Worst DLC and Patch Ever. Change my mind

[Potoroo]

So, going to actually engage the discussion then? I'm still giving you the benefit of assuming you have been posting in good faith.

I've done nothing but engage in the discussion and you have zero reason to question my good faith. You do like to try to make it detour though.

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.

Where? I've seen people having issues sometimes with existing builds but with new builds it seems OK.

 

[jordanrl]

I've done nothing but engage in the discussion and you have zero reason to question my good faith. You do like to try to make it detour though.

Because all you have done in this thread so far has to question other people and try to force them to prove what they are saying, or ellaborate. This is a form of "whataboutism", and is a common way in political discourse that people try to make it difficult for observers who are not involved in the discussion to understand who has a point.

You have not provided your own perspective on the fix, only continually questioned every single post who has claimed that the land value bug is anything except for fully fixed. It is clear that your position is that the patch fixed the issue, but you have carefully avoided saying so directly. You have asked rhetorical questions, you have asked for documentation and sources, but only ever for a single point of view.

I took the time to actually reply to your obvious position with an actual game design discussion, which you also refused to engage with.

So no, it is not at all out of line for me to wonder about whether you are engaging in good faith. However, as I said, I am still interested in hearing what your thoughts actually are, as you haven't done any real stating about your perspective, only criticizing the perspective of others.

 

[Ashreon]

I've done nothing but engage in the discussion and you have zero reason to question my good faith. You do like to try to make it detour though.

Where? I've seen people having issues sometimes with existing builds but with new builds it seems OK.

CPPs very own discord, you know the content creator you referred to when you said: He says it's fixed.. Except people say it's not and running the simulation for several hours should put it into effect (6hrs is 1½ in-game year, that's enough for it to take effect in the simulation), but it does not - it just spreads even more.

 

[Potoroo]

Because all you have done in this thread so far has to question other people and try to force them to prove what they are saying, or ellaborate. This is a form of "whataboutism", and is a common way in political discourse that people try to make it difficult for observers who are not involved in the discussion to understand who has a point.

You have not provided your own perspective on the fix, only continually questioned every single post who has claimed that the land value bug is anything except for fully fixed. It is clear that your position is that the patch fixed the issue, but you have carefully avoided saying so directly. You have asked rhetorical questions, you have asked for documentation and sources, but only ever for a single point of view.

I took the time to actually reply to your obvious position with an actual game design discussion, which you also refused to engage with.

So no, it is not at all out of line for me to wonder about whether you are engaging in good faith. However, as I said, I am still interested in hearing what your thoughts actually are, as you haven't done any real stating about your perspective, only criticizing the perspective of others.

No, it is not whataboutism to ask for someone to justify a bold claim. That's a conveniently self-serving definition for you though, since it automatically casts me into a bad light that is undeserved by the facts. Asking people how they justify their claim is actually fundamental to any sensible discussion, otherwise people can and will may any old claim they like knowing it won't be questioned. Once they provide an answer then the discussion can conmtinue, assuming of course it isn't derailed by someone coming in late and muddying the waters by pretending that sensible discussion is somehow bad faith, which sort of nonsense exactly calls their own good faith into question. Ashreon, at least, gave a sensible answer to my question. I haven't seen the discussions he refers to but knowing about them it is something I can check.

 

[jordanrl]

No, it is not whataboutism to ask for someone to justify a bold claim. That's a conveniently self-serving definition for you though, since it automatically casts me into a bad light that is undeserved by the facts. Asking people how they justify their claim is actually fundamental to any sensible discussion, otherwise people can and will may any old claim they like knowing it won't be questioned. Once they provide an answer then the discussion can conmtinue, assuming of course it isn't derailed by someone coming in late and muddying the waters by pretending that sensible discussion is somehow bad faith, which sort of nonsense exactly calls their own good faith into question. Ashreon, at least, gave a sensible answer to my question. I haven't seen the discussions he refers to but knowing about them it is something I can check.

Of course. You're just making sure it's a high quality discussion. Wouldn't want people making claims that can be verified by reading the patch notes without having to go through the trouble of citing sources.

So is that a "no" to explaining and discussing your own perspective on the patch? You seem to be one of the only people I've talked to so far that thinks it's been fixed, and I would like to know why.

 

[dostillevi]

No, it is not whataboutism to ask for someone to justify a bold claim. That's a conveniently self-serving definition for you though, since it automatically casts me into a bad light that is undeserved by the facts. Asking people how they justify their claim is actually fundamental to any sensible discussion, otherwise people can and will may any old claim they like knowing it won't be questioned. Once they provide an answer then the discussion can conmtinue, assuming of course it isn't derailed by someone coming in late and muddying the waters by pretending that sensible discussion is somehow bad faith, which sort of nonsense exactly calls their own good faith into question. Ashreon, at least, gave a sensible answer to my question. I haven't seen the discussions he refers to but knowing about them it is something I can check.

Specifically you asked me to do the research for you, then you moved the goal posts once I gave you the evidence. If you want to discuss in good faith, that isn't the way to do it. Offer your own counter-evidence, if you have it.

 

[Potoroo]

Specifically you asked me to do the research for you, then you moved the goal posts once I gave you the evidence. If you want to discuss in good faith, that isn't the way to do it. Offer your own counter-evidence, if you have it.

Oh, no I didn't. When someone makes a bold claim like you did then it's completely reasonable to ask you to back it up. I get that a lot of people around here would prefer to make whatever outrageous claim they feel like with impunity but that's not how the world works.

 

[jordanrl]

Oh, no I didn't. When someone makes a bold claim like you did then it's completely reasonable to ask you to back it up. I get that a lot of people around here would prefer to make whatever outrageous claim they feel like with impunity but that's not how the world works.

I'm still flabbergasted that you're keeping to this line even though the thing you asked for proof is IS LITERALLY IN THE PATCH NOTES.

Certainly, you're a guardian of truth and reason.

 

[Mikebloke]

I haven't logged into the forum in years, but felt the need to post (in part to stop the distraction going on above).

I bought the base game, not the deluxe pack, I looked at the price of this recent first DLC release and felt it was too expensive. I felt it was too expensive at the start, when I could have got the deluxe, why? Because it felt like it wasn't worth it at the time, I don't feel fooled, I think the DLC was highlighted just fine when the information was released, I just didn't feel like it was worth it. I didn't need negative reviews to tell me that. I want the Radio DLC, because I found them amusing in CS1 (and a throwback to GTA which I played from the first game). Having only 2 radios in the base game felt frustrating as it felt like I had to sit with the same 15 minutes of dialogue in a game I'm likely to play for hours on end in one session, or turn it off and just hear industrial sounds. So if I buy any dlc, it will be the radio ones, but I wasn't prepared to pay £40 for essentially 15-30 minutes of repeating audio.

The asset packs sounded weak on release, and hearing about them now it is released confirmed my suspicions, content that would have been a tag along to a major expansion is now expensive content. Nothing about the pricing for it makes sense to me, it feels like EA's The Sims pricing. I don't feel like any of the announced content is "big". I dream of the day when we can get sizable updates like in the CD days of EUIII when an update was a massive overhaul of the game. The chunk sized DLC stuff can still exist, but not in replacement of fixing/expanding the game.

This last bit is just a general comment on the industry, too much reliance on the Unity and Unreal engine by publishers and developers we consider to be "AAA". It should be for startups wanting to make cheap, cool, but short games to build capital. It shouldn't be used to make games of this depth and scope, its too limiting. I appreciate a lot of big games that have done really well (and that I enjoy) have been done in these engines, but its not "yours", it will always hold you back in some capacity, and by the sounds of what people are saying about how the code works under the hood, it seems like that is the limitation.

I love Cities Skylines 1, I bought most of the DLC on day one, only falling off near the end, I want CS2 to do well. But I just don't want to play it unless its core features is fixed, DLC or not.

 

[BoraBora]

Oh, no I didn't. When someone makes a bold claim like you did then it's completely reasonable to ask you to back it up. I get that a lot of people around here would prefer to make whatever outrageous claim they feel like with impunity but that's not how the world works.

Even CO doesn't pretend it'rs been "fixed", they say it was "improved". Can't you go on another forum to pick your daily fights? Preferably a forum about a game you own and play because on this one you're more and more ridiculous.

 

[Ashreon]

Even CO doesn't pretend it'rs been "fixed", they say it was "improved". Can't you go on another forum to pick your daily fights? Preferably a forum about a game you own and play because on this one you're more and more ridiculous.

If it was "improved" they would give you the proof themselves. So that says it all.

Look how willing they are to share their "progress" on their DLC and let that sink in.

 

[Co Starring]

I dont think CO will learn anything. They had a micro small good game with Cities in Motion 1. Cities in Motion 2 was horrendously bad and buggy and then abandoned. They had CS1 who had 0 competition and was a commercial giant success. But honestly the base game cant even handle traffic because it is agent based. Modders saved the game but it still had a pop cap of around 500-600k without mods. That isnt much of a city in terms of numbers or simulation. Now it will look like a 5 million city skyscape and you will need all of your mass transit even as early as 250k while there are only a handful of cities in the world that have subways at 250k but I digress.

Now CS2 perfectly mirrors CiM2. Go to the CiM2 sub forum here on paradox main it literally reads like CS2.

What can CO do? They will never be able to improve CPU performance because it is an Agent based simulation so it will just max out all cores on any CPU you throw at it. CO cant improve GPU rendering and FPS because they had to build layers in between Unity because Unity didn't do what CO needed. All of this results in the most inefficient gpu 3D rendering possible.

Even if CO gets every single system to simulate 100% accurately they are bound by the Agent system which will just put more pressure on the CPU lowering simulation speed further.

It is a completely no win situation. The game will either be slow because of cpu processing simulation time/speed or slow because of fps and 3d rendering.

I am not sure how anyone can even be positive about this game. These are huge nearly impossible obstacles to overcome. It is broken in the foundation they can patch and update and bug fix all they want. If the foundation is rotten everything is. This is how everything in the world works. Games arent any different.

What are you willing to wait 3 years for a fix? Might as well design a brand new game on a brand new engine with a brand new scope and purpose.

Please explain what an "Agents based Simulation" is.
Too many folks don't know (including you, it seems)...
Specially the "so it maxes out all cores" is very telling about your lack of knowledge.



P.S. Not defending CO or PDX (I even made a post declaring CS:2 is my last PDX game earlier today) but I kinda h8 people who eggsplain stuff and at the same time show they don't know what they are talking about)...

 

[Emaer]

This last bit is just a general comment on the industry, too much reliance on the Unity and Unreal engine by publishers and developers we consider to be "AAA". It should be for startups wanting to make cheap, cool, but short games to build capital. It shouldn't be used to make games of this depth and scope, its too limiting. I appreciate a lot of big games that have done really well (and that I enjoy) have been done in these engines, but its not "yours", it will always hold you back in some capacity, and by the sounds of what people are saying about how the code works under the hood, it seems like that is the limitation.

Choosing a ready-made technology that has been tested and proved by many people is a better solution than building your own from scratch. This approach allows you to focus on implementing the mechanics of the game itself, rather than low-level support (different OS, different APIs, etc.)

I would be embarrassed to release this as a DLC.

What happened to the Colossal Order that we all loved??

I ask myself the same question.

This "DLC" is a pure cunning and arrogance.

 

[GamingGreg]

I’ve been trying to get into CS2, like I did for CS1 which I had over 3k hours in. It’s not the availability of mods, as Thunderstore allowed us to do that from day 1, without waiting for late development. Once a developer released a AAA game as ‘complete’ when it isn’t, their community loses all trust. When I try to open CS2, I have to get over the rage that I paid full price for a half a game before I can enjoy it. CS2 should have had everything in CS1+ mods, and added to that, not taken away everything.

I disagree strongly that there are a lot of new assets in this release. I disagree that the levels of each building look different. They are largely similar. Plus the buildings rarely look Beach-like. Also, where are more commercial, industrial buildings?!?! Or medium and high density buildings. I think charging $10 for this is an insult. Where we could get DLCs that actually added to game functionality in the past for $8.00. We only get some new buildings for $10.00. And the trees! Give me a break. There is no tropical map, yet now we have 4 palm trees. Where will they go? Next to the beach we dont have? More assets like all types of trees is grossly missing in the game. To charge us $10.00 for no additional functionality, limited buildings, no decorative items, not fixing the simulation aspects (supply/demand/import/export/etc.) - making this still a city painter with a limited palate. I continue to be beyond disappointed. I was so looking forward to Cities 2, and its still garbage. i will wait another year it looks like. Shame on the leadership of this Cities 2 to put out a 1/2 built game, sell us hard on it, collect all the money they can, not giving a hoot about the people who really enjoy Cities. Just think about the difficult position the leadership has put their own developers in, the creative community who did their best to support the new release, and the loyal fan base. Corporate greed and lack of concern for anything but filling their coffers to make up for a poor quarter. Greed is not always good. Jerks.

this is the reason why I also scored this nothing with a negative evaluation.

 

[Askorti]

Oh, no I didn't. When someone makes a bold claim like you did then it's completely reasonable to ask you to back it up. I get that a lot of people around here would prefer to make whatever outrageous claim they feel like with impunity but that's not how the world works.

You call it a "bold claim" when it's literally in the patch notes. I guess CO is indeed very bold to claim that they capped the land value...

 

[mehmeteking]

You call it a "bold claim" when it's literally in the patch notes. I guess CO is indeed very bold to claim that they capped the land value...

I guess this counts as "blindly" defending a company.

 

[Potoroo]

You call it a "bold claim" when it's literally in the patch notes. I guess CO is indeed very bold to claim that they capped the land value...

You're the second person to point this out as if I hadn't already acknowledged it yesterday. And you know damn well the bold claim was that the Land Value bug hadn't been fixed, not that it had been capped. I'm drowning in bad faith attacks here.

 

[Daedalos_MS]

Please explain what an "Agents based Simulation" is.
Too many folks don't know (including you, it seems)...
Specially the "so it maxes out all cores" is very telling about your lack of knowledge.

In the case you are stating someone is wrong, would not be fair to provide evidence for it?

CPU is the obvious bottleneck with increasing population, where IMHO neccessity to calculate route/needs for every single cim is pretty hefty task for the CPU. Maybe "agent based simulation" is not proper terminology or the main reason for hammering CPU. You seems to know better, would you mind share your knowledge?

 

[Angius]

Damn, this DLC is, like, actually the worst

Last position on Steam when sorted from best to worst rated: source

 

[HideoKuze]

I dont think CO will learn anything. They had a micro small good game with Cities in Motion 1. Cities in Motion 2 was horrendously bad and buggy and then abandoned. They had CS1 who had 0 competition and was a commercial giant success. But honestly the base game cant even handle traffic because it is agent based. Modders saved the game but it still had a pop cap of around 500-600k without mods. That isnt much of a city in terms of numbers or simulation. Now it will look like a 5 million city skyscape and you will need all of your mass transit even as early as 250k while there are only a handful of cities in the world that have subways at 250k but I digress.

Now CS2 perfectly mirrors CiM2. Go to the CiM2 sub forum here on paradox main it literally reads like CS2.

What can CO do? They will never be able to improve CPU performance because it is an Agent based simulation so it will just max out all cores on any CPU you throw at it. CO cant improve GPU rendering and FPS because they had to build layers in between Unity because Unity didn't do what CO needed. All of this results in the most inefficient gpu 3D rendering possible.

Even if CO gets every single system to simulate 100% accurately they are bound by the Agent system which will just put more pressure on the CPU lowering simulation speed further.

It is a completely no win situation. The game will either be slow because of cpu processing simulation time/speed or slow because of fps and 3d rendering.

I am not sure how anyone can even be positive about this game. These are huge nearly impossible obstacles to overcome. It is broken in the foundation they can patch and update and bug fix all they want. If the foundation is rotten everything is. This is how everything in the world works. Games arent any different.

What are you willing to wait 3 years for a fix? Might as well design a brand new game on a brand new engine with a brand new scope and purpose.

There was already a mod that improved the simulation speed 2x at least, although it was broken since 1.0.19f1 and the author didn't finish the fixing (he/she disappeared since the Chinese New Year holiday). But still, this mod proved that CPU performance can be improved a lot, it also proved that CO is not as good as the author for fixing this specific problem.