Most of the massively multiplayer online games have some system of new player protection. AWS could use something a little more explicit than a guideline.
For example, if an airline is less than 6 months old, its routes could show up in green, instead of black. Older airlines (black) would not be able to add flights to any routes that have green flights. (green vs. green would be ok).
This could be done first for only informational purposes, later it could be enforced by the system.
-1
AWS has this already...it's called Beginner's World and seasoned players are not welcome. Not to mention the Demo game...
When I restarted in MT6 a few monts into it, I was airline number 650 by age. Now I am number 91. That means 5/6 of the airlines currently playing in MT6 have either restarted or started late. Many restarted several times.
That's a vast majority of customer base of AWS. If AWS is to grow, this vast majority of paying customers could use a less hostile environment when they start.
This is not unique, BTW. Go look at various competitive games on internet, just about every single one gives a new player a protective environment to start from and get established. 4 to 7 days is typical of what I have come across. So I suggested 6 months, which is approximately 6 RL days.
I don't think it would be particularly limiting to existing players if they can't add flights to 1 out of 100 destinations for 6 days...
I think this would not be terribly dificult for the system to enforce. On the submit of the create a new flight, a check could be made if there is any "green" flight on the route. If it is, an error message would appear... And on various listings of flight, some color coding would be added...
I see it as a win win: Less work for administrators to deal with complaints, better experience for new players starting (restarting) in regular game worlds, and the investment of time to make it happen is not particularly large (in my opinion).
I'll agree on this being a great idea for new entrants. Although the rules prohibit targeting, it involves a great deal of administrative involvement and examination of evidence to determine the intent of the targeting. Then there's the issue of the player performing the targeting not understanding why they have attracted attention from the administration when the intent of targeting new entrants is more important than their actual method of trying to open routes.
The only question in my mind about the request, is would this restriction be only on incumbant airlines of the new airline, or would it also include other bases? I.e. suppose DFW has a new airline, could an ATL airline still open ATL-DFW? Personally, i'd think only the DFW side would need protectoin, as the ATL player woudln't care to actively squash someone in another city....
Quote from: schro on March 06, 2012, 01:49:13 AM
The only question in my mind about the request, is would this restriction be only on incumbant airlines of the new airline, or would it also include other bases? I.e. suppose DFW has a new airline, could an ATL airline still open ATL-DFW? Personally, i'd think only the DFW side would need protectoin, as the ATL player woudln't care to actively squash someone in another city....
I would make it universal. It would cover not only intentional, but also unintentional piling on on routes where a new airline just started flying.
To clarify, the players would be either under system protection (green) or not under system protection (black). The routes (demand graph, airport destinations) would all be color coded. And simply, black player would be prohibited from adding a flight on a route that has a green flight.
It would be a slight annoyance. But 6 game months is nothing in 25 year long game. And it is nothing compared to eterninty - never being able to fly to LHR, because of slot shortage, or FRA, where the player intentionally bought up all the slots to lock out competition.
Quote from: LemonButt on March 06, 2012, 12:58:27 AM
AWS has this already...it's called Beginner's World and seasoned players are not welcome. Not to mention the Demo game...
'nuff said.
Then welcome to the real world
I am not a fan of this idea. I don't think that opening a route that a new airline is on is unfair in any way, nor should it be against the rules. It's the systematic targeting that is the problem, not opening up on an individual route.
Any further talk or ideas on this topic?
I would be in favor of adding a rule that disallows established airlines in opening a route to a destination that has been just opened by a new airline, generally speaking. How that would work with all the details put in, is another thing.
Quote from: sami on April 18, 2013, 08:00:24 PM
Any further talk or ideas on this topic?
I would be in favor of adding a rule that disallows established airlines in opening a route to a destination that has been just opened by a new airline, generally speaking. How that would work with all the details put in, is another thing.
Honestly, the new sales distribution engine has gone a long way to solving this problem. In MT7, I observed many airlines that started in bases with well established gorillas and proceeded to prosper without a worry in the world no matter what the gorilla airline did to them (assuming there were slots available for them). Right now, if you jump into a large base with some F100's, you can start digging a hole and be untouchable, as supplying 100-200 seats/day to major destinations (1000-2000+ daily demand) regardless of the level of over supply and pricing on that route.
That being said, perhaps this concept could be done on a data collection and warning method as follows -
For the first 6 months of an airline's life in a base, if the incumbent airline(s) that are older than 6 months (or maybe 12 months) attempts to open a route to a destination that has been opened by the new airline, a warning will be displayed that opening the route could potentially be in violation of the targeting rules and ask that the player consider the spirit of the game rules, etc, prior to proceeding to open it. Each route that is opened after being warned would be flagged for potential review by the administration, or at least placed in a view that would make it easy to analyze the route openings upon a complaint. The review could be automated to an extent - i.e. new airline opens 10 destinations/routes, incumbent follows 8 of them within the initial period would trigger an administrative review...
Quote from: sami on April 18, 2013, 08:00:24 PM
Any further talk or ideas on this topic?
I would be in favor of adding a rule that disallows established airlines in opening a route to a destination that has been just opened by a new airline, generally speaking. How that would work with all the details put in, is another thing.
How about if a new player opens a route, then an established player opens one on top of them (flying at least 6x/week), their route becomes subsidized by whatever local governments are involved that buy up half the empty seats. If a new player opens a route on top of an established player, then nothing happens. This would prevent established players from opening up those routes until very last since it would give their competition a distinct advantage. For example, if LF is 80%, then 20% of the seats are empty and the airline receives a subsidy worth 10% LF, which actually comes out to more like 15% since they aren't paying pax fees etc. for those empty seats. If LF is 50%, then the subsidy is 25% LF, etc.
The subsidy should be a 5 year subsidy--anything shorter I think you have established airlines targeting the new guys specifically so the clock starts as soon as possible, running out the subsidy as soon as possible.
Quote from: schro on April 18, 2013, 08:28:56 PM
Honestly, the new sales distribution engine has gone a long way to solving this problem. In MT7, I observed many airlines that started in bases with well established gorillas and proceeded to prosper without a worry in the world no matter what the gorilla airline did to them (assuming there were slots available for them). Right now, if you jump into a large base with some F100's, you can start digging a hole and be untouchable, as supplying 100-200 seats/day to major destinations (1000-2000+ daily demand) regardless of the level of over supply and pricing on that route.
You still have to be a decent player to pull it off (to think of it) or the airport has to be badly slot constrained. Also, there are not that many airports out there with several 1000-2000 pax routes.
Quote from: schro on April 18, 2013, 08:28:56 PM
That being said, perhaps this concept could be done on a data collection and warning method as follows -
For the first 6 months of an airline's life in a base, if the incumbent airline(s) that are older than 6 months (or maybe 12 months) attempts to open a route to a destination that has been opened by the new airline, a warning will be displayed that opening the route could potentially be in violation of the targeting rules and ask that the player consider the spirit of the game rules, etc, prior to proceeding to open it. Each route that is opened after being warned would be flagged for potential review by the administration, or at least placed in a view that would make it easy to analyze the route openings upon a complaint. The review could be automated to an extent - i.e. new airline opens 10 destinations/routes, incumbent follows 8 of them within the initial period would trigger an administrative review...
I think the best method is one that is fully automated. Why not just disallow opening the route and be done with it?
Quote from: schro on April 18, 2013, 08:28:56 PM
Honestly, the new sales distribution engine has gone a long way to solving this problem. In MT7, I observed many airlines that started in bases with well established gorillas and proceeded to prosper without a worry in the world no matter what the gorilla airline did to them (assuming there were slots available for them). Right now, if you jump into a large base with some F100's, you can start digging a hole and be untouchable, as supplying 100-200 seats/day to major destinations (1000-2000+ daily demand) regardless of the level of over supply and pricing on that route.
I am inclined to agree. It does seems much easier to build an airline in a hostile environment, provided you have a working knowledge of AWS mechanics and slots. There's an alot of info on the forums compared to previous years and I actually think people do read what is posted... for the most part anyway. :laugh:
Quote from: schro on April 18, 2013, 08:28:56 PM
That being said, perhaps this concept could be done on a data collection and warning method as follows -
For the first 6 months of an airline's life in a base, if the incumbent airline(s) that are older than 6 months (or maybe 12 months) attempts to open a route to a destination that has been opened by the new airline, a warning will be displayed that opening the route could potentially be in violation of the targeting rules and ask that the player consider the spirit of the game rules, etc, prior to proceeding to open it. Each route that is opened after being warned would be flagged for potential review by the administration, or at least placed in a view that would make it easy to analyze the route openings upon a complaint. The review could be automated to an extent - i.e. new airline opens 10 destinations/routes, incumbent follows 8 of them within the initial period would trigger an administrative review...
The administrative review sounds good. I like the idea and what it can bring to the table. I do feel however, that such a system would tax alot of Sami's or the forum mod's time to deal with this one issue. Which I suspect is wide spread and rampant. Just that very few cases actually get reported or brought into the light.
Thus to add on to this suggestion, I would recommend you set up and staff, a panel of players that can devote time to review cases. Acting as peer judges for this. They can review, debate, come up with a solution to which you can approve or reject if necessary.
So, we can add a layer of protection to newer airlines, not bog down your
all of your time doing so, while getting the player base more involved into helping solve the different matters of AWS.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on April 19, 2013, 03:30:40 AM
I think the best method is one that is fully automated. Why not just disallow opening the route and be done with it?
Because that is too
restrictive and we should try and involve players (you) to use there unique insight for the betterment of AWS's player development. By combining yourself with others of your skill level and there different paths of success, we can better improve everyone's understanding of AWS. Thus, improving the games retention of newer and older players alike.
Talentz
Quote from: JumboShrimp on April 19, 2013, 03:30:40 AM
I think the best method is one that is fully automated. Why not just disallow opening the route and be done with it?
That just begs for abuse in my mind.
Quote from: sami on April 18, 2013, 08:00:24 PM
Any further talk or ideas on this topic?
I would be in favor of adding a rule that disallows established airlines in opening a route to a destination that has been just opened by a new airline, generally speaking. How that would work with all the details put in, is another thing.
It seems to me to be fairly straight forward.
- Color coding of routes
- I think the check should be on Routes/Open just prior to blank (or copied) route opening detail is displayed. Instead, the user would be redirected to a red error message. Routes/Edit should still work.
I would prefer it to be automated, but in those cases it is always simple "yes or no", and there is no flexibility. For a human "panel" moderating these, I'm afraid that eventually the job pours down to my hands...
Quote from: sami on April 19, 2013, 08:17:55 AM
I would prefer it to be automated, but in those cases it is always simple "yes or no", and there is no flexibility. For a human "panel" moderating these, I'm afraid that eventually the job pours down to my hands...
I think what I was referring to was the level of punishment, not whether they would be punished or not. However if automated is better for you, then that's the route that we should go. I just don't want to see you boggled down with anti-competition flags that lead to reduced time for developing AWS.
Talentz
I think this would be unnecessary, and this is coming from a beginner! Leave the game just the way it is, it's completely fine!
Would like to hear more thoughts and comments on this subject, as keeping new players on board is an important issue in my mind in the longer term, and "not giving them a chance" isn't good.
My opinion is: level up all the airports... there should be no advantage over who grabs ATL, ORD, or CDG first... All players should have the same grounds to develop their airlines..
Second opinion is: make small planes (even) more profitable...
that way beginners can go to airports with no based airlines, and develop from there without heavy competition... (and make a whole new hub probably ??)
People that starts a game late must know that they won't be #1 airline... it happens in every massive online multiplayer game I ever played... that's a fact, and that won't change... if you want to get another chance, then wait for the next restart... and that leads to: make more games available (restarts more often)...
When I was a beginner it sucked hard, that once I screwed up in MT games, I'd have to wait like 9 months in order to get another chance...
Agree that there obviously needs to be a balance between keeping both new players and existing players engaged. A couple suggestions:
1. Is it possible at start up to have a filter that lists "largest airports with no other airlines, largest airlines with no airline greater than 20% MS, etc". Allowing the new player to more easily select airports that they can be successful at will help them stay engaged.
2. Engaging someone to keep the beginner's guide updated with the changes in AWS (I would be willing to help with this), along with recommendations, etc. Part of the frustrating thing starting the game is that you have no idea what you are supposed to do and the game is a 'slow game' so it takes a while to realize you've made mistakes. You can then BK, but starting over is real tough also...
3. Suggest making it easier for new airlines to start up - maybe a bigger LF bonus if a player starts after year 5?
Will add more things later, but have to run. Cheers!
To further my comments about the changed demand engine, I'll also say that the small/medium plane fees and maint changes have also opened up a world of possibilities for the new players. Prior to those changes, you HAD to base somewhere desirable and use big metal to survive just to be squashed like a bug by an experienced player. Many new players often dip their toes in big game worlds in an out of the way airport that doesn't see much competition, and under the prior cost model, got crushed every time wondering why their E-120's bankrupted them. Now, they can actually join and fly those out of say, KSAV, and actually run a decent airline. Also, with those new costs, its fairly easy to stay alive, even if a larger airline tries to bury you.
In JA8, when those changes were made, I had a competitor that was bleeding about 300-500k per quarter with a fleet of 4x DC3's and 3x DC6's. Sure, some of his DC3's were double tech stopped on KDAL-KATL, but the small plane costs were killing him. Then when the change was made, he was borderline profitable and continued as a seemingly unmonitored going concern for several more game years (until DC-6B maint costs finally put him down). If he had all DC3's, he'd probably still be puttering along right now with those changes...
I think the issue in the game should be about trying to provide more playing options for people rather than worrying about someone who starts in a top ten airport with an established airline. I've become the top airline at a major world airport in a game and I have also bk'd in the middle of a game and had to restart so I have seen both sides of the coin when it comes to starting off. I think there are several things that would enhance playability for new players instead of monitoring each and every new route.
1. Cargo: Cargo would allow a completely new realm for players to operate in and allow a completely new market. Currently the game is set so that all markets revolve around passenger traffic from a few top airports.
2. Improved third world demand: Providing more alternatives for bases and for people trying to experiment would be great. There are airports in the game that have much less demand than they do in real life which keeps players from operating in less noticed areas of the world.
3. City Based Demand: Need I say more?
4. Re-working of crew requirements as well as how aircraft age: Aside from smaller aircraft needing fewer personnel than they currently do in the game, making aging aircraft more affordable and giving them a longer lifespan would give players cheaper aircraft to choose from to get started. Also removing all price floors from an aircraft once it hits maybe 16 years of age, its second D-check, would open up the used market allowing for prices to be more easily offset for aircraft with expired or upcoming checks, it would also keep established players from having to constantly adjust prices the longer the aircraft sits on the market, it would also give a home for all those rusting 20 year old MD-80s that in real life are still usable.
A player that chooses to join DoTM in 1990 at ATL is going to have a hard time at it so it shouldn't be a surprise to him if he BKs, rather than worrying about setting up automatic route checks or having Sami do it, I would say that game mechanics and playability changes are the way to go. City based demand and cargo would be the greatest fixes in allowing players to have a great start when starting off, ( and a few aircraft age adjustments wouldn't hurt either) and it would allow for secondary markets that simply cannot exist as the game is currently set up.
All enhancements you mentioned would be used by all players, experienced will use those in their favour, so I see no special newbie benefit.
You can mess up an airline as good as now with cargo instead of people and with whatever demand numbers.I wouldn´t expect an easier life for anyone with city-based demand.
It will rise demand levels for many airports , but it will take those numbers away from hubs.
A lot of new players fail because they don´t read the manuals and tips, jump right in a full world without trying Demo or BW,base as seventh airline at a major hub , buy the wrong planes and schedule them irrationally.Some of them then start asking questions, others just leave without notice.
This game should stay being a challenge, also for newcomers.The ambitious will stay, the less interested will leave anyway sooner or later.
Oh I am not saying it will be a fix all, someone leasing a 707 to fly cargo in 1998 would be in trouble. I just think that it could help some with crowding which would help along some new players. Stupidity and a poor airline cannot be fixed and shouldn't be fixed, I know I have done my fair share of stupid things and I don't think the game should be altered because of my mistakes. I think people are mainly complaining because some larger airlines target new airlines. I would just say welcome to competition, I bk'd half way through the current MT game because I leased more planes than I had slots for, I then went and set up a profitable little airline at a small base in the midwest, re-starting mid-game would make it nearly impossible to launch at a slot locked larger airport so I settled with what I knew would work and ran with it and have found it fun. Some newb launching at ORD in 2005 is probably going to be crushed (there are exceptions) and that isn't a surprise, they should try a secondary airport if they aren't ready to fight competition. Copying every route shouldn't be allowed, but I think the solution lies in game mechanics mostly.
Bump to this for more comments on the subject of "how we can make it easier for new players to enter am existing game where all routes are "filled" already?"
Quote from: sami on February 22, 2014, 02:34:55 PM
Bump to this for more comments on the subject of "how we can make it easier for new players to enter am existing game where all routes are "filled" already?"
The easiest answer is more money. I assume part of the bump is my comments on starting at ORD late in the game. $7.6 million is simply not enough because slots eat up more than 50% of that. IRL airports want competition because it drives down prices for consumers which increases passengers handled.
Given a fixed $7.6 million, do you want to start an airline at a class 5 airport where you don't get much bang for your buck or start at a level 3 airport where things are cheap? The easy solution is incentivize players to take on the established airlines in expensive airports by giving them more money. In ORD for example, there are 2 major airlines who aren't even attempting to compete with each other as neither airline serves 100% demand on most routes--they each serve ~50% and fly with high load factors, which IRL doesn't do anything for consumers.
So at ORD, if I had $20 million to start I could be very competitive. That is just a ballpark number, but if given two options--$7.6 million to start in an empty airport or $20 million to start at ORD, then we are truly talking apples to apples versus apples and oranges. This is a big part of the reason I BK'd my airline out of Paris - Orly. The only competition that was going to come for me was going to be horizontally (major airline opening a new base) versus vertically (new startup airline).
A simple way to do this would be to base starting cash on the marketshare of all based airlines at an airport. The marketshare of the 3 based airlines at ORD is 45.7% + 29.3% + 2.2% = 77.2%. Using 1/(1-marketshare) and multiplying it by the starting cash would yeild the following values:
77.2% = 4.38x = $33.3 million
70% = 3.3x = $25.3 million
60% = 2.5x = $19 million
50% = 2.0x = $15.2 million
40% = 1.7x = $12.7 million
30% = 1.4x = $10.8 million
20% = 1.25x = $9.5 million
10% = 1.1x = $8.4 million
0% = 1.0x = $7.6 million (would be for airports with zero based airlines)
So the bottom line is give players a REAL choice on where to start midgame. The airlines who need the competition the most are the ones where the big money would be available.
Slot costs are the biggest problem. New airlines that start late in a game should get discounted (or at lost not cost increased) slots for a bit longer.
Quote from: CUR$E on February 22, 2014, 06:39:48 PM
Slot costs are the biggest problem. New airlines that start late in a game should get discounted (or at lost not cost increased) slots for a bit longer.
This would be the best solution, IMO. If a player starting on day one pays $50k for a slot set at ORD, LAX, LHR, etc, then a player starting on day 5,263 should pay the same price. Lemon Butt's math looks like it would accomplish the same thing, though it may be harder to understand for a new player and/or harder to program.
The problem with cheaper slots is it is a largely hidden benefit, whereas the extra $ is easy to code and easier for players to see (so people like me don't whine about an uneven playing field lol).
The only caveat would be slots are a deductible expense if you lose them, but I don't think it will really matter since it is new airlines that shouldn't be divesting any slots anyways. GW2 has 275 players out of 700 slots. If players could enter the game with the extra $ I would venture to say we'd spike to 300+ players pretty quickly since the late entrants now have a chance :)
I just used my late entry GW#3 experience. I joined to get a feeling for the interface etc. and after I had four or five aircraft (737-300 or so) a slot week at my headquarters (KDFW) cost about 600-700k. Together with the destination slot it was about $1Million. It takes a lot of weeks for even a good planned small airline to get this money - plus the money needed for new aircraft.
Simply more money would lead a big bunch of the "not so experienced"/"not so skilled" players to go for more and more expensive aircraft or, even worse, purchase some cheap ones. I think making just slots less expensive would give people a bump in the correct direction.
Quote from: sami on July 31, 2013, 03:49:04 PM
Would like to hear more thoughts and comments on this subject, as keeping new players on board is an important issue in my mind in the longer term, and "not giving them a chance" isn't good.
I doubt it is a good solution, big airports will then be protection locked most of the time, with the big players from there also beeing protected. New players could get other advantages, like:
-more money (the later they start the GW with much more money they usually get- inflation went up and it is much more attractive to start with 80-90-100 mil, when your competitors started with 8);
-after 2-3 years of gameplay in a gw, they could get double airplanes in the first weeks;
-start with CI 30 (free marketing from the airport);
-when they open bases, if they choose a base without any competition, the airport could give an incentive (7 free slot sets/ RI starting 50 for first routes/ RI growing faster because of free route campaign from airport/ no airport taxes or reduced taxes first year, etc...
I agree with sami - it's generally important to keep new players (the guy who runs this game should definitely know that, after all!). The challenge is that the way in which new players are "protected" has to be natural in some way. You need some mechanism that ensures they have a fighting chance, but it also has to be realistic and make sense within the context of the game worlds. I propose the following options:
New airlines should start with a higher company image Usually, a new airline in the real world will generate some "buzz" in that it will attract people who are tired of the older, more established airlines. A starting company image of 10, with the first few routes starting at a route image of say, 20, would give new players a faster start. It's also a completely rational and realistic concept - New airlines almost always end up in the news!
Initial aircraft purchase Capital is a huge problem for new airlines. Usually, you end up being stuck with tiny old aircraft, or you end up having to lease aircraft, often from your own competitors! This makes no sense. In the real world, new airlines usually have at least a decent investor backing. Upon founding, a new airline should be given some sort of allowance to directly purchase 1-2 medium aircraft. This doesn't mean having airlines start with $30 million or anything. It could be similar to the existing mechanic where aircraft are used as loan securities, only without the actual loan in place. Essentially, your airline would be "held hostage" by investor demands that you maintain assets early on!
Help out the smaller Base airports! In previous game worlds (different account - I accidentally allowed my old account to lapse), I've had a lot of success coming in late by sticking with smaller airports for hubs. My favored airport has been Raleigh-Durham International, though I'm currently running a KABQ airline in GW#1 that looks like it has pretty good prospects. The problem is that I'm probably not going to be able to expand far beyond 20-25 aircraft before running out of profitable routes. Granted, I'm sort of banking on building up a CRJ-700 fleet later on in the 1990's so I can hit some east coast destinations. But after that...I don't really have anywhere to go. An option already discussed was tax incentives - maybe encourage basing while discouraging secondary hubs (tax break for airlines based there, for example).
In general, my big point is this: Realistic, "flavorful" (in the sense that players can understand and "get" them) mechanics will work. Arbitrary rules will not. Look at the recent thread on slot trading - there are natural ways to effectively manage the landing slots, but just making rules that lack context will just lead to people finding ways to work around them, or worse, people will find ways to use said rules for abusive personal gains.
The issue isn't CI, RI, aircraft purchases vs leasing, or the size of the airport--it is slot costs, pure and simple. I paid $4 million to schedule my first 3 aircraft at ORD flying 4x/day. The 4th aircraft will cost $4.1 million for slots flying in the same time blocks 4x/day. The sad part is that these are cheap slots for the 4 hour blocks with the most slots available. So really, it doesn't matter if an airline starts with a CI and RI of 100 because if you can't buy slots, you're going to be stuck taxiing between airports instead of flying.
I don't support the additional limitations. This game isn't all about the larger airport and that's what the new guys only look at (or go to very very small airports and get stuck after adding two or three routes).
Quote from: LGM-118 on February 27, 2014, 04:06:38 PM
Help out the smaller Base airports! In previous game worlds (different account - I accidentally allowed my old account to lapse), I've had a lot of success coming in late by sticking with smaller airports for hubs. My favored airport has been Raleigh-Durham International, though I'm currently running a KABQ airline in GW#1 that looks like it has pretty good prospects. The problem is that I'm probably not going to be able to expand far beyond 20-25 aircraft before running out of profitable routes. Granted, I'm sort of banking on building up a CRJ-700 fleet later on in the 1990's so I can hit some east coast destinations. But after that...I don't really have anywhere to go. An option already discussed was tax incentives - maybe encourage basing while discouraging secondary hubs (tax break for airlines based there, for example).
In game world #1, I'm operating a domestic airline from the smaller Brazilian airports (Porto Alegre, Belo Horizonte, Recife and Rio de Janeiro - Santos Dumont). Operating quite profitable with my Fokker F27 and F28 fleet since 1966. The only problem is that I got stuck there after I opened the last route from Rio de Janeiro... Waiting a long period of time until the Fokker 50 and 100 were certified, which meant that I could start fleet renewal (now I'm waiting for the announcement of the Fokker 70...). I think by adding domestic (and intra-European) A-B-C-B-A routes for the smaller airports, we can make it more fun for these players? Maybe allowing these airlines to open a fifth base can make it less boring on the long term?
Also by adding special missions within the game world like Soviet a/c only limitation in Communist countries (of course with a bit increased demand in the Soviet Union and lower fuel on domestic routes) will do it also?
I think this one should be marked [ok]?
Quote from: LemonButt on February 27, 2014, 04:41:15 PM
The issue isn't CI, RI, aircraft purchases vs leasing, or the size of the airport--it is slot costs, pure and simple. I paid $4 million to schedule my first 3 aircraft at ORD flying 4x/day. The 4th aircraft will cost $4.1 million for slots flying in the same time blocks 4x/day. The sad part is that these are cheap slots for the 4 hour blocks with the most slots available. So really, it doesn't matter if an airline starts with a CI and RI of 100 because if you can't buy slots, you're going to be stuck taxiing between airports instead of flying.
That's an issue when you start an airline out of the larger airports.
Quote from: Hwoarang on February 27, 2014, 06:21:57 PM
I don't support the additional limitations. This game isn't all about the larger airport and that's what the new guys only look at (or go to very very small airports and get stuck after adding two or three routes).
Yup. Look, when people start an airline in this game, they want it to be big. That's just the way it is. My view is that in order for people to pay into the game, they need to be given the option to, with some constraints, obviously, play the airline they want to play. Doing that requires understanding a bit of the new player psychology, which is more often than not, "I want to operate a big, international airline!" I think there are some ways of doing that, such as:
1) "Intermediate maps" - Basically, make a game world that is "a step up" from the beginner world maps. These maps would allow people with a bit more experience into the game, so players would get a chance to further hone skills. It would also give new players better insights into the reality that yes, they can have their "big, international airline!" but that it requires sound decision-making and patience.
2) Enable bigger airlines at the Class C's. There are quite a few "smaller" airports with international service. Raleigh-Durham has a daily LHR flight (American Airlines 767-300ER), Austin now has a daily flight to LHR (British Airways 787-8), and there are a few others in the US alone. The idea is that the most experienced players (the people who start airlines right when a new game world opens, have played multiple servers, etc.) aren't likely to base airlines out of airports without significant traffic (I have been in three game worlds and never once had hub competition when basing out of RDU). The problem is that there's almost no international demand. This is mostly accurate, but I feel that the RDU-sized airports should have some international demand - not a lot, but enough that an airline based there end up with two or three international routes. Smaller airports are definitely viable; I'm running an airline with currently 20 aircraft out of Albuquerque, and that's with the current rules.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on March 04, 2012, 11:46:04 PM
Most of the massively multiplayer online games have some system of new player protection. AWS could use something a little more explicit than a guideline.
For example, if an airline is less than 6 months old, its routes could show up in green, instead of black. Older airlines (black) would not be able to add flights to any routes that have green flights. (green vs. green would be ok).
This could be done first for only informational purposes, later it could be enforced by the system.
Just giving a bump to the original idea. An automated system that would prevent incumbent, older, bigger airlines ability to target routes of new players for first 6 months of new airline's life.
I believe the amount of this sort of targeting is vast, just not reported. Experienced players (more likely to report it) tend to start on Day 1 of the game world. New players who join existing games are the most likely target, and they are the least likely to report it. So it goes on, without the administrators being aware of it.
(Sami, please see my PM)
Two thoughts----
1) allow a 'reorganization' instead of just bankruptcy. In other word allow an airlines to terminate leases, fire employees, quit routes without a) cash, and b) without a huge hit in CI, etc. The reason players restart is because they don't have the cash to do these tasks, and restarting means they have to start back at zero in regards to CI, RI, etc. And yes the argument that they made a mistake and need to live with it is valid – but the question here is how to keep players playing. Reorganization may allow them to learn from mistakes quicker.
2) Create a world only for 'aggressive' players. I feel there are two type of players here, 1) one who just wants to run a successful airline, enjoying the business simulation and not really caring what the competition is doing, and 2) the player who wants to dominate and crush all other players. Creating a world just for these type of players would keep the first type out and then allow the others to be as aggressive as they want, creating happiness for both types of players.
I think this is a bad idea. We shouldn't encourage new players to start at crowded/competitive airports and give them training wheels, but rather they should be starting at secondary airports until they understand the fundamentals of the game. Once they are successful in the minors, they can move up to the big leagues. There is already too much other players can do at another player's detriment (i.e. slots) and if you want to unlevel the playing field and prohibit other a player from opening up routes, well that is just wrong IMO. If you don't want to get burned, don't play with fire. And this is coming from me, an outspoken player for the little guy.
@ bdnascar3
To be honest, that's not going to help. Weren't you the guy who started out of LAX in GW#4 several times, each time BK'ing himself because of poor aircraft and scheduling choice?
@ Topic
Newbie protection at the end is useless, because the main problem in AirwaySim is not the fact new players got bashed by older ones (like it is in browsergames with a military part) but because new _AND_ many old players make massive mistakes and many never learn from them.
AirwaySim already has massive aggression reducing rules in place. Actually AWS rules basically forbid _everything_ to compete. Basically the rules say: "Let the smaller player grow until he's bigger than you, then you're allowed to fight back until you're bigger again."
For once I'm with LemonButt: We should encourage players to start somewhere they don't compete directly with one of the huge airlines and we should allow airlines to fight (!) to make it more interesting for big airlines again.
The 600 aircraft basing system is a good step for the first thing, to encourage players to start out of Tier 2 and smaller Tier 1 airports and still be successful. City based demand will encourage this even further.
However, what's now needed is to revoke the anti-competition rules completely and replace them by something like "airlines younger than 6 month must not be attacked". That's an easy rule everybody can understand and it's easy for sami to wach and ensure it.
Quote from: LemonButt on June 27, 2014, 12:22:44 PM
I think this is a bad idea. We shouldn't encourage new players to start at crowded/competitive airports and give them training wheels, but rather they should be starting at secondary airports until they understand the fundamentals of the game. Once they are successful in the minors, they can move up to the big leagues. There is already too much other players can do at another player's detriment (i.e. slots) and if you want to unlevel the playing field and prohibit other a player from opening up routes, well that is just wrong IMO. If you don't want to get burned, don't play with fire. And this is coming from me, an outspoken player for the little guy.
There is absolutely nothing about the idea that encourages or discourages a player to start at small or large airport.
As far as limiting an existing player from attacking a newly started airline (knowingly or not) - yes, absolutely. All MMU games do it. I an surprised why AWS is the only one I know about that does not.
This is the behavior it would automatically stop:
- new airline starts at (any sized) airport
- new airline starts to fly underserved routes
- existing big airline "all of the sudden" realizes all those routes were under served, adds capacity, either kills the new airline outright, or severely cripples it.
All a new airline can manage to typically serve is perhaps 20 destinations. The new system would not prevent your airline from:
- adding capacity on any route in your own first 6 months of your life
- adding capacity on the other 380 out of 400 viable destinations, only 20 out of 400 viable destinations with a new airline on it
- adding capacity on those 20 routes in question anytime before and anytime after the restricted period. The new games are some 35 years long. 6 month restriction is a very small limitation. 1/70 of the length of the game on 20/400 destinations.
What is your probability of being limited by this, as an existing airline? 1 in 1400 (= 1/70 * 20 / 400).
That is a very approximate likelihood of you being limited. Or 0.07%.
Now this is what goes on: Some existing airlines direct 100% of their new capacity attacking a newly formed airline, very often undetected and unreported. These are after all new players, new airlines that are being targeted, the least likely one to report these violations.
Quote from: CUR$E - God of AWS on June 27, 2014, 12:49:55 PM
AirwaySim already has massive aggression reducing rules in place. Actually AWS rules basically forbid _everything_ to compete. Basically the rules say: "Let the smaller player grow until he's bigger than you, then you're allowed to fight back until you're bigger again."
No, this system would be very explicit. You can't attack a new airline while it is new, but you can do your worst after that initial period. No gray area, you could not be accused of targeting, you would not be presumed guilty. If the system allows it, you are fine. If it is not fine, the system will not allow opening that route...
Quote from: CUR$E - God of AWS on June 27, 2014, 12:49:55 PM
For once I'm with LemonButt: We should encourage players to start somewhere they don't compete directly with one of the huge airlines and we should allow airlines to fight (!) to make it more interesting for big airlines again.
The 600 aircraft basing system is a good step for the first thing, to encourage players to start out of Tier 2 and smaller Tier 1 airports and still be successful. City based demand will encourage this even further.
This is not about what happens when the game world starts. This is about existing games, in progress. With the new basing system, even Tier 2 will likely have large airlines based in them. And in the Tier 2 airports, targeting is actually far more damaging than at a large airport.
Example Tier 2:
- New player adds 150 supply on an unserved route with 150 demand
- Old airline adds 150 supply on the same route
Example Tier 1
- old airline servers 1350 supply on route with 1500 demand
- new airline adds 150 supply on the same route
- The old airline would have to add capacity of 1500 to cause equal amount of damage as in Tier 2
Hi. Thoughts from a nearly new player.
To be accurate, I did play beginner's 3 weeks, before switching to brand new GW3. The thing is, I did do my homework, more or less. I did choose an average base airport(Glasgow), read toroughly the rules, the FAQ's, the advice, and so on. Though not all-powerful, my company is rather strong for a newbie who made plenty of mistakes. I've got 4 bases now, and the smaller ones are the ones who make the most cash. In the meantime, my 2 initial opponents in Glasgow did die a painful death.
Lessons learned :
(1)don't mess with big lines if you're not absolutely ready to face cutthroat competition. I've lost a lot of feathers in a mistaken try there. Pilots costs, communality costs are real killers there.
(2)do your homework : if you regularly check your ticket prices, load factors and opposition evolution, you can adapt & get more money from your planes
(3)mistakes are costly. You have to learn from them or die.
(4)I attacked my opponents only when their failure became obvious(i.e. -4M pee quarter 2 quarters in a row, and no perspectives for a rebound). I mainly wanted to be sure I'd have lines already operational on every space they'd leave empty as soon as they'd die. I could have attacked them earlier, with greater risks from me.
(3) is what makes the game fun to me. AWS is an intelligent game, that shows us our own stupidity. It reminds me somewhat Cities in motion, to an extent. But it can be fearful to less careful players, that dream of a beefed up version of airlines manager 2(where opposition is only in the standings, not in the airports).
So the thing is : how not to scare those less careful players to death? I'd say by some kind of tutorial elements. Examples :
(a)I've got 2 737-200. I want to buy a 737-300. A pop-up warns me with communality costs.(but does not prevent me, if I want to be stupid...)
(b)12 companies did settle in ORD, including year-long veterans full of achievements. I'm a complete newbie. A pop-up warns me about "cutthroat competion" at this airport.(but does not prevent me, if I want to be stupid...)
(c)I'm about investing 50% of my expenses in marketing in a 3-years, 5-media campaign for a Bergen-Paderborn route. A pop-up warns me that it could sink my company.(but does not prevent me, if I want to be stupid...)
(d)My MD80s fly only 5.5 hours per day. A pop-up warns me that I cannot earn money like that.(but does not create more lines for me, if I want to be stupid...)
etc..... could be a "tutorial mode", deactivable at wish, that would have a few alerts like that. If player wants to bypass, well, there's a lesson to be learned(or not, it could be part of a clever strategy - just most of the time it will just be a mistake). From what I've heard about WoW, the new player is guided for a very long part of the game. It shall not be so in AWS, a game that appeals to a smaller niche of players, but still, some elements of guidance should really avoid the worse mistakes.
One of my opponents in Glasgow, called CalAir, died because he did not anticipate opposition. He had somewhat good lines, but was slowly but surely smothered by growing opposition from outside. That's life. I accelerated his demise by opening lines to Stockholm & Leeds, but he was already in the red at the time, with no hope of recovery. I hope he learned a lesson(about game dynamics, i.e. a line gushing cash is not forever, it WILL attract thirsty opposition. just a matter of time).
The other one, FlyUK, though, had only 2 lines(to Heathrow & Gatwick), and a plane utilization of 5.5 hours per day! Opposition on Heathrow was already big, I just had to plan several lines to Gatwick to finish him off(and take my share of the Gatwick line) - but he was doomed anyways. That's the kind of players that would really be helped by some kind of alert. Unless he just disconnected, I don't know - but for those, there is nothing to do.
(there's a new competitor focused on long-haul, a domain I'm avoiding on purpose. I wish him good luck - he might need it).
TL;DR : some kind of alarms, or pop-up, could warn the new player about the standard stupid mistakes, and help him thrive if he is wise enough to follow them.
One more thought:
Some players are not even aware of the targeting rule being in place, or (falsely?) claim ignorance. Or, they truly don't know they are adding capacity on a route of a new airline (if the airline is at the destination airport).
This change would take all ambiguity / guessing out, it would be system enforced. The vague rule about targeting can then be removed from the manual.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on June 27, 2014, 02:14:24 PM
No, this system would be very explicit. You can't attack a new airline while it is new, but you can do your worst after that initial period. No gray area, you could not be accused of targeting, you would not be presumed guilty. If the system allows it, you are fine. If it is not fine, the system will not allow opening that route...
I talked about the current rule system. :)
Quote from: JumboShrimp on June 27, 2014, 02:14:24 PM
This is not about what happens when the game world starts. This is about existing games, in progress. With the new basing system, even Tier 2 will likely have large airlines based in them. And in the Tier 2 airports, targeting is actually far more damaging than at a large airport.
I don't agree with you in this one. Most if not all good players will concentrate the numbers of aircraft they are allowed now to one or two airports, what makes most sense due to the extreme staff costs at your HQ when you open a base.
People who spread their bases and aircraft will be vulnerable. People who start out of a smaller airport have several years of mostly competition free game before maybe somebody starts to base there - but now they can also base at an empty or weak top airport and are not limited to 100 aircraft, but can try to maximize this airport with the 600 allowed aircraft.
Jumbo--I don't know how you play the game, but if I put in an order for 100 aircraft I already have them scheduled. If you tell me when the aircraft show up, I can't open the routes I already had planned because some new player jumped into my base, then that is just wrong. And yes, it does matter because when you are maximizing your utilization there might only be 1 route that you can fly to fill a schedule thanks to slot restrictions, curfews, etc.
The bottom line is new airlines CHOOSE to be at a specific airport with known competition. Those established airlines didn't choose to compete with those new airlines, but are forced to by default. They didn't land on plymouth rock--plymouth rock landed on them. So if a new player CHOOSES to compete with an established airline, an established airline must be able to compete back.
I have a successful airline in GW2. I opened up in ORD where two of the Top 10 airlines in the game are based and there were 3 hour deadzones in the morning and afternoon with zero slots available. I could have picked an easier airport, but I made the CHOICE to compete with them and also base at ORD. So my advice to a new player is don't base at an airport unless you want to compete with the airlines already there, which should be obvious.
I think the real problem with AWS players is that their concept of competition is scorched earth, when really there is no reason multiple airlines can't coexist and "win" with their respective strategies. It goes back to competing with strategy versus "winning".
Quote from: LemonButt on June 27, 2014, 02:48:34 PM
Jumbo--I don't know how you play the game, but if I put in an order for 100 aircraft I already have them scheduled. If you tell me when the aircraft show up, I can't open the routes I already had planned because some new player jumped into my base, then that is just wrong. And yes, it does matter because when you are maximizing your utilization there might only be 1 route that you can fly to fill a schedule thanks to slot restrictions, curfews, etc.
How often do you really schedule your aircraft after the initial growth period? I do maybe once per RL week. So I get to scheduling, and I can't fly right this moment to the destination because of a new player. All right, I will get to it next time.
6 month "protection" period is less than 4.5 RL days in slow games, even less in faster games.
You are making it sound like drama, but the restriction is really minor, will be barely noticeable.
I joined GameWorld #2 late to help my alliance and ran into a problem I never realized (as I normally do not join late in a game):
It's the year 2012 and I can basically not find a good aircraft.
The reasons for that are several:
1) Very attractive lines that offer high efficiency are not available anymore, like Airbus A300-600R. For late starters it's one of the best aircraft because it offers extremely high efficiency even during high fuel price times and acceptable leasing costs for new and used aircraft.
2) New aircraft are too expensive to lease. If an alliance mate would get me 777 or A330 (the only real useful aircraft in 2012 for longhaul) even the 90% allowed minimum alliance lease is too high to ensure enough profit on those aircraft.
3) Alternatives have full production lines. There's no possibility for me to get even 7x 787 for example.
4) Extreme lease prices even for A320/737NG.
So, as a new player I'm stuck to old used market stuff that is neither what I really want nor what I really need. I must use it because there are no alternatives and it really reduces fun.
I'm not sure how to solve these things (maybe prevent A300 line from closing), just something to think about. And, to be honest, as a consequence from this I step back from joining running games again. Either you start at day 0 or - in longtime gameworlds - before the year 2000 or things are incredibly difficult due to game mechanics.
Making a small airline would maybe work, however, there's still the new challenge feature that doesn't work with small airlines when the goal is to transport as many pax as possible.
From my experience there is no such thing as "player protection" and its always a struggle to start up vs established airlines.
I'm running an experimental airline in gw4 against an established player and make minimal profits with a single fleet of cheaply leased B732ADV with over 17hrs of utilisation.
To be fair the routes are covered well by the competition but AWS should still allow players to challenge an established airline who is operating on his own in a big airport..
I do have a suspicion that prices are being slashed against my airline to make things tough but nevertheless this would highlight the fact again that there isn't such thing as player protection.
ultimately this isn't good for the whole of AWS as many newer players will turn away from the game and will not be encouraged to operate from the so called larger airports.
Quote from: [ATA] frimp on June 27, 2014, 09:36:53 PM
From my experience there is no such thing as "player protection" and its always a struggle to start up vs established airlines.
IMO it is easier to compete with established airlines versus new ones. In business in general it is easier to break into a mature marketplace versus a new one because you already know what the competition is doing. For example, I opened up in ORD in GW2 against two competitors and they had already covered every route. I didn't have to worry about opening up a route and then having them dump a bunch of flights on top of me, reducing my margins. Instead, I was the one doing the dumping :)
Quote from: CUR$E - God of AWS on June 27, 2014, 09:11:41 PM
I joined GameWorld #2 late to help my alliance and ran into a problem I never realized (as I normally do not join late in a game):
It's the year 2012 and I can basically not find a good aircraft.
The reasons for that are several:
1) Very attractive lines that offer high efficiency are not available anymore, like Airbus A300-600R. For late starters it's one of the best aircraft because it offers extremely high efficiency even during high fuel price times and acceptable leasing costs for new and used aircraft.
2) New aircraft are too expensive to lease. If an alliance mate would get me 777 or A330 (the only real useful aircraft in 2012 for longhaul) even the 90% allowed minimum alliance lease is too high to ensure enough profit on those aircraft.
3) Alternatives have full production lines. There's no possibility for me to get even 7x 787 for example.
4) Extreme lease prices even for A320/737NG.
So, as a new player I'm stuck to old used market stuff that is neither what I really want nor what I really need. I must use it because there are no alternatives and it really reduces fun.
I'm not sure how to solve these things (maybe prevent A300 line from closing), just something to think about. And, to be honest, as a consequence from this I step back from joining running games again. Either you start at day 0 or - in longtime gameworlds - before the year 2000 or things are incredibly difficult due to game mechanics.
Making a small airline would maybe work, however, there's still the new challenge feature that doesn't work with small airlines when the goal is to transport as many pax as possible.
There are plenty of challenges for a new airline joining late (limited availability of aircraft one of them). That's just what it is, we can't pull aircraft out of thin air.
But what can be changed is giving new entrant some breathing room, protection from attacks in first days of life.
All other Massively Multiplayer Online Games have some sort of protection for new players - for a good reason. These other companies want the new players to stay, to continue to play. They don't want them to be blown away right away - especially due to no fault of their own.
The reporting of this sort of abuse is almost non-existent. New players have no idea what is going on, and are least likely to report it. Experienced players, who do know what is going on, and would report - they mostly start on Day 1, so they don't experience it.
Since this must be one of the least favorite and the most tedious activity for Sami to deal with, why not offload it to the software, to be dealt with automatically?
And more importantly, prevent it from happening in the first place. What benefit is an administrative action to an airline that is already dead, or irreparably crippled due to incumbent player targeting? And any kind of penalty / punishment is likely a slap on a wrist to a big established airline. So using the gaming theory, targeting / destroying a new airline is absolutely the correct course of action. The benefit far outweigh the very unlikely potential cost (administrative penalties).
I do agree on the principle idea here, but how to make it work without limiting existing players too much is another story. If we put in too heavy limitations we could even see partners opening airlines just to limit the operations of someone else on purpose ....
(The changes to start-up money have done a lot of good already)
I would enforce players to play "better" and look for airports where they are not face a strong competitor from day 1. The higher aircraft limit on bases is a very good step for doing so.
People who start at the airport of an established airline with basically all routes filled up very well don't need "protection" from this player. They chose their fate on free decision and hopefully learn.
It still might help to not close 1-2 key production lines even if there are no immediate new orders.
(I encounter this in GW#2 and that's ok. I knew starting late out of Hong Kong is a problem)
Quote from: sami on June 27, 2014, 10:57:35 PM
I do agree on the principle idea here, but how to make it work without limiting existing players too much is another story. If we put in too heavy limitations we could even see partners opening airlines just to limit the operations of someone else on purpose ....
(The changes to start-up money have done a lot of good already)
Maybe one idea (to prevent abuse) would be to relax the limitation to only up to 25 (or you pick a number) of the newest routes (destinations) of the new airline (less than 6 months old) to be protected.
But that's more programming. I would just go by age (up to 6 months), and if it causes too much upheaval, than the protection could be narrowed to only certain number of routes.
The extra start up money does allow a new airline to have more aircraft, to spread its routes - which makes them less dependent on a handful of critical routes in early stages. But, as I mentioned in the PM, that alone does not stop some of the incumbents from targeting new airlines on a much greater scale now, targeting 10-20 routes...
We must also now what a "new" airline is. For me a new airline is an airline below 365 days since founding that has no aircraft sponsor and doesn't expand aggressively into my territory.
Quote from: CUR$E - God of AWS on June 27, 2014, 11:41:57 PM
We must also now what a "new" airline is. For me a new airline is an airline below 365 days since founding that has no aircraft sponsor and doesn't expand aggressively into my territory.
I think 6 months is a good limit for protection. 1 year would be too long. 6 months is usually more than enough time to become profitable. That's about as much as an automated system is capable of knowing,
As far as the new airline, it is free to expand anywhere. The only limitation is on the incumbent. For a very limited time, the incumbent is only allowed to expand where this new airline is not expanding.
Quote from: gazzz0x2z on June 27, 2014, 02:19:43 PM
(d)My MD80s fly only 5.5 hours per day. A pop-up warns me that I cannot earn money like that.(but does not create more lines for me, if I want to be stupid...)
FYI, I have 400 MD80's, 520 737NGs and 140 767s with an average fleet utilization of 5.7 hours per day in GW1 and I'm making over 60m per week ;-).
For a longer time the emphasis has been on making the game easier to understand for all new players. This is still ongoing, and another aspect of this is to help players get past the (sometimes) very hard start in crowded long game worlds where routes are already saturated rather well. Some planned changes to help new players to stay in the games longer are:
- Route image of initial routes is boosted (when new airline joins a game late after start): First destination gets RI50, second RI25, third RI10 and rest start from zero after that.
- Initial company level of a new airline is (mildly) boosted. It's a gamewide setting already and usually the image is set to start from 5pts but could be increased to 15pts for airlines entering later.
Neither of these effects are not in force when the game initially starts, but would gradually grow so that they reach the full level at let's say 180d after game has started.
The start-up money levels were already adjusted previously to implement a late-starter advantage, but these two changes would make the initial operations on crowded routes easier; increasing the chance of succeeding the hard initial start.
Further, two major features are in the planning:
- Ability to start with a pre-created airline. When game world is joined the player has the option to create the airline from scratch (like now) or start with an automatically created simple and small airline (at a base of his choice). The airline would be either a small or medium-class company, depending on player's choice (longhaul initial start is not supported since creating the schedules for that automatically is complicated) - which means that the initial start-up money will be used to lease 2-4 planes off the used market and the system will then automatically create routes and basic schedules for them (along with other necessary first-step settings like correct staffing and marketing). Naturally the aircraft selection would be "smart" to avoid costly fleet mistakes and so forth. Research has shown that the initial steps needed to make the airline work are overwhelming for some players and they don't understand it fully, leading to mistakes and game abandoment. Bringing this feature is one of the main development goals at this moment, and it's already partly completed since we can create AI-controlled airlines already.
- Further feature is the possible creation of a live tutorial or assistant, which would present the main functions and features of the game to the player. Initially it is supposed to be a fully static system just giving an overview of what he sees and can do (based on his pre-created airline). This would hopefully also make new players understand more about the different features.
None of these pose any limitations or rules to any existing players, nor make the position of people who started on day 1 any worse. The intention is not to increase regulation, but instead give small boosts for new players or players starting in the mid of long games (but still keep it reasonable).
--
Update:
Another feature linked to this same issue is the provision for discounts on airport operation fees. These are frequently given by airports for airlines starting a new route (old ones too), for the first year or so. But we could have them only for new airlines instead.
In my opinion the game does not need to be made any easier.
The world is too focused on making things easier for the people who want to put in very little effort yet want the maximum return and same rewards as players who make a lot of effort....as an example this can also be applied to sports, etc, etc
The problem is - new players in general do not take the time to do any research, read the forums, look at You Tubes, etc, etc......and then when they make mistakes they want to blame it on everyone else being mean to them crushing them, etc, etc...whereas the real reason for their failure is due to their lack of effort. (e.g. how many times do we see the same...how do you do a 7 day schedule post...yet all of the information is there at the search button)
Make it as easy as you want and you will still get the same players with the same complaints, same reasons for failure and then still leaving the game.
Shift your focus to get the results you want
Focus instead on retaining your current players by introducing more challenges and new features...word of mouth from very satisfied players is your best source of new long term players.
The change I would recommend is to make it that every alliance has to consist of a minimum of 20% of new players (new can be defined by time playing the game)
This should help in changing the alliances focus from 'beating everyone' to 'helping everyone' and thereby making it a better game for us all as new players get a 'leg-up' and newish players get to learn how to play a better game.
Currently some alliances are stacked with the games best players....how does this help the game grow?
what about some sort of bonus system for alliances to get new players into the game?
Give a bonus to new players for the parameters that give current players their alliance scores so that alliances are not only 'encouraged' to take on new players but also 'encouraged' to help them grow.
Also its a pity that someone like Sanabas isn't still around as he would be a perfect candidate to produce You Tube instruction / help videos for new players to learn from.
I recently started playing another game that now has me totally hooked (and I have put in many Euros) mainly because I found You Tube instructional videos from a player that is in the top 10% of teams worldwide.
His videos gave me a lot of insight and saved me heaps of game frustration.......this type of help can turn an early quitter into a seasoned player.
@Kadachiman : I disagree. Entering in an already running world is insanely tough. All the good spots are already taken. You have to either choose a bad spot, or to compete with existing airlines.
Rules after your first year are so, that if you're not efficient, you'll die anyways. The boost for beginning just helps keeping the head out of the water while the big boys dedicate a few planes to prevent you from emerging.
(but I 100% agree with your videos, even if I prefer texts, I know a lot of people will prefer videos).
The idea is not to make the game _easier_ really, but more understandable to newbies (with some helpers to get them going; most of which have been actually now introduced).. Like someone pointed out earlier in this thread, the system should ideally be a bit more clever and warn you before you are about to make anything really stupid (like leasing a B747 that is too big for your home base airport). All these "smart warnings" are a tad complicated (but doable), but should ease the learning curve and cut down the big&costly mistakes.
And also based on my research many users tackle with some of the very basics (some concepts of scheduling for example) and there the "ready made airline" startup option should be helpful when one sees directly how it's supposed to be done (in a small scale). And really no game relies solely on written manual anymore these days - the startup should be interactive. Keeping existing players happy and making sure the new players are able to jump onboard are quite much two different things, and these improvements (and this thread) focuses on the latter really (but the first part, old players, haven't been forgotten either since the big majority of updates are things newbies don't know anything of..).