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: Rule change/clarification for discussion  (Read 7214 times)

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 16942
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Rule change/clarification for discussion
« on: December 09, 2017, 05:52:52 PM »
I'm opening up this topic for debate on rule changes about aircraft sales.

Current ruling:
https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Manual/General/Rules/#Alliances
Quote
Members are also forbidden to effectively transfer money between their member airlines by for example repeatedly selling and buying aircraft between each others. Normal one-time sales of aircraft is naturally allowed but transferring aircraft with the only intention of at the same time generating profits/money to one airline is considered unacceptable.

So the rule is 1) about alliances, 2) same aircraft back and forth.

However the as the current practise goes the weaker airlines are rather often helped by other alliance members, and sometimes also non-alliance members (friends otherwise?), in buying out their old scrap aircraft in their dozens at the max allowable price and then scrapping them. This is effectively monetary help but a tad outside of the scope of current rules since the "mass sales" of many aircraft haven't been really considered here.

What's the opinion on changing this rule and making/writing it clearly.

Offline Zobelle

  • Members
  • Posts: 1770
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #1 on: December 09, 2017, 06:01:21 PM »
The last thing we need is more rules.  8)
I vote to let sleeping dogs lie.

Offline Andre090904

  • Members
  • Posts: 1896
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #2 on: December 09, 2017, 06:25:04 PM »
Quote
This is effectively monetary help

Agreed. But what could be done to prevent it? As far as I know, bought scrap airplanes cannot be scrapped immediately, but the buying airline needs to wait a minimum of 1 game year. This is not very effective because it simply postpones the scrapping by 1 game year and the parking costs don't hurt either.

What else could be done? I don't see any way to limit this method...

Offline Zobelle

  • Members
  • Posts: 1770

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #3 on: December 09, 2017, 06:34:39 PM »
Agreed. But what could be done to prevent it? As far as I know, bought scrap airplanes cannot be scrapped immediately, but the buying airline needs to wait a minimum of 1 game year. This is not very effective because it simply postpones the scrapping by 1 game year and the parking costs don't hurt either.

What else could be done? I don't see any way to limit this method...
Nothing. And the 1yr hold should be removed as well. If an airline wishes to detriment themselves to prop up another’s airline that should be their own business.

Offline bdnascar3

  • Members
  • Posts: 251

The 3 people who like this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #4 on: December 09, 2017, 11:24:42 PM »
Nothing. And the 1yr hold should be removed as well. If an airline wishes to detriment themselves to prop up another’s airline that should be their own business.

I agree

This whole thing stems from the fact that some people don't like alliance's and the fact that the airlines inside an alliance help each other. In that case get rid of alliances all together, they provide no other game benefit other than helping players.

Offline Talentz

  • Members
  • Posts: 1122

The person who likes this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #5 on: December 10, 2017, 04:01:40 AM »
lol... silly ppl.

Just fine the airline who buys and scraps in mass. Code an algorithm that triggers after a set of events happens. Then get rid of the current scrap rules as they will be obsolete.

If said airline scraps more then 2 aircraft bought from the same airline within a certain time frame, levy a fine and drop there CI by a huge amount. Should do the trick.

Trigger: More then 2 aircraft bought from same player and scrapped within 4 years.

*Aircraft that fly scheduled routes for longer then 6 months, exempt completely.
*This would effect only aircraft that sit on the ground/storage for years.
*Code a warning telling said player their actions would result in a serious fine/CI reduction penalty.
*Code a confirmation check box player must check to understand their actions.
*If player is confused/or feels there's a bug; They can post a bug report where Sami can look into it personally.

Sounds fair to me. If your willing to jump through all those steps just to help prop someone up, you have way too much time on your hands  :laugh:


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

Offline Zobelle

  • Members
  • Posts: 1770

The 3 people who like this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #6 on: December 10, 2017, 04:51:19 AM »
lol... silly ppl.

Just fine the airline who buys and scraps in mass. Code an algorithm that triggers after a set of events happens. Then get rid of the current scrap rules as they will be obsolete.

If said airline scraps more then 2 aircraft bought from the same airline within a certain time frame, levy a fine and drop there CI by a huge amount. Should do the trick.

Trigger: More then 2 aircraft bought from same player and scrapped within 4 years.

*Aircraft that fly scheduled routes for longer then 6 months, exempt completely.
*This would effect only aircraft that sit on the ground/storage for years.
*Code a warning telling said player their actions would result in a serious fine/CI reduction penalty.
*Code a confirmation check box player must check to understand their actions.
*If player is confused/or feels there's a bug; They can post a bug report where Sami can look into it personally.

Sounds fair to me. If your willing to jump through all those steps just to help prop someone up, you have way too much time on your hands  :laugh:


Talentz

Signs, signs, everywhere signs.

At what point does the game become not worth playing due to onerous regulation?

Offline Talentz

  • Members
  • Posts: 1122

The person who likes this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #7 on: December 10, 2017, 05:35:57 AM »
Signs, signs, everywhere signs.

At what point does the game become not worth playing due to onerous regulation?

When your point of playing becomes centered upon not actually playing the game  ;D


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

Online gazzz0x2z

  • Members
  • Posts: 4217

The 5 people who like this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #8 on: December 10, 2017, 06:59:38 AM »
Signs, signs, everywhere signs.

At what point does the game become not worth playing due to onerous regulation?

we're very far from it.

And, to be honest, my fear is that such measures would backfire. Weaker players in alliances would simply die, and big boys would end up even bigger. Right now, when alliance cheat with this kind of money transfer, it's usually targetted against a big player of another alliance. So, in fact, this cheat is a regulation mean in itself.

I'd go even further : I've been part of 3 different alliances, I've seen this tactic applied several times, and only one player has been saved. It's because he really had a profitable airline, and had just miscalculated his cash expenses for a fleet renewal. IRL, he would have survived with a big loan, bigger than the system allows. We just helped him survive for 2 months, and he went back quickly to full profitability. All other players that I've seen helped like that ended up dying anyways, because unsustainable is unsustainable. I, and other alliance members, did sink money in unsalvagable airlines. When a company has not made any profit the last 3 years, and opposition is stronger than ever, you can't expect save it by external flow of money.

Said otherwise, this cheat is useless most of the time, slightly reduces the insane wealth of the big boys(be they in alliance or opponents), and is only useful when a very healthy company has a temporary cash problem that IRL would be solved by a decent loan. I'm not sure, therefore, that a nerf is needed. Let players make mistakes and waste their cash. For sure I wasted mine in doomed companies.

Offline knobbygb

  • Members
  • Posts: 851

The 3 people who like this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #9 on: December 10, 2017, 07:51:15 AM »
I agree with Zobelle above - is this really such a problem?  There are probably more important areas to be looking at. "If it isn't broken, don't fix it"

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 4461
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #10 on: December 10, 2017, 12:55:34 PM »
So, it seems that the discussion so far is more focused on a technical enforcement of the rule rather than the general concept of what should be considered acceptable vs unacceptable game play. Once that has been determined, the technicalities of enforcement become a bit more relevant.

So, conceptually, we have a general rule about money transferring between airlines being against the rules (specifically, the spirit of fair competition within the game). When airlines are slinging cash around through pumping money into a friend's startup airline through sham plane buy/sell schemes or doing the buy junk to scrap maneuver, this creates a less fair (perhaps unfair) playing environment within a game world. The trouble with it is that there's a fine line to walk between what is considered appropriate versus not without creating a huge checklist. I would think that a decent (probably not perfect) fine line would be examining the benefit to each airline in the transaction or series of transactions.  If it's a one sided transaction (like buy junk to scrap) where one airline receives an above-market benefit and the other takes an irrational loss, this would fit the criteria. This is also something where scale should be considered. 1-2 planes done as a buy junk to scrap isn't going to unfairly tilt the fairness of the game, but that fleet of 100 DC4's you're flying in the 1980's is a whole different scale.

So, let's apply that to the various types of transactions:

- Things that would be fine:
-- General plane selling within alliance/system limitations
-- General plane leasing within alliance/system limitations
-- Buy/leaseback transactions

- Things that are not fine
-- Buy junk to scrap
-- Plane laundering schemes to transfer cash (selling planes in a circular/semicircular transaction path that pumps money in to evade the you can't sell back to the same player right after buying limit)

I agree with Zobelle above - is this really such a problem?  There are probably more important areas to be looking at. "If it isn't broken, don't fix it"

Quite frankly, yes, it is a problem. If the dying airline is kept alive long enough through this unfair transfer of funds, then the prevailing airline competing with them may enter a death spiral and fortunes could be reversed. It's not exactly fair to have had say, a 20 year long battle in your HQ and be winning, but then lose because you don't have rich airline friends willing to pump in billions to save you while your weaker competitor has a lifeline.

Said otherwise, this cheat is useless most of the time, slightly reduces the insane wealth of the big boys(be they in alliance or opponents), and is only useful when a very healthy company has a temporary cash problem that IRL would be solved by a decent loan. I'm not sure, therefore, that a nerf is needed. Let players make mistakes and waste their cash. For sure I wasted mine in doomed companies.

Consider it from the player being targeted by this action. It's beyond frustrating and maddening to have to deal with it - I've been on the competitor to the airline receiving this help a number of times (Hi Fred!) and have ultimately prevailed. Drawing out the death of the competitor limits what I can do (i.e. slot availability) until they are gone, so if you "give" the competition an extra few game years to live from this, they're effectively stealing my credits until I can resume expanding in that particular base. Not to mention such behavior can preclude the ability to earn particular achievements that would be otherwise attainable.

So where to go with this? Right now, these tactics are in the "grey" area of the rules and I'd like to know whether they are either allowed or disallowed rather than leaving them in the grey area. If these tactics are explicitly allowed, I believe we'll see a significant increase of this sort of behavior (as folks like myself who do not do "buy junk to scrap" because they believe its against the rules may start doing it), but if they are disallowed, there needs to be further discussion on the appropriate enforcement mechanism. Gut feel for enforcement is that once it's known it's not allowed, this would be a PM sami to report thing as there's likely not a way to enforce it systemically (as there has to be some discretion applied).

Offline arefixz

  • Members
  • Posts: 166
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #11 on: December 10, 2017, 02:11:59 PM »
How about reducing max alliance price to between book-min ally. Most Intra-Alliance trade purposes is to provide aircraft quickly for requesting airline, and it is usually done in min to book price. Rarely it is done in max ally except for same reason (transfer money to poor airline that helped in ordering aircraft as sign of gratitude).

Having penalty of 2 um stafflock (max 5) is enough. Helping airlines won't be able to support much money due to low price and stafflock. This might be exploited by having 2 or more helping airlines. Therefore comes 2nd rules which is,

Limiting same aircraft listing in um for 3 per month. Currently most new production line only supply 2-3 slot per month per airline. Therefore ordering airlines only able to list 2-3 aircraft per month normally. For this case of selling many old fleet for scrap, they will only able to list maximum 3 aircraft of same type per month in um.
This might force fleet transitioning airlines (not intention on transfer money) to actually scrap plane instead of trying to make some fortune on their old planes due to hard to sell.

Just my 2cents.

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 4461
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #12 on: December 10, 2017, 02:27:15 PM »
How about reducing max alliance price to between book-min ally. Most Intra-Alliance trade purposes is to provide aircraft quickly for requesting airline, and it is usually done in min to book price. Rarely it is done in max ally except for same reason (transfer money to poor airline that helped in ordering aircraft as sign of gratitude).

Having penalty of 2 um stafflock (max 5) is enough. Helping airlines won't be able to support much money due to low price and stafflock. This might be exploited by having 2 or more helping airlines. Therefore comes 2nd rules which is,

Limiting same aircraft listing in um for 3 per month. Currently most new production line only supply 2-3 slot per month per airline. Therefore ordering airlines only able to list 2-3 aircraft per month normally. For this case of selling many old fleet for scrap, they will only able to list maximum 3 aircraft of same type per month in um.
This might force fleet transitioning airlines (not intention on transfer money) to actually scrap plane instead of trying to make some fortune on their old planes due to hard to sell.

Just my 2cents.

I'm not sure I understand how these various limitations would determine whether cash transfers between airlines is either in accordance with or against the game rules.

Answer this directly - Should airlines be allowed to transfer cash through processes similar to "buy junk to scrap" or not?

Offline Tha_Ape

  • Members
  • Posts: 5596

The person who likes this post:
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #13 on: December 10, 2017, 02:32:31 PM »
I completely agree with arefixz's 1st proposal: reducing max alliance price will limit the desirability of such trick practice without limiting its feasibility (for when it's necessary for this or that reason).
Thus, while not making it against the rule, there wouldn't be such a strong interest for it (even if a UM sale will always be well above scrap value).

(presupposition: I do agree with Schro's analysis)

Though, on arefixz's 2nd proposal I do not agree at all, as sometimes we use fleets for a rather limited amount of time, to fill in the gap between two other types. Thus, we might have to get rid of a large number of relatively young planes without it being illegitimate (in GW#2, I kept my LH Britannias 8-10 years before moving to Super Sixties, and such a rule would have meant the impossibility to quickly get rid of my Brits, and all were not ready for scrap - indeed, they sold very well on the UM).
« Last Edit: December 10, 2017, 02:35:10 PM by Tha_Ape »

Offline Zobelle

  • Members
  • Posts: 1770
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #14 on: December 10, 2017, 02:35:03 PM »
Read my lips. No new rules.
 :D

Offline Tha_Ape

  • Members
  • Posts: 5596
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #15 on: December 10, 2017, 02:37:43 PM »
Read my lips. No new rules.
 :D

Read my lips: the last proposal is not a change of rules, it's a change of parameters that make some contested practices less desirable.
(and as arefixz said, that change would be implemented by touching to a parameter that no one usually uses except for that contested purpose).
 :)

Offline Zobelle

  • Members
  • Posts: 1770
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #16 on: December 10, 2017, 02:39:43 PM »
So now we’re proposing changes to how many plane can be listed? You’ll kill the brokering business with that one for both general and inter alliance trading.

I say leave the metrics alone and dev can investigate egregious circumvention of cash transfer rules as they stand: if they wish to.

Offline Tha_Ape

  • Members
  • Posts: 5596
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #17 on: December 10, 2017, 02:42:55 PM »
So now we’re proposing changes to how many plane can be listed? You’ll kill the brokering business with that one for both general and inter alliance trading.

I say leave the metrics alone and dev can investigate egregious circumvention of cash transfer rules as they stand: if they wish to.

Tsst-tsst... Read my lips, but also read my post :P (where I disagree with the 2nd part of arefixz's proposal - the part about limiting number of sales)

Offline arefixz

  • Members
  • Posts: 166
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #18 on: December 10, 2017, 02:45:58 PM »
I'm not sure I understand how these various limitations would determine whether cash transfers between airlines is either in accordance with or against the game rules.

Answer this directly - Should airlines be allowed to transfer cash through processes similar to "buy junk to scrap" or not?

Well its just opinion on limiting amount transferred to just enough depending on value of aircraft. The conditions to disallow such buy to scrap is quite complicated to thought, even to code. If you have more idea on how to prevent it do state here and we can discuss.

The 2nd solution is just rough idea, like stated, its not favourable for airlines listing lots of aircraft in um. If you have more improvement idea regarding the limitation do also state it here.

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 4461
Re: Rule change/clarification for discussion
« Reply #19 on: December 10, 2017, 02:48:25 PM »
I completely agree with arefixz's 1st proposal: reducing max alliance price will limit the desirability of such trick practice without limiting its feasibility (for when it's necessary for this or that reason).
Thus, while not making it against the rule, there wouldn't be such a strong interest for it (even if a UM sale will always be well above scrap value).

(presupposition: I do agree with Schro's analysis)

Though, on arefixz's 2nd proposal I do not agree at all, as sometimes we use fleets for a rather limited amount of time, to fill in the gap between two other types. Thus, we might have to get rid of a large number of relatively young planes without it being illegitimate (in GW#2, I kept my LH Britannias 8-10 years before moving to Super Sixties, and such a rule would have meant the impossibility to quickly get rid of my Brits, and all were not ready for scrap - indeed, they sold very well on the UM).

The first proposal about shrinking the window between book and minimum alliance pricing will not not solve the "buy junk to scrap". Let's think it through in each scenario - suppose scrap value = 200k, minimum alliance = 2m and max alliance = 4m

1. Suppose book value = 1m, sale would be for 1m.
2. Suppose book value is 5m, sale would be for 5m.

As it stands today, you can sell for 4m. In every case, the selling airline will receive 5x or more than it would have by scrapping. There are already other issues with min/max alliance pricing when you take into account the dynamic new/used market pricing that happens based upon demand - I don't think making those worse/more restrictive would be very helpful at this point, nor does it address the "whether it should be allowed or not" question. Just because something is disallowed doesn't mean there has to be a technical solution made to enforce it. The max alliance parameter is also used earlier in the game by some of the more... greedy.. airlines in an alliance. I wouldn't say it is only used for the contested purpose.

Rate limiting for the used market doesn't make sense at all. Current new/used market acquisition rates make it very difficult to maintain a 1000 plane fleet that is also under 24 years old.

I say leave the metrics alone and dev can investigate egregious circumvention of cash transfer rules as they stand: if they wish to.

That's the entire reason of this post. Cash transfer is disallowed. However, cash transfer via a "buy junk to scrap" transfer is not explicitly allowed, and is happening in many cases. Should this practice be allowed?

 

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.