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: [-] Take off the "too small" penalty from the DC-8 (Super 60s and 70s)  (Read 870 times)

Offline Tha_Ape

  • Members
  • Posts: 5596

The 2 people who like this post:
Hi,

I think I plainly understand the aim of the "too small" penalty, however I think its application to the DC-8 is just breaking something.

The DC-8 is old at the end of the 70s already, and has bad economics compared to newer birds (DC-10, TriStar, A310). The upgrade to Super 70s is great, but doesn't make it viable for much longer.

By 1980, every DC-8 user is planning his renewal (and probably already ordered the planes).
By 1988 or so, all will probably be gone, which is more or less is what happened IRL.

The use of smaller birds to spam is doable when the said plane does wonders economically. Which is not the case of the DC-8.
Thus, by adding a penalty to already bad economics, it's just piling up a burden to another one.
Someone that would spam -72s could not take advantage of it economically, thus nobody would do it.

So please, take it off that list.
Or nerf it so it happens later, or with less effect or anything else.

Thank you.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2018, 08:51:38 PM by Sami »

Offline yearofthecactus

  • Members
  • Posts: 583

The 2 people who like this post:
Re: Take off the "too small" penalty from the DC-8 (Super 60s and 70s)
« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2018, 10:15:41 PM »
I've said before, too small shouldn't really apply to Very Large aircraft of any era.

More importantly, the number of airlines going belly up in GW2 because they're still flying old metal and the too small nerf is hitting them is not good for the long term health of that gameworld.

Nerfs like the too small on the DC-8, 707 reduce credit income, and they lower activity and fun of competition. That the too small is not a cliff edge, and worses year on year or as pax demand grows is irrelevant, and hiding the information so people don't even know it's happening as suggested by Sami is not a good idea either.

Offline [ATA] Sunbao

  • Members
  • Posts: 1079
    • FmFreaks
Re: Take off the "too small" penalty from the DC-8 (Super 60s and 70s)
« Reply #2 on: February 28, 2018, 11:59:52 PM »
Well if not hitting smaller planes with warnings, then dc10 md11 330 777 will get an hard time ever getting profitable if your able to freq f*** them.

remember 762ER also get to small warning but that goes away when 763 gets into your fleet.

Its all about moving on before your advantage go away.
Also you would be able to fly dc8 long into 90s if not getting this warning, as you would be able to freq f*** competition.

People going belly up is people that failed big time, in this game if paying attention and not doing something real stupid, your more or less not able to bk with an owned fleet.

Offline Zobelle

  • Members
  • Posts: 1770
Re: Take off the "too small" penalty from the DC-8 (Super 60s and 70s)
« Reply #3 on: March 01, 2018, 12:13:25 AM »
Well if not hitting smaller planes with warnings, then dc10 md11 330 777 will get an hard time ever getting profitable if your able to freq f*** them.

remember 762ER also get to small warning but that goes away when 763 gets into your fleet.

Its all about moving on before your advantage go away.
Also you would be able to fly dc8 long into 90s if not getting this warning, as you would be able to freq f*** competition.

People going belly up is people that failed big time, in this game if paying attention and not doing something real stupid, your more or less not able to bk with an owned fleet.

Somehow I just don’t know about that.

The economics (fuel, maintenance, staff requirements) would eventually catch up to you. The fact you can’t order new DC87 means the youngest conversions (that makes sense) would be around 8y or older. But I’m also honestly not opposed to letting DC86/7 fly without “too small” until stage 3 becomes a requirement. (I say this as a DC10 heavy operator who is currently eating DC8 operator’s lunch quite handily)

If you fail to replace your fleet by then, Well... May god be with you.

Offline [ATA] Sunbao

  • Members
  • Posts: 1079
    • FmFreaks
Re: Take off the "too small" penalty from the DC-8 (Super 60s and 70s)
« Reply #4 on: March 01, 2018, 12:24:36 AM »
Somehow I just don’t know about that.

The economics (fuel, maintenance, staff requirements) would eventually catch up to you. The fact you can’t order new DC87 means the youngest conversions (that makes sense) would be around 8y or older. But I’m also honestly not opposed to letting DC86/7 fly without “too small” until stage 3 becomes a requirement. (I say this as a DC10 heavy operator who is currently eating DC8 operator’s lunch quite handily)

If you fail to replace your fleet by then, Well... May god be with you.

Sure thing, but if people did know there was no to small warning etc, they would hold on to dc8 and not move on, and keeping line open late, changing picture big time.

Yes as the worlds biggest DC10 operator i know we are eating dc8 now, but before warnings, we was the one with not enough pax on board, also still only flying with like 50% lf but sure thats still give good profit.

But the point is, then we have tons of planes to change on, why shall connies dc6bs dc7 bristols then be taken down by the warning.
It wold totally change the game, and make planes be flown much longer, taking the tactic part of getting the right planes in right time out of the game.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2018, 12:28:49 AM by [ATA] Sunbao »

Offline Tha_Ape

  • Members
  • Posts: 5596
Re: Take off the "too small" penalty from the DC-8 (Super 60s and 70s)
« Reply #5 on: March 01, 2018, 12:30:14 AM »
@ Sunbao

There has been a lot of discussion going on about the "too small" and frequency spamming some days ago.
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,75679.0.html
I do not agree with you but well, that's another matter.

However, and I repeat it, the economics of the DC-8 are not good enough to take it in the 90s. What you'd gain through spamming, you'd lose it from fuel, maintenance or else -> not interesting at all, if not endangering.

And even with better economics, the problem wouldn't be solved: this penalty applies to everyone, even the people righteously using the DC-8, and this is not normal.
Should be made in a way that only the people taking advantage are penalized, not the ones not trying to cause any harm to anybody (or at least not that way ;D).

Offline Tha_Ape

  • Members
  • Posts: 5596
Re: Take off the "too small" penalty from the DC-8 (Super 60s and 70s)
« Reply #6 on: March 01, 2018, 12:36:56 AM »
A 50% empty DC-10 costs less than a 100% full DC-8 (yes, before any kind of penalty).
And this since already 4 or 5 years in GW#2.

So how come I'd try to spam you with DC-8? I'd be the one losing, in the end.

Offline Tha_Ape

  • Members
  • Posts: 5596
Re: Take off the "too small" penalty from the DC-8 (Super 60s and 70s)
« Reply #7 on: March 01, 2018, 12:45:50 AM »
But the point is, then we have tons of planes to change on, why shall connies dc6bs dc7 bristols then be taken down by the warning.
It wold totally change the game, and make planes be flown much longer, taking the tactic part of getting the right planes in right time out of the game.

"The right planes in right time" is generally from 0347 to 0358 when a good model gets released. I don't really call that "tactic".
And if you're not sleeping or billionaire or else, you could very well end with a "too small" DC-8.
I'm quite big in GW#2, so I don't worry much about that part, but this is actually unfair for plenty of players. Sorry to say it but I got the feeling you see it as a big boy way to get rid of a possible competition: your largest DC-10 fleet already made more money than any large DC-8 fleet before the penalty, because of the DC-8's economics.

Offline [ATA] Sunbao

  • Members
  • Posts: 1079
    • FmFreaks
Re: Take off the "too small" penalty from the DC-8 (Super 60s and 70s)
« Reply #8 on: March 01, 2018, 01:13:00 AM »
"The right planes in right time" is generally from 0347 to 0358 when a good model gets released. I don't really call that "tactic".
And if you're not sleeping or billionaire or else, you could very well end with a "too small" DC-8.
I'm quite big in GW#2, so I don't worry much about that part, but this is actually unfair for plenty of players. Sorry to say it but I got the feeling you see it as a big boy way to get rid of a possible competition: your largest DC-10 fleet already made more money than any large DC-8 fleet before the penalty, because of the DC-8's economics.

Not at all, my point is just that then we can do same with number of planes, that has same issue, i flow dc7 suddenly it hit, had to close most lh down , that nearly killed me, then i got 727 in as game changer for the routes under 2500 nm that killed off my competitor instead.
The point is then no planes should get to small warning ? as its unfair ?
Its a part of them game without the part, the game would be a lot different,.
Every plane has its time. in a game where your can't kill a competitor unless he really screws up, we should not aim to make the game even less.
Then we can just go sandbox mode with unlimited money for everyone ?

But yes the current case where flying with no competition should not get an penalty that for sure.

Offline Tha_Ape

  • Members
  • Posts: 5596
Re: Take off the "too small" penalty from the DC-8 (Super 60s and 70s)
« Reply #9 on: March 01, 2018, 09:44:03 AM »
What you say supports my speech, in a way.

I agree this is a game, and it cannot be an image of RL.
"Too small" was created as a reaction to spamming, but it also applies to non-spamming persons.
So in this example forces me to get rid of my DC-8 by 1980 to avoid any kind of penalty. What was the point of adding the Super 70s (released in 81-82) then?

"Too small" is fair and interesting if it applies fairly. Which is not always the case, and particularly not here.

If you're worried about spamming, I made a proposal there:
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,75679.msg444398.html#msg444398
You can skip the whole chit-chat and go for the 3rd part immediately (Proposals).

About the DC-4 in Canada in the mid/late 60s, it was somewhat predictable (high demand area + rich country with modern aviation). Just as in other cases. But a DC-8 getting "too small" right from 1980 in thin demand areas??
Quote
Every plane has its time.
Exactly. But the time of the DC-8 is not over in 1980. Spiff's proposal in the other thread on 1985 makes much more sense. Penalized, yes, early, yes, but not too early.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2018, 09:47:25 AM by Tha_Ape »

Offline schro

  • Members
  • Posts: 4525
Re: Take off the "too small" penalty from the DC-8 (Super 60s and 70s)
« Reply #10 on: March 22, 2018, 11:54:07 PM »
Has there been an unannounced change made to this? I'm not seeing too small warnings for DC8s anymore in GW2 (though, the 707 has them now).

Offline Tha_Ape

  • Members
  • Posts: 5596
Re: Take off the "too small" penalty from the DC-8 (Super 60s and 70s)
« Reply #11 on: March 23, 2018, 01:04:10 AM »
Sami mentioned it in some other thread but didn't shout it ;) Was mentioned in a recent changelog post as well.

Calculation of too small fired because the average max seating of the whole fleet group (on which is based the "too small") was highly twisted down by the combis.
Same happened with the 733 (that had "too small" in 83 on a 2000nm route with 200 demand :laugh:). Forced Sami to finally investigate and uncover this.
Cf https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,75990.0.html

So in the end, the DC-8 was very vulnerable to this problem because of the so many combi variant there are in the fleet group. Combis are no more included in the average fleet group max seating.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2018, 01:06:17 AM by Tha_Ape »

Johan87

  • Former member
Re: Take off the "too small" penalty from the DC-8 (Super 60s and 70s)
« Reply #12 on: March 24, 2018, 05:45:12 PM »
I see we cannot place a msg at your link Tha_APE,so i just do it here.

We have an max 600 plane limit outside HQ.
So is the Too small warning still relevant?
Let say there are only a few routes of 300 +demand and rest is under,makes it already needed for 2 fleets on LH flights.
So means a carrier can only fly LH to prefent a 4th fleet need alot of cash to save up planes and then replace.
So yeah either way you move you gett a penalty for a 4th fleet or a too small warning  :(

The example of what happen in gw3 that an LHR based carrier just closed a base same real day after the local crrier with a hub in LHR went bankrupt,so to gett another player out of business shows we need bounderies as this is not a 1st time either.
It make it really hard for getting a right setting,i understand this part.

Think that we have just 2 levels is the problem.
There is a large group who is too big for the beginners world,but not ready to be based together with the big shots in the game.
So maybe it should be time to devide the settings in the big worlds like in all other games and split so that the players who can check the game 6 times a day and have all the skills to give others a hard time and also something in the middle for the players who just like the idea of beeing a real ceo and have ave settings.







Johan87

  • Former member
Re: Take off the "too small" penalty from the DC-8 (Super 60s and 70s)
« Reply #13 on: March 24, 2018, 05:47:38 PM »
The eample was gw 1 and not gw 3,sorry

Offline Tha_Ape

  • Members
  • Posts: 5596
Re: Take off the "too small" penalty from the DC-8 (Super 60s and 70s)
« Reply #14 on: March 25, 2018, 09:52:59 AM »
@Seven

even though the 600 plane limit is a problem in some situations, I am not sure what's the point in the relation to the present thread
1°) unreasonable "too small" on the DC-8 has been take off the DC-8 (was indeed a bug). Will kick in normally.
2°) the DC-8 ain't no late game plane, will never be used in such contexts.
3°) plus, the argumentation on the DC-8 was that some people used it rightfully (ie, because they have a thin LH demand, not to kill any competitor).

Or did I miss the point?

Johan87

  • Former member
Re: Take off the "too small" penalty from the DC-8 (Super 60s and 70s)
« Reply #15 on: March 25, 2018, 07:17:29 PM »
I tought it was about a general game problem of the too small warning,that why i summend up some penalty already applied to us.

 

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.