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: New player protection system  (Read 4724 times)

Online JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5997
New player protection system
« on: March 04, 2012, 11:46:04 PM »
Most of the massively multiplayer online games have some system of new player protection.  AWS could use something a little more explicit than a guideline.

For example, if an airline is less than 6 months old, its routes could show up in green, instead of black.  Older airlines (black) would not be able to add flights to any routes that have green flights.  (green vs. green would be ok).

This could be done first for only informational purposes, later it could be enforced by the system.

Offline Jona L.

  • Members
  • Posts: 3361
Re: New player protection system
« Reply #1 on: March 05, 2012, 08:53:09 AM »
-1

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: New player protection system
« Reply #2 on: March 06, 2012, 12:58:27 AM »
AWS has this already...it's called Beginner's World and seasoned players are not welcome.  Not to mention the Demo game...

Online JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5997
Re: New player protection system
« Reply #3 on: March 06, 2012, 01:34:01 AM »
When I restarted in MT6 a few monts into it, I was airline number 650 by age.  Now I am number 91.  That means 5/6 of the airlines currently playing in MT6 have either restarted or started late.  Many restarted several times.

That's a vast majority of customer base of AWS.  If AWS is to grow, this vast majority of paying customers could use a less hostile environment when they start.

This is not unique, BTW.  Go look at various competitive games on internet, just about every single one gives a new player a protective environment to start from and get established.  4 to 7 days is typical of what I have come across.  So I suggested 6 months, which is approximately 6 RL days.

I don't think it would be particularly limiting to existing players if they can't add flights to 1 out of 100 destinations for 6 days...

I think this would not be terribly dificult for the system to enforce.  On the submit of the create a new flight, a check could be made if there is any "green" flight on the route.  If it is, an error message would appear...  And on various listings of flight, some color coding would be added...

I see it as a win win:  Less work for administrators to deal with complaints, better experience for new players starting (restarting) in regular game worlds, and the investment of time to make it happen is not particularly large (in my opinion).

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 3083
Re: New player protection system
« Reply #4 on: March 06, 2012, 01:49:13 AM »
I'll agree on this being a great idea for new entrants. Although the rules prohibit targeting, it involves a great deal of administrative involvement and examination of evidence to determine the intent of the targeting.  Then there's the issue of the player performing the targeting not understanding why they have attracted attention from the administration when the intent of targeting new entrants is more important than their actual method of trying to open routes.

The only question in my mind about the request, is would this restriction be only on incumbant airlines of the new airline, or would it also include other bases?  I.e. suppose DFW has a new airline, could an ATL airline still open ATL-DFW?  Personally, i'd think only the DFW side would need protectoin, as the ATL player woudln't care to actively squash someone in another city....

Online JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5997
Re: New player protection system
« Reply #5 on: March 06, 2012, 02:29:37 AM »
The only question in my mind about the request, is would this restriction be only on incumbant airlines of the new airline, or would it also include other bases?  I.e. suppose DFW has a new airline, could an ATL airline still open ATL-DFW?  Personally, i'd think only the DFW side would need protectoin, as the ATL player woudln't care to actively squash someone in another city....

I would make it universal.  It would cover not only intentional, but also unintentional piling on on routes where a new airline just started flying.

To clarify, the players would be either under system protection (green) or not under system protection (black).  The routes (demand graph, airport destinations) would all be color coded.  And simply, black player would be prohibited from adding a flight on a route that has a green flight.

It would be a slight annoyance.  But 6 game months is nothing in 25 year long game.  And it is nothing compared to eterninty - never being able to fly to LHR, because of slot shortage, or FRA, where the player intentionally bought up all the slots to lock out competition.

Offline alexgv1

  • Members
  • Posts: 2184
Re: New player protection system
« Reply #6 on: March 06, 2012, 03:27:08 AM »
AWS has this already...it's called Beginner's World and seasoned players are not welcome.  Not to mention the Demo game...

'nuff said.

Then welcome to the real world
CEO of South Where Airlines (SWA|WH)

Offline BobTheCactus

  • Members
  • Posts: 1244
    • AeroBlogger.com
Re: New player protection system
« Reply #7 on: March 06, 2012, 05:51:20 AM »
I am not a fan of this idea. I don't think that opening a route that a new airline is on is unfair in any way, nor should it be against the rules. It's the systematic targeting that is the problem, not opening up on an individual route.
Editor of AeroBlogger
If you're interested in blogging on aviation 3x/month or more:
http://AeroBlogger.com/Write

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14544
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: New player protection system
« Reply #8 on: April 18, 2013, 08:00:24 PM »
Any further talk or ideas on this topic?

I would be in favor of adding a rule that disallows established airlines in opening a route to a destination that has been just opened by a new airline, generally speaking. How that would work with all the details put in, is another thing.

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 3083
Re: New player protection system
« Reply #9 on: April 18, 2013, 08:28:56 PM »
Any further talk or ideas on this topic?

I would be in favor of adding a rule that disallows established airlines in opening a route to a destination that has been just opened by a new airline, generally speaking. How that would work with all the details put in, is another thing.

Honestly, the new sales distribution engine has gone a long way to solving this problem. In MT7, I observed many airlines that started in bases with well established gorillas and proceeded to prosper without a worry in the world no matter what the gorilla airline did to them (assuming there were slots available for them). Right now, if you jump into a large base with some F100's, you can start digging a hole and be untouchable, as supplying 100-200 seats/day to major destinations (1000-2000+ daily demand) regardless of the level of over supply and pricing on that route.

That being said, perhaps this concept could be done on a data collection and warning method as follows -
For the first 6 months of an airline's life in a base, if the incumbent airline(s) that are older than 6 months (or maybe 12 months) attempts to open a route to a destination that has been opened by the new airline, a warning will be displayed that opening the route could potentially be in violation of the targeting rules and ask that the player consider the spirit of the game rules, etc, prior to proceeding to open it. Each route that is opened after being warned would be flagged for potential review by the administration, or at least placed in a view that would make it easy to analyze the route openings upon a complaint.  The review could be automated to an extent - i.e. new airline opens 10 destinations/routes, incumbent follows 8 of them within the initial period would trigger an administrative review...

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: New player protection system
« Reply #10 on: April 18, 2013, 09:30:06 PM »
Any further talk or ideas on this topic?

I would be in favor of adding a rule that disallows established airlines in opening a route to a destination that has been just opened by a new airline, generally speaking. How that would work with all the details put in, is another thing.

How about if a new player opens a route, then an established player opens one on top of them (flying at least 6x/week), their route becomes subsidized by whatever local governments are involved that buy up half the empty seats.  If a new player opens a route on top of an established player, then nothing happens.  This would prevent established players from opening up those routes until very last since it would give their competition a distinct advantage.  For example, if LF is 80%, then 20% of the seats are empty and the airline receives a subsidy worth 10% LF, which actually comes out to more like 15% since they aren't paying pax fees etc. for those empty seats.  If LF is 50%, then the subsidy is 25% LF, etc.

The subsidy should be a 5 year subsidy--anything shorter I think you have established airlines targeting the new guys specifically so the clock starts as soon as possible, running out the subsidy as soon as possible.

Online JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5997
Re: New player protection system
« Reply #11 on: April 19, 2013, 03:30:40 AM »
Honestly, the new sales distribution engine has gone a long way to solving this problem. In MT7, I observed many airlines that started in bases with well established gorillas and proceeded to prosper without a worry in the world no matter what the gorilla airline did to them (assuming there were slots available for them). Right now, if you jump into a large base with some F100's, you can start digging a hole and be untouchable, as supplying 100-200 seats/day to major destinations (1000-2000+ daily demand) regardless of the level of over supply and pricing on that route.

You still have to be a decent player to pull it off (to think of it) or the airport has to be badly slot constrained.  Also, there are not that many airports out there with several 1000-2000 pax routes.

That being said, perhaps this concept could be done on a data collection and warning method as follows -
For the first 6 months of an airline's life in a base, if the incumbent airline(s) that are older than 6 months (or maybe 12 months) attempts to open a route to a destination that has been opened by the new airline, a warning will be displayed that opening the route could potentially be in violation of the targeting rules and ask that the player consider the spirit of the game rules, etc, prior to proceeding to open it. Each route that is opened after being warned would be flagged for potential review by the administration, or at least placed in a view that would make it easy to analyze the route openings upon a complaint.  The review could be automated to an extent - i.e. new airline opens 10 destinations/routes, incumbent follows 8 of them within the initial period would trigger an administrative review...

I think the best method is one that is fully automated.  Why not just disallow opening the route and be done with it?

Talentz

  • Former member
Re: New player protection system
« Reply #12 on: April 19, 2013, 04:08:44 AM »
Honestly, the new sales distribution engine has gone a long way to solving this problem. In MT7, I observed many airlines that started in bases with well established gorillas and proceeded to prosper without a worry in the world no matter what the gorilla airline did to them (assuming there were slots available for them). Right now, if you jump into a large base with some F100's, you can start digging a hole and be untouchable, as supplying 100-200 seats/day to major destinations (1000-2000+ daily demand) regardless of the level of over supply and pricing on that route.

I am inclined to agree. It does seems much easier to build an airline in a hostile environment, provided you have a working knowledge of AWS mechanics and slots. There's an alot of info on the forums compared to previous years and I actually think people do read what is posted... for the most part anyway.  :laugh:

That being said, perhaps this concept could be done on a data collection and warning method as follows -
For the first 6 months of an airline's life in a base, if the incumbent airline(s) that are older than 6 months (or maybe 12 months) attempts to open a route to a destination that has been opened by the new airline, a warning will be displayed that opening the route could potentially be in violation of the targeting rules and ask that the player consider the spirit of the game rules, etc, prior to proceeding to open it. Each route that is opened after being warned would be flagged for potential review by the administration, or at least placed in a view that would make it easy to analyze the route openings upon a complaint.  The review could be automated to an extent - i.e. new airline opens 10 destinations/routes, incumbent follows 8 of them within the initial period would trigger an administrative review...

The administrative review sounds good. I like the idea and what it can bring to the table. I do feel however, that such a system would tax alot of Sami's or the forum mod's time to deal with this one issue. Which I suspect is wide spread and rampant. Just that very few cases actually get reported or brought into the light.

Thus to add on to this suggestion, I would recommend you set up and staff, a panel of players that can devote time to review cases. Acting as peer judges for this. They can review, debate, come up with a solution to which you can approve or reject if necessary.

So, we can add a layer of protection to newer airlines, not bog down your all of your time doing so, while getting the player base more involved into helping solve the different matters of AWS.

I think the best method is one that is fully automated.  Why not just disallow opening the route and be done with it?

Because that is too restrictive and we should try and involve players (you) to use there unique insight for the betterment of AWS's player development. By combining yourself with others of your skill level and there different paths of success, we can better improve everyone's understanding of AWS. Thus, improving the games retention of newer and older players alike.


Talentz

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 3083
Re: New player protection system
« Reply #13 on: April 19, 2013, 04:44:01 AM »
I think the best method is one that is fully automated.  Why not just disallow opening the route and be done with it?

That just begs for abuse in my mind.

Online JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5997
Re: New player protection system
« Reply #14 on: April 19, 2013, 06:26:16 AM »
Any further talk or ideas on this topic?

I would be in favor of adding a rule that disallows established airlines in opening a route to a destination that has been just opened by a new airline, generally speaking. How that would work with all the details put in, is another thing.

It seems to me to be fairly straight forward.
- Color coding of routes
- I think the check should be on Routes/Open just prior to blank (or copied) route opening detail is displayed.  Instead, the user would be redirected to a red error message.  Routes/Edit should still work.

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14544
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: New player protection system
« Reply #15 on: April 19, 2013, 08:17:55 AM »
I would prefer it to be automated, but in those cases it is always simple "yes or no", and there is no flexibility. For a human "panel" moderating these, I'm afraid that eventually the job pours down to my hands...

Talentz

  • Former member
Re: New player protection system
« Reply #16 on: April 20, 2013, 05:36:13 AM »
I would prefer it to be automated, but in those cases it is always simple "yes or no", and there is no flexibility. For a human "panel" moderating these, I'm afraid that eventually the job pours down to my hands...

I think what I was referring to was the level of punishment, not whether they would be punished or not. However if automated is better for you, then that's the route that we should go. I just don't want to see you boggled down with anti-competition flags that lead to reduced time for developing AWS.

Talentz

Offline AIRmoe

  • Members
  • Posts: 45
Re: New player protection system
« Reply #17 on: April 20, 2013, 06:32:32 AM »
I think this would be unnecessary, and this is coming from a beginner! Leave the game just the way it is, it's completely fine!

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14544
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: New player protection system
« Reply #18 on: July 31, 2013, 03:49:04 PM »
Would like to hear more thoughts and comments on this subject, as keeping new players on board is an important issue in my mind in the longer term, and "not giving them a chance" isn't good.

Offline ezzeqiel

  • Members
  • Posts: 375
Re: New player protection system
« Reply #19 on: July 31, 2013, 08:43:18 PM »
My opinion is: level up all the airports... there should be no advantage over who grabs ATL, ORD, or CDG first... All players should have the same grounds to develop their airlines..

Second opinion is: make small planes (even) more profitable...


that way beginners can go to airports with no based airlines, and develop from there without heavy competition... (and make a whole new hub probably ??)


People that starts a game late must know that they won't be #1 airline... it happens in every massive online multiplayer game I ever played... that's a fact, and that won't change... if you want to get another chance, then wait for the next restart... and that leads to: make more games available (restarts more often)...


When I was a beginner it sucked hard, that once I screwed up in MT games, I'd have to wait like 9 months in order to get another chance...
« Last Edit: July 31, 2013, 08:47:15 PM by ezzeqiel »

 

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.