Alliance base sharing rule clarification

[fedot12345]

Dear sami

I am writing this to clarify specific game rules that were introduced this year which has affected the alliance. Me and my teammates understand that from now on it isn't allowed to share the same airport (HQ or base). What we still don't understand is that whether the rules apply to GW 3 or not because most of us don't think it applies for a couple of reasons:

1) Myself and other think that GW 3 isn't necessarily a long GW, assuming that GW 1,2 and 4 all start in 1950-60 and 3 only starts in like 1995 and they all end at the same time excluding GW 4 which ends in 2020. Because of the length of the 3 GW listed above we think that GW 3 isn't a long GW (correct me if I am wrong).

2) GW 3 started in May 2014 and the base rule was only considered to be changed later on and introduced to new GWs and GW 3 wasn't exactly new and it isn't as long as 1,2 and 4.

Source: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,26356.msg325572.html#msg325572

So can you make this clear for everyone please, does the new base sharing rule affect GW 3 or is it an exception?
To us it seems like it doesn't but some anonymous players have been telling on us but we have a different position. Correct me if I am wrong on anything.

Thank you for your understanding

Global Express Alliance
 

[Sami]

The rule applies also to GW3, since 1/2015 (like in all other games).

However ... there's about a month left in that game world, so I would not perhaps be too stressed about it at this stage if it requires a major reshuffle of operations. If your competition would accept that, then I'd be ok with it too this time.

[schro]

I am one of the impacted players and I'm not pleased with being co-based against two GE members in EHAM. I'm pretty sure that the conflicting player joined GE even after the rule was implemented. Given that it had a long lead time and that I had to make adjustments to my own airlines as a result of the change as well as manage conflicts within my own alliance that the rule change made, I don't think it is fair to ask me to be OK because I followed the rule and others did not.

Connect America seems to co-base in AMS, MUC and BCN, however, there's no other competition in BCN (heh. unless I open a base there for giggles).

SSN Airlines is co-based in CGN.

Overall, you just have two problem airlines that would either need to be removed from the alliance or close a few bases.....

[gazzz0x2z]

I understand Schro. My own alliance is rather small now, but I could have opened some bases in Northern Europe to help one of our leaders under great attack. I did not, and went for a crappy base in Reus instead.

Of course, my firepower is only trinkets compared to Connect America, but for "cleaning" my buddy's bases, on smaller airports, it could have helped. There's a rule, and people who respect it are being under disadvantage, if others trample it at will. After it's been established. I could be OK if Connect America always had been in GE and in Amsterdam, but that's rather new moves from him.

Respecting the rule would help the company that is already number one in GW3? I don't care. The rule is fair, justified, and most people did respect it.

[bkuyers]

I am one of the impacted players and I'm not pleased with being co-based against two GE members in EHAM. I'm pretty sure that the conflicting player joined GE even after the rule was implemented. Given that it had a long lead time and that I had to make adjustments to my own airlines as a result of the change as well as manage conflicts within my own alliance that the rule change made, I don't think it is fair to ask me to be OK because I followed the rule and others did not.

Connect America seems to co-base in AMS, MUC and BCN, however, there's no other competition in BCN (heh. unless I open a base there for giggles).

SSN Airlines is co-based in CGN.


Overall, you just have two problem airlines that would either need to be removed from the alliance or close a few bases.....

I do not follow your argument here, Connect has been based there long before he joined the alliance, so the competition would be there regardless. Connect being in GE or not has no affect on you.

[xyeahtony]

I am one of the impacted players and I'm not pleased with being co-based against two GE members in EHAM. I'm pretty sure that the conflicting player joined GE even after the rule was implemented. Given that it had a long lead time and that I had to make adjustments to my own airlines as a result of the change as well as manage conflicts within my own alliance that the rule change made, I don't think it is fair to ask me to be OK because I followed the rule and others did not.

Connect America seems to co-base in AMS, MUC and BCN, however, there's no other competition in BCN (heh. unless I open a base there for giggles).

SSN Airlines is co-based in CGN.

Overall, you just have two problem airlines that would either need to be removed from the alliance or close a few bases.....

If Elite wants to complain about an airline that joined GLOBAL 10 game years AFTER they opened a base in a an airport with another GLOBAL airline (EHAM) specifically, let me mention that Elite also has base sharing as well.

Let me point out that Volppe and King Airways enjoy a nice duopoly at EWR in GW4 and have done so for 10+ game years without any other complaining from any alliance. And I'm pretty sure GW4 started after GW3 (obviously) and there is fewer grey areas regarding the rule implementation by Sami.

Nevermind that Owl Express continues to lead strong profits and gains in a gameworld with less than 4 years remaining, so the notion that Owl Express as an airline is being threatened at EHAM by 2 GLOBAL members is laughable at best. How much cash are you sitting on right now? $181 billion dollars? $181 billion dollars and you're going to complain there's some unfair competition in an airport. In fact, in no way have my airline operations or me joining GLOBAL affected Owl Express in any manner so it's clear this is just another example of complaining by Elite in an attempt to curb their competition because they're not going to win this gameworld and likely feel the need to pout in any way possible. The motives of that alliance are so transparent to everybody in AWS.

I'm all for following "rules" but they should apply to Elite as well. Also if this was such an issue, then it should have been raised when Connect America FIRST joined GLOBAL, several game years ago instead of later. Did it take your leadership several weeks to decide if they should complain or not?

Bottom line is Connect America joining GLOBAL has no affect on Owl Express's operations whatsoever but obviously they want to press a non-issue to force Connect America to either leave GLOBAL, or close bases, which also would have no affect on Owl Express's operations as i would just simply leave global, and the competition will remain in place.

So here's what i propose: i'll close my bases in question at the 3 airports where GLOBAL were before me if ELITE does the same in EVERY gameworld.

[Zombie Slayer]

Rules should be followed, plain and simple. Due to base overlaps, the alliance managers should not have accepted the new member regardless of when bases were opened and there is no reason the member should be allowed to remain in the alliance due to rule violation. The competition is not the issue, the blatant disregard for the written rules is.

[schro]

If Elite wants to complain about an airline that joined GLOBAL 10 game years AFTER they opened a base in a an airport with another GLOBAL airline (EHAM) specifically, let me mention that Elite also has base sharing as well.

Let me point out that Volppe and King Airways enjoy a nice duopoly at EWR in GW4 and have done so for 10+ game years without any other complaining from any alliance. And I'm pretty sure GW4 started after GW3 (obviously) and there is fewer grey areas regarding the rule implementation by Sami.

Nevermind that Owl Express continues to lead strong profits and gains in a gameworld with less than 4 years remaining, so the notion that Owl Express as an airline is being threatened at EHAM by 2 GLOBAL members is laughable at best. How much cash are you sitting on right now? $181 billion dollars? $181 billion dollars and you're going to complain there's some unfair competition in an airport. In fact, in no way have my airline operations or me joining GLOBAL affected Owl Express in any manner so it's clear this is just another example of complaining by Elite in an attempt to curb their competition because they're not going to win this gameworld and likely feel the need to pout in any way possible. The motives of that alliance are so transparent to everybody in AWS.

I'm all for following "rules" but they should apply to Elite as well. Also if this was such an issue, then it should have been raised when Connect America FIRST joined GLOBAL, several game years ago instead of later. Did it take your leadership several weeks to decide if they should complain or not?

Bottom line is Connect America joining GLOBAL has no affect on Owl Express's operations whatsoever but obviously they want to press a non-issue to force Connect America to either leave GLOBAL, or close bases, which also would have no affect on Owl Express's operations as i would just simply leave global, and the competition will remain in place.

So here's what i propose: i'll close my bases in question at the 3 airports where GLOBAL were before me if ELITE does the same in EVERY gameworld.

I'm not sure that I understand how all of your straw man arguments address the concern that I have raised. I have not been very active in either GW3 or GW4 in quite some time due to being busier with GW2 (not so much anymore) and GW1 which tend to have a bit more action happening at any given time, so my lack of attention to GW3 is why the issue was not raised sooner as you left A-Team and were allianceless for a number of game years prior to joining GE. Since there's not a news dashboard item about the goings-on of alliance joining and departures, it's not the easiest thing to monitor. The complaint was not at all contemplated within Elite leadership and was solely raised by myself as I noticed it when i was working on deploying some of my thousand-ish idle planes in GW3 a couple of nights ago.

I do appreciate you pointing out the EWR conflict in GW4. I will work with the two affected airlines and our leadership to resolve the matter as quickly as possible. From our efforts prior to the rule taking place, we were fairly certain that we had addressed all conflicts prior, but apparently we missed one. Edit: After looking into it, I do not see King co-basing with Volppe at EWR in that game world. King is there, Volppe is not, and his news feed doesn't say anything about opening/closing bases in 20 game years which should be long enough to be prior to the rule implementation.

Your bottom line argument is also not accurate, as Connect America sans an alliance (especially sans a strong alliance) is not as preferable to passengers as it is when it is part of a strong alliance due to how the demand distribution scoring works on the back end of the game. Therefore, Connect America being allianceless or a member of A Team (at GW3's level of scoring) is far better for Owl Express than is Connect America being a member of a better scoring alliance.

As far as your proposal, the game rules dictate that your bases in question should be closed or you should leave GE. There's really no other way around it, nor is it something that you should try to condition based upon the actions of others. Likewise, Elite should perform another review across each game world to make sure that all conflicts are resolved as that is also part of the game rules and will be undertaken regardless.

[bkuyers]

Rules should be followed, plain and simple. Due to base overlaps, the alliance managers should not have accepted the new member regardless of when bases were opened and there is no reason the member should be allowed to remain in the alliance due to rule violation. The competition is not the issue, the blatant disregard for the written rules is.

While I agree with this statement, the whole reason for this thread was to clear up what the rule is for GW3. The managers of the alliance were unaware that it was actually a violation of the rules.

[xyeahtony]

I'm not sure that I understand how all of your straw man arguments address the concern that I have raised. I have not been very active in either GW3 or GW4 in quite some time due to being busier with GW2 (not so much anymore) and GW1 which tend to have a bit more action happening at any given time, so my lack of attention to GW3 is why the issue was not raised sooner as you left A-Team and were allianceless for a number of game years prior to joining GE. Since there's not a news dashboard item about the goings-on of alliance joining and departures, it's not the easiest thing to monitor. The complaint was not at all contemplated within Elite leadership and was solely raised by myself as I noticed it when i was working on deploying some of my thousand-ish idle planes in GW3 a couple of nights ago.

I do appreciate you pointing out the EWR conflict in GW4. I will work with the two affected airlines and our leadership to resolve the matter as quickly as possible. From our efforts prior to the rule taking place, we were fairly certain that we had addressed all conflicts prior, but apparently we missed one. Edit: After looking into it, I do not see King co-basing with Volppe at EWR in that game world. King is there, Volppe is not, and his news feed doesn't say anything about opening/closing bases in 20 game years which should be long enough to be prior to the rule implementation. [/b]

Your bottom line argument is also not accurate, as Connect America sans an alliance (especially sans a strong alliance) is not as preferable to passengers as it is when it is part of a strong alliance due to how the demand distribution scoring works on the back end of the game. Therefore, Connect America being allianceless or a member of A Team (at GW3's level of scoring) is far better for Owl Express than is Connect America being a member of a better scoring alliance.

As far as your proposal, the game rules dictate that your bases in question should be closed or you should leave GE. There's really no other way around it, nor is it something that you should try to condition based upon the actions of others. Likewise, Elite should perform another review across each game world to make sure that all conflicts are resolved as that is also part of the game rules and will be undertaken regardless.

You can ask Volppe himself, he was based in EWR. I have not looked in awhile but it's clear that he did close the base awhile ago as its not on any recent newsfeed. I understand if you are not active in GW4 so that is reasoning that is plausible. Or it is quite possible he closed the base in anticipation of this confrontation.

As i do not have the energy nor effort to bother with any sort of argument i will simply leave GLOBAL. However, it is well known alliances only marginally boost passenger numbers (less than 1%). Me leaving GLOBAL will not affect anybody's passenger numbers and will actually increase mine because i will be free to open more routes in bases where i share with GLOBAL (which i have held back on due to the base co-sharing). Either way since $181 billion is not enough money for 4 years left in the game i will oblige a rule that Sami has not forced on me at all and implemented after the gameworld started. As your goal has been accomplished i will not press the issue further. It doesn't matter to me in the long run anyways, my stats will not change in the leaderboards, ill still make loads of money idk how to use, and Elite will no longer be able to boast they win every gameworld (which has not been a true statement for quite some time anyways).