December 3rd, 2014 8:06pm
I understand that, but it partially takes away the value of upgrading event venues because audience capacity is basically meaningless, that's all. You'll still make more money with bigger venues because of influence but still, having twice the max capacity is pretty weird regardless of venue. In the end, it's beneficial for the event host because you get more money, so I'm not complaining it's just a little odd is all.
On the other hand, I'm still not 100% as to wether or not you receive money from the overflow audience. If you don't, that would level the playing field and would be a bit more realistic because if the event was overbooked, the people they couldn't fit in would probably get their money back and the maximum event capacity would have some value again.
So the way I see it there are three scripting scenarios here for the formulas regarding audience overflow.
1. Alex intentionally allowed for audience overflow and allowed us to generously keep the money from the overflow audience, or accidentally created overflow and simply felt it didn't need to be fixed or was useful for something administrator wise.
2. Alex accidentally allowed for audience overflow and felt it was too complicated to patch (or the error was useful for something administrator wise) and to compensate for the error, set a restriction so that overflow audience members do not add to the overall profit of the event.
3. Alex accidentally created audience overflow and either hasn't noticed it, or plans to fix it in the near future.
And I still don't have a definitive answer as to wether or not overflow gives extra money or not.