Collusion in The Modern Times

[Mr.HP]

So to stop this kind of discussions once and for all I think the only way to do it is to change the dynamics of the UM competely
And stop with private listing

All planes should be offered on the open UM.
Instead of waiting 14 gamedays for you plane, you have 14 gamedays to offer your best price for a plane
At game start you can only make 3 offers. Unless your price is beaten. In that case you can make a new offer for the same plane or another
If you have the best price after 14 gamedays you can use the plane immediately

While i agree the UM need change, and removing the private listing is an option. However, the reason behind it, mainly due to airlines want quick fleet transtion to avoid 4th fleet penalty as much as possible

Thus, i suggest removing the 4th fleet penalty as it is the root cause. And use the slot upkeep fee to control monopoly. The slot upkeep may reach a point where it is so high that getting more slots (at an airport) mean losing money. And since airlines can use many fleets, they can do transition at slow pace. They also release AC to the UM at the same pace from 2010 to 2020 and other airline can take them in, not dumping hundreds of B737 classic, for example, in the market in 2020 like we are doing, and noone wants those anymore. On the other hand, there are hundreds of B737NG storing for years, which can be used else where

[Amelie090904]

I am against removing private listings, against removing fleet commonality penalties for 4+ fleets and against an introduction of a slot upkeep quota as discussed above.

Removing private listings would make alliances even more pointless than they already are. The only reason alliances exist at this point is for coordination (which includes fleet / aircraft order coordination). Assuming all orders would need to be placed openly on the used market, the richest airline with the biggest UM purchase limit (say 20 planes a week) would just empty the used market and have a monopoly on new planes. Not good.

Removing fleet commonality penalties is THE discussion of AWS since it got launched. I understand it as a measure to restrict airlines in becoming overly powerful. The way it is now (3 fleets) means airlines need to plan ahead and concentrate on key markets while leaving other markets untouched (say regional demand). Since some segments of the market remain untouched by big LH airlines or cargo airlines who simply cannot afford yet another fleet type, there is room for another airline to make use of that regional demand / medium plane market. Over time, this regional airline may grow enough to eventually compete with the bigger airline. That's the whole idea behind it if I understand Sami correctly. IF we were to remove the commonality penalties, already big airlines would get even more opportunities to grow even more and to extend their monopolies even more. They could add another fleet type, get planes quicker, expand more and just become even more invincible. I understand the purpose of removing the limit is to allow for more streamlined transitions, but it just comes with a huge disadvantage: Players who plan ahead and are already ruling the game worlds will get even more power. I don't think it is worth it, especially as transitions are much easier now with the increased weekly UM limits. I personally got 500 737-900s in about 2-3 years if I remember correctly. Previously, this was just unthinkable.

The slot upkeep quota suggested above would mean that there would be a hard-coded limit and that there would be a point where further expansion would not be economically possible. This is not only highly unrealistic, but punishing successful players. If you manage to build up a big airline, outplay competitors, handle fleet transitions over several decades, withstand fuel prices, then why would that airline need to be punished by a slot upkeep quota that would increase exponentially the more slots it owns? That is even worse than the fleet commonality penalties (which can be avoided by planning ahead and playing strategically).

All in all, I don't think there needs to be any change whatsoever when it comes to fleet commonality nor the used market. Instead, what I would love to see is not only an overview of purchased planes of an airline, but also an overview of sold planes. This way we can better understand what airline purchased/sold what sort of planes at which price from/to whom. Still not ideal, but it would be much easier to spot any weird transactions. Also, Sami may want to define the rules in bit more detail to know exactly what is allowed and what is not. Right now, the rules are rather vague and up to interpretation.

[knobbygb]

I understand it as a measure to restrict airlines in becoming overly powerful. The way it is now (3 fleets) means airlines need to plan ahead and concentrate on key markets while leaving other markets untouched (say regional demand). Since some segments of the market remain untouched by big LH airlines or cargo airlines who simply cannot afford yet another fleet type, there is room for another airline to make use of that regional demand / medium plane market. Over time, this regional airline may grow enough to eventually compete with the bigger airline. That's the whole idea behind it if I understand Sami correctly.

.....

The slot upkeep quota suggested above would mean that there would be a hard-coded limit and that there would be a point where further expansion would not be economically possible. This is not only highly unrealistic, but punishing successful players. If you manage to build up a big airline, outplay competitors, handle fleet transitions over several decades, withstand fuel prices, then why would that airline need to be punished by a slot upkeep quota that would increase exponentially the more slots it owns?

Just highlighting those two parts of what you said.  First you say big airlines NEED to be kept in control by artificial methods, then you go on to say it's not fair that big airlines should be controlled by OTHER equally artificial methods. To be fair, you do acknowledge the inconsistency in your post though.

Yes, of course you can plan for fleet limitations, but you can also plan for lack of slots by gradually flying bigger aircraft to congested airports.  I don't particularly care for either of these (nor ANY artificial limitation really) but the second one would be preferable to me as it mimics real life more closely.  It would also have the effect of somewhat limiting 'spamming' - flying many small a/c on busy routes. The fleet 'limit' actually encourages spamming.

[tungstennedge]

Many of the methods meant to control the size of large airlines have the exact opposite effect. The only exception is OOB, it does indeed restrict airline size.

For 3 fleets, is meant to stop large airlines from dominating markets. However, this happens inevitably since the economics of a320's/737 sized aircraft so dominant in most markets, and early leads snowball hard in this game. Instead, I see countless otherwise well run airline go bankrupt since they were not aware of, or ignored three fleet warnings. There is no obvious indication in game that going 4 fleets is akin to suicide if your not running cargo, and there is also very little indication that it works counterintuitively to common logic. Why does the penalty increase with fleet size, where in reality economics of scale dictate that larger fleets should suffer from less commonality? Its this non-intuitive implementation of the three fleet rule that sees so many otherwise good companies bite the dust and lead marketshare to large companies.

In fact, as everytime I see any airline running four fleets approach 400 AC I deliberately target them so I can gain their marketshare when they die. And as a result, the big only grow bigger and new players who didn't know about the penalty quit and stop competing since they dont know why they died running an otherwise great airline. I cant imagine how many players quit due to this over the ages, its just survivorship bias that means players who still play like this poorly implemented feature.


Another thing I see that is meant to stop large airline dominating is small UM starts. This also does the exact opposite of what its intended. its goal is to slow player growth so that everyone gets a chance to take some marketshare. However, all that really happens is that since more experienced players manage their cash better, by the time the UM is dry, large companies have 50-100 slotted aircraft generating more than enough revenue to keep multiple new order lines packed, while smaller players run out of planes to compete with and can afford new planes and fall exponentially farther behind.

Good used markets are what players need to challenge established airlines, since established airlines already have the planes they want. How is anyone supposed to compete when every desirable type is gone, and only Russian steel is available?

The same thing also applies to high initial slot prices. While every player can only lease three planes a week to start, good players can slot more planes, which is ultimately the higher expense near the beginning.  As a result, after a single month the revenue is double. That doubled revenue results in double the slots, resulting in 4x the revenue. And so on and so forth until the more experienced player is dominating anyway, due the the metric made to slow them down.

Funnily enough I believe the key to more competitive worlds is easy. More planes, more slots, and more OOB. This gives everyone an equal playing ground to find the most economical way to serve a market, not the players who hit the market first. Also if three fleet types was removed, otherwise good players would stop bankrupting all the time due a an invisible and sneaky force that kills airlines with very little warning, and help drive up competition in each world. Or if it was kept, atleast give players and exact amount they are increasing their expenses vs three fleets, or otherwise make it very transparent that its a suicidal idea.

Im also really not sure how to solve the three fleets problem. I do think that it in some ways prevent complete market domination, but on the other hand is also the leading cause of competitor deaths. I however do not agree that its removal would remove strategy from the game, especially if CBD pax comes out. The new strategy would be what plane is best for the range, demand, and competition. I believe there is a ton a strategy to explore here, where frequency beats volume for same airports, but volume beats frequency for alternates in CBD. Even without CBD, picking the correct plane for each mission has some strategy. Having unlimited fleets would also make finding under-utilized types for cheap on the UM a consideration, in addition to increasing strategy with matching flights to planes types. In general, almost every single airlines apply a single type to a wide market segment thanks to 3 fleet rules, and I think we are missing a tons of strategy that could relate to flying the optimal plane for each route. For example, would it be better to fly an expensive, but more efficient 787 or a dirt cheap 777 on the same route?

These kind of strategy decisions would replace the "which 737 equivalent" do i want or "767,a330, or 777" type strategy, which only occurs once or per transition and I believe would make the game more appealing to a wider audience.

-Tungstennedge

[Mr.HP]

On my observation, the game can hardly retain new players, and many old players also quit. This is, as i understand, due to lack of changes/updates and the complex mechanism of the game (new players dont understand 4th penalty and boom they BK). So why not make some changes and see how it goes? Just like unlimited OOB testing in the MT, at least it makes everyone thrilled

And if alliance is nothing w.o. private listing then whats the point of alliance? Its like Spiderman said him w.o. the suit he is noone. Cool, back to Free For All, more competition that way

If 4 fleet penalty is gone, then private listing and getting 2% from UM isnt much needed. Back to 3 planes a week. Its good for the whole society, where average Joe who log in twice a day is happy with 6 of some prefferred ACs and the hard working Jack still get 15-18 ACs by logging in every 4 hrs. Also you can run 10 fleets and get like 150-200 AC from production line annually

How is it fair when the AC newly arrived can be sold under book value, or way cheaper than its true value because it was ordered decade ago? List it publicly and let the market decide its value. Buyers get the planes they want, sellers make big profit. No need to watch the list of AC bought and sold, no more finger pointing

Anyway, 4th fleet penalty is an illogical way to prevent mega airlines from dominating the market, and thus need to be changed. Slot upkeep is more reasonable, at least it increases slowly and not a life threatenning with 1 single AC added

[gazzz0x2z]

seems extreme to me. But a fixed price for private listing would do the job as well. I can private list for a price between 66M$ and 66M$, or public list between 28M$ and 105M$ (the old doctrine, with very broad possible prices).

[DanDan]

seems extreme to me. But a fixed price for private listing would do the job as well. I can private list for a price between 66M$ and 66M$, or public list between 28M$ and 105M$ (the old doctrine, with very broad possible prices).

- private listings "at value" (or minimum book price)
- public listings at an open price, with auctioning of planes (either downwards or upwards from the fixed price)
- get rid of AI brokers crazy-low prices (they should sell at value)

[SP7]

Why change it? Where else could we see players hypocritically criticizing the very mechanisms they used without a trace of irony?


I'm a fan of making all aircraft transfer information and having it publicly available, including leasing information. It won't change a thing but at least people won't have to work as hard.

[Mr.HP]

- private listings "at value" (or minimum book price)
- public listings at an open price, with auctioning of planes (either downwards or upwards from the fixed price)
- get rid of AI brokers crazy-low prices (they should sell at value)

1. Yeah, private listing at value is a good suggestion. However, I would like to adjust a bit more to the public listing:
- Hide seller name
- AC available on UM randomly in 1-7 game days -> prevent coordinating between airlines to mass public listing at high/low price

2. Auctioning A/C needs another section, because the AC can be sold at lower price than the listing price. And also, it will cause hassle for some players who buy AC, set schedule then later find out someone outbid the AC and he lose all the purchased slots

[Amelie090904]

This is a big no for me. I don't usually list planes openly. Why? Firstly because alliance comes first. Secondly because I don't want to give precious planes to competitors. If all planes just get listed and get auctioned, there is simply no control who gets what. The airline with the biggest cash just grabs all the planes and everybody else is left out. Not so nice.

If we're talking about removing private listings (which is just ridiculous by the way), let me come up with an equally idiotic proposal: Let's remove public listings and only allow private listings and "intra alliance listings" (open listings only visible to members of the same alliance). This would mean that alliances actually have a function and that there are no more "I'll leave the alliance and sell cheap stuff to my former mates before I bankrupt issues". There would still be the AI brokers which everybody can make use of. New planes would almost only be available through alliances or through dedicated player-brokers who would need to look for interested airlines and list planes privately.

----------------------

Now back to reality: I don't see the need to change anything at all, except to make the whole sale/purchase more transparent. We need to know not only what an airline bought from whom, but what it sold to whom. This way we can easily see dubious patterns and report those if needed. I agree that AI brokers should never sell below value. I am currently grabbing 1yr old 747-8F at 100m (new 400m) from the AI while 15yr old 747-400ERF from the AI cost 250m. Sense? This needs to be fixed for sure. And I don't think it should be possible to ever sell below book value. I have to agree with DanDan. But I am not a fan of the auction proposal as the biggest cash holder wins. It makes sense from a real world perspective, but for a game I think it's rather deadly. It also opens up "money transfer issues" when a weak airline sells a crap plane and 2 befriended airlines just bid ridiculously high amounts for that plane in order to transfer cash to the poor airline. So it does not change anything really.

---------------

If 4 fleet penalty is gone, then private listing and getting 2% from UM isnt much needed. Back to 3 planes a week. Its good for the whole society, where average Joe who log in twice a day is happy with 6 of some prefferred ACs and the hard working Jack still get 15-18 ACs by logging in every 4 hrs. Also you can run 10 fleets and get like 150-200 AC from production line annually

What did I just read? What the...I am speechless. Yeah, let's just destroy the whole game as quickly as we can. Remove good features, re-introduce bad features and make it all arcade-like for kindergarten difficulty. Fly all the things! No difficulty! Everybody join in! Nah, sorry, you can't be serious. I agree the 4th fleet penalty must be communicated better (manual, notification etc) and that it is highly unrealistic. But it works from a gaming perspective to make the game challenging and not just a spammy scheduling fest.