Park corporatization
- Thread starter Lookatthis
- 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.
I think he means sell them so that you get one lump sum in exchange for no longer getting weekly profits. I do not see how this could really work in C:S though, as the mechanic could either be easily abused (sell park: demo park) or could cause sever problems later on (sold parks are not editable and are effectively "off map" for the player; new player makes giant park and effectively blocks off half the map from themselves). The first one is an abusive mechanic, the second is counter to the ethos of the game.
Plus if we have this the natural question will be "why can't we sell universities or industrial areas? And now we will need to make the system work for those too.
Could you go through and close all the loopholes, building a functional and sensible system? Probably. Would it be worth it for the tiny one-time gain it could get you to city coffers? I seriously doubt it.
Plus if we have this the natural question will be "why can't we sell universities or industrial areas? And now we will need to make the system work for those too.
Could you go through and close all the loopholes, building a functional and sensible system? Probably. Would it be worth it for the tiny one-time gain it could get you to city coffers? I seriously doubt it.
Perhaps you could sell Parks, or other buildings to a private company, thus lowering your expenses, but also losing a proportion of your income (like anything else you'd get taxes from them), and also at a cost that in order to destroy or move buildings you'd need to pay more, because you'd need to buy the buildings back from the private companies, as well as having to buy the parks back if you wanted to edit them. It would be more realistic, things such as industrial parks, theme parks and numerous other buildings we place down are likely to be privately owned in the real world, instead of belonging to municipal government, and it could be useful if you're in the middle of a financial crisis, to sell off buildings and areas to lower expenses without loosing the benefits of having those buildings in the first place.
I mean, all these games basically operate on the principle of "supreme eminent domain". They kinda have to in order to give the player the freedom to restructure at will.
What is the gameplay benefit for changing that? Other than added complexity I am simply not seeing one.
Now I would certainly love to see more autonomy granted to districts, but I feel a better mechanic for that is to assign an "administrator" that could take over some functions from you. Maybe you lay out roads/paths and the admin can plop buildings for you as the area levels up, similar to how zones grow. But even that would not jeopardize the players complete control over their empire. If you wanted to incorporate a financial aspect to it the zone could generate far less income to pay for the administrator position.
So you have the same mechanic, but without all the hustle of tying the players hands.
What is the gameplay benefit for changing that? Other than added complexity I am simply not seeing one.
Now I would certainly love to see more autonomy granted to districts, but I feel a better mechanic for that is to assign an "administrator" that could take over some functions from you. Maybe you lay out roads/paths and the admin can plop buildings for you as the area levels up, similar to how zones grow. But even that would not jeopardize the players complete control over their empire. If you wanted to incorporate a financial aspect to it the zone could generate far less income to pay for the administrator position.
So you have the same mechanic, but without all the hustle of tying the players hands.