[-] Slight modification to the 4th fleet penalty?

[Tha_Ape]

As no complete overhaul of the system is underway nor programmed (from what I know), I thought we could maybe have a slight modification that could greatly help huge renewals.

As of today, as soon as you schedule you very 1st a/c of the new type, every single frame of this type that's on your tarmac counts towards the penalty, even if not schedule.

Couldn't we have the penalty as it is today, but only scheduled planes count towards this penalty?

[Zobelle]

As no complete overhaul of the system is underway nor programmed (from what I know), I thought we could maybe have a slight modification that could greatly help huge renewals.

As of today, as soon as you schedule you very 1st a/c of the new type, every single frame of this type that's on your tarmac counts towards the penalty, even if not schedule.

Couldn't we have the penalty as it is today, but only scheduled planes count towards this penalty?

Even stored ones?

[gazzz0x2z]

Well, AFAIK, it's already working against fleet groups for which at least one plane is scheduled. If you have 6 S2000s, none of them being scheduled, it won't count as a fleet group. If one of them is scheduled, it counts as a fleet group with 6 frames.

Last GW3, I was both brokering a lot and aiming for "aircraft number achievements"(medium and european), so I made a lot of checks on that. It's really how it works. Fly zero, it does not count. Fly one, everything you have in the fleet group counts.

If all unscheduled planes were counted, brokering would not be possible. In current GW2/HAF, brokering has been my bloodstream for decades.

[Tha_Ape]

Not what I was saying. Obviously, unscheduled groups don't count towards the penalty, but once you schedule the 1st plane of your new fleet group, your counted overall fleet jumps from, say, 900 to 1200 planes, in just a millisecond.

My proposal is to count only the actually scheduled planes in the penalty, and not the whole fleet type sitting idle. Or a percentage of it, or whatever. Because once you have a fleet around 800 a/c, it becomes quite painful. Now that the OOB limit is at 1000, every GW has a few airlines above 2000 a/c. Changing 600 planes at once is already a pain, but if your margin drops from 15% to -20%, that's more than punitive, and you can be doomed just by that fact. Thus, lightening a little bit the penalty (without cancelling it) makes quite a lot of sense in my opinion.

[groundbum2]

for really large airlines, 800+ say, does the detail of the 4th fleet penalty matter? I would think if one airliner is scheduled and the really punitive 4th fleet penalty kicks in, then that is massive pain enough without the bit extra from unscheduled planes etc.

In a previous GW I had like 1200 aircraft and monthly commonality was about $90M. I added just one plane and the whole commonality went to $400M! Which is as expected. So if I had a 2nd unscheduled plane and it went to $401M I wouldn't be that bothered as I've taken the massive hit anyway and generally this happens at the stage of the game where you have billions in the bank anyhows...

Simon

[Tha_Ape]

In a previous GW I had like 1200 aircraft and monthly commonality was about $90M. I added just one plane and the whole commonality went to $400M! Which is as expected. So if I had a 2nd unscheduled plane and it went to $401M I wouldn't be that bothered as I've taken the massive hit anyway and generally this happens at the stage of the game where you have billions in the bank anyhows...

Simon

No, that's not the way it works. As of today, once you introduce a single plane, all that new group sitting idle on your tarmac counts towards the penalty. So instead of having a penalty on a 1201 (1200+1) fleet, you had a penalty on 1200+ x (x being the size of this idle fleet), so probably around 1600 a/c counted towards the penalty.

[gazzz0x2z]

No, that's not the way it works. As of today, once you introduce a single plane, all that new group sitting idle on your tarmac counts towards the penalty. So instead of having a penalty on a 1201 (1200+1) fleet, you had a penalty on 1200+ x (x being the size of this idle fleet), so probably around 1600 a/c counted towards the penalty.

No, that's not the way it works. The comm costs difference between 901 planes in 4 fleet groups and 1200 planes in 4 fleet groups is negligible compared to 900 planes in 3 fleet groups and 901 planes in 4 fleet groups.

So the count is wrong, but it's not punitive as you seem to think it is.

[Tha_Ape]

Well, I reckon the 1st single plane of a 4th fleet type is the one that makes a huge difference, but at the same time the fact that all planes of the new fleet group count towards the penalty is an extra burden that's nowadays quite unnecessary.

Even if it's a small sum compared to the cost of the 1st plane of this new fleet group, if we could take it off, it would already be a nice thing.
And would make more sense from an accounting perspective: how come a plane that's not participating in your ops counts towards your commonality costs?

[Cornishman]

This matter has been the single biggest "killer of any fun" for me for this game. For over 2 months now IRL I've considered just leaving the game altogether. It makes no sense whatsoever to encourage contestants in a game to build up a huge airline to aim to get to the top of the ratings charts at some levels - then completely penalise to a point of ruining the fun in the game. For these 2 months or more all I can do is pop into the game for a few minutes here and there in the hopes I can add more 787s to my new fleet so eventually I can swap out all near 400 777s in one go. Result is me sitting around with 300x 787s doing b***er all and getting older on the tarmac while I try to fulfil this absurd task. Pleeeeeze can we get a means to swap-out a fleet without this penalty. It's been discussed so many times. There are numerous good ideas which have been put forward by folk.

[JumboShrimp]

This matter has been the single biggest "killer of any fun" for me for this game. For over 2 months now IRL I've considered just leaving the game altogether. It makes no sense whatsoever to encourage contestants in a game to build up a huge airline to aim to get to the top of the ratings charts at some levels - then completely penalise to a point of ruining the fun in the game. For these 2 months or more all I can do is pop into the game for a few minutes here and there in the hopes I can add more 787s to my new fleet so eventually I can swap out all near 400 777s in one go. Result is me sitting around with 300x 787s doing b***er all and getting older on the tarmac while I try to fulfil this absurd task. Pleeeeeze can we get a means to swap-out a fleet without this penalty. It's been discussed so many times. There are numerous good ideas which have been put forward by folk.

Do you think there should be no constraints, at all, to the growth of airlines?  What fun would that be if you could grow without any constraints?

Currently, the constraint is that you operate your airline with 2 fleets and use the 3rd fleet for fleet replacements.  That is until late game when you can add your final 3rd fleet.  Figuring this out, and having discipline to stick with this plan is part of strategic planning.

[DanDan]

Do you think there should be no constraints, at all, to the growth of airlines?  What fun would that be if you could grow without any constraints?

Currently, the constraint is that you operate your airline with 2 fleets and use the 3rd fleet for fleet replacements.  That is until late game when you can add your final 3rd fleet.  Figuring this out, and having discipline to stick with this plan is part of strategic planning.

It would be nice if one could add a fixed number of aircraft without penalty beyond the 3rd group though (like maybe 10, or 20), so that one could fly Concorde or A380 or 747 - that would add a bit of spice to the game, while not really helping big airlines.

[Cornishman]

Do you think there should be no constraints, at all, to the growth of airlines?  What fun would that be if you could grow without any constraints?

Woa there...   same old knee-jerk reactions we see all too often in defence of the game! I definitely do not think there should be no constraints. I never once intimated that there should be no constraints.

Currently, the constraint is that you operate your airline with 2 fleets and use the 3rd fleet for fleet replacements.  That is until late game when you can add your final 3rd fleet.  Figuring this out, and having discipline to stick with this plan is part of strategic planning.

Why should it be just a 2 fleet airline and the 3rd only for replacement? What makes that a great idea? Once upon a time for example, women were forbidden to vote... thats the way it was... but what made that a good idea at the time? Should nobody have challenged the sanity of that law?   I'm trying to look ahead and suggest ways to improve things.

Some of us cannot spend huge amounts of our time on this game but we'd still like a shot at getting to the top of the scoreboard. Mind-boggling hours of strategic planning and rigorous discipline just to circumnavigate ridiculous rules doesn't sound much like any recipe for fun to to me mate.

I have long supported the need for constraint against uncontrolled growth of an airline. There's been a fair bit of debate about just how much unfairness might result anyway... but that's another debate and we don't need to go there. I happen to agree with a limit of 3 fleet types. After all, it makes sense to have a SH MH and LH fleet. But there are plenty of ways to introduce a means of swapping out a fleet with a controlled system, a juicy carrot as opposed to using the stick!

One excellent idea someone put forward was to declare a fleet type as "under replacement". Under that situation no new routes nor any additional flight whatsoever is permitted on that type of aircraft - if such is made then 4th fleet penalty kicks in immediately. Additionally the replacement aircraft must be a "one new in and one old out" within a time-limit or again, 4th fleet penalty kicks in.  That would permit a sensible means to swap a fleet out without allowing any further growth during the entire process.

Please don't jump to conclusions JS, that I have no respect for the general process of the game. I do, but I would also like to enjoy playing the game and this current ultra-hard-line constraint is really not a sensible means of control imo.

[Talentz]

I would be in full support of something simple as making it a "5th fleet penalty" instead of 4th fleet. That would ease the burden of fleet trans, give some flexibility to airline planning and give a new goal to the "small regional" airlines of hitting 3k aircraft for kicks on a regular basis.

I think the coding Sami uses(d) is pretty straight forward in costs step. For those wondering, its 4,7,11. With the first 10 aircraft costing the most and leveling off after 30 frames.

This would be a straight forward stop-gap without too much overthinking until Sami is ready to spend a few weekends lost in code for a whole new system.

Also, we can use this as barometer of the player-base. How players react and adjust can help leads us to a better overall system. What problems arise by this can be taken into account towards the newly built system.

.. which will be ready in 2022 


Talentz

[JumboShrimp]

I have long supported the need for constraint against uncontrolled growth of an airline. There's been a fair bit of debate about just how much unfairness might result anyway... but that's another debate and we don't need to go there. I happen to agree with a limit of 3 fleet types. After all, it makes sense to have a SH MH and LH fleet. But there are plenty of ways to introduce a means of swapping out a fleet with a controlled system, a juicy carrot as opposed to using the stick!

Have you thought about the effect of huge airlines being able to fly 3 fleets, addressing all of the markets, leaving no room left for competition?  How many players would survive until 2035?  50?

It is good for the SIM when a lot of players survive, and a way to insure that a lot of players survive is to prevent the strongest from killing smaller niche player is to limit the weapons they can deploy (number of fleets).  With 2 fleets, you just cannot address every single niche.  It may seem bad and limiting to you as a player, but it is good for the overall SIM.

Come back when you have an answer for that. (Just for the record, I don't have a different answer than limiting fleets, nor have I seen anyone suggest a viable alternative).

[Viscount Bailey]

Have you thought about the effect of huge airlines being able to fly 3 fleets, addressing all of the markets, leaving no room left for competition?  How many players would survive until 2035?  50?

It is good for the SIM when a lot of players survive, and a way to insure that a lot of players survive is to prevent the strongest from killing smaller niche player is to limit the weapons they can deploy (number of fleets).  With 2 fleets, you just cannot address every single niche.  It may seem bad and limiting to you as a player, but it is good for the overall SIM.

Come back when you have an answer for that. (Just for the record, I don't have a different answer than limiting fleets, nor have I seen anyone suggest a viable alternative).

Wow - what made you such an expert on what is perfect? You appear to be assuming a disaster would unfold if nothing ever progresses on this matter. Many of us old regulars are fed up with this particular constraint. So that's good for the SIM is it?  Any revision on this rule would be a great start as far as I'm concerned. You say you have no answers... not much help then, and you say you've never seen anyone suggest a viable alternative.... 2 or 3 great suggestions right here on this thread Jumbo. I don't mean to sound nasty towards you Jumbo so don't get me wrong, but it's not helpful when folk dig in and just blindly reject any call for game improvement when there's clearly a number of folk who desire one.
VB

[JumboShrimp]

Wow - what made you such an expert on what is perfect? You appear to be assuming a disaster would unfold if nothing ever progresses on this matter. Many of us old regulars are fed up with this particular constraint. So that's good for the SIM is it?  Any revision on this rule would be a great start as far as I'm concerned. You say you have no answers... not much help then, and you say you've never seen anyone suggest a viable alternative.... 2 or 3 great suggestions right here on this thread Jumbo. I don't mean to sound nasty towards you Jumbo so don't get me wrong, but it's not helpful when folk dig in and just blindly reject any call for game improvement when there's clearly a number of folk who desire one.
VB

I spelled out what is good for the SIM:  When enough players survive, and there are enough players to play.

This is at odds with what is good for one single player, which is: I want to crush every single one of my opponents.

All of the suggestions so far have one theme in common: "I want to serve every niche (and crush every single one of my opponents) and I want to be able to get away with it"

[DanDan]

I have one definite answer on this topic, which would certainly help more players to survive:

SPELL OUT THE EFFECTS OF THE PENALTY.

many new players have no clue about this penalty it seems. they are flying, sometimes 30 planes, in 5 fleet types, totally unaware of the logic that eats away their money, and maybe too superficially interested to even remotely consider going to the forum and search for something as unreal (i am not saying its bad, its just not realistic from a real world perspective), as this rule.

it would be great if, just for the time being, the "penalty" is not included in the staff costs, hidden somewhere there for noone to be found, but to have a separate point in the finances "Game Penalty", and give a number on how much one is loosing by it.
plus, in the dashboard an info-screen, like for oversupply of a route, an information: you are penalized by ....$ for having 5 fleet types or whatever.

because the way it currently is, it annoys some big players, sure, but it totally makes it unplayable for a lot of new players - and at least for them one could relieve the pain instantly!

[gazzz0x2z]

dandan pushes towards the real problem : the penalty is hidden. At least, a game advisor(as those who tell you "don't lease this old piece of crap at 60% of condition") could warn the player that he's doinf something dangerous each time he plans a new fleet type beyond the third(or the second below 75-80).

Or maybe even, each time one schedules a new fleet group, the advisor gives a reminder."you're at 3 fleet groups. Remember that the 4th fleet group suffers from a heavy penalty". Something like that. Something pedagogic.

I agree with Jumbo on the basics : an interesting game is a game that pushes you towards making choices. do I go Very large? do I go medium instead? It's a very strategic choice, with multiple consequences, and that leaves some places to others. That being said, Joe the New player should NOT learn this limitation the hard way - or through reading the forum. It should be made obvious to him.

[Tha_Ape]

Also, I'd like to point out something, JS.

While I tend to pun Cornishman about his lack of preparation for his renewals in private (PMs and alliance forum), this in only a pun. Behind his annoyance lies something true, and something that just grew bigger when the OOB limit was raised from 600 to 1000: fleet got bigger, and renewals even longer and boring.

Proposals for increased capabilities on the UM in late game have been made, JS, and you agree on them, and one of the reason this was raised is the possibility to gather planes faster for a renewal. So please don't dismiss people on the basis that they complain about something even you want to alleviate.

Some of the "small regional airlines" players around here spend a lot of time on the game, and have multiple airlines in multiple GWs at the same time. Some others do not. Jack has always only one, I always have only one, etc. One of the reason we have only one is because we don't have enough time to play more, but we still have enough to have one single big airline.
On the other hand, you bring the "2 active fleet, 1 for renewals" principle as a rule Cornishman (and others) don't follow, and that's the reason they complain.
Well, maybe you don't, but I have to say that a lot of "small regional airlines" have 3 active fleet, not only 2. However these players spend a large amount of time on the game.
Is that to say that you advise us to have a real small regional airline instead?
Then I'd reply that we actually have the time to play a large airline, it's only when these renewals come in that we don't have the extra time. And I don't find it a good reason to force us to downgrade our playing style.

I have been a long defender of the 4th fleet penalty, and I still am, and I disagree with Cornishman about a lot of what he says, but we both (and many others, it seems) agree on the fact that there is a problem here that needs to be solved. So lets try to be constructive instead of saying "you play the wrong way" or "you think wrong".

Constraints are right, and make the game fun, and keeps room for everyone. Until it becomes barely possible to overrun them. In this case, we need to find a solution to preserve this "room for everyone", but also to the "10 years for a renewal" problem.

[Mort]

I would be in full support of something simple as making it a "5th fleet penalty" instead of 4th fleet. That would ease the burden of fleet trans, give some flexibility to airline planning and give a new goal to the "small regional" airlines of hitting 3k aircraft for kicks on a regular basis.

I think the coding Sami uses(d) is pretty straight forward in costs step. For those wondering, its 4,7,11. With the first 10 aircraft costing the most and leveling off after 30 frames.

This would be a straight forward stop-gap without too much overthinking until Sami is ready to spend a few weekends lost in code for a whole new system.

Also, we can use this as barometer of the player-base. How players react and adjust can help leads us to a better overall system. What problems arise by this can be taken into account towards the newly built system.

.. which will be ready in 2022 


Talentz

Think you hit the nail on the head here really.

The game has changed so much that the only realistic way to analyse the reaction is to have a test/challenge/short gameworld with a modified cost system in place for commonality, and see what the playerbase does with it.

I certainly can't see how that could put anyone's nose out of joint, everyone gets a chance to experience a slightly relaxed ruleset and Sami gets a look at some real data.

It could be as simple as changing the arbitrary jump point from 3->4 to 4->5 fleets, or changing the formulae so that the cost curve is smoothed out.

More involved suggestions like designating a temporary replacement fleet or adding another layer of commonality (so you can for example operate both Q400 and regular Dash 8s with minimal additional expense, 757 and 767 come to mind too) could be looked into once we see how everyone reacts.