Have CO lost touch with what players want?

[bradleyreali 6]

21 hours ago, Avanya said:

Oh, you'd be surprised how many bad models you find in the top. Mostly they'll look nice (on the screenshots at least), but those huge textures and insanely high tris are often pretty high on the list. Mostly players just aren't aware. With Snowfall we got the error message for huge LODs which then stopped getting displayed. That brought attention to some models (often the main model used as the LOD too).

Another aspect in which the rating system is flawed is every item needs 25 votes to even get a rating - doesn't matter if it's up or down. I'm not sure if the sorting by rating takes votes into account, but if it doesn't then we can have stuff with lots of downvotes appear BEFORE good things that just never got the 25 votes.

(As an example Kollati's clarifiers are still 2nd and 3rd in water and sewage - they're overly complicated, one has a 2k tris LOD while the other has an auto-generated LOD. I've got a pair as well and though they're on the first page now, they'll prob never get as many subs or upvotes. Ofc some might prefer Kollati's for the looks, but I bet most of the subscribers don't know how badly optimized Kollati's are to mine.)

Thanks.  Just unsubbed Kollati's and got yours.  

 

This game is a work in progress and its pretty obvious.  Simcity has a lot of history and talent behind it.  What made their game so bad was the direction they were told to take.  If we had the same people working on CS, then it would be much improved.  

 

The sad truth is that this game will never be popular enough to get the support we would want.  If you took all of the core mods that make the game as good as it is, and figure the time the people took to make it, then work out an hourly pay, you quickly realize how unprofitable the game would become.  I personally appreciate that others are willing to do what Avanya do with content, but to expect a business to do it with limited sales is unlikely.  

[bradleyreali 6]

*Double post.

[.Del 53]

1 hour ago, bradleyreali said:

Thanks.  Just unsubbed Kollati's and got yours.  

You should've unsubbed from it a long time ago, comments showed that it's broken and up till now it's still not updated for AD.

I don't know about you but the first thing I look at mods is whether it has nightlight or not. It's been more than a year since AD came out, come on. Any mods up till now that hasn't been updated for AD instantly gets a down vote.

[bradleyreali 6]

1 hour ago, Dejected Angel said:

You should've unsubbed from it a long time ago, comments showed that it's broken and up till now it's still not updated for AD.

I don't know about you but the first thing I look at mods is whether it has nightlight or not. It's been more than a year since AD came out, come on. Any mods up till now that hasn't been updated for AD instantly gets a down vote.

I had gotten it from subbing to someone else's pack, and just realized it was in there yesterday.  Tried using it and did not care for it.  The timing of his post works perfectly.

 

There is a lot of room for improvement.  They could have added a checkbox for the creators to go back in and click if they had made the modifications for DLC.  That way we can easily see if it has been done. 

[Avanya 2,605]

@bradleyreali I hope they'll serve you well.

@Dejected Angel Not all buildings need to be updated for AD though. Keeping with my clarifiers as an example they wouldn't have needed an update had I made them before AD as the only light on them comes from lamps. But yeah, there are many nice buildings, who never got updates and really needed them. So sad to see seem at night with no light in the windows.

[LivingInThePast 364]

On 10/27/2016 at 2:28 AM, Turjan said:

Well, in all fairness, I used the South American skylines as example for the look C:S went for. The Hong Kong pics were just shown to illustrate that you can have real world examples that even deviate in the other direction. Also, at no point was I arguing against bigger zone sizes. Quite the opposite. Ideally, you would have a more flexible system, which was the first statement I made in the last post.

I don't think that C:S looked to Hong Kong for a "look" they were going for, otherwise they wouldn't have made everything so...European.

What CSL's dev team is missing, I think, is the fact that everyone really wants a "true" SimCity 5, which is a testament to how badly Maxis (well, what was left of Maxis anyway) and EA screwed up. To some extent, CSL is still trapped in the past, with just zoning residential, commercial, and industrial, and then working from there. There's no farms yet (well, I can see DLC, but you know how these things go).

The bigger zone sizes should be more flexible, but for some reason they aren't. Instead somehow CSL made them less flexible and completely worthless by destroying the sense of scale.

[Roadman20 601]

While I think AD was a great DLC, one of the biggest problems with the release of AD in the wake of the vanilla game were all the assets without the nightlights.  The Day and Night feature should have been a thing from the initial game release to prevent the hundreds of unlit assets in the workshop.

[Turjan 1,048]

4 hours ago, LivingInThePast said:

I don't think that C:S looked to Hong Kong for a "look" they were going for...

Did anyone make that claim you argue against?

Quote

... otherwise they wouldn't have made everything so...European.

The style is called "International". If it were European, at least Europeans would be happier with it I guess. The style contains modern architecture from Asia, Africa (I think someone identified a Nairobi bulding, IIRC), Latin America, the US... and yes, also Europe. The high density residentials mostly remind me of South America, as I said.

[LivingInThePast 364]

2 minutes ago, Turjan said:

Did anyone make that claim you argue against?

On 10/27/2016 at 2:28 AM, Turjan said:

Well, in all fairness, I used the South American skylines as example for the look C:S went for. The Hong Kong pics were just shown to illustrate that you can have real world examples that even deviate in the other direction. Also, at no point was I arguing against bigger zone sizes. Quite the opposite. Ideally, you would have a more flexible system, which was the first statement I made in the last post.

As an aside, it's a pity that Bixel didn't get far with bringing his pencil towers from SC4 into this game.

 

 

 

 

[Turjan 1,048]

And where does what you quote or what you bolded say that "C:S looked to Hong Kong for a "look" they were going for"? This was your claim, and it's nowhere to be found.

I admit I find it somewhat funny that you don't see it when you quote it yourself and even put in the effort to bold the sentence that doesn't say what you claimed  .

[LivingInThePast 364]

15 minutes ago, Turjan said:

And where does what you quote or what you bolded say that "C:S looked to Hong Kong for a "look" they were going for"? This was your claim, and it's nowhere to be found.

I admit I find it somewhat funny that you don't see it when you quote it yourself and even put in the effort to bold the sentence that doesn't say what you claimed  .

My point was that was the claim you made in this post. If you want to clarify what you actually mean, then by all means do so, but don't claim you never claimed or implied such a thing.

[Turjan 1,048]

15 hours ago, LivingInThePast said:

My point was that was the claim you made in this post. If you want to clarify what you actually mean, then by all means do so, but don't claim you never claimed or implied such a thing.

This is getting ridiculous now.  The only thing I can think of which makes you say this at this point is that you somehow imagine Hong Kong is in South America. But I guess, even if we roll with the stereotype about Americans and geography for a moment, that sounds like a step too far for me.

 

But to summarize my argument again:

1) I was addressing claims that C:S cities look unrealistic and don't match anything in reality.
2) I argued that the C:S style has a close semblance to South American cities. I posted a screenshot of Sao Paulo to show what I mean.
3) I also said that there are cities on Earth that deviate in the other direction from what C:S shows (even smaller footprints, higher buildings) with two shots from Hong Kong.

I hope it's clear now. At no point did I (or anyone else) say that C:S went for a look like Hong Kong.

[Linoa06 1,374]

On 10/27/2016 at 8:39 AM, Turjan said:

I have no idea how you can get from my post to your conclusion. What am I supposed to "admit" here, which I haven't said myself?

That

No need to get so heated guys :>

[cmdp123789 710]

Fellas, remember to stay on topic. Depending on what part of the world you come from, you might have different perspectives, please respect other people's opinions. Again, the topic was (even though I find it somewhat irrelevant at this point, due to the fact that the main points were already given and most of us agreed that those are the main factors) "CO losing contact with their customers"... please let's stay within the topic's boundaries.

[MatlockMan 370]

I tend to think CS is doing much better than SC2013, but that's my opinion. The game isn't perfect and doesn't have a lot of replayability. Here is a demonstration of my thoughts:

Positives:

+ $30 at launch for base game versus $60 for SC2013

+ Much bigger city tiles than SC2013

+ 3D graphics aren't an improvement over SC2013, but CSL is closer to SC4, and that was 2D, so this is a positive.

+ Electricity and water aren't using the Agents system that SC2013 did, which helps immensely

+ Water simulation is fantastic.

+ First DLC added day and night cycle, which is fairly important for any city simulation game

+ First DLC added specific commercial specialisations.

+ Industry specialisation by district is a fantastic addition to the game.

+ Highways and a fair amount of road network options (6-lane, 4-lane avenues)

+ Easy to create tunnels and bridges

+ Curved roads is a big improvement over SC4

+ Roads can be built under other roads, unlike SC4

+ Aspects like crime, firefighting and education work well overall.

+ Policies implemented on a district or city-wide basis add an extra layer of depth and I think are an undervalued addition to the simulation. They add far more options to gameplay and give Mayor's more freedom to give distinct areas certain features.

+ Base game accomplished by a team of only 9 people originally.

+++++ Modding has added immensely to the game. One can give oneself many more tools to oversee and customise their transport networks. More buildings can be added to the game. Steam is a fantastic venue for such a service, and it adds longevity to the game and will ensure new content is added to CS long after Paradox have moved on.

Negatives:

- Perhaps lacks the 'fun' factor that made SC4 and previous titles so addictive. This is hard to emulate.

- Game can be quite... two dimensional. One play through can often leave me unwilling to return to the game for some time.

- Traffic issues

- Death waves

- I feel Snowfall lacked direction. Not having dynamic seasons was a mistake.

- Natural disasters don't appeal to me.

- City sprawl isn't really satisfying. Buildings at higher densities hit a level and then the skyline of your city becomes quite... boring.

- Lacks a challenge. Once you overcome early finance issues (if you encounter them at all), it is easy to run away with the game. It becomes a painter.

- CO doesn't necessarily seem to want to address the issues which have plagued the game since day 1. DLC is important for their survival, but I would prefer there to be more patching whereby bigger problems with the game's simulation are tackled. This would make it easier to justify the purchasing of further expansions on my part.

- District specialisation has become somewhat ignored by the devs now. This was a great addition to the game at first, but it is disheartening to see that this has not become something CO has developed on. This is a big point of difference between CSL and the Simcities, so I think CO should redouble their efforts on policies and districts as a means of giving the game a greater point of difference.

- Industry becomes irrelevant after your first highschool. After that, you just can't find workers for non-office industry, even in your original existing industrial areas. This is a shame, because I feel having the choice to push your city into becoming an industrial giant or farming breadbasket would be a great move. My idea would be to add another wealth level of industrial, which is less polluting, employs more highly educated workers and still produces plenty of goods to be shipped into commercial zones and outside. Creating high-tech industrial cities in SC4 was rewarding, but it simply doesn't exist in CSL.

- (edit) Tourism needs work.

 

Overall, there is plenty which CS gets right. There are a number of things which haven't been fixed yet, which is disappointing. Have I given up on the game? Not yet. I can't play at the moment anyhow, since I am living temporarily overseas without my desktop PC. I do think the game can be improved in many ways and I think these need to be widereaching.

 

My suggestions for what Paradox/CO should do next: 

> Giving more transport types in a Rush Hour DLC

> Overhauling industry to make it a viable growth path in the mid-game in a comprehensive DLC 

> Fixing the glaring issues with death waves and traffic in a single patch

> Overhaul tourism in a comprehensive DLC.

[LivingInThePast 364]

Having played Cities Skylines and SC4, I still think SC4 is the better game overall, despite how dated it is. CSL's main problem is that largely fixes the problems that plagued SC13 as well as providing a more modern alternative to the aging SC4, but despite some really cool features, such as designating specific turn lanes, is hamstrung with tiny lot sizes, an unnecessary and completely broken "death mechanic", and a motley assortment of intriguing but half-baked ideas that don't work very well. Which again is a huge shame, because I wanted to like CSL.

 

EDIT: If I said this stuff before, I'm sorry, but it still needs to be said again.

[BlasterNT 5]

Wowee I haven't posted here in a long time. So sorry for the rant.

But I just wanted to say as someone who's just gotten into modding the game and is a software/game developer IRL, while there are lots of valid complaints about the vanilla game, nearly all of them are moot when you consider how well CO has laid out the underlying game platform and how moddable it is. As a modder, you have access and control over basically every level of this game's code.

Take the agent simulation for example--as valid as its flaws are, that's what makes it relatively trivial for a mod like Rush Hour to alter cim schedules (which are actually pretty nuanced in the base game--they go to work, go home, go to the doctor if needed, go to school if needed, go shopping and clubbing, and even go and play at parks!) based on time of day (when the initial release didn't even have the concept of time of day!), and to add completely new mechanics like limited city events (which super fun from a traffic engineering perspective, and also why I think people are attracted to disasters--it's all about seeing how well your city can tolerate extremes). It's what allows emergent behavior in even the base game--if you draw a more efficient path to train station platforms for example, cims will go ahead and use that more efficient path.

This also means that things you'd think would be difficult to implement--like a ferry system, or cargo airplanes, or a logistics distribution system, aren't--to make ferrys, you just change ship paths so that they connect to other docks on the map, and the agents will figure out the rest automatically. From a technical perspective, it also means mods are waay more inter operable with each other.

Practically everything about the simulation can be fixed by mods, right now. The Traffic President AI is much more realistic (and can be made even better still), Rush hour gives more nuance to the day to day simulation, realistic population and consumption does what it says, and climate control seasonally adjusts the temperature and gives more realistic weather. That's why I also like the direction CO is going with its expansions--they all add simulation nuance that would be difficult to implement as a mod (usually heavily graphical, or changes the behavior of 3rd party assets)--like a day-night cycle and uniform reactions by buildings, agents, and vehicles, to it, or in natural disasters, the mechanics of forest fires and vehicles reacting to water or hurricanes (yes, they are a part of natural disasters). It'd be great if they could address some of the simulation issues (like traffic) in a more performance friendly way, but it's not actually necessary.

Even the mods CSL has now are pretty limited in scope compared with what's possible. Most mods so far focus on pretty low-hanging fruit, and don't impact gameplay much. But mods like Rainfall, which adds a complete rainwater management system to the game, show what's possible (it's great. cars reroute to avoid flooded roads, and all those suburban ponds and drainage systems actually ~work~. And beyond that, again, you can change basically any part of the game's underlying code, meaning that even difficult things like object limits are ultimately surpassable. The reason you don't see so many mods doing these things right now is because the game is still being actively maintained by CO (oh what a terrible problem to have), and patches tend to break these mods more often (there was an airplane simulator for example, but it didn't get maintained), and because the game itself is only 1.5 years old. Let's not forget how long it took for NAM and CAM to come out, and how fundamentally limited they still are, because of the flaws in the platform--you'll never be able to simulate accurate public transit in SC4 for example, because the game isn't agent-based.

The only major complaint I have about the game's simulation platform itself is the combination of wealth levels and density levels, and the zoning plot limits, and the shitty implementation of agriculture. But even these are ultimately changable.

The point is--things like advanced airport mechanics are completely possible if you're willing to put in the time and effort to implement it (and thanks to CO's design decisions, are laughably easy compared to modding SC4). I'm sorry but demanding this level of detail in the base game when the devs are a 12-person team (and don't forget this is their first time making a city simulator), and complaining when they don't do it, but the door for you to do it is completely open is ridiculous. I get that years of understanding the limitations of SC4 has maybe conditioned people to what is and isn't possible, but this is nowhere close to SC4 in terms of customization. Think Kerbal Space Program or Minecraft, instead. Most of the problems brought up in this thread are ultimately addressable with modding--region play can be done, bigger zones can be done, yes a functional airport and air cargo and logistics system can be done--whatever.

That's also just from the simulation perspective. It's also pretty easy to create custom UIs and better gameplay tools. Things like prop line tool, adding building search to the ui, changing up the ui entirely, precision engineering (snap to angles!) make the game great to play even when heavily modded. There are no puzzle pieces in CSL.

So I think we have CO to thank for making a pretty great and flexible simulation platform, while keeping it open to any level of customization. And it'll probably age well too, since there's multithreading support. I bet you're not going to see as modifiable of a city simulation platform like CSL for a long time.

One final point--it's so much easier to do all this modding too! All you need are the standard unity devtools (mono, or visual studio), and a decompiler, and C# is a pretty friendly language (non-stupid java), and in general the game's code is pretty sane and object oriented. Plus, the game can reload mods and assets while ingame! No more tweaking an exemplar and relaunching the game ridiculousness.

Sorry for the rant!

[MatlockMan 370]

13 hours ago, BlasterNT said:

while there are lots of valid complaints about the vanilla game, nearly all of them are moot when you consider how well CO has laid out the underlying game platform and how moddable it is.

Exactly. Even SC4 doesn't come close to the flexibility of CSL, and I, for one, cannot wait to see how this game continues to evolve beyond the paid expansions and DLC. Even if there isn't a CSL2, I can expect this game to continue being relevant long into the future thanks to modding.

[mrsmartman 200]

CSL needs to resolve its performance issues and enable players building a decent city under a minimal mod environment. When I say minimal, I mean minimal.

[mikamaty 47]

I think the game needs seasons (maybe an update for snowfall) and something like a new Rush Hour dlc (as mentioned before) which gives more road types (especially with tram tracks), more transport types like (monorail and trolley bus), traffic lights on train tracks and a revised AI because the AI of now is horrible.

[LivingInThePast 364]

On 11/3/2016 at 4:48 PM, BlasterNT said:

Wowee I haven't posted here in a long time. So sorry for the rant.

But I just wanted to say as someone who's just gotten into modding the game and is a software/game developer IRL, while there are lots of valid complaints about the vanilla game, nearly all of them are moot when you consider how well CO has laid out the underlying game platform and how moddable it is. As a modder, you have access and control over basically every level of this game's code.

Take the agent simulation for example--as valid as its flaws are, that's what makes it relatively trivial for a mod like Rush Hour to alter cim schedules (which are actually pretty nuanced in the base game--they go to work, go home, go to the doctor if needed, go to school if needed, go shopping and clubbing, and even go and play at parks!) based on time of day (when the initial release didn't even have the concept of time of day!), and to add completely new mechanics like limited city events (which super fun from a traffic engineering perspective, and also why I think people are attracted to disasters--it's all about seeing how well your city can tolerate extremes). It's what allows emergent behavior in even the base game--if you draw a more efficient path to train station platforms for example, cims will go ahead and use that more efficient path.

This also means that things you'd think would be difficult to implement--like a ferry system, or cargo airplanes, or a logistics distribution system, aren't--to make ferrys, you just change ship paths so that they connect to other docks on the map, and the agents will figure out the rest automatically. From a technical perspective, it also means mods are waay more inter operable with each other.

Practically everything about the simulation can be fixed by mods, right now. The Traffic President AI is much more realistic (and can be made even better still), Rush hour gives more nuance to the day to day simulation, realistic population and consumption does what it says, and climate control seasonally adjusts the temperature and gives more realistic weather. That's why I also like the direction CO is going with its expansions--they all add simulation nuance that would be difficult to implement as a mod (usually heavily graphical, or changes the behavior of 3rd party assets)--like a day-night cycle and uniform reactions by buildings, agents, and vehicles, to it, or in natural disasters, the mechanics of forest fires and vehicles reacting to water or hurricanes (yes, they are a part of natural disasters). It'd be great if they could address some of the simulation issues (like traffic) in a more performance friendly way, but it's not actually necessary.

Even the mods CSL has now are pretty limited in scope compared with what's possible. Most mods so far focus on pretty low-hanging fruit, and don't impact gameplay much. But mods like Rainfall, which adds a complete rainwater management system to the game, show what's possible (it's great. cars reroute to avoid flooded roads, and all those suburban ponds and drainage systems actually ~work~. And beyond that, again, you can change basically any part of the game's underlying code, meaning that even difficult things like object limits are ultimately surpassable. The reason you don't see so many mods doing these things right now is because the game is still being actively maintained by CO (oh what a terrible problem to have), and patches tend to break these mods more often (there was an airplane simulator for example, but it didn't get maintained), and because the game itself is only 1.5 years old. Let's not forget how long it took for NAM and CAM to come out, and how fundamentally limited they still are, because of the flaws in the platform--you'll never be able to simulate accurate public transit in SC4 for example, because the game isn't agent-based.

The only major complaint I have about the game's simulation platform itself is the combination of wealth levels and density levels, and the zoning plot limits, and the shitty implementation of agriculture. But even these are ultimately changable.

The point is--things like advanced airport mechanics are completely possible if you're willing to put in the time and effort to implement it (and thanks to CO's design decisions, are laughably easy compared to modding SC4). I'm sorry but demanding this level of detail in the base game when the devs are a 12-person team (and don't forget this is their first time making a city simulator), and complaining when they don't do it, but the door for you to do it is completely open is ridiculous. I get that years of understanding the limitations of SC4 has maybe conditioned people to what is and isn't possible, but this is nowhere close to SC4 in terms of customization. Think Kerbal Space Program or Minecraft, instead. Most of the problems brought up in this thread are ultimately addressable with modding--region play can be done, bigger zones can be done, yes a functional airport and air cargo and logistics system can be done--whatever.

That's also just from the simulation perspective. It's also pretty easy to create custom UIs and better gameplay tools. Things like prop line tool, adding building search to the ui, changing up the ui entirely, precision engineering (snap to angles!) make the game great to play even when heavily modded. There are no puzzle pieces in CSL.

So I think we have CO to thank for making a pretty great and flexible simulation platform, while keeping it open to any level of customization. And it'll probably age well too, since there's multithreading support. I bet you're not going to see as modifiable of a city simulation platform like CSL for a long time.

One final point--it's so much easier to do all this modding too! All you need are the standard unity devtools (mono, or visual studio), and a decompiler, and C# is a pretty friendly language (non-stupid java), and in general the game's code is pretty sane and object oriented. Plus, the game can reload mods and assets while ingame! No more tweaking an exemplar and relaunching the game ridiculousness.

Sorry for the rant!

I believe the first version of NAM came out in 2005, nearly two years after the game was released and about two years after the last expansion was released. The problem with CSL is like SC4, a lot of the core "annoyances" don't look like they can be fixed. I'm not sure if anyone would be able to fix the death mechanic...I'm not saying it's a bad one, but cemeteries are typically peaceful places, if there was a morgue object (combined with police?) then that would be better, and "failing for an ambulance to reach it in time" is stupid as well. Personally, I'd rather see it for preventable problems, like a particularly dangerous highway.

There are two problems I think:

For SC4, the game itself was fun. It may seem hard to believe but even for Rush Hour, the game had a solid core and was enjoyable, even though it was flawed and buggy. Now I know most of you can't go back to it with NAM and all that, but SC4's longevity came from that it was a good game in the first place.

On the contrary, CSL doesn't have nearly a good core and the game is not as fun as SimCity 4. Does it have more features? Yes it does! There are a number of features that I do like about CSL. But expecting a mediocre game to hold up after a decade isn't realistic, and I don't want to wait 5-10 years for someone to finally create some sort of workaround that separates wealth and density (for example), nor do I expect to. If CO/Paradox can't address those basic issues now, then they're not going to have a game that lasts in the long run, no matter how easy the modding structure is. Tell me of a game, any game, with a weak core and held up entirely by mods.

 

[Roadman20 601]

On 11/7/2016 at 3:52 PM, LivingInThePast said:

I believe the first version of NAM came out in 2005, nearly two years after the game was released and about two years after the last expansion was released. The problem with CSL is like SC4, a lot of the core "annoyances" don't look like they can be fixed. I'm not sure if anyone would be able to fix the death mechanic...I'm not saying it's a bad one, but cemeteries are typically peaceful places, if there was a morgue object (combined with police?) then that would be better, and "failing for an ambulance to reach it in time" is stupid as well. Personally, I'd rather see it for preventable problems, like a particularly dangerous highway.

There are two problems I think:

For SC4, the game itself was fun. It may seem hard to believe but even for Rush Hour, the game had a solid core and was enjoyable, even though it was flawed and buggy. Now I know most of you can't go back to it with NAM and all that, but SC4's longevity came from that it was a good game in the first place.

On the contrary, CSL doesn't have nearly a good core and the game is not as fun as SimCity 4. Does it have more features? Yes it does! There are a number of features that I do like about CSL. But expecting a mediocre game to hold up after a decade isn't realistic, and I don't want to wait 5-10 years for someone to finally create some sort of workaround that separates wealth and density (for example), nor do I expect to. If CO/Paradox can't address those basic issues now, then they're not going to have a game that lasts in the long run, no matter how easy the modding structure is. Tell me of a game, any game, with a weak core and held up entirely by mods.

 

What you fail to realize that C:SL modders are not going to develop the necessary simulation changing mods that people are looking for as long as there is active support from CO as they continue to publish mod-breaking DLCs.  It is due to the active developer updates that modders won't go deeper into the game's code to make the necessary changes and constant updates required of it as the game continues to change.  The customization for C:SL has more potential than SC4, but we can't get there as long as the game receives active support.  Support for SC4 after Rush Hour from Maxis was minimal, which allowed the quick development of NAM and other mods.  We could hope that CO addresses those simulation issues, but unfortunately, we're stuck waiting until the official support life cycle goes away.

[boformer 3,169]

On 11/07/2016 at 3:52 PM, LivingInThePast said:

I believe the first version of NAM came out in 2005, nearly two years after the game was released and about two years after the last expansion was released. The problem with CSL is like SC4, a lot of the core "annoyances" don't look like they can be fixed. I'm not sure if anyone would be able to fix the death mechanic...I'm not saying it's a bad one, but cemeteries are typically peaceful places, if there was a morgue object (combined with police?) then that would be better, and "failing for an ambulance to reach it in time" is stupid as well. Personally, I'd rather see it for preventable problems, like a particularly dangerous highway.

Everything AI-related can be fixed or completely replaced, also the death mechanic.

[LivingInThePast 364]

On 11/8/2016 at 4:26 PM, Roadman20 said:

What you fail to realize that C:SL modders are not going to develop the necessary simulation changing mods that people are looking for as long as there is active support from CO as they continue to publish mod-breaking DLCs.  It is due to the active developer updates that modders won't go deeper into the game's code to make the necessary changes and constant updates required of it as the game continues to change.  The customization for C:SL has more potential than SC4, but we can't get there as long as the game receives active support.  Support for SC4 after Rush Hour from Maxis was minimal, which allowed the quick development of NAM and other mods.  We could hope that CO addresses those simulation issues, but unfortunately, we're stuck waiting until the official support life cycle goes away.

I'm not convinced that no one is staying off fixing major issues for fear that CO will break it. Otherwise, we wouldn't have Network Extensions, Traffic President, RICO, the driving mod, or others to begin with. A "wait and hope" attitude for CSL is unrealistic and major fixes need to be done now (by patches or mods) or never.

NAM began development in a time when a second EP was expected or at the very least plausible, and had a second EP been released, interest would've been high enough to patch it. If a mod isn't patched after a new EP it means that support for the game is dying, and that's a bad sign. You're also failing to mention that between late 2005 and for most of 2006, NAM went dormant. NAM only reached the point it is today was because SC4 had a solid core and was worth saving, not because there was no official support for it.

Quote

If CO/Paradox can't address [core issues] now, then they're not going to have a game that lasts in the long run, no matter how easy the modding structure is. Tell me of a game, any game, with a weak core and held up entirely by mods.

 

EDIT: Also if your theory is true, then where are the cool SC13 mods?

[Roadman20 601]

15 hours ago, LivingInThePast said:

I'm not convinced that no one is staying off fixing major issues for fear that CO will break it. Otherwise, we wouldn't have Network Extensions, Traffic President, RICO, the driving mod, or others to begin with. A "wait and hope" attitude for CSL is unrealistic and major fixes need to be done now (by patches or mods) or never.

NAM began development in a time when a second EP was expected or at the very least plausible, and had a second EP been released, interest would've been high enough to patch it. If a mod isn't patched after a new EP it means that support for the game is dying, and that's a bad sign. You're also failing to mention that between late 2005 and for most of 2006, NAM went dormant. NAM only reached the point it is today was because SC4 had a solid core and was worth saving, not because there was no official support for it.

 

EDIT: Also if your theory is true, then where are the cool SC13 mods?

There are only a handful of active modders (you can count them on hands, that's how few there are) maintaining Network Extensions, Traffic President, RICO, and a couple others.  Some of those mods are maintained by one modder.  BloodyPenguin has absorbed a lot of mods that others made but abandoned later when they didn't have the time to update them as CO updated the game.

Yes, a lot of potential modders have sat back and waited on CO to see where they are updating the game.  Most of the mods you have mentioned are traffic simulation based, but it was the obvious first area to mod.  But you can see the work required to keep it maintained under all the updates.

Look at the Metro Overhaul Mod, that mod is technically ready, but it is waiting for Natural Disasters to come out to publish it.  MOM is probably the most intensive mod to be made for C:SL and it is on a hold pattern for official release to test compatibility with the ND DLC.

[LivingInThePast 364]

10 hours ago, Roadman20 said:

There are only a handful of active modders (you can count them on hands, that's how few there are) maintaining Network Extensions, Traffic President, RICO, and a couple others.  Some of those mods are maintained by one modder.  BloodyPenguin has absorbed a lot of mods that others made but abandoned later when they didn't have the time to update them as CO updated the game.

Yes, a lot of potential modders have sat back and waited on CO to see where they are updating the game.  Most of the mods you have mentioned are traffic simulation based, but it was the obvious first area to mod.  But you can see the work required to keep it maintained under all the updates.

Look at the Metro Overhaul Mod, that mod is technically ready, but it is waiting for Natural Disasters to come out to publish it.  MOM is probably the most intensive mod to be made for C:SL and it is on a hold pattern for official release to test compatibility with the ND DLC.

You proved my point, you're already telling me that not only is the pool of modders for CSL very small, but shrinking as well. That is not a good sign either way. Now, it's speculation in that I think CSL will be the "glows bright and ends soon" type of game, but there aren't any potential modders sidelined because fear that CSL will break it, and if expansion packs keep breaking mods, then that will actually end up undermining things in the end (actually, question to those who know, how many Sims 1 or 2 mods were broken for their myriad of expansion packs?)

Any modder interested in actually making mods for CSL is not going to sit there, and no one sat back and said "Hey, what if Maxis makes another expansion pack and breaks all our mods?" They showed off their WIP mods, including Under Bridge Scenery, some early attempts at dual-network tiles (like a train running under a bridge), a number of mockups. They got to work trying to fix bugs, such as the broken transit simulator (I think the SC4D wiki mentions that the NAM began as an assortment of fixes) or the Opera House Bug. If we're seeing mods already get outmoded without a steady stream of new folks ready to pick it up or create newer, bigger mods (besides MOM), then we cannot expect much future changes for good that address core problems. Period.

 

EDIT: One more thing for the sake of example...when SimCity 4 had its first expansion pack, Rush Hour, The Sims (1) was releasing its 7th, Makin' Magic. "Sweet," 2003 me thought, "If SimCity 4 goes as well as The Sims we'll have expansion packs running into 2006," but things didn't work out that way, yet SC4 chugged on where The Sims faltered. If anything, you're more likely to see a CSL2 than see CSL1 go anywhere if it doesn't go somewhere now.

[boformer 3,169]

5 hours ago, LivingInThePast said:

You proved my point, you're already telling me that not only is the pool of modders for CSL very small, but shrinking as well. That is not a good sign either way. Now, it's speculation in that I think CSL will be the "glows bright and ends soon" type of game, but there aren't any potential modders sidelined because fear that CSL will break it, and if expansion packs keep breaking mods, then that will actually end up undermining things in the end (actually, question to those who know, how many Sims 1 or 2 mods were broken for their myriad of expansion packs?)

Any modder interested in actually making mods for CSL is not going to sit there, and no one sat back and said "Hey, what if Maxis makes another expansion pack and breaks all our mods?" They showed off their WIP mods, including Under Bridge Scenery, some early attempts at dual-network tiles (like a train running under a bridge), a number of mockups. They got to work trying to fix bugs, such as the broken transit simulator (I think the SC4D wiki mentions that the NAM began as an assortment of fixes) or the Opera House Bug. If we're seeing mods already get outmoded without a steady stream of new folks ready to pick it up or create newer, bigger mods (besides MOM), then we cannot expect much future changes for good that address core problems. Period.

The pool of modders is small, but it is not shrinking. The availability of mod source code, excellent modding tools like ModTools, and usage of the Unity Engine (and C# in general) makes it very easy to make C:SL mods. The resources are only getting better. I don't think that mod developers and asset creators will drop the game soon.

[+Guest]

Quote

 

 

 

[.Del 53]

21 hours ago, Cork said:

So true. CO doesn't even know how to make a decent public transportation game either. Their game "cities in motion" wasn't good enough, and wasn't worth the $20 for the base game and some of the DLC I bought. I haven't played that game ever since buying it and that is saying something. 

My disappointment with those games lead my decision to never buy another game from Colossal Order. I mean I might consider getting City Skylines if it goes for $5 but then again, I kinda don't want to play another dull, lifeless, and boring game.

If it weren't for the rules, I would've flamed you so hard that even the blackest of void looked like a quasar in comparison.

[mrsmartman 200]

The over-reliance of Paradox-CO on the modding community on what's really important for the gameplay of city builder has become apparent. They instead focus on useless weather stuff (from the perspective of a typical mayor).