NO CO$$$ Development

[evilbob]

Just had a thought.  If you made CO$$$ have such a high desirability, what's the desirability of R$$$ set at in CAM?  It's nice knowing the exact number you need, now.

[cogeo]

I'm not so sure what's going on here. I have decent CO$$$ development (531 CO$$$ jobs) in a city of only 4,500 sims. And I have been able to exhaust (satisfy all) CO$$$ demand. Some details:
- This is the only developed city in the region. All others have not even be started (I can make God mode edits).
- No CAM installed, but I do have the "Less Abandonment" mod(s) installed, which sets desirabily threshold for CO$$$ growth to 128 (0x80), not 120.
- EQ (city): 131
- No transient aura effect (at least for the tract queried, and I can remember well that no landmarks or plazas had been plopped "recently" - the bldg/lot is just developed).

Here are the query results:

|-----------------------------------------------------------
| Query info for cell (155, 5) on 6/14/2023
|-----------------------------------------------------------
| Lot: (157, 5) 2x3, east-facing, state: occupied new, configuration: CO$$$3_2x3_60003620
| Jobs $7.6 $$24.7 $$$5.7 - Travel Jobs $8 $$25 $$$6
| Building: CO$$$24x24_2HouOfficeBldg7_0555, 41 $$$
| Occupancy--building (tract): Co$$ 0% (0%), Co$$$ 93% (100%),
| Zoned: C##
| Altitude: 272.6
| Land value, intrinsic: 11, total: 255 (High)
| Slope: 0.0
| Powered: yes
| Watered: yes
| Traffic Volume: 236   Traffic Congestion: 0
| Edge Density Matrix for travel type 0 (total = 0):
| Edge Density Matrix for travel type 1 (total = 0):
| Edge Density Matrix for travel type 2 (total = 0):
| Edge Density Matrix for travel type 3 (total = 0):
| Edge Density Matrix for travel type 4 (total = 0):
| Edge Density Matrix for travel type 5 (total = 0):
| Edge Density Matrix for travel type 6 (total = 0):
| Edge Density Matrix for travel type 7 (total = 0):
| Edge Density Matrix for travel type 8 (total = 0):
| Edge Density Matrix for travel type 9 (total = 0):
|-----------------------------------------------------------
|
|----------------------------------------
|
| Desirability equation for Co$$
|   desirability = base value: -27
|   + land value effect, f(value: 255): 0
|   + slope effect, f(value: 2.6): 0
|   + R$ proximity effect, f(0): 0
|   + R$$ proximity effect, f(0): 0
|   + R$$$ proximity effect, f(0): 0
|   + Co$$ proximity effect, f(0): 0
|   + Co$$$ proximity effect, f(0): 0
|   + park effect, f(120): 0
|   + Air pollution effect, f(0): 25
|   + Water pollution effect, f(8): 0
|   + Garbage pollution effect, f(0): 50
|   + Radiation pollution effect, f(0): 0
|   + school effect, f(1.0): 0
|   + hospital effect, f(1.0): 0
|   + crime effect, f(0): 50
|   + traffic effect, f(236): 16
|   + trip length effect, f(255): 0
|   + landmark effect, f(110): 20
|   + transient effect, f(0): 0
|   = 134
|  
| As calculated last cycle for tract (38, 1)
|   Population:        0
|   Existing capacity: 0
|   Maximum capacity:  802
|   Desirability:      131
|
|----------------------------------------
|
| Desirability equation for Co$$$
|   desirability = base value: -65
|   + land value effect, f(value: 255): 10
|   + slope effect, f(value: 2.6): 0
|   + R$ proximity effect, f(0): 0
|   + R$$ proximity effect, f(0): 0
|   + R$$$ proximity effect, f(0): 0
|   + Co$$ proximity effect, f(0): 0
|   + Co$$$ proximity effect, f(0): 0
|   + park effect, f(120): 0
|   + Air pollution effect, f(0): 40
|   + Water pollution effect, f(8): 0
|   + Garbage pollution effect, f(0): 50
|   + Radiation pollution effect, f(0): 0
|   + school effect, f(1.0): 0
|   + hospital effect, f(1.0): 0
|   + crime effect, f(0): 50
|   + traffic effect, f(236): 17
|   + trip length effect, f(255): 0
|   + landmark effect, f(110): 30
|   + transient effect, f(0): 0
|   = 132
|  
| As calculated last cycle for tract (38, 1)
|   Population:        24
|   Existing capacity: 24
|   Maximum capacity:  826
|   Desirability:      126
|
|-----------------------------------------------------------
|
| Last successful C build
|
|-----------------------------------------------------------
|
| Last failed Cs$ build
|
|----------------------------------------
|
| Last failed Cs$$ build
|
|----------------------------------------
|
| Last failed Cs$$$ build
|
|----------------------------------------
|
| Last failed Co$$ build
|
|----------------------------------------
|
| Last failed Co$$$ build
|
|-----------------------------------------------------------

That is for this tract (and this isn't the most desirable one), only the traffic effect wasn't maxed out. So I agree, the threshold needs to be lowered, though I don't know how much (I don't have a proper testbed). Especially for the higher growth stages, traffic will be high, and subsequently Air Pollution hard to keep to low levels.

There's another feature that destroys my cities, which is the "aggressive" growth of CS$$$. I use to zone my commercial areas 3-tiles deep, at least during the early/mid stages of growth. This initially creates 1x3 lots, which as development proceeds form 2x3, and finally 4x3 lots (suitable for highrises) - I selectively zone 3x3 too. Of course I mark lots as historical, as required, to control lots' formation. The problem is that those stupid 1x3 Butiques can grow wherever they like, sometimes even destroying a small/medium CO$$ 2x3 lot! And the number and mix of jobs they offer is much worse. And it's impossible to change to, say CO$$$, they can be upgraded (to a higher stage) and/or be aggregated with an adjacent lot (CS$$$ too). But the adjacent lot usually is CO$$$, so they won't aggregate. The only solution is to bulldoze them, hoping that they will grow next to another CS$$$. Otherwise the commercial area will be full of narrow lots (1x3 and 2x3), unable to aggregate and form larger ones. I use other techniques, like excessive marking as historical, so that I can control development, but this mars gameplay. Any solution to this (or idea) please?

@evilbob: If you are changing the thresholds yourself, I would strongly recommend that you keep Desirability Threshold Decline lower than Desirability Threshold Growth, as this reaults in more stable cities: medium- and especially high-wealtg development will be harder to get, but bldgs will be much less likely to face dilapidation. In original SC4 these were equal, and the result was having easy development, and equally easy dilapidation and abandonment, as a small change could render the lots not desirable enough. This is exacrly what Bones1' mod did: with a fat margin between thresholds, chances are really low (fyi, the mod was incorporated into CAM).

[Lowkee33]

There are also Proximity effects that could be altered.  All of these are set to "0" at this point.  By making CO$$$ increase desirability for CO$$$, I would assume that creating a CO$$$ block would become easier.  I suppose you could make CO have a negative effect on CS, but not sure how realistic/playable that would be.

[RippleJet]

Two applicants should have access to a hidden board now...

I'd probably lower to to 80.

Naw, I don't think so... we still don't want CO$$$ to grow everywhere and anywhere...
And especially considering Cogeo's post...

Just had a thought.  If you made CO$$$ have such a high desirability, what's the desirability of R$$$ set at in CAM?  It's nice knowing the exact number you need, now.

Those numbers can all be found in the CAM manual, which I assume you've read...

I'm not so sure what's going on here. I have decent CO$$$ development (531 CO$$$ jobs) in a city of only 4,500 sims. And I have been able to exhaust (satisfy all) CO$$$ demand. Some details:
- This is the only developed city in the region. All others have not even be started (I can make God mode edits).
- No CAM installed, but I do have the "Less Abandonment" mod(s) installed, which sets desirabily threshold for CO$$$ growth to 128 (0x80), not 120.
- EQ (city): 131
- No transient aura effect (at least for the tract queried, and I can remember well that no landmarks or plazas had been plopped "recently" - the bldg/lot is just developed).

The key thing here is indeed the landmark effect... which comes from plopping landmarks and plazas.
Nothing wrong with requiring some landmark effect for CO$$$ to grow in the first place... but not near the maximum 30 out of 30....
Besides, you've somehow managed to achieve a maximum Air Pollution Effect (40/40) with a rather high Traffic Effect (17/24)!

There are also Proximity effects that could be altered.  All of these are set to "0" at this point.

There is in fact a CO$$$ proximity effect set for CO$$$, but I doubt that property is even functional...
It's set to get values between 0 (for a proximity of 0) and -10 (for a proximity of 255).
However, I've never seen any other values than f(0): 0 for any of the Proximity Effect values in Query.txt.

[Kmey659]

Sorry for bumping this long since finished thread, but I cannot seem to find the ColossusAddonMod_1.0_FixForCO$$$.dat file for download which is referenced on the second page. Any help?

[jmyers2043]

It looks like the forum upgrades may have broken the link to the file that was attached to RippleJets reply on the second page.

I suggest sending a PM to RippleJet to ask if he can modify the post and attach the file again.

- Jim

[RippleJet]

I believe Jeroni has managed to rescue all lost attachments!

Let me know if you're able to download the fix now.

[Franssot]

Same problem still today...I can't find the fix file 

[vortext]

The fix is attached at this post.

[Franssot]

thank you very much

[P3CTankman]

Ya sorry about this bump but I thought that creating a new topic for such a thing would be slightly inappropriate...also the topic is already on the top.

Downloaded the fix but now my CO$$$ is running rampant.  A majority of my commercial space is taken up by the CO$$$.

I have a feeling I did something wrong...I placed the fix into the a_CAM folder.  Has CAM already been updated to include it?

[Rockrock]

I have the CAM mod and succeeded in bringing in CO$$$ buildings.

I had a hard time though

It seemed the mod made the desirability factor too high to be able to build one of these, so I had a commerce tile surrounded by Parks and covered by all services while away from any pollution source. THE RESULT: CO$$$ GROWING.