Worst DLC and Patch Ever. Change my mind
- Thread starter whosthebestcop
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
16:25 "In general Land Value had some significant improvements but it's not all the way there."
However, he never elaborates on that. After talking about the new influences on land value that have been included (ie proximity to parks, etc), he moves on to the minor bug fixes. He mentions the ongoing problem with silly household types (ie teens living alone) complaining about high rent (~18:22), and he talks about the ongoing problem with taxation generating far too much income (~19:08).
Nowhere I can find does he say that the land value system is capped. What I see is that CO included the land value sub-system that was simply absent at launch, that at first glance seems to be working, at least on new builds (CPP had to "whack-a-mole" some existing buildings in Magnolia County). In that case, the Land Value bug has indeed been fixed. It may require tweaking over time but that's not a big issue.
- 4
- 2
- 1
It's literally 2 seconds after the time I linked to. I quote:
"And maybe most impactful, there is now a cap to land value so you don't see a particular cell spiraling out of control."
- 5
- 1
- 1
It would have been so easy just to quote that up front. I still don't see how it justifies the claim that the Land Value bug hasn't been fixed. The proximity influences have been properly implemented (we hope) and land value should go up and down depending on what happens to a building's environment. Why would a cap per se be a problem? Do you want land values to potentially be infinite?
Last edited:
- 5
- 3
- 1
It suggests that the underlying thing contributing to land value are still inherently unbalanced. The downsides to this are that beyond a certain point anything that SHOULD decrease the land value will be offset by these hidden bonuses that are still unbalanced but capped, because they were never actually fixed/balanced in the first place, making the land value mechanic something that you can simply ignore.
- 10
You asked for a source and then couldn't find the quote that I both linked directly to AND gave you the time to. Good day sir.
- 6
- 4
- 2
"It suggests" is an assumption. You may be right but you cannot know that you are right based on the information we have to hand. Nor can anyone else.
YouTube didn't play properly when I launched it. It's good to provide sources but it's also good to quote the relevant bit of the material first. Saves everybody a lot of unnecessary grief.
- 9
I may be right? I'm not even the one that made the claim, I'm just helping you understand what seems like the VERY obvious point the other poster was making.
- 8
I understood his point. I also understand how weakly supported it is.
- 11
- 2
If you understood the point, then why in the world did you type what you did for your comment? You literally asked:
"Why would a cap per se be a problem? Do you want land values to potentially be infinite?"
If you understood their point, you know the answer to the second question is no, and you know the answer to the first question is what I detailed. The only reason I can imagine to phrase something like this so rhetorically is because you want to annoy the other person into quitting the conversation instead of actually having the conversation, which it appears you succeeded at.
- 7
- 2
- 1
I can understand an argument without agreeing with it (I despair that I even have to point that out). But when someone makes a bold claim, such as "the land value bug wasn't 'fixed'", then I want more than a glib throwaway to a YouTuber whose comment is not, in and of itself, any sort of justification for said claim. Being lazy and cynical around here is a good way to farm karma but it's no substitute for facts.
- 8
- 1
- 1
That isn't what you asked. You asked why it would "per se" be a problem to HAVE a land value cap. That's a game design discussion, not one about the actual game. "Per se" as in "by itself" or "intrinsically".
The answer is as I detailed. A cap on land value, regardless of whether or not that's actually what was done in this patch, is intrinsically bad because it:
- Makes it more difficult for the player to understand the interactions between the mechanics and how their decisions impact the game.
- Hides game balances problems that MAY still be affecting the game but in ways that are less obvious now.
- Creates many more possible unexpected interactions that can result in bugs (such as the example I provided) which is extremely common in game development and programming in general.
EDIT:
To the forum mod who keeps disagreeing with my posts: If you could take longer than a few seconds after I post to hit the react button so that it appears you actually read the comment, that would make it less obvious what you are doing.
- 9
- 2
- 2
My concern is as the game gets more 'stuff' and smaller-scale fixes, there will be even less appetite for CO to do a big rework of the core/base of the game (the deeper, fundamental issues that need addressing) because it would break a lot more stuff and will be harder to execute. It is like trying to fix pipes under the floor...after you put in flooring...and moved in all the furniture...and the family moved in. WAY easier to do when it is still under construction.
- 2
- 2
- 2
Absolutely no way they fix anything major like gpu and cpu performance.
if they couldnt do it in 10 years they arent going to do it in months.
it is a bad broken game and that is all it will ever be. some people might still be entertained by cs2 enough to play it. they would be the loyalists or the casual game players.
but it will never come close to being a city simulation on the scale of SimCity 3000 yet alone SimCity 4. I am not even sure if it can ever be as good as TheoTown in terms of simulation.
cs2 just doesnt have the goods. we just gotta accept it
- 1
Indeed. When someone asks how you can know something and the answer is as easy as that then why not just answer the question instead of making people jump through ridiculous hoops?
- 1
So, going to actually engage the discussion then? I'm still giving you the benefit of assuming you have been posting in good faith.
People have reported having the simulation run for several hours in real world time (mind you) and the Land Value has just become more of a problem than it ever was before.
So, no, it was not fixed, it got worse.
- 2
I just realized that I'd bought the deluxe edition of the game as a preorder. I'd completely forgotten about that. Now I've been royally screwed over 3 times by CO.