Financial simplicity worries

[d2031k]

The introduction of v1.2 has added some excellent new dimensions and dynamics in the worlds and I am really enjoying the latest version in the same way I did when I first joined AWS.  My interest has been re-ignited and I am looking forward to various new features that are seemingly being lined up.  I do have one concern though and hope I am not alone in this.

I play AWS due to my love of aviation and whilst I fully acknowledge that certain real world financial aspects have to be adhered to and it is a business management sim, I am worried that the economics and financial side of things could become overly powerful in the dyamics of the simulation.  I'd like to think I have a basic grasp of this side of things, but one of the beauties of AWS is that it masks over the 'office' element simply and is currently easy to use.  There are various parts like tax returns and the loan system that can already be somewhat exploited by those with the financial know how and I worry that AWS may become too embedded with financial complications and jargon.  The inclusion of the revenue and yield columns is a step towards this.  I can see their use and appreciate they offer a greater understanding of the most profitable routes, but it just concerns me in light of various bits on the forum that AWS may lurch towards the financial side.  I don't mean to sound too critical, but it's just a little something I worry about.

Does anyone else have these concerns?  Or am I reading between the lines too much?

Thanks for reading and (as always) I truly appreciate the amount of pleasure I gain from playing AWS and the time and effort put into making it my favourite pastime.  Thanks in advance to those who may post after me too.

Cheers,

Dave

[auerbacs]

Very fair point Dave. I'm sure that Sami is aware that more of his customers are aviation buffs rather than finance buffs and will keep this in mind going forward.

[Sigma]

While I do see where you're coming from, it should be noted that any 'exploitation" of a system that occurs today has nothing to do with any level of financial know-how.  It's pure "gaming the game" at this point -- through trial and error you determine how the system works and how to exploit it for maximum potential.  If anything, knowledge of financial systems hurts one in regards to taxes and loans because they work not only dis-similarly to real-life, but completely and utterly counter-intuitively to those with any real "know-how".  The new yield figure is also fairly worthless in regards to profitability, doubly so because it's only using gross figures, which is one reason (of many) why it makes my super-short but super-empty routes look like my best ones, though in reality they're actually my worst ones.

In regards to your overall point... there is a balance that must be struck.  If the game's too "easy", simply throwing planes on a route and letting them go for example, people will quickly tire of playing and a game like this absolutely depends on long-term business.  Likewise, if the game's too hard, sami will be left with a core group of people that keep playing but will have difficulty attracting new customers.

[Sami]

The new yield figure is also fairly worthless in regards to profitability, doubly so because it's only using gross figures, which is one reason (of many) why it makes my super-short but super-empty routes look like my best ones, though in reality they're actually my worst ones.

You are actually not correct there, since the yield is supposed to be based on gross figures, not net.

It is passenger revenue per RPM. Or otherwise said, how much a pax pays for flying a mile.

But yield alone cannot be used to asses profitability, and it's not supposed to be used either. It is good for tracking changes in relative pricing (and that way earnings too).


The other new figure, Revenue per ASM, is better suited for tracking how "well" a route brings in money.

CASM (cost per mile) is not modeled yet since it is hard to factor some fixed costs to diff. routes.

[Sigma]

You are actually not correct there, since the yield is supposed to be based on gross figures, not net.

It is passenger revenue per RPM. Or otherwise said, how much a pax pays for flying a mile.

But yield alone cannot be used to asses profitability, and it's not supposed to be used either. It is good for tracking changes in relative pricing (and that way earnings too).


The other new figure, Revenue per ASM, is better suited for tracking how "well" a route brings in money.

CASM (cost per mile) is not modeled yet since it is hard to factor some fixed costs to diff. routes.

It was not my intention to indicate that you were wrong in how you were calculating it, or that the figure wasn't worth something in its own regard, just that it's not necessarily useful (by itself) to aid in understanding profitability as the OP indicated since costs are removed from the figure altogether.  In that regard, I can see why someone not familiar with the figure can be put off by them as the OP apparently has been, since they don't mean anything to him and they could be very misleading if not properly understood.

But really all RPM does in this game (since unlike real-life, ticket prices are directly proportional to distance flown) is simply change color by route distance -- shorter flights are almost always Green (even if largely empty and making little net profit) and longer flights are almost always yellow or even red (even if full and making large net profits).  I find it most useful for seeing the impact of price changes a bit more obviously than in the past, nothing at all to do with net profitability.