The Fallacy of "All Green" Rides: Family Values and the Fear Factor

Early on, I watched all the Frontier and 3rd party videos saying you should build coasters with "all green" stats. And the Workshop is full of rides proudly proclaiming they have "all green" values for Excitement, Fear, and Nausea.

Slightly later on, during actual game play, I noticed that the stock "Genie" ride in the Family section always was amongst the biggest cash cows in any park I put it in. So I wondered, what was the appeal of the Genie? I looked at it closely. The Genie's values are E 3.17 (Orange), F 3.07 (Orange), and N 2.88 (Green). Hmmm, only 1 of the 3 stats is green, but it rakes in the money with both hands. Why is that? After much more careful analysis, I can confidently state that the reason is because the fear factor is low enough not to scare off children, but still high enough to attract teens and adults. Thus, the Genie is attractive to all demographics. And that was an epiphany.

See, there are 3 types of customers: adult, teen, and family. Adults and teens, who can drive their own cars, come individually or in small peer groups. Families are the biggest groups, making up about 1/3 of customers who come in groups, and include 2 adults, 1 or 2 teens, and 1 or 2 kids. Families don't split up so all go where the kids want to go. And the determinant of what kids want is the Fear Factor of a ride. Anything above 4,. which is Orange instead of green, scares off the kids and thus the families they're part of. High Excitement and low Nausea are attractive to all, except maybe teens. But the key point is, if the Fear Factor is too much for kids, then nobody in their family group of non-kids will go on that ride.

So, families are about 1/3 of your customer base. A family is a minimum of 4 customers, at least 3 of which are not kids but all are condemned to go only on rides attractive to kids. But all of them pay for everything in your park, even if they get a family discount on admission. If you build rides not attractive to kids, then you write off about 1/3 of your total customers. But if you only build child-friendly rides, then nobody except kids and their tending family members will use them. So what you want is something like the stock Genie, not too scary for kids but scary enough for unaccompanied teens and adults.

In support of this assertion, I offer the following. It was a head-to-head test of a family-friendly wooden coaster (my own Rattletrap) vs. a hybrid with loops and rolls (my own Jackolope) too scary for kids. The pic below shows their stats, with Jackolope benefiting from the scenery value of the shops. This didn't help its bottom line.

https://flic.kr/p/NH7GQL

As you can see, Rattletrap benefited from a higher customer through-put, 0.62 customers/second vs. 0.20 for Jackalope. But Jackalope only caters to teens and adults and scares kids away. So, Jackalope's customer through-put is based on only 2/3 of the total customer groups, so reducing Rattletrap's by 1/3 is 0.41 customers/second. Still, Rattletrap has 2x more through-put per second than Jackalope, despite having stats like the stock Genie with only Nausea in the green and the others in the orange. Jackalope has 2 stats in the green so according to dogma should be the better ride. But it only appeals to 2/3 of potential customers and on top of that its small customer/train ratio compared to Rattletrap, even with 3 trains vs. 2, puts it firmly behind in terms of money earned over a 7-year period. Over 7 years, Jackalope lost $26,000 while Rattletrap earned $64,000. And this isn't counting that Jackalope costs about twice as much as Rattletrap to buy.

This is outside the range of the jiggered customer through-put figures noted above. Therefore, family matters and trumps the "all green" notion, because fear in the green scares off kids, which scares off their entire families.
 
Last edited:
Naw.. This "All Green" thing is simply creating rides that would appeal to the widest audience.
Guests have tighter tolerances that refer to a "number" But I'm not too sure what the range Around that number is.
For Fear I assume that its an "up to" value. Like Bob have a Fear value of 7.2 and will ride anything Lower than that value.
For excitement I feel its basically the same, but inverse... like Bill has an excitement value of 3.5 and will only ride things with a value Higher than that.
.
Of course, I could be wrong and all of this is subject to change in the near future anyway.
The whole "Green ride" thing is more of a Guideline than anything else. I personally just ignore the 'Color' value and focus on the Stat Numbers for the Type of ride I'm making.
 
The thing is, I don't think any children have a Fear rating greater than 4, which is orange. So if your ride is green for fear, no kids will ride it. And thus neither will their parents or teen siblings.
 
And thats why this game will always be broken from a career/management play style lol
Yep, exactly. I put the 10 excitement coaster in my park (launch into inverted loop that wraps under station which then finishes the loop at the exit of the station) and it was just like the above river rapid ride. Super tiny, super easy, 10 excitement, the peeps were crawling over each other to ride it.

I was making lots and lots (I can't check actual numbers, I'm at work) of money for the ride. It was super cheap to create. So, I placed two of them in my park, fast forwarded for a while, and once I came back to the sim I had enough money to create whatever I wanted to at that point.

I'm not sure how they can fix management at this point.
 
If something is more expensive (like a big coaster) shouldnt it just make more money?
That's a great question (economically and philosophically).

Is expenditure related to fun, and how much people is willing to pay for it?

Meaning: Are you willing to pay more money for something more expensive, just because it's more expensive? Do more expensive stuff make you happier?
 
Thats usuaaly how management sims work. If I spend time on a big coaster with lots of scenery, it can be frustrating to see it make less profit than a simple ride. Obviously the idea is to attract more customers to buy items, but the pay off isnt there in this case
 
Last edited:
Thats usuaaly how management sims work. If I spend time on a big coaster with lots of scenery, it can be frustrating to see it make less profit than a simple ride. Obviously the idea is to attract more customers to buy items, but the pay off isnt there in this case

An example:

Animal Kingdom's Expedition Everest is the most expensive coaster in the World, $100 million dollars.

And Radiator Springs Racers (Disney California Adventure) costed more than twice that sum.

Would you be willing to pay twice the ticket for it?
 
Your one of those guys that gets video games confused with reality. Sorry but in Animal Kingdom's Expedition the sun doesnt pass over head multiple times an hour and guests dont stay their for years. Im not trying to debate what is realistic, I want a fun and unique gameplay experience. This game isnt just a "model kit"
 
Last edited:
Your one of those guys that gets video games confused with reality. Sorry but in Animal Kingdom's Expedition the sun doesnt pass over head multiple times an hour and guests dont stay their for years. Im not trying to debate what is realistic I want a fun and unique gameplay experience
Didn't you want a fun management? Isn't that achieved through reproducing real management issues?

If not, why is so many people asking that entry tickets should be profitable, or many of your threads about staff improvements and Park closing schedules... Aren't you contradicting yourself?

Fact is, companies make investments in things that are not profitable by themselves, but in the context they are do. That's why scenery though it's not profitable per se, when close to rides, it makes more guests to ride on them and that also affects on how much money you make.

Heck according to your logic, we shouldn't even decorate anything, it's more efficient to simply have a naked amusement park.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I could debate all day about how PC is lacking compared to RCT3. Ride breakdowns have no variety, no crashes. But when I debate a topic I like to try not to switch to other debates. Are we discussing finances or are we discussing everything the game does wrong? I asked a simple rhetorical question, and you seem to go all over the map to make your point
 
Last edited:
Personally, I could debate all day about how PC is lacking compared to RCT3. Ride breakdowns have no variety, no crashes. But when I debate a topic I like to try not to switch to other debates. Are we discussing finances or are we discussing everything the game does wrong? I asked a simple rhetorical question, and you seem to go all over the map to make your point
I was debating precisely about the topic of the OP, and explaining why how PC set it makes sense (why cheaper fun rides like Genie can bring more income than all green coasters), giving you even real life examples.

I didn't talk at any point about anything PC is lacking. And by no means I have mentioned RCT3.

Actually the target audiance values are something PC devs got it spot on.
 
Last edited:
If its paid admission than more expensive rides draw more customers. if its pay per ride then yes the bigger rides should have higher pay rates. Thats how its been for every ticket based carnival Ive ever been to
 
Last edited:
If its paid admission than more expensive rides draw more customers. if its pay per ride then yes the bigger rides should have higher pay rates. Thats how its been for every ticket based carnival Ive ever been to
An amusement park or theme park is not the same as a fun fair / carnival. Even if it's paid per raid.

More costly rides may draw more costumers, but if you set them at a expensive price, guests will only pay for that one and go home, if you set them cheaper guests will also visit other rides and spend more time, if they spend more time they also consume more in shops and other stuff.

That's why amusement parks like Linnanmäki, charge €8 for any ride you take, be it a expensive 4D coaster or a carousel.
https://www.linnanmaki.fi/en/prices

The management trick for parks is both in real life as in Planet Coaster is to:
- Attract a lot of guests.
- Keep them happy
- Keep them for as long as you can in the park
- Give them more reasons to spend money.

That's why as Planet Coaster well simulates, rides for all audiences (and not all green coasters/rides) are those that attract more guests, and that also turns into more profits. More than more specialised and/or more expensive rides.

Point simplified: Want more profits? Don't go for all green rides, but for all audiences ones.
 
Last edited:
And thats why this game will always be broken from a career/management play style lol

If something is more expensive (like a big coaster) shouldnt it just make more money?
Not necessarily . Coasters draw in the crowds who can then spend money on your other attractions overpriced food and souvenirs. If you get a coaster running efficiently with high throughput, they have a good excitement rating and good scenery rating on the queue and track, they can make a huge profit. It doesn't necessarily follow that just because they cost more they should automatically generate more revenue. It's about the wider benefit the ride brings to your park.

Saying that the simulation is broken because some players have found a way to cheat the system by designing rides that make lots of money is not entirely fair. Yes it highlights some balancing issues but no matter how well designed the simulation is, people will always find a way to cheat it. You can't direct all the criticism for that to the developers. It's up to the player to decide if they want to play the game 'properly' (how the developer intends) or whether they want to find exploits to expiedite progression. If you want to build a tiny loop river rapids ride that's entirely up to you. Personally I'd rather put in the effort to build a good looking ride, and I'm not fussed if the end result is something that makes just as much money as something that I could have build in a fraction of the time for a fraction of the price. You can try making it 'harder' to develop a profitable ride but people will still find an exploit if they want to and the risk is that you make the game less appealing to those who are trying to do it their own way.
 
Saying that the simulation is broken because some players have found a way to cheat the system by designing rides that make lots of money is not entirely fair. Yes it highlights some balancing issues but no matter how well designed the simulation is, people will always find a way to cheat it. You can't direct all the criticism for that to the developers.
I concur. My personal trick in that situations is to roleplay you are actually a RL park designer, I set myself some goals and restrictions and that way I have fun, even with the game limitations.
 
So, do kids actually ride coasters labelled for "Adults and Teens only" in the coaster menu? Sorta the "you must be this tall to ride?
Or this only applies to "all ages" coasters?

Interesting find though.
 
Last edited:
Ride revenue depends strongly on guest flow rate,duration and scenery value, not excitement/fear/nausea.
Au contraire. Revenue is the number of tickets sold times the price of the ticket. Ticket price is arbitrary, basically what the market will bear, so can be ignored assuming all your rides have the same price. What matters, therefore, is tickets sold per unit time.

The number of tickets sold is solely a function of whether individual guests decide to go on that ride. It doesn't matter if your ride is capable of processing 200 customers every 30 seconds if nobody wants to go on it. Now, high capacity can keep the queue short and thus might help some customers decide to go on that ride instead of another, but the ride still has to attract them. And it attracts them, or perhaps repulses them, with its ratings for excitement, fear, and nausea. This means you have to know your customers, and a high proportion of them are children. This is because families go where the children can go, so any child your turn away also loses you sales to 2 adults and all the child's siblings. That adds up quickly.

Children aren't allowed even to attempt to go on like 3/4 of the rides in the game (like 90% of coasters and 2/3 of other rides). And even for the subset of all rides they can go on, children will not go on any ride with a fear value of 4 or more. A fear value of 4 is less than green. Therefore, any ride that is "all green" is only for adults and teens, and thus alienates about 1/3 of the total customer base before considering anything else, like how many customers it can process per second.

This is why I say "all green" is not a desirable target when building coasters. Sure, it's nice to have 1 or maybe 2 like that, if you can afford them, but they cater mostly to teens, who are only a fraction of the total customer base. If you do build an "all green" coaster, it's a good idea to keep it as small as possible, therefore cheap, because it's not going to be competitive with a ride that's attractive to children.

Your coaster on the left cleary has more scenery so your test is totally invalid.
No, you just misunderstood what I was doing. One coaster (Rattletrap) was amenable to children. The other (Jackalope) had higher stats in both excitement and feer, and the fear was green. Plus it had some scenery. So if scenery and green fear are actually attractive to potential customers, Jackalope should have attracted a higher percentage of free-roaming adults and teens than Rattletrap. IOW, Rattletrap would have had all the families and Jackalope would have had most of the loners an peer groups. Such, however, was not the case. Far more of all types of customer went on Rattletrap than on Jackalope. Ergo, green fear and even higher excitement is not sufficiently attractive. In fact, guests of all ages seem to prefer more pedestrian rides.

if you want the most profitable ride I have it right here:
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=806893689
Which is exactly the point I was making.
 
The number of tickets sold is solely a function of whether individual guests decide to go on that ride. It doesn't matter if your ride is capable of processing 200 customers every 30 seconds if nobody wants to go on it.
Saying tickets sold is fully a function of decision to ride is not entirely true; the throughput matters when you reach the point where there is always a full ride's capacity of guests in the queue for the next loading. It does not matter if the queue barely reaches or is 5 miles long--through-put is the limiting factor.
 
Top