Well maybe when people don't buy CiM3 because we were burned with two, that will goad them into making a product we want.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Well maybe when people don't buy CiM3 because we were burned with two, that will goad them into making a product we want.
I don't think I was making myself clear enough. I obviously don't think constructive complaints are bad. I think they are good. However, I see some complaints that I think are a bit out of line and I don't think those are gonna help anybody. I feel some of those are to the point were they can damage the community. I for one, have almost stopped reading some of the threads bc of that.
With that said, some of your problems have more to do with tweaking the ruleset than the pathfinding, so I find those arguments to be not directly relevant to this discussion.
We think the path-finding is not a good one, but they confirmed it's working fine. And we posted some patterns that illustrate passengers' absurd behavior. This is observed by a lot of players so I think is a common issue.
I believe this is what we players can do. We post threads and talk about it despite their denial. Someone may post some bitter words, and that's fully understandable. The path-finding does not meet our expectations.
What else can we do? Upload saves? I don't even know how-to. We can't write a better algorithm and post it here. Nor can we find a good one and post it here. This is not a Linux community that we submit codes.
There do exist some good path-finding algorithms. Google is using a good one, it always find the right lines. It also suggests the fastest one, the one with least switch and the one with the shortest walking distance.
Last edited:
And what about very small issues that could be fixed quickly, such as auto ticket pricing, too fast economy changes, letters in line names (such as line S1) and ability to make night or weekend lines (CIMS should ignore this line when it's not operating). This would give players a lot of fun and I don't believe that you need days of code re-writing to achieve it.
What ruleset tweak (and this was occurring even before we could tweak the ruleset) are you talking about that would cause CiMs to line up for a route that does not run for another 5 days? For that matter what ruleset tweak would cause a CiM to get off a line take a different one for one stop just to get back on the original line?
I agree that ranting and raving will NOT get CO to change their minds about pathfinding, but it sure does make us feel better. Having said that this game, since day one, was promoted on its scheduling ability. By COs own admission the CiMs don't use the schedules. So what is the point? I think that is very relevant. They claim tweaking the pathfinding would cause a huge increase in CPU, when they aren't saying it is working perfectly, yet no one that I have seen has complained about cpu usage, especially now that they have fixed loading times at crowded stops. Maybe they could have a slider in the ruleset how accurate you want pathfinding to be. Yeah yeah I know that would complicate matters even more.
I don't think it would be unreasonable for CO to spend a few days writing code to fix this problem!
If they did this and fixed some of the other annoying bugs like passengers not boarding the first vehicle to arrive on shared routes, pedestrian roads without footpaths not generating buildings etc. This could then be marketed as a CIM2.1 upgrade. I would definitely buy this!
CO are controlled by Paradox in terms of what they spend their time on. The best you can hope for is for when Cities In Motion 3 is released down the track, these suggestions are taken in consideration in the development process, as was done with CIM2.
Here's a response from Co_Martsu from a private message I sent:
"We're working on something rather big at the moment and all of our time is going to that. So unfortunately we haven't had a chance to take on any requests. We'll be looking into further development after we're done with the current one, but basically it all comes down to publisher's priorities and how we get to push for the suggestions. We'll do our best though!"
Sounds like we've got a new game on the horizon, but I don't think its CIM3. I predict a Industry Giant spin off.
Last edited:
I was referring to Cities in Motion 2. You'll hear about it soonish
Great news! What means "soonish"?
Can you give us a hint if it's something like vehicles, infrastructure / buildings?
I was referring to Cities in Motion 2. You'll hear about it soonish
I am super-excited. Could it be something european?
Great news! What means "soonish"?
It means less than 5 months... http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...otes-1.5.0&p=16682321&viewfull=1#post16682321
Less than 5 months until *release*
What i am interessested in is just some further information about the upcoming content. Any hints possible?
When are you going to reveal anything? Entice us!I was referring to Cities in Motion 2. You'll hear about it soonish
And as a regular and life-long public transport user, service quality should not factor into pathfinding. No-one gets on a bus to the tram station, gets on the tram then halfway switches to the bus again because it's more comfortable, before finally switching back to the tram because it goes closer to their destination. If you want simulation of passengers choosing a good quality line over a bad quality line that goes the same way (useful when there's competition between 2 competing companies, something I have never had any experience with because afaik there's no way to have that in singleplayer), then at least make switching lines be a gigantic service quality penalty for the purposes of pathfinding. CiMs should not be switching back and forth just because one bus looks nicer. Once they're on a bus that goes to their destination, they should stay on said bus. And they should choose that bus over a bus that doesn't go to their destination.
When I travel I am always happy for the journey to take a little longer if it avoids changing lines. This needs to be factored into the AI.
I would never change lines because the alternative vehicle is more attractive, but I would consider doing so if I was obliged to stand in an overcrowded vehicle. Massive overcrowding should be factored into the AI making such lines less attractive whilst they are overcrowded.
I would never change lines because the alternative vehicle is more attractive, but I would consider doing so if I was obliged to stand in an overcrowded vehicle. Massive overcrowding should be factored into the AI making such lines less attractive whilst they are overcrowded.
I seriously never would have guessed that vehicle quality has anything to do with the pathfinding. That doesn't make sense in context of a city transit sim. I expected it would only affect your rating, and with a higher rating you could charge higher fares, but actually changing transit modes for a slightly more cushy seat? In real life I've gotten on subway trains that a drunk person puked on. I didn't get off the train and run for a bus, I switched cars on the same train! Who has time for that? I'll try making vehicle quality all the same next time I play and hopefully it makes some kind of difference.
One of the forgone premises of a transit simulation should be that the people who use the network know how to get around reasonably well. If the pathfinding algorithm is poor, the integrity of the whole game flies out the window. I really wish more time would have gone into polishing this fundamental aspect of the game. If nobody ever voiced their concerns, how would they know what to improve in future iterations? I genuinely want CO and Cities in Motion to be successful, because nobody else is making games like this. Unfortunately knowing that my cims just randomly switch lines until they find themselves at their destinations provides no incentive to play the game. I will not buy a CiM3 or any DLC's if I know the underlying simulation is poor.
One of the forgone premises of a transit simulation should be that the people who use the network know how to get around reasonably well. If the pathfinding algorithm is poor, the integrity of the whole game flies out the window. I really wish more time would have gone into polishing this fundamental aspect of the game. If nobody ever voiced their concerns, how would they know what to improve in future iterations? I genuinely want CO and Cities in Motion to be successful, because nobody else is making games like this. Unfortunately knowing that my cims just randomly switch lines until they find themselves at their destinations provides no incentive to play the game. I will not buy a CiM3 or any DLC's if I know the underlying simulation is poor.
Last edited: