No of Players v Pax Demand.

[11Air]

The current GW-4 and GW-3 have 331 and 139 current players respectively.  Does the programming make any allowance for this?  Obviously there are real opportunities for players setting record breaking performances in GW-3 if Demand Levels are the same in both GW.
11Air's wish list No 1.

[gazzz0x2z]

errrrm, why should it be? In name of what?

Plus, current GW4 is in 2000, current GW3 is in 2028, two years from end. in the early 2000s of the current GW3, there was more than 400 players(far from the 600 I've seen in the previous one, though). So many players have been bankrupted several times in this competitive world game - and this left more place for the surviving players. In marketing terms, the market clears itself. It's a normal phenomenon. I'm currently mentoring one guy in current GW4, and after a look at the different lines, the market is gonna clear here too. Many players will disappear, and the remaining ones will have a clearer playfield to develop.

[schro]

My understanding is that demand varies based on the tot number of available player slots and not actual players. From what I can tell, gw2 is starting around 10-15% higher on the routes that I checked compared to gw4.

[11Air]

As I expected there are mixed views here - understandable,
1 - why shouldn't the long (real) games mirror the real world's survival of the fittest.
2 - why should new players find it so tough to survive.  Sami's not going to be able to retire and devote himself to keeping us all happy if there aren't more players.
3 - something in between is probably the best solution for all.

Like:-
Current Demand Tables are historic, that's fine, but as player numbers go up then
Play Demand = Historic Demand x No of Players / 400 (or some other number). 

It doesn't materially alter the success rate of the better players, or the inexperienced players.  It just makes all game worlds equal in difficulty regardless of the number of players.

[gazzz0x2z]

(.../...)
It doesn't materially alter the success rate of the better players, or the inexperienced players.  It just makes all game worlds equal in difficulty regardless of the number of players.

OK, let's look at who I was when I began, occupying small european airports with my A148. Most of the lines I made money on were between 60 & 80 demand. Now, if half of the players bankrupt, I'm suddenly at 30/40 demand - which guarantees a structural loss for a A148. Especially if it flies 1800NM.

You see it when it goes up, I see it when it goes down. If, at each players that gives up, the demand goes down, then it's an infernal spiral downwards. Currently, there are 580 players in GW2. It's not sustainable, many will leave. If you end up, let's say, around 400 players, then following your system, demand will be only 70% of what it currently is. I'm mentoring a new player right there, and I can guarantee you that he, but also many competitors of him, would die if it would happen. Leaving even the best players like Schro with only trinkets to play with.

The number of players allowed is a static variable. Adjusting demand against it seems fair to me. If only 500 players are allowed in next GW3, then there will be less demand. Why not. But the real number of players is highly dynamic, can go up to 600 and then down to 150 at the end. Would it be fair to surviving players to divide their pax demand base by 4?