Is Airway sim dying?

[vectorforfood]

Since the game has become about a few select players spending an incredible amount of time early on using all the exploits in the game to stranglehold every single major base, it seems there's just the "Regulars" playing now.

I haven't seen airwaysim really "grow"

Always two moderately populated game worlds that are the most active, within 5-6 years of game time, the numbers drop off.

So I ask, why not have more game worlds?

Why not make the rules a little more realistic so those of us that don't have hours upon hours to exploit can actually enjoy the game again?

/Rant

[swiftus27]

To answer all of your statements:

The most people ever on this server was for the launch of the most recent version.  That was on Dec-6 of last year.  With continual updates, people keep coming for more.

A small population of people post in the forums.   The number of people posting here is not indicative of the number of people playing the sim. 

Can there be more games?  You know, I wish I knew.   I am sitting waiting for a game to start.  Honestly, most of this is chalked up to server space and Sami's time.  There is a minimal staff (most of which monitor games/forums) with Sami as main (only?) programmer. 

Numbers always drop off as the game goes.  Isn't this EXACTLY what is happening in the real world?  Some airlines succeed, others fail.  This isn't "Happy Airline Everyone Wins". 

In regards to making the rules more 'realistic', what are you proposing?  I'd like to hear.

[esquireflyer]

lol when is Zynga going to make an easy one called AirlineVille?

[Dasha]

I'm saying make them a little LESS realistic. For example, bend the rules a bit so that you can open a base in another country, but make it more expensive for bigger bases. That way, a small airline in the pacific islands would actually need more than 5 or 6 aircraft.

Also more game worlds would work for me. Haven't been playing a while cause well, joining a game halfway into it is just pointless unless you get lucky and find a very nice unused base.

In my opinion, there is no point making it more realistic when some airlines/players are just bulking aircraft and sending them to the most remote or already crowded airports simply because they have the planes and the money for it. Make it more accessible for new players, rather than keep helping the big and good players.

Just my two cents.

[esquireflyer]

In regards to making the rules more 'realistic', what are you proposing?  I'd like to hear.

(1) Have passengers care more about tech stops, so that a 727 tech-stopped across the ocean can't instantly kill the widebodies on the route.
(2) Have passengers care about seat quality, so that it's possible to run a realistic airline like SQ or EK that charges more but offers better seating/service and makes a profit that way.
(3) Make the 777 and 747 actually playable.

[Zombie Slayer]

(1) Have passengers care more about tech stops, so that a 727 tech-stopped across the ocean can't instantly kill the widebodies on the route.
(2) Have passengers care about seat quality, so that it's possible to run a realistic airline like SQ or EK that charges more but offers better seating/service and makes a profit that way.
(3) Make the 777 and 747 actually playable.

(1) is in the works and may be implemented before MT7
(2) would be great. Passengers are way to price insensitive now.
(3) will need a cargo function to happen. The capability is programmed in now, but the feature has not been programmed yet.

Don

[brique]

I don't think so, I certainly hope not : I have started playing in the last month or so and intend to stick around a bit longer.

I do think it needs to evolve though : that's not a criticism, just a reflection of the fact that games cant stand still or they do stagnate a bit : That can happen when, after a year or two, the game mechanics and foibles become known to the point where experienced players can follow a formula/strategy and always 'succeed', (kinda like the 'walk-thru' mode in some games: turn left, turn right, pick up the rock, jump down and hey presto: find the goody-bag) whilst other strategies will always be doomed to abject failure due to those same mechanics and foibles (e.g. trying to run a local operation with sub-20px planes).

So, I would say that a game which ends up having only one (or two) path to longevity, where all have to do the same or perish, can become a bit repetitive and also 'lock-out'   players who maybe just want to 'dabble' with a smaller operation, or perhaps role-play a little with say, running a Caribbean island -hopper service or similar.

How you can accommodate such differing game-styles and have them still workable in a single game-world is another matter. But I would say the 'one-size-fits-all' staffing algorithm needs, politely speaking, a damn good tweaking.

[Bolier Dweller]

I don't think this game is dying it just get's like this when all of the games are in play. Then one wills start and will get the usual,"when's the next game" and " I can't _____" oh and lets not to forget, the slot hopping posts.

There are a great deal of people that put a lot of time into this game and that also goes with why it's so quite in the forms at times.

You know i think Sami would love to expand this game, means more money for him. But im sure he needs some capital to back him up. And given that some of our players here do have some pretty high end jobs. Perhaps Sami should try to get some investors?  I would even be fine with a small price increase or may a flat fee for one year? or 6 months? And if he needs a programer im sure he could find someone if he wanted someone to help.

As far as the game being realistic, it's not 100% but take into account all of the different rules regarding airlines in the world then think how much code would be needed for all those rules to be put into the game. I think the game in it's current sate is fine.

[LostInBKK]

I think this is a very valid question.

Some simple things do need to change in the game.

(1) Have passengers care more about tech stops, so that a 727 tech-stopped across the ocean can't instantly kill the widebodies on the route.  AGREE
(2) Have passengers care about seat quality, so that it's possible to run a realistic airline like SQ or EK that charges more but offers better seating/service and makes a profit that way.I would also add have passengers care about the plane as well. I have been killed by people fly old heaps of junk while I am flying 2 years old planes. passengers are happy to pay extra to fly on a A380
(3) Make the 777 and 747 actually playable. Jona L has been able to make very very good money with both those aircarft and I think most people make money flying the big planes to the big airports
(4) Make the game more fun, classic example for me is when you want to upgrade your fleet with in the same family why do I have to set up the flights again manual. Total time sink and not fun, This is why you see some people get very big at airport and then just give up when the years have passed and its time to manually replace 100 737 early models with later ones.
(5) New and Used markets need a complete overhaul. But I have no solution for this  Again this process should not reward people who are online 247.


I am thinking of coming back to the game but only as a way to keep intouch with people who play it.

Cheers
Lost

[AndiD]

Regarding more game worlds, I definitely have more ideas for starting positions/airline strategies (the most not big / time intensive ones) than there are game worlds at the moment...

Since the last game worlds were all full at the start, and there is usually a point where worlds stabilize and the player numbers drop, maybe there indeed is more demand than supply for game worlds at the moment. And unless the "big players" have unlimited time at their hands, there will be a point where it becomes unattractive for them to run big airlines in the additional games as well (or have to divide their attention between more games, which again means less of a "24/7" operation), opening up the possibilities for more players to run large airlines in these additional worlds. (And even if, they pay and generate more capital for future server power and/or development.)

I doubt game mechanics are the biggest turnoff at the moment - either way you have to find out and adjust to the "laws of the market", whatever they are (and in reality, they probably vary, depending on time and place)

[Dasha]

(3) Make the 777 and 747 actually playable. Jona L has been able to make very very good money with both those aircarft and I think most people make money flying the big planes to the big airports

Jona can make money with flying potato and banana crates. That's not a benchmark

[LostInBKK]

Maybe having shorter games that run along side the main games?

If you are in the main game you can't take part in the shorter games.

Cheers
Lost

[swiftus27]

Jona can make money with flying potato and banana crates. That's not a benchmark

Even he will say that no one can make money on the 747/777 unless you own them and have little competition.

[Dasha]

Well that should be changed then I think. Cause in real life they do work a lot better than that.

[Zombie Slayer]

Well that should be changed then I think. Cause in real life they do work a lot better than that.

(3) will need a cargo function to happen. The capability is programmed in now, but the feature has not been programmed yet.

[Tujue]

For example, bend the rules a bit so that you can open a base in another country, but make it more expensive for bigger bases.

Nooooo, definitely NO. I was once forced to bankrupt my successful airline operating from Izmir (the pre-base airport times) after a Algiers based airline started flying Algiers-Destination-Izmir. After failing several times due to this reason, I opted to stop playing AWS. Sami was on time with the arrival of the base airport feature (although I think the aircraft limitation needs to grow over time and that we need to be allowed domestic A-B-C flights).

Maybe having shorter games that run along side the main games?

Something like the Euro challenge etc. Would be fun to have these 'special game worlds' around again.

[Powi]

Connecting pax! Current game mechanincs force the strategy of each game to be the same. Good implementation of connecting pax should allow more different successfull strategies.

Answer for the question: I think many players find current games repetitive and the big Wow effect of this great game vanishes over time leading players to not come back for a another game. That's how I feel about the game.

[LostInBKK]

Answer for the question: I think many players find current games repetitive and the big Wow effect of this great game vanishes over time leading players to not come back for a another game. That's how I feel about the game.

100% Correct

More fun and less repition has to go in to the game

[brique]

I doubt game mechanics are the biggest turnoff at the moment - either way you have to find out and adjust to the "laws of the market", whatever they are (and in reality, they probably vary, depending on time and place)

Indeed, but without getting into a big debate on the issue, the game is skewed by those mechanics towards a minimum scale of operation, which renders meaningless a whole industry sector, because it enforces a fixed scale of back-office costs regardless of the scale of enterprise.

But yes, the 'job titles' in the game are not necessarily mirrors of RL functions. I don't suggest a massive re-working of the game mechanics, just a tweaking which acknowledges that small to medium scale businesses just do not carry that level of overhead and perhaps suggest the idea that it should 'scale-up' relative to the size of a/c flown, which can be easily done as all the a/c are already classified by size.

At present, you grow your big airline, then buy a small a/c fleet to burn up tax credits or fill the time between big-bird deliveries. That's back-to-front, really, surely a more accurate model is start small, then step up each grade as you develop, both in a/c size and in the back-office.

That wouldn't stop, or penalise, anyone going for mega-carrier from day one, but it would open up a whole chunk of potential operations that, currently, are short-cuts to bankruptcy.

[vectorforfood]

No care for those of us who enjoy making small sized airlines has been an Airwaysim problem from day #1.

I should be able to make money with 7-8 20-30 seat airplanes if im un-contested.