• Good news Guest, we've updated our reporting system to make it easier for you to report issues to us!

    Head over to https://issues.frontierstore.net/ to report, vote, and give feedback on the issues that matter most to you!

Guest Artificial Intelligence Algorithm

Severity
Moderate

Frequency
All of the time (100% reproducible)

Area of Game Affected
Simulation

Description
(I don't think "Simulation" is the right Area of Game, but there's no obvious option for Artificial Intelligence. Also, I spent over an hour searching the threads for others citing this issue, but did not find it represented. Sorry if I missed it somewhere.)

-It can be argued that "Guest Happiness" is one of the primary goals in the game. So, if the game mechanics, themselves, prevent us from meeting this goal, especially if there was a challenge/objective that dealt with guest happiness, then perhaps it could be argued a "Severe" issue rather than meerly Moderate?

"Several Guests are thirsty."
"Several Guests need a toilet."
"Several Guests are hungry."

These should be viewed as "major issues" to be addressed by the player.

On the other hand, though, if a player has already placed an excessive number of shops/stalls within highly populated, *as well as* the surrounding areas, but the problem persists, then the question arrises "is this the player's fault?"

The results of my investigation suggest to the player, no, this is NOT your fault. Sure, it's possible you could better arrange your paths and stall placement to improve the efficacy of each. But, you may rest assured that there is a greater issue at hand.

With ample quantities of the appropriate stalls, one can pick up a guest (group) and place it/them directly next to a solution to their greatest need, at which point the A.I. re-engages, processing each need, taking into account, as well, their ride preferences before finally settling on their new destination, which seems to have only a small chance, (depending on how many great needs they have), of selecting the item you just placed them directly beside. But let's say that, not only did it correctly choose to resolve the guest's restroom needs, but it also happened to actually select the restroom that you placed them near. In several cases similar to this, I have observed guests "stop" en route to this respective shop/stall I had just placed them beside, then, with seemingly no interruptive stimulus, select a ride as a new destination, instead of completing the resolution of their need, even when their bar depicting their need has completely depleted. I have also seen it perform multiple changes, going, (for example), from restroom, to food place, to drink place, before ultimately selecting a ride clear across the other side of the park, having never resolved any of their red-bar/no-bar issues.

As a result, the game is constantly yelling at us that we're bad for not taking care of our guests properly, when the actual problem is a set of "stupid guests" who elect not to solve their own issues.

Granted, we probably shouldn't have a host of guests who do nothing but run around eating, drinking, and using the restroom for their entire time in the park. But, one would think a guest could be a tad less fleeting with their choices, resolving intense needs when relevant to do so, *prior* to trotting off to the next ride. (Perhaps this could be partially moderated by decreasing the rate at which guests become hungry/thirsty/etc.?)

SUMMARY - Please assist the guests in fixing their personal needs. Please! You're their only hope! *Wink*

PS - While poking around in this category, could you please take a look at staff pathing functionality? I had issues where certain areas were being very infrequently cleaned, due to the Randomness of their pathing. Honestly, I did prefer the functionality of a previous system, in which the path itself was selected, rather than a ride/stall. This ensured that all desired areas were accounted for.

Luv you guys!!! Thanks for all you do, and for such a GREAT GAME!!!
=-D


Steps to Reproduce
(Detailed within Description)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Severity
Moderate

Frequency
All of the time (100% reproducible)

Area of Game Affected
Simulation

Description

...

With ample quantities of the appropriate stalls, one can pick up a guest (group) and place it/them directly next to a solution to their greatest need, at which point the A.I. re-engages, processing each need, taking into account, as well, their ride preferences before finally settling on their new destination, which seems to have only a small chance, (depending on how many great needs they have), of selecting the item you just placed them directly beside. But let's say that, not only did it correctly choose to resolve the guest's restroom needs, but it also happened to actually select the restroom that you placed them near. In several cases similar to this, I have observed guests "stop" en route to this respective shop/stall I had just placed them beside, then, with seemingly no interruptive stimulus, select a ride as a new destination, instead of completing the resolution of their need, even when their bar depicting their need has completely depleted. I have also seen it perform multiple changes, going, (for example), from restroom, to food place, to drink place, before ultimately selecting a ride clear across the other side of the park, having never resolved any of their red-bar/no-bar issues.

...

Steps to Reproduce
(Detailed within Description)

The uncertainty of this topic qualifying as a "bug" has already come up in the behind scenes. The individual did not state that this did not apply, just that he/she was uncertain if it did. So, to clarify, my belief and perception in/of this being a bug resides in the part where the guests are failing to complete their actions. It's one thing if the guests interrupt their plans to use their targeted restroom that's over a hundred meters away, in favor of the drink stall that they've just stumbled upon, while both their thirst and need for a restroom are equally great. It'd even be reasonable, if the need for restroom had been *greater* than the need for drink, and the guest would choose to wait on the restroom to instead catch the drink, *because* the drink is closer than the restroom. But it's another thing entirely for the guest to completely disregard a restroom that's right next to him, when his greatest need is the restroom, not just to head to another restroom that's a long ways off, but to instead head for the drink stall a long ways off, and while en route, change his mind again to instead go to queue up for a ride that's not even a "need", only for the guest to find that he doesn't have enough money for the ride, and rather than going to an ATM, or God forbid, rerouting back to the dink/restroom stall, he begins heading for yet another ride he'd only just come away from and been told that he didn't have enough money for that one either. The guests seem to either be too indecisive where their needs are concerned, or else perhaps too fixated on certain attractions.

I, of course, don't know what a possible solution to this might look like in terms of programming, but from my admittedly "limited" perspective, this certainly has the appearance of a bug. So, my suggestion, then, is that the *Bug*, in this case, is in the weighting of the guests "needs" vs. "other activities".

(Also, thank you for the feeback, and warm welcome Moderator!) =-)
 
Yes, this has been annoying me, too.
At times, it seems as though the guests have the average memory span of a gold fish.

Example:
I have a freshly started medieval area with one flatride so far. Also an entertainer. 3% (of 8000+ guests) want to go on it.
Very few single guest groups trickle in through the area's entrance.
They start watching the entertainer.
After being done with that, they just forget about the ride they'd originally chosen, for which they have walked through the entire park. They then pick a ride at the other end of the park, near the entrance.

It seems to me as if they should not recalculate their intended destination after watching an entertainer.


Additionally, it might be useful if guests were preaware of the stalls' and rides' respective prices (or queueing times), so they don't pick targets they can't afford in the first place. Wouldn't really solve the issue entirely, but could help to alleviate the situation.
This might also increase performance a tiny bit, as right now the guests stay in the park heading to different rides they can't afford and after a few failed attempts they go home.
If instead they directly cycle through different rides they can't afford without walking there first, they can choose to go home much sooner, reducing the number of guests in the park.
 
Top Bottom