Management Matters

[Abletudu]

What we haven't seen yet is park size either so I am assuming for stuff were some back stage buildings are required the parks are expandable and we can purchase more park land. On that front I still want to see it be more abstract shapes rather than a square because most parks are not built on perfect plots of land. I would like to see us have to manage the shape of the park, how we choose to expand and in which direction.

In RCT2 & RCT3 we were able to buy more land in small square areas piece by piece. Is this something that you would like?

What happens if there is a 300m canyon that we have to get across that we are unable to just fill as it is part of a world heritage site? Can we purchase a permit though to build a roller coaster through it. Would it mean negative press because we are building there but guests want to really ride it because it has more draw.

I believe in RCT3 there were restrictions like that in some scenarios, you were able to bridge these areas, but not build rides in them. Also, you could not clear the land.

When it comes to training the staff, would you be satisfied if they left the park for a certain length of time depending on what level they are being trained to without having to have a separate training building. I don't know if you have played Software Inc. but in that game when the employees are being trained, they are not shown in the game for the duration of the training period.

 

[Curlyriff]

Love your ideas Curlyriff ��

Thanks matty b [happy] lets hope in the future we can have some of these features. I don't feel there is enough time to add them in game now but they could come later.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

In RCT2 & RCT3 we were able to buy more land in small square areas piece by piece. Is this something that you would like?



I believe in RCT3 there were restrictions like that in some scenarios, you were able to bridge these areas, but not build rides in them. Also, you could not clear the land.

When it comes to training the staff, would you be satisfied if they left the park for a certain length of time depending on what level they are being trained to without having to have a separate training building. I don't know if you have played Software Inc. but in that game when the employees are being trained, they are not shown in the game for the duration of the training period.

I would really like to buy parcels of land that are not square but are abstract shapes. For instance if we can only buy a small connecting corridor to the left that limits movement between because we are not able to purchase the parcels either side but then this leads onto the ability to buy an area that is a world heritage site. Now as said it may mean we cannot build there but we can also use it as a scenery piece that wows guests as they move through your park and your park rating increases.

I would like it to be more dynamic than a grid where we are thinking logically how we would like to expand. It would mean that no two parks are the same and when you play through the scenarios again you can design a completely different park with a different outcome. It would add significant re-playabilty to me and I hope others too.

Imagine something like these https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjOqfnQx4zQAhUCxRQKHd3FCu8QjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newtownards.info%2Ftownland-ballycullen.htm&psig=AFQjCNFckOHvEDRG3fJKs--GvXIQ630U4Q&ust=1478261558061773 thick black boarders being the parcel of land shapes. Start with a larger piece in middle and then you have so many different ways you can go with it.

The grid system made sense back then because it was all on grid but now we have so much free-form it can lead to so much more in terms of detailing and gameplay. I can add more but this is the base point at least.

I do remember them and just hope they are back and giving them real value as such world heritage sites rather than for random reasons that have no real affect other than limiting gameplay for a scenario. It could even be that you can pay for a permit to remove the site we are on about but you have to then provide 'x' scenery/items as a replacement.

In regards to training and them being off screen. Yes I would have no problem with that. If I could see them walking out the park to go for training and return in a few days then that would be fine also. Both allow for slightly different management and design requirements in that it keeps it slightly more simple with them being off screen but I would have nothing against it.

I mean in future you could add the option for training on site with a building and have the trainer come to you at a reduced cost of training rather than having to send them to train but then you have to balance the cost of the building and running it to just sending them away. It would give people options who don't want to build the building and just pay for it to be off screen.

Edit: The boarders don't have to be that abstract in that there is hundreds of border edges but the overall land parcel shapes like such this:

I would suggest where it says Greengraves is what plot we have now. We can see there are 9 other plots of various sizes. I would then suggest we can choose to purchase a further 4 parcels of land as long as at least one existing boarder is touching the newly purchased.

With that it would really change up the gameplay each time.

 

[Nemmie]

@matty b, thanks for responding, and especially for the way you did. I massively respect you for that. I do see where you're coming from.

I think we're all on the same page, when you strip it back. We all want a great game. I hope that we're all satisfied, and most importantly, have fun, when we get it.

 

[matty b1]

If the game is released with the features we know of only, I will absolutely love it

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

@Curlyriff sorry, I'm too tired to check (12:30am here in Sydney and passed my bedtime) but you have played Prison Architect a bit, yes?

 

[Buffpuff]

...There are far greater things to worry about at the moment than the management aspects of the game.

If you want a game with uber management gameplay then you have come to the wrong place, and that was always going to be the case with PC.

I have to agree with Curly on this one BadBoy. From what I see there's just been ideas/wants/dislikes (from the information given so far) etc. in this thread. What's wrong with discussing it and, for those who want it, to express "I would love it if THIS were in the game..."

Just because RCT3 was the "sweet spot" for you in the management side of things doesn't mean other people can't want more (or less) in PC. The thread is management matters. Why post that if you want uber management gameplay you've come to the wrong place. What if the creative side was lacking. Would it then be "If you wanted uber creative gameplay you've come to the wrong place". What has really ticked me off in this thread is the lack of respect for other people's desires and wishes by some posters. If you could care less about management, or if it's, in your opinion, not a top priority, then why trounce on others by basically mocking or dismissing their view points because it doesn't matter to you.

 

[Curlyriff]

If the game is released with the features we know of only, I will absolutely love it

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

@Curlyriff sorry, I'm too tired to check (12:30am here in Sydney and passed my bedtime) but you have played Prison Architect a bit, yes?

No worries sorry missed your post earlier but yes I have played some prison architecture along with many other sim and tycoon games. Prison architecture I know is much Moreno management based and simulation of running a prison with smaller elements of design but some of the details and the AI systems used really show some great possibilities with what could be brought to PC in Munich opinion.

The training of staff to unlock things in a clean UI where you didn't necessarily have to have the people on site but hire themselves and unlock things at least under their heading is where I thought with people suggesting they don't want back stage areas would allude to allowing us maybe hiring off screen personnel that we hire, train and have to have a rubbings cost for salary still.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I'm not real big on too much management, but I respect the discussion. There are some neat ideas, and I do like the "parcel" land purchase idea for all the reasons given. I have a problem with the IDEA that so many features could be added, and if you don't want them, you could just have a tick box to turn it off. I see so many things fairly integrated, like a spider web, that these options could become confusing.

Having said that, while I don't want too much management, I DO feel it's lighter than I expected, and hasn't evolved very much in this iteration. One idea I think wildenquebec (did I get that right?) has harped on ([wink]) is managing shop stock (supplies). I actually think this would have been an amazing addition to the game and it alone would have added depth and complexity.

 

[widlanquebec]

BitterJeweler, you're one letter to be right about my nick [happy]... it's widlanquebec, but I live ok with it [squeeeeee]

Just a thought, to simplify the management preferences, instead of a toggle on/off option to have to manually set, maybe a small pop-up at a specific point. For example, about stocks, "the shop <name> is near empty, how do you want to manage stocks" with a button "manually or automatically". After this, if you want to change it, you can go to gameplay settings.

 

[Nemmie]

I really like the managing shop supplies idea.
I wouldn't want to have to do each stall individually though. I'd want it to work like this.

Using Cosmic Cow as an example, you'd have to anticipate how much stock you need for a month for all you Cosmic Cow shops. You can lose money if you order too much as the stock has an expiry date. If you don't order enough, you can miss sales. If you need to order extra stock quickly till your next order is due, you get an extra charge for delivery. Your monthly order will need tweaking occasionally as you build extra or remove shops.
I'm sure this would be more like how it would be handled in real life and wouldn't be as tedious as having to individually stock every shop of the same type.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I was close! LOL

But no, see, I've thought about how that could be implemented, and it should be a fixed feature. Make it real!
Shops have a back door, and must have a small path to get deliveries. The small path would connect to a regular park path.
Somewhere in your park there must be at least one "warehouse". You have to hire a number of delivery staff (as needed), and they would take supplies on dollies to the shops, one run per shop, once a month (maybe twice?) You have to look at your sales, and set your monthly supply request, per your sales. If you run short, the shop closes. This would send business to another shop. If you have a surplus beyond a certain number of units, it would spoil, and you would lose money. If your paths are too congested, your delivery would be late, and the shop would close until it arrives.

I suppose the only thing you could make be "automatic" would be to let the simulation place your supply order numbers, so you could forget about it. But you would still have to have delivery staff, and paths, and a warehouse. This ticks boxes for management, creativity, and design logic and efficiency.

I think if done well, with a little wiggle room, would add a lot of fun in different ways.

[edit] damnit Nemmie! LOL

 

[widlanquebec]

I really like the managing shop supplies idea.
I wouldn't want to have to do each stall individually though. I'd want it to work like this.

Using Cosmic Cow as an example, you'd have to anticipate how much stock you need for a month for all you Cosmic Cow shops. You can lose money if you order too much as the stock has an expiry date. If you don't order enough, you can miss sales. If you need to order extra stock quickly till your next order is due, you get an extra charge for delivery. Your monthly order will need tweaking occasionally as you build extra or remove shops.
I'm sure this would be more like how it would be handled in real life and wouldn't be as tedious as having to individually stock every shop of the same type.

I like the way you suggested the implementation. It could be fun and still need careful attention.

Personally, I'm not sure I would like to have other path type to connect to shops... But the warehouse and delivery staffs could be a great addition.

 

[BobTheWobbly]

A lot of great ideas in this thread. Of course it takes time to implement anything like them And there are others here who say they aren't interested at all. I would definitely pay for a management add-on. And those that don't want it, don't buy it.

 

[matty b1]

I suppose for those that aren't interested in deep management, it would be like placing blueprints for coasters and shops if someone doesn't care to create them themselves.

@Curlyriff, yes, now I remember you said you play Prison Architect. I like their staff training and management system. You can set it and forget it or micromanage a little. Also the way you set the level of training you want groups of staff to have and how many of each, and the staff will make their way to training when they have an opportunity.

@bitter I love those ideas for stock management. I wouldn't want to worry about each individual shop either but having a warehouse /storage and needing an efficient way of getting stock to shops (especially through a staff entry at the rear, sounds fantastic.

I'm realising us management types are rather geeky

 

[Curlyriff]

I suppose for those that aren't interested in deep management, it would be like placing blueprints for coasters and shops if someone doesn't care to create them themselves.

@Curlyriff, yes, now I remember you said you play Prison Architect. I like their staff training and management system. You can set it and forget it or micromanage a little. Also the way you set the level of training you want groups of staff to have and how many of each, and the staff will make their way to training when they have an opportunity.

@bitter I love those ideas for stock management. I wouldn't want to worry about each individual shop either but having a warehouse /storage and needing an efficient way of getting stock to shops (especially through a staff entry at the rear, sounds fantastic.

I'm realising us management types are rather geeky

Yep , I think Prison Architecture did very well with this side of things. If they had the guests brains it would have been awesome to see what they could have done with but they are also already pretty advance with them making random thoughts and reacting to things that you do in your prison.

In regards to the stock of shops. Nemmie & Bitter, thank you for the input. Those ideas are spot on. It would allow some automation but still add some depth. It allows for part of the back stage to manage but doesn't have to take over the park.

The only part that could become complex is the pathing system for each shop and getting them back to the warehouse. I am not sure if it would be easier to have a distribution building that you place near the warehouse that has a capacity. We assume that the stock is moved either out of hours (so no guests on the normal paths (this is how it works in real parks) or that they are using a tunnel system. This way if the distribution centre gets to capacity then we would need a 2nd distribution centre.

I feel it would become a path building game if we have too many. Any thoughts on this being done either on the standard paths out of hours (as such since we have closing times) or tunneled system that is assumed where you just assign 'x' shops to it or automate number of shops that one distribution centre could supply.

 

[OriginalBadBoy]

I have to agree with Curly on this one BadBoy. From what I see there's just been ideas/wants/dislikes (from the information given so far) etc. in this thread. What's wrong with discussing it and, for those who want it, to express "I would love it if THIS were in the game..."

Just because RCT3 was the "sweet spot" for you in the management side of things doesn't mean other people can't want more (or less) in PC. The thread is management matters. Why post that if you want uber management gameplay you've come to the wrong place. What if the creative side was lacking. Would it then be "If you wanted uber creative gameplay you've come to the wrong place". What has really ticked me off in this thread is the lack of respect for other people's desires and wishes by some posters. If you could care less about management, or if it's, in your opinion, not a top priority, then why trounce on others by basically mocking or dismissing their view points because it doesn't matter to you.

We can all want more from a game than what we end up actually getting. You basically missed the entire point I was trying to make.

Having unrealistic expectations is only going to end in one thing .. disappointment.

Why would I or anyone else expect Frontier to make PC anything different from RCT3. Of course some people want more management aspects. Some might want less as well, the point being that PC looks to be hitting the sweet spot in general, not just for me, in general.

So basically you are criticising me for suppressing other poeples opinions when your basically doing the same thing.

In my opinion if people are expecting some sort of complicated management in PC then they have come to the wrong place. There is nothing wrong with that opinion, it's called being realistic. Don't take things so personally.

 

[Curlyriff]

We can all want more from a game than what we end up actually getting. You basically missed the entire point I was trying to make.

Having unrealistic expectations is only going to end in one thing .. disappointment.

Why would I or anyone else expect Frontier to make PC anything different from RCT3. Of course some people want more management aspects. Some might want less as well, the point being that PC looks to be hitting the sweet spot in general, not just for me, in general.

So basically you are criticising me for suppressing other poeples opinions when your basically doing the same thing.

In my opinion if people are expecting some sort of complicated management in PC then they have come to the wrong place. There is nothing wrong with that opinion, it's called being realistic. Don't take things so personally.

I am sorry OriginalBadB0y, but the same can be said for the creative side as what you are suggesting is being stated for the management.

You could then also say "If anyone was expecting more complex and deeper creative tools" then you have come to the wrong place.

Your whole view and statement is just wrong and I am sorry but that is not the same as being realistic. Everything we are asking about is a realistic option, it is not the impossible, It may not be right now. It may not be in 6 months but it is is possible.

I just don't understand how you can say this and then go "hmm this could have been the same as what others would say about the creative side of the game because they are happy with RCT3"

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

And currently in my opinion and others I feel believe that the creative side is deeper and more full filling for those players than the managers and thus we don't believe it has hit a sweet spot generally. Even people who are not that into management have got some good views and have also stated they wouldn't mind a little more management such as Bitter.

Please stop suggesting that this discussion is any different than that of the creative discussions we have been having for months, asking for more, wanting to push Frontier further. That is the point of Alpha, Beta and the forums.

 

[TemmV2]

The people over at Frontier are now my most favourite game designers but my most hated game designers. They make this game SOOO good, that these 5 days are going to be the longest 5 days of my life. The hype is real.

 

[matty b1]

It's a bit strange having to defend this thread so often lol.

Anyway...
So we have great ideas for
-stock management
-staff training (and breaks)

What else?
I was thinking about things that give the park more context as to how it fits into the world /community. I think it was Theme Park again that did this a little (ahead of its time). The area you chose to build your park had stats for the surrounding population such as the size, wealth... Anything else?
I would love this sort of thing (I think it's there in PC) but perhaps build on it.?

For example it's strange to have guests just walk into the park out of a tunnel etc. I really like the carpark RCTW has. It 'grounds' the park. I like how it reflects the amount of guests in the park. I'd love to see more interaction though.
For example you could run shuttle busses to bring more people in, make it easier for them. Of course this would cost and the benefit vs cost would be considered. Bigger busses could be bought and more could be run.
The carpark could need to be upgraded in size to accommodate more guests. A popular park should bring headaches, if the carpark gets full people are turned away and the park loses rating. Money would need to be kept aside to expand transport to allow for more growth and guest satisfaction.

Different modes of transport would appeal to different demographics too.
Families would be drawn by ample (free) parking. Teenagers by bus (even subway?). So these transport options should feed into the kind of park you want to build. For example, ample parking but scarce public transport in a park full of extreme thrill rides probably won't help those teenagers get to your park etc.

This 'context' idea would also change options and effectiveness of marketing campaigns etc.

Lastly, even something like closing times could be affected.
For example, in a small town, people won't like a late closing time for noise reasons (even light pollution etc). The same may go for wealthy areas where they are a little more fussy.
This actually happened here in Sydney. New, expensive apartments are built right next to our Luna Park and the residents began to complain of the noise from its famous roller coaster, even during the day, and even though the roller coaster existed before these apartments were built. In the end, the roller coaster was removed. $ talks, very sad.

Anyway, sorry for the long post.
Discuss.

 

[Curlyriff]

Haha yeah it is. I mean it is made for discussions about the game and it's content. Ah well...maybe time to ignore that side of things.

In regards to your thoughts.

Yep we have ideas on;

- Stock Management which I am hoping Bitter will comment on my thoughts with his idea so that it is easier to use without having to place hundreds of paths but still got enough depth of game play for us to manage and control accordingly.

- Staff Training & Stats that are specific to their roles and a little more in depth than currently shown with levels to promote employees etc

- Ride Sequence following with the staff training and promotion could allow for more depth with this as per that other thread and I think I mentioned here

- Park Expansion the idea i showed earlier to have more abstract park layouts, options to expand and how that effects both managing the park and doing design management also

- Off site staff for market manager back stage area for this was discussed, however some wouldn't like it so we discussed having staff such as marketing manager (& maybe we could also have financier/accountant for the loans side) that we would train to be based off site as such (as if in headquarters for your theme park company like Merlin Entertainment). Again ties in with the above but a separate part of management also

In regards to the accountant, I was thinking that if we had someone trained in this area that we would be able to achieve more favourable loan rates/amounts.

- Biome; location and influence From what has been said you would like for the area around the park (the city/province) would affect your guests spending, cash amount and number of guests. As you then say, depending on if the theme park is located centrally to a city or out in the grasslands would also add to what time the park may be open until. If you are building at night in game do you require a building permit otherwise hit with fines from noise complaints etc. There could be a lot with this.

Edit: Career Mode So we have scenarios which seem to be stand along goal achieving and some seem to be very "odd ball" like the Monolith one, in which case I would really like a proper career mode where I am a tycoon that is working to develop an empire of theme parks. You are working to complete targets for the CEO's and they fund you initially (like theme hospital). We could all play career and be scored against one another for completing the levels/scenarios and have a lead board. It would add some fun competitiveness and means we can all enjoy seeing how different people achieve those goals.

It allows us to feel like we are again say "Merlin Entertainment" going up against Disney and Paramount Pictures (London Resort Company) for giving our guests the best theme park etc.

Further to that I would like to see the Biome for instance if it is a warm arid area to mean people don't want to walk as far, get thirsty quicker etc, in the grasslands it may be that it is colder and so they prefer more indoor places to eat or similar.

-The Carpark There was a good thread about having the carpark with train station, shuttle buses and similar where you could expand it and it influence the influx of guests like when a coach pulls in or a train or the shuttle bus arrives to the gates etc.

This doesn't have to take away from the main building area of the park and it could be that you can choose the location of the carpark relative to the starting province so sometimes the carpark is closer to the main gate (think Thorpe Park) or it could be that the car park requires shuttle buses or a long walk from the carpark (relative) so that would influence how you use it, such as do you charge for it or not.

Selling/Demolishing costs for existing rides I would like to see that it would cost to demolish a ride, how much we could make auction it off with a randomised return back. This would at least add to it. It could be that it does it so that for instance your flat ride is out dated, worn out and the cost to refurbish is too steep to the expected income as you have owned the ride for say 2 game years. Now you want to remove it and that costs 'X' amount. You can take this hit and it would go to be scrapped with 'X' amount returned as recycled material earnings depending on age and condition/ride type/construction.

If however you want to try and make some more back because the recycle value is too low it can be sold off at auction. This is an automated process where you don't instantly get the income. It randomises how long the sale takes (between 1 game month and 6 game months) and how much that return is (minimum amount of recycle (less auction fees) to say 3x what recycle value is). Now you can earn more but it isn't guaranteed and in the meantime you have to pay for storage which also is 'X' amount per game month (low figure so that you feel the risk/reward is there without the player always choosing to recycle) but that way there are management options.

Once you choose to put it up for sale it just needs a UI to pop up and give you the expected figures and for you to decide option. Click on selected and then a notification will pop up when it is sold/scrapped for recycle and you will see a boost or lose to your funds at this time.



I think most of these have been discussed here or in a few sporadic threads so just wanted to list them all out and see peoples thoughts on basic concepts are and if they have any impact. The good thing about the ones that are maybe more deep and so not everyone wants to use they have ways to short cut them such as hiring senior staff rather than training, always scrapping the ride for recycle so it's done and dusted etc.

 

[danijami23]

Well Matty, you make some good points there. I would have liked to have seen a little bit of logisitics surrounding entry into the park that way, that would have been pretty cool.

However im not sure that implementing something like townsfolk whining about the park would be something that would go hand in hand with the spirit of this game. To have those kind of limits i think would stymie people's creativity, sonce building big extravagant coasters would be out of the question. Not fun (imo!)

Also i have to add: as soon as i saw that you live in Australia, I reread your post in Steve Irwin's voice - I've got to say it was pretty funny