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: Feedback thread  (Read 3117 times)

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14535
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Feedback thread
« on: September 02, 2012, 09:59:36 AM »
So.. This is the first of these "mini" scenarios that act as placefillers in between the larger and longer worlds.. How do you like it? (the geographical limitation, day length etc)

dasherhalo

  • Former member
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #1 on: September 02, 2012, 11:42:57 AM »
Love it.

I imagine these mini-scenarios would be more popular with the less strategically gifted players (like myself). Everything about it is more enjoyable for me - smaller world, quicker game days, less players over-all, and more planes as a result in the used market!

I'd be happy to see these games appear a LOT more often.


Nick E.

  • Former member
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #2 on: September 02, 2012, 12:58:43 PM »
I love the mini game world! I like how there are actually airports open that you can base at and the number of airlines is similar to real life! I would love to see a game like this that includes the whole world with a 200 player limitation so that the base airports are more open. In some worlds, like MT7, airports like ATL and ORD might have 6-7 airlines based there. In this world, that doesn't happen. It is the first time I have made a significant profit.

I'd love to see them all the time and appear frequently, like maybe once every two weeks or something.

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #3 on: September 02, 2012, 04:29:09 PM »
I prefer the minigames for a few reasons:

1. 25 minute days means things happen quicker.
2. The lack of trans-Atlantic/Pacific routes means no massive airlines with ridiculous F/C demand making ridiculous margins and crushing the little guys.
3. Slots are actually available.  Most of the major airports with major international demand would be locked up at this point.
4. Used aircraft availability.  Seems that we have a whole world worth of aircraft versus just 200 airlines worth.  This means no 2+ year backlog for new aircraft because what you need is usually available used, even A320 and B737.
5. Alliances are more strategic.  You can't have 25 airlines based in the US in the same alliance because you'll constantly be running into each other, especially when bases are considered.
6. Players are using appropriate aircraft (so it seems), thanks to the competition and new pax algorithm.  Iksu was flying 16x daily with Dash-8 (part of an experiment) on 1500 pax routes and failed.  Those flying ~125 seaters and myself flying 90 seat CRJs remain successful.  The larger jets seem to be beating the smaller props on routes that props shouldn't be flying IRL.  However, if you want to get a new Dash-8 you can get it in a few months versus a few years--historically the massive international legacy-type carriers would have the Dash-8 production line locked up for years.

Interestingly enough, the big jets like the B777 and A340 have gone out of production due to lack of demand.  I think another North American Challenge would be interesting if players could only base in North America, but could fly anywhere in the world.  The competition would be/could be brutal as there would be no slot issues flying to Heathrow, for example.  This means every player based at JFK would have flights to Heathrow and they would be working at putting each other into bankruptcy.  With the new pax model, this excites me since you won't see Trans-Atlantic 737s flying these routes anymore.  I haven't tested it out, but I assume the pax sensitivity to seat config/density has been increased so those flying the routes with premium seating should crush the high density airline.

If AI features could be enabled, I think it would be cool to have the above (base only in North America), but have a major AI competitor based at every international airport flying with existing routes with sufficient demand being flown already.  So there would be a Heathrow Airlines, Syndey Airlines, etc. with enough seats on all the major international routes to North America that if someone wanted to fly international it would be an uphill battle for players.

Those are my thoughts on the next North America Challenge to increase the "challenge" :)  If city-based demand were enabled it would be even more interesting.

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14535
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #4 on: September 02, 2012, 05:16:19 PM »
Used planes; I created the game for ~600 players so that explains it (ie. aircraft storage count represents that). (I usually do this always - for 650 player MT I create it for ~1000 players to make extra planes)


Also, any (more) words on the pax distribution?

(for info; I plan to further enhance it later to remove the artificial Y/C/F distribution and make passengers to be freely able to select the class they wish)


I think another North American Challenge would be interesting if players could only base in North America, but could fly anywhere in the world.

Not sure if that can be done, but gotta think.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2012, 05:26:57 PM by sami »

Offline Flyboy06

  • Members
  • Posts: 75
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #5 on: September 02, 2012, 07:14:46 PM »
Love it.

I imagine these mini-scenarios would be more popular with the less strategically gifted players (like myself). Everything about it is more enjoyable for me - smaller world, quicker game days, less players over-all, and more planes as a result in the used market!

I'd be happy to see these games appear a LOT more often.



+1

Online [ATA] b757capt

  • Members
  • Posts: 701
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #6 on: September 02, 2012, 07:51:11 PM »
Sami, This game brought me back to you.

After a few games that just took so much of my time I had called a quits to AirwaySim.

After seeing the email showing this game I am having a blast.

I pray to god my airline continues to do well. Heck I am happy being profitable for once!!!!

Keep these games coming!!!!

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #7 on: September 02, 2012, 09:04:06 PM »
Also, any (more) words on the pax distribution?

I think price needs to be more sensitive.  If I drop ticket prices 10%, my LF doesn't go up enough to increase revenues/profits.

I think aircraft types need to be more sensitive.  If a prop is flying against a jet (CRJ against a Dash-8 for example), then the jet needs to get a big preference.  Most pax don't want to fly on noisy and (percieved) slow turboprops if they don't have to, at least not in the US.

I think the increase in RI should depend on how busy the airport on the other end is.  For example, if I fly from ATL to ORD, ORD is a pretty busy airport and news of my airline adding flights is not really news.  If I fly from ATL to some small podunk airport in the middle of Montana, this is big news for them.  As such, RI should go from 0 to 100 much more quickly based on how busy the airport on the other end is, say 2 months instead of 6.  This will encourage airlines starting up to fly the low demand routes to get a head start on turning a profit in the startup stage.

I think that CI has been nerfed big time, which is a good thing.  Many small airlines fly under "Delta Connection" etc. and don't have their own branding to worry about, as such a low CI should not penalize the little guys as much as it did previously.

In light of the change to cash only slots and slow RI increase time, I think many players are BK'ing simply due to the inability to make changes to their airline.  I think having two different types of bankruptcy would be helpful for the less experienced players to correct their mistakes--reorganization and liquidation.  We already have liquidation.  Reorganization would give an airline an unlimited credit line to make changes (no new aircraft etc.).  After they exit restructuring, their bank balance will be $1 million and any money spent and the cash difference to get to $1 million and exit reorganization would turn into a 10-year loan.  You can only reorganize once and you can only reorganize if you have a $0 unsecured credit line and have negative cashflow.  As it stands now, one mistake could put an airline under :(

Offline EsquireFlyer

  • Members
  • Posts: 1327
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #8 on: September 02, 2012, 09:05:52 PM »
I like this game world very much as well.

(for info; I plan to further enhance it later to remove the artificial Y/C/F distribution and make passengers to be freely able to select the class they wish)

What about the absence of F from this game world (and from North America in the MT world)? Is that intentional, or accidental? JA and DOTM have F demand on select routes in North America, as does real life (SFO-JFK, LAX-JFK for example). And airlines have to choose between specially configure a subfleet of their planes to fly these premium routes (e.g. United, American), or fly them on standard domestic planes and lose some competitiveness but gain interchangeability with the rest of their domestic fleet (e.g. Continental, US Air). This decision would provide an interesting strategy option for this challenge world.

From what I understand, it was stated in the test world that F demand within continents was missing because of the smaller number of players, but there has been no statement of whether the elimination of F from MT7 and NAC is intentional/permanent or accidental/temporary. Can you please tell us?

Offline EsquireFlyer

  • Members
  • Posts: 1327
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #9 on: September 02, 2012, 09:07:05 PM »
I think that CI has been nerfed big time, which is a good thing.  Many small airlines fly under "Delta Connection" etc. and don't have their own branding to worry about, as such a low CI should not penalize the little guys as much as it did previously.

They can still get killed by bad CI. E.g. Colgan dba Continental Connection.

Offline EsquireFlyer

  • Members
  • Posts: 1327
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #10 on: September 02, 2012, 09:12:20 PM »
4. Used aircraft availability.  Seems that we have a whole world worth of aircraft versus just 200 airlines worth.  This means no 2+ year backlog for new aircraft because what you need is usually available used, even A320 and B737.
I still have trouble finding A320s on the UM these days. A319 and A318, sure, but A320 is tough and A321 is near impossible.

And I can't get A321s new fast enough. Although there are lots of green slots, I am personally backlogged for 2 years already, and due to the delivery limit, I can only get 1.5x A321s per month, even if there are 20+ green slots that month which just expired unused.

Is it possible for deliveries to be allowed closer together in NAC, due to the fact that each airline can only make use of a smaller number of production lines? LH aircraft are not really viable, which is why those production lines have shut down. And, if you order a wide variety of SH aircraft that actually serve the same role, you will rack up commonality punishment pretty fast.

In real life, it seems that Airbus would push some orders forward (before the "lock in" cutoff date) rather than just let all the production slots expire unused when some customers have years-long backlogs.

I think another North American Challenge would be interesting if players could only base in North America, but could fly anywhere in the world.

I really like this idea. Using this concept, you could also do an Oceania challenge, for example. Even though Oceania doesn't have enough SH demand to make a challenge exciting if the players could only fly within Oceania. But base in Oceania only, and fly anywhere, could be an interesting challenge. Similar for South America challenge, etc.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2012, 09:22:21 PM by EsquireFlyer »

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #11 on: September 02, 2012, 09:38:54 PM »
I think the 1.5 aircraft/month is fine and reasonable so that other players have access to production slots.  This goes back to white tail aircraft that leasing companies would be buying up to fill production lines.  There needs to be something built where if aircraft utilization (aircraft in service) is over 75% or some arbitrary number then leasing companies are buying up white tails to put on the used market.  They would be able to lease aircraft above market rates, so it would be foolish for them not to.

Offline EsquireFlyer

  • Members
  • Posts: 1327
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #12 on: September 02, 2012, 09:52:16 PM »
I think the 1.5 aircraft/month is fine and reasonable so that other players have access to production slots.  This goes back to white tail aircraft that leasing companies would be buying up to fill production lines.  There needs to be something built where if aircraft utilization (aircraft in service) is over 75% or some arbitrary number then leasing companies are buying up white tails to put on the used market.  They would be able to lease aircraft above market rates, so it would be foolish for them not to.

It would be OK with me if the brokers would buy planes in the expiring green slots and I could then rebuy or lease from the brokers at a markup.
But Airbus/Boeing letting the slots simply expire unused rather than building planes in those slots for customers with long backlogs doesn't make sense.

I agree that other players should have access to production slots, so I don't think deliveries should be spaced so close together that other players are locked out. But what is happening right now is the opposite situation. Everyone who wants planes has ordered them, and there are still lots of green slots every month, which just expire without building anything for anyone.

Talentz

  • Former member
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #13 on: September 03, 2012, 01:26:55 AM »
Short games are nice. Fast paced w/ compressed competition.


When will you be ready to give us a pro game mode where the environmental settings are near impossible to survive? Surely we have enough player base for that... I want to see 80% of airlines fail in the first 6mnths because of unpredictable variables.




Talentz

jwriteclub

  • Former member
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #14 on: September 03, 2012, 02:27:36 AM »
As a newer player I really like this. After getting my ass kicked in DOTM (but just joining it about a week ago), I joined this game some time after it started, and I like the fact that it's significantly more challenging, but I can still actually compete (even if a recent aircraft order has put me in the red, but hopefully only temporarily).

One issue re: passenger demand. The demand for C is not symmetrical. That is, from a large airport to a small airport there's C demand, but from that smaller airport back to the large airport there's none. If C seats could get sold as Y, then it wouldn't be (as much of) an issue, but since they don't, the planes fly with high C load factor in one direction and 0 C load factor in the other.

Final thought: The topic of AI players have been brought up a couple of times. Have you considered making an "AI API" so that people could program their own AIs? Not in lieu of playing as regular players, but I'd love to have a crack at an AI airline.

Offline Tom14cat14

  • Members
  • Posts: 639
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #15 on: September 03, 2012, 09:48:44 PM »
I have to say i also like this game. I like shorter days and popular planes being available. I would like to see this game world in the future as well as a short game world with LH demand.

I also live the idea of a "pro" type of game world. Maybe not 80% bk-ing in 6 months but with in a year for sure.

I really like the PAX preference of larger planes. I could own ORD-LGA with my e-195 in the old algorithm but now it is more RL like that i send 320/321's.
APB Airlines

Offline AndiD

  • Members
  • Posts: 131
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #16 on: September 08, 2012, 05:12:35 AM »
Yes, love it here as well.

Strangely enough, I both enjoy the longer-than-usual Jet Age game (going all the way from DC-6s to Tristars rocks) and the shorter-than usual game here.

One issue for feedback though: With less players around, would it make sense to increase the time manufacturers wait till they close a line? Or make the AI brokers more active and have them order batches, too? (A single plane here or there won't find a buyer as easy as a batch of five or ten) Would like to renew my prop fleet in a year when I again have some cash on hand, but everything will be oop by then as it looks.

Nick E.

  • Former member
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #17 on: September 08, 2012, 12:18:06 PM »
I agree, I ordered 10 EMB-120's, and then the production line closed. I would have closer to probably 50 by now if it hadn't.

Offline Tom14cat14

  • Members
  • Posts: 639
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #18 on: September 19, 2012, 04:00:11 AM »
I would love to start about 2 years later but having all of the normal production lines open. I would like a chance to use the C series. It doesn't make a lot of sense too me to do use it in this game. First arrival is this year and It would take me the rest of the gameworld to replace my e-195's so i would really have no benefit. I would also love to see a short version but with the whole world. Same time frame and length as this but with the entire world so we can use some of the new WB's. In MT by the time you get to some of these new planes it really does not matter. You get them more for the fun of it then i need to cut fuel consumption. Most airlines are very well off my the mid to late 2000's. Are you going to start another one once this game world is done?

Tony   
APB Airlines

Nick E.

  • Former member
Re: Feedback thread
« Reply #19 on: September 19, 2012, 06:45:33 PM »
I would love to see tons of these games going on at once. It is annoying having over 300 people in a game world. This keeps the number of base airports available and overall competition more realistic. I would love to see these games more often. Keep the player limit, but maybe expand to the whole world. You could make it so that you could only be involved in 2 mini-games at a time maybe? That way everyone has a chance to get in.

 

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.