LH exploit finally extinquished?

[JumboShrimp]

If I remember correctly, Sami recently fixed some bug related to pax allocation at very low RI (and low CI?), IIRC.

The side effect of this minor fix is that it seems to have extinguished the LH exploit.

The LH exploit worked as follows:
- start in top 10-20 airport with decent LH demand
- get a cheap DC-10, fly the biggest LH routes
- print money

The system was allocating way too many pax, including premium C + F pax to airline with zero RI, zero CI.  The system does not seem to do it any more.  The result is a more level playing field...

[gazzz0x2z]

(.../... The result is a more level playing field...

And a few seasoned, respected veterans in trouble.

[wapp11]

Figures the first time I ever decided to not start with SH.  I grabbed a 330 and 763ER first and put them on LH and they are not making any money, the 763 doing 2800nm route is filled up and making it happen.

[Talentz]

If I remember correctly, Sami recently fixed some bug related to pax allocation at very low RI (and low CI?), IIRC.

The side effect of this minor fix is that it seems to have extinguished the LH exploit.

The LH exploit worked as follows:
- start in top 10-20 airport with decent LH demand
- get a cheap DC-10, fly the biggest LH routes
- print money

The system was allocating way too many pax, including premium C + F pax to airline with zero RI, zero CI.  The system does not seem to do it any more.  The result is a more level playing field...

What exactly changed in the pax calculation? As far as my understanding of it goes... there's no problems on my strategy.

Also, I don't understand level playing field... how much further behind is 5xNB aircraft vs 3-4xWB aircraft at the start? NB start is and has always been the best overall strategy. LH has been a higher risk/higher reward since forever. Didn't know that was considered a cheat...

Talentz

[JumboShrimp]

What exactly changed in the pax calculation? As far as my understanding of it goes... there's no problems on my strategy.

Also, I don't understand level playing field... how much further behind is 5xNB aircraft vs 3-4xWB aircraft at the start? NB start is and has always been the best overall strategy. LH has been a higher risk/higher reward since forever. Didn't know that was considered a cheat...

Talentz

Some time ago (couple of months+) Sami posted a small note about a bug he fixed that related to the RI effect.  The corrected allocation allocates fewer pax at very low RIs than before.

There is additional effect that has always been there:  longer the route, more it is sensitive to low RI.  The end result of this change is that now, starting with LH is a lot more challenging.

Which is as it should be.  If you are a completely unknown airline, underfinanced, with only asset being the paint on the livery of the aircraft, the passengers will be less likely to fly this airline over 2,000-3,000 miles of the ocean...

So now, starting with LH is higher risk, lower reward then before.

[Talentz]

Some time ago (couple of months+) Sami posted a small note about a bug he fixed that related to the RI effect.  The corrected allocation allocates fewer pax at very low RIs than before.

There is additional effect that has always been there:  longer the route, more it is sensitive to low RI.  The end result of this change is that now, starting with LH is a lot more challenging.

Which is as it should be.  If you are a completely unknown airline, underfinanced, with only asset being the paint on the livery of the aircraft, the passengers will be less likely to fly this airline over 2,000-3,000 miles of the ocean...

So now, starting with LH is higher risk, lower reward then before.

Hm.. I'll have to test that next GW as I didn't notice anything different in my start as compared to years ago. But, I didn't start in DXB/LHR/HKG/SIN/JFK either 

Talentz

[Maxair]

So how does this 'level the playing field'?? Seems like it just helps the same 20 or so guys that are always set up in the same bases every game.

[freshmore]

It makes Long Haul a harder start up strategy, meaning you will have to wait longer to get a good share of the Pax, meaning you make money later, at the start loose money for longer. It slows down the progress that those who have used that strategy at the beginning to get a good lead on their competitors money wise. Or indeed slows down the progress of people opening up those routes later.

Years ago, before even long worlds, cheap used DC-10's in a Modern times scenario, was a pretty decent money winner, a little bit too easy, now that is not so much the case. It's better to get a good short network then go long, although you can go long initially, however you need to be prepared to make bigger losses, compared to short haul, for longer before the route earns. This is one thing I suspect the inexperienced do a lot, spend too much too soon and don't leave money to cover the initial losses.

It means people who knew this worked, now are less likely to use it, or accept the risk and longer reward time. That means everyone should be on very similar Short Haul and Long haul strategies. That is Short first to cover losses of your initial Long Haul route network.

[Talentz]

Which is as it should be.  If you are a completely unknown airline, underfinanced, with only asset being the paint on the livery of the aircraft, the passengers will be less likely to fly this airline over 2,000-3,000 miles of the ocean...

So how does this 'level the playing field'?? Seems like it just helps the same 20 or so guys that are always set up in the same bases every game.

So lets get down to the true question... How is it that much better for an airline to fly to 7 destinations 1x weekly SH vs an airline who files once daily LH? I accept flying LH on a start up would be questionable in some minds and pax would be limited at the start (current RI rules reflected). What about flying to a destination less then once a day? I image pax wouldn't be that enthusiastic about flying on a start up who advertises in the paper or on a billboard off the side of a highway that states "now flying to xxv on fridays... for the time being"

In other words, why does 7 day/excel spreadsheet scheduling need to be the preferred method in AWS? Further, if that's how in your view (and others) feel AWS should absolutely be played (as in superior to all other methods), why not just add it to the manual right under Getting Started - After the first steps; Titled: Getting Started - The only method that matters~

Backing off abit, AWS is a sandbox style game and I prefer to keep it that way. If one method dominates all others then it should be looked at and adjusted/revised. LH has problems, thats fine. Adjust it. Seven day scheduling has no tangible downsides. Flying once weekly vs once daily produces the same results. RI increases at the same rate and pax allocation is nearly, if not, the same. Granted no saturation on the route. This is something that finally needs to be addressed.

If were going to keep AWS sandbox style, all methods need to have similar risk/reward applications.

Talentz

[Sarachiel]

In GW 3# I started with one plane doing part of 7-day schedule with 8 routes within it. Just recently (after nearly 4 months) the plane starts not to generate loss. Due to low number of marketing campaigns available at the start it is hard to build up the RI required for decent profit. I'm still struggling with 4 routes to climb up with the lf. I know that flying once a week is a big disadvantage but it is hard to get fast enough birds to fly LH distances at 7-day schedule with the starting funds. If I wouldnt get also some ac's to operate locally I would easily go bankrupt with relying only on LH. Though Im still a newbie to the game and might have made several mistakes on my route, but luckily it seems that I secured decent profit for now

[fark24]

So lets get down to the true question... How is it that much better for an airline to fly to 7 destinations 1x weekly SH vs an airline who files once daily LH? I accept flying LH on a start up would be questionable in some minds and pax would be limited at the start (current RI rules reflected). What about flying to a destination less then once a day? I image pax wouldn't be that enthusiastic about flying on a start up who advertises in the paper or on a billboard off the side of a highway that states "now flying to xxv on fridays... for the time being"

You just answered your own question with your own example. Advertising. Specifically route-specific advertising. A feature that is already built into the game.

At start-up, if you want to use one aircraft to fly to 1 destination 7 days a week, route-specific advertising is money well spent. And on a high demand route, aircraft # 2 could also fly roundtrips to the same city and maximize the return on those advertising dollars. An airline starting with that strategy could have a big early edge on players that are not doing the same.

In other words, why does 7 day/excel spreadsheet scheduling need to be the preferred method in AWS? Further, if that's how in your view (and others) feel AWS should absolutely be played (as in superior to all other methods), why not just add it to the manual right under Getting Started - After the first steps; Titled: Getting Started - The only method that matters~

You don't see that the recent changes have actually slightly nerfed the 1x weekly strategy? Since low RI routes now take longer to be profitable, if you have an airline flying all 1x routes that airline is going to be taking more prolonged losses. And there is little such an airline can do to improve their situation as route-specific advertising would be wasteful given the limited return.

The player who takes the full-weekly approach has the advantage on start-up now - assuming they also fund route specific advertising.

I also wouldn't characterize 7/day scheduling as the universal best method. It does have shortcomings. It telegraphs your future intentions to opponents. It leaves you vulnerable for missing out on slots at competitive airports (you get that first slot but others may get the remaining slots before you have time to act). You also take risks on getting early aircraft you need 7 with high MTOW and the used market dries up before you can get them all.

[Talentz]

You don't see that the recent changes have actually slightly nerfed the 1x weekly strategy? Since low RI routes now take longer to be profitable, if you have an airline flying all 1x routes that airline is going to be taking more prolonged losses. And there is little such an airline can do to improve their situation as route-specific advertising would be wasteful given the limited return.

No, I guess I don't. I've never used that version of 7 day scheduling since it spread in popularity back in 2009.

The player who takes the full-weekly approach has the advantage on start-up now - assuming they also fund route specific advertising.

As it was back in early 2009.

I also wouldn't characterize 7/day scheduling as the universal best method. It does have shortcomings. It telegraphs your future intentions to opponents. It leaves you vulnerable for missing out on slots at competitive airports (you get that first slot but others may get the remaining slots before you have time to act). You also take risks on getting early aircraft you need 7 with high MTOW and the used market dries up before you can get them all.

No, I understand its short comings and how to deal with an airline who implements that strategy. What concerns me is that almost no one bothers with any other strategy. Not sure if its the simplicity of 7 day or complexity of the game mechanics. Or a mix of both.



I actually typed out a larger response but typing on my laptop is cumbersome and I tend to accidentally erase stuff, so I wont argue your first point. Also, now I have a headache 

Talentz

[Maxair]

Why do we want everyone doing the same thing? How boring would it be if everyone ran 737/a320 and 767/a330 and 340? I like flying LH. I seem to do well with it by flying to places others dont. Eventually someone will attack me and try to bk me. Sometimes it works and sometimes they BK themselves in the process which is very amusing. I just dont think putting everyone into a box is good for the game. Besides, there are lots of airlines in the real world who specialize in LH only and have done so their entire existence.