My arguemnet for why stats are not a good judge of quality

[SensualEthiopianPolice]

[Kevdog3700]

um .......how.... LOOK AT THOSE G's

how would you judge the quality of a ride then.

[X7123M3-256]

The stats are terrible, and the ride is terrible... If you're trying to show stats are not a good judge of quality you need a different example.

Generally, I would say bad stats => bad ride, but the converse does not necessarily hold. The stats calculation is pretty crude and mostly tells you whether your ride is safe, not whether it's actually any good.

[YoloSweggLord]

I think he's trying to say that, with the stat generator, a ride as lethal as this can still help you make a quick buck.

12 minutes ago, X7123M3-256 said:

The stats calculation is pretty crude and mostly tells you whether your ride is safe

In this case the stats calculation is doing the exact opposite. It's telling you that a terribly deadly ride like this (just LOOK AT THOSE G's) is somehow pulling off 2.71 excitement, "only" 7.02 intensity, and *gasp* only 3.41 nausea. I guess the dead don't really get that nauseous...

[jensj12]

The ride ratings were halved on that ride because it didn't have a big drop. Add a slightly bigger drop at the end and the intensity will skyrocket (which will decrease the exitement by more than 50%). Looking at this, I think the intensity penalty should be applied before the max drop height penalty.

[SensualEthiopianPolice]

Just to clarify: the biggest reason I'm posting this is because a lot of people make terrible coasters but justify them by their stats. I really want to discourage that. As long as your coaster isn't low ultra-extreme, stats don't matter too much in determining whether or not your coaster is  good design.

[Nubbie]

The stats seems to be broken on that ride, shouldn't it be much higher because of the G forces?  

Or is it because the cheats mess with it or something?

[X7123M3-256]

As @jensj12 pointed out, the intensity rating is halved because of the lack of a drop, and that brings the intensity into the safe range. The rating calculation would have to be changed to correct this.

[Nubbie]

9 minutes ago, X7123M3-256 said:

The rating calculation would have to be changed to correct this.

Isn't the calculations different for each coaster tho? As I think I've seen different coasters respond to different types of constructions

Which means this maybe is more of a specific problem for just this ride?

Even tho the score is BAD

Edited May 9, 2016 by Nubbie

[X7123M3-256]

The weight placed on each factor is different for each ride type - wild mouse coasters get less of a penalty for lateral Gs, and some coasters get no benefit from inversions, for example - but the actual calculation doesn't differ, and most rides have the excitement and intensity severely reduced if a certain minimum drop size is not met (though the exact minimum depends on the ride).

Edited May 9, 2016 by X7123M3-256

[jensj12]

On 25-4-2016 at 01:50, SensualEthiopianPolice said:

I can report that a change in the ride rating calculation today has made the stats of this coaster far worse. It should now have lower exitement, almost double intensity and higher nausea.

[YoloSweggLord]

8/8 would ride again

[Broxzier]

About time it got merged I guess everyone forgot about the PR for a while.

[Nubbie]

It sure were on hold for a while but it's good it's finally out. Just hope most results will turn up good :U