Quiting aws

[carloscarlos]

this has been the best airline simulation so far, but due to the new implements mainly the amount of players per game world it lost its interest.
550 players is far too much for a world and too much greed....
the new engine works fine delaying a lot the growth of the companies which makes it much more real, altough it is still a few steps down to another of its competitors.

unfortunatelly due to whatever factors Sami didnt ear the disapointment of a lot of players in regard of the amount of players, it is not the issue of not being successfull, because as my record proves i can do that.

i will keep on eye for new worlds, and IF the amount of players is reduced i may spend a few more ££ in the game, otherwise i will al;ocate the funds to the competition, which let me say, it is great.

wish you all good luck
and ill see you all again if some issued are corrected!

kind regards

Carlos Carlos

[Dasha]

I agree with carlos. The current games are too long and too full. It's not about not being able to find a good spot it's also about the fun in the game.  Fact is that most people find it more fun to run a big airline. If you have to wait a millennium for your new planes, that takes the fun away. Also a simple math showes that with the new multiple hub thing if every player on average has 1 new hub, that means 1100 airports are taken.

The high amount of players just causes too much side problems other than just to find an airport you would like to play at. I'm not going to spend money to play some african regional airline or to start a new airline in the US or Europe with 1 million players and big players who have a lot of power.

Why not run three similar games with around 200/250 players. I'm sure it's possible to block people from entering the same gameworld. For example if you open ATB 1, 2 and 3 a player is only allowed to join one of them. This way you got the same amount of players but it makes it a lot more interesting to start over or to jump in half way.
Just my thoughts as I too will quit AWS as soon as my credits run out next week.

[ban2]

Personnally i don't see the problem, plenty of scope for profitable airlines in current worlds. You think it's boring now well i think it would be absolutly tedious if you restricted the worlds any more.

We can't all be in the top 20 airports but there are still 1000's of decent airports to chose from.

[Dasha]

I didn't say it was boring. What I'm saying is that I want my games to be fun and I don't find it funny to run an African regional carrier. Blessums to all who do but not me..

[SACEO]

Personnally i don't see the problem, plenty of scope for profitable airlines in current worlds. You think it's boring now well i think it would be absolutly tedious if you restricted the worlds any more.

We can't all be in the top 20 airports but there are still 1000's of decent airports to chose from.

X2 ...

Case in point, I decided to restart in MT2 about 4 1/2 years into the game and found a great regional airport in Mexico that is now yielding more than $2 million net profit per week, 150,000+ pax per month ... and all with a fleet of just 11 aircraft.  Granted, I've already maxed out my expansion possibilities from this airport as there is no international demand to speak of, but I look forward to continuing on with my little airline just to see how efficient and profitable I can make it for the long-haul.  the "fun" of AWS for me isn't about how quickly I can expand or how big I can make my airline ... it's about how successful I can be at running it.  And I have to disagree with the statement that "most people find it more fun to run a big airline" ... I think most people just want to run a "successful" airline.  And being successful doesn't necessarily mean being big.

[Frogiton]

I agree with carlos. The current games are too long and too full. It's not about not being able to find a good spot it's also about the fun in the game.  Fact is that most people find it more fun to run a big airline. If you have to wait a millennium for your new planes, that takes the fun away. Also a simple math showes that with the new multiple hub thing if every player on average has 1 new hub, that means 1100 airports are taken.

The high amount of players just causes too much side problems other than just to find an airport you would like to play at. I'm not going to spend money to play some african regional airline or to start a new airline in the US or Europe with 1 million players and big players who have a lot of power.

Why not run three similar games with around 200/250 players. I'm sure it's possible to block people from entering the same gameworld. For example if you open ATB 1, 2 and 3 a player is only allowed to join one of them. This way you got the same amount of players but it makes it a lot more interesting to start over or to jump in half way.
Just my thoughts as I too will quit AWS as soon as my credits run out next week.

+1

[lilius]

I like what GoGreen is saying, it is actually more fun sometimes to start alittle after the game started and to find alternative ways to expand the airline.

If you find the game boring dont look for an airport to be alone, look for one with plenty of slots and demand and room to expand. If you grow in a smart way you can take marketshare and push the other players out too even if it wont happen overnight. Many big airlines will go down in just a couple of years too.

[Maarten Otto]

I think the entire game engine needs a good overhaul to support other types of playing this game.

Make it possible for people to operate an airline with any type of ac. This does include the Cessna "Grand caravan", Fairchild Metro or other flying toasters as the Islander.

Make it possible for people to select their game type when they start up their airline.

Type 1: Airline with Ac's up to max 45 pax. (you will receive discount on the staff levels and marketing payments) and you can open a hub every 6 months. But Cat 5 airports will be excluded and airport slots at EGLL or EHAM for example will be four times higher in value as you run smaller planes.
Type 2: Airlines with planes from 50 pax to the A380
Type 3: LCC. Something I described here: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,19948.msg108145.html#msg108145
Type 4: Business jet airlines.
Type 5: Cargo airlines
Type 6: Charter airlines.

[carloscarlos]

hi again,

it is not the issue of not being all in the top 20 airports as ban2 says...the model needs to be re-thought in my opinion.
ill take the comment of ban2 to give u an example. all companies can create a 2nd hub to fly from once they have 15 planes, if my memory doesnt fail.
starting @ 1 of the top 20 airports will grow faster, at least in theory. when it comes to the time of creating a 2nd hub, it cant be made at the biggest 20 hubs on each continent. point 1, the 1st 20 hubs are kind of protected as they know nobody will fly from there as 2nds. the other 300 players that decided to go to secondary airports, then get hammered by the hot shot companies that had a magestic growth and decided to create a 2nd hub, at their original 1st hub. if the poor guy @ the secondary airport has 5 os 6 planes, being used in 7 or 8 routes, will get in trouble as soon as somebody decides to create  a 2nd hub where they originally started.so the game is ok for the 1st 200 players....the other 350 try to create a airline and will have fun until someone decides to go to their hub...after that forget it. 300/350 pax would do the job, more than that kills the chance of some1 else to be successfull.

i had a regional airline in the new atb, was doing great with 7 atr's, making 300k a week each, giving me a pre tax profit of 1.5 mll....but taht is as far as u can go....for you to expand would need to get  other types of plane for sh, and what could you get....max 1.500nm, where all the sharks have have already take over the routes, that could eventually be profitable for you.
you create the route, flying it once a day has it has a demand of 120 pax...where the other player as soon as he seen some1 much smaller is in the route, just adds one more plane to the route....
being 5/10 pax b4 it is considered flood....

there are a lot of corners in the game that will need to be filled, so they get smoother....
the answer to that is to add in player capacity for the income to keep comming in, yeah, some will go, new ones will come back!

there should have been given another choice for the players to be able to choose from a 300pax game or a canned sardines one.
dont get me wrong, i accept everyones views, but understand, im entitled to mine!

regards

[Maarten Otto]

Have to sisagree on that one.

I opened two other hubs and just recently I moved into Gatwick which is now my fourth hub airport. And I am the second airliner in there. Its eating or being eaten in this game.

And I will eat. If I find a good hub and that means competition I will try to eat your airline.

[Sami]

Also a simple math showes that with the new multiple hub thing if every player on average has 1 new hub, that means 1100 airports are taken.

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.)

[carloscarlos]

well, u cant please everyone....you win some u lose some!
good luck with that is all i can do is wish you good luck!

[armonmon]

550 players is far too much for a world and too much greed....

I am not an airline specialist or someone with alot of experience in flying, nor have any relationship with AWS developers and I can be slammed as much as I can but there are more than 3000 thousand airlines in the real world. This game is the most realistic in the airline management market and if you want it to be more realistic, I would say to raise the number of players to 3000. The competitors that you mentioned, I will rate them as an arcade game, just smash and win the game. They are not anywhere close to being realistic. I played most of them, you dont need any tactics, economy or expansion strategy in them. Not to mention most of the airlines in the real world doesn't have 200-300 planes. A 20 plane airline is called as an airline. But for the ones that have more than 1000 planes and be the biggest, there is the Airline Tycoon for PC.

[Dasha]

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.

I didn't mean to insult anybody and I disagree with the greed issue stated by Carlos. Sami did a great job in getting this game up and running and for that he has my respect. It is just my personall opinion what I stated before. I'm very happy that people like Maarten Otta are succesfull and keeping other players from having succes by starting a base at their home bose. For me, after having played some game worlds here, running a small company with three jets for 4 months (It's how long the game worlds are still running) is not my idea of a fun game. That doesn't mean the game in general is bad, quite the contrary. 

In a game with 500 players or more it will soon turn into a survival of the fittest. Planes become rare and waiting times are long. I do understand it is a measure against the mega growth shown by players in previous worlds but those few lucky enough to make a big profit right from the start get the bigger orders and get their planes earlier, whereas smaller companies will have to wait years for their planes and when they finally arrive, the routes are taken. Smaller airlines are stuck with the used market and although this can be rewarding for some, I have been there a couple games in a row. Mind you this is not only about the planes being unavailable for a long time, it's also about unfair competition, when a mega big company decides to base at your home airport and starts undermining your whole operation.

So hopefully there will be full game worlds with less than 500 players in the future so I can enjoy this game again.

[Sami]

Yes, what I commented to your reply was that way too often people think right that way that "oh noes, there is someone else at this airport, I cannot beat him at all". While you possibly cannot beat him, it still does not mean that you could not survive and have a working airline there. So the counting that "500 airlines + 500 bases => 1000+ occupied airports" is very incorrect in that way.

Also, ain't every game world the survival of the fittest, no matter if it's 1000 or 200 airlines?  With less airlines the mega carriers just form much much faster and lead to even worse world domination with several 300-400+ aircraft airlines.

[GDK]

How many airports are included in the game? How many airports are really capable to base an airline and let the airline make profit from it?? Is anyone willing to start an airline in an airport having almost 0 passenger demand??

3000 real airlines in the world. How many of them flying charter and seasonal flight? How many of them flying less than 10 aircraft? Is the airlines in real world expanding as easy as in AWS and dominate the market as easy as AWS? Is a player really want to play his game by maintaining a fleet of 10 aircraft in a small airport?

[Justice]

How many airports are included in the game? How many airports are really capable to base an airline and let the airline make profit from it?? Is anyone willing to start an airline in an airport having almost 0 passenger demand??

So you are talking about airports like this one in Malaysia, Redang (WMPR - RDN)? 3 departures per hour and 60% domestic + 40% shorthaul. But I just can't find a route having demand above 30 from that airport.

[RushmoreAir]

I sort of agree with both sides here.

I think that most of MT2 and V1.2 is great.  I love the new hub feature, and I don't mind the # of players.  It makes for interesting competition.

The one think I don't like about V1.2 is the order restriction that restricts how fast you receive your new planes.  Back in DOTM, I enjoyed getting on AWS after a one week vacation and having 100+ 737s to schedule.  It was fun!  But now, I usually have to wait.  The longer day time makes it even worse.

Everything else is great though, and I plan to continue AWS.

[jimsom]

People seem very afraid of choosing smaller airports. You can still lead a succesfull and healthy airline at a small airport with a smaller number of planes.
And some competition (even though its often unfair) is only good for the gameplay.

[swiftus27]

can I have all your stuff?