1.3 Open Testing scenario feedback & discussion thread

[oggie84]

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

Is that not the idea? No longer will airlines in the very top airports be protected by the security of basing and aircraft limits and even the frequency factor to some extent. Now they will get some real competition which will most likely slow their grow, not expodentially increase it. Airline fleets will have to be much more refined to increase airline efficiency and ultimately better profits than his/her competitor(s) in the long war of attrition.  I very much doubt any airline will end up with 3000+ aircraft as like JumboShrimp said, delivery rate will be the limiting factor and the need to not have as many aircraft types to be successful.

If competition is in full swing on every single route with 2-5 airlines, you simply wouldn't get away with having 4-5 fleet types, especially if one or more of your competitors has only 2-3 types. In effect, you simply wouldn't get loads of aircraft of several types simply because other people will be ordering these to. The 'old' way to get around that would be to order another type aswell but are you seriously going to risk that if these restrictions are lifted and competition is everywhere?

To top it off, i've not even mentioned the fuel price yet which will undoubtedly reach over $1000 after the first 10 years if we go on the past ATB's and MT's where it always went upto between $1000-$1500 in the years 2010-2020, further increasing the need for efficiency.

Let's give it a go for at least one game world. If it goes horribly wrong, which i seriously doubt it will, i'll hold my hands up and say i was wrong. It's here in black and white anyway. We can always go back to the drawing board and revise the restrictions. Otherwise we'll never know what needs to be done for the game to improve further if we don't 'test' these ideas.

It took James Dyson many years and hundreds of prototypes before he perfected the Dyson vacuum cleaner and even then no manufacturer would launch his product so he did it himself with his own money and look where he is today. Slightly off topic there but you get my point about how things are meant to progress.

[JumboShrimp]

If competition is in full swing on every single route with 2-5 airlines, you simply wouldn't get away with having 4-5 fleet types, especially if one or more of your competitors has only 2-3 types. In effect, you simply wouldn't get loads of aircraft of several types simply because other people will be ordering these to. The 'old' way to get around that would be to order another type aswell but are you seriously going to risk that if these restrictions are lifted and competition is everywhere?

One thing I wonder about: As far as I know, there were no changes from 1.2 to 1.3 in adding a new fleet type.  In 1.2, the extra fleet types make some difference, but they are not exactly crushing.

In MT4 (1.2), I went for a super efficient airline, going from 5 fleet types early on, down to 4, 3 and eventyally 2 fleet tyes.  I was looking at the fleet commonality charges before and after, and as I said, changes were relatively small.  So going the other way is not necessarily gong to be crushing.  5 aircraft of 5 fleet types, 1 in each might, but once you get to 50-100 range, it is something that can be overcome.

[oggie84]

One thing I wonder about: As far as I know, there were no changes from 1.2 to 1.3 in adding a new fleet type.  In 1.2, the extra fleet types make some difference, but they are not exactly crushing.

In MT4 (1.2), I went for a super efficient airline, going from 5 fleet types early on, down to 4, 3 and eventyally 2 fleet tyes.  I was looking at the fleet commonality charges before and after, and as I said, changes were relatively small.  So going the other way is not necessarily gong to be crushing.  5 aircraft of 5 fleet types, 1 in each might, but once you get to 50-100 range, it is something that can be overcome.

I see what you mean, however it was more in reference to other airlines having more streamlined fleets. If they operate less types than you, even by two, they're surely going to survive alot better in a highly competitive environment with extremely high fuel costs. Low LF's, very slim profit margins.

I'm not sure how much competition you had when your airline was going through the transition or even before it. You did say 95% of your routes were competiton free. Now how would you have faired with 5 fleet types with competiton on practically every single route meaning your profit margins are very slim and those extra costs involved in extra fleet types would surely have had a massive impact if we were to have no restrictions on aircraft limits in secondary bases and long queues in production lines?

EDIT: I think another point that has been missed is that profits will not be as much in the long term if competition is extremely high at most airports. This would therefore slow the rate of expansion in any case and on top of that, the less ordering of new aircraft because of this. Correct me if my thinking is wrong...

[slither360]

Is that not the idea? No longer will airlines in the very top airports be protected by the security of basing and aircraft limits and even the frequency factor to some extent.

Maybe this is what you want, as someone who has experience and understands the game. But for a newbie who has a tough enough time right now with bigger airlines coming to their airports with 70 aircraft, it will be crushing to have them show up and flood routes with frequency. Since frequency is the only pseudo-competition, removing this limit is essentially declaring all newbie airlines bankrupt before they even start. Not everyone has 16 hours a day to stare at a computer screen like Purse, and there needs to be some kind of protection for those who want to have a good time and play a game. This is the majority of Sami's clientele, and if he removes this limit, I am positive that not only newbies, but experienced members with less time, will flee.

[Monk Xion]

I do have a question to ask about the MT 5. Are there any a/c that even make a profit once the fuel costs hit 1000+? Is it only props or extremly packed jets? IM wondering this because I am trying to plan for the airline that i am going to make in MT5

[slither360]

I do have a question to ask about the MT 5. Are there any a/c that even make a profit once the fuel costs hit 1000+? Is it only props or extremly packed jets? IM wondering this because I am trying to plan for the airline that i am going to make in MT5

Bigger planes, like A330, A340, B777, and A306 make cash - you need stregnth in numbers to make up for the high fuel...

[Monk Xion]

Bigger planes, like A330, A340, B777, and A306 make cash - you need stregnth in numbers to make up for the high fuel...

Ok good. I use A300-600's a lot in San Juan. I make 1 mil a week off of them. I assume that they have high density seating?

[slither360]

Ok good. I use A300-600's a lot in San Juan. I make 1 mil a week off of them. I assume that they have high density seating?

They work best on short dense routes, in HD. They make money, but nothing spectacular.

[Curse]

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

I know, I had over 1000+ aircraft at KLAX without bases and DanDante had over 1200 aircraft out of KORD.

There's still a difference between 1000+ aircraft and 3000+ aircraft.

and aircraft delivery rate will be the new limiting factor.

I don't think so. Please understand I'm not going to get too deep into details and maybe I'm wrong but especially you (along with 2-3 others) should exactly know what I write about.

Another result will probably (hopefully) be more competition.

I never started at an airport with less than five competitors. Half of the time there was one guy that was able to survive and run a small airline along with me, most of the time people failed.

If you reached a specific point competition should not bother you or your airline or at least should give you the financial base to react.

If I look at my airline in MT4, I am flying competition free on maybe 95% of the routes, with LFs in stratosphere.

That's a luxury I never had. Where are you in MT#4? I'm still looking for a good base for MT#5 and at the moment I really think about joining a major European airport. Wasn't based there before and Japan is more boring than Los Angeles, something I have not foreseen :/

Lifting some of these limits will introduce more competition.

Yeah, hundreds of skilled people that were just to bored to show up at major airports in the past will appear. No, seriously. As you PM with me I think you PM with some other people as I do and as I will not join their base they will simply not join mine. Simply because consequences are no special secret.

You never know, your fictional Purse character in ATL may get some competition from another strong player at his HQ in ATL.

Purse is a smart guy and will, maybe, not show up at Atlanta. Maybe he will base at Heathrow or Tokyo or Sao Paulo. And I'm sure he received a similar message from lots of people maybe as well as from you

With slots going to 200% later in the game, ATL can support 2 x 800 aircraft in a deathmatch and LFs in the 40s....

150% as far as I know. However, fights at Atlanta aren't won with some girly strategy to catch all slots at people at Heathrow, Tokyo (pre DotM) and other airports used to do it.

Is that not the idea? No longer will airlines in the very top airports be protected by the security of basing and aircraft limits and even the frequency factor to some extent. Now they will get some real competition which will most likely slow their grow, not expodentially increase it.

Sorry oggie, but you think from the wrong side. Normally the big airlines at big airports are this big because people have simply more time to play AWS and fail not this often. I know there are exceptions and as far as I know everywhere in AWS is laughed at such airlines.


It's like a soccer game. If FC Barcelona plays against some random british third league team, they will probably win. If the referee changes the rules from 11 player to 30 player, the random third league team will not be able to beat Barcelona. In fact they will be totally destroyed by not only 11 uber players, it's a full 30 men army.


So no, I don't fear this one guy based out of Nancy in his first real game world because he opens a base later at Heathrow. And I don't fear DanDante or JumboShrimp or Quinoky or schro or some other uberplayer because of previous said communications. But what's with that new guy operating out of Manchester very successful? What exactly is his strategy when I join there, supported by unlimited money out of EGLL money printers? Or this above average guy out of a well known alliance that struggled a bit at the start because his daughter was ill and he had to take care of her?

Remember alliances are not allowed to go after people (what in fact would make it possible to "kill" an airline). And I will not say it's impossible that these big airlines fail - everybody failed in the past, this happened to me, to you, to carrisi, to Brock and everybody else. But that's not common end.

Airline fleets will have to be much more refined to increase airline efficiency and ultimately better profits than his/her competitor(s) in the long war of attrition.

It's MT. You have unlimited demand out of the big airports, destroying an airline in the first weeks/month isn't easy and, to be honest, simply sucks. Everybody wants to have fun in this game.

I very much doubt any airline will end up with 3000+ aircraft as like JumboShrimp said

Sounds like a bet

If competition is in full swing on every single route with 2-5 airlines,

That's why I prefer to have more aircraft than my competitor. Makes it harder to cover all routes for him. Don't know if there's a good alternative strategy to this...

you simply wouldn't get away with having 4-5 fleet types

That's mainly a problem in the US due to high staff costs. And, honestly, staff costs are the factor that make me think about my real strategy (that I'm not going to describe here), not commonality.

In effect, you simply wouldn't get loads of aircraft of several types simply because other people will be ordering these to.

That's correct if you the average guy. The past has shown that people that are online very often get much more from the aircraft cake than others, to name examples DanDantes DC-9 and DC-10 (early game) DotM, my DC-10 growth in DotM (150 aircraft in ~2 game years from the used market) or DC-8 in JA#2 (260 after 3 years of airline operation) or THIs 737classic in ATB (500+ in 5? game years).

My whole statement is based on people that represent not the average AWS players. It's not a statement about who's "better" (simply because there is no better in AWS), it's about sami's question what could happen. Believe me, I like the idea of unlimited slots (1.3 change), unlimited demand (Modern Times scenario), unlimited aircraft (very attractive used market in MT#5, lots of open production lines and lots of very good aircraft models, not as DoTM where you have one long-haul jet model for 10 years) and maybe unlimited base possibility (maybe 1.3) and aircraft slots at bases (maybe 1.3).

The 'old' way to get around that would be to order another type aswell but are you seriously going to risk that if these restrictions are lifted and competition is everywhere?

Every gameworld is a risk. It would be easy to base at Port Moresby or Scandinavia, build a small airline out of props and earn endless points for the alliance I maybe have - no risk, not much time to invest, solid thing.

Honestly I would much more prefer to build up an airline with thousands of aircraft and very attractive bases and get busted in a fuel spike or by competition than running a smooth and thin airline in the average field. Not just because the game world will last for 10 month or so and I for sure don't know what happens the next month, also because this would be much more fun.

Usually gameworlds are boring after 3-4 years ingame when you maxed out your base airport and your three bases with demand or aircraft... this one would offer more fun for those people.

To top it off, i've not even mentioned the fuel price yet which will undoubtedly reach over $1000 after the first 10 years if we go on the past ATB's and MT's where it always went upto between $1000-$1500 in the years 2010-2020, further increasing the need for efficiency.

Again: I don't plan for a time that far in the future. The most cool thing at AWS for me and most people I speak to is the start and the first years. Not the boring aircraft supervision what comes when the routes are served - especially in a game world where new aircraft like A350 or 787 appear not early enough to be able to replace old ones. This point might change in game worlds that last 1950-2050, but sami pointed out it starts 1998-2002 (like always) and will last 20 years.

Let's give it a go for at least one game world.

I would really enjoy that. It's like you found a money cheat - good for you, but you will tell the administration so they can fix the problem. If they don't do, not your fault.

It took James Dyson many years and hundreds of prototypes before he perfected the Dyson vacuum cleaner and even then no manufacturer would launch his product so he did it himself with his own money and look where he is today. Slightly off topic there but you get my point about how things are meant to progress.

Take Howard Hughes. He nearly bankrupted himself with the movies he made (mainly Hell's Angels), the aircraft he loved to construct (XF-11, H-4) and TWA. A good idea doesn't mean everything will go well and just because you can doesn't mean you must. However, I pointed out enough I would like such a gameworld and I think I explained my concerns in detail. At the end it's sami who has to decide what to do and I'm sure he finds enough good points in this thread for every point of view.

[JumboShrimp]

I know, I had over 1000+ aircraft at KLAX without bases and DanDante had over 1200 aircraft out of KORD.

I was in ATL, and I actually converted a whole bunch of routes in 300 pax range to A333s.  You probably know which ones I am talking about that you can get away with doing that.  Without doing that, my aircraft count at ATL would have been higher.  My smallest aircraft was A321 - if I am not counting some 10-20 smaller A320 aircraft...

BTW, I can believe that about LAX.  If you are going to serve all of the international demand, plus a ton of East Coast demand, that uses up aircraft quickly....

There's still a difference between 1000+ aircraft and 3000+ aircraft.

That's like running 3 demanding airlines simultaneously.  I don't think many players have time for that...

I never started at an airport with less than five competitors. Half of the time there was one guy that was able to survive and run a small airline along with me, most of the time people failed.

LOL.  I left one small airline alone in MT3 in ATL.  I called him "Token".

If you reached a specific point competition should not bother you or your airline or at least should give you the financial base to react.

Things will be different.  There were 3 ways the protection of a strong incumbent will be weakened:
1. Once you kill early competition, only weak new competitor could challenge you.  (Top 20 basing).  Now a strong competitor can open a base at your HQ to challenge you
2. There were no slot for the competitor (usually).  That will change with extra slots later in the game.
3. Competitior could only field 70 aircraft.  That may chage if the limit is lifted.

I personally did not get into heavy competition on competitive routes against competitors who I realized were invincible (Top 10-20 strong airlines).  Under the new rules, nobody is really invincible...

That's a luxury I never had. Where are you in MT#4? I'm still looking for a good base for MT#5 and at the moment I really think about joining a major European airport. Wasn't based there before and Japan is more boring than Los Angeles, something I have not foreseen :/

I was at IAD.  I picked it because of limited time I had to devote to the game.  It turned out to be even more of a gem than I thought.  I did not open any other basis, and still left about 10-15% demand unfilled (due to time constraints), and I ended up in top 3 in ASK and RPK.

I find US the most fun place to play, because you have enough slots at the airports.  So if somehow get busy in RL, and am unavailable to play for some time (as it happened in MT4), I can still get back at the competition, because there are still slots available.  I can use them better than they can, and eventually win...

Again: I don't plan for a time that far in the future. The most cool thing at AWS for me and most people I speak to is the start and the first years. Not the boring aircraft supervision what comes when the routes are served - especially in a game world where new aircraft like A350 or 787 appear not early enough to be able to replace old ones. This point might change in game worlds that last 1950-2050, but sami pointed out it starts 1998-2002 (like always) and will last 20 years.

I wonder what happened to the idea of rolling scenarios, where a game world starts in 1950s and keeps going...  Players can drop in, drop out...

[JumboShrimp]

Maybe this is what you want, as someone who has experience and understands the game. But for a newbie who has a tough enough time right now with bigger airlines coming to their airports with 70 aircraft, it will be crushing to have them show up and flood routes with frequency. Since frequency is the only pseudo-competition, removing this limit is essentially declaring all newbie airlines bankrupt before they even start. Not everyone has 16 hours a day to stare at a computer screen like Purse, and there needs to be some kind of protection for those who want to have a good time and play a game. This is the majority of Sami's clientele, and if he removes this limit, I am positive that not only newbies, but experienced members with less time, will flee.

You are assuming that new players are bad players, and that they can't learn the game.  A lot of the players really play a solitaire game.  These changes will make this more of a multiplayer game.  And that's really the best way to learn the game, to face competition....

[ukatlantic]

Since frequency is the only pseudo-competition, removing this limit is essentially declaring all newbie airlines bankrupt before they even start.

I can tell you the Frequency in V1.3 will NOT be king as in V1.2. I have got several routes where I am flying F100's with 105 seats and the routes demand is approx 1500 pax per day, I also have competition from another airline, and he has far less flights than I do and is using a higher capacity aircraft yet it is roughly split 50/50 between us so although my frequency is higher, is not the killer as it was as in V1.2. Another example is LHR, I fly there with a few 757's maybe 4 flights a day Jona L is using something bigger (747s I think) and there is a 3rd airline using maybe DC10s for good measure, yet the spread between the 3 airlines is roughly the same give or take a few %.  So I think the days of the Big Fish coming in and flooding the route with 200% demand which is within the rules and making the smaller guy bankrupt is now hopefully a thing that is designated to the history book of AWS.

[slither360]

Ok, fine.

I think we should try it for one gameworld, and when the results are disastrous, then we can never do it again.

But it doesn't hurt to try.

I wish y'all good luck.

[Curse]

That's like running 3 demanding airlines simultaneously.  I don't think many players have time for that...

Same thing as now. People who have time but no average skill are in the Top50, people who don't have time are not even they have skill. It's just the difference that's bigger because average guy tried his best in the former gameworlds and didn't reach the limits, while some players are now not limited after 2, 3 or 5 game years, they can expand much longer if they want.

Things will be different.  There were 3 ways the protection of a strong incumbent will be weakened:
1. Once you kill early competition, only weak new competitor could challenge you.  (Top 20 basing).  Now a strong competitor can open a base at your HQ to challenge you
2. There were no slot for the competitor (usually).  That will change with extra slots later in the game.
3. Competitior could only field 70 aircraft.  That may chage if the limit is lifted.

1) In my experience there will be a moment where a good player - means somebody who isn't going to crash his airline himself - will join your protected Top20 airport and is able to get pax from your side. Doesn't mean he get's bigger than you, but I never had a gameworld where this hasn't happened.
2) As you pointed out often enough not a problem in US domestic. When slots at JFK or LAS are gone, there are 1000 other airports to fly to.
3) Have never based at a >Top20 airport, so no experience.

However, none of these points is making me think I face problems that haven't occurred before. I don't think you or somebody with similar skill thinks "cool, I have this 800+ aircraft airline and I search a new base... shall I take the one and compete with RandomNewb#11 or the other one and compete Curse?". Result #2 would be like a Davy Crockett. In the first second it sounds like fun but after a minute you realise you would simply nuke your own ass.

[JumboShrimp]

Same thing as now. People who have time but no average skill are in the Top50, people who don't have time are not even they have skill. It's just the difference that's bigger because average guy tried his best in the former gameworlds and didn't reach the limits, while some players are now not limited after 2, 3 or 5 game years, they can expand much longer if they want.

Actually, you have a point.  It is not like running 3 good sized airlines simultaneously, it is more like playing 4 5-year games back to back.

[slither360]

However, none of these points is making me think I face problems that haven't occurred before. I don't think you or somebody with similar skill thinks "cool, I have this 800+ aircraft airline and I search a new base... shall I take the one and compete with RandomNewb#11 or the other one and compete Curse?". Result #2 would be like a Davy Crockett. In the first second it sounds like fun but after a minute you realise you would simply nuke your own ass.

I personally would choose to compete with Purse  

[oggie84]

However, none of these points is making me think I face problems that haven't occurred before. I don't think you or somebody with similar skill thinks "cool, I have this 800+ aircraft airline and I search a new base... shall I take the one and compete with RandomNewb#11 or the other one and compete Curse?". Result #2 would be like a Davy Crockett. In the first second it sounds like fun but after a minute you realise you would simply nuke your own ass.

Would it not be even worse if you could only do it with 70 aircraft aswell  Even more pointless to do it then....You might aswell give those 70 aircraft to your competitor and say "Here, these are yours, you'll practically 'own' them anyway" 

Heck, why not scrap basing altogether and go back to ABCBA routing. You'll annoy the competitor even more that way rather than giving your competition 'freebies' to go after...

[JumboShrimp]

Would it not be even worse if you could only do it with 70 aircraft aswell  Even more pointless to do it then....You might aswell give those 70 aircraft to your competitor and say "Here, these are yours, you'll practically 'own' them anyway" 

Heck, why not scrap basing altogether and go back to ABCBA routing. You'll annoy the competitor even more that way rather than giving your competition 'freebies' to go after...

Well, I tell everyone who asks (and even those who don't ask) that bases (with 70 aircraft limit) are only for fun, not for profit.  Players will make less money after they open the base, and wait until the base is pretty much full (with 70 aircraft) before they see the same profits as they had before they opened the base (if ever).

[Curse]

Well, I tell everyone who asks (and even those who don't ask) that bases (with 70 aircraft limit) are only for fun, not for profit.  Players will make less money after they open the base, and wait until the base is pretty much full (with 70 aircraft) before they see the same profits as they had before they opened the base (if ever).

That's a problem with US staff salary. In Japan my three DotM bases are great - not only because of demand, I just have to pay much less than in the US for people (what are the main factor making bases expensive).

[FAA-man]

also, will the new game worlds bring back thru flights.. so that you can connect via a two segment flight... more realistic...