Possible solution for the ride aging/prestige mechanic...

Of course it's gonna be tied to money in the end but you still can't say "it's a money hit either way so it doesn't matter how it's designed".

It does matter if it's a one-time event, a single variable that streches out the hit or a more sophisticated take on the whole thing. I've suggested a by far more complex system in this very thread. And it seems to me creaper's feeling similar about his suggestions (I just don't remember right now what they were). If you're not convinced, fine. But don't act like the only other suggestions were on the same level as one-time random "money hit" events.

Yeah. I'm sorry. I totally forgot a thought...that it would take a combination of these ideas put together to add complexity. More layers. Not that my proposal was the be-all, end-all. We need more ways that effect our economy, which require more ways to "fix" them. Again, I'm sorry my mind went faster than I typed, and that was an important point.
 
Another thing that makes no sense currently:

A ride turning classic is now tied to time, which means you can just close old rides and wait for them to turn classic.

Guests thought:
"Oh remember that ride in that theme park that has been closed for 15 years?"
"Oh yeah, I sure do, that's a true classic, let's ride that!"

Makes no sense. Rides turning classic should be tied to lifetime number of guests riding, so that it generates fandom, which makes it turn classic. Makes much more sense then just dead rides in the park for 15 years.
 
Rides turning classic should be tied to lifetime number of guests riding, so that it generates fandom, which makes it turn classic.

While I am still against Classic status getting a monetary bonus (or at least as huge as it is now), I REALLY like this reasoning!
This keeps with peeps should still ride old rides (at reduced price, if charging), but a popular ride like the Zipper, would become classic faster than a less popular (as we have seen them) ride like the Power 360! This also can vary with how the player sets the ride sequences, which also often effects popularity, and it varies the timeframe.

I like this idea!
 
It will always come down to money hits. Many of the current systems are too subtle about what they want the player to do and it's been pretty well established on the forums that it's subtle enough they don't know that it's happening at all.

There's definitely a strong preference for direct control management rather than the game reacting to what the player actually does or how the park is actually designed.

From a mechanics perspective, the game just needs to avoid stasis or permanent profitability which is too easy to achieve when rides provide indirect income, direct income and guest happiness... it just becomes a loop of buy ride, fast forward for money, buy ride, repeat.

As long as rides are always directly profitable long term, there's no other strategy necessary.
 
Great, so we seem to aggree that a "simple" (slapped on) mechanism is not what we have in mind for the final game. [up]

While I am still against Classic status getting a monetary bonus (or at least as huge as it is now), I REALLY like this reasoning!
This keeps with peeps should still ride old rides (at reduced price, if charging), but a popular ride like the Zipper, would become classic faster than a less popular (as we have seen them) ride like the Power 360! This also can vary with how the player sets the ride sequences, which also often effects popularity, and it varies the timeframe.!

Flatrides like the zipper shouldn't be able to get a 'classic' status like coasters because that's not realistic. If you want to have a system that includes all rides you could do that for example by categorising the rides (like rides at Disney were A,B, C, D and E). There would be certain requirements to meet for each category and limits (can't have 75% and more e-rides in your park). The better categories have certain perks but also there's disadvantages. Making a ride an e-ride for example unlocks the "becoming a classic feature" (measured by 'fans' like edjenoh suggested). For an e-ride you need more staff at the station but also can have (trained) security staff (security is gonna get implemented at some point, right?).


There's definitely a strong preference for direct control management rather than the game reacting to what the player actually does or how the park is actually designed.

I don't think that's the case. Not if they make PC react to player actions and park design in a comprehensible and balanced way... *cough* balloon mania *cough*
 
Last edited:
Great, so we seem to aggree that a "simple" (slapped on) mechanism is not what we have in mind for the final game. [up]



Flatrides like the zipper shouldn't be able to get a 'classic' status like coasters because that's not realistic. If you want to have a system that includes all rides you could do that for example by categorising the rides (like rides at Disney were A,B, C, D and E). There would be certain requirements to meet for each category and limits (can't have 75% and more e-rides in your park). The better categories have certain perks but also there's disadvantages. Making a ride an e-ride for example unlocks the "becoming a classic feature" (measured by 'fans' like edjenoh suggested). For an e-ride you need more staff at the station but also can have (trained) security staff (security is gonna get implemented at some point, right?).




I don't think that's the case. Not if they make PC react to player actions and park design in a comprehensible and balanced way... *cough* balloon mania *cough*

The balloon issue is pretty obvious that it's a bug caused by fixing the demand originally. The just overweighted the desirability of baloons and guests forget that they have a balloon in their inventory when the save is loaded.

And I brought up the customers served trigger for classic status back the day after the patch came out but classic status is still problematic due to it restoring the ride's direct profitability.

All of the behavior is actually comprehensible... but I direct attention back to the subtlety point.
 
Instead of answering my last questions, you brought out a strawman argument, then redirected to other things.

I don't know what you mean, it's tough repeating myself and we were talking in a thread with a different topic so I redirected you to my other thread about what we were discussing [blah]
 
The balloon issue is pretty obvious that it's a bug caused by fixing the demand originally. The just overweighted the desirability of baloons and guests forget that they have a balloon in their inventory when the save is loaded.

And I brought up the customers served trigger for classic status back the day after the patch came out but classic status is still problematic due to it restoring the ride's direct profitability.

All of the behavior is actually comprehensible... but I direct attention back to the subtlety point.

Bug, balance problems, bad design, bad guest AI- the reason dooesn't change the result. Is this a subtle but comprehensible system? I don't think so.

Somehow you still think the game is too easy if rides are profitable. We were talking about ways to solve this and by now it should be obvious that there are ways to deal with it. Without the need for an unrealistic, unfun and clumsy game mechanism.
 
Bug, balance problems, bad design, bad guest AI- the reason dooesn't change the result. Is this a subtle but comprehensible system? I don't think so.

Somehow you still think the game is too easy if rides are profitable. We were talking about ways to solve this and by now it should be obvious that there are ways to deal with it. Without the need for an unrealistic, unfun and clumsy game mechanism.

Hey, we've covered how you call things bad because you don't understand them. They just need to simplify it for you.

And yes, the entire post was about how it was a subtle system that too many players don't understand because it's subtle.

The game is too easy if rides are directly profitable. What else in your park is going to act as a money drain? The shops? The janitor and engineer fees?

You think the cost of restrooms and first aid should be enough to offset the profits from rides and shops?
 
Hey, we've covered how you call things bad because you don't understand them. They just need to simplify it for you.

And yes, the entire post was about how it was a subtle system that too many players don't understand because it's subtle.

The game is too easy if rides are directly profitable. What else in your park is going to act as a money drain?

Let me show you what I mean. I thought you'd get it from the link I posted but oh well...
"As to peep behavior in general, the next most important thing to remember is that peeps are space aliens native to the planet of Coaster, not humans. So don't build your park to suit humans." - Of course, after all this is a theme park simulation.
"Some peeps have such low tolerances that they'll never ride ANYTHING, so just be happy charging them park admission and maybe selling them a drink or hat." O-kay...
"Peeps love soda and water about equally and don't much like any other types of drinks" - Just like in real life. Wait, why are those extra shops in the game again?
"If you have a lot of benches, you'll never sell any coffee" - Makes total sense.

People don't go explore the park but always take the shortest route from A to B. Try and build an area like a nature park and see the peeps "react to everything you build". Spoiler alert, they couldn't care less.
I think that should suffice, I won't get into the queue issues. If you call unblanced and illogical "subtle" - yes, that's a very subtle system.

The question is, how to make the game more challenging. What you need is balancing, not simply a "money drain". For one thing buying rides and coasters should cost more money. It should feel like you're making an investment. Maybe you need to finance the big coasters and attractions. And I would try how the game plays if you can't have them instant-built. Add construction time and also a mechanism for the player to boost consctruction (for example by asigning your mechanics to the construction site).
Also People shouldn't accept to pay insane prices (not for rides and not for balloons). The whole game should become more complex. Also a balanced game would have a mechanism to force you to expand your park (which you'd need to buy land for) if you want to keep the number of guests high.

There's a ton one could think of that wouldn't only balance things out, give the player more interesting choices to make but also make the game more realistic.

How was this on topic (I know this is very important to you [rolleyes])? It shows how you don't have to make aging of rides a boring "money drain" mechanism if you make PC a real game on the management side.
 
Last edited:
Let me show you what I mean. I thought you'd get it from the link I posted but oh well...
"As to peep behavior in general, the next most important thing to remember is that peeps are space aliens native to the planet of Coaster, not humans. So don't build your park to suit humans." - Of course, after all this is a theme park simulation.
"Some peeps have such low tolerances that they'll never ride ANYTHING, so just be happy charging them park admission and maybe selling them a drink or hat." O-kay...
"Peeps love soda and water about equally and don't much like any other types of drinks" - Just like in real life. Wait, why are those extra shops in the game again?
"If you have a lot of benches, you'll never sell any coffee" - Makes total sense.

People don't go explore the park but always take the shortest route from A to B. Try and build an area like a nature park and see the peeps "react to everything you build". Spoiler alert, they couldn't care less.
I think that should suffice, I won't get into the queue issues. If you call unblanced and illogical "subtle" - yes, that's a very subtle system.

The question is, how to make the game more challenging. What you need is balancing, not simply a "money drain". For one thing buying rides and coasters should cost more money. It should feel like you're making an investment. Maybe you need to finance the big coasters and attractions. And I would try how the game plays if you can't have them instant-built. Add construction time and also a mechanism for the player to boost consctruction (for example by asigning your mechanics to the construction site).
Also People shouldn't accept to pay insane prices (not for rides and not for balloons). The whole game should become more complex. Also a balanced game would have a mechanism to force you to expand your park (which you'd need to buy land for) if you want to keep the number of guests high.

There's a ton one could think of that wouldn't only balance things out, give the player more interesting choices to make but also make the game more realistic.

How was this on topic (I know this is very important to you [rolleyes])? It shows how you don't have to make aging of rides a boring "money drain" mechanism if you make PC a real game on the management side.

The Bullethead post went over your head too I see. It was basically an explanation for why this game is too smart for you because you don't react to what your guests want and just do whatever you feel like without understanding how the game works. He was pretty on the mark.

Guests have a wander cycle but they have to have exhausted their other fun options and need options before you see it. Guests do react to scenery when walking the paths but I don't know what you want from them because it's just a quantitative scan of the area. Did you expect the AI to measure aesthetics?

The queue system is pretty unsubtle. They blatantly tell you they won't wait too long for a ride they don't find extremely interesting or is more than they want to pay. There was a bug early on with guest collision mistakenly indicating a full queue but that's a separate issue (most people know that problems can have multiple causes or could even be separate problems).

If the rides cost so much that you had to amortize the loan into the ride over say 25 years, it would basically look like the current system and when you hit classic, you've basically finally broken even on the investment.

Too expensive is relative, it's about perceived value. You can't declare it to be too much because just like in real life, it's about how much a guest (or other people in real life) are willing to pay and not your personal notion of its value.

I've suggested the construction delay and park expansion in the past but one simply means changes aren't quick fixes and the other is a game pacing mechanism to get the player to build up as much as they can in one area but they don't do anything for balance.
 
I think there should be a custom mode in challenge mode where i can pick how fast my ride's deteriorate etc
aging completly ruins my experience for challenge mode (wich i like the most)

Here's the thing you have made a wonderfull wonderfull rollercoaster i am not talking about a coaster that score's for example a 9 on exitement
no i am talking about a coaster that has full decoration etc you know those things you see on youtube, and you have to break that down because its ancient

i think for career the aging system should be tweaked but not be removed
 
Too expensive is relative, it's about perceived value. You can't declare it to be too much because just like in real life, it's about how much a guest (or other people in real life) are willing to pay and not your personal notion of its value.

"Perceived value" my ass. The game mechanic is just defunct is all it is. We all know what realistic prices look like. Or have you never been to a themepark?

What you're saying doesn't even make sense by in-game logic: One of my janitors would have to save up years to visit the park with his family.

But of course this game is too smart for me. [rolleyes]
 
I think there should be a custom mode in challenge mode where i can pick how fast my ride's deteriorate etc
aging completly ruins my experience for challenge mode (wich i like the most)

Here's the thing you have made a wonderfull wonderfull rollercoaster i am not talking about a coaster that score's for example a 9 on exitement
no i am talking about a coaster that has full decoration etc you know those things you see on youtube, and you have to break that down because its ancient

i think for career the aging system should be tweaked but not be removed

The intention is that you run the coaster at a loss and make up the cash in other ways until you get to classic status.

You can turn ride aging off in the options menu as well.
 
There is a problem (with the first post suggestion).

People in another section of the forum want more realism. If you refurbish a ride, then it will rekindle public interest.

I haven't really concentrated on how it all works, but it seems to work nicely. A ride gets old, so you have to refurbish it to keep reliability higher.
 
Top Bottom