Alliance Challenge game world - Participation query

[Talentz]

One big downside to your envisioning of how it'd work is that, once you run your competitor out of your base, there's almost no reason at all to continue playing.  Without the ability to establish other bases or create ABCBA routes, there is virtually nothing that you can do to assist your alliance members against their competition.  So the game-world will reach a point where it starts to get fairly empty, fairly quick.  I suppose you could modify your proposal and allow restarts and the "score" would be the number of BKs -- lesser wins.  But then working out restarts so that you're once again paired off with someone else and starting simultaneously would be impossible.

Yes. When I ran the idea by Sami last week or so... I wasn't sure sure if the rules would be waved. Thus, I had to think of a way to have competition among the Alliances and be bound by AWS rules.

Pairing off was the result. I know the major downside is interest will drop quickly after a player "wins" there city. I hadn't consider the "after" of that. Though thinking proactively, you could say that theses game worlds would be rather quick considering that the matches should be done within 1-2 weeks.

So we could have gameworlds run every 2 weeks with different alliances pitted against each other sooner,  as opposed to waiting 2-3 months for a new alliance challenge gameworld to begin.

The first 2 weeks of a new game world are to most, the funnest part of AWS... perhaps running a world every 2 weeks would be popular among the community?

Dunno. Guess we wait for Sami to awaken to decide 


Talentz

[jest]

Bearing in mind that this game will be played in a controlled environment and probably by the most experienced players amongst the alliances, i do not see a dire need to abide by the rules that protect the smaller companies. Like Sigma, i will always play whichever the format is, but i think having ABCD routes would make the game way more interesting.

[chapelhillnews]

SkyNet now has 12 Members and we are adding more. Count us in for sure.

[chapelhillnews]

Yes. When I ran the idea by Sami last week or so... I wasn't sure sure if the rules would be waved. Thus, I had to think of a way to have competition among the Alliances and be bound by AWS rules.

Pairing off was the result. I know the major downside is interest will drop quickly after a player "wins" there city. I hadn't consider the "after" of that. Though thinking proactively, you could say that theses game worlds would be rather quick considering that the matches should be done within 1-2 weeks.

So we could have gameworlds run every 2 weeks with different alliances pitted against each other sooner,  as opposed to waiting 2-3 months for a new alliance challenge gameworld to begin.

The first 2 weeks of a new game world are to most, the funnest part of AWS... perhaps running a world every 2 weeks would be popular among the community?

Dunno. Guess we wait for Sami to awaken to decide 


Talentz

I am thinking that pairing off would not be very interesting, since the battles would not last very long, and there would not be any strategy as far as the alliance goes.

Another suggestion, which would be somewhat along those lines would be to allow airlines to set up unlimited bases anywhere they want, with unlimited planes at each base. Just a suggestion - I hadn't really thought through it too much. Or to limit it to 70 or 100 planes, but allow airlines to open new bases right from the start, without having to wait for a year.

[Seattle]

If you want the game to last more than two weeks, some sort of system of ABCBA routes should be acceptable..... or the allowal of a second or even a third hub. 

[carrisi]

Suggestion: how do we score win/lose?

As it is, no one really knows why some alliances have higher ratings than others. Its clearly not just a function of aircraft and routes.

Please can I suggest you clarify this? And will it be alliance rating? Race to 100%? OR will we score team points for each airline's value? And if this is competitive, can we compete aggressively (aka destructively) against other airlines?

I think turning this on its head to try and wipe out other airlines and alliances could be different.

Thoughts?

[chapelhillnews]

Suggestion: how do we score win/lose?

As it is, no one really knows why some alliances have higher ratings than others. Its clearly not just a function of aircraft and routes.

Please can I suggest you clarify this? And will it be alliance rating? Race to 100%? OR will we score team points for each airline's value? And if this is competitive, can we compete aggressively (aka destructively) against other airlines?

I think turning this on its head to try and wipe out other airlines and alliances could be different.

Thoughts?

I kind of like this idea. Not sure how hard this would be to do on Sami's Part, but suppose that each alliance can have 25 members at any time during the game. If it started out with 25, and one went BK, it could not be replaced, and the score for that airline would be 0. At the end of the game, the value for every member of the alliance could be added together, and the scores for the alliances would be added together to determine the final winner. Maybe negative values could be scored as "0". If an  alliance started with less than 25 members, it could add new members as the game continues, but once they have reached having 25 different members in their alliance they could not add any more. And again, if they lose one member they cannot replace them. I kind of like the idea of one BK per airline, but maybe that should start after a certain time period, like 6 months, so that airlines can get established at the beginning before being eliminated.

[chapelhillnews]

Or, perhaps alliances would not be able to ad new members during the game, and there would be a limit of 2 BKs during the game. Then ones that have already BKd one time would become targets, since if they were eliminated from the game, the Alliance would receive a score of zero for that airline. The final score would be the combined value of all members of the alliance that are still flying at the end of the game, with any airlines with a negative value being given a zero score, or perhaps being credited with the negative score if they have a negative value. if that was the case though, it would be strategic for airlines to declare bankruptcy on the last day, so as not to bring down the score of the alliance. Having 2 BKs would give players some chance to start over, but would also make it strategic to target airlines to try to eliminate them from the challenge. There could also be some kind of bonus score for how many airlines in each alliance finish in the top 10.

[chapelhillnews]

One more scoring idea, might be to take the AVERAGE value of every airline in the alliance at the end of the game. The alliance with the highest average value wins. This way, alliances with fewer members would not be at a competitive disadvantage in terms of scoring.

[ban2]

I agree with a lot of the points here, but as stated most of the players will be experienced so no "carebearing" (love the word so i'll use it too ) required in my opinion.

It's going to be a harsh and tough game but is'nt that what we all want, a chance to get the gloves off and really see who can stand the pressure!

A truly Hard game maybe

Good luck all

[ICEcoldair881]

not "hard". "medium" at most would sound appealing.

-ICEcold

[JonesyUK]

I would support both multi-leg and bases personally

[mikk_13]

With the multi leg, isn't this like having another base anyway. So just make it multi base and multi leg.

Maybe it can be modified so you can open as many bases as you like with in your county, but have to wait a year between each new base out of county.

I think all alliances in the one world at once. And maybe they have to split the alliance around the would evenly, therefore 5 airlines of each has to be asia, europe, oceania etc etc etc. just some ideas

[NorgeFly]

WorldLink have now gathered over 20 interested players...

[jest]

I would support both multi-leg and bases personally

Now, that's talking.

[MattDell]

No way can there be "blanket multileg."  

Airlines from Europe shouldn't be able to open up routes internal to USA and vice versa.  My biggest gripe of v1.1 was running an airline in the UK and having to compete with random Asian airlines for my Atlantic routes out of Heathrow.  That is not realistic!  JAL does not compete against BA on LHR to JFK.  Singapore does not compete against Virgin on flights to LAX.  And Emirates is never going to open a route from Orlando to St. Louis.  So it shouldn't be that way in this game!

-Matt

[Sami]

As mentioned elsewhere multi-leg routes would be available only on domestic routes (+ EU), when they are added back.

[carrisi]

I am against multi leg. Its rubbish. Multi hub yes. multi leg no. Current version is the best - lets not go back.

[JonesyUK]

In my opinion Multi-leg was better than the current version of bases we have. It's too restrictive. You're limited to flying from a maximum of 4 airports, where as before you could create flights from any airport in the world. You also can only open one up every 12 months, further restricting you.

I'm not too keen on all this 'it's not realistic' stuff. It's a game, why does it have to mimic reality exactly? If we play a world starting in the 60's does it mean we've got to have all the regulation, state subsidies, etc that the airline industry had then?

To make this game any different from a normal game, Multi-leg is a must so that alliances can be of any use, otherwise being in an Alliance is as pointless as any other AWS game.

Don't get me wrong, I love this game and Sami and the team have done a great job creating it. I just feel this 'Carebear' attitude is too restrictive sometimes. If you want an easy game where there's no competition, don't join this game world?

As this is a custom game, let's make it different from the normal worlds?

[Jona L.]

Have continents been discussed yet?  Which ones?

I'd say ALL?!