What competition really means

[schro]

May I ask what are these changes in your mind?

The new ticket sales/demand distribution method has done it in my mind. At this point, for airlines starting in large bases that have a dominant airline and a few slots available, they're basically able to grow like a weed with full planes as long as they provide limited service to high demand destinations - even for routes already overserved by a large margin, if they put 1-2 flights per day on it, they'll get full loads and print money which allows them to turn into a formidable competitor. There is NO action that the incumbent airline can take to hassle them until that new entrant airline starts meeting or exceeding demand levels on the routes that it is flying.

In a scenario where 2 or more players in a base are aiming to achieve world/base domination, the system works well. However, if only one is bent on world domination and the others take a more casual approach to it, the one that wants world domination will get rather frustrated because there's nothing that can be done to the others hanging out in their base from a competition perspective.

[LotusAirways]

To LemonButt,
You mention (1) price and (2) frequency "only". What about (3) seat comfort, (4) airplane size, (5) departure/arrival time, (6) airline image, (7) flying time, (8 ) member of an alliance/alliance rating? I play the game thinking that all these variables have an impact on load factors...

To Sami,
Am I correct?

To all,
As for some of the other factors suggested that may influence demand, like (a) inflight entertainment and (b) meals, as a frequent travel myself I can tell you that has no impact whatsoever on my buying decisions. Zero. Loyalty points do however. Access to lounges also. Check-in on business class counters as an economy passenger as well. I assume other FTs think and act in the same way.

To all, in conclusion:
This is a wonderful brain-storming exercise and happy to see Sami involved; my summary is the following:

A- pricing needs to be easier to change (Sami already said he is working on it);
B- we need a "big d***s" scenario. I will be on it.

Happy New Year!
LA

[LemonButt]

To LemonButt,
You mention (1) price and (2) frequency "only". What about (3) seat comfort, (4) airplane size, (5) departure/arrival time, (6) airline image, (7) flying time, (8 ) member of an alliance/alliance rating? I play the game thinking that all these variables have an impact on load factors...

All of those factors make a difference, but it is nominal compared to the impact pricing and frequency have on the end result with the exception of extreme situations (flying high density seats 7000nm, for example).

[xyeahtony]

Thats a great idee!

Go on Sami and make a "Modern Times -Extreme", a game-world where the one (me included) that like real competition can play..

I agree AWS is not even close to the game that i joined 4 years ago. It was so much more fun back than.. If you change the rules even more you gonna loose many of your most loyal players that have played AWS for years.

While i agree the game is a bit softer now; the loss of 20 loyal players is nothing in comparison to 200 paying players who get bored and exit to bow down to the same top 20 every single game world.

Competition = reality. Well in reality, airlines don't fly fleets of 200 777s, order 400 747s, and have fleets of 1300 aircraft.

[swiftus27]

To LemonButt,
You mention (1) price and (2) frequency "only". What about (3) seat comfort, (4) airplane size, (5) departure/arrival time, (6) airline image, (7) flying time, (8 ) member of an alliance/alliance rating? I play the game thinking that all these variables have an impact on load factors...

To Sami,
Am I correct?

To all,
As for some of the other factors suggested that may influence demand, like (a) inflight entertainment and (b) meals, as a frequent travel myself I can tell you that has no impact whatsoever on my buying decisions. Zero. Loyalty points do however. Access to lounges also. Check-in on business class counters as an economy passenger as well. I assume other FTs think and act in the same way.

To all, in conclusion:
This is a wonderful brain-storming exercise and happy to see Sami involved; my summary is the following:

A- pricing needs to be easier to change (Sami already said he is working on it);
B- we need a "big d***s" scenario. I will be on it.

Happy New Year!
LA

I'd say 90% of the sim is weighted by the following measures:

1.  Frequency (Mainly deals with high-traffic routes)
2.  Arrival/Departure Time (No movements between 2300-0500)
3.  Price
4.  CI only if there is a BIG difference between the airlines

[AUpilot77]

B- we need a "big d***s" scenario. I will be on it.

LOL!    I think most of us would be.  I understand Sami, that you want a friendlier atmosphere for as many airlines as possible (this is how you keep the game worlds full and can help pay for the website from the credits that the players purchase), but I think your largest market are those of us who would just love to obliterate the competition with the help of our alliances (or solo).  We're the ones that keep coming back and buying more credits (I don't have the stats on that but I'm guessing that is the case).

An all-out competition game world would give us the pleasure of going after everyone.  No max 100 planes in new bases, no limit on number of bases etc.  I would even consider paying more for this type of game world.  Increase the risk factor of growing too large instead of not allowing it.  Anyway I know this topic has been discussed before.  Its just good to see that others share my enthusiasm for a 'Survival of the Fittest' game mode.

I do appreciate all the work you put into the site, Sami!  Its great to see how much you update the game on a regular basis and listen to input from the players. 

Many thanks, and have a Happy New Year everyone! 

[Kadachiman]

. But I see that people do not seem to notice that still at all and happily fly along with the suggested ticket prices all along

I am one of those mainly due to the fact that the real time it takes to adjust ticket pricing on a route by route basis is too great.
Perhaps if we could select 10,20,30.etc routes at a time and increase/decrease all by 5%, 10%, etc....you would see more players using ticket pricing as an effective competitive tool

[AUpilot77]

I am one of those mainly due to the fact that the real time it takes to adjust ticket pricing on a route by route basis is too great.
Perhaps if we could select 10,20,30.etc routes at a time and increase/decrease all by 5%, 10%, etc....you would see more players using ticket pricing as an effective competitive tool

Maybe a tool to automatically change certain prices on routes if that segment's class of service is getting greater than xx.x% LF or less than xx.x% LF.  This would be a lot quicker and could start pricing wars. 

If I'm not mistaken the default prices are set for a distance, size of airport, international vs domestic etc and not for an aircraft size or type.  Essentially this means most people are flying around with nearly identical ticket prices and relying completely on frequency, CI etc to gain market share.

[Cardinal]

From the front page of the game, that advertises the game to those not logged in:

AirwaySim is a new and second-generation online management simulation where you can run your own airline. Compete against other players and their airlines in the tough airline business and see if you can beat them!

The marketing of the game seems to encourage beating your competition.

[BD]

In a scenario where 2 or more players in a base are aiming to achieve world/base domination, the system works well. However, if only one is bent on world domination and the others take a more casual approach to it, the one that wants world domination will get rather frustrated because there's nothing that can be done to the others hanging out in their base from a competition perspective.

For those who are "frustrated" they ought to keep in mind that there is nothing the brash new competitor can do to them to knock them off either, if they happen to be one of the world's top dominant airlines. 

I can't imagine anyone jumping into LHR is going to be a threat to its current dominant occupant in JA8.  Grab some share, yes.  Bring down that airline, no.

Observing a larger airline in JA8 at a top airport go to zero passengers carried for multiple weeks in a row, and somehow recovers from that to still be operating today says to me that there is not enough threat.

Not sure we can have it both ways...be frustrated at the pesky newcomers and not have existential threat, while asking for more competition because it is "boring".

For those who want the "bare knuckles" game they say they do, perhaps a world where there are only one airport allowed to base at for every five players, and no alliances, would suffice.

Reducing the game imbalances and avenues for exploits has done, and will continue to do, more for the game and for interesting competition rather than a call for reducing restrictions that others have argued here.

[Sanabas]

I do agree that the game is too easy, and gets boring once you're dominant in your HQ.

I disagree strongly with some of the other complaints raised in this thread though. It seems to me that the main complaint is that it's impossible to bankrupt a well-run airline, that it's impossible to simply squash someone with the temerity to open up in 'your' airport, to exploit superior resources and/or exploit some gameplay/design choices in order to make it a war of attrition to make the annoying competitor go away. Particularly if the well-run competitor is running a low-risk, controlled expansion instead of a very aggressive, high-risk expansion. I'm not sure why that should be seen as a problem, why it would be a good thing for a smaller airline, no matter how well-run, should have their survival depend on the whim of the player running the huge airline in their airport.

I also think it's still possible to put quite a lot of pressure on other airlines in your HQ. My most recent airline was in the current JA. I started in AMS, over a year late, there were two existing, largish, not-terrible airlines there with over 12 months' head start. Neither one was all that aggressive, all that efficient. But neither one was terrible, neither made glaring mistakes. I put enough pressure on both to send them bankrupt. To be fair, the thing that made the biggest difference, and eventually made their problems terminal, was that they ended up starved of slots. A fairer slot acquisition system, one that didn't let me monopolise 3 game years worth of slot drops, and maybe the competition lasts a lot longer, maybe the game stays interesting longer.

Most suggestions I can recall seeing, and all the ones I've put forward myself, aren't about making an airport into a happy little playground, a barbie dream house. Many are about an increase in fairness, and many have nothing at all to do with direct competition in a HQ. I agree, competition in a HQ makes things more interesting, more entertaining. But increasing fairness doesn't mean decreasing competition. The logical end result of competition isn't a monopoly. There are plenty of other equilibrium states that the competition could end up in. A stable, two or three airline state isn't inferior to a stable one-airline state. It might be boring, but definitively winning the contest and having 100% of your airport is equally boring. And at least the smaller-than-you, well-run competition still gives you a goal to aim for, offers a hard to achieve carrot. Which having a monopoly doesn't.

There's never been meaningful competition between airlines in different airports. Not likely that there can be. Sure, you can compare fleet size, or CV, or pax numbers, but anyone whose built a huge airline knows that skill is a secondary aspect to those numbers, much less important than where your HQ is, and what opposition you've got. You start in LHR and are lucky enough to only get crappy players with you on day 1, you'll be #1 in CV, guaranteed. You start in ORD or ATL and get crappy opponents, you'll likely be #1 in pax numbers & operating fleet size. You start in Sydney, or Hong Kong, or Turkey, and you might grow huge, you might get a monopoly, but no amount of skill will let you be #1 in pax, CV, fleet size, because the airport simply doesn't support the same volume as LHR or ORD.

More meaningful, interesting competition would be great. Fairer competition would also be great. The ability to monopolise an airport, squash competitors through superior starting resources/better exploits, that's neither fair nor interesting. A new, well-run airline actually having a chance to succeed and eventually overtake the big established airline through superior gameplay, that actually has the possibility to keep things more interesting. Getting a balance with the difficulty level is tough. Game already seems too hard for many players, discouraging for beginners. But game is clearly too easy for the more experienced players, there's very little actual challenge in building a large airline. There's skill in just how large you can make it, but nothing meaningful to actually measure that size against, no way to judge the difference between a good huge airline and a really good one. 

I'd love to see at least some gameworlds be more difficult, more competitive, but also more fair. I hate seeing people who claim to want interesting competition, but also keep arguing for the ability to squash any competition before it gets interesting, who want to retain all their comfortable exploits because they need them to 'win' what competition there is.

What I would really love is to stop seeing people like the OP continually conflating fair competition with no competition.

[Captim]

Great post Sanabas.

The major issue with the game IMO is it's often either too difficult or too easy.

Some territories are simple to conquer, but that leads to a dull world ( this killed the game for me the last time I played in Tel Aviv ). The 'real' competition exists within the US and the EU regions ( with a nod to the major Asian countries ).

It's a global market place. We've seen many airlines own almost a controlling share in overseas airlines. Why not allow each airline one overseas base, outside/inside the EU/USA? It should be controlled and balanced of course, perhaps with exceptional taxation on those profits etc...?

This would allow major players from the outside some form of 'in' to the biggest game markets, and also smaller players an option to boost their revenues by setting up in the 'sticks'?

It is a game after all. MMO's thrive due to their open ended play, limiting the game to real life restrictions is a strength of AS and a weakness...

[swiftus27]

Agree with Captim... why not have different rules for different games?

[tcrlaf]

Why not allow each airline one overseas base, outside/inside the EU/USA?

"International" basing reallyhas no place in the real world. Beyond the nationalism and protectionism, it has only been done successfully twice, both times by Pan Am, in Tokyo and Berlin. Both were an outgrowth of post-WW2 treaties. (Berlin was considered U.S. Domestic)

[Captim]

"International" basing reallyhas no place in the real world. Beyond the nationalism and protectionism, it has only been done successfully twice, both times by Pan Am, in Tokyo and Berlin. Both were an outgrowth of post-WW2 treaties. (Berlin was considered U.S. Domestic)

The Virgin brand flies from all over the place today.

[Infinity]

You said it. The brand.

[Captim]

All owned by one CEO...

[mavi]

All owned by one CEO...

I don't know about other nations, but in the U.S. 75% of Virgin America is owned by Americans, as U.S. law prevents foreign entities from owning more than 25% of an airline.

[Infinity]

All owned by one CEO...

Virgin America and Virgin Australia are independent entities paying licensing fees to the Virgin Group for the use of the brand. That's the only connection there is.

[tcrlaf]

All owned by one CEO...

Incorrect...
Most countries have laws requiring varying levels of completely domestic ownership.