AirwaySim
Online Airline Management Simulation
Login
Username
Password
 
or login using:
 
My Account
Username:
E-mail:
Edit account
» Achievements
» Logout
Game Credits
Credit balance: 0 Cr
Buy credits
» Credit history
» Credits FAQ

Author Topic: question  (Read 5704 times)

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: question
« Reply #20 on: July 23, 2011, 04:13:11 PM »
Imagine what can be done if you mix the used s***ty old aircraft with the loan loophole - unstoppable!  :laugh:

Ever took a look at this airline based at Rome? :D

Offline michael

  • Members
  • Posts: 530
Re: question
« Reply #21 on: July 23, 2011, 04:22:14 PM »
I am not sure what others have done, except I haven't used this 'feature'.

Had I known, I may have been tempted like others - I am not about to try it now  :laugh:

You can see who used the s****y aircraft to get their airlines moving at the start of the game so perhaps those airlines that have misused this loan feature should be named. At least then there is no need to make accusations against other players - it is all out in the open.  :)

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: question
« Reply #22 on: July 23, 2011, 04:31:24 PM »
I checked the archived bug reports and no, nothing related found/reported.


Regardless of how it has been used / abused in the past, I think it should be restricted for the future.  It goes against all the efforts that were put in place to slow down the initial rush...

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: question
« Reply #23 on: July 23, 2011, 04:35:00 PM »
I checked the archived bug reports and no, nothing related found/reported.


Are you honestly telling me that despite many threads already on this subject that you haven't seen anyone either PM you or post the fact that you can borrow more than 100% of a plane's value?  In some cases that number is closer to 400%...   I have seen it come up many times over.

From the alliance forum:

I have sent a PM to Sami, and will provide an update as soon as he gets back.

Either he is lying or you didnt read/respond.

Since you can read the posts, feel free to observe all of the discussion on this topic.   


Online Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14535
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: question
« Reply #24 on: July 23, 2011, 04:36:17 PM »
Regardless of how it has been used / abused in the past, I think it should be restricted for the future.

Yes agree, but this is still clearly against the 'anti cheat policy' to which I referred earlier. I mean if you are somehow able to trick the loans system to get more than you should, and use it repeatedly. Good that I can see from aircraft history the previous operators of all planes.....


From the alliance forum:
..
Either he is lying or you didnt read/respond.

I really have not observed by PMs that closely for the last few days, but I do see his message now that you pointed it to me, and am having a look.

Edit: and seems that some members of the alliance in which you are a member of have misused this bug to gain advantage in the game. Directly forbidden in Terms/Rules. HOWEVER .. The wordings in the two different loan pages are misleading, so it's not perhaps entirely clear (to players) which way it should be.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2011, 04:46:42 PM by sami »


Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: question
« Reply #26 on: July 23, 2011, 04:46:09 PM »
Yes agree, but this is still clearly against the 'anti cheat policy' to which I referred earlier. I mean if you are somehow able to trick the loans system to get more than you should, and use it repeatedly. Good that I can see from aircraft history the previous operators of all planes.....


I really have not observed by PMs that closely for the last few days, but I do see his message now that you pointed it to me, and am having a look.

Edit: and seems that some members of alliance the alliance in which you are a member of have misused this bug to gain advantage in the game. Directly forbidden in Terms/Rules. HOWEVER .. The wordings in the two different loan pages are misleading, so it's not perhaps entirely clear (to players) which way it should be.


Do what you got to do but they did PM you a week ago to ask. 

Online Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14535
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: question
« Reply #27 on: July 23, 2011, 04:47:06 PM »
Examples:

I do not read even nearly all of the threads at general forums. Such issues must be posted to bugs forum in order to get a guaranteed reaction.

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: question
« Reply #28 on: July 23, 2011, 04:54:38 PM »
Yes agree, but this is still clearly against the 'anti cheat policy' to which I referred earlier. I mean if you are somehow able to trick the loans system to get more than you should, and use it repeatedly. Good that I can see from aircraft history the previous operators of all planes.....


I really have not observed by PMs that closely for the last few days, but I do see his message now that you pointed it to me, and am having a look.

Edit: and seems that some members of the alliance in which you are a member of have misused this bug to gain advantage in the game. Directly forbidden in Terms/Rules. HOWEVER .. The wordings in the two different loan pages are misleading, so it's not perhaps entirely clear (to players) which way it should be.


I think there is sufficient ambiguity to give a pass to people who have used / abused it in the past.  The simplest solution is to just change the formula to cap it at 80% or 100% for the future.

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: question
« Reply #29 on: July 23, 2011, 04:55:44 PM »
I think there is sufficient ambiguity to give a pass to people who have used / abused it in the past.  The simplest solution is to just change the formula to cap it at 80% or 100% for the future.

I dont entirely agree.  In games past, some had eluded to knowing this actively and referred to it as an exploit.

Offline RushmoreAir

  • Members
  • Posts: 887
Re: question
« Reply #30 on: July 23, 2011, 04:55:49 PM »
Just as a clarification, I don't use this loophole.

But I don't think that members should be banned over this.  There are two paragraphs (main "Loans" page and "Select Assets" page) with stated rules, both conflicting each other.  It should not be a player's responsibility to decide which set of rules to follow.  And if the system prefers the latter (the "loophole" rules) set of rules, then they player should be able to use the latter set of rules.

It could be that Sami intended for the former set of rules to be used, and the second set of rules was a forgotten remainder from previous games.  But as a native speaker of English, I can tell you that the way the passages are worded, both rules are equally as strong as each other.

Modify the game (like JumboShrimp said) to have an 80%-100% cap on loans.  Then delete the passage from "select assets".  I think that would solve the problem.

Just my $0.02 .

EDIT:  Oh, and people have been (ab)using this for ages.  How do HUGE carriers become so huge, when everybody else is stuck with mediocrity?  I have to say that at least 10-15 people each game actively pursue this strategy.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2011, 05:03:18 PM by RushmoreAir »

Online [ATA] Sunbao

  • Members
  • Posts: 901
    • FmFreaks
Re: question
« Reply #31 on: July 23, 2011, 05:06:00 PM »
Yes agree, but this is still clearly against the 'anti cheat policy' to which I referred earlier. I mean if you are somehow able to trick the loans system to get more than you should, and use it repeatedly. Good that I can see from aircraft history the previous operators of all planes.....


I really have not observed by PMs that closely for the last few days, but I do see his message now that you pointed it to me, and am having a look.

Edit: and seems that some members of the alliance in which you are a member of have misused this bug to gain advantage in the game. Directly forbidden in Terms/Rules. HOWEVER .. The wordings in the two different loan pages are misleading, so it's not perhaps entirely clear (to players) which way it should be.


Well if you read our thread in our forum about it we after not receving any answer from you out of the text  on the select assets page concluded that it seems to be fine enough according to that text. Also at lot of posts around about in before in time make us believe that there was no problem in it.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2011, 05:08:10 PM by Sunbao »

Online Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14535
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: question
« Reply #32 on: July 23, 2011, 05:09:22 PM »

The calculation should be better now.

I can see from the code that there has been the intention to make it give out the loan with poor terms when security does not cover it fully, but seems that plans have changed and it was not changed fully to allow only the loan only to value of the security.

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: question
« Reply #33 on: July 23, 2011, 05:16:46 PM »
The calculation should be better now.

I can see from the code that there has been the intention to make it give out the loan with poor terms when security does not cover it fully, but seems that plans have changed and it was not changed fully to allow only the loan only to value of the security.


As far as terms, I think it would be more appropriate to go the opposite direction.  If the loan is secured, terms should be better.  Certainly much better than an identical unsecured loan...

Online Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14535
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: question
« Reply #34 on: July 23, 2011, 05:20:30 PM »
What I meant that I guess it was originally intended like this:

- unsecured, very poor terms
- partly secured, poor terms
- fully secured, good terms

And the 'partly secured' was dropped from features at some point, probably when credit ratings were introduced or earlier (cannot see the full code history since SVN hasn't been used that long in this project).
« Last Edit: July 23, 2011, 05:22:58 PM by sami »

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: question
« Reply #35 on: July 23, 2011, 05:27:24 PM »
What I meant that I guess it was originally intended like this:

- unsecured, very poor terms
- partly secured, poor terms
- fully secured, good terms

And the 'partly secured' was dropped from features at some point, probably when credit ratings were introduced or earlier (cannot see the full code history since SVN hasn't been used that long in this project).

That's a good approach.  I guess the original approach was good too, the only problem was that the partly secured loan went from "secured" loan availability pool, which normally has a much higher limit than "unsecured" loan availability.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2011, 10:57:44 PM by JumboShrimp »

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: question
« Reply #36 on: July 23, 2011, 05:30:34 PM »
EDIT:  Oh, and people have been (ab)using this for ages.  How do HUGE carriers become so huge, when everybody else is stuck with mediocrity?  I have to say that at least 10-15 people each game actively pursue this strategy.

I never used this loophole in previous gameworlds and always was one of or the biggest airline.

It's just about activity, base airport etc.

wtdawg

  • Former member
Re: question
« Reply #37 on: July 23, 2011, 07:33:39 PM »
Calling the excess loans due now would be good punishment.  I have long wondered how a few airlines got so huge so quickly.  So it really wasn't that they were smarter or had a better strategy - just that they figured they needed to use a loophole to be able to compete with  everyone else.  Sad.

Online Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14535
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: question
« Reply #38 on: July 23, 2011, 07:52:04 PM »

The given loans will stay as the loans page description has been unclear in some sense, but I have modified the loan terms (of the given loans) to reflect the original old intention of this feature; in other words the loan interest margin and monthly admin fee are now higher for these loans where security does not cover the loan fully (there are a total of 87 such loans active; margin +5% and fees*1.3 approximately).

(=> would advise to pay the loans back as soon as able, but the changes won't bankrupt you if you don't..)
« Last Edit: July 23, 2011, 08:16:20 PM by sami »

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: question
« Reply #39 on: July 23, 2011, 08:43:58 PM »
(=> would advise to pay the loans back as soon as able, but the changes won't bankrupt you if you don't..)

The first time in my life I took out a secured loan and now I have to pay $200k more per week. Ts. I add this to my conspiracy theory :D


;)

 

WARNING! This website is not compatible with the old version of Internet Explorer you are using.

If you are using the latest version please turn OFF the compatibility mode.