Are rivers/lakes/hills worth it?

[Oddgamer 0]

I'm planning to start a new region and teraform the heck out of it. I know rivers are pretty, so are hills/plateaus. My question is: do the sims living there care enough? Whenever you have a hill or river or similar land feature, you inevitably lose building space. But water allows for beaches, waterfront property, shipping, and so on, while heights provide nice views. If the point of my current city is to build one with the highest sim happiness, lowest pollution, and highest income (eschewing aesthetics for improved functionality), is my best bet to simply have a completely flat terrain without a drop of water anywhere on the map and not so much as the smallest rise to be found? This would mean improving land value through things like parks instead of the view.

[rsc204 21,866]

As far as I know there is a desirability increase for properties near the game water which will help to encourage R$$$ to develop, but you are right in saying that the same effect can be created with parks and other lots. Basically this is how a lot of the steam/pond lots work too, by making the areas around them have a little air cleaning or park effect they make the areas around them more desirable.

 

In terms of which way to go when making a region, well that really depends on what you are trying to do, but if you are going more for realism then water usually features in the mix somewhere. Good use of coasts, rivers, ponds and streams will really make a given city/town/countryside look much nicer if you ask me though.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Rather than hand terraform the whole region, try which will do the whole region in one fell swoop.

 

Features:

1. Generate a region randomly if desired.
2. Read in a grey-scale (reversed) region and display it in false colour to check progress without tedious rendering.
3. Write out the grey-scale for you to work on with your editor
4. When you are happy with your map, can create the necessary config.bmp layout file

 

The documentation is in the help files, and is quite extensive.

[mayorgreener 37]

aesthetics has no effect on sim happiness.

 

sim happines is controlled by traffic, eq, hq, law, job, clean air/water etc.

[rsc204 21,866]

But that's rather the point of assigning values for air cleaning/park and landmark effects to things like trees, parks, ponds, rivers etc (even ploppable MMP water can have these positive effects). I believe there is some system in the game for improving desirability around game water too. Therefore those items which have been designed to do so will affect Sim Happiness, most lots have some small effect which when you plop a lot of items together can make a big difference.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Removing water pollution is a matter of having enough water purification plants (default).  They work pretty well.

 

As far as assigning values, I assume you mean when creating lots or manipulating them with the reader.  Many users are not that computer aware.

[rsc204 21,866]

Quite, but my point was trying to infer that creators already do these things, so as long as you download items made in this manner, you will find they do work to make areas nicer. Some work too well, the last thing you need is killing off all R$ development, by making everything too nice.

[NCGAIO 562]

There is no difference between Lots placed near or away from the water in the game.

The propable water brushes for MMP also does not add properties

The difference between choosing a plan map or landscape and purely aesthetic, unless you're worried about the weather conditions for the trees development or to isolated the pollution behind the elevations

Or have the pleasure to look at a more realistic map, like this, for example,

 

 

See more -

Available here -

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I think you'll find that R$ can and do live anywhere.  It is a matter of careful zoning.

[Turjan 1,048]

aesthetics has no effect on sim happiness.

 

Aesthetics have a big effect on this sim player's happiness .

[NCGAIO 562]

 

aesthetics has no effect on sim happiness.

 

Aesthetics have a big effect on this sim player's happiness .

 

Sorry friend ... but it does not.

 

Only a small boost of convenience by Value of terrain  that is the only factor affected with  proximity of water or the terrain height.

 

That would be more related to getting the right kind of development in the zoning but is almost irrelevant in the face of other convenience factors and on the way it operates:

 

For the Low wealth: The low value of the land brings a small positive effect, but the value of the high ground produces no effect 

 

For Average wealth: Low or high value of the land produce no effect, while the average value takes a small positive momentum 

 

To High wealth: High value of the land brings a small positive effect, but the low value of land produces no effect 

[Turjan 1,048]

 

 

aesthetics has no effect on sim happiness.

 

Aesthetics have a big effect on this sim player's happiness .

Sorry friend ... but is not.

I should know better . No complaints regarding the rest of what you said, but I guess my statement flew right over your head.

[rsc204 21,866]

On 13/02/2015 at 4:54 PM, NCGAIO said:

There is no difference between Lots placed near or away from the water in the game.

I was of the understanding that within a certain radius of game water there was a small boost in desirability, wouldn't higher value land (however subtle) constitute a difference?

Quote

The propable water brushes for MMP also does not add properties

I bet they do, even without checking, practically every MMP out there is made with copied flora exemplars most of which has positive effects in relation to pollution. Because even though you see water, the game sees every individual MMP plop as flora, so each plop of water is like plopping a tree for affecting the surrounding area in terms of it's effects. MMP's wouldn't work any other way, since they have to be flora. Even if no current water MMP's are currently working this way, it would seem like a sensible way of giving a positive effect to the surrounding areas. By the same rationale you could also make an area less desirable if you wanted to. I would add here, I did use the qualifier "those lots that are designed to do so" in my first post. I'm not implying everything works this way, although I can give you plenty of examples.

Of course I'm specifically talking here about the way many mods/lots are modded to "fool" the game into making an area more desirable for sims.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

There appears to be some open water here.  Sim happiness is one thing, but player happiness is another.  Sims have no real aesthetic sense, but players most certainly do.

[NCGAIO 562]

On 13/02/2015 at 4:54 PM, NCGAIO said:

There is no difference between Lots placed near or away from the water in the game.

On 13/02/2015 at 11:46 PM, rsc204 said:

I was of the understanding that within a certain radius of game water there was a small boost in desirability, wouldn't higher value land (however subtle) constitute a difference?

Nope.

Unlike SC3000 where the land value had a significant impact on SC4 its effects are negligible in comparison with other factors such as education, health, pollution, crime etc ...

 

exactly as described in this post.

 

The OP discussion is whether the landscape has a significant impact on the development (treated as happiness of the Sims) and considering the aforementioned exceptions it is irrelevant, so for those who disagree only show a situation contrary

 

Taking advantage of the post just one more a comment.

 

Post messages in this or any other forum on SimCity has for me a single purpose which is to help inform and to those in need.

 

But unfortunately it is not what some think and that has always something to criticize even when base their claims on "I read that" or in the "I think" etc ..

 

Dear contesters ... this knowledge about the game does not come from reading or of suppositions or experiments and I'm less and less willing to be debating uselessly.

 

 

So from now on  forgive me the fact of only ignore comments to my posts that do not have technical knowledge base or objections that may be relevant.

 

NC.

[rsc204 21,866]

I'm not trying to have a debate (in the context of your comments), but you state it does have an effect, but because it's negligible there is no effect, that's nonsensical, at best nit-picking?

As for the suggestion I don't have any understanding of this, can I ask where all your mods are? Mine are on the STEX for all to see, I think for someone who's quite new to this, I do have a good grounding of how things work. I don't know everything of course, which is the purpose of debate. Much conjecture appears in these forums, sometimes it's very hard for the average person to know which parts are actually true or not.

[Turjan 1,048]

Dear contesters ... this knowledge about the game does not come from reading or of suppositions or experiments and I'm less and less willing to be debating uselessly.

 

Given this broad statement, I'd like to point out that some of this seems to be a misunderstanding due to your language barrier. Who are these "contesters"? The Moose or me didn't contest anything you said. I have the feeling you did not understand what has been said.

[NCGAIO 562]

Dear contesters ... this knowledge about the game does not come from reading or of suppositions or experiments and I'm less and less willing to be debating uselessly.

 

... or me didn't contest anything you said.

So this is no longer a broad statement.. agree?

[Turjan 1,048]

So this is no longer a broad statement.. agree?

 

Well, not sure what you mean.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I'm not trying to have a debate (in the context of your comments), but you state it does have an effect, but because it's negligible there is no effect, that's nonsensical, at best nit-picking? As for the suggestion I don't have the understanding of this, can I ask where all your mods are? Mine are here for all to see, I think for someone who's quite new to this I do have a good grounding of how things work. I don't know everything of course, which is the purpose of debate. Much conjecture appears in these forums, sometimes it's very hard for the average person to know which parts are actually true or not.

That link, from my account, opens my personal content on the STEX.  Perhaps you need to get this link right.

[rsc204 21,866]

I guess it's the same for everyone then, so the results looked fine here when I tested the link, I've edited it for the time being, I wasn't trying to use that argument as advertising, merely that to suggest I have no knowledge of these things is factually inaccurate.

[NCGAIO 562]

So this is no longer a broad statement.. agree?

 

Well, your English is hard to understand, so no idea. But one correction to what I said: I contested one answer you gave me, which was due to your misunderstanding of what I said. You can't deny what my subjective idea of aesthetics is.

My apologies if your intention was to say that the landscapes make of You a player SIM very happy. (

But if you will write to a forum that has readers of the most varied languages would be good to note that summarize ideas or use regional forms of expression go make reading for those who do not have English as their native language an little more difficult to understand. (As you should know the great most make use of automatic translation)

So the use of automatic translation ensures at least in part that everything will have the same meaning and is easier to understand not to mention the fact that is a bit discriminatory such thing as "your English is not very good", do not you think ?.

That could have avoided the misunderstanding.

"Aesthetics have a big effect on the happiness of this player sims"

But that's a personal choice, of course.

 

......can I ask where all your mods are? Mine are on the STEX for all to see,

My nickname is the same in all SC4 forums if you want to know more go read the posts.

Who knows may have more interesting ideas besides changing textures..

[Turjan 1,048]

My apologies if your intention was to say that the landscapes make You a player SIM very happy. (

But if you will write to a forum that has readers of the most varied languages would be good to note that summarize ideas or use regional forms of expression go make reading for those who do not have English as their native language an little more difficult to understand. (As you should know the great most make use of automatic translation).

 

I did not use "regional forms of expression". I used a standard English possessive form. On the other hand, your statement "... if your intention was to say that the landscapes make You a player SIM very happy" is a prime example of where automatic translation makes communication difficult. I can use some goodwill, rearrange two words and assume you meant what I said, but I cannot know for sure, because it doesn't make sense as written.

[TPB 563]

Oooo drama! *Grabs popcorn*

 

No but seriously, you guys, stop that

 

I can't find anything related to this topic in the past several posts. 

 

Take your personal differences off the forums and into personal messages would be my suggestion, while keeping replies as succinct and useful as possible, for the benefit of people who may have this very same question to ask.

Navigating through dozens of posts of ego-driven nasties to find information is not very pleasing I assure you.

 

And NCGAIO, you as a Moderator, should know better. Forgive me for saying this but, are you getting angry because someone dared question what you wrote? I recommend calm and patience...

 

Now where were we?

 

Some people have read somewhere (or extensively tested?) that aesthetics(specifically body-of-water proximity in this case) has no influence on SIM happiness or the game in general, others swear it does. No one knows for sure (Or do we? Point is: it doesn't really matter that much either way)

 

Building nice, aesthetically pleasing cities will make the PLAYER happy in most cases, at least I know that's the case for me.

 

Building realistic cities in realistic locations, such as coastlines, which after all is where most of humanity has built their cities, is bound to grant a degree of satisfaction to the player and increase their enjoyment of the game.

 

Therefore I would say: Yes, rivers, coasts, lakes, hills, are worth it.

 

If you just want to build huge monster metropolises to rake in huge numbers and care nothing for realism and aesthetics then the effect of water/trees/hills/beauty is, if existent, allegedly so small to be negligible. Go ahead and make as ugly and as huge a city as you like : )

 

For the rest of us I think it's second nature to try and make eye-pleasing landscapes, skylines and views, as you can verify by visiting many a wonderful and inspiring "Show us your..." thread.

 

No offence but this was getting so funny I felt the need to write this  

 

Consider this my little contribution to the play, lol.

Feel free to yell at me all you want too : )

 

And to the moderators: If I am stepping over by saying all this, by all means let me know.

 

Take it easy, T.

[Turjan 1,048]

No offence but this was getting so funny I felt the need to write this  

 

Sorry for that distraction.

[47ply 1,100]

I say yes

[Turjan 1,048]

Nice example for plopped decorations. The ingame water and hills have the additional effect of giving the tile structure. It's more difficult to build, but you have some natural city "districts" this way. This is just a test tile I used a couple of days ago to test some plugins in Maxisland, and I usually start going a bit overboard later on.

 

 

Coming up with a basic structure like that is much more difficult on a flat tile.

[NCGAIO 562]

Some people have read somewhere (or extensively tested?) that aesthetics(specifically body-of-water proximity in this case) has no influence on SIM happiness or the game in general, others swear it does. No one knows for sure (Or do we? Point is: it doesn't really matter that much either way)

Well here we go again .. some say; others did tests; I read somewhere etc..

No one knows for sure ? maybe those who understand the mechanics of the game knows for sure.

Then again.. The question was if makes any difference significative to "sims Happiness" dwell flat terrain or dwell one with proximity to water and elevations or depressions.

The answer is no.. and Turning that into a CJ also does not help in this doubt.

About your other comments TPB, sent a PM

 

[TPB 563]

Ok I hate to do this but today is just not my day, wrong wrong day. 

First of all let me just say I think this thread has outlived its usefulness and should be locked, since no further questions can improve on what has been answered.

However I feel the need to reply...

So here goes...

Quote

maybe those who understand the mechanics of the game knows for sure.

Thats why there is a "(Or do we?)" in brackets, a way to excuse myself out of having to defend an indefensible position later, since I don't really know that as a fact.

But you missed the point, which was to show that the point is there is no point. In other words, do as you like, what floats your boat, water, no water, doesn't matter much.

Now, allow me to regress a bit... from your previous post in reply to rsc204:

Quote

Who knows may have more interesting ideas besides changing textures.. 

Now this I have problems with. Don't know how I missed it before.

Diminishing other's peoples work because of a perceived sense of self entitlement, no matter where this stems from, is pretty lame. Even if you were Neil Armstrong I'd expect you to be polite to others, no matter how their achievements compared to yours in your eyes.

Way to encourage people to contribute work to the exchange. 

With all due respect, you need to work on public relations... 

Quote

The answer is no.. and Turning that into a CJ also does not help in this doubt.

What's that little comment at the end of that meant to be? Humour? Sounds to me like you're having a go at those who helpfully provided screenshots to prove their point? bashing people for adding pictures to the thread to prove their point.... on a website that is in great part dedicated to just that?. Irony? I grant that the original question was about Sim happiness, but I provided context with my reply for them to post images about how nice it was to make realistic cities.

It seems to me we have a case of moderators needing moderation. Oh ho ho the pun.

I know this isn't a democracy but it is a website that I imagine has an interest in keeping and increasing it's user base, as such, I really suggest you change the tone of your messages, or get a better translator.

Finally, allow me to prove you wrong:

The answer is YES. If your city is so ugly that you wont play it any more, then your sims are doomed to eternal limbo. How happy will they be then? From this we can deduce that aesthetics is important for Sim happiness. Yay logic! lol.

ps. Let me just clarify I will not be censored nor will I edit my posts at the request of anyone whatsoever. And neither will I stop speaking my mind, you'll have to ban me for that

Alright, end of rant. Have a nice day everyone.

[Prophet42 1,503]

Prima's Official SimCity4 Deluxe Strategy Guide states:

 

Land value encompasses the natural enhancers of land value: proximity to water and placement on higher than average elevation.---  Water: Any amount of water imparts a land value boost (up to +50) that diminishes with distance (10 tiles), ---Elevation: To receive heightened land value, a tract must be on ground higher than the average elevation of all zoned land.

 

Land value has a small desirability effect for all developer types, but not necessarily high land value.

 

Low wealth: Low land value has a positive effect, high land value has 0 effect.

Medium wealth: Low and high land value have 0 effect, while medium value has a positive boost.

High wealth: High land value has a positive effect, low land value has 0 effect.

 

End of discussion.  Topic locked.