AirwaySim
Online Airline Management Simulation
Login
Username
Password
 
or login using:
 
My Account
Username:
E-mail:
Edit account
» Achievements
» Logout
Game Credits
Credit balance: 0 Cr
Buy credits
» Credit history
» Credits FAQ

Author Topic: Rules about Allied Basing and Targeting  (Read 6981 times)

Miller11

  • Former member
Re: Rules about Allied Basing and Targeting
« Reply #40 on: October 26, 2011, 03:35:07 PM »
Why should huge airlines have this protection if small airlines don't have it?  If a small airline has 50 aircraft and somebody comes in with 100, I think that airline has a tough competition.  Why should not a big airline face the same level of competition?  And the same level of competition for 500 aircraft airline would be facing 1000 aircraft (from whatever source).


My idea was that it might stop the constant moaning of a lot of players. Look at MT5 constant complaining and in some cases cheating has spoiled this game.
As far as for small airlines they would need to survive long enough to join an alliance, this would create more competition in the long run i.e MT5 400 players (used to be 600) and only 100 in an alliance, thats 300 (500) non alliance members. so we could in theory have 30 alliances in a game instead of 5-6. imagine what this could create. It would help newbs as they would get help and advice from Alliance members but at the same time stop this game from being so easy i.e I had a year out of this game and i have put very little effort in an still I am in the top 20. Yes I know some find it difficult but also some find it too easy. If my idea was tested I am sure that this would create an entirely new game style for all as we would need to be more flexible in how we played I.e lets have 500 e-jets would not work as well as it does now.

We all need to be open to change even though this is difficult.

remember this "Every action has a reaction"

Miller11 :)

Offline FlyTO

  • Members
  • Posts: 260
Re: Rules about Allied Basing and Targeting
« Reply #41 on: October 27, 2011, 03:55:45 AM »
I see my buddy Vito has decided to make the thoughts public, good for him!

I've been too lazy, and just bored with my airline (which is still failing thanks to the allied basing and targeting)...and not doing much for my airline and just letting it run idle here and there.

But back to the topic:
LAX in MT5 is a prime example of this. I have pm'ed Sami and got a response.
Of all the routes that both American Southern and Jumbo Shrimp at LAX opening a base, only THREE routes (which were opened by American Southern) were routes that I did not operate. And those THREE routes aren't any cash cow money makers either. They're 200nm routes with about 50-100 daily passengers to fill out his schedule and routes that my planes couldn't serve because my supply would be over 200% of demand. [I just looked through the LAX destinations at 11:45PM EST]

Everything else is in my perception, clear targeting. I'm not here to whine and complain, but just to let it be known that even an airline of my size around 500airplanes and a company value of 7Billion is still considered small in comparison to two 20 and 30billion airlines. Because there were still other routes available not flown by airline with demand of 300-500 passengers.

P.S I am also up for an "expert world" in the future. And while I'm at it, harsher penalties for tech stops in Modern Times...really makes flying VERY VERY VERY Large aircraft with the range more useful and less susceptible to lower profits due to tech stop frequencies.

Good luck to the rest of you guys,
Kevin

stevecree

  • Former member
Re: Rules about Allied Basing and Targeting
« Reply #42 on: October 27, 2011, 07:48:06 AM »
Hey Kev...firstly glad your up for a "expert world" - it is a fantastic idea IMO....worth discussing more anyway.

Secondly, the majority of my a/c at LAX are E-Jets, they cannot get further than 1500nm, so I am restricted to routes I can serve with them.  I am removing 757's from LAX and replacing with more E-jets...some will end up on your routes again, but I will be looking for routes unserved first which will help redress the balance as per earlier in this thread.

...but did you not invite me there in the first place Kevin if I remember correctly.  I was going to open MIA until your offer  :laugh:
« Last Edit: October 27, 2011, 11:30:19 AM by SAC »

stevecree

  • Former member
Re: Rules about Allied Basing and Targeting
« Reply #43 on: October 27, 2011, 10:40:50 AM »
If my idea was tested I am sure that this would create an entirely new game style for all as we would need to be more flexible in how we played I.e lets have 500 e-jets would not work as well as it does now.

I have actually got less than 400 of them M11  ;)   Interesting suggestion re lots of small alliances, but I do enjoy large alliances will active forums.  With just 6 airlines in an alliance it would be really tight knit and impossible to "target" in to any great extent, but pretty quiet compared to having alliances of 25.  I would be willing to try anything though.

I do still say though a restriction free "expert game" would best suit those who wanted the challenge of competition, and were prepared to be "targeted" themselves along the way.
Sounds great fun to me and my hundreds of e-jets  ;)

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 8184
Re: Rules about Allied Basing and Targeting
« Reply #44 on: October 27, 2011, 10:42:26 AM »
Everything else is in my perception, clear targeting. I'm not here to whine and complain, but just to let it be known that even an airline of my size around 500airplanes and a company value of 7Billion is still considered small in comparison to two 20 and 30billion airlines.

To me, the fact that a 500+ airline based at one of the best airports (LAX), that is run very competently, the fact that this airline can still be defeated is a good thing.

Compare that with the time in v1.2, when this airline would be an untouchable fortress.  That was obviously a bad thing.  So AWS is moving in the right direction allowing more competition.  Every airline can be subject to competition, not just the smallest airlines, as was the case in the past.

Some other points that you raised:
- the fact that these 2 airlines (mine and American Southern) have CV of 20 and 30 million does not change much.  All it says that these airlines have a larger margin for error.
- the fact that these 2 airlines are flying the best routes, rather than the lousiest routes - that's a non-brainer.  Why would someone open a base and chose to fly the lousy routes and not the best routes?  You are already flying the best routes, so there is an overlap
- the fact that 2 airlines moved in: That is just a function of 100 aircraft limit.  Without the limit, one airline could have done it.
- that there were some unserved routes: The same issue.  Without the 100 aircraft limit, I would eventually get to all the routes.  With 100 aircraft limit, I pick the best ones...

Peanutoil

  • Former member
Re: Rules about Allied Basing and Targeting
« Reply #45 on: October 27, 2011, 01:21:20 PM »
To me, the fact that a 500+ airline based at one of the best airports (LAX), that is run very competently, the fact that this airline can still be defeated is a good thing.

Compare that with the time in v1.2, when this airline would be an untouchable fortress.  That was obviously a bad thing.  So AWS is moving in the right direction allowing more competition.  Every airline can be subject to competition, not just the smallest airlines, as was the case in the past.

Some other points that you raised:
- the fact that these 2 airlines (mine and American Southern) have CV of 20 and 30 million does not change much.  All it says that these airlines have a larger margin for error.
- the fact that these 2 airlines are flying the best routes, rather than the lousiest routes - that's a non-brainer.  Why would someone open a base and chose to fly the lousy routes and not the best routes?  You are already flying the best routes, so there is an overlap
- the fact that 2 airlines moved in: That is just a function of 100 aircraft limit.  Without the limit, one airline could have done it.
- that there were some unserved routes: The same issue.  Without the 100 aircraft limit, I would eventually get to all the routes.  With 100 aircraft limit, I pick the best ones...

I think you are already targeting Kevin's airline. Of course you have the right to pick the best routes, but you can't deny you have 100% overlap with Kevin or SC's route AND ignoring the empty routes. Please reconsider your decision and rethink whether you are targeting or not.

stevecree

  • Former member
Re: Rules about Allied Basing and Targeting
« Reply #46 on: October 27, 2011, 01:33:07 PM »
I'll turn that around on you slightly Peanut...who is best placed to handle two airlines moving in on their base ?  Air Redy with 500 a/c and $7b value, or the guy in FRA with 50 a/c and value less than $1b ?   Yet you thought that was OK !   The FRA guy stood absolutely no chance.  It seems fairer to me that AR faces that level of competition than the FRA guy IMO.

Peanutoil

  • Former member
Re: Rules about Allied Basing and Targeting
« Reply #47 on: October 27, 2011, 01:38:54 PM »
I'll turn that around on you slightly Peanut...who is best placed to handle two airlines moving in on their base ?  Air Redy with 500 a/c and $7b value, or the guy in FRA with 50 a/c and value less than $1b ?   Yet you thought that was OK !   The FRA guy stood absolutely no chance.  It seems fairer to me that AR faces that level of competition than the FRA guy IMO.

Did i 100% copying his route? Is JSW 100% copying Kevin's route?

vitongwangki

  • Former member
Re: Rules about Allied Basing and Targeting
« Reply #48 on: October 27, 2011, 01:39:35 PM »
- the fact that these 2 airlines are flying the best routes, rather than the lousiest routes - that's a non-brainer.  Why would someone open a base and chose to fly the lousy routes and not the best routes?  You are already flying the best routes, so there is an overlap
- the fact that 2 airlines moved in: That is just a function of 100 aircraft limit.  Without the limit, one airline could have done it.
- that there were some unserved routes: The same issue.  Without the 100 aircraft limit, I would eventually get to all the routes.  With 100 aircraft limit, I pick the best ones...
- the fact is "best routes" can only be defined you, not us. You can defend your decision by this kind of word, then I can interpret that every routes I didn't fly is not the best so even I 100% copy one's route is not targeting. Thus, the targeting rule is just rubbish, we can never issue warnings or fines from it.

I'll turn that around on you slightly Peanut...who is best placed to handle two airlines moving in on their base ?  Air Redy with 500 a/c and $7b value, or the guy in FRA with 50 a/c and value less than $1b ?   Yet you thought that was OK !   The FRA guy stood absolutely no chance.  It seems fairer to me that AR faces that level of competition than the FRA guy IMO.

Once again, at that time FRA has two similar size airline, one is Blackburn, another is operated by Dantes. Jona and peanut didn't focus on all of their aircraft to Blackburn air so it isn't targeting. But now we have encountered two cases that both Elite members 100% copy routes of SC members. The case is definitely different.

stevecree

  • Former member
Re: Rules about Allied Basing and Targeting
« Reply #49 on: October 27, 2011, 01:44:28 PM »
Nope...I am targeting routes that suit my fleet.  As I said earlier I am losing 757's from LAX and will make every effort to find a few more new routes....not easy though as I am not just servicing the dregs of the routes just because they are they only routes Air Redy does not want !

vitongwangki

  • Former member
Re: Rules about Allied Basing and Targeting
« Reply #50 on: October 27, 2011, 01:48:51 PM »
Nope...I am targeting routes that suit my fleet.  As I said earlier I am losing 757's from LAX and will make every effort to find a few more new routes....not easy though as I am not just servicing the dregs of the routes just because they are they only routes Air Redy does not want !
The routes suit your fleet is Air Redy's route. Finished.

stevecree

  • Former member
Re: Rules about Allied Basing and Targeting
« Reply #51 on: October 27, 2011, 01:59:27 PM »
Not my fault he is based there with 500 a/c serving nearly every route there is within the range my E-jets can reach !

However this is going no where though, and I will not get into an further arguments about it.  What we should be doing is discussing how to stop this in the future, whether that be the launch of an anything goes expert worlds, or having a set of black and white rules to work within.  Some of these rules have already been clarified by Sami so that is a start, but I still feel there are grey areas which will lead again and again to this situation.

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 8184
Re: Rules about Allied Basing and Targeting
« Reply #52 on: October 27, 2011, 02:17:27 PM »
I think you are already targeting Kevin's airline. Of course you have the right to pick the best routes, but you can't deny you have 100% overlap with Kevin or SC's route AND ignoring the empty routes. Please reconsider your decision and rethink whether you are targeting or not.

I start with the assumption that the chances are, I will outlast any competitor.  Given limited aircraft, which routes would I like to fly when most of the competitors (inside or outside the base) are gone?  The best ones that fit my fleet and my schedule.  100 LH aircraft is just scratching the surface at LAX anyway.

Going down first 2 pages of > 3000nm flights, what did I miss?
- SIN - (some unserved demand) I expect Vito to bring 787 direct (not good odds for me there).
- PVG - expect allies to fly that
- BOM - C demand on the low side
- PRG - ok first good one I skipped, nearly bottom of the 2nd page.  Route #72 on the list...

Air Redy has 528 aircraft at one base, and is alreasy serving probably over 95% plus of worthwhile destinations, if not more.  Not many unserved destinations left after an airline deploys 528, while I can only use 100.

As far as broadening the definition of "targeting" to entire SC, are you really expecting me to compete with players who are in my own alliance?
« Last Edit: October 27, 2011, 02:26:26 PM by JumboShrimp »

stevecree

  • Former member
Re: Rules about Allied Basing and Targeting
« Reply #53 on: October 27, 2011, 02:42:57 PM »
For the record, I serve only 3 routes from LAX that Air Redy doesn't, as mentioned (but soon to be increased)...and I am a targeting.   Air Republique serves just 4 routes from AMS that Real Air does not serve...is he targeting too in that case ?  What's is the difference ?  The difference is we just get on with it !  So can't we please stop with the bickering and look for solutions and ideas of how to avoid confusion going forward ?
« Last Edit: October 27, 2011, 02:48:02 PM by SAC »

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 8184
Re: Rules about Allied Basing and Targeting
« Reply #54 on: October 27, 2011, 02:44:13 PM »
P.S I am also up for an "expert world" in the future. And while I'm at it, harsher penalties for tech stops in Modern Times...really makes flying VERY VERY VERY Large aircraft with the range more useful and less susceptible to lower profits due to tech stop frequencies.

Jona had a great idea about how to deal with frequency benefit, based on distance, which would make larger aircraft less vultnerable to competition of smaller aircraft at progressively longer distances.  It would make it "safer" to fly larger aircraft over longer distances - or in general, flying appropriate aircraft for the distance.  I don't think he ever submitted it as a formal request.  It is burried in this very long thread:
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,34106.0.html

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 8184
Re: Rules about Allied Basing and Targeting
« Reply #55 on: October 27, 2011, 02:52:09 PM »
For the record, I serve only 3 routes from LAX that Air Redy doesn't as mentioned...and I am a targeting.   Air Republique serves just 4 routes from AMS that Real Air does not serve...is he targeting too in that case ?  What's is the difference ?  The difference is we just get on with it !  So can't we please stop with the bickering and look for solutions and ideas of how to avoid confusion going forward ?

Simplest and least confusing approach is hands off, all is fair when top airlines are competing with each other by opening bases at each other's airports.  Because by definition, the challenger is the underdog.  The challenger is limited to 100 aircraft, the incumbent gets a slight boost in LF at his HQ (per Sami), the challenger has to pay extra base fees, which the incumbent is not paying.  It is hard to conceive why the incumbent (especially one with 500+ aircraft) would need any more protection than this.

 

WARNING! This website is not compatible with the old version of Internet Explorer you are using.

If you are using the latest version please turn OFF the compatibility mode.