I hope Cities Skylines 2 won't be another Traffic Simulator

[sys_64738]

And, as a side note, even though traffic could also be an issue in SC4, it always was manageable, and could never "destroy" your city.

Though I agree with the majority of your post, I have to partially disagree on this statement: Traffic situations can still mess up your city in SC4, when commuting becomes too big of an issue. It's not that impactful as it becomes in S:C but it still can sour your day a lot.

In fact, traffic became my arch nemesis in SC4 - the use of NAM reallly helped.

Best regards,
sys

 

[MrMeowPuss]

I get the impression that the game may be working fine for its intended user base then, and that I am the odd one out! [BGCOLOR=rgb(27, 54, 83)][/BGCOLOR]

Don’t worry I’m the same and I’d love more of a city management aspect to it, like SC2013. I’m personally really hoping that for CS2 they have a classic or sandbox mode which is pretty much just a light traffic simulator for those wanting to focus on city design and building then a more simulation mode for those of who want more of the traditional SimCity feel.

I loved how in SC2013 if you had too many casinos but not enough police you’d have crime issues or not enough education and jobs your parks would be filled with homeless which would also increase crime.

 

[Timmysoboy]

I think the game could benefit from introducing OPs ideas (I'm not big on politics, though). The trick would be to include these functions in a way where if you don't pay attention to them, you can still have fun, but if you DO pay attention to them, it can be very rewarding. This way, you could have your cake (complex simulator), and eat it too (city painter).

This could be as easy as a meaningful difficulty slider.

 

[Agarwel]

I totally hope the CS2 will be again traffic simulator (hopefully even deeper). But you are right, that other parts of the game should be rebalanced so the traffic management is not the only challenge in the game.

 

[sys_64738]

I loved how in SC2013 if you had too many casinos but not enough police you’d have crime issues or not enough education and jobs your parks would be filled with homeless which would also increase crime.

Yep, this was one of the things that SC2013 did fairly well.

The progression system that came with the city hall was also a very nice feature which I wouldn't mind at all having in C:S2.

What could be a nice but also quite complicated topic are differing opinions, for example liking or disliking a certain branch of commercial buildings. Small, fancy cafes are more likely to be preferred in your Downtown area, cheap discounters on the other hand in poorer districts.

Controversial topics like racism etc. would be an interesting challenge, especially with proper counter measures, but are probably too problematic for this game. But disputes about something like who has the better sports team could be inserted to spice things up a little bit.

It also would be nice, if any of those factors could be adjusted from "almost non existent" to "is this the real life" or so.

Best regards,
sys

 

[Paul93]

I think that CS and games like Simcity or Citystate scratch different itches. Playing CS is more like painting than managing.

To be honest, I would really like to see both type of games developed (by Colossal or others). In this sense, I agree with the OP: since CS is here while an actual heir to Simcity 4 is not, I would prefer something more akin to the latter despite loving CS exactly as it is. Probably the two type of gameplays can coexist in the same game if a solid difficulty system is put in place.

Also the concept behind Simcity Societies is worth a second try IMO...

 

[dj97]

I think that CS and games like Simcity or Citystate scratch different itches. Playing CS is more like painting than managing.

To be honest, I would really like to see both type of games developed (by Colossal or others). In this sense, I agree with the OP: since CS is here while an actual heir to Simcity 4 is not, I would prefer something more akin to the latter despite loving CS exactly as it is. Probably the two type of gameplays can coexist in the same game if a solid difficulty system is put in place.

Personally, I wouldn't mind painting if it actually meant something to the simulation. Sure I can build a guardrail around every dangerous curve on a treacherous road, but what's the point if it doesn't actually make driving on it safer? Why bother placing lampposts on a footpath if cims will still travel on it if it's dark? Why bother placing a variety of parks and leisure facilities if I can just spam a bunch of skateparks and it'll have the same effect? I need more of a reason to paint than just eyecandy.

Also the concept behind Simcity Societies is worth a second try IMO...

An unpopular opinion. but one that I also share. In SimCity Societies, you place down every individual building and decoration item. If you think about it, most of the modded playerbase play Cities: Skylines the same way . Not to mention that in SCS, you could place buildings anywhere and the sims were still able to travel there (no need for every building to be placed on a road). Yes the game had issues, alot of issues in fact, but there are some things we could learn from it (tourism fo example).

 

[Aquae Sulis]

C:S is nice. You build nice cities, your cims are happy, your energy is eco, everyone gets what they want. You build industry and it's just about making sure it gets what it needs then it's happy until you build some more when you repeat the cycle. Crime and healthcare are abstract concepts fixed by building more of their relevant building.

Get big enough and you have a beautiful city with perfect people, a glorious environment and just a few traffic jams to manage as the money rolls in.

I'd prefer a few more trade-offs before getting there but I get why Colossal didn't put in anything that's not 'nice' because it is a different style and a different game.

I'm not even sure how wholeheartedly they'd implement it anyway using their past games as a guide.

 

[Shadowstrike]

I do enjoy map painting at times, but I would also like to see more depth to the city management side of the game too. It shouldn't boil down to "plunk down enough buildings and all your problems go away".

 

[Haithabu]

Calling Cities Skylines a "City Management game" or "City Simulator" is a misnomer. Traffic is the only challenge in the game. There is no actual city management going on. E.g.:

• Budget is a non-issue after the city is medium-small, you will have infinite money;
• Getting maximum education and health is trivial;
• No social issues, poverty, ghettos;
• No political debate, societal choices, unrest;
• No environmental issues (super heavy industry? No prob, jut put it ten tiles away from homes).

Can I have any hope that City Skylines 2 will be any different?

I agree, note that if these things are addressed it is no longer a city builder but more a city manager. I'd like that idea as well but I am also happy with a new city builder. Let's see what we get, pay for it and enjoy a good few hours of entertainment.

By the way : Add timing to your list. If you want to build for example a football stadium, in Cities Skyline you simply pause the game, plop it somewhere and the next weekend your team is ready to play. Or with the traffic : If you Main Street is clogged up, just pause the game and upgrade it to 6 lanes while the cars are still on it or build a ring road. Unpause the game and whoever went to work via the Main Street can drive home via the ring road. In reality people will complain if your current road has trees and you plan to cut them for an extra lane. Also if you upgrade a road you would need a detour for a few weeks. It's a different challenge that would make it a completely different game. Probably not everyone's taste either so likely not what we will get. I can always use my imagination if I play and place a dirt one way road for a month when upgrading a road.

 

[Seth C Triggs]

I agree, note that if these things are addressed it is no longer a city builder but more a city manager. I'd like that idea as well but I am also happy with a new city builder. Let's see what we get, pay for it and enjoy a good few hours of entertainment.

By the way : Add timing to your list. If you want to build for example a football stadium, in Cities Skyline you simply pause the game, plop it somewhere and the next weekend your team is ready to play. Or with the traffic : If you Main Street is clogged up, just pause the game and upgrade it to 6 lanes while the cars are still on it or build a ring road. Unpause the game and whoever went to work via the Main Street can drive home via the ring road. In reality people will complain if your current road has trees and you plan to cut them for an extra lane. Also if you upgrade a road you would need a detour for a few weeks. It's a different challenge that would make it a completely different game. Probably not everyone's taste either so likely not what we will get. I can always use my imagination if I play and place a dirt one way road for a month when upgrading a road.

I don't know any city builder or transport game that actually does this as core gameplay, as often they use accelerated timescales. Even a game like Workers and Resources: Soviet Republic has this go much faster when you have to manually assign vehicles to make a task happen. I also worry about the impact of doing this on the way agents work in Cities: Skylines, how resource movement is important for cities. In addition the clock gets desynched in that the simulation gets slower in late game so I wonder if this would have other effects for the detour/delay mechanic.

For my own playstyle I definitely hope this would be a toggle option.

 

[Mahasona]

While I like CS for it's ability to create almost whatever I want, I do prefer the old Sim City games for sheer management decisions and options.

Yes I will be giving Citystate a whirl sometime, but as a small indie game it doesn't have the scale or scope of the old SC.

 

[Aepdneds]

Personally, I wouldn't mind painting if it actually meant something to the simulation. Sure I can build a guardrail around every dangerous curve on a treacherous road, but what's the point if it doesn't actually make driving on it safer? Why bother placing lampposts on a footpath if cims will still travel on it if it's dark?

Imo these are items which should pop automatically depending on your budget sliders and neighbourhood policies. You want footpath lights? Activate a policy for them. You want them victorian style instead of soulless plastic pipes? Move the slider to 150%.

 

[sys_64738]

Imo these are items which should pop automatically depending on your budget sliders and neighbourhood policies. You want footpath lights? Activate a policy for them. You want them victorian style instead of soulless plastic pipes? Move the slider to 150%.

I for myself wouldn't like it this way, it'd be very unflexible and somehow clunky, esspecially when the footpath crosses one or more district borders. (Yes, I really like these foot- and bikepaths. )

I suggest to solve this issue in another way:How about giving assets some new stats like attractiveness, security, fire hazard etc.. Streetlights or fences i.e. can increase or decrease these values in their immediate area, just like trees do this with noise pollution.

So you have a lot more freedom in shaping the face of your neighborhood. Or to take your example:this way: Simple footpath lights will increase the safety value which reduces crime and increases health a tiny bit. On the other hand, these basic lanterns a quite ugly, so they lower the overall attractivesness. Lights in victorian style are far more attractive and increase safety as well but can be more of a fire hazard.

The selection for which light will be placed along the footpath can be done the same way as the new tree selector for roads: Pick the footpath light you like from the menu and left click onto the path.

This way you can choose any tagged (type lantern, type fence) asset (vanilla, DLC or Workshop) and use it with ease instead of fumbling around with policies.

Older assets can't be used as footpath lights as they lack these tags, but they can still be used as usual. When they haven't any values for the new attributes set, they still can be used but have no effect.

What do you think of my idea?

Best regards,
sys

 

[TTJ]

I do enjoy map painting at times, but I would also like to see more depth to the city management side of the game too. It shouldn't boil down to "plunk down enough buildings and all your problems go away".

I don't require an extremely challenging economy but some major decisions would be fine. I thing some features should exclude each other. For example to attract tourists I should be required to build a city in a different way than for attracting commerce or students. Heavy industry should generally kill any attempts to create a green city and vice versa.

 

[Chieron]

I don't require an extremely challenging economy but some major decisions would be fine. I thing some features should exclude each other. For example to attract tourists I should be required to build a city in a different way than for attracting commerce or students. Heavy industry should generally kill any attempts to create a green city and vice versa.

Why, though?
How do commerce, universities and tourism compete with each other? Okay, a Las-Vegas-type tourism will not mix well with a campus in the same place. But I don't see an issue, if it is a bit out of the way.
Green vs. heavy industry is more understandable, but even then, it could be justified as a compensation measure. Does happen in reality as well. Some realistic distance between the two would be meaningful, though.

 

[TTJ]

Why, though?
How do commerce, universities and tourism compete with each other? Okay, a Las-Vegas-type tourism will not mix well with a campus in the same place. But I don't see an issue, if it is a bit out of the way.
Green vs. heavy industry is more understandable, but even then, it could be justified as a compensation measure. Does happen in reality as well. Some realistic distance between the two would be meaningful, though.

I think it could be done, if tourism for example generates lots of low income jobs so that you can't let your cims become too educated. Also some highly profitable party tourism might have negative impact on universities, while you should invest in museums and art galleries to serve tourism and education at the same time.

My point is however more general: If the game would allow specializing a city and if you cannot master all city designations at once, then you would have much more reason to play the game again and try another specialization next time.

Let me also point to an old suggestion of mine in this context: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/dlc-suggestion-city-specialisation.1114363/

 

[sys_64738]

Why, though?
How do commerce, universities and tourism compete with each other? Okay, a Las-Vegas-type tourism will not mix well with a campus in the same place. But I don't see an issue, if it is a bit out of the way.
Green vs. heavy industry is more understandable, but even then, it could be justified as a compensation measure. Does happen in reality as well. Some realistic distance between the two would be meaningful, though.

Hi,

I think TTJ has a valid point here:

1. Gameplay
Although I love having all my eggs in one basket, it'll make sense that you can't have it all at once. This creates a challenge as well as it also increases your replay value.

2. Real life experience
You asked why one thing excludes another. Well, specailised commercials and universities don't cancel out each other, but can you really imagine a romantic trip into nature when a huge industrial zone dominates the horizon? I think, we've got something here, it just needed to be fleshed out a bit more.

What about harmonizing factors? University and commercials can harmonize, industry and commercials can harmonize but low tech industry and university harmonize only for a short period of time, as students might need the quick money but afterwards, they refuse to stay at the assembly line for the rest of their life.

As I said: I've got TTJ's idea, it just needs to be fleshed out a bit more. This is something.

Edit: @TTJ - I just read your old post you've linked in your latest comment... Wow! You already had some really good ideas there. Nice work!

Best regards,
sys

 

[Chieron]

1. Gameplay
Although I love having all my eggs in one basket, it'll make sense that you can't have it all at once. This creates a challenge as well as it also increases your replay value.

For pure gameplay, this might be useful, sure. But it will always feel arbitrary to me.

2. Real life experience
You asked why one thing excludes another. Well, specailised commercials and universities don't cancel out each other, but can you really imagine a romantic trip into nature when a huge industrial zone dominates the horizon? I think, we've got something here, it just needed to be fleshed out a bit more.

Tourism comes in many forms - but yes, having a natural park / wilderness type tourism area clashes with heavy industry. They should not exclude each other in the city, but definitely be kept separate. Wilderness would not fit with most land uses, however. You won't go camping next to office towers either.
Leisure tourism and cultural or event tourism don't care than much about industry, though. Again, the actual destination should not be inside the dirty industrial area, but otherwise, it is quite realistic. Pollution and pollution-like mechanics could help here, lowering the efficiency in ill-suited neighborhoods.

What about harmonizing factors? University and commercials can harmonize, industry and commercials can harmonize but low tech industry and university harmonize only for a short period of time, as students might need the quick money but afterwards, they refuse to stay at the assembly line for the rest of their life.

Not everyone in a CITY (not town) with a university will be educated at that level, even though a large university will attract other industries. CS is quite unrealistic here with the university sizes compared to the cities. Not every student would stay in the city, either. The other way round should be considered, though - high tech industry should struggle in cities without reasonable educational facilities. Low tech industries would struggle in university cities due to being outcompeted by the high tech, to a degree. CS cities are large enough to accommodate both sections, however.


I'm not against the idea in principle, but it needs to be sensible. Real cities tend to be quite diversified places, not completely specialized at all. More nudging to one type or another is fine, but hard restrictions should not apply. Replayability could come from optimization, not unlocking paths. It's not like cities get built in a day anyway, one city could be plenty for months.

 

[Fox_NS_CAN]

For pure gameplay, this might be useful, sure. But it will always feel arbitrary to me.

Agree. I'd be annoyed if it were so.

It's not like cities get built in a day anyway, one city could be plenty for months.

I haven't played as much recently, so my current city is a little more dragged out than usual, but it was started 2019-05-28. Previous cities didn't last that long, but a few months for each for sure. I would be unhappy to be arbitrarily restricted.