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 5711 times)

mmcg

  • Former member
Re: question
« Reply #40 on: July 23, 2011, 08:45:19 PM »
So those of us with secured loans are now paying more? That's f***ed up.

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: question
« Reply #41 on: July 23, 2011, 08:56:46 PM »
So those of us with secured loans are now paying more? That's f***ed up.

Only those who borrowed more that the value of aircraft used as security.  The terms become the same as those of unsecured loans.

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: question
« Reply #42 on: July 23, 2011, 09:08:50 PM »
So those of us with secured loans are now paying more? That's f***ed up.

you mean partially-secured.

mmcg

  • Former member
Re: question
« Reply #43 on: July 23, 2011, 09:10:54 PM »
Great! Penalised because people abused the system.

Online Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14540
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: question
« Reply #44 on: July 23, 2011, 09:22:41 PM »
Seems that you did not read what the others replied... For you it only affects the one loan where loan amount exceeds the amount of securities.

Offline Andriy

  • Members
  • Posts: 226
Re: question
« Reply #45 on: July 23, 2011, 09:28:52 PM »
might be somewhat different topic, but as for to "paying loan earlier" - current "early payment fee" is totally unrealistic, it shows that i would need to pay around 100% of the loan amount as the fee... this would never be the case in real world

Online Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14540
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: question
« Reply #46 on: July 23, 2011, 09:38:56 PM »
It shows that i would need to pay around 100% of the loan amount as the fee...

No, it is the total cost.

Offline BobTheCactus

  • Members
  • Posts: 1244
    • AeroBlogger.com
Re: question
« Reply #47 on: July 23, 2011, 09:44:47 PM »
:O

I never realized that it was a bug, I thought it was meant to be that way. That's why I didn't report it.

Editor of AeroBlogger
If you're interested in blogging on aviation 3x/month or more:
http://AeroBlogger.com/Write

mmcg

  • Former member
Re: question
« Reply #48 on: July 23, 2011, 09:45:15 PM »
Seems that you did not read what the others replied... For you it only affects the one loan where loan amount exceeds the amount of securities.

Yes, which still penalises me.

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: question
« Reply #49 on: July 23, 2011, 09:50:39 PM »
Great! Penalised because people abused the system.

If you did not abuse the system you would not be penalized.

Seems that you did not read what the others replied... For you it only affects the one loan where loan amount exceeds the amount of securities.

Oops, looks like you did in one case.


Yes, which still penalises me.

I think the penalty is minor compared to the advantage gained by having more than appropriate amount of loans available to you early in the game.

So despite the minor penalty, you are still ahread of people who never abused the system

mmcg

  • Former member
Re: question
« Reply #50 on: July 23, 2011, 09:56:01 PM »
The loan page says to have the assets be worth more than 80% of the loan or the terms will be worse, which says to me that by taking out a loan worth more than my assets I'm already paying an extra fee/interest. Why am I now being penalised because of players using loads of $2m planes to secure $8m loans?

According to the text in the game, I'm already paying an extra fee for having a portion of my loan unsecured and I shouldn't be penalised further because of players knowingly abusing the system.

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: question
« Reply #51 on: July 23, 2011, 09:58:16 PM »
How much loan do you have and what is the asset value and then we can give you a fair answer.

mmcg

  • Former member
Re: question
« Reply #52 on: July 23, 2011, 10:00:30 PM »
The value of the assets or loan is completely irrelevant. The in-game text told me I was already paying extra by doing it, so why am I now paying even more?

Offline BobTheCactus

  • Members
  • Posts: 1244
    • AeroBlogger.com
Re: question
« Reply #53 on: July 23, 2011, 10:03:43 PM »
If you did not abuse the system you would not be penalized.

I think the penalty is minor compared to the advantage gained by having more than appropriate amount of loans available to you early in the game.

So despite the minor penalty, you are still ahread of people who never abused the system

It wasn't clear that this was abuse, therefore he has a reasonable point that the penalty is unfair. If the text had said "The maximum available loan is 100% of the value of the security," I would understand. Instead it was a vague text which did not make it clear that taking more than 100% of the loan value is a bug. In all the time that I have played AWS, I never realized that this was a bug. So to go and retroactively say that "since you did not follow the rules which nobody told you, you will get penalized" is unfair in my opinion. Yes, compared to the advantage gained, the penalty is fairly small, but the idea that people should be penalized for breaking a rule that wasn't clear could be considered unfair...

And yes, I never realized that this is a bug. I know very little about taking a loan from a bank because I have never taken a secured loan, the wording on the page was very vague, and I mentioned it many times and nobody seemed to notice.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2011, 10:24:14 PM by BobTheCactus »
Editor of AeroBlogger
If you're interested in blogging on aviation 3x/month or more:
http://AeroBlogger.com/Write

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: question
« Reply #54 on: July 23, 2011, 10:23:44 PM »
It wasn't clear that this was abuse, therefore he has a reasonable point that the penalty is unfair. If the text had said "The maximum available loan is 100% of the value of the security," I would understand. Instead it was a vague text which did not make it clear that taking more than 100% of the loan value is a bug. In all the time that I have played AWS, I never realized that this was a bug. So to go and retroactively say that "since you did not follow the rules which nobody told you, you will get penalized" is unfair in my opinion. Yes, compared to the advantage gained, the penalty is fairly small, but the idea that people should be penalized for breaking a rule that wasn't clear could be considered unfair...

Since the advantage (of having the loans available early) is so disproportionally greater than the "penalty", I have hard time agreeing that it is unfair...

The only players who could legitimately say something was unfair are those who played within the intended spirit of the rule, who never took advantage of the loophole.  And as a result, had a lot less capital availble to them early in the game, slowing down their expansion...

Offline BobTheCactus

  • Members
  • Posts: 1244
    • AeroBlogger.com
Re: question
« Reply #55 on: July 23, 2011, 10:32:39 PM »
Since the advantage (of having the loans available early) is so disproportionally greater than the "penalty", I have hard time agreeing that it is unfair...

The only players who could legitimately say something was unfair are those who played within the intended spirit of the rule, who never took advantage of the loophole.  And as a result, had a lot less capital availble to them early in the game, slowing down their expansion...

it is unfair not because the penalty is disproportionally greater than the advantage, but because there should be no penalty for playing in the spirit of the game. This wasn't like somebody went and said "I am going to be evil and take a loan that is bigger than the value of the security even though I know completely well that this will give me an unfair advantage over everyone else." Instead, it was (in my case) a person who said "The system allows me to take a loan of this amount, and it doesn't say that I shouldn't be able to take this loan, so I will take this loan and use it to improve my airline and enjoy my game experience." Then if someone else comes and says "even though the system was wrong and the text wasn't clear, I will penalize you for this because it has been clarified now, after you took the loan, that this practice is unfair."

If the person never meant to break a rule or gain an unfair advantage over everyone else by "exploiting/taking advantage of" the "loophole," then it is unfair for them to be penalized in my opinion.
Editor of AeroBlogger
If you're interested in blogging on aviation 3x/month or more:
http://AeroBlogger.com/Write

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: question
« Reply #56 on: July 23, 2011, 10:50:32 PM »
it is unfair not because the penalty is disproportionally greater than the advantage, but because there should be no penalty for playing in the spirit of the game.

There is a difference to be within the letter and the spirit of the rule.  Since there was some ambiguity, those who took advantage of the loophole can claim that they were within the letter of the rule, but definitely outside the spirit of the rule and AWS.

This wasn't like somebody went and said "I am going to be evil and take a loan that is bigger than the value of the security even though I know completely well that this will give me an unfair advantage over everyone else." Instead, it was (in my case) a person who said "The system allows me to take a loan of this amount, and it doesn't say that I shouldn't be able to take this loan, so I will take this loan and use it to improve my airline and enjoy my game experience." Then if someone else comes and says "even though the system was wrong and the text wasn't clear, I will penalize you for this because it has been clarified now, after you took the loan, that this practice is unfair."

If the person never meant to break a rule or gain an unfair advantage over everyone else by "exploiting/taking advantage of" the "loophole," then it is unfair for them to be penalized in my opinion.

Well, at least you understand that the advantage is far greater than the penalty, and you are not complaining.  Maybe you can relay this information to those who are complaining - that they got away with far more than they are penalized.

Sami could have set the penalty far higher to level the playing field between those who took advantage of this loophole and those who did not.  So I think the best course of action is to move on...

Offline BobTheCactus

  • Members
  • Posts: 1244
    • AeroBlogger.com
Re: question
« Reply #57 on: July 23, 2011, 10:59:52 PM »
There is a difference to be within the letter and the spirit of the rule.  Since there was some ambiguity, those who took advantage of the loophole can claim that they were within the letter of the rule, but definitely outside the spirit of the rule and AWS.

I disagree. Everybody could do this. The fact that this was possible was written all over the forums. The spirit of the game is to try to enjoy yourself and create the best airline that you can, while giving the opportunity to others to try to do the same.

Using this "loophole"
a)allows you to create a better airline, which increases the enjoyment of the game
b)doesn't take away the opportunity for others to also do the same

During my time at AWS, I have discovered that this strategy doesn't magically create a massive and profitable airline. I have used it since I joined, because I read a reference to the fact that this was allowed on the forums, and I still went under many times when I first joined. This isn't the golden ticket to success.
Editor of AeroBlogger
If you're interested in blogging on aviation 3x/month or more:
http://AeroBlogger.com/Write

Offline SAC

  • Members
  • Posts: 4212
Re: question
« Reply #58 on: July 23, 2011, 11:03:54 PM »
Sami could have set the penalty far higher to level the playing field between those who took advantage of this loophole and those who did not.  So I think the best course of action is to move on...

Best post on here.  

I took loans out, and we discussed in our forum...we decide to ask to be certain.  Due to the text on the assets page it seemed getting 200% of value of asset loan was allowed.  It seemed daft to me and others, but even so none of use thought this was breaking any laws....it said you could do it just with worse terms.

If it was set-up incorrectly then I cannot deny it gave me a boost over others at a critical stage and will happily accept any thing that comes my way...and if that is the increase in costs that Sami mentioned then so be it.  He could have cancelled the loans, and the many many aircraft orders placed with the loan money that people will use to change the game when the get them...then people really would have been moaning !
« Last Edit: July 23, 2011, 11:06:37 PM by SAC »
...it's not over until I say it's over

Offline BobTheCactus

  • Members
  • Posts: 1244
    • AeroBlogger.com
Re: question
« Reply #59 on: July 23, 2011, 11:15:28 PM »

If it was set-up incorrectly then I cannot deny it gave me a boost over others at a critical stage and will happily accept any thing that comes my way.

How did it give you a boost over everybody else?

Everybody could do this. The wording made it seem like it was possible to do it with worse terms - anybody could have taken 30 seconds of their time and experimented to see what the bank would allow them to take. There were references to the maximum loan permitted all over the forums...

If the text said "you may only take a loan if the value of your security is equal or greater than the loan", and this was there I would agree with you. It would be clear that it was a bug and that you should not use it, and that it should be reported immediately. It would be unreasonable for anybody else to use it, because it would seem like it would be impossible to do. Therefore, it would be taking advantage over others, because they would not logically do the same behavior.

Compare that to what is the case. The text made it seem vaguely like you could take a bigger loan than the value of the security. A little reading comprehension, and this seems clear. Therefore, it is reasonable for everybody else to also participate in the same behavior, since the text on the screen makes it seem that the loan system should work as it did. Therefore, while you did gain an advantage, I don't think that it was unfair.
Editor of AeroBlogger
If you're interested in blogging on aviation 3x/month or more:
http://AeroBlogger.com/Write

 

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.