No of Passengers <> No of players

[11Air]

If the No of Passengers increased/decreased in proportion to the number of players then the GW could carry more players.
Perhaps not a direct ratio but with the games increasing popularity something needs to be done to make the games playable for late entries or late starters.
I'd suggest the rate of increase of Pax to be around half that of players with the nominal point at say 300 players.
What I saw in the last 4 games was players peaking at over well 500 but declining to 350 t0 400 as there just aren't any opportunities to of start up, or replace ageing fleets.

Comments please

[LotusAirways]

Increase demand = increase supply by large/established players.

In other words, if I am dominating a large airport with 600 planes and demand increases because there are a few new entrants in the game, I simply increase from 600 frames to say 700.

The move from 450 to 500 players at start to 250 or 300 at the end of a long game looks normal to me. The main reason for airline busts in the first 10 years or so is the mismatch between player knowledge and airport size. Fleet transition issues seem to be the main reason for crashes in the next 20. After that, usually all is set (we already know who will be number one in company value) and airline busts are rare, mainly due to player tediousness.   

 

[11Air]

depends if you're playing to win, or playing to learn. Very difficult to join an established game with reasonably modern aircraft, particularly B737+ as all demand is already met.

[LotusAirways]

  Not sure of what you are talking about now.
You suggested a change in the game set-up to create opportunities for new entrants in a game, and asked for comments, I gave my comment.

[Johan87]

11 AIR,it depends where you start,if you go for for example JFK with 6 based carriers it is hopeless so you have to search a base where still demand is available and or not somany based carriers.
In the previous gw 3 i have played from Ukraine for the last 15 years and i could build up relatively free but bases like LHR,JFK,LAX,HND are hopless yes.
Or just look at the airline news where an airline just went Bankrupt,usually free up alot of slots too

[11Air]

I've tried searching before selecting my starter airport, quite carefully, looking first at based aircraft numbers as an indicator, then flights with possibilities.
I've also used the 'ready to go' airport and airline but these also only succeed occasionally in established games.
Both have had a few successes (survival beyond ten years), and failures but the issue is that when the twenty or so top players have dominated the market for long haul, and spread into other airports, there really isn't a lot of worthwhile traffic left as other airlines are forced down into the regional airline market as those without the massive incomes just can't find the worthwhile routes for more than a handful of aircraft.  B737's don't make the same % profits as B747's.
Perhaps 1 in 3 of my start-ups succeed. 

[Cammellodacorsa]

Without changing the rules, why don't they open some more GW to spread part of the users and let the GW a little less crowded.
For those who want an easy win, or in other words they also want to experience LH routes and even learn how to set up an maintain them why not to create one or to GW limited let's say to 150 players? Or 180 or 120, or something like that.
and maybe mix thos one or two additional gw with game lenght.
Beginner scenario last only 10y, why don't create some intermediate GW where life is a little bit easier but anyway the player need to focus on fleet change, LH, and maybe only 20/25 years of scenario.

Could be?

[JJP]

I've maintained for a long time that Airway Sim needs a LOT more game worlds running concurrently.  Reason?  The same group of 15 - 20 (+/-) "super-duper" players always play ALL of the game worlds.  Then the secondary same group of 20 - 40 (+/-) very aggressive (and very good but not super-duper) players always play ALL of the game worlds.  Then there are the rest of the 50 - 100 or so of us who have been around for a looong time but consider ourselves casual players who typically only play one game world at a time (and typically leave for months at a time before playing another world).  Then there are the rest of the fluctuating population who come and go and are relatively new to the sim.

The "super-dupers" and super-aggressive players DOMINATE all of the game worlds = booorrrriiinnnggggg . . .  And, as Cammel suggests, leaves the vast majority of the rest of us to not be able to experience (or experiment with) some of the more interesting (more intricate) aspects of the game simply because we so readily get shoved out of our respective markets so quickly and easily. 

I am generalizing, but only to a small degree.  It's no secret that the same airline names always dominate every game world.  This isn't meant to demean these players.  It is simply an attempt to point out the hazard of so few, concurrently running game worlds.  I highly doubt we would see the same players in all of the game worlds if there were 20+ games running at a time.  Also, you would probably see a LOT more people come and stay for once instead of leaving out of exasperation.

Just my 2 cents.

Now, let the flaming begin!!

 

[[ATA] Hassel]

It's no secret that the same airline names always dominate every game world.

The main reason for this is that people don't play until the end. (Whether this is due to fleet transitions, boredom or bankruptcy). Take the results of gw4 which just ended.  You have only 24 players who played the game from beginning to the end. in the new one that just started we have 350 people.

[Cammellodacorsa]

I don't want to touch always the same issues but in a GW you have two options:

Start at the very beginning (try to establish and gain some money when the competition is still pale) and in this case after 20y you ends up with 1.000 plane and at least 3500 routes to manage. Fleet transition and all remaining management is not only tricky for its complexity but it is also a huge request of time.
So, who can keep playing? Yes experienced player, but only the ones that has huge time to dedicate.

Start at 50%, in this case you will find 40.000 route already established, and all you can do is find some niches in small/medium airport covering demand that hasn't been covered yet. In this case time consumed looking for possible routes often ending up with no results. And forget about possible LH and 7day schedule.

So, in the end I don't think that demand growth is the final answer.

I keep saying that we need much more GW with a bunch of different settings for each one. Different settings lead to different level of complexity so everyone can find its own suitable gw.

For Example: GW from 1990 to 2030 with maximum of 100 players and maximum 200 planes allowed. Maybe it will end up as a failure, but I'm sure in this GW I will have the chance to settle up my LH airline and let it goes. Then the compelte GW could be my next step but at least I know how a good LH can be set up.
But of course this is just an example!

It could be possible also to "mark" those GW in a different way so we won't achieve any "Achievement" playing in easier GW.

I'm playing now in GW2 entering three game years ago, I'm learning a lot of things, but my experience is very limited as I can eat only crumbs let by the "monster" players.

Anyway, just my thoughts for what they worth.

[gazzz0x2z]

My experience in the cargo test game - the half-closed one, with just 25 players or so - is that it's insanely easy with so few players. I think the only base with 2 players was Heathrow. Everyone had profitability around 30%. It's good for testing new things, but it's not a real game with opposition. I had 700+ planes, nothing smaller than a MAX8, and no opposition on sight. 100 players and 200 planes? Well, everyone will simply play without opposition, and learn nothing about the game(which is, there are 3000 daily seats on this 1000 pax line - how do I survive & thrive?)

In current GW3, I've been attacked several times, had to adjust my strategies, replaces some 737 by 148s, lowered some prices, and that's what's fun. I've got even an opponent in Kansas City who annoys me with his E120, and takes my profitability down. There is no easy money. And it's the main interest of the game, IMHO. 100 players with 200 planes just means most lines will be unopposed.

Unless you want some games forbidden to players with too many achievements(but then people will do everything to avoid achievements, bummer.....)

[JJP]

More open game worlds is the answer . . .  (many more).  Then no need to restrict who can join.  If there are 20+ game worlds open, and there are still some players who join all of them . . .  um, someone probably needs to invest a little more time in real life  . . . probably, just sayin'.

[schro]

I don't want to touch always the same issues but in a GW you have two options:

Start at the very beginning (try to establish and gain some money when the competition is still pale) and in this case after 20y you ends up with 1.000 plane and at least 3500 routes to manage. Fleet transition and all remaining management is not only tricky for its complexity but it is also a huge request of time.
So, who can keep playing? Yes experienced player, but only the ones that has huge time to dedicate.

Start at 50%, in this case you will find 40.000 route already established, and all you can do is find some niches in small/medium airport covering demand that hasn't been covered yet. In this case time consumed looking for possible routes often ending up with no results. And forget about possible LH and 7day schedule.

So, in the end I don't think that demand growth is the final answer.

I keep saying that we need much more GW with a bunch of different settings for each one. Different settings lead to different level of complexity so everyone can find its own suitable gw.

For Example: GW from 1990 to 2030 with maximum of 100 players and maximum 200 planes allowed. Maybe it will end up as a failure, but I'm sure in this GW I will have the chance to settle up my LH airline and let it goes. Then the compelte GW could be my next step but at least I know how a good LH can be set up.
But of course this is just an example!

It could be possible also to "mark" those GW in a different way so we won't achieve any "Achievement" playing in easier GW.

I'm playing now in GW2 entering three game years ago, I'm learning a lot of things, but my experience is very limited as I can eat only crumbs let by the "monster" players.

Anyway, just my thoughts for what they worth.

For your scenarios:

1. Start at beginning of game world, grow yuuuuge: You can also actively chose to keep your airline at a manageable size. That's what I've done in SIN in GW1 where I've got 200 something planes and literally do nothing to it but check in every couple of game years. In GW2, for example, the airline dominating DXB just tapped out, leaving it open for a multi-hundred sized long haul airline.

2. There are TONS of opportunities to start late in the game. There are ALWAYS large bankruptcies that happen either due to mismanagement or boredom (or lack of credits) that make for an excellent large base start in a game world. Alternatively, if you select a large base with weak competition, then you can build your airline under their nose and topple them to take over the base. It has been a while, but I've certainly taken on a fortress base before and outgrew the incumbent (when he had about a 10-15 game year head start).

[Johan87]

simply look at game world 2.
About a year ago it started with about 650players,how many players are still left?
and we are at 66% of the game or so.
So i would not say it is over crowded.
And beside that after a year you can expand to a new base and grow furher if you are stuck in your homebase.

[freshmore]

The starting mid game is pretty much the best learning experience you can get. It forces you to think outside the box sometimes, in Base placement and sometimes aircraft choices. It's a challenge for sure, but you can certainly build healthy profitable airlines of all different shapes and sizes, plus the challenge of the compeitin is part of the fun.

As for the idea of more game worlds. It's a useless idea, what would happen is the GW's would have less people in them at the beginning and particularly towards the end. Currently I think the current situation of four rotating game worlds leads to a good number at the beginning, a gradual drop off and not so many towards the end. Plus it's perfectly possible to start up an airline during these Game Worlds, good learning and a good challenge as well. Any more and many of the players would be spread across more Game Worlds which would result in a Game that is less challenging and therefore less interesting.

[Johan87]

Well with 4 long gme worlds and all 4 have same settings beside the time span,so deffinatly something can be changed here if you say a 5th long world make the present worlds empty.
But how many airliners go bankrupt in there first few years?how many players are thee in the game after a few real months?
How come there is a big difference in there?i don't hear any answers from that side,only become a better player.
maybe give all players same real time to play,let's see then how many stay in.

[chwatuva]

I am sure this has been proposed, but why not gradually reduce the number of bases that an airline can occupy later in the game?  In a 50 year game, something like:

0-30, 10 bases,
30.1-35, 9 bases
35.1-40, 8 bases
40.1-45, 7 bases
45.1-50 6 bases

Sure, you could still pretty much dominate the game if you have the premier bases in the US/EU, but it seems like it would make things more interesting as airlines are forced to cut bases.  Would guarantee slots would open up, many of them at good bases.

It would be extra work for players to sort it out, but the people who play to the end would seem to be the ones who would do it.  Plus it would perhaps add more casual players who DON'T want 10 bases...  Would also help to adjust the balance for players in smaller countries/single airport countries.

I also feel like this mirrors real life where the trend, certainly for the last decade, has been not just airline consolidation but base consolidation (at least in the US/EU and among mainline/legacy carriers).

[MuzhikRB]

if to limit bases then its better to define it by base size.

example
Small base - 1 point
Medium - 2 points
Large - 3 points
XL - 5 points

Each player has 20 points (example) to distribute.
He can open 4 XL bases or 6 L or 10 M or 20 S
Or he can open 1 XL, 3L,  and 3 M bases.

So companies operated small or medium planes only - (regional) - can open more bases to compete with monsters hubs.

[Elladan]

Or maybe Sami can create a separate full length Beginner's World scenario as it seems that's what people here are advocating. That way those who want it easy can play there to their hearts content and those who want some more challenge can try their skills in current worlds. It's a genuine idea and one that I think is actually possible to implement.

[chwatuva]

The base points idea is a fine idea and would make for a different gameplay experience and arguably might be better than the current system BUT it does not take time into consideration. Under the point system you could have 4 XL bases running 3.5 years into a game a run them for more than 45/55 years, depending on world length.

My point was not so much about limiting bases but making the game environment more dynamic. It seems now that the game environment is largely static. The notably disruptions are growth over time and periodic major disruptions (9/11 type things). If you like the points, change the number of points people have over time, change the point value of airports as demand increases, etc.  maybe give more points to late starters.  They already get more money... Dynamic > constant, IMHO