• 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.
I agree that comfort should be irrelevant in the game. We do have different social classes but that made more sense in CiM 1 where you have helicopters, etc. I don't think most people make a network with co-existent lines, one being for students and other for business people with more comfort vehicles. Specially because the price is the same for everybody. (P.S.: also I remember that in CiM 1 students and blue collars happily used helicopters, even in red range price. The formula needs some weight review.)

Most or all of the time there is no choice. Public transport is public transport, you have your route and you use that route. In real life I rarely do some decisions about my routes based on the type of bus, but for the game it only makes the AI not understand how we planned the network.

It is interesting that when you upgrade your fleet with more comfortable vehicles then you get higher class customers, but the choice of vehicles is 99% of the time based on capacity and reliability rather than comfort. Also comfortable vehicles are usually with less capacity and not necessarily more expensive.

Attract different social classes should be more about upgrading the stations with real time information, upgrading the vehicles with air conditioning, upgrading the stations to protect passengers from rain and sun, add TV to the vehicles, etc. Something that could be done in a more general way, not vehicle by vehicle.

I will never replace my fleet to less capacity vehicles with more comfort just to get business people as customers. When you have a huge network its irrelevant. Its more about where the public transport can take you and how much and how fast.
 
Last edited:
I did a bit of tests and I think I discovered the IMHO two major flaws of the pathfinding system.

2 - The pathfinding seems to take in account comfort as a factor, which may be interesting for intercity transport, but makes little sense in a urban transport simulation.
It should be a parameter for customer satisfaction, not for pathfinding. Or at least, the very last parameter considered to discriminate between lines after everything else.

For this problem there is a simple solution (which I already stated before): change the quality of vehicles in the ruleset so that all of them are 100%. In such case, the QOS will no longer be a factor for citizens when choosing the transport.
 
1 - This is really big: the system doesn't seem to care about walking and waiting times. While it is really good at estimating the time it takes for the various vehicles to make each leg of a trip (which is good), it seems to assume that when a CIM changes line, he's going to be instantly on board of the new vehicle the moment he gets off the first one, which of course isn't true. The time it takes to walk from one stop to the other should be taken into account (or at least approximately calculate the distance between the two stops and use that value to choose the best transfer point) and, if making the AI aware of the actual timetables is too much of a problem, which I can understand, at least apply some form of fixed time penalty to each transfer, so that Cims are less likely to change line unless it's actually very beneficial or mandatory to reach their destination.

2 - The pathfinding seems to take in account comfort as a factor, which may be interesting for intercity transport, but makes little sense in a urban transport simulation.
It should be a parameter for customer satisfaction, not for pathfinding. Or at least, the very last parameter considered to discriminate between lines after everything else.
I totally agree with both points!
If CO does not want to change the complete algorithm they should at least consider fixing these two main issues!
Interchanging only when the benefit is worth it and no interchange due to comfort.
No matter how comfortable the other vehicle may be. I would never leave a vehicle which could take me to my destination just to travel one stop with a nicer vehicle and then having to switch back to the line I came from.
 
Interchanging only when the benefit is worth it and no interchange due to comfort.
No matter how comfortable the other vehicle may be. I would never leave a vehicle which could take me to my destination just to travel one stop with a nicer vehicle and then having to switch back to the line I came from.

I agree. I don't know how complicated the algorithm is, but I think that if just this one parameter was eliminated a lot of the complaints about the AI would be satisfied. However, this would probably mean that you would make a lot less money as CIMs would not be changing vehicles as often; this might not be a bad thing as making money in CIM2 is too easy.

The point is that CO could make the AI better, but then the performance would be very poor.

Yes that is true. But only if they made the algorithm more complicated. I should think that eliminating a parameter would simplify it.

All that being said, the fact is that I never noticed any problem until I read the posts here. I guess I don't play the game as seriously as other players. I rarely follow CIMs around and, consequently, never noticed their erratic behavior. So, for me, the game is fine as is. But for the benefit of other players, I think that CO should consider eliminating the comfort factor.
 
The point is that CO could make the AI better, but then the performance would be very poor.

That's why I suggested that they cheat. Adding a general penalty for transfers rather than calculate how much time does it actually takes should achieve the result (or at least a better result than what we have now) while not being that taxing from the performance point of view.
 
Last edited:
The point is that CO could make the AI better, but then the performance would be very poor.

Do not agree with you. The kind of path-finding in the game make people switch between lines more, which will of course worse the perf.
If they take the metro to the right stop, less switch, less memory consumption, less calculation depth, and better performance.
 
If they come up with a new algorithm to fix the path-finding problem and make it a DLC for the game.
Also an option in the game to let players choose which path-finding algorithm is used.(Let's see how many players think the existing one works fine)

I'm willing to buy this DLC.
 
Do not agree with you. The kind of path-finding in the game make people switch between lines more, which will of course worse the perf.
If they take the metro to the right stop, less switch, less memory consumption, less calculation depth, and better performance.
You're writing this in a way that indicates that you know how the pathfinding works.
 
There is one significant omission in this thread, that is; total silence from CO!
I would be interesting to hear if they have any thoughts on this issue? So far, all we have heard from them is a total denial of the problem! :sad:

Unfortunately they have responded in other threads. They believe passenger intelligence is working perfectly and have NO plans to change it. Therefor it is us the customers who are wrong and should stop complaining about it. (The last added by me) http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?721802-Stop-buying-content-DLC!/page2 http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?721802-Stop-buying-content-DLC!/page3
 
Unfortunately they have responded in other threads. They believe passenger intelligence is working perfectly and have NO plans to change it. Therefor it is us the customers who are wrong and should stop complaining about it. (The last added by me) http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?721802-Stop-buying-content-DLC!/page2 http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?721802-Stop-buying-content-DLC!/page3
I'm aware of all the previous posts on this subject, including CO's denial. What I'm doing is trying to goad CO into responding to us (their customers), to look again at the serious shortfalls of the game's AI. After all it's in their interest to improve the game and keep their customers happy and buying future DLCs.
 
There are a lot of already finished routing algorithms, it is really no problem to implement one if you have the ability to use wikipedia ;)
The "funny" part is the optimization regarding the parameters used in CiM2.

Routing is required in a lot of everyday situations and these algorithms are all quite powerful.
 
I'm aware of all the previous posts on this subject, including CO's denial. What I'm doing is trying to goad CO into responding to us (their customers), to look again at the serious shortfalls of the game's AI. After all it's in their interest to improve the game and keep their customers happy and buying future DLCs.

In other words, "look at me, look at me, look at me! My $30 pays your wages! I'm important!"

Does anybody, anywhere, respond well to being "goaded" into a response? How does this work in your head? You spend all your time waving your arms in the air and eventually CO drop everything and rewrite a bunch of code because you got too annoying to ignore?
 
Does anybody, anywhere, respond well to being "goaded" into a response? How does this work in your head? You spend all your time waving your arms in the air and eventually CO drop everything and rewrite a bunch of code because you got too annoying to ignore?

I wouldn't mind if CO dropped making reskinned metro monorails or "lofty landmarks" and instead fixed the AI. I could even pay for that. The DLC could be called "Conscientious Citizens" or "Rational Routeseekers". The problem in my opinion is that CO doesn't answer to a number of issues a lot of gamers find so annoying that they cannot play anymore. And I am not only talking about pathfinding. There is no discussion at all, no matter if we are politely asking or waving our hands.
 
No problem.
My point is that I feel a lot of the complaints in this thread are a bit out of line and I think it's unfair towards CO.

How is it unfair to CO? This is a quote from there own page (http://www.citiesinmotion2.com/) "Build the transport network of the future. Face new challenges and new modes of play. Contend with day night cycles, dynamic cities and more. Organize timetables to bring order out of chaos. When nothing goes to plan adapt, or crash and burn." Without intelligent pathfinding there is no point in day/night cycle (as a matter of fact my routes are almost as popular at 1:00 in the morning as they are during rush hour.) and organizing time tables only brings order out of chaos if the CiMs care about the timetables. I once had two routes making EXACTLY the same stops in the same order. One was a bus line that ran on weekends and the other was a tram that ran during the week. CiMs would line up on Monday to take the bus that was not coming until Saturday.
 
I wouldn't mind if CO dropped making reskinned metro monorails or "lofty landmarks" and instead fixed the AI. I could even pay for that. The DLC could be called "Conscientious Citizens" or "Rational Routeseekers". The problem in my opinion is that CO doesn't answer to a number of issues a lot of gamers find so annoying that they cannot play anymore. And I am not only talking about pathfinding. There is no discussion at all, no matter if we are politely asking or waving our hands.

Well said.