thinking for sure) how does it increase interest in the game? how does it make it more interesting for more people while at the same time generating increased revenue and keeping the game ,mechanics relatively simple?

Given that we currently don't have a mechanism to feed the population that means you need to add in a new type of building and thus meaning you are now requiring people to give up something they currently have in their city already or to expand. Both of which would generate a fair bit of annoyance among players especially since the idea increases the complexity of the game which means it's harder for people to balance their city's accordingly. The same error I've seen in other games which is how to balance the desires of the longer term players versus new players. You aren't looking at this from the game developer view but as a long term player who wants something new to increase the challenge for themselves. What does either of the ideas presented here do to make the game more interesting? I see downsides being proposed but no upsides with either of your ideas. That's poor customer service in general.
 

Emberguard

Well-Known Member
The intention within my proposal isnt to say I dont like the freedom this game provides but to recognize that at some point in development, the only real challenges to face are the ones that we set for ourselves and the time restrictions that are built in
Yeah and that’s something every game will either have because at some point you’ve already done everything OR will keep increasing the difficulty until you lose and have to start again from scratch. This isn’t the kind of game where you’d retain players by getting them to start again (by force), so that then leaves the problem of entertaining those that have already done everything. But I don’t see how this particular idea would be entertaining to a fully developed city to a player that’s really attached to their event and great buildings. And players do get attached to event buildings
 

Expletive Deleted

Active Member
And how exactly is requiring you to feed the population going to benefit the game? You've made a basic error in your position which is that you are still believing that what you believe is how something should work is how it should work. Inno's calculation for changes have to be (admittedly I don't know their thinking for sure) how does it increase interest in the game? how does it make it more interesting for more people while at the same time generating increased revenue and keeping the game ,mechanics relatively simple?

Given that we currently don't have a mechanism to feed the population that means you need to add in a new type of building and thus meaning you are now requiring people to give up something they currently have in their city already or to expand. Both of which would generate a fair bit of annoyance among players especially since the idea increases the complexity of the game which means it's harder for people to balance their city's accordingly. The same error I've seen in other games which is how to balance the desires of the longer term players versus new players. You aren't looking at this from the game developer view but as a long term player who wants something new to increase the challenge for themselves. What does either of the ideas presented here do to make the game more interesting? I see downsides being proposed but no upsides with either of your ideas. That's poor customer service in general.

A part of why I wanted to start this thread was to work out and spitball the idea, this includes the need for a rewards system. IF something like this were being built. What is a reward you would deem worth the expense?

From the small bits I have read the latest Asteroids and Venus do need human support things. SO it may already be a part of the future Eras?

In the space age colonies you need life support. This acts effectively the same as happiness for the population of the colonies.
 

Expletive Deleted

Active Member
what reward? For me? I wouldn't care I rework my city so often I always have space available. I just need to redecorate now and again. :p

for players in general? Not a clue because what could you offer them that isn't already a function in the game? more coins or supplies no much point to those for the higher ages in general. FPs? Already have lots of ways to get those. attack and defense boosts? Again we have plenty. In the end you need the system first to determine what would be worth it for the player especially if you wanted to change it for all ages and not say the latest.

The real reward question is what's in it for Inno? For across all ages I can't see that be worth the time/effort. For a new age? Maybe but then you'd be in the spot where those players would have to give up much more beneficial buildings (think event buildings) and that won't go over well.

Is the only advantage you see to this system is making it more realistic (and of course a new challenge)? If so then you need to figure out what you want the system to be before you figure out what a player should get for mastering this new wrinkle since it needs to be worth it for the energy they'd have to put in to it. And once you've figured it out then what? it doesn't seem like it would do much more than give a slight change to how cities are designed and then be just another factor players need to account for when placing items in their city? That doesn't seem like much of a challenge after that one redesign.

All those are valid reasons I want to open the discussion here. If it's too passive in its design it would be mastered within a few days / weeks by anyone with sufficient resources. Make it too restrictive and you lose players.

I dont think its unreasonable to desire some more challenging things to work with, but it does need some balance for the rewards system for anything to be worth it. Be it an unemployment tax or a food requirement.

Space is one thing to consider as well as event buildings. But if these ideas were something that would be built into a town hall menu or an extension of your city similar to the tavern or antiques dealer, this could be a simple enough workaround for anyone attached to any specials or worried about space.

Could a town hall be leveled up with goods in order to use population by making a governing body?
Could you hire some of your population to run your buildings like the managers from the st. Patrick's day event?
Could a new extension building be added that would be the food resource that needs management with it's own unique currency?
 

DeletedUser

Why not make it a real challenge and your city erases itself every 6 months leaving only a Blacksmith and a lone donkey farm ?
 

Expletive Deleted

Active Member
Better read your opening sentence again.
I did a few times and then re-read the quote of mine you used and I dont know what you mean?

In my opening sentence I say I want to start a conversation about this idea I have and then in the quote I say a part of working out this idea is coming up with some kind of rewards system?
 

Agent327

Well-Known Member
I did a few times and then re-read the quote of mine you used and I dont know what you mean?

In my opening sentence I say I want to start a conversation about this idea I have and then in the quote I say a part of working out this idea is coming up with some kind of rewards system?

This part

that I'm sure would be put on the DNSL

You can spitball all you want, but you can never put it up as an idea. In fact, the longer you discuss it, the more rules of the DNSL apply.
 

Expletive Deleted

Active Member
This part



You can spitball all you want, but you can never put it up as an idea. In fact, the longer you discuss it, the more rules of the DNSL apply.

The second half of that sentence is

so I might be able to refine it into something workable.


I'm aware that the DNSL covers pretty much everything that might have an affect on the gameplay in any way. So maybe it cant be made into something workable. That's possible. To the best of my knowledge discussing what we would like to see and how it could work is not on the DNSL.

Do you have any ideas as to how something like this could satisfy those requirements?
 
Top