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: MD90/717 Fleet Group Needs a Buff, part 3  (Read 1000 times)

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 3073
MD90/717 Fleet Group Needs a Buff, part 3
« on: March 20, 2015, 02:29:19 AM »
When I originally proposed the MD90 and MD95 fleet combination strategy in the forums, it was presented as a way to bring a third competitive narrowbody into AWS as an alternative for the players who want to think outside the A&B box. I find it is great that the fleet groups have been merged and the paper plane MD90's have been added. I also enjoy how they're competitive in nearly all respects to the A&B planes. Since I just specified nearly all, let's talk shortcomings -

The main issue that I'm seeing with the fleet group is that they trigger plane is too small warnings far earlier than the A&B counterparts. For those located in Europe and other areas with a lot of short haul international flying (and probably other areas on the world, except for the US), the MD90/717 fleet group will trigger the plane is too small warning much sooner than the A320/737NG families will due to how the fleet types are split and seat counts are averaged. I've seen on some routes with 800-1000 demand out of LHR where the MD90 is too small at 1500-1700nm but the A320/737NG is not. It seems that the "too small" warning was designed with the seat sizing of the A&B group averages but not revisted when the MD90 and 717 got their groups combined. As a consumer that has flown on all of the types in the families listed, I do not discern a difference in comfort across any of them (actually, I prefer the MD jets for actual flying due to the 2/3 layout).

From a game balance perspective, it would make sense that for these 3 slightly different but similarity equipped fleet groups should have a comparable "too small" ratings. Since I doubt you'd want to introduce a few models of the MD-90-70 or MD-90-75 to balance it, perhaps there's some magic on the back end that can be worked.

Offline Cardinal

  • Members
  • Posts: 967
Re: MD90/717 Fleet Group Needs a Buff, part 3
« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2015, 04:24:08 AM »
They also trigger the too-small warning before the MD-80 series, which makes no sense. If the 717 skews the numbers lower, the MD87 should as well.

Offline Herman

  • Members
  • Posts: 1902
Re: MD90/717 Fleet Group Needs a Buff, part 3
« Reply #2 on: March 20, 2015, 06:02:46 AM »
great request, Schro.

The "aircraft too small warning" for the MD90 is the one and only reason why I always avoid the type and have to get back to A320 or B737 NG types. If Sami could fix this one issue, then the MD90 could become a truly competitive aircraft ...

Herman

Offline ZombieSlayer

  • Members
  • Posts: 3921
Re: MD90/717 Fleet Group Needs a Buff, part 3
« Reply #3 on: March 20, 2015, 06:11:31 AM »
And can I get a request in to add the MD-80 to the fleet group  ;D
Co-Founder Elite Worldwide Alliance
CEO PacAir
Designated "Tier 1 Opponent"

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14538
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: MD90/717 Fleet Group Needs a Buff, part 3
« Reply #4 on: March 20, 2015, 10:13:52 AM »
the warning is calculated based on the average seat capacity of all models in that fleet group that have been launched at that point. So probably the avg is _just_ below some threshold there..

Offline Herman

  • Members
  • Posts: 1902
Re: MD90/717 Fleet Group Needs a Buff, part 3
« Reply #5 on: March 20, 2015, 10:52:44 AM »
sami, the average seat capacity of the MD90 fleet group indeed turns out to be a bit lower than the 320 / NG groups and therefore it gets these warnings faster. Would there be any chance to get the MD90 on par with 320 / NG groups for this item? It would give airlines another option and hopefully slightly reduce the insane rush on 320 / NG when they launch...

Online gazzz0x2z

  • Members
  • Posts: 1386
Re: MD90/717 Fleet Group Needs a Buff, part 3
« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2015, 11:46:47 AM »
the warning is calculated based on the average seat capacity of all models in that fleet group that have been launched at that point. So probably the avg is _just_ below some threshold there..

So it works through thresholds? Would it not be better if the penalty was linear? It would solve this problem, plus many others at the same time. A fleet group with 145 avg pax should not have  a massive penalty compared to a fleet group with 155 avg seats. A slight disadvantage, yes.

Plus I'm sure it would help for many other planes in many other circumstances. It would really make things easier to understand.

Offline meiru

  • Members
  • Posts: 745
Re: MD90/717 Fleet Group Needs a Buff, part 3
« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2015, 01:34:40 PM »
the penalty itself is stupid, because it should depend on the seating if it's "too small" or not... what would you like to fly more on a 6 hour flight... on a 747 with high density economy seats or a MD-90 with luxury economy seats?

we have the same problems with the crew... an aircraft needs a certain amount of crew and that's the same if you fly it 1 day a week for 1 hour of 22 hours every day of the week... this is destroying a lot of business models, as you can only chose one -> flying as much as you can with the highest density seating (ok, maybe not the high density, but the normal one).

like this ... well... it's not very interesting I've to say ... because every airline will look the same

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14538
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: MD90/717 Fleet Group Needs a Buff, part 3
« Reply #8 on: March 20, 2015, 02:42:38 PM »
So it works through thresholds?

No it doesn't. The warning at the editor window just shows already even if there's a sligthest "penalty". The calculation itself is fully linear.

In other words I'd expect that flying a route on MD-90 or 737 gives exact same results in the case where MD-90 shows the warning and 737 does not, since it's so minimal at that point.

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 3073

The person who likes this post:
Re: MD90/717 Fleet Group Needs a Buff, part 3
« Reply #9 on: March 20, 2015, 03:14:25 PM »
No it doesn't. The warning at the editor window just shows already even if there's a sligthest "penalty". The calculation itself is fully linear.

In other words I'd expect that flying a route on MD-90 or 737 gives exact same results in the case where MD-90 shows the warning and 737 does not, since it's so minimal at that point.

I understand that it is a linear "percentage type" calculation that happens on the back end, but from a player perspective, we see the "warning" and assume the worst (or that, the impact will increase over a few game years). As a player scheduling a route that wants to leave it alone for a period of years in the game world, there's no way that I would knowingly set a "too small" plane at that time as it would be a "really too small plane" by the next time I revisited the route (knowing that the "too small" target changes over time).

Ninja Edit:
great request, Schro.

This isn't a request, as the feature request forum is closed for business. This is a bug in the functional implementation of the "too small" warning compared to its original intended design ;-)

« Last Edit: March 20, 2015, 03:16:51 PM by schro »

Online gazzz0x2z

  • Members
  • Posts: 1386
Re: MD90/717 Fleet Group Needs a Buff, part 3
« Reply #10 on: March 20, 2015, 03:17:45 PM »
No it doesn't. The warning at the editor window just shows already even if there's a sligthest "penalty". The calculation itself is fully linear.

In other words I'd expect that flying a route on MD-90 or 737 gives exact same results in the case where MD-90 shows the warning and 737 does not, since it's so minimal at that point.

OK. in that case, the problem is a feedback problem. If the MD90 has a 3% penalty, and the NG 0%, and everyone flees the MD90 because of that, well, it's bad luck. I'd love to see it for each route. On the route screen, there would be "This route has a 3% penalty because the 737NG is too small" - "This route has a 50% penalty because of the tech stop, plus a 39% penalty because the A148 is too small, for a total penalty of 89%"(both being on the same Nantes-Le Lamentin route in the early 2020s).

Offline ZombieSlayer

  • Members
  • Posts: 3921
Re: MD90/717 Fleet Group Needs a Buff, part 3
« Reply #11 on: March 20, 2015, 10:24:53 PM »
OK. in that case, the problem is a feedback problem. If the MD90 has a 3% penalty, and the NG 0%, and everyone flees the MD90 because of that, well, it's bad luck. I'd love to see it for each route. On the route screen, there would be "This route has a 3% penalty because the 737NG is too small" - "This route has a 50% penalty because of the tech stop, plus a 39% penalty because the A148 is too small, for a total penalty of 89%"(both being on the same Nantes-Le Lamentin route in the early 2020s).

This is a great idea. I am not a fan of guesswork and this wold eliminate all uncertainty. In addition, the ability to search for all routes that trigger this warning would be a welcome addition.
Co-Founder Elite Worldwide Alliance
CEO PacAir
Designated "Tier 1 Opponent"

Offline meiru

  • Members
  • Posts: 745
Re: MD90/717 Fleet Group Needs a Buff, part 3
« Reply #12 on: March 20, 2015, 11:11:06 PM »
In addition, the ability to search for all routes that trigger this warning would be a welcome addition.

Since this seems to be hard-coded html (at least the messages aren't generated by javascript), I guess, that would be a work sami doesn't want to offer... and, in the past we've learned, that it's not the intention to lower your workload (means: searching routes for hours is the idea of the game) ... that's at least how I understood it


Solemus

  • Former member
Re: MD90/717 Fleet Group Needs a Buff, part 3
« Reply #13 on: March 21, 2015, 10:33:57 AM »
Buff means....

B = Big
U = Ugly
F = Fat
F = F**ker

A bit like me really  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

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.