this has been the best airline simulation so far, but due to the new implements mainly the amount of players per game world it lost its interest.
550 players is far too much for a world and too much greed....
the new engine works fine delaying a lot the growth of the companies which makes it much more real, altough it is still a few steps down to another of its competitors.
unfortunatelly due to whatever factors Sami didnt ear the disapointment of a lot of players in regard of the amount of players, it is not the issue of not being successfull, because as my record proves i can do that.
i will keep on eye for new worlds, and IF the amount of players is reduced i may spend a few more ££ in the game, otherwise i will al;ocate the funds to the competition, which let me say, it is great.
wish you all good luck
and ill see you all again if some issued are corrected!
kind regards
Carlos Carlos
I agree with carlos. The current games are too long and too full. It's not about not being able to find a good spot it's also about the fun in the game. Fact is that most people find it more fun to run a big airline. If you have to wait a millennium for your new planes, that takes the fun away. Also a simple math showes that with the new multiple hub thing if every player on average has 1 new hub, that means 1100 airports are taken.
The high amount of players just causes too much side problems other than just to find an airport you would like to play at. I'm not going to spend money to play some african regional airline or to start a new airline in the US or Europe with 1 million players and big players who have a lot of power.
Why not run three similar games with around 200/250 players. I'm sure it's possible to block people from entering the same gameworld. For example if you open ATB 1, 2 and 3 a player is only allowed to join one of them. This way you got the same amount of players but it makes it a lot more interesting to start over or to jump in half way.
Just my thoughts as I too will quit AWS as soon as my credits run out next week.
Personnally i don't see the problem, plenty of scope for profitable airlines in current worlds. You think it's boring now well i think it would be absolutly tedious if you restricted the worlds any more.
We can't all be in the top 20 airports but there are still 1000's of decent airports to chose from.
I didn't say it was boring. What I'm saying is that I want my games to be fun and I don't find it funny to run an African regional carrier. Blessums to all who do but not me..
Quote from: ban2 on June 08, 2010, 05:39:08 PM
Personnally i don't see the problem, plenty of scope for profitable airlines in current worlds. You think it's boring now well i think it would be absolutly tedious if you restricted the worlds any more.
We can't all be in the top 20 airports but there are still 1000's of decent airports to chose from.
X2 ...
Case in point, I decided to restart in MT2 about 4 1/2 years into the game and found a great regional airport in Mexico that is now yielding more than $2 million net profit per week, 150,000+ pax per month ... and all with a fleet of just 11 aircraft. Granted, I've already maxed out my expansion possibilities from this airport as there is no international demand to speak of, but I look forward to continuing on with my little airline just to see how efficient and profitable I can make it for the long-haul. the "fun" of AWS for me isn't about how quickly I can expand or how big I can make my airline ... it's about how successful I can be at running it. And I have to disagree with the statement that "most people find it more fun to run a big airline" ... I think most people just want to run a "successful" airline. And being successful doesn't necessarily mean being big.
Quote from: Dasha on June 08, 2010, 05:03:51 PM
I agree with carlos. The current games are too long and too full. It's not about not being able to find a good spot it's also about the fun in the game. Fact is that most people find it more fun to run a big airline. If you have to wait a millennium for your new planes, that takes the fun away. Also a simple math showes that with the new multiple hub thing if every player on average has 1 new hub, that means 1100 airports are taken.
The high amount of players just causes too much side problems other than just to find an airport you would like to play at. I'm not going to spend money to play some african regional airline or to start a new airline in the US or Europe with 1 million players and big players who have a lot of power.
Why not run three similar games with around 200/250 players. I'm sure it's possible to block people from entering the same gameworld. For example if you open ATB 1, 2 and 3 a player is only allowed to join one of them. This way you got the same amount of players but it makes it a lot more interesting to start over or to jump in half way.
Just my thoughts as I too will quit AWS as soon as my credits run out next week.
+1
I like what GoGreen is saying, it is actually more fun sometimes to start alittle after the game started and to find alternative ways to expand the airline.
If you find the game boring dont look for an airport to be alone, look for one with plenty of slots and demand and room to expand. If you grow in a smart way you can take marketshare and push the other players out too even if it wont happen overnight. Many big airlines will go down in just a couple of years too.
I think the entire game engine needs a good overhaul to support other types of playing this game.
Make it possible for people to operate an airline with any type of ac. This does include the Cessna "Grand caravan", Fairchild Metro or other flying toasters as the Islander.
Make it possible for people to select their game type when they start up their airline.
Type 1: Airline with Ac's up to max 45 pax. (you will receive discount on the staff levels and marketing payments) and you can open a hub every 6 months. But Cat 5 airports will be excluded and airport slots at EGLL or EHAM for example will be four times higher in value as you run smaller planes.
Type 2: Airlines with planes from 50 pax to the A380
Type 3: LCC. Something I described here: https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,19948.msg108145.html#msg108145
Type 4: Business jet airlines.
Type 5: Cargo airlines
Type 6: Charter airlines.
hi again,
it is not the issue of not being all in the top 20 airports as ban2 says...the model needs to be re-thought in my opinion.
ill take the comment of ban2 to give u an example. all companies can create a 2nd hub to fly from once they have 15 planes, if my memory doesnt fail.
starting @ 1 of the top 20 airports will grow faster, at least in theory. when it comes to the time of creating a 2nd hub, it cant be made at the biggest 20 hubs on each continent. point 1, the 1st 20 hubs are kind of protected as they know nobody will fly from there as 2nds. the other 300 players that decided to go to secondary airports, then get hammered by the hot shot companies that had a magestic growth and decided to create a 2nd hub, at their original 1st hub. if the poor guy @ the secondary airport has 5 os 6 planes, being used in 7 or 8 routes, will get in trouble as soon as somebody decides to create a 2nd hub where they originally started.so the game is ok for the 1st 200 players....the other 350 try to create a airline and will have fun until someone decides to go to their hub...after that forget it. 300/350 pax would do the job, more than that kills the chance of some1 else to be successfull.
i had a regional airline in the new atb, was doing great with 7 atr's, making 300k a week each, giving me a pre tax profit of 1.5 mll....but taht is as far as u can go....for you to expand would need to get other types of plane for sh, and what could you get....max 1.500nm, where all the sharks have have already take over the routes, that could eventually be profitable for you.
you create the route, flying it once a day has it has a demand of 120 pax...where the other player as soon as he seen some1 much smaller is in the route, just adds one more plane to the route....
being 5/10 pax b4 it is considered flood....
there are a lot of corners in the game that will need to be filled, so they get smoother....
the answer to that is to add in player capacity for the income to keep comming in, yeah, some will go, new ones will come back!
there should have been given another choice for the players to be able to choose from a 300pax game or a canned sardines one.
dont get me wrong, i accept everyones views, but understand, im entitled to mine!
regards
Have to sisagree on that one.
I opened two other hubs and just recently I moved into Gatwick which is now my fourth hub airport. And I am the second airliner in there. Its eating or being eaten in this game.
And I will eat. If I find a good hub and that means competition I will try to eat your airline.
Quote from: Dasha on June 08, 2010, 05:03:51 PM
Also a simple math showes that with the new multiple hub thing if every player on average has 1 new hub, that means 1100 airports are taken.
Sorry but this is not a singleplayer "one airport - one player" type game. One airline at an airport or hub does not mean that it is unusable.
There are hundreds of airports to choose from and there is no need to start in JFK, LHR or similar every time. The player number also acts as another measure against too rapid growth of airlines, and there will not be global scenarios with around 200-250 max. players (excl. beginner worlds) as THAT is boring very quickly. But of course if the start year is earlier (= lower demands on pax) then also player numbers will be smaller, for example 200 when starting in 1960s .. or something that way.
(oh, and what Maarten O said about airline types is planned, search for "business plans" in feature rq. forum)
(oh #2.. the suggestion that added player number is done because of extra income or greed, like original poster said, is nearly an insult in my mind, since that could not be farther from the truth. 500pl. worlds exist, and will be the standard, since the world in the sim is really a big place and there is space for sure for that amount of players.)
well, u cant please everyone....you win some u lose some!
good luck with that is all i can do is wish you good luck!
Quote from: carloscarlos on June 07, 2010, 10:54:01 PM
550 players is far too much for a world and too much greed....
I am not an airline specialist or someone with alot of experience in flying, nor have any relationship with AWS developers and I can be slammed as much as I can but there are more than 3000 thousand airlines in the real world. This game is the most realistic in the airline management market and if you want it to be more realistic, I would say to raise the number of players to 3000. The competitors that you mentioned, I will rate them as an arcade game, just smash and win the game. They are not anywhere close to being realistic. I played most of them, you dont need any tactics, economy or expansion strategy in them. Not to mention most of the airlines in the real world doesn't have 200-300 planes. A 20 plane airline is called as an airline. But for the ones that have more than 1000 planes and be the biggest, there is the Airline Tycoon for PC.
Quote from: sami on June 08, 2010, 08:21:16 PM
Sorry but this is not a singleplayer "one airport - one player" type game. One airline at an airport or hub does not mean that it is unusable.
There are hundreds of airports to choose from and there is no need to start in JFK, LHR or similar every time. The player number also acts as another measure against too rapid growth of airlines, and there will not be global scenarios with around 200-250 max. players (excl. beginner worlds) as THAT is boring very quickly. But of course if the start year is earlier (= lower demands on pax) then also player numbers will be smaller, for example 200 when starting in 1960s .. or something that way.
I didn't mean to insult anybody and I disagree with the greed issue stated by Carlos. Sami did a great job in getting this game up and running and for that he has my respect. It is just
my personall opinion what I stated before. I'm very happy that people like Maarten Otta are succesfull and keeping other players from having succes by starting a base at their home bose. For me, after having played some game worlds here, running a small company with three jets for 4 months (It's how long the game worlds are still running) is not my idea of a fun game. That doesn't mean the game in general is bad, quite the contrary.
In a game with 500 players or more it will soon turn into a survival of the fittest. Planes become rare and waiting times are long. I do understand it is a measure against the mega growth shown by players in previous worlds but those few lucky enough to make a big profit right from the start get the bigger orders and get their planes earlier, whereas smaller companies will have to wait years for their planes and when they finally arrive, the routes are taken. Smaller airlines are stuck with the used market and although this can be rewarding for some, I have been there a couple games in a row. Mind you this is not only about the planes being unavailable for a long time, it's also about unfair competition, when a mega big company decides to base at your home airport and starts undermining your whole operation.
So hopefully there will be full game worlds with less than 500 players in the future so I can enjoy this game again.
Yes, what I commented to your reply was that way too often people think right that way that "oh noes, there is someone else at this airport, I cannot beat him at all". While you possibly cannot beat him, it still does not mean that you could not survive and have a working airline there. So the counting that "500 airlines + 500 bases => 1000+ occupied airports" is very incorrect in that way.
Also, ain't every game world the survival of the fittest, no matter if it's 1000 or 200 airlines? With less airlines the mega carriers just form much much faster and lead to even worse world domination with several 300-400+ aircraft airlines.
How many airports are included in the game? How many airports are really capable to base an airline and let the airline make profit from it?? Is anyone willing to start an airline in an airport having almost 0 passenger demand??
3000 real airlines in the world. How many of them flying charter and seasonal flight? How many of them flying less than 10 aircraft? Is the airlines in real world expanding as easy as in AWS and dominate the market as easy as AWS? Is a player really want to play his game by maintaining a fleet of 10 aircraft in a small airport?
Quote from: GDK on June 09, 2010, 10:41:30 AM
How many airports are included in the game? How many airports are really capable to base an airline and let the airline make profit from it?? Is anyone willing to start an airline in an airport having almost 0 passenger demand??
So you are talking about airports like this one in Malaysia, Redang (WMPR - RDN)? 3 departures per hour and 60% domestic + 40% shorthaul. But I just can't find a route having demand above 30 from that airport.
I sort of agree with both sides here.
I think that most of MT2 and V1.2 is great. I love the new hub feature, and I don't mind the # of players. It makes for interesting competition.
The one think I don't like about V1.2 is the order restriction that restricts how fast you receive your new planes. Back in DOTM, I enjoyed getting on AWS after a one week vacation and having 100+ 737s to schedule. It was fun! But now, I usually have to wait. The longer day time makes it even worse.
Everything else is great though, and I plan to continue AWS.
People seem very afraid of choosing smaller airports. You can still lead a succesfull and healthy airline at a small airport with a smaller number of planes.
And some competition (even though its often unfair) is only good for the gameplay.
can I have all your stuff?
It seems to me that the underlying "issue" here is rooted in the frustration of, a: wanting to start an airline from scratch at the very beginning of a game world when the playing field is level for all, and, b: having an initial plan that gets thrown out the window when competition happens faster than you had planned, and, c: having to try to restart at a smaller, more remote airport in order to be "left alone" for a while while you build your fledgling airline. I understand this because it has happened to me in every game world thus far. And it is very frustrating. But, what I have learned and come to accept is that AWS is sort of like a river with many different currents all flowing through the same space. As players, we all find ourselves in one current or another with regard to how we want to play the game. Some players like its fast and furious in the "whitewater rapids". Others would like to find a nice, quiet eddy somewhere that allows them to move at a slower, more calculated pace (me ;D). Those who seem to be most frustrated are the "quiet eddy" players who want the game to start at a slower pace but also want the ability to shoot out into the whitewater once they are confident they can survive it. I don't know that this will ever be possible to achieve in the way of rules or gameplay dictates because if you "dam up" the river to slow the pace initially then the "whitewater" players are bored with it right from the start.
My suggestion is this: first of all (and no offense to Sami here) we need a more complete game manual that helps level the playing field between those who have learned how to navigate the intricacies of AWS through trial and error and those who are way behind the curve because of inexperience. Second, players need to identify where their level and style of play "fits" within each game world when it comes to choosing bases and developing a strategy. AWS is a very complex and dynamic game and an inexperienced player just doesn't have much chance of going head-to-head with the experience of the top 10-20 players, particularly if you are a "quiet eddy" player. Avoid the frustration of this by not attempting it in the first place. Or, if you want to learn by trial and error like the more experienced players have, then make sure you have the stomach for the failures you will encounter in the process.
In short, I think it is an unfair expectation that AWS and all its players be made to conform to a strict set of parameters that don't allow the "good" players room to grow as big and as fast as they can but I also think that the game should "create" the quiet eddys and pools that the less experienced or slower paced players need to be able to enjoy it as well. I think Sami is doing a great job of moving AWS toward this - we all just need to show some patience as it develops.
I think the initial motive of carloscarlos opening this thread is to express his opinion on multihub+number of players. He is saying that multihub+550 players in ATB seems to be a bit too crowded and making the game too competitive. He is requesting to open more game with less players instead of putting 550 players to cut down the competition (or maybe dominations and bully) to create more rooms for 'poor players'.
Yes,it might be due to frustration mentioned by GoGreenCEO. But if you have been running a healthy airline in a medium size airport and play the game happily with normal competition, suddenly there come a big shark who have been operating a mega size fleet in another hub and he just throw his cash to compete with you in every route regardless of the revenue, how could you survive that? They have a strong fleet that generate too many money for them and they don't mind to lose some cash in a newly opened hub. After they get rid of the competitors there, the market is theirs and they will earn back. This is where the frustration starts.
Assuming you are running your airport in a medium size airport with normal competition on startup. Then, the competition is getting tougher when peoples starting creating their 2nd hub at your base airport. Well, everyone is gentlemen and no domination or bully happening hee. But just too bad, you can't expand anymore due to lack of airport slots. Then you got to wait, saving enough money to open your 2nd hub. By the time you saving money, other people have been opening their base at your 2nd desired airport. Again, your expansion is limited. This is another source of frustration.
Quote from: GDK on June 09, 2010, 06:10:54 PM
I think the initial motive of carloscarlos opening this thread is to express his opinion on multihub+number of players. He is saying that multihub+550 players in ATB seems to be a bit too crowded and making the game too competitive. He is requesting to open more game with less players instead of putting 550 players to cut down the competition (or maybe dominations and bully) to create more rooms for 'poor players'.
Yes,it might be due to frustration mentioned by GoGreenCEO. But if you have been running a healthy airline in a medium size airport and play the game happily with normal competition, suddenly there come a big shark who have been operating a mega size fleet in another hub and he just throw his cash to compete with you in every route regardless of the revenue, how could you survive that? They have a strong fleet that generate too many money for them and they don't mind to lose some cash in a newly opened hub. After they get rid of the competitors there, the market is theirs and they will earn back. This is where the frustration starts.
Assuming you are running your airport in a medium size airport with normal competition on startup. Then, the competition is getting tougher when peoples starting creating their 2nd hub at your base airport. Well, everyone is gentlemen and no domination or bully happening hee. But just too bad, you can't expand anymore due to lack of airport slots. Then you got to wait, saving enough money to open your 2nd hub. By the time you saving money, other people have been opening their base at your 2nd desired airport. Again, your expansion is limited. This is another source of frustration.
This is why I suggested in another thread a couple weeks ago that one way to keep the "whitewater rapids" for some players while creating the "quiet eddy's" for others is to regulate hub creation so that an airline cannot open a new hub in any airport that has a smaller classification than his starting base (i.e., if you open in a Class 4 airport then all your future hubs must be Class 4 or 5). This would help keep the big international carriers from spilling over into the smaller national and regional markets and would force the big guys to go head-to-head if they intend to continue expanding. I think this, coupled with the ramp and hub improvements already in the works, would help to create a gaming environment more hospitable to all player/strategy/airline types.
The long and short of all this is that there needs to be some broad regulation that is easily understandable and universally implemented (i.e., not on a country or economic area basis, but on a global basis - the same rules apply to everyone). Nothing quite like this exists in the real world today but, for the sake of playability, I think there needs to be some AWS Regulations that diverge from reality somewhat to create the multi-faceted gaming environment everyone seems to be looking for.
Yea I read that, and I do agree even though not completely
Quote from: sami on June 08, 2010, 08:21:16 PM
Sorry but this is not a singleplayer "one airport - one player" type game. One airline at an airport or hub does not mean that it is unusable.
There are hundreds of airports to choose from and there is no need to start in JFK, LHR or similar every time. The player number also acts as another measure against too rapid growth of airlines, and there will not be global scenarios with around 200-250 max. players (excl. beginner worlds) as THAT is boring very quickly. But of course if the start year is earlier (= lower demands on pax) then also player numbers will be smaller, for example 200 when starting in 1960s .. or something that way.
(oh, and what Maarten O said about airline types is planned, search for "business plans" in feature rq. forum)
(oh #2.. the suggestion that added player number is done because of extra income or greed, like original poster said, is nearly an insult in my mind, since that could not be farther from the truth. 500pl. worlds exist, and will be the standard, since the world in the sim is really a big place and there is space for sure for that amount of players.)
I agree with this. A year or so ago, I was in a game in which the number of players dwindled to around 150. It was less interesting than with the higher number of players in my opinion. In the current Modern Times game, I joined late, and decided to open in Tunis, which is not a very big airport. I have since grown to adding bases in Monastir and even Djerba, and now have one of the top valued airlines in the game (I am on page 1), and it is very profitable. I found it to be a fun challenge to open in a tougher area.
I definitely support games with 500 players. I like competition and this 1.2 games are fun.
No matter a 300 or 500 players game, it will not fun at the end when people starts to quit.
Either because they have achieved their target, or they are too huge and too bored, or frustrated because never got a money maker airline.
The only fun game is when all the 300 or 500 players stay active in the game from the beginning till the end.
Based Taipei Songshan (52%)
Founded: 01-Sep-2004
Game ends on 01-Jan-2010
So, I started MT2 14 years after others, and I'm creating a pretty decent run. 10 A306's, and 5 own S2000's. That's all. And I am making 1,5million daily profit, with over half a million monthly passengers. I was, actually, going to open a second hub, but after thinkin', I decided to just make this 15-headed fleet as profitable as possible.
So the next thing for me is to buy those ten A306's, and maybe, if any gametime is left, then I will open another base at Kaohsiung.
And, the next thing for you quitters, just keep looking. I think there are hundreds of good airports open with zero competition. Even 40% will do well, but under that, things can go quite small-scaled.
i think its hard to please everyone, and AWS has made a good job at finding a happy medium IMO, obviously some people are gonna be a bit upset with it all but hey you vote with your money in this game.
Quote from: jest on June 14, 2010, 08:30:34 PM
I definitely support games with 500 players. I like competition and this 1.2 games are fun.
Jipp, I am loving it as well and I personally found no difficulty in growing regional airline models as well as national carriers and there are many other players as well. I like the competition with 550 players as well. I do not believe that growth depends on the airport size, especially at the beginning. There are other factors that are more important. Opening hubs with a big freedom of choice is exactly what this game needed and we have it now. Learning the key success factors can be done and there are many players like swiftus or myself who are always keen to offer help and advice.
Denis
Quote from: jest on June 14, 2010, 08:30:34 PM
I definitely support games with 500 players. I like competition and this 1.2 games are fun.
I dont mind 500 players but defo not 35 mins a game day , its way way too slow :'(