Coaster Ratings Changing

[burritonator]

I built my second coaster, and after testing it had an excitement rating of 5+. Not long after I opened it, the rating fell to 3, then 2, and then jumped back up to 3. I didn't make any changes to the ride or scenery during this time. I can understand a coaster's ratings fallings after it's been in the park a few years, but not within days of building it.
Is this a bug?

[Erico]

If you are running multiple trains and using block brakes, it usually lowers the ratings significantly if trains sitting on the block brakes waiting. That is usually the cause of a signifcant rating drop like that.

Not sure if this is what is happening for you or not. Usually, ratings don't drop over time, I just don't think the game is set up that way. I have a coaster that's been running for 10 years game time and still has the same ratings it did when I made it.

Narad.

[Zervo⭐]

i think the rating change because of the guests who have ride it.
it change everytime the ride is over and when the guests from the last ride are out.

[Erico]

Originally posted by Zervo:

i think the rating change because of the guests who have ride it.
it change everytime the ride is over and when the guests from the last ride are out.

This has not been my observation at all. With or without guests, the ratings seem to stay the same. What changes them for me is always a train waiting to unload or sitting still on a block brake or chain lift.

Things that distupt flow are mechanic inspections, not a full queue, poorly design block brake layout, or too many trains. All of those conditions can make a second train sit somewhere.

Narad.

[Spectre]

As elNarador said, the issue has to do with your station optimization or block delays. The score you get on testing is a score of an unimpeded train, it doesn't factor in additional waiting times like sitting at block brakes or when you station has to many cars and is backfilling with guests waiting to exit.

In order to prevent this you need to ensure that none of your trains are waiting to black brakes, and you dont have more trains than your station can continuously process.

[Erico]

Thanks spectre. I have seen some strange behavior of the ratings that I can't explain. Take a look at my vidoe where waiting in the block brakes for about 6 seconds gets a higher rating than sitting in the block brakes for 1 second or coming right through without stopping.

https://youtu.be/srlpa9ZgPQI

This one didn't make sense to me, but it does have to do with stopping in the block brakes.

Narad

[burritonator]

Thanks everyone. All of this info helps a lot.

My coaster is one of those with single cars that hold 8 riders each. I have 5 cars, and it's a pretty short ride, so there are usually guests sitting in the station waiting for their turn to disembark. That would definitely explain the drop in rating between testing and opening for business.

[Holyvision]

I'm only going to toss this out because I haven't seen it earlier.

Remember if a mechanic is doing an inspection or repair, it will stall the people currently on the ride from exiting/finshing, and as such will change the ratings for a few runs until it 'evens out'.

That being said, I have also had changes in stats I cannot explain. I suspect it has something to do with the local environment, such as what is around the ride or etc at the time, but regardless get some strange stuff at times.

But yea, those mechanics will make you have different stats for a few runs.

[burritonator]

I've got it set to inspections every 10 minutes, so I should probably make them less frequent.

[ImHelping]

Every time I see these threads, I lament for how poorly implemented ride statistics are.

"Testing" is rather useless, if the numbers will wildly change through the usage of the ride. Not much of a roller coaster test if it doesn't even account for passengers (Or, not much of a passenger logic if they have a complete meltdown over waiting for ride exits).

Coumpounded by the fact we can't make usage of larger stations that well, as they only ever load/unload one car at a time. Whether it's one, two, or more.

[Voilodion]

Originally posted by ImHelping:

"Testing" is rather useless, if the numbers will wildly change through the usage of the ride. Not much of a roller coaster test if it doesn't even account for passengers (Or, not much of a passenger logic if they have a complete meltdown over waiting for ride exits).

I mostly disagree. I think the main failing of this specific mechanic is the game not making it clear to the player exactly how it works. Once I understood that trains waiting at the top of the lift hill (for the train ahead to finish the ride and enter the pre-station block section) were hurting the scores, it actually became useful information. Do you go for higher scores but lower throughput (with just one train that doesn't have to wait), or take the hit to excitement by running more trains and possibly lowering the price a bit, to get more guests through faster? It's a park management question that the game needs more of, if it could only be presented better.

I do agree that we need more sophisticated station and loading/unloading options, along with better guest AI, like letting new riders board the ride as soon as the last ones have de-boarded, rather than waiting for the last ones to completely exit the station building.

[ImHelping]

Originally posted by Voilodion:

I mostly disagree. I think the main failing of this specific mechanic is the game not making it clear to the player exactly how it works. Once I understood that trains waiting at the top of the lift hill (for the train ahead to finish the ride and enter the pre-station block section) were hurting the scores, it actually became useful information. Do you go for higher scores but lower throughput (with just one train that doesn't have to wait), or take the hit to excitement by running more trains and possibly lowering the price a bit, to get more guests through faster? It's a park management question that the game needs more of, if it could only be presented better.

I do agree that we need more sophisticated station and loading/unloading options, along with better guest AI, like letting new riders board the ride as soon as the last ones have de-boarded, rather than waiting for the last ones to completely exit the station building.

Look, we're all wanting better quality. But this kind of mindset of "Not actually you just need to jump through the hoops, it's great!" also leads to people inadvertently trash talking the developers (yeah I'll get to that).

As well, being so desperate for better management options to the point of bending over backwards to attribute design flaws as "No! See, having to jump through hoops over this because it gives us useless data in testing means MANAGNEMT!....right?", is no way to go about things.

A lift hill SHOULD effect the score, but it should be reported by the ride testing. Cars stopping to let people out should be part of the score, but again, part of the testing. Customers should not have such drastic reactions to downtime that it throws your testing numbers in the trash to have the nerve to use block brakes, or more than one car in a station, etc. Even if we did have (or get) better pathing and flow.

But then, there are people who honestly believe that unquestionably broken pathing botches in this game... don't count, are "LOL who cares! just move your gates!" etc etc assorted dismissal of the actual problems.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=805758589

Even when it's the developers themselves, who suffer those problems too. As early as the very first career mode mission in the game. Because the whole casual armchair "LOL, just L2P" reaction to such flaws, applies to rides the developers themselves placed in parks.

Even ignoring the fact they designed the rides with such pathing hurdles to jump in the first place.

[Voilodion]

Originally posted by ImHelping:

Look, we're all wanting better quality. But this kind of mindset of "Not actually you just need to jump through the hoops, it's great!" also leads to people inadvertently trash talking the developers (yeah I'll get to that)....

(snipped the rest for brevity)

Well, I didn't say it was great. You said the testing was rather useless (and again in your reply), and I was just trying to make the point that there was useful information there, if only we could get at it and understand it more easily. Knowing that riders get bored waiting at the top of the lift hill can help you design your track or optimize your operations better, but the connection between that fact and the testing numbers is far from obvious, and that's the design flaw in this particular case. Maybe the severity of that waiting penalty, and other guest reaction effects like it, ought to be reduced as well, but that doesn't change the fact that it is still a somewhat realistic reaction and it's a good thing for the game to account for it.

A lift hill SHOULD effect the score, but it should be reported by the ride testing. Cars stopping to let people out should be part of the score, but again, part of the testing.

Which is essentially what I said. The testing scores account for things they should account for, but the fact that they're doing so is not explained to the player in near enough detail (if any at all). At no point was I trying to say, "they're not flaws, it's management". The coexistence of poor UI/tutorials for otherwise useful mechanics with bonafide pathing problems just compounds the issue as it becomes difficult to distinguish the two.

[Spectre]

It bothers me a little that we have reached a point in gaming where we expect so much hand-holding to figure out a problem, when we are supplied with a live feed of numerical data that should make that obvious to anyone who would give even a smal amount of thought to figuring out the problem on their own.

I started the game, I looked at the numbers during the test and I was all 'oh, I guess it must be based on an average and this slow section is dragging it down, guess i'll speed the lift up' *observes* 'ok, excitment up, Guess that is how it works'. That required barely anything beyond an attempt to interpret the data, but it seems like nobody will be satisfied sans a giant pop up thats like "THE PROBLEM IS HERE, FIX THIS ---------->".

Creating a good coaster is a puzzle, and your given many times more data than the line graphs of RCT. Modern gamers just hate thinking for themselves I guess. It's excactly wht happened to the Hitman franchise, we went from the elaborate planning and trial and error gameplay of the PS2 era to 'OMG, LOOK, AN OPPORTUNITY. PRESS THE TOUCH PAD THINGY TO HAVE THE GAME SOLVE THE PUZZLE FOR YOU."

[ImHelping]

Originally posted by Spectre:

It bothers me a little that we have reached a point in gaming where we expect so much hand-holding to figure out a problem, when we are supplied with a live feed of numerical data that should make that obvious to anyone who would give even a smal amount of thought to figuring out the problem on their own.

I started the game, I looked at the numbers during the test and I was all 'oh, I guess it must be based on an average and this slow section is dragging it down, guess i'll speed the lift up' *observes* 'ok, excitment up, Guess that is how it works'. That required barely anything beyond an attempt to interpret the data, but it seems like nobody will be satisfied sans a giant pop up thats like "THE PROBLEM IS HERE, FIX THIS ---------->".

Creating a good coaster is a puzzle, and your given many times more data than the line graphs of RCT. Modern gamers just hate thinking for themselves I guess. It's excactly wht happened to the Hitman franchise, we went from the elaborate planning and trial and error gameplay of the PS2 era to 'OMG, LOOK, AN OPPORTUNITY. PRESS THE TOUCH PAD THINGY TO HAVE THE GAME SOLVE THE PUZZLE FOR YOU."

Too many people mistake accidental problems (let alone deliberate, but poorly implemented) as "Difficulty"

Then again, plenty of people considered making companions not suffer perma death in Fallout 4 "dumbing it down for casuals".

Despite it being a game where they would die to the physics engine many times over, before any enemies. Hell, the first time I got Dogmeat, within two minutes he walked between a pair of saftey cones and physics engined himself into KO status from the resulting object phycis.

I've reported LANDMINES that are placed at fast travel points, so when the area refreshes fast traveling is instant death. Only for people to ignore it that as "LOL I never fast travel! Stop asking for handholding!" Because most (not all) people talking about such things don't actually care about the game, bugs, or quality balance. Just that they get to talk about how much more of a Real Gamer they are for being willing to put up with just about anything.

Face it people. While there is a need to avoid straight up baby handholding, far too many people are only using such things as buzzwords to talk up their gamer egos.

Especially at a point, where such claims are being made in the face of a sandbox theme park game.

To be sure, the overall career mode is lacking in depth due to how few there are. And Challenge mode is just generic goals. So there is a place for better challenge depth.

But sadly, looks like many people just want their quickest fix to be able to claim "It's me! I'm the one who's the best at hardcore roller coaster design!". Rather than any actual quality, whether it's quality of ease of use, or quality of challenge.

Like people demanding the implementation of bad weather and umbrella sales. In a game where the employees of an umbrella shop would quit every five minutes form "Inactivity", and then quit in the middle of a rainstorm anyways.

Inconvenience as the basis of "hardcore" is sadly prevalant.

[Spectre]

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not very good at building roller coasters. Off the bat, mine will usually either crush your spine to powder or put you to sleep, and typically need a large amount of refinement before they are where I want them. That said however, your effectively telling me that the difficulty curve in that refinement is an unscalable wall where as I'm seeing a gentle slope, if not an almost completly flat line.

There are all manner of charts and graphs as well as a live tracker demonstrating any number of values and where they are excessive or subpar, to the individual who wants to do any thinking for themselves rather than having a solution foisted upon them, the indication of these excessive or sub-par values should indicate that these parts need to change.

The examples you give from Fallout are, frankly, fallicious. They are an entirely different scenario where in a mechanic of the game does not work due to developer error or glitches, where as in this case they are the result of user error, as they can be corrected by the user within the confines of the game mechanics. The game works fine, there is a tonne of information for diagnosing problems, but people are not availaing themselves of it. Every time I see 'omg, nobody rides my coaster, but my excitment is so high' it's like 'uhhh, yeah, thats cause they would be meat by the end of it' and it literally has a big red 10+ fear on it. People know that red is bad, it's the universal color indicator for that, and yet people STILL cant puzzle that out? When people are being that ignorant of the stats they are given, the only thing you could possibly do is hold their hand, to make IMPOSSIBLE to create a bad coaster. Also, simulation game, not worth much gamer cred.

If any blame is owed to Frontier here, it has nothing to do with the game or the coaster bulding/testing and all to do with their utterly abysmal and lazy attempt at teaching people the game. An ingame tutorial that teaches basic coaster physics and dispels common misunderstanding is very important as a jump point for new players to the genre who may not be familiar with concepts like G's and their comparative values, to point out the optimum values of excitment, fear and nasea, and defeat common misunderstanding such as the fact that maximum cars is not always best.

So in conclusion:

1) I don't agree that there is anything wrong with the 'quality' of the game itself.

2) Strawmanning people and using examples without the same core element is poor debating form and it makes you look like you dont know what your talking about.

3) The game needs real tutorials to teach people how to interpret the data, not a system that tells them the solution. To put our comparison, it would be like teaching people on Kerbal Space Program how to circularize orbit and aerobrake vs giving them an automatic landing function from deep space.