Quiting aws

[SACEO]

It seems to me that the underlying "issue" here is rooted in the frustration of, a:  wanting to start an airline from scratch at the very beginning of a game world when the playing field is level for all, and, b:  having an initial plan that gets thrown out the window when competition happens faster than you had planned, and, c:  having to try to restart at a smaller, more remote airport in order to be "left alone" for a while while you build your fledgling airline.  I understand this because it has happened to me in every game world thus far.  And it is very frustrating.  But, what I have learned and come to accept is that AWS is sort of like a river with many different currents all flowing through the same space.  As players, we all find ourselves in one current or another with regard to how we want to play the game.  Some players like its fast and furious in the "whitewater rapids".  Others would like to find a nice, quiet eddy somewhere that allows them to move at a slower, more calculated pace (me ).  Those who seem to be most frustrated are the "quiet eddy" players who want the game to start at a slower pace but also want the ability to shoot out into the whitewater once they are confident they can survive it.  I don't know that this will ever be possible to achieve in the way of rules or gameplay dictates because if you "dam up" the river to slow the pace initially then the "whitewater" players are bored with it right from the start.

My suggestion is this:  first of all (and no offense to Sami here) we need a more complete game manual that helps level the playing field between those who have learned how to navigate the intricacies of AWS through trial and error and those who are way behind the curve because of inexperience.  Second, players need to identify where their level and style of play "fits" within each game world when it comes to choosing bases and developing a strategy.  AWS is a very complex and dynamic game and an inexperienced player just doesn't have much chance of going head-to-head with the experience of the top 10-20 players, particularly if you are a "quiet eddy" player.  Avoid the frustration of this by not attempting it in the first place.  Or, if you want to learn by trial and error like the more experienced players have, then make sure you have the stomach for the failures you will encounter in the process. 

In short, I think it is an unfair expectation that AWS and all its players be made to conform to a strict set of parameters that don't allow the "good" players room to grow as big and as fast as they can but I also think that the game should "create" the quiet eddys and pools that the less experienced or slower paced players need to be able to enjoy it as well.  I think Sami is doing a great job of moving AWS toward this - we all just need to show some patience as it develops.

[GDK]

I think the initial motive of carloscarlos opening this thread is to express his opinion on multihub+number of players. He is saying that multihub+550 players in ATB seems to be a bit too crowded and making the game too competitive. He is requesting to open more game with less players instead of putting 550 players to cut down the competition (or maybe dominations and bully) to create more rooms for 'poor players'.

Yes,it might be due to frustration mentioned by GoGreenCEO. But if you have been running a healthy airline in a medium size airport and play the game happily with normal competition, suddenly there come a big shark who have been operating a mega size fleet in another hub and he just throw his cash to compete with you in every route regardless of the revenue, how could you survive that? They have a strong fleet that generate too many money for them and they don't mind to lose some cash in a newly opened hub. After they get rid of the competitors there, the market is theirs and they will earn back. This is where the frustration starts.

Assuming you are running your airport in a medium size airport with normal competition on startup. Then, the competition is getting tougher when peoples starting creating their 2nd hub at your base airport. Well, everyone is gentlemen and no domination or bully happening hee. But just too bad, you can't expand anymore due to lack of airport slots. Then you got to wait, saving enough money to open your 2nd hub. By the time you saving money, other people have been opening their base at your 2nd desired airport. Again, your expansion is limited. This is another source of frustration.

[SACEO]

I think the initial motive of carloscarlos opening this thread is to express his opinion on multihub+number of players. He is saying that multihub+550 players in ATB seems to be a bit too crowded and making the game too competitive. He is requesting to open more game with less players instead of putting 550 players to cut down the competition (or maybe dominations and bully) to create more rooms for 'poor players'.

Yes,it might be due to frustration mentioned by GoGreenCEO. But if you have been running a healthy airline in a medium size airport and play the game happily with normal competition, suddenly there come a big shark who have been operating a mega size fleet in another hub and he just throw his cash to compete with you in every route regardless of the revenue, how could you survive that? They have a strong fleet that generate too many money for them and they don't mind to lose some cash in a newly opened hub. After they get rid of the competitors there, the market is theirs and they will earn back. This is where the frustration starts.

Assuming you are running your airport in a medium size airport with normal competition on startup. Then, the competition is getting tougher when peoples starting creating their 2nd hub at your base airport. Well, everyone is gentlemen and no domination or bully happening hee. But just too bad, you can't expand anymore due to lack of airport slots. Then you got to wait, saving enough money to open your 2nd hub. By the time you saving money, other people have been opening their base at your 2nd desired airport. Again, your expansion is limited. This is another source of frustration.

This is why I suggested in another thread a couple weeks ago that one way to keep the "whitewater rapids" for some players while creating the "quiet eddy's" for others is to regulate hub creation so that an airline cannot open a new hub in any airport that has a smaller classification than his starting base (i.e., if you open in a Class 4 airport then all your future hubs must be Class 4 or 5).  This would help keep the big international carriers from spilling over into the smaller national and regional markets and would force the big guys to go head-to-head if they intend to continue expanding.  I think this, coupled with the ramp and hub improvements already in the works, would help to create a gaming environment more hospitable to all player/strategy/airline types.

The long and short of all this is that there needs to be some broad regulation that is easily understandable and universally implemented (i.e., not on a country or economic area basis, but on a global basis - the same rules apply to everyone).  Nothing quite like this exists in the real world today but, for the sake of playability, I think there needs to be some AWS Regulations that diverge from reality somewhat to create the multi-faceted gaming environment everyone seems to be looking for.  

[GDK]

Yea I read that, and I do agree even though not completely

[chapelhillnews]

Sorry but this is not a singleplayer "one airport - one player" type game. One airline at an airport or hub does not mean that it is unusable.

There are hundreds of airports to choose from and there is no need to start in JFK, LHR or similar every time. The player number also acts as another measure against too rapid growth of airlines, and there will not be global scenarios with around 200-250 max. players (excl. beginner worlds) as THAT is boring very quickly. But of course if the start year is earlier (= lower demands on pax) then also player numbers will be smaller, for example 200 when starting in 1960s .. or something that way.


(oh, and what Maarten O said about airline types is planned, search for "business plans" in feature rq. forum)

(oh #2.. the suggestion that added player number is done because of extra income or greed, like original poster said, is nearly an insult in my mind, since that could not be farther from the truth. 500pl. worlds exist, and will be the standard, since the world in the sim is really a big place and there is space for sure for that amount of players.)

I agree with this. A year or so ago, I was in a game in which the number of players dwindled to around 150. It was less interesting than with the higher number of players in my opinion. In the current Modern Times game, I joined late, and decided to open in Tunis, which is not a very big airport. I have since grown to adding bases in Monastir and even Djerba, and now have one of the top valued airlines in the game (I am on page 1), and it is very profitable. I found it to be a fun challenge to open in a tougher area.

[jest]

I definitely support games with 500 players. I like competition and this 1.2 games are fun.

[GDK]

No matter a 300 or 500 players game, it will not fun at the end when people starts to quit.
Either because they have achieved their target, or they are too huge and too bored, or frustrated because never got a money maker airline.
The only fun game is when all the 300 or 500 players stay active in the game from the beginning till the end.

[Meicci]

Based             Taipei Songshan (52%)
Founded:        01-Sep-2004
Game ends on  01-Jan-2010

So, I started MT2 14 years after others, and I'm creating a pretty decent run. 10 A306's, and 5 own S2000's. That's all. And I am making 1,5million daily profit, with over half a million monthly passengers. I was, actually, going to open a second hub, but after thinkin', I decided to just make this 15-headed fleet as profitable as possible.

So the next thing for me is to buy those ten A306's, and maybe, if any gametime is left, then I will open another base at Kaohsiung.

And, the next thing for you quitters, just keep looking. I think there are hundreds of good airports open with zero competition. Even 40% will do well, but under that, things can go quite small-scaled.

[Dazwalsh]

i think its hard to please everyone, and AWS has made a good job at finding a happy medium IMO, obviously some people are gonna be a bit upset with it all but hey you vote with your money in this game.

[DenisG]

I definitely support games with 500 players. I like competition and this 1.2 games are fun.

Jipp, I am loving it as well and I personally found no difficulty in growing regional airline models as well as national carriers and there are many other players as well. I like the competition with 550 players as well. I do not believe that growth depends on the airport size, especially at the beginning. There are other factors that are more important. Opening hubs with a big freedom of choice is exactly what this game needed and we have it now. Learning the key success factors can be done and there are many players like swiftus or myself who are always keen to offer help and advice.

Denis

[castelino009]

I definitely support games with 500 players. I like competition and this 1.2 games are fun.

I dont mind 500 players but defo not 35 mins a game day , its way way too slow