Hello,
I'm not one to usually complain, however I do feel severly let down with AirwaySim since recently
joining the game worlds.
Having played the Demo game ( in a fashion ), I wondered how anyone could amass so many millions
in just one week of game play considering that we are all supposed to be novices? Anyhow I was bitten
by the bug and with hopes of grandure as to the Business Empire that lay ahead I signed up, duly entered
my credit card details and sat back to enjoy the Aviation world.
My choice of arena was Beginners World 11, the emphasis being so I thought on the word Beginner.
By the time I joined the game it had been playing for some time, but I did find myself a nice start base
with various airlines using, but nobody based at. Shortly after setting up I was joined by another airline
who just went about their business like myself, but then We were joined by another Airline who had
obviously used up all the slots at their airport and were going to start taking over the world, to this I
mean they didn't really start any new route of their own, they just LEACHED that of others by placing
flights 10mins ahead and 10mins after our flights, I move to a new route, they do the same. Now I know
some will say thats what real airlines do, ( Fair Comment ), however I was forced to move and Start again,
and after a short while along came this airline again and yep, bang went my income so I moved again
and same thing, up to the point I exhausted my re-starts.
MY GRIPE IS THIS:.... This Person has been with AIRWAYSIM for a very Considerable Time, so why are
they playing in Beginners world?. I can't get back in to play unless I wait 5 months, but somehow don't
think that this person has been away for that time!.?
I have been forced to join Dawn of the Millennium, its 1989, I wasn't able or so I gather to check in
any detail as to whether this game had slots at airports to use or a huge concern is the drastically
unrealistic passenger demands between certain airports, I understand the game would be boring if
it were so easy, BUT COME ON, it seems silly, I'm now in a game where I can't go any where
because there aren't any slot's or no passengers, making this game a no go.
I wasn't warned when I parted with my Credits that the game world was all but in-practical
for me to join.
I joined AirwaySim after frequently seeing an advert in a Reputable Airline magazine, I never thought
I would be paying out not to be able to play or just simply to be bullied by sombody who clearly
has been playing the game for some considerable time and gets their kicks out of seeing off
those who dare try to join this game world to have fun.
I realise I have said some stern things, but these are my opinions, nobody elses, HOWEVER, I
would like to be CORRECTED in my opinions, Constructifully rather than Sarcasticly, and would like
to be guided in the way the game is played. I do Know that this is supposed to be a game
of Stratergy, but it is also supposed to be fun and hopfully addictive.
THANK YOU for reading my concerned rants. I would like to think that this is a Genuine Forum
where peoples views can be correctly addressed, and I look forward to your Guidance.
I shall now step down from my soapbox.
Cheers,
Steve.
Sorry your experience of AWS so far has not been the fun you expected. Unfortunately, some players do get kicks out of making it hard for new players. If indeed one player did follow you around and replicated what you were doing to make it hard for you to get a foothold, then they are breaking the rules - the game developer frowns upon such tactics so it should be reported.
However, it is possible to start a game half way through as you have with Dawn of the Millennium. It is tricky sometimes, but of you spend some time looking for a small or medium size airport that is a little under the radar you can build a reasonable airline. Obviously, the big airports will be hard work for the reasons you stated (slots, competition etc). As you're a new player you should focus on learning the workings of the game which you should have been allowed to do in the Beginners game, so the big competitive airports should be avoided.
Don't write off AWS just yet... if you give it time and patience I am sure you can enjoy like many of us do ;D
Likewise, sorry to hear about your bad experiences.
Like NorgeFly pointed out, it is forbidden in rules to purposely open new bases/routes just to drive (new) companies bankrupt. So you might wish to report the player in question to Sami and tell closer about your experiences. Unfortunately, there likely will be no consequence for now, since you have already left the game world and have no proof, but perhaps you might be able to help new players by asking Sami to keep a look out for the player.
As for joining existing worlds, it is a continuing debate whether it's doable or not. The main things people have suggested in succeeding include:
- excellent expense management (this includes sticking to 1 fleet type, keeping staff/salary as low as possible [100%, manual], only leasing 'cheap' aircraft, etc. )
- small enough airplanes (ATR or the like is dynamite when competing against jets)
- frequency (fly to as few destinations as many times as possible - when you fly there more frequently than your competitor, the more pax you'll get from him)
- keeping ticket prices on standard (of course, ~-10% initially when RI < 100%)
- reasonable marketing (CI of 30-50 should be sufficient. The fewer destinations you have, the cheaper the marketing and greater the effect for same money)
There are a lot more, but those are what I can think to be the most viable ones to think about. When choosing your base or aircraft, use the strategies mentioned in the Manual and forums.
Finally, about the improvements you mentioned...
It's been suggested, that players be able to see the world they are about to join before they pay, but there's no mention from Sami whether he'll implement that.
And, currently, a new passenger demand model is being created, which should give a much more realistic passenger figures, and perhaps even connecting passengers. More about this on the Features- section of the forums.
I hope you'll have a great experience here from now on, and feel free to ask anything that's still bothering your mind!
AWS is still pretty much my personal project, and I've been developing it for many years now. And it's of course always sad to see someone who hasn't been satisfied on what the project has been able to offer .. Though as you may know this isn't a completely finished project by any means yet since new features and refinements are made all the time.
Some answers:
- Beginner world may be joined by players who have not played in any AWS game worlds recently. The date of registration to the site is irrelevant, but the system rather looks at your actual play history at the site.
The restriction to BW scenarios is: "You can only join this game world if you have played in the Free Trial (demo) game world, or you have played in previous Beginner Worlds only for a limited time (less than 5 weeks), or you have last played AirwaySim over 5 months ago." (copypaste from the error message that 'experienced' users see)
In other words the guy may have been absent from AWS let's say 6 months, and then he is entitled to join the BW again. But for the record; the game rules state that deliberately targeting other airlines with the aim to bankrupt them is not allowed (ref: https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Manual/General/Rules/#Competition ); so a report to us would have been appropriate. But since that's too late now you could at least PM the player's details to me and I can take a quick look at his operations.
- For the remark about route demands, I don't see the point really since you didn't give any specific details. The DOTM game world happens in the past, 1989, so the general allover air travel demand is much lower than in 2010 for example. Secondly there is no possibility to simulate all of world's air routes with realistic pax demands, and that is not the intention either (some routes have actual real data in the background while majority is purely calculated from various data elements that we have).
- You do have the option to check for available airports (slots & number of airlines there basically) but the ability to do this before committing to join the world is still lacking; and it has been requested some months ago. The whole process of creating an airline will go thru some changes in next version and it would be suitable to implement the 'world preview' to this same change too I think, but I have not drafted plans for it yet.
---
edit: seems that I repeated what others said. Should read the replies first.. :P
Hello,
Thanks Guys for the positive replies. It says a lot about a Forum and a Game when people
take the trouble to reply in a genuinly concerned way rather than to rant back with
" well thats the game " etc.
I realise after the event I should maybe have complained, but as I said " I'm not one to complain ",
but I do realise that re loadings etc all take time to iron out, I just thought I suppose that
I could just jump in and become another Freddie or d***ie, but I guess they had their ups
and downs as well, so I shall dust myself down and and soldier on. From little acorns......
or so my granny used to say just prior to being sectioned.
Once again Guys Thanks a lot ( its not every game that the boss gets involved in ), Your
re-assurance is great, the game is great and I need to walk before I can run. I look forward
to playing once again, and who knows my airline may be coming to an airport near you soon.
Cheers,
Steve.
Quote from: sadanorak on January 31, 2011, 10:45:05 PM
Hello,
Thanks Guys for the positive replies. It says a lot about a Forum and a Game when people
take the trouble to reply in a genuinly concerned way rather than to rant back with
" well thats the game " etc.
I realise after the event I should maybe have complained, but as I said " I'm not one to complain ",
but I do realise that re loadings etc all take time to iron out, I just thought I suppose that
I could just jump in and become another Freddie or d***ie, but I guess they had their ups
and downs as well, so I shall dust myself down and and soldier on. From little acorns......
or so my granny used to say just prior to being sectioned.
Once again Guys Thanks a lot ( its not every game that the boss gets involved in ), Your
re-assurance is great, the game is great and I need to walk before I can run. I look forward
to playing once again, and who knows my airline may be coming to an airport near you soon.
Cheers,
Steve.
Hey Steve,
sorry to hear that you had some bad experiences mate, but as all said, hang in and play a few demos and you will ove this game. Need any help, just PM any members who have been long enough (like us) or just post a thread as you did.
Help is never far and slow here. Feel free and PM us, hope you enjoy the game. One more suggestion (personal) mate don't start where you heart is- start where there is potential and money (that's what I have personally experienced here).
Good luck, all the best.
Cheers
VJC
Quote from: V.Castelino on January 31, 2011, 11:38:01 PM
One more suggestion (personal) mate don't start where you heart is- start where there is potential and money (that's what I have personally experienced here).
Some of the most important advice on this board. My first game, I started in Rapid City, SD (my hometown). Big mistake. Another game, I ordered 50 Antonov 140s (I'm 1/2 Ukrainian). Also a big mistake. Ruined my airline. And, you can't have your dream airline dominate at Heathrow or Frankfurt. There's no chance of that. Choose a smarter base, and order smart aircraft, and you'll do great.
:)
Hey
Like others said before, there is way to succeed in AWS even when you are entering a fierce world. I joined the Modern Times 3, and it's been some time since I last played AWS, so I needed a bit of re-adaptation time.
The best advice I could give you when you want to develop in a crowded game is to enter it with a given base, analyze what the game world looks like and then close it for a more valid one.
Second thing, and key in AWS : Long-haul flights (more than 2000 nm) generate much more income than short-flights for an identical period of time. Therefore, you should base yourself at a long-haul distance of a big airport (so that you have a lot of route demand), and develop through it with one used long-haul aircraft. Develop this route first, and expand afterwards. That's a good starting point.
I found a secondary airport in Japan. Nowadays, I'm rising nicely even if there is a tough competitor there. It's all a matter of expense management and which routes to offer. Really, you can make it.
good luck
Just to let you know it can be done even mid-game with a little luck and a couple of learning experiances - and that although long-haul is great there are oppotunities to make some very nice regional airlines - here is my potted history (I started this game cycle, a couple of months back):
1st ever airline, DotM early 1983 - GoFly UK - London Luton, flying some horrible russian props and a knackered 707B - crashed and burned ::)
2nd, DotM late 1983 - SkyFly EU - Faro (Portugal) - did ok using HS 748s and 727-200Adv- made some horrible miscalculations on a second base, burned :'(
3rd, DotM 1988 (!) - Air Bahr Al-Ahmar - Hurgarda, Egypt - grew very quickly with ATPs and BAC 1-11s, just opened a second base using EMB 120ERs ;D
Good luck!
Quote from: sadanorak on January 31, 2011, 10:45:05 PM
Thanks Guys for the positive replies. It says a lot about a Forum and a Game when people
take the trouble to reply in a genuinly concerned way rather than to rant back with
" well thats the game " etc.
I think that's partly down to your well reasoned post rather than ranting and using Caps like most do :)
I personally would like to see a ranking system where you can see how good players are. This would allow games to also be ranked were the really top players can not play in the game world and thus give us little people more of a chance. I am not sure how easy or difficult it would be to implement as the better players should be rewarded for their skill as well.
One tip I do have for sadanorak is to message players in the game and ask them questions. Example: I asked Tiger Wong who is based in Tampa in Modern Times 3 why he was only flying one type of aircraft and why he picked that type of aircaft. He came back with a very nice reply explaining why to me and it great helped me in the game. Of course I had to Bankrupt first as what I was currently doing with my airline was completely wrong :-[ but that is not the point. :P
I also think that some people do not know AWS is a game. Example In MT3 I am based at Fort Myers and I was flying to Atlanta as there was passenger demand and its only 500 miles away. A few game days later JumboShrimp had ramped up his flights to Fort Myers meaning there was no passengers left at all. Now I don't know JumboShrimp but I doubt he is a bad person but I do wonder why he felt threatened by a brand new airline flying in to his main hub when his airline is worth over $53 Million and has over 650 planes. How on earth can I as new player to the game hurt him?
Thanks
Lost
Quote from: LostInBKK on February 02, 2011, 12:35:04 AM
I also think that some people do not know AWS is a game. Example In MT3 I am based at Fort Myers and I was flying to Atlanta as there was passenger demand and its only 500 miles away. A few game days later JumboShrimp had ramped up his flights to Fort Myers meaning there was no passengers left at all. Now I don't know JumboShrimp but I doubt he is a bad person but I do wonder why he felt threatened by a brand new airline flying in to his main hub when his airline is worth over $53 Million and has over 650 planes. How on earth can I as new player to the game hurt him?
By taking slots in his (err... my) airport. Lack of slots makes people do evil things...
Edit:
I look at it this way: You take away my slots, I take away your profits. You can find profit elsewhere by returning the slots. So in the end you can have your profits, and I can have my slots. If the slots were not a zero sum game, I could live with a few smaller airlines flying into my hub. But the fact that the slots are a zero sum game forces me to defend them all.
(Well, lately I have been slacking off...)
Sami, JumboShrimp is being horrible to me and not playing nice :'(
Quote from: JumboShrimp on February 02, 2011, 03:54:18 AM
You take away my slots, I take away your profits. You can find profit elsewhere by returning the slots. So in the end you can have your profits, and I can have my slots. If the slots were not a zero sum game, I could live with a few smaller airlines flying into my hub. But the fact that the slots are a zero sum game forces me to defend them all.
Sorry but what is this? YOUR slots etc..?
No sir, the open slots are not "your" slots and you have NO right to attack other players just because they have opened a route or base that takes away "your" slots that you may have intended to use in the future.
If your airline does not own & use the slots then they are not yours and you have no right to even consider them yours now or in the future if your airline does not possess them presently! Any unused slots are free and available for ANYONE to take. Simple...
(this type of behaviour in the game is exactly what I am fully against, and it is also against the rules. >:( )
I am not talking about JumboShrimp.
But this is what he has said is the general attitude of players of the game. They don't see that people come late to the gameworlds or that people are not as good at the game as themselves. All they see is a new airline flying to their base. This is completely different to someone starting in the same airport as you at the start of a game when of course its open warfare. It's not the same as larger airline setting a base at your main hub again this is open warfare.
How you police what people are up to Sami is beyond me and not a job I would like. But AWS is very difficult game to get to grips with as n00b if it were not for the invaluable help give to me by Jona L. and jumbo Mouse I would certainly have given up on AWS a few months ago.
I am not talking about JumboShrimp.
Quote from: LostInBKK on February 02, 2011, 12:00:57 PM
I am not talking about JumboShrimp.
But this is what he has said is the general attitude of players of the game. They don't see that people come late to the gameworlds or that people are not as good at the game as themselves. All they see is a new airline flying to their base. This is completely different to someone starting in the same airport as you at the start of a game when of course its open warfare. It's not the same as larger airline setting a base at your main hub again this is open warfare.
How you police what people are up to Sami is beyond me and not a job I would like. But AWS is very difficult game to get to grips with as n00b if it were not for the invaluable help give to me by Jona L. and jumbo Mouse I would certainly have given up on AWS a few months ago.
I am not talking about JumboShrimp.
Thanks for the flowers, mate!
You know I like helping others :)
EVERYONE IS WELCOME TO ASK ME ANYTHING ABOUT THIS GAME I will try to answer it at my best knowledge :)
regards, and good luck to you all
Jona L.
You have to remember an airline that has a base will naturally want to aquire a lot of slots, and maintain the ability to grow. As such, they may well change strategy to gobble up slots when someone else bases at the airport they are at.
Case in point, I am a late-starter at the moment, from 1988 onward, and therefore a small fish. Flying Carpets, a huge airline worth 30x my value took a third base and moved in on my airport. You can bet as soon as they did that I took loans to the hilt, and added a heap of aircraft on any viable route to eat up the remaining slot pool, knowing that if I didn't the slots would very likely be used to compete against my routes, and that I would have no chances to expand at my HQ.
So small airlines can do it to big ones too :laugh:
In general though, the best bet is mnot to set up at an airport with an airlien already there, certainlly if they are a larger one. It just asks for trouble. Of course, if they move in on you, it is harder, but not as I have shown impossible.
Personally, I would welcome airlines being 'protected' for the 18 months after they start until they are allowed a second base, such that no-one else can move in on them - but then again, some players can FILL an airport in 18 months. So maybe for 12 months... hard to say!
But anyway, competition will happen whenever limited resources are available, and slots are just that - limited.
Quote from: LostInBKK on February 02, 2011, 12:00:57 PM
How you police what people are up to Sami is beyond me and not a job I would like. But AWS is very difficult game to get to grips with as n00b if it were not for the invaluable help give to me by Jona L. and jumbo Mouse I would certainly have given up on AWS a few months ago.
There are indeed nice people around. Jona L. helped me in a previous gameworld supplying me with Embraer E-Jets, I'm very thankful to him because of this. Thanks to him, I build up the most successful regional airline I every started.
Quote from: TK1244 on February 02, 2011, 07:40:36 PM
There are indeed nice people around. Jona L. helped me in a previous gameworld supplying me with Embraer E-Jets, I'm very thankful to him because of this. Thanks to him, I build up the most successful regional airline I every started.
You thanked me enough in the game, and playing with you was a pleasure for me.
I hope to see you in coming game worlds also :)
Jona L.
Quote from: sami on February 02, 2011, 11:15:52 AM
Sorry but what is this? YOUR slots etc..?
No sir, the open slots are not "your" slots and you have NO right to attack other players just because they have opened a route or base that takes away "your" slots that you may have intended to use in the future.
If your airline does not own & use the slots then they are not yours and you have no right to even consider them yours now or in the future if your airline does not possess them presently! Any unused slots are free and available for ANYONE to take. Simple...
(this type of behaviour in the game is exactly what I am fully against, and it is also against the rules. >:( )
Re: Targeting players
When a player already flies 94% of the viable routes from a base and goes up to 95% of the routes, it is not exactly targeting. It is just normal progression.
Attacking the route with 10s of Dash-8, supplying just under 200% could be considered targeting, is withing the rules, and it is even encouraged by the game algorithms.
BTW, that is not what I am doing on ATL - FLL route. I am supplying ~100% - 105% of the average demand (below peak Friday demand), and I do so with A320/A321. That can't be by any definition be considered targeting.
Re: Slots
Slots are a critical asset to have, especially because they are finite. Pretending otherwise is, IMO, being in denial.
Speaking hypothetically: When you have a 10s of $200+ million aircraft in the order queue, with intention to fly, say from ATL to Narita, shouldn't the player be concerned that he may not be able to use the aircraft because of lack of slots? Is that against the rules?
Now suppose an "untouchable" new player comes in, hogs the slots in ATL with ATR, Dash-8, EMBs, who is playing within the spirit of the game, the player who wants to fly a very large aircraft from ATL to NRT, or the player who consumes 100s of slots at ATL with small aircraft.
End of hypotheticalSpeaking about actual game, I fly only large and very large aircraft at ATL, do not oversupply routes, and do not hog slots. I certainly could, like others do. If nothing changes with the algorithms (encouraging frequency, slot hogging), I may be forced to join the club...
Quote from: ACDennison on February 02, 2011, 06:12:45 PM
Personally, I would welcome airlines being 'protected' for the 18 months after they start until they are allowed a second base, such that no-one else can move in on them - but then again, some players can FILL an airport in 18 months. So maybe for 12 months... hard to say!
But anyway, competition will happen whenever limited resources are available, and slots are just that - limited.
What do you mean by being 'protected'. That no one can open a base at their HQ, or that their routes are protected somehow?
As far as other larger airline not moving in to the new player's HQ - I am not sure if it makes any sense at all.
First - a new player is one of 500 airlines. The larger airline is not picking on you. You being there did not influence his decision to open a base there ....
QuoteAttacking the route with 10s of Dash-8, supplying just under 200% could be considered targeting, is withing the rules, and it is even encouraged by the game algorithms.
"Attacking" a route is, by definition, not allowed and, depending on the exact circumstances is absolutely not 'within the rules'. There's a reason why the 200% rule and the "no-targetting" rule are 2 separate rules. This isn't a hard concept.
QuoteBTW, that is not what I am doing on ATL - FLL route. I am supplying ~100% - 105% of the average demand (below peak Friday demand), and I do so with A320/A321. That can't be by any definition be considered targeting.
Of course it can. "Targetting" has nothing to do with how much you supply but rather the
reason for why you did it. That's why there's no objective rule or automated system in place to prevent it like there is the 200% rule. It's impossible to determine on a single lone route unless one is boneheadedly stupid enough *cough* to brag about it by admitting to explictly violating a very explicit rule and is usually seen via a concerted effort to 'target' a particular airline by repeatedly hitting their particular routes, either alone or as an alliance. Slamming a newbies routes with 100% is not in violation of the 200% rule but it is in violation of the targetting rule -- any doubt was instantaneously removed when one flat-out comes out and says "I did this to get you off my route" (to paraphrase).
QuoteSpeaking hypothetically: When you have a 10s of $200+ million aircraft in the order queue, with intention to fly, say from ATL to Narita, shouldn't the player be concerned that he may not be able to use the aircraft because of lack of slots? Is that against the rules?
Absolutely. This has already come up and been ruled on. You can only hold slots that you intend to use in the immediate future, 90 days is the timeline I believe before unused slots expire. Holding slots by incessantly renewing them or via excessive flights of small aircraft to later use is also against the rules and is at sami's discretion when a violation has occurred as every situation is different.
QuoteNow suppose an "untouchable" new player comes in, hogs the slots in ATL with ATR, Dash-8, EMBs, who is playing within the spirit of the game, the player who wants to fly a very large aircraft from ATL to NRT, or the player who consumes 100s of slots at ATL with small aircraft. End of hypothetical
The player operating the smaller plane is within the "spirit of the rules" absolutely. Now if he flew a bunch of 9 passenger Cessnas, it's a different story. As long as he is producing a profit (and that means not using other routes to subsidize his 'seizure' of the slots via unprofitable actions) then he is operating not only "within the spirit of the game"
but explicitly with the rules which make this very clear.
Targetting other airlines to protect "your" slots at "your" airport is, first and foremost, a d*** move and by virtue of that absolutely not with the "spirit of the game". You go get a couple-hundred planes on order the fact that there may not be enough slots come delivery is simply a risk that one takes.
QuoteSpeaking about actual game, I fly only large and very large aircraft at ATL, do not oversupply routes, and do not hog slots. I certainly could, like others do. If nothing changes with the algorithms (encouraging frequency, slot hogging), I may be forced to join the club...
Come on, you sound like an immature, spoiled brat.
"NOT FAIR! NOT FAIR!"
"GIMME WHAT I WANT! NOW! NOW! NOW!"
"BUT JIMMY DOES IT!"
First of all, It's a frickin'
game. Secondly, making some sort of elusive pseudo-blackmail threat to sami about how the game better be changed to suit your demands
or else, is probably more stupid than your original braggart comment.
The rules aren't hard. Here's the relevant ones for you:
QuoteAny coordinated "attacks" by single airlines, alliances, or by any other group of airlines, to prevent some airline from operating on a route ... are not allowed.
QuoteThe airline is also forbidden to acquire aircraft and route them so that the only purpose is to get airport slots and preserve them for future use. In practise this would mean routing aircraft to airports and routes that provide no profit .... and later switching the routes to other airports when more suitable aircraft equipment is available.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on February 02, 2011, 09:32:02 PM
Speaking hypothetically: When you have a 10s of $200+ million aircraft in the order queue, with intention to fly, say from ATL to Narita, shouldn't the player be concerned that he may not be able to use the aircraft because of lack of slots? Is that against the rules?
Now suppose an "untouchable" new player comes in, hogs the slots in ATL with ATR, Dash-8, EMBs, who is playing within the spirit of the game, the player who wants to fly a very large aircraft from ATL to NRT, or the player who consumes 100s of slots at ATL with small aircraft. End of hypothetical
If someone does that they should get banned or fined crazy amounts of cash that is also against the fair play of the game.
Quote from: Sigma on February 03, 2011, 12:10:20 AM
"Attacking" a route is, by definition, not allowed and, depending on the exact circumstances is absolutely not 'within the rules'. There's a reason why the 200% rule and the "no-targetting" rule are 2 separate rules. This isn't a hard concept.
Of course it can. "Targetting" has nothing to do with how much you supply but rather the reason for why you did it. That's why there's no objective rule or automated system in place to prevent it like there is the 200% rule. It's impossible to determine on a single lone route unless one is boneheadedly stupid enough *cough* to brag about it by admitting to explictly violating a very explicit rule and is usually seen via a concerted effort to 'target' a particular airline by repeatedly hitting their particular routes, either alone or as an alliance. Slamming a newbies routes with 100% is not in violation of the 200% rule but it is in violation of the targetting rule -- any doubt was instantaneously removed when one flat-out comes out and says "I did this to get you off my route" (to paraphrase).
Absolutely. This has already come up and been ruled on. You can only hold slots that you intend to use in the immediate future, 90 days is the timeline I believe before unused slots expire. Holding slots by incessantly renewing them or via excessive flights of small aircraft to later use is also against the rules and is at sami's discretion when a violation has occurred as every situation is different.
The player operating the smaller plane is within the "spirit of the rules" absolutely. Now if he flew a bunch of 9 passenger Cessnas, it's a different story. As long as he is producing a profit (and that means not using other routes to subsidize his 'seizure' of the slots via unprofitable actions) then he is operating not only "within the spirit of the game" but explicitly with the rules which make this very clear.
Targetting other airlines to protect "your" slots at "your" airport is, first and foremost, a d*** move and by virtue of that absolutely not with the "spirit of the game". You go get a couple-hundred planes on order the fact that there may not be enough slots come delivery is simply a risk that one takes.
Come on, you sound like an immature, spoiled brat.
"NOT FAIR! NOT FAIR!"
"GIMME WHAT I WANT! NOW! NOW! NOW!"
"BUT JIMMY DOES IT!"
First of all, It's a frickin' game. Secondly, making some sort of elusive pseudo-blackmail threat to sami about how the game better be changed to suit your demands or else, is probably more stupid than your original braggart comment.
The rules aren't hard. Here's the relevant ones for you:
Can we continue to have a sensible discussion about this
please! This is
not the JumboShrimp bashing thread. It's for people to understand that their action affect other people who are trying to learn the game and can drive new players away.
Whether or not its in the spirit of the game, filling a route with 100% capacity is perfectly legal, unless you are targeting. Targeting is going after 1 airline, whether as an alliance or individually, as an attempt to bankrupt the airline. JumboShrimp is flying the route in order to save slots for himself. That may not be the best "spirit of the game," but it is a strategy which happens to work very well in this sim, and isn't particularly unfair to anyone else since they can do it too. If I understand correctly, JumboShrimp hasn't gone and dumped capacity of every route of LostInBKK, he's only done it to 1 (or a few). That isn't targeting, therefore, JumboShrimp isn't violating any rules, cheating the sim in any way, or really gaining any unfair advantage.
Quote from: BobTheCactus on February 03, 2011, 02:57:18 AM
Whether or not its in the spirit of the game, filling a route with 100% capacity is perfectly legal, unless you are targeting. Targeting is going after 1 airline, whether as an alliance or individually, as an attempt to bankrupt the airline.
Targeting is that, yes. But it is also, and says so explicitly in the rules, going after an airline with the purposes of forcing them off a given
route. "Targeting" does not just pertain to an attempt to bankrupt the entire airline. On a given route it would be impossible to determine if one was guilty of "targeting" or simple competition, but when one comes out and says that they're doing it to force you off the route so they can get "their slots" back, that's as clear of a rule violation as one can get.
QuoteJumboShrimp is flying the route in order to save slots for himself.
No, that would be fine as long as it was a profitable route. But he said he's flying the route with the express purpose of forcing the newcomer to leave it and therefore free up the slots that they're taking up at his base.
There are certainly a lot of grey areas in AWS, as there would be in any game that's trying to even remotely faithfully recreate what is, in the real-world, a highly-regulated business environment. And just like the real-world, one can argue whether something is a violation of grey-ish regulations all day long trying to prove intent, but when some one flat out comes out and says why they did it, it's not grey any longer. He could have said that he was planning on opening a Fort Meyers route already, it would be impossible to prove otherwise and he has the planes on order, so it would seem like a logical explanation. Instead he admitted he was doing it for no other reason than to save "his" slots by forcing the newcomer off the route.
For the record JumboShrimp is based in Atlanta and I am based in Fort Myers.
Quote from: Sigma on February 03, 2011, 03:11:56 AM
Targeting is that, yes. But it is also, and says so explicitly in the rules, going after an airline with the purposes of forcing them off a given route. "Targeting" does not just pertain to an attempt to bankrupt the entire airline. On a given route it would be impossible to determine if one was guilty of "targeting" or simple competition, but when one comes out and says that they're doing it to force you off the route so they can get "their slots" back, that's as clear of a rule violation as one can get.
So the "violation" is not the action but what the person is thinking while performing the action... This is where things become very slippery...
Maybe we should have torture every player who opens a route that competes with another player - to make the player confess whether he is thinking some disallowed thoughts.
Let's forget obvious actions (flying 50 Dash-8 flights, supplying 199% of demand), let's examine thoughts of the player supplying 100% with large aircraft... Because it is not actions we are examining, it is the evil thougts we want to unearth...
Quote from: Sigma on February 03, 2011, 03:11:56 AM
No, that would be fine as long as it was a profitable route. But he said he's flying the route with the express purpose of forcing the newcomer to leave it and therefore free up the slots that they're taking up at his base.
I compete on all the routes from my HQ. Up to 302 now. LostInBKK was not even on my radar until this post here. That route was just one out of 302.
And on all of them - old players, new players, large airlines small airlines (most of the time, I don't even check the age of the airline). I want to outlast the competition, so that I end up with higher LFs, and get the slots freed up.
If that is against the rules, then AWS is more Kafka-esque then I ever imagined....
Quote from: Sigma on February 03, 2011, 12:10:20 AM
The player operating the smaller plane is within the "spirit of the rules" absolutely. Now if he flew a bunch of 9 passenger Cessnas, it's a different story. As long as he is producing a profit (and that means not using other routes to subsidize his 'seizure' of the slots via unprofitable actions) then he is operating not only "within the spirit of the game" but explicitly with the rules which make this very clear.
Flying a Dash-8 on a 4000 pax route is the same as flying Cesna on a 400 pax route. Flying such a plane to a large, severely slot limited airport is really an attempt to blow things up, not really play the game. If you think that in the game, as is, it is fine to fly ATR into ATL or LHR, then we have a difference of opinion.
Quote from: Sigma on February 03, 2011, 12:10:20 AM
Come on, you sound like an immature, spoiled brat.
"NOT FAIR! NOT FAIR!"
"GIMME WHAT I WANT! NOW! NOW! NOW!"
"BUT JIMMY DOES IT!"
First of all, It's a frickin' game. Secondly, making some sort of elusive pseudo-blackmail threat to sami about how the game better be changed to suit your demands or else, is probably more stupid than your original braggart comment.
Not a threat at all just an observation of how one may have to adjust to still run a successful airline. There are nearly 3000 Embrear Jets in MT3, 1242 Dash-8. I don't have a single one in the current MT3. You are throwing around accusations against one of the few successful arilnes in MT3 that is not gaming the game.
Quote from: Sigma on February 03, 2011, 12:10:20 AM
The rules aren't hard. Here's the relevant ones for you:
Any coordinated "attacks" by single airlines, alliances, or by any other group of airlines, to prevent some airline from operating on a route ... are not allowed.
The airline is also forbidden to acquire aircraft and route them so that the only purpose is to get airport slots and preserve them for future use. In practise this would mean routing aircraft to airports and routes that provide no profit .... and later switching the routes to other airports when more suitable aircraft equipment is available.
I have no idea what you are talking about. But that makes 2 of us. You don't know what you are talking about either. Accusations and no facts.
Here are the facts - now that LostInBKK clarified that he is talking about Fort Meyers - RSW (I confused it with FLL in another post - which just shows how much pre-meditated targeting took place), here is a snap shot of the route. The 1234567 routes have been there for 10+ game years. I may have added 2 flights by A321 (7 day schedule) in last 1 or 2 game years. So that is the maximum extend of the "dispute", that I went on for 10+ years supplying 80%, and in the last 2 years I increased it to 100%.
[attachment expired]
Hang on my friend JumboShrimp, I never said you targeted me. Please go back and read my text.
Thanks
Lost
/me Pulls out Fire Extinguisher, hoses down thread firmly :laugh:
Quote from: LostInBKK on February 03, 2011, 12:49:55 PM
Hang on my friend JumboShrimp, I never said you targeted me. Please go back and read my text.
Thanks
Lost
I know. Thanks. Sigma is accusing me of all kinds of things, and my replies were to him.
I am not 100% sure there was an accusation there.
calm down, folks.
Personally, I feel that every plane under 50 pax should be removed from the game. You simply can't make a good airline around Cessnas, Islanders, or Brasilias. All they are really used for is gimmicks, slot hogging, or anything unauthentic imho
If you remove <50 pax aircraft from the game you may as well close half the airports too, i.e. all the small ones. And also therefore remove any chance for late starters like myself to expand into an area and type not dominated by the big players.
For the record, I run 14 EMB120's very profitably, the best makes $100k+ a week (I do own that one...) I intened to add several more at another base or two, all local airports with chances to make good money. I know some players use hordes of small aircraft on high demeand routes, but plenty like me use them as they were designed.
I have previously said I would support banning small aircraft from the biggest airports, but to egt rid of them would be abig mistake IMHO
Quote from: ACDennison on February 03, 2011, 09:53:39 PM
If you remove <50 pax aircraft from the game you may as well close half the airports too, i.e. all the small ones. And also therefore remove any chance for late starters like myself to expand into an area and type not dominated by the big players.
For the record, I run 14 EMB120's very profitably, the best makes $100k+ a week (I do own that one...) I intened to add several more at another base or two, all local airports with chances to make good money. I know some players use hordes of small aircraft on high demeand routes, but plenty like me use them as they were designed.
I have previously said I would support banning small aircraft from the biggest airports, but to egt rid of them would be abig mistake IMHO
AC, I just ran an airline with small planes with virtually no competition. I actually de facto blogged about it. It is so amazingly inefficient compared to the revenue generation anything 100 pax + can draw in. One 747 can pull in almost 2 million weekly in modern times if flown correctly.
Quote from: swiftus27 on February 03, 2011, 11:22:53 PM
One 747 can pull in almost 2 million weekly in modern times if flown correctly.
Digressing off topic, my 747s in DOTM pulled in $2.3 mil per week
I know swiftus, and I enjoyed your small airline test blog...
But basiclly your postion seems to be that small aircraft are inefficent and should be scrapped. I disagree, I can show that they are a valuable addition to an existing airline. I operate only small and medium aircraft and do very nicely, but I get the feeling that you feel you must be right. I'll agree that it would be very hard starting with smalls, hence why I started with ATP, then 1-11s, then EMB120ERs as my third fleet group (with the engine commonality with ATP helping). My airline is doing very nicely for itself, and flying routes out of two bases that all the big carriers simply don't bother with.
Bear in mind my EMB120ER's are 50% again the size of your failed Fairchilds, which I admit makes a big difference overheads-wise, but I reckon even 19-seat aircraft can turn a profit as part of a larger operation, and in bulk where you can can save on costs. Overall, I see no reson why less efficent aircraft should be scrapped, they are simply an option for those who enjoy them, and should be allowed to be.
<Rant>
Lets say we do scrap small aircraft, I would again note we may as well remove half the airports in the game... and while we are at it, we can get rid of all the russian aircraft because they are inefficent too. Africa can be taken off the map too, nothing there really after all, maybe just leave an insland at Algiers, Cairo and Jo-berg. The loan system can go too, paying interest is inefficent and all the big players have cash from their A3-profit margins and B7-money makers, so no need to offer credit to those growing a little bit at a time on the margin, heh?
In fact, lets close all but the top 100 airports, and remove all aircraft not made by Boeing and Airbus... then triple all the slots, and allow each manufacturer to make 1000 aircraft a month. And all airlines must be registered in the starting year, because starting late is too hard. Then maybe we'll have the game so many players seem to want... <sarcasm> Of course, it will be half the size and have no variety...
Normally I am very even-tempered about forum debates, hell I had a tried to lighten this thread up earlier, but I get very cross when people assume a game has to be played the way they play it, and don't appreciate that others enjoy different challenges, styles of play and so forth... and that sometimes, they can succeed those different ways.
</Rant>
As I said before though, I will reiterate that I wouldn't mind small aircraft being banned at Class 5 airports, and maybe a new 'Class 6' for the biggest being used that even bans mediums... I have no love for people slot hogging unfairly, but that's the player's fault, not the aircraft's!
I feel you are being very exaggerating for effect. There are many things you stated that are just way over the top.
Quote from: RushmoreAir on February 03, 2011, 11:38:11 PM
Digressing off topic, my 747s in DOTM pulled in $2.3 mil per week
I've gotten 757-300's and A300-600R's turning over 2 million per week in Modern Times scenarios....
Quote from: swiftus27 on February 03, 2011, 08:49:00 PM
I am not 100% sure there was an accusation there.
calm down, folks.
Personally, I feel that every plane under 50 pax should be removed from the game. You simply can't make a good airline around Cessnas, Islanders, or Brasilias. All they are really used for is gimmicks, slot hogging, or anything unauthentic imho
Disagree. I use Metro IIIs on domestic and UK feeders to my bases in Ireland, all of which are profitable and part of the mix - and give a realistic feel. IRL, Saabs were used extensively in the time period of DotM by Aer Lingus, along with Shorts 360s. As others have said, without these aircraft you might as well remove about 50% of the airports in this game, which would reduce interest and make it even more difficult for late comers to gain a foothold.
MD
Once connecting passengers are modeled, there may be new uses for extra small aircraft... ::)