Is there a way to ensure people live and work in the same district?

[zyphial]

Which example of Policy in the real world do you find to "incentive" people to move and work only in specific locations ? If it is related to tax policies, it's badly working at all and should not make any difference in the game, if not I know some historic cases but the rules of the forums forbid to discuss them here.

What are you talking about? There are a variety of incentives from both local governments and from employers. Moving for work is tax deductible without itemization (okay, there are caveats of course) for instance, and many companies offer significant compensation for skilled workers to move. They work quite well for a certain portion of the population, but I'll be fair and agree that most people have no idea how to do their taxes or what's deductible when.

Also, schools have districts. And yes, you can be barred from attending a school outside of your district. FYI.

Don't feel offended, it was not my intent but it is really questionnable to find in a city builder a Policy that restrict the freedom of movement...

You aren't thinking like a programmer. It's hard to make an AI select an "intelligent" thing - like working close to home - because it and it's 64,999 other friends all have to do that very CPU intensive work. So, it's probably too CPU intensive for it to be feasible for every agent to pick a better work place. So, having the option to restrict things to districts is not a simulation so much as it is a consession to reality to solve a problem that the simulation can't. Sometimes, the simulation must give way to the game. If you want a totally realistic city planing simulation, I'd suggest a degree in civil engineering.

Ask yourself why... That's why Tropico is a better suited game for such kind of directive. I agree that it shouldn't be too difficult to implement in the game but i'm strongly opposed to such a Policy and i don't want to see it in the game.

Oh. You realize that makes you a "stop having fun" guy, right? You're saying that because you wouldn't use it you are "strongly opposed" to anyone else in the universe being able to. This is a single player game. If you don't like an option... don't use it?

Sorry, it's exactly what it is. Why not a Policy restricting uneducated people to have babies ? So your city will never have level one houses or buildings for aestethic reasons of course.

Actually education should be inversely correlated with babies. Without education you should have a constant overpopulation/unemployment problem.

You think it's a good idea and should be in the game, i think this is unacceptable and should NOT be in the game. At least in this game.

My tone might sound mean, but I'm actually just trying to underline to you how this sounds to anyone listening: "No, you can't have fun in your single player game because I wouldn't enjoy it if someone held a gun to my head and forced me to use the option that I would otherwise ignore..." What stake do you even have in this?

I think that is complete nonsense. Everyone buys a house because of work location. People change job because of home location and I'm pretty sure if work wasn't available near-by damn straight you would move...

Some people. Smart people. Other people have learned helplessness or an inability to recognize that paying $10bazzilion/wk for $1/hr and a crapton of wasted travel time is the easiest way to burn your bank account. And woe unto thee who tries to point this out.

The number of people who fall into this trap is staggering. I didn't understand it until I started working in finance... and god... it's awful.

 

[Lord KhaZimir]

Alright, I'll bite. I can easily think of such examples from my own country of Norway without having to "discuss forbidden historic cases"(whatever that's supposed to mean):
- One of my close friends was offered free housing and a promotion if he moved to a smaller, inland town to take a manager position.
- If you live north of a certain point in northern Troms(the second northernmost region of Norway) you get large tax benefits, to incentivize people to live there.

None of these measures restrict freedom of movement in any way. Also, I have little interest in whether 'Tropico' is a more or less suited game for being a dictator, I just want a policy which you can choose to implement or not to incentivize working within any given area. I have no idea why you would be 'strongly opposed' to having more options that obviously make sense within the context of the game.

Let's keep it simple : Your friend in Norway did receive incentive to move to a CITY or TOWN, not to stay in the same neighborhood. His incentive stopped when he established himself there. In the game, when your cims arrive in the city, it's to work close by their homes, no need to force them to work in the same district.

And it may be difficult to understand for some people here but not everybody lives in remote places of scandinavia A few others live in the remaining continental masses.

If you don't see why forcing people to remain in a smaller area than 2x2km is close to a dictatorship measure, you definitely need to play tropico and not C:S

 

[TehJumpingJawa]

It'd be logical & realistic if big earners were able & willing to commute farther than poorer workers.

As education level seems to be how the game differentiates wealthiness, this should be used to determine maximum commute distance.
Cims should also relocate their place of residence as they age.

 

[Co_Karoliina]

There are a few factors that affect where people choose to work:

1. When you have an existing residential area, the people there looking for jobs will most likely grab the jobs before the new residential area gets up and going.

2. If the industry levels up or is high level, it will require educated workers. Your new area will have only uneducated people moving in and you have to educate them, so the first "immigrants" will not be eligible for educated jobs, only their children who have to opportunity to attend schools during their age phases.

3. Your existing residential area might have original immigrants or other lowly educated citizens that flock to work on the new low level industries. The new residential area might receive the young adults from the old area, who can be highly educated if you have provided them with schools, and thus will prefer to work at higher level jobs. Young adults live with parents if there's no free housing, and they create only a very low residential demand. If new housing is built, they move there and start families.

 

[Inge Jones]

Which example of Policy in the real world do you find to "incentive" people to move and work only in specific locations ?

If you make car use hard and expensive and do the same for public transport, it incentivises people to work closer to home. Unfortunately CSL has a free transport policy, and besides, I don't think 1million Cims can be calculating their travel costs, though I guess it could be done for the 65k who actually travel.

 

[aethyr_]

There are a few factors that affect where people choose to work:

1. When you have an existing residential area, the people there looking for jobs will most likely grab the jobs before the new residential area gets up and going.

2. If the industry levels up or is high level, it will require educated workers. Your new area will have only uneducated people moving in and you have to educate them, so the first "immigrants" will not be eligible for educated jobs, only their children who have to opportunity to attend schools during their age phases.

3. Your existing residential area might have original immigrants or other lowly educated citizens that flock to work on the new low level industries. The new residential area might receive the young adults from the old area, who can be highly educated if you have provided them with schools, and thus will prefer to work at higher level jobs. Young adults live with parents if there's no free housing, and they create only a very low residential demand. If new housing is built, they move there and start families.

Thanks for the response CO_Karolina. Is there any limit to the distance someone will travel for work? It seems like some traffic issues that present themselves on w/ the no despawn mod could be alleviated if people didn't go across the entire map to go to work. From what I remember, SC4 had limits on the distance/time people would travel to work, meaning you had to ensure that jobs had people living nearby, or they wouldn't have workers.

 

[ranbir]

It would be nice that based on their job/income level they have a willingness to relocate. Not purely from me putting down new zones but moving in to old houses that happen to be closer.

Would be nice for school distances to also factor in. Got kids going halfway across the city to elementary schools just because of the ordering of where they picked their school. If they just swapped with the other kids, they'd all be going to schools closer.

 

[Lord KhaZimir]

What are you talking about? There are a variety of incentives from both local governments and from employers. Moving for work is tax deductible without itemization (okay, there are caveats of course) for instance, and many companies offer significant compensation for skilled workers to move. They work quite well for a certain portion of the population, but I'll be fair and agree that most people have no idea how to do their taxes or what's deductible when.

Also, schools have districts. And yes, you can be barred from attending a school outside of your district. FYI.

Let's repeat to make it clear. Yes you can finacially offer incentives for people to move TO a town but no way you can force anyone to work where you want INSIDE the same town. A district Policy in the game that restricts people to find a job in their district could NEVER be issued by any democratical form of government and has no place in a city builder unless you state clearly that you are a dictator and that you rule some kind of labor camp.

Cims are already restricted to find jobs in the city they live in so actually you got already what you claimed (incentives etc...). If you want more restrictions, go back to prison architect or Tropico (again).

About schools now : in my country, one of the main discussed decrees concern education. Government try to force people to send their kids in schools they didn't choose (the purpose is social mixity and the end of ghetto schools goverment said) and well... it's a highly controversial issue again. The devs themselves said that schools would benefit the happiness of the closest homes but will be effective in the whole city. That seems to me highly logical and perfectly working.

You aren't thinking like a programmer. It's hard to make an AI select an "intelligent" thing - like working close to home - because it and it's 64,999 other friends all have to do that very CPU intensive work. So, it's probably too CPU intensive for it to be feasible for every agent to pick a better work place. So, having the option to restrict things to districts is not a simulation so much as it is a consession to reality to solve a problem that the simulation can't. Sometimes, the simulation must give way to the game. If you want a totally realistic city planing simulation, I'd suggest a degree in civil engineering.

I'm not asking for a change in a system i do find working properly. The OP is suggesting a Policy and i give my opinion saying i disagree.

Oh. You realize that makes you a "stop having fun" guy, right? You're saying that because you wouldn't use it you are "strongly opposed" to anyone else in the universe being able to. This is a single player game. If you don't like an option... don't use it?

Yes i know, when i stop someone trying to force poor Cims to stay in cage, the poor little guardian monster cries and says : why can't i have fun with my slaves !

Poor little tyran

I'm still strongly opposed to an option that has no place in a city builder but that makes sense in other games.

Actually education should be inversely correlated with babies. Without education you should have a constant overpopulation/unemployment problem.

I think you're missing the point here. And all métaphores have flaws.

My tone might sound mean, but I'm actually just trying to underline to you how this sounds to anyone listening: "No, you can't have fun in your single player game because I wouldn't enjoy it if someone held a gun to my head and forced me to use the option that I would otherwise ignore..." What stake do you even have in this?

I'm giving my opinion on a suggestion made in a forum. There is no sin in that. You got a problem with democracy ?

You obviously have the same (political?) opinions than the OP and that's great so we have matter to discuss. I even recommended games for you

You may also go live in paradises like North-korea and Byelorussia and find some good ideas there to implement in the game. I'll be back again to discuss it

 

[Teodosio7]

Let's repeat to make it clear. Yes you can finacially offer incentives for people to move TO a town but no way you can force anyone to work where you want INSIDE the same town. A district Policy in the game that restricts people to find a job in their district could NEVER be issued by any democratical form of government and has no place in a city builder unless you state clearly that you are a dictator and that you rule some kind of labor camp.

This.

 

[zyphial]

Let's repeat to make it clear. Yes you can finacially offer incentives for people to move TO a town but no way you can force anyone to work where you want INSIDE the same town. A district Policy in the game that restricts people to find a job in their district could NEVER be issued by any democratical form of government and has no place in a city builder unless you state clearly that you are a dictator and that you rule some kind of labor camp.

You have issues divorcing simulation from gameplay. You forget that CSL is a game. No one is asking for your imagined jail district, people are trying to work around the illogical dispersion of Cims and workplaces (they will work an effective distance of 100km away, on foot). To achieve that end, they're asking for a break in simulation that enhances gameplay. You do understand that this is a game, right?

Cims are already restricted to find jobs in the city they live in so actually you got already what you claimed (incentives etc...). If you want more restrictions, go back to prison architect or Tropico (again).

The average distance people travel to work (at least in Britain) is about 13km. Apparently you think more than an insignificant minority fly all over the world every day for work. You're also being very insulting with the "go play something else line."

About schools now : in my country, one of the main discussed decrees concern education. Government try to force people to send their kids in schools they didn't choose (the purpose is social mixity and the end of ghetto schools goverment said) and well... it's a highly controversial issue again. The devs themselves said that schools would benefit the happiness of the closest homes but will be effective in the whole city. That seems to me highly logical and perfectly working.

The devs explained that's how it currently works. This is a thread discussing a change to how things currently work. If you can quote a dev saying "we don't want that for x, y or z reason" then fine, but so far, the only thing devs have done is explain how things work - remember, every simulation designer wants a system that's a wonderfully robust simulation, but they have to make certain concessions due to technical limitations - developer time, processing power, ram usage, memory organization (eg cache misses), developer ideas (can't change an implementation right before launch even if a great idea crops up) and plenty more. How things are and how best they might be are two totally different things.

I'm not asking for a change in a system i do find working properly. The OP is suggesting a Policy and i give my opinion saying i disagree.

"I wouldn't use that" and "YOU SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO USE THAT!" are two different things. I'd have no problem if your stance was "oh, that wouldn't be something I would use" but you have repeatedly said, in essence, "YOU CAN'T USE IT 'CAUSE I DON'T LIKE IT."

Yes i know, when i stop someone trying to force poor Cims to stay in cage, the poor little guardian monster cries and says : why can't i have fun with my slaves !

You really have problems seperating simulation from gameplay don't you? You do get that no one is imagining a dictator but you. Or indeed any "role" for the player. The OP wants a city where people tend to work near where they live, not to play as some character you dreamed up.

I'm still strongly opposed to an option that has no place in a city builder but that makes sense in other games.

Starting to think you just don't understand...

I'm giving my opinion on a suggestion made in a forum. There is no sin in that. You got a problem with democracy ?

It isn't a democracy, and if it were you do realize you're soundly outvoted? When it comes to a game, there is no downside to having an option you don't use, but a very real downside to being denied that option. You want other people to play how you like to play... for no better reason than it satisfies you to control other people? I really can't think of another reason.

You obviously have the same (political?) opinions than the OP and that's great so we have matter to discuss. I even recommended games for you

You may also go live in paradises like North-korea and Byelorussia and find some good ideas there to implement in the game. I'll be back again to discuss it

Ordinarily I'd blast someone who condescended this hard, but what do you say, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just don't know any better.

 

[Lord KhaZimir]

Blablabla. I could flame you again and you would do the same without actually adding any cent to the pot so just let stop this here before we reach the godwin's point. Enjoy the game, that's probably the same thing we have in common. Have a nice day

 

[GRFenrir]

Let's keep it simple : Your friend in Norway did receive incentive to move to a CITY or TOWN, not to stay in the same neighborhood. His incentive stopped when he established himself there. In the game, when your cims arrive in the city, it's to work close by their homes, no need to force them to work in the same district.

And it may be difficult to understand for some people here but not everybody lives in remote places of scandinavia A few others live in the remaining continental masses.

If you don't see why forcing people to remain in a smaller area than 2x2km is close to a dictatorship measure, you definitely need to play tropico and not C:S
I'm giving my opinion on a suggestion made in a forum. There is no sin in that. You got a problem with democracy ?

You obviously have the same (political?) opinions than the OP and that's great so we have matter to discuss. I even recommended games for you

You may also go live in paradises like North-korea and Byelorussia and find some good ideas there to implement in the game. I'll be back again to discuss it

Where do you get off being the most condescending little brat I've ever seen on this forum? You keep spewing the same strawman-argumentation without any regard for real-world policies that would be apparent to anyone with some grip on reality. "It may be difficult for someone to understand that not everyone lives in remote places of scandinavia"? Why should that be difficult for anyone to believe? You asked for an example from a modern, democratic society, and I provided you one. Stop sounding like your little piece of the world is the only part that matters. And in actual terms, I'm pretty sure that one edge of the map to the other edge of the map is far longer than 2km.

I have no intention of playing this Tropico game you keep advertizing in every single post you make. I also find it curiously deranged that you connect the wishes for a more coherent industrial planning policy with my political viewpoint. I'm talking about implementing a feature in the game: I want to have the option of providing people in any given area, before they move in if neccessary, to live for free while they work at the industry nearby, but if they change work, they would also have to move. No one is talking about forcing anyone to do anything. Now somehow you manage to connect my wishes for a feature IN A GAME to my(and others) real world political viewpoints, which I have not said a single word about nor see as relevant at all to this discussion.

From the beginning of this thread you have not offered a single piece of constructive discussion, your posts can be summed into thinly veiled insults and arguments based on nothing than your own opinion.

 

[zyphial]

Blablabla. I could flame you again and

GRFenrir don't feed the troll. He's already admitted he's just trolling so ignore him. Actually, does anyone know where the report post button is?

Lets get back to the actual discussion.

I know this game is really moddable, is it possible to and has anyone actually looked at the code that determines workplace selection? If it's something like every workplace loops through every citizen for the first unemployed one and hires them, then maybe an "if isInDistrict(citizen.house,job.district)" can be inserted... but it might be WAY more complex than that.

 

[Chippinator]

Alright, so I decided to expand my city in an area close to the shipping lines and with abundant forestry resources. To this end I created a huge industrial zone, twice the size of that industrial zone in low density residential closeby with convenient pathways/walking bridges for pedestrians and with some low density commercial in between. I made sure not to build any schools here, to make sure that the people residing in this area would choose to work in forestry industry.

The problem I'm having though, is that I'm getting massive influx of educated workers from the inner city, which is probably eight times further away than my newly built residential zone, and this is clogging up traffic. Is there a way to ensure people live and work in the same district?

sadly, this isn't a thing. A solution to your traffic problem would be making lots of metro lines, it often lowers the amount of people on the streets. also, try widening and improving your road systems. less intersections is actually better if you do it right