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: After Game World #3  (Read 4104 times)

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 15768
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
After Game World #3
« on: April 16, 2014, 02:00:17 PM »
The GW#3 will end in about a month, and would like to ask if you prefer a scenario to start from the 1950s again or simply do a repeat of the standard "Modern Times" scenario, ie. ~4-6 months from 2000-2025 or that way.

The latter will be initially more popular but then we would have three modern scenarios running at the same time which isn't desirable really, as the big idea is to have 4 major games running that are well enough spaced to have each of them in different era.

Any opinions on this?

Xflash

  • Former member
Re: After Game World #3
« Reply #1 on: April 16, 2014, 02:37:48 PM »
The 1950s please.. I had a bad start in GW4 because I didnt know how to play :(
I think the long term game are attractive to all player.


Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: After Game World #3
« Reply #2 on: April 16, 2014, 03:09:48 PM »
The problem with Early Era is that demand is very limited and everyone and their mother piles in at the start of a new scenario to take part in the landrush.  Thus the reason why my favorite scenario is DOTM starting in 1975.  There is plenty of demand and the tough economic conditions and plane availability (DC-10 is king) keeps things in check, making the landrush viable for most players versus every airport ending up with zero slots and every route being oversupplied.

My vote is DOTM :)

Offline Mr. Pete

  • Members
  • Posts: 371
Re: After Game World #3
« Reply #3 on: April 16, 2014, 03:42:48 PM »
DOTM!

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 3930
Re: After Game World #3
« Reply #4 on: April 16, 2014, 03:43:20 PM »
One of the most fun parts of playing AWS to me is the land rush in a more modern era, either DOTM or MT. Its always full of surprises to see which regulars park themselves at which airports and how the matchups shake out. That simply has not happened in the 2 long game worlds so far. I also think MT scenarios should start ~1995ish to ensure that the MD-90 is a viable alternative (as it is often out of production in 2000).

Since the MT worlds run so slow anyway (from a minutes per day perspective), having them spaced 5-10 game years apart will make them feel like totally different eras....

Offline Kadachiman

  • Members
  • Posts: 921
Re: After Game World #3
« Reply #5 on: April 16, 2014, 03:46:08 PM »
Early Era gets my vote, as it is great concept in being able to start an airline at the very beginning of Commercial aviation and see it all the way through.

Yes the Early Era demand is low etc however it appears that at least 50% of airlines will go BK prior to the normal DOTM age anyway so those that want to play DOTM can start then, maybe a little bit disadvantaged compared to those that survived through the Early Era, but that also gives them another game challenge

Curse

  • Former member
Re: After Game World #3
« Reply #6 on: April 16, 2014, 04:10:08 PM »
1950 - 2030(2035) to make changes to 787, A350 etc. necessary and not just an option (2025) or a no go (2019).

Ending a game in 2019 just makes people to sit things out with old aircraft because the gameworlds ends anyways.





Scenarios like Modern Times or DotM then could be something like EuroChallenge with fast speeds?

Offline Kadachiman

  • Members
  • Posts: 921
Re: After Game World #3
« Reply #7 on: April 16, 2014, 04:15:45 PM »
1950 - 2030(2035) to make changes to 787, A350 etc. necessary and not just an option (2025) or a no go (2019).

Ending a game in 2019 just makes people to sit things out with old aircraft because the gameworlds ends anyways.


Scenarios like Modern Times or DotM then could be something like EuroChallenge with fast speeds?

Totally agree with this approach

The 'normal' game should be 1950 - 2030
The previous MT, DOTM, etc can be the mini scenarios

Offline Zarza

  • Members
  • Posts: 47
Re: After Game World #3
« Reply #8 on: April 16, 2014, 05:38:25 PM »
Exactly, 1950 is the best option to normal worlds. New era is better for quick worldss.

Offline Longbow

  • Members
  • Posts: 30
Re: After Game World #3
« Reply #9 on: April 16, 2014, 06:54:28 PM »
50s  :)

MagicsAvon

  • Former member
Re: After Game World #3
« Reply #10 on: April 16, 2014, 07:09:47 PM »
1950-2030 , lets go for it)

Online ZombieSlayer

  • Members
  • Posts: 4345
Re: After Game World #3
« Reply #11 on: April 16, 2014, 08:32:58 PM »
A new Modern Times gets my vote. It has long been the most popular world and will be the biggest money maker for you, Sami.

The 80 year game worlds are fun, but way too tedious when it comes to fleet replacement. TBH, I will not play in another long world until this feature request (http://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,49069.0.html) is programmed in. Serious playability issues arise when a player must spend many hours rescheduling to new types multiple times each game instead of actually running their airline.

Just my 2 cents...

Don
Co-Founder Elite Worldwide Alliance
CEO PacAir
Designated "Tier 1 Opponent"

Offline AUpilot77

  • Members
  • Posts: 785
Re: After Game World #3
« Reply #12 on: April 16, 2014, 09:28:03 PM »
I vote 1990s-2030s

If we have another 1950s-2020s game world, we'll be creating identical worlds running at different times. MT is the only type of scenario I've played and I can't imagine I'll have enough time to do fleet replacements etc as has been mentioned above with the faster rates of time. If people want the longer game worlds, they have their choice in a current offering, but personally I don't want to lose the 1990s-2020s game worlds that are 35mins/day.


Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 15768
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: After Game World #3
« Reply #13 on: April 16, 2014, 09:35:27 PM »
If we have another 1950s-2020s game world, we'll be creating identical worlds running at different times.

And this is exactly the aim really in the long run.

Though none of them is identical since players are not the same, economy is not the same etc. Only what is same are the years the game spans over.

Curse

  • Former member
Re: After Game World #3
« Reply #14 on: April 16, 2014, 09:48:07 PM »
It would be cool if you could unveil at least the basic settings ("hard economy" , "high fuel prices") or even the whole settings after a gameworld has ended. :)

I get why you don't display them anymore when a gameworld starts, of course, but at the end there's nothing to hide anymore, or?

Offline Fscamp

  • Members
  • Posts: 189
Re: After Game World #3
« Reply #15 on: April 16, 2014, 10:55:12 PM »
I too would vote for 1950-2030, that would be great so there would be a real point of ordering next generation aircraft.

Offline AUpilot77

  • Members
  • Posts: 785
Re: After Game World #3
« Reply #16 on: April 17, 2014, 12:19:36 AM »
And this is exactly the aim really in the long run.

Though none of them is identical since players are not the same, economy is not the same etc. Only what is same are the years the game spans over.

That would make sense and I suppose I'd support that, but would there be enough demand in the 1950s to support 500-700 players wanting to join in the new world?  I'll be honest I haven't looked at the current game world running these years but the typical MT scenario (which is what will be replaced by the new one) is typically flooded with nearly the maximum amount of players at the beginning.  The 1990s are perfect for this because the used market has tons of DC-9s, MD-80s, 737s, A320s and lots of decent long-haul aircraft (with sufficient demand to cover nearly 700 airlines with those aircraft).


Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 15768
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: After Game World #3
« Reply #17 on: April 17, 2014, 05:22:56 PM »
Indeed, one viable option would be to start it from 1980s or 90s to give more demand, and then the world would be in sync with others (will not have three modern worlds at the same time).

But have to check it a bit closer soon.

Offline Captim

  • Members
  • Posts: 1327
Re: After Game World #3
« Reply #18 on: April 17, 2014, 06:51:04 PM »
Defo another MT please.

Perhaps starting in the early 90's or 80's.

The issue I see with the very long worlds is the 100 a/c base limit being a real pain in the a$$ over such a long time frame. For those who base in the hubs it's no problem, but for those who HQ in smaller airports it's a much bigger issue ( in GW3 i'm in KPIT and i'm massively limited ).

No-one wants GW's where it's a hub or bust, so the lesser time frames support a more varied play style I think...

« Last Edit: April 17, 2014, 08:21:48 PM by Captim »

Offline LemonButt

  • Members
  • Posts: 1895
Re: After Game World #3
« Reply #19 on: April 17, 2014, 08:14:10 PM »
Defo another MT please.

Perhaps starting in the early 90's or 80's.

The issue I see with the very long worlds is the 100 a/c base limit being a real pain in the a$$ over such a long time frame. For those who base in the hubs it's no problem, but for those who HQ in smaller airports it's a bigger issue ( in GW3 i'm in KPIT and i'm massively limited ).

No-one wants GW's where it's a hubs or bust, so the lesser time frames support a more varied play style I think...

Yes, would love a gameworld with instead of 3 bases with 100 aircraft each max you can have unlimited bases with an aggregate of 300 aircraft across all bases plus ABCBA routes.  This would make smaller airports much sexier as many bases cannot support 7 big aircraft, but collectively multiple bases can.  Thus, you can fly those handful of longhaul routes without figure out what the heck to do with the extra unscheduled time.

 

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.