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] Help! Please Fix Rebel Base Shutdowns / Give More Notice of Major Changes  (Read 1701 times)

Offline EsquireFlyer

  • Members
  • Posts: 1327
My airline in Jet Age 8 continues to be cursed!

I have just received notice that the rebels in Algeria are going to storm the Algiers airport and will shut down my (French airline) base there in 6 game months. This seems to be a major change from past games, when after you open a base, you get to keep it to endgame even if the country control changes in the meantime (such as after Soviet Union breakup). But I did not see this change announced in the forums. In addition, 6 game months is not enough planning time or work time to move all of my planes to new bases and flights, especially with 20 minute days. It's less than 3 real life days, and it's during a work week, not the weekend. And I have a job outside of AWS that I actually have to work during the week.

The fact that 6 months is not enough is further shown by the fact that players receive at least a year of notice, with reminders at 6 months, 30 days, and I think 10 days, when they have a base that is being auto-transferred (like CGH to GRU or HND to NRT). In fact, you even receive a year of notice (with all those same reminders) when just one or two of your routes are being auto-transferred. But a base auto-transfer does not require the player to do anything (except opt out of it for HND/NRT if they want to opt out) during the year in which they get advance notice. If they do not like the route performance after the transfer, they can adjust routes afterwards with no time limit. And a route auto-transfer (airport change at remote station) requires no work on the player's part at all.

In contrast, force-closing a base, making the player move out all planes and find new routes for all of them that they can run profitably is a tremendous undertaking, requiring a massive amount of both time and money (buying slots, spending on marketing to repair your CI from firing staff, new-base opening fee if you open a new base). If not done in time, the player will be left holding the bag, with a ton of planes with no schedules and no way to afford their leases. And it takes at least 6 months to build up RI now, so even if the player can find profitable routes for all planes within 6 months, they might not even make a profit for 6 additional months (from the time each route is opened). This has a very high risk of bankrupting airlines abruptly, without notice, and unnecessarily.

In my case, for example, the majority of my operations (both plane and income) are in Algiers, and I need more than 6 game months / 2 real life days to basically unbuild and rebuild the entire airline that I have spent that past 6 game years / 2 real-life months building up. Especially since I have a day job. The force-closing of my Algiers base in 6 months will most likely bankrupt me.

I don't have the demand in Le Bourget to fill all these planes coming back from Algiers. And I can't open a base in Orly anymore because there are no slots left there now (but if I knew the Algiers base would be force-shutdown, I would have opened base in Orly before, when there will still slots). And actually I don't even know if I have enough cash to open a new base and buy all those slots on such short notice.

To address this situation, and to prevent other players from having their games ruined / 2 months' worth of labor and paid credits instantly wiped out in the same way, I suggest the following changes, and I would like to request sami to consider implementing some or all of them:

  • Make the rule change regarding colonial independence (force-close the base, instead of old rule of keep the base) effective in future games only, not currently running games, and make a clear public forum post announcing the new rule.
  • Give 2 years' notice of forced base closing, not 6 months, so the player has more time to reorganize and has a chance of surviving (in future games, and in the current game, if the first suggestion above is rejected).
  • When a player opens a base in a country that is not the same as the HQ country (such as France to Algeria) give the player a clear on-screen warning (such as you receive when you pick a base that has many competitors or few slots or low demand) telling the player that if the base country declares independence, the base airport will be force-closed. You can do this just for the countries that have independence events, or, if that is too complex to code, just give the warning for all bases that the game recognizes as being in a different country than the HQ (such as US to PR or US to Guam, even though they don't have independence events). With the broad warning, at least the player has notice that they need to Google this country and read if it declares independence during the scenario years (and if so, when) and decide whther it's still worthwhile to open a base there--rather than being ambushed.
  • Base shutdown warnings should go on the dashboard, not just in an in-game mail message, where it can be easily buried among unimportant messages such as automatic maintenance, aircraft deliveries, etc., if the airline is large and the player is getting constantly bombed with system messages.
  • In general, if possible, can we please have announcements of major rule changes or game dynamics changes on the forum before they are implemented? And then implement them only in future games, or if implementing in running games, give at least a few weeks' notice (real life weeks) so that people can adjust.

As it is, my airline will probably BK for this (since I can't rebuild my whole airline in 2 real-life days, especially when I have a job in real life). But if I had missed the in-game mail message (easily buried in other messages) or if I was on vacation for just these 2 days, my airline would BK for sure. Even if I had a vacation deputy, what would my deputy even do? Dismantle and rebuild my entire airline in 2 days? That seems like a lot to ask of a deputy.

Challenges are more interesting if they are at least survivable; if impossible to survive, it seems like pointless frustration and wipes out all the hard work a player has put into his airline. That's why, for example, a gradual fuel spike from $100 to $1000 over the course of 2-3 years might be a fun challenge, but an instant fuel spike from $100 to $1000 overnight would take all the fun out of the game.

Can we please have some or all of the above-listed fixes, to make this situation (base country rebellion in a major base) more of a surviable challenge rather than an automatic death sentence?
« Last Edit: August 19, 2013, 01:20:48 PM by sami »

Offline ZombieSlayer

  • Members
  • Posts: 3921
Kind of a HUGE unannounced change there, Sami. Even if the way it was for the entire time I played AWS was a bug, it still needs to be communicated to the paying customers before it is addressed. Forcing the closure of the ALG base is plain wrong. In previous games this base was allowed to stay open (most recent example I know of is an ORY based airline opening and keeping open ALG until games end in JA6) so the only RIGHT thing to do is the allow EsquireFlyer to operate this base for the duration of JA8. A PROPER announcement should be made, and the rule should go into effect with the start of the NEXT game world.

Just my 2 cents...

Don

Edit: Airline was run by Sanabas....bases were, IIRC, ORY, ALG, RUN, and one other....
« Last Edit: August 14, 2013, 03:38:06 AM by JetWestInc »
Co-Founder Elite Worldwide Alliance
CEO PacAir
Designated "Tier 1 Opponent"

Offline Kadachiman

  • Members
  • Posts: 914
In general, if possible, can we please have announcements of major rule changes or game dynamics changes on the forum before they are implemented?
And then implement them only in future games, so that people can adjust.

This is the key as far as I am concerned, no rule changes should be made during a current game.
e.g. people asking for changes in the way fleet numbers, airframes production lines, slots, etc are allocated as per a few other posts with regards to Long Game formats.

Some players set their strategies with the rules that are in place at the start of the game, and a mid-game rule change may benefit some but it can also disadvantage other players strategies.

Offline ZombieSlayer

  • Members
  • Posts: 3921
In general, if possible, can we please have announcements of major rule changes or game dynamics changes on the forum before they are implemented?
And then implement them only in future games, so that people can adjust.

This is the key as far as I am concerned, no rule changes should be made during a current game.
e.g. people asking for changes in the way fleet numbers, airframes production lines, slots, etc are allocated as per a few other posts with regards to Long Game formats.

Some players set their strategies with the rules that are in place at the start of the game, and a mid-game rule change may benefit some but it can also disadvantage other players strategies.

I am 100% on board with no mid game rule changes, and also 100% for properly announcing ALL rule changes. If a player knows a rule works a certain way, plans a strategy around that rule, and then finds out 2 months later that the rule has been changed with no announcement, that constitutes a mid game rule change. That is how I see this, as an unannounced mid game rule change that has negatively impacted a customer.

This is not a misunderstanding of a rule, either, this is a rule that I saw work as EsquireFlyer expected it to work just 2 JA's ago. I remember the airline in question because he was a member of Elite and talked about how "crazy" his route map looked with bases all over the world. Because I saw it work where a base could be kept as long as it was opened before the country declared independence, I recommended the base in the first place knowing ALG would develop into an excellent hub.

In this case, the right thing to do is to manually allow the base to stay open, offer the same thing to any other bases in a similar situation (I don't think there are many if any others), and fix it for the NEXT world.

Don
Co-Founder Elite Worldwide Alliance
CEO PacAir
Designated "Tier 1 Opponent"

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Edit: Airline was run by Sanabas....bases were, IIRC, ORY, ALG, RUN, and one other....

PTP. And the route map was indeed a beautiful thing.

Also based in Moscow in a DOTM, with bases in Baku, Tashkent & Kiev post breakup. Curious to know if that is still feasible.

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14535
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
This feature has been there for some time already actually. But if you think about it a while, it HAS to be part of these long game worlds. Since players can gain (unfair) advantage this way since we all know (or can Google) when countries break up or declare independence and can plan it ahead. And in reality in such cases the airlines cannot continue there (in most cases at least; take a look at Soviet Union break up for example). Or in other words if you open a base in ALG (or anywhere else) in 1950s, how could you keep it until 2020 when no airline joining after 1960 can do the same .. that's 60 years of "extra basing advantage" (well not "extra", but "protected" as nobody else can base there apart from new airlines with their HQ there). No, no..

This is a similar case than the aircraft ordering thing; if you order 100 examples of the -200 variant just to get your hands on the new (not yet launched) -300 variant earlier; it has been blocked for a good reason, to keep it fair, and same here.

I can extend the time to 12 months, effective still today. Dashboard warning is a bit difficult but can be probably added (in any case you are not supposed to have 1000+ messages in the in-game inbox...).

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
This is not a misunderstanding of a rule, either, this is a rule that I saw work as EsquireFlyer expected it to work just 2 JA's ago.

Actually, 3. I just looked, mine was JA5, starting in October 2011.

Maybe the rebels are just upset that they're stuck with a French-run local airline that's losing money, but being propped up by both the Americans & British?  ;)

Maybe we need a new option, when opening in the desert like that, to choose between 'use airport as base' and 'turn airport into deathstar'.  :laugh:

Quote from: Sami
This feature has been there for some time already actually. But if you think about it a while, it HAS to be part of these long game worlds. Since players can gain (unfair) advantage this way since we all know (or can Google) when countries break up or declare independence and can plan it ahead. And in reality in such cases the airlines cannot continue there (in most cases at least; take a look at Soviet Union break up for example). Or in other words if you open a base in ALG (or anywhere else) in 1950s, how could you keep it until 2020 when no airline joining after 1960 can do the same .. that's 60 years of "extra basing advantage" (well not "extra", but "protected" as nobody else can base there apart from new airlines with their HQ there). No, no..

Dunno that this is such a big deal. There's certainly a significant advantage to having a 2nd base in Algeria, or Tashkent, or Trinidad (if you can?), but it's a much bigger advantage to be one of only 3 airlines somewhere like LHR or JFK on day 1, with 2 of them badly run, and so get the opportunity of 12 months uncontested & rapid expansion before other players manage to get into the game, by which time it's too late. Or by knowing that Le Bourget turns into 40+ years of CDG, and having it monopolised in advance.

I think the time frame for dismantling could be significantly longer, say 5 years. 12 months is only 5 RL days. I think it'd also be good if it was possible to generate a warning when opening a base, or opening a HQ, to say 'this airport will change country in year x. If your HQ & base end up in different, independent countries, the base will automatically be closed in 12 (or 6, or 24, or 60, or whatever) months. Wouldn't need to be a dashboard or inbox thing, simply something added to the airport info for the player to check out.

Offline ZombieSlayer

  • Members
  • Posts: 3921
This feature has been there for some time already actually. But if you think about it a while, it HAS to be part of these long game worlds. Since players can gain (unfair) advantage this way since we all know (or can Google) when countries break up or declare independence and can plan it ahead. And in reality in such cases the airlines cannot continue there (in most cases at least; take a look at Soviet Union break up for example). Or in other words if you open a base in ALG (or anywhere else) in 1950s, how could you keep it until 2020 when no airline joining after 1960 can do the same .. that's 60 years of "extra basing advantage" (well not "extra", but "protected" as nobody else can base there apart from new airlines with their HQ there). No, no..

This is a similar case than the aircraft ordering thing; if you order 100 examples of the -200 variant just to get your hands on the new (not yet launched) -300 variant earlier; it has been blocked for a good reason, to keep it fair, and same here.

I can extend the time to 12 months, effective still today. Dashboard warning is a bit difficult but can be probably added (in any case you are not supposed to have 1000+ messages in the in-game inbox...).

I agree with the logic, Sami, but this is still a problem of making a large change and not letting your paying customers know about it. The change log you keep is generally excellent, but a review of it shows no notice of eliminating bases in former territories.

I think the change is fair for FUTURE game worlds, but for CURRENT game worlds, the strategy should be allowed simply because it was allowed in the past and there was no notice given that basing rules would change.

Unless you can find a public forum post that shows this was announced and the practice banned (which I looked for and could not find), the only right thing to do is to allow this base for this game and change the basing rules for all new game worlds. A forced closure is a huge slap in the face to EsquireFlyer.

Don
Co-Founder Elite Worldwide Alliance
CEO PacAir
Designated "Tier 1 Opponent"

Offline EsquireFlyer

  • Members
  • Posts: 1327
Sami, thanks for the fast response. Here are my additional thoughts..

This feature has been there for some time already actually. But if you think about it a while, it HAS to be part of these long game worlds.

We (the players) don't know how long the feature has been there, because it was not announced, and that is the problem. This is a big change from the way it used to operate (as documented by the JA5 French airline) and no announcement was made in the forums, so no one knew about the change until someone actually drove into the brick wall in a game (me). So even if the change was made a while ago, in effect it is a mid-game change, if no notice was given before the game.

And while I understand that some major changes are important for game design, realism, or balance reasons, I think it is equally true that major changes to game mechanics or rules need to be pre-announced, for fairness reasons, or else even good/important changes will be game-breaking (not necessarily breaking the whole game, but at least unbalancing the game by breaking a few individual players' games).

I can understand that there are important, legitimate reasons for this change, but I respectfully request that it be applied only to future game worlds rather than the running one (and have a big forum announcement, similar to the one you posted regarding noise limits; that was a good way to handle making a big change).

Since players can gain (unfair) advantage this way since we all know (or can Google) when countries break up or declare independence and can plan it ahead.

But if everyone can do it, it's not unfair. For example, LHR airlines have a massive advantage because of high demand and low competition (slot restriction prevents basing or startups in LHR in mid-game or late game). But it's not considered an "unfair" advantage because anyone can open in LHR at the start of the game if they choose to do so (and join early enough to be in the first 7 airlines at LHR).

And in reality in such cases the airlines cannot continue there (in most cases at least; take a look at Soviet Union break up for example).
In reality, airlines often have bases in foreign countries, since the real-life rule is that you have to get permission from the foreign country, not that foreign bases are all banned. For example, Delta's bases in Tokyo and London; American's old base in London; United's old base in London and mini-base in Tokyo; Pan Am's bases in London, Frankfurt, Berlin, and Tokyo; etc.

I understand that in AWS, the rule is "base in own country only" to roughly approximate reality and keep it simple (avoid need for a complicated system to negotiate for Fifth Freedom rights). But I don't think this is a case where compliance with reality requires a shutdown of the base, because in reality, airlines can have foreign bases with government approval. So, it would not be incompatible with reality for the Algerian government to "grandfather" in my ALG base, since in reality, governments have the authority to allow foreign airlines to base there.

Or in other words if you open a base in ALG (or anywhere else) in 1950s, how could you keep it until 2020 when no airline joining after 1960 can do the same .. that's 60 years of "extra basing advantage" (well not "extra", but "protected" as nobody else can base there apart from new airlines with their HQ there). No, no..

It's not really "protected," because there can be existing airlines there (for example, in JA8 the ALG market leader is not me--it's an indigineous Algerian airline). And also, any airline HQ'd in the country of Algeria will be able to open a base in Algiers.

It's much less protected than LHR for example. In LHR, in most games, no one else can base there after the first 12 months (or even new airlines HQ there) because: (1) there are no slots left, and (2) if an airline BKs in LHR, opening some slots, the other LHR airlines are in a much better position to soak up all the slots instantly (since they have many airframes in LHR already, and lots of cash to afford the expensive slots) than any new startup or other airline opening a new base in LHR. And even at the start of a game, the players who join right away also have an advantage in that they can HQ in LHR. Now, because of the 7-airline cap, airlines who don't join right at the very start of the scenario cannot HQ in LHR either, because it is locked after 7 airlines HQ there, even if slots are available. This enables the 7 airlines who made it in the door to start soaking up all the slots with less competition for them.

So, if the LHR situation is not considered unfair "protected" basing, my ALG situation should not be either.

It is true that an airline that starts in France later in the game would not be able to open in ALG, and in that sense I have an advantage over future French (and only French) airlines. But those future French airlines would also have advantages over me, including, for example, they can open their HQ directly in CDG, rather than enduring 20 years of punishment at LBG that I am going through in order to be allowed to have an HQ at CDG.

And earlier-starting airlines always have some advantages (such as the LHR situation above, better access to planes before the UM dries up and the new market is backlogged for years, and cheaper fuel at start of game). While later starting airlines might have other advantages (no need to do a prop-to-jet fleet change; more startup cash; etc.). Compared to those things, "French airline can base in Algiers" is a relatively small difference. But starting in late game is never going to be quite the same as starting in early game.

This is a similar case than the aircraft ordering thing; if you order 100 examples of the -200 variant just to get your hands on the new (not yet launched) -300 variant earlier; it has been blocked for a good reason, to keep it fair, and same here.

That is a good rule, because AWS airlines know exactly what variants are coming in the future. But if it were done as a mid-game or unnannouced change, it would still be unfair to the players who first crashed into the consequences. Imagine for example, if originally orders for the -200 variant could be changed to the -300 (as can often be done in real life; but I don't know if it could ever be done in AWS). And some airlines placed orders for the -200, and then actually changed them to the -300. If those players got an in-game mail afterwards from Boeing saying "Orders for 767-200 models cannot be changed to 767-300 models. Also, the 767-200 model is out of production now, so you can't charge your orders back. So, please cancel your orders for the 767-300. If you do not cancel them within 6 months, we will cancel them for you with no refund." That would be unfair to those players, right?

That's the situation I'm facing now. The Algerian rebels are taking back my base (in behavior that is different from the behavior of Algerian rebels in previous game worlds), and they are not willing to refund me the untold millions that I have spent on base opening, slots, and route marketing in Algiers. And they are not willing to take over the leases on my planes, leaving me paying the leases on 60-70 planes with nowhere to fly them to. And I can't go back and open a base in the next-best choice (Orly) because it is now devoid of slots and thus no longer viable as a base.

I can extend the time to 12 months, effective still today.
If you decide that the change must be enforced in this game world (which I ask you to please do not do), then at a minimum, I would respectfully request more time to reorganize. Twelve months is still not enough. If you look at the number of planes I have in ALG, and you look at the demand in LBG and other still-available French bases, you will see that I have nowhere to reposition 60-70 ALG planes to. The only way out of this without BK'ing me is to allow most of the leases on the 60-70 planes to naturally expire, which takes several years. As my airline is currently making a very small profit, I cannot afford to immediately pay the lease-break fees on 60-70 planes to end them all instantly. I might not even have enough money to open a new base.

I think the 5-year time limit suggested by Sanabas might be manageable. Alternatively, if the rebel Algerian government will refund my base opening fee, slot fees, and route marketing fees, I think I could afford to break some leases and maybe complete a reorganization within 3-4 years.

But I agree with the others that the most fair thing to do would be to ask the Algerian government let me keep my base in ALG.

If that still seems like an unfair advantage to me, then maybe the Algerian government could even impose some restrictions, such as not letting me increase my number of aircraft at ALG (lower the plane cap from 100 to my current plane number), or not letting me open routes to new destinations (while keeping existing destinations), etc., if the government wants to cap my business or encourage me to wind it down and go to an "unrestricted" base instead. But without the 6-month or 12-month banhammer.

Those would be possible compromises that would avoid completely screwing me over with a rule change that (even if it makes sense) suddenly appeared out of nowhere.

Finally, I would like to respectfully note that if you think keeping the ALG base would give me an unfair advantage, then any unfairness would be to the other game players. And so far none of the other players have spoken up saying that they would feel unfairly treated by the delay of this rule to the nexte gameworld, or that fairness requires the immediate shutdown of my base. The people who have expressed an opinion have instead stated that fairness requires advance notice of major game rule and mechanics changes.

Thank you for your consideration.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2013, 10:02:13 PM by EsquireFlyer »

Offline EsquireFlyer

  • Members
  • Posts: 1327
In terms of notice (to benefit future players, since I already received notice in the form of a bucket of icewater dumped on head), if a dashboard notice is too hard to program, then I think an alert upon opening the base originally (as described by Sanabas) would eliminate the need for a dashboard notice. Or, an e-mail to the player's real e-mail could also be used. If a strike warning justifies an e-mail, a forced base closing surely does also.

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 3068
This feature has been there for some time already actually. But if you think about it a while, it HAS to be part of these long game worlds. Since players can gain (unfair) advantage this way since we all know (or can Google) when countries break up or declare independence and can plan it ahead. And in reality in such cases the airlines cannot continue there (in most cases at least; take a look at Soviet Union break up for example). Or in other words if you open a base in ALG (or anywhere else) in 1950s, how could you keep it until 2020 when no airline joining after 1960 can do the same .. that's 60 years of "extra basing advantage" (well not "extra", but "protected" as nobody else can base there apart from new airlines with their HQ there). No, no..

With a 100 plane base limit, an airline with that "protected" base can't fully control it anyway as demand requires more frames to cover it all, so they can still be forced out by new entrant airlines at said HQ.  If the base is going to get auto closed just a few years later, there's really no point in even allowing the base to be opened in the first place....

And with the reference to being able to google events to figure out when/where/what happened, you could also say the same thing of airlines that chose to base in the EU knowing that EU Open Skies will happen at a set date in the future, but I don't see you taking any objection to that...

Overall, I think it is very poor form to introduce this fairly major gameplay change in this manner and attempt to chalk it up to common sense and logic that was previously not communicated to your paying customers.

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
But if everyone can do it, it's not unfair. For example, LHR airlines have a massive advantage because of high demand and low competition (slot restriction prevents basing or startups in LHR in mid-game or late game). But it's not considered an "unfair" advantage because anyone can open in LHR at the start of the game if they choose to do so (and join early enough to be in the first 7 airlines at LHR).

It's much less protected than LHR for example. In LHR, in most games, no one else can base there after the first 12 months (or even new airlines HQ there) because: (1) there are no slots left, and (2) if an airline BKs in LHR, opening some slots, the other LHR airlines are in a much better position to soak up all the slots instantly (since they have many airframes in LHR already, and lots of cash to afford the expensive slots) than any new startup or other airline opening a new base in LHR. And even at the start of a game, the players who join right away also have an advantage in that they can HQ in LHR. Now, because of the 7-airline cap, airlines who don't join right at the very start of the scenario cannot HQ in LHR either, because it is locked after 7 airlines HQ there, even if slots are available. This enables the 7 airlines who made it in the door to start soaking up all the slots with less competition for them.

It is true that an airline that starts in France later in the game would not be able to open in ALG, and in that sense I have an advantage over future French (and only French) airlines. But those future French airlines would also have advantages over me, including, for example, they can open their HQ directly in CDG, rather than enduring 20 years of punishment at LBG that I am going through in order to be allowed to have an HQ at CDG.

While I agree with the majority of what you wrote, you're contradicting yourself badly here. First you say that there's a massive benefit to opening in LHR on day 1 (especially this time, with the limited day 1 entries resulting in only 3 airlines, 2 of them very passive), because slots disappear quickly, and even if an airline opened later when a bunch of slots appeared, they don't have the buying power to actually grab them, whereas the old airline will swallow them very quickly. Which I think is entirely true. Then you use the exact opposite for CDG, an airport that will be in the same situation. The airline that endured 20 years of 'punishment' at LBG will have far more buying power, far more cash, and be well placed to grab all those new slots, new routes, that a just-opened airline can't get near. The big advantage the late starting or smaller airline can have is established, cashed up airlines to donate cash and/or cheap planes on a regular basis. But that's not going to offset the negatives of a large, rich, established competitor in one of the world's biggest airports.

Quote
If you decide that the change must be enforced in this game world (which I ask you to please do not do), then at a minimum, I would respectfully request more time to reorganize. Twelve months is still not enough. If you look at the number of planes I have in ALG, and you look at the demand in LBG and other still-available French bases, you will see that I have nowhere to reposition 60-70 ALG planes to. The only way out of this without BK'ing me is to allow most of the leases on the 60-70 planes to naturally expire, which takes several years. As my airline is currently making a very small profit, I cannot afford to immediately pay the lease-break fees on 60-70 planes to end them all instantly. I might not even have enough money to open a new base.

So small as to be negative every week, I heard.  ;)

Would it not be simpler to just restart now in LBG, not over-extend with skinny tech-stop routes, and be better positioned for the change to CDG? LBG looks like a very attractive airport right now.

Offline EsquireFlyer

  • Members
  • Posts: 1327
So small as to be negative every week, I heard.  ;)

I don't know where you heard that, but it's not true. I was losing money for a while and had to get rid of my DC8s (due to inability to fill them b/c of techstop rape discussed in other threads) but after having either returned them to the brokers or sold them to other airlines, and then firing the pilots, I am not losing money anymore. Just making only a small profit.

But I will be massively loss making if ALG closes of course. And so it's particularly frustrating that just when I finally dump the last DC8 and stabilize my income, suddenly the Algerian rebels tell me they are going to blow up my base and throw my airline into chaos again.

Would it not be simpler to just restart now in LBG, not over-extend with skinny tech-stop routes, and be better positioned for the change to CDG? LBG looks like a very attractive airport right now.

Well, if your suggestion really would be simpler (and I am not sure that it would be), my point is that an unannounced game rule change should not be so devastating to the affected players that the simplest way for them to deal with it is to shut down their entire airline, wasting all of the real-life time (2 months) and real money they spent building it, and starting all over again.

That's a really extreme "solution," and it would also effectively disqualify me from winning any of the scoring categories which require as many years of continuous play as possible (such as richest CEO).
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 06:37:56 AM by EsquireFlyer »

Offline EsquireFlyer

  • Members
  • Posts: 1327
While I agree with the majority of what you wrote, you're contradicting yourself badly here. First you say that there's a massive benefit to opening in LHR on day 1 (especially this time, with the limited day 1 entries resulting in only 3 airlines, 2 of them very passive), because slots disappear quickly, and even if an airline opened later when a bunch of slots appeared, they don't have the buying power to actually grab them, whereas the old airline will swallow them very quickly. Which I think is entirely true. Then you use the exact opposite for CDG, an airport that will be in the same situation. The airline that endured 20 years of 'punishment' at LBG will have far more buying power, far more cash, and be well placed to grab all those new slots, new routes, that a just-opened airline can't get near. The big advantage the late starting or smaller airline can have is established, cashed up airlines to donate cash and/or cheap planes on a regular basis. But that's not going to offset the negatives of a large, rich, established competitor in one of the world's biggest airports.

It's not a contradiction unless you think that the financial benefits of opening in LBG are equivalent (or even comparable to) the financial benefits of opening in LHR. And they are not. LBG demand is tiny compared to LHR, and I barely make any profit in LBG (which is why I opened ALG, and why I cannot fit all of ALG's planes back into LBG). And so opening in LBG is nothing like opening in LHR, in terms of ability to amass planes or buy up slots at CDG.

If ORY transferred to CDG, then your comparson might be somewhat more valid. But not much more, since ORY is still far inferior to LHR in terms of demand (in this game).

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
I don't know where you "heard" that but it's not true. I was losing money for a while and had to get rid of my DC8s (due to inability to fill them b/c of techstop rape discussed in other threads) but having either returned them to the brokers or sold them off, and then firing the pilots, I am not losing money anymore. Just making only a small amount.

Since you posted about your techstop issues, I've been looking at how you were doing occasionally, along with looking at my competitors. When you sold that last DC-8 at a 60% markup, your CV jumped by about $5 million. When I log in today, ~5 game weeks later, your CV has dropped again by about 5 million, without acquiring/losing a single plane. And even before Algerian independence, the standard Tuesday to Tuesday look said barely breaking even, and being helped along by things like: http://www.airwaysim.com/game/Aircraft/View/History/28296/ Which is where I 'heard' it.  :P

Quote
But I will be massively loss making if ALG closes of course.

Well, if your suggestion really would be simpler (and I am not sure that it would be), my point is that an unannounced game rule change should not be so devastating to the affected players that the simplest way for them to deal with it is to shut down their entire airline, wasting all of the real-life time (2 months) and real money they spent building it, and starting all over again.

I agree. But I think blaming the unannounced rule change as the sole reason to start-over isn't that accurate. It might be the thing that finishes you off, but if you had 200 million sitting in the bank it'd just be an inconvenience, not the trigger for a deathspiral.

Quote
That's a really extreme "solution," and it would also effectively disqualify me from winning any of the scoring categories which require as many years of continuous play as possible (such as richest CEO).

Actually, richest CEO carries over when restarting an airline. And you're already effectively disqualified from it by being in France, rather than Norway/Singapore/Hong Kong/UAE/USA. And if your main concern is 'winning' the scoring categories, you've probably missed out by not getting LHR to yourself, anyway. You could probably get richest CEO by restarting in Singapore right now, I think. And it has enough room for a new airline.

Quote
It's not a contradiction unless you think that the financial benefits of opening in LBG are equivalent (or even comparable to) the financial benefits of opening in LHR. And they are not. LBG demand is tiny compared to LHR, and I barely make any profit in LBG (which is why I opened ALG, and why I cannot fit all of ALG's planes back into LBG). And so opening in LBG is nothing like opening in LHR, in terms of ability to amass planes or buy up slots at CDG.

If ORY transferred to CDG, then your comparson might be somewhat more valid. But not much more, since ORY is still far inferior to LHR in terms of demand (in this game).

It's less benefit than LHR, for sure. But an LBG-based airline could easily have 200+ planes and a decent pile of cash on the day CDG opens, which IS a huge benefit compared to a brand new airline when all that extra demand and extra slots appear.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 06:52:24 AM by Sanabas »

Offline EsquireFlyer

  • Members
  • Posts: 1327
Since you posted about your techstop issues, I've been looking at how you were doing occasionally, along with looking at my competitors. When you sold that last DC-8 at a 60% markup, your CV jumped by about $5 million. When I log in today, ~5 game weeks later, your CV has dropped again by about 5 million, without acquiring/losing a single plane.
I don't think I sold that last DC-8 at a 60% markup. But if you're going to stalk my airline, at least do it more carefully. That $4-$5 million "drop in CV" was tax on plane sales, not operating losses. You say that you saw me selling planes, so you should realize that tax was due on the sales, and that if I also had operating losses, my CV should drop by more than the tax.

And if you looked during tax week, you would have seen that the entire $4-$5 million CV drop occurred during tax week. If you don't want to look every week, fine; but then please don't allege that I am losing money "every week" if you only checked every 5 weeks, and could not see that I lost the money during tax week.

And even before Algerian independence, the standard Tuesday to Tuesday look said barely breaking even, and being helped along by things like: http://www.airwaysim.com/game/Aircraft/View/History/28296/ Which is where I 'heard' it.  :P
As I said, I was originally leasing and buying DC-8s from other airlines to help me source them faster, but upon realizing that they were not viable for me and were losing a lot of money, I had to return them to the lessors or sell them off. And in your  ";)" innuendo or your "analysis" above, you fail to mention other "things like" the following, which you know happened (because you were the buyer) and which you know gave me business profits that are absolutely beyond question.

http://www.airwaysim.com/game/Aircraft/View/History/30120/
http://www.airwaysim.com/game/Aircraft/View/History/30452/

But in any case, the personal attacks you are now making are irrelevant to the actual topic of the thread, which is whether the rebel-base shutdown rule should be implemented in this game rule without any advance notice, or whether it should be delayed until the next game world with proper notice, and also whether any changes should be made to the way this rule operates (e.g. how much time before auto-shutdown) and how it is communicated to affected players (such as warning when opening base, or dashboard notification).
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 07:48:48 AM by EsquireFlyer »

Offline EsquireFlyer

  • Members
  • Posts: 1327
I agree. But I think blaming the unannounced rule change as the sole reason to start-over isn't that accurate. It might be the thing that finishes you off, but if you had 200 million sitting in the bank it'd just be an inconvenience, not the trigger for a deathspiral.

No unnanounced game-rule or game dynamic change should be so extreme that the player has to say "I wish I had 200 million sitting in the bank, so that this would just be an inconvenience, because now it's going to kill me."

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
I don't think I sold that last DC-8 at a 60% markup. But if you're going to stalk my airline, at least do it more carefully. That $4-$5 million "drop in CV" was tax on plane sales, not operating losses. You say that you saw me selling planes, so you should realize that tax was due on the sales, and that if I also had operating losses, my CV should drop by more than the tax.

And if you looked during tax week, you would have seen that the entire $4-$5 million CV drop occurred during tax week. If you don't want to look every week, fine; but then please don't allege that I am losing money "every week" if you only checked every 5 weeks, and could not see that I lost the money during tax week.

My stalking isn't energetic enough to wake up in the night and check your CV. It's more cost-effective to gently wind you up, anyway.  :laugh:

I obviously couldn't see what price you had the plane at, because it was privately listed. But when a plane sells for ~5 million more than its value, and its value is ~9 million, the inference is that it's been put there at the maximum allowable markup.

Quote
As I said, I was originally leasing and buying DC-8s from other airlines to help me source them faster, but upon realizing that they were not viable for me and were losing a lot of money, I had to return them to the lessors or sell them off. And in your  ";)" innuendo or your "analysis" above, you fail to mention other "things like" the following, which you know happened (because you were the buyer) and which you know gave me business profits that are absolutely beyond question.

http://www.airwaysim.com/game/Aircraft/View/History/30120/
http://www.airwaysim.com/game/Aircraft/View/History/30452/

Yep, sure did. For ~20% above value, too. My need to get planes trumped my desire to not help you with cash.  ;)

Quote
But in any case, the personal attacks you are now making are irrelevant to the actual topic of the thread, which is whether the rebel-base shutdown rule should be implemented in this game rule without any advance notice, or whether it should be delayed until the next game world with proper notice, and also whether any changes should be made to the way this rule operates (e.g. how much time before auto-shutdown) and how it is communicated to affected players (such as warning when opening base, or dashboard notification).

We're still a long way from personal attacks. As I said, gently winding you up, because you respond so well. You over-extended and were in trouble, you left your alliance to avoid the 10% cap on plane markups, and you've been propped up by gifts from large, cashed-up alliance members. Not a big deal.

Quote
No unnanounced game-rule or game dynamic change should be so extreme that the player has to say "I wish I had 200 million sitting in the bank, so that this would just be an inconvenience, because now it's going to kill me."

20 million would be more than enough, really. 2 million to open base, you've got 60 full sets of slots in Algiers, even at 200k per route that's only 12 million. Plus another 6 in losses while waiting for RI at new base to grow. It'd suck, but you'd probably survive it ok.

But yeah, I do agree this change should have been announced better, and can certainly be managed better in future worlds. Be even worse if you had rebels storming 3 different bases, the way you could with a soviet airline. That could be 300 planes coming back that you need to find routes for, and you can still only open 1 new base per year.

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14535
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Changes:
 * Relocation grace period increased to 2 game years.
 * Warning to base selector added.
 * Manually closing the base before the year limit is free, same is for opening a new base to replace it (automatic closure at 2 year limit is also free like any other automated base closure, like due to lack of planes). There is also no waiting time if you just opened another base earlier, so you can open a replacement base right away for the closed base despite other new bases.
 * Dashboard warning added

Offline Mr.HP

  • Members
  • Posts: 2730
Be even worse if you had rebels storming 3 different bases, the way you could with a soviet airline. That could be 300 planes coming back that you need to find routes for, and you can still only open 1 new base per year.

There is also no waiting time if you just opened another base earlier, so you can open a replacement base right away for the closed base despite other new bases.

So if we manually close 3 bases, we can open another 3 base right away, free of charge all, right?

 

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.