About implementation of route changes

[Sami]

With the implementation of basing aircraft at multiple airports being considered and hopefully being added in the upcoming months, I need to ask a question on how to implement it.

It is already decided that when the hub feature is added players are no longer able to fly 4-leg routes, excluding technical/refuel stops. So you cannot fly JFK-LHR-CDG-LHR-JFK after the change. Possible regulatory issues like US-EU openskies, intra-EU openskies, or multi-leg domestic routes will be dealt with & decided later on, but at the moment this will be the first step working the way towards the completion of this feature.


The question is, when the features will be implemented do you want them in current worlds too or only to new / upcoming games.

1* If you want them to current games it will mean that players with existing 4-leg routes are still allowed to fly these routes till the end of that sim world, or until they decide to edit or close that route. And that the option of allowing 4-leg routes will be disabled quite early before the HUB feature is implemented. And also that after you've made 4-leg routes and the restriction is added you cannot edit them anymore (so only options are to keep them flying or to close the route). There is no way for admins to edit/close these routes for them or to ask everyone to make changes and wait for them before feature is implemented - so the only choice would be first to disallow making more of them and then to disallow doing else than closing them gradually.

2* If you choose to want them to upcoming sim worlds please keep in mind that some of the current worlds take 4-5 months to complete still. But this option would allow a fair and fresh start for all players in those worlds.


I am leaning towards option #1 as current worlds are still long way to their end. But this may be troublesome for the users to understand and it would have to be communicated clearly before implementation.

[Miller11]

Option 1 sound fair to me

[ali5541]

Option One Sound Very Fair.

Rise of the Modern Airliners has only begun!

[oggie84]

I too would lean towards option 1. However i do have some concerns reguarding this:-

Let's say for example the majority votes for option 1 and then admin team implement this feature into the current game worlds. What's to stop me right now from resheduling all my aircraft into 4 leg routes in anticipation that option 1 gets the go ahead. I would then get the added advantage of flying 4 leg routes with my current aircraft and also the hub feature when it's implemented with any new aircraft. I wouldn't have to touch the 4 leg route aircraft from now till the end of the game so i would get the very best of both worlds so to speak.

I think this would be very unfair to other players who are only flying direct routes.

So i think the best way to do this is to disable the 4 leg route option as of now until the players and admins have decided on a course of action. If option 1 doesn't get the go ahead, 4 leg routes can then be reinstated. If option 1 does get the go ahead, then nobody will have taken advantage of this.

[d2031k]

I'd be much happier with the second option.  

I think the game would become too messy, if the system was introduced halfway through.  Any updates/additions to the current versions have been relatively minor in comparison, but with the introduction of the hub system the whole flow of the game will change.  As Andrew (oggie 84) has pointed out, it could create an unfair advantage to those players who could set up ABCBA routes deliberately.

As you've already alluded to, I think it could also be confusing to some members.  Not everyone can be active everyday and a change like this would probably benefit the users who are on here the most.

I also (maybe I'm being old fashioned here) think that it would be better if we had to wait for the feature.  Anticipation and patience often creates more excitement than an actual event.  Everyone would be so excited in a few months to see how this new scenario would work.  Enthusiasm always dwindles as the games progress and delaying the launch would help maintain interest in the present worlds.

Dave

[Sigma]

Option 2 absolutely.

There's no reason to change the rules midstream.  That'll only create problems with the ability to compete against people mid-game, the ability for new players to play on the same playing field, create a very weird dynamic of both legs and hubs on the same game that won't exist in any others and could, can only take additional time to make functional that could be better used on other features, etc, etc.  I see absolutely no positive value to beginning that mid-game.

If people want to start playing with the new system they can join one of the new worlds same as every other time.  You didn't implement the aircraft production changes mid-game, or any countless other features, there's no reason to start now.

You'll start a dangerous precedent if you start implementing major features mid-game.  People will expect that into the future.  And cumulatively, the effort that will be spent on getting this new feature and other new features working in "hybrid" games into the future will end up costing many man-hours that would be better utilized on improving all future game-worlds, not trying to shoehorn some new feature into a game that'll only last a couple more months then the added work will be for naught.

[Brockster]

I'd be much happier with the second option.  

I think the game would become too messy, if the system was introduced halfway through.  Any updates/additions to the current versions have been relatively minor in comparison, but with the introduction of the hub system the whole flow of the game will change.  As Andrew (oggie 84) has pointed out, it could create an unfair advantage to those players who could set up ABCBA routes deliberately.

As you've already alluded to, I think it could also be confusing to some members.  Not everyone can be active everyday and a change like this would probably benefit the users who are on here the most.

I also (maybe I'm being old fashioned here) think that it would be better if we had to wait for the feature.  Anticipation and patience often creates more excitement than an actual event.  Everyone would be so excited in a few months to see how this new scenario would work.  Enthusiasm always dwindles as the games progress and delaying the launch would help maintain interest in the present worlds.

Dave

Agreed. Option 2 gets my vote.

[Branmuffin]

I don't mind waiting for the next game to start before hubs are implemented... I think option 2 makes the most sense and is the fairest to everyone.  My whole strategy (and from what i can tell, many other players') so far in Modern Times has been based off of flying 4-leg routes where possible, and I think it would be tough to adjust.  Besides, #2 is the simplest way to do it.  How long will it take to finish the new system anyway?"  If Modern times #1 finishes in 5 months and it takes 3 months to create the hub system, that's only a 2-month difference...

[Brockster]

I don't mind waiting for the next game to start before hubs are implemented... I think option 2 makes the most sense and is the fairest to everyone.  My whole strategy (and from what i can tell, many other players') so far in Modern Times has been based off of flying 4-leg routes where possible, and I think it would be tough to adjust.  Besides, #2 is the simplest way to do it.  How long will it take to finish the new system anyway?"  If Modern times #1 finishes in 5 months and it takes 3 months to create the hub system, that's only a 2-month difference...

I strongly agree with this as well. We've been basing our strategy off of these four leg routes and only having "one" base, and I think changing the way the game works in the middle of a round wouldn't really be fair. I think waiting until the next round of games for this new feature would be the best.

[Riger]

Option 2 √

If you do apply Option 1 (based on votes), consideration must/should be given to those who have made large aircraft purchases due to long term strategic planning, which may longer be viable.


Best Regards

Richard

[Dorito_25]

Option 1 - I only fly direct routes (unless there's a fuel stop) in Rise of the Modern Airliners.

But I will always usually be based in SYD and often used the 4-leg routes (such as SYD-MEL-BNE-MEL-SYD) but if we had the hub system...I could just set up a hub...or hubs. This brings me to a question - Sami, do you mind explaining how the hub system will work? I'm not sure if you have plans to start them in a couple of weeks - but it would be great if the rules and regulations and what we can do with these hubs were explained.

...But yet again...how long until the new system will be added? If it is a while and just a few weeks or so before the games end...then I think you should just leave it until the upcoming games start.

[0zlw]

I'm one of the people who will be hit significantly by this change. Nearly 100% of my routes implemented under my orders of 36 MD - 83's is under the current system, as well as my long term plannign base. Its outrageoues to expect me to change my plans for a change in gameplay. I welcome more hubs but just keep the system as it is for current games.

[flyer123]

Option 1, I think some rule changes will make some games more interesting

[d2031k]

Option 1, I think some rule changes will make some games more interesting

Surely moving the goalposts halfway through a game is not realistic and potentially very confusing and time consuming.  When rules change in business, government, transport, sport and other areas of society, there is a period of grace so that people can adjust.  I personally don't see the point in change for change's sake.  We should just wait and enjoy the anticipation

[Branmuffin]

Surely moving the goalposts halfway through a game is not realistic and potentially very confusing and time consuming.  When rules change in business, government, transport, sport and other areas of society, there is a period of grace so that people can adjust.  I personally don't see the point in change for change's sake.  We should just wait and enjoy the anticipation

Well said.

[Brockster]

Surely moving the goalposts halfway through a game is not realistic and potentially very confusing and time consuming.  When rules change in business, government, transport, sport and other areas of society, there is a period of grace so that people can adjust.  I personally don't see the point in change for change's sake.  We should just wait and enjoy the anticipation

Agreed.

[oggie84]

Surely moving the goalposts halfway through a game is not realistic and potentially very confusing and time consuming.  When rules change in business, government, transport, sport and other areas of society, there is a period of grace so that people can adjust.  I personally don't see the point in change for change's sake.  We should just wait and enjoy the anticipation

I fourth that 

[type45]

From my point of view, Option 2 for sure.

Most of my routes have 4 legs, this change can kill me at I cannot update my fleet in order to keep those income. This kind of environment need another way to plan. It is interesting to introduces hub systems, but it will just bring trouble if this is added mid-game.

Yes TMT is just started, so we can try to make good use to plan, discuses and work on the new systems

[samomuransky]

OK, what's final decission? Option 1 won, so it's gonna be introduced in present games? Do you (sami) have any idea when?

[Sami]

Voting's result does not necessarily mean it will be so... It's not a democracy still.