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 2861 times)

Offline MuzhikRB

  • Members
  • Posts: 961
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #20 on: September 14, 2017, 03:02:16 PM »
the rule should start from day 0
and removed after 10 years may be

most day 0 bking were to get better planes.

after that only poor management leads to bk - so no need to protect for restart

Offline yearofthecactus

  • Members
  • Posts: 583
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #21 on: September 14, 2017, 04:24:50 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 ..?)

We're not talking about new player boosts, so if you think we are then you've got the wrong end of the stick.

This whole request is based upon the fact you decided to limit ONLY C-46 and DC-3 to the UM on day one, to make things difficult, but the better planes got released on day 2.

From your response, you are suggesting that is unsolvable? If you are, I'm glad we've got that information now and we can process that to help inform our personal decisions going forward at gw start.

But to be totally clear, in general your "solutions" are good additions to the game. But they don't solve the entire premise, feature request, or bug report that thread set out to. And I fear you don't understand fully why we're raising this issue, or the mechanics for why this issue has been raised, and the ramifications of the status quo. Which is a little troubling.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2017, 04:27:37 PM by yearofthecactus »

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 16894
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #22 on: September 14, 2017, 05:04:36 PM »
This whole request is based upon the fact you decided to limit ONLY C-46 and DC-3 to the UM on day one, to make things difficult, but the better planes got released on day 2.

No, the selection of aircraft is random (or better said, not selectable....) and the conditions are exactly the same for all game worlds

ACDennison

  • Former member
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #23 on: September 14, 2017, 05:35:02 PM »
I started flying C46, and I'm in the Top 20.  It's perfectly possible to work with them and do fine.  Too many people seem dependant on getting the type they want / always use.

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 4449
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #24 on: September 14, 2017, 06:24:41 PM »
No, the selection of aircraft is random (or better said, not selectable....) and the conditions are exactly the same for all game worlds

I don't think the issue is with the used market distribution's randomness. It's about the ability for someone to use bankruptcy as a method of getting an unfair start against players that began the world on day 1.

I started flying C46, and I'm in the Top 20.  It's perfectly possible to work with them and do fine.  Too many people seem dependant on getting the type they want / always use.

In the larger bases, they make for an incredibly slow start. With respect to the C46 compared to slot costs, it takes about 3 months of flying a C46 to pay for ONE set (7x) slots. When you compare that to a connie, it's simply not fair at the whole, bring a nuclear warhead to a knife fight sort of level.

Offline yearofthecactus

  • Members
  • Posts: 583
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #25 on: September 14, 2017, 07:31:47 PM »
Quote from: sami

There are 8100 DC-3s available... Take your pick which one you want. A few other choices too but just pick a DC-3... :P  (or pick Junkers Ju52 if you are brave .. though that's near scrap already)   And perhaps for next 1950s start we could only have DC-3s and make everyone start with those? ;)

Random, and unselectable are not synonyms. You started the whole gw with the idea that we should all fly DC-3s. Yet if you started 1 game day later, people were able to fly Connies. I don't think that's what you intended. If that's the only way the system can work (which you seem to be stating is the case) then fair enough. But don't tell me if the planes are available on day 2, that it is "random" they are not selectable on day 1. Especially, given your quoted statement implies it was a decision on your part to nerf availability of said planes on day 1.

Now look, I don't blame people for bk'ing and starting again. It was a good, and clever strategic move. But it wasn't fair, but it wasn't their fault. It was a design flaw.

Offline Tha_Ape

  • Members
  • Posts: 5597
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #26 on: September 27, 2017, 06:39:55 PM »
Well, 1st day players like myself shouldn't forget that:
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,71946.msg417552.html#msg417552
Not the same kind of bonus, but still a good one ;)

Otherwise, well, I tend to agree. Maybe it was due to the system, but then system should be changed so that we don't have that kind of 'all or nothing' choice. Somewhat randomize the dates (even though IRL the plane would already exist), so players don't do that on purpose (or fewer of them).

Offline Zobelle

  • Members
  • Posts: 1770
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #27 on: September 27, 2017, 07:07:47 PM »
That or not have any better types for one whole game year.

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 4449

The 3 people who like this post:
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #28 on: November 25, 2017, 10:21:48 PM »
It's a shame this wasn't implemented for the start of GW1... Already seeing people restarting for the benefits...

Offline Zobelle

  • Members
  • Posts: 1770
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #29 on: November 26, 2017, 02:10:41 AM »
It's a shame this wasn't implemented for the start of GW1... Already seeing people restarting for the benefits...
Benefits of not running piston plane are apparent.

Offline [SC] - King Kong

  • Members
  • Posts: 745

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #30 on: November 26, 2017, 10:05:26 AM »
It's a shame this wasn't implemented for the start of GW1... Already seeing people restarting for the benefits...

Agreed here.
Not that it gets good players most of a disadvantage but rather see this coded out till a few years in the future.

Why not give the bonus after 2 years after the start?


Offline MuzhikRB

  • Members
  • Posts: 961

The person who likes this post:
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #31 on: November 26, 2017, 07:15:02 PM »
at least it should be banned to restart in the same base. - the same like opening base - 1 year ban.

Offline Zobelle

  • Members
  • Posts: 1770
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #32 on: November 26, 2017, 11:18:47 PM »
To be honest that’s a bit extreme. Sometimes people restart in order to try a different strategy.

Offline yearofthecactus

  • Members
  • Posts: 583
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #33 on: November 26, 2017, 11:53:39 PM »
I've posted above my thoughts on the issue, and maintain that position.

What I will say is that not everyone bk's to get the benefits. Most do so, because like me in gw1, we have a (very) small pot of money, we over-invest on day 1-2 on planes, forgetting we need money to buy slots... and straight away we're in a death spiral.

The problem isn't restarting. For many it's the only option. The problem is the frankly lamentable situation where you restart 2 weeks later and have 1.5m extra in the bank, when the most profitable airlines have probably made 500k, absolute tops.

This isn't a player issue, and shouldn't be punished by not allowing airlines to restart where they were as Muzrik suggested. This is a system problem. Solutions should be something like thus.

1. The late player start finance algorithm needs to change in the early game world. 1.5m starter cash on day 1, 3m starter cash on day 14 is way too steep, and simply not fair. The 2 week airline can outgrow the starter within days. I'm getting a lot of stick from some quarters for using the system; I bk'ed because of the aforementioned death spiral, and was shocked to see the amount of money to spend was double.

2. If a gameworld is going to start with planes restricted, but open up in the first 24 hours, or after day 2, then the playing field for market calls should be equal. I propose unlimited market calls for the first game week for all players.

Offline Tha_Ape

  • Members
  • Posts: 5597
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #34 on: November 27, 2017, 10:24:40 AM »
This isn't a player issue, and shouldn't be punished by not allowing airlines to restart where they were as Muzrik suggested. This is a system problem. Solutions should be something like thus.

1. The late player start finance algorithm needs to change in the early game world. 1.5m starter cash on day 1, 3m starter cash on day 14 is way too steep, and simply not fair. The 2 week airline can outgrow the starter within days. I'm getting a lot of stick from some quarters for using the system; I bk'ed because of the aforementioned death spiral, and was shocked to see the amount of money to spend was double.

2. If a gameworld is going to start with planes restricted, but open up in the first 24 hours, or after day 2, then the playing field for market calls should be equal. I propose unlimited market calls for the first game week for all players.

Not taking part in GW#1, but well... The issue stays the same.

I completely agree on the statement: system problem and not player problem.

Financial issue
Thus, your point 1. could support the idea of giving less money to day 14 starters. What number? Needs to be thought of, but maybe 1,5 day one and 2 day 14 is OK. Depending on GW, obviously.

Plane issue
On your 2nd point, though, I disagree. This would lead to problems already explored years ago (if I understand well what I read on that matter). Wearing out the F5 key is no solution and would rather create another problem.
Even though it's rather ahistorical, I tend for that idea expressed rather quickly before:
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,72036.msg430761.html#msg430761
More precisely (if we take the GW#2 example), that means that DC-4 are released randomly on day 6 (both for order and on the UM), Connies on day 13, DC-6 on day 23, etc. After 6 month or so of gameplay, though, all planes supposed to fly on day 1 should be released.
That is no perfect solution, but it would spread the problem, thus preventing someone from taking a dramatic advantage by restarting very early.
Just a tiny bit and one a time makes an early restart much less attractive.
It sure is strange, you'll say "how come I cannot fly a Connie while it existed irl." But, just like with plane selection to match your market, you have to make compromises. And that would apply to every player, not just you or me.

Those two combined could solve quite a lot of things, I believe.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2017, 10:27:07 AM by Tha_Ape »

Online gazzz0x2z

  • Members
  • Posts: 4134
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #35 on: November 27, 2017, 12:52:41 PM »
(.../...)1. The late player start finance algorithm needs to change in the early game world. 1.5m starter cash on day 1, 3m starter cash on day 14 is way too steep, and simply not fair. The 2 week airline can outgrow the starter within days. I'm getting a lot of stick from some quarters for using the system; I bk'ed because of the aforementioned death spiral, and was shocked to see the amount of money to spend was double.

2. If a gameworld is going to start with planes restricted, but open up in the first 24 hours, or after day 2, then the playing field for market calls should be equal. I propose unlimited market calls for the first game week for all players.

For point one, my understanding was that the monetary bonus was calculated on the average of companie's gain since the beginning of the game. From what you say, it's not the case. and I agree with you, it's a problem. It's normal that players coming later have a bonus. This bonus should be balanced.

For point two, nope. Makes the game into an idle game. Worse than the current situation. I like a lot Tha_Ape's solution. Cool fleet types are released one by one. And it's up to the player to wait for them, or to begin operations with inferior airframes, and build a situational advantage. For a cost(inferior airframes).

Offline Tha_Ape

  • Members
  • Posts: 5597
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #36 on: November 28, 2017, 10:59:56 AM »
And from the other side's point of view, the restarting player would have:
 - access to 1 new great aircraft at most (given they restart the same day that a great model gets released)
 - all previously released ACs would already have a long order backlog
 - same situation as the day 1 players for the not-yet-released models
 - a drawback compared with the day 1 players as he'll have to break that situational advantage (restarting on day 2 would be pointless as there would probably be no plane added on day 2 given randomness).

I think that should be enough to refrain players from restarting on day 2 for tricking purposes.
And those restarting for good, "fair" reasons (choose the wrong bird on day one, wish to change HQ, etc.) wouldn't be penalized nor favoured, as they would find on day 2 the same situation they left on day 1.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2017, 12:46:02 PM by Tha_Ape »

Offline Zobelle

  • Members
  • Posts: 1770

The person who likes this post:
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #37 on: November 28, 2017, 03:47:18 PM »
Or we could leave things alone and no one start on day one. That’s cool too.

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 4449
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #38 on: November 28, 2017, 08:29:28 PM »
So after seeing how this game start is unfolding, I'm thinking another variation of my original proposal may apply. I started on day one, and I had two competitors restart, one after a month, which then took the passenger lead in LAX, and then the second one after two months, which also took the passenger lead in LAX, both after just a month in operation while I'm sitting there waiting for cash to buy slots with. It's still not fair that someone that starts on day 1 and plays is so quickly surpassed by those that restart later...

I'd like to have the game start "boost" not be effective until the game world is at least.. 1-2 years old. The 2 year mark in a game world is when the world is usually fairly well filled out and it would be more warranted for a new airline to receive a boost.


Online Talentz

  • Members
  • Posts: 1114

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: Game Start Fairness
« Reply #39 on: November 28, 2017, 11:10:07 PM »
So after seeing how this game start is unfolding, I'm thinking another variation of my original proposal may apply. I started on day one, and I had two competitors restart, one after a month, which then took the passenger lead in LAX, and then the second one after two months, which also took the passenger lead in LAX, both after just a month in operation while I'm sitting there waiting for cash to buy slots with. It's still not fair that someone that starts on day 1 and plays is so quickly surpassed by those that restart later...

I'd like to have the game start "boost" not be effective until the game world is at least.. 1-2 years old. The 2 year mark in a game world is when the world is usually fairly well filled out and it would be more warranted for a new airline to receive a boost.

I would adjust that a bit... although the cash is too generous. Seeing it first hand, I was (happily) surprised as well.

- New Player (first time entry): Receives all bonuses currently; -50% cash bonus over what is currently provided up to 6 months. Full/current benefits after 6 months
- Restart (player BK): Receives all bonuses with no additional cash for first 6 months. After 6 months additional cash bonus equates to New Entry bonus levels. Goes to full benefits after 1 year.

This would be a better balance between New Players who need the benefits; Player BKs that happen (with mostly good intentions) and First Day players who plan there lives around AWS  ;D

A cash adjustment is only needed, everything else works out ok.


Talentz
Co-founder and Managing member of: The Star Alliance Group™ - A beta era, multi-brand alliance.

 

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.