AirwaySim

Miscellaneous => Archives => Archived Feature requests => Topic started by: schro on June 23, 2017, 01:41:49 PM

Title: [ok] Game Start Fairness
Post by: schro on June 23, 2017, 01:41:49 PM
This is a growing trend that I've seen that has been further magnified by the latest GW2 start where folks will bankrupt themselves and restart when more favorable planes come to the market than were initially available. They get the larger amount of starting cash and better planes after making poor choices, leaving those who want to make the best of what they started with at an extreme disadvantage.

Given this, I believe that some form of bump in the road should be added to discourage this type of behavior. Specifically, if someone restarts during the first year of the game, they should be forced to select a new HQ that they have not previously been at during the first year. I believe this would be sufficient in discouraging the bankrupt/restart behavior - the behavior is most prevalent in this era when most available planes are 30-36 seats, but there's a handful of 80+ that become available later.
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: JumboShrimp on June 23, 2017, 02:12:18 PM
That's a huge difference between what was available on Day 1 and what was available on Day 2.

Best on day 1: 36 pax x 150 kts
Best on day 2: 114 pax x 255 kts

That's 538% on day 2 vs. day one, or 438% improvement.
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: Zombie Slayer on June 23, 2017, 02:34:12 PM
And if I am not mistaken, part of the game play enhancements for "late" entrants a couple years back made it possible to get 3 planes delivered immediately in the first 2 days of operation. So not only do they get a better selection of aircraft, they get 3 of them.
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: Dasha on June 23, 2017, 04:51:21 PM
But if the planes are available on day 2, why did you spent all your money on day 1?


I agree that 100k extra startup money is a bit steep and that is too much but the whole thing about there not being enough planes is just sour grapes.

You had the choice to wait for day 2. You have the option to bankrupt and restart as well :)

Be one of those players
who want to make the best of what they started with
suck it up, and get on with the game. :)
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: VitoNg on June 23, 2017, 05:01:51 PM
And if I am not mistaken, part of the game play enhancements for "late" entrants a couple years back made it possible to get 3 planes delivered immediately in the first 2 days of operation. So not only do they get a better selection of aircraft, they get 3 of them.
Still 2, 3rd one delivered as usual.
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: JumboShrimp on June 23, 2017, 05:13:50 PM
But if the planes are available on day 2, why did you spent all your money on day 1?

There is some pattern in the way UM works, in that the system holds back the newest and most desirable aircraft.  They don't show up on UM right away.  There is no way to tell if the aircraft will start appearing on Day 2 or on Year 2.

I agree that 100k extra startup money is a bit steep and that is too much but the whole thing about there not being enough planes is just sour grapes.

I think more like 150k extra after 1 month, meaning 30% increase in start up capital.  Vast majority of airlines made less actually flying for a month.

Be one of those players suck it up, and get on with the game. :)

haha, good advice.

But for future game worlds, the UM should just proportionally release aircraft, without purposely holding back aircraft, creating confusion...
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: raptorva on June 23, 2017, 05:17:45 PM
I've noticed this. Most day 1 starters have DC-3s and C-46s at my base as that's what was available solely on the used market, then new guys have opened straight away with DC-4s, L-649s and B377s that weren't available on day one meaning those of us who began straight away (including waiting that first 24hr game day) are stuck with the smaller aircraft...
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: Zombie Slayer on June 23, 2017, 06:28:28 PM
Still 2, 3rd one delivered as usual.

Fair enough. Talentz posted a bug report about players having 3 planes in operation 8 days into the game, I assumed a day 2 bankrupt and restart was how those players got around the 2 plane start.


Be one of those players suck it up, and get on with the game. :)

Note to self: next time a potential exploit is found, instead of doing the right thing and reporting it, use it to our advantage. Then sit back and wait for you to accuse Elite of cheating.....
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: [SC] - King Kong on June 23, 2017, 08:27:26 PM
Fair enough. Talentz posted a bug report about players having 3 planes in operation 8 days into the game, I assumed a day 2 bankrupt and restart was how those players got around the 2 plane start.

Note to self: next time a potential exploit is found, instead of doing the right thing and reporting it, use it to our advantage. Then sit back and wait for you to accuse Elite of cheating.....

well, you do....  8)
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: Zombie Slayer on June 23, 2017, 08:30:23 PM
well, you do....  8)

Pretty sure you have our respective alliances mixed up....
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: MuzhikRB on June 23, 2017, 08:58:55 PM

Given this, I believe that some form of bump in the road should be added to discourage this type of behavior. Specifically, if someone restarts during the first year of the game, they should be forced to select a new HQ that they have not previously been at during the first year.

I agree with that.

It should be like 1 month cooldown timer: you can either wait 1 game month and select the same HQ or you can go elsewhere.
And this cooldown timer should not be reseted after you select another HQ. (to avoid HQ->BK-->opened elsewhere->bked next day->opened in HQ again)

that would be fair enough
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: gazzz0x2z on June 23, 2017, 09:30:52 PM
The cooldown could even be permanent, not limited to the beginning of the game. In current GW3, so after 15+ years, I had a player trying 3 times landing in Warsaw, where my other opponent and me have basically overflown the market. He just could not make it through, despite excellent skill shown(and he's my direct opponent in GW2 in Warsaw, and I'm not in a strong position against him - his first weeks have been better than mine). Permanent in the sense than even in 2034, not in the sense that it would last too long. One month seems good to me, that's 14 hours of real time. Time to think.

It would push players to try something else, as many stick to the airport next to their home, even if it's not a good choice right now. "Hmmm, I cannot try again over there, what can I try next?". I'm pretty sure it would have pedagogic effects, to force people to think outside their usual framework of thought. I mentored several beginners, and the inability to think outside the box has been a problem for many of them. By pushing them to another airport - or, even better, another continent - we'd force them to think differently. And become better players, less prone to bankrupt.

That being said, Dasha is right : if second day planes are better than first day planes, well, noone forbids you from waiting the second day to take planes. I did not, and I do not complain. Sometimes, you bet, and you win, like I did with the hedge. Sometimes, you bet, and you lose, like I did with my 1200$ hedge in GW3 when fuel was down to 480$ - lost 1.3B$ on that missed bet. s*** happens, and if your position is not as good as you hoped, then plan alternatively. I hoped not to have any strong opponent in a small airport like Warsaw - missed. That's life. I'll have a tough fight for survival, and that's part of the game, it should not be too easy.
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: Dasha on June 24, 2017, 07:43:13 AM
Fair enough. Talentz posted a bug report about players having 3 planes in operation 8 days into the game, I assumed a day 2 bankrupt and restart was how those players got around the 2 plane start.

Note to self: next time a potential exploit is found, instead of doing the right thing and reporting it, use it to our advantage. Then sit back and wait for you to accuse Elite of cheating.....

I said I agreed with the money to restart was a bit steep. And I never accused Elite of cheating. I don't even know how that works. Nor am I very interested in what other alliances do to be brutally honest.

If this is a bug, sami will address it. Meanwhile, deal with what you have. If you have a good operation, which I'm sure Elite players have, you will be successful anyway. Believe in your own strength rather than other's weaknesses :)

Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: [SC] - King Kong on June 24, 2017, 02:01:53 PM
Pretty sure you have our respective alliances mixed up....

Sure... well, if you want to play it full serious I could name a few players that were not so used to following the rules.

Nevertheless, I actually was joking in my earlier comment. Sorry for destroying your super emotional moment of sadness <3
 
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: Sami on September 13, 2017, 08:15:20 PM
- Rule comes to force after 7 days of game time has passed and is in force until game ends

- When you bankrupt your previous HQ airport is stored to a list (this list includes your possible HQ relocations if such feature is built).

- When you restart any HQ you have used in the last 2 game months is not available (unless it is your only possible choice due to certain game settings).

If you leave the game alltogether and re-join it (5 Cr) the rule does not apply (technical thing).
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: schro on September 14, 2017, 01:15:49 AM
Interesting... Not a bad start, except for...

- Rule comes to force after 7 days of game time has passed and is in force until game ends

This would still allow the huge difference in game start quality that we saw in the current gw2. The airlines that restarted on day 2 or so got a huge advantage over those who stayed the course. I would suggest the role goes into play after the regular clock is started (I suppose that's day 2?)
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: Andre090904 on September 14, 2017, 12:12:13 PM
Hi Sami,

Sounds good, but you're missing the point I am afraid. This rule is crucial for the very start of a game world (the first few days) and not so much later on (after 7 game days onwards). It's all about exploiting the "being late bonus" (this can be and is often 1 game day) after deliberately bankrupting a 1-day-old airline. Tell me which reasons there can be to declare bankruptcy on day 2 other than to choose another HQ or to leave the game? The only real reason I say why anyone would do that is because of fleet choice mistakes (ordered wrong planes)...other than that it simply allows for the "being late bonus".

So if it's not possible (or feasable) to have a rule set up for day 2 and using the same HQ again...then why not deactivate the "being late bonus" for 7 game days? And with bonus, I don't only mean more cash, but also better aircraft availability (especially when picking the "easy option" where you get 2-3 aircrafts to begin with). In the very first game week there is really not much potential and I honestly don't think an airline would need a bonus to survive. Demands are not covered yet, used market is still lacking aircrafts, competition is basically not existent yet. This would prohibit this exploit and I'm fairy sure it's the better solution.
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: yearofthecactus on September 14, 2017, 12:23:59 PM
At a very basic level, this whole thread is because you decided everyone should be flying DC-3 or possibly C46 at the start, and not any of the good stuff. Oh Sami, you're so funny, how we laughed.

On a serious note, fine, not a horrible idea. Took us out of our comfort zone and provided an interesting challenge. But on that day, no one knew when the good planes would be available. I could be 6 months, it could be a year. Who knows.

They were available on day 2. Everyone who started on day one, bought 2 DC-3s or 2 C46s, bought slots and had no money in the bank for a couple of weeks, and when they did they probably could only afford another C46, and then no slots.

Those who started (well restarted to be precise), bought one, maybe 2 Connies, slots and made their money back to buy new planes almost instantly. Which meant they were able to buy more good planes and slots and get an incredible lead. It was a very unfair start, and wholly preventable.

So your idea resulted in the law of unintended consequences. One, day 2 airlines got an expontentially better and a mammoth start. Two, day 2 airlines were able to order new off the new market, jamming up the line and creating a double whammy.

Not saying it was bad. Not saying don't do it again. BUT, if you are going to do something similar in future, and you implied you would at the time, all you need to do is make sure you don't release the good stuff that will give airlines a head start on day 2. Wait 6 months or a year. That's all you really need to do to make a fairer start.

Although all the thing you propose won't do any harm as well. It's just they don't address the specific issue that happened. But they are good ideas.
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: schro on September 14, 2017, 12:25:11 PM
Hi Sami,

Sounds good, but you're missing the point I am afraid. This rule is crucial for the very start of a game world (the first few days) and not so much later on (after 7 game days onwards). It's all about exploiting the "being late bonus" (this can be and is often 1 game day) after deliberately bankrupting a 1-day-old airline. Tell me which reasons there can be to declare bankruptcy on day 2 other than to choose another HQ or to leave the game? The only real reason I say why anyone would do that is because of fleet choice mistakes (ordered wrong planes)...other than that it simply allows for the "being late bonus".

So if it's not possible (or feasable) to have a rule set up for day 2 and using the same HQ again...then why not deactivate the "being late bonus" for 7 game days? And with bonus, I don't only mean more cash, but also better aircraft availability (especially when picking the "easy option" where you get 2-3 aircrafts to begin with). In the very first game week there is really not much potential and I honestly don't think an airline would need a bonus to survive. Demands are not covered yet, used market is still lacking aircrafts, competition is basically not existent yet. This would prohibit this exploit and I'm fairy sure it's the better solution.

It's not so much a bonus system or easy start. Let me break it down a bit further with what happened in the most recent GW2.

1. Game Starts
2. Only C46/DC3 are available on the used market for all of day 1 (plus other heaps of scrap). People scoop these up because you never know when the better planes will be dropped into the market (and it's often far into the future rather than the next day).
3. On day 2, Connies (and other large planes) began dropping into the market.
4. Once the Connies appeared, multiple airlines bankrupted, restarted, and took Connies and well.. took off (pun intended) compared to everyone else that was with the heaps of C46/DC3's creating an uneven playing field for many game years to come.
5. ....
6. No profit.
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: Sami on September 14, 2017, 01:08:16 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 ..?)
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: MuzhikRB 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
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: yearofthecactus 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.
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: Sami 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
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: ACDennison 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.
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: schro 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.
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: yearofthecactus 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.
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: Tha_Ape 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 (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).
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: Zobelle on September 27, 2017, 07:07:47 PM
That or not have any better types for one whole game year.
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: schro 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...
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: Zobelle 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.
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: [SC] - King Kong 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?

Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: MuzhikRB 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.
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: Zobelle 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.
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: yearofthecactus 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.
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: Tha_Ape 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 (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.
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: gazzz0x2z 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).
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: Tha_Ape 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.
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: Zobelle 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.
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: schro 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.

Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: Talentz 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
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: Zobelle on November 28, 2017, 11:32:22 PM
What about all the janky UM on day one that suddenly become good two weeks in?
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: Talentz on November 28, 2017, 11:53:57 PM
What about all the janky UM on day one that suddenly become good two weeks in?


Well, Sami has already stated there is a limit to how much can be controlled on his end. So, at least removing the additional cash will blunt the strategy of those whose purpose is to take advantage of janky UM. Plus as a bonus, Sami seems to be moving in a direction where slot costs represent a far more money sink at the start of the game. So less money overall. 

While not perfect, I think its a strong step in the right direction. The next steps would be to implement the above, observe the effects in GW3 and adjust where needed.


Talentz
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: Zobelle on November 29, 2017, 12:19:14 AM
Slot cost too high as it is and with significantly less profit is a non starter.
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: Sami on November 29, 2017, 12:20:06 AM
In next update:

Game start used aircraft generation adjusted: Minimum age of airplanes to appear there is now 2.5yrs (previously 4.9yrs). (nb. other than this there are no differences in game start vs. later stages on what gets picked to the aircraft market from the storage pool - after the game starts the min.age is 0.5yrs)

Game start money growth adjusted: The money factor does not change for the first 30 game days, which after it starts to grow slowly (previously growth started from day 1 with a slow rate). (example: 0 days to the game at largest class airport starting cash is $3mil, 30 days in it is still $3mil, at 60 days it is $3.2mil, and at 120 days $3.8mil - but it is not so simple, there are other factors too like inflation).


These should cover the main points of the initial request, instead of making a set of new rules/limits for this.

(Oh and by the way ... The slot cost factor in current new GW#1 is actually LOWER than in GW#2.....)
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: Zobelle on November 29, 2017, 12:25:58 AM
In next update:

Game start used aircraft generation adjusted: Minimum age of airplanes to appear there is now 2.5yrs (previously 4.9yrs). (nb. other than this there are no differences in game start vs. later stages on what gets picked to the aircraft market from the storage pool - after the game starts the min.age is 0.5yrs)

Game start money growth adjusted: The money factor does not change for the first 30 game days, which after it starts to grow slowly (previously growth started from day 1 with a slow rate). (example: 0 days to the game at largest class airport starting cash is $3mil, 30 days in it is still $3mil, at 60 days it is $3.2mil, and at 120 days $3.8mil - but it is not so simple, there are other factors too like inflation).



(Oh and by the way ... The slot cost factor in current new GW#1 is actually LOWER than in GW#2.....)
Compared to the ticket prices in GW2 though for the same era though it’s not even close. So even if slots cost similar the profits aren’t there to generate so they might as well be twice as expensive.
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: Sami on November 29, 2017, 12:31:06 AM
Compared to the ticket prices in GW2 though for the same era though it’s not even close. So even if slots cost similar the profits aren’t there to generate so they might as well be twice as expensive.

I was not talking about ticket prices or comparing actual dollar amounts. Slot costs are set with a relative factor (i.e "x1.5") that scales the costs from the inflation levels etc. (like all other costs, but that includes also the profits and ticket prices)

Slot cost factor in GW#2 is currently about 50% higher (= the same slot will cost that much more there compared to GW1). (what it is in real dollars of that day is irrelevant, since it cannot be compared because of different game years and possible different inflation factors .. but just as an example a set of LHR 8am slots in GW#2 is $2.5mil and in GW#1 $1.1mil; in the dollars of that year in that game - but those are not comparable like I mentioned)
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: Zombie Slayer on November 29, 2017, 12:31:18 AM
In next update:

Game start used aircraft generation adjusted: Minimum age of airplanes to appear there is now 2.5yrs (previously 4.9yrs). (nb. other than this there are no differences in game start vs. later stages on what gets picked to the aircraft market from the storage pool - after the game starts the min.age is 0.5yrs)

Game start money growth adjusted: The money factor does not change for the first 30 game days, which after it starts to grow slowly (previously growth started from day 1 with a slow rate). (example: 0 days to the game at largest class airport starting cash is $3mil, 30 days in it is still $3mil, at 60 days it is $3.2mil, and at 120 days $3.8mil - but it is not so simple, there are other factors too like inflation).



(Oh and by the way ... The slot cost factor in current new GW#1 is actually LOWER than in GW#2.....)

Looks like a good adjustment.

Re: Slot costs. How about fares? GW1, 1965 ALG-BOM default Y price is $129, in GW2 in 1971 default price is $362.

Edit: Sorry, you posted 12 seconds before me.
Title: Re: Game Start Fairness
Post by: Sami on November 29, 2017, 12:34:50 AM
Re: Slot costs. How about fares? GW1, 1965 ALG-BOM default Y price is $129, in GW2 in 1971 default price is $362.

The inflation curve starts at a different level and is different between #1 and #2 so the true dollar amounts, even in the same game year, won't probably match (and hence not useful to compare).

But all costs & incomes are factored through that that "value of money" index so it's not worth at looking at the actual dollar amounts between games since all costs in any particular game are scaled to that game's inflation index only. (= values between two games are not relevant)

(edit: out of interest; the current "value of money" or "inflation" index in GW#1 is current at about "x16" while in GW#2 it is at about "x43"; they will reach the same end point at the end of the game so the difference is really only noticeable at the first decades.)
Title: Re: [ok] Game Start Fairness
Post by: schro on November 29, 2017, 01:17:24 AM
Thanks for implementing this - I hope it plays out well. I think the only thing that I'd adjust is starting the money climb faster - one game month into a game most players have a whopping 3-4 planes as they struggle to pay for slots. The extra 200k is good for about a half slot set at a major airport. It usually takes about 6 months to get out of the slow growth grind, so I'd suggest that it starts there (unless this works fine for GW3).

The other variable for GW3 is that there will be a far different plane selection compared to the past two world starts, where there's been just a couple of desirable types versus in 3 where there will be far more...
Title: Re: [ok] Game Start Fairness
Post by: yearofthecactus on November 29, 2017, 01:23:40 AM
It took a while to break through, but this is excellent news, and closes one of the biggest frustrations and disparities the game creates. Contrary to what you may think, the annoyances of this game that rile us, are small bugs, that create big side effects.

To re-reiterate David's point, the request here is to stop the advantage gained by starting late, that in this game world played havoc, and benefited many (including myself, even though it wasn't the purpose, as I bk'ed out after death spiraling).  But we don't want to penalize it either. So don't go too far the other way either and stop players wanting to join!

But yeh, thanks for doing it.