Economics

[Markalian]

This thread is meant to keep the discussion about the economy in Synekism off of the main thread. I'll try to keep the OP updated.

Let's start with a problem very dear to my heart: very tall buildings. These are essentially gone in

0.5.4.4 due to the new economy system, and a quite unbalanced one at that. Keep in mind that

the economy is not bad, but doesn't suit Synekism like it should, at least right now. The disappea-

rance of tall buildings can be boiled down to land value. When I build a set of government buildings

in an area, they won't get very high, because nobody lives there, which represents the land value.

And if I build a small set of lots in a developed area with normal high density buildings and high 

demand for whatever I'm building, I should get a very tall building, right? That just makes demogra-

phical sense. But I won't get a very tall building, because the new building is influenced by the land

value of the buildings around it, which, as some people would say, is just bullocks.

This argument just goes into fractals from here. (Smaller and smaller arguments, if you don't know.)

If demand is high, but there's nowhere to build, shouldn't existing buildings get taller? That's in the

game, though not really at all realistically possible. If demand is high in a developed area and I bull-

doze one building, usually a taller building replaces it, but not always. Should I really pay to make

my city look better? That argument descends into if government buildings develop randomly, how

do I control my city? If building height is determined at random for an area, why am I playing this?

Even Synekism's unnamed rivals let you have control over which areas of a city are nice or not.

So it's broken. 

It doesn't help. Good idea, bad consequences and so on.

I'm not mad, just a tad frustrated.

So have at it.

[Markalian]

There's also a rather large chance that I am completely wrong in every way that makes sense. So do correct me, I never get mad about it.

[Synekism]

So, maximum building heights are not actually defined by the economy.
Maximum heights are only related to the size (area) of the lot. In
other words, the larger the lot size the higher the building can get.
Obviously, I'm not saying this relation is fully balanced and
realistic but it is separate from the economy. As for control, I will
implement the ability to define lot sizes when zoning and, later on,
dynamically merging lots. This way, you'll be able to define where the
tall buildings should be by lot sizes (as well as lot types).

Before we move on, I should be clear that almost the entire system in
Synekism right now relies on population density and demand. Land value
is only a yes/no type thing when it comes to high density lots which
won't develop unless in a "yes" land value area. All gov. lots make
the area around them into "yes" land value. The higher the density of
the gov lot the larger the affected area. You can use the data maps to
see this.

Regarding building height in general, it is not entirely random. The
calculation just takes the overall demand, combines it with the local
population density (times a modifier), and sums up the number of
people that want to live in the current lot. Government buildings just
add artificial local population density. From that, combined with the
lot area, we calculate the number of floors the building should have
to house all those people. Finally, we cap the height based on the lot
type and lot area. This calculation is done all the time for both
empty and developed lots. For developed lots, if the newly calculated
building height is larger than the old building height plus a modifier
(modifier so the buildings don't keep growing little by little) then
the building will "grow". The reason you get higher buildings when
deleting buildings is that you bypass the modifier used when deciding
whether to grow the building.

Finally, if I understood correctly, you wanted the building heights to
not take local density into account. In other words, have super-tall
buildings in the middle of nowhere? Having building height tied into
the surrounding population density ensures some level of sanity and
realism by forcing the player to start small and work up.
Nevertheless, you can still building skyscraper-only cities quite
easily because the government lots will add enough local density to
jumpstart all surrounding high density lots.

All this said, I consistently get buildings above 200 meters -
definitely not super-tall but, by most standards, still pretty tall.

It's definitely not perfect. Lot's of work left here. But I'm not
convinced yet the system is outright broken.

[a7marc...@gmail.com]

Ah, perfect response. Yes, thank you a lot, that was a rather long argument. It served to clear things up quite a bit, I believe for everyone.

Let me try to summarize:

-Building heights actually do go by demand, and then by land value.

-Government buildings serve as a lever of sorts, just a very expensive one. High density means high reach.

-Building size also determines height, and lot size determines building size.

-Government buildings create fake (?) population density and use that to determine building height.

-There will be tools soon(ish) to fix this. 

In that case, all my arguments from the OP (can I edit posts?) are null. In that case, I'm going to create new arguments.

At some point in development, there should be dynamics about where a person will live in a lifetime. Not GlassBox-like

in scale, maybe do it by the thousands, and much simpler in execution, like only going up or only moving after ten years,

but people should be able and willing to move into higher density areas, at which point the buildings will rise. Maybe I put

a skyscraper section in the middle of suburbia. Right now it won't grow very tall, understandably, but if dynamics are set

in place, then over time the building will grow to accommodate the rising number of people moving in from suburbia.

Similarly, it's good that government buildings create a fake land value, which should be replaced gradually by real land

value. But as an alternative to the situation above, what if the reach of the gov'n buildings is defined by land value. What

if there is space beyond the skyscrapers for new ones, and instead of confining the existing ones, I could create an infi-

nite area of skyscrapers fueled by suburbia (above). All this due to existing land value and demand.

I hope I'm not being pushy here. They're just features that would help make the simulator a better simulator. I also retract

my statement that the current economy is broken. Just the arms of it are. I think. Maybe just the hands.

                                                                                                                                                                                                       Side note: Is there some way to have it so that very tall                                                                                                                                                                                                          buildings are feasible? Like at all?

[Damian]

Ya, sorry for the length. I tend to drag when it comes to Synekism
details. I've added some minor clarifications below...probably
dragging again.

> -Building heights actually do go by demand, and then by land value.

So, to be brutally clear, land value actually has no affect on
building heights at all. The only thing land value affects right now
is simply whether or not a high density building will build, or not.
How high said building gets is all to do with density and demand.

> -Government buildings serve as a lever of sorts, just a very expensive one. High density means high reach.

Pretty much.

> -Building size also determines height, and lot size determines building size.

Just the lot size determines height, not the building size. This is
from way back when buildings used to take up the entire lot and might
change.

> -Government buildings create fake (?) population density and use that to determine building height.

Yes, completely fake population density. Since our simulator mostly
relies on density values it was the most relevant property to have gov
lots affecting. Obviously, when land value is used more gov lots will
create land value instead.

> -There will be tools soon(ish) to fix this.

That's the plan.

> At some point in development, there should be dynamics about where a person will live in a lifetime. Not GlassBox-like in scale, maybe do it by the thousands, and much simpler in execution, like only going up or only moving after ten years, but people should be able and willing to move into higher density areas, at which point the buildings will rise. Maybe I put a skyscraper section in the middle of suburbia. Right now it won't grow very tall, understandably, but if dynamics are set in place, then over time the building will grow to accommodate the rising number of people moving in from suburbia.

Well, even right now, the high density lots in the middle of suburbia
will slowly feed on themselves and grow, especially with a heavy pair
of government lots nearby. But regarding population migration I'm not
really sure how to express that visually unless I add support for
abandoned buildings. I mean, right now, why do you care whether the
skyscrapers are filled with new people or people moving from lower
density areas - given Synekism's UI is as capable as a command prompt?

> Similarly, it's good that government buildings create a fake land value, which should be replaced gradually by real land value. But as an alternative to the situation above, what if the reach of the gov'n buildings is defined by land value. What if there is space beyond the skyscrapers for new ones, and instead of confining the existing ones, I could create an infinite area of skyscrapers fueled by suburbia (above). All this due to existing land value and demand.

Sorry, you might need to elaborate this a bit further. Do you mean you
wish land value should not only be generated by gov lots but also
normal lots and so spread without more gov lots?

> I hope I'm not being pushy here. They're just features that would help make the simulator a better simulator. I also retract my statement that the current economy is broken. Just the arms of it are. I think. Maybe just the hands.

More likely the arms.

> Side note: Is there some way to have it so that very tall buildings are feasible? Like at all?

Not right now but I might include a hacked feature in the next release
just for you. But yes, I do have this itch as well. I might simply
have a (yet another) hotkey while zoning that will just create one
giant lot the size of your zone instead of many lots. That way, you
can create monster buildings at will.

[Markalian]

>So, to be brutally clear, land value actually has no affect on 
building heights at all. The only thing land value affects right now
is simply whether or not a high density building will build, or not.
How high said building gets is all to do with density and demand.
 

Got it. If an area has high density lots but no gov'n buildings and high

demand, they will grow a tad taller due to pre-existing density. 

>Just the lot size determines height, not the building size. This is 
from way back when buildings used to take up the entire lot and might
change.

Self explanatory. Thank you.

>Yes, completely fake population density. Since our simulator mostly 
relies on density values it was the most relevant property to have gov
lots affecting. Obviously, when land value is used more gov lots will
create land value instead.

So, the dead simple act of having more gov'n in an area will cause the

eventual buildings to increase. That.. makes complete sense.

>That's the plan. 

Yay.

>Well, even right now, the high density lots in the middle of suburbia 
will slowly feed on themselves and grow, especially with a heavy pair
of government lots nearby. But regarding population migration I'm not
really sure how to express that visually unless I add support for
abandoned buildings. I mean, right now, why do you care whether the
skyscrapers are filled with new people or people moving from lower
density areas - given Synekism's UI is as capable as a command prompt?

Well, I don't really care who lives in the buildings, I'm just talking strategic

lot placement here. Big building next to small building will eventually encom-

pass small building (just look at Coruscant). There is an alternative to

introducing dilapidated buildings, as it was never really an issue. Instead

of the buildings going to ruin, they'll just grow smaller as people move

out, much like the reverse in high density areas. It shouldn't take long,

it'll give the mayor visual knowledge of which areas need restructuring

and will form the basis of the migration system, which plugs into ano-

ther thread. I'll talk about ideas in a moment.

>Sorry, you might need to elaborate this a bit further. Do you mean you 
wish land value should not only be generated by gov lots but also
normal lots and so spread without more gov lots?

I do suppose this part was confusing. What I meant is that what if gov'n reach was not only defined by density, but also by demand? If there is strong demand and there is space for building high density lots within the reach of the gov'n, it should be that the reach of the gov'n is dictated by how far the buildings it does reach are. This way, both the gov'n buildings and the demander buildings would grow slowly, and the gov'n reach would slowly stretch, until a maximum point defined by lot and building size of the gov'n building, to prevent an entire city powered by one massive gov'n building, like City 17, or the city in Mirror's Edge. Hope this helps.

>Not right now but I might include a hacked feature in the next release 
just for you. But yes, I do have this itch as well. I might simply
have a (yet another) hotkey while zoning that will just create one
giant lot the size of your zone instead of many lots. That way, you
can create monster buildings at will.

That'd be a godsend. Thanks you if you do create this mini hack.

I like these discussions. Now there is much more information that we could use to create beginner's guides on the wiki (or not, up to you). 

It's also the first time I've seen you use "Yelmond." Curious.

[Markalian]

Whoops. forgot about the migration system. Ok, let's see.

One way this could be done is by using a concept present in Synekism's

unnamed rival and proposed by a separate thread: different demand for

different density. If I take my giant building and suburbia example, let's

say that there is no demand for medium density, little for low and strong

demand for high density residential. If the skyscraper is the only one in

the area, a lot of people should be willing to move to the giant building.

Now, low density doesn't dilapidate, medium density a little, down to low

density levels, but high density can get really screwed. So the skyscraper

enlarges itself to accommodate the large amount of people now willing to

fill it's apartments. This doesn't satisfy demand, however, so you construct

a separate part of the city, one with lots of high density buildings. This

requires demand to be calculated area by area, but also to be interconnec-

ted, good luck with that. The people move out to the better area, leaving the

sad skyscraper with no demand for it's current area. The skyscraper shrinks.

Once suburbia and the other part of the city fill up, the cycles repeats itself.

It may seems silly, but it would help the planning of the city. Let's say that

an industrial area is built nearby suburbia, so that some workers stay and

the building doesn't go completely broke.

 

So migration works off of demand. It would be hard to implement, I get it. But

is there's no visual feedback of the existence of a problem, stuff like this is

going to happen all the time and unbeknown to the mayor. 

On the other hand, not doing any of this works as well. We'll just have a bunch of empty buildings.

[Synekism]

>> So, to be brutally clear, land value actually has no affect on building heights at all. The only thing land value affects right now is simply whether or not a high density building will build, or not. How high said building gets is all to do with density and demand.

> Got it. If an area has high density lots but no gov'n buildings and high demand, they will grow a tad taller due to pre-existing density.

Actually, high density won't grow at all if there are no gov buildings
nearby, regardless of demand. You'll still have medium and low density
buildings grow on the high density lots.

------

>> Well, even right now, the high density lots in the middle of suburbia will slowly feed on themselves and grow, especially with a heavy pair of government lots nearby. But regarding population migration I'm not really sure how to express that visually unless I add support for abandoned buildings. I mean, right now, why do you care whether the skyscrapers are filled with new people or people moving from lower density areas - given Synekism's UI is as capable as a command prompt?

> Well, I don't really care who lives in the buildings, I'm just talking strategic lot placement here. Big building next to small building will eventually encompass small building (just look at Coruscant). There is an alternative to introducing dilapidated buildings, as it was never really an issue. Instead of the buildings going to ruin, they'll just grow smaller as people move out, much like the reverse in high density areas. It shouldn't take long, it'll give the mayor visual knowledge of which areas need restructuring and will form the basis of the migration system, which plugs into another thread. I'll talk about ideas in a moment.

I'm not entirely comfortable shrinking buildings in general. How would
that even look like when buildings move beyond boxes and start looking
like, well, buildings? I would much rather have buildings go empty
than have them shrink.

------

>> Sorry, you might need to elaborate this a bit further. Do you mean you wish land value should not only be generated by gov lots but also normal lots and so spread without more gov lots?

> I do suppose this part was confusing. What I meant is that what if gov'n reach was not only defined by density, but also by demand? If there is strong demand and there is space for building high density lots within the reach of the gov'n, it should be that the reach of the gov'n is dictated by how far the buildings it does reach are. This way, both the gov'n buildings and the demander buildings would grow slowly, and the gov'n reach would slowly stretch, until a maximum point defined by lot and building size of the gov'n building, to prevent an entire city powered by one massive gov'n building, like City 17, or the city in Mirror's Edge. Hope this helps.

To make sure I understand: what you're saying is that gov buildings'
ranges should be affected by demand up to a maximum range? If so, it
sounds plausible and I'll keep it in mind. My preference, however, is
to skip two complexities up and implement gov building ranges that can
grow nonuniformly. So, if you place a gov building at the very edge of
a zone it will try to use the wasted "range" that goes outward from
the zone and extend its reach inside the zone. Obviously there will be
a penalty for the extra raw distance from the gov lot but you won't
have all the range covering empty land completely wasted. How does
that sound?

------

> I like these discussions. Now there is much more information that we could use to create beginner's guides on the wiki (or not, up to you).

The reason I didn't make any guides and the same reason I would advise
one not to spend any time on such guides is that everything is too
much up in the air right now. Things can change drastically.

------

> It's also the first time I've seen you use "Yelmond." Curious.

Sorry...I forgot to change the Send-From address to the Synekism one.
Yelmond is just the personal nickname I use sometimes. Please ignore.

------

> Whoops. forgot about the migration system. Ok, let's see. One way this could be done is by using a concept present in Synekism's unnamed rival and proposed by a separate thread: different demand for different density. If I take my giant building and suburbia example, let's say that there is no demand for medium density, little for low and strong demand for high density residential. If the skyscraper is the only one in the area, a lot of people should be willing to move to the giant building. Now, low density doesn't dilapidated, medium density a little, down to low density levels, but high density can get really screwed. So the skyscraper enlarges itself to accommodate the large amount of people now willing to fill it's apartments. This doesn't satisfy demand, however, so you construct a separate part of the city, one with lots of high density buildings. This requires demand to be calculated area by area, but also to be interconnected, good luck with that. The people move out to the better area, leaving the sad skyscraper with no demand for it's current area. The skyscraper shrinks. Once suburbia and the other part of the city fill up, the cycles repeats itself. It may seems silly, but it would help the planning of the city. Let's say that an industrial area is built nearby suburbia, so that some workers stay and the building doesn't go completely broke.

Demand is probably too broad of a term. I see demand as simply the
number of people that want to do X in your city, whether the X is work
or live. Splitting demand per-density is not necessary in my opinion.
Maybe way down the road I might split it by demographic (say age group
or family size), but grouping demand by density seems too artificial.

That said, I think what you are saying can be achieved simply via
regional desirability. Highly desirable areas will draw a larger
portion of the overall demand than undesirable areas. This way, you
can control which areas get what ratio of the overall demand by using
gov buildings and other "services". Symmetrically, when demand is in
the negative, people in the lowest desirability areas will leave your
city first. This is also where migration might be viable, especially
when demand is close to 0. People will start moving from low
desirability ares to higher ones as they acquire the financial means
over time.

[a7marc...@gmail.com]

Read all of this before you start typing. Explanations for some missing details are given later on.

>Actually, high density won't grow at all if there are no gov buildings 
nearby, regardless of demand. You'll still have medium and low density
buildings grow on the high density lots.

What  meant was that when gov'n buildings are placed in that situation,

buildings would be likely to grow a bit taller due to pre-existing density

which the gov'n buildings wouldn't have to over-write.

>I'm not entirely comfortable shrinking buildings in general. How would 
that even look like when buildings move beyond boxes and start looking
like, well, buildings? I would much rather have buildings go empty
than have them shrink.

Well, I do suppose proc buildings would be hard to shrink, so you're right

on that front. And now that I think about it, nobody would actually notice.

So I propose having a system where the amount of a building that is empty

matches a surface over-write of the exterior of the building. So in the subur-

bia situation where people have moved out, let's assume 60% occupancy,

and low demand from high society in that area. The missing 40% of people

could be attributed to the wealthy part of the building (to make this easier,

just snap it onto the top) so that from the roof, 40% of the building is darker

than the lower bits, where people do live. Buildings wouldn't have to shrink,

and it becomes much easier to do this when buildings take a real shape

than with the previous proposal. 

>To make sure I understand: what you're saying is that gov buildings' 
ranges should be affected by demand up to a maximum range? If so, it
sounds plausible and I'll keep it in mind. My preference, however, is
to skip two complexities up and implement gov building ranges that can
grow nonuniformly. So, if you place a gov building at the very edge of
a zone it will try to use the wasted "range" that goes outward from
the zone and extend its reach inside the zone. Obviously there will be
a penalty for the extra raw distance from the gov lot but you won't
have all the range covering empty land completely wasted. How does
that sound?

Perfect. You understood that on every front. And the maximum radius

could be calculated by height times square root of the building Area,

like this: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=h+times+square+root+of+A .

At any one point, the gov'n range should be an ellipsis though, else it

would become too complicated to calculate every single day.

>The reason I didn't make any guides and the same reason I would advise 
one not to spend any time on such guides is that everything is too

much up in the air right now. Things can change drastically.

Fair.

>Demand is probably too broad of a term. I see demand as simply the 
number of people that want to do X in your city, whether the X is work
or live. Splitting demand per-density is not necessary in my opinion.
Maybe way down the road I might split it by demographic (say age group
or family size), but grouping demand by density seems too artificial.

>That said, I think what you are saying can be achieved simply via 
regional desirability. Highly desirable areas will draw a larger
portion of the overall demand than undesirable areas. This way, you
can control which areas get what ratio of the overall demand by using
gov buildings and other "services". Symmetrically, when demand is in
the negative, people in the lowest desirability areas will leave your
city first. This is also where migration might be viable, especially
when demand is close to 0. People will start moving from low
desirability ares to higher ones as they acquire the financial means

over time.

Again, now we seem to understand each other. In effect, different demand

for different density probably won't work, and your proposed solution,

demand by population strains, would also serve the "shrinking building"

problem above. And demand by population strains should be by job. 

Three types of jobs: Family man, business man and factory worker/resear-

cher. Those who live in high land value apartments would simply work in

high value environments, except when you have the slums, like the suburbia

example, where if surrounding areas are low and only low density and po-

pulation of surrounding areas surpasses high density population, then the rule is 

null, and is null until surrounding lots are modified, in which case recalculate.

And just like that, strategically placed slums.

Range of the surrounding areas goes like this: every low density lot connected

to the high density lot by low density lots. Lots of calculations, but again, this

will only happen once in a while.

Also, you're saying that "services" would attract people? Well, lets see.. Gov'n

buildings are the only high density lot to develop on it's own.. They require people,

which would drive up the demand in that area.. Genius. We still need a park lot, though.

I find myself actually helping out this time around. These formulas could certainly

work, with some balance when necessary.

[Markalian]

Sorry to interrupt. Those two misaligned posts caused my previous 

post to be glossed over, which happens. However, now that I thought

we were actually getting somewhere in terms of what has a chance

of being implemented into Synekism, I'd like to resume the previous

conversation, with [Synekism Creator], if possible.

[Synekism]

Don't worry, this conversation has not been glossed over. It's just
that given the size of our posts here I need more time to reply.

[Damian]

> Well, I do suppose proc buildings would be hard to shrink, so you're right on that front. And now that I think about it, nobody would actually notice. So I propose having a system where the amount of a building that is empty matches a surface over-write of the exterior of the building. So in the suburbia situation where people have moved out, let's assume 60% occupancy, and low demand from high society in that area. The missing 40% of people could be attributed to the wealthy part of the building (to make this easier, just snap it onto the top) so that from the roof, 40% of the building is darker than the lower bits, where people do live. Buildings wouldn't have to shrink, and it becomes much easier to do this when buildings take a real shape than with the previous proposal.

I think this is getting a bit too complicated but also unrealistic.
I've rarely, if ever, seen half-dilapidated buildings where only part
of the building is habited and the inhabited part falls in disrepair.
Buildings tend to work as a single unit. I would much rather follow
the standard approach where the value of the building drops and lower
income residents move in. If the conditions are truly horrible (say,
nuclear fallout) then the entire building becomes uninhabited (dark).

> Perfect. You understood that on every front. And the maximum radius could be calculated by height times square root of the building Area, like this: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=h+times+square+root+of+A . At any one point, the gov'n range should be an ellipsis though, else it would become too complicated to calculate every single day.

I was thinking that I'd calculate the "range" from each affected
residence. Basically, when someone moves in they will check what the
closest gov building is and "apply for membership". The further the
residence from the gov building the higher the "cost" of membership
will be for said house. Of course, each new membership takes away
capacity from the gov building so only so many houses will be able to
apply. This will more organically define the range of a gov building.

> Again, now we seem to understand each other. In effect, different demand for different density probably won't work, and your proposed solution, demand by population strains, would also serve the "shrinking building" problem above. And demand by population strains should be by job. Three types of jobs: Family man, business man and factory worker/researcher. Those who live in high land value apartments would simply work in high value environments, except when you have the slums, like the suburbia example, where if surrounding areas are low and only low density and population of surrounding areas surpasses high density population, then the rule is null, and is null until surrounding lots are modified, in which case recalculate. And just like that, strategically placed slums.

> Range of the surrounding areas goes like this: every low density lot connected to the high density lot by low density lots. Lots of calculations, but again, this will only happen once in a while.

Sorry, I don't quite follow your slums example so correct me if I
mis-assume. It seems you wish to imply some sort of relationship
between the densities and the ratios between them. If so, I don't
agree. High density buildings should not be affected by the number of
low density buildings in the area. Sure, they will be indirectly
affected by population numbers and desirability, both of which are
influenced by lower density buildings. But there should not be any
calculation looking directly at density ratios.

[Colin Finger]

Am 21.09.2012 23:35, schrieb Graham Allsop:

My apologize for misaddressing this personal e-mail to the wrong person/group.  Hopefully this will provide amusement to all of  you in one way or another.

On 9/21/2012 5:20 PM, Graham Allsop wrote:

Here felt Id give you the question we just did WORD FOR WORD.  We took the poll twice, the prof gave some "advice" between polls.  Counted as a different question so if you didnt revote, u didn't reappear on the results
Question:
A ball is initially on the ground and you kick it with initial velocity <3,7,0> m/s at this speed air resistance is negligible.  Assume the usual coordinate system.

Which components of the ball's momentum will change in the next half second

a. px
b. p_y
c. pz
d. px & py
e. py & pz
f. pz & px
g. px, py, pz

First results: 56% chose b, 38% chose d, 6% chose g
Second results: 54% chose b, 44% chose d, 2% chose g

Words cannot describe my feeling of hopeless despair.  Oh and i got 8/18 on a homework question BECAUSE THE FUCKING QUESTION DOESNT UNDERSTAND v_avg = (v_i + v_f) / 2 not v_avg = v_f . . . . obviously I'm grieving this shit.

No worries, i found it amusing :)

[Markalian]

Remember when this thread was about economics? Good times.

> I think this is getting a bit too complicated but also unrealistic. 

I've rarely, if ever, seen half-dilapidated buildings where only part
of the building is habited and the inhabited part falls in disrepair.
Buildings tend to work as a single unit. I would much rather follow
the standard approach where the value of the building drops and lower
income residents move in. If the conditions are truly horrible (say,

nuclear fallout) then the entire building becomes uninhabited (dark).

I'm beginning to think that unrealistic applies to me more than my ideas.

It's your game, and you're right.

> I was thinking that I'd calculate the "range" from each affected 
residence. Basically, when someone moves in they will check what the
closest gov building is and "apply for membership". The further the
residence from the gov building the higher the "cost" of membership
will be for said house. Of course, each new membership takes away
capacity from the gov building so only so many houses will be able to

apply. This will more organically define the range of a gov building.

For now, let's define high density lots as HDL

I'll think this one through. Instead of geometric range, you have a dynamic

range defined by distance to the closest gov'n building, and then a limit on

how many buildings one gov'n buildings can sustain. As the building grows,

the limit increases. Taller buildings means taller gov'n means taller and more

buildings. That's within range, at least easier to calculate than an oval. Now,

about limits on these limits. Only HDLs are affected by this, I believe, so

only HDLs connected via HDLs to a gov'n lot would knock the counter down.

The counter could be defined as (hbuilding+Abuilding)^2, the magnitude repre-

senting the sustainable population, which I think is balanced. 

Then, gov'n lots connected by high density lots could form a network, not a

complicated one, that adds up all magnitudes of every building it "touches."

To prevent City 17, a maximum, non-volatile, circular radius length is defined by (square root of hbuilding)(Abuilding). 

> Sorry, I don't quite follow your slums example so correct me if I 
mis-assume. It seems you wish to imply some sort of relationship
between the densities and the ratios between them. If so, I don't
agree. High density buildings should not be affected by the number of
low density buildings in the area. Sure, they will be indirectly
affected by population numbers and desirability, both of which are
influenced by lower density buildings. But there should not be any

calculation looking directly at density ratios.

You mis-assumed correctly (think about it). No, I don't want to see

any ratio between densities, that makes no sense. Mathematically,

iff (not a typo) PopulationLDL > PopulationHDL and the HDLs and LDLs

are adjacent in at least one location, then a slum is created. A slum

here defined as a place where buildings cost less to demolish, where

people are poorer and where people can never migrate from, or to,

except in cases where a massive amount of labor is lost and the

unemployed need somehwere to stay. Sad stuff, but harsh reality.

More importantly, feasible.

Otherwise, iff PopulationLDL > PopulationHDL and HDLs touch nothing but

LDLs on all sides, so no spare spaces, you would have a mega-slum with

increased capacity, but same people. Think the Peach Trees tower in that

new movie Dredd. This is the only place that people in slums could move to.

All this assumes that MDLs have nothing to do. Which is how it should be.

Let the upper middle class be stable, please.

I just reread your comment, and while I do agree that there should be no influen-

ce between HDLs and LDLs, keep in mind that this is an intentional situa-

tion, not one that just pops up. But, if you want to stick strictly to your prea-

chings, include an option to detect which areas are slums and turn that value

to false, just in case that this does accidentally happen and someone finds

out that a quarter of their city is composed by poor people.

Yes, sadistic. What do you think, Mr. Confused E-mail Address Person? (Last time, I promise.)

Keep in mind that nobody expects these features to be done in any reasonable

amount of time, they're just something to look forward to.

[Synekism]

I'm not sure where you got the idea to have buildings "connect"
through other buildings to gov buildings. At least the way I
understand it, there's no real-life example of such a dynamic. High
density buildings can be separated from a gov lot by high, medium, or
low density buildings, or even empty land, and it should still be
fine. In the future, I'll add the much needed road (ie.
transportation) connection requirement but that's about it.

Also, right now gov buildings only really affect high density
buildings but what I meant by this range thing included all
building/lot types. This range thing is for what gov lots will
eventually become which is actual service buildings - like, fire,
police, school, hospital, etc.

And we should really switch to using capacity instead of range.
Capacity defines the range. If you have a high capacity (tall) gov lot
but it's neighbours are a couple of really tall skyscrapers then it's
range will be limited as most of it's capacity will be spent on it's
immediate neighbours.

Now, similarly to your high density buildings connecting idea, there
is no observational evidence that a high density building surrounded
by low density buildings will form a slum. I mean, I live in a high
density building and it is actually "touching" several low density
houses, yet, no slums. The addition of your restriction "PopulationLDL
> PopulationHDL" doesn't add much because this is true for practically
all cities.

Please provide some real-world examples of your proposed mechanics.

[Markalian]

On the buildings connecting issue, what I meant is that if a strip

of lots is composed of HDLs and has a set of gov'n buildings on

both sides, the capacity of those two sets of gov'n buildings would

simply add up and function as one. Nothing more. The areas they

affect would also add together, forming a new maximum area to act upon.

If MDLs are also upgraded by the gov'n, this would also become true for strips of MDLs

On the issue of capacity vs. range, I'll clear something up here. I am

not opposed in any way to capacity. Seriously. What I meant was

that there is an absolute maximum distance that the gov'n can act

upon, but it doesn't affect capacity, or vice-versa. Simply, if capacity

runs out inside the range, sucks for the people at the far ends.

Again, this range can be extended.

As per the slums issue, it's local, and an option. I get it that most people

don't want slums. I thought I said that, maybe I didn't. So a slum would form iff 

-PopulationLDL > PopulationHDL

-The two sets of lots are adjacent in at least one spot.

-This happens in the same area.

That's why I said that slums can be strategically placed. They don't apply

to neighboring HDLs if most of those are in a different area.

Same reasoning goes for slums buildings. If the areas are made small enough,

there would only be space for a couple of HDLs surrounded by LDLs, so one

would have to intentionally create these slums, after setting the option to "yes"

for being able to do so.

This may be my last reply, unless you need me again. Not because I'm mad, but because I'm shocked by my own idiocy.

I'll still play Synekism. It's a wonderful prototype and a smooth experience. See you when the game comes out.