Idk if it's just me but Industry seems far slower than it was before the update. usually, with most games I played It would take at a max 10+ turns to finish a district, but now it takes nearly 20 turns to finish 1 district, no matter how much industry you have and if you are using a builders culture. I dunno, it's made the game feel less enjoyable for me now that it takes everything so long to build.  

You are right - the changes force you to have industrial cultures to build cities (and put them into builder mode). It takes more dimensions away from the game than it actually added anything.

Maybe you should try build more makers districts? You dont need industrial culture to build them, and science/money districts are anyway unclocked only in future eras. 

Reicha wrote:

You are right - the changes force you to have industrial cultures to build cities (and put them into builder mode). It takes more dimensions away from the game than it actually added anything.

Exactly, I had to continuously build makers quarters throughout the game and the large waiting time meant that I spent most of the eras just trying to rack up enough industry, without getting to work on other things, such as troops or structures. I really hope they change things back. 

kost wrote:

Maybe you should try build more makers districts? You dont need industrial culture to build them, and science/money districts are anyway unclocked only in future eras. 

Sadly I spent most of each era building them and it barely changed the rate of production, and it meant I couldn't focus on troops or infrastructure. It's really disappointing what they've done. 

It's a good thought, but the problem is it only exacerbates the problem of MQs being the only ones worth building because anything else is going to skyrocket your costs without any sort of mitigation. 

I honestly wouldn't mind if they ramped the costs even faster but based on the number of districts of that type you've already built, not just the total, but I think even that would just be a band-aid on the problem. 

HumanKid wrote:

this is rooted in the cost bloating approach. the further those numbers are pushed, the more powerful the related affinities will be

i feel a different take is needed, perhaps providing different adjacency bonuses that instead of clustering, they push towards efficient placing that allow for puzzle solving

i remember that markets used to receive bonuses not from another market but from adjacent farmers... perhaps that's something to be revisited

for makers, adjacency could rather be related to strategic resources such as iron and copper or unit spawn points such as garrisons and harbors providing the blunt of extra yields. researchers may synergize both makers and farmers but perhaps receive penalties from commons

in the same vein, harbors could benefit from adjacency and cost reduction to main plazas to make coastal cities appealing

I think more, refined adjacency boni would be great. This way the city also grows as one piece and not a cluster. After all cities aren't just clusters because there is a benefit of having spacial proximity.  

I think the cost scaling is too much and a change in the wrong direction, the issue is not industry, the issue is that food and money is not competetive with industry and that collective mind make industry better at research than research quarters, as well as how easy it is to maintain 100% stability with resources. Right now you can pretty much forget about building stuff such as hamlets and later era emblematic districts, because they will cost too much at the time you unlock them. 

I think at this point, remove resource extractors from the district cost scaling, in such case also no longer make them count towards builder stars and maybe make them always cost influence to build. I would also suggest removing administrative centers from the cost, attachment feels a lot weaker now as you can no longer build many districts, so you have all this empty and unexploited territory.

HumanKid wrote:

this is rooted in the cost bloating approach. the further those numbers are pushed, the more powerful the related affinities will be

i feel a different take is needed, perhaps providing different adjacency bonuses that instead of clustering, they push towards efficient placing that allow for puzzle solving

i remember that markets used to receive bonuses not from another market but from adjacent farmers... perhaps that's something to be revisited

for makers, adjacency could rather be related to strategic resources such as iron and copper or unit spawn points such as garrisons and harbors providing the blunt of extra yields. researchers may synergize both makers and farmers but perhaps receive penalties from commons

in the same vein, harbors could benefit from adjacency and cost reduction to main plazas to make coastal cities appealing

I proposed something similar few weeks ago.

Maybe you want to give it a look.

https://www.games2gether.com/amplitude-studios/humankind/forums/169-game-design-and-ideas/threads/46261-a-new-adjacency-system-for-districts?page=1

As temporary solution i suggest using this mod:

https://humankind.mod.io/NoExponentialQuarterCost

SmileyD wrote:

As temporary solution i suggest using this mod:

https://humankind.mod.io/NoExponentialQuarterCost

Wow this is great! thank you so much for this! I'm not too great with mods though so which "ProductionCost_Extension_Base_" would I pick? 

SmileyD wrote:

As temporary solution i suggest using this mod:

https://humankind.mod.io/NoExponentialQuarterCost

Also, where exactly do i modify the folders?

lbasil wrote:

https://www.games2gether.com/amplitude-studios/humankind/forums/169-game-design-and-ideas/threads/46261-a-new-adjacency-system-for-districts?page=1

thank you for this. i've been chewing on similar ideas myself, but in my cliché contrarian stance i prefer smaller, simpler cities that rely on a single quarter of each type and it's their relative positions that define bonus synergies and perhaps ideology axis

i understand the appeal of huge sprawls but i feel they aren't a good "fit" having limited territory area and shape and an AI that doesn't do well at placement