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: [ok] Game Start Fairness  (Read 3240 times)

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 4512

The 5 people who like this post:
[ok] Game Start Fairness
« on: June 23, 2017, 01:41:49 PM »
This is a growing trend that I've seen that has been further magnified by the latest GW2 start where folks will bankrupt themselves and restart when more favorable planes come to the market than were initially available. They get the larger amount of starting cash and better planes after making poor choices, leaving those who want to make the best of what they started with at an extreme disadvantage.

Given this, I believe that some form of bump in the road should be added to discourage this type of behavior. Specifically, if someone restarts during the first year of the game, they should be forced to select a new HQ that they have not previously been at during the first year. I believe this would be sufficient in discouraging the bankrupt/restart behavior - the behavior is most prevalent in this era when most available planes are 30-36 seats, but there's a handful of 80+ that become available later.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2017, 12:24:23 AM by Sami »

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 8145

The person who likes this post:
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #1 on: June 23, 2017, 02:12:18 PM »
That's a huge difference between what was available on Day 1 and what was available on Day 2.

Best on day 1: 36 pax x 150 kts
Best on day 2: 114 pax x 255 kts

That's 538% on day 2 vs. day one, or 438% improvement.

Offline Zombie Slayer

  • Members
  • Posts: 4706
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #2 on: June 23, 2017, 02:34:12 PM »
And if I am not mistaken, part of the game play enhancements for "late" entrants a couple years back made it possible to get 3 planes delivered immediately in the first 2 days of operation. So not only do they get a better selection of aircraft, they get 3 of them.
Co-founder Elite Worldwide Alliance
PacAir President and CEO
Designated "Tier 1" Opponent

Offline Dasha

  • Members
  • Posts: 1100

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #3 on: June 23, 2017, 04:51:21 PM »
But if the planes are available on day 2, why did you spent all your money on day 1?


I agree that 100k extra startup money is a bit steep and that is too much but the whole thing about there not being enough planes is just sour grapes.

You had the choice to wait for day 2. You have the option to bankrupt and restart as well :)

Be one of those players
who want to make the best of what they started with
suck it up, and get on with the game. :)
The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes, decide everything

Offline VitoNg

  • Members
  • Posts: 97
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #4 on: June 23, 2017, 05:01:51 PM »
And if I am not mistaken, part of the game play enhancements for "late" entrants a couple years back made it possible to get 3 planes delivered immediately in the first 2 days of operation. So not only do they get a better selection of aircraft, they get 3 of them.
Still 2, 3rd one delivered as usual.

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 8145
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #5 on: June 23, 2017, 05:13:50 PM »
But if the planes are available on day 2, why did you spent all your money on day 1?

There is some pattern in the way UM works, in that the system holds back the newest and most desirable aircraft.  They don't show up on UM right away.  There is no way to tell if the aircraft will start appearing on Day 2 or on Year 2.

I agree that 100k extra startup money is a bit steep and that is too much but the whole thing about there not being enough planes is just sour grapes.

I think more like 150k extra after 1 month, meaning 30% increase in start up capital.  Vast majority of airlines made less actually flying for a month.

Be one of those players suck it up, and get on with the game. :)

haha, good advice.

But for future game worlds, the UM should just proportionally release aircraft, without purposely holding back aircraft, creating confusion...

Offline raptorva

  • Members
  • Posts: 889
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #6 on: June 23, 2017, 05:17:45 PM »
I've noticed this. Most day 1 starters have DC-3s and C-46s at my base as that's what was available solely on the used market, then new guys have opened straight away with DC-4s, L-649s and B377s that weren't available on day one meaning those of us who began straight away (including waiting that first 24hr game day) are stuck with the smaller aircraft...


Offline Zombie Slayer

  • Members
  • Posts: 4706
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #7 on: June 23, 2017, 06:28:28 PM »
Still 2, 3rd one delivered as usual.

Fair enough. Talentz posted a bug report about players having 3 planes in operation 8 days into the game, I assumed a day 2 bankrupt and restart was how those players got around the 2 plane start.


Be one of those players suck it up, and get on with the game. :)

Note to self: next time a potential exploit is found, instead of doing the right thing and reporting it, use it to our advantage. Then sit back and wait for you to accuse Elite of cheating.....
Co-founder Elite Worldwide Alliance
PacAir President and CEO
Designated "Tier 1" Opponent

Offline [SC] - King Kong

  • Members
  • Posts: 748
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #8 on: June 23, 2017, 08:27:26 PM »
Fair enough. Talentz posted a bug report about players having 3 planes in operation 8 days into the game, I assumed a day 2 bankrupt and restart was how those players got around the 2 plane start.

Note to self: next time a potential exploit is found, instead of doing the right thing and reporting it, use it to our advantage. Then sit back and wait for you to accuse Elite of cheating.....

well, you do....  8)

Offline Zombie Slayer

  • Members
  • Posts: 4706
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #9 on: June 23, 2017, 08:30:23 PM »
well, you do....  8)

Pretty sure you have our respective alliances mixed up....
Co-founder Elite Worldwide Alliance
PacAir President and CEO
Designated "Tier 1" Opponent

Offline MuzhikRB

  • Members
  • Posts: 1071

The 3 people who like this post:
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #10 on: June 23, 2017, 08:58:55 PM »

Given this, I believe that some form of bump in the road should be added to discourage this type of behavior. Specifically, if someone restarts during the first year of the game, they should be forced to select a new HQ that they have not previously been at during the first year.

I agree with that.

It should be like 1 month cooldown timer: you can either wait 1 game month and select the same HQ or you can go elsewhere.
And this cooldown timer should not be reseted after you select another HQ. (to avoid HQ->BK-->opened elsewhere->bked next day->opened in HQ again)

that would be fair enough

Online gazzz0x2z

  • Members
  • Posts: 4435
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #11 on: June 23, 2017, 09:30:52 PM »
The cooldown could even be permanent, not limited to the beginning of the game. In current GW3, so after 15+ years, I had a player trying 3 times landing in Warsaw, where my other opponent and me have basically overflown the market. He just could not make it through, despite excellent skill shown(and he's my direct opponent in GW2 in Warsaw, and I'm not in a strong position against him - his first weeks have been better than mine). Permanent in the sense than even in 2034, not in the sense that it would last too long. One month seems good to me, that's 14 hours of real time. Time to think.

It would push players to try something else, as many stick to the airport next to their home, even if it's not a good choice right now. "Hmmm, I cannot try again over there, what can I try next?". I'm pretty sure it would have pedagogic effects, to force people to think outside their usual framework of thought. I mentored several beginners, and the inability to think outside the box has been a problem for many of them. By pushing them to another airport - or, even better, another continent - we'd force them to think differently. And become better players, less prone to bankrupt.

That being said, Dasha is right : if second day planes are better than first day planes, well, noone forbids you from waiting the second day to take planes. I did not, and I do not complain. Sometimes, you bet, and you win, like I did with the hedge. Sometimes, you bet, and you lose, like I did with my 1200$ hedge in GW3 when fuel was down to 480$ - lost 1.3B$ on that missed bet. s*** happens, and if your position is not as good as you hoped, then plan alternatively. I hoped not to have any strong opponent in a small airport like Warsaw - missed. That's life. I'll have a tough fight for survival, and that's part of the game, it should not be too easy.

Offline Dasha

  • Members
  • Posts: 1100

The person who likes this post:
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #12 on: June 24, 2017, 07:43:13 AM »
Fair enough. Talentz posted a bug report about players having 3 planes in operation 8 days into the game, I assumed a day 2 bankrupt and restart was how those players got around the 2 plane start.

Note to self: next time a potential exploit is found, instead of doing the right thing and reporting it, use it to our advantage. Then sit back and wait for you to accuse Elite of cheating.....

I said I agreed with the money to restart was a bit steep. And I never accused Elite of cheating. I don't even know how that works. Nor am I very interested in what other alliances do to be brutally honest.

If this is a bug, sami will address it. Meanwhile, deal with what you have. If you have a good operation, which I'm sure Elite players have, you will be successful anyway. Believe in your own strength rather than other's weaknesses :)

The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes, decide everything

Offline [SC] - King Kong

  • Members
  • Posts: 748
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #13 on: June 24, 2017, 02:01:53 PM »
Pretty sure you have our respective alliances mixed up....

Sure... well, if you want to play it full serious I could name a few players that were not so used to following the rules.

Nevertheless, I actually was joking in my earlier comment. Sorry for destroying your super emotional moment of sadness <3
 

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 17137
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?

The person who likes this post:
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #14 on: September 13, 2017, 08:15:20 PM »
- Rule comes to force after 7 days of game time has passed and is in force until game ends

- When you bankrupt your previous HQ airport is stored to a list (this list includes your possible HQ relocations if such feature is built).

- When you restart any HQ you have used in the last 2 game months is not available (unless it is your only possible choice due to certain game settings).

If you leave the game alltogether and re-join it (5 Cr) the rule does not apply (technical thing).

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 4512
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #15 on: September 14, 2017, 01:15:49 AM »
Interesting... Not a bad start, except for...

- Rule comes to force after 7 days of game time has passed and is in force until game ends

This would still allow the huge difference in game start quality that we saw in the current gw2. The airlines that restarted on day 2 or so got a huge advantage over those who stayed the course. I would suggest the role goes into play after the regular clock is started (I suppose that's day 2?)

Online Andre090904

  • Members
  • Posts: 2075

The person who likes this post:
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #16 on: September 14, 2017, 12:12:13 PM »
Hi Sami,

Sounds good, but you're missing the point I am afraid. This rule is crucial for the very start of a game world (the first few days) and not so much later on (after 7 game days onwards). It's all about exploiting the "being late bonus" (this can be and is often 1 game day) after deliberately bankrupting a 1-day-old airline. Tell me which reasons there can be to declare bankruptcy on day 2 other than to choose another HQ or to leave the game? The only real reason I say why anyone would do that is because of fleet choice mistakes (ordered wrong planes)...other than that it simply allows for the "being late bonus".

So if it's not possible (or feasable) to have a rule set up for day 2 and using the same HQ again...then why not deactivate the "being late bonus" for 7 game days? And with bonus, I don't only mean more cash, but also better aircraft availability (especially when picking the "easy option" where you get 2-3 aircrafts to begin with). In the very first game week there is really not much potential and I honestly don't think an airline would need a bonus to survive. Demands are not covered yet, used market is still lacking aircrafts, competition is basically not existent yet. This would prohibit this exploit and I'm fairy sure it's the better solution.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2017, 12:20:13 PM by Andre090904 »

Offline yearofthecactus

  • Members
  • Posts: 583
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #17 on: September 14, 2017, 12:23:59 PM »
At a very basic level, this whole thread is because you decided everyone should be flying DC-3 or possibly C46 at the start, and not any of the good stuff. Oh Sami, you're so funny, how we laughed.

On a serious note, fine, not a horrible idea. Took us out of our comfort zone and provided an interesting challenge. But on that day, no one knew when the good planes would be available. I could be 6 months, it could be a year. Who knows.

They were available on day 2. Everyone who started on day one, bought 2 DC-3s or 2 C46s, bought slots and had no money in the bank for a couple of weeks, and when they did they probably could only afford another C46, and then no slots.

Those who started (well restarted to be precise), bought one, maybe 2 Connies, slots and made their money back to buy new planes almost instantly. Which meant they were able to buy more good planes and slots and get an incredible lead. It was a very unfair start, and wholly preventable.

So your idea resulted in the law of unintended consequences. One, day 2 airlines got an expontentially better and a mammoth start. Two, day 2 airlines were able to order new off the new market, jamming up the line and creating a double whammy.

Not saying it was bad. Not saying don't do it again. BUT, if you are going to do something similar in future, and you implied you would at the time, all you need to do is make sure you don't release the good stuff that will give airlines a head start on day 2. Wait 6 months or a year. That's all you really need to do to make a fairer start.

Although all the thing you propose won't do any harm as well. It's just they don't address the specific issue that happened. But they are good ideas.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2017, 12:44:25 PM by yearofthecactus »

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 4512
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #18 on: September 14, 2017, 12:25:11 PM »
Hi Sami,

Sounds good, but you're missing the point I am afraid. This rule is crucial for the very start of a game world (the first few days) and not so much later on (after 7 game days onwards). It's all about exploiting the "being late bonus" (this can be and is often 1 game day) after deliberately bankrupting a 1-day-old airline. Tell me which reasons there can be to declare bankruptcy on day 2 other than to choose another HQ or to leave the game? The only real reason I say why anyone would do that is because of fleet choice mistakes (ordered wrong planes)...other than that it simply allows for the "being late bonus".

So if it's not possible (or feasable) to have a rule set up for day 2 and using the same HQ again...then why not deactivate the "being late bonus" for 7 game days? And with bonus, I don't only mean more cash, but also better aircraft availability (especially when picking the "easy option" where you get 2-3 aircrafts to begin with). In the very first game week there is really not much potential and I honestly don't think an airline would need a bonus to survive. Demands are not covered yet, used market is still lacking aircrafts, competition is basically not existent yet. This would prohibit this exploit and I'm fairy sure it's the better solution.

It's not so much a bonus system or easy start. Let me break it down a bit further with what happened in the most recent GW2.

1. Game Starts
2. Only C46/DC3 are available on the used market for all of day 1 (plus other heaps of scrap). People scoop these up because you never know when the better planes will be dropped into the market (and it's often far into the future rather than the next day).
3. On day 2, Connies (and other large planes) began dropping into the market.
4. Once the Connies appeared, multiple airlines bankrupted, restarted, and took Connies and well.. took off (pun intended) compared to everyone else that was with the heaps of C46/DC3's creating an uneven playing field for many game years to come.
5. ....
6. No profit.

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 17137
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #19 on: September 14, 2017, 01:08:16 PM »
New player boosts do not start on day 2; The formula for calculating the effect on RI, CI, start money etc is ("days from start"-180)/200 (max 1, min 0).

UM a/c selection is different and varies per each game and out of scope of this request really. (if there were only DC-3s on day 1 and more useful stuff on day 2 ..?)

 

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.