Guest Eventually Stop Riding

[Ennex]

I've seen that on several rides guests will eventually stop riding exclaiming, "I'm not paying that much to ride "such-and-such". No matter how low I drop the price, they will not ride. Rebuilding the exact same ride will cause them to start riding again.

[YoloSweggLord]

This can be fixed by clicking "renew rides" in the cheats menu. This reset's the age of every ride in your park. The reason these guests aren't willing to pay as much money anymore is that their ride price threshold is determined partially by the age of a ride (newer rides=higher threshold.) Resetting its age also resets the ride price threshold. This is one of those problems that were "left over" from the original game.

[Ennex]

Thanks. I appreciate the tip.

[jensj12]

It is not a problem, it's called a game mechanic. The game wants you to replace old rides with newer ones over time. I usually make them free so the guests without money stay inside the park (unless the goal is monthly profit).

[Broxzier]

It is a problem, a bad design problem. A good coaster doesn't shouldn't get bored over time, at least not to the point no-one wants to ride it anymore.

[imlegos]

I feel like this should be a toggleable option in the scenario editor. The toggle would probably be called "Guests get bored of rides after time", or comically "Guests seek new thrills" Since in reality, people don't get tired of the same old rides, just look at Fantasyland in Disneyland Park (California). It has some really old rides that still have really long queue times.

[X7123M3-256]

If such an option is implemented it should be a cheat. People do get tired of older rides-  a newly opened ride will almost always have the longest queue, and old rides get rough and unpopular with time. In 1980 an Arrow looping coaster would be new and exciting; today, not so much.

[Broxzier]

1 hour ago, X7123M3-256 said:

In 1980 an Arrow looping coaster would be new and exciting; today, not so much.

It would still be exciting, maybe not to you, but certainly if it's a new ride. No matter what type a new ride is, there's always a hype in the beginning, this even goes for very childish events in a park. Besides, the game can not easily include completely new types of attractions, the types are set, just different skins.

So to make it more realistic, I suggest new rides have a popularity boost instead of making old rides boring in the long run.

Edit: I think it's worth making a issue over at Github, I'd like to know what the other developers think of it.

Edited April 1, 2016 by Broxzier

[X7123M3-256]

I mean, you're not going to get a new Arrow looper today (a relocated one maybe), so most installations are getting old now, and technology has moved on.  It was just meant as an example of an old ride style - I didn't mean to say "guests should not want to ride Arrow loopers". 

I think rides should get less popular with time - people do get bored of rides they've ridden many times before (at least I do), and new rides attract people to the park (otherwise parks wouldn't build them). Without this mechanic, there'd be no incentive to keep expanding the park.

[Millionaire2K]

I've NEVER had a coaster get so old people no longer wanted to pay to ride.  Now sometimes it got as low as $1, however after a ride reaches 25 years of age you can raise the price again as people will see the ride as a classic attraction.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Millionaire2K

[Mattiator]

I can understand wanting to pay less, but it shouldn't make it so a ten cent ride is "too expensive" in a park that uses ride tickets. That's kind of silly. It would still work as a "build new rides" think since it might make some rides unprofitable once they get too old. A well-made coaster wouldn't have that problem, but a car ride might.

[Millionaire2K]

Yeah ive only ever had the problem with car rides.  I would normally try to upgrade the ride to get people paying $0.20 again.  And once year 25 hits I can always get cash out of any ride.

[Broxzier]

Even car rides shouldn't get so boring that nobody wants to ride them anymore. There's always kids that haven't seen it before and want to get in.

[ziscor]

I have no idea if this already exists, but how about adding a down limit to the ride's ever degrading excitement? After a certain period of time it can not get anymore boring than that. 

You could apply different limits to different types of coasters, or perhaps make it directly influenced by the base excitement it gets once the ride statistics have been calculated. Perhaps an algorithm that factors in the former as well as the latter?

For example, Wooden Coasters get very unattractive or extreme after a long time, and it's very hard to get people on it, but under the same circumstances a coaster that is more technically advanced (no idea which ones fall under here, but a Giga sure looks like it comes in this) still manages to rake in the Grants. Or the Benjies ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°).

Edited April 14, 2016 by ziscor

[Broxzier]

Copied from GitHub:

Quote

Say a ride's nominal value based on its ratings is V. Then the below is the ride's actual value as it ages. (In practice, it will be slightly higher due to the way the integer arithmetic is performed.)

0–4 months: V + 30
5–12 months: V + 10
13–39 months: V
40–63 months: 0.75 * V
64–87 months: 0.56 * V
88–103 months: 0.42 * V
104–119 months: 0.32 * V
120–127 months: 0.16 * V
128–199 months: 0.08 * V
200+ months: 0.56 * V

After 200 months (25 in-game years) the ride rating is back to 56% of the original, as you can see. But before that, the ride rating is extremely low. Only 8% of what it used to be. I think this is too extreme.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Broxzier

[ziscor]

The numerical change seems too extreme to me as well. Plus, this doesn't make any sense. Do the guests think that old rides are back in trend now? Why would the value go down gradually then go up drastically and plateau over there? One would have to survive 25 years of getting the ride rejected by everyone, only to gather huge interest once again. Is there a justified logic that Chris followed as to why this happens?

[Broxzier]

No.

[imlegos]

It seems too just be the numeric value rolling over, causing the number too be set to a different one, usually higher then the previous. This probably bugs out due too the way it's coded, so instead of rolling back too 100% then dropping again, it gets stuck.

[Broxzier]

It could be made so intentionally, to have old attractions become popular again. The scalar values are just too extreme in my opinion.