Please institute a penalty or "scenario loss" situation for negative funds

[jpinard]

I'm trying to design a very challenging scenario because the game is just ridiculously easy. For a very large park with open areas, nothing researched, and full high interest loans, it is still easy to win because there is no penalty for losing all your money. For instance, when those loans get unmanageable you just let them run out and take them out again. I know I can make no loans available, but that takes a chunk of the game dynamic away. What I'd like to have happen is if the player goes into negative funds territory, there is a a loss condition, or better yet, happiness amoung all the employees plummets because they know the park is in financial trouble.

Please. please, please Frontier make this happen so we have a real challenge in the game. I'd also like to see a way to change the max amount of money people will pay to go on rides. In many cases it is way too generous.

 

[Helena]

One way to make it harder is to use the timed challenges.

But I agree, I miss the various challenges aspects of older games.

For example do not build beyond a set height. (to respect neighbors maybe)

Forbidden to scrap trees.

Penalty to scrap trees and foliage. (cost you money to remove, instead for giving you money!)

Those were the old ones I can recall. There are more, but I have forgotten. Alas.

 

[mr.sugar]

One way to make it harder is to use the timed challenges.

We are used to them from past frames, but would that work now? It would encourage people just to plop things randomly, building would go aside. I don't think that's what we want. I think the ideal solution would be to add conditions for failure, such as negative funds, low park rating, low safety etc etc.

I think in theory, timed goals can work, but would be quite a challenge to make it fun.

 

[Helena]

Definitely. I agree, the game is too easy now.

Back in time the coaster, if it crashed people would say "it is not safe" and not wanting to ride it. You would have to edit it or scrap it and make a new one.

I wish to see something like this now.

I also miss the old different kinds of failures. Station brake failure (ouchie!), brake failure (also ouchie), stuck seat protectors, etc... Safety cut out - mech gotta go check up things, delaying.. (which is really what we have now, without naming anything, but with added effect of smoke.. )

Poorly designed coasters would raise the risk of failing brakes for example if you design coaster that go into brakes "too quicky", for example too short brake rail for a high speed coaster or coaster going too quickly into the station. It would make the brakes wear out quickly. And when broken, it would be dangerous if having more than 2 trains, the train might jam into other one. And if it happens = people thinking it is unsafe and not wanting to go on it again. No need of death this time, just the expression of feeling unsafe.

Maybe as alternative to death, you can get penalized by having to refund the poor guests and then give some extra money as some comfort. Plus of course reputation downhill.

Those small things make the game harder by the nature.

And of course, you "could" turn it off in settings or make it harder or easier in the scenario editor to make it easier for the newbies too.

Some rides would have the risk of the cars going off path/rail too - adding to the "unsafe" feel. I haven't built the new bob type coaster yet, to see if it can do that or not. In old games it could go off the "path".

 

[mr.sugar]

One way to make it harder is to use the timed challenges.

But I agree, I miss the various challenges aspects of older games.

For example do not build beyond a set height. (to respect neighbors maybe)

Forbidden to scrap trees.

Penalty to scrap trees and foliage. (cost you money to remove, instead for giving you money!)

Those were the old ones I can recall. There are more, but I have forgotten. Alas.

Definitely. I agree, the game is too easy now.

Back in time the coaster, if it crashed people would say "it is not safe" and not wanting to ride it. You would have to edit it or scrap it and make a new one.

I wish to see something like this now.

I also miss the old different kinds of failures. Station brake failure (ouchie!), brake failure (also ouchie), stuck seat protectors, etc... Safety cut out - mech gotta go check up things, delaying.. (which is really what we have now, without naming anything, but with added effect of smoke.. )

Poorly designed coasters would raise the risk of failing brakes for example if you design coaster that go into brakes "too quicky", for example too short brake rail for a high speed coaster or coaster going too quickly into the station. It would make the brakes wear out quickly. And when broken, it would be dangerous if having more than 2 trains, the train might jam into other one. And if it happens = people thinking it is unsafe and not wanting to go on it again. No need of death this time, just the expression of feeling unsafe.

Maybe as alternative to death, you can get penalized by having to refund the poor guests and then give some extra money as some comfort. Plus of course reputation downhill.

Those small things make the game harder by the nature.

And of course, you "could" turn it off in settings or make it harder or easier in the scenario editor to make it easier for the newbies too.

Some rides would have the risk of the cars going off path/rail too - adding to the "unsafe" feel. I haven't built the new bob type coaster yet, to see if it can do that or not. In old games it could go off the "path".

THIS. Exactly what is missing. With the maintenance thing, they could add extra cost for these failures. Did u design the coaster that train hits brakes too fast? They will last less and fail. Then, fix will cost something too. Same thinking about accidents. They are already in game, but have no impact. Why? I'm fine with penalty u mentioned, it doesn't need to be death... These are the small things we are missing.

 

[KickAir8p]

One way to make it harder is to use the timed challenges.

But I agree, I miss the various challenges aspects of older games.

For example do not build beyond a set height. (to respect neighbors maybe)

Forbidden to scrap trees.

Penalty to scrap trees and foliage. (cost you money to remove, instead for giving you money!)

Those were the old ones I can recall. There are more, but I have forgotten. Alas.

Although I agree with most of these (and other conditions suggested in this topic), it's currently possible to limit the height/depth you're allowed to build -- in the Scenario Editor's Park Dimensions box (I think that's the name, I'm on the wrong 'puter right now to run the game) you can limit the width, length, and height/depth of the park, with off-sets if you want it off-center.

 

[UCES Fossil]

Increasing scenery running cost is a great way to add difficulty to a scenario.

For example, a locked fireworks show will add flourish to a scenario and its cost will increase difficulty.

When the scenario editor was introduced, Frontier held a scenario contest. Sam Denny played the winning scenario on live stream. After completing the easy and medium objectives he got distracted by building a fireworks show and running it continuously. He ran out of time and money. It was sort of amusing to watch. I was saying to myself, "Oh, no, Sam! Those things are expensive...better watch out!"[haha]

To me, the problems with very difficult scenarios are two-fold:

1. They are basically micro-management grind-fests. Ride breaks. Hire a mechanic. Ride fixed. Fire him. Having fun yet?
2. The need for maximizing financial resources means building tends to be bare-bones. This is unlikely to result in an attractive park at the end. I've tried to look objectively at some of the parks I've built while playing difficult scenarios. My verdict: In polite company they would be called "Unfortunate."

As a player, my preference is that the scenario creator tells me a story. The park is its own little world and I as a player would like to become immersed in it. I'll get around to the goals - or maybe not. Whatever. I'm perfectly happy if I build something that I add to my personal set of blueprints.

As a scenario creator, I try to tell a story while encouraging the player to create an attractive, unique park. In a sense, the goals are nearly incidental. Whether it's park value, profit from shops, or something else, a determined player will reach the goals. But the goals are not the sole point of playing, at least in my opinion. The points are to build a nice park and experience a unique fantasy world. So I try to set goals that have play value, but not so extensive that the scenario becomes tedious.

 

[mr.sugar]

1. They are basically micro-management grind-fests. Ride breaks. Hire a mechanic. Ride fixed. Fire him. Having fun yet?

A

Why need to fire him? because otherwise it´s not possible to win as you run out of money? Then it´s the exact opposite extreeme. It is possible to make things balanced, hard enough, yet not this "grind fest" you mentioned. Art of the game development

 

[breezerHOG1]

I miss how in RCT1 the guests would cheer for you when you completed a scenario, you could pop their balloons and pluck the feathers of ducks (pointless but it brought the world a little bit more life) but pigeons on the hand, yuck [tongue]

Also in RCT1 the scenarios felt more like a puzzle because the parks all had unique shapes to them, like sometimes you owned a piece of land that was in the shape of a zigzag and you had to build a zigzag coaster, or another park might only let you build underground in certain areas and above ground in other areas. I miss how robust the scenario editor was in RCT3, with PlanCo its either all or nothing when you apply terrain restrictions in the scenario editor

Deciding which areas of land you wanted to purchase added a bit of strategy and depth that is greatly lacking in PlanCo because, pretty much every scenario has a massive park border that is usually square or rectangle, usually with massive open areas that scream "place rides here", and then Challenge mode is even worse. Raising the difficulty also means that you just have to wait a little longer before you start making tons of money.

I would like to see a better sense of progression for PlanCo2 in the sense of starting out with only a few "older rides" and prebuilt coasters that are "portable" like a carnival/fair might have. Players should be able to work their way up from being a "travelling carnival" to owning their own land/parks. And there should be a new approach to how objectives are designed. In "Career" mode you would be working to buy out competitors, and "Scenario" mode would be more objective based like current scenarios, but they should combine Scenarios with Challenge mode into the same system so that we can in/decrease the difficulty to each scenario as if we were playing challenge mode, I really dont understand why they made challenge mode a separate thing when it gets so boring so quickly having a flat piece of land instead of having various terrain types.



[video=youtube;PPl6cGu7zPM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPl6cGu7zPM[/video]

 

[Coastergenius100]

I mean, there's a pretty big penalty to going negative. Basically, you can't build anything, and chances are that if you got to that point, you're going to keep losing money. Then you have to either take out a loan or sell off assets (at a discount). So if you want money to be an issue, just make the interest rates high, and limit the amount of loans they can take out. But I also agree that loans are an important part of the game. You need to be able to make big capital expenditures upfront, if you just build family rides little by little, it takes away some of the fun. Loans and investors are a normal part of business.

 

[Robert K]

How about you go in the red your park gets shut down? Just like the real world, parks go bankrupt and are forced to close. The open park option then gets disabled and guests leave the park.

 

[B4DD4WG]

In the neg. for 3 months; Lose 1/8th of your employees. (no funds, so cant hire more)
In the neg. for 6 months; Lose 1/2 of the remaining crew. Some shops permanently close, until you have the funds to "remodel". Which you can use your mechanics as a "refurbish/remodel". Or, you can purchase a new shop.
In the neg. for a year; You must take a loan, as many loans as possible. If loan amounts are not enough to clear you to the black. Bankrupt..start over.

 

[jpinard]

I mean, there's a pretty big penalty to going negative. Basically, you can't build anything, and chances are that if you got to that point, you're going to keep losing money. Then you have to either take out a loan or sell off assets (at a discount). So if you want money to be an issue, just make the interest rates high, and limit the amount of loans they can take out. But I also agree that loans are an important part of the game. You need to be able to make big capital expenditures upfront, if you just build family rides little by little, it takes away some of the fun. Loans and investors are a normal part of business.

I've already done that and it's still too easy.