How to counter high cost of recycling and smoke detector?

[EvilTom]

LOL
Cim's should have?
LOL

What kind of tests are you running where cims think or better yet you think cims did something? LOL

Although the reasoning behind this statement may be incorrect the preliminary results seem to indicate the case that it doesn't matter when you initiate the policy. I believe the tester was personifying the CIMs and attempting to justify it. There's no harm in that, it's a game after all

You seem defensive. Are you willing to accept the results of a test which is repeatable and done in a more 'lab'-like city? Alternatively can you provide any evidence of what you are suggesting?

 

[unmerged(184583)]

LOL
Cim's should have?
LOL

What kind of tests are you running where cims think or better yet you think cims did something? LOL

don't be mad because I just shit on your theory. You know what I meant. Deactivating the ordinance means that it would then deactivate any smoke detectors within the city.

 

[Cymsdale]

JerkyJerry is borderline trolling at this point.

 

[JerkyJerry]

Of course it is per building. What jerkyjerry is saying makes no sense since the detectors are a weekly cost. If there is some issue with the timing of the policy, that sounds more like a bug than anything else.

You install a smoke detector in your house
You pay for it weekly or once?

WOW you guys are doing a lot of blathering without any testing

Build two identical cities (or fairly close)
Enact the ordinance as soon as you fiscally can. Do NOT zone any more. Just let the city sit while the ordinance takes effect. You will see that soon your revenues go up little by little by little as each existing building is receiving their smoke detectors. Before long you are right where you were before you enacted the ordinance.
Then in your second city wait until you have oh I don't know 25k or 30k residents, THEN enact the ordinance. Again stop zoning and watch your revenues crash then come back up slowly as each building is receiving their detectors.

The OP asked :How to counter high cost of recycling and smoke detector?"
Question answered

Yes there is a cost no matter what size of the city that is obvious. However if he wants to counter the cost my suggestion is to do it earlier rather than later as it will cost less. That is a scientific fact. Sorry it just is.

 

[JerkyJerry]

Deactivating the ordinance means that it would then deactivate any smoke detectors within the city.

LOL
NO
It means that future buildings are NOT required to have smoke detectors installed. That does not mean that the existing detectors are deactivated. Can I see your proof of this?

 

[unmerged(184583)]

LOL
NO
It means that future buildings are NOT required to have smoke detectors installed. That does not mean that the existing detectors are deactivated. Can I see your proof of this?

I understand what you mean JerkyJerry, really I do, but I have to disagree that it does not work this way. I am the only one who has provided any evidence in this thread, albeit only posting my observations, I will refrain from making screen shots, as it is not worth my time, and we will wait for EvilTom's results for definitive proof.

 

[EvilTom]

LOL
NO
It means that future buildings are NOT required to have smoke detectors installed. That does not mean that the existing detectors are deactivated. Can I see your proof of this?

You have not proven anything of what you have said. I will test and provide results either way this evening GMT when I have a look. Unless someone produces a repeatable test (so hopefully not a 20k city , just a few houses).

Can you provide any evidence to support your position?

Thanks again to Shiggs713 for taking a look at this so far.

 

[JerkyJerry]

Shiggs
It is the policy that you deactivated not the smoke detectors themselves, the policy.
The detectors that were already installed before you deactivated the policy still work, are still installed. What you did was just prevent any future buildings from being required to have them that's all.
That was not the OP's question. He wants the policy but wants it cheaper. My way is cheaper. It still costs but it is cheaper than waiting.

 

[unmerged(184583)]

Jerry, you do not need to explain yourself any further, I completely understand you. Also please, we are not doing some vodoo mysticism here. We want hard facts and evidence, your words are not that.

 

[JerkyJerry]

You have not proven anything of what you have said. Can you provide any evidence to support your position?

Yes
Do my test and tell me which way is cheaper. Try to remember the OP's question............counter the high cost.
Sooner rather than later (in population numbers) will be cheaper, will counter the high cost.

 

[EvilTom]

Yes
Do my test and tell me which way is cheaper. Try to remember the OP's question............counter the high cost.
Sooner rather than later (in population numbers) will be cheaper, will counter the high cost.

I have to tell you I rolled my eyes at this. I know that's not very professional for me to say, but I just have to as I feel you're getting some strange enjoyment out of being vague and not answering directly.

Could you post your evidence either in screenshots, video or even in just sheer numbers, as Shiggs713 did? For example can you say that with x amount of population growth you don't see any increase in policy cost after it's implemented?

If not, are you're happy to wait so I can examine this later. Are you happy to accept the results either way? I'm sure I am. This isn't a personal attack or anything, we just want to see the facts. So far you've just been telling us the facts and not actually proving it. I accept I haven't proven anything yet, but I am willing and intend to.

 

[Letar]

Remember the rules folks, no trolling, insulting etc.

 

[EvilTom]

Is there any CO input on this?

From the wiki it says...

Smoke Detector Distribution Services Worthy Village Reduced risk of fire 5¢/week/building

http://www.skylineswiki.com/Policies

I know this isn't concrete (as it's a Wiki), but it lends credence to the mainstream view that smoke detectors increase per building per week and it's not just an initial cost based on the number of the buildings without upkeep of those smoke detectors.

 

[tk-093]

I just did a real fast test. Anybody should be able to replicate this in about 5 minutes.

Did a new city with everything unlocked. Build some water/power obviously.

I did 20 tiny 1x1 houses along a road. (You have to leave a blank zone between every 1x1 so they stay 1x1 plots.)

20 tiny houses were built.

I made that a district and enabled Smoke Detectors.

Opened the budget panel and watched the expenditures for policies slowly rise until it was right around $100. Which would be $5 per building... It wasn't exactly 100 so I can't explain how they calculate that.

I then disabled the policy and watched as the weekly price dropped to zero.

I then turned it back on, and the weekly price again rose up to around 100 even though those houses had them.

I then filled in the gaps and made 20 new houses. The budget panel then rose up to around $200.

I encourage anybody to test it.

 

[EvilTom]

I just did a real fast test. Anybody should be able to replicate this in about 5 minutes.

Did a new city with everything unlocked. Build some water/power obviously.

I did 20 tiny 1x1 houses along a road. (You have to leave a blank zone between every 1x1 so they stay 1x1 plots.)

20 tiny houses were built.

I made that a district and enabled Smoke Detectors.

Opened the budget panel and watched the expenditures for policies slowly rise until it was right around $100. Which would be $5 per building... It wasn't exactly 100 so I can't explain how they calculate that.

I then disabled the policy and watched as the weekly price dropped to zero.

I then turned it back on, and the weekly price again rose up to around 100 even though those houses had them.

I then filled in the gaps and made 20 new houses. The budget panel then rose up to around $200.

I encourage anybody to test it.

Thank you very much. This is the type of testing I was looking for. That was a good idea using 20 (and then 40 total) houses, as this meant the figures were nice and round.

The evidence is mounting up then. It so far appears that to help the OP to counter the high price of smoke detectors it doesn't matter when you put the policy in place. This is what it would appear to be from the 5c/week/building in the tooltip and the game logic so far.

I said I'd test and try and record it this evening, so it's not an insult to those who have tested so far if I still do so. If it's repeatable and reviewed by others that means it's more scientific .

 

[tk-093]

Thank you very much. This is the type of testing I was looking for. That was a good idea using 20 (and then 40 total) houses, as this meant the figures were nice and round.

The evidence is mounting up then. It so far appears that to help the OP to counter the high price of smoke detectors it doesn't matter when you put the policy in place. This is what it would appear to be from the 5c/week/building in the tooltip and the game logic so far.

I said I'd test and try and record it this evening, so it's not an insult to those who have tested so far if I still do so. If it's repeatable and reviewed by others that means it's more scientific .

I would have recorded it, but I'm just running a Surface Pro 2 and not even sure how I could record. So record away!

Not that I NEED to know, but I'm curious how they calculate it. When I have 60 1x1 houses, my weekly charge is like $307.28 or some weird price. It should simply be $300.

As for why is there even a weekly price if it is simply handing out detectors? I guess I look at it as (1) It's likely also enforcement, so there are some inspectors running around making sure detectors are working and replacing bad ones, etc... so there is a cost to that, and also (2) It's for gameplay... need to have a cause and effect, right?

 

[AmpsterMan]

The way i have dealt with this it's by enabling the ordinances in specific areas only. Only my higher density/land value buildings get recyclying/power/high tech housing/ etc.

 

[grandad1982]

I love it when my facts are shown
TY tk-093!

I don't think you understand how evidence and numbers work. Based in his results seems to not work how you think.

It's hard to really tell what you think though as mainly your 'help' has had no evidence of its own and seems to consist of being rude to people.

EDIT: I went back and re read your first post.

So your suggesting that you only pay to retrofit buildings that exist at the time the policy is enacted and for new building that cost is covered by the "builders" so your cost won't rise? Please correct me if I'm wrong. If this is what your saying thats not what tk-093 is saying with those numbers.

 

[Cymsdale]

I don't think you understand how evidence and numbers work. Based in his results seems to not work how you think.

It's hard to really tell what you think though as mainly your 'help' has had no evidence of its own and seems to consist of being rude to people.

EDIT: I went back and re read your first post.

So your suggesting that you only pay to retrofit buildings that exist at the time the policy is enacted and for new building that cost is covered by the "builders" so your cost won't rise? Please correct me if I'm wrong. If this is what your saying thats not what tk-093 is saying with those numbers.

There was a lot of posts about this that were since deleted because of the forum transition. Spoiler alert, he was/is basically trolling.

 

[Bavarian Steve]

EvilTom is correct in everything he has said in this thread. For all Ordinances that apply a cost per building, they become cost effective when used city wide only if most of your city is high density residential and high density commercial. Take into account that 1 low density residential house has one family living in it. A high density residential building has multiple families living in it. The cost of an ordinance is applied per building, NOT per cim. So if i enact a .05c per building ordinance, the cost per cim goes down dramatically in high density areas even though the whole building gets the ordinance benefit.