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: Changelog and Previews comment thread  (Read 42583 times)

Online Zombie Slayer

  • Members
  • Posts: 4658
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #320 on: March 07, 2019, 08:26:45 PM »
Hmm, alot of people are bored today. If you have spare time inbetween market refreshes, help out here: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/board,590.0.html:laugh:



Talentz

I like the idea here, just think it should be limited to top 20 or 25 members. There are legitimate reasons why averaging all but the bottom score will hurt alliances and the AWS community as a whole.
Co-founder Elite Worldwide Alliance
PacAir President and CEO
Designated "Tier 1" Opponent

Offline [ATA] Frimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 1978

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #321 on: March 07, 2019, 08:42:07 PM »
GW4..

Top 2 alliances tied...

1 alliance has 9 players in top 20..
the other alliance has 1 player in 20th.

Offline Zobelle

  • Members
  • Posts: 1770

The person who likes this post:
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #322 on: March 07, 2019, 09:35:43 PM »
GW4..

Top 2 alliances tied...

1 alliance has 9 players in top 20..
the other alliance has 1 player in 20th.
That’s GW2..

Offline MuzhikRB

  • Members
  • Posts: 960

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #323 on: March 07, 2019, 10:34:41 PM »
still dont understand why alliance score based on individual SCORE of players?

Alliance points should come from:

 How one group of players contribute in pax/cargo movement versus others group of players. Not how individual scoring calculated somehow to ally scoring.

Main basement: 1. How much PAX/cargo transferred by alliance since day 1 till game end. Thats it. It shouldnt calculate PAX/cargo transferred by a company during period out of alliance (to not provoke to inviting players on the finish line to ally).
2. How much planes are up in the air ? (average for last 2 years)
3. How many weekly flights.

calculate points from these 4 categories like you do for individual scoring.
And then multiple this score on alliance Rating (%), which represents Quality of Alliance.

Simple as it is.

Old system was in favour of player amount in ally without any connection to quality of airlines.
Current system overrides in favour of individual scoring without any connection of how Alliance is performing at all.



Online Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 16892
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #324 on: March 07, 2019, 10:56:00 PM »
Slight adjustment based on feedback:

Alliance score is now calculated with a new and straightforward method: The total score of the alliance is the average airline score of all members participating added with the sum of 2% of all individual airline scores in the alliance, apart from the airline with the lowest score who is excluded from the average calculation. There is no need for a separate scoring system since the airline score represents very well the overall quality and position of the member airlines.

"If the airline has 5 members with airline score values of 5000, 4500, 4000, 4000 and 3500 then the total alliance score is 4725 (average score and 2% of each, with the worst performer (i.e. score of 3500) excluded from the calculation)."

(in effect after 1-3 game months)

And as a comment to the previous post: Alliance is "nothing more" than what the airlines themselves are. So using the airline scores as the basis for the entire alliance scoring is a) logical and b) transparent since the airline score is a good overall metric on the entire operations. Score is a simple value used to compare the performance of airlines/alliances in an easy way. Not to be confused with the alliance rating.

Anyway, with this minor change this update item is closed and moving on to the next ones on my list.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2019, 11:01:05 PM by Sami »

Offline Andre090904

  • Members
  • Posts: 1846

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #325 on: March 07, 2019, 11:05:27 PM »
So, from what I can tell, we should rather focus on "Alliance Rating" instead of "Alliance Score" to determine how well an Alliance is doing.

Offline Cornishman

  • Members
  • Posts: 1337

The 3 people who like this post:
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #326 on: March 07, 2019, 11:22:31 PM »
Slight adjustment based on feedback:

"If the airline has 5 members with airline score values of 5000, 4500, 4000, 4000 and 3500 then the total alliance score is 4725 (average score and 2% of each, with the worst performer (i.e. score of 3500) excluded from the calculation)."

(in effect after 1-3 game months)

And as a comment to the previous post: Alliance is "nothing more" than what the airlines themselves are. So using the airline scores as the basis for the entire alliance scoring is a) logical and b) transparent since the airline score is a good overall metric on the entire operations. Score is a simple value used to compare the performance of airlines/alliances in an easy way. Not to be confused with the alliance rating.

Anyway, with this minor change this update item is closed and moving on to the next ones on my list.

I'm very sorry, but on behalf of Sky Alliance - one of this AWS games most popular, well subscribed and certainly amongst the most consistent (by terms of we are always represented in all GWs), I am thoroughly unimpressed by the changes.  In GW4 our alliance has worked tirelessly, become the highest subscribe-to alliance and was clearly out in front on the league table - and yet we have somehow been unceremoniously dumped from 1st all the way down to second last by this ?   

To me this just represents an undeserved slap in the face to all our members.   What's the point of this game  - where the very essence of playing is to compete to win - then half way through a GW all the goalposts are moved and so there's the result.   How can anyone think this is fair play to happen in the middle of a GW.  If stats must be changed, sure, change them at the beginning of a new GW.  Sorry but I have to stand up for our alliance where we specifically try to nurture new players alongside seasoned veterans. The new scoring method punishes this. The new method rewards being able to gather all the best players under one roof - that's nothing to do with "teamwork" - that's a "cartel". This situation doesn't sit well at all.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2019, 12:47:52 AM by Cornishman »

Offline Zobelle

  • Members
  • Posts: 1770
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #327 on: March 08, 2019, 02:16:15 AM »
Agree, this method should be removed from all but the newest GW.

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 4449

The 6 people who like this post:
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #328 on: March 08, 2019, 04:29:14 AM »
Now that someone has pointed out that major changes in game worlds can be a lot like moving goalposts, I thought I'd grind my axe as well about a separate but recent incident that I'm rather peeved about right now. Specifically, the change to allow XL Combis carry heavy cargo. That is a major strategy changer for airlines, especially in the earlier era that GW4 is currently in. When I decided on my 757/767 fleet strategy, there was not the opportunity to use combis as heavy cargo transports. I scoffed at my weak competition as they selected the DC10/MD11 combo to replace a number of their DC8s as my combination of planes was just as capable and more cost effective to fly, which would surely lead to his final demise as a poorly run airline that got by on pure luck (seriously, how does one profit flying an DC8/757PF/732C/MD11 on multiple cargo routes with less than 3000kg of actual demand?).

Anyhow, now that the goalposts were changed, his airline is prospering as routes that are not viable for me to send a 757-200PF on are fantastic routes for MD-11C's as they can soak up all of the cargo demand and passenger demand. If I wanted to replicate that, I'd have to send a 767 for passengers and then fly a 20% full 757 to pick up the heavy cargo, which puts me at a severe disadvantage.

I didn't rage quit during all of the cheating and intentional targeting that happened against me earlier in the game, but at this point, I'm wondering what the point is to continue in GW4 as this is the second major unfair issue to go against me - I really don't want to replace all of my 757s and 767s with MD11's just to be able to properly compete at this point (as that means I'll have yet another MD11 to something else transition I have to do before the game ends).

It's probably too late to revert the change in the game world, but as a long time player and operator of small regional airlines, this was a major change that should not have been made mid-game with zero warning whatsoever.

Online Zombie Slayer

  • Members
  • Posts: 4658

The person who likes this post:
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #329 on: March 08, 2019, 04:32:45 AM »
Couldn't. Agree. More.
Co-founder Elite Worldwide Alliance
PacAir President and CEO
Designated "Tier 1" Opponent

Online dmoose42

  • Members
  • Posts: 1776

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #330 on: March 08, 2019, 04:44:22 AM »
I have an additional axe to grind on this topic. Yes the DC10/MD11 has the combi, but the 747 does not, even though it's listed as in the game (see my rejected bug report). So, not only was a meaningful consideration in fleet selection changed part way through the game, but the modeling of the aircraft to serve this revised mechanic was not complete. And when questioned about it, the answer was "it will be in the next GW if there's time". The lack of announcements on this topic speak for themselves.

If we are changing meaningful game mechanics, introducing them part way through games where there's a lack of visibility into what components have been fully fleshed out vs. not is extremely myopic and disappointing.

axe is now dull.

bye.

dmoose42

Age 38 and 18 days

Offline Zobelle

  • Members
  • Posts: 1770
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #331 on: March 08, 2019, 06:06:23 AM »
I personally like the combi/HC dynamic but do agree it should have waited for new game worlds to be introduced.

Offline knobbygb

  • Members
  • Posts: 840

The 3 people who like this post:
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #332 on: March 08, 2019, 06:25:41 AM »
'Unfair moving of goalposts mid-world'?  Sounds pretty much like real life to me! I used to agree with he above few comments and be annoyed by this kind of thing but I've actually changed my thinking recently. It's a game and it can get rather boring and repetitive once established. Anything (well, many things) that shakes things up, however unfair, adds a new dimension. Remember - it's not real money you're making!

Offline gazzz0x2z

  • Members
  • Posts: 4133

The person who likes this post:
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #333 on: March 08, 2019, 06:47:59 AM »
I have to agree with knobby. Here. Life is unfair, and one has to adapt.

Offline Oscjo290

  • Members
  • Posts: 369

The person who likes this post:
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #334 on: March 08, 2019, 06:52:43 AM »
'Unfair moving of goalposts mid-world'?  Sounds pretty much like real life to me! I used to agree with he above few comments and be annoyed by this kind of thing but I've actually changed my thinking recently. It's a game and it can get rather boring and repetitive once established. Anything (well, many things) that shakes things up, however unfair, adds a new dimension. Remember - it's not real money you're making!
You might not make real money, but you invest alot of time into it, and it will be seen as wasted if ypu put nearly 2 years of your life into a gw thrn last few months all is taken away from you

Online Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 16892
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?

The 4 people who like this post:
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #335 on: March 08, 2019, 07:06:34 AM »
and it will be seen as wasted if ypu put nearly 2 years of your life into a gw thrn last few months all is taken away from you

Seriously? Two years and "it's taken away in last months". What? Game World #4 has 8 months to go, Game World #3 has 4.5 months to end. The before-mentioned combi a/c update was made also to GW#1 when it also had 4+ months to the end (and that was difficult to separate between current & future scenarios due to technical considerations).

With scenarios lasting now regularily 12+ months it is unavoidable that there will be changes to them during the course of their duration, because having each game as a different "version" with different codebase is a nightmare to manage and that is not being considered. All the most major updates will be built only into new scenarios of course (as implementing some of those, like changes in flight times, would be a huge hassle to players); but it all depends on the individual change and it's not very simple.

(The comments made here are now getting a bit pointless and non-constructive, so everyone should please consider what they post and stay on topic, thanks. Sorry for the frustration, but perhaps it's better that I don't comment so frequently here and instead just focus on the updates and development)


edit / typo
« Last Edit: March 08, 2019, 07:13:50 AM by Sami »

Offline [SC] - King Kong

  • Members
  • Posts: 745
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #336 on: March 08, 2019, 10:21:29 AM »
Hi Simon,

alliance do have a score, and this score should effectively reflect various things, and Sami agrees on it. Then comes the problem of defining what make an alliance score bigger than the some other one's: here we can discuss and dispute.
Whatever your opinion is, the new alliance scoring system makes no sense:
 - doesn't promote varied alliances
 - doesn't promote formation of new players
 - doesn't promote large alliances
 - promotes small alliance with high scoring airlines

Indeed, the new calculation would promote even more the "kill others": if you have 3 mini-alliances forming a cartel with some common discord channel or such, they would rule the GW and kill the rest. Actually, my best interest in last GW#2 would have been to leave Sky with VladimirJohnson, Luperco and 1 or 2 others, and then set up something off the grid with King Kong, Spiff, Konchr, etc. We would have destroyed any hope for the others to score in the top.

Let's do it then :-) Aiming for similar results in other gameworlds hehe

Offline tyteen4a03

  • Members
  • Posts: 158
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #337 on: March 08, 2019, 10:57:54 AM »
Hi Sami,

I completely agree with the others and think this is counter-productive. There's no point in repeating the same arguments, so I'll keep it short.
I think this new feat was rushed in before weighting all the pros and cons, and while the discussion was still going on (see link above).
The pros you see are real, but so are the cons, and they're big.
Sky recruited around 10-12 young players in GW#2, 1/3 of all our airlines. Sky usually scores pretty high despite this policy of welcoming these young players, but the current system made us... n°6!
SASA, an alliance focused only on one continent (which deeply impacts their rating) and consists of only 7 players ranks n°3.*
Shaving off the single worst scoring airline ain't gonna change anything if an airline consists of 33 members with 1/3 low scoring.

Thank you for considering our concerns,

Arthur

* SASA members, if you read me, don't feel offended. Indeed, I feel the idea of an alliance on only one continent very interesting and challenging, I just think you shouldn't be n°3 in score. Especially considering you have only 7 members.
Maybe it's because we are on our way to dominate South America?  8)

The old scoring system does discriminate against small alliances with members that outperform big alliances - for quite some time in GW#1 we (as Aberdeen Alliance) were the only alliance with an all-green airline scores.

Online elvis141

  • Members
  • Posts: 535
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #338 on: March 08, 2019, 11:45:33 AM »
Changes in alliance scoring should not be changed in current gameworlds, only be made to new games!

Offline MuzhikRB

  • Members
  • Posts: 960

The 5 people who like this post:
Re: Changelog and Previews comment thread
« Reply #339 on: March 08, 2019, 12:00:05 PM »


And as a comment to the previous post: Alliance is "nothing more" than what the airlines themselves are. So using the airline scores as the basis for the entire alliance scoring is a) logical and b) transparent since the airline score is a good overall metric on the entire operations. Score is a simple value used to compare the performance of airlines/alliances in an easy way. Not to be confused with the alliance rating.

Anyway, with this minor change this update item is closed and moving on to the next ones on my list.

If scoring system forces ally management to : a) not recruit newbye players b) kick at some point member not performing well c) concentrate members on single possible strategy to win like an ally (not caring about personal goals)
then I would state - that such system is:
A) Not logical
B) Not promoting
C) not encouraging at all. >:(

Alliance should have different ways to win GWs:
- it can be small group of high profile players capturing top bases and dominating it with pax and cargo.
- or it can be 40 average players producing the comparable amount of pax and cargo service
- or it can be mix of it

any of alliance should have chance to win AS ALLIANCE, no matter how they are played individually.
we have plenty well developed individual rewards. Let us make the same for alliances.

 

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.