When's the big change coming?

[MidWorld]

So, I've played two worlds, and had lots of fun, especially coming from the management consulting background.

This simulator is great albeit time consuming. I was able to join only because of bad illness that kept me home for a long time, and then I just continued after recovery.

So, for my next game, which will cost me in my time investment much more than the cost of credits, I'd like to do already in a new world with new features: transfer pax, cargo, maybe even terminal construction.

I'd also love to see the difficulty level increased - standard level is not what is normal in the aviation world, right?

Is there a way to pay more credits to eliminate routine and focus more on strategic decisions? I guess, that would be the way to attract more mature players.

So, when's something like this coming? A year, 2-3-5? What's the development logic? When can I return to have more fun?

In a mean time, I'd like to express deep gratitude to Sami and the AviaDesign Ky. This is a hell of a good job, guys!

[schro]

If you're interested in a higher level of difficulty in the next game world, then I would suggest setting up shop in one of the major airports of the world and seeing how that works for you :-).

Something like ATL, LAX, ORD, LHR, AMS, FRA, CDG, HND, etc....

[Sami]

Is there a way to pay more credits to eliminate routine and focus more on strategic decisions?

No, but what sort of routing things would you like to get rid of and what sort of strategical elements would you like to see more? (to get some ideas..)

[JumboShrimp]

2 of things that would reduce a maddening number of clicks over the course of the game, one easy change to make, another a little more involved programming-wise:

1. Getting rid of oversupply warning when player has only 1 flight to destination.  It serves no benefit (to limit anti-competitive behavior), and it involves up to 3-7 adjustments over the course of a long game.  Multiplied by 7 for 7 day scheduled flight.

Example:  A route with 100 demand (mostly Y) may be profitable with super low prices of 70s with a DC-10.
- So I set the limit to 180 by blocking seats, to be safe, but my DC-10 is serving other destinations, has 45 premium seats (that system does not make available to Y pax.  So I am flying with 135 Y seats.
- demand grows to 120, Monday + Friday demand being at 139, I am already limited by 135 Y seats
- so I increase it (7 times per flight).  240 may be risky, requiring another 7x adjustment down if the real demand was not really 120, just one of the (useless) randomizations.  Useless, because since I am already flying the route for a decade, I should know with 100% certainty all there is to know about the route.
- so I go to 200 seats, but again only 155 Y seats.
- repeat ad infinitum in 10% increments, until the seat block can eventually be removed 40 game years later.  So nothing gained game-wise, just 100s of clicks necessitated.

2. Collapse 7 individual components (only perfectly matched) on "Manage Routes", enhance page to collect all (7) components to display the page, in order to view / edit the route, then save back the individual flights.  Basically recreate the interface of creating a new route (with check mark to split components) in viewing and editing of the same route.

While the new Move schedule (to new fleet) greatly reduced the need to go back and edit routes, there is still need for some tinkering.
Besides tinkering, there is the infinite loop of re-adjusting the number of seats blocked (See #1 above).  Simultaneous editing of 7 components would cut the number of click to 1/7 (if #1 is not implemented).

So these are my top 2 for click issues for managing a mature airline.  Issues (click-wise)) are different for new / growing airline, where new flights are added constantly.  but I just wanted to comment on the later stages of game.

[NovemberCharlie]

In addition to JumboShrimp: for those who make 7 day schedules at once, create some option to purchase slots at once for the entire aircraft.

[[ATA] Sunbao]

Yeah we really need this game to take next big step, city based demand and cargo has been in production for years.
Nothing new big has ben added for what 5+ years ?
People is failling out more and more as the game is getting bored and so none challenging.

Not a single new word on those two features for over half a year.
In a few days its a year sience we got the first preview of city based demand but no news beside an updated manual page we have got in that year that has gone.

[[ATA] Sunbao]

some search even show that cargo with city based demand even was promised to be added into current GW1 when it opened back in may.

"Cargo won't be in the initial launch of GW#1 yet, since a part of the city based demand is not ready yet, but it will be added to it at a later stage."

Still nothing news about it here so many months later.

The fun part is that back when that was said this was also said

"2030 is the current design limit of the system. Before extending it I'd rather concentrate of making the sim more interesting in the long run, to avoid the situation where last decade is played by only 100 people."

But look what happened first the coming world is running to 2038 but rest of it has not been improved as stated back then.

[schro]

Yeah we really need this game to take next big step, city based demand and cargo has been in production for years.
Nothing new big has ben added for what 5+ years ?
People is failling out more and more as the game is getting bored and so none challenging.

Not a single new word on those two features for over half a year.
In a few days its a year sience we got the first preview of city based demand but no news beside an updated manual page we have got in that year that has gone.

The thing is though... adding new features all the time does not make a massive multiplayer game more interesting. The competition that it facilitates between humans is what makes it interesting, and I believe that the game currently meets that objective.

The object of the game is to use what's available to you (regardless of what it is) to "win" per the rules of the game....

As for city based demand, while it seems like an interesting concept, I'm not convinced that most players will enjoy it as it turns nearly all "conventional wisdom" of knowing the world's traffic patterns on its head. The folks that perpetually post about there being 10,000 demand per day in some remote fishing village due to a blue moon not being represented in game will have their pitchforks out.

For cargo, at least in its current form, does not provide a meaningful contribution to the game. It simply generates an immaterial amount of revenue for an airline at the expense of a lot more hassle. I've also yet to see how freighters could be used with a chance of making a profit... This would take time to find the right balance and quite honestly, I'm not terribly interested in it as it stands.

[MRothschild]

The thing is though... adding new features all the time does not make a massive multiplayer game more interesting. The competition that it facilitates between humans is what makes it interesting, and I believe that the game currently meets that objective.

The object of the game is to use what's available to you (regardless of what it is) to "win" per the rules of the game....

Well said.   

[chwatuva]

Is there a way to pay more credits to eliminate routine and focus more on strategic decisions? I guess, that would be the way to attract more mature players.

PLEASE don't do this, at least as concerns paying more credits for features.  If the game isn't paying its costs, more money is needed to pay developers (besides Sami), Sami wants to make a dollar or two more for his efforts, etc., then raise the cost of credits, require more credits per game world, etc., but don't charge for features.

One of the great things about this game is how level the playing field is.  To do well in the game you need skill (including knowledge and experience), dedication (being willing to put the time in), and luck. 

I have played plenty of games where the advantages available at a cost started out small but they creep up over time as developers want to make more money and have to justify players spending more and more money.  Very quickly the game becomes about who can spend the most money, which is really terrible.  If you had to pay for extra features, I for one would quit. 

[[ATA] Sunbao]

PLEASE don't do this, at least as concerns paying more credits for features.  If the game isn't paying its costs, more money is needed to pay developers (besides Sami), Sami wants to make a dollar or two more for his efforts, etc., then raise the cost of credits, require more credits per game world, etc., but don't charge for features.

One of the great things about this game is how level the playing field is.  To do well in the game you need skill (including knowledge and experience), dedication (being willing to put the time in), and luck. 

I have played plenty of games where the advantages available at a cost started out small but they creep up over time as developers want to make more money and have to justify players spending more and more money.  Very quickly the game becomes about who can spend the most money, which is really terrible.  If you had to pay for extra features, I for one would quit.

Of course the servers is paid with one server out atm there still is around 1000 credits paid weekly at lowest price for credits thats an income of over 22.000 euro pr year on top of that comes the 4th world plus the 5 credits fee to join a world. so if around 25-30.000 euro pr year dosen't pay servers and leave a profit for Sami something is seriously wrong.

[freshmore]

I don't think Sami will be considering pay more credits for more features, or heading towards pay to win. This isn't what this little niche community is about.

As for one thing, a "Buy slots for all assigned routes without slots" feature would be good. Saves having to go through the entire of a 7 days schedule and buying the slots manually. Just a button click.

As for the City Based demand, I'd rather it is done right than release something that isn't quite up to standard. For now the current game and competition it provides is perfectly good for me. There is a lot of interest to be had a big and less big airports. City Based demand is a complex thing to do and I'm quite looking forward to it turning the system based on real world traffic patterns on it's head. It will be subject to some game balancing tweaks after release I imagine. However, I can see potentially City Based Demand games alongside Real World Based Traffic Pattern games alongside each other, I think there is potentially some interest in both.

[MuzhikRB]

As for city based demand, while it seems like an interesting concept, I'm not convinced that most players will enjoy it as it turns nearly all "conventional wisdom" of knowing the world's traffic patterns on its head. The folks that perpetually post about there being 10,000 demand per day in some remote fishing village due to a blue moon not being represented in game will have their pitchforks out.

As I remember it will not be possible in city based demand. City based will depends on city size near it, so basically pax travelling pattern will keep the same mostly. it will influence mostly cities with multiple airports near it.

[MidWorld]

One of the great things about this game is how level the playing field is.  To do well in the game you need skill (including knowledge and experience), dedication (being willing to put the time in), and luck.

Not quite. You also need to have that time, dedication might not be enough, and you need to be always online.

It would be unfair if some payers enjoyed better conditions than the others. But as long as extra payments are not related to automation of what would otherwise be a human decision, but allow extra features (like offline flight planning, for instance) - there are no problems with that.

I don't think anyone here objects to payment to reserve airline brand, which is already part of the game. If we want the game to develop and stay competitive, we have to assume that will involve some cost.

[SP7]

As I remember it will not be possible in city based demand. City based will depends on city size near it, so basically pax travelling pattern will keep the same mostly. it will influence mostly cities with multiple airports near it.

That seems doubtful. ATL is the way it is because of Delta. If you go off city based demand there's no way ATL achieves even 1/4 of the total demand it has in the game. If you want a more niche example: DTW-AMS is a route in the game that is clearly modeled after scheduled airline service (NW/DL and KLM service). Almost none of the revenue pax on DTW-AMS is O&D.

The vast majority if not all route relationships that people "know" in the game would be changed and demand would be much, much lower UNLESS connecting passengers are somehow modeled. And just think about the complexity of that. I assume that's the key issue that's keeping city based demand from being implemented. The complexity of modelling a one connection journey would be immense, let alone modelling a two connection journey that makes up a large percentage of international travel.

[MuzhikRB]

Yes. May be you are right (unless Sami disclose some info).
But changes doesn't mean it will be worse than now.
MAy be instead of RL connections between hub we can see PAX demand between countries distributed between major and significant cities. And with City based demand you it doesn't matter whether PAX will fly AMS to ORD or to LAX. Yep, more complexity but also more variety to GWs.

[NovemberCharlie]

When data was being added for city based demand, all countries were divided into squares.
Users were able to aide this process by putting in several factors (business travel, leisure travel, infrastructure, whether it he square was an island, etc.) relative to the country average.
Based on these factors an algorithm should dictate the total demand between areas. Two mayor business centers and tourist destinations such as as new york and London should have a high demand for all classes of travel.
On the other hand a flight to Barbados should have high leisure but less business.

With regard to airports. Each airport has, just as in real life a catchment area.
This can extend to be up around 200KMs.
So the squares in the London area can be "caught" by Stansted,  Gatwick, Heathrow, Luton, City and perhaps some others.
These can then be tap into the demand. Though this will shift depending on usage (e.g. if no one uses, say Stansted, the airport will eventually lose capacity and thus possible demand)

Hope this gives a short idea. It basically gives Gatwick the same chance as Heathrow to become the largest airport, depending on player action.

[Talentz]

When data was being added for city based demand, all countries were divided into squares.
Users were able to aide this process by putting in several factors (business travel, leisure travel, infrastructure, whether it he square was an island, etc.) relative to the country average.
Based on these factors an algorithm should dictate the total demand between areas. Two mayor business centers and tourist destinations such as as new york and London should have a high demand for all classes of travel.
On the other hand a flight to Barbados should have high leisure but less business.

With regard to airports. Each airport has, just as in real life a catchment area.
This can extend to be up around 200KMs.
So the squares in the London area can be "caught" by Stansted,  Gatwick, Heathrow, Luton, City and perhaps some others.
These can then be tap into the demand. Though this will shift depending on usage (e.g. if no one uses, say Stansted, the airport will eventually lose capacity and thus possible demand)

Hope this gives a short idea. It basically gives Gatwick the same chance as Heathrow to become the largest airport, depending on player action.

That's my general thought of how it would work. I remember doing the square editing for city based demand. It will change some things. Give rise to some airports with high population a hub type status that in RL wouldn't have exisited. Basically, it will be a game world were the major "hub" cities are not set in stone just yet. You'll probably see secondary cities have a better shot at becoming a top 20 airport.

It will also change fleets a bit. You'll see alot more small to med sized airlines with 50-120 pax aircraft.

Talentz

[qunow]

Allow passengers to transfer at hub. Which would benefit players by getting passengers from routes that have no direct service. Competition will be more intense too. when serving small destinations from a small hub nearby, players will also have to compete with transfer service provided by other companies operating from a near large hub.

[[ATA] Sunbao]

Allow passengers to transfer at hub. Which would benefit players by getting passengers from routes that have no direct service. Competition will be more intense too. when serving small destinations from a small hub nearby, players will also have to compete with transfer service provided by other companies operating from a near large hub.

well so far 8 years talk about city based demand and still not done transfer pax is a feature for 2025-2030..