Since the game has become about a few select players spending an incredible amount of time early on using all the exploits in the game to stranglehold every single major base, it seems there's just the "Regulars" playing now.
I haven't seen airwaysim really "grow"
Always two moderately populated game worlds that are the most active, within 5-6 years of game time, the numbers drop off.
So I ask, why not have more game worlds?
Why not make the rules a little more realistic so those of us that don't have hours upon hours to exploit can actually enjoy the game again?
/Rant
To answer all of your statements:
The most people ever on this server was for the launch of the most recent version. That was on Dec-6 of last year. With continual updates, people keep coming for more.
A small population of people post in the forums. The number of people posting here is not indicative of the number of people playing the sim.
Can there be more games? You know, I wish I knew. I am sitting waiting for a game to start. Honestly, most of this is chalked up to server space and Sami's time. There is a minimal staff (most of which monitor games/forums) with Sami as main (only?) programmer.
Numbers always drop off as the game goes. Isn't this EXACTLY what is happening in the real world? Some airlines succeed, others fail. This isn't "Happy Airline Everyone Wins".
In regards to making the rules more 'realistic', what are you proposing? I'd like to hear.
lol when is Zynga going to make an easy one called AirlineVille?
I'm saying make them a little LESS realistic. For example, bend the rules a bit so that you can open a base in another country, but make it more expensive for bigger bases. That way, a small airline in the pacific islands would actually need more than 5 or 6 aircraft.
Also more game worlds would work for me. Haven't been playing a while cause well, joining a game halfway into it is just pointless unless you get lucky and find a very nice unused base.
In my opinion, there is no point making it more realistic when some airlines/players are just bulking aircraft and sending them to the most remote or already crowded airports simply because they have the planes and the money for it. Make it more accessible for new players, rather than keep helping the big and good players.
Just my two cents.
Quote from: swiftus27 on June 23, 2012, 01:21:47 PM
In regards to making the rules more 'realistic', what are you proposing? I'd like to hear.
(1) Have passengers care more about tech stops, so that a 727 tech-stopped across the ocean can't instantly kill the widebodies on the route.
(2) Have passengers care about seat quality, so that it's possible to run a realistic airline like SQ or EK that charges more but offers better seating/service and makes a profit that way.
(3) Make the 777 and 747 actually playable.
Quote from: EsquireFlyer on June 23, 2012, 03:49:49 PM
(1) Have passengers care more about tech stops, so that a 727 tech-stopped across the ocean can't instantly kill the widebodies on the route.
(2) Have passengers care about seat quality, so that it's possible to run a realistic airline like SQ or EK that charges more but offers better seating/service and makes a profit that way.
(3) Make the 777 and 747 actually playable.
(1) is in the works and may be implemented before MT7
(2) would be great. Passengers are way to price insensitive now.
(3) will need a cargo function to happen. The capability is programmed in now, but the feature has not been programmed yet.
Don
I don't think so, I certainly hope not : I have started playing in the last month or so and intend to stick around a bit longer.
I do think it needs to evolve though : that's not a criticism, just a reflection of the fact that games cant stand still or they do stagnate a bit : That can happen when, after a year or two, the game mechanics and foibles become known to the point where experienced players can follow a formula/strategy and always 'succeed', (kinda like the 'walk-thru' mode in some games: turn left, turn right, pick up the rock, jump down and hey presto: find the goody-bag) whilst other strategies will always be doomed to abject failure due to those same mechanics and foibles (e.g. trying to run a local operation with sub-20px planes).
So, I would say that a game which ends up having only one (or two) path to longevity, where all have to do the same or perish, can become a bit repetitive and also 'lock-out' players who maybe just want to 'dabble' with a smaller operation, or perhaps role-play a little with say, running a Caribbean island -hopper service or similar.
How you can accommodate such differing game-styles and have them still workable in a single game-world is another matter. But I would say the 'one-size-fits-all' staffing algorithm needs, politely speaking, a damn good tweaking.
I don't think this game is dying it just get's like this when all of the games are in play. Then one wills start and will get the usual,"when's the next game" and " I can't _____" oh and lets not to forget, the slot hopping posts.
There are a great deal of people that put a lot of time into this game and that also goes with why it's so quite in the forms at times.
You know i think Sami would love to expand this game, means more money for him. But im sure he needs some capital to back him up. And given that some of our players here do have some pretty high end jobs. Perhaps Sami should try to get some investors? I would even be fine with a small price increase or may a flat fee for one year? or 6 months? And if he needs a programer im sure he could find someone if he wanted someone to help.
As far as the game being realistic, it's not 100% but take into account all of the different rules regarding airlines in the world then think how much code would be needed for all those rules to be put into the game. I think the game in it's current sate is fine.
I think this is a very valid question.
Some simple things do need to change in the game.
(1) Have passengers care more about tech stops, so that a 727 tech-stopped across the ocean can't instantly kill the widebodies on the route. AGREE
(2) Have passengers care about seat quality, so that it's possible to run a realistic airline like SQ or EK that charges more but offers better seating/service and makes a profit that way.I would also add have passengers care about the plane as well. I have been killed by people fly old heaps of junk while I am flying 2 years old planes. passengers are happy to pay extra to fly on a A380
(3) Make the 777 and 747 actually playable. Jona L has been able to make very very good money with both those aircarft and I think most people make money flying the big planes to the big airports
(4) Make the game more fun, classic example for me is when you want to upgrade your fleet with in the same family why do I have to set up the flights again manual. Total time sink and not fun, This is why you see some people get very big at airport and then just give up when the years have passed and its time to manually replace 100 737 early models with later ones.
(5) New and Used markets need a complete overhaul. But I have no solution for this :'( Again this process should not reward people who are online 247.
I am thinking of coming back to the game but only as a way to keep intouch with people who play it.
Cheers
Lost
Regarding more game worlds, I definitely have more ideas for starting positions/airline strategies (the most not big / time intensive ones) than there are game worlds at the moment...
Since the last game worlds were all full at the start, and there is usually a point where worlds stabilize and the player numbers drop, maybe there indeed is more demand than supply for game worlds at the moment. And unless the "big players" have unlimited time at their hands, there will be a point where it becomes unattractive for them to run big airlines in the additional games as well (or have to divide their attention between more games, which again means less of a "24/7" operation), opening up the possibilities for more players to run large airlines in these additional worlds. (And even if, they pay and generate more capital for future server power and/or development.)
I doubt game mechanics are the biggest turnoff at the moment - either way you have to find out and adjust to the "laws of the market", whatever they are (and in reality, they probably vary, depending on time and place)
Quote from: LostInBKK on June 23, 2012, 05:25:31 PM
(3) Make the 777 and 747 actually playable. Jona L has been able to make very very good money with both those aircarft and I think most people make money flying the big planes to the big airports
Jona can make money with flying potato and banana crates. That's not a benchmark :D
Maybe having shorter games that run along side the main games?
If you are in the main game you can't take part in the shorter games.
Cheers
Lost
Quote from: Dasha on June 23, 2012, 06:04:08 PM
Jona can make money with flying potato and banana crates. That's not a benchmark :D
Even he will say that no one can make money on the 747/777 unless you own them
and have little competition.
Well that should be changed then I think. Cause in real life they do work a lot better than that.
Quote from: Dasha on June 23, 2012, 08:20:39 PM
Well that should be changed then I think. Cause in real life they do work a lot better than that.
Quote from: jetwestinc on June 23, 2012, 03:59:24 PM
(3) will need a cargo function to happen. The capability is programmed in now, but the feature has not been programmed yet.
Quote from: Dasha on June 23, 2012, 03:47:28 PM
For example, bend the rules a bit so that you can open a base in another country, but make it more expensive for bigger bases.
Nooooo, definitely NO. I was once forced to bankrupt my successful airline operating from Izmir (the pre-base airport times) after a Algiers based airline started flying Algiers-Destination-Izmir. After failing several times due to this reason, I opted to stop playing AWS. Sami was on time with the arrival of the base airport feature (although I think the aircraft limitation needs to grow over time and that we need to be allowed domestic A-B-C flights).
Quote from: LostInBKK on June 23, 2012, 06:07:00 PM
Maybe having shorter games that run along side the main games?
Something like the Euro challenge etc. Would be fun to have these 'special game worlds' around again.
Connecting pax! Current game mechanincs force the strategy of each game to be the same. Good implementation of connecting pax should allow more different successfull strategies.
Answer for the question: I think many players find current games repetitive and the big Wow effect of this great game vanishes over time leading players to not come back for a another game. That's how I feel about the game.
Quote from: powi on June 23, 2012, 09:11:12 PM
Answer for the question: I think many players find current games repetitive and the big Wow effect of this great game vanishes over time leading players to not come back for a another game. That's how I feel about the game.
100% Correct
More fun and less repition has to go in to the game
Quote from: AndiD on June 23, 2012, 05:37:27 PM
I doubt game mechanics are the biggest turnoff at the moment - either way you have to find out and adjust to the "laws of the market", whatever they are (and in reality, they probably vary, depending on time and place)
Indeed, but without getting into a big debate on the issue, the game is skewed by those mechanics towards a minimum scale of operation, which renders meaningless a whole industry sector, because it enforces a fixed scale of back-office costs regardless of the scale of enterprise.
But yes, the 'job titles' in the game are not necessarily mirrors of RL functions. I don't suggest a massive re-working of the game mechanics, just a tweaking which acknowledges that small to medium scale businesses just do not carry that level of overhead and perhaps suggest the idea that it should 'scale-up' relative to the size of a/c flown, which can be easily done as all the a/c are already classified by size.
At present, you grow your big airline, then buy a small a/c fleet to burn up tax credits or fill the time between big-bird deliveries. That's back-to-front, really, surely a more accurate model is start small, then step up each grade as you develop, both in a/c size and in the back-office.
That wouldn't stop, or penalise, anyone going for mega-carrier from day one, but it would open up a whole chunk of potential operations that, currently, are short-cuts to bankruptcy.
No care for those of us who enjoy making small sized airlines has been an Airwaysim problem from day #1.
I should be able to make money with 7-8 20-30 seat airplanes if im un-contested.
Quote from: vectorforfood on June 23, 2012, 12:02:27 PM
Since the game has become about a few select players spending an incredible amount of time early on using all the exploits in the game to stranglehold every single major base, it seems there's just the "Regulars" playing now.
I haven't seen airwaysim really "grow"
Always two moderately populated game worlds that are the most active, within 5-6 years of game time, the numbers drop off.
So I ask, why not have more game worlds?
Why not make the rules a little more realistic so those of us that don't have hours upon hours to exploit can actually enjoy the game again?
/Rant
AWS started to die when the beta players started to leave :P
I played a game reciently and found it to be boring. IN the beginning, the game was fun, but since some people came in and started trouble, I decided that this game wasnt all it used to be :/
I play Airline Empires now, and while the game is inferior in ways compared to AWS, the community is much more active and less technical about the game (and whiny) than some people here.
Things have started to changed, but aws has lost its fun it used to have.... atleast for me.
/rant :P
Definitely not "dying".
It is perfectly natural that people change over time. Others leave, others come in. But the average player numbers are the same or higher as before. But I do agree that AWS is not perfect, and work is ongoing.. (in fact, when _I_ feel the sim is complete, then you do not see me online anymore that much) :P
Before in this game a 747 or 777 can be used again with success, 3 things need to happen:
a) bring back the ticket prices for LH to their untweaked positions, since they had been massively cut in an early attempt to ban magic carpets. These have been removed differently, the tweak is still left active.
b) go back to the old number of slots, and not this 200% crap, by having only half the slots people are forced to use planes of a decent size, over some random rubbish with wings, because they won't get 30 slot weeks in LHR for their f*ggot F27.
c) tear down the frequency benefit a couple of steps, on the ladder of importance. Make Price, speed, seating quality and the alike matter more than that. Just because I fly a route 5x with a 100 seater I won't get 2.5x the seats of the one flying it 2x with a 250 seater IRL. Company Image should actually mean something, make it harder to achieve it, and let it take longer to do so.I am sure, that changing this thing would just be a switch of 2, maybe 3 parameters if the basic code is very tidily made.
cheers,
Jona L.
Quote from: Jona L. on June 24, 2012, 08:14:21 AM
Before in this game a 747 or 777 can be used again with success, 3 things need to happen:
a) bring back the ticket prices for LH to their untweaked positions, since they had been massively cut in an early attempt to ban magic carpets. These have been removed differently, the tweak is still left active.
b) go back to the old number of slots, and not this 200% crap, by having only half the slots people are forced to use planes of a decent size, over some random rubbish with wings, because they won't get 30 slot weeks in LHR for their f*** F27.
c) tear down the frequency benefit a couple of steps, on the ladder of importance. Make Price, speed, seating quality and the alike matter more than that. Just because I fly a route 5x with a 100 seater I won't get 2.5x the seats of the one flying it 2x with a 250 seater IRL. Company Image should actually mean something, make it harder to achieve it, and let it take longer to do so.I am sure, that changing this thing would just be a switch of 2, maybe 3 parameters if the basic code is very tidily made.
cheers,
Jona L.
Hear here.
P.S.
This is not only necessary to run 747 / 777 again, it is generally necessary to make widebodies run profitable on LH routes again.
Quote from: Jona L. on June 24, 2012, 08:14:21 AM
Before in this game a 747 or 777 can be used again with success, 3 things need to happen:
a) bring back the ticket prices for LH to their untweaked positions, since they had been massively cut in an early attempt to ban magic carpets. These have been removed differently, the tweak is still left active.
b) go back to the old number of slots, and not this 200% crap, by having only half the slots people are forced to use planes of a decent size, over some random rubbish with wings, because they won't get 30 slot weeks in LHR for their f*** F27.
c) tear down the frequency benefit a couple of steps, on the ladder of importance. Make Price, speed, seating quality and the alike matter more than that. Just because I fly a route 5x with a 100 seater I won't get 2.5x the seats of the one flying it 2x with a 250 seater IRL. Company Image should actually mean something, make it harder to achieve it, and let it take longer to do so.I am sure, that changing this thing would just be a switch of 2, maybe 3 parameters if the basic code is very tidily made.
+1
Quote from: Jona L. on June 24, 2012, 08:35:07 AM
P.S.
This is not only necessary to run 747 / 777 again, it is generally necessary to make widebodies run profitable on LH routes again.
I am just a newbie here but already I am sick of having my DC10/L1011s get shredded by people flying 727s tech-stopped across oceans. If passengers were actually willing to fly techstopped 727s across oceans (and happily pay the same "set to default" price!!) you would see airlines doing it in real life..but you don't.
Even British Airways, with their very high CI and RI, can only get away with tech-stopping an A318 from London to New York by:
(1) doing the techstop one-way LCY-JFK only, and having JFK-LCY be a non-stop redeye marketed as a premium sleeper service
(2) doing the techstop in SNN, which has US Customs pre-clearance capabilities, so the passengers' time is actually efficiently used and not wasted
(3) operating from LCY in London, saving passengers travel time to/from downtown, making the tech stop worthwhile
(4) configuring the plane as an all-business-class Magic Carpet, which is banned in AirwaySim.
And even then, it only works on the unique market LCY-JFK, and not, for example, to EWR, BOS, ORD, etc.
Any airline foolish enough to try routinely tech-stopping 727s across oceans IRL, with normal pricing and services, and attempting to compete for Y pax, would go BK pretty fast.
I think part of the problem with small a/c running into large airports is associated with the current demand model, coupled with the issues of running small a/c fleets : somewhere, you have to make some fat jam, above the thin bread and butter of local flights, to cover the dreaded costs of C/D checks and overheads. I'd suggest seeing a nice fat demand into your local major airport is just too tempting : and as commonality penalties don't justify keeping a large a/c just for that route, the logical step is to 'pad-out' each a/c's daily itinerary with a profitable dip into that jam-pot.
We can't all get a base in those majors, especially if you don't start at 00.00hrs on Day 1, most end up at secondary airports with much more limited route potential. So, borrowing a Godfather quote : You have to let us draw water from the well too.
None of which excuses deliberate slog-hogging, but, tbh, there will always be some players who will attempt to find and exploit any loop-hole to gain advantage : limit major airports to 50+ seat a/c and they will fill them with 51-seat a/c instead. Meanwhile the smaller a/c become ever more meaningless and so we all end up having to run big-birds and increase the pressure on slots at majors that way instead.
Quote from: powi on June 23, 2012, 09:11:12 PM
Connecting pax! Current game mechanincs force the strategy of each game to be the same. Good implementation of connecting pax should allow more different successfull strategies.
Answer for the question: I think many players find current games repetitive and the big Wow effect of this great game vanishes over time leading players to not come back for a another game. That's how I feel about the game.
I dont think players realize just how complicated modeling connecting passengers would be. It would be a massive undertaking.
Quote from: Jona L. on June 24, 2012, 08:14:21 AM
Before in this game a 747 or 777 can be used again with success, 3 things need to happen:
a) bring back the ticket prices for LH to their untweaked positions, since they had been massively cut in an early attempt to ban magic carpets. These have been removed differently, the tweak is still left active.
b) go back to the old number of slots, and not this 200% crap, by having only half the slots people are forced to use planes of a decent size, over some random rubbish with wings, because they won't get 30 slot weeks in LHR for their f*** F27.
c) tear down the frequency benefit a couple of steps, on the ladder of importance. Make Price, speed, seating quality and the alike matter more than that. Just because I fly a route 5x with a 100 seater I won't get 2.5x the seats of the one flying it 2x with a 250 seater IRL. Company Image should actually mean something, make it harder to achieve it, and let it take longer to do so.I am sure, that changing this thing would just be a switch of 2, maybe 3 parameters if the basic code is very tidily made.
cheers,
Jona L.
Can you respond to this please Sami.
Thanks
Lost
Quote from: ekaneti on June 24, 2012, 09:32:12 AM
I dont think players realize just how complicated modeling connecting passengers would be. It would be a massive undertaking.
It may well be a massive undertaking but it is the direction the game should be heading in. IMHO
Cheers
Lost
Making it so an airline can survive in LHR with a fleet of 777's for a whole game with no slots to challenge them would kill the game for sure....what would the point be except for the player that was lucky enough to be there ? Does not take much of a player to succeed under those conditions does it !!
For the record though, I have been playing for years now and enjoy the game more than ever....so no...AWS is not dying at all IMO, although in an ideal world I would like Cargo, connecting passengers, bigger bases and A-B-C-B-A routes back...but I would also like a million pounds and a Bentley, but in life you do not always get what you want ;)
Re : SAC's post.
aah... a Bentley... *dreams
I seem to be becoming a small a/c advocate here, ahem... but when you join games mid-way, its all that seems to be left unless you get lucky and move in on a soon-to-be bk competitor.
So, from the swamp-life perspective...
A-B-C-B-A : oh a definite 'Yes please!' : +1
Cargo : could be a useful boost to route income : reflecting local/regional mail/courier contracts, perhaps? That's a +1 too.
Px Connectivity : Again, modelled right and it will be a great help to us bottom-feeders : +1
Bigger bases : n/a really : nul point
3 out of 4 aint bad tho ;D
Quote from: Jona L. on June 24, 2012, 08:14:21 AM
Before in this game a 747 or 777 can be used again with success, 3 things need to happen:
a) bring back the ticket prices for LH to their untweaked positions, since they had been massively cut in an early attempt to ban magic carpets. These have been removed differently, the tweak is still left active.
b) go back to the old number of slots, and not this 200% crap, by having only half the slots people are forced to use planes of a decent size, over some random rubbish with wings, because they won't get 30 slot weeks in LHR for their f*ggot F27.
c) tear down the frequency benefit a couple of steps, on the ladder of importance. Make Price, speed, seating quality and the alike matter more than that. Just because I fly a route 5x with a 100 seater I won't get 2.5x the seats of the one flying it 2x with a 250 seater IRL. Company Image should actually mean something, make it harder to achieve it, and let it take longer to do so.I am sure, that changing this thing would just be a switch of 2, maybe 3 parameters if the basic code is very tidily made.
cheers,
Jona L.
Word. Not just because he is my friend, but I agree because its as if he read my mind on these things (perhaps I shared these touts previously). However my order of importance would be c,b,a.
Talentz, where are you!?!? We need your wisdom at this dark hour! Many of the Beta players are still here. They just hide in the background a lot. The 'negative' elements in the forums were seemingly dealt with already.
-----
Factors affecting whether a passenger flies with you:
1. Time of takeoff (is it after 2300 or before 0500?)
2. Time of landing (is it after 2300 or before 0500?)
3. Ticket Price
4. Seating Quality
5. Frequency of flights to that same destination
6. Airline's CI
7. Airline's RI
Now in order of game importance:
1. Frequency
40. Time of takeoff and landing
1000. Everything else.
Quote from: SAC on June 24, 2012, 10:02:21 AM
Making it so an airline can survive in LHR with a fleet of 777's for a whole game with no slots to challenge them would kill the game for sure....what would the point be except for the player that was lucky enough to be there ? Does not take much of a player to succeed under those conditions does it !!
For the record though, I have been playing for years now and enjoy the game more than ever....so no...AWS is not dying at all IMO, although in an ideal world I would like Cargo, connecting passengers, bigger bases and A-B-C-B-A routes back...but I would also like a million pounds and a Bentley, but in life you do not always get what you want ;)
You voting communists as well?
What is the point of destroying big business for the sake of cr*ppy small sh*t that you dare call an airline? A320 tech stop is no skill, playing in LHR, is actually hard, and slot locking an airport like that is big of a task. Waiting for every single slot to free up, staying awake nights long, just to see if some airline flying into LHR went BK, so you would be able to open 2 weekly flights somewhere. I never cried about such, but what I cry about, and one day will start shooting people for is for hells sake flying 20 seaters into LHR. Had a go on BMI staff, when I was in LHR IRL, how they could dare fly EMB-135s into that place, and use the few space available for their s***ty little planes. Didn't listen to their reply, called the scum for doing so, and that is what everyone is, that flies these planes into LHR.
Okay, this needed to be said, ruined my mood for this day, to see more of you leftists trying to ruin world's economy, even in simulations.
I think playing AWS is just turning more and more into a noob war of who can fly the smalles plane on the furthest route, and ruin as many normal planes as possible.... Banning magic carpets was done fast, how long is it gonna take to ban frequency raping? Already took too long so far.
cheers,
Jona L.
Quote from: Jona L. on June 24, 2012, 11:27:37 AM
playing in LHR, is actually hard, and slot locking an airport like that is big of a task.
Especially when you never did such with less than a 757.
Quote from: Jona L. on June 24, 2012, 11:27:37 AM
You voting communists as well?
What is the point of destroying big business for the sake of cr*ppy small sh*t that you dare call an airline? A320 tech stop is no skill, playing in LHR, is actually hard, and slot locking an airport like that is big of a task. Waiting for every single slot to free up, staying awake nights long, just to see if some airline flying into LHR went BK, so you would be able to open 2 weekly flights somewhere. I never cried about such, but what I cry about, and one day will start shooting people for is for hells sake flying 20 seaters into LHR. Had a go on BMI staff, when I was in LHR IRL, how they could dare fly EMB-135s into that place, and use the few space available for their s***ty little planes. Didn't listen to their reply, called the scum for doing so, and that is what everyone is, that flies these planes into LHR.
Okay, this needed to be said, ruined my mood for this day, to see more of you leftists trying to ruin world's economy, even in simulations.
I think playing AWS is just turning more and more into a noob war of who can fly the smalles plane on the furthest route, and ruin as many normal planes as possible.... Banning magic carpets was done fast, how long is it gonna take to ban frequency raping? Already took too long so far.
cheers,
Jona L.
Just gotta say, I disagree with the BMI comments. They fly two ERJ 135s in 5 minutes between each other to count it as one slot... not exactly slot hogging. (e.g. EGCC -EGLL where the two ERJ 135s take off within 5 minutes of each other and land within 5 minutes of each other usually)
And I disagree in general, if a airline wants to fly into LHR and there are slots available, and they purchase the landing rights, let them, that is their business they were the first ones there let them be the ones to use it. Its a free country thats the beauty of it ::)
I think this is getting a bit mixed up. Using small a/c into big hubs is fine -where they are supposed to fly to i.e MAN - LHR. Just look how many ERJ/CRJ's there are at ORD or ATL. Yes they take up slots but there is no reason why these flights should not operate - they feed big airlines long haul services from the regions.
Using a Regional Jets/320's/737's (but 757's are allowed in my book) seventeen times a day with a tech stop across the atlantic is what annoys folk, and kills a/c that would normally fly such routes i.e.777 and 744's etc, which is admittedly wrong.
That said, frequency should count as a reason why more pax fly with you. It is a convenience to the consumer offering flexibility and choice, therefore I would expect in RL that 5 x daily 757's would take a lions share of the market against a couple of competing daily 744's for instance, as long as price was the same....which is a factor hugely over looked in this game as most people buy based on one main factor...how much its gunna cost em and they could not careless if its on a triple 7 or a hand glider !!
Quote from: SAC on June 24, 2012, 12:10:21 PM
I think this is getting a bit mixed up. Using small a/c into big hubs is fine -where they are supposed to fly to i.e MAN - LHR. Just look how many ERJ/CRJ's there are at ORD or ATL. Yes they take up slots but there is no reason why these flights should not operate - they feed big airlines long haul services from the regions.
Using a Regional Jets/320's/737's (but 757's are allowed in my book) seventeen times a day with a tech stop across the atlantic is what annoys folk, and kills a/c that would normally fly such routes i.e.777 and 744's etc, which is admittedly wrong.
That said, frequency should count as a reason why more pax fly with you. It is a convenience to the consumer offering flexibility and choice, therefore I would expect in RL that 5 x daily 757's would take a lions share of the market against a couple of competing daily 744's for instance, as long as price was the same....which is a factor hugely over looked in this game as most people buy based on one main factor...how much its gunna cost em and they could not careless if its on a triple 7 or a hand glider !!
Well said SAC, however frequency should be turned down a little bit, it is way to influential in this sim.
Quote from: Pilot Oatmeal on June 24, 2012, 12:12:58 PM
Well said SAC, however frequency should be turned down a little bit, it is way to influential in this sim.
Haven't many of us been saying that for a long time now?
The 752 EWR strategy is the auto win.
Personally, I would think that your NON base airports would give you a fixed number of slots you can use. So if you're in JFK, you only get 5 slots per day at LHR. If based at LHR, the same at JFK. Use them wisely. If you wanna fill up 752s, great.... you won't be servicing the actual passenger demand but those planes will be full.
Quote from: swiftus27 on June 24, 2012, 12:47:09 PM
Haven't many of us been saying that for a long time now?
The 752 EWR strategy is the auto win.
Personally, I would think that your NON base airports would give you a fixed number of slots you can use. So if you're in JFK, you only get 5 slots per day at LHR. If based at LHR, the same at JFK. Use them wisely. If you wanna fill up 752s, great.... you won't be servicing the actual passenger demand but those planes will be full.
I rather like this idea, no idea how it would/could be implemented tho, perhaps some correlation between demand level and slot availability might work...
Quote from: SAC on June 24, 2012, 12:10:21 PM
It is a convenience to the consumer offering flexibility and choice, therefore I would expect in RL that 5 x daily 757's would take a lions share of the market against a couple of competing daily 744's for instance, as long as price was the same....which is a factor hugely over looked in this game as most people buy based on one main factor...how much its gunna cost em and they could not careless if its on a triple 7 or a hand glider !!
You can counter this buy saying that people are happy to pay for for a ticket on a A380. I am sure their are poeple who fly a lot more than me but I do check out the metal I am going on so I don't fly Air India as example as they have LOTS of old metal.
I have to say that I find it rather disappointing that Sami has not been more vocal on this thread, I know there have been a few of theards that have asked for change in the game.
Just wonder if we are about to have another EVE moment?
Cheers
Lost
I used to be a regular player, but life has been really busy :) I'm hoping to jump back in, but I am really waiting for city based demand to be implemented so you're not stuck with the usual airports being huge just because real life airlines are based there. For example, I'd love to build a huge hub in St Louis, which is an ideal location since it is in the middle of the US, but the demand is scant due to the fact that no major airlines base there :( Otherwise, I feel like it's just the same game over and over again, especially since building a regional airline is basically impossible.
Quote from: LemonButt on June 24, 2012, 02:21:49 PM
I used to be a regular player, but life has been really busy :) I'm hoping to jump back in, but I am really waiting for city based demand to be implemented so you're not stuck with the usual airports being huge just because real life airlines are based there. For example, I'd love to build a huge hub in St Louis, which is an ideal location since it is in the middle of the US, but the demand is scant due to the fact that no major airlines base there :( Otherwise, I feel like it's just the same game over and over again, especially since building a regional airline is basically impossible.
Very interesting idea building a hub in St Louis, I could be wrong, was that not what TWA tried to do in real life?
Cheers
Lost
Okay, first off: I cannot be asked to actually quote the things I comment on...
second: going towards Oatmeal:
Free country? where? AWS? NO!! we had that some time ago.
Nonetheless, you can't argue away, that LHR is heavily congested, and since some naggy people live around it, it won't get it's 3rd runway within the time we still have fuel/oil. Thus what you can get, namely the few slots during its opening hours, should be used as efficient as possible. Willie Walsh so far does a good job in that with his 744/777/763, but on the other end with his 319s running in LHR, he averages out to be a slot hogger himself. Anyways, I think anything smaller than 130 seats should simply be banned from the airport AWS-wise same as in real world.
But as in a constructive though, slot costs should RISE the SMALLER the a/c gets, to subsidize using larger planes, and make it harder to earn cash on small aircraft in these airports. Of course not using this in all airports, but -say- in the top 30 worldwide ones, to less congest them in AWS.
suggestion for this could be a fixed slot cost for the hours (of course still variable by number of slots available at the airport, and number of slots available in the hour, same as it is now (+ inflation adjustment)), just raise this cost massively, and the devide the cost by the number of seats on the aircraft.
So, say for a 0900 slot in LHR the base cost would be $10.000.000, devide it by 250 for a medium sized a/c (roughly B763 size) the airline would pay 40k for one slot, but an airline using a 100 seater would pay 100k (of course we should have a higher cost for LHR, this was just an example!).
next one:
No, SAC, I am not mixing things. This is just the things I am thinking about, and those are the things making AWS so unattractive for players that aim for big goals, such as a huge airline. The thing about Communism is also right, maybe not that you vote them, but your idea is anti-capitalist basically. I must heavily disagree on them thus, since this world IS capitalist, and thus AWS should not be any different, unless sami was Chinese :P
Another:
I do agree with swiftus' idea, that the number of slots you can get at the big airports (if non-based) should be heavily limited. Of course going up over time, as demand rises (should use the same factor: 5% annually).
This for now, feel free to keep replying, when I am back home with alexgv1 and lilius I'll check back, and will keep argueing with you ;)
Short answers to things talked (last post was made via cellphone), and sort of roadmap for future too (just out of curiosity for you to read):
- To topic title I commented already previously. Player number fluctuations and "old guys" going away is normal, as new people do join in all the time.
- There has not indeed been any massive growth (ie. doubling the player numbers), and in my mind there are two main reasons: 1) The number of game worlds remains fairly constant (3-4 big worlds running), and this is mainly limited by server capacity (we could run perhaps 5 big worlds at the same time currently?). This in turn limits the player numbers - new worlds (no matter if 300 or 650 spots) tend to get always full. And mainly: 2) the play pattern is still not good enough for long games and keeping it interesting for a long periods of time in a row. And also, 3) this is not "airportville" - so the player base is naturally limited to begin with.
Anyway, before the game engine gets better in this sense, I am not even targeting into expanding rapidly (ie. server hardware etc). Getting additional server space (etc) is rather cheap and it could be done right away (financially), but it's not the time for it just yet in my mind.
- For future there are currently works on new site layout, coding (slow) of the whole new demand system (also known as the city based system) which would allow us to move from predetermined and fairly fixed demand levels into new and more dynamic system. Passenger connectivity is a definite must as with this you can really build your "empire" to any location, and forget the ye'ol LHR if you wish. But the connections is something that is not very well planned even yet (coding has been a bit slow lately). If/When the city demand system comes, cargo will be built with that by latest.
- Other things for the future roadmap include a test application for iPad (mainly based on our mobile site), which will start only as a sort of test system and giving the ability to expand into the appstores. Another thing that will be looked is integrating AWS into Facebook which would be another source of new players. Both would also offer alternative and additional payment methods (especially FB payments seem to be rather nice, since they allow cellphone payments too). (Credits are of course usable on all platforms, no matter where you have bought them). Both of these mentioned expansions require an update to the site layout and some background systems, and are not a very high priority (iPad test app coding is in progress slowly, but I've instructed to create a very rough test only), and either or both may not be ever completed to public release status.
- For game worlds, the target is to move into longer game worlds and span over 50+ years, like talked in the past. The most unrealistic part is currently the scenario startup and the "rush" in terms of planes and slots, and getting rid of this will make it better. But I do very well know that people prefer to start when the world is created - since it's easier. But it's just something that will change, and it has to be taken care that new entrants mid-game are given some help to make their start easy.
- But perhaps with the above, another theme of short (<2 months) mini-games would help to cater the appetite of being able to start fresh and test some ideas perhaps. However the EU and USA challenges etc. have not been very successful in the past though (too hard settings?).
- There will not be any major changes to game rules in regards to airport basing rules, and no major feature changes to new or used aircraft ordering. These are all considered completed features by now. A-B-C routing option will return at some point, but will not be unlimited like in the past but will follow the traffic rights / rules (see manual) comparable to real life (but simplified, as all country vs. country traffic right deals cannot be replicated).
- MT#7 start date; may be postponed a bit. I'm back from a short holiday and will start to look into the demand distribution adjustments during the next few days of free time. I would hope to change aspects of the demand distribution to change the weighings of some values that have been much talked, but it simply is not just a matter of updating some variables but a more complex thing.
..Long story short. This is still a small business, and I like to keep the main things under my own control (ie. core coding) since this is how it started too (though if some Mark Z from some anonymous company knocks on my door with a suitcase packed with bills, I am willing to sit down and drink a cup of coffee with him... ;D ). And I've always said that AWS is far from perfect, and I will keep making it better until I am personally happy with it. And currently I see that there is a need to increase the dynamic aspects of the sim to make it more playable in the long term (meaning mainly more flexible demand and abilities to affect to it more). Interface and basic concepts are working well and need no major changes for now.
(ps. please do not discuss about specific feature requests or such in this thread; they will get lost and won't be read when the time comes .. post those to the proper sub-forum)
Quote from: Jona L. on June 24, 2012, 02:35:56 PM
Okay, first off: I cannot be asked to actually quote the things I comment on...
second: going towards Oatmeal:
Free country? where? AWS? NO!! we had that some time ago.
The United Kingdom is a free country, meaning an airline has the capacity to purchase take off and landing slots from another business (e.g. BAA) to land or take off from their airport (it isn't difficult jona ::))
A lot of what you say seems to me it is how you want the airline business to operate. Which just isn't going to happen. BA have the majority of slots at Heathrow, it's up to them to use it how they like! If they wanted to fly King Airs in every day that's their choice. A business entity can do what they want (within the confines of the law) with their assets.
With your ideas for costs rising the smaller the aircraft - the idea is ridiculous, HENCE the reason why aircraft are charged on their weight (usually) at airports for landing slots. This is the correct way to charge. I wouldn't expect a one off landing slot for me landing at EGCC to be in the thousands, in fact its closer to 25 pounds, but the handling costs are extortionate.
It's like when I purchase a landing slot for VFR flight into EGCC on my PPL, I can do what I want with that slot within reason, I can tell them that my a/c type has changed from a PA-28 to a Seneca, or a Seneca to a King Air Etc. Because I paid for that slot and as long as my aircraft is their within the time of the slot, it's mine.
End Of
Jordan
I'm using Jetage to try different things now. Its the first time I've not BK'd since I started playing a few years ago. Now just picked up 50 17 seater, bought outright to run around Greek Islands...
Now guys play nice.
This forum is supposed to be about moving AWS forward. Not scoring points better each other.
Thanks to Sami for his long reply.
Cheers
Lost
Thanks for the reply, Sami! Going in the right direction, that is for sure!
Re: MT7 being delayed. Any chance another short (~10 year) 20 minute challenge world could be run, maybe Asia, Europe, and Africa for something different?
Don
Quote from: jetwestinc on June 24, 2012, 03:54:47 PM
Thanks for the reply, Sami! Going in the right direction, that is for sure!
Re: MT7 being delayed. Any chance another short (~10 year) 20 minute challenge world could be run, maybe Asia, Europe, and Africa for something different?
Don
+1. Asia/Oceania challenge would be interesting.
Quote from: Jona L. on June 24, 2012, 02:35:56 PM
No, SAC, I am not mixing things.
I was saying PilotMeal was mixing up domestic and long haul use of small a/c ::)
Glad to hear A-B-C will return, but apart from that I personally am more than happy with the game as it is. If it changes then great also, I'll adapt tactics if needed, but generally going back on topic, considering what logistics Sami has then this a great game that works well, and it is far from running its coarse. Long live AWS ;D
I will change all of my prior statements and re-state it as this:
The method one must take to dominate a major airport (and because one can expand many times, often able to dominate whole countries) has made AWS so one dimensional. The 'winning' strategy is easy and copied by many.
Yes, we've helped diminish the benefits of living in front of the computer by implementing changes in the used market (great change). Missing elements, like In Flight Entertainment, and the minimal impact price/seating quality/etc have in-game have virtually eliminated the need to have a different strategy at all.
Capitalism really is absent in this sim. Max prices are basically set. Supply/Demand rules don't apply. Ticket prices should have some impact on demand as well. If someone else has a route already, why can't I trigger a successful price war? This is one of the fundamental benchmarks that the airline industry is doing now.
I don't know AWS situation, since I've been playing here for a few days, but I can assure you I saw this same post in every text based game I played online this last year... It's hard these days for a text based online game to attract users from overwhelming graphics games like battlefield, WOW, etc etc...
Quote from: swiftus27 on June 24, 2012, 12:47:09 PM
Haven't many of us been saying that for a long time now?
The 752 EWR strategy is the auto win.
Personally, I would think that your NON base airports would give you a fixed number of slots you can use. So if you're in JFK, you only get 5 slots per day at LHR. If based at LHR, the same at JFK. Use them wisely. If you wanna fill up 752s, great.... you won't be servicing the actual passenger demand but those planes will be full.
To be fair, Continental airlines uses the 752 EWR strategy in real life and it does seem to be an auto win as well.
But even CO would not tech-stop a 727 or CR9 across the Atlantic.
Quote from: swiftus27 on June 24, 2012, 06:07:49 PM
Capitalism really is absent in this sim. Max prices are basically set. Supply/Demand rules don't apply. Ticket prices should have some impact on demand as well. If someone else has a route already, why can't I trigger a successful price war? This is one of the fundamental benchmarks that the airline industry is doing now.
+1!!!
I have not had time to read the entire thread, but something was mentioned in the first few posts that I see in a lot of threads: The rush at game start, and the perception that nobody can be successful unless they start on day one:
I have personally joined a game at the beginning only once, and decided not to do it ever again. There's just too many people starting up at the same time, and if I choose an empty base with only 150 players having joined so far, by the end of the first day my base has 9 airlines. (And I'm not talking about LHR/JFK/ATL either, but places like PHX, DAL, MDW, and TPA).
I've always been FAR more successful starting a couple of real-time weeks into a game. That's when early entrants start going bust and their planes begin to trickle into the used market, and their new plane orders get cancelled. It's really not as hard to start mid-game as everyone seems to think it is, as long as you think outside the 737. It can be done - I do it all the time. Sure, if I join and there are five screens full of 737s on the used page, I go for it. If not, I challenge myself. All-Caravelle fleet in JA scenario? Done it, very successfully, starting around the third game-year, despite fierce competition from an established DC-9 carrier. Start up at a fortress-hub for two mega-carriers in a MT scenario? Done it, it's not easy but it is fun to watch what happens: Will either or both of them try to run me out of town? Or are they too busy trying to bash each others' brains in to pay any attention to my little LAX-FNL route?
Quote from: tvdan1043 on June 25, 2012, 04:11:37 AM
I've always been FAR more successful starting a couple of real-time weeks into a game. That's when early entrants start going bust and their planes begin to trickle into the used market, and their new plane orders get cancelled. It's really not as hard to start mid-game as everyone seems to think it is, as long as you think outside the 737. It can be done - I do it all the time. Sure, if I join and there are five screens full of 737s on the used page, I go for it. If not, I challenge myself. All-Caravelle fleet in JA scenario? Done it, very successfully, starting around the third game-year, despite fierce competition from an established DC-9 carrier. Start up at a fortress-hub for two mega-carriers in a MT scenario? Done it, it's not easy but it is fun to watch what happens: Will either or both of them try to run me out of town? Or are they too busy trying to bash each others' brains in to pay any attention to my little LAX-FNL route?
Try starting mid-game in the fortress hub of a single carrier. I tried it in DOTM, got bankrupted by the bombing of all of the good routes I could find (which he was not even flying before I opened them), and when I BK'ed and moved to another city, he
followed me there with an expansion base, and attacked my L1011 transatlantic routes with a swarm of tech-stopped 727s!
Quote from: EsquireFlyer on June 23, 2012, 03:49:49 PM
(1) Have passengers care more about tech stops, so that a 727 tech-stopped across the ocean can't instantly kill the widebodies on the route.
(2) Have passengers care about seat quality, so that it's possible to run a realistic airline like SQ or EK that charges more but offers better seating/service and makes a profit that way.
(3) Make the 777 and 747 actually playable.
(1) as an aviation enthusiast( :P) that's really suck to see narrowbodies w/ tech stop kill widebodies direct flight (and somebody will tell me this is only a game ;) )......in real world there are 3 factors govern this: wind, ETOPS, pax comfort, which are all having limited function now in AWS. It's time to model it, sami ;)
I think another way to control it is introducing cargo......727/757/320 cannot take lots of cargo when widdebodies can hold lots of ULDs on board, and long turn around time will lead to a disadvantage on flight time for pax on a widebodys w/ stopover
(2) I think we can try to make a different on different classes of pax: when F/C class pax care a lot more on comfort, EY pax care more about price than comfort. this is closer to reality and making high-end airlines more possible
(3) 777/747 IS playable already :P but the conditions are: limited competition, limited slots, low low leasing cost or owned planes. I have a Boeing only airline at japan in last MT and I owned NRT in that world :P Introducing cargo also help I think as 330 can take much less cargo than 77E if they both go LH, no matter in terms of weight or space
I don't think AWS is dying at all. But I think that in order to keep everyone interested it does need every 2 cycles of game-worlds or so to have something new that tweaks the best strategic approach. You'll never be able to completely eliminate there being a way to "game" the system, but by closing one loophole at a time you can make it progressively better and in the process change the best strategic approach. Cynically speaking, that keeps people interested because at the very least they have to figure out the new best option for how to game it! But after 2 cycles of gameworlds they've done that (as currently with frequency / small aircraft / tech stopping where necessary) and so something needs to change. Crucially this doesn't necessarily have to be a huge new feature like city based demand - tweakings of things like numbers of slots (last time) or the balance between different factors like frequency, speed and price (as Sami is looking at now) can have a big enough effect to keep people interested. But those changes to the core game mechanics do need to keep happening I think, or people will get bored and drift away before the big scale changes like city based demand come around.
In a shameless plug, here's one idea I've just posted about a (highly bastardised) form of codesharing that might make for greater competition and longer playability in gameworlds. Take a look and see what you think. https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,41163.msg222589.html#msg222589
The other thing though is that the community can get involved to create new ways to keep things fresh - it doesn't all have to be down to Sami! In other (non-airline based) online games I've played sometimes one of the community has taken the lead in developing a new challenge that others can choose to join in on and chart their progress. This usually involves voluntarily applying some rules / restrictions to yourself in addition to the regular game rules, to see how you get on. The guys in DOTM who are trying with all Soviet aircraft at the moment are one great example of this, but I'm sure between us we could come up with loads of other creative ideas...
Quote from: type45 on June 25, 2012, 06:32:38 AM
(1) as an aviation enthusiast( :P) that's really suck to see narrowbodies w/ tech stop kill widebodies direct flight (and somebody will tell me this is only a game ;) )......in real world there are 3 factors govern this: wind, ETOPS, pax comfort, which are all having limited function now in AWS. It's time to model it, sami ;)
Tech stopping with narrowbodies is a symptom. The problem is the overwhelming frequency benefit, best described here by swiftus:
Quote from: swiftus27 on June 24, 2012, 11:25:22 AM
Factors affecting whether a passenger flies with you:
1. Time of takeoff (is it after 2300 or before 0500?)
2. Time of landing (is it after 2300 or before 0500?)
3. Ticket Price
4. Seating Quality
5. Frequency of flights to that same destination
6. Airline's CI
7. Airline's RI
Now in order of game importance:
1. Frequency
40. Time of takeoff and landing
1000. Everything else.
When I see prople complaining about tech stopping narrowbodies, it tells me that the person does not see that it is a problem with frequency, not with tech stop. It is exactly the same when narrowbodies are flying long distance wihtout a tech stopping (A320 / 737 / 757 can fly quite a long distance). And it is the same probelm when you have 25 x per day ATR / Q400 / E Jet flights flying a route that should really be served by A320 / 737 or even 757 / A300.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on June 25, 2012, 04:00:54 PM
When I see prople complaining about tech stopping narrowbodies, it tells me that the person does not see that it is a problem with frequency, not with tech stop. It is exactly the same when narrowbodies are flying long distance wihtout a tech stopping (A320 / 737 / 757 can fly quite a long distance). And it is the same probelm when you have 25 x per day ATR / Q400 / E Jet flights flying a route that should really be served by A320 / 737 or even 757 / A300.
The same people that complain about tech stopping due to frequency also don't understand the cost economics of why they planes are being used that way. In DOTM era worlds, flying 2x techstopping 757s against a DC10 or L1011 is a far lower cost per flight and has revenue potential that's about 33% higher (by virtue of having more seats available). If you could carry more passengers for less money, with the only downside being a tech stop, I find a hard reason to argue against that - you could even afford a 10% haircut below standard pricing and STILL make more money.
Concerning the number of slots you get at long haul destinations....
My algorithm for this:
X = 115% of weekly demand
Y = Average carrying capacity of largest XXX # of planes of largest class available
Z = Number of slots you get at the destination airport
Z = X / Y
For instance, 3000 people want to fly from LAX to NRT daily.
So X = 7(3000 x 1.15)= 24150
Let's just assume Y = 400 (just an educated guess)
Z = 24150/400
Z= 60.375... rounded to nearest 7 and you got 63.
This means you can fly this route 9 times per day.
EDIT: Another example.....
EWR to LHR has 3280 demand... Same Y assumption... Z = 66.01 (again rounds to 63)
Flying 9x 752s at ~200pax and you can move 1800 per day on average. That's 1480 below demand.
Rules and reasons I like this:
With this you get a total number of slots to use as you see fit. (Blow all 6 on Wednesday for all I care)
You do NOT lose slots you've already purchased. (Wouldn't be fair)
Slots will grow as demand grows but having older/smaller planes will become a serious handicap. (Forces players to actually play)
The expectation is that you use larger planes as they become available. (Very realistic, tell me a large airport permitting the uber 752 pwnership strat)
Slots should be available in multiples of 7 (allowing 7 day scheduling)
Keep the 'too-close of flights' penalty alive. No need to unwrite that code.
[begin flame]
Quote from: swiftus27 on June 24, 2012, 11:25:22 AM
Talentz, where are you!?!? We need your wisdom at this dark hour! Many of the Beta players are still here. They just hide in the background a lot. The 'negative' elements in the forums were seemingly dealt with already.
-----
Factors affecting whether a passenger flies with you:
1. Time of takeoff (is it after 2300 or before 0500?)
2. Time of landing (is it after 2300 or before 0500?)
3. Ticket Price
4. Seating Quality
5. Frequency of flights to that same destination
6. Airline's CI
7. Airline's RI
Now in order of game importance:
1. Frequency
40. Time of takeoff and landing
1000. Everything else.
Your list may be correct for the majority of passengers, but it is not true for the high value business travelers who travel last minute. To these travelers, frequency matters a lot and ticket price matters not much at all (assuming, of course, you don't have it above the "default" prices ;-)). It is true that AWS does not currently model different types of travelers, but I view the importance of frequency as a rough attempt to model what makes a route profitable. To be sure, frequency is valued too much, especially with respect to travel time. But it is not fair to say that frequency is not a major consideration to total route revenue in real life, I would argue that frequency is more important than ticket price in determining route revenue.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on June 25, 2012, 04:00:54 PM
Tech stopping with narrowbodies is a symptom. The problem is the overwhelming frequency benefit, best described here by swiftus:
Hmmm but diarrhoea is a symptom of a stomach infection yet I am still not a fan of it :-[
Quote from: schro on June 25, 2012, 04:08:52 PM
The same people that complain about tech stopping due to frequency also don't understand the cost economics of why they planes are being used that way. In DOTM era worlds, flying 2x techstopping 757s against a DC10 or L1011 is a far lower cost per flight and has revenue potential that's about 33% higher (by virtue of having more seats available). If you could carry more passengers for less money, with the only downside being a tech stop, I find a hard reason to argue against that - you could even afford a 10% haircut below standard pricing and STILL make more money.
Tech stop for purely increasing frequency and killing the competition sucks the life out of this game... Anyone can win the game doing this... Just because is can doesnt mean it should. Good players don't do this
Stop the insanity >:( and join the revolution.. (who's with me?)
Quote from: ACfly on June 26, 2012, 03:16:52 PM
Tech stop for purely increasing frequency and killing the competition sucks the life out of this game... Anyone can win the game doing this... Just because is can doesnt mean it should. Good players don't do this
Stop the insanity >:( and join the revolution.. (who's with me?)
Up to a point : As frequency is just about the only meaningful way to compete on a route, whilst price, seat quality, journey time, aircraft quality, etc count for so little, then limiting that factor will just mean first on the route gets to 'own' it until some-one with a bigger plane comes along to usurp that throne.
So, make the other factors as important, if not more so, than frequency when it comes to calculating px loads and then the issue would resolve itself : it would no longer be enough just to throw extra flights on a route : they would have to be attractive in those other areas too : now, that would make for some interesting competition, wouldn't it?
The master algorithm needs changing, that's for sure. Playtesting reqd. I volunteer.
Quote from: swiftus27 on June 26, 2012, 04:02:12 PM
The master algorithm needs changing, that's for sure. Playtesting reqd. I volunteer.
I volunteer as well. Where do I sign up?
Quote from: swiftus27 on June 26, 2012, 04:02:12 PM
Playtesting reqd. I volunteer.
I am actually well underway in re-writing the demand distribution script (no major new features, just updating the code all-around since it's basis are very old). This will involve a sort of open beta again.
no ETA.
Quote from: sami on June 26, 2012, 08:04:01 PM
I am actually well underway in re-writing the demand distribution script (no major new features, just updating the code all-around since it's basis are very old). This will involve a sort of open beta again.
no ETA.
Will this delay next MT? ???
Quote from: sami on June 26, 2012, 08:04:01 PM
I am actually well underway in re-writing the demand distribution script (no major new features, just updating the code all-around since it's basis are very old). This will involve a sort of open beta again.
no ETA.
While this is under way, could MT6 be extended? Based on my recollection, Air Travel Boom went to 2020. That would give us one more year in MT6. It would be great if some of us in MT6 had a running game world to check while the defelopment / testing takes place...
Quote from: JumboShrimp on June 27, 2012, 01:44:29 PM
While this is under way, could MT6 be extended? Based on my recollection, Air Travel Boom went to 2020. That would give us one more year in MT6. It would be great if some of us in MT6 had a running game world to check while the defelopment / testing takes place...
+1
That would be great
Quote from: JumboShrimp on June 27, 2012, 01:44:29 PM
While this is under way, could MT6 be extended? Based on my recollection, Air Travel Boom went to 2020. That would give us one more year in MT6. It would be great if some of us in MT6 had a running game world to check while the defelopment / testing takes place...
But what about those who already left MT?? Would we be able to rejoin?
Why don't people get it?
Sami said countless times, that extending a running game would result in problems with the servers, and as he says not work smoothly. Especially not worth it for just 1 yr in my opinion.
cheers,
Jona L.
Quote from: Jona L. on June 27, 2012, 03:37:47 PM
Why don't people get it?
Sami said countless times, that extending a running game would result in problems with the servers, and as he says not work smoothly. Especially not worth it for just 1 yr in my opinion.
cheers,
Jona L.
I don't think I came across any post from Sami on this subject. I understand there is a hard limit, but that limit is 2020. I believe Air Travel Boom lasted until 2020. MT6 is scheduled to end in 2019.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on June 27, 2012, 03:42:09 PM
I don't think I came across any post from Sami on this subject. I understand there is a hard limit, but that limit is 2020. I believe Air Travel Boom lasted until 2020. MT6 is scheduled to end in 2019.
I made the request to extend.. hmm.. either DOTM1 or JA1 by several years a while back and there was a direct response from sami saying its not technically possible.
Yes, that indeed.
I will need a few days with this coding and then I am a bit wiser.
First test version (with no passenger preference to anything yet) was run last night, and at least the bugging memory leak problem (that caused the two MT6 time freezes) is ok, and the process runs also at least 30% faster (means more server calculation capacity). I am building it with the provision of pax connectivity in mind so that it would, perhaps, be able to handle the extra increase in calculations when that feature is eventually added, without the need to recode that module from the scratch again.
I will focus tomorrow on improving the frequency related issues, and after that on he passenger preferences otherwise. (all changes will affect only new game worlds, although game engine version shall remain the same due other reasons)
Anyway, if I run into delays/problems, some small regional game world with existing systems will be set up to gove some time. But I am wiser on these perhaps mid next week so bear with me... And MT7 plans will be announced by then, latest.
Quote from: sami on June 27, 2012, 08:57:45 PM
I will focus tomorrow on improving the frequency related issues, and after that on he passenger preferences otherwise. (all changes will affect only new game worlds, although game engine version shall remain the same due other reasons)
Fantastic! Can you also deal with tech stopping penalty as well?
Quote from: sami on June 27, 2012, 08:57:45 PM
Yes, that indeed.
I will need a few days with this coding and then I am a bit wiser.
First test version (with no passenger preference to anything yet) was run last night, and at least the bugging memory leak problem (that caused the two MT6 time freezes) is ok, and the process runs also at least 30% faster (means more server calculation capacity). I am building it with the provision of pax connectivity in mind so that it would, perhaps, be able to handle the extra increase in calculations when that feature is eventually added, without the need to recode that module from the scratch again.
I will focus tomorrow on improving the frequency related issues, and after that on he passenger preferences otherwise. (all changes will affect only new game worlds, although game engine version shall remain the same due other reasons)
Anyway, if I run into delays/problems, some small regional game world with existing systems will be set up to gove some time. But I am wiser on these perhaps mid next week so bear with me... And MT7 plans will be announced by then, latest.
Does this count as mid next week now? Will we be seeing a small game world or is MT7 coming soon?
Quote from: ARASKA on July 03, 2012, 09:13:28 PM
Does this count as mid next week now? Will we be seeing a small game world or is MT7 coming soon?
A beta just started. When it is finished, MT7 will start...
I keep the game interesting by doing crazy things like my current Soviet planes kick. Since I'm Czech based in JA, I'm going to give LET a shot too in the near future. One thing I'd really love to do that isn't possible right now would be to run a realistic cargo airline flying 20+ year old junkers.
Yo. How is everyone doing?
Haha, I guess I did hear you Swifty ;)
Both in reading this thread and the updated V1.3 brings me to think AWS is still going strong. I'm sure us older players have thoughts of doom when it seems like all new faces are around us and the old times feel like there fading. I'm guilty of those thoughts too, however, as Sami points out, its normal for older players to slip away as time passes. It's only natural.
In retrospect, if we had fewer new players and mainly pre-beta/beta/first gen people, then you could make the case that the player base is dying and thus the game as well. Which clearly isn't the deal here.
For us older gen, we have to take everything into consideration. That includes going back to AWS v1 and chart the improvements the game has undergone. Looking through the old beta forum shows just how much AWS has improved and how Sami has listen to our (sometimes selfish) requests. For that, I want to thank Sami for the years AWS has been through and will continue to do so in the feature. :)
That said, seems like some of the core issues are still factors within the game. Namely frequency and the strong relationship its has with AWS pax, LOL!!
Something I think we do need to correct once and for all. It should always be based more on CI and price. Making CI more effect while decreasing the benefit of frequency would seem like the easier fix.
The whole tech stop deal I am not sold on unless there have been really major changes in the pax formula calculation. I don't recall having major issues dealing or defending against them. But, if one of you new hot shots wants to prove this strategy to me I'll be glad to put you in your pla.. play against you 8)
AWS is still the best airline game out there... our community's hard work and efforts show every time Sami posts a new update on the website.
That's something we should all be happy and proud of!
- Talentz
I like your post mr Talentz :laugh:
Quote from: Talentz on July 09, 2012, 07:29:40 AM
Haha, I guess I did hear you Swifty ;)
- Talentz
Star alliance lives?
Quote from: vectorforfood on June 23, 2012, 12:02:27 PM
Since the game has become about a few select players spending an incredible amount of time early on using all the exploits in the game to stranglehold every single major base, it seems there's just the "Regulars" playing now.
I haven't seen airwaysim really "grow"
Always two moderately populated game worlds that are the most active, within 5-6 years of game time, the numbers drop off.
So I ask, why not have more game worlds?
Why not make the rules a little more realistic so those of us that don't have hours upon hours to exploit can actually enjoy the game again?
/Rant
It took me a few bad airlines to finally come up with a good one I have nearly always gone bankrupt before but now my airline is valued the 19th highest in the game I am playing. I have based in that airport before and have not had an airline as successful as now so it really just depends on skill, choices and risks and not time. I did not have lots of time to play at the start but still I still have a successful airline and I am definitely one of the regulars. :)
Quote from: aland on July 14, 2012, 03:50:51 PM
It took me a few bad airlines to finally come up with a good one I have nearly always gone bankrupt before but now my airline is valued the 19th highest in the game I am playing. I have based in that airport before and have not had an airline as successful as now so it really just depends on skill, choices and risks and not time. I did not have lots of time to play at the start but still I still have a successful airline and I am definitely one of the regulars. :)
Bearing in mind, that your in the beginners world. ::)
Strangely enough my all-Soviet experiment in DoTM is actually now my longest-lived airline. It's not exactly profitable and it's slowly shrinking but there is no current danger of BK.
Quote from: vectorforfood on June 23, 2012, 12:02:27 PM
Since the game has become about a few select players spending an incredible amount of time early on using all the exploits in the game to stranglehold every single major base, it seems there's just the "Regulars" playing now.
I haven't seen airwaysim really "grow"
Always two moderately populated game worlds that are the most active, within 5-6 years of game time, the numbers drop off.
So I ask, why not have more game worlds?
Why not make the rules a little more realistic so those of us that don't have hours upon hours to exploit can actually enjoy the game again?
/Rant
Funny you made a statement like this. I was just thinking about this the other day. I left Airway Sim for a long time because of this. I came back recently because it sounded fun again. Boy, was I wrong. Same thing happened just as you described.
Look, online games will always have regulars. What can keep the newbie and casual players coming back? Lots and LOTS of game worlds. This way, the regulars will not be crowding out every single available game world. It is very, very frustrating for someone like me who can only check my airline once per day (maybe twice if I'm lucky), and then only for an hour . . . maybe.
I LOVE the airline industry, and this seems so very intriguing to me, but if something doesn't change the above described dynamic at Airway Sim, I doubt I'll be back. This probably has happened to scores (hundreds?) of new players who were scarred off because of the uber-competitve, super-veteran players that play in every game world (not that you guys don't have a right to . . . just saying).
I haven't read the rest of this thread yet, so maybe all the fan-boys have already blasted it to h***.
Quote from: brique on June 23, 2012, 04:07:08 PM
I don't think so, I certainly hope not : I have started playing in the last month or so and intend to stick around a bit longer.
I do think it needs to evolve though : that's not a criticism, just a reflection of the fact that games cant stand still or they do stagnate a bit : That can happen when, after a year or two, the game mechanics and foibles become known to the point where experienced players can follow a formula/strategy and always 'succeed', (kinda like the 'walk-thru' mode in some games: turn left, turn right, pick up the rock, jump down and hey presto: find the goody-bag) whilst other strategies will always be doomed to abject failure due to those same mechanics and foibles (e.g. trying to run a local operation with sub-20px planes).
So, I would say that a game which ends up having only one (or two) path to longevity, where all have to do the same or perish, can become a bit repetitive and also 'lock-out' players who maybe just want to 'dabble' with a smaller operation, or perhaps role-play a little with say, running a Caribbean island -hopper service or similar.
How you can accommodate such differing game-styles and have them still workable in a single game-world is another matter. But I would say the 'one-size-fits-all' staffing algorithm needs, politely speaking, a damn good tweaking.
Totally, totally, TOTALLY agree.
Call me a 'fan-boy' all you want ... go count the number of games I am playing in... You need the 'fan boys'. Go look at the Test Game thread. It's these same people who are running their own tests, making spreadsheets, testing all the possible variables. You need them. They are doing their best to make the sim better for all of you. These are de facto beta testers who are literally paying to do it for Sami et al.
Do I think that there needs to be more game worlds, absolutely. After flunking out in JHN, I have been mentoring off and on since.
But don't be so quick to demonize the more hard core players. The sim is doing its best to make sure the game is fun and competitive for all. There are no micro transactions to help certain people. Every game, every one has the same chance. Sure experience plays a role, but older players fail alot too.
Much of what you are complaining about above is being worked on right now. Sure, some players love to go to the same airports and fly the same way. They know exactly how to do it and I am sure it makes them hard doing it over and over. We helped fix 'Magic Carpet'... not let's fix "Narrowbody-Frequency-Pwn".
Im really happy about the currrent changes. Maybe it will need some tweaking and experimenting before its optimal but it will stir things up alot and will bring some new dynamics. So to me its not dying no.
As someone already wrote this game is alot about how much time you spend on it more than anything. Therefor its difficult to get angry at the competitor winning. He is just showing who is the bigger nerd.
Quote from: swiftus27 on July 19, 2012, 11:41:01 AM
Call me a 'fan-boy' all you want ... go count the number of games I am playing in... You need the 'fan boys'. Go look at the Test Game thread. It's these same people who are running their own tests, making spreadsheets, testing all the possible variables. You need them. They are doing their best to make the sim better for all of you. These are de facto beta testers who are literally paying to do it for Sami et al.
Do I think that there needs to be more game worlds, absolutely. After flunking out in JHN, I have been mentoring off and on since.
But don't be so quick to demonize the more hard core players. The sim is doing its best to make sure the game is fun and competitive for all. There are no micro transactions to help certain people. Every game, every one has the same chance. Sure experience plays a role, but older players fail alot too.
Much of what you are complaining about above is being worked on right now. Sure, some players love to go to the same airports and fly the same way. They know exactly how to do it and I am sure it makes them hard doing it over and over. We helped fix 'Magic Carpet'... not let's fix "Narrowbody-Frequency-Pwn".
Swiftus, veteran players (I've actually been here longer than you and many other veterans) do not necessarily = fan boys (I was not calling you a fan-boy personally either). When I spoke of "fan-boys", I meant those who do very well using the same tired formula (discussed here ad nauseum) and
do not want anything to change because they like success and they like how they achieve it in this game
in its current state. And, for the record, I certainly do not begrudge the work you (and others) have contributed to this game.
Having read the thread, there really seem to be very few who feel that way, and I appreciate yours (and others) who have offered support of change, especially in regards to the number of worlds. This, I feel, would be one of the single greatest helps for this great sim. Sami said it himself that adding hardware would be relatively cheap and easy. Why not offer 20, 30, or 50 worlds? Then we wouldn't have all the uber-players dominating every single game . . . especially until the game engine can be updated.
Just a thought . . .
Thanks,
JJP
I wasn't necessarily responding to you.
Just seems to be a lot of animosity triggered towards some of the people who are doing their best at helping this sim grow.
The same people who will gripe about change are the same ones who cried when their used airplane mods got shut down. Theyre just mad because they spent hours on spreadsheets to maximize XY and Z. Now they have to do it again.
Certain people have tried to drag down this community. They've been shown the door. This sim isn't about dominating, to me... but to some it is. I certainly can run 752s out of EWR... or A320/737s out of ORD... They need to be combative and love to be argumentative.
20, 30 or more game worlds would actually kill this Sim.
Why?
Heaps of Game Worlds means that everyone can be a winner no matter how bad your strategy may be as there will be a lot less competition per game world (simple maths of players vs. worlds) which would lead to lack of challenge, boredom and no fun.
It does not matter what online game you play there will always be the group of players who dominate the game as that is where they chose to focus their spare time (is it wasted time? not to them it's not and it is their choice) that is a part of life.
If you relate this to sports - there is a group of players who are elite at their chosen sport (Olympics just around the corner) and they will always dominate sports, so does that mean that the rest of us should not play sports, or should we make the rule makers change the rules so that we can beat the elite? Which will never happen as another group will set up and dominate...human nature at work. (e.g. let's amputate one of Beckham's legs so that we stand a chance of matching him at football...sounds stupid? yes....but that can be related to how some people want to change the rules of this Sim to be in their favour)
Is this Sim perfect?
No, and I am sure Sami will be one of the first to say this. But I believe that he does a great job and has given us a fantastic Sim to play, and even more important he doesn't just sit back and say 'job done' he actually actively continuously improves this game for us all to enjoy.
So in summary, with Sami's approach of continuous improvement, this Sim will never die.
Quote from: Kadachiman on July 19, 2012, 11:37:10 PM
20, 30 or more game worlds would actually kill this Sim.
Why?
Heaps of Game Worlds means that everyone can be a winner no matter how bad your strategy may be as there will be a lot less competition per game world (simple maths of players vs. worlds) which would lead to lack of challenge, boredom and no fun.
I completely disagree. That is an absolutely elitist thing to say -that, if people don't play as well as you, they have no business enjoying the game. That is hogwash. The community of people who are interested in this type of sim are not all hardcore, can spend hours at the game type of players. I am a father and husband with a full time job who happens to have a hobby interest in airlines. I love to role-play, set my own little personal goals in the game, and have a little friendly competition. I love to casually play and spend ~30 - 60 minutes per day managing my airline and developing strategy. So what if my strategy isn't as good as yours. I can't have fun at the game too?!
I do not have the time (or patience) to play for keeps by spending hours on end developing THE best strategy possible to find every loop-hole in the game to exploit. For me, the sim is not about dominating the entire continent or world and seeing how many airlines I can destroy. If that's what you like, that's fine. I have nothing against it. I am only saying that there is a market for the casual gamer (as others
have mentioned in this thread) who would like to dabble in the world of airlines and have some good ol' fashion comradery fun.
This whole notion that the nature of business is to have a constant turn over of players -win some, lose some- is hogwash. I would be willing to bet that the reason why so many come and go is specifically
because they get scarred off by worlds completely dominated by veterans who totally know exactly what to do to dominate the game. There is no place for these newer players to get into and enjoy the game (yes, yes, I know: there are stories of you who "just started" who do absolutely great at the game -I'm talking about the vast majority). Heck, there's hardly a place in these games for people like me who have been around for quite some time but are casual gamers.
Look, I don't want to make this about those gamers who dominate the game. That's fine. I have no problem with that. Simply provide enough worlds where
ALL of us have a place where we can enjoy the game the way we like (or are able) to. I can almost guarantee you, Sami, that you would start seeing your subscription rates start to go up (slowly at first) almost exponentially. No need to dumb down the game; simply add enough worlds where (a) you don't have to wait 3 months to start a new game, and (b) not every single game world is dominated by veteran players.
Just 2 cents from a casual gamer who happens to love airlines and commercial aircraft . . .
if people don't play as well as you
Geez, I wish this part was true :-) Maybe you should have checked on my airline first..lol
I go B/K more often than a Chapter 13 USA real airline....hahaha
I am not going to argue with you as you are obviously a very experienced and respected player, so let's just say that we have a different opinion on how Supply and Demand works :-)
My view - oversupply of game worlds would kill the game as there would be very little if any challenge so no point in playing - and yes maybe its elitist view - sorry
With your view - my opinion is that every game world would be like playing a Beginners game world...too easy and boring
But I enjoy strategy games and play them for the challenge of 'beating the strategy' so yes agreed...my view is coming from a different angle.
Quote from: Kadachiman on July 20, 2012, 01:37:48 AM
My view - oversupply of game worlds would kill the game as there would be very little if any challenge so no point in playing -
You're assuming an under-supply of players . . . ;)
Just a small comment... Do you really need to use THAT much time to make the airline work?
To what I have played, smallish airlines with a fleet of <20 planes, my time usage in game worlds has been perhaps 30 mins per day on the first few days when it gets started and then 10-15 mins per day - or less even, and everything is still fine there.
One solution to that time problem, if others feel it too, is to increase the game day length when things happen more slowly. (have "slow" and "fast" worlds, fast being around current 30min per day)
Quote from: sami on July 20, 2012, 07:47:14 AM
Just a small comment... Do you really need to use THAT much time to make the airline work?
I think it does take hours per day (especially when your bases are being attacked by players who also spend hours per day).
For me, the time is spent looking for good used planes, researching and adding new routes (since my old ones are getting copied and hammered), readjusting and optimizing my schedule (to squeeze in more frequencies on a competitive route, or increase aircraft utilization by adding more routes), looking for slots at profitable but overcrowded airports (LHR), and avoiding the tax man.
In particular, the "looking" for highly coveted things such as newer, fuel-efficient planes on the used market; or slots at LHR and old HND, etc. takes a long time, and players who only log in once or twice a day can survive but will not have a chance competing head-on against people who are online for most of the day. And when one of those players invades your base(s) and/or tries to BK you, you have to fight them head-on and can't just "play your own game."
Tax management is also much more easily done by players who are online often and can keep track of their profits at end of the calendar month. The airline that avoids tax withholding up front is going to have a significant advantage over the airline that gets a big tax refund but loses the money until refund day.
Quote from: EsquireFlyer on July 20, 2012, 01:07:06 PM
I think it does take hours per day (especially when your bases are being attacked by players who also spend hours per day).
For me, the time is spent looking for good used planes, researching and adding new routes (since my old ones are getting copied and hammered), readjusting and optimizing my schedule (to squeeze in more frequencies on a competitive route, or increase aircraft utilization by adding more routes), looking for slots at profitable but overcrowded airports (LHR), and avoiding the tax man.
In particular, the "looking" for highly coveted things such as newer, fuel-efficient planes on the used market; or slots at LHR and old HND, etc. takes a long time, and players who only log in once or twice a day can survive but will not have a chance competing head-on against people who are online for most of the day. And when one of those players invades your base(s) and/or tries to BK you, you have to fight them head-on and can't just "play your own game."
Tax management is also much more easily done by players who are online often and can keep track of their profits at end of the calendar month. The airline that avoids tax withholding up front is going to have a significant advantage over the airline that gets a big tax refund but loses the money until refund day.
Dude, you started playing 2 months ago.
Maybe you'll someday learn that it can be fun NOT flying at a tier 1 airport trying to be the biggest/baddest/etc. Flying out of ORD or LHR invites pros and tons of newb airlines. It isn't fun having to watch over your shoulder in these games. Sure, many veterans always flock to those airports, but you'll see that they are generally trying some place new (with some people who must use ORD or LAX, for instance). And I can assure you that they will in MT7 as it presents new challenges. Guess what, though.... you're on a level playing field now. You can beat them now because they don't have the easy winning formula. No crying here. Learn the new perfect strategy for your next airport and take it to them.
Quote from: EsquireFlyer on July 20, 2012, 01:07:06 PM
I think it does take hours per day (especially when your bases are being attacked by players who also spend hours per day).
For me, the time is spent looking for good used planes, researching and adding new routes (since my old ones are getting copied and hammered), readjusting and optimizing my schedule (to squeeze in more frequencies on a competitive route, or increase aircraft utilization by adding more routes), looking for slots at profitable but overcrowded airports (LHR), and avoiding the tax man.
In particular, the "looking" for highly coveted things such as newer, fuel-efficient planes on the used market; or slots at LHR and old HND, etc. takes a long time, and players who only log in once or twice a day can survive but will not have a chance competing head-on against people who are online for most of the day. And when one of those players invades your base(s) and/or tries to BK you, you have to fight them head-on and can't just "play your own game."
Tax management is also much more easily done by players who are online often and can keep track of their profits at end of the calendar month. The airline that avoids tax withholding up front is going to have a significant advantage over the airline that gets a big tax refund but loses the money until refund day.
Yes, this would be exactly my sentiment in response to your inquiry, Sami. Thank you for asking. It was a legitimate question.
Quote from: swiftus27 on July 20, 2012, 01:10:02 PM
Dude, you started playing 2 months ago.
Maybe you'll someday learn that it can be fun NOT flying at a tier 1 airport trying to be the biggest/baddest/etc. Flying out of ORD or LHR invites pros and tons of newb airlines. It isn't fun having to watch over your shoulder in these games. Sure, many veterans always flock to those airports, but you'll see that they are generally trying some place new (with some people who must use ORD or LAX, for instance). And I can assure you that they will in MT7 as it presents new challenges. Guess what, though.... you're on a level playing field now. You can beat them now because they don't have the easy winning formula. No crying here. Learn the new perfect strategy for your next airport and take it to them.
This is exactly the attitude I would hope to avoid. I am sorry there are those of you who feel that way. This goes back to my entire point that significantly increasing the number of game worlds would allow for players like Esquire and me to enjoy basing at some of the larger airports and competing with players more on our level. I understand that there are players who are very good at the game. I am intelligent enough to learn the "perfect strategy", but I neither have the time nor the patience to employ it. I would like a
relatively easy-going game with a few heart-pounding, friendly competition moments to keep it interesting.
When I first started this game, I really did quite well basing at mid-sized airports: good, solid demand, plenty of profit, etc. However, the last couple times I tried it, I got absolutely destroyed -not by the players at my base, but by the big boys at Atlanta, Chicago, etc. who decided to set up a second hub in my backyard and systematically destroy my routes. I'm not crying, I am simply stating a fact of the current dynamic of the game.
Now, there are a LOT of very good players (at least it seems that way to me), and I'm glad they were able to learn how to play very well. But, that makes the current 3-worlds at a time (only) system very, VERY crowded. It provides no leeway for the casual/new player.
Thank you,
JJP
Quote from: swiftus27 on July 20, 2012, 01:10:02 PM
Dude, you started playing 2 months ago.
Maybe you'll someday learn that it can be fun NOT flying at a tier 1 airport trying to be the biggest/baddest/etc. Flying out of ORD or LHR invites pros and tons of newb airlines. It isn't fun having to watch over your shoulder in these games. Sure, many veterans always flock to those airports, but you'll see that they are generally trying some place new (with some people who must use ORD or LAX, for instance). And I can assure you that they will in MT7 as it presents new challenges. Guess what, though.... you're on a level playing field now. You can beat them now because they don't have the easy winning formula. No crying here. Learn the new perfect strategy for your next airport and take it to them.
Nothing you've written here applies to me (other than saying that I only started playing 2 months ago; but JJP, who started playing before you did, said that he agrees completely with everything I wrote).
I didn't headquarter in a tier 1 airport or try to be biggest/baddest. I don't base in ORD or LHR. Surely you are not suggesting that I shouldn't fly
from my bases to ORD or LHR at all? If people who can only log in once or twice a day can never hope to
fly to ORD or LHR at all, then where's the fun in that?
I based in a 2nd tier airport (BOS) in both DOTM and JA. In JA I have done well (but it takes hours per day), but in DOTM, even while based in BOS I was chased by a huge player to BOS, who attacked my L1011 tristar routes with tech-stopped 727s and BK'ed me. So I had to move to GUM, a 3rd-tier airport--i.e, I did exactly what you said "NOT flying at a tier 1 airport trying to be the biggest/baddest/etc." And I did not "learn that it can be fun." I learned that it can be OK. But it is not going to be as much fun when the routes and options are so limited. More options and more possibilities = more fun.
But to base even at a 2nd tier airport, you have to be willing dedicate a lot of time to the game. If you only spend a little time, you will do OK as long as no big competitors come to your base. But as soon as someone who spends hours/day on the game opens up in your base, if you continue to log in only once per day, you be quickly wiped out like I was in DOTM-BOS.
I have done well in JA in BOS (and eventually DEN, SFO, and GUM again) and fought off attackers only by spending a lot of time on the game.
Also, how rude. I wasn't "crying" or even starting a complaint thread. Instead, I was responding directly to
sami's question of whether it really takes hours to manage an airline in this game. I answered his question and explained the reasons for my answer. If you call that "crying," then I don't see how sami is ever supposed to get the information he requests from the player community.
Quote from: EsquireFlyer on July 20, 2012, 02:18:57 PM
Nothing you've written here applies to me (other than saying that I only started playing 2 months ago; but JJP, who started playing before you did, said that he agrees completely with everything I wrote).
The point of swiftus pointing out that you have been in this community for just two months now is that with game worlds lasting 5-6 months, you have yet to experience a game world from start to finish, nor have you likely built a 500+ plane airline to be able to attest to the amount of time that it takes to maintain it. He's trying to put perspective from where your comments are coming from as to the real investment of time to play the game (and not do the I'm a veteran therefore more holier than thou routine).
Once you understand the game mechanics and what drives profitability in the game, it is very doable to build a decent airline that fares well against competition when logging in about once per day and only spending 30-60 minutes on it on a busy day. In general, when you're expanding, you will spend a lot more time scheduling planes and researching routes (though, researching isn't hard if you are using a tabbed browser and are familiar with ctrl+click or middle click). As you get a feel for route times and schedules (this just takes playing the game), it becomes a lot easier. If you are going into a maintenance mode while you are busier in life, you can check in every day or two, buy out a couple of planes to reduce your tax bill and check on your routes. If you have a well run airline (i.e. good plane/route selection) and are generally profitable, it is virtually impossible for a large airline to drop into your HQ city and knock you out. If you're only marginally profitable before they show up, then no amount of time in the world can help (unless you suddenly learn how to improve your techniques).
JA games are fairly easy because planes, fuel and staff are cheap relative to revenue, but demand is weak in most places. DOTM games have better demand, but plane choice is a LOT more difficult as you really have to understand the best/most economical plane(s) for the routes that you fly (which largely depends on your geography). MT makes plane choice easy and demand is high, but fuel, labor and plane costs are also high.
So in short, I'm just saying that I disagree with your opinion that players that log in once a day and spend 30 minutes or less on average can't build a decent airline in the current game worlds.
KBOS is not a tier 2 airport. Heck. They're are direct flights to Narita in real life. KCLE is a T2 airport. I wasn't saying that you're crying. Just no crying allowed here.
Once an individual has the mechanics down, this sim is tremendously easier. The amount of time you want to invest is entirely up to you.
You can't comment on the number of games being played because, you're honestly out of your element. You have no idea how many games went on at the same time prior to May of this year. Sami runs a one man shop on the programming side and there are a few admins. Sami also maintains a job. He is smartly ramping up this sim. He wanted to do some necessary changes to the sim. Now there's someone newer to it griping about the number of available games. Take a step back and realize that this is smart organic growth. As AWS continues to expand, expect there to be more games, more variety, and lastly more fun.
I say alot of this because I WAS here when the sim was easily abused... when there was 2 games going on... the community here does an excellent job policing itself. I just get annoyed because many people keep creating and bumping whine threads. They demand Samis attention. In the end, they're just taking away time better used working on game code.
Seriously, I need to make a demotivator about this... you only get to complain so much paying 1€ per week.
Quote from: schro on July 20, 2012, 02:54:49 PM
Once you understand the game mechanics and what drives profitability in the game, it is very doable to build a decent airline that fares well against competition when logging in about once per day and only spending 30-60 minutes on it on a busy day.
I definitely found this to be true when I played a couple of years ago. I was very successful then (without "gaming the system"). I have not found that to be true currently.
Quote from: schroIn general, when you're expanding, you will spend a lot more time scheduling planes and researching routes (though, researching isn't hard if you are using a tabbed browser and are familiar with ctrl+click or middle click). As you get a feel for route times and schedules (this just takes playing the game), it becomes a lot easier.
I believe I have a pretty good handle on this. I will admit that I have played nowhere near as many games as other individuals have, but I have played enough games to have a very solid understanding of hour these operations work.
Quote from: schroIf you are going into a maintenance mode while you are busier in life, you can check in every day or two, buy out a couple of planes to reduce your tax bill and check on your routes.
Definitely true if you do not have a "big-boy" competitor during that time period.
Quote from: schroIf you have a well run airline (i.e. good plane/route selection) and are generally profitable, it is virtually impossible for a large airline to drop into your HQ city and knock you out. If you're only marginally profitable before they show up, then no amount of time in the world can help (unless you suddenly learn how to improve your techniques).
I had recently joined DOTM #4 a while back at Salt Lake City. I was doing very well aginst the hub competitors (I believe there were ~3). In fact, I came to dominate the hub and was making ~1 million per week profit and had saved up enough money to order 20 - 30 BAC 111's -which were perfect for nearly all of my ~100 - 200 passenger routes of 1500 nm or less.
Well, all of a sudden, one of the players from Atlanta decided to set up shop at Salt Lake. He completely decimated my routes. I tried to hold him off long enough to get my BACs (that would have helped operations costs and profitability -not to mention the increased number of aircraft to compete with). Unfortunately, my new planes were a year away from arriving. Let's just say it did not work out well.
I give this example simply to kindly disagree with your statement, "If you have a well run airline (i.e. good plane/route selection) and are generally profitable, it is virtually impossible for a large airline to drop into your HQ city and knock you out." Maybe I didn't have a well-run airline? Maybe. Could I have done some things better? Perhaps. I did try to recruit some help from the mentors. I wanted some pointers for just this type of situation. Unfortunately, no one took up my request.
Quote from: schroSo in short, I'm just saying that I disagree with your opinion that players that log in once a day and spend 30 minutes or less on average can't build a decent airline in the current game worlds.
I would say that can be true up until the point that the players at the large airlines decide that your base looks mighty delicious.
Look, I know I am not a great player, but I am not a terrible player either. Please don't take all of this as whining. I am just trying to give a voice to those of us who are not "professional" players (and, I am in no where attempting to denegrate these individuals).
Honestly, I will not respond to 'bigger airline ate me'. The bigger airline is at a massive disadvantage competing against you as he is limited to a max # of airplanes, his operating costs will be higher with the new base, will have to establish RI with the new lines, and not to mention that both airlines can start on the same day.
This isn't Hello Kitty Airline Sim. You WILL fail out. I've bk'd out many many times. This is a business sim. Businesses flunk out as well. It just sucks when you put ~10 hours into an airline and XYZ veteran comes and kicks you in the teeth.
Oh, boy. I think we're talking in circles. No one is asking for the sim to be dumbed down. I believe my whole point so far has been that increasing the number of game worlds necessarily dilutes the number of veteran game players per world, increases the options for all players, and allows for a more forgiving game experience.
Of course you have to run your airline well in this sim. No one is saying otherwise. Heck, plenty of people go bankrupt without any competition simply because they have not grasped the main concepts of the sim. Or, they go bankrupt with the slightest bit of competition because they do not understand all of the different expenses affecting their game (etc.). That is not what we're talking about. We're talking about individuals who understand the game well, can run a successful airline, wish only to compete at their own hub, probably do some personal role-player, and enjoy the general feel of the entire sim.
No one wants to take away anyone's right to the kind of competitions that currently exist. We simply wish to add additional options for other players who do not take the game quite as seriously (for lack of a better term) as others. The additonal options do not come from asking Sami to develop "Hello Kitty Airline Sim." They come from simply increasing the number of concurrently available worlds significantly.
Quote from: JJP on July 20, 2012, 04:42:39 PMI would say that can be true up until the point that the players at the large airlines decide that your base looks mighty delicious.
From my perspective as a self-proclaimed veteran player (lol), when I go shopping for bases I look for a few things -
1. An airport large enough to support the maximum 100 plane limit for basing (this eliminates a LOT of options)
2. An airport that does not have a significant amount of competition (i.e. a smaller incumbant airline that looks weak and is not serving all of the unmet demand).
3. An airport that is not already covered by my alliance.
I don't go shopping for a new base until I have fully built out my HQ base, as it is a deterrant for other entrants and keeps my cost basis low for a longer period of time. However, if you're at a decent sized airport and not filling it out completely, it leaves room for me to make money by competing with you. It is borderline suicidal to go into a dominated airport.
If you've got a 200-300 plane fleet at your HQ, there's really no way a mega airline can show up with 100 planes and knock you out of business (with the "if you're well run" asterik applied).
I would also argue that BAC-111's are rather poor choices to fly 1000+ nm due to their small size (and therefore relatively higher cost per seat) if your goal is to make money with them. It might be more worthwhile with the demand system changes, but in the scenario you mentioned, you'd be better off with a single daily 722, M80 or 734 (I assume you were flying something even less efficient than the 111's at the time). How much revenue were you making when you had the 1m/wk profit? If you've got little to no competition in DOTM, I'd hope that represents at least 20-30% of your revenue.
Quote from: JJP on July 20, 2012, 04:42:39 PM
I had recently joined DOTM #4 a while back at Salt Lake City. I was doing very well aginst the hub competitors (I believe there were ~3). In fact, I came to dominate the hub and was making ~1 million per week profit and had saved up enough money to order 20 - 30 BAC 111's -which were perfect for nearly all of my ~100 - 200 passenger routes of 1500 nm or less.
Well, all of a sudden, one of the players from Atlanta decided to set up shop at Salt Lake. He completely decimated my routes. I tried to hold him off long enough to get my BACs (that would have helped operations costs and profitability -not to mention the increased number of aircraft to compete with). Unfortunately, my new planes were a year away from arriving. Let's just say it did not work out well.
I give this example simply to kindly disagree with your statement, "If you have a well run airline (i.e. good plane/route selection) and are generally profitable, it is virtually impossible for a large airline to drop into your HQ city and knock you out." Maybe I didn't have a well-run airline? Maybe. Could I have done some things better? Perhaps. I did try to recruit some help from the mentors. I wanted some pointers for just this type of situation. Unfortunately, no one took up my request.
$1 million profit per week if not a generally profitable, well run airline, especially if you've got enough turnover to be dominating your hub. And if you don't have cash on hand, have taken out loans to order new planes, then you're probably in a pretty precarious position, and a large airline dropping 50+ planes in your HQ can tip you over the edge into losing money, and 24 hours real time, 6 weeks game time, might leave you in a hole too deep to recover from. Being online more probably won't help that, as the problem would be an inability to react due to lack of cash for used planes, and a big sunk cost on new planes that won't arrive for a long time. Making that sort of new order more or less boils down to gambling that the situation in your home airport won't change much until they arrive.
I've just started playing again after ~6 months away. I'll happily look at mentoring once I'm eligible, which probably takes a month before I qualify as recently active. I think once your airline is up & running, generally profitable (say 50-75 planes, 5+ million/week profit in DOTM now), then it will be fairly secure. A big competitor attacking it hard might hurt it, but won't destroy it, and certainly not within less than a RL week. An hour a day is heaps to maintain a large, well-run airline. Being online more can help you micromanage, squeeze extra $ out of things. And when a game is starting, you probably won't survive intense competition without being online more than that. Once your airline is big, once there isn't really scope for competitors to attack (France in JA, Turkey in MT6 were my last 2 airlines), even 1 hour a week is plenty to keep things going, the game can get fairly boring.
I'm currently in JFK. I've just started, about 24 hours ago. The airport didn't have anybody big when I started, biggest has 32 BACs and is growing slowly, and 2 bigger airlines have based there. Spent a few hours to do some route research, and schedule the 7 planes I got with my initial money. Now it's just a case of briefly checking in ~twice a day, and ordering another 727 if I have cash, scheduling the next 727 if one's about to arrive. A notepad file has a dozen or so routes with 727 times on them, so I just fill from that, takes maybe 10 minutes. I'm at 750k-1 million/week profit, though that'd be closer to 500k if leases had kicked in. Plan is more or less laid out, it'll run on that 20 minutes a day for the next 2 RL weeks or so, until I have ~40 727s, and an income base that I can then use to expand into newer & bigger planes. Some competition shouldn't affect that. A concerted attack now will, but a concerted attack will likely mean I choose to restart, no matter how many hours I was putting in. Once I have 40+ 727s, then I think I will be more or less safe from big airlines, I'll certainly have a fighting chance if someone tries something.
Quote from: JJP on July 20, 2012, 05:55:16 PM
We're talking about individuals who understand the game well, can run a successful airline, wish only to compete at their own hub, probably do some personal role-player, and enjoy the general feel of the entire sim.
You can. Really. But doing it in a US (or later, EU) airport that can happily support 100+ 100 seat planes, and doing it as a 30 plane airline, that's what won't work, that's what will leave you at the mercy of bigger airlines. But pick one outside the US (Look at Chile in DOTM now. biggest airline has 19 planes, 2 years old, looks very fragile, but has 40 million cash on hand. Peru has a 10 plane airline. Trinidad has none), or pick a smaller US airport (Boise & Long Beach are empty, for instance) and you can definitely do exactly what you want, have a 50 plane airline, stick to your own hub, RP all you want, and enjoy yourself. Big airlines dropping in won't be a problem, any competition will either be from other airlines flying just one of your routes, or brand new startups.
Quote from: JJP on July 20, 2012, 05:55:16 PM
"Hello Kitty Airline Sim."
This is our next release actually. Due to appear on appstore on next April 1st.
Quote from: sami on July 20, 2012, 08:26:17 PM
This is our next release actually. Due to appear on appstore on next April 1st.
Meh, I think I'll hold out for the 'Airline : Total War' release : how many air-to-air missiles can you fit on a F.27 anyway?
Quote from: brique on July 20, 2012, 10:40:06 PM
Meh, I think I'll hold out for the 'Airline : Total War' release : how many air-to-air missiles can you fit on a F.27 anyway?
LOL, I'd join you with Islanders out of LHR and drop some nukes..
Quote from: swiftus27 on July 20, 2012, 03:30:00 PM
You can't comment on the number of games being played because, you're honestly out of your element. You have no idea how many games went on at the same time prior to May of this year.
Before you hit me with "You can't comment on the number of games being played because, you're honestly out of your element" why don't you point to a post where I commented on the number of games being played? I made no such comment, and if you're not going to read closely enough to differentiate my posts from other people's posts, then you shouldn't be throwing mud at me personally.
I responded specifically to Sami's direct question of whether this game takes a large time commitment to play successfully. I said nothing about the number of games being run simultaneously.
Quote from: swiftus27 on July 20, 2012, 03:30:00 PM
Seriously, I need to make a demotivator about this... you only get to complain so much paying 1€ per week.
Seriously, I was answering the developer's question. How is Sami supposed to get feedback if people
are not allowed to answer his questions because they only pay €1 per week?
Why would Sami bother
asking a question on the public forum if he did not want to hear from people who were "paying €1 per week"?
Swiftus, when I was first starting out on AWS, I read your newbie guide, and found it very helpful. But now, seeing the way you actually treat people who you view as newbies--yikes! :o
You're completely off base there too. Ask the legions of people who pm me asking for help. I always attempt to help when I have time. When it was discovered that people were using bot programs to get used planes, whose idea was to report that? how about the # of refreshes to the used market? I don't need to answer to you, but my ideas are about helping the average player compete. I have a job/wife/house/........ I don't have time to sit in front of the monitor to play this sim. I am mainly about learning new avenues and testing odd ways to play. I ran a small airline test to see and verify how completely impossible it is running a fleet of Fairchild a/c.
You are absolutely entitled to your opinion. For the short period of time you've been simming, a major flaw with the sim has been identified and is targeted for fixing. Sami won't create worlds simply to sate the appetite of people wanting to play. He wants to do it correctly. Therefore, he has postponed new games.
In the end, I really don't answer to anyone. I am not a member of the staff of AWS. I am merely someone who tries to help people understand that they didn't go to the store plunk down $59.99 and a $14.99 monthly to play AWS. If so, I'd not blame them for saying/claiming whatever they wanted. AWS has been and continues to be a work in process.
Understand Sami doesn't just click 'Create Game'. He also doesn't want to buy additional server space while he is working heavily on the code. 1.3 came out in December (or around then). This is the first major change since. Simply put again, you just haven't been here for a game cycle and you really don't know how it's been done. Sorry if you take that offensively, but you're still brand new to AWS and we're glad to have you as an active member. This is just what happens.
Quote from: swiftus27 on July 21, 2012, 04:05:49 AM
You are absolutely entitled to your opinion. For the short period of time you've been simming, a major flaw with the sim has been identified and is targeted for fixing. Sami won't create worlds simply to sate the appetite of people wanting to play. He wants to do it correctly. Therefore, he has postponed new games. . . .
Understand Sami doesn't just click 'Create Game'. He also doesn't want to buy additional server space while he is working heavily on the code. 1.3 came out in December (or around then). This is the first major change since. Simply put again, you just haven't been here for a game cycle and you really don't know how it's been done. Sorry if you take that offensively, but you're still brand new to AWS and we're glad to have you as an active member. This is just what happens.
I am not asking Sami to create more game universes (that was other people). So, if your primary thing against me is that you don't think I should be asking for more universes to be created, then I don't think that is an issue, because I have expressed no opinion on whether the number of universes should be increased. I also understand that creating additional universes would require substantial investment of time and server resources (though I can't say exactly how much), because I previously worked as a game designer for another company while I was in graduate school.
And I guess I will ignore your repeated statements about my "short period of time simming" and "not having been here," since (1) people who have been here for years stated, on the basis of their experience that they agreed with the points I stated, and (2) it seems that you are not going to stop criticizing my join date just because I ask you to.
So, moving on from the personal stuff to the substance: you raise an interesting point regarding the market-call system. I think it is a very good way to counteract botting. However, it is also a good example of a design feature which encourages living in front of the computer and/or playing for hours per day (which is the only topic on which I have stated an opinion here). Because players get 7 calls per game week, or approximately one call per gay day, and the AI brokers' blocks of planes also seem to be loaded once per game day (or something like that), if you want to be able to get hotly demanded planes on the used market (or get the best deals on medium-demand planes in good condition), you have a big advantage if you can be at the computer and call the market every 30-40 real world minutes. (And the same thing is true, to a lesser extent, for slots at high-demand airports, since players' unused slots get confiscated and relisted once per day also.)
If you only log in one one day in a game week (once per 3.5 hours or so in real life), or once per real-life day, you will have calls being "wasted" and expiring. And, if you use all 7 of your weekly calls during 30 real-world minutes, it won't help you any more than just calling 1 or 2 times during that 30-minute period would, since the brokers' plane blocks are not loaded that frequency.
So, going with the used-market example, a way to level the playing field a little between players who can live in front of the computer and players who can only log in once per day, would be, for example, to give players 31 market calls per game
month, expiring at the end of the month rather than the end of each week, and divide up the broker planes into smaller, more frequently loaded batches (so that a player who calls the market 3-4 times in a game day will be able to see more results that day than a player who only calls once; the trade-off being that the first player will have used up a lot of his calls until the next time he logs in, whereas the second player call still call once per day for the following 2-3 days). That would allow people who only log in 1-2 times per real world day to make the most of their time during those 1-2 logins, if the game designer wants to do that.
And of course that's a big "if." It can be good for a designer to make a game that encourages people to play a lot, or play continuously. Zynga makes lots of money by specifically designing addictive, copycat-modeled games, for example. But with respect to sami's original question of whether it takes a long time to manage an airline in this game, my answer is that it does, because of several game features which tend to give players who spend hours an advantage, and because players who log in only once per day can be attacked by players who spend hours, thus requiring the players under attack to either also spend hours, or BK, or move to an airport that no one else would ever want to go to.
Which brings up what you said before about BOS supposedly being a first-tier airport because it has nonstop flights to NRT in the real world. First, when I said first-tier, I meant the airports you originally gave in your example (LHR, ORD), and I think it's pretty much indisputable that those airports are first tier and that BOS is not on the same level as those places. Second, as a veteran player you obviously know that the existence of one route in the real world says nothing about the viability of the same route in AWS (not to mention the viability of other routes generally from that airport), because of the way AWS demand is modeled (such as the lack of connecting traffic).
For example, you stated correctly that CLE is a second (or in my opinion third) tier airport in AWS. But in the real world, your example CLE is actually a base airport for the largest airline in the world. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a second/third tier airport in AWS. Because of connecting traffic, real-world airlines can open nonstop routes from (and even set their hubs in) second/third tier airports; so, the fact that an airport has a big airline presence in the real world does not preclude it from being a second or third tier airport in AWS.
I've tried to keep this post as substantive and civil as possible. In your response, if you could refrain from again emphasizing my newbie status, I would appreciate it, as I don't think it's necessary to make that point again when everyone already knows that that is what you think of me.
Quote from: EsquireFlyer on July 22, 2012, 09:40:56 PMThat would allow people who only log in 1-2 times per real world day to make the most of their time during those 1-2 logins, if the game designer wants to do that.
The ecuation "more time online = better" was true in every single online game I ever played.
WOW for example, demands a LOT of time on the computer, and it's the mmporg with most users. So online time required is not equal to amount of users. It's the game itself and the social community around it which attracts players or not.
Quote from: EsquireFlyer on July 22, 2012, 09:40:56 PM
For example, you stated correctly that CLE is a second (or in my opinion third) tier airport in AWS. But in the real world, your example CLE is actually a base airport for the largest airline in the world. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a second/third tier airport in AWS. Because of connecting traffic, real-world airlines can open nonstop routes from (and even set their hubs in) second/third tier airports; so, the fact that an airport has a big airline presence in the real world does not preclude it from being a second or third tier airport in AWS.
I am busy watching Sons of Anarchy so I don't have time to respond to your entire post.
Okay, as a resident of Cleveland Ohio, I will never ever declare my home airport to be anything more than it is. Don't consider it a major base airport simply because of the Continited merger. The majority of planes flying here are Dash 8s, CRJs and the occasional 737 (I think there's one 752 that flies to IAH). The only 'heavy' that ever takes off is the DC10 that UPS owns (and is usually seen from I-480 sitting idle as usual). Due to its size compared to the world, however, it is a 2nd tier airport. United only has 2-3 years left on their contract with the city (with a massive penalty if they leave early). CLE will soon become what happened to STL after the TWA bankruptcy... that's just a few years away
Secondly.... Dude, I hope that I has already made it clear that I have nothing personal with you. In my personal opinion, you've been kind of 'bull-in-china-shop' recently and I wanted you to just tone it down a notch. Every time the sim slows down, great things have always emerged on the other side. That's the point I am trying to get across. We like you as an active member. I am not being combative with you.... end of line
Also, there needs to be a blend between people who can and can not afford to play. The current system is incredibly better and again, I emphasize due to your recent arrival how it already changed AWS for the better. Back to Sons.... great show.
Quote from: EsquireFlyer on July 22, 2012, 09:40:56 PM
But with respect to sami's original question of whether it takes a long time to manage an airline in this game, my answer is that it does, because of several game features which tend to give players who spend hours an advantage, and because players who log in only once per day can be attacked by players who spend hours, thus requiring the players under attack to either also spend hours, or BK, or move to an airport that no one else would ever want to go to.
There's a difference between 'you MUST be online more often than 30 minutes/day to be successful' and 'being online for hours per day gives you an advantage'. The second one is certainly true, but I don't think that's a problem. If the sim was simple enough that 15 minutes a day or 6 hours a day made no difference to what you were able to do, it wouldn't be interesting enough for me to play. But I don't think the first statement is true at all. If you want to start MT today, and be in a size 5 airport with 6 other people, then yeah, you'll need to be online a bit more for the next fortnight, or you'll likely be forced to BK. But to suggest that your only other option is 'to move to an airport no one else would ever want to go to' is unrealistic hyperbole. There are lots of airports that are big enough to be very successful, without the guaranteed cutthroat competition of the top 25 airports. To some extent it's luck-based, you can pick a biggish airport with only 1 or 2 competitors (Bogota, Brasilia, Brisbane, Seattle, Osaka, Lisbon, Mumbai are all big enough to build a monster airline if that's what you want, but only have 1 or 2 people there currently), but you don't know if those 1 or 2 are less experienced/more casual players, or extremely experienced, aggressive players. You might get a level playing field, you might have an advantage, you might find that the disadvantage of limited access can't be overcome against one of those players. Once the gameworld is established, as DOTM currently is, it's very easy to find an airport where you can be very successful being online just 30 minutes/day. You're constrained by how the gameworld has developed, but there won't be a shortage of biggish airports with relatively easy competition levels. Which airports they are will just change from world to world.
Do you have to be online more than 30 minutes/day to start in HND/LAX/AMS on day 1 and wind up as the biggest airline in that airport? Absolutely.
Do you have to be online more than 30 minutes/day to start in a size 5 airport, and build a very large, successful airline? not at all. You need to play well, and if you have bad luck in who your competitors are, your inability to react quickly may spell doom, but with a bit of good luck, you'll be fine.
Do you have to be online more than 30 minutes/day to start 5 years in and build a large, profitable airline? Absolutely not. You have to work around what's already happened, some airports won't be available, some new planes will have queues too long to use, but you'll still have plenty of options, and almost zero risk of being forced to BK through lack of online time.
Quote from: JJP on July 20, 2012, 04:42:39 PM
I would say that can be true up until the point that the players at the large airlines decide that your base looks mighty delicious.
Just responding to this one point. It is a combination of base and airlines at the base. Weak airlines attract more competition than strong airlines. It takes me only seconds to spot if an airline is weak.
Some players don't realize (or lose concentration) from the main point of the game, which is profit. And CV as a function of all accumulated profits. If you are doing poorly at this stat, than your base does indeed look delicious.
But if your airline is solidly profitable, employing a sound strategy, it looks very un-appetizing to others. Remember, you have an advantage in lower costs, number of aircraft you can deploy and home base LF advantage...
Quote from: JJP on July 20, 2012, 05:55:16 PM
Oh, boy. I think we're talking in circles. No one is asking for the sim to be dumbed down. I believe my whole point so far has been that increasing the number of game worlds necessarily dilutes the number of veteran game players per world, increases the options for all players, and allows for a more forgiving game experience.
On the number of concurrent games, I agree. We could certainly use double the number of games. The time between game starts is too long. Having 2x of each game era world running would also lead to more people playing. Quite a few players prefer to start on day 1 and would rather wait for the next game world than start in the middle...
A game reservation system would help judge the demand (of players to play AWS) fairly accurately. I would open reservation for MT8 for example, one month into MT7, and set up a criteria when it will start. As in:
- when number of registrations reaches a threshold (325 players?)
- no later than than a given date.
Jesus man, your post count is insane. heh heh ;D
Quote from: JumboShrimp on July 22, 2012, 11:25:26 PM
On the number of concurrent games, I agree. We could certainly use double the number of games. The time between game starts is too long. Having 2x of each game era world running would also lead to more people playing. Quite a few players prefer to start on day 1 and would rather wait for the next game world than start in the middle...
A game reservation system would help judge the demand (of players to play AWS) fairly accurately. I would open reservation for MT8 for example, one month into MT7, and set up a criteria when it will start. As in:
- when number of registrations reaches a threshold (325 players?)
- no later than than a given date.
Agree completely. Especially about the long wait for a new day 1. Could also offer a bit more variation that way, too. Both in game length and start date, rather than the current 3, ~25 year game worlds spanning roughly the same years each time. I want a game world where I can try and use concorde. But can't do it in JA, because they arrive too close to the end to make use of them, and can't do it in DOTM, becuase the production line's not open long enough. 1965-1995 or similar (or one very long world while 4 or 5 25 year worlds run), and I can finally go bankrupt in serious style. ;D
Quote from: EsquireFlyer on July 22, 2012, 09:40:56 PM
So, moving on from the personal stuff to the substance: you raise an interesting point regarding the market-call system. I think it is a very good way to counteract botting. However, it is also a good example of a design feature which encourages living in front of the computer and/or playing for hours per day (which is the only topic on which I have stated an opinion here). Because players get 7 calls per game week, or approximately one call per gay day, and the AI brokers' blocks of planes also seem to be loaded once per game day (or something like that), if you want to be able to get hotly demanded planes on the used market (or get the best deals on medium-demand planes in good condition), you have a big advantage if you can be at the computer and call the market every 30-40 real world minutes. (And the same thing is true, to a lesser extent, for slots at high-demand airports, since players' unused slots get confiscated and relisted once per day also.)
If you only log in one one day in a game week (once per 3.5 hours or so in real life), or once per real-life day, you will have calls being "wasted" and expiring. And, if you use all 7 of your weekly calls during 30 real-world minutes, it won't help you any more than just calling 1 or 2 times during that 30-minute period would, since the brokers' plane blocks are not loaded that frequency.
So, going with the used-market example, a way to level the playing field a little between players who can live in front of the computer and players who can only log in once per day, would be, for example, to give players 31 market calls per game month, expiring at the end of the month rather than the end of each week, and divide up the broker planes into smaller, more frequently loaded batches (so that a player who calls the market 3-4 times in a game day will be able to see more results that day than a player who only calls once; the trade-off being that the first player will have used up a lot of his calls until the next time he logs in, whereas the second player call still call once per day for the following 2-3 days). That would allow people who only log in 1-2 times per real world day to make the most of their time during those 1-2 logins, if the game designer wants to do that.
This is a subject that is very dear to me, and you make a lot of good points. I have mentioned some of them myself in the past.
The current used market system is a vast improvement of what we had before, and it is also an improvement as far as how much time you have to spend in front of a computer.
But it is certainly not enough as far as leveling the playing field between player logging in once per day vs. several times per day.
As far as calls, those are issues early in the game worlds. Number of calls becomes less important in 2nd half of the game, when plenty of aircraft is available. And number of calls would make no difference to a player playing once per day, since all you would realistically get is a single refresh of the market in your 1 hour online.
The issue becomes the limit on number of aircraft you can get from UM in day, week. Logging in once per RL day for one hour, you are limited to 3 aircraft per RL day = 3 aircraft per game month. Player logged in all the time can get ~12 aircraft in the same time period.
So I think this would be one area for improvement. To shift the limits from game day, game week towards game month. 12 aircraft limit per game month rather than 3 per game week would level the playing field.
Quote from: swiftus27 on July 22, 2012, 11:27:38 PM
Jesus man, your post count is insane. heh heh ;D
Are you talking to me :)
Quote from: Sanabas on July 22, 2012, 11:42:54 PM
Agree completely. Especially about the long wait for a new day 1. Could also offer a bit more variation that way, too. Both in game length and start date, rather than the current 3, ~25 year game worlds spanning roughly the same years each time.
Something like this (and the reservation system) would also judge the true demand for games eras. If most of the demand is for MT era, we might have 3 games there, while only 1 in JA and DM eras...
Quote from: JumboShrimp on July 22, 2012, 11:47:59 PM
The current used market system is a vast improvement of what we had before, and it is also an improvement as far as how much time you have to spend in front of a computer.
I swear some of those features were in direct response to me... right Sami? I know during the v1.3 test we ran before going live... I was at JFK (first time too 8)) and I made soo much money that I would lease every dc-10/747 in sight. My cash flow was 3x the next biggest airline (Nemo at the time) so waiting for the market to refresh was pointless when you have 100mil to go crazy with.
Wasn't but a day or two later Sami added the max used aircraft per week hard limit.
- Talentz
Edit: Correction that was v1.2.. jeez I am getting old.
Someone posted it earlier, but connecting passengers would be cool to model, although probably very hard from a programming side to model. It's a huge crimp in operations to know that while you could do a shorter turnaround, the passengers for the plane are coming in 15 minutes later, so you need an extra thirty minutes to allow for connections...
I'm kind of saddened that people say sub 40 seat aircraft are not/barely profitable. Most airline startups use those small planes to setup, serving small airports in Pilatus, Saabs, etc.
I'm about a week into this game now, and I can see what people mean about the difference between gamers/simmers, some of the 'big' startup airlines, dunno, just seems odd that you could startup immediately on six A320s out of KJFK.
Quote from: cmdrnmartin on August 18, 2012, 12:50:13 PM
Someone posted it earlier, but connecting passengers would be cool to model, although probably very hard from a programming side to model. It's a huge crimp in operations to know that while you could do a shorter turnaround, the passengers for the plane are coming in 15 minutes later, so you need an extra thirty minutes to allow for connections...
I'm kind of saddened that people say sub 40 seat aircraft are not/barely profitable. Most airline startups use those small planes to setup, serving small airports in Pilatus, Saabs, etc.
I'm about a week into this game now, and I can see what people mean about the difference between gamers/simmers, some of the 'big' startup airlines, dunno, just seems odd that you could startup immediately on six A320s out of KJFK.
Look up city based planning in the feature requests.
Quote from: Talentz on July 24, 2012, 06:12:36 AM
I swear some of those features were in direct response to me... right Sami?
Talentz... feature request here:
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,25808.0.html