In regards to the recent news item posted here (https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,17430.0.html) please use this thread to post any suggestions about requested game worlds and scenarios (world type, duration, years etc).
Could be good to have a chance to pay for new airplanes by choice : 40% and upper , and to have chance to pay for it rest of money during waiting for delivery... Thank You. Alex
Sorry, this is not a feature request thread.
- Oceanic Challenge (10 years, Oceania only, 2000-2010, not very large aircraft, 100 players(?))
- Africa Challenge (10 years, Africa only, 1970-1980, 100 players(?))
I vote for rolling out 3 longish game worlds:
1950 to 1980
1965 to 1995
1990 to 2020
Whole world with max 300 players... Or maybe with more players but with the "suggestion" of having max two airlines on every airport! :)
And maybe the lasting of the world going from the early 80s (say 1985) to 2015...
Quote from: EYguy on January 12, 2010, 04:39:51 PM
Whole world with max 300 players... Or maybe with more players but with the "suggestion" of having max two airlines on every airport! :)
And maybe the lasting of the world going from the early 80s (say 1985) to 2015...
+1
Of course 1950-1967. That would be 3-4 months.
;D
Talentz
Small game...
I wish that you could do a Latin America / Caribbean. No planes bigger than a 737.
Quote from: ali5541 on January 12, 2010, 09:24:53 PM
+3
+4
I don't know why, but I think we all know how the new world will be. ::)
From Bush to Bush
Jan. 20, 1989 - Jan. 20, 2009
Not really anything to do with politics... just thought it was a good excuse to run a game through a very interesting slice of world history. Fall of the Berlin Wall and Soviet Union, three American recessions, highly unstable oil prices, two major wars in the middle east, and of course the post-911 era and it's effects on the airline industry.
Quote from: jmorton on January 13, 2010, 05:19:59 AM
From Bush to Bush
Jan. 20, 1989 - Jan. 20, 2009
Not really anything to do with politics... just thought it was a good excuse to run a game through a very interesting slice of world history. Fall of the Berlin Wall and Soviet Union, three American recessions, highly unstable oil prices, two major wars in the middle east, and of course the post-911 era and it's effects on the airline industry.
He said it best, I cant think of a better possible timeframe for a game world........
Something Hard.
The Jet Age games were somewhat difficult. The North America game was quite difficult, but only for a brief period when the fuel prices skyrocketed because it was so soon after the beginning of the game. Then it killed everyone off and the game got uber-boring and easy because there was no competition.
But all we've got going now are Easy and a couple Easy/Medium games, save Euro Challenge which is considered Medium/Hard, but it suffers from the same problem that NA Challenge had, in that there's so few remaining players that the game is anything but Hard. So there's really nothing that's even Medium, let alone Hard, or "Very Hard" as NA Challenge was ranked (and was for a brief period).
So if you're gonna start up 2 games, I'd definitely recommend there be something on the Hard or Very Hard for one of the games at least, but not so geographically-limited that it turns players off from wanting to play.
Quote from: Sigma on January 13, 2010, 07:55:35 AM
Something Hard.
Word. Something that will push my limits even further beyond...!!
Talentz
* Africa challenge. Large distances and small pax demand. Limited to 50 people?
* Early, early times. A short game where days equal weeks and you start in 1935 or something. Run it to 1960.
Quote from: swiftus27 on January 12, 2010, 06:38:05 PM
Small game...
I wish that you could do a Latin America / Caribbean. No planes bigger than a 737.
I'd like a scenario like this in a particular region. Maybe be even limiting aircraft to less than 100 seats - the profit margins are much tighter with small aircraft and so I think it would be harder for players to dominate.
Dave :)
Quote from: marc0o0o0o on January 12, 2010, 09:49:35 PM
+4
I don't know why, but I think we all know how the new world will be. ::)
+5
2
Quote from: EYguy on January 12, 2010, 04:39:51 PM
Whole world with max 300 players... Or maybe with more players but with the "suggestion" of having max two airlines on every airport! :)
And maybe the lasting of the world going from the early 80s (say 1985) to 2015...
That would be too long.. 7.5 months.
Quote from: Talentz on January 13, 2010, 10:34:10 AM
Word. Something that will push my limits even further beyond...!!
Talentz
I agree. If there are two games there could be one bigger and easier and one smaller, much harder (like the suggested Africa for only 100 players even which would be too much I think :) ). MAybe Asia and 100 players?
I like that 'private' game world's date setting... from the beginning of the millenium.. to around 2020...
Only a full world... not with three continents...
And I still want a new Jet Age
Game World focussing on regional market (as a hard scenario).
Only small and medium airplanes available. This means: only turboprops and smaller jets but nothing bigger than BAe146 or Foker 100!
The "world" is limited for every player to the max. range of small/medium aircraft.
Coulde be the hole world or set up as a "One-continent-only" Scenario, e.g. Asia or South America or Oceania.
Should be a very short game wolrd, maybe 1985-1995, or 1990-2000. Off course limited number of players.
Or the other way round (but i´m not sure if this really make sense):
Game focussing on transcontinental/longhaul market (as a hard scenario).
Only very large aircraft ( or only aircraft with min. range 3000NM) available. This means: Only widebodies (plus the 1st generation medium/longhaul jets like B707 and, yes, the Concorde...).
Quote from: EYguy on January 12, 2010, 04:39:51 PM
Whole world with max 300 players... Or maybe with more players but with the "suggestion" of having max two airlines on every airport! :)
I agree with you, not the time-frame as sami said, but the "rules" are good because there is constantly those annoying airports to start-up at where you feel that you could just hit it off, then suddenly 900 people base at that airport and you have to fight against those 900 people, and almost every time i've done that: I fail miserably. :P It would be nice to just have one other person at that airport so that you can keep an eye on what he's doing and see if you're going to be bigger than him or not. It would also be great to have that because then you can just focus on expanding and not trying to survive trying to get out the door with 900 people doing the same thing at the same time. It's painful in the end because ONE person always somehow manages to outrun all the others and dominate at that airport, and you're left sitting at the side of the road when the only vehicle that comes down said road is one of his company's trucks, and you HAVE to catch him because it's you're only way out. :'( That is especially that hard part. :P
;D
Quote from: ICEcold on January 14, 2010, 02:10:15 AM
I agree with you, not the time-frame as sami said, but the "rules" are good because there is constantly those annoying airports to start-up at where you feel that you could just hit it off, then suddenly 900 people base at that airport and you have to fight against those 900 people, and almost every time i've done that: I fail miserably. :P It would be nice to just have one other person at that airport so that you can keep an eye on what he's doing and see if you're going to be bigger than him or not. It would also be great to have that because then you can just focus on expanding and not trying to survive trying to get out the door with 900 people doing the same thing at the same time. It's painful in the end because ONE person always somehow manages to outrun all the others and dominate at that airport, and you're left sitting at the side of the road when the only vehicle that comes down said road is one of his company's trucks, and you HAVE to catch him because it's you're only way out. :'( That is especially that hard part. :P
In this case, how about one Major airline and one Commuter airline per airport? That way instead of people competeing at said airport. People could work together. Kinda like an American Airlines American Eagle or Continental Continental Express type of thing?
From poking my head around in these forums, it seems that there is plenty of people that enjoy Commuter/Regional airlines as there is people that enjoy major airlines.....just a thought....
;D
1.2 sounds cool
I will be back for that!! ;D
The rising sun
Scenario based in Japan with its huge amount of pax. (perhaps for a Japan Only scenario be doubled)
No airlines allowed at Haneda airport as this would be to easy.
^ Curfiew times in Japan apart from the bigger airports (Excluding Itami) are a hassle and I think such a scenario would become really frustrating and boring because of that.
I prefer shorter games, like 6 week games in real time. Once my airline is built, I get bored ;) Takes about that long to build a good airline
All aircraft once introduce cannot be taken off new production
Quote from: ekaneti on January 19, 2010, 01:14:21 AM
I prefer shorter games, like 6 week games in real time. Once my airline is built, I get bored ;) Takes about that long to build a good airline
I second. It would be good to have short games. To make it a bit more realistic the speed of the game could be increased to allow more in game years to be simulated and thus make it more atractive to buy aircrafts.
Think of it as a speed server.
IN honor of my 42 birthday on January 30.. how about a game from 1968 (the year I was born) to 1986 (the year I graduated High School and turned 18)... ;D
happy b-day masonic! wish you all the best for the year to come and especially: your special day!
Cheers from Toronto, Canada,
ICEcold
Quote from: masoniclight on January 20, 2010, 08:51:03 AM
IN honor of my 42 birthday on January 30.. how about a game from 1968 (the year I was born) to 1986 (the year I graduated High School and turned 18)... ;D
We're the same age and same grad year.....how about some Thompson Twins????
I havent been in a game for months. BORED...
Any more thoughts, I will 'lock' the schedule soon?
A scenario here you cant base at Mega airports perhaps?
A scenario with a limited number of planes allowed per player.
The Soviet union... with all those things no-one uses in AWS till the'r forced to use them.
Another Jet Age (Possibly 4)
Quote from: masoniclight on January 20, 2010, 08:51:03 AM
IN honor of my 42 birthday on January 30.. how about a game from 1968 (the year I was born) to 1986 (the year I graduated High School and turned 18)... ;D
My dad grew up in this time period as well. Im very interested in playing in the 1960s full worl, to get a good sense of aviation history I guess lol but propellers will be lots of fun I think.
Btw, happy Birthday.
Quote from: ekaneti on January 20, 2010, 10:36:00 PM
We're the same age and same grad year.....how about some Thompson Twins????
I was thinking more Expose, The Outfield, Cutting Crew, Belinda Carlisle, Journey, Scorpions, Twisted Sister, Ac/Dc, Bon Jovi.. ;D
I am still preferring if you could limit the number of airports to those over 60 or 70 (in terms of airport size). Fewer players, only major airports. Better yet, no alliances.... cutthroat game.
swiftus.....your too competitive. ;D
No big airport basing allowed?
Bring on 1.2
Cutthroat would be limiting the game world to 20 playable cities and having a limit of no less then 10 airlines at each playable city.
Knowing very well that theres only going to be 30 or so airlines that survive...
We can only dream.
Talentz
I think Air Travel Boom would be a good one again as it has been a while and the scenario is loved by many.
Quote from: Talentz on January 22, 2010, 05:56:37 PM
Cutthroat would be limiting the game world to 20 playable cities and having a limit of no less then 10 airlines at each playable city.
Knowing very well that theres only going to be 30 or so airlines that survive...
We can only dream.
Talentz
A game like that would certainly attract me. The micro-management would be a great challenge. Maybe it could be a short scenario too? A speed round...
Aerobiz Supersonic anyone?
I think Eurochallenge has been fun, but I would like to see it extended to include the middle east and Northern Africa. Aircraft models could be up to and no larger than 767s and A330s max. This would allow for the inclusion of the 787s at a later stage in the game world, (smaller wide body use at own risk of course) and probably would be able to sustain 180-220 players in a competative and not too easy game world!
Just my opinion but i think that would be fun and challenging and not only limited to Europe.
Cheers,
NicholasB
Quote from: NicholasB on January 24, 2010, 07:02:56 AM
I think Eurochallenge has been fun, but I would like to see it extended to include the middle east and Northern Africa. Aircraft models could be up to and no larger than 767s and A330s max. This would allow for the inclusion of the 787s at a later stage in the game world, (smaller wide body use at own risk of course) and probably would be able to sustain 180-220 players in a competative and not too easy game world!
Just my opinion but i think that would be fun and challenging and not only limited to Europe.
Cheers,
NicholasB
Frankly I feel like Euro Challenge on whole world for 400 players would be best. The fuel prices and overall competition would finaly make the game realistic.
But your idea is good too. Only problem I see is that we probably won't see 150 players there. I would love to but I am not sure about it.
Ok... 1985-2015 would be 7,5 months long...
Say 1985-2010? I think that it would be helpful to have shorter game (25 yrs) and news of actual facts happening while we play... At least, we would not have the B787 already flying in revenue service! :)
Anyway, I do not know the costs that Sami has to pay for every world he would run, but I think that maybe two worlds with max 250-300 players for each world and the all continents would be interesting. And I always push about writing the "suggestion" of max two airlines per airport... People keep playing and hubbing their airlines on airports as LHR or CDG and FRA, disturbing players which play "seriously" with no reason or strategy behind their moves... :)
I would love to "play" a scenario from the early 80´s to 2010.
Scenario: the whole world
Game-time: 25min/day
That would be great.
Anyway, Sami can you give an estimate for the opening of the next full-time game world?
Thanks a lot!
brgds
alex
there is one like that. ;) It's called Dawn of the Millennium.....I think. ::)
Quote from: EYguy on January 12, 2010, 04:39:51 PM
Whole world with max 300 players... Or maybe with more players but with the "suggestion" of having max two airlines on every airport! :)
And maybe the lasting of the world going from the early 80s (say 1985) to 2015...
I'm with this idea...
I still think Air Travel Boom would be a good one for the next server as it has been a while simce the previouse one.
I like the idea of a really really long game. The problem with the current model is that growth is explosive and its too easy to blow up overnight. My airlines in the Rise of and Early Days games are a perfect example. In the Early Days game I'm pulling in roughly 430k in revenue and 210k in profits each month. That is insane. In the Rise of game my airline is only 3 years old and I'm over 100 planes and $100 million per week in revenues. I think a long game would involve much more strategic planning on the player's part, assuming the models were tweaked to limit growth. It took the legacy airliners 50+ years to get a fleet of 500 planes, yet we're doing in it less than 10. My idea is:
Years: 1950-2020 (70 years)
Game time: 15 minutes per day (instead of 30min since its a long game)
Real world time: 8.9 months by my calculations
To limit growth, there needs to be some sort of metric put in place for the C and F class seats. Currently, to my knowledge, you can convert a 757 from 250 Y seats to 150 C/F seats without an increase in cabin crew or variable costs. Obviously, with that many people in business/first, you will need more cabin crew to service the passengers. Either there needs to be increased staff costs associated with increased C/F seats or the ticket prices need to be adjusted considerable to limit the insane profits that can be had from this strategy.
Whether it's lowered ticket prices/revenues or increased staff/costs, there needs to be some form of regulation to keep the explosive growth from happening the way it is now and give other players a fighting chance regardless of the year they enter a long game such as this. It would be nice if airports weren't running out of slots the way they do now and you had to strategically plan for replacing aircraft and upgrading fleets over a long time period.
Actually in Euro Challenge the insane fuel prices and rising inflation made the game almost realistic. I several times proposed things to limit this growth and make the game harded (the hard games are only ones that are possible to be played long) as cancellations refunds, fuel prices coverage, higher amount of employees in bigger companies, increased maintenance costs, yearly airport fees but till this time not much was done. Which is a shame because The Early Days is very good and it would be awesome to play for like 65 years or even longer. Euro Challenge was the first game where I actually had to drop some aircraft and fire staff to keep alive and sometimes ran on increasing loans.
Quote from: Yb on January 30, 2010, 05:47:29 PM
Actually in Euro Challenge the insane fuel prices and rising inflation made the game almost realistic. I several times proposed things to limit this growth and make the game harded (the hard games are only ones that are possible to be played long) as cancellations refunds, fuel prices coverage, higher amount of employees in bigger companies, increased maintenance costs, yearly airport fees but till this time not much was done. Which is a shame because The Early Days is very good and it would be awesome to play for like 65 years or even longer. Euro Challenge was the first game where I actually had to drop some aircraft and fire staff to keep alive and sometimes ran on increasing loans.
Actually the sad thing is that the best part of a game is when you start the game - you can micromanage everything whether later on in a game you just add hundreds of routes without any special care because your profit margin is way above what it should be.
Allrighty...
It will be one of these (most likely NOT both as there are so many other worlds going on still):
* "Air Travel Boom" (~1995-2009)
* "Jet Age" (~1967-1982)
Game world will be about 15 years to keep it short enough. Both of them are "oldskool" scenarios and similar what we've had before but they seem popular / interesting.
Estimated start in a week or two max. (confirmed start date will be posted later)
I love Air Travel Boom !
I suppose I would vote for 1967-82 just because all the other games going, less the test game, are mostly modern era.
I still prefer shorter games 6 years, like beginner length.
Quote from: sami on January 31, 2010, 02:29:24 PM
Allrighty...
It will be one of these (most likely NOT both as there are so many other worlds going on still):
* "Air Travel Boom" (~1995-2009)
* "Jet Age" (~1967-1982)
Game world will be about 15 years to keep it short enough. Both of them are "oldskool" scenarios and similar what we've had before but they seem popular / interesting.
Estimated start in a week or two max. (confirmed start date will be posted later)
I would play from 1988 to 2010... Just because those years are the most significant from a "aviation point of view": fall of USSR, surge of oil prices due to the first Gulf War, availability of all the necessary informations, birth of EU, deregulations of some "skies" and so on... Moreover, it will give people the chance to enjoy even the latest news (current news).
What about the double leg routes? Will they be banned?
late 60's early 70's to mid 80's or so, basically a jet age
or
1990 to 2010 or so pretty much modern times.
I would say 1990-2010/2011... Anyway, Sami, is it possible to anticipate the faeatures of the new world? Will it be a full world? How many players? And so on... Thank you in advance! :)
I love a modern day game but one thing I really want to urge you...
LIMIT THE NUMBER OF PLAYERS....
450 players in a game world is stupid... as once you bankrupt once, you will never get back up to where you were... I see the same players restarting every day simply because the simple airports are taken. Let's be honest, in order to make an airline in Bucharest (for example) work when you start halfway any game, you have to be VERY experienced.
Even in the Rise of the modern Airliners, I had to bankrupt due to fuel prices (which made the game HARD and not EASY in my opinion) and by the time I had enough money to go longhaul all my routes were taken by insignificant little airlines that just started out and found a great destination in Dulles. Now I can take my loss but it's just utterly stupid and ruining my game fun when after a restart, all my routes are taken and I cannot get back to a level where I was before...
Also I want a 'short or medium' length game....
Think you could bump the starting year down a few? Say... 1962-1977? 15yr game? Give us a few years to fly mostly turboprops before 737 and 727 come out?
Thanks!
Talentz
yeh i'd like that actually although 80 to 95, get older 737 classics and older gen jets and start by 95 to get a320 and 737-300/400/500 and some new lond haul.
I would like the next game to start in the early 60's to early 80's.
I agree with Chrissy... That's why I think it's better to limit the numbers of players. Even if Chrissy with Zantha has succedeed in creating one of the biggest airlines in the Airwaysim World, it doesn't mean she has been a rookie when she went bankrupt for the fuel prices. Anyway, I do not agree with her about the fuel prices: it's just a part of the game, we can't do anything about it! :)
I would suggest a number of player of around 300 (+/- 30) for the new WHOLE WORLD... So if anyone goes bankrupt, it would be possible to restart in another airport without having to go crazy with the routes. BUT another important thing will be to CANCEL THE DOUBLE LEG routes... Most of the routes are already at capacity due to the amount of double leg routes which "steal" pax from resident airlines... :)
IMO the second le routes are justified UNTIL the new game engine kicks in which allows us to open a new hub. ABC routes increase gameplay and difficulty. If you can't live with this feature then please do something about your skills in game.
Quote from: Maarten Otto on February 03, 2010, 02:39:32 PM
IMO the second le routes are justified UNTIL the new game engine kicks in which allows us to open a new hub. ABC routes increase gameplay and difficulty. If you can't live with this feature then please do something about your skills in game.
Maybe this could be a feature of the new game - a gentle easing into the new format in v1.2 (without the second hub) :)
Quote from: Maarten Otto on February 03, 2010, 02:39:32 PM
IMO the second le routes are justified UNTIL the new game engine kicks in which allows us to open a new hub. ABC routes increase gameplay and difficulty. If you can't live with this feature then please do something about your skills in game.
Dude this has nothing to do with skills.... If my base is A and another his base is B... I can fly A - C fine but when I go bankrupt... halfway the game the other is B is flying B - C and possibly also C - A 'stealing' my passengers on that route. This happens TOO much in a game with two kinds of players...
one is the newby who's desperately trying to make a living. In this case I can live with it...
two is the WAY too big player who doesn't care about other's and does everything to expand, which I do hate..
Limited numbers of players would already reduce this I think. Cancelling the two legs is not the way to go I think, specially not when a second hub gets implemented.
Than to get back to EY :D
I'm not a rookie indeed and I don't say the fuel prices should go down but I what I meant to say is that the game is qualified as EASY... but with fuel prices that high I think HARD would be better.
Then after I bankrupted I made some mistakes in planning and started flying two routes in a 737 which barely made a profit but by the time I had the money and means to correct the mistake, all the routes were taken (most even by Alliance members :-\)
With less players I would have had a good chance of bouncing back with my airline...
Just to clarify some things that I don't blame anybody (except the alliance members stealing my routes after my request to safe them) but I'm suggesting things that could be improved in my opinion...
Hi Otto!
To be honest, and thank God, the international flights are still partially regulated. Double legs routes are authorized on a case by case basis from each government and, just to give you an example, it's the the same way that EK and SQ deal with the presence of Emirates at Changi airport...
Until a few years ago it was completely forbidden to carry pax beginning their journey midway of the route. It was possible only on a case by case basis as mentioned before and even today it is forbidden. If you have a look at flights operated by Qantas to the USA, the carrier is not authorized to carry pax from HNL to LAX and from LAX to JFK... This is because it would "steal" pax or create overcapacity without Qantas having to bear the overhead costs of personnel permantely base in a foreign airport and blah blah blah.
This is not because of my skills or about your skills...
Talking to the mighty Chrissy (who kicked me out of KIAD a few months ago, ehehe!), I know that the fuel price is a big issue but I think it is more a problem of the concept of the game than a problem of difficulty of the game.
What I mean is that we can't have "yearly loss" in this game" and we can't accumulate cash as usually airlines do in the real life. Usually it is necessary to have huge amount of cash reservoir in this game in order to withstand shocks as the oil price surge of the 2008. Anyway, the only solution I found about this issue was the one adopted by most of the real airlines: downsizing... Eliminating all the empty flights, creating double leg routes (but I seldom used to have double leg routes if not only for tech reason) and trying to agree with competitors on tariffs on some routes (I know it is not fair but it's a real life trick).
Quote from: Chrissy on February 03, 2010, 04:04:20 PM
two is the WAY too big player who doesn't care about other's and does everything to expand, which I do hate..
I'm not a rookie indeed and I don't say the fuel prices should go down but I what I meant to say is that the game is qualified as EASY... but with fuel prices that high I think HARD would be better.
With less players I would have had a good chance of bouncing back with my airline...
hi everyone,
im am sorry but i disagree with you dasha, for a few reasons. i dont want you to get upset at me or anything but, these are just my thoughts.
i left your quotes above so you and everyone understands what i mean and what it is related to.
you need to understand one thing, because you didnt manage to go through the fuel crisis, that doesnt make from you a bad player, though you must have done a few mistakes and i dont mean when you tried to rejoin your hub in dulles. only you know what you did, but obviously something has gone terrible wrong on your company, not to clear the crisis.
you "complain" about the big players that do everything to expand, i am going to ask you a question, if somebody would have gone BK and you had a chance to fly his routes, wouldnt you?!?! if it was alliance members that took your routes, that basically only shows the part they play in an alliance!!! the big players, that exist on our game days, can only be happy because they overtook the crises. thats why they are big, besides, there are companies that were founded right at the beginning of the fuel crisis and at this stage, they are on the top 25 airlines of the game, with over 400 planes. i think you cant judge the other players because you didnt achieve you goals due to circunstances that only you will be able to explain.
maybe if you would have picked the right hub after going BK, you would have managed to do better! onde again it is due to your judgement !
having a world with less players, dont really know how far it would go in a way to be helpfull. i say this once again, it is only up to yoou to raise your company, not to the others, some make it, some dont. but it is all down to decisions.
as for the world being classified easy, sorry to ask, but isnt it based or as close as possible as real life?! you dont consider yourself a rookie, one more reason to have thoughts on how to clear the crisis! everyone knew it was comming, some saved cash, some didnt, some had other ways to make it through. i personally wouldnt classify it hard.
now...she is gonna go ballistic at me....hehe...sorry dash, but its just my opinion.
carlos
The next game will be 100% same to others so far as it's still the current v.1.11 game engine.
I think that the main problem that me and Dasha had (as all the other players) was having too many a/c in maintenance with too high fuel prices... It has been a deadly game for most of us because even in normal conditions we need to keep the a/c airborne as much time as possible!
I had the fault of having 4 D-checks coming in a row without having enough a/c and load factors on the key routes, so that I could put money in to pay the leasing costs for some of the a/c.
Having too many players in the game is a nice thing but in the end is going to kill the real competition. We can't relocate airlines after some time and if we move our operations we have to completely restart our companies. This will affect our strategy while in real life we could move our hubs as Lufthansa did when splitting its capacity between FRA and MUC, or Alitalia did moving back the majority of its flight to Rome. Even British Airways moved its hub, scaling them back to only LHR and GTW, closing MAN. Virgin did the opposite, expanding its hub from GTW to LHR and MAN.
In my opinion, Dasha is right... If we suggest a limit of player per airport and set a lower limit for the numbers of players I think we will enjoy more the game, and I mean we will enjoy a longer game with a smarter competition...
Edo
I think maybe a late 80s to somwhere in the 2010s?
I am currently struggling with the game :-[
As has been mentioned its very difficult to make money in any game unless you are in a big airport from the start of the game. Recently in the game I was the only airline in the airport and another airline was using the empty airport as hub. I had one route at my home airport and was making some money. The game was I think about 30% thru and it was going to be difficult to make money as most of the routes were taken. Then the other airline using my airport as a hub started to fly my one route. So I email the player and ask him to not fly that route as its my only route. To which I got the reply sorry my home airport is full and I am using my airport as hub. As his airline was so much larger than my own airline I had no option but to bankrupt the airline and start again somewhere else. What I am trying to say is that the home airline must have some way to fight back these people.
Thanks
Lost
My suggestion for the game worlds would be to have world where Airline Alliances battle for world domination.
I am sure someone a lot clever than me will be able to come up with more suggestions.
There could be maybe no rival alliance airlines in the same airport.
Cheers
Lost
Quote from: LostInBKK on February 07, 2010, 03:26:02 PM
I am currently struggling with the game :-[
As has been mentioned its very difficult to make money in any game unless you are in a big airport from the start of the game. Recently in the game I was the only airline in the airport and another airline was using the empty airport as hub. I had one route at my home airport and was making some money. The game was I think about 30% thru and it was going to be difficult to make money as most of the routes were taken. Then the other airline using my airport as a hub started to fly my one route. So I email the player and ask him to not fly that route as its my only route. To which I got the reply sorry my home airport is full and I am using my airport as hub. As his airline was so much larger than my own airline I had no option but to bankrupt the airline and start again somewhere else. What I am trying to say is that the home airline must have some way to fight back these people.
Thanks
Lost
That is preatty awful. O like competition but this is just awful. What kind of fun is to take down a small airline flying one route? :o
Totally agree.
There is realy nothing funny about bankrupting a small arline.
Quote from: Maarten Otto on February 08, 2010, 12:22:41 PM
Totally agree.
There is realy nothing funny about bankrupting a small arline.
I had a huge airline with over 95% market share on an airport but when a small, reagional airline joined I made him struggle but I never tried to destroy him like that. In the end when the prices got high and he got into trouble I even tried to help him but he said it was too late...
On the other hand no mercy for the big guys.
Quote from: LostInBKK on February 07, 2010, 03:26:02 PM
I am currently struggling with the game :-[
As has been mentioned its very difficult to make money in any game unless you are in a big airport from the start of the game. Recently in the game I was the only airline in the airport and another airline was using the empty airport as hub. I had one route at my home airport and was making some money. The game was I think about 30% thru and it was going to be difficult to make money as most of the routes were taken. Then the other airline using my airport as a hub started to fly my one route. So I email the player and ask him to not fly that route as its my only route. To which I got the reply sorry my home airport is full and I am using my airport as hub. As his airline was so much larger than my own airline I had no option but to bankrupt the airline and start again somewhere else. What I am trying to say is that the home airline must have some way to fight back these people.
Thanks
Lost
This is why I've been complaining about the double legs routes since 4 months ago... It is absolutely crazy to kill a new born airline just because "I have no more routes"!!! I hope that Sami will erase this option in the V1.2 engine! :)
Quote from: EYguy on February 08, 2010, 10:23:48 PM
This is why I've been complaining about the double legs routes since 4 months ago... It is absolutely crazy to kill a new born airline just because "I have no more routes"!!! I hope that Sami will erase this option in the V1.2 engine! :)
Without double legs the game will be boring. All youll have is a hub with a bunch of spokes...BORING. There are lots of markets that can be served with double legs that would never get served if they were eliminated. I strongly oppose getting rid of double legs.
In understand your point of view ekaneti but... Real life is much different form this game! :) I have nothing against the use of double legs routes "in country", in your home country or as in Europe. But the point is: in real life the countries of the world usually put a ban on this practice because it harms their own flag carriers. If you look in other threads, you'll see that I do not oppose the double leg routes... But I oppose the wild use of them! :) If I am a carrier based in LAX and I open a flight LAX-JFK-any airport in Europe, it have nothing against this... But I can't accept LAX-LHR-DXB!:) Because it is not real, it has a destructive effect on smaller airlines and it kills the competition... I can accepet tech stops, it is a practice used until a few years ago, but nothing more excepet what I have said... :)
Why LAX-LHR-DXB is not real in the live? It is really possible and it is in a practice of world aviation...Just one detail : have to be adjusted procent of possible load factor : for example LAX-LHR : 20% of pax to LHR and 80% to DXB , and LHR-DXB : 20% only . Numbers could be different and could be adjusted. Uzbekistan Airways had /have/ always flights from Tashkent/TAS/ to New York/JFK/ via some other airports like Amsterdam , Manchester ,Kiev , Riga and they had /have/ rights to sell tickets for passangers to and from transfer airports , but it never have been 100% / change pax at all/... My suggestion: to have chance to set % on double-leg routes. Thank You for your time.
Quote from: EYguy on February 09, 2010, 07:59:04 AM
Real life is much different form this game! :)
And that's why this is a game and multi legs should be kept. To be Honest, I think the game will become boring if you take out this feature.
At first people will love the fact their businesses are protected somehow... but then they realise that what's protecting them... also reduce their options in game and eliminating their chances.
And then we have an awfull lot of airports which can't serve one or two airlines as a hub. Those airlines are forced to do multi legs in order to survive in the first place.
If you kill this feature you must increase pax volumes by 500 to 700% to get it like "the real world"
Multiple legs will be removed on the next version. They will be brought back once the "traffic / route rights" system is done (= freedoms of air).
Hello, Sami! Please could You tell more about future of multi-legs ?
Well .. hmm. That what I said was about it. For now at least. ;D
Quote from: sami on February 10, 2010, 10:03:27 PM
Multiple legs will be removed on the next version. They will be brought back once the "traffic / route rights" system is done (= freedoms of air).
Oh Sami, please get it soon, things are getting ridiculous, people are silly and very annoying they start a second hub even before they develop theie own. Will be good to see the freedom of air in place.
keep up the good work
VJC
I think that an early version of freedoms of the air can still be implemented quite easily in the next version. Multiple legs should be disabled, except for domestic, intra-EU flights, intra-US-Canada flights, intra-Caricom flights, intra-Yamoussoukro flights, intra NZ-Aus flights.
Additionally, if possible, EU domestic-domestic-international flights should also be allowed (lets say MAN-LHR-JFK or MUC-FRA-LAX), while US-US- international flights should also be allowed.
The EU and US markets are large enough on their own to support decent size airlines, but I think that Caricom and Yamoussoukro are essential for a healthy African and Caribbean market.
Regarding multiple hubs, I think that the bar meter showing size of the airport should be the limiting factor to even out the playing field. If LHR is your main hub, then you have used up all 100% of the bar
Quote from: alex11369 on February 10, 2010, 05:24:56 PM
Why LAX-LHR-DXB is not real in the live? It is really possible and it is in a practice of world aviation...Just one detail : have to be adjusted procent of possible load factor : for example LAX-LHR : 20% of pax to LHR and 80% to DXB , and LHR-DXB : 20% only . Numbers could be different and could be adjusted. Uzbekistan Airways had /have/ always flights from Tashkent/TAS/ to New York/JFK/ via some other airports like Amsterdam , Manchester ,Kiev , Riga and they had /have/ rights to sell tickets for passangers to and from transfer airports , but it never have been 100% / change pax at all/... My suggestion: to have chance to set % on double-leg routes. Thank You for your time.
As I have already written in my previous post (and as some other guys did), it is mainly something regulated on a case by case basis... This means that probably the government of Uzbekistan talked to the dutch government and to the US government and they settled the problem allowing Uzbek Air to operate that flight in such way. To be honest, I do not even think it would be viable for any american or dutch company to operate a direct flight to Uzbekistan! :)
Come on, Tashkent is a large city....
Quote from: swiftus27 on February 12, 2010, 08:22:13 PM
Come on, Tashkent is a large city....
Of course... And I always fly Uzbek Air when going south! ;)
The Idea about second hub for airline: One airline can open second hub in same country only with a payment for open that hub. The payment have to be as bigger as larger airport , may be billons dollars . Want to have second hub? Can You afford it as large airline?
I think the best way to make the HUB system+second leg routes work is by making this as easy and as realistic as possible (Until the route rights are made). Either of the departure/arrival airport must be in your base country, and second HUB's must be in your base country. So you choose Hong Kong? Too bad. No second HUB's or second legs for you. HKG's demand will keep you busy for the whole game, trust me. I'm also against Europe being considered as one country. I know, it has about the same demand of the United States, but that's how things are! The biggest airlines in the world are from the countries with the most traffic! That's why Delta is #1, American #2, Southwest #3, United #4, US Airways #5 and Continental #6. However, I know some members over here would pick Atlanta, O'hare, LAX and DFW for their second hub to become monster airlines, so we could put a limit in the number of passengers % for the HUBs of an airline. For example, 150% available for all airlines. That way, they could chose two 75% airports as their HUB's, or one 100% and one 50% or three 50% airports or I don't know, as long as they don't exceed 150% in all of their HUB's. Maybe this limit could be modified depending the player limit and areas of the world available, like games with a large amount of members would get a tighter limit and games with a small amount of people (Like RMA) you'd get a better limit.
We're getting too off-topic, so maybe another thread to discuss this would be good? In case there's one already.
Quote from: marc0o0o0o on February 14, 2010, 08:40:17 PM
I think the best way to make the HUB system+second leg routes work is by making this as easy and as realistic as possible (Until the route rights are made). Either of the departure/arrival airport must be in your base country, and second HUB's must be in your base country. So you choose Hong Kong? Too bad. No second HUB's or second legs for you. HKG's demand will keep you busy for the whole game, trust me. I'm also against Europe being considered as one country. I know, it has about the same demand of the United States, but that's how things are! The biggest airlines in the world are from the countries with the most traffic! That's why Delta is #1, American #2, Southwest #3, United #4, US Airways #5 and Continental #6. However, I know some members over here would pick Atlanta, O'hare, LAX and DFW for their second hub to become monster airlines, so we could put a limit in the number of passengers % for the HUBs of an airline. For example, 150% available for all airlines. That way, they could chose two 75% airports as their HUB's, or one 100% and one 50% or three 50% airports or I don't know, as long as they don't exceed 150% in all of their HUB's. Maybe this limit could be modified depending the player limit and areas of the world available, like games with a large amount of members would get a tighter limit and games with a small amount of people (Like RMA) you'd get a better limit.
We're getting too off-topic, so maybe another thread to discuss this would be good? In case there's one already.
Here you go Marco ;) - https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,34.msg87354.html#new
Marco, essentially, you are asking that we get to run two airlines... No problem there. But when we ask for a multi hub system, that's what needs to be implemented.
Remember each airport has a "Size" number associated with it. Perhaps players will get a total of 10 points. That means they could fly out of two size 5 airports of 3 size 3 airports...
How about a Latin America game world? Interesting area to base in... esp. Central America. ;D
Quote from: marc0o0o0o on February 14, 2010, 08:40:17 PM
I think the best way to make the HUB system+second leg routes work is by making this as easy and as realistic as possible (Until the route rights are made). Either of the departure/arrival airport must be in your base country, and second HUB's must be in your base country. So you choose Hong Kong? Too bad. No second HUB's or second legs for you. HKG's demand will keep you busy for the whole game, trust me. I'm also against Europe being considered as one country. I know, it has about the same demand of the United States, but that's how things are! The biggest airlines in the world are from the countries with the most traffic! That's why Delta is #1, American #2, Southwest #3, United #4, US Airways #5 and Continental #6. However, I know some members over here would pick Atlanta, O'hare, LAX and DFW for their second hub to become monster airlines, so we could put a limit in the number of passengers % for the HUBs of an airline. For example, 150% available for all airlines. That way, they could chose two 75% airports as their HUB's, or one 100% and one 50% or three 50% airports or I don't know, as long as they don't exceed 150% in all of their HUB's. Maybe this limit could be modified depending the player limit and areas of the world available, like games with a large amount of members would get a tighter limit and games with a small amount of people (Like RMA) you'd get a better limit.
We're getting too off-topic, so maybe another thread to discuss this would be good? In case there's one already.
I totaly agree. This is what I have been trying to say all the time. Haleluja! :)
I would combine the above said with the (huge) extra costs of the second hub and forbidding all 2 leg routes. That way this will SLOWER and BALANCE the game instead of making the bigger even bigger.
Quote from: Yb on February 15, 2010, 12:20:22 AM
I would combine the above said with the (huge) extra costs of the second hub and forbidding all 2 leg routes. That way this will SLOWER and BALANCE the game instead of making the bigger even bigger.
Why would there be huge extra costs for the second hub? The game tries to calculate realistic salaries for all these different personnell groups and different prices for different kinds of maintenance operations etc. Then suddenly there is an arbitrary huge cost for operating out of another hub. That doesn't make sense.
I'd still rather see frequent flyer / in flight stuff first.
I agree Uzbekistan Airways is small airline and nobody know what they doing with them dictator ::) . What about Singapore Airlines? This airline is unknowing for people from another planet only ;D .Present time , flight SQ61/62 Boeing-777-300 , Singapore - Moscow/Domodedovo/ - Houston/IAH/. Tickets are available for any combination of this double-leg route...
Quote from: Yb on February 15, 2010, 12:20:22 AM
I would combine the above said with the (huge) extra costs of the second hub and forbidding all 2 leg routes. That way this will SLOWER and BALANCE the game instead of making the bigger even bigger.
I agree... The second leg trick is allowing people to skyrocket their size without paying enough costs for it! :)
Quote from: alex11369 on February 15, 2010, 05:39:01 AM
I agree Uzbekistan Airways is small airline and nobody know what they doing with them dictator ::) . What about Singapore Airlines? This airline is unknowing for people from another planet only ;D .Present time , flight SQ61/62 Boeing-777-300 , Singapore - Moscow/Domodedovo/ - Houston/IAH/. Tickets are available for any combination of this double-leg route...
I repat: it's one of those "case by case" evalutation done by government and airlines. Probably Aeroflot does not have enough a/c and traffic to create such a route and so the two companies agreed to those terms of the deal. Singapore Airlines also flies from SIN to JFK via FRA and sells ticket for the second leg in codesharing with Lufthansa, but this is another case by case agreement! :) But, for example, Qatar Airways flies from DOH to IAH without stops... Or even Emirates flies from Dubai to Los Angeles without stops, while Singapore flies there via Osaka or Tokyo.
Quote from: Kontio on February 15, 2010, 12:27:04 AM
Why would there be huge extra costs for the second hub? The game tries to calculate realistic salaries for all these different personnell groups and different prices for different kinds of maintenance operations etc. Then suddenly there is an arbitrary huge cost for operating out of another hub. That doesn't make sense.
Having a double hub is an expensive thing: you have double overhead costs for the middle management and low level management stationed at the other hub. You also have to pay for relocation of personnel, maybe housing costs for people who doesn't want to move and etc... As far as I can remember, the only airline in Europe with two hubs is Lufthansa: they have the FRA and MUC airports. Lufthansa also focuses on VIE and ZRH, but simply because it OWNS the airlines based there! :-D
Jet Age is full and there are several games ending in the next two weeks--when is the next game starting?
Have a goose at this thread :)
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,18532.0.html
I'm going to be quite honest with my game experiences, that is the game worlds appear to be very disadvantageous to those who enter it relatively late especially since the high-demand and high-yield routes appear to be the first ones to be occupied quickly. That makes it almost impossible and quite unprofitable to operate bigger aircraft. It takes a while to wait for another game world to start from scratch. For instance, my MNL-SIN flights fluctuate dramatically in LFs (some days it is close to 100% and other days where it is less than 25%). Also, I was forced to terminate the leases from my 77Ws because ULH routes such as MNL-ORD, MNL-YYZ and MNL-EWR are already taken and putting them in there would be risky to my operations. Hence, accusations of veteran players dumping seats fly back and forth.
With that, I would suggest game worlds that would be single player in nature that it will be mainly economic conditions and not so much competition that would dictate how profitable a player's airline is. In other words, the conditions, circumstances, timeframe, etc. that a player faces should be independent of what others will experience. This should be good for novice players. Here the player is free to experiment with different combinations and be more creative without pressure from competition. The bottomline, the only competition a player would face would be economic conditions (such as rising oil prices, etc). Maybe to make it a bit more challenging, you can vary the demand more significantly than in multi-player worlds where it has been quite stagnant.
I hope you consider a single player scenario in the future.
I agree... What i really would like is to start with less players in "whole world" games... Say 300-350 and then make every world a single shot world... But I would say that you can't play anymore after being bankrupt 4 times! :)
Besides the single player game, I would also like to propose that other game worlds have stricter rules when it comes to "5th freedom" rights. That is players can't fly to a 3rd city away if there is a carrier based in either city that wants to fly between the latter 2 points. For example, a carrier is based in city A and flies to city B who wishes to continue on to city C. In order for the "5th freedom" rights to be granted to city C, there should be no carrier based in city B or city C. If a carrier sets up a home base in city B or city C, the incumbent carrier may continue flying between those routes until the new carrier wants to fly those routes. I really think this should address the issue of sovereignty which the game fails to address but is a reality in today's airline industry. It's also about fairness on the part of the carriers based in the 2nd and 3rd city.
SkyAsia, Paragon and to a lesser extent International City Airlines appear to be abusing this privilege where younger industry players can't compete well in.
Quote from: hybridace101 link=topic=17431.msg89228#msg89228 date=1266933542
With that, I would suggest game worlds that would beb]single player[/b] in nature that it will be mainly economic conditions and not so much competition that would dictate how profitable a player's airline is. In other words, the conditions, circumstances, timeframe, etc. that a player faces should be independent of what others will experience. This should be good for novice players. Here the player is free to experiment with different combinations and be more creative without pressure from competition. The bottomline, the only competition a player would face would be economic conditions (such as rising oil prices, etc). Maybe to make it a bit more challenging, you can vary the demand more significantly than in multi-player worlds where it has been quite stagnant.
I hope you consider a single player scenario in the future.
Here here, I love to tinker with my airline, and with the way some of the bigger carriers work its impossible to
do some of the things i would like to, i love the way this simulation works, compared to anything else i have tried (and thats quite a few) but im into the single player stuff as opposed to the daunting world of multiplayer, where it seems to many airlines are all about being as big as they can with as many big planes as possible, of course this is a reflection of only a couple of airlines in the real world,
but as mentioned above, this is only the case for a few carriers,
5th freedom restrictions would also be applauded if it was implimented into the game.....
Liam
Lairyair
Surely the beauty of the simulation is the multi-player element. Playing any simulation or game versus the computer becomes repetitive and mundane over time - computers act too predictably. Human players act in random and odd manners which makes every single scenario completely different.
I can see the need for a world with less players in, so you can concentrate on your airline without much competition, but I don't think the main games should be like this. Once you've worked out a successful strategy then human players at the levels currently used are vital to keep things interesting. Without competition, the games drag and that's partly why the latter halves of the worlds all become stale and strewn with mainly the larger airlines.
I'm sure the new hubs and freedom rights introduction features of the next version will eradicate a lot of the problems you refer to with the large airlines, as they will have to be better managed. Currently you can leave a profitable large airline for days, even weeks without doing much other than replacing ageing aircraft.
Dave :)
I'm not saying that the single player scenario should be the centre-piece of the simulation. What I am asking is to have a game world that is more fair towards newer players. I really hope you provide an option for single-player game worlds so we can experiment with how to manage a widebody because the older players appear to be the ones beneffiting from them. From how I see things, there are only a few options to run my widebodies because the older players have long beneffited from being there first and their prescence on high density and high yield routes has made it impossible or unprofitable for newer players to operate widebodies.
Having said that, I look forward to the new rights management feature. I just find it unfair that a BKK-based carrier operates routes in MNL towards IAD or some Chinese city without regard for the sovereignty of the airlines based in MNL or IAD.
People say that this is a simulation. But in a simulation, an important element is that much of the legal and economic environment should be grounded on reality. And that includes air rights. For instance, my home airline Philippine Airlines wants to fly to India. They want to do it via BKK. Problem is they just can't do it without the proper 5th freedom rights from BKK to India. I'm sure TG, Air India and Kingfisher would raise hell with another player giving them a run for their money at BKK. I'm glad the new updates would somehow put these into consideration.
I hope you find more ways to make the gameworlds more fair to latecomers. I know there is a saying early bird gets the worm but it is another thing if incumbent players abuse certain air rights that make it impossible for new players to effectively compete. Thank you!
North America only
737 series only
10 million to start
No loans 8)
How about the ability once you reach a certain fleet size to open your own terminal at your hub, Increasing the amount of slots available to you and also the ability to rent those slots to other airlines??? :)
If it hasn't been posted before:
The ability to do 'A' checks in an out station.
If I send a plane out to a foreign airport, I should be able to park it there for 5 hrs for the 'A' check and not in my home base. I realise this potentially means breaking up routes into independent segments, but Sami, you've shown us you are smart...please give it a go!
Thanks
I think the above should be posted in the "features" topic
How about 1985-2015 whole world 175-200 max players....
I could be interested in scale 1995-2015
I would love to see 1985-2015
I would love 1985/88 - 2020 :)
1995-2010 :)
any period that is not year 2000 and above is good! 8)
1985-2015 is the best, think of ALL the things that happend in that timeframe that would affect aviation and air travel and make this game a real challenge.
i love the jet age, could we get a longer version of +/- 5 years, preferably -5
Quote from: Dookz on March 29, 2010, 06:08:18 AM
any period that is not year 2000 and above is good! 8)
1995-2020 (because 15 years is too short time) and, may be 200-250 people, no more. And, whole world, of course.
Quote from: Tim on March 31, 2010, 02:19:55 PM
1995-2020 (because 15 years is too short time) and, may be 200-250 people, no more. And, whole world, of course.
+1
1980 - 2015
1995-2010 +1
Quote from: Tim on March 31, 2010, 02:19:55 PM
1995-2020 (because 15 years is too short time) and, may be 200-250 people, no more. And, whole world, of course.
+1
1995-2010 +1
Whole world
all aircrafts
1980-2015
or
1995-2010.
Whole world. Both are interesting.
1990-2010... 20 years, not too long, not too short... Max 300 players, all a/c, all apos...
Jet Age with version 1.2
I think a 10 yr game is perfect for modern era. The longer the game goes, it looses its charm when another new game opens up and its difficult to manage 2 or 3 games at one given tim (work + life+ AWS X 3) makes life very hectic LOL
I hope all agree with me.
1995-2010 for a modern day any thing newer then we go from 2005-2020.
Golden era can be 15 yrs or so, eg:1965-1980 or so.
Regards
VJC
1995 - 2015 would be 20 years of modern era. Not too long, but not too short.
Will the next games start immediately upon conclusion of the existing or are you waiting for 1.2?
Sami has said elsewhere that the next game will be with the new version. But don't fret, he said that the new version will start within a couple of weeks!
Edit : I think he said a "few" weeks, which I suppose may or may not be longer than a "couple" of weeks.
Early Days v 1.2 would be interesting but honestly any timeframe that comes out in v1.2 is exciting enough! Sami said a short beta was to begin 2-4 days and this was posted a few days ago. I guess that's the world we will see next. :D
1985-88 to 2015-20
Since we already have a 1960-70s game going and all the otehr games will end soon, I propose two games:
One: 1985-2000
Two: 2000-2015
Yes, it will be somewhere in the near-present years as JetAge is still ongoing for quite a bit.
More info / details / schedule later on once the v.1.2 gets debugged.
Quote from: sami on April 09, 2010, 10:00:51 PM
Yes, it will be somewhere in the near-present years as JetAge is still ongoing for quite a bit.
More info / details / schedule later on once the v.1.2 gets debugged.
Puhleeze consider a more historical game with v1.2 engine.
all in due time yes.. Would first like to tweak the pax preference calculation a bit so something like 1955 would work a bit better than in the small test game.
1995-2012 would float my boat :)
bit longer than normal but the 380s are expensive ships ;)
I see some really great suggestions here. Of course I understand the regional scenario will be coming up soon (I guess) and that will be alot of fun. I hate to see anything limited to less than 150 players though. Everyone should have a chance to get in if they desire it.
How about a scenario featuring just the western hemisphere? I hate to admit it, but I rarely look and see whats going on in South America (or Africa for that matter). I could see this as an easy to medium scenario for 150-200 players and limit the area to North and South America. You could do one with only Europe and Africa and one with only Asia and Oceania. Just an idea of course.
I thik there need to be a North America Challenge similar to the Euro Challenge. I also think there should be one limited to the United States or the United States and Canada. There is plenty of fight in creating a domestic US airlines. Plenty of hubs, and regional airports.
I reccommend a scenario: US only, 1990-2010, no basing or second-legging allowed at Top 20 US airports.
I think no matter when we start the max a game world should go is December/23/2012 since that is when the world is supposed to end. It's only realistic....... :)
Quote from: LOT767 on April 12, 2010, 09:42:48 PM
I think no matter when we start the max a game world should go is December/23/2012 since that is when the world is supposed to end. It's only realistic....... :)
+1 on that one
Start at 1985 through to 2015.
It would be great to have a scenario that included the breakup of the soviet union and yugoslavia to the the end of the Air Travel Boom say 1985 - 2010, with faster game days, say 20 mins
Klosta, its been done before many times and they are hard to get a solid foothold in them at first. They are billed as medium but are really medium to slightly exasperating. LOL!
Lets not go too off the deep end about second legging at another major airport. Some games need have the "go for it" feel to them. We could go too far with all the rulemaking going on here and it could cease to be fun.
I myself prefer the older style games such as the Early days but then again, the more modern scenarios are helpful for airlines due to the higher PAX demand
Next game world will start on friday or saturday this week. Details will be posted asap.
Quote from: sami on April 14, 2010, 12:03:47 PM
Next game world will start on friday or saturday this week. Details will be posted asap.
You made my day, Sami!!!
Thank you so much!
Denis
1992 - 2019
Basically one like the modern times 1
Maybe the next one could be 1970's to 2010. extra long one. Especially with the long time it takes to get new jets. At the moment the game will be over by the time you get your fleet done.
1947 - 2020 with 20 or 25 minute days, full world :-[
Jet Age is ending soon. The new version worlds are running from 1980s and beyond. Maybe it's time for an older era.
I would need to make adjustments to the pax systems first a bit (to make it work better in the early era), but I'm a bit limited on time. But let's see...
Mmm...
1958 start with all loan money. Give us a solid 5 years with props before the jets start to take over. Thus creating a harsher gameworld. Many years with props = pain in the *** to upgrade to jets. Plus at that time, there are no sub 4000nm aircraft alvb. Thus, no LH jet starting strategies.
End at 1975?
Talentz
I think we should have a gameworld with a ridiculously high number of people so that all of the available slots at all the major airports are completely used up within 2 game years of the start. Oh wait a minute--there already is a world like that and it's zero fun :(
smaller games have always led to me to enjoy AWS way more than in the big worlds. I would like a few smaller worlds with the new game version
Quote from: Talentz on May 10, 2010, 06:27:14 PM
Mmm...
1958 start with all loan money. Give us a solid 5 years with props before the jets start to take over. Thus creating a harsher gameworld. Many years with props = pain in the *** to upgrade to jets. Plus at that time, there are no sub 4000nm aircraft alvb. Thus, no LH jet starting strategies.
End at 1975?
Talentz
This, but end at 1980; more time to recover from the hell that the '60s would be. Or start earlier, like 1950 (40s is too early I think?).
Regardless, great idea!
Please not again a game world where we have to wait longer for aircraft delivery than we have time to play before the world ends :)
Adding this as a suggestion:
Time: 1978-2000
Fuel: Realistic
Area: North America only
Restrictions: Cannot start at major hub (ATL, ORD, LAX, JFK, etc.)
Start w/ Loan: Yes
Basically Euro Challenge, but in North America, with harder initial starting conditions.
What about a game world that starts around 1965 (or earlier) with around 250-300 players, ending in 1990 or 2000; but with the number of players slowly increasing over the length of the game as demand increases? I know there's been some talk of an extended Jet Age game. I think doing so, but allowing additional space for new airlines periodically would make it more realistic and dynamic.
What about starting it in 1965 with only 50 players max? Then when the game world hits 1978, open it up to 250-300 players max and increase passenger demand at that time. Then it runs until 2010 w/ 250-300 people. Could be interesting?
Attempting to think outside the box a little - I fully expect there to be problems/limitations with the ideas :)
How about opening 2x pre-worlds that are exactly the same and let them run for a few years so airlines can build themselves up a little - slots, productions lines etc would have to be shared, but demand would not be, otherwise it would be just be 1 world! Once a certain date is reached, the 2 worlds could be merged or moved into a new world, thus simulating entry into a competitive world rather than the empty one in which worlds currently start. CEOs may suddenly find they have a huge competitor to deal with and things could get very interesting. Players would only be allowed in one pre-world to prevent having 2 airlines in the full world.
If this isn't feasible (as I think it might not be) maybe continental based pre-worlds could be a starting point e.g mini-Euro Challenge, mini-Asian challenge etc. This could simulate some sort of regulation, lack of technology etc in the early years. Again, once a certain amount of time has passed, these pre-worlds could enter into the full world and then intercontinental competition could open things up.
Just a couple of ideas :)
I think it doesn't really matter too much when are where.
The main difference will come with the length of the world. Hopefully some new developments are underway to make the playability of the game more interesting. I would love to see code share agreements, more cabin config, able to purchase and create subsidiary airlines that players entering the game can operate on your behalf. This would be great if players in the game already put out offers for new players to build their subsidiary in other countries etc. These things would make the game more social and therefore more interesting over the long term.
Are there any announcements of what is the next developments of the game.
Daveos' idea might be quite interesting actually. You could start a Euro Challenge, NA Challenge, and Asian Challenge all with same starting conditions/year, but with low max players. Then after ~10-20 game years, you merge all three into one game world and raise the max player cap. Very interesting. I would like to see how difficult it is in the 50-75% complete stages of the 1.2 game worlds before this gets a final stamp of approval though. I think the best timeframe would be to start the region challenges in 1950ish and open it up in the 70s. The biggest problem I see with this idea though is the merge of three different game worlds into one, which is probably not an easy task in terms of the database.