Well, we had great fun to play Jet age game but we are now gameless.
Now, what can we expect as future game ?
A bit slow at our end due to summertime but some news / plans in next few days.
A new world of 300-350 players please.... :'(
Quote from: GDK on June 08, 2010, 12:21:44 AM
A new world of 300-350 players please.... :'(
... With a 1958 start ;)
Albert
Quote from: Talentz on June 08, 2010, 12:22:58 AM
... With a 1958 start ;)
Albert
... X2 ... plus make it run to 1980 or thereabouts. ;D
make it run to 2000
Quote from: tom14cat14 on June 08, 2010, 05:19:36 PM
make it run to 2000
this would be really really good - but then make it run till 2020 ;)
(any requests / wishes on next worlds, post here...)
1946-2020
Would be great to go through all the political changes with countries etc...
Some interesting events would be USA - Cuba routes (demand would go to 0 after Castro takes power).
Vietnam - with demand being near 0 from most places for a long period of time due to the war.
China- almost 0 international demand until liberalization after Mao.
Independence for European Colonies- This would be great if for example somebody based in Paris can set up a base in Algiers (of course until Algeria becomes independent) .
Plenty of other world events.
great idea... I'll join :) maybe this game with 20min/day, so it won't take 3yrs of real life...
But basically a nice Idea... what you think sami? I hope you don't have anything against it ;D :)
Jona L.
Quote from: yevgeniy on June 08, 2010, 09:26:24 PM
1946-2020
Would be great to go through all the political changes with countries etc...
Some interesting events would be USA - Cuba routes (demand would go to 0 after Castro takes power).
Vietnam - with demand being near 0 from most places for a long period of time due to the war.
China- almost 0 international demand until liberalization after Mao.
Independence for European Colonies- This would be great if for example somebody based in Paris can set up a base in Algiers (of course until Algeria becomes independent) .
Plenty of other world events.
a long game would be perfect. 1946 to 2010 please. up to 2020 takes out the realism as we dont know the models or variants that would be introduced, countries that would divide, new airports that would be built in the following 10 years.
You missed the fact that short events like wars etc.are not modeled at all yet... :p
True, but what about long wars?
Vietnam was an almost 20 year war, same thing with Afghanistan.
It seems the Gulf war and embargo and are partially modeled?
So I guess the question, is this something that easily modeled, (basically demand in Afghanistan and Vietnam is 0 for the whole period of the war).?
Also, yep 2010 makes sense.
Quote from: sami on June 08, 2010, 08:32:36 PM
(any requests / wishes on next worlds, post here...)
Not much request...
Just need a new game world to open asap ;D
Quote from: GDK on June 08, 2010, 11:28:48 PM
Not much request...
Just need a new game world to open asap ;D
+1
i like 1946 to 2010. I like the idea of having to change your fleet from a prop to a jet airline. I dont think a dc3 would work to well in 2010
No doubt 1946 to 2010 is a great idea. It will record the entire history of civil aviation....
But, it will be issue of inflation affecting players starting late (if the startup cash is fixed). If the game start at 1946 with $2m, we can run a good airline there. But if another player is going to join the game 50% after it started, then the starting cash of $2m will not enough for him due to the inflation and evolution of the world economy.
Also there might be a problem late comers hardly break the dominations early birds who started their game when the game world open. These earlier player will have been operating an ultra fleet of maybe thousand aircrafts while the late comer is starting up. Even tough each of us can operate only 3 bases, but we will not know what the consequences are...
Quote from: GDK on June 09, 2010, 05:47:25 PM
But, it will be issue of inflation affecting players starting late (if the startup cash is fixed).
Startup cash is inflation adjusted.
Anyway, 46-00 is too long world for now.
Which 19xx-2010 would not be too long?
Too long for the game system or too long in real life?
You can make it 20minutes/game day to shorten it. ;D
Mid 50's till mid 80's, Early Days + Jet Age +/- a bit.
Quote from: GDK on June 10, 2010, 12:11:09 AM
Too long for the game system or too long in real life?
You can make it 20minutes/game day to shorten it. ;D
The servers can't keep up with that speed game clock in a large world from what I understand.
Quote from: schro on June 10, 2010, 02:58:58 AM
The servers can't keep up with that speed game clock in a large world from what I understand.
Not only the servers but the players also. Most of us can't be every hour front of their screen to look at their companies. 30min day give us +/- 1.5 month by real day and +/-one year a week (or short of). Not to quick not too slow.
USSR challenge. 1950 - 1989.
With limitations like internal USSR flights only and only the use of Soviet aircraft. I'd give it a go.
Quote from: Dave4468 on June 10, 2010, 06:16:00 PM
USSR challenge. 1950 - 1989.
With limitations like internal USSR flights only and only the use of Soviet aircraft. I'd give it a go.
That'd be a difficult game. Couldn't have many players either.
Quote from: Dave4468 on June 10, 2010, 06:16:00 PM
USSR challenge. 1950 - 1989.
With limitations like internal USSR flights only and only the use of Soviet aircraft. I'd give it a go.
I'd definately give that a shot too.
Been wanting something like that a while to force people to use the Soviet aircraft only (not like in current games that have ended and just passed in MT2 where a Moscow based airline ordered 30+ Boeing 737-300's... )
is there anyway the purchase price could be effected by location. such as soviet countries getting cheaper eastern aircraft but western builds would be higher priced due to import tax?
1965-1978 time frame, regional jet travel scenario, keep it to 2/3 months. Keep it low on the props and concentrate on 727/727/DC-9/BAC-111/Trident. no more than 300 people please.
1955 till 1979 full world, nice to run a fleet of electras and other 4 engine props :)
Wow.... Everyone got a nice idea. :)
Early days. Random hub airport anywhere in the world. Size 4 and 5 for your HQ. :)
i would just like the worlds to be 300 people i will deal with the rest of the rules
Yes, many people like 300 players game. But the issue of 'will it affect the game' is still to be discussed. Peoples are having different opinion on that.
why not have 2 game worlds one of 500 and the other 300, some people seem to prefer the easier 300 whilst others like me prefer the 500.
truthfully i am at the point of saying just star a world. i dont care what now it has been a week of saying we should do this that and the other thing.
would prefer not to have a game where jets are not available right away. I get REALLY bored with having to start out with props. I say no earlier than 1965 with full compliment of twin and tri-jets available at the time and some props for those who really want them. The Lockheed Electra was the best and to be applauded, but I'd rather go right into the game and be able pull out a DC-9 or 727 right from the start. ;) I'm still routing for the scenario during the height of the regional airline era with some Trident/DC-9/737/727/BAC-111/and Caravelles. For props I'd say make a lot of F-27's available. Popular during the era for the low density routes. And maybe some Electras too. PSA use fly Electras from KBUR/KLAX to KTVL for years. Lets have a game that also keeps moving instead of having to wait for jets as proposed by another player.
Quote from: tom14cat14 on June 12, 2010, 05:15:16 PM
truthfully i am at the point of saying just star a world. i dont care what now it has been a week of saying we should do this that and the other thing.
Oh well! Thats how ideas are hatched. Don't come into this topic any more then. ;)
Quote from: GDK on June 12, 2010, 10:33:59 AM
Yes, many people like 300 players game. But the issue of 'will it affect the game' is still to be discussed. Peoples are having different opinion on that.
Shouldn't really except for downsizing double hub requirements. I say 10 planes for a double hub in a shorter game. Thats really the only difference I can think of.
Quote from: L1011fan on June 12, 2010, 06:34:29 PM
Shouldn't really except for downsizing double hub requirements. I say 10 planes for a double hub in a shorter game. Thats really the only difference I can think of.
Of course it affects the game.
That's far too few people for a full-world scenario and makes the game super-easy...
for a portion of the players. People always want to point at the number of players in a world as some cause for their failures, but fewer players makes the game-world even harder for those that already have a hard time with the game.
In a game-world with a lot of people, people begin treading on one another a lot sooner. This increases competition, stifles margins to at least slightly more realistic levels, and slows growth as a result. This creates a much more balanced world of comparably-sized airlines in a healthy competition. The one downside is that
late entry into the game is likely to prove more difficult because even the lesser airports are based out of with so many players, making even small airports difficult to start at.
In a game-world with fewer people, those who really know how to play the game well
explode out of the gates and can increase in size at a much quicker pace because they can grow much more before ever stepping on someone else's toes. They've got bases popping up all over the place before the vast majority of people even hit their stride. This, in effect, causes there to essentially be more players because there's more bases popping up all over, and bases from people making a much larger margin than they could be in a world with more players. More margins means means more ability to knock others out with far greater ease. Soon the game is dominated by a relative handful of players controlling the vast majority of the world's traffic, each so large that they could never hope to take one another out.
In the end, fewer players doesn't mean that you're increasing your odds of getting an unoccupied base that so many people think it does. Instead it only greatly increases the odds that your base will be occupied by someone with a mammoth airline at some point in the near future, whether it be a result of the new base system, or them using it as a ABCBA route if that feature were to come back. You're much better off in a more populated world where, chances are, you and your in-base competitior started at the same time, are more likely to be on the same footing, and your combined capacity is more likely to deter expansionists.
And this isn't just conjecture or something on my part. If you've ever looked at the game stats, you can see exactly that. In the larger worlds, the players are
much more tighly packed together in terms of their overall stats. In smaller worlds, there is a massive disparity between the "top" handful of airlines and everyone else.
Quote from: Sigma on June 12, 2010, 07:44:33 PM
Of course it affects the game.
That's far too few people for a full-world scenario and makes the game super-easy... for a portion of the players. People always want to point at the number of players in a world as some cause for their failures, but fewer players makes the game-world even harder for those that already have a hard time with the game.
In a game-world with a lot of people, people begin treading on one another a lot sooner. This increases competition, stifles margins to at least slightly more realistic levels, and slows growth as a result. This creates a much more balanced world of comparably-sized airlines in a healthy competition. The one downside is that late entry into the game is likely to prove more difficult because even the lesser airports are based out of with so many players, making even small airports difficult to start at.
In a game-world with fewer people, those who really know how to play the game well explode out of the gates and can increase in size at a much quicker pace because they can grow much more before ever stepping on someone else's toes. They've got bases popping up all over the place before the vast majority of people even hit their stride. This, in effect, causes there to essentially be more players because there's more bases popping up all over, and bases from people making a much larger margin than they could be in a world with more players. More margins means means more ability to knock others out with far greater ease. Soon the game is dominated by a relative handful of players controlling the vast majority of the world's traffic, each so large that they could never hope to take one another out.
In the end, fewer players doesn't mean that you're increasing your odds of getting an unoccupied base that so many people think it does. Instead it only greatly increases the odds that your base will be occupied by someone with a mammoth airline at some point in the near future, whether it be a result of the new base system, or them using it as a ABCBA route if that feature were to come back. You're much better off in a more populated world where, chances are, you and your in-base competitior started at the same time, are more likely to be on the same footing, and your combined capacity is more likely to deter expansionists.
And this isn't just conjecture or something on my part. If you've ever looked at the game stats, you can see exactly that. In the larger worlds, the players are much more tighly packed together in terms of their overall stats. In smaller worlds, there is a massive disparity between the "top" handful of airlines and everyone else.
Very well said Sigma.
you are right i change my vote to a larger group. Is there a way that we can change it so we can put bases in any country? I know that take away from reality but i hate seeing an airport wide open but i can use it because of my HQ.
Quote from: tom14cat14 on June 13, 2010, 12:00:02 AM
Is there a way that we can change it so we can put bases in any country?
I think you just answered your own question.
Quote from: Sigma on June 12, 2010, 07:44:33 PM
Of course it affects the game.
That's far too few people for a full-world scenario and makes the game super-easy... for a portion of the players. People always want to point at the number of players in a world as some cause for their failures, but fewer players makes the game-world even harder for those that already have a hard time with the game.
In a game-world with a lot of people, people begin treading on one another a lot sooner. This increases competition, stifles margins to at least slightly more realistic levels, and slows growth as a result. This creates a much more balanced world of comparably-sized airlines in a healthy competition. The one downside is that late entry into the game is likely to prove more difficult because even the lesser airports are based out of with so many players, making even small airports difficult to start at.
In a game-world with fewer people, those who really know how to play the game well explode out of the gates and can increase in size at a much quicker pace because they can grow much more before ever stepping on someone else's toes. They've got bases popping up all over the place before the vast majority of people even hit their stride. This, in effect, causes there to essentially be more players because there's more bases popping up all over, and bases from people making a much larger margin than they could be in a world with more players. More margins means means more ability to knock others out with far greater ease. Soon the game is dominated by a relative handful of players controlling the vast majority of the world's traffic, each so large that they could never hope to take one another out.
In the end, fewer players doesn't mean that you're increasing your odds of getting an unoccupied base that so many people think it does. Instead it only greatly increases the odds that your base will be occupied by someone with a mammoth airline at some point in the near future, whether it be a result of the new base system, or them using it as a ABCBA route if that feature were to come back. You're much better off in a more populated world where, chances are, you and your in-base competitior started at the same time, are more likely to be on the same footing, and your combined capacity is more likely to deter expansionists.
And this isn't just conjecture or something on my part. If you've ever looked at the game stats, you can see exactly that. In the larger worlds, the players are much more tighly packed together in terms of their overall stats. In smaller worlds, there is a massive disparity between the "top" handful of airlines and everyone else.
Everyone is limited to 3 hubs. So the nomination of players is just the same. No matter how many players are there, the guys who nominate the world will not be able to threaten other players once they reach the limit.
Basically nomination of those guys who know how to play is unavoidable. With their skills and knowledge, they can still nominate the world no matter how many peoples are competing there. But, when the game grow older, a bigger game will have greater competition which means more hubs have been set up. This is what peoples concerning about.
Assuming the game is now 50% in progress. In a big game with 500 players, 50% of the players are operating 3 hubs already. In a small game with 300 players, 70% players have 3 hubs due to less competition. However, the airports occupied in the big game is 750 while in the small game is only 630. I know it is not 1 hub = 1 airport occupied. These numbers is just for comparing to show that the empty spaces for late comer/players who restarted is narrower in a big game. Even tough the competition is greater and realistic, but till the end of the game, will it still be competitive and realistic?
Because due to the greater competition, more players will be thrown out of the game at the early stage. The great competition will only last a while and then it is getting less and less. But in a smaller game, nobody will be killed so easily and at least the competition will last longer... Look at Modern Time and ATB. Everyday, people bankrupt and reopen but they just can't grow.
I'm not very experienced in AWS, this is a conclusion I made as a player who quit halfway in Jet Age, Dawn of Millennium, Modern Time and ATB. I saw that people die faster in a bigger game and the competition will be minimize to competition between alliances and between big guys.
Quote from: GDK on June 13, 2010, 05:24:32 PM
Everyone is limited to 3 hubs. So the nomination of players is just the same. No matter how many players are there, the guys who nominate the world will not be able to threaten other players once they reach the limit.
Basically nomination of those guys who know how to play is unavoidable. With their skills and knowledge, they can still nominate the world no matter how many peoples are competing there. But, when the game grow older, a bigger game will have greater competition which means more hubs have been set up. This is what peoples concerning about.
Assuming the game is now 50% in progress. In a big game with 500 players, 50% of the players are operating 3 hubs already. In a small game with 300 players, 70% players have 3 hubs due to less competition. However, the airports occupied in the big game is 750 while in the small game is only 630. I know it is not 1 hub = 1 airport occupied. These numbers is just for comparing to show that the empty spaces for late comer/players who restarted is narrower in a big game. Even tough the competition is greater and realistic, but till the end of the game, will it still be competitive and realistic?
Because due to the greater competition, more players will be thrown out of the game at the early stage. The great competition will only last a while and then it is getting less and less. But in a smaller game, nobody will be killed so easily and at least the competition will last longer... Look at Modern Time and ATB. Everyday, people bankrupt and reopen but they just can't grow.
I'm not very experienced in AWS, this is a conclusion I made as a player who quit halfway in Jet Age, Dawn of Millennium, Modern Time and ATB. I saw that people die faster in a bigger game and the competition will be minimize to competition between alliances and between big guys.
Yes, all that is true.
That's why I said, in reference to larger worlds: "The one downside is that late entry into the game is likely to prove more difficult because even the lesser airports are based out of with so many players, making even small airports difficult to start at."
In a larger world it is easier for your initial airline to survive. A much larger percentage of the players develop at much similar rates than in smaller worlds where a smaller number of players dominate everything and eventually force most players out and/or relegate them to smaller positions. However, in a larger world it is more difficult to start again because so many of the airports are full of at least one, and often multiple carriers.
Does that mean in a large world that
everyone is going to survive better? No, of course not. There's always going to be some players that just can't cut it no matter what scenario they're presented with and others that, despite their best efforts, just get out-maneuvered. But larger worlds do create a better
chance for that survival and more equitable competition for a much larger percentage of players. This has been proven when comparing the results of smaller and larger worlds.
Quote from: Sigma on June 13, 2010, 06:31:50 PM
In a larger world it is easier for your initial airline to survive. A much larger percentage of the players develop at much similar rates than in smaller worlds where a smaller number of players dominate everything and eventually force most players out and/or relegate them to smaller positions. However, in a larger world it is more difficult to start again because so many of the airports are full of at least one, and often multiple carriers.
I don't see it is easier for initial airline to survive in big game. Nomination and forcing people out will only happen when peoples operating at the same base or the same route. But this will happen only when the game is crowded and people squeeze themselves together. In a small game, with the same amount of airports available, at least peoples got more choice to set up their HQ and won't clash with other players so soon. It is easier to survive in small game.
I wouldn't mind another game like Early days myself or one that covers the period from props to jets like Jet Age only starting earlier (50's?) or something where you can begin like many real airlines did by using war-surplus props and working your way up (if you choose to).
So, after a long thread of discussion, when is the next game?
System update is not so important because it can be done slowly. What we want at this moment is simply another game world opened. :)