Rides breaking down far too frequently. Coasters that are long length break down after each cycle. - Page 3

Thread: Rides breaking down far too frequently. Coasters that are long length break down after each cycle.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 59 of 59
  1. #41
    The Breakdowns itself wouldn't be so bad if the Queue wouldn't empty every time. I remember back in RCT 1, 2 and i think even 3 the Queue would not empty when a Ride broke down. I might be wrong on this, but this is what i think i remember. Also in real Themeparks, Poeple stick around for a while in the Queue to see if it is a quick fix or not.

    I would like to see like a certain time limit a Guest is willing to wait until he leaves the Queue. Let's say the Mechanic has a long way to the Attraction, some Guests might decide it is not worth to wait, while others do.

    This way a breakdown isn't such a catastrophe as it is now where all the People leave even though the Mechanic might be just around the Corner.
    Forum Sillyness:

    -


    Crowdy's Workshop
    twitter: @crowdy1980, YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/Padernoster

  2. #42
    I don't have a problem with breakdowns at all. It's fine that the peeps leave the queue. If they were waiting long, they will go buy food and drink. The "catastrophe" is only temporary, because you will get all that money back when the line refills.

    Besides, if you charge for park entry, and free rides like 95% of real life parks, you lose nothing, and the peeps will go buy food, or get in line for another ride. Big whoop.

  3. #43
    Breakdowns really are balanced oddly, I haven't played with them for over a year.

    Guests' visits are roughly on a realistic level at like 3-5 rl hours;
    Prices guests are willing to pay are a little absurd, but nothing Disney doesn't charge irl;

    Yet roller coasters undergoing 10 minute inspections at least break down 2-3 times an hour, meaning a ride's line would clear out about 10 times during a typical visit.
    I mean a roller coaster that required maintenance and evacuation after every ten or so dispatches in real life, would be bulldozed by the end of the month.

    I would much rather have they balance pay once, ride for free play (lower ride operating costs at least 30%, nerf the hell out of guest's willingness to pay high prices, omg on-ride photos already) than keep holding on to the wacky, highly exaggerated breakdown mechanic. It's much more tedious than challenging.

  4. #44
    Agree, breakdowns are too agressive. Or is it just that the way breakdowns are calculated is too... odd? Confusing?

    Also agree, queues emptying is just a pain in the arse. From a simulation aspect; it's not realistic. From a management aspect; it's frustrating in the early days, becomes a moot point later in the game as dollar is so easy to come by. That's another issue altogether though.

    I don't think that more micromanagement will solve this issue. Personally I like to fire and forget my rides. But... there should be some scope for rewarding good planning and punishing negligence. As in real life.

    Maybe if rides fell into various states of dis-repair, which increased the severity of the breakdowns, that might create some interesting game play mechanics.

    For example; a ride that is constantly inspected by a well trained mechanic is low risk of break down, and when it does breakdown it's just a minor inconvenience.
    But a ride that has not been maintained falls into a neglected state and becomes a serious safety risk. Eventually it might lead to a fatal accident. Tag on the appropriate punishment, maybe a massive drop in visitor numbers, huge fall in park rating, or to the rides prestige, and you've got yourself a game system sir.

    Imagine the scenario editor possibilities.

    PS just to be clear; I don't think this is how it works at the moment. Pretty sure it's a 1:1 relationship with a rides age that determines when you need to refurb? Perhaps somebody can clarify. In any case, from my experience, inspections don't really do much at all. Maybe I'm missing something though.

  5. #45
    Again everyone's feedback basically confirms what I said before, its why I felt the need to ress this thread. This was first reported back in 2016 and its now coming up on halfway through 2018 and this has not even been explained.

    It would be really great to hear from Frontier on if they are looking into this at all. Breakdowns are certainly a part of a park and rides, but not the crazily aggressive breakdown rate that Planet Coaster has, even with a top mechanic team you can't stop it from happening which ends up being simultaneously annoying and problematic for the management of your park.

    Maybe all thats needed is a tweak in how much a mechanics inspection effects the reliability of a ride, as I have said many times right now it feels like a bug not an intended mechanic, because it happens way too often to be a logical mechanic

  6. #46
    I (still) do not agree.

    Responses in this thread are based upon personal experiences, Bitter for instance doesn't see it as an issue, nor do I.

    If you want to tweak it, use the scenario editor. It's still a value that can be determined by the player. I just don't understand why this is an issue with some people, just change the value.

    I'm off course no Frontier, but my response would be, "if you want different values, change it in the scenario editor", but then a lot here wouldn't agree, because it is a "bug".
    It's the main reason you can change the value there, so it could suit your style. What value that would be is for yourself to determine, if you let Frontier change the value other people will complain that rides never break down.

    This is one of those things where Frontier would never satisfy the majority if they change it, but the majority is still able to satisfy themselves through changing it themselves.

    Edit:

    Also, several people have said why it's possible some rides break down faster than others, and that is for instance determined by the amount of non-standard track you use.
    I haven't tested it off course, but a coaster with 3 launches should break down faster than one with 1 launch.

    I did one test where one track was longer than the other, but both with 1 launch and 1 train (only the last part was different from each other) and the breakdown rate was the same, so length of track doesn't matter.

  7. #47
    Originally Posted by Luuknoord View Post (Source)


    I'm off course no Frontier, but my response would be, "if you want different values, change it in the scenario editor", but then a lot here wouldn't agree, because it is a "bug".
    It's the main reason you can change the value there, so it could suit your style. What value that would be is for yourself to determine, if you let Frontier change the value other people will complain that rides never break down.
    That is the art of game development. And this art is something Frontier is lacking. I just have feeling they are incapable of balancing games. They nail the art, PR and everything and then ruin it with unbalanced gameplay.

    You definitely cannot find value that will suit everyone (itīs impossible with everything, you cannot please everyone), but frankly, in case of PC, it is very unbalanced and it could get much much better.

    Itīs also not about single value here. For me, thatīs not a big problem. I personally want bigger impact on park visitors itself, their happines and then the park attendance. And that is the biggest issue here. To me, it feels like every stat and feature is somehow "isolated" from each other and they do not affect each other very much. Correct me if Iīm wrong, this cannot be tweaked via the editor.

  8. #48
    Originally Posted by Luuknoord View Post (Source)
    I (still) do not agree.

    Responses in this thread are based upon personal experiences, Bitter for instance doesn't see it as an issue, nor do I.

    If you want to tweak it, use the scenario editor. It's still a value that can be determined by the player. I just don't understand why this is an issue with some people, just change the value.

    I'm off course no Frontier, but my response would be, "if you want different values, change it in the scenario editor", but then a lot here wouldn't agree, because it is a "bug".
    It's the main reason you can change the value there, so it could suit your style. What value that would be is for yourself to determine, if you let Frontier change the value other people will complain that rides never break down.

    This is one of those things where Frontier would never satisfy the majority if they change it, but the majority is still able to satisfy themselves through changing it themselves.

    Edit:

    Also, several people have said why it's possible some rides break down faster than others, and that is for instance determined by the amount of non-standard track you use.
    I haven't tested it off course, but a coaster with 3 launches should break down faster than one with 1 launch.

    I did one test where one track was longer than the other, but both with 1 launch and 1 train (only the last part was different from each other) and the breakdown rate was the same, so length of track doesn't matter.
    Well if you are trying to determine if this an issue based on how many people see it as such currently it seems a much higher % of commenters here see it as a problem than those who do not.

    That aside though, even if you personally do not care that your rides are continually breaking down. The simple logic of how its applied in game seems just outright bizarre. Rides which are brand new and have solid maintenance shouldn't be just breaking down.
    As you say you can fix this up in the scenario editor, but as I already said this was only recently implemented.

    Also the emphasis should always been on smooth and reasonable mechanics by default, if you want to make things more severe for yourself then you can go and make a change in the scenario editor and create a custom situation for yourself.

    I think you have made your mind up on this as have I, however I feel on the whole people are more inclined to agree with my perspective. Based on the fact that pretty much every person I have asked about this as well as seeing multiple topics around the issue since release point to the fact that it is something people are generally unhappy with.

    It makes very little sense in the game as it stands now, and feels like a bug not an intended mechanic. If mechanics were able to ensure rides stayed functional with solid inspection schedules and your team of mechanics were not keeping up to the task this would make sense for your rides to be constantly breaking down. However this is not the case, even with the most pro-active mechanic team and inspection schedule rides continue to constantly breakdown to a degree where the game continually spams you with notifications to the fact.

    This is clearly not working as intended because it makes no sense whatsoever. I struggle to understand your pov because it seems so simple and so obvious that this is not working properly or in any logical fashion.

    What I want more than anything is to hear from a Frontier Dev on this issue. Is this working as intended or not? Since 2016 I cannot see they have spoken about it at all, and I will be pushing to hear something from the team on this specific issue. If they say - yup its how we want it, well then we just have to agree to disagree. However I feel that is not the case and they will be more open to making a fix for the game.

  9. #49
    "Well if you are trying to determine if this an issue based on how many people see it as such currently it seems a much higher % of commenters here see it as a problem than those who do not. "

    ...out of 1 million plus users.

    Add in the bias of people who are happy, tend to be quite.
    Your data point is meaningless.

  10. #50
    I wish guests stayed in line for a breakdown & if it took too long then they'll all leave. That would add a nice little additional gameplay with ride response time + a great visual for the player to let them know you need more mechanics and/or better work rosters. If breakdowns worked this way, they could breakdown every minute and I wouldn't care (which they pretty much do if you put max breakdown tolerance in scenario editor! )

  11. #51
    Originally Posted by Bitter Jeweler View Post (Source)
    "Well if you are trying to determine if this an issue based on how many people see it as such currently it seems a much higher % of commenters here see it as a problem than those who do not. "

    ...out of 1 million plus users.

    Add in the bias of people who are happy, tend to be quite.
    Your data point is meaningless.
    From literally all of your comments I have seen, you seem to hold this quite aggressive view that because its fine for you there simply is no issue.

    That is clearly not the case, and short of holding a poll sent out to all users of the game, I would suggest a more reasonable assertion is to look at how many people have bothered to come to the forums to complain about the issue, not to mention the simple logic of how the breakdown system functions and how opaque and excessive it seems, that has been explained multiple times through this thread.

  12. #52
    No. My view is people claiming "majority" is bunk, statistically.
    It's just opinion. Data from a forum is pretty useless.

    You can criticize the game all you want. You are entitled to your opinion.
    I am entitled to mine.


    But don't claim anything statically. Because you do not, and I do not, have ALL the data. I will always argue against false data points.

    While Frontier deserves to hear your thoughts. They also deserve to hear mine.

  13. #53
    Originally Posted by Luuknoord View Post (Source)
    I (still) do not agree.

    Responses in this thread are based upon personal experiences, Bitter for instance doesn't see it as an issue, nor do I.

    If you want to tweak it, use the scenario editor. It's still a value that can be determined by the player. I just don't understand why this is an issue with some people, just change the value.

    I'm off course no Frontier, but my response would be, "if you want different values, change it in the scenario editor", but then a lot here wouldn't agree, because it is a "bug".
    It's the main reason you can change the value there, so it could suit your style. What value that would be is for yourself to determine, if you let Frontier change the value other people will complain that rides never break down.

    This is one of those things where Frontier would never satisfy the majority if they change it, but the majority is still able to satisfy themselves through changing it themselves.

    Edit:

    Also, several people have said why it's possible some rides break down faster than others, and that is for instance determined by the amount of non-standard track you use.
    I haven't tested it off course, but a coaster with 3 launches should break down faster than one with 1 launch.

    I did one test where one track was longer than the other, but both with 1 launch and 1 train (only the last part was different from each other) and the breakdown rate was the same, so length of track doesn't matter.
    I went through this with the developers right after the game came out because I had a couple threads on this thinking it was a bug and was trying to help them diagnose and fix it. The issue is with the number of "special" pieces -- pieces or parts of track that do something (like brake, accelerate, lift, station, block section, etc.). There is an algorithm that puts it all together and gives it a maintenance score that determines how quickly the ride breaks down over time. I had a video (not sure where it went, or if it would still be accurate) that showed a ride that was literally impossible to stop from breaking down because, even brand new, it would deteriorate faster than the 10 minute (again, at the time) minimum amount of time the game would allow you to set a mechanic on.

    This led to the ride always failing before the first repair cycle even ticked over. I've not played in a while and am not sure if this was fixed or not -- for me a simple fix would have been to allow for mechanics to repair a ride every minute, or to change the algorithm so the maximum rate of deterioration matched the maximum rate at which a ride could be fixed.

    It turns out it was a design decision and not a bug -- so I gave up the fight. There was an issue with it, for me, back in the day, but it was not a priority. Unfortunately it was a deal breaker for me since it was one of the only levels of complexity left because the economy simulation was so bad at the time.

    People (Like Bitter Jeweler in this thread) constantly said things like "It's not realistic" or "then don't build rides that big or complicated," or "I don't run into the issue, therefore it is not an issue so I'm going to point out that you shouldn't be talking about it," -- basically saying to play the game a different way than you want to. But for me, I really wanted to have that part of the simulation and not having it made the game way less enjoyable for me. I'm curious what it is like now with the added training facilities and economy sim -- but there used to be an issue (for me), that was not really an issue (for the developers), and that was that.

    For what it's worth -- it looks like they did allow for a way to fix it through the scenario editor -- which is perfect if it addresses the issues I was having. I do like the idea of a park with very high breakdown rate as a scenario just like I like the idea of a park with what I consider a reasonable breakdown rate that allows me to build crazy long coasters ... maybe offset it by raising the cost of maintenance workers or something.

    I will reiterate that I've not seriously played this game in over a year or so, and I assume with the expansions and patches lots has changed.

  14. #54
    Don't put words in my mouth.
    You are adding additional false narrative.
    That's not cool.

  15. #55
    I think overall what we seem to hear most is that people want breakdowns, but not as much as is in by default.

    I think anything else I say now is just going round in circles, so lets see what happens.

  16. #56
    A lot of the threads here go around in circles.

    But yes, let's wait and see.......

    I do not know for what, but we'll see.

  17. #57
    Originally Posted by Luuknoord View Post (Source)
    A lot of the threads here go around in circles.

    But yes, let's wait and see.......

    I do not know for what, but we'll see.
    Me neither. There is a reason why everything is going in circles. That happens when nothing is changing. The game is not getting the fixes people complain about a lot, nor we get answers from developers regarding them. What else do you expect to happen?

    Also, some of us are waiting for some things since the Early Bird release....

  18. #58
    Originally Posted by MR.sugar View Post (Source)
    Me neither. There is a reason why everything is going in circles. That happens when nothing is changing. The game is not getting the fixes people complain about a lot, nor we get answers from developers regarding them. What else do you expect to happen?

    Also, some of us are waiting for some things since the Early Bird release....
    It's hard to "fix" something when it's based upon personal experiences with the game. One finds a ride breaks down to fast, others do not.
    Maybe LT uses a break run of 100 mtrs which makes the ride break down faste, but we don't know. Design plays a very significant part as well.

    It's fair for everybody to argue that a certain value in the game isn't correct and might need adjustment, they actually did the best thing there is to do, make it so you can determine the value.

    I understand why this was an issue when the thread was made in 2016, because we didn't have the scenario editor at that time.
    At this moment in time, and the current state of the game, I find this particular "issue"user-related.

    I know my previous response was a bit exaggerated, but I find it strange that this is such a big thing.

    The peeps leaving the queue's being annoying is the only thing in this topic that I can say of: Yes, that is indeed something that could use some changes.

  19. #59
    Originally Posted by Luuknoord View Post (Source)
    It's hard to "fix" something when it's based upon personal experiences with the game. One finds a ride breaks down to fast, others do not.
    Maybe LT uses a break run of 100 mtrs which makes the ride break down faste, but we don't know. Design plays a very significant part as well.

    It's fair for everybody to argue that a certain value in the game isn't correct and might need adjustment, they actually did the best thing there is to do, make it so you can determine the value.

    I understand why this was an issue when the thread was made in 2016, because we didn't have the scenario editor at that time.
    At this moment in time, and the current state of the game, I find this particular "issue" user-related.
    Any feedback for any game is always personal. Yet some other developers react much better. They fix it, try to fix it or say whatīs the problem.

    Also, itīs not about the breakdown only. Most of the threads related to other problems goes in circle too.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not edit your posts
  • You may not post attachments