To unlock building-slots: housing vs. POPs

[Kayden_II]

It's also worth to mention, that currently (and even in the past playthroughs of these testers), the worth of the building-slots / buildings are somewhat distorted since a building-slot / building provides up to 10 POP-jobs in the long run through (building)-upgrades, whereas an agri-/energy-/mineral-district only provides the initial 2 POP-jobs forever since (district)-upgrades aren't possible.

I've the opinion, that it's pretty unbalanced, that an agri-/energy-/mineral-district provides 2 POP-jobs, whereas a building-slot / building provides up to 10 POP-jobs since this encourages pretty much the behaviour to build as many city-districts as possible in order to unlock as many building-slots / buildings as possible.

You're not explaining why these two different things ought to be balanced; saying that they put up different numbers is true, but you haven't given me a reason to care that it's true. So I don't.

Like your pic says, change my mind.

01. Long story short: 10 is better than 2 (quantitative superiority) ...
02. The production of these 10 guys and girls is also more advanced / more worth than the one of the 2 (qualitative superiority): Alloys vs. minerals for example ...
03. It's not even necessary to produce the stuff from the 2 guys and girls due to the market ...
04. I guess, that this (no upgrades for agri-/energy-/mineral-districts) is a a major reason in regards to the economy-fluctuations within a game: excess vs. shortage of minerals for example in the early-/ vs. late-game ...

You seem to be operating under the assumption that not having a need for housing is the same thing as not having POPs to work buildings, which isn't really a sound one.

Buildings take far less POPs to work than city districts provide housing for.

I'm rather assuming, that the devs are / were capable to balance such an infrastructure-feature in a proper manner. But if not then this is also why I've taken the "+1 building-slot for +X housing"-approach since housing is pretty much the perfect compromise between the past concept (with infrastructure) and the current one (with POPs). You're able to keep the original idea of the devs, that the city-districts provide the most infrastructure in order to unlock as many building-slots as possible since city-districts also provide the most housing. On the other hand, POPs and housing are already tied together in a pretty close manner, but the thing is, that the usage of POPs is more annoying (in reference to my 01. post ("Problems")) and more abusive (overpopulation (aka it's possible to have more POPs than housing + There seems to be no limit for that or it's at least pretty high), social classes (there's no difference, whether 5 rulers or 5 specialists or 5 workers or even 5 slaves unlock 1 building-slot), etc. pp.).

Agreed with the premise, but I think buildings should be unlocked by cities on your planet. If your planet is a rural world, why does it have just as many universities as an equally populated urban world?

It's more simple, but yeah, it's a reasonable, too.

 

[sortulv]

I liked the infrastructure based system that was originally proposed. If people overbuilt cities - might that not instead mean that cities were too cheap, either to build, maintain or both?