AirwaySim
Online Airline Management Simulation
Login
Username
Password
 
or login using:
 
My Account
Username:
E-mail:
Edit account
» Achievements
» Logout
Game Credits
Credit balance: 0 Cr
Buy credits
» Credit history
» Credits FAQ

Author Topic: New base rules, feedback  (Read 5158 times)

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: New base rules, feedback
« Reply #40 on: July 02, 2014, 08:50:10 PM »
There are countries with a number of airports, not of which are particularly big, but sum of all the airports together can support a good sized airline.  It may be smaller country like Dominican Republic, or a bigger one, like Russia, India, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Mexico.

The new basing rules make these countries a lot more attractive, a lot more countries can keep the players busy, engaged to the end of the Game World.

Also, a player who is opening level 3 or 4 bases all over the place is adding a lot of cost.  Just because his airline may be big today, he may not even be around tomorrow, if his airlines crumbles under the weight of all the costs.

If you are just starting right now, I would look around extremely carefully in selecting the starting airport, and I would probably cross Canada off the list completely at this time.

There is always the Beginners world scenario with less competition, or some of the long running games that have lost a lot off players, with some airports almost empty.  That's where I would be looking for to get a less competitive game play.

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5992
Re: New base rules, feedback
« Reply #41 on: July 02, 2014, 08:55:44 PM »
Another thing to keep in mind, when you restart in the game world, you pick your location.  So look around very carefully, look for a good number of routes that are not being served, which can sustain a new airline.

Once you find such an airport, and start flying those unserved routes, the existing players should not be targeting you.  It is one of the rules of the game.  If you think that some bigger airline is following you, opening new routes after you have just opened them, and your airline is very new, that is against the rules and you should report it.

OTOH, if you open at an airport where all the routes are already being served, you are not likely going to get very far, starting with RI and CI at zero...

Offline Infinity

  • Members
  • Posts: 1564
    • Aviation Awareness
Re: New base rules, feedback
« Reply #42 on: July 02, 2014, 09:40:41 PM »
The issue at hand isn't about me or how I 'should' run my airline. I've been playing this game for years, and doing just fine until recently, but thank you. It appears the bigger airlines always run with the line "don't base yourself in busy countries then". I've raised a simple concern and immediately been patronised. A shame, really, after 6 years here.

Now you are victimizing yourself a bit too much really. You have complained about the new basing rules, which in your opinion allow too many of them. But the airline that you accuse of having taken you out of business has exactly one HQ and 3 bases - just as much as was allowed with the old rules. So, if you say you did fine until before the rules, well. Certainly not the rules to blame, simple as that. They weren't used in what you seem to have perceived as unfair competition.

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: New base rules, feedback
« Reply #43 on: July 02, 2014, 10:05:16 PM »
sam--I started an all CRJ airline out of ORD in GW2 where there were no slots available from 500-800 and had two of the Top 10 airlines HQ'd there.  With recent changes, anything is possible with the right strategy.  It sounds like the issue you're having is that you are trying to fit your circumstances to your strategy instead of your strategy to your circumstances.

Canada is a tough country to play because the demand is consolidated versus distributed.  If you want to run out of a decent sized airport and be left alone, Canada isn't the place to do it IMO.

Offline samsaunders85

  • Members
  • Posts: 129
Re: New base rules, feedback
« Reply #44 on: July 02, 2014, 11:41:22 PM »
Thanks for the feedback, but we can discuss this all day and I'm going to be shot down for merely expressing my views. Consider the matter closed
Canada Airlines: Start Here, Go Anywhere

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: New base rules, feedback
« Reply #45 on: July 03, 2014, 03:34:49 AM »
Your opinion was "shot down" because you said a) the new basing system is bad even because what happened to you could have happen with the old basing system, too b) you bring real life money into discussion what's a no-go because AWS is not pay to win.

You were not able to debilitate those points - so, please stop trying to get into the victim role again, that's boring.

Offline 11Air

  • Members
  • Posts: 433
Re: New base rules, feedback
« Reply #46 on: July 03, 2014, 09:31:23 PM »
Hello again all, just been catching up on the comments and I've had some stick. Turns out you were right, I was spread too thin and am paying now for too many types, too many bases and not quite breaking even no matter what I try. So I stuck a couple of Comets in the mix, hoping for a miracle cure. Lost more money, can't invest in routes without Cash In Hand so looks like I've blown it.
I'll give it bit longer, hoping for a miracle really, but I still love the new base rules that allow me to expand my routes when my starter base gets a bit lean.
I tend (always) to start with a few B1900's and maybe a Saab340 or 2. What do you experienced guys start up with.  Emb's didn't work out well, just too big to start up with.

Offline Infinity

  • Members
  • Posts: 1564
    • Aviation Awareness
Re: New base rules, feedback
« Reply #47 on: July 23, 2014, 01:14:01 PM »


Is this supposed to be a joke of some kind? How am I supposed to turn a profit on a base this expensive.

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: New base rules, feedback
« Reply #48 on: July 23, 2014, 05:30:56 PM »
Since when bases actually made good profits? If you are greedy and open up a base you are supposed to BK of course! ;D

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14535
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: New base rules, feedback
« Reply #49 on: July 23, 2014, 06:47:02 PM »
That figure seems a bit odd, since it is about half of your current staff costs. Cannot remember directly how it ESTIMATES it at this point, but in any case it does not look right (actual costs will most likely be a lot less).

Offline Infinity

  • Members
  • Posts: 1564
    • Aviation Awareness
Re: New base rules, feedback
« Reply #50 on: July 27, 2014, 09:47:09 PM »
Numbers were wildly off indeed.

My monthly staff bill went from 258 861 688 USD / month to 266 736 316 USD / month (not including any planes scheduled).

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: New base rules, feedback
« Reply #51 on: July 28, 2014, 10:00:34 PM »
I'm seeing the same issue on the low end.  I have 2 bases with an aggregate staff cost of $1.7 million and opening base #3 states staff costs for the base is 3 748 809 USD / month.

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14535
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: New base rules, feedback
« Reply #52 on: July 29, 2014, 01:16:00 PM »
So, I'm back from holidays now.. The new base cost esimate is fixed.

The number of extra bases currently in GW3 is 359 with 433 users - that is 0.83 bases per player (+ hq). And for comparison the same numbers in other games are 1.17 (#1), 1.41 (#2), 0.71 (#4). So actually the number of bases per player in modern scenarios (all but #4) is lower with the new rules, which is opposite to what is expected .. but I would suspect that it's because GW3 is still rather new (2 months). Also haven't looked up stats on the total number of a/c based outside HQ since this may be another explanation - less overall bases but larger ones.

I was also reading this thread now, and was thinking .. what if we change the game start, for all new games, so that also the HQ has the 4-step levels AND at the same time the starting level of the HQ depends on the airport size but is limited to size 3 at the beginning. So if you base at a small regional airport, your HQ would be let's say level 2 (since the airport is so small, and you don't need a higher level anyways) and if you base a large intl. airport your level would be 3 until you upgrade it. You could opt for a lower base level too, giving you more cash to hand when starting .. (or something)

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: New base rules, feedback
« Reply #53 on: July 29, 2014, 01:18:56 PM »
If start date is 1950s then I would say start everyone out at level 1.  Then they can upgrade and grow into a larger airline organically, much like every airline of the era did.  Being able to issue an IPO and start out with larger aircraft out of the gate like we have today IRL doesn't happen without serious cash piles.  Delta et al started this way back in the day.

Offline CUR$E - God of AirwaySim

  • Members
  • Posts: 4028
Re: New base rules, feedback
« Reply #54 on: July 29, 2014, 01:24:32 PM »
The number of extra bases currently in GW3 is 359 with 433 users - that is 0.83 bases per player (+ hq). And for comparison the same numbers in other games are 1.17 (#1), 1.41 (#2), 0.71 (#4). So actually the number of bases per player in modern scenarios (all but #4) is lower with the new rules, which is opposite to what is expected .. but I would suspect that it's because GW3 is still rather new (2 months). Also haven't looked up stats on the total number of a/c based outside HQ since this may be another explanation - less overall bases but larger ones.

Many people in GW#3 still have not maxed out their HQ in demand. The huge slot lock is also a problem... why should I open a base when I can't fly to the interest airports because they don't have slots available?

I was also reading this thread now, and was thinking .. what if we change the game start, for all new games, so that also the HQ has the 4-step levels AND at the same time the starting level of the HQ depends on the airport size but is limited to size 3 at the beginning. So if you base at a small regional airport, your HQ would be let's say level 2 (since the airport is so small, and you don't need a higher level anyways) and if you base a large intl. airport your level would be 3 until you upgrade it. You could opt for a lower base level too, giving you more cash to hand when starting .. (or something)
If start date is 1950s then I would say start everyone out at level 1.  Then they can upgrade and grow into a larger airline organically, much like every airline of the era did.  Being able to issue an IPO and start out with larger aircraft out of the gate like we have today IRL doesn't happen without serious cash piles.  Delta et al started this way back in the day.

I like the idea to start out of level 3. But please don't force people to start out of level 1 as long as upgrading costs money. I don't see for example how an airline out of Los Angeles with the extremely limited demand around could work, same might be an issue for other airports like Singapore.

Maybe make a compromise and each player is able to choose with what level (1,2,3 or 4) he wants to start. AWS should not force players, it should allow players to choose what fits their strategy.

Offline Luperco

  • Members
  • Posts: 472
Re: New base rules, feedback
« Reply #55 on: July 29, 2014, 02:19:03 PM »
Many people in GW#3 still have not maxed out their HQ in demand. The huge slot lock is also a problem... why should I open a base when I can't fly to the interest airports because they don't have slots available?

Why is there this slot lock in GW3? Is it special in some way? Thanks.
Saluti
Emanuele


Offline Infinity

  • Members
  • Posts: 1564
    • Aviation Awareness
Re: New base rules, feedback
« Reply #56 on: July 29, 2014, 04:13:03 PM »
9/11 was much less harsh than in other game worlds and has failed to remove many airlines and thus freeing up slots.

Offline gazzz0x2z

  • Members
  • Posts: 1382
Re: New base rules, feedback
« Reply #57 on: July 29, 2014, 06:09:51 PM »
There was a few death, but I was really expecting worse.

Back to topic, some companies already have 6 bases. I do. Of course, none of my 5 secondary bases link to Heathrow, despite huge demand, and there are more and more locked destinations. Still, each small base makes money.

Online AUpilot77

  • Members
  • Posts: 756
Re: New base rules, feedback
« Reply #58 on: August 06, 2014, 07:13:28 PM »
Posting here since I saw a similar post about the staff costs for additional bases.  The estimates may have been fixed but I'm guessing the automatic staff handler doesn't know how to allocate the number of personnel required for each position at the new base.  The game automatically hired (for my Newark base):

40 High level management (when 5 are required)                         $822,500 extra monthly cost
20 Middle level management (when 15 are required)                     $95,000
89 Economics and finance (when 24 are required)                        $404,300
34 Quality department (when 5 are required)                              $150,220
415 Customer services (when 67 are required)                            $1,064,880
201 Ground handling (when 54 are required)                               $358,680
279 Route strategies department (when 22 are required)              $1,259,300

Pilots and cabin crew seem to be the correct amount.

This is resulting in staff costs for me which shouldn't be there..  Would it be fair to help me decrease these staffing levels to appropriate numbers (without losing CI) because the game handled the situation improperly?  This is causing me to pay at least $4,154,880/month in needless expense.  I would fire the extra ones but my CI would drop to the depths..

 

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.