1.3 Open Testing scenario feedback & discussion thread

[bleedfax18]

ps. slot numbers should be fixed now, they update slowly throughout the next few game weeks.

Wow, slots for KSFO just doubled within the last hour 

[d2031k]

v1.3 seems a nice natural step from v1.2 and it's crazy to think how different things are since the original.  Some very hard work there, it's always greatly apreciated

One very minor issue is with the 'unscheduled aircraft' option in scheduling.

As soon as you schedule one route to an unscheduled aircraft, the aircraft then disappears into its fleet category and you have move around then pretty much removing the need for the option originally selected.  It's ok with a small fleet, but once bases open and fleets get larger I can imagine it becoming a bit frustrating.  Is there any possibility (and I know it was mentioned somewhere before) there could be an option to tick that says the aircraft is fully scheduled before it changes category?

EDIT:  https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,25598.0.html - the tick box was suggested in the original request

[Sami]

Is there any possibility

Not really as "1 route = not unscheduled". And any checkboxes etc. would need a completely different system.

[d2031k]

Not really as "1 route = not unscheduled". And any checkboxes etc. would need a completely different system.

No worries.  Aside from that, everything looks great.  The forums are brimming with excitement!

I think the 'Most Online Ever: 307 (April 16, 2010, 07:30:02 PM) ' might fall on Saturday

[slither360]

The top70 was supposed to be gone with the "number of aircraft possible to be based at certain airport" (= airport ramp/gate capacity) feature.. But it proved to be quite tricky to calculate in a proper manner, so I have dropped it for now. But then I guess the 70-plane restriction could be lifted and just see what happens, since slots dictate it now, and slots will most likely not be anymore the most restrictive item?


ps. slot numbers should be fixed now, they update slowly throughout the next few game weeks.

ps2. if you (all) have any "final" feedback, it's now or never, since the real game world starts in 1,5 days.

 

NOOOOOOOOOOO! don't get rid of the 70 a/c restriction, please!

I have a hard enough time coordinating how alliance members can share bases currently, and if there is no a/c restriction, then everyone will want their own bases and it will make my life impossible. Also, forcing members to limit the amount of aircraft means that more advanced strategy (fleet planning, route choice, etc.) and cooperation (route sharing, etc.) is required, which enhances the gameplaying experience.


However if you were to decide to do this (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,31165.0.html), it might mitigate this problem somewhat while still making the game more strategic.

[d2031k]

Is there any chance of increasing the number of characters allowed in the alliance description? 

I've been working on a few things, but 500 is pretty short to get everything in.

[oggie84]

But then I guess the 70-plane restriction could be lifted and just see what happens, since slots dictate it now, and slots will most likely not be anymore the most restrictive item?

We can only try and see where it leads to.

On average i can get around 1500 slots with 70 aicraft flying mainly domestic/Intl shout haul routes. If my calculations are correct, an airport like ATL in MT4 at the moment with 91 slots per hour is a total of 15,288 slots in a week. 91 x 24 x 7 = 15,288. The main incumbent airline there currently uses up 10,339 slots. Any airline who wishes to open a base there is hardly going to make any sort of impression/indentation by only using 70 aircraft on an average of 1500 slots.

Granted this situation is only at the largest airport in the game by pax demand but you see my point. Even if you decide to increase the amount of aircraft form 70 to something like 200, it would certainly help in my opinion.

 

NOOOOOOOOOOO! don't get rid of the 70 a/c restriction, please!

I have a hard enough time coordinating how alliance members can share bases currently, and if there is no a/c restriction, then everyone will want their own bases and it will make my life impossible. Also, forcing members to limit the amount of aircraft means that more advanced strategy (fleet planning, route choice, etc.) and cooperation (route sharing, etc.) is required, which enhances the gameplaying experience.

However if you were to decide to do this (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,31165.0.html), it might mitigate this problem somewhat while still making the game more strategic.

Being in an alliance shouldn't be restrictive. You say cooperation enhances the gameplay experience so that means everyone has their own right to open a base wherever they wish to.....not be ditacted to by the alliance manangement degrading that experience. Granted they shouldn't open up where another member is based but all routes that are contested between alliance members hubs/bases should be discussed and cooperated by the airlines involved, not management.

In any case why would you put two or more member airlines in the same airports. Would that not restrict their strategies and gameplaying experience?

[slither360]

Being in an alliance shouldn't be restrictive. You say cooperation enhances the gameplay experience so that means everyone has their own right to open a base wherever they wish to.....not be ditacted to by the alliance manangement degrading that experience. Granted they shouldn't open up where another member is based but all routes that are contested between alliance members hubs/bases should be discussed and cooperated by the airlines involved, not management.

In any case why would you put two or more member airlines in the same airports. Would that not restrict their strategies and gameplaying experience?

The management doesn't contol our members, they are free to do whatever they want for the most part. However, in order to allow everyone to base where they want and not force people to base in certain places to avoid conflict, we have 10 members in the US next gameworld. With the 70 a/c restriction, the airlines feel comfortable to share a base with an alliancemate so all routes are covered. However, if the 70 route restriction goes, then they will all fight over where to base, and the first people to get dragged in will be me, and the rest of the management.

[slither360]

Is there any chance of increasing the number of characters allowed in the alliance description? 

I've been working on a few things, but 500 is pretty short to get everything in.

+1

[JumboShrimp]

Good news on 787 update and on experimental lifting of the 70 aircraft limit.

Even though I don't have the first hand experience with the Beta of 1.3, just from the announcements and comments, it looks like it is a great evolutionary step for AWS.

I noticed (from the announcements) that a number of new features I put in as Feature Requests made it in.  Thanks Sami.  I hope the players will also find them useful as well.

Now, I can't wait for Saturday...

[Zombie Slayer]

A big +1 to eliminating or increasing aircraft limits at secondary bases from me!

[slither360]

A big +1 to eliminating or increasing aircraft limits at secondary bases from me!

Just realize that you, SAC, and the other person are gonna have the same issue as me - if you are ok with that, then I guess we're all on level footing.

My opinion is still very  though

[oggie84]

Just realize that you, SAC, and the other person are gonna have the same issue as me - if you are ok with that, then I guess we're all on level footing.

My opinion is still very   though

Increasing or eliminating aircraft limits will certainly not be a problem within WorldLink or their Airlines  

[Zombie Slayer]

Just realize that you, SAC, and the other person are gonna have the same issue as me - if you are ok with that, then I guess we're all on level footing.

My opinion is still very  though

I think every alliance will, to some extent, have basing issues with an eliminated aircraft limit, just some more than others. I do not recall every having multiple airlines based at one airport in an alliance I have been in (Glibal Team/Key choice), so I am not sure it will be a big issue for us. What I do think is it will allow second/third/fourth bases to be fully developed and actually be profitable and make it impossible for the airlines that hide at (historically) slot constrained airports to grow uncontested as in the past.

I think, if it is possible, we should at least try a world with no 70 aircraft limit. I will make things interesting, if nothing else.

Don

[slither360]

I think every alliance will, to some extent, have basing issues with an eliminated aircraft limit, just some more than others. I do not recall every having multiple airlines based at one airport in an alliance I have been in (Glibal Team/Key choice), so I am not sure it will be a big issue for us. What I do think is it will allow second/third/fourth bases to be fully developed and actually be profitable and make it impossible for the airlines that hide at (historically) slot constrained airports to grow uncontested as in the past.

I think, if it is possible, we should at least try a world with no 70 aircraft limit. I will make things interesting, if nothing else.

Don

Well, as long as I'm allowed to say "I told you so" when you realize that it was a bad idea, feel free to say whatever you want 

[ArcherII]

I don't know the technicalities but, shouldn't the EMB120 be allowed to operate at EGLC? Or is that it's not capable of a 5,5º glide slope?

[herman:)]

A big +1 to eliminating or increasing aircraft limits at secondary bases from me!

+1

[Curse]

ps2. if you (all) have any "final" feedback, it's now or never, since the real game world starts in 1,5 days.

Seriously, sami, this will end in a blood bath.

I know I'm not the average guy (you aim for and the game is made for), but let's us have the best example - DotM #2 with unlimited slots.

The game world is ~5 years old, but my airline King Airways out of Tokyo Haneda finished expansion 2 years ago - simply because I ran out of demand (Tokyo Haneda, Naha Okinawa) and aircraft (Tokyo Narita, Osaka Itami).

Let's just imagine there would be no aircraft limit;
Tokyo Narita could base up to 180 aircraft at the moment, even the DC-10 fleet I have there could be extended to 84 or 91 aircraft. But the demand increases very fast, so if I would be able to, I could base up to 600-700 aircraft till game world end - same for Osaka Itam (Kansai) and later for Naha.

You asked about things that stop airlines - I can tell you what stopped me, but I think you already know it. At first it were the very expensive slots - I spent ~70% of profit in slots and only 30% in aircraft till the break through after 6-10 ingame month. Next thing that stopped me was the aircraft limit and it's the final limit that is not extended.


But now create a new example and no, this is for sure not a "worst case that never will happen".

Imagine in MT#5 some player, let's call him Purse, starts at Atlanta. That there is no slot limit is a nice thing and the 70 aircraft limit made shure, Purse will never open a base at a Top20 airport even he could, because 70 aircraft are not enough to establish some serious domestic route network and even an international limit would be hard to fill up just 25%.
But now there is nearly no slot restriction and on important airports on different continents Purse has lots of friends who could give them slots at airports around his.

What exactly could happen?
Purse knows the game very well, so he don't hesitate and orders different kind of aircraft. His three bases will be Chicago O'Hare, Los Angeles and Dallas - Fort Worth.

A total number of 3000+ aircraft in service was only a wet dream? Not anymore. It's possible and the few players with enough time and effort and maybe skill could and will do this. Yet alone because it's maybe a one time chance - like unlimited slots in DotM#2 what was unfortunately not published before (or our example guy Purse would be at Heathrow and not somewhere in Asia).


Again, not the thing an average player can and will do. And as you for sure know I really like this idea, it's like birthday and Christmas and the second I discovered AWS in one gameworld. But I like this game too much to just enjoy this and not say what extreme consequences this will have.

Being in an alliance shouldn't be restrictive.

Granted they shouldn't open up where another member is based but all routes that are contested between alliance members hubs/bases should be discussed and cooperated by the airlines involved, not management.

That's an exciting statement. When exactly changed WorldLink the policy to threat players with alliance kick when they don't share routes or give slots away (happend to me in Jet Age #2 and Air Travel Boom #1?). And when WorldLink stopped to create HQ and bases lists (that were made for Jet Age #2, ATB#1, DoTM #1 (or 2?) and an early MT?

No offense, but I'm a bit surprised from which side such statements are made - however, I know you in person, oggie84, has never threaten me to do so. Simply sort things out that are near first and not the one that are far away.

In any case why would you put two or more member airlines in the same airports. Would that not restrict their strategies and gameplaying experience?

If both players stick to their strategy and if it's a good strategy and the airport offers enough opportunities, it could be great and very successful.

[JumboShrimp]

Curse,

I believe I had some 800 aircraft in ATL in MT3, plus another 140 in 2 bases.

I think the difference with 70 aircraft limit being lifted, and slot limits being raise is that the demand for aircraft will go up, and aircraft delivery rate will be the new limiting factor.

Another result will probably (hopefully) be more competition.  If I look at my airline in MT4, I am flying competition free on maybe 95% of the routes, with LFs in stratosphere.  Lifting some of these limits will introduce more competition.

You never know, your fictional Purse character in ATL may get some competition from another strong player at his HQ in ATL.  With slots going to 200% later in the game, ATL can support 2 x 800 aircraft in a deathmatch and LFs in the 40s....

[Monk Xion]

Seriously, sami, this will end in a blood bath.

I know I'm not the average guy (you aim for and the game is made for), but let's us have the best example - DotM #2 with unlimited slots.

The game world is ~5 years old, but my airline King Airways out of Tokyo Haneda finished expansion 2 years ago - simply because I ran out of demand (Tokyo Haneda, Naha Okinawa) and aircraft (Tokyo Narita, Osaka Itami).

Let's just imagine there would be no aircraft limit;
Tokyo Narita could base up to 180 aircraft at the moment, even the DC-10 fleet I have there could be extended to 84 or 91 aircraft. But the demand increases very fast, so if I would be able to, I could base up to 600-700 aircraft till game world end - same for Osaka Itam (Kansai) and later for Naha.

You asked about things that stop airlines - I can tell you what stopped me, but I think you already know it. At first it were the very expensive slots - I spent ~70% of profit in slots and only 30% in aircraft till the break through after 6-10 ingame month. Next thing that stopped me was the aircraft limit and it's the final limit that is not extended.


But now create a new example and no, this is for sure not a "worst case that never will happen".

Imagine in MT#5 some player, let's call him Purse, starts at Atlanta. That there is no slot limit is a nice thing and the 70 aircraft limit made shure, Purse will never open a base at a Top20 airport even he could, because 70 aircraft are not enough to establish some serious domestic route network and even an international limit would be hard to fill up just 25%.
But now there is nearly no slot restriction and on important airports on different continents Purse has lots of friends who could give them slots at airports around his.

What exactly could happen?
Purse knows the game very well, so he don't hesitate and orders different kind of aircraft. His three bases will be Chicago O'Hare, Los Angeles and Dallas - Fort Worth.

A total number of 3000+ aircraft in service was only a wet dream? Not anymore. It's possible and the few players with enough time and effort and maybe skill could and will do this. Yet alone because it's maybe a one time chance - like unlimited slots in DotM#2 what was unfortunately not published before (or our example guy Purse would be at Heathrow and not somewhere in Asia).


Again, not the thing an average player can and will do. And as you for sure know I really like this idea, it's like birthday and Christmas and the second I discovered AWS in one gameworld. But I like this game too much to just enjoy this and not say what extreme consequences this will have.



That's an exciting statement. When exactly changed WorldLink the policy to threat players with alliance kick when they don't share routes or give slots away (happend to me in Jet Age #2 and Air Travel Boom #1?). And when WorldLink stopped to create HQ and bases lists (that were made for Jet Age #2, ATB#1, DoTM #1 (or 2?) and an early MT?

No offense, but I'm a bit surprised from which side such statements are made - however, I know you in person, oggie84, has never threaten me to do so. Simply sort things out that are near first and not the one that are far away.

If both players stick to their strategy and if it's a good strategy and the airport offers enough opportunities, it could be great and very successful.

Def could see that happening if somebody took extreme amounts of time to plan out their airline. This is the #1 reason as to why I avoid basing at big airports - there will always be fights with other airlines and I do not want to deal with that stress. I prefer to base at airports with good demand that most players skip over b/c they dont know what kinda demand there is from them.