These two designs above are the most effective in my experience, it is like a straight line design, but entrance is placed in the middle to cut the maximum distance to only 6 tiles for double door, and 8 tiles as maximum for single door.
The time spent in the restaurant is counted by distance of tiles from Entrance to Host Table, to be seated, finally to the Exit.
I call this as Narrow T Design, (based on the L or T design).
1. The advantage of placing the door in the middle is to cut the maximum walking distance.
2. A Narrow T Design also optimised a 4 x 11 matrix without wasting a single emply splace. The L or X design is wasted many empty space if you would put it in a matrix form.
Now we look into the Host Table location:
If the seat is on the left of the door, and Host Table on the right of the door, it should be 2 tiles just to be seated.
Correct? Not exactly, it is partially correct.
To be exact, it is 1 tile from Entrance to Host table; 7 tiles wait at Host table; then 1 tile to be seated; and finally 1 tile to Exit.
Notice that (very important):
- If the host table is placed close to the entrance, the Customers will wait minimum "7 tiles of their walking speed" at/before Host Table before proceed to the seat.
- If the host table is placed further than 7 tiles away, the Customers will not wait, but will proceed to the Seat directly after Host Table.
Because of that, Host Counter is placed 4 tiles away from the entrance because in overall is better.
It add extra 2 tiles distance for the two seats closest to the Entrance, but it saves 3 tiles for the remaining 18 seats.
it adds (2 tiles x 2 seats) total of 4 tiles for the two seats closest to the Entrance, but
it saves (3 tiles x 18 seats) total of 58 tiles for 18 seats,
Total you saved 54 tiles for every 20 customers.
gives better result for every seats instead of place directly next to the door.