ORCT2 have limits of attractions?

[odenmc]

Hello everyone.

I was in doubt if the game has the limits that had the original RCT2 at the time of building.

I am referring to these limits: http://forums.rctspace.com/index.php?showtopic=12575

I have read the features but it has not made me clear.

[YoloSweggLord]

OpenRCT2's Github Wiki maintains a list of the existing limits in OpenRCT2: https://github.com/OpenRCT2/OpenRCT2/wiki/Found-bugs-and-limitations-in-RCT2#limitations

The attraction limit, along with several other limits, are still in the game due to the use of the .sv6 file structure. These limits will be removed when OpenRCT2 switches to an independent save file format, at which point it will lose compatibility with vanilla RCT2.

[IceKnight366]

On 3/6/2017 at 06:41, YoloSweggLord said:

OpenRCT2's Github Wiki maintains a list of the existing limits in OpenRCT2: https://github.com/OpenRCT2/OpenRCT2/wiki/Found-bugs-and-limitations-in-RCT2#limitations

The attraction limit, along with several other limits, are still in the game due to the use of the .sv6 file structure. These limits will be removed when OpenRCT2 switches to an independent save file format, at which point it will lose compatibility with vanilla RCT2.

Thank you for some more details regarding this.  Getting rid of the limits in RCT2 is by far my most sought desire in this game.  The second that happens I'll be playing this game for the rest of my life hah.

But the idea that it will lose compatibility with Vanilla RCT2 is worrisome.  Namely, will we be able to transfer over old maps?  Saved tracks?  How about custom scenery (of which I have made ALOT), custom rides?  and so forth.  If I won't be able to implement my old custom scenery into the new Open RCT2 that would be a HUGE problem!  Maybe there could be some sort of converter from vanilla rct2 to open rct2?

[cascadia]

3 hours ago, IceKnight366 said:

Thank you for some more details regarding this.  Getting rid of the limits in RCT2 is by far my most sought desire in this game.  The second that happens I'll be playing this game for the rest of my life hah.

But the idea that it will lose compatibility with Vanilla RCT2 is worrisome.  Namely, will we be able to transfer over old maps?  Saved tracks?  How about custom scenery (of which I have made ALOT), custom rides?  and so forth.  If I won't be able to implement my old custom scenery into the new Open RCT2 that would be a HUGE problem!  Maybe there could be some sort of converter from vanilla rct2 to open rct2?

 

It will only lose backward compatibility, not forward compatibility.  You won't be able to open new OpenRCT2 files in vanilla RCT2, but you can open vanilla RCT2 files in OpenRCT2.  

[IceKnight366]

13 hours ago, cascadia said:

 

It will only lose backward compatibility, not forward compatibility.  You won't be able to open new OpenRCT2 files in vanilla RCT2, but you can open vanilla RCT2 files in OpenRCT2.  

Will there be a way to implement and edit custom scenery ?  Typically this is by editing a .dat file, but if the extensions are changed the object editor won't work.  Is the only way to do it is put it in a vanilla map, and that load that vanilla map into ORCT2?

[X7123M3-256]

29 minutes ago, IceKnight366 said:

Typically this is by editing a .dat file, but if the extensions are changed the object editor won't work.

RCT2 object files always have the .DAT extension so why is this a problem? Also, you can rename the file at any point, if you really want it to have a different extension.

31 minutes ago, IceKnight366 said:

Is the only way to do it is put it in a vanilla map, and that load that vanilla map into ORCT2?

You'll be able to do that, I'm sure. But I'm hoping that there will also have a new object format that would allow us to make custom objects that can't be done in vanilla. If that were the case, you'd miss out on the new functionality if you made an object for vanilla and then imported it.

Bear in mind that basically nothing has been decided about the new file format, other than the fact that you will always be able to import parks from vanilla, and the object limits will be removed. The developers haven't said much about the details and no work on this has been done, so it's impossible to say exactly what will and won't be supported.

[IceKnight366]

13 hours ago, X7123M3-256 said:

Quote

"RCT2 object files always have the .DAT extension so why is this a problem? Also, you can rename the file at any point, if you really want it to have a different extension."

I was just thinking along the lines of when the game gets to the development of creating a different file format .dat files wouldn't be applicable to the game.  I don't know why, I just assumed that I suppose.  But yes, I suppose you could always just change the extension.  Although doesn't that have the effect of corrupting the file sometimes?  Anyway

Quote

"You'll be able to do that, I'm sure. But I'm hoping that there will also have a new object format that would allow us to make custom objects that can't be done in vanilla. If that were the case, you'd miss out on the new functionality if you made an object for vanilla and then imported it.

Bear in mind that basically nothing has been decided about the new file format, other than the fact that you will always be able to import parks from vanilla, and the object limits will be removed. The developers haven't said much about the details and no work on this has been done, so it's impossible to say exactly what will and won't be supported."

 

When you say they "can't be done in vanilla" you mean without the use of a 3rd party object editor, right?  Like, it can't be done IN GAME, sort of thing, I take it.  Also, when you say, "new functionality"

I suppose my main question, in addition to the prior one's, is this: Will we be able to take custom-made .dat objects that we used for vanilla and place those same .dat file in the Objdata file for ORCT2?  Thus basically just transferring over the same raw object .dat file from one Objdata file to another Objdata file.  Does that make sense?

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions X7!

 

Edited July 29, 2017 by IceKnight366

[X7123M3-256]

53 minutes ago, IceKnight366 said:

I was just thinking along the lines of when the game gets to the development of creating a different file format .dat files wouldn't be applicable to the game. 

They may not be, but if that is the case then there will always be a way to convert the old files to whatever new format is introduced. The developers have stated that there will always be the option to use original assets, and to load vanilla saves.

 

54 minutes ago, IceKnight366 said:

I suppose you could always just change the extension.  Although doesn't that have the effect of corrupting the file sometimes? 

Renaming a file should not corrupt it. If it does, that's an issue with your filesystem rather than OpenRCT2. It might cause OpenRCT2 not to recognize it as an object file - but I really don't know why you want a different extension in the first place.

48 minutes ago, IceKnight366 said:

When you say they "can't be done in vanilla" you mean without the use of a 3rd party object editor, right?  Like, it can't be done IN GAME, sort of thing, I take it. 

No, I'm talking about things that can't be done at all. Like right now, you can't have custom track styles, because those graphics reside in g1.dat and not in object files. But if we had a new object format, we could eliminate those restrictions, and allow many more possibilities. I have heard @Gymnasiast talk about putting terrain sprites in object files for example, so that we could have custom ground textures. This is something that cannot be done at the moment, and could not be implemented without introducing a new object file format.

50 minutes ago, IceKnight366 said:

Will we be able to take custom-made .dat objects that we used for vanilla and place those same .dat file in the Objdata file for ORCT2? 

Yes. The OpenRCT2 developers have repeatedly stated that if/when a new file format is introduced, there will always be a way to import vanilla files.

 

[Gymnasiast]

Not sure how anyone missed it, since we have repeatedly stated that OpenRCT2 will always support importing from RCT2. Actually, from RCT1 as well. We added RCT1 import to OpenRCT2 ourselves and it would have been pointless if we were to completely drop support for all old formats later.

There won't be a converter since OpenRCT2 will be able to convert them itself. Just load your DAT/TD6/SV6/SC6 or even TD4/SV4/SC4 into OpenRCT2 like you always have. The only thing that won't be possible is loading your saved files from OpenRCT2 in RCT2.

Edited July 29, 2017 by Gymnasiast

[IceKnight366]

Very succinct, thank you guys.  Apologizes if you made you repeat yourselves.  That whole possibly introducing new ground tiles and tracks into game thing totally blew my mind hah.

Gymnasiast, while I have you here, did you see my post on reddit about possibly re-introducing the old RCT1 game alerts that ones park entrance fee is too low in order to help with financial game balancing?

 

[Gymnasiast]

I saw it, but I'm not sure if I really want it. I wouldn't necessarily block a PR for it if other team members consider it a good idea, though.

[SpiffyJack]

I would like to know where to the find the total content number so I know where i'm at and how far I have to go before maxing out.

[IceKnight366]

On 8/2/2017 at 07:01, Gymnasiast said:

I saw it, but I'm not sure if I really want it. I wouldn't necessarily block a PR for it if other team members consider it a good idea, though.

Would you or other members be willing to talk about?  I gave, what I thought was a pretty good reason, even practically necessary reason, for re-admitting it back into the game.  You seem to be saying you disagree.  I'm just curious as to which part you disagree with?  Or is it just too much work to implement?

For those who don't know what we're talking about, here is the original post:

"Part of the reason rising the guest entrance fee is balanced (at least with vanilla RCT2) is because guests won't pay it, no matter how high it is, if the park value of your park isn't sufficiently high. That is to say, for example, if you want to charge $300 to get into your park, guests won't pay it unless you have a sufficiently high park value of $250,000 ($250,000 is an educated guess as I don't have my home computer in front of me to get the exact number. I think one of my parks is at $375,000 for an entrance fee of $350ish). Therefore, you can't just raise the park value and make lots of money because guests won't pay it and you'll actually end up loosing money and end up going bankrupt. Will the same relation between entrance fee --> park value and park value --> entrance fee exist in OpenRCT2?

Another thing that was extremely helpful in vanilla RCT1 is that the game gave you feedback as an alert as to when to raise your entrance fee and when to lower it. In vanilla RCT2 they got rid of the alert of when to raise it, but kept the alert when to lower it. Do you think you guys would be able to bring back the RCT1 alert suggesting to raise your entrance fee? Otherwise it's a total guessing game as to trying to match up your park value with your entrance fee, wondering if your guests will pay it. I've been there, and it's not fun hah. The only way I've found to do this is to do these four things in order: 1) save the game, 2) sufficiently lower your entrance fee for a few months to establish a baseline of how many guests normally come into your park a month, 3) load saved game, then 4) incrementally raise entrance fee to see if the number of guests coming into your park decreases (as entrance fee starts to increase past park value, fewer guests enter park because of willingness to pay the increased price). This way you can try and achieve the maximum amount of guests coming into your park with the maximum amount of money they would be willing to pay. It's quite pain-staking!

A better solution would be to add the alert letting you know when it's time to raise your park entrance fee. What do you think? The only thing I'm not sure about is how difficult it would be properly aligned park value with entrance fee from a coding perspective. It doesn't seem like an easy thing to do... But I'm not a coder so I really don't know."

Edited August 3, 2017 by IceKnight366

[imlegos]

RCT2 didn't remove the "Entry fee too high" alert...

...Making them pay 300+ seems a bit excessive... Hell, anything above 50 seems insane. I just price stalls decently so I get 2.00 profit from most food items, 1.50 from drinks, .90 from souvenirs, and 3.00 for umbrellas.

I just raise the entry fee based on how much guests carry.

 

 

[IceKnight366]

On 8/4/2017 at 14:24, imlegos said:

RCT2 didn't remove the "Entry fee too high" alert...

...Making them pay 300+ seems a bit excessive... Hell, anything above 50 seems insane. I just price stalls decently so I get 2.00 profit from most food items, 1.50 from drinks, .90 from souvenirs, and 3.00 for umbrellas.

I just raise the entry fee based on how much guests carry.

 

 

I didn't say it removed "Entry fee too high".  I said it removed, "Entry fee NOT high enough, you need to raise."  Please re-read my post as I feel you didn't understand even the basics of what I was trying to say given that your response was predicated on a misunderstanding.

If you think making them pay $300 is excessive, clearly you haven't played RCT2 long enough.  I'm curious, what's the biggest park you've ever made?  I can guarantee you that it either 1) wasn't that big or 2) you turned money off/didn't play the game it was meant to be played (using staff to have a clean, well-operated, and non-vandalized park), because then you would agree with me.  Even Gymnasiast admitted on reddit that he's gone up to $125.  It's simple math:

When you get to the late game where you have a park that covers up to half (or even all) of the entire largest custom map, you hit that 200 max staff mark REALLY easy - like really really easy. I have spent hours and hours testing this. In my large parks I've had my staff spaced out as much as I could possibly could and had them on their max patrols. That is, if I had them patrol larger areas than they were patrolling, you would have started to see vandalizing, rides being broken for too long, and litter covering the streets. In addition, I have zero entertainers because they just aren't as important even though it would have been nice to have them. I even just completely took out benches, lamps and trash cans in some areas so as not to need security guards in certain areas so that I could have more handymen and mechanics. Trust me, I'VE TRIED EVERYTHING. I can send screen shots too if you need the proof.

The main problem was always the cost of staff. With a maximum of 200 staff (all of which you need on a big park, and even more so! In fact, large parks need a minimum of 300-400+ staff to keep it running optimally. The only way you could do it on the vanilla RCT2 is to have the "fast staff" cheat that allows you to cover 2x-3x as much ground allowing you so spread your staff out more and cover more area) at an average of $65+ per staff, that's $13,000! There's no way you can make that money up at tiny park entrance fee of 100-200 - it's not going to happen. Especially when you reached the sprite limit! Meaning you need to have one guest leave before anther one could come in. This decreases your park entrance fee amounts. It's poorly balanced.  MY LARGEST PARK HAS A PARK ENTRANCE FEE OF $650 AND A PARK VALUE OF $1,330,000.00.  As such, guests pay the price of $650 and I'M BARELY BREAKING EVEN.  At $200 per entrance fee you would REGULARLY need 70+ guests to enter your park EVERY MONTH JUST TO BREAK EVEN.  Which means you're not even making a profit to continue to build.  And I don't know about you, but I don't think I've ever had even one month, even with advertisements, where 50 people entered my park in one month.  Average seems to be about 20-30, and once you hit the sprite limit, average is about 10-15.  Which means at $650, at most, you make less than $10,000 a month; $3000 less to break even.  Sure, you can include $3,000 in food and merchandise, but subtract $1,200+ for restocking and that puts you at $11,800.  Now subtract $2,500 for ride operating costs and your at $9,300.  Congratulations, you just lost $3,700 that month!  The financial aspect of this game is broken and these are necessary changes in order to fix it.  AND YES, THESE ARE ALL REAL NUMBERS.  I can provide screen shots for proof.

The fact is, the game gets to a point where it's broken because you can only raise the entry price so high (thus need to use cheats to raise it), the guests only carry so much money (thus need to use cheats to make them carry more), and you are limited in staff (thus have to use cheats to make fast staff). Combine this with the fact that you are limited in sprites and so when you reach max sprites you have guests coming into your park far lower rate. EDIT: The problem compounds even more when you reach max attractions as there are higher operating costs. I hope to be able to build more than 255 max attractions in open RCT2. But that means you need more mechanics which are the most expensive staff members, and you'll have higher operating costs. There are many facets to this.

My biggest hope for this game is being able to raise the sprite level. When you make large parks like me, 8000-8600 (max feasible guests in a park) guests in your park makes the park look almost empty. I always hoped to be able to go up to 15,000-20,000 max guests. But of course this means you need more than 200 staff. But if you have more than 200 staff it's going to charge MUCH MORE. Which means you'll need much more than a 200 limit. You'll need at least a $1,000 limit, and better to have $1,200-$1,500 to play it safe.

 

[Gymnasiast]

I'm not likely to do what you want if you resort to shouting. You are the first one to complain about this. That is no exaggeration. It must be less of a problem than you suggest. And now you get angry that we don't rush to cater to your demands. Do you honestly expect us to do so if you act like that? I'd find this behaviour unacceptable if you paid money for this game, let alone now you're provided it for free and we put most of our free time into it.

[saxman1089]

I honestly don't think you're playing the game as "it was intended to be played," in that the coding of the game wasn't intended for such large parks. You want to build large parks within the current limits of the game? Play money-free. Or, you can experiment with a "get 'em in, get 'em out" approach (which you didn't mention at all by the way), where you set up the park to suck all the money out of the peeps without any way to give them more (i.e., no cash machines), forcing them to leave on a consistent basis and allowing room for more peeps.

But you know, let's try to go beyond the intended limits of the game.... and then complain that the problems you encounter are the developers' fault. That always works well.

[X7123M3-256]

I have no idea how you're charging $300+ for park entry because I've never seen a scenario where the guests spawn with that much.

On 8/6/2017 at 18:59, IceKnight366 said:

And I don't know about you, but I don't think I've ever had even one month, even with advertisements, where 50 people entered my park in one month.  A

The park has a certain capacity, and once it is maxed out, the only way to get guests in is to have existing guests leave or to expand the park. Both strategies are viable, but you don't get as much income as you would in a pay-per-ride park. Pay per entry parks are challenging - the game is not "broken", these scenarios are just harder. Plenty of people have completed them nonetheless. You can use the cheat to switch to pay-per-ride if you want to make them easier.

 

If you want to make changes that the devs don't want to merge, you're free to make your own fork of the game and implement whatever you want. I have one for experimenting with custom track styles.

Edited August 16, 2017 by X7123M3-256

[IceKnight366]

On 8/16/2017 at 06:17, Gymnasiast said:

I'm not likely to do what you want if you resort to shouting. You are the first one to complain about this. That is no exaggeration. It must be less of a problem than you suggest. And now you get angry that we don't rush to cater to your demands. Do you honestly expect us to do so if you act like that? I'd find this behaviour unacceptable if you paid money for this game, let alone now you're provided it for free and we put most of our free time into it.

Sorry for the late reply, just got back from Europe.

Perhaps there's a misunderstanding going on here as I'm not intending to convey "shouting" or "demanding" anything, much less to rush it.  Since you didn't know that at the time of your criticisms, when you gave them, they seem justified.  Hopefully now that that's cleared up!  (exclamation marks don't always convey shouting, and I tend to use them regularly hah).  And hopefully this is why you said my suggestions are akin to "complaining" rather than trying to give input on how to make the game better.

Hopefully this misunderstanding didn't taint my suggestions.  Thanks again for all the hard work you guys do.

EDIT: If by "less of a problem than you suggest" you mean, "per how many people play this game not many of them run into this issue" then I agree with you, absolutely.  That's simply because most people don't seem to build large parks.  And out of how many of those people are willing to contact you about it?  Indeed, it's no surprise I'm the first to bring it to your attention.  But if you mean "this isn't a problem at all, or not a very big one" I disagree.  I think as the numbers show, it makes late-game park-entrance-fee-style parks financially unplayable.

And I have bought this game, twice.  Just so you don't think I'm trying to take advantage of your guy's hard work or something like that.

Edited August 21, 2017 by IceKnight366

[IceKnight366]

On 8/16/2017 at 08:17, saxman1089 said:

I honestly don't think you're playing the game as "it was intended to be played," in that the coding of the game wasn't intended for such large parks. You want to build large parks within the current limits of the game? Play money-free. Or, you can experiment with a "get 'em in, get 'em out" approach (which you didn't mention at all by the way), where you set up the park to suck all the money out of the peeps without any way to give them more (i.e., no cash machines), forcing them to leave on a consistent basis and allowing room for more peeps.

But you know, let's try to go beyond the intended limits of the game.... and then complain that the problems you encounter are the developers' fault. That always works well.

Why think that limitations in coding suggest 1) normative play rather than just 2) unforeseen circumstances?  You're only evidence seems to me that, for some reason, "the game wasn't intended for large parks".  But why think a thing like that?  You could say, "Because then the fiances of the game don't work" but that's circular reasoning.  So you don't seem to give any evidence or reason for why we should think it's 1) instead of 2).  And in fact we can give good positive evidence for why it IS 2) rather than one.  I can think of at least two reasons off the top of my head.  First, because you just CAN (not yelling, just emphasizing) create massive parks at 255x255.  Like, they put that in the game for you to play with.  This suggests that they wanted to give people (thankfully!) the freedom to build large parks or else they wouldn't have put it in there.  Second, The money count and park rating graphs continue to keep track of your data without maxing out.  That is to say, the graph will continue to go up and down without maxing out at the top even when you reach a park value of $1,000,000.

Now what about this whole "get 'em in, get 'em out" approach.  Yes, that's an option that I use.  But the main problem with that is this: that's not realism saxman.  Now you might say, "It's a video game, it's not meant to be realistic."  Well, I don't think that's a very good argument for obvious reasons.  But additionally, when it comes to finances and money, these things should be geared more towards realism.  That is, if you are handling your finances appropriately, are working to keep your park value high, setting your rates appropriately, etc... the game should reward you with the proper outcome without the need to result to alternative methods like you suggest.  And I don't find this very objectionable.

Edited August 21, 2017 by IceKnight366

[IceKnight366]

On 8/16/2017 at 13:27, X7123M3-256 said:

I have no idea how you're charging $300+ for park entry because I've never seen a scenario where the guests spawn with that much.

The park has a certain capacity, and once it is maxed out, the only way to get guests in is to have existing guests leave or to expand the park. Both strategies are viable, but you don't get as much income as you would in a pay-per-ride park. Pay per entry parks are challenging - the game is not "broken", these scenarios are just harder. Plenty of people have completed them nonetheless. You can use the cheat to switch to pay-per-ride if you want to make them easier.

 

If you want to make changes that the devs don't want to merge, you're free to make your own fork of the game and implement whatever you want. I have one for experimenting with custom track styles.

I outlined it in my long post up there.  Using the money cheat to give guests $1,000 is the only way to do it.  And yet, it's the only way to balance your finances, that is, buy using cheats.

Yes, you're absolutely right that the only way to get guests in is to have other guests leave.  This just compounds the problem as now you're having even less customers entering your park which means less money.

I appreciate your thoughts in saying that "both strategies are viable".  Indeed, generally, I'm sure you know a lot more about this game than I do!  But that just is what my post is about.  Namely - entrance fee strategies are not viable for large parks.  That to me suggests a problem (if "game is broken" seems too strong I can use "problem" instead).  I think I've clearly illustrated this above as it really just comes down to math.  Using the numbers I have above, the calculations clearly show that entrance fee strategies are not viable for late game.  I would argue they're not even viable for mid game depending on how you define "mid", as I started running into this problem even before I hit late game.

[IceKnight366]

In short, I love this game just as you guys, and everyone else in this community, do too.  And I'm sure we can all agree that we want to see the best, most balanced, and innovative Open RCT2 we can.  And for that, your hard work should be universally recognized and I continue to maintain great excitement for Open RCT2!  This is why I made my suggestions.  I'm not trying to offend anyone, resort to "shouting" or "demanding", or sound like some elitist.  If my posts sound "cold" I apologize as I am a philosophy major and I tend look at things very analytically!  All that to say, I believe that what we have is a major problem with late-game park-entrance-fee strategy game play.  I think the numbers I've provided prove this beyond a reasonable doubt.  If I'm wrong, please someone show me where the numbers are wrong as I would love to have it fixed in my own parks hah.  However, I suspect many people here haven't tried building the large parks that I have and thus have no first hand experience of it.

EDIT: Also, I'm not trying to say this is Open RCT2's fault.  This is a problem that has existed since Vanilla RCT2 and Open RCT2 just inherited it by default.  Just to clear up any possible misunderstanding there.

I hope you guys will consider approving my suggestion and that our discussion here hasn't gotten tainted by any misunderstanding.

Hope all is well!

Edited August 21, 2017 by IceKnight366

[imlegos]

...I'm slightly getting the feeling you just don't understand how to play pay for entry scenarios...

1. the ammount of guests that come into your park is more relient on how big the park itself is, not how many guests have left (Otherwise, you'd be stuck at like 1-2 guests for most scenarios)

2. Most scenarios don't prohibit advertisement. Use this to get a larger influx of guests coming in.

3. Using stalls to make them give more money is helpful ESPECIALLY balloon stalls, as guests will frequently lose their balloons.

4. You can also exploit closing and reopening the park in order to get more guests to pay the entry fee. Though this is not required, I have completed several scenarios without doing this.

[IceKnight366]

7 hours ago, imlegos said:

...I'm slightly getting the feeling you just don't understand how to play pay for entry scenarios...

1. the ammount of guests that come into your park is more relient on how big the park itself is, not how many guests have left (Otherwise, you'd be stuck at like 1-2 guests for most scenarios)

2. Most scenarios don't prohibit advertisement. Use this to get a larger influx of guests coming in.

3. Using stalls to make them give more money is helpful ESPECIALLY balloon stalls, as guests will frequently lose their balloons.

4. You can also exploit closing and reopening the park in order to get more guests to pay the entry fee. Though this is not required, I have completed several scenarios without doing this.

No insult intended, but I'm starting to get the same feeling hah.  Perhaps our communication is failing.

1) I never said it was dependent upon how many guests you have.  But from what I can tell it's also not due to the size of your park like you suggest.  Rather, it's due to how high your park value is.
2) I don't think you're reading through what I'm saying very well as this is the second time you seem to be mentioning things I've already talked about.  When you reach max sprites it doesn't matter how many times you advertise, you're not going to get more guests.  So this doesn't solve the problem.  But even more than that, if I'm understanding the connection between Park Value --> Guests in park, advertising is only going to accelerate you reaching that cap.  For example, if you have a park value of $500,000 that will merit 6,000 guests (just guessing for the sake of the example).  If you're at 5,000 guests, advertising is just going to get you to that 6,000 guest limit in say 6 months instead of 1-2 years (in-game time).  Which means you'll get a quick boost of money initially, and then be in the red quicker once you hit that 6,000 mark point.  So yeah... it's not that great of an idea except for under specific circumstances (quick boost of 1-time cash), and it certainly doesn't fix the problem.
3) I calculated max income for stalls in my calculations.  I invite you to go back and look at them.
4) I'm not sure what you're alluding to here as closing/opening the park doesn't raise your park value and thus won't get you more guests.  And again, this doesn't fix the max sprite problem.  Additionally, I don't think we should have to resort to using exploits to have a balanced financial aspect of the game.  Again, that just seems to admit that there's something wrong, don't you agree?

Can I ask you a question for relevance?  What is the largest park value / guests you've had in your park at once?