OpenRCT2
OpenRCT2 copied to clipboard
OpenRCT2
Add LSM Launched Roller Coaster and Multi-Looping Roller Coaster ride types
This PR does the following things:
- Rename track drawing CPP to InMaTriangleTrack // InMa stands for Intamin-Mack Triangle track, the Mini will eventually be renamed to InaMAFlatTrack.
- Remove default access to boosters and launched lifthills from the Giga coaster. It does not make sense for this ride to have access to boosters. If it gives too much backlash from the community, we can always revert this in the future.
- Add ride type: LSM Launched Roller Coaster
- Add ride type: Multi-Looping Roller Coaster
To do
- [x] Ride rating multipliers
- [x] Stat bonuses and penalties
- [x] Height fields
- [x] Colour Presets
- [x] Available ride modes
- [x] Available flags
- [x] Upkeep
- [x] Pricing
- [x] Build cost
- [x] New sprites for: LSM Booster, LSM Sloped Booster, Brake fin, Brake fin + tiredrive (up/Closed), Brake fin + tiredrive (down/open), just a tiredrive.
If you wish to test in game here's two of X7's objects with edited ride type fields. Test Objects.zip
Rename track drawing CPP to IMGTriangleTrack // IMG stands for Intamin-Mack-Gerstlauer Triangle track, the Mini will eventually be renamed to IMGFlatTrack.
Why not just "Triangle Track" or "Tri Rail Track". IMG means "Image" to me, I think the name is confusing and like I've said before, it might make sense for the Gerstlauer track to have its own sprites.
We could name it that, but this would group flat and square with triangle rather than keeping them far apart, that's why I used a prefix.
I'm really not a fan of removing the boosters from the Giga RC as that's a vanilla feature from RCTC, the launched lift hill can be removed as it was a recent OpenRCT2 addition but i firmly believe the boosters should stay as they're a part of vanilla RCTC and have been in OpenRCT2 for nearly 7 years.
I'm really not a fan of removing the boosters from the Giga RC as that's a vanilla feature from RCTC, the launched lift hill can be removed as it was a recent OpenRCT2 addition but i firmly believe the boosters should stay as they're a part of vanilla RCTC and have been in OpenRCT2 for nearly 7 years.
I disagree. Sometimes buffing and nerfing is necessary. I believe RCTC added this to allow for the creation of newer rides. Really cool, but it should have had its own ride type instead. It's why I am only removing it if it's available on another ride using the same track type. Loading a TD6 will still be able to load in just fine without cheats. It just doesn't allow for building new rides with said elements, there's different ride types for that. IMO a necessary evil to keep the game balanced and fun.
I'm really not a fan of removing the boosters from the Giga RC as that's a vanilla feature from RCTC, the launched lift hill can be removed as it was a recent OpenRCT2 addition but i firmly believe the boosters should stay as they're a part of vanilla RCTC and have been in OpenRCT2 for nearly 7 years.
The boosters have been in OpenRCT2 for a while but they were an OpenRCT2 addition, boosters weren't a thing in vanilla RCT2 (they were in RCT1, but I don't think the giga coaster existed in that game).
It's a bit silly for the giga to have boosters available by default, I think they always should have been hidden behind the cheat. It's just not a feature this ride type ever had, and not only does it have boosters but they are the most powerful in the game - and it's already a bit of an OP ride type as it was.
It seems to me that the boosters were probably added with coasters like Maverick or Taron in mind, so if we're adding a new ride type that would better fit those, it makes sense to drop the boosters from the giga.
The boosters have been in OpenRCT2 for a while but they were an OpenRCT2 addition, boosters weren't a thing in vanilla RCT2 (they were in RCT1, but I don't think the giga coaster existed in that game).
The boosters were not an OpenRCT2 addition, they were added to the giga coaster in RCT Classic which is a form of vanilla RCT2.
They were later added to OpenRCT2 for feature parity with RCTC once OpenRCT2 got boosters reimplemented.
I think that we should drop that parity in favour of a better and more balanced implementation. I do not want people to be making Top Thrill 2 on the Giga, I want them to use the LSM Launched Roller Coaster for that, otherwise creating new ride types for this, which are gameplay changers, not creativity changers, would be completely redundant. It will not drop any backwards compatbility, nor with existing saves nor with TD6. And if people really still wanted to create Gigas with LSMs they can create it with cheats save it as TD6 and import it. (Cheesing it)
The boosters were not an OpenRCT2 addition, they were added to the giga coaster in RCT Classic
RCTC is not vanilla, it is a reimplementation similar to OpenRCT2. RCTC added very few new features over the vanilla game, it mostly reworked the UI, but the boosters were an addition in both RCTC and OpenRCT2. The boosters are not present in RCT2 code, and adding them before the NSF required a dirty hack. They probably wouldn't have been added so early if it weren't for RCTC having them.
Removing them from the default track list wouldn't compromise the ability to load RCTC saves, we're not suggesting dropping the booster pieces entirely, just making it so they require cheats to build.
I think that we should drop that parity in favour of a better and more balanced implementation. I do not want people to be making Top Thrill 2 on the Giga, I want them to use the LSM Launched Roller Coaster for that, otherwise creating new ride types for this, which are gameplay changers, not creativity changers, would be completely redundant. It will not drop any backwards compatbility, nor with existing saves nor with TD6. And if people really still wanted to create Gigas with LSMs they can create it with cheats save it as TD6 and import it. (Cheesing it)
Hmmm, well after that i'm convinced. But would it be a bit much to ask around the community before making this change? It's a rather drastic change to a vanilla coaster so while i'm now fine with it i feel like it would be a good idea to get more thoughts as this seems like a change that could annoy/confuse a lot of people. Asides from that i'm fine with this now.
I do not want people to be making Top Thrill 2 on the Giga, I want them to use the LSM Launched Roller Coaster for that
Do we? I was going to say the height limit should not be that high ... like 200ft max or possibly less. I was thinking of the LSM launch coaster as more Taron or Maverick style, rather than TT2 which is a conversion of a hydraulic launch. That's why I was saying, should it be based on the Mack or the Intamin? Because if it's Intamin, there is a case for a very high height limit, but if TT2 was built new today it would almost certainly have the newer style track, so I think even then it makes sense to set the height limit lower especially in order to distinguish it from a future hydraulic launch coaster, which would get a stupid high height limit.
You wouldn't be able to build TT2 on the giga without cheats, because giga doesn't get verticals and any triple launch requires cheats. And if you're using hacks, the distinction is moot, and people can use whatever ride type they want, except that using the LSM launched coaster would give you the more modern brake style.
A big problem is that ride stats are tied to ride type rather than layout to an unreasonable extent, which is why the giga can get really good stats even if you just build a family coaster with it. So, having one ride type representing both the smaller layouts focused on turns, inversions, etc, and the really big height and speed focused coasters like Red Force, may be undesirable even if they could technically be considered the same ride type IRL.
That's why I originally envisaged having a separate "mega coaster" ride type with the new style track, much higher height limit, better stats ... and also higher build cost. But then there's the argument that this is too many similar types.
That's very fair. Though we won't know yet what Zamperla will bring us in the future. Might be more fun to play with a lower height to push the tight layouts. I don't know if they will start using Intamin's style or if they will only copy it for conversions.
Maverick is about 32 meters high, which is 21 units. Would that be a good max height without cheats?
I think that we should drop that parity in favour of a better and more balanced implementation. I do not want people to be making Top Thrill 2 on the Giga, I want them to use the LSM Launched Roller Coaster for that, otherwise creating new ride types for this, which are gameplay changers, not creativity changers, would be completely redundant. It will not drop any backwards compatbility, nor with existing saves nor with TD6. And if people really still wanted to create Gigas with LSMs they can create it with cheats save it as TD6 and import it. (Cheesing it)
Hmmm, well after that i'm convinced. But would it be a bit much to ask around the community before making this change? It's a rather drastic change to a vanilla coaster so while i'm now fine with it i feel like it would be a good idea to get more thoughts as this seems like a change that could annoy/confuse a lot of people. Asides from that i'm fine with this now.
I am not sure how polling that would really change the opinion. Many people don't like change, even if it's for the better. I will ask Marcel's opinion on the matter as he mostly plays the game without cheats, and rather with exploits.
The string ids seem to be separated from the rest of the ride type names/description strings, shouldn't the names be on STR_0097 and STR_0098 and the descriptions on STR_0607 and STR_0608 respectively?
The string ids seem to be separated from the rest of the ride type names/description strings, shouldn't the names be on STR_0097 and STR_0098 and the descriptions on STR_0607 and STR_0608 respectively?
Oh I didn't realize there was space there!
Maverick is about 32 meters high, which is 21 units. Would that be a good max height without cheats?
No, make it higher, that's very low and will feel too limited. I'm not sure that it should be lower than the LIM launched coaster, which is 170ft. You could also consider 205ft, the height of the highest Mack example,or 180ft, the height of the highest Intamin coasters that use the tri track.
Actually, there aren't many Intamin rides over 180ft even including the newer track style and I think Red Force is the only one that exceeds 200ft (and TT2 if you count that). So I'd say the limit should not be higher than 200ft, and shouldn't be lower than 170ft)
(Picture: Altair, CinecittĂ World, RCDB.com)
I am thinking of implementing the same system done with BM track using the template, to get square supports on the Multi-Looping RC and further differentiate it.
(Picture: Altair, CinecittĂ World, RCDB.com)
I am thinking of implementing the same system done with BM track using the template, to get square supports on the Multi-Looping RC and further differentiate it.
It's a difficult decision. Intamin rarely use the square supports, however, they are used on the standard 10 looper model, which is cloned a lot. The only other Intamin ride I could find with square supports is I305.
Their custom looping layouts don't have square supports, nor do the older pre-Altair models - but if we are basing this on the newer model, then most of them are clones with those square supports. On the other hand, you can't actually build that standard layout particularly well in game, and the custom layouts have round supports. But it would help to differentiate the ride type from all the others that may end up using this track style.
How does it look with square supports?
Falcons Flight will feature LSMs on sloped track. And it will possibly have an inversion. So is it a giga? Or an LSM launched coaster?
As will not be surprising to some of you, I think that the boosters should stay as they are a vanilla feature. Yes I know that Classic came after OpenRCT2 and that it's not technically RCT2 vanilla, but people in the community generally mean "anything in RCT2 or RCTC" when they say vanilla. Plenty of people move from Classic to OpenRCT2 and stripping away the giga booster is a weird thing to do in my opinion. Yes, I know it'll remain available with the "enable all drawable track pieces" cheat, but you shouldn't need cheats to do that.
Yes it is a bit overpowered, but not that much more overpowered compared to just using a chain lift and a bit of a longer station to fit more trains (or just use block brakes). If this is done for game balance, then there are much more overpowered/extreme things that should also be changed, but at that point you're just changing how the entire game works, which means less and less parity with the original, which is a bad thing. My point here is that I just don't see much reason to remove the boosters from the standard track piece set from a balance perspective. Most of those who use it for a few overpowered ride designs already know plenty of other, more effective ways, to break the game anyway.
The launched lift hill can go by the way, that one is even more overpowered and not vanilla in any sense of the word.
Falcons Flight will feature LSMs on sloped track. And it will possibly have an inversion. So is it a giga? Or an LSM launched coaster?
probably a mixture of multiple ride types. Either way it uses a different track type.
Seems like unnecessary changes that don’t really move the game forward. I always found it silly the game had inverted shuttle coaster and compact suspended coaster. I don’t see how this adds to the user experience by limiting design.
Seems like unnecessary changes that don’t really move the game forward. I always found it silly the game had inverted shuttle coaster and compact suspended coaster. I don’t see how this adds to the user experience by limiting design.
I 100% disagree with you on that. The limitless possibilities is exactly why I cannot play Planet Coaster, they give me too much creative freedom to the point it becomes difficult to work with. And removing all challenge from a game also removes the fun from scenarios, for which this is the entire intention. If you want to create a park in RCT2 which looks super realistic you can already do that with cheats. This is just an addition for gameplay.
But what is the addition to gameplay if you’re actually limiting? And the game already limits users compared to planet coaster by isometric design and relatively few track pieces. Just my opinion as an avid user that it seems like a pointless “addition”
But what is the addition to gameplay if you’re actually limiting? And the game already limits users compared to planet coaster by isometric design and relatively few track pieces. Just my opinion as an avid user that it seems like a pointless “addition”
Why is alton towers not allowed to build above the tree line? Why is Phantasialand not allowed to build visible coaster parts? Etc etc there's limitations to ride types too. The LSM coaster is roughly based on the Intamin Blitz and Mack Rides LSM Launch Coaster. These are both coaster types that are low to the ground, so they don't go very high. Having to work within certain limits also increases creativity on how to fit something in properly. Have no limits doesn't make you think out of the box to get out of a situation. You need to be creative to still make a good working ride. Sure we could remove all limits, but that would remove all that challenge. That's not what these ride types are for. The new track additions were already added, you can already create whatever you want now with cheats and custom objects. That's not what the gameplay scenarios are for though. It's still a game that needs to pose a challenge, not mainly a canvas to draw your art on (while yes this very much possible, with cheats).
I am annoyed with a lot of games lately giving not enough challenge to their userbase. I don't enjoy Mario Kart 8 Deluxe on my own, while I did with Mario Kart Wii. Why? Well MK8 might have way more courses, but everything is unlocked from the getgo. There's no satisfaction and challenge to get characters unlocked. Having to work within limited resources makes a game more fun to play, I am starting to fall into repetition you get where I am coming from.
But what is the addition to gameplay if you’re actually limiting? And the game already limits users compared to planet coaster by isometric design and relatively few track pieces. Just my opinion as an avid user that it seems like a pointless “addition”
This doesn't limit anything except for the controversial proposal to remove the giga boosters (which may not actually happen). Otherwise it's just adding new ride types.
I always found it silly the game had inverted shuttle coaster and compact suspended coaster. I don’t see how this adds to the user experience by limiting design.
Yes, those two ride types could probably be just one. I'd want to avoid having too many similar ride types, but there's a lot of rides you might want to include, and there are limited ways to differentiate the ride types from each other. The multi looping coaster isn't that important, but would be nice to have a traditional looping coaster that uses the tri track available.
Seems like unnecessary changes that don’t really move the game forward. I always found it silly the game had inverted shuttle coaster and compact suspended coaster. I don’t see how this adds to the user experience by limiting design.
I 100% disagree with you on that. The limitless possibilities is exactly why I cannot play Planet Coaster, they give me too much creative freedom to the point it becomes difficult to work with. And removing all challenge from a game also removes the fun from scenarios, for which this is the entire intention. If you want to create a park in RCT2 which looks super realistic you can already do that with cheats. This is just an addition for gameplay.
The bigger issue with Planet Coaster is the track designer is garbage. Its nearly impossible to make anything smooth. Its not even a skill issue. I played lots of Nolimits 1 back in the day and even had coasters win medals on coastercrazy.com back in the late 2000s. The other problem I have with Planet coaster is that there is just way too many coaster types missing compared to RCT2/3 which at the time had nearly every track and train style available in real life at the time of release, although I have the same complaint about Parkitect.
As far as balance goes, there are way bigger issues like microcoaster spamming, certain rides having awful stats regardless of what you do with them, and many other balance issues I would address before worrying about this.
Upon further reflection, I do see the value in adding different ride types when it comes to the stat calculations. Being able to build 10+ inversion coasted without huge stat penalties would be an addition to the game. I think I wasn’t looking at these additions in the right perspective so I’ll retract what I said earlier. I suppose that’s the beauty of the mine, being able to change.
These changes in the code, although very necessary and much cleaner... is killing me xD