The numbers of the new buildings seem...off? (And a question)

[Dinges]

Perhaps I am missing something ( I can sometimes be a really big idiot), but the numbers of the new buildings seem a bit weird to me.

Take for example the eco water outlet. It costs 4000 to build, has a drain capacity of 60000, costs 480 KW energy and has an upkeep of 480. If you match the drain capacity of a normal drain, it will cost 3 times as much in upkeep, more than 3 times to build, and costs 4 times the amount in energy. Excuse me? Am I missing something here, or is this really bad for a building that still produces pollution? The eco water treatment plant doesn't have this problem btw, at least not this big. Yes, It costs 10000 more to build, and it has triple the energy maintenance, but it does have the same drain capacity as a normal one and costs 80 less in upkeep. It also produces no pollution which can be a big benefit.

Or take another example, the recycling center. It costs 8000 to build, has a processing capacity of 48000, an upkeep of 240, 15 trucks and uses 240 KW energy. It apparently also produces some raw materials. Compare this to the incineration plant, which costs 30000 to build, has an upkeep of 1440, 27 trucks and costs 192 water. It also produces a maximum of 12 MW. Perhaps it's just me, but the recycling center seems to better in every aspect that matters. I mean, an incineration plant may produce some energy, but if you look at the difference in upkeep, you can build a better energy plant for that money. If you are worried about the lack of trucks (never has been a problem for me), you can still build 2 of them and still be better off. Again, am I missing something here?

The other buildings seem to be a bit off as well, but not as much. The schools have less capacity and are (much) bigger. They also have increased build costs and upkeep. The only upsides they have are slightly lower energy and water usage and increased range. Perhaps it might be worth it for that, but the price seems to be a bit steep.

The ocean thermal conversion plant seems to be more expensive than necessary as well, but perhaps it is worth it because it takes up less space on land.

On an unrelated note, is noone bothered by the fact that policies and districts are often very unclear? "Slightly reduced garbage accumulation", "considerably increases tax income" etc. How much is slightly, how much is considerably? How much does it it actually cost and how much does it give in percentage AND actual numbers? How much income does a lvl 3 building generate compared to a specialization with increased income? I realize this might be fluctuating a lot and may be building dependant, but I would personally really like it if there is some more clear info and that I can view this information per district and city wide. It is an annoyance of mine that I have had for quite a while now, but since nobody seems to be bothered by it thus far, I didn't want to make it an actual suggestion.

 

[DrAg0]

The policies have somewhat unclear descriptions because almost none of them has a fixed effect.
Take "slightly reduced garbage accumulation" for instance. It depends on building type, number of households, land value (mostly abandoned buildings) and existing pollution.
Or to keep it simple the fire prevention from smoke detectors. Building type and tier, if applicable number of households, Land Value (mostly abandoned buildings) and higher risk for industry buildings need to be taken into account.
Two almost identical buildings can nevertheless have considerably different results.
Since the original values tend to vary quite much the effect of policies varies as well.

And for the buildings:
You just can't compare recycling center to incineration plant. Both are solutions to the same problem but do so in wildly different ways.
Green mostly is more costly than usual. What you don't see and is hard to express in raw numbers is the lower impact on pollution/noise/land value.

 

[Dinges]

The policies have somewhat unclear descriptions because almost none of them has a fixed effect.
Take "slightly reduced garbage accumulation" for instance. It depends on building type, number of households, land value (mostly abandoned buildings) and existing pollution.
Or to keep it simple the fire prevention from smoke detectors. Building type and tier, if applicable number of households, Land Value (mostly abandoned buildings) and higher risk for industry buildings need to be taken into account.
Two almost identical buildings can nevertheless have considerably different results.
Since the original values tend to vary quite much the effect of policies varies as well.

And for the buildings:
You just can't compare recycling center to incineration plant. Both are solutions to the same problem but do so in wildly different ways.
Green mostly is more costly than usual. What you don't see and is hard to express in raw numbers is the lower impact on pollution/noise/land value.

I know that that there are variables but it should be possible to just say on a screen somewhere how much a policy currently costs (per district and city wide) and how much it actually saves in numbers. Right now, it's impossible to make informed decisions about this exactly due to these variables.

And no, unless I'm missing something, the recycling center and incineration plants CAN be directly compared because they solve the the exact same problem the same way except the recycling center does it better. Again, unless I'm missing something? In real life, you can't just use recycling centers, but here I've been able to thus far, it can handle all the garbage as well as an incineration plant even without policies, and does so much, much cheaper.

Edit: I might still be stupid somewhere, but I think you can triple the upkeep of a recycling center, remove it's ability to generate raw materials, give it ten times the amount of energy maintenance and it would still be strictly better than an incineration plant. In that case you still pay 720 upkeep less per month, and if you use that same money for an expensive (per MW) power plant like oil, you can still get 45 MW out of the difference, which is more than the incineration plant provides. It gets better if you use something else, like the new updraft tower, where you can get over 75 MW for that upkeep.

 

[Promethian]

Recycling Plant is pretty much purely better. It does seem to have a smaller reach so you need to build them in more places but I haven't found it to be a big deal. It also comes at the same time as dumps. So no more dealing with emptying out the dumps so you can get rid of them.

 

[Fox_NS_CAN]

Storage capacity of Recycling Center is 300,000 vs the Incinerator's 400,000.
Pretty minor though.

 

[Fox_NS_CAN]

Also, I despise the vagueness. I want hard numbers. "Reduces by 50%" or something like that.

 

[Promethian]

Another thing we arent told is that the new IT spec offices are limited by the amount of commercial you have. They produce an invisible good that they cant export and is purchased by commercial. Or at least that is my best deduction at what is happening.

 

[Fox_NS_CAN]

Another thing we arent told is that the new IT spec offices are limited by the amount of commercial you have. They produce an invisible good that they cant export and is purchased by commercial. Or at least that is my best deduction at what is happening.

Something is happening with them. I got a lot of icons complaining that I needed more commercial, and there was zero demand for commercial on the RCI.

 

[Promethian]

Something is happening with them. I got a lot of icons complaining that I needed more commercial, and there was zero demand for commercial on the RCI.

Yes. I just told you what is happening. Think of it as a cap on how much of the IT offices you can have based in how much commercial you have. This is an additional hidden rule outside of the usual RCI rules.

 

[Fox_NS_CAN]

Yes. I just told you what is happening. Think of it as a cap on how much of the IT offices you can have based in how much commercial you have. This is an additional hidden rule outside of the usual RCI rules.

You just told me what you think is happening:

Or at least that is my best deduction at what is happening.

I simply agreed that something to that effect was happening.

 

[Promethian]

Even if I am wrong on the specifics I know I have the gameplay effect right. Your IT is capped by your commercial.

I am simply using the tooltips and warnings in game to try to deduce the precise method this was accomplished.

 

[Fox_NS_CAN]

Remind me not to agree with you next time.

 

[Dinges]

Well, uh... I haven't tested out IT yet, so I'll have to trust you on that.

Anyway, there haven't been a lot of replies yet, so I guess most people don't care that much. On the other hand, there have been no hordes of people screaming at me for being an idiot. I guess I'm going to make 2 posts later in feedback/suggestions. One about the buildings and the other about the lack of info.

I doubt anything will be done about it, especially since the problems with the buildings should have been caught (and probably have been) way before launch, but at least I will have done my part.

 

[DrAg0]

Let's say it again.

The policies need to have vague discriptions as they need to include each and every building with each and every circumstance.
This is the case since the Release of Cities Skylines in March 2015 and there at max have been mutterings about it but no complains.

And btw. Recycling Center and Incineration Plant do solve the same problem but absolutely not in the same way.
In your comparisons you focus on hard numbers. But you do forget about some effects, namely on land value and (noise) pollution.
From a strict economic point of view ecologic buildings and policies hardly make any sense. Simply because saving the environment is hard to measure and even harder to profit off.

Both your issues are none.

 

[Dinges]

Let's say it again.

The policies need to have vague discriptions as they need to include each and every building with each and every circumstance.
This is the case since the Release of Cities Skylines in March 2015 and there at max have been mutterings about it but no complains.

And btw. Recycling Center and Incineration Plant do solve the same problem but absolutely not in the same way.
In your comparisons you focus on hard numbers. But you do forget about some effects, namely on land value and (noise) pollution.
From a strict economic point of view ecologic buildings and policies hardly make any sense. Simply because saving the environment is hard to measure and even harder to profit off.

Both your issues are none.

What you are saying works for my argument, not against. Recycling centers are also better with noise pollution and normal pollution. And yes, it can be hard to measure, but in the end, this is still a game. There needs to be a mechanical benefit yes, but right now it's not even a choice, recycling centers are better in literally every single way. And even if you do care about realism, in real life you can't just replace all incineration plants with recycling centers. Some garbage can't be recycled after all.

Look, I'm not saying it should be worse, but it does need to be an actual choice. Right now it isn't, because recycling centers are just better incineration plants. And yes, they solve the problem in exactly the same way. Saying they don't, doesn't actually make it so. Or do you have any actual arguments to back that up?

As for that information, considering they need to actuallu calculate it anyway (otherwise, how else would the game be able to actually change how much energy it needs less, and how much extra tax etc. you get) so I see no reason why they can't show per policy what the actual benefit is and an estimate of how much it's going to cost/benefit you when you activate it, since the game needs to have this information anyway. Of course, when you have just zoned an area, it's not going to be accurate, but it's better than not having information at all. At least, in my opinion.

Also, when the game is telling you that you get more tax, or less energy in a district, it's completely useless. Without any comparison, you don't actually know what it does. Does it compare itself to a zone with only level 2's in it? Level 3? Level 1? High density? Low density? I don't know, because you can't find that info anywhere. And it must be able to tell this, because how else can you say it uses moderately less energy? Without context, a description like that is completely without meaning.

 

[DrAg0]

So basically you rant about the policies giving information like "sligthly lowering energy consumption" instead of "lowering the energy consumption by 10/20/25/30/45/48 and 49% depending on the type of building, the surroundings, people/vehicle traffic and many other circumstances. It does cost 3/4/6/7/8/12 or 15 credits per day and bulding depending on the same circumstances."

Think about it once more.
Being specific is not "better" in this case. Since all of these data are constantly changing and very seldomly are constant it would mean this data you want would change every ingame day as well. You can study it in pause mode but a second after you resume the game these data are obsolete again.
The only data you really need is "slightly lower energy consumption" in this example.

And btw the data you can (and should) compare it to is the orignial data without the policy in effect. Very basic understanding and the reason why the game does not need to tell you this again.
Policies are digital in this case. Either it is active or it is not.


The recylcing center picks apart garbage with the use of electricity. The incineration plant burns garbage and generates electricity.
No matter how often and loud you say "It is the same thing!" it is not.
For starters the recycling center has a lower range, fewer trucks and a bigger blueprint. Do you want to tell me this is better?

 

[Dinges]

So basically you rant about the policies giving information like "sligthly lowering energy consumption" instead of "lowering the energy consumption by 10/20/25/30/45/48 and 49% depending on the type of building, the surroundings, people/vehicle traffic and many other circumstances. It does cost 3/4/6/7/8/12 or 15 credits per day and bulding depending on the same circumstances."

Think about it once more.
Being specific is not "better" in this case. Since all of these data are constantly changing and very seldomly are constant it would mean this data you want would change every ingame day as well. You can study it in pause mode but a second after you resume the game these data are obsolete again.
The only data you really need is "slightly lower energy consumption" in this example.

And btw the data you can (and should) compare it to is the orignial data without the policy in effect. Very basic understanding and the reason why the game does not need to tell you this again.
Policies are digital in this case. Either it is active or it is not.


The recylcing center picks apart garbage with the use of electricity. The incineration plant burns garbage and generates electricity.
No matter how often and loud you say "It is the same thing!" it is not.
For starters the recycling center has a lower range, fewer trucks and a bigger blueprint. Do you want to tell me this is better?

I'm sorry but why do you care that the incineration plant generates energy? I don't, because you know why? For the difference in upkeep you can build a better energy plant. The incineration plant costs 1200 money extra per week. It generates at max 12MW. I believe the most expensive power plant to be the oil power plant, which generates about 1 MW per 16 money (whatever the currency is). So for the difference in money, you can generate 75 energy at its worst. If you use green energy, it will be even more. So at its worst, it will generate around 64 energy extra compared to the incineration plant.
Then it has the exact same processing capability as an incineration plant, and on top of that it also generates raw recourses. The only real argument that you've given is that it is 2 tiles bigger (wooo....) and has less trucks and range (wooo.... again.) Seriously, for that huge difference it better have at least something to even out the difference but it's not nearly enough in my opinion. And yes, they are mechanically the exact same. That they have a different name doesn't really change anything. Do you know what does have a different mechanic? In one of the sim cities (forgot which one) you had a recycling center which didn't eliminate the garbage, but instead reduced it. It didn't replace the plants, but made sure they had less to do. THAT is a difference in mechanics. The recycling center here does the same job as the incineration plant, but (mostly) much much better.

As for the info, of course I do want to see it. More specific IS better exactly BECAUSE the values keep fluctuating. Seriously, you can't tell that the values changed because of a policy and how much they changed exactly because everything keeps changing. And why does it matter that the values keep changing for showing us the info? When I look at the screen my income keeps fluctuating. My energy generation and consumption is fluctuating. I just want to see more of a breakdown of it when I specifically want to look up how effective something is. It gets calculated anyway (how can they show it otherwise), so why not show it to me?

And as for the the districts, unless they provide information to what they are comparing it to, neither of us is capable of telling to how effective they are. I can make an entire field study of it of course, but why should I, if they can just as easily tell?

Anyway, I don't think this conversation is going anywhere, because I am now largely repeating myself. I will make the suggestion/feedback posts later today or tomorrow, and then after this it can be ignored. I will have said what I wanted to say.

 

[Fox_NS_CAN]

For starters the recycling center has a lower range, fewer trucks and a bigger blueprint. Do you want to tell me this is better?

Agreed that recycling does have fewer trucks than the incinerator, 15 vs 27, and the recycling center is bigger at 7x4 vs 5x4.

However, the range appears to be the same. Collect Radius = 2000 for both.

The "Garbage Capacity" is also greater for the Incinerator.

 

[Dinges]

Agreed that recycling does have fewer trucks than the incinerator, 15 vs 27, and the recycling center is bigger at 7x4 vs 5x4.

However, the range appears to be the same. Collect Radius = 2000 for both.

The "Garbage Capacity" is also greater for the Incinerator.

Ah, thank you! I never get there so I didn't know you could see this info there. I always checked ingame...

 

[DrAg0]

And as for the the districts, unless they provide information to what they are comparing it to, neither of us is capable of telling to how effective they are. I can make an entire field study of it of course, but why should I, if they can just as easily tell?

Because as I said the base you can and should compare them to are the original, unaltered values.
It does not need to be mentioned because this is common sense.
There would be a need to disclose that kind of information if the base was something abstract, but it isn't.

The policy/district effect is off: Numbers are unaltered.
The policy/district effect is on: Numbers are changed as hinted in the tooltip.