C:SL (Modern City) Vs. Banished (Old timey town) - Forestry & Farms
- Thread starter cRAGGLE
- 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.
Exactly, the last City Sim game didn't have them at all. I think that down the road they will be able to make them larger. If not I am pretty confident that the mod community will be more than happy to make larger farm plots for us all.
I think a general review and informal summary of the critical posts over the months clearly demonstrate that he DOES represent the greater player base-- the farm sizes and airport implementation both have the lion's share of complaints by far. It appears to me that YOU are trying to make a molehill out of a mountain.
And, like him, I am also disappointed that TotallyMoo seems so cavalier about dismissing these two issues as not worthy of attention. You can't claim to be user responsive and then minimize or ignore the major responses.
It seems clear to me that CO had a big management meeting and decided that farm sizes and airport design-- despite being the two biggest forum-posted issues by far-- should be sidelined until after release, and the responses we see from CO reflect that decision. Like many, I'm not happy about it, but that certainly is NOT a deal-breaker for me. I just hope that when TotallyMoo says it "...isn't important enough as it stands..." he accidentally left out "...until the next update."
I think it's clearly true that these are the issues forum posters are most vocal about. That doesn't necessarily mean it is a make or break issue for most forum readers, let alone potential players. It is very easy for a vocal minority to drown out everyone else, as I think is the case with this issue. Day after day posting about the same gripe, which CO is obviously aware of, is not constructive.
I think the most important priorities right now are:
- Bug hunting, especially in the Cim simulation mechanics, given it is CO's chosen framework for the game.
- Perfecting the mod tool and related documentation, given other games (Rimworld, Banish, SC4, etc etc etc) have shown how an active modding community can radically improve a game and its replay-ability. My guess is if the mod tools are decent there will be new farms and airports on day/week one. I think the ability to mod policies will be especially important in improving the city building experience, as they matter more for city mayor simulation than farm or airport sizes.
- Balance tweaking, which is separate from bug hunting mention above.
If they screw these up, especially the first two, the game very well could be a flop that fails to gain momentum (see how easy that was?
). But this is just my guess . The truth is none of us have a clue what the most important development priorities are. So enough arm-chair development evangelism - let's try to keep this constructive and suggestive rather than unnecessarily critical and pessimistic.
Regarding medium density, the devs already confirmed this can be controlled through district policies. That is, you can place height restrictions on buildings, which serves the same purpose as medium density.
Houses in different games.
First, The Sims. As you can see, houses are very detailed, you can see every room and navigate your citizens around. You can see their daily activities, who they are friends with etc.
Now C:SL. You can't even see whats inside...
I'll leave you with it but it's pretty obvious by now that The Sims>>>>> C:SL
Oh my the sims, your playing doll house. Yes if you want to play doll house the sims is better, but for a city Simulation: the sims <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< C:SL,
oh yeah last i heard mayors dont need to see the living room of every citizen. Of course if your playing doll house you will need to see every room, to see where ken is opposed to barbie.
The sims and city sky lines are not even in the same ball park im sorry
@AKicebear, You are right, I don't officially represent the player base, but the majority agree with me and with the fact that farms, airports, and harbors in their current state, are pathetic. My mountain as you call it exists, and it is not a molehill
@Hannodb Your post is more childish than mine if you want to start labelling things. You're associating childish with my rant, and thus, name-calling me as childish, because you're upset that I'm calling out a company that you're a fan of (who is making a game for all their followers, not just the 9 employees there and you), on something the majority of followers don't like. That's like calling someone at the playground a "stupidhead" because they have a widely agreed upon, negative but true, opinion about someone or something you're fond of.
CO decided farms are included in their city simulation, so why would it be considered a bonus? A bonus is something added to what is already expected. I know farms will be in-game, making them something expected. They are not a bonus. As for listening to fans, I have only seen CO tell people they will look into something that has been suggested "sometime later". Sure, that can be considered listening to the fans, but you and I both know that's not the kind of listening that warrants the kind of praise you are giving them. Also, it's not hard to be the best in the genre since SC4, there's been what, maybe 4-5 city builder games since then? Two from the same company who released SC4.
My post might have come off with an angered tone, I'm not angry, I voice my opinion in a direct and blunt way, while occasionally using sarcasm (reference to Zen Garden in my previous post.) This genre has been pummelled by bad games, so I'm sorry that I voice strong opinions because I want a company to make a good game in a genre that sees a new addition once every few years if we're lucky. The things I talked about are a big issue for a lot of people and I'm sorry, but you cant deny that. The fact that Totalymoo can scoff it off (with quotation marks too) as not "important enough" seems like a kick in the face to all the fans who want to see this game become something great, and enjoy that aspect of the game. Just because you don't play that part of the game, doesn't mean the people who do and will, aren't allowed to complain about it and want it to be at least somewhat realistic. I also wasn't just talking about farms, as totalymoo's original post I quoted also included harbors and airports, which are also seen as really bad by the majority.
There is always going to be people like myself pointing out flaws in things, I happen to do it louder usually, but I still do it. I'm tired of companies sweeping problems under the carpet to show off something else and act like it is the coolest thing, when it's not really anything, and there are other things they should be working on. But because they are "harder" things to work on or fix, all of a sudden it's not worth it. That just sounds like laziness. I also don't have to give a solution to a problem in order for me to be able to say something is a problem (seriously, when did this become a thing?) but I will give you an idea I thought up in the time it took to write this thread, based on how they've explained and most likely programmed their road system.
I would make a new dirt road, call it a farm road, you attach it to other roads, and it acts as a "fence" for the farm. In order for a farm to be created, there has to be a square, or the roads have to create a closed area, much like a fence. The 4 tile system for buildings (which is also a problem in many peoples eyes) they have on the roads would be where the barn is placed, and any area left inside the farm area which isn't inhabited by a building, would turn into farmland/crops. The greater the size, the more food it produces. Thus you are trading land area, at the expense of resources, which is how it should work.
image host
Airports do a lot for your city, they clear up roads and highways because they give a new entrance to bring people and freight in and an exit for people and freight to go out, same goes for a harbor. So they are a pretty good thing to have. But they come at a price, that price is the amount of space they take up, and pollution they add to the water. This should be reflected in the game, and it's stupid that it's not. The code is all there, and nothing new needs to be programmed. They only have to get their artists to make it look bigger, which would be the only time consuming part, and since they already have art assets for an airport and harbor, it shouldn't take long. Then you change the code to tell the game engine the actual size of the property, and where the ship and airplanes interact with it. Really isn't that difficult.
To the person who mentioned that paradox forces games to be released, and then improves them overtime, I would like to direct you to this thread:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?818748-Warning-warning-warning
and the thread posted in that thread:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?816972-I-feel-betrayed
If it's paradox' fault in pushing CO to get the game out by a certain date, that's another story, but I do not have that information, and they most likely won't release that information, so I'm not going to base my opinions off that assumption. Meaning, I am going to point my views at CO instead of Paradox. Colossal Order is also still a business. It doesn't matter if they have 9 people and you consider them a friend. They are still a business, and I am still allowed, as a consumer, to review, criticise, and give negative and positive opinions. I don't need to go "easy" on them because you like them or they have so few people, and if you're going to argue that less people means I'm not allowed to expect the quality I'm asking for because it's impossible, I suggest you go look at the game Limit Theory, developed by one person, in his basement. They are big boys and girls, and working at CO is, at the end of the day, a job for a business.
They can absolutely ignore everything I've said, as that's their right. But it will hurt their sales, and if they want to make a game that's talked about and still played over a decade after it was released by a still big player count like SC4, then they probably want to do as much as they can to perfect the game before launch. The launch of a game is everything. It is the hook in which you get people in, like a hook of an article, or a book, and if it's good and has everything they want in all the right ways, it gets suggested by word of mouth. However, if people try it, and it's nothing too special, then it will be played only by the fans who have been following it, and it won't be suggested by anyone outside of that group.
Their biggest competition is Cities XXL, and they've won the race of releasing their game first. If people are enjoying Cities XXL, and see that Cities: Skylines is fun, but not a game changer in the city genre, they don't really have a reason to buy it, or stop playing Cities XXL and switch to it. Cities XXL may flop, but why take the risk? Why wouldn't you strive towards making every aspect of your game as perfect as you can?
That's all for now, post already got too long.
1. I'm sure the devs appreciate feedback about what they can improve and how customers feel, even if it's negative. Just telling them everything is great and they're wonderful isn't going to help improve anything. I don't think ateerix was just being a hater, he wasn't too scathing and he made some fair points (whether you agree with them or not). Yes, the "farms/airports are bad" thing has been done to death already and they have said that they won't be changing it so there's probably not much point in pressing that point any more, but it's still valid to complain if you don't like something. Although I would caution "I will never buy this game if this isn't changed" until after the game releases and we actually know what the game is like.
2. To be fair, I'm pretty sure CO have changed one or two things in C:S in line with feedback from the community. I don't remember exactly what but I'm pretty sure it's happened.
3. The farm system as it is is based on specific parcels of "fertile" land. It's not set up to allow you to just zone farm zones freely like in SC4 or anything like that. I said when they first showed it off that I had concerns with who the whole farm system, from being tied to roads and small plots to the restricted build area, was supposed to please and the feedback since then has really just vindicated my concerns. Those who actually WANT farms I think want them for aesthetics for the most part and clearly what CO provided just isn't adequate for that usage. They end up just being another game mechanic rather than anything more.
2. To be fair, I'm pretty sure CO have changed one or two things in C:S in line with feedback from the community. I don't remember exactly what but I'm pretty sure it's happened.
3. The farm system as it is is based on specific parcels of "fertile" land. It's not set up to allow you to just zone farm zones freely like in SC4 or anything like that. I said when they first showed it off that I had concerns with who the whole farm system, from being tied to roads and small plots to the restricted build area, was supposed to please and the feedback since then has really just vindicated my concerns. Those who actually WANT farms I think want them for aesthetics for the most part and clearly what CO provided just isn't adequate for that usage. They end up just being another game mechanic rather than anything more.
Somewhere in the back of my mind I think that farms themselves were added in response to community feedback, although I may be misremembering.
Ok, let me try to motivate my post by bringing in some reality here.
As I've said in a different post. Computer Development takes time, and more importantly *money*. Also, computer development is always about trade offs. There is no clear right and wrong answer, there are only solutions with different advantages and disadvantages. No solution is ever without disadvantages. Programming is *always* a game of trade-offs. The perfect program will never be written, because it will take for ever to write. So you make the best with the resources you've got.
This game has been programmed by 9 developers, not an allmighty, omniscient God capable of making the perfect creation in 7 days! They made it with limited money, limited time, and a limited number of brain power. Despite all that, if you compare CSL with it's predecessors, there is enough awesome features in it to eclipse all its predecessors already, and not just by a little bit. Not only did they include almost all the cool features from previous city builders which worked, and which their fans liked, but there is a whole range of new features that is completely new and awesome, that has never been done before.
But due to limitations of the development cycle, *ofcause* not everything is going to be perfect. That is not to white wash the issues, that is simply the reality that they - and everybody else have to deal with. Ofcause you can complain about it, and give criticism, and if you're mature enough to take that reality into account - you would try to help the 9(!) developers by coming up with better ideas instead of just whining "I don't like that". (Which, to your credit, you've done after I pointed it out) Why should you help them think of a solution? Because two minds work better than one, provided they both work towards a common goal, rather than one just being negative.
To ignore everything good they achieved in this game, and to say the game is "half-assed", the developers are "lazy", and all the other *personal attacks* you throw at CO (If you can dish it out, you must be able to take it too), because of the *few* things that is not to your liking (especially before the first release of the game) - I'm sorry, I maintain that is childish. If that is your attitude, then I have bad news for you: You will never have a city builder that satisfy you, because there is no such thing as a perfect game that will please everybody. I'm sorry, but it simply cannot be done. I'm not saying that you must just ignore the features you don't like, I am saying that - if you are just a little bit more flexible, you'll be able to enjoy this game for what it is: a city builder! On the other hand, if you refuse to buy a game unless every last detail is to your liking, you might as well stop hoping that that game will ever be made - it won't. We take what we have and make the best of it, because throwing tantrums won't change anything.
And so then I'll leave it at that. You may be free to say CO is a lazy company that produced a half assed broken game, and I am free to say what I think of that opinion and the way it was expressed. With this, I have said my peace and leave it at that.
As I've said in a different post. Computer Development takes time, and more importantly *money*. Also, computer development is always about trade offs. There is no clear right and wrong answer, there are only solutions with different advantages and disadvantages. No solution is ever without disadvantages. Programming is *always* a game of trade-offs. The perfect program will never be written, because it will take for ever to write. So you make the best with the resources you've got.
This game has been programmed by 9 developers, not an allmighty, omniscient God capable of making the perfect creation in 7 days! They made it with limited money, limited time, and a limited number of brain power. Despite all that, if you compare CSL with it's predecessors, there is enough awesome features in it to eclipse all its predecessors already, and not just by a little bit. Not only did they include almost all the cool features from previous city builders which worked, and which their fans liked, but there is a whole range of new features that is completely new and awesome, that has never been done before.
But due to limitations of the development cycle, *ofcause* not everything is going to be perfect. That is not to white wash the issues, that is simply the reality that they - and everybody else have to deal with. Ofcause you can complain about it, and give criticism, and if you're mature enough to take that reality into account - you would try to help the 9(!) developers by coming up with better ideas instead of just whining "I don't like that". (Which, to your credit, you've done after I pointed it out) Why should you help them think of a solution? Because two minds work better than one, provided they both work towards a common goal, rather than one just being negative.
To ignore everything good they achieved in this game, and to say the game is "half-assed", the developers are "lazy", and all the other *personal attacks* you throw at CO (If you can dish it out, you must be able to take it too), because of the *few* things that is not to your liking (especially before the first release of the game) - I'm sorry, I maintain that is childish. If that is your attitude, then I have bad news for you: You will never have a city builder that satisfy you, because there is no such thing as a perfect game that will please everybody. I'm sorry, but it simply cannot be done. I'm not saying that you must just ignore the features you don't like, I am saying that - if you are just a little bit more flexible, you'll be able to enjoy this game for what it is: a city builder! On the other hand, if you refuse to buy a game unless every last detail is to your liking, you might as well stop hoping that that game will ever be made - it won't. We take what we have and make the best of it, because throwing tantrums won't change anything.
Ofcause it is hard to be the best in this genre, do you think it is *easy* to simulate an entire city? Why do you think every single game you mentioned was a disappointment? I'll make an exception for Cities XL - they came close to fulfilling my expectations, however there was important basic features that they did wrong (Like making the construction of buildings response to the demands, and the zoning was just horrible). That didn't stop me from buying, playing and enjoying as best I could CXL, CLX2011 and CLX2012. I would've bought SC2013 as well if they didn't include their weasel online-only DRM and try to sell it to us as a "necesary gameplay feature". Making a city builder that is really good is HARD WORK, that's why we had to wait so long for a good game.
And so then I'll leave it at that. You may be free to say CO is a lazy company that produced a half assed broken game, and I am free to say what I think of that opinion and the way it was expressed. With this, I have said my peace and leave it at that.
Last edited:
He didn't say the devs were lazy and he didn't say they half-assed the game, he said specifically that they half assed that particular aspect of the game. He's not asking for the perfect creation, he's expressing surprise that CO don't consider changing farms as a high priority and he thinks they've half-assed the farm mechanics. And I wouldn't say that he was particularly wrong, people expected a new mechanic for farms because fitting them into 4x4 squares would leave you with, quote from before farms were revealed, "very small fields". What they actually did was just make some new models and slapped them into the existing industry game mechanic. It's understandable why someone would view that as half-assing that specific aspect of the game. Now, your argument is that they have to leave some aspects of the game lacking but his argument is that farms should not be one of them. I personally am not too bothered by the farms issue, it'd be -nice- to have proper farms but I'm not going to be too worried if there weren't farms, or if I just have to never use them. But I believe the current system that they have implemented to be a waste of development time. I don't think they really please anyone, and the time could have been spent making more models for other building types, if they really couldn't spend the time to create a whole new mechanic for it.
Yes, he did.
And I'm saying that making such a big deal about farms in a city builder, is like throwing away the hamburger, because you don't like the fries. Farms are *not* part of a city building, they fall outside the jurisdiction of a city. This game is geared towards building large cities, that that's where the development focus is and should be. If you are upset that the farms do not give you enough control, you should maybe consider that you're looking at the wrong game for what you want to be doing.
Again. OFCAUSE you can complain about the farms, and criticize, but to launch the kind of insults at CO because of a side feature. (And yes, in a City builder, farms are a side feature, regardless of how much you want it to be there) is simply not warranted, and frankly, I'm sure there is a lot of people who do not appreciate it.
You can say you don't like it in a civilized adult way, but if you're going to throw a tantrum like that like a three year old because you can't get what you want, then you should be expected to be treated accordingly.
No, it is understandable why they did it. The developers of SC4 and CitiesXL treated farms exactly the same way: They used their pre-existing zoning framework to zone for farms. That is just how computer development work: You build a framework, on top of which you build your system. You try to build your framework as dynamic as possible, but it will always have limitations. You cannot code from scratch for every single feature you add, that is the quickest way to ensure a buggy, unstable game. That is the trade-offs I was talking about.
Exactly, because when you make a city builder, then farms are a nice to have. They are not a core game play feature. SC2013 didn't even bother having it, and people complained a lot less about it then. Did he ever concider that they might be using the time to optimize the traffic more, or improving the supply-demand balance, or stuff like that which is actually RELEVANT to the game? Should they just drop that and turn the game into a farm simulator? Again, my gripe is not criticism per se, but the self-entitled *way* it was expressed.
I don't mind having the farms, I might actually use them, but I think you're right. I think if they knew that people are going to ignore everything they did right, and only complain about a *side* feature that is not perfect, they probably would've left farms out all together.
All I'm saying is this: CO has made the best City builder to date by a long shot. Is it too much trouble to ask that people at least be grateful for that and treat them with a little bit of respect? Sure, you can complain and criticize, but don't accuse them being lazy and half-assed just because there is one or two things you don't like! That's not fair!
I was referring to the original post, the one you ranted at. It said they did a half-assed job of, in your own quote, "on what their followers and community considers such a broken part of the game, simulation, and immersion.". That's not the entire game, only a part of it.
He wasn't throwing a tantrum. You're throwing a tantrum because he said something negative.
You believe that farms are a side issue in a city builder. He does not. Not everyone has to agree with you. Go look at any western european city. The empty space in and around cities is often farmland. You can talk about what the "focus" of the game is or should be but it's his word against yours and neither of you are devs. In my opinion, the focus of a city builder should be player choice in building the settlement they want. It's part of what made SC4 so good.
It doesn't matter if it's understandable why they did it, that has no relevance to what you're replying to. Remove your head from your rear for a moment and actually consider what other people are saying and their point of view. It's understandable why someone would consider farms to be half-assed when they're not implemented with any new mechanics and using the existing mechanics largely defeats the entire point of most people wanting farms. That doesn't mean it's not understandable why they would cut the corners, but just because a half-ass job is understandable doesn't make it not half-assed. And farms in SC4 have different rules to the other kinds of industry. Try making a medium industry zone the size of a farm, it won't develop properly.
Is your opinion. And mine too but not his and not a lot of people's. And your opinion doesn't automatically trump his. His original post, the one you called "childish" and so on was nothing overly offensive or terribly self entitled.
I think it's clearly true that these are the issues forum posters are most vocal about. That doesn't necessarily mean it is a make or break issue for most forum readers, let alone potential players. It is very easy for a vocal minority to drown out everyone else, as I think is the case with this issue. Day after day posting about the same gripe, which CO is obviously aware of, is not constructive.
I think the most important priorities right now are:
- Bug hunting, especially in the Cim simulation mechanics, given it is CO's chosen framework for the game.
- Perfecting the mod tool and related documentation, given other games (Rimworld, Banish, SC4, etc etc etc) have shown how an active modding community can radically improve a game and its replay-ability. My guess is if the mod tools are decent there will be new farms and airports on day/week one. I think the ability to mod policies will be especially important in improving the city building experience, as they matter more for city mayor simulation than farm or airport sizes.
- Balance tweaking, which is separate from bug hunting mention above.
If they screw these up, especially the first two, the game very well could be a flop that fails to gain momentum (see how easy that was?
I totally agree with you mate.
Like others I think the farms and airport seem too small for now...but as others have said its certainly not even close to being a deal breaker, mostly because of modding.
I think CO are doing exactly the right thing and hunting down any bugs - making sure they get the fundamentals of their modding tools, map editor, and the underlying engine right, laying that foundation. Like you I think farms and airport will be modded pretty quickly after release, so no reason to panic or not buy it just because CO have made it a lower priority. Either CO or modders will fix it.
I'll be buying the game and if a pre-order is available I'll even do that and not just to support C:SL but hopefully a brighter future for city builders in general. I'm sure C:SL will not be the perfect game, but modding certainly helps that, and if the game proves popular enough then they'll no doubt try and address any shortcomings in patches, expansion, and a C:SL2.
Person012345. We'll just have to agree to disagree: I think the way he worded his post was unnecessarily rude and inappropriate and unacceptable, you do not.
Last edited:
Friends, take a moment to read this and please acknowledge that you have done so in a reply before you continue discussing.
Okay so I can see that this thread is sparked out of passion, so let's take a step back and calm down a little! It's obvious that you're all speaking from the perspective of wishing the best for Skylines and this is important that you think about when you reply to each other.
Sure, some posts might be blunt, some might be criticizing or worried but nothing posted in here (par a few minor paragraphs) are abusive or bad. So let's lay down some facts before you continue.
1. Ateerix is correct that there has been a lot of feedback regarding farms, airports and harbors. He is also correct in this being one of our major points of communication from the vocal part of the community.
What I perceive as incorrect in his argumentation is that even though this has been the case, the feedback is still comparatively small and - for the most part - not a "gamebreaker". The vast majority of people that buy and play this game will never have visited or interacted with any of our social media channels or forums.
This does not mean his opinion is wrong or should not be shared, as it may still be a serious issue for him and that alone is enough grounds to continue posting.
--
2. The biggest reason this feedback has stood out is because, from what it looks like, people have little to complain about beyond this. This is a direct result of us putting our resources where we need them the most. Had we NOT done this the feedback/criticism would have looked differently, thus simply "moving" the problem to another area.
What you see as a lack of problems we see as correctly allocated development time. The product you describe as "looking pretty finished" does so because we have worked towards that goal.
Now I'm not saying that Cities: Skylines won't have its own issues and areas of improvement at launch, we're by all means still human and nothing is perfect, but we believe that the game we have done is pretty much what we set out to do from the start.
--
3. Your personal opinions are important and equally valuable from an objective standpoint, yet you are not in a position to judge, rank or value each others feedback. Doing this is a fundamental mistake and only serves to lessen the quality of discussion. I will be more harsh on moderating posts that do this in the future, as I believe they are detrimental to the quality of this forum. If you can not share an opinion without attacking another you're doing it wrong.
--
Tl;dr: had we changed this you would have had other things to criticize. We think this is the "lesser of evils" and hope you can appreciate this. I expect you to be able to continue this discussion in a more civilized manner.
Okay so I can see that this thread is sparked out of passion, so let's take a step back and calm down a little! It's obvious that you're all speaking from the perspective of wishing the best for Skylines and this is important that you think about when you reply to each other.
Sure, some posts might be blunt, some might be criticizing or worried but nothing posted in here (par a few minor paragraphs) are abusive or bad. So let's lay down some facts before you continue.
1. Ateerix is correct that there has been a lot of feedback regarding farms, airports and harbors. He is also correct in this being one of our major points of communication from the vocal part of the community.
What I perceive as incorrect in his argumentation is that even though this has been the case, the feedback is still comparatively small and - for the most part - not a "gamebreaker". The vast majority of people that buy and play this game will never have visited or interacted with any of our social media channels or forums.
This does not mean his opinion is wrong or should not be shared, as it may still be a serious issue for him and that alone is enough grounds to continue posting.
--
2. The biggest reason this feedback has stood out is because, from what it looks like, people have little to complain about beyond this. This is a direct result of us putting our resources where we need them the most. Had we NOT done this the feedback/criticism would have looked differently, thus simply "moving" the problem to another area.
What you see as a lack of problems we see as correctly allocated development time. The product you describe as "looking pretty finished" does so because we have worked towards that goal.
Now I'm not saying that Cities: Skylines won't have its own issues and areas of improvement at launch, we're by all means still human and nothing is perfect, but we believe that the game we have done is pretty much what we set out to do from the start.
--
3. Your personal opinions are important and equally valuable from an objective standpoint, yet you are not in a position to judge, rank or value each others feedback. Doing this is a fundamental mistake and only serves to lessen the quality of discussion. I will be more harsh on moderating posts that do this in the future, as I believe they are detrimental to the quality of this forum. If you can not share an opinion without attacking another you're doing it wrong.
--
Tl;dr: had we changed this you would have had other things to criticize. We think this is the "lesser of evils" and hope you can appreciate this. I expect you to be able to continue this discussion in a more civilized manner.
Last edited:
How dare you, don't you realise Common Sense is like Kryptonite to the internet.
Count me on the side of those who want agriculture, big Airports and big Ports.
Also count me on the side of those who don't think it's a deal breaker and are happy to see what happens after launch.
Also count me on the side who'd buy the game anyway because it's a City Builder from CO/Paradox. I really am that easy
How dare you, don't you realise Common Sense is like Kryptonite to the internet.
Count me on the side of those who want agriculture, big Airports and big Ports.
Also count me on the side of those who don't think it's a deal breaker and are happy to see what happens after launch.
Also count me on the side who'd buy the game anyway because it's a City Builder from CO/Paradox. I really am that easy
Yup, I feel the same. I'm probably going to buy the game anyway. It might not have some things that I want, but I understand that you are just a small team making this.