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: [ok] Bigger alliances in bigger game worlds?  (Read 1275 times)

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
[ok] Bigger alliances in bigger game worlds?
« on: December 09, 2011, 04:37:27 PM »
JA has a limit of 300 players
DOTM limit: 425 players
MT limit 650 players

The alliance sizes are fixed at 25 in all gameworlds.  Should not there be higher limit in MT than in JA, since the total number of players is more than 2x JA?  Something like:
JA - 25
DOTM - 30
MT - 35

With limits what they are, there is a temptation for alliances to bypass the limit by working as an alliance with players outside of the alliance (which according to Sami is prohibited).
« Last Edit: January 31, 2016, 02:28:13 PM by sami »

Ansettaddict123

  • Former member
Re: Bigger alliances in bigger game worlds?
« Reply #1 on: December 10, 2011, 09:25:10 AM »
+1

it should be a ratio of players per game world to players per alliance (max)

Offline NorgeFly

  • Members
  • Posts: 3652
Re: Bigger alliances in bigger game worlds?
« Reply #2 on: December 10, 2011, 03:50:47 PM »
+1

Funny, I literally just mentioned this exact idea in another thread!

In a game like MT6 with over 600 players I think a limit of 30 players per alliance would be more suitable. I would not be in favour of many more than that as it may become difficult to operate without overlapping with fellow alliance members too much (geographically speaking).

vitongwangki

  • Former member
Re: Bigger alliances in bigger game worlds?
« Reply #3 on: December 10, 2011, 04:33:06 PM »
+1

Funny, I literally just mentioned this exact idea in another thread!

In a game like MT6 with over 600 players I think a limit of 30 players per alliance would be more suitable. I would not be in favour of many more than that as it may become difficult to operate without overlapping with fellow alliance members too much (geographically speaking).
I think increase to 30 is suitable. Not more than that because Modern World is usually the soil of new alliances; raised to 35 or 40 would let big alliance to take most of strong players away. It isn't favor the establishment of new alliances.

Offline NorgeFly

  • Members
  • Posts: 3652
Re: Bigger alliances in bigger game worlds?
« Reply #4 on: December 10, 2011, 04:38:51 PM »
I think increase to 30 is suitable. Not more than that because Modern World is usually the soil of new alliances; raised to 35 or 40 would let big alliance to take most of strong players away. It isn't favor the establishment of new alliances.

Also a good point.

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: Bigger alliances in bigger game worlds?
« Reply #5 on: December 10, 2011, 04:45:52 PM »
I originally thought 30 as well for MT.  30 MT, 25 DOTM, 20 JA.

But I thought if Sami were to implement it in current worlds and there is alliance in JA with more than 20, it would not e possibe to do it until that game world is over...

Offline NorgeFly

  • Members
  • Posts: 3652
Re: Bigger alliances in bigger game worlds?
« Reply #6 on: December 10, 2011, 04:53:33 PM »
I originally thought 30 as well for MT.  30 MT, 25 DOTM, 20 JA.

But I thought if Sami were to implement it in current worlds and there is alliance in JA with more than 20, it would not e possibe to do it until that game world is over...

I don't think there is any need to decrease it below 25 for JA games as if there is no demand for 25 then having empty spaces is fine.

I think 25 for the smaller/medium size games and 30 for the large MT/ATB games would be fine.

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14539
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Bigger alliances in bigger game worlds?
« Reply #7 on: August 24, 2014, 04:42:28 PM »
Old thread. Any more comments?

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028

The person who likes this post:
Re: Bigger alliances in bigger game worlds?
« Reply #8 on: August 24, 2014, 04:57:18 PM »
With the current system where it benefits mostly to invite "useless randoms" for the +5 points per year than building up a nice alliance community with people you actually want to be with but miss out on the points I'm against an increase over 30 players.

With a new system that somehow adds variable points to the cumulative points yearly while the "do nothing and get +5 points per member"-thing is softened.


(this is no official Elite Alliance Management opinion)

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: Bigger alliances in bigger game worlds?
« Reply #9 on: August 28, 2014, 03:43:36 PM »
That's a good point.  Variable vs. Cumulative points needs fixing.  in the MT worlds, the game world starts with ~500 players, and each scoring place is worth quite a lot, as each scoring place gets more points (and there are no cumulative points at the start).

In the first few years, the ratio of variable points vs. cumulative points can be 10:1.

Near the end of the game world, when there may be 200 players left, each scoring place is worth less, and in 30+ year game world, there is a lot of cumulative points.  The ratio changes from 10:1 to 1:10 in favor of cumulative points, and variable points become worthless.

Maybe a system where vairable points grow should be devised.

Let's say, first year, top 10 players in the alliance should get 10, 9, 8 ... 1 points.
Next year, top 11 players in the alliance should get 11, 10, 9 ... 1 points
And each year the number of players awarded points will go up.

The players who are not in alliance should not be considered, should be filtered out.  If there is an airline that is not alliance is #1, and #2 is an airline in an alliance, the #2 airline should get the max points etc.

The longer the game goes, more scoring places there will be, so the alliance would be rewarded for having top ranking airlines, rather than just being "full"as far as the #of players.

The alliance metrics, the "alliance rating" is also kind of broken.  Every alliance with handful of members that is around for long enough is rated 100%.  That should be revised as well.  I have a proposal for that here:
http://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,43363.msg236515.html#msg236515

Offline Mr.HP

  • Members
  • Posts: 2730
Re: Bigger alliances in bigger game worlds?
« Reply #10 on: August 28, 2014, 04:32:43 PM »
That's why they are called variable scores. Even the ratio is 10:1, they are still something to add to the total points if cumulative scores are about even

Bottom line, the system is fair, coz Alliances with small airlines can have a chance against mega airlines Alliances. Don't you think? Or are you suggesting a system that is more in favor of mega airlines?

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: Bigger alliances in bigger game worlds?
« Reply #11 on: August 28, 2014, 07:01:02 PM »
Variable points are useless unless the absolute end of the game and that's wrong.


Most GameWorlds could be won by an alliance of 25 badly maintained airlines with 11 aircraft if the GameWorld goes long enough.

Offline Mr.HP

  • Members
  • Posts: 2730
Re: Bigger alliances in bigger game worlds?
« Reply #12 on: August 29, 2014, 01:08:17 AM »
Variable points are useless unless the absolute end of the game and that's wrong.


Most GameWorlds could be won by an alliance of 25 badly maintained airlines with 11 aircraft if the GameWorld goes long enough.

So you're saying that 25 well maintained mega airlines Alliance lose to Alliance of 25 badly maintained airlines with 11 aircraft?

If variable points are useless, then it's the same for all Alliance. Why do you complaint since no harm done to anyone

And do you really think any 25 average airlines (not badly maintained one) will do the job?
1. They are more likely to make mistakes, bleed cash, have checks not being done and BK while still in Alliance
2. They are more likely to quit the GW due to boredom, or whatever the reason, while still in Alliance
3. They are more likely to be offline for a few days and don't give a raise and have their staff strike many times while still in Alliance

Or are you saying 25 loyal mega airlines have the same problem, too? Even so, don't you think the Alliance that addresses those matters better, should be awarded?

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: Bigger alliances in bigger game worlds?
« Reply #13 on: August 29, 2014, 01:18:46 AM »
If the 25 badly maintained airlines stick together the whole GameWorld but the 25 mega airlines having drops or finding together later in the game, then yes.


If variable points are useless, then it's the same for all Alliance. Why do you complaint since no harm done to anyone

Harm is done because the biggest reward is to get 25 airlines together for the whole GameWorld, not to have - let's say - 15 or 20 airlines together that are way above average.

Bad-Dude with his crap airline scores the same 5 points per year as the Super-Guy who is #1 in all statistics. Just at the very end of the GameWorld the variable score is added - and that sucks.


This basically forces alliances to max out the member limit, even if sometimes fewer members would be an advantage or be part of a strategic decision.

Online schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 3076
Re: Bigger alliances in bigger game worlds?
« Reply #14 on: August 29, 2014, 01:25:48 AM »
With the new basing rules, I think it will be difficult to increase the number of airlines in an alliance without causing significant overlap in the US and EU. With the old basing rules, 5-7 airlines was doable in both the US and EU without having coordination issues, however, with the new basing system, I suspect that number will be a bit lower....

Offline Mr.HP

  • Members
  • Posts: 2730
Re: Bigger alliances in bigger game worlds?
« Reply #15 on: August 29, 2014, 02:15:20 AM »
If the 25 badly maintained airlines stick together the whole GameWorld but the 25 mega airlines having drops or finding together later in the game, then yes.

That's an extreme case which I've never seen. And I've seen the leading Alliance wins with big gap in cumulative and variable score over the second Alliance many times.

Average airlines tends to screw up more than mega airlines do (mentioned above); and if "25 mega airlines having drops or finding together later in the game", the same happens to 25 average airlines. You can always recruit new talents, and I think mega airlines have more chance to recruit good candidates. So there's no valid points which prove badly maintained airlines Alliance have as edge over well maintained mega airlines Alliance

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: Bigger alliances in bigger game worlds?
« Reply #16 on: August 29, 2014, 10:58:16 AM »
Elite in GW#4 was such a case before SkyConnect imploded, to give a prominent example.

They had some exceptional airlines, leading in several branches or were in #3, but they were down to 7 members so they lost ground.




Another example: Why shall, for example, my GW#4 airline score as many points as the new dude who started yesterday in Unalaska? It's not fair from a meta basis.

AirwaySim rewards with the current system the wrong emphasis (does this work in English?). Actually good airlines are not rewarded. Rewarded is quantity and that exclusively.



Edit: Just because "good" alliances can work around this issue somehow doesn't mean it's a good system that should be kept. It's a feature request and that means things should be improved. :)

Offline [ATA] frimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 1376
Re: Bigger alliances in bigger game worlds?
« Reply #17 on: August 29, 2014, 12:10:50 PM »
I agree that the whole concept of scoring is majorly flawed and needs an overhaul.

Cumulative points are currently added to the alliance score but perhaps it should be linked to individual players. So if a player leaves an alliance (and/or BK's) then the alliance loses the cumulative score as well... Currently this isn't the case.  If an alliance can run with 25 players from beginning to end without BK's then they will get rewarded for it... 

now if an alliance runs with 25 members but replace members who have BK'ed with other players.. they don't lose the cumulative points and will keep scoring the points (and cannot be caught up)

in terms of variable scoring, I do not see the reason why there is currently a cap of top 10% (top 20 if less than 200 players) for the scoring..
Remove this cap and you'll make sure that the scoring reflects the strength of a total alliance... By having this cap, the game can trigger certain behaviours where players can join late in the game and target a few specific stats as they don't care by being low on the other stats.
This penalises airlines who run the whole game from start to finish, have a good airline, but are ranked outside the top 20 in many of the stats. By removing this cap, it means that everyone in the alliance contributes to the scoring (rather than just big hitters)... this gives a better representation of the alliance scoring..


going back to the original post of larger alliances... I'm not so sure this is needed.
25 seems adequate. if you allow more players in an alliance then basically the largest alliance will likely win due to the current scoring system. If you were to increase the alliance numbers, then perhaps a scoring system based on the average score per player should be introduced, so that smaller alliances can still have a chance of winning.. but i think this would be major work and the scoring would need to be carefully reviewed.


Offline Mr Yoda

  • Members
  • Posts: 848
Re: Bigger alliances in bigger game worlds?
« Reply #18 on: August 29, 2014, 07:02:30 PM »
You know what I think it's a dumb idea to implement for alliance.

1) Well think of it this way yeah, I can only imagine one ok maybe 2 alliances that can fit 30 players in one GW so it already would be pointless to add as many other alliances can only wish to reach 25 players.

2) On average we have about 4 or 5 alliances per GW and if they all would be allowed to have 30 players then 30 x 5 then it would equal to 150 playes. On average we have about 300-400 (maybe more depending on a scenario) players in 1 GW at a time.
So lets say we have 5 alliances and all of them have 30 players in them, lets imagine that we have 400 players playing this GW right? That would mean more than a quarter of these players would be playing in an alliance. That would wreck the game for the ones that play solo and especially for the beginners that will be crushed by some alliance players quicker that that Harlem Shake song.

That said it won't be fair especially for the ones that came from beginners world and want to test out their skills that thy learnt in a challenging one and some greedy alliance guy steps in and "squeezes" him until he goes bust because he doesn't want any competition in his HQ.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2014, 07:05:55 PM by fedot12345 »

 

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.