Today I have learnt a lesson from Sami.
He told us some rules about two members of same alliance could do on opening base in an airport.
1. Same alliance cannot supply routes more than 200% of demand.
...
no more indeed.
How could you complain if more than one member from same alliance come to attack you, even you are the only one in that airport?
The answer is no. Even they have 4 or even 6 come to attack on you, you have no way to object.
Sami, Sigma or EYguy, feel free to make correction and explanation.
I guess in every gameworld there will be bloody war, between alliance, or Alliance to free players. I will respect the decision of management and go all the way where management allows.
Quote from: vitongwangki on October 25, 2011, 08:51:02 AM
How could you complain if more than one member from same alliance come to attack you, even you are the only one in that airport?
The answer is no. Even they have 4 or even 6 come to attack on you, you have no way to object.
Smaller airline have always been subject to all out competition. Until v1.3, big airlines were completely shielded from competition, hiding behind the Top 20 Airport basing restriction. Version 1.3 opened things up a bit, but big airlines still don't face the same competition that small airlines do.
A big airline of 500+ aircraft could compete with 6 bases of 100 aircraft and still not face the same level of competition that a small 50 aircraft airline faces when someone opens a base and bases 100 aircraft at the base.
For those who like to play in a sandbox, there is always HKG, SIN, TPE, BKK...
Quote from: JumboShrimp on October 25, 2011, 09:31:10 AM
Smaller airline have always been subject to all out competition. Until v1.3, big airlines were completely shielded from competition, hiding behind the Top 20 Airport basing restriction. Version 1.3 opened things up a bit, but big airlines still don't face the same competition that small airlines do.
A big airline of 500+ aircraft could compete with 6 bases of 100 aircraft and still not face the same level of competition that a small 50 aircraft airline faces when someone opens a base and bases 100 aircraft at the base.
For those who like to play in a sandbox, there is always HKG, SIN, TPE, BKK...
Then how about one 500 planes company facing 3 or 4 500 planes company? ;)
Okay, I sort of knew that you will start a public debate about this. Thing seems to be that alliance 1 opened bases at an airport where airline from alliance 2 was already based. Then later airline from alliance 2 opened base to an airport where airline from alliance 1 based. So everyone is basing everywhere and both sides are complaining to me...
I investigated one case a bit closer, with following results:
- Told that everyone is free to open base anywhere. No restrictions about that, apart what the system sets for available airports.
- Airline or alliance may not supply over 200% of the estimated demand.
- Airline or alliance may not directly target another airline on his routes.
- Now this is where it gets tricky. I know that you guys at alliances are directly trying to compete with each others and try to take each others down. And partly this seems to have crossed the limit of good taste already. So I would wish a bit better standing from alliances to this matter.....
- However from the standpoint of the rules; if you open a base to an airport where an other airline already is you MUST open routes to destinations he is NOT serving too, this was made clear to both parties. So you cannot just open routes to all the destinations the other airline serves as that would be just targeting him.
- However ... if the airline is dominant at that airport and flies to 90% (or more) of possible destinations it becomes tricky. The airline could be so dominant that there simply are no 'free' routes left, so every route you open would be considered targeting him since there are no choices.. Doesn't really make sense doesn't it? (ie. to become immune to competition you should fill every route from that airport)
Quote from: vitongwangki on October 25, 2011, 08:51:02 AM
I guess in every gameworld there will be bloody war, between alliance, or Alliance to free players. I will respect the decision of management and go all the way where management allows.
Would also like to add that it's not a good idea to start fooling around. The basic rules are above and should be rather clear in my mind and there is no need to start twisting my words in a way that is most favourable to some occasion. But to give an example, if let's say 6 airlines of the same alliance suddenly appear to the same airport then there is something wrong and that's something I'd put to immediate halt - since it's way beyond normal.
Seems that some of you have forgotten all about the spirit of fair play and I would like to remind of it (as I would not like to pose even more restrictions to alliances). https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Manual/General/Rules/#Playing
Quote from: sami on October 25, 2011, 09:36:47 AM
- However from the standpoint of the rules; if you open a base to an airport where an other airline already is you MUST open routes to destinations he is NOT serving too. So you cannot just open routes to all the destinations the other airline serves as that would be just targeting him. However if the airline is dominant at that airport and flies to 9/10 of possible destinations it becomes tricky. The airline could be so dominant that there simply are no 'free' routes left, so every route you open would be considered targeting him since there are no choices.. Doesn't really make sense doesn't it? (ie. to become immune to competition you should fill every route from that airport)
I guess if the dominant airline is free to allied attack on, then the bloody war between those giants will happened. And to win the game, they need to have more number in the same country or region, to kick the giants out of the game.
On the other hand, what you mean is if an airline based in small airport dominated almost all possible routes, he is free to be attacked, even in allied way?
Quote from: vitongwangki on October 25, 2011, 09:33:33 AM
Then how about one 500 planes company facing 3 or 4 500 planes company? ;)
Still, nowhere near the level of competition when a 500 aircraft company opens a base HQ of 50 aircraft company. Which happens every day.
Perhaps under the rules that allow more competition, airlines will compete with other airlines their size, instead of squashing small companies...
Quote from: JumboShrimp on October 25, 2011, 09:47:39 AM
Still, nowhere near the level of competition when a 500 aircraft company opens a base HQ of 50 aircraft company. Which happens every day.
Perhaps under the rules that allow more competition, airlines will compete with other airlines their size, instead of squashing small companies...
That's real-life but not AWS, as you always say AWS doesn't necessary reflect the real-life. I guess if strategically I want to give competition to a certain player, I can use allied basing also, according to Sami's judging once I can find some free routes.
What I cannot understand is when SC moved 2 airlines into FRA against a small Elite airline I raised the issue....SC defended the move...and my concerns dismissed.
So how can you defend it when you do it, but complain when someone does it to you ?
Sami has spoken now....we know what we can and cannot do....so let's just get on with the game all being aware that we are not immune to competition from maybe more than one competing airline, as long as the lines Sami has drawn are not crossed.
What is the average age of an AWS player? 12?
Because that is how most of you act when it comes to complaining about alliances - and that is regardless of which alliance you belong to.
Grow up people and enjoy the game and enjoy your alliance for what it was intended for, and that is to help each other get the most out of this game.
At the moment you are carrying on like a bunch of primary school girls.
PS - If you don't like my comments then ask me to leave the alliance I am in if you want to, as I joined to learn more about the game and to get more enjoyment from the game, not to get involved in worthless arguments.
Regards Darryl
Quote from: SAC on October 25, 2011, 10:07:38 AM
What I cannot understand is when SC moved 2 airlines into FRA against a small Elite airline I raised the issue....SC defended the move...and my concerns dismissed.
So how can you defend it when you do it, but complain when someone does it to you ?
Sami has spoken now....we know what we can and cannot do....so let's just get on with the game all being aware that we are not immune to competition from maybe more than one competing airline, as long as the lines Sami has drawn are not crossed.
I tried to be polite here. But i need SAC to be clear with some points before we have a discussion. Let me show you the difference between two situation.
1. Blackburn Air has much routes without serving and I'm going to serve them. at least ten routes I started were not served by Blackburn. But this time msir (REAL air) 100% copy my routes while Jetcity flies only few of them (<5 when i send the PM to Sami) You can see the difference.
2. The time for LLL and Me opening base in FRA was separated for at least 3 years as i remember. But this time Herman and msir opens in CDG only barely over one year range.
Sami is now making the things clearer but it still needs further clarification.
1. How would you define normal or abnormal move? It is normal for an alliance to have 2 member opening same base under your current decision. What meant by "beyond normal"? Please gives us objective numbers otherwise it will become dictating but not managing.
Finally, I know Sami did much work on trying to make the game better. Please keep it up!
Defining what is normal and what is not is not easy. And to give preset rules for every occasion is not possible.
But off the top of my head I would say that 3 airlines from the same alliance at any given airport is too much. And if two airlines from same alliance open bases at a third airport they shouldn't do it at the same time (several months apart, a year perhaps?).
Quote from: Peanutoil on October 25, 2011, 10:30:37 AM
Finally, I know Sami did much work on trying to make the game better. Please keep it up!
+1 to that
Quote from: sami on October 25, 2011, 10:54:01 AM
Defining what is normal and what is not is not easy. And to give preset rules for every occasion is not possible.
But off the top of my head I would say that 3 airlines from the same alliance at any given airport is too much. And if two airlines from same alliance open bases at a third airport they shouldn't do it at the same time (several months apart, a year perhaps?).
I would suggest that if two airlines from the same alliance are in the same airport, then they shouldn't have ANY routes in common from that base.
So by taking the info in this thread we can say no more than 2 airlines from the same alliance in the same base. The bases should be opened at least 12 months apart. Routes should not all target a based airline if at all possible. Plus two airlines from the same alliance should not serve more than 200% demand combined on the same route. Make sense ?
Quote from: JumboShrimp on October 25, 2011, 09:31:10 AM
For those who like to play in a sandbox, there is always HKG, SIN, TPE, BKK...
Sandbox?! Try saying that when I had to clean up my "sandbox" at TPE after the bloodbath with LSAIR... one of the most epic battles I've had.
You really do stick your nose in it too far.
Quote from: Sanabas on October 25, 2011, 11:22:26 AM
I would suggest that if two airlines from the same alliance are in the same airport, then they shouldn't have ANY routes in common from that base.
There is already a limit of 200% of demand per airline. If 2 airlines from the same alliance are flying that route (regardless of where they are based), all flights by the same alliance are treated as if they were by the same airline (subject to 200% limit). That rule is already in effect. I don't know if it is only verbal or system enforced. But, IMO, it is a good enough rule, and it is universal (meaning, it applies regardless of where the airlines are based).
If there is already a rule in place that does the job, I am not sure if we need another rule that does exactly the same job. It would just make Sami's job more difficult...
Quote from: alexgv1 on October 25, 2011, 11:41:52 AM
Sandbox?! Try saying that when I had to clean up my "sandbox" at TPE after the bloodbath with LSAIR... one of the most epic battles I've had.
Of course I meant after an airline dominates those "sandbox" airports.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on October 25, 2011, 11:52:20 AM
Of course I meant after an airline dominates those "sandbox" airports.
I don't feel to guilty if I've earnt that sandbox... ::)
Quote from: JumboShrimp on October 25, 2011, 11:42:15 AM
There is already a limit of 200% of demand per airline. If 2 airlines from the same alliance are flying that route (regardless of where they are based), all flights by the same alliance are treated as if they were by the same airline (subject to 200% limit). That rule is already in effect. I don't know if it is only verbal or system enforced. But, IMO, it is a good enough rule, and it is universal (meaning, it applies regardless of where the airlines are based).
If there is already a rule in place that does the job, I am not sure if we need another rule that does exactly the same job. It would just make Sami's job more difficult...
The 200% limit isn't a clearcut number (because demand isn't a clearcut number, because you're not sure exactly what seating arrangement your alliancemate has, etc), and I'm 99% certain the system doesn't automatically pick it up the way it does 200% from a single airline (I *think* LFPO-LLBG in JA has over 200% between my 2 flights and western global's 2 flights. I'm not sure though.) So any violation of it would need to be reported & manually looked at, and there's plenty of scope for saying 'we thought we were only at 190%/I reported them because I thought they were over 200%'. Simply saying that 2 airlines in the same base can't share a route is far less ambiguous, should only be correctly reported, far quicker to check if it gets reported, and not open to misinterpretation.
Quote from: sami on October 25, 2011, 10:54:01 AM
Defining what is normal and what is not is not easy. And to give preset rules for every occasion is not possible.
But off the top of my head I would say that 3 airlines from the same alliance at any given airport is too much. And if two airlines from same alliance open bases at a third airport they shouldn't do it at the same time (several months apart, a year perhaps?).
I would say if in some large airport, 200 planes isn't enough to serve half of the demand. I think the limit should lift up in some big airports (maybe top 50 airports?)
Quote from: alexgv1 on October 25, 2011, 11:59:50 AM
I don't feel to guilty if I've earnt that sandbox... ::)
Esp. when my airline has bigger company value than one not inside sandbox ;)
Quote from: Sanabas on October 25, 2011, 12:01:58 PM
The 200% limit isn't a clearcut number (because demand isn't a clearcut number, because you're not sure exactly what seating arrangement your alliancemate has, etc), and I'm 99% certain the system doesn't automatically pick it up the way it does 200% from a single airline (I *think* LFPO-LLBG in JA has over 200% between my 2 flights and western global's 2 flights. I'm not sure though.) So any violation of it would need to be reported & manually looked at, and there's plenty of scope for saying 'we thought we were only at 190%/I reported them because I thought they were over 200%'. Simply saying that 2 airlines in the same base can't share a route is far less ambiguous, should only be correctly reported, far quicker to check if it gets reported, and not open to misinterpretation.
You may be right, I am not sure if the 200% limit is system enforced, or just a written rule. There may already be 75% of the code there to extend the oversupply rule to alliances. If it is (extended), none of the moderators would need to get involved. The same procedure could be followed (alerts sent, and possibly routes closed). All the "Oversupply" threads disappeared once system started enforcing the rule, and that is probably the best way to handle it, not to waste Sami's and other moderators' time...
Quote from: vitongwangki on October 25, 2011, 12:05:14 PM
I would say if in some large airport, 200 planes isn't enough to serve half of the demand. I think the limit should lift up in some big airports (maybe top 50 airports?)
I agree. The limit should be lifted for large airports, or removed completely.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on October 25, 2011, 12:27:52 PM
I agree. The limit should be lifted for large airports, or removed completely.
As it stands, you can base up to 300 aircraft at 3 other airports (100 each). Working on Jona's thread (multiple bases in one airport), how about you can base 300 planes altogether, and decide how many base airports to put them in, all in one or other end of the extreme, 1 in each of 300. This allows a player to dominate more than one large airport (outside of HQ) but also allows smaller airlines to grow bigger by having many bases.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on October 25, 2011, 12:25:52 PM
You may be right, I am not sure if the 200% limit is system enforced, or just a written rule.
It is a system limit Jumbo. Cross the 200% threshold and the anti-monopoly crew send you nasty messages demanding you reduce within a month - or they'll do it for you !
Quote from: alexgv1 on October 25, 2011, 12:46:01 PM
As it stands, you can base up to 300 aircraft at 3 other airports (100 each). Working on Jona's thread (multiple bases in one airport), how about you can base 300 planes altogether, and decide how many base airports to put them in, all in one or other end of the extreme, 1 in each of 300. This allows a player to dominate more than one large airport (outside of HQ) but also allows smaller airlines to grow bigger by having many bases.
That would be a step in a positive direction, but I would still prefer limits increased or completely removed.
The change from 1.2 to 1.3 was a positive one. Removing the basing restrictions and increasing the limit to 100 (in addition to lowering the crushing overhead increase) had only positive effects. Top airports are no longer fortresses, and there is more competition all around. I don't think it had any negative effect. Increasing the limits further (or removing the limits alltogether) would only bring more of the good thing.
And there is still the limit of delivery rate of the aircraft. If an airline over-expands, it is likely to crumble under its own weight, as more efficient airlines compete with it...
Quote from: SAC on October 25, 2011, 01:06:46 PM
It is a system limit Jumbo. Cross the 200% threshold and the anti-monopoly crew send you nasty messages demanding you reduce within a month - or they'll do it for you !
I know about the single airline limit. But Sanabas and I were wondering if the same limit works across airlines that are in the same alliance. If the system does not enforce the limit on per alliance bases, it could be expanded to do so.
Ahhhh sorry...I get you now.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on October 25, 2011, 01:15:08 PM
I know about the single airline limit. But Sanabas and I were wondering if the same limit works across airlines that are in the same alliance. If the system does not enforce the limit on per alliance bases, it could be expanded to do so.
It's not presently system-enforced, no. Alliances supplying over 200% of demand require a manual complaint be filed.
Another option would be that in the top 40 airports only 1 Alliance member is allowed (except in main hub i.e Alliance 1 airline 1 main hub LHR alliance 1 airline 2 can also set up a 2nd base in LHR) thus giving some form of protection in every Airlines main hub. In all other cases within the top 40 airports there should be no A/c limit as this will allow competition but at the same time stop the targeting of an airline with the intention to bankrupt them.
Quote from: Miller11 on October 25, 2011, 03:52:11 PM
Another option would be that in the top 40 airports only 1 Alliance member is allowed (except in main hub i.e Alliance 1 airline 1 main hub LHR alliance 1 airline 2 can also set up a 2nd base in LHR) thus giving some form of protection in every Airlines main hub. In all other cases within the top 40 airports there should be no A/c limit as this will allow competition but at the same time stop the targeting of an airline with the intention to bankrupt them.
Why should huge airlines have this protection if small airlines don't have it? If a small airline has 50 aircraft and somebody comes in with 100, I think that airline has a tough competition. Why should not a big airline face the same level of competition? And the same level of competition for 500 aircraft airline would be facing 1000 aircraft (from whatever source).
Following up:
If there was no aircraft limit at bases, you could conceivably limit number of airlines from one alliance basing somewhere. But even that is cumbersome. Suppose there is no one at an airport, and Airline A and Airline B from the same alliance open bases at the same airport. Airline A has fleets good for short haul, Airline B has fleets good for LH. Now even something as innocent as this would be prevented.
A good guiding principle to whenever anyone says limit is to say: wrong unless proven otherwise
We just end up with absolutely crazy situations we have now such as inability to refuel a very large aircraft in the entire Western Canada. Or inability to refuel at places that were the real life refueling airports. We ended up there because people called for limits and nobody said wrong unless proven otherwise
Quote from: JumboShrimp on October 25, 2011, 05:22:28 PM
We just end up with absolutely crazy situations we have now such as inability to refuel a very large aircraft in the entire Western Canada. Or inability to refuel at places that were the real life refueling airports. We ended up there because people called for limits and nobody said wrong unless proven otherwise
Not questioning your principle, just your example - IS there an 'inability to refuel a very large aircraft in the entire Western Canada'? because I thought it was established through a previous thread that right now, regardless of how an airport is classified, that limit does NOT exist. And the 'western Canada' thing makes no sense, unless you actually mean the Eastern Canadian Arctic.
Quote from: minerva on October 25, 2011, 05:45:51 PM
Not questioning your principle, just your example - IS there an 'inability to refuel a very large aircraft in the entire Western Canada'? because I thought it was established through a previous thread that right now, regardless of how an airport is classified, that limit does NOT exist. And the 'western Canada' thing makes no sense, unless you actually mean the Eastern Canadian Arctic.
This is kind of sidetrackig from the original subject, but that is exactly what I meant. I went through just about every airport West of Ontario, and the airports are either "Large" (with long enough runways) that do not allow refueling because of made up limit disallowing refueling a certain "Large" airports, "Small" (some with long enough runways) that do not allow refueling because of made up limit, and there are some in-between (medium, significant), none with runways long enough.
And for extra measure, add to this area the US North West with no very large aircraft refueling....
For those can't picture how large this area is, it is approximately area of the entire Europe + Ukraine + Belarus + big part of Russia where because of made up limitations, it is impossible to refuel a very large aircraft. (Well, there is one, Winnipeg, which is so close to Ontario and US border that it does not count).
Quote from: sami on October 25, 2011, 09:36:47 AM
- Airline or alliance may not directly target another airline on his routes.
- Now this is where it gets tricky. I know that you guys at alliances are directly trying to compete with each others and try to take each others down. And partly this seems to have crossed the limit of good taste already. So I would wish a bit better standing from alliances to this matter.....
- However from the standpoint of the rules; if you open a base to an airport where an other airline already is you MUST open routes to destinations he is NOT serving too, this was made clear to both parties. So you cannot just open routes to all the destinations the other airline serves as that would be just targeting him.
Going a bit off topic from the original issue.
Sami, with my airline in Jet Age #5, I have filled all possible routes C-46's up to 630 NM. However, with the delivery of my Tu-104's, I am launching flights already flown by 'foreign' airlines first, before launching flights to other destinations. When I read the rules you stated above, I became unsure about my move. Would like to know if it is against the rules or not?
If I had my ideal AWS world I must admit it would be first off long in length...I hate growing an airline so big and then the game just finishes with no credit given in the long run for performance, but thats another issue ! I would then be very happy if the game was also restriction free as regards to number of a/c allowed at bases. I used to love ABCBA routes also but I maybe pushing my luck ::)
This may all point to a world running that is advertised as "hard" as there is no hiding behind slots, or 100 a/c limit, purely for the more seasoned player...an "Elite" world so to speak ;) :laugh: If you enter then expect all you get and be prepared for a fight with the strongest surviving. In a game like this if I fell then I would be fully aware by entering the world in the first place that it may happen, and would take it on the chin and try and be better next time. That type of world would have me hooked as I love the competition that AWS provides and the challenge of outwitting, out tech-stopping, out frequency or what ever else it takes (within the laws) to ultimately defeat opponents. We have beginners worlds - why not expert worlds ? It would certainly stop this type of debate.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on October 25, 2011, 06:49:00 PM
This is kind of sidetrackig from the original subject, but that is exactly what I meant. I went through just about every airport West of Ontario, and the airports are either "Large" (with long enough runways) that do not allow refueling because of made up limit disallowing refueling a certain "Large" airports, "Small" (some with long enough runways) that do not allow refueling because of made up limit, and there are some in-between (medium, significant), none with runways long enough.
And for extra measure, add to this area the US North West with no very large aircraft refueling....
For those can't picture how large this area is, it is approximately area of the entire Europe + Ukraine + Belarus + big part of Russia where because of made up limitations, it is impossible to refuel a very large aircraft. (Well, there is one, Winnipeg, which is so close to Ontario and US border that it does not count).
Sorry but this is incorrect. First, you CAN refuel Very Large aircraft at ports rated only for Large or lower, if the airfield is long enough. The previous threads on this established that, rightly or wrongly, you can do this now in JA5 (and presumably in other games). Dozens of airlines are doing just that.
Second, while granted you can't refuel at Vancouver or Calgary, there are NO restrictions on plane size at the following western Canadian airports in order of decreasing size (runway lengths follow):
Edmonton 3353m
Winnipeg 3353m
Victoria 2134m
Kelowna NR 2225m
Saskatoon 2530m
Regina 2408m
Thunder Bay 1890m
If the runways are rather short on some of these it is because of location or the fact that most of them are small cities and large towns. The restricted airports are for tiny communities that would never expect to see very large aircraft (although as noted, if the runway is long enough, you can refuel on them).
The 'West' in North America is vast and relatively unpopulated. It is closer to Russia than Europe. That 'real world fact' is rather well incorporated into AWS.
Quote from: minerva on October 25, 2011, 07:22:53 PM
Sorry but this is incorrect. First, you CAN refuel Very Large aircraft at ports rated only for Large or lower, if the airfield is long enough. The previous threads on this established that, rightly or wrongly, you can do this now in JA5 (and presumably in other games). Dozens of airlines are doing just that.
That's a change I was unaware of. I don't follow JA5 threads. Apparently the change was made back to normal, but nobody in MT5 was aware of it, unless they followed JA5 threads. I have been flying way out of the way unaware of this change...
Quote from: minerva on October 25, 2011, 07:22:53 PM
Second, while granted you can't refuel at Vancouver or Calgary, there are NO restrictions on plane size at the following western Canadian airports in order of decreasing size (runway lengths follow):
Edmonton 3353m
Winnipeg 3353m
Winnipeg I did mention. Edmonton I originally dismissed when I saw it was Large, and at one point I was unaware that there was a set of allowed large and disallowed Large. I found about that later, and did not revisit every single airport (a very time consuming process, since you have to actually try to creat a route and fail). And that is another point of made up limitations and cut offs. Everybody can understand that you may not be able to refuel at LHR, JFK, NRT. But Calgary??? Portland?
Quote from: minerva on October 25, 2011, 07:22:53 PM
Victoria 2134m
Kelowna NR 2225m
Saskatoon 2530m
Regina 2408m
Thunder Bay 1890m
If the runways are rather short on some of these it is because of location or the fact that most of them are small cities and large towns. The restricted airports are for tiny communities that would never expect to see very large aircraft (although as noted, if the runway is long enough, you can refuel on them).
Yes, these runways are too short, but I am not questioning those. I was questioning the airports with long enough runways that because of a random limitations became off limits.
Quote from: minerva on October 25, 2011, 07:22:53 PM
The 'West' in North America is vast and relatively unpopulated. It is closer to Russia than Europe. That 'real world fact' is rather well incorporated into AWS.
Yes, I was not asking for AWS to conjure up airports where there are none in real world. Just asking to be able to use airports that are already there with sufficient runways, unless we
know for a fact that there is some real world restriction preventing airlines from using the airport.
Which is part of my general outlook about limits: Don't place random limits on AWS and then after enough outcry slowly relax them (Case in point HNL for tech stops, small airports for very large aircraft techstops), and still leave it there for, of all places Calgary. There should be no sweaping limits, only individual limits where it can be proven that limits exist in real life.
I don't disagree with your general point, but the simple fact is that AWS is always going to be artificially limited in some ways unless Sami can magically sum up the huge amount of time and program effort needed to incorporate far more variables than those included right now. For instance, sticking with runway length: AWS does not currently account for improvements over time. Very few airports had 3000m runways in 1960, for instance. Even LaGuardia didn't get its current meagre 2000m runways until 1967. Yet in JA5 everyone benefits from the modern lengths. I'm not complaining about this. But given the inability to model all the variables that are out there in the real world and over time, it strikes me that calls to have no limits are no less flawed/artificial than having clear, transparent rule-based ones. So yes, lets not go crazy on the limits, but also let's recognize that SOME are there to due to ease of programming and playability issues.
Quote from: minerva on October 25, 2011, 08:40:48 PM
I don't disagree with your general point, but the simple fact is that AWS is always going to be artificially limited in some ways unless Sami can magically sum up the huge amount of time and program effort needed to incorporate far more variables than those included right now. For instance, sticking with runway length: AWS does not currently account for improvements over time. Very few airports had 3000m runways in 1960, for instance. Even LaGuardia didn't get its current meagre 2000m runways until 1967. Yet in JA5 everyone benefits from the modern lengths. I'm not complaining about this. But given the inability to model all the variables that are out there in the real world and over time, it strikes me that calls to have no limits are no less flawed/artificial than having clear, transparent rule-based ones. So yes, lets not go crazy on the limits, but also let's recognize that SOME are there to due to ease of programming and playability issues.
Agreed. Gathering of data is one of the biggest challenges, so we just use what can be obtained. But as far as limits, one of the misplaced ones (tech stoping) actually took extra programming efforts to put in place, and then to remove. The same with basing limitations at top airports. It took time to put in place, later it became clear that it was totally counterproductive and created fortresses where large airlines were untouchable from the outside.
With numerical basing limits (where this all started), it is not outside of the realm of possibilities that for game playability reasons you may want to put them in place if some problems develop. But it was never tried without the limits.
A different limit - aircraft delivery rate - I can understand (for playability reasons). It was tried without, and was determined that it un-balanced the game. So I am not saying I am against all limits, I am just for the bare minimum that is determined
after a problem develops, or the game goes in an undesireble direction, out of balance.
In a game that is dynamic and open, other players will counterbalance things. Why not give that a shot first before system imposed limist are put in place? We may find out that the limits were never needed in the first place...
Quote from: JumboShrimp on October 25, 2011, 04:32:46 PM
Why should huge airlines have this protection if small airlines don't have it? If a small airline has 50 aircraft and somebody comes in with 100, I think that airline has a tough competition. Why should not a big airline face the same level of competition? And the same level of competition for 500 aircraft airline would be facing 1000 aircraft (from whatever source).
My idea was that it might stop the constant moaning of a lot of players. Look at MT5 constant complaining and in some cases cheating has spoiled this game.
As far as for small airlines they would need to survive long enough to join an alliance, this would create more competition in the long run i.e MT5 400 players (used to be 600) and only 100 in an alliance, thats 300 (500) non alliance members. so we could in theory have 30 alliances in a game instead of 5-6. imagine what this could create. It would help newbs as they would get help and advice from Alliance members but at the same time stop this game from being so easy i.e I had a year out of this game and i have put very little effort in an still I am in the top 20. Yes I know some find it difficult but also some find it too easy. If my idea was tested I am sure that this would create an entirely new game style for all as we would need to be more flexible in how we played I.e lets have 500 e-jets would not work as well as it does now.
We all need to be open to change even though this is difficult.
remember this "Every action has a reaction"
Miller11 :)
I see my buddy Vito has decided to make the thoughts public, good for him!
I've been too lazy, and just bored with my airline (which is still failing thanks to the allied basing and targeting)...and not doing much for my airline and just letting it run idle here and there.
But back to the topic:
LAX in MT5 is a prime example of this. I have pm'ed Sami and got a response.
Of all the routes that both American Southern and Jumbo Shrimp at LAX opening a base, only THREE routes (which were opened by American Southern) were routes that I did not operate. And those THREE routes aren't any cash cow money makers either. They're 200nm routes with about 50-100 daily passengers to fill out his schedule and routes that my planes couldn't serve because my supply would be over 200% of demand. [I just looked through the LAX destinations at 11:45PM EST]
Everything else is in my perception, clear targeting. I'm not here to whine and complain, but just to let it be known that even an airline of my size around 500airplanes and a company value of 7Billion is still considered small in comparison to two 20 and 30billion airlines. Because there were still other routes available not flown by airline with demand of 300-500 passengers.
P.S I am also up for an "expert world" in the future. And while I'm at it, harsher penalties for tech stops in Modern Times...really makes flying VERY VERY VERY Large aircraft with the range more useful and less susceptible to lower profits due to tech stop frequencies.
Good luck to the rest of you guys,
Kevin
Hey Kev...firstly glad your up for a "expert world" - it is a fantastic idea IMO....worth discussing more anyway.
Secondly, the majority of my a/c at LAX are E-Jets, they cannot get further than 1500nm, so I am restricted to routes I can serve with them. I am removing 757's from LAX and replacing with more E-jets...some will end up on your routes again, but I will be looking for routes unserved first which will help redress the balance as per earlier in this thread.
...but did you not invite me there in the first place Kevin if I remember correctly. I was going to open MIA until your offer :laugh:
Quote from: Miller11 on October 26, 2011, 03:35:07 PM
If my idea was tested I am sure that this would create an entirely new game style for all as we would need to be more flexible in how we played I.e lets have 500 e-jets would not work as well as it does now.
I have actually got less than 400 of them M11 ;) Interesting suggestion re lots of small alliances, but I do enjoy large alliances will active forums. With just 6 airlines in an alliance it would be really tight knit and impossible to "target" in to any great extent, but pretty quiet compared to having alliances of 25. I would be willing to try anything though.
I do still say though a restriction free "expert game" would best suit those who wanted the challenge of competition, and were prepared to be "targeted" themselves along the way.
Sounds great fun to me and my hundreds of e-jets ;)
Quote from: kevin.yeung on October 27, 2011, 03:55:45 AM
Everything else is in my perception, clear targeting. I'm not here to whine and complain, but just to let it be known that even an airline of my size around 500airplanes and a company value of 7Billion is still considered small in comparison to two 20 and 30billion airlines.
To me, the fact that a 500+ airline based at one of the best airports (LAX), that is run very competently, the fact that this airline can still be defeated is a good thing.
Compare that with the time in v1.2, when this airline would be an untouchable fortress. That was obviously a bad thing. So AWS is moving in the right direction allowing more competition. Every airline can be subject to competition, not just the smallest airlines, as was the case in the past.
Some other points that you raised:
- the fact that these 2 airlines (mine and American Southern) have CV of 20 and 30 million does not change much. All it says that these airlines have a larger margin for error.
- the fact that these 2 airlines are flying the best routes, rather than the lousiest routes - that's a non-brainer. Why would someone open a base and chose to fly the lousy routes and not the best routes? You are already flying the best routes, so there is an overlap
- the fact that 2 airlines moved in: That is just a function of 100 aircraft limit. Without the limit, one airline could have done it.
- that there were some unserved routes: The same issue. Without the 100 aircraft limit, I would eventually get to all the routes. With 100 aircraft limit, I pick the best ones...
Quote from: JumboShrimp on October 27, 2011, 10:42:26 AM
To me, the fact that a 500+ airline based at one of the best airports (LAX), that is run very competently, the fact that this airline can still be defeated is a good thing.
Compare that with the time in v1.2, when this airline would be an untouchable fortress. That was obviously a bad thing. So AWS is moving in the right direction allowing more competition. Every airline can be subject to competition, not just the smallest airlines, as was the case in the past.
Some other points that you raised:
- the fact that these 2 airlines (mine and American Southern) have CV of 20 and 30 million does not change much. All it says that these airlines have a larger margin for error.
- the fact that these 2 airlines are flying the best routes, rather than the lousiest routes - that's a non-brainer. Why would someone open a base and chose to fly the lousy routes and not the best routes? You are already flying the best routes, so there is an overlap
- the fact that 2 airlines moved in: That is just a function of 100 aircraft limit. Without the limit, one airline could have done it.
- that there were some unserved routes: The same issue. Without the 100 aircraft limit, I would eventually get to all the routes. With 100 aircraft limit, I pick the best ones...
I think you are already targeting Kevin's airline. Of course you have the right to pick the best routes, but you can't deny you have 100% overlap with Kevin or SC's route AND ignoring the empty routes. Please reconsider your decision and rethink whether you are targeting or not.
I'll turn that around on you slightly Peanut...who is best placed to handle two airlines moving in on their base ? Air Redy with 500 a/c and $7b value, or the guy in FRA with 50 a/c and value less than $1b ? Yet you thought that was OK ! The FRA guy stood absolutely no chance. It seems fairer to me that AR faces that level of competition than the FRA guy IMO.
Quote from: SAC on October 27, 2011, 01:33:07 PM
I'll turn that around on you slightly Peanut...who is best placed to handle two airlines moving in on their base ? Air Redy with 500 a/c and $7b value, or the guy in FRA with 50 a/c and value less than $1b ? Yet you thought that was OK ! The FRA guy stood absolutely no chance. It seems fairer to me that AR faces that level of competition than the FRA guy IMO.
Did i 100% copying his route? Is JSW 100% copying Kevin's route?
Quote from: JumboShrimp on October 27, 2011, 10:42:26 AM
- the fact that these 2 airlines are flying the best routes, rather than the lousiest routes - that's a non-brainer. Why would someone open a base and chose to fly the lousy routes and not the best routes? You are already flying the best routes, so there is an overlap
- the fact that 2 airlines moved in: That is just a function of 100 aircraft limit. Without the limit, one airline could have done it.
- that there were some unserved routes: The same issue. Without the 100 aircraft limit, I would eventually get to all the routes. With 100 aircraft limit, I pick the best ones...
- the fact is "best routes" can only be defined you, not us. You can defend your decision by this kind of word, then I can interpret that every routes I didn't fly is not the best so even I 100% copy one's route is not targeting. Thus, the targeting rule is just rubbish, we can never issue warnings or fines from it.
Quote from: SAC on October 27, 2011, 01:33:07 PM
I'll turn that around on you slightly Peanut...who is best placed to handle two airlines moving in on their base ? Air Redy with 500 a/c and $7b value, or the guy in FRA with 50 a/c and value less than $1b ? Yet you thought that was OK ! The FRA guy stood absolutely no chance. It seems fairer to me that AR faces that level of competition than the FRA guy IMO.
Once again, at that time FRA has two similar size airline, one is Blackburn, another is operated by Dantes. Jona and peanut didn't focus on all of their aircraft to Blackburn air so it isn't targeting. But now we have encountered two cases that both Elite members 100% copy routes of SC members. The case is definitely different.
Nope...I am targeting routes that suit my fleet. As I said earlier I am losing 757's from LAX and will make every effort to find a few more new routes....not easy though as I am not just servicing the dregs of the routes just because they are they only routes Air Redy does not want !
Quote from: SAC on October 27, 2011, 01:44:28 PM
Nope...I am targeting routes that suit my fleet. As I said earlier I am losing 757's from LAX and will make every effort to find a few more new routes....not easy though as I am not just servicing the dregs of the routes just because they are they only routes Air Redy does not want !
The routes suit your fleet is Air Redy's route. Finished.
Not my fault he is based there with 500 a/c serving nearly every route there is within the range my E-jets can reach !
However this is going no where though, and I will not get into an further arguments about it. What we should be doing is discussing how to stop this in the future, whether that be the launch of an anything goes expert worlds, or having a set of black and white rules to work within. Some of these rules have already been clarified by Sami so that is a start, but I still feel there are grey areas which will lead again and again to this situation.
Quote from: Peanutoil on October 27, 2011, 01:21:20 PM
I think you are already targeting Kevin's airline. Of course you have the right to pick the best routes, but you can't deny you have 100% overlap with Kevin or SC's route AND ignoring the empty routes. Please reconsider your decision and rethink whether you are targeting or not.
I start with the assumption that the chances are, I will outlast any competitor. Given limited aircraft, which routes would I like to fly when most of the competitors (inside or outside the base) are gone? The best ones that fit my fleet and my schedule. 100 LH aircraft is just scratching the surface at LAX anyway.
Going down first 2 pages of > 3000nm flights, what did I miss?
- SIN - (some unserved demand) I expect Vito to bring 787 direct (not good odds for me there).
- PVG - expect allies to fly that
- BOM - C demand on the low side
- PRG - ok first good one I skipped, nearly bottom of the 2nd page. Route #72 on the list...
Air Redy has 528 aircraft at one base, and is alreasy serving probably over 95% plus of worthwhile destinations, if not more. Not many unserved destinations left after an airline deploys 528, while I can only use 100.
As far as broadening the definition of "targeting" to entire SC, are you really expecting me to compete with players who are in my own alliance?
For the record, I serve only 3 routes from LAX that Air Redy doesn't, as mentioned (but soon to be increased)...and I am a targeting. Air Republique serves just 4 routes from AMS that Real Air does not serve...is he targeting too in that case ? What's is the difference ? The difference is we just get on with it ! So can't we please stop with the bickering and look for solutions and ideas of how to avoid confusion going forward ?
Quote from: kevin.yeung on October 27, 2011, 03:55:45 AM
P.S I am also up for an "expert world" in the future. And while I'm at it, harsher penalties for tech stops in Modern Times...really makes flying VERY VERY VERY Large aircraft with the range more useful and less susceptible to lower profits due to tech stop frequencies.
Jona had a great idea about how to deal with frequency benefit, based on distance, which would make larger aircraft less vultnerable to competition of smaller aircraft at progressively longer distances. It would make it "safer" to fly larger aircraft over longer distances - or in general, flying appropriate aircraft for the distance. I don't think he ever submitted it as a formal request. It is burried in this very long thread:
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,34106.0.html
Quote from: SAC on October 27, 2011, 02:42:57 PM
For the record, I serve only 3 routes from LAX that Air Redy doesn't as mentioned...and I am a targeting. Air Republique serves just 4 routes from AMS that Real Air does not serve...is he targeting too in that case ? What's is the difference ? The difference is we just get on with it ! So can't we please stop with the bickering and look for solutions and ideas of how to avoid confusion going forward ?
Simplest and least confusing approach is hands off, all is fair when top airlines are competing with each other by opening bases at each other's airports. Because by definition, the challenger is the underdog. The challenger is limited to 100 aircraft, the incumbent gets a slight boost in LF at his HQ (per Sami), the challenger has to pay extra base fees, which the incumbent is not paying. It is hard to conceive why the incumbent (especially one with 500+ aircraft) would need any more protection than this.