Poll: Implement airport changes to running long games?

[Sami]

Part of the plans to change the demand systems and game play to more dynamic format the airport classification structure will also be changed. This has been discussed in the feature requests forum.

To sum it up the changes will be that the airport size class metric will be renewed and together with that airports can also expand (or scale down) in size. This would mean that airport having full capacity in use (no more or very limited slots) would expand by creating a new runway for example and this would in turn increase the capacity of the airport and number of available slots. The expansions are of course not fast but the basic idea is that airports would be dynamic and grow according to the demand of services imposed to them by airlines. (and vice versa, if some large airports is very unserved for a long time they would scale down by closing aprons/terminals thus reducing slots and reducing operating costs to the airport).

Currently this has limited effects but even with present demand system this would affect also airport demand and other airport related costs. But emphasis of this feature is in the future, and many steps towards the new dynamic systems have already been taken and this would be one of them, and it would need testing in practice too.

Anyway, the question of this poll is. Should these changes be implemented in the running game worlds? yes/no. Mainly polling this to get opinions for players in the very long game worlds. This change would mean that for example LHR and other limited airports would expand with more slots over time, other effects (as mentioned) would include increased demand (and ops costs; but not drastically) in expanding airports. 

Details should be discussed at the thread linked below, this is just to scout for general opinions on this large change. Do note that the change is not imminent; it has not been coded nor planned yet but is scheduled for the near future.

More details / brainstorming here: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,21347.msg268408.html#msg268408   (and as mentioned all talk related to this feature should go to that thread)

[dmoose42]

Sami, I am generally against making changes to individual game worlds that are material to the outcome of the games.  However, We also have to balance that with the fact that both JA and DOTM will be lasting at least another year, and thus (generally speaking) players shouldn't have to wait a year to be able to play the newest (and best) version of AWS.

Thus, I am hesitantly in favor of voting in support of making changes to existing worlds, with the caveat that any changes in gameplay are:

A) clearly spelled out exactly what the impact is
B) plenty of lead time is given - for example, stating that facility growth will be modeled starting ten years gives players time to adapt their strategy to changes.  I don't really want to part of a game where the rules change suddenly with no notice.  Fantasy worlds are for that...not AWS.
C) changes are extremely gradual.  For example, a player may have decided to run a fleet of 747's in LHR (or SIN or HKG or others).  It would be unfair to that player to suddenly be frequency bombed because the number of LHR slots suddenly grew at 5 a year so that in 5-10 years it doubled in size.  Currently in JA, LHR has about 30 slots and grows about 1 a year.  If an announcement was made that in ten years, this growth rate would be increased 50% to 1.5 a year (which results in five extra sets after ten years) based on the new methodology, I think that would be ok.  But having rapid/significant change is not fair to existing players...

Being based in LHR in JA and generally not being slot constrained in DOTM.  I see both sides.  Personally, I think having slot limited airports (Asia and to a lesser extent Europe) vs. North America provide a more varied game than having the same number of slots and same circumstances everywhere.  I'm concerned that the push towards more dynamic behavior reduces the variability in conditions across airports and regions and I hope that consideration is given to try to maintain that variation.

I hope this makes sense...been a long day/night...

[spiff23]

Hi Sami, In total, I'm not opposed however there should be a strict limit to growth to mirror real world influences that a lot of people won't allow new runways or that the city is so tight around the perimeter you can't expand (MDW, the domestic airport in São Paulo) or the location is such your stuck with 1 or 2 runways max forever (LGA, DCA, the domestic airport in RIo all come to mind). (I also realize this isn't real world).

But the concept that LHR will have 8 runways by 2010 since everyone wants to fly there isn't good.  If you want to cap that LHR will only ever have one more runway than it has today by 2020, then I think that's ok.   It would mirror the real world in that NRT opened a new runway going from one to two within the last 5 years and capacity went up.   I would announce it just like a new airport...I.e., NRT will add a new runway opening in 2008 that will add 20 slots an hour.  Then someone new, or established player can time an entrance as an upstart, or expand as a hub.  The current based carriers would also have a chance to respond.

Hope that makes sense, but part of this game is a strategy element and aside from basing at LHR, ORD, NRT, ATL...there's also a strategy to get your flights into those airports as a competitive advantage from your own bases, including making the incumbents think about their scarce allocation...I.e. if I open Ahmadabad to LHR with slots tight, will the LHR guys find something better than competing with me?

Sorry to ramble, but to conclude...not opposed to the idea that an airport could get a windfall of slots if a new runway is built but I think there needs to be a realistic cap tied to the airports current runways.  Something like current runways +1 or +2 max by 2020...plus announcement so demand is not gradual but rather steps up at a single point in time directly tied to the new runway capacity....with slight improvements over time like present.

If you program games beyond 2020 then you can be more creative, but I have a hard time believing that if not planned by now 2013 the chances of an airport having a new runway by 2020 are remote.

Overall I like the realism of the game and don't think I want to play a made up world where you can fly to any airport you want like LHR or DCA as many times as you want to thereby trigger more slots being created.

[LemonButt]

LHR is not restricted from expansion IRL--the only restriction is money.  Anything is possible at the right price.  Plus, why on Earth would anyone in their right mind base at LHR when these changes are implemented if LHR can't grow?  Think about it.  You have LHR with a curfew whereas there are other airports in London that are 24 hours serving the same demand.  To make things worse, you want to say LHR can't grow while those 24 hour airports can?  That is just absurd.

As mentioned in another thread, money is the only limiting factor IRL.  They are building artificial islands for billions in Japan to expand their airports, for example.  The problem with the game today is arbitrary limits, so the more we can get rid of and replace with a market based solution, the better.

[Infinity]

LHR is not restricted from expansion IRL--the only restriction is money. 

Funny enough, no. Limiting factor is governmental support.

[stevecree]

LHR is not restricted from expansion IRL--the only restriction is money.

Errrrr...disagree completely...London airspace is a mid-air collision waiting to happen !   It's not only space on the ground a/c need !!

[Sami]

It is rather impossible to set a flag on every airport on how much they can expand due to government/geographical or other restrictions. Firstly there are so many airports and secondly, how we'd determine that (ref. japan example where money is no obstacle etc). But of course if someone is willing to work on such data it would not be a problem to implement. But in any case I would favour the dynamic game world play over this.

[LemonButt]

Funny enough, no. Limiting factor is governmental support.

The US government put a man on the moon.  If government wanted to expand LHR, it would happen.  In the end, government is arbitrary politics.  "We can't land on the moon because government said no."

As far as airspace goes, the limits again are arbitrary for safety reasons.  Aircraft have to remain 5 miles apart or whatever it is.  If they were only 4 miles apart, you'd be able to land 20% more, right?

It is important to remember this is a simulation, not the real world.  Some features just make sense due to playability.  For example, IRL you have to buy not only takeoff slots, but landing slots.  Right now where I am based at DOTM at Orly with a 23-4 curfew, there are probably 50 planes landing at once at 400 every morning.

[Infinity]

If government wanted to expand LHR, it would happen. 

Yes, but they don't want it to. This is just what I said.

[PiaDijkstra]

Little off topic??

The question by Sami was a poll. I am in favour of such a dynamic option.