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: [-] Aircraft sales cap  (Read 2242 times)

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #40 on: December 23, 2013, 01:07:16 AM »
It would be nice to have a "wider" production line such as JumboShrimp mentioned, but if there are no restrictions in place to keep players from working together and selling new aircraft immediately, what we'll end up with is one player taking delivery of 5 aircraft/month from a single line--1 that they ordered and 4 from their buddies.  Those 4 buddies could also be taking delivery of 5 aircraft/month and the net result being a wash, but everyone ends up with 5 aircraft/month from 5 different fleet types.  This is an extreme example, but if every player could take delivery of 1 aircraft/month from any production line regardless of the backlog and you have an alliance of 25 players working together to maximize their potential, you know this will happen unless there are restrictions on "immediate resale".

There is the ultimate limit in place - money - that stops this.  4 of those 5 of those aircraft would have to be bought.  Paying full price for the aircraft, rather than leasing will surely slow you down considerably.

I run a reasonably successful airline in MT world, top 5 or top 10 in some of the important categories, and I can't afford something like what you describe.  So how much danger is there really?  Yours is very rare, nearly hypothetical example.  I think it is better idea to concentrate of 999 out of 1000 cases rather than 1 out of 1000 cases that you are concentrating on.

There are plenty of restrictions in place to prevent alliance members from transferring money to each other--minimum lease times before cancelling, maximum market premiums on aircraft for sales, etc.  Production slots (and airport slots) are essentially currency in the game and it makes sense to limit players from effectively transferring production slots (penalties get handed out already for transferring airport slots).

Is your intention to completely destroy the team play?

There are many good / bad reasons for people getting rid of aircraft they bought, besides team play.  I, for example, ordered a lot of Q400s in one of the game worlds.  That game world reduced the slot availability at the airport compared to previous game world.  I realized I could not fly them.  So I had to get rid off a lot of Q400s.  According you your Judge Dredd (Judge, Jury, Executioner) theme posts, I was guilty of unspeakable offenses.  I merely goofed.

Or one time I got A310-200 instead of A320-200, in middle of excitement of actually seeing an aircraft on the UM.  Again, a capital offense, when I tried to get rid of it right away...

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #41 on: December 23, 2013, 01:12:10 AM »
Apparently something went wrong with my second to last post...

In a nutshell, what if we used the JumboShrimp wider production line but used pricing to regulate quantities demanded?  Boeing can pump out an extra Dreamliner each month for the right cost--lots of overtime and rush deliveries downstream in their supply chain.  If players had 3-5 options when they ordered--take the next avail production slot and pay list price, get it sooner for a premium, even sooner for a bigger premium, or get the very next one off the line for +50%.  This would remove the profit motive and effectively destroy the "immediate resale" market.  It would also reduce the price of getting an aircraft from infinity to very expensive, going from impossible to possible to "expand the production line".

That would be more difficult to implement (the price premium).  Wider availability alone, without adding price premium, would reduce the price an aircraft can command on UM.  If there is only 1 aircraft, grossly overpriced, it is possible to sell / lease it at premium.  But if there are 10-15 sellers / lessors, competing for customers, and there a possibility of getting a new aircraft in several months, the price premiums would disappear...

ucfknightryan

  • Former member
Re: Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #42 on: December 23, 2013, 01:26:23 AM »
There are many good / bad reasons for people getting rid of aircraft they bought, besides team play.  I, for example, ordered a lot of Q400s in one of the game worlds.  That game world reduced the slot availability at the airport compared to previous game world.  I realized I could not fly them.  So I had to get rid off a lot of Q400s.  According you your Judge Dredd (Judge, Jury, Executioner) theme posts, I was guilty of unspeakable offenses.  I merely goofed.

This, LemonButt, is one of the main problems I have with your suggestion from the first page of a minimum holding time for aircraft.  This game I ordered some E195s.  I fully intended to fly them, and order way more of them, but then my original fleet plan fell apart because the 787-8 launched early when I had no money and I was unable to order enough of them to be able to ultimately replace my 767s.  So I had to make a new plan.  Since operating a 4th fleet is currently economically insane and I need something with more range than the 767-400 I wound up deciding to keep the 767s and 787s and just use more 737NGs instead of the E195s.  This all played out late enough that I couldn't cancel all the E195 orders at all and most of the rest I couldn't cancel without losing all my money.  So I went and found someone who wanted the E195s and I'm reselling them to him.  Instead, you want me to have to park at least some of those aircraft in the desert for 5 years and possibly have me lose all my money on the other aircraft or park them as well.  That makes no sense.

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #43 on: December 23, 2013, 01:41:39 AM »
Is your intention to completely destroy the team play?

There are many good / bad reasons for people getting rid of aircraft they bought, besides team play.  

This isn't a team game...alliances are supposed to be "a group of airlines working in loose cooperation".  Sure being on an alliance has elements of teamwork and helping each other out, but one player shouldn't be standing on another player's shoulders to take down another airline.  Transferring an aircraft or two should be an occasional thing versus part of their overall strategy (can someone order 20 aircraft for me so I can lease them?).

I know mistakes get made in ordering (I've done it before, too), but I think this is also the exception versus the rule.  Part of the reason I may sound like Judge Dredd as you put is that I have done the big airline thing and have zero interest in doing it.  Running a smaller airline or using the less popular aircraft models are more challenging/appealing to me and as a result, I see and experience a lot of these issues where big airlines are using anti-competitive tactics.  Big airlines that are flying nothing but Airbus/Boeing are usually oblivious to the challenges that more casual players face.  If you aren't online when they announce the launch of a new aircraft model, you're probably going to end up several years deep in the production line.

As far as a wider production line without adjusting prices, I'd have to point to the efficiency paradox.  If the production backlog is 5 years today and you double the production capacity and keep prices constant, the backlog will remain 5 years.  Those players who didn't order previously because of the backlog will end up pushing the production lists back to 5 years.  Furthermore, they will be using those popular models instead of the less popular models, making the less popular models even less popular and less available, resulting in earlier production line closings etc.  I am in DOTM and the ATP has been in production for almost 4 years.  I own every single ATP ever made and unless I keep ordering, the production line will get shutdown.  There are also zero ATP to be had on the used market so if the line does shutdown, I'm looking at adding another fleet type.  It blows my mind that no one else is flying the ATP, but making a wider production line without charging a price premium will make my ATP experience/scenario more and more common for other fleet types, especially smaller aircraft.

It sounds like no matter what we'll be stuck with a bad solution because of all the different aspects of the game this affects.

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #44 on: December 23, 2013, 01:56:36 AM »
As far as a wider production line without adjusting prices, I'd have to point to the efficiency paradox.

There is some dynamism (very limited) in pricing of new aircraft.  This price flexibility could be expanded.  Every time production line expands, the price of aircraft could go further up, every time it contracts, the price of aircraft could go down.   

This would be actually very neat, now that I am thinking about it...  Every expansion of production line of the "popular" aircraft would make it more expensive, hence less popular.  And pricing of the aircraft in less popular production lines, struggling to stay open, would be priced at discount, making less popular aircraft more popular...

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #45 on: December 23, 2013, 01:57:01 AM »
This, LemonButt, is one of the main problems I have with your suggestion from the first page of a minimum holding time for aircraft.  This game I ordered some E195s.  I fully intended to fly them, and order way more of them, but then my original fleet plan fell apart because the 787-8 launched early when I had no money and I was unable to order enough of them to be able to ultimately replace my 767s.  So I had to make a new plan.  Since operating a 4th fleet is currently economically insane and I need something with more range than the 767-400 I wound up deciding to keep the 767s and 787s and just use more 737NGs instead of the E195s.  This all played out late enough that I couldn't cancel all the E195 orders at all and most of the rest I couldn't cancel without losing all my money.  So I went and found someone who wanted the E195s and I'm reselling them to him.  Instead, you want me to have to park at least some of those aircraft in the desert for 5 years and possibly have me lose all my money on the other aircraft or park them as well.  That makes no sense.

So then how do we make it so that players in your situation can get rid of those aircraft while keeping other players from abusing it?  Personally, I've never had this issue where I ordered large numbers of aircraft and decide not to fly them, but I also don't aspire to be a mega airline with 1000 aircraft.  If the brokers were more active, they would have bought up your E195s at book value (no premium) and put them on the used market (everyone wins).  IMO brokers doing their job is a big part of the problem because it is their job to provide that used market liquidity--not other players.  The reason I suggested a minimum holding time is so that players aren't effectively doubling up on production slots by working with a friend in response to jammed up production lines pushing out deliveries (and getting further jammed up by phoning a friend).  I'm currently stuck with dead assets as I can't sell my NAMC YS-11 500 in DOTM (~50 of them) at 60% under book value and have to wait until they are 10 years old to scrap them (thankfully it is no longer 15), so not being able to sell aircraft is only a new "feature" if you aren't flying the most popular aircraft types as it is defacto if you're flying the less popular birds.  Somewhere in all this there is an effective way to keep people from phoning a friend and working the system...

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #46 on: December 23, 2013, 02:11:02 AM »
Every time production line expands, the price of aircraft could go further up, every time it contracts, the price of aircraft could go down.   

And upon launch, the price is very high and gradually goes down to "regular price" when it is certified.  Then players have to make the judgement call and determine if the time value of money makes sense--pay a high price today for guaranteed delivery in year 1 or wait it out and get a lower price deeper in the production queue.  This would also help ensure availability for players who want to get the first production slots.  Additionally, since there are limits in place already for intra-alliance aircraft sales, if you were to "phone a friend" and have an alliance mate take up production slots at 150% the price and is restricted to selling no higher than 110% (or whatever it is) per the existing rules, the friend would end up losing money in the deal and thus discouraging the practice.

This is obviously very unrealistic as airlines want as many orders pre-launch as possible and are willing to cut deals to reach their breakeven, however we can see the future in AWS and we know what aircraft are coming.  The Dreamliner in AWS is not going to have production delays and battery fires--first deliveries are going to happen on the certification date.

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #47 on: December 23, 2013, 02:12:20 AM »
So then how do we make it so that players in your situation can get rid of those aircraft while keeping other players from abusing it?

I think you are exaggerating this abuse, making it sound like this is free, a non-brainer.  There is a significant opportunity cost that is involved.  If you want 2nd aircraft in a month that someone could order for you, you or your friend has to pay the full price.  So someone has to pay 12.38 x the amount, meaning 1238% of what it would take to lease an aircraft.  The maximum growth can be achieved through leasing a lot of aircraft and flying it.  Paying 1238% of the lease price is going to significantly slow down somebody's growth...

Additionally, this money is tied up for minimum of 4 months (a lifetime during the growth phase) and that is the best case scenario...

Another thing to consider, while calling this a crisis that needs to be solved, how much is it really happening?  In MT world, the production lines have been sold out non-stop for years, leaving very few opportunities to order for someone else, while players has to struggle on his own to keep up with fast moving production order lines.

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #48 on: December 23, 2013, 02:19:20 AM »
And upon launch, the price is very high and gradually goes down to "regular price" when it is certified.

This part, I think would be unnecessary, as it would make less popular aircraft even more unpopular.

When an aircraft manufacturer wants to launch an aircraft, it has to be priced fairly.  But if the orders start pouring in, the production line would keep expanding, and that would be enough to create the price premium.

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #49 on: December 23, 2013, 02:35:58 AM »
I think you are exaggerating this abuse, making it sound like this is free, a non-brainer.  There is a significant opportunity cost that is involved.  If you want 2nd aircraft in a month that someone could order for you, you or your friend has to pay the full price.  So someone has to pay 12.38 x the amount, meaning 1238% of what it would take to lease an aircraft.  The maximum growth can be achieved through leasing a lot of aircraft and flying it.  Paying 1238% of the lease price is going to significantly slow down somebody's growth...

Additionally, this money is tied up for minimum of 4 months (a lifetime during the growth phase) and that is the best case scenario...

Another thing to consider, while calling this a crisis that needs to be solved, how much is it really happening?  In MT world, the production lines have been sold out non-stop for years, leaving very few opportunities to order for someone else, while players has to struggle on his own to keep up with fast moving production order lines.

If there are two players and A is selling to B and B is selling to A making it a wash, then there is no opportunity cost.  I agree that it the majority of players aren't doing this, but as I look at the used market there are a handful of ATRs that are 4 years old, handful of Beechcraft 1900D, couple B757 from one airline, several EMB-120 from one airline, and ~10 F100 from one airline--all of which have 0 flight hours.  It is obviously more of a problem when new aircraft are launched (see B767 screenshot earlier in this thread).  It like anything else in life--one person can ruin it for everyone.  One guy puts a bomb in his shoes and now everyone has to take their shoes off at the airport.

Also there are gaps that open up in the production line.  I've picked off solo slots in production lines in the past, whether it is BKs or production expanding etc.  There are other threads from players complaining that there are open slots ahead of their order that they can't take.  Right now in DOTM there is a 10 year backlog for the A320 and A330/340, which means the used market will probably be insane for about a decade.

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #50 on: December 23, 2013, 02:38:56 AM »
This part, I think would be unnecessary, as it would make less popular aircraft even more unpopular.

When an aircraft manufacturer wants to launch an aircraft, it has to be priced fairly.  But if the orders start pouring in, the production line would keep expanding, and that would be enough to create the price premium.


Not necessarily because the unpopular aircraft wouldn't be ordered until the price went all the way down.  No point in paying for aircraft today when you can order it tomorrow.

Maybe price should be responsive to orders versus time?  Launch an aircraft at 160% and drop the price 10% every game month.  For every X aircraft ordered, the price goes up Y percent.  So if no one orders an aircraft for 6 months, it settles to "regular price", but if things go crazy like the 10 year A320 backlog, prices stay high.

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #51 on: December 23, 2013, 02:58:12 AM »
If there are two players and A is selling to B and B is selling to A making it a wash, then there is no opportunity cost.

During the growth phase of an airline, if you want to build a huge airline, you have to lease until you max out.  That means you have to lease all you can from UM, feed 3 production lines fully (fast moving production lines due to aircraft shortage).  Maybe 4 production lines if you are planning a fleet transition to, say 787.  For 99% of airlines, that tasks takes up all the capital the airline generates in profits.

During this phase, the opportunity cost is to pay 1238% to get one aircraft early, but to lose 12+ aircraft later, since the money is not there to do both.

So what you are talking about is a subset of airlines that can fully feed 3-4 production lines and have a plenty of money left to buy for others.  And to further narrow down the subset, there has to an empty production slot where the order can be placed.

I don't know about other game worlds, I only play MT worlds, but MT world is so competitive that this is an extremely rare scenario in first half of the game that it is really not worth Sami's time to program.  Assuming it is a good idea in the first place, which I don't think it is.

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14539
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #52 on: December 23, 2013, 09:41:11 AM »
Like I posted, I do not see any real gains of building such feature.

Offline dmoose42

  • Members
  • Posts: 1264
Re: [-] Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #53 on: December 23, 2013, 02:05:28 PM »
+1 Sami!!!!  ;D ;D

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #54 on: December 23, 2013, 07:50:42 PM »
There is the ultimate limit in place - money - that stops this.  4 of those 5 of those aircraft would have to be bought.  Paying full price for the aircraft, rather than leasing will surely slow you down considerably.

I run a reasonably successful airline in MT world, top 5 or top 10 in some of the important categories, and I can't afford something like what you describe.  So how much danger is there really?  Yours is very rare, nearly hypothetical example.  I think it is better idea to concentrate of 999 out of 1000 cases rather than 1 out of 1000 cases that you are concentrating on.

Don't think it's ever going to be as big a problem in MT, or during the initial expansion phase of any other gameworld. You have airlines using their cash to expand, and the very popular lines are open from day 1, so it's a race to fill them up. But it's going to remain a big problem when the very popular fleets launch midgame, when all the big airlines are already rolling in cash. What's going to happen in the current JA when the 734, 738, a320, a330 launch? Big airlines will have zero problems ordering 100 on launch day.

The opportunistic grabbing of planes off the UM to immediately flip for extra cash, however, that one is at its worst in MT.

Quote
Is your intention to completely destroy the team play?

There are many good / bad reasons for people getting rid of aircraft they bought, besides team play.  I, for example, ordered a lot of Q400s in one of the game worlds.  That game world reduced the slot availability at the airport compared to previous game world.  I realized I could not fly them.  So I had to get rid off a lot of Q400s.  According you your Judge Dredd (Judge, Jury, Executioner) theme posts, I was guilty of unspeakable offenses.  I merely goofed.

Or one time I got A310-200 instead of A320-200, in middle of excitement of actually seeing an aircraft on the UM.  Again, a capital offense, when I tried to get rid of it right away...

If you stuff up and buy the wrong plane, why shouldn't you be stuck with it, why shouldn't it be an expensive mistake to fix? If you accidentally leased an a310, you'd be looking at 10 million+ disappearing from bank account to fix it. If you're being very aggressive and get too many planes, that should have serious consequences.

Both your examples could be fixed with better broker AI. Being able to back out of a new plane order closer to delivery date (with a bigger financial penalty for doing so) would also help. A complete revamp of brokers, new plane ordering/delivery slot assignation, commonality and the UM could fix all these issues, make things fairer, remove the need for player to player sales, and remove the opportunity for cheating via transfer of cash, which is still a problem.

There have been a lot of incremental changes to improve problems, in response to player abuse of game mechanisms. But they've had unintended consequences, they've encouraged other exploits, and a lot of effort goes into circumventing the game-imposed restrictions. More incremental changes won't fix it, a drastic overhaul, like the one the accounting system is getting, can fix it. Actual RL advantages to 'team play' could be built in. e.g. more purchasing power, some preferential treatment from airplane sellers. The current exploits allowed by team play, such as cash transfers, pooling of UM calls, holding used planes for others, would stop.

Offline Infinity

  • Members
  • Posts: 1564
    • Aviation Awareness
Re: [-] Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #55 on: December 24, 2013, 04:34:13 AM »
The current exploits allowed by team play, such as cash transfers, pooling of UM calls, holding used planes for others, would stop.

I find it pretty indecent that loners like you and LemonButt keep calling what we do exploits. Do we call your mavericking stupid? Not so much. You are both lobbying to get the game more friendly to your playing style, which is okay, but please stop criminalizing any different playing style on your way. That's just shameful.

Offline Sanabas

  • Members
  • Posts: 2161
Re: [-] Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #56 on: December 24, 2013, 05:37:44 AM »
As far as I can remember, I've been an alliance member in every gameworld I've played. I'm sure I'll be part of one the next world I play in, too. Not quite sure how that makes me a loner, or a maverick, or the way I play stupid.

I've also used most of, and will continue to use some of, the things that I call exploits for as long as they're still available. That's how I know that they're exploits, that's how I know the advantage they give. Other than the propping up of other airlines via discount planes or outright gifts of cash/slots, I have no desire to criminalise any of them. For example, knowing exactly when slots would be released at an airport, that was clearly an exploit, it clearly gave an unfair advantage. The solution wasn't to criminalise the acquisition of slots, the solution was to fix the gameplay mechanism to remove the ability to know exactly when they'd drop. Exploit disappears, game's fairer for everyone.

Same deal for some of the exploits that are currently widely used. Nothing criminal about using them, they're within the rules, the current system rewards their use, so why not use them? No reason to criminalise them, especially when they couldn't be policed. Same deal for dodging tax, which is nothing to do with team play, and should be done by everyone. Clearly an exploit, clearly not criminal, clearly poor design. Solution is to implement better design, remove the exploit. Which is happening soon for tax, and I would like to see happen for other things.

I'm not calling you a cheat, I'm not even suggesting that you or anybody else (other than the actual cheats I know of) should play differently within the current system. I am saying the way you & I & many others play involves exploiting poorly designed parts of the system. Exploit does not equal cheat. Auto-dialing programs for the UM was cheating. Holding a plane on the UM so another team member can grab it is an exploit. Buying a 30 mill plane you don't want off the UM to immediately sell to your teammate for 20 mill is cheating. Buying a 30 mill plane you don't want off the UM to immediately try and sell to the general public for 50 mill is an exploit. There's a difference. I have nothing against team play, I have nothing against co-operating with others, I think being part of a community makes the game more interesting. I wouldn't want to remove those things. If I was redesigning the system, I'd build in encouragement for those things. I don't think less of people for using exploits, I do think less of them for cheating, I do want exploits, including the ones I use myself, to be removed through better gameplay design.

Please don't imply I'm against co-operation, against team play, making suggestions simply to make things easier for me. It's got nothing to do with trying to make things more friendly for me. It's easy for me to build a big airline. No reason to make it easier. Would like to make it more interesting, less formulaic though, and would like to make it fairer for new players who don't know about, or don't have access to, or are on the receiving end of some of these widely-used exploits. Just because I wouldn't want to be on a team with you doesn't mean I'm against teams.

Being unable to talk about gameplay design without resorting to personal abuse, being unable to look at anything except whether you'll be able to cope with these crutches removed, that's what's shameful.


Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: [-] Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #57 on: December 24, 2013, 06:13:50 AM »
+1

I'm not a loner or maverick as I am also typically always in an alliance.  As I stated earlier, teamwork should be an occasional helping hand versus the foundation of your long term strategy.  I'm an advocate for making the game more playable for smaller airlines and those who wish to use strategy versus the click and deploy methods.  Any clown can be successful with a fleet of B737 or A320.  Making the unpopular aircraft models more unpopular or making it more difficult to get fuel efficient aircraft hurts the little guy way more than it hurts the big guys.

And yes, you have called my ideas "stupid" and "communist" and now--"indecent" and "shameful", which doesn't include comments from other threads.  It is pretty clear you're emotionally invested in things with your comments and I (and others) have chosen not to engage, but you should really reconsider calling people stupid, communist, etc.  You also help run Elite, which is essentially nothing but mega airlines.  Sanabas and I (and others) have tried running small airlines and all sorts of different variations thereof and know a thing or two about how these types of matters negatively affect small airlines, stifle competition, and encourages the formulaic click and deploy strategy that way too many people use already.  The other thing I don't understand is why I (or others) are the bad guy for brainstorming ideas to make the game better.  The first idea is rarely the best idea (unless it is cargo lol) and it takes an open forum such as this to refine the idea before a feature is implemented--that is the whole point of having a public feature forum.  In the end, sami isn't going to decide against implementing new features by someone going meta and calling people stupid in an attempt to preserve the status quo, so I really don't know what your hoping to accomplish with some of your negative comments towards me and others.

I would think that the one thing we could all agree on is that the system is broken, but if when players who benefit from the broken system can't even admit it's broken, it just looks desperate.  Several notable players that run mega airlines like JumboShrimp and Mr HP believe it is broken based on their comments on this thread, so I don't see why fixing/changing the system to ensure equal opportunity for all players would be considered such an unreasonable request.

Offline Infinity

  • Members
  • Posts: 1564
    • Aviation Awareness
Re: [-] Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #58 on: December 24, 2013, 07:00:29 AM »
As far as I can remember, I've been an alliance member in every gameworld I've played.

I believe you know very well of what I am talking and I see no need to further elaborate on this. I will just say that there is a difference between being on a team and playing as a part of a team. Tell me, how exactly is pooling calls an exploit? If anyone needs an A330, it's still only the one calling benefiting from seeing it first. Is car pooling an exploit and unfair to all those who pay for their gas alone? It's no different.

For example, knowing exactly when slots would be released at an airport, that was clearly an exploit, it clearly gave an unfair advantage. The solution wasn't to criminalise the acquisition of slots, the solution was to fix the gameplay mechanism to remove the ability to know exactly when they'd drop. Exploit disappears, game's fairer for everyone.

You know, I am not so sure you are right on that one. Everyone could have found out when the slots drop through careful observation. That wasn't magic. I managed to do that when I was still playing alone, and I do not consider myself to be some kind of Einstein. Finding out when slots drop required a short period of watching. And what did the 'fix' do? Now that state of watching has become a permanent one if you want to be successful at a large airport. Not much of an improvement really.

Holding a plane on the UM so another team member can grab it is an exploit
That's your perception. I call it risk management, so the member I alert to the existence of the plane does not blow his call without getting the aircraft.

I'm an advocate for making the game more playable for smaller airlines

So why do you keep proposing things that make it more difficult for smaller players? Trying to hinder large airlines from ordering planes for the used market does not benefit smaller airlines, quite the contrary actually. If I order 50 E-195s and put them on the used market for a cheap price, that's a detriment to small players by you. I really don't know how to react to such a statement, it's so completely beyond any logic that I can't imagine how anyone would come up with it.

And yes, you have called my ideas "stupid" and "communist" and now--"indecent" and "shameful"

i have called you and your ideas that, but not your playing style. You are free to play in any way you like, I couldn't care less. But don't expect me to sit still when you are trying to have the game altered to suit you more than it does me.

You also help run Elite, which is essentially nothing but mega airlines.

Some of our members run smaller airlines with different playing styles. The fact that many of us run big airlines is because we look for a challenge. You may find that every ape can run a fleet of A320s and 737s, but you have clearly never been in a huge dogfight over a large airport with another of these 'apes'. Nothing wrong about that, but then please don't judge it. You do just that.

The other thing I don't understand is why I (or others) are the bad guy for brainstorming ideas to make the game better.

Do you even read what I write? I am perfectly fine with you having ideas, but does that mean I have to like them? Please don't forget you make ideas to make the game better in YOUR perception, and I can't stand that a group of other players, few of which voice their opinions here, is collectively called a cheat. And yes, I consider exploiting cheating. What's exploiting about pooling calls to the used market? Shifting slot timing to a better suiting one, which is possible due to the system, that's what I call exploiting.

I would think that the one thing we could all agree on is that the system is broken

We definitely can not. Parts of the system are broken, but definitely not those you keep trying to have changed.
The slot system, that's what's broken, and I am all for a change for better. But there is absolutely nothing broken about the used market and players supplying it, especially since forced maintenance was announced. Before, it required a player to write the seller a PM asking him to do maintenance on it. Every player with common sense reacts positively to such an asking.
Plus, more realistic bookkeeping rules will change it as well. I think THAT will be to the detriment of smaller airlines, but I definitely don't fight it because I see a reason behind it. Some of your proposals, however, have absolutely no reason but to hinder growth beyond a certain point, which is why I have, and will continue to, called them communist.

Several notable players that run mega airlines like JumboShrimp and Mr HP believe it is broken based on their comments on this thread, so I don't see why fixing/changing the system to ensure equal opportunity for all players would be considered such an unreasonable request.

I wouldn't mind having to put more aircraft on the used market, which will be an effect of the new bookkeeping rules. But whats unreasonable about it, is that you imply that it would help smaller airlines. It won't. Do you think for one moment that the most popular production lines will free up with that change? Not even remotely. All that will happen is that big players shift their spare funds purely towards helping team mates, cutting only the share of their business that supplies planes to small airlines.
I don't know if you noticed, but it is rather difficult for most players to build a successful new airline when fuel is north of 1,000 USD (speaking of Modern Times only as it's my regular playground). Many players at that stage of the game rely on ample supply on the used market that is a bit cheaper than ordering new.

Is that what you call broken to smaller airlines' detriment? Seriously?

Offline Kazari

  • Members
  • Posts: 458
Re: [-] Aircraft sales cap
« Reply #59 on: December 24, 2013, 05:49:27 PM »
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Communism: A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

Your method of collective, team-centric purchasing of aircraft is more communist than what was proposed, which would be a "government" or company-imposed cap on sales.


 

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.