PDA

View Full Version : Tips for getting more money and other stuff


simsgenius
01-21-2005, 03:34 PM
I have had a few ideas.

1. Put all of the gentle rides at the front of the park. Then put the more exciting ones behind them so visitors go straight passed the gentle rides when heading to your thrill rides. They then notice the gentle ride and go on it.

2. Place rides so that if you have 2 similar rides, the exit of one of the rides leads onto the same path square as the entrance to the other one then people will come off 1 and go straight onto the other most of the time.

3. If you are doing advertising campaigns for a ride, do it for the ride furthest from the front of the park causing you peeps to go on other rides on the way.



If anyone else has any other ideas, post them here.

TheSkipper
01-21-2005, 03:47 PM
Not to say you are wrong, but I disagree on tip one. Since there are a lot of family "groups" gentle and thrill rides should be mixed throughout park. The reason is the "waiting for group" feature. If the kids want the gentle rides, the parents WILL wait and actually can decrease the attendance and profit on the high end rides, the same holds true in reverse, but in this case, the kids tend to "take off" and then parents are either "looking" or waiting for them once again. Most real parks I have gone to and that's a lot, gentle and intense rides have always mingled. The excetion are the "play places" for kids which really have no rides, but are glorified playgrounds. ALL of those in reality came much later in every park and they detract from rides while "parents" stick close to the kiddies. Just my Opinion.

DWWilkin
01-21-2005, 04:14 PM
How do these theories test out with the AI? THis may work in concept but will they work with the RCT3 AI. The two are vastly different and are sthe subject of posts, debates and flames elsewhere in the forum.

I should be surprised (but pleasantly so) if peeps would come off one ride and go on another ride.

TheSkipper
01-21-2005, 04:34 PM
Hmmmm. Well, both are JUST opinions on park planning from different perspectives, mine is only different from "sim's" in respect to the distrubition of gentle and intense rides. I see no reason for flames, others may have other opinions as well and everyone can do whatever works for their plans and success.
After all, that's what this forum is for.

DWWilkin
01-21-2005, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by TheSkipper


Sorry Skipper, I was referring to the idea of how the park dynamics should be, how they currently are, how this may be an AI fault, or a gameplay issue. Not how you might have differed then sisgenius.

TheSkipper
01-21-2005, 04:47 PM
No problem, I just wanted to reply to the secondary part regarding debate and flames <LOL>, as for the dynamics of the AI, game play, etc. I guess the theory is to try various styles from opinions and see over time how the game reacts. What works eventually will become a "standardized" pattern, it seems, don't you think?

DWWilkin
01-21-2005, 05:04 PM
Until the next AI tweak ;)

Seriously though, i would be interested in seeing the principles that are proposed in park planning tested.

For instance your cafe theory, does that increase peep spending on food? Does it make it easier for them to satisfy hunger. Do groups take care of multiple needs of hunger or do you get a lot of peeps standing in the spaces while one eats?

Of should one just keep putting one stall along a path and not worry about food courts at all?

TheSkipper
01-21-2005, 05:16 PM
Ah, the imponderable possibilities! <LOL> Those are only answerable over time for the large part, I don't know if the cafe has even been tried, just an idea I had, as for food courts, the peeps seem to spend more there so far... What the future holds is anyone's guess.