RCT Discussion / Peeps or non-peeps

When I open a park without geusts. i will get angry and hack them in

^ By all means you can with this park then.

^ By all means you can with this park then.

yes

While I do enjoy watching peeps wander the park, filling the coasters and adding a sort of bustling feeling, I don't think a lack of them should affect the way a park is judged.

I personally don't believe that managing peeps takes excessive parkmaking skills - merely an inconvenient underground path network. After all, even the most seemingly obvious route from entrance to ride can confuse the guests, and the parkmaker shouldn't be penalised because of that.

Any more thoughts on this guys?

I personally don't believe that managing peeps takes excessive parkmaking skills - merely an inconvenient underground path network.

It's about managing them without the inconvenient (and mostly unnecessary) underground path network.

When I open a park without geusts. i will get angry and hack them in

Tell me, how do you hack them in? As far as I know, you only have the tram option.

When I open a park without geusts. i will get angry and hack them in

I did that with watkin's woods, until i realized that they couldn't ride anything!

When I open a park without geusts. i will get angry and hack them in

And hacked peeps couldn't do anything except walking.

well if you are gonna add peeps. make sure it is peepable. As in peeps don't have lots of problems.

The problem with "hacking" peeps into a park that doesn't have them is that often the park is far from peep friendly...ie: "paths" aren't paths at all, just path blocks that simulate paths, rides are inaccessible, etc. So it's more hassle than it's worth...particularly if you decide to actually add real paths and you end up with a fuckload of peep-jams. That's when having them take a long walk on a short pier becomes as much necessity as it is fun.

Or is it just me?

Parks look much better with peeps imo. They add life and allow the builder to show the viewer how they imagine areas of a park to interact. Its not even hard to add them. How the peeps are managed shouldnt be scored by the panel though

^And neither should the existance of peeps or not affect the panel. But they do.

I think it's up to the panelists themselves if peeps should be a factor or not when judging a park. It's an aspect of the game just like naming, layouting etc etc. and I don't think it's right to say to the panelists to just ignore an aspect, just because most don't think it's that important. I myself like to look at parks on the whole, so every part of parkmaking would affect my vote if I were a panelist. That doesn't have to mean that I always would prefer peeps, just when it's obvious for me that it'd be a further improvement on the atmosphere.

the panelist can vote on the park however they please. the only wrong thing is bias based on builder etc...

true, that's an entirely different discussion though.

Yeah of course SSSammy, I'm just saying that I personally don't think peepability should have an effect, unless say it is a case of adding to atmosphere.

In certain cases peeps take away from the atmosphere, so to take points away because no peeps are there would be stupid.

Some bitches will score you down for it though. It just happens, as long as the builder is happy with the final park, then theres nothing to worry about hence my conclusion to my first question in this thread.

Personally, I would never open a submission, see that it's peep-less and immediately detract from whatever score I might give it based on that alone. However, because I think peeps typically add to the atmosphere of the majority of RCT parks, being peep-less could affect my overall enjoyment of the park, which in turn, might affect the way I score it. That being said, I agree with Louis that some creations truly are better off without peeps...but, I wouldn't necessarily detract from the score of a submission that, IMO, would be better off without them. Or something like that. Damn, my brain hurts now...I hate hangovers