Changelog and Previews comment thread

[Andre090904]

You should not expect a total slot availability at all hours during the day. Especially if the airport is one of the popular ones. (in several current game worlds the slot numbers are artificially high, but it's a fine balance of being too limiting or too generous)

Agreed. But then again let's assume ORD had 100 slots now in GW2 (73 less than it has currently). This would mean it would be totally slot locked except night times. I am sure this can't be it either?

[deovrat]

Agreed. But then again let's assume ORD had 100 slots now in GW2 (73 less than it has currently). This would mean it would be totally slot locked except night times. I am sure this can't be it either?

I second Andre on this, and think that the huge bases like ORD/LAX/LHR might either need a category (11/12) of their own, or a multiplier to the slots later in the game.

P.S. - If neither of the above are planned, happy days for A380 ! 

[Tha_Ape]

I second Andre on this, and think that the huge bases like ORD/LAX/LHR might either need a category (11/12) of their own, or a multiplier to the slots later in the game.

Half agreed. LHR is slot-constrained IRL, so wouldn't be a problem to keep it so in the game. Yes, settings in different GWs are already different, but then LHR would become somewhat more realistic (LHR has currently only 2 runways - vs 6 in the 50s - can't beat ATL).

And that's only a problem until CBD for pax is implemented. After that, Gatwick and Luton will gain power and that's precisely the point of crossing CBD with this infra system.

P.S. - If neither of the above are planned, happy days for A380 ! 

That would be interesting indeed. Very much.

[Cornishman]

Sorry to say, that if CBD for pax is being implemented before other more needed features, then that will probably be my last day playing this AWS game.

No disrespect and I'm sure many folk would disagree with me, but imo, we really need some exciting new developments, not more fiddley things to tie us up tighter in little knots. I mean - lets face it: we currently have CBD for cargo in place, yet we do not have a satisfactory toolbox to help assess exactly which airports we should serve and which not to bother with thereafter because it would be affected by our previous route selection in any given CBD.  We all know that if you fiddle around and open a new tab and alter the url then there is a very clunky way to see a map with the CBD areas and the airports within them. But even then, this leaves us with some massive tasks to create a spreadsheet to organise yourself. I did that when I mapped out all the cargo route possibilities from Paris to the USA. Largely it worked a dream for me in the end - but I'm not doing that again with all pax routes all around the world - NO WAY - task much too big.

Perhaps instead, finally doing something that makes huge swathes of the planet like Africa, more fun and workable - maybe in Africa (and similar places where traffic is thin) allow "stop-&-pick-up routes". Perhaps first some toolbox updates to fix the large number of "repeat/repeat/repeat" tasks we have to tediously go through "1-plane-at-a-time" or "1-route-at-a-time" when running a large fleet of say 500+ aircraft. 

PS: Thank you for just fixing the mass-scrapping of planes. Excellent, some more fixes like this will really go down well. (I only just noticed this after posting this message)

[Cornishman]

I was just having to look at some of my less profitable cargo routes and make some decisions whether to axe a few. So about the current CBD arrangement for cargo - for my money it really is pretty damned poor. I run a fleet of cargo planes - and so to fill-up a required shorter schedule here and there in a 7-day schedule, I choose to fly into destinations like Germany, Italy the UK and France which have decent cargo requirements on the whole. But so many airports are within same CBD as several others, that when the demand is split around as it is - it becomes less viable to actually serve any of the destinations at all. It would surely be better for one airport in any given CBD to be given a "cargo-handler" status -  like for example BHX offer cargo, whilst those around like EMA, CVT, etc. would not.

Really not a fan at all of this CBD stuff. Dead against seeing this introduced for pax.

[MikeS]

In essence, it's an interesting concept and opens new strategy possibilities. The net effect, however, seems to be having more scattered demand/thin routes and flying smaller planes. It'll be a new challenge for all of us and keep us busy for a while but might prove frustrating in the longer run... but I'm glad to see this game in constant development..  something new in the pipeline all the time....

Mike

[knobbygb]

And it IS realistic... it means you must fight to strategically move demand by offering more/better flights than your competitors. Now, how well the system works is another matter but it has to be better than just having fixed demand at each airport, as before.  As for your example of designating a specific cargo airport - that would just be totally unrealistic and the game is trying to replicate real life wherever possible. Can you imagine the fuss if EMA were suddenly told "No, you can't handle cargo, BHX is having it all". It would break all sorts of anti-competition and free market rules.

[Zombie Slayer]

Simple solution is to work to find what airports handle cargo IRL and which dont. If no cargo IRL, airline has to invest in a facility prior to launching service.

[Cornishman]

Knobby says "it IS realistic" - I have no argument about that specific fact knobby - but the problem is the tools that we have to manage this in AWS are completely lacking. Knobby... have you tried finding out all the cargo strategic best destinations in the USA for example, if you fly from one of the European major cargo countries? I have... my God, it was a nightmare long task to establish what would work. I cannot begin to imagine the frustration to have to do that for every destination everywhere for passengers with the current tooling levels.  That is what I'm trying to flag up here before it all just gets launched and then everyone discovers we have a nightmare going on.

[gazzz0x2z]

Agree with cornishman. In GW3, I've got a few cargo lines from MPL, some work very well, some very bad, and I couldn't find what lines from MRS(the only reasonable nearby competing airport) were in competition with mine.

The system may be realistic, it's also completely unreadable.

[groundbum2]

I'm looking forward to passenger CBD as that is when the fun starts. Lets face it, we've played the games loads and we're used to the JFK-LHR cash cow that prints cash, and with slots restricted at both ends and Heathrow closed 23-06 means it's hard to break into for new people.

CBD promises us we can setup a new operation at Stansted and fly punters to Atlantic City. Or use Midway and not ORD. Oakland not SFO. etc etc. So rather than establish the usual big bases that nobody can touch after the first few years, we suddenly get disruptors popping up all over. Can't wait! Who will be the JetBlue or Ryanair of AWS? And if we get hub and spoke well...!

I can usually see who is hiding at smaller bases by going to the airport page, say Oakland for SFO, seeing who's based there, seeing if they have any cargo planes, if they do looking at their airline specific timetable and see if they've sneaked in some cargo flights to steal "my" cargo, eg KOAK-NYC.


Simon

[[ATA] Frimp]

My view is for quite a simple solution around CBD,

i think we need an extra data bar on the demand/supply page... one which shows the total supply between all the possible routes in CBD... if that total supply is below the potential demand then you know you can shift some volume your way and turn it into actual demand.. if it's not already above the potential then you know it will be harder to get the potential to turn into actual demand..

Not sure how easy it is for Sami to make that visible..

[DanDan]

My view is for quite a simple solution around CBD,

i think we need an extra data bar on the demand/supply page... one which shows the total supply between all the possible routes in CBD... if that total supply is below the potential demand then you know you can shift some volume your way and turn it into actual demand.. if it's not already above the potential then you know it will be harder to get the potential to turn into actual demand..

Not sure how easy it is for Sami to make that visible..

even easier: we just need one bar, with two new lines. the bar itself shows current demand at the airport. the top line is an indicator on maximum demand and the bottom line on the minimum demand that goes to that airport-route. but i am afraid, CBD will need much more tools to work with.

[Cornishman]

even easier: we just need one bar, with two new lines. the bar itself shows current demand at the airport. the top line is an indicator on maximum demand and the bottom line on the minimum demand that goes to that airport-route. but i am afraid, CBD will need much more tools to work with.

Agree with Dani on both accounts but also like the added bar suggested by Frimp as an alternative.  But whatever happens... needs much better management tools than currently available.

[gazzz0x2z]

(.../...) needs much better management tools than currently available.

We all agree on that. One solution to keep the screens readable would be a switch between "airport chart" (today's bars from airport are) and "area chart" (which would include all flights and demand from the whole area). I would see, for example, that there is no flight between MPL & BUR, but also that several flights do happen between the BUR area(which includes LAX) & the MPL area(which includes MRS, sooner or later), flights that would steal me a lot of demand.

But anything else providing the same level of information would be welcome. Is really needed, actually.

[connorc17]

You should not expect a total slot availability at all hours during the day. Especially if the airport is one of the popular ones. (in several current game worlds the slot numbers are artificially high, but it's a fine balance of being too limiting or too generous)

Repeatable every 5 game days. If the airport grows for example +10 slots per hour there might not be that much to share. And the system will not be biased towards whoever sets their alarm on and gets there first.

(the quota system will be tuned once there are some more experiences of it)

Surprised some of you haven't raised more of a fuss about this, but maybe this change is only affecting certain markets so far.. Anyway I understand where we are trying to go with this change, but at the same time this is just unreasonable. You are essentially asking your paying subscribers to log on more frequently and for longer periods of time. Before this change there was a cap on unused slots, which was annoying if you had 100+ aircraft sitting around, but understandable as players do deserve a fair shot to grab slots. Now not only is there a cap on unused slots, but also a set time limit that i must wait before i can finish buying slots and scheduling my aircraft. I will now have planes flying with schedules half finished because i need to wait another real life 2.5 hours before i can complete my scheduling. Forget scheduling SH aircraft with 7 day schedules anymore.. or any 7 day scheduling with more than one flight a day. Kinda silly if you ask me since that is the one strategy that is the most prevalent in all games(there's a tutorial pinned on this forum for crying out loud).

Sami, we really need to revisit this. Some of us can only get on once a day and would like to complete all necessary work in that period time. The cap on unused slots was a great move, but imo it really does not need to move past that. And if this is something that you won't bend on then at least have the cap be higher. 50 slots in 5 game days is nothing and for example if one was based at ORD flying SH using 7 day scheduling then in theory i could be purchasing nearly 200 slots at a given time for a 7 day schedule. Please reconsider this and thank you as always for continued work on perfecting this beautiful game.

Connor

[groundbum2]

I've just twigged to how awful this change is. So I'm playing ATL in GW1 and we just had an infra increase so now have 70 slots. But no increase for a real world week, with 9 other players the airport is totally slot blocked! It seems under the new rules we won't get slots released every so often, and when we get to infra 10 in a decades time we'll max at 100 slots!!! How can 9 people play for the next year, paying good money for credits, in a game like this? It's boooring as heck. In GW3 ATL has 220 slots, which given the size of the airport and the sheer number of destinations to get to and the size of the US pax market is reasonable.

We need slots to increase in gradual bits, as before, and to a higher number, so we have something to do in-between the infra increases every real 2 months! How can we play a game for an hour every 2 months? Once the slots are grabbed there's nothing to do..

Maybe the multiplier, 1.75 in GW1 supposedly, could increase week on week 1.80 1.85 etc..

Please reconsider Sami...

Simon

Simon

[tungstennedge]

This is the reason I stopped playing new worlds because I never got to play, either slot blocked or no planes of any kind on UM. Seems like it desperately needs a fix, now I'm glad I didn't spend credits to join GW1.

[Sami]

Sami, we really need to revisit this. Some of us can only get on once a day and would like to complete all necessary work in that period time.

As noted in the changelog entry, the slot quota system is based on the old design and will be possibly tuned at some point after there are more experiences of it. However it's not just yet time to jump to any conclusions since it has been in use only for a couple of weeks. But the intention is to find a balance where one doesn't have to be online at all times, and neither be online when the slot increase happens, but still give some small reward if you're able to visit more often than let's say every two days.

• The quota system is still partly based on old code intended only for the airline/route closures and will be tuned/improved at some point. Quota is also currently only displayed at the airport slots page but this is also due to some improvements soon. We'll keep an eye on how the things work in the new game world.

But no increase for a real world week, with 9 other players the airport is totally slot blocked!

First things first, the airport is not totally slot blocked. The morning hours are rather taken but not near 100% usage overall. But sure, ATL is currently the most difficult airport (traditionally it has been always LHR, but can't stick to old patterns). Mainly due to the excessive number of airlines HQ'ed there currently (more than at LHR).

It seems under the new rules we won't get slots released every so often, and when we get to infra 10 in a decades time we'll max at 100 slots!!!

You are incorrect with the assumption of maximum of 100 slots / hr for all scenarios. It depends on the game settings and at GW#1 already at infra 4 it has 70sl/hr. For smaller/shorter games the global modifier is usually at the default, but not for larger/longer games.

We need slots to increase in gradual bits, as before

No, this is not happening. The only time the slots increase in bits is at the game start period during the first years. After that expansion happens only when the airport itself expands, which can be seen as the most realistic way since the airport capacity cannot increase out of thin air. Please read the details about the change from the announcement for details: changelog and also the manual.

either slot blocked or no planes of any kind on UM. Seems like it desperately needs a fix, now I'm glad I didn't spend credits to join GW1.

There are no airports in GW#1 that are at this moment 24/7 slot blocked and the game has been running for 2 years now already. Even the "always slot locked" LHR has still some slots available (92% usage) - a very high value but totally expected since it has 7 large airlines based there. Outside of the top-3 airports, let's say Haneda, we have only 65% slot usage with plenty of slots at every hour! So check your facts first please. And according to the feedback (for which I specifically asked for at the game forum) the used a/c market at this start-up round has been well balanced too. Sure the "go-to" plane for early start (DC-6) dried up quickly but overall it's been much better than previous long game start.

And you must understand that you simply cannot expect an unlimited availability and supply of each and every resource needed. And this too is mentioned at the "launch notes" of every new long game world. There is always something that will limit your growth - demand, competition, economy in general, slots, aircraft, etc, and it depends how each scenario is set up and how players make their choices (so not always predictable).

[groundbum2]

Sami, I think you saying ATL is not slot blocked is disingenuous. ATL is 94% US domestic and there are no slots between 0500 and 1055. How can we run an airline when planes cannot depart for hours at a time? We all know 0000-0455 is total dead time for pax, and there is no freight yet, so it's disingenuous saying there are slots. I can't buy a plane and send it off for one 4 hour trip a day, it goes against all good advice on how to play the game.

I think AWS is heading for kind of hubris where it's trying to be so pure, it's not actually entertainment/a game/fun anymore. First and foremost when coming up with a new idea, AWS developers should say "in balance does this make the game more fun or not". What should I do for the next real world month? Paying credits every week? There's a thousand empire style games on GOG people could be playing..

Simon