AirwaySim

Hi,
I start to gett the feeling that the role of alliances are starting to dominate the game.
Wouldn't it be nice to limit this to max 10 or 12 players.Atleast 1 game world to see?
Maybe by smaller alliances the game will be more reliable on players skills instead of the Alliance you are in.
Also the cooperation of the players within the Alliance will be more important then now to stay at max players for points,this will be more spread out as now ony 2 or 3 Alliances can earn extra points on the max of 30-35 players.
This way there will be more Alliances,so more equal teams and if you want to win this aswell then the whole group have to work to reach this.(just like in tour the france,4x100m sprint etc)

What are you thinking about this?

Seven,SevenAIR/7 AIR

Not sure. Alliances just make it easier to find a broker for big fleet switches. It's not a small advantage, but it's not game-breaking either. I easily found 210 used 737ng on the UM in 24 months - and always had the choice between dozens of birds. Without asking for help in my alliance, or outside. It's more useful when you have fleet groups not flooding the UM(like the A148), but you just need one or two strong players in your alliance. Quality makes it more than quantity. I did never need more than one broker for managing my A148, and I fly 475 of them. Not many players need more than this number of airplanes in any fleet group. Those who do are the very big boys, and tend to be conservative on their fleet choices(MD90-55, for example), which means the UM helps them a lot already.

And too many players in an alliance can be a malediction. When you have 6-7 players in the USA, and all good bases are taken, and you need to expand, your choice is very limited.

Quote from: gazzz0x2z on January 11, 2017, 09:09:27 AM
Not sure. Alliances just make it easier to find a broker for big fleet switches. It's not a small advantage, but it's not game-breaking either. I easily found 210 used 737ng on the UM in 24 months - and always had the choice between dozens of birds. Without asking for help in my alliance, or outside. It's more useful when you have fleet groups not flooding the UM(like the A148), but you just need one or two strong players in your alliance. Quality makes it more than quantity. I did never need more than one broker for managing my A148, and I fly 475 of them. Not many players need more than this number of airplanes in any fleet group. Those who do are the very big boys, and tend to be conservative on their fleet choices(MD90-55, for example), which means the UM helps them a lot already.

And too many players in an alliance can be a malediction. When you have 6-7 players in the USA, and all good bases are taken, and you need to expand, your choice is very limited.

If you're operating a very large airline, having a number of folks able to assist you with plane purchasing is absolutely critical - anything over 500-700 planes is generally not sustainable by fishing in the used market and hoping for it to solve your issues.

In a way, the recent increase from 25 to 35 or 40 players has made alliance play more challenging in the US (and to an extent, Europe) as it increases the overhead of proactive base management and coordination.

I think it would be a great experiment to have a game world where alliance memberships was limited to between 10 and 15 airlines and see how that plays out.    Perhaps limiting the number of airlines allowed will share out some of the more experienced, more knowledgeable players to more alliances, rather than those players always being in the same two or three alliances.  Perhaps that would stop the dominance that a couple of the alliances have in most game worlds and make it a fairer playing field for all.  Less dominance and less members may mean it is easier for new players that join a game some time after the start or mid way through and actually be able to not only get a foot hold in a market but also thrive, which at present is pretty difficult to do for many.     

Perhaps the limiting of players in an alliance will encourage more communication between players of different alliances,  as there would be a greater need for aircraft brooking outside of an alliance.

Also, limiting the number of members in an alliance could make it easier for a more experienced player (or alliance manager)  to help a less experienced player in their alliance, as they would - possibly - have more time to share with a smaller number of members.

Its worth exploring I feel.     

Maybe I'm the oddball, but I rarely play with an alliance. I'd venture to guess I'm probably the largest, non-allianced airline in GW2 right now. I've had some approach me about joining, but everyone would require me to give up one of my more profitable bases, and it's generally just not worth it. Sure, it might make the game a bit harder in terms of fleet restructuring (as I found out going from the Avro to the E-jets, forcing me to park roughly 50 Avro's before I could replace them), but I find it more fun.

Some history of the alliance membership limit:

It used to be 25 airlines per alliance.  Then, there was a period of time when the 1990s-2020 game worlds were super busy, oversubscribed, with some 600+ airlines starting the game world.  At that time, the alliances were also oversubscribed, with waiting lists to join.  So the limit was increased.

Since then, most of the game worlds have moved to very long 1960-2030, there are more games running at the same time, and player counts have settled in 300 range (fewer by the game end).  So the current alliance membership limit is quite high now vs. number of players in the game world. but I don't think there is a strong reason to change it.

A: there are 3 long game worlds and 1 medium long game world but all with same settings.
  So a game world with different settings would not be a problem at all,or open a 5th game world with different settings and see what happens.

B: now with 30+ Alliance members it is easy to base 4 in 1 country easy and actually help out eachother to pressure 1 stand alone or a smaller Alliance member.
if want to keep the same % then spread out over countries and make it more fair for the other players.
there is a base player group in each Alliance so they can plan ahead and recrute other members at different countries and make it more intresting.

C: If make like a lock to 10/15 Alliance members this means there will be more players  around the world and if make the plane prices less flexible,means profits or losses made on planes are smaller then this way more players have to depent on there own skills and gett less from other players.

D: the 4th fleet penalty was made so production lines gett less congested by the big players and give other players a chance too,if i remeber corectly?
   But now planes beeing order for profit sales or for other members so actually this rule helps the better developt players over the less experianced players.
   And with less profits this will make it less interestng to buy for sale and give the players with less game time also a chance to gett earliers orders on the production line
   The max plane outside the homebase rule already have the lock on this,so just open a world where a 4th type or 5th can easy be ordered and give more of us a chance to enjoy this game.(don't say go to beginners world,as they are only 10 years,we want longer games too!!!)

E: I have the priveledge to see both side of beeing in a top Alliance and enjoy the good stuff,as it really is and also see the other side where players just want to enjoy the game but beeing bullied away by the top dogs.
So just open a game world where everyone have the chance to enjoy a long game world(even without achievements is fine aswell)as we all pay the 5 credits to gett in the game and pay the weekly credit to play,but not fun to loose your real money during the game as your competitor have the priveledge of help from the rich players but actually you have to earn it your self and if this influence wasn't there and both have to do there selfs will make it more interesting for everyone.
guess this will keep more players inside a game world then now when we start with around 600 players and end up with just 135 or so.

So with an increase in players it maybe also good to offer more different products to us then basically the same now.
This game is growing so to keep your players in there and not loose them there should be different settings beeing offered then now.
all games have same levels while here basically 4longworld's with same settings,the mini games and the beginnersworld.
So if can make a long world where you basically fly alone then this would change the present same over and over routine and make it lively again.
not earn alot of money on selling planes as this would open production lines more then now.

And if players want to be a broker then maybe give the option to start as a broker and only broke like the A1's now do.
that look like an interesting new challenge to me

these are only limitations to free market.

if it will be no alliances - it will be even easier, cause the core players will not stop interact or help each other. but will have no alliance regulations to follow.

buying for resale ? - it is very good. because AI brokers now are not working. Small companies cannot usually order 40+ ACs (to get 20% discount), so they are gladly buying from rich players.  sometime they pay premium, sometimes not - just PM to owner and mostly you can find a win-win agreement. because real players dont want to stuck with a lot of ACs on hand just because they put high prices.
and AI brokers just holding ACs - and not intend to earn money. i saw very popular planes sold by AI broker - 15 yo and 0 hours flight time. and only 4 years left before noise regulation will make it obsolete. yeah - good business.

even IRL there are 6 alliances. while only 3 are major.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_alliance#Current_alliances

so I would thinking about not limiting the members at all. but - change points calculation. and may be increase/add some advantages for being in it.
1. Points calculation must consider countries and continents that alliance is serving.
2. points calculation must consider players personal points.
3. points calculation must consider pax travelled.

Also we can think about adding second type of alliance - regional.
And this alliance, while it will surely have less players due original limitation (they must be based in that region) - will have stronger pax advantage for in-out region flights.
So having EU alliance alive and flying JFK/LHR - non EU alliance player will have stronger disadvantage than currently.

This, I think will add more interesting strategies not only to single player, but to alliance either and also will allow smaller alliances become stronger by holding only one region.

That why i have written,not much profit or loss on planes when you sell,this wll empy more the production lines as only planes will be bought for other Alliance members if requested and also make new planes at used market more affordable.

Besides this stay a game and every long game world have the same rules.
You and me are from the same alliances so we know the advantages of this,but what if we where not?
So is time to open up a game world with different settings,there is a reason why after 2 or 3 real months many players already left the game because they went bankrupt.
It is time to give other players,who also pay money to have fun here also to enjoy this game as we can do inside our comfortable zones.
I don't say all game worlds but if all 4 long wrlds have same settings have same high player droppingthen maybe it is time for a long world with different settings so everyone can choose where they want to play.

From last summer i have less game time then i had in my previous year and my focus on 2 game worlds and give 2 game worlds the time like maybe a person can give like beeing in a fulltime job and have a family wih kids and you can see how someone with more free game time can push someone out easy and other you miss so many things but thanks to Alliance can actually can recover thanks to there help.If you don't have this i understand why only just 130-150 players reach the end of a game world and usually the big Alliance have minnor drop outs then the others.
The 2 game worlds i focused on i could race to the top to go for a games end achievement very easy(dropped present fleet and build a large new 1) and the other i build up an airliner 19 game years after game start up and be in value already in 25th spot thanks to taking good oppertunities and beside this i could have helped some friends out aswell with taking some losses.
Together with this i toke out some competition which some newer players where in and play for a few real months already and then i came and wash there airliner away like they didn't excist.
Should i be proud as i won my homebase for myself?or on the otherhand i destroyed other player(s)who was building up for months already.

So conclusion if have a long game world with different settings then there can be more variaty in choice where to play or if want to play multiple worlds then there will be variaty in gaming.

Quote from: schro on January 11, 2017, 01:55:17 PM
If you're operating a very large airline, having a number of folks able to assist you with plane purchasing is absolutely critical - anything over 500-700 planes is generally not sustainable by fishing in the used market and hoping for it to solve your issues.(.../...)

That's just for top 10 players. As high as top 20 like me(I'll finish current GW3 16th or so), it's already no more true. Only a handful of players reach your fleet sizes, and only those starting in very big airports. With the 600 limit outside HQ, even starting in a big-but-not-that-big airport as Detroit(with one very competent opponent) was enough to prevent me from growing more. I'm just blocked in further growth.

And it just means it's a complicated game balance question. For a top 10 player like you(well, you're more top 3, btw), larger alliances are a good thing. When a player has 800 planes to replace, it's a completely different game than my 475. And big alliances are mandatory for having several production lines open for several years, just for feeding your replacement. For a top20 player like me, it's already more trouble than it's worth : base choices are far more limited, and this problem is not compensated by better fleet feeders. My need for external purchase has been rather limited.

And for smaller players, let' say small regional airlines with 10 bases in the British islands(2 in current GW3), or in Europe's low-cost airports(I did that once), it's just catastrophic. When you play that size, having a great number of bases is mandatory to avoid being vulnerable to bigger players. And more players in your alliance means less choices for adequate bases. I was not too annoyed, being in a smaller alliance, and having reached my quota with just 4 bases(JFK being totally free in 2005 was a true gamechanger for me). But it clearly means some choices of strategy are not compatible with such a big alliance size. Which means it's better for such players to be in smaller alliances like mine. They won't be blocked too much by other players, and won't need broker services at all(or for a few rare specifics, for which smaller brokers are more than enough).

When you play the big bases, you don't need a lot of them. You are so powerful that a coordinated attack against you(I just had one against me, lost a few percent of margin in 6 months), it's a mere annoyance. When you play small bases, you are far more vulnerable, and without spreading out in several bases, you can be killed by a coordinated big boys attack. And bigger alliances are really a problem : more big boys allied to gangbang on you, less possibilities to expand in interesting bases.

In other words, it's complicated.

I have no issue with alliance size. The rule banning multiple airlines within the alliance operating from the same base seems to keep things fair (and, in a way, probably promotes basing at otherwise neglected airports). And it is probably needed to counterbalance the dysfunctional state of the used market (which hordes 95%+ of used frames mid/late game) as I don't believe Sami is yet convinced how much this hurts gameplay and needs to be addressed.

Now alliance scoring, that should be changed. Currently, each airline contributes points to the alliance score - meaning that alliances with more members have an inherent score advantage.

I'd much rather see a system that better rewards the quality of the alliance membership - either by ranking alliances by average member score or, my preference, using only the top 10 or top 15 airlines within the alliance to calculate alliance score. Kind of how a people today would associate Star/Oneworld/SkyTeam with big airlines like Lufthansa/British Airways/Delta, etc. and not with minor members such as LOT/SriLankan/TAROM.

Off course you don't have a problem with that as you are an Elite member.
How many Alliance members do you have in USA?
And didn't we all see the trent that you guys open together more flights to bases where competition is who are not in a big Alliance or stand alones and beeing taken out of business for Alliance members to grow?
That is not fair gaming and a reason why more and more people stop playing.if it would be 1 on 1 i guess the game world would have seen differently and more airliners still active in USA then the 5-1 fights which have been delivered before in different worlds.
If there would be a limitation towards alliances then other players can also play and enjoy.
I had fun in this game too,but it is getting less and less too thanks to you guys.

Yes,i enjoy my time in a big Alliance too and have the advantages of being inside a big alliance i don't want 4 game worlds with same rules and where others are bending the rules in there advantage.
It is nice to see Alliances grow but spread them out over the world then,let's see then how dominand you will be then.
So if you want to play this game then there should come a game world and named:Battle of the Alliances,then you can do your wolf pack gaming and see the result when others team up and fight at same level back.
4 long game worlds so they should be different way of gaming too.
Some of us have a family and fulltime job,but also like to enjoy this game of beeing in a bigger base,and if it was 1-1 fights they would be still in the game.

Only Elite members are fighting for to keep present system,maybe we all should ask why?

Quote from: fark24 on January 12, 2017, 04:02:02 PM
I have no issue with alliance size. The rule banning multiple airlines within the alliance operating from the same base seems to keep things fair (and, in a way, probably promotes basing at otherwise neglected airports). And it is probably needed to counterbalance the dysfunctional state of the used market (which hordes 95%+ of used frames mid/late game) as I don't believe Sami is yet convinced how much this hurts gameplay and needs to be addressed.

Now alliance scoring, that should be changed. Currently, each airline contributes points to the alliance score - meaning that alliances with more members have an inherent score advantage.

I'd much rather see a system that better rewards the quality of the alliance membership - either by ranking alliances by average member score or, my preference, using only the top 10 or top 15 airlines within the alliance to calculate alliance score. Kind of how a people today would associate Star/Oneworld/SkyTeam with big airlines like Lufthansa/British Airways/Delta, etc. and not with minor members such as LOT/SriLankan/TAROM.

So far I have seen none of us "fighting" to keep current alliance rules, just few stating their opinion on the subject. You seem to have something against Elite Alliance but that's your problem not ours.

As for all those changes proposed - they would either have no desired effect or in some cases would actually bring more of what you guys are trying to remove. Just one example, what you are alluding to writing about situation in US is called "free market" and "free competition". And it happens whenever there are alliances or not as the natural desire of all entrepreneurs is to have monopoly on their market. You have no fun with it and that's fair enough, what you would like to see is a regulated market, which historically existed in real life before all deregulations. I would like to see the scream if this was ever implemented...

You would be also amazed to find how many people with families, children, full time jobs and many other responsibilities do just fine in this game, even in the biggest airports. Free time is not the only component of success.

I also note that in current GW3 Elite members carefully avoided JFK, even when it was empty, leaving us mere mortals a nice profitable playground to play with. I also note that one of their members was a victim of the insane price war that struck Australia, and BK'd not long after the demise of his opponents. Which means that Elite playes, maybe, possibly, are mere mortals too. Some of them, at least.

I finally note that success is heavily dependant on opposition. When they decide to attack you, profit gets down. My profit went down from 17% to 13% within one year, just because two of my opponents, especially the big one in Detroit, decided to attack me everywhere just before the end of the game. They are probably having a lot of fun. But if I had played a less sound way, with less efficient lines, and a profitability around 3/4%, I'd be in danger. I am not, by far. So if you fear attack from the big boys(elite are not the only ones), well, begin by building a sound company. Either make your HQ a fortress, or spread out to be less vulnerable to localized attacks, or both, plus improve your pricing policy, don't do too many silly things, don't fly too long, too thin routes, make adequate fleet groups, and you should survive.

TL;DR : if other players are having better results than you simply means they are playing better than you. There are still 15 of them playing better than me(including 7 Elite), and I've got a lot to learn to reach their level.

Le sigh.

Quote from: Seven on January 13, 2017, 08:53:04 AM
Off course you don't have a problem with that as you are an Elite member.

He's just speaking from his own experience, though, I would tend to agree that there's not an issue with alliance size at this time, nor the basing requirements. If we go to a very small alliance limit of say, 10-15, then there would be no incentive for a core group of players to train and cultivate new members as there simply wouldn't be room. Before your time, one alliance even started a "minor league" type alliance that was "aligned" with the "major league" alliance that served as a farm team for the larger one. That was the result of having 25 airline limits on alliances. From a management perspective, the now higher limit is an absolute PITA to manage - pulling in 40 airlines in a game world that do not geographically overlap or compete unfairly is VERY difficult to do unless they're all content playing a small game somewhere in the Congo.

Quote from: Seven on January 13, 2017, 08:53:04 AM
How many Alliance members do you have in USA?

No idea on current game worlds, but from a planning perspective, we typically limit USA to 5-6 airlines. This has NOT changed since the alliance limit has increased. In some cases we will go slightly higher, but it really depends on the consensus and ambitions of those in the US. At 5-6 airlines with even just 3-4 bases each, that pretty much covers the entire country.

Quote from: Seven on January 13, 2017, 08:53:04 AM
And didn't we all see the trent that you guys open together more flights to bases where competition is who are not in a big Alliance or stand alones and beeing taken out of business for Alliance members to grow?

We do not actively "hunt" other airlines or coordinate for their demise. We have a set structure of route sharing that we ask our members to follow that is designed for maximum alliance revenue and passengers carried rather than that for their individual airline. Our airlines tend to identify areas where there is opportunity and continue growth in that direction. Our guidelines are FAR more conservative than game rules (game rules do not allow one airline or alliance to supply more than 200% of demand on a given route).

Quote from: Seven on January 13, 2017, 08:53:04 AM
That is not fair gaming and a reason why more and more people stop playing.if it would be 1 on 1 i guess the game world would have seen differently and more airliners still active in USA then the 5-1 fights which have been delivered before in different worlds.
If there would be a limitation towards alliances then other players can also play and enjoy.
I had fun in this game too,but it is getting less and less too thanks to you guys.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. It sounds like you're saying that a massive multiplayer online game has too many people playing in it for you to enjoy?

Quote from: Seven on January 13, 2017, 08:53:04 AM
Yes,i enjoy my time in a big Alliance too and have the advantages of being inside a big alliance i don't want 4 game worlds with same rules and where others are bending the rules in there advantage.
It is nice to see Alliances grow but spread them out over the world then,let's see then how dominand you will be then.
So if you want to play this game then there should come a game world and named:Battle of the Alliances,then you can do your wolf pack gaming and see the result when others team up and fight at same level back.
4 long game worlds so they should be different way of gaming too.

From my view, I do not see "wolfpack gaming" within Elite. What rules are you claiming to have been bent? Perhaps you're mistaking us for another alliance?

Quote from: Seven on January 13, 2017, 08:53:04 AM
Some of us have a family and fulltime job,but also like to enjoy this game of beeing in a bigger base,and if it was 1-1 fights they would be still in the game.

We have families and jobs too. It does not take a ton of time to run an airline....

Quote from: Seven on January 13, 2017, 08:53:04 AM
Only Elite members are fighting for to keep present system,maybe we all should ask why?

Elite has been consistently around the longest of any alliance since the game started. Since we've been at this a while, we have seen changes come and go to the game and have had to adapt to them over the years. We also tend to be fairly experienced players that can foresee a the potential impact of some things on gameplay that comes from having such experience. For me, when I make suggestions, it's not to forward the cause of the alliance, but the game as a whole, as bad game rule decisions are bad for everyone...

Gosh such an aggressive response  from Elladan,  Yep  everything people have suggested would have no effect - I wonder how you would know that before its even been tried or tested or implemented.   This thread was started just to raise the issue that giant alliance may be having a negative effect on the majority of players outside those giant alliances and to get the general views of others, it was not meant to be an attack on any alliances/airlines/players/people.    These are just suggestions for discussion and not a a lists of requests, nor a campaign for change.   

I personally know two people who have left the game because of the aggressive way Elite members have played, working together to drive away their airline competition and treated them.  I also have had other players state they would not open a base if an Elite member was there because they know how that alliance members behave towards them - sure thats their problems, not yours!   

Having run an alliance for a relatively short time I know how tough it can be to operate one with an open door policy, plus I can see things from both sides of the fence.  Its great to be in a big alliance at the top of the leader bored and getting the highest scores.  But it is also nice to be in a smaller alliance where members or managers actually get the chance to get to know their fellow players both in terms of the game and outside the game.  There are good things to be said for both ways,  but if we never try anything new,  we'll just stagnate, the big boys will stay the big boys, the rest of us will struggle to survive or prosper and each game will be exactly the same.

Quote from: Joshua Jordan on January 13, 2017, 01:59:59 PM
I personally know two people who have left the game because of the aggressive way Elite members have played, working together to drive away their airline competition and treated them.  I also have had other players state they would not open a base if an Elite member was there because they know how that alliance members behave towards them - sure thats their problems, not yours!   

I would not say that this particular behavior is an Elite exclusive, but rather, something that tends to happen with experienced players that know how to perform an analysis of other airlines to determine the best expansion plan forward. Now, less experienced players within an alliance can always ask the more experienced players for help with the decision, but it usually goes something like this -

1. Airline wants to expand to a new base.
2. Airline has a given fleet and fleet plan, and uses that to identify ideal areas of the country for expansion (i.e. BACs are a no-sale on the left coast or north east).
3. Airline reviews competitive environment of each suitable base that does not already have an alliance member present.*
4. Airline finds the base (sometimes with help of alliance members/mentors) that has best growth potential (i.e. most unmet demand, weakest competition, etc.).
5. Airline opens base and goes to town.
6. Weak competitors often go bankrupt
7. ...
8. Profit

This will happen whether there's a 10 airline limit to alliances or no limit to alliances.

*At no point in any of the consultations that I've done over the years has used targeting a particular airline or other alliance as a criteria for determining the new base to be opened.

Forgive me if you thought that I had suggested that you had -

Quote*At no point in any of the consultations that I've done over the years has used targeting a particular airline or other alliance as a criteria for determining the new base to be opened.

I meant nothing of the sort,  I meant that I have had players tell me they would NOT open a base if an Elite member was already present at that base.

Quote from: Joshua Jordan on January 13, 2017, 03:22:37 PM
Forgive me if you thought that I had suggested that you had -

I meant nothing of the sort,  I meant that I have had players tell me they would NOT open a base if an Elite member was already present at that base.

No worries - I just tend to make that point clear as we've been accused of such things for years :-).

For players that have joined Elite, they usually tell us that they previously avoided bases with our players in them. I suppose it's nice to have a reputation, but isn't it interesting that deciding not to compete with a competitor allows them continued unfettered success without having to go through the bother of competing? I could probably go through our roster in each game world and tell you which of our players are vulnerable to new competition, as we have them in every world, just like any alliance has....

Quote from: Joshua Jordan on January 13, 2017, 01:59:59 PM
Gosh such an aggressive response  from Elladan,  Yep  everything people have suggested would have no effect - I wonder how you would know that before its even been tried or tested or implemented.   This thread was started just to raise the issue that giant alliance may be having a negative effect on the majority of players outside those giant alliances and to get the general views of others, it was not meant to be an attack on any alliances/airlines/players/people.    These are just suggestions for discussion and not a a lists of requests, nor a campaign for change.   

1. I fail to see which part of my response to Seven could be construed as even slightly aggressive. Nor I intended it to be perceived as such.
2. As you might have noticed I haven't attacked any other alliances, players or airlines, just responded to such an attack by stating mere facts.
3. I have also stated my personal opinion on the subject of this thread, which I believe I have a right to. Whether you like it or not.

On this note I will leave this thread for you guys to enjoy if you like.

Quote from: Seven on January 13, 2017, 08:53:04 AM
Off course you don't have a problem with that as you are an Elite member.

I know you directed this at me but schro had a very eloquent and thorough reply which I hope you consider reading with an open mind. I feel it addresses most of your points.

Likewise, I don't understand the tone directed at me - especially given the content of what I wrote after my first sentence. I support the current alliance size because it helps remedy a game play issue (the used market) that is not being sufficiently addressed in the game. Even if this is fixed, I also stated that the current large alliance sizes distort the alliance scoring system (which effectively makes Elite a 3rd-tier alliance). In no way am I championing the status quo. And in no way do I see how Elite is more benefited under the current system than any other alliance.

I also have no understanding of what you are accusing Elite of. I can only speak of the game world in which I play (GW # 2) where Elite is only 5th in member size (15 total). Earth Connection has 35, A Team 26, World Stars 22, Modern has 19. One Sky is equal at 15. Elite is hardly a 'wolfpack'.

Also, Elite only has 4 members in the USA. By comparison, Earth Connection, World Stars, and Sky Alliance also have 4. A Team is at 3. One Sky and Modern are at 2. Again, this can hardly be considered some wild cartel.

Quote from: schro on January 13, 2017, 01:33:43 PM
Elite has been consistently around the longest of any alliance since the game started.

Wow, Elite still at the top after all these years?.. Speaking of which, where Sigma at these days?!


Talentz

The reputation of Elite and the vitriol some post towards elite is unfair and simply incorrect.

I am a member of two different alliances in different game worlds, Elite and Earth Connection. Both are good alliances and I'd recommend both for different reasons.

The key thing to note about Elite is we have a fairly strict set of rules about what you can and can't do, and an Schro said these go further than the game requires. As an alliance we actively play well within the rules, and we don't get in grief from Sami for breaking them. Any suggestion to the contrary is not based in fact, and is simply not valid as an argument (so stop it).

It is no crime to be organised, or be good at the game. If being good, and having a successful game world as a team is a problem then it's your problem.

For my part, a good strong alliance is a MASSIVE part of the enjoyment of the game. Team members become friends, and active Skype channels are 90% about random nonsense unrelated to the game. In the slow years, where's there nothing to do it's nice to think about helping others in the team with advice, plane purchases etc etc.

What would actually happen if the numbers in alliance were cut? Well alliances would simply fragment into smaller sub-groups, operating in broadly the same way you complain about. Either that, or players like myself would get bored and not have the motivation to continue. In GW2 I'm a member of Earth Connection. Without the motivation of helping the team and without the support of some of the alliance members, I've have given up trying in the 1990s. As it was I've stuck it through.

Again this is not an attack.
I try to ask why we have 4 long game worlds,and all have same settings,beside the year counting.
And Elite is so deffending this,while there are plenty of players who want to play a long game world with a different setting without the big Alliances and just play the airline they like.

I know Elite is the longest Alliance in the game,but why they are not open for 1 of the 4 long worlds with different settings?

Maybe Elite only can play for beeing the biggest players,best players,and YES i like to play this game too but not in 4 worlds at same time.
I would like to be an middle sized carrier also from a nice base and not beeing slaughtered just for beeing there.
If you break Alliance size or just limit to 1 Alliance member in a country,this will also give others the chance to play a long world they want.
and not beeing cornered by the "big boys"

Congrationlations with the 15 most valuebale airliners in game world 1 beeing 13 Elite members.even first 8 all Elite.
Real good achievement,be honest:how would a game world look like if have 1 member a country?or just only 10 members in an Alliance?or profits in planes limited?guess more players will be in the game then is the case because they beeing wiped out.
And off course there are the best players inside your Alliance with alot of experiance,so if your Alliance sizee is limited wouldn't they spread round the game too?educate more players?I think it would.
I have been a member of A-team in gw2,3 and 4 and see the results of beeing in a big Alliance,also i see the running of an airliner in a different(modern) Alliance who focus on enjoy the game,and not so much result focused which give me a different kind of joy in this game.
So if even just 1 of the 4 long worlds have more Alliance limitations and more focus on your own airliner,i guess this give a nice variaty to the game.
Maybe you can call it intermediate level(too good for beginners world but not yet well skilled for the big worlds)then would be more choice for everyone.but for others it would be could more fun in the game by less dominating factors.
what is so hard on that?

Quote from: Seven on January 13, 2017, 10:46:45 PM
Again this is not an attack.
I try to ask why we have 4 long game worlds,and all have same settings,beside the year counting.
And Elite is so deffending this,while there are plenty of players who want to play a long game world with a different setting without the big Alliances and just play the airline they like.

I know Elite is the longest Alliance in the game,but why they are not open for 1 of the 4 long worlds with different settings?

Maybe Elite only can play for beeing the biggest players,best players,and YES i like to play this game too but not in 4 worlds at same time.
I would like to be an middle sized carrier also from a nice base and not beeing slaughtered just for beeing there.
If you break Alliance size or just limit to 1 Alliance member in a country,this will also give others the chance to play a long world they want.
and not beeing cornered by the "big boys"

Congrationlations with the 15 most valuebale airliners in game world 1 beeing 13 Elite members.even first 8 all Elite.
Real good achievement,be honest:how would a game world look like if have 1 member a country?or just only 10 members in an Alliance?or profits in planes limited?guess more players will be in the game then is the case because they beeing wiped out.
And off course there are the best players inside your Alliance with alot of experiance,so if your Alliance sizee is limited wouldn't they spread round the game too?educate more players?I think it would.
I have been a member of A-team in gw2,3 and 4 and see the results of beeing in a big Alliance,also i see the running of an airliner in a different(modern) Alliance who focus on enjoy the game,and not so much result focused which give me a different kind of joy in this game.
So if even just 1 of the 4 long worlds have more Alliance limitations and more focus on your own airliner,i guess this give a nice variaty to the game.
Maybe you can call it intermediate level(too good for beginners world but not yet well skilled for the big worlds)then would be more choice for everyone.but for others it would be could more fun in the game by less dominating factors.
what is so hard on that?

You didn't address any of the questions that I asked in my last post. I also do not agree with your opinion that Elite is not open to your suggestion - your OP asked for our thoughts on the matter and that's what we provided. I don't want to speak for others in Elite, but I have no problem with anything being tried to see what the potential outcome would be - I'm just forecasting what I think the outcome would be based upon my time playing the game.

In a way, I would say that the shift to long game worlds has actually weakened the dominance of alliances (including Elite) as the grind of playing 4 games that last for over a year each puts on quite the workload (fleet transitions being one of the main culprits). Many of our players that would usually be active in all major game worlds have reduced themselves to being active in just 1-2 game worlds at a time. Others (including myself) have chosen less ambitious HQs to balance the workload across the long running game worlds. You'll see that most short challenge games will not have an Elite presence, and some long game worlds (like GW2 right now) will have a very small showing from our crew.

Quote from: schro on January 13, 2017, 11:46:52 PM
In a way, I would say that the shift to long game worlds has actually weakened the dominance of alliances (including Elite) as the grind of playing 4 games that last for over a year each puts on quite the workload (fleet transitions being one of the main culprits). Many of our players that would usually be active in all major game worlds have reduced themselves to being active in just 1-2 game worlds at a time. Others (including myself) have chosen less ambitious HQs to balance the workload across the long running game worlds. You'll see that most short challenge games will not have an Elite presence, and some long game worlds (like GW2 right now) will have a very small showing from our crew.

Indeed, the game right now compared with 5 years ago, era without long gameworld, is far less crowded. In the past we have 7 airlines limit in all airport, and most major airports were filled up. The competition is crazy and mostly last until the end of them game. Comparing GW4 to last gameworld I have joined (MT6), the average quality of player dropped a lot. Surprisingly, one of my newbie friend even able out-compete a Elite member in Hong Kong.

Small alliance is not that bad, but I don't think a hard limit is a good idea to force experienced player to spread across the alliances. Rather I would think an increased alliance upkeep fee for big alliances would help alliances to control their size.

In past there used to be a fixed limit to Alliance members at 25 player.

This number was then increased to 40 members roughly 1 year ago.

With the beginning of the latest game world the maximum alliance member became dynamic, meaning the more players there is in the game the  higher the maximum limit (it started at 25 and now the maximum limit is 34)

The dynamic members idea seems like a good idea, but this solution is still very new and require tweaking and adjustment. Give it time and i'm sure the maximum limit will reach a satisfactory level

actually - Alliance is not a factor in the game.
the only advantage - Alliance forum.
all other advantages like fleet support can be done without alliance for core old members. because they know each other and dont need some virtual label to communicate.

for newbie - surely it is still a problem to do most things without entering any alliance, cause he needs a lot of mentoring. but thats only at beginning

at open market - it is very difficult to be in the middle. this is the most dangerous position. either you are facing and ready to hard competition or you are based in small base where is not so attractive. you cannot open in USA in big base and play a medium sized airline without too many troubles...

but... the idea of regional alliances might help such players I think.

Schro,many of the Elite members have written things separatly.
But if read the start of the topic,then i ask what is the problem?
Why all long worlds have to have the same setting and then things started to role.

Quote from: schro on January 13, 2017, 11:46:52 PM
You didn't address any of the questions that I asked in my last post. I also do not agree with your opinion that Elite is not open to your suggestion - your OP asked for our thoughts on the matter and that's what we provided. I don't want to speak for others in Elite, but I have no problem with anything being tried to see what the potential outcome would be - I'm just forecasting what I think the outcome would be based upon my time playing the game.

In a way, I would say that the shift to long game worlds has actually weakened the dominance of alliances (including Elite) as the grind of playing 4 games that last for over a year each puts on quite the workload (fleet transitions being one of the main culprits). Many of our players that would usually be active in all major game worlds have reduced themselves to being active in just 1-2 game worlds at a time. Others (including myself) have chosen less ambitious HQs to balance the workload across the long running game worlds. You'll see that most short challenge games will not have an Elite presence, and some long game worlds (like GW2 right now) will have a very small showing from our crew.

Quote from: Seven on January 14, 2017, 11:37:50 PM
Schro,many of the Elite members have written things separatly.
But if read the start of the topic, then i ask what is the problem?
Why all long worlds have to have the same setting and then things started to role.

If you have a valid, constructive solution on this topic, instead of trying to attack a specific alliance, list your idea(not in 2 sentences) and tag sami into the thread.
You should direct these question to sami, he creates the game and set the rule. Everyone else just follow and play with it.

Do note: in recent changes in alliance size + base number and super long boring world actually hurt established alliance more, and this applies to all large alliances.

Since you are at it let me ask you: what good does it lead to if you limit an alliance size to 10-15, and only 1 airline per country? Do you really think small medium size alliance will all of a sudden have a chance to dominate against their competition in LHR/LAX etc?

My answer is simple.

We have 4 long worlds with same settings,as the future request are blocked,sami replied this in a mail aswell so it look like a good idea here to see how other think and feel about it.
And if a big Alliance only have 1 member in 1 country means that more players gett a good chance in countries like USA too and bring more competition to countries where now the level is lower thanks to concentration at the hot spots.
If you add for example with max10 player limit in an Alliance then this can be an extra support in the idea just brought up.
Also with more Alliances this can bring an extra battle level towards the game.(i know Alliance starters/founders all want to be the best Alliance so this make it intresting)
If you feel like long boring game then this Alliance batte can bring extra fun as you need to keep your airliner sharp to keep the points in for the alliance.

Be honest how many times in recent games did a big airliner abendend LHR because of what reason so ever?
GW4 now have Volppe(excuses if i make a type mistake)of Elite and Fresh of A-team,i believe these 2 players are not easy early stoppers and will probaly give a long fight for beeing the dominant force there.with max 10 allliance players of of these fights will come to big bases.
No,smaller alliances will not dominate LAX or LHR,but with the spread with 1 country 1 Alliance member,base choices become more important for Alliances as it become more strategic game aswell.
now big alliances like Elite and A-team(which i am a member of too)are very strong in USA with the spread out over more countries gett more intresting fights.
So do you want to fight with a big player for ATL or ATL or do you strategically base in for exmple IAD/DAl or houston and spread your chances.
with the max 600 plane rule means there will be a more devided game i think.

Since you are at it let me ask you: what good does it lead to if you limit an alliance size to 10-15, and only 1 airline per country? Do you really think small medium size alliance will all of a sudden have a chance to dominate against their competition in LHR/LAX etc?
[/quote]

Sorry forgot to add is like do you go head to head with another Alliance or do you go for a base with plenty demand or maybe even go for 6 bases with about 100-150 planes for example.
more choiche.
Only europe is tricky with the open border game from 1996 or so.
So maybe can start with a 1996-2041 or so game(gw3 size game)to try out?
or just
if have 10 Alliance members in your Alliance then you are not going for 7 or 8 in europe,even if an Alliance do that then they will automatically block there own groth aswell.
Like i said before:it is a management game,so strategic base choiche will add to this very nicely i guess.
Also alliances will become more friend groups as they will prepare next game world together aswell.
as you are not going to game who can we ask to join us if you want to be a bigger Alliance.
Alliance pints added to your airliner for over all points can be an stimulance too

sorry for long msg Teadaze

There is no chance that limitation of Alliance size will change the game competition.
It will only be changed if game mechanics for alliance will be changed.

Why?

Simple example - I was playing WOT, massive online game. up to 1M players online.
There were Clans (similar to alliances). Member limit is 100.
What strong alliance do when they reach the limit ? YES - open another alliance with the same name.
So instead of one big Elite/Ateam/Skyalliance - you will see - Elite, Elite1, Elite2, Elite3  with the same label. it will add headache to managing directors, but from game competition  - nothing will be changed.

we need to look at the whole picture, not just at alliance limits. without adding some real bonuses from one side and limitations from other side scripted in game mechanics - alliances will not be a major factor in GW whatever we imagine to do with them.

IMHO the only way to battle mega-alliances is to script region alliances, which will have extra bonuses inside its region, but will have penalties on international and int LH flights for example. So as for USA - Elite (like example of eternal evil  ;D) member settling in ATL will have tough life on domestic routes if it will have good competitor from USA-region small alliance. at the same time, settling in LAX and serving international only flights - will not be a problem.
So Mega-Alliances will have to think twice while developing their strategy for GW, cause they can face strong competition from region based groups.

WBR, Eve

From the replies in this forum, it has become absolutely clear that we can't have open and fair discussion and suggestions without attacks of some form or another.   It is also clear that nothing is going to change in this world or game.  I am disappointed that we cannot have a civil and open thread and discussion on the subjects at hand without it getting to be an attack and counter attack, defense and counter defense.  Sure, looking around the forums, it's clear that where there are issues regarding alliances it is always either elite being attacked or being overly defensive.  Maybe there is a reason for it,  maybe there is not - maybe that's only perceived - after all we cannot possibly know 100% what the author of a particular post had in mind or indeed their mood when they wrote it -  many of those reading and writing in these forums are doing so in a second or third language and sometimes somethings may be misinterpreted or meanings slightly missed during translations. 


There is no commercial reason why anything should change in the game, not that it was even a reason for the thread in the first place,  in order for maximum return of investment game management must always keep the majority of key players happy - so Elite members and other big players, will always be listened to and those of us that are not in that key group will be relatively ignored (part of this conclusion I drawer from the fact that over 20 days I sent a message to game management and still not received a reply)

So nothing will change, things will still stay the same,  the ill-feeling that seems to permeate throughout the posts in this thread and indeed the forums as a whole will continue, sadly as part of the major reason for alliances was to foster good and co-operative social interactions it seems like  the emergence of the school yard mentality  'our gang is better than your gang, if you're not in our gang we don't like you' etc is not that far from the surface.

And whilst I have no doubt there are some with good intentions,  there are some that want to engage in free and fair competition, discourse, discussion, to play with honesty and integrity, with honour and sportsmanship, there are also those that don't  or have very different ideals of what is or is not sportsmanship and integrity which leaves a bitter taste in the mouth and a whiff of mistrust in the air, which is disappointing, but perhaps understandable.

Because of this I am out of this thread, good luck to you all.     

It's not that Alliance mechanics create strong airlines, it's that Alliances recruit the best players who create the strongest airlines. That's all.

The Alliance as a group is strong because its individual component airlines are strong, because they are run by strong players.

Elite or any other Alliance isn't doing anything anybody else can't do, it's just that not many people want to do it.

I sure don't want to. I have no interest in playing in multiple huge bases managing hundreds of planes and dozens of 7 day schedules. f*** that. If the user interface was much more automated and powerful, like in the game Gearcity, then yes. But with all the manual clicking and selecting and confirming and repetition, I'll pass.

Elite players don't pass. Good for them.

I love how people try to say people are hostile in forum, and then they proceed to take a jab on another entity.

If you spend a minute looking at the gameworld, Elite doesn't even maintain a high member count inorder to compete. A point that OP tries to pull across right from the beginning. A-team sky alliance and other are grabbing every single airline available to boost their member count to win based on a mechanic that sami created(while there were multiple threads Elite tried to argue against sami about variable/set alliance score). Yet all of a sudden Elite is getting attacked for being too strong, don't want changes, gets favour from sami because they are a huge group of players, run hard core strategy to make the game 'not fun'.

Being in a (large)alliance does not mean you automatically become invincible, get special bonus other doesn't. And bully other anyway they want. Being in large established alliance means if you care and want, you can get advise from other more experienced player, and to a certain extend, get help in sourcing aircraft. Those airline will still get pressure from other competition, fail and bankrupt.

If you go back to 15-20 player roaster game, There is a very good chance Elite will win every game world alliance race just like they did back then.

I literally cannot see the connection between having less players in an alliance and it reducing competition. The number of large airlines and competition wouldn't go down, the alliances would do exactly what Elite did years ago which is split into an Elite First team and a second alliance, which I shall call Elite(ish)!

As for making it smaller it has this one major downside, Experience is not handed down to newer players. If we went back to even 25, Elite and others would fill up on their Core member bases and the best airlines, quite often the more experienced players in the game. The would be less room for the less experienced to get into an alliance like Elite, World Connection etc.

As for coordination, I have never known an alliance coordinate an attack on an airline, if any airline has a soft underbelly and an airline can take advantage of that the competition can hurt. It doesn't matter if you are aligned or not, it's a competitive market, we take the breaks we get. We keep a collective eye on things, often noting an airline that looks weak or is about to go under. It is worth noting many airlines go bankrupt not because of alliance attack or anything, but boredom, mismanagement (I've made a few mistakes) or just not having the time to continue. A weak airline will be vulnerable to any kind of competition, if they are at a big base they will find competition from 10's maybe even 100's of airlines on all their routes.

The Game is not perfect, I think the current system is a good compromise all in all. To change the balance of the game like you desire a fundamental code change is what's needed, not a simple alliance tweak. The tweak you are suggesting would see us back to the situation years ago where an alliance has two in a Gameworld, with waiting lists again. That's not progress in my book.

I'm a real world businessman, so I personally embrace competition and less restriction on everything.  In a system like that, without artificial boundaries or limits, it is possible to achieve anything.   ;D

Quote from: MRothschild on January 19, 2017, 09:26:18 AM
I'm a real world businessman, so I personally embrace competition and less restriction on everything.  In a system like that, without artificial boundaries or limits, it is possible to achieve anything.   ;D

The tough part is to achieve fun for a maximum number of players. I never BK'd in this game, but the fleet limit, the base limit, and the planes outside HQ limit probably prevented the big boys from killing me in my first GW3. And, in last GW3, the last two rules prevented me from bullying smaller players.

Of course, my growth has been limited. I did reach the 600 planes out of base in 2025, and so late only because I was stopping myself before, not taking all possible slots, to keep some place for better opportunities(and rightfully so, a few nice lines did clear themselves). Those rules are good rules, as they allow less skilled players(as I was in the beginning) to survive if they don't make too many blunders, learn the ropes, and get better. Most online games reach a kind of equilibrium between free market and admin interventionism for keeping a maximum of players happy. It's not perfect, but I like the system as it is right now.

I started this treath in the hope that atleast 1 long game world would be different from the others and see if people have different oppinions about the present system of 4 worlds with all same rule system.

Basically if disable Alliance option and the used planes can be sold with a smaller profit/lose margin,then we gett a real game which we will be fight for ourself and make the game a real battle.off course some airliners will help eachother,but cannot be possible in the big way it happens now.
I would join this kind of game as then you have to work your way trough your self,or just minimize the Alliance option.
Some airliners where not as good as they are now as they goth the help from alliances to keep there precese in a region.
How great would it be just to play 1 long game by yourself and grow an airliner by yourself.
I like this game indeed,but i also like some diversaty between gameworld.

See how many airliners are over now in gw3 which will end in a week?did someone remember with how many we started it?
Not all stopped early because of boredome,but also beeing pushed out of the game by big carriers,and yes i worked in gw3 in this system aswell.
Also some players i know from outside this game gave it a few tries in different worlds,then same thing happen again and again and they stopped this game totally as it is Always the same.
Maybe more players stay in the game then and the Administration earn some more money aswell then the the present is.
Our clients(in real life) enjoy different services which attract more clients then the smaller group staying in the core business.
Maybe this is something to think about too in this game and not stop it after 1 world try,but give it time so more people can grw into the game.
I am here for 1,5 years,not super long but playing same game again and again with same situations getts slowely boring.
So if the big Alliances want to keep the present 4 long worlds,then i ask open a 5th long world with disabled systems and you have to work yourself trough.
or a midsized game like gw3 now is.
Let's see what happens then.
playing long worlds with different settings would be awesome,right?

Quote from: gazzz0x2z on January 19, 2017, 10:28:24 AM
The tough part is to achieve fun for a maximum number of players. I never BK'd in this game, but the fleet limit, the base limit, and the planes outside HQ limit probably prevented the big boys from killing me in my first GW3. And, in last GW3, the last two rules prevented me from bullying smaller players.

Of course, my growth has been limited. I did reach the 600 planes out of base in 2025, and so late only because I was stopping myself before, not taking all possible slots, to keep some place for better opportunities(and rightfully so, a few nice lines did clear themselves). Those rules are good rules, as they allow less skilled players(as I was in the beginning) to survive if they don't make too many blunders, learn the ropes, and get better. Most online games reach a kind of equilibrium between free market and admin interventionism for keeping a maximum of players happy. It's not perfect, but I like the system as it is right now.

Quote from: freshmore on January 19, 2017, 06:39:34 AM
I literally cannot see the connection between having less players in an alliance and it reducing competition. The number of large airlines and competition wouldn't go down, the alliances would do exactly what Elite did years ago which is split into an Elite First team and a second alliance, which I shall call Elite(ish)!

As for making it smaller it has this one major downside, Experience is not handed down to newer players. If we went back to even 25, Elite and others would fill up on their Core member bases and the best airlines, quite often the more experienced players in the game. The would be less room for the less experienced to get into an alliance like Elite, World Connection etc.

As for coordination, I have never known an alliance coordinate an attack on an airline, if any airline has a soft underbelly and an airline can take advantage of that the competition can hurt. It doesn't matter if you are aligned or not, it's a competitive market, we take the breaks we get. We keep a collective eye on things, often noting an airline that looks weak or is about to go under. It is worth noting many airlines go bankrupt not because of alliance attack or anything, but boredom, mismanagement (I've made a few mistakes) or just not having the time to continue. A weak airline will be vulnerable to any kind of competition, if they are at a big base they will find competition from 10's maybe even 100's of airlines on all their routes.

The Game is not perfect, I think the current system is a good compromise all in all. To change the balance of the game like you desire a fundamental code change is what's needed, not a simple alliance tweak. The tweak you are suggesting would see us back to the situation years ago where an alliance has two in a Gameworld, with waiting lists again. That's not progress in my book.

Except that was A-Team (or their predecessor, can't remember how long ago that was) with their "minor league" alliance called Pioneer. Elite NEVER had a second alliance to increase membership.

Quote from: Seven on January 19, 2017, 11:04:50 AM
I started this treath in the hope that atleast 1 long game world would be different from the others and see if people have different oppinions about the present system of 4 worlds with all same rule system.

Basically if disable Alliance option and the used planes can be sold with a smaller profit/lose margin,then we gett a real game which we will be fight for ourself and make the game a real battle.off course some airliners will help eachother,but cannot be possible in the big way it happens now.
I would join this kind of game as then you have to work your way trough your self,or just minimize the Alliance option.
Some airliners where not as good as they are now as they goth the help from alliances to keep there precese in a region.
How great would it be just to play 1 long game by yourself and grow an airliner by yourself.
I like this game indeed,but i also like some diversaty between gameworld.

So from your suggestion of cutting alliance members to 10-15 members, you now suggest a game without any alliance what-so ever?

I think you mis-understand the meaning behind a multiplayer browser game. If you want to run an airline alone without competition or alliance then there is many other simulation out there on the web which will suit your needs,

AWS is a multiplayer browser game and you should expect players to be able to interact with each other in terms of competing and making alliances. Thats the whole point on a multiplayer platform. 

Too much for me to read and I cannot be bothered to join the discussion, but I'll put my thoughts down about alliances being too big.

To be perfectly honest I agree with the fact that 40 player alliances are too big for any game because it creates an 'alliance monopoly' amongst 3-4 alliances in any GW. So lets say there are 500 players in a GW and 4 alliances with 40 players each. This equals 160 in an alliance and 340 unaligned so 32%. As the game progresses, most unaligned players will probably disappear, maybe due to lack of experience or tight competition and maybe some alliance players would leave as well for the same reasons. Once the second half of the GW starts, chances are that there will be many more alliance players than unaligned players. Then, even more unaligned would disappear off the radar and towards the end, the game turns into the 'battle of titans' with alliance players just competing against each other with unaligned players almost not existing. This wrecks the whole point of the game of having a fair playfield between alliance players and unaligned players.

Not only it becomes hectic to operate an alliance with 40 players but also scoring alliance points follows more of a 'size of the boat' trend instead of true skill where airlines try to get the №1 spot in some way or another. Let me explain, every time an alliance hires a player they get a certain amount of points. Lets say one is able to hire 40 and another only 25 players. Even if there is a higher proportion of high-scoring airlines in the alliance with 25 points than 40, the latter still has more points thanks to the fact that hiring new players score the most points. Even if let's say half of the players leave the alliance with 40 players to start with, then they would still be miles ahead points wise thanks to the player addition bonus, especially of the players left the alliance 24hrs before declaring bankrupcy. This makes it almost impossible for the 25 player alliance to catch up assuming they also loose a couple of players during the GW through skill.

I personally think that to satisfy both sides through a compromise, there should be a 30 player limit and no higher in any GW.

Quote from: ZombieSlayer on January 19, 2017, 11:52:54 AM
Except that was A-Team (or their predecessor, can't remember how long ago that was) with their "minor league" alliance called Pioneer. Elite NEVER had a second alliance to increase membership.

It was 5 yrs ago last for one MT game world only.
Good memory, Jumbomouse.

And I don't think it's a big deal, just pointing out that it was not Elite since we tend to get blamed for everything. Also, who is jumbomouse?

Quote from: ZombieSlayer on January 20, 2017, 04:28:21 AM
And I don't think it's a big deal, just pointing out that it was not Elite since we tend to get blamed for everything. Also, who is jumbomouse?

What's your old username then? bad memory. lol
Yeah, that was old issue we have only 25 slots for an alliance so we tried some workaround. And this wasn't a big deal indeed Pioneer wasn't an subsudiary alliance and it competed with SkyConnect in some base.

Ahh, my old username was Jetwest, but I do remember a jumbomouse at one point. I was scratching my head trying to figure out how he fit into the conversation!

Quote from: ZombieSlayer on January 20, 2017, 04:36:28 AM
Ahh, my old username was Jetwest, but I do remember a jumbomouse at one point. I was scratching my head trying to figure out how he fit into the conversation!

That proves you have better memory than me! :laugh:

Ahh, I'm sure I read it on in this thread somewhere, I was just going with what was said, not totally off memory. I could remember some alliance doing it but it was so long ago its a bit hazy. Regardless, my view still stands, lower the number in an alliance, that's a regressive action based on past experience for me.

QuoteHow great would it be just to play 1 long game by yourself and grow an airliner by yourself.
I like this game indeed,but i also like some diversaty between gameworld.

While we're on the topic of different style game worlds, I always thought it'd be fun to have an anti-beginners world  :P  A place where the difficulty is increased, higher fuel prices etc, and then removed the max 10 base limit, removed max aircraft away from HQ limit, allowed players to run airlines on different continents and countries with complete freedom. Alliances could (if they wanted to) base multiple airlines at one airport, no penalty for over-supply etc...   ::)

Quote from: AUpilot77 on January 20, 2017, 11:00:49 AM
I always thought it'd be fun to have an anti-beginners world

There would not be much players surviving at the end. But those would probably have excellent margins. Or not. If there are not a lot of players, there are not a lot of brokers, and it'"s quickly tough to fill your needs in terms of airplanes, which means you have tougher times to bully the smaller players, etc..... Dynamics are tough to predict.

Or should we have an play-off gameworld, inviting all strong players. With increased difficulty the survivor can claim the championship.  8)

Wel could also start with just making all worlds hard instead of total easy mode

No i mean like in the begginer's wold where the Alliance option is disabled.
just for a different development.

Quote from: [ATA] Hassel on January 19, 2017, 07:15:05 PM
So from your suggestion of cutting alliance members to 10-15 members, you now suggest a game without any alliance what-so ever?

I think you mis-understand the meaning behind a multiplayer browser game. If you want to run an airline alone without competition or alliance then there is many other simulation out there on the web which will suit your needs,

AWS is a multiplayer browser game and you should expect players to be able to interact with each other in terms of competing and making alliances. Thats the whole point on a multiplayer platform.

Well Elite is part of making the game hard(this is meant as a compliment and not as a bite towards you guys)
and there are plenty of players who are intermediate and so that is the call for 1 game world with a different game style.
so everyone is happy.
but because Elite is defending this 4 worlds same style the hardest,so the punch come towards you guys as many are beeing pushed out because of the big Alliance way of gammming and leaving stand alone chanceless,if they are in your way of playing.
Any game have usually atleast 3 types of level for a full game and here have only 1(begginers worlds and mini games are just 10 years so not very good for developing fleet development skills as here together with the fuel spike will make fall airliners by the bunch)

personally i like the compatative game and try to reach the highest score off course which i play in 3 long worlds and 1 i play for fun and enjoy my airliner just for having an airliner and also with competition off course.
if i would do this in a big busy country i will be broken by a big group of players with support and not on a 1 on 1 battle(meaning battle with airliners without Alliance support).o a long world where you have to do this where everyone is a stand alone airliner,this give the chance to more of us to survive,i am sure of.
I don't say make an easy long game world,but just allince disabled and see what happens.
And if put a lower difficulty to it can also disable the achievements.
Or just like Always there are fuel spikes 2 real weeks before a new game world open(gw1 just finished and gw4 is starting and gw2 is higher too) there can be the stand alone achievements fo example to attract more players into starting the new game world.

Quote from: ZombieSlayer on January 20, 2017, 04:28:21 AM
And I don't think it's a big deal, just pointing out that it was not Elite since we tend to get blamed for everything. Also, who is jumbomouse?

@Seven. Once again, you are confusing causes. Big alliances(not only elite, btw) are big because they happen to have big players. That's all. Coordination just prevents from attacking each other, but it's a small advantage. I just played a GW3 with bases in KDTW and KJFK(not the smallest airport of the game), and was attacked by none of the big alliance(ATA & Elite). I was still attacked by excellent players, who were either intependent, or members of smaller alliances.

Big juicy bases will be occupied by excellent players, and average players will be wiped out from them. While they can survive in smaller airbases(my first 2 GW3s were with HQs in Glasgow & Edinburgh, places small enough to have survival hopes, and my biggest base was Warszawa).

For the plane availability : If you stick to popular not-brand-new fleet groups, you'll have easy birds on the UM for your needs. And if there is no alliance, demand on the UM will be even stronger, and wild brokers as I was in last GW3 will be in even bigger numbers. What is a wild broker? Someone with enough cash to buy 40 A321neo (s)he does not need, and put them on the used market to make profit. It's a risky job(I sold the last ones of my second order with a loss, as well as half of my Q400NG), but when done properly, it can be insanely profitable. And many of my customers were not small firms, Some Top 10 players did buy me quite a few birds. If there is no alliance, I'm going to have more customers.....and also more opposition as a broker. It will be less organized, and the big buyers will pay more for their used planes - but also make more money as brokers, so the end difference will be negligible.

Quote from: [ATA] VitoNg on January 20, 2017, 04:08:44 AM
It was 5 yrs ago last for one MT game world only.
Good memory, Jumbomouse.

Hey there Vito.  While there was also a JumboMouse, you may be thinking about me.  BTW, first time back to LAX for me (GW1) since our last encounter there.

limit profits on planes and this problem will be soled too.
even if wild brokers stay they cannot ask 99mln for a plane with 60mln as recomended price,if you make a smaller price limit on it.
Had written this before already gazz0x2z

Quote from: gazzz0x2z on January 23, 2017, 10:41:05 AM
@Seven. Once again, you are confusing causes. Big alliances(not only elite, btw) are big because they happen to have big players. That's all. Coordination just prevents from attacking each other, but it's a small advantage. I just played a GW3 with bases in KDTW and KJFK(not the smallest airport of the game), and was attacked by none of the big alliance(ATA & Elite). I was still attacked by excellent players, who were either intependent, or members of smaller alliances.

Big juicy bases will be occupied by excellent players, and average players will be wiped out from them. While they can survive in smaller airbases(my first 2 GW3s were with HQs in Glasgow & Edinburgh, places small enough to have survival hopes, and my biggest base was Warszawa).

For the plane availability : If you stick to popular not-brand-new fleet groups, you'll have easy birds on the UM for your needs. And if there is no alliance, demand on the UM will be even stronger, and wild brokers as I was in last GW3 will be in even bigger numbers. What is a wild broker? Someone with enough cash to buy 40 A321neo (s)he does not need, and put them on the used market to make profit. It's a risky job(I sold the last ones of my second order with a loss, as well as half of my Q400NG), but when done properly, it can be insanely profitable. And many of my customers were not small firms, Some Top 10 players did buy me quite a few birds. If there is no alliance, I'm going to have more customers.....and also more opposition as a broker. It will be less organized, and the big buyers will pay more for their used planes - but also make more money as brokers, so the end difference will be negligible.

Quote from: JumboShrimp on January 23, 2017, 03:21:10 PM
Hey there Vito.  While there was also a JumboMouse, you may be thinking about me.  BTW, first time back to LAX for me (GW1) since our last encounter there.

Hi Jumboshrimp,

Of course I could think of you  :laugh:. I think I won't go back to such big base or back to US because too busy IRL. Enjoyed good game in GW#4 based in BKK, I am quite satisfied.
I may join next GW#1 so will see you there. ;)

Quote from: Seven on January 31, 2017, 09:22:00 AM
limit profits on planes and this problem will be soled too.
even if wild brokers stay they cannot ask 99mln for a plane with 60mln as recomended price,if you make a smaller price limit on it.
Had written this before already gazz0x2z

Well, if there is not big profit possible, there won't be any interest to be a wild broker. I had to sell several birds at hald their book value, because the market had changed. It was financed by my A321neo bought for 100M and sold at 150M.

One way or another, the UM must be fed. Either you must have a system motivating enough to play the wild broker's game, or you must have a massive increase in AI-brokers investment. Or you'll have players sleeping waiting for their next new plane - which is a good way to make them flee.

From experience,  I found you should never criticise or even be seen to criticise any member of elite alliance,  or they will hunt you down.

They will open an airline at your base and will they open up on any of the 1049 possible routes with plenty of demand that don't have airlines on them or will they open up on the six routes your airline does?    Yep, you've got it,  they will target your routes to drive you out.

So, anyone who is unsure, or new, or even has the nerve to suggest something,  don't ever criticize or even be perceived to criticise Elite Alliance if you want to continue to enjoy playing the game.   

Quote from: Joshua Jordan on February 10, 2017, 04:36:57 PM
From experience,  I found you should never criticise or even be seen to criticise any member of elite alliance,  or they will hunt you down.

They will open an airline at your base and will they open up on any of the 1049 possible routes with plenty of demand that don't have airlines on them or will they open up on the six routes your airline does?    Yep, you've got it,  they will target your routes to drive you out.

So, anyone who is unsure, or new, or even has the nerve to suggest something,  don't ever criticize or even be perceived to criticise Elite Alliance if you want to continue to enjoy playing the game.   

Cry Cry... what a nonsense

Quote from: Joshua Jordan on February 10, 2017, 04:36:57 PM
From experience,  I found you should never criticise or even be seen to criticise any member of elite alliance,  or they will hunt you down.(.../...)

I did criticize them, quite a few times. Other guys did attack me then, they did not. I won the fight. RIP other guys. Elite did then recruit me. Maybe I did something right.

So maybe I'm lucky, or whatever. Still, the best way not to be attacked is to look strong. I always made my possible to look strong. Eliminate foes, cover your niche as much as you can, have a strong profitability, don't leave any hole or vulnerability, and clever players will avoid messing with you.

Quote from: Joshua Jordan on February 10, 2017, 04:36:57 PMThey will open an airline at your base and will they open up on any of the 1049 possible routes with plenty of demand that don't have airlines on them or will they open up on the six routes your airline does?    Yep, you've got it,  they will target your routes to drive you out.

Well, the way the game is done, it's worth it only if you are weak. Do it against a strong opponent(look at BingoWings or KidCo in Detroit, current GW3 : noone sane wants to settle there), and you're toasted. Elite member or not.

It was only my second game, I was part of a tiny alliance, and I had built strongholds in Edinburgh and London City, and looked for expansion. The two companies in Hamburg looked very weak. Had they criticized me? No. But they looked like targets. Wrong fleet choices, bad schedules, poor pricing, profitability next to zero, low cash. I landed there with my ERJs against their 737-800 on 120-demand, 200NM lines. Half of my new lines on juicy empty lines. Half of my lines on their most vulnerable spots, financed by the first half. They didn't last one year. They'd have died anyways. I just sped up the process. That's the game dynamics.

Now imagine a good player says bad things about me. Will I care? Why should I care? I care about developping my company, not about ego. And it sometimes means I've got to help weak companies to BK quicker. I do need the slots. That's just a competitive game, and some players happen to be on my way to success...and to weak to resist me. Winning the game is about focusing about important strategic goals. It's not about pursuing petty vengeance. Vengeance is a distraction from an efficient game.

Thanks for the reply, nice to know where you stand.

But remember 'weak' airlines/players are also still just people trying to play a game, trying to have fun and by deliberately attacking them in such a way to "help" them bankrupt quicker isn't helping or a very nice thing to do and is perhaps playing that way is indicative of why the Elite reputation is the way it is.     

Quote from: [SC] - King Kong on February 10, 2017, 05:49:34 PM
Cry Cry... what a nonsense

Not nonsense at all,   actual FACT

Quote from: Joshua Jordan on February 10, 2017, 09:11:33 PM
Thanks for the reply, nice to know where you stand.

But remember 'weak' airlines/players are also still just people trying to play a game, trying to have fun and by deliberately attacking them in such a way to "help" them bankrupt quicker isn't helping or a very nice thing to do and is perhaps playing that way is indicative of why the Elite reputation is the way it is.   

The standard games have competition.  Beginners worlds are more of a sandbox.

When there is competition, it's dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest.

Just think of the National Geographic videos with a herd of animals, and one of them looks sickly, is limping.  The predators can identify this animal with great efficiency.  And instead of a bruising battle with a strong and healthy animal, they go for the weakest one, to feed, to live to the next day.

gazzz0x2z actually gave you the best answer.  You need to appear strong.  It takes experienced player just seconds to analyze how strong an airline is.  So when looking for a new base for example, you would look at airlines, how strategic they are how strong they are.  If you appear strong, the player (Elite or otherwise) may just decide to move on, open a base at a different airport...

Quote from: gazzz0x2z on February 10, 2017, 07:02:02 PM
Do it against a strong opponent(look at BingoWings or KidCo in Detroit, current GW3

Interesting that KidCo is back.  One of the old time players.

In my very first game, I started at DTW, I was playing against KidCo there, if my memory serves me well.  I prevailed, but I don't want to give myself credit for beating one of the better players at my very first game.  I think he may have just lost interest.  I could not really tell...

Quote from: Joshua Jordan on February 10, 2017, 09:11:33 PM
Thanks for the reply, nice to know where you stand.

But remember 'weak' airlines/players are also still just people trying to play a game, trying to have fun and by deliberately attacking them in such a way to "help" them bankrupt quicker isn't helping or a very nice thing to do and is perhaps playing that way is indicative of why the Elite reputation is the way it is.   

It's not an Elite specific behavior though... If you're running a business and want to increase it's size/profitability and the only way to do that is through expansion to a new location, you're going to evaluate each of your options and chose the best one.

In this case, suppose you have the option of expanding to two different bases. Option A has a competitor that has all demand well covered and their financials look very strong. Option B has a competitor who has less than half the demand adequately covered and they're barely breaking even and paying bills. Which option are you going to chose?

There's simply no systemic retaliation going on that Elite leadership is aware of, nor would we encourage such a thing. We do assist our members with evaluating their base options when they ask for help, but that's a very rare thing to happen these days...

Quote from: schro on February 11, 2017, 01:49:02 AM
It's not an Elite specific behavior though... If you're running a business and want to increase it's size/profitability and the only way to do that is through expansion to a new location, you're going to evaluate each of your options and chose the best one.

In this case, suppose you have the option of expanding to two different bases. Option A has a competitor that has all demand well covered and their financials look very strong. Option B has a competitor who has less than half the demand adequately covered and they're barely breaking even and paying bills. Which option are you going to chose?

There's simply no systemic retaliation going on that Elite leadership is aware of, nor would we encourage such a thing. We do assist our members with evaluating their base options when they ask for help, but that's a very rare thing to happen these days...

There were some rare case that Elite Players attacked on strong players when opening base. However it was long ago and the gameworld is so crowded Elite players may not have much good choice. I agree with you that Elite players are looking for profit but not attacking a specific players when opening bases.

So what you are saying is that an elite member would not open a base, and then only fly on routes that someone headquartered at that base was flying and not fly on routes where no-one is currently flying? 

But, whats that....oh  yes thats is exactly what one of your members is doing right now.....  of course,  elite members would not target a player like that would they...... if it was just in one game world it could be argued that it was just natural expansion,  but as it is happening in two it would be one hell of a coincidence.


But hey,  it's all rather academic now anyway,  you've won,  as I'm out. 

Quote from: Joshua Jordan on February 11, 2017, 02:47:50 AM
So what you are saying is that an elite member would not open a base, and then only fly on routes that someone headquartered at that base was flying and not fly on routes where no-one is currently flying? 

If your airline was new, in business for a year or less, it would be against the rules.  If your airline has been in business for a long time, it is just competition.  You might do the same thing in the next game world as you gain experience.

As far as a result of a battle between a very strong and a weak airline barely making profit, the outcome is a foregone conclusion.  Nothing is going to change the outcome.  As far as the strategy regarding your very specific question (what I would do):

I would look at the slots at the airport.  If they are plentiful, I would first fly the routes you are not flying.  If the slots are scarce, or some hours are not available, I would first fly on your routes.

Quote from: Joshua Jordan on February 11, 2017, 02:47:50 AM
So what you are saying is that an elite member would not open a base, and then only fly on routes that someone headquartered at that base was flying and not fly on routes where no-one is currently flying? 

But, whats that....oh  yes thats is exactly what one of your members is doing right now.....  of course,  elite members would not target a player like that would they...... if it was just in one game world it could be argued that it was just natural expansion,  but as it is happening in two it would be one hell of a coincidence.


But hey,  it's all rather academic now anyway,  you've won,  as I'm out.

I'm not saying that they would not (as we can't possibly monitor/enforce a playing guideline), but I am saying that they should not open a base in that manner. If that's happening then reporting it to game administration as a "targeting" offense would be the appropriate action (unless, of course, you want to see if the alliance managers are able to help first). It's possible for the game administration to review logs to help make a determination of intent of the player...

Now, as a lazy player myself, I can see a few situations where such a thing could happen unintentionally. For example, not bothering to look beyond the first page or two of available routes, or perhaps electing to only fly on higher demand routes. Also, hitting the limit of planes outside your base can pause things for a bit.

Quote from: JumboShrimp on February 11, 2017, 03:22:56 AM
If your airline was new, in business for a year or less, it would be against the rules.

Intentional targeting is against the rules regardless of age, it's just more heavily frowned upon when it's a small/new entrant....

Quote from: The RulesAny coordinated "attacks" by single airlines, alliances, or by any other group of airlines, to prevent some airline from operating on a route or to deliberately push some airline out of the simulation are not allowed. Competition is generally free in the sim but any clearly unfair competition measures such as flying routes with huge overcapacity and with very low prices and deliberately targeting many/all routes of a single airline are considered unfair competition, especially if the "target" is a new / small airline.

Quote from: Joshua Jordan on February 11, 2017, 02:47:50 AM
So what you are saying is that an elite member would not open a base, and then only fly on routes that someone headquartered at that base was flying and not fly on routes where no-one is currently flying? 

But, whats that....oh  yes thats is exactly what one of your members is doing right now.....  of course,  elite members would not target a player like that would they...... if it was just in one game world it could be argued that it was just natural expansion,  but as it is happening in two it would be one hell of a coincidence.


But hey,  it's all rather academic now anyway,  you've won,  as I'm out.

But...where is this happening?!

You have one airline in Game World 2, you are based in LTN with several bases throughout Great Britain. There is not an Elite airline at any of your bases. Please, anyone, feel free to check. Not. One. Elite. Airline.

The only Elite airline EVER to share a base with you was me at BHX, a base that I opened well before you opened it in 1983, and a base that I closed at some point, possibly when  AMS became available as a base (but not sure, could have been to take advantage of a LGW Bankruptcy as well.) Let me assure you, if it is me you are referring to, you can step down off your soap box because, son, I didn't even notice your presence....

Edit: Came to my attention that it was GW3 you were talking about. The base in question has about 20 viable routes (I know, I have had a base there before....) which makes it kind of hard to not have overlap. You -might- have an argument if you were talking about at BHX type base, but LCY? Please....

he has Airlines in GW3 and GW4 - and all closed yesterday.

I propose Elite to invite him to Alliance and mentor.

that will close all future questions I hope.

P.S and yes. I have been intentionally attacked by Zombie in GW3. I see it against the rules, because he is more online than me  :o  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Quote from: MuzhikRB on February 11, 2017, 07:50:41 AM
he has Airlines in GW3 and GW4 - and all closed yesterday.

I propose Elite to invite him to Alliance and mentor.

that will close all future questions I hope.

P.S and yes. I have been intentionally attacked by Zombie in GW3. I see it against the rules, because he is more online than me  :o  ;D ;D ;D ;D

I shall squash you like bug  ;D

If Joshua chose to join us (barring base conflicts, although in GW2 I do not see any) he would not be the first player to publicly complain about us to end up joining us! Despite our tough appearance, we are actually a fun group of guys  :)

I think he was speaking about LCY. It's a damn tough place to play. I had success there, but potential is tiny and opposition is insane. For some reason, it attracts opposition even when locked. I've seen no less than 5 companies attacking me there, none did survive more than 3 years. And I had something like 65% of the pax, and slots were impossible to find. Still opponents were attracted. RIP.

So it's a low-potential, high-opposition base. Not a good HQ at all. With similar potential, in the same country, Prestwick, Southampton or Cardiff are far better places to land a HQ. It's anonymous airports, not many people care about them, you're more quiet. I had a lot of fun in Cardiff, stuffing it with MAX7 flights to USA. Made good money. Don't use this as an opening move, though, the investment is draining.

i have found more aggressive behavior from unattached top players than by any particular alliance in the past, for instance my gf opened a base in Miami in gw2 as her first base, within 2 months a top airline in the US, flying tiger i think it was, opened a base and flooded her routes to the point where he was providing 3 seats for every 1 she did, shortly after she went BK they closed that airport, and if i hadn't told her that this will happen quite often and to try again she would have stopped playing then and there. so im sure unsportsmanlike conduct is happening inside the rules but there isn't any particular alliance doing it and if alliances are it wouldn't be alliance organised, maybe one or two or even a solo gig where the other member doesn't notice.
the happy end to the story is my gf is now doing well in 2 game worlds though she gets nervous when someone opens in one of her airports

"An army may be likened to water, for just as flowing water avoids the heights and hastens to the lowlands, so an army avoids strength and strikes weakness."  Sun Tzu 

Isn't the point of our game to compete?  I don't understand the delicate dancing being done here.  I welcome competition, for it sharpens my mental blades.

Actually it was funny to see how 1 airliner don't want to join an Alliance,but once i restarted my airliner in Dulles airport as there was an oppertunitty actually he opponent his base within same day.
not 1 st time something like this happens USA is a big field with many different players.
Look at the tour the France,sometimes a no.3 spot will help no.1 spot to reach the 2nd spot even they are in different teams.
Everyone have there own goals in this game.
for example:Elite loves personal high rankings,trent i see.
Modern want to play the planes they like 5 fleets or not just for the fun.
A-team,Earth connection,world Alliance,sky and etc. have also there own plans.
So the bigger the playing field the more likely you gett competition.
Unless you base in Zimbabwe or North-Korea for example,guess once you established an airliner there you will be the only one based there.

Oh for i gett a comment about Elite loves persona high ranking.

I don't mean something bad with this,just i see most Elite players play for winning the game.
Just to point out 1 direction how you can play where most Modern players are new or playing the types they want.

This is the difference which sometimes collide.
I had the same in gw1 when i moved to Kuwait(before the Dulles)there was another player,when i expended it will also hit his routes as this will happen in time anyway.

Yes i had the same impression as Joshua Jordan indeed,but it is just that in USA Elite have many members if you have for example 7 members and all can have 10 bases then it is easy to cover all the big cities.
So then they will compete with the smaller or weaker airliners habbit of the game.

GW3 have also A-team members and now there are A-team and Elite members in same base so this will be a different development then in gw1 where Elite have less resistance then in gw3.

Saw this in gw2 once an airliner fall away suddenly you can increase profits with over 300% and double your passenger numbers.
Easy to write about unfair competition but it is good to know how we all feel about this.

So maybe a mini game would be intresting for players as the next step after the beginners world as i read before that the big players mostly like the long worlds and not the extra games.
Maybe this can be a tip to improof the gamming first and/or go for a smaller base ouside the busy countries like USA/Canada/Japan/UK before going in a long world with big base.

Quote from: ZombieSlayer on February 11, 2017, 07:57:30 AM
I shall squash you like bug  ;D

good competition so far.
I hope I was pretty annoying bug :)