Vote: Next game world

[swiftus27]

Rushmore, I had put some of those in feature requests over a year ago.   

for instance, Hangars will allow you to lower the cost of certain checks.  Upgrading them will help you do them even cheaper. 

We've all seen requests for clubs and lounges and what they can do for your LFs.



SADLY, all of these will ONLY help the rich airlines.  What are we going to do to make this game more inclusive for smaller airlines and late startups?

[minerva]

I agree with Swiftus and others that the real challenge right now is maintaining a challenging, competitive and fun environment for all kinds of players, not just those that can, due mostly to personal circumstances, devote enormous amounts of time (and use some dubious techniques) at the very beginning of a gameworld to establish control of a major airport and build a legacy carrier in a few short game years.  This dooms the rest of the field to fighting for scraps until the CEOs of the mega-airlines get bored and voluntarily BK, if ever.  Something ought to be done to alleviate this even before v.1.3 is released. I think some across-the-board tweaks might be made to help (though not solve) the problem in the next v.1.2 gameworld.

The first problem, I agree, is that the practice of securing every available slot indiscriminately with any kind of available aircraft, has to be financially punished.  The only way to do this, I think, is to universally jack-up commonality costs on every additional type, to increase further the costs at the current break points (the 4th a/c etc), and to make engine commonality significant.  Even startup airlines in AWS can right now make profits three or more times as high as they would IRL; there is no reason why commonality costs, therefore, cannot also be made multiple times more than they would be IRL or are currently in AWS.  

The second problem is slot-capturing (I won't use the dismissive term 'hogging' since, frankly, the structure of the game encourages players to secure slots as quickly as they can, and even players who do not abuse the rules know they have to secure slots to secure market share).  Again, the most straightforward way to slow down slot-capturing and push players to choose more appropriate a/c for their slots is to jack-up the price of slots, across the board.  In v.1.3 I hope Sami can find a creative way to deal with differential slot costs and flight frequency preference issues, but before then, airline growth and slot usage could be slowed by significant increased slot costs.

No doubt these measures do not help smaller airlines and late start-ups, so third, I suggest (as I have before) that those who start after the initial rush be given more start-up money over and above the general level of inflation.  I suggest a formula of the base amount given at the start of the game, plus a certain percentage increase every game month divided by the number of bankruptcies, plus an amount equivalent to the rate of inflation for the previous game year.  So, a player might get $4 million at start of game, but a new player starting two months later would get $4 million plus (say, at 5% per month) an additional $400,000, while a player who starts two months into the game after a bankruptcy would get $4 million plus $200,000.  A new player who started 2 years into the game would get, $4 million plus $4.8 million (then multiplied by the inflation rate over the two years).  A little complicated, I realize, but surely this is possible to code into v.1.2, and it would reflect the fact that in IRL late entrants to the market need more start-up capital to get a foothold, and it would help reduce (though not eliminate, I realize) the possibility of late start-ups being immediately crushed by existing large carriers. {Addition: there ought to be an upper limit, of course, perhaps at 4 or 5 years into the game the increases should be stablized for the remainder of the game}

My two cents.  Oh, and I'm in the smallest minority asking for a 1970s start time -- no doubt reflective of my age -- but also because I find that era, with its small airports and slowly building demand, to be the most challenging and therefore rewarding.  

[Sami]

FYI, as an early info, next world is planned to start in a week. I'm leaning towards a year 2000(ish) start.

Details will follow....


(and there won't be any more updates to v.1.2 systems, apart from some fixes still being worked on this week)


I do also like the idea of having three worlds each with a different age theme. And also hope that the extra long 1950-2020 type thing could be introduced with v.1.3. But not sure of that yet as the aim would be to improve long term playability first to allow such a long scenario to take place.

[raptorva]

I say to do the three age thing as that would allow players to choose which era they want.
I know myself that I want to start my next airline in an era preferably similar to the 'Early Days' test scenario that we had a while back.

[colibrie]

Hi,

just wanted to mention that if you guys develope future features, it would be great on the route map to see in a different color the network of alliance partners.


Thanks,
Colibrie

[Frogiton]

Just reminding everyone, this is a game world topic, not a "feature suggestion" topic. 

[fjls]

Hey Sami and all,

My suggestions in brief:

1) Cargo!!!!  Belly Cargo as well as cargo planes or combis.
2) Possibility to transition pilots within the airplane categories vs. the current having to lay off small plane pilots and at the same time hiring large plane pilots and thereby still wrecking your image.
3) Wetleasing for shorter periods (i.e. to cover C and D checks), thereby creating new oportunities for firms. i.e. ACMI leasing.
4) Infrastructure investment (i.e. maintenance hangars).   Scheduling your whole fleet for a B-Check at the same time should not be possible unless providing sufficient hangar space.  Airlines could rent out open hangar space to others also based at the same airport.    Renting vs. owning.
5) More information about the product the competitors are providing on same routes.   i.e. pricing, seating.

What do you think?

my opinion:

1) would be great if we could have two airlines in the same game - a cargo one and a passenger one.
2) not very important...
3) covering C and D checks would provide us earn money faster but then we had to lease or buy another aircraft. it would only be good for firms as you said.
4) B-check of various aircrafts in the same day and time is one of the things in the game that is really unreal. your idea woul be great
5) maybe only pricing would be useful but seating would provide us a bit more information.

[raptorva]

my opinion:
2) not very important...

Not important until you end up in a situation like I have where you have to replace 48 old BAe-146's with a total of 340 medium pilots and fire them all only to hire the same number of pilots in the large category to fly their replacement the 737-700.

[fjls]

Not important until you end up in a situation like I have where you have to replace 48 old BAe-146's with a total of 340 medium pilots and fire them all only to hire the same number of pilots in the large category to fly their replacement the 737-700.

youre right. sorry. i havent seen that situation already. however i think that your company image would raise quickly after the replacement.

[bistvan]

I think it would be great to introduce accidents into the game. (v1.3))
There could be hull loss accidents, and also minor accidents.
These could affect CI or even an aircraft type (for example: B737 or A320) could be grounded for an amount of time.
And there would be costs to do the necessary modifications, just in the real world.
Also I know this would be a very difficult task to "randomize" or to code, but I think this is an idea that is worth trying.
Someone wrote that the game gets boring after 10 years or so, but with accidents the big 500+ fleet carriers could not be able to always "sleep" well, if you know what I mean.
What do you think?

Have a nice day!

Steve

[fjls]

I think it would be great to introduce accidents into the game. (v1.3))
There could be hull loss accidents, and also minor accidents.
These could affect CI or even an aircraft type (for example: B737 or A320) could be grounded for an amount of time.
And there would be costs to do the necessary modifications, just in the real world.
Also I know this would be a very difficult task to "randomize" or to code, but I think this is an idea that is worth trying.
Someone wrote that the game gets boring after 10 years or so, but with accidents the big 500+ fleet carriers could not be able to always "sleep" well, if you know what I mean.
What do you think?

Have a nice day!

Steve

the more than 10 years palyers want to have fun during all game time. they want to sleep thinking that they have money, market to explore and competition that will give them the will to expand!

no ofense, but i think there are other ways to keep the game fun from the begining to its end.    

[bistvan]

I didn't say that these accidents should occur on a daily basis, it would just be a bit more exciting, if there were accidents occasionally.

[fjls]

I didn't say that these accidents should occur on a daily basis, it would just be a bit more exciting, if there were accidents occasionally.

i  know. youre right, but it wouldnt be as fun as have money, market to explore and competition. the airlines want to become even bigger but without competition the CEOs dont have will to keep playing. however the accidents could give extra excitement when another airline have one and we catch the market that it lost.

[RushmoreAir]

I think it would be great to introduce accidents into the game. (v1.3))
There could be hull loss accidents, and also minor accidents.
These could affect CI or even an aircraft type (for example: B737 or A320) could be grounded for an amount of time.
And there would be costs to do the necessary modifications, just in the real world.
Also I know this would be a very difficult task to "randomize" or to code, but I think this is an idea that is worth trying.
Someone wrote that the game gets boring after 10 years or so, but with accidents the big 500+ fleet carriers could not be able to always "sleep" well, if you know what I mean.
What do you think?

Have a nice day!

Steve

This is a great idea, and probably pretty easy to code. 

Just make up a random probability equation involving Pilot Morale, Aircraft Age, Aircraft condition, and number of aircraft,

[Dashek]

youre right. sorry. i havent seen that situation already. however i think that your company image would raise quickly after the replacement.

Well, it really doesn't.     I kept "dragging" crew around for years just not to drop my image.

[Dashek]

This is a great idea, and probably pretty easy to code. 

Just make up a random probability equation involving Pilot Morale, Aircraft Age, Aircraft condition, and number of aircraft,

Getting people killed for "fun" is maybe not my idea of fun.   Maybe I am oversensitive being a pilot.   

However I agree that there should be more influence to, and effect of maintenance.  I.e. outsourcing maintenance vs. in house, or influence on the quality of it by payscale.   Right now, there is not much to do wrong besides not scheduling.     

Maybe unscheduled maintenance could be introduced?   i.e. Acft could be grounded for weeks or even months - thereby again attracting the scheme of short notice ACMI leasing.

[Sami]

Guys, this is not a feature request or discussion topic.

[swiftus27]

Sami, if this thread had a squak code it would be 7500.

edit:  oh, and flaps would be down.

[ucfknightryan]

Sami, if this thread had a squak code it would be 7500.

edit:  oh, and flaps would be down.

  I had to look that up, but you are correct sir 

[swiftus27]

just for this thread....



[attachment expired]