|
Surgicus Posts: 11
12/2/2018
|
Here is what puzzles me from the beginning I am playing this: only sales are supporting city growth because it reduces demand and -feed- the population of the city and its different classes.
However, the -buying- , from a manufacturing, and generally from a production point of view this is, would also provide work to local citizens and support the growth of the city. If there is no buying there is no outside stimulation for any production to actually be justified but only for self sustainability, since the -buying from- happens at double of the -selling to- pricing anyway.
Simply put, the commercial *activity* of a city (or location) should be accounted for its growth, for this way there would be a more legitimate and additional field to explain the growing or shrinking population in this related equation.
It would make more sense would it not ? And also help corporations do better business in successfully run cities.
Cheers!
edited by Surgicus on 12/2/2018
edited by Surgicus on 12/2/2018
edited by Surgicus on 12/2/2018
edited by Surgicus on 12/2/2018
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
CptCommanche Posts: 69
12/3/2018
|
Great point Surgicus and I would agree.
What if industry being present in a city would also cause growth? The factories bring in more workers, thus increasing population. I have seen this IRL when a corporation opens a new manufacturing facility and brings in thousands of jobs to a community. It also works in reverse when industry is closed down. This could raise the minimum population level. For example, Berlin currently has 5,223 industry output. This would mean the population level is increased by 522,300 (or something similar, you get my point). Rabat has 15,000 industry, meaning an additional 1,500,000 population.
This would influence growth, meaning the more industry I build in Berlin, it will start causing some small positive population growth (until it balances out based on the total industry there). Similarily, if next turn I scrapped all my industry, it would start causing large population loss, until the city adjusts to its new level.
--
Boldor Galactic Inc, AKA the old StarCorp
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Telios Posts: 9
12/4/2018
|
Commanche, that could work but multiple those numbers by 2x, 5x or even 10x.
Use a higher multiplier and have demand not impact growth at all. Base the growth entirely off of industry in the city; the jobs being provided for. Or maybe really high demand 300+ having a negative modifier on growth but that's it.
--
Supernova LLC
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Telios Posts: 9
12/7/2018
|
Reason I am saying that the multipler of industry impact on city pop should be greater (using your numbers of Rabat at 15,000 industry) is that getting to the higher levels of industry output should have pretty massive changes to the population.
My ideal would be city founded with 3,000 industry(current mechanic) and that 3,000 starts the city with the 900,000 or 1 million it does now but starts growing to ~6 million based on that 3,000 industry. Now if industry drops back down (often happens because the "push" to 3,000 is typically unprofitable) to say 1,250, then the growth would only be taking the city to around ~2.5M. But as the activity in the city grows, T2/T3 industry develops, and the city gets to that 15,000 industry level, the growth should be pushing the city to the target of 30 million pop. Which given the lower volumes, ~30M is enough that several people could focus on differing products and making money because the population cause greater volumes.
In addition, perhaps there is also a negative modifier on growth from demand at high demand levels (ie people leaving because they can't get what they want or its too expensive) around 250-300%. At the same time, demand levels should rise faster than they currently do to allow people to actually make money.
Under this model, a city would require 50,000 industry to reach 100 million pop. Vastly beyond what a single player could provide but still doesn't result in gaming demands to get cities growing. This would also more closely align with the "real world" in drivers of cities. I don't move to a new city because demand for products are low, I move because there is a job there.
FYI, this change would cause my city, Questa, to move from 57M to ~18M pop at current production levels
edited by Telios on 12/7/2018
--
Supernova LLC
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Doctor Dread Administrator Posts: 1478
12/17/2018
|
CIties aren't meant to hit 100 mil. The resistance buildup as a city gets bigger is one of the things that balances cities out. 100 mil worth of city would take more resources than the planet it is on can probably provide. The supply and demand makes that impractical and not profitable. You would have to run the lower value resources and at overcrowd levels which makes the price of everything go up. Thats what forces you outside the planet for resources. I think earth might be able to sustain 5-10 mil pop per 25 cities = 250mil population with local resources on a stretch of perfect specialized corporations.
You cannot "grow" a city purposefully, there are some things that help like Hypernet Towers ect. but no one corp is suppose to be able to support a single city in any practical way. , I realize it is fun to do so and is popular mechanic in almost any other game, but it cannot work that way in this game. Controlling and owning a city is regulated to Rulership mechanics. Through that we can make features that incorproate the "build up your own city " mechanic somehow, but it cannot be done through sheer force of selling by the single corp that wants to own it. Cities become a size in accordance with how much is being sold there by the masses of corps.
You may be able to grow "your" city through some mechanic that brings more people to your city to sell. Perhaps Rulership allows you to play the Astro Empires style "Buildup" game with the city you are craving. That idea is where the megastructures came from. It was thought that the city ruler would build the megastructures in "his" city to make it a more attractive city for people to do business in. Getting elected graduates your game into that kind of thing maybe. But that "game" has to stay with the city itself. It hasn't panned out though.
I would like to make Megastructures more meaningful so if you wanted to build up "your" city you literally could by investing in Megastructres that offer some other benefit besides a city boost, probably political prestige/influence. You could make structures that boost specific categories of products in addition to Hypernet Tower which boosts everything but those structures pay you in accordance to how much business, of whatever particular type, is happening there also.
I realize there is a lot of potential in City Building and would like to incorporate the mechanic but It won't be through sheer volume of selling by yourself. It will have to be something along the lines of a megastructure game and rulership
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Telios Posts: 9
12/25/2018
|
You are developing in dreamland if you think Earth can support 5-10 million per city with players actually making a profit and enjoying themselves...
My point about 100 million was basically saying that it would still be a near impossibility under an industry based city growth model. You completely ignored the concept that was the focus of this topic; industry focused city size rather than demand levels...
If players aren't meant to "grow" cities then why even have the growth based on actions the players make? Just set the pop to whatever you believe that it should be and be done... or based on number of players (think we are down to under 10 atm...)?
You do a lot of squashing players' ideas to try to fix the game while every "balance" you are making is just driving people away. New features (guild bank, etc) are meaningless when the core of the game (economy) allows for no growth...
edited by Telios on 12/25/2018
--
Supernova LLC
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Telios Posts: 9
1/1/2019
|
I would love if Mega Structures became worth it!
Arcology - Valuable before but less so now as a 10% of city growth when it costs a million a turn isn't terrible cost effective. With the new system of it not really being profitable to grow a city, I can see this mega structure being completely worthless after the reset. If the growth it provided was greatly increased or provided a population "floor" for the city that would be working towards fixing it.
Hypernet - only valuable at level 1 when it costs 5,000 a turn and only breaks even if you have 500,000 of production costs in the city. Any further levels are meaningless and unprofitable as you will pay more in military upkeep that you will save in production costs. The upkeep should be vastly lower, the bonus should be much higher, it should provide a reduction to military upkeep in the city as well or should act as a spaceport for just that city to generate additional income. Right now its just the worst.
Mobile fortress- It isn't terrible but suffers from the fact that it is more economical to let your things die and then rebuild as a smaller player than maintain a standing defense. This isn't really a problem with the structure itself but the economy of the game...
Warp Gates - income doesn't really offset the per turn cost but we maintain them because space is huge, not sure I would change much. Will be much less important when the reset happens as we all just live in Sol.
Orbital Gun - Won't be seen much after the reset, same reason as the mobile fortress. Just too expensive to maintain in the new economy.
Spaceport - nearly worthless due to the reduced economic climate, the ability to sell to the spaceport at a planetary rate and have it effect all of the cities would be really cool, in addition, having the owner get an additional amount of those sales (in addition to the existing sales percent) would make the structure viable in the new climate. Or the ability to have an action house type market in them. I post to sell 100,000 units, player A buys 20,000, Player B buys 80,000 and we don't have to mess with tons of comms and lots of contracts.
Starbase - Similar to the Orbital Gun and the Mobile fortress, the military bonus is nice but no one is going to have military after the reset because there won't be profits enough to maintain. Military upkeep reduction of units sitting in the starbase would be a compelling reason perhaps to build one (50-70% off).
Also, it would be nice if the military upkeep was reduced when units were stationed at your military base or shipyard. Units in the field costing more, etc. Similar to the repair increase.
edited by Telios on 1/1/2019
--
Supernova LLC
|
|
|
0
link
|