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: Aainst the rules?  (Read 2129 times)

Offline ZombieSlayer

  • Members
  • Posts: 3921
Re: Aainst the rules?
« Reply #20 on: March 09, 2013, 10:12:01 PM »
The system was tweaked to get things right for SH routes that people normally start with.  The start was made more challenging.  To compensate for that, the new starting capital increased, so that half of the companies don't go under in first 4 months.

But the increased starting capital just added more fuel to the fire on LH.  What was a small hole used by very few when starting capital was low turned into opening a floodgate...

As far as blanket rule on International Long Haul, this would be to make players go through a normal start up process, and maybe after 6 months, with CI of ~30, they would "qualify" for LH, the system would allocate some Y pax, at CI of 50, some C pax, at CI of 70, some F pax.

The things that can't be changed at start of say MT world:
- oil prices have to start low
- there will be availability of cheap DC-10s
- all of the routes are un-served
- serving un-served LH routes at low fuel prices with cheap DC-10s will be extremely profitable

What my proposal would do is it would force all players to go through the slow start-up phase, spend the marketing dollars, earn the CI before they can get into these highly lucrative routes.  The shortcut, bypassing the slow start would be closed.

As far as competition eventually taking care of things, well that's after horse is already out of the barn.  Players using the LH exploit will monopolize all the order queues, and will be twice as tough to unseat.

That is if slots allowed it.  A lot of the players will be sitting behind slot locked airports, so there is no more competition.


To fuel the fire...

In JNB, started with 2 DC-10-30's and had enough left over for 5 LHR flights for each plane. I made $700k the first week, $1.2 mil the second week, $1.9 mil the 3rd week. Leased a 3rd DC-10, added 5 more LHR flights. I was making $10 mil a week by the second month of the game, $15 by the 3rd month with near 100% LF's to LHR, and touching $30 mil a week by the 6 month mark. If you are at an airport that can support a LHR flight from day (demand = 1000 or greater), you print money from the second the game starts. Some tweaking in this department is still required, I think.
Co-Founder Elite Worldwide Alliance
CEO PacAir
Designated "Tier 1 Opponent"

Offline Tom14cat14

  • Members
  • Posts: 639
Re: Aainst the rules?
« Reply #21 on: March 10, 2013, 02:01:19 AM »
I have to agree very strongly with Others on this issue on LH printing money. I was hoping to overcome it in LAX by doing a more "realistic" start with short haul first make a nice profit then move on to LH. OOPPS!!! I started out in first but after the first month I could not keep buying slots and planes like my competition. I guess unless something changes we will all have to go for LH routes first if we want to compete in base and this will cause even a greater difference between large airlines and small. I really like Jumbo's idea of attaching LH to CI also. to be able to print 10 million a week after 6 months is crazy when all the SH guys are only make 2-5 million. O well maybe we will just have to conform if you want to have a largest airlines. Next MT strategy DC10 to LHR.  ;)   

PS. this is not criticizing any player that is doing this method.
APB Airlines

Talentz

  • Former member
Re: Aainst the rules?
« Reply #22 on: March 10, 2013, 07:44:23 AM »
To fuel the fire...

In JNB, started with 2 DC-10-30's and had enough left over for 5 LHR flights for each plane. I made $700k the first week, $1.2 mil the second week, $1.9 mil the 3rd week. Leased a 3rd DC-10, added 5 more LHR flights. I was making $10 mil a week by the second month of the game, $15 by the 3rd month with near 100% LF's to LHR, and touching $30 mil a week by the 6 month mark. If you are at an airport that can support a LHR flight from day (demand = 1000 or greater), you print money from the second the game starts. Some tweaking in this department is still required, I think.

I have to agree very strongly with Others on this issue on LH printing money. I was hoping to overcome it in LAX by doing a more "realistic" start with short haul first make a nice profit then move on to LH. OOPPS!!! I started out in first but after the first month I could not keep buying slots and planes like my competition. I guess unless something changes we will all have to go for LH routes first if we want to compete in base and this will cause even a greater difference between large airlines and small. I really like Jumbo's idea of attaching LH to CI also. to be able to print 10 million a week after 6 months is crazy when all the SH guys are only make 2-5 million. O well maybe we will just have to conform if you want to have a largest airlines. Next MT strategy DC10 to LHR.  ;)   

PS. this is not criticizing any player that is doing this method.

Peeps, We've been through this same issue already. As a fix to the F/C LH strategy in the early days of AWS, the "magic carpet" rules were coded to prevent an airline from taking all F/C class pax from day one and having a huge advantage within 2 months. This was celebrated by all until next full game world came about. At that point, the player base realized that with the new rules, LF were horrible at the beginning, causing too slow of a start. Further, even if the player's supplied seats were no where near shown demand (IE 100 supplied v 500 demand daily), LF was still horrible.

As usual, the hordes took to the forums complaining that the Magic Carpet rules were too strict and "why can't I have higher LF when i am the only one flying the route" blah blah x100.

In response, Sami changed the penalty so that if the shown demand greatly exceed player supply, the penalty would not be in effect and you could start with much higher LF. Most celebrated and that was that.

Jump forward a few years with AWS's player base being much more skilled and information easier to come by, we're back to square one of complaining about LH making too much profits from the start (near direct result of the penalty change Sami made to the MC rules.)

Jeez...

~ The answer is not ban LH from the start of every GW. That would bring more headaches to players (especially noobs) but also would go against the spirit of AWS. Tying CI to LH would be a start, but you could still bypass it a few ways (lease no aircraft and add marketing to get CI real high ect ect.) Besides, CI already has many functions and I wouldn't want CI to be "unbalanced" by adding more burdens to it.

What the answer should be is focusing on RI
. Currently, when you start a route (daily, SH or LH) it takes roughly 5-6 months before RI reaches 100. This is where your fix is. Sami needs to change the formula for RI growth and differentiate between SH and LH. LH should take twice as long as SH to reach full awareness. Where's SH would reach RI100 in 6mnths, LH would reach RI100 in 1 year. Then you go a step further and hard code C/F class to start at RI50. Then naturally increase C/F allocation from RI50-RI100.

Once that's done, route marketing should be adjusted so that full marketing (all options) raises RI to 100 in 6 months for LH (3 months for SH). Re-scale the other options accordingly. Lastly, tweak route marketing to cost more (because now you just made route marketing completely useful).

This would greatly reduce the LH cheap DC10 start GG in 2 game months and making LH more skillful to start.

That is the direction we should move in.


Talentz


brique

  • Former member
Re: Aainst the rules?
« Reply #23 on: March 10, 2013, 08:38:24 AM »
excellent proposals, Mr T : RI does so little at present when it really should be a key strategy to growth and expansion in the early game : currently, I'm not even bothering with route marketing and while there may be a small penalty for that, my airline gained good loads still on the first flights on a route, RI dwaddled up to max and additional flights on those routes to take up demand growth are starting off almost at parity load-wise with the existing flights. Just seems wrong, business-wise, that doing nothing to promote a new route should not incur a larger down-side. Equally, at present, additional spending brings no major benefit either.

Some tweaking to make RI acquisition more desirable would be a good thing, a clear progression and benefit from additional spending on it (or choosing not to spend and putting that cash into planes/slots instead) would add a new set of strategies to start-up.

 

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.