I have already once mentioned proposal to change player company development system from current one.
Now we have 2 limits : base limit and ac limit outside of hq.
What does it mean? It mean if i want to build mega airline (over 1k acs) i need to start in a big base, cause i am limited to 600 outside of it anyway. So my HQ must have PAX demand a lot bigger than 600 AC outside. And that current system push good players to start only in big bases otherwise they will be limited in growth by ac limit.
From other side we need to protect players from over domination from big base holders expansion. Like players from LHR/ATL/ORD/CDG etc - can easily attack others, just because their HQ allows them to put acs even with free tickets :)
Current ac limit does not account the type of ac. 600 very large acs is not the same as 600 props. its simply cannot be compared in terms of revenue/ pax transfered etc.
10 bases like lax, ord, mia, atl is not the same like 10 bases in poland or philipines.
What I propose:
1. remove ac limit outside of hq.
2. Remove base limit.
3. Remove base opening time limit.
Instead:
Set up base points system.
Example:
Small base - 1 point.
Medium base - 2 points.
Large base - 4 points.
Very large base - 5 points.
Each player has 20 points. HQ counts in to this limit.
What it will allow?
Different strategy. You can open up to 20 small bases or just 4 very large. (HQ can be downgraded as well)
Or 1 very large hub and 15 small. And later you cannot upgrade it to very large because of limit.
And even opening small bases you can have thousands of planes.
Or you can open several medium bases in small places, build good airline and then conquer big airport without ac limits.
It will provide equal long term opportunity to more players and increase interest in game for old ones.
You can be very large operator by having 4 big bases or be like small regional operator by having 10-20 bases and using only small planes. But it can be several thousands planes at both variants. No limits in terms of fleet sizes.
you dont need to start in LHR/ATL, you can start in medium size port in USA biuld up your company, open 1-2 additional bases of the same level - and may be 20 year later when you see that big base become vulnerable - you can easily go into it not worrying about AC limit.
From other side - big monsters will be limited to open multiple bases, because usually player that own ATL/LHR like bases using large/very large fleets that means they will need to open same size bases which returns us to points limit. it means more different players will have chances to compete for TOP50 size airports. also it means every next step must be checked twice.
Also. Points system is more open to changes and can be adjusted to different GW environment more easily than just strict base or ac limits. It can be easily customised according to specific country/continent like TAX system now.
WBR, Eve
All good points. It does not really make sense that 1 small aircraft counts as 1 (toward the numerical out of the base limit) same as 773.
Your suggestion makes a lot of sense.
Short of that (reworking the base limits), I think the system should just allow the 600 limit to grow, rather than stop. The 600 limit was put in place when the end year of the game worlds was 2020. Now we have extra 16 years (in GW3 for example) and the limit is still stuck at 600 for last maybe 20 years of the game).
But again, ideally, the limit should be on sum of (number of bases * base size) with no numerical limit on each base.
One of the good side effects is that the player would not have to start at the countries biggest airport in order to build the biggest airline for the country (given that HQ is the only one airport where limits don't apply).
Quote from: MuzhikRB on February 25, 2017, 08:15:06 AM
What I propose:
1. remove ac limit outside of hq.
2. Remove base limit.
3. Remove base opening time limit.
Instead:
Set up base points system.
Example:
Small base - 1 point.
Medium base - 2 points.
Large base - 4 points.
Very large base - 5 points.
Each player has 20 points. HQ counts in to this limit.
What it will allow?
Different strategy. You can open up to 20 small bases or just 4 very large. (HQ can be downgraded as well)
Or 1 very large hub and 15 small. And later you cannot upgrade it to very large because of limit.
Or how about this alternative:
Tiny base - 1 point - 50 aircraft
Small base - 2 point - 100 aircraft
Medium base - 3 points - 200 aircraft
Large base - 4 points - 400 aircraft
Very large base - 5 points - unlimited aircraft
Arcraft would be regardless of size of aircraft
But total points: variable, growing by 1 every 5 years:
1950 1
1955 2
1960 3
1965 4
1970 5
1975 6
1980 7
1985 8
1990 9
1995 10
2000 11
2005 12
2010 13
2015 14
2020 15
2025 16
2030 17
2035 18
Quote from: JumboShrimp on September 17, 2018, 06:40:04 AM
Or how about this alternative:
Tiny base - 1 point - 50 aircraft
Small base - 2 point - 100 aircraft
Medium base - 3 points - 200 aircraft
Large base - 4 points - 400 aircraft
Very large base - 5 points - unlimited aircraft
Arcraft would be regardless of size of aircraft
But total points: variable, growing by 1 every 5 years:
1950 1
...
sounds reasonable, but one should start with a few more points. i mean, in 5 years, even i expanded into more than 50 planes, i think ;)
I find the initial proposal very, very interesting and feel it could improve the game quite a bit, but on the other hand I think it doesn't completely suits to all places in the world and would need some refinements before being ready for implementation.
For example, in my current game in USSR/Russia, I'm pretty big (800-850 a/c) but for this I need:
- 8 bases total
- 2 of them very large
- 5 large
- 1 medium
Because of the range needed, Siberian airports need to be large if you don't want to limit them to 7 commuters and 7-14 medium prop (radical example, Vladivostok: by the time USSR is closed I have only 5 destinations within a 1000nm radius). But at the same time airports aren't huge and you will never be able to base 100 large a/c in a large base (bar the 2 main Moscows and St Pete).
So with this proposal I'd be at 2x5+5x4+1x3=33 points while still quite far from your definition of a behemoth airline.
More generally, I think this proposal would work perfectly in the West, because airports are large enough to support plenty of planes and make this rule profitable for everyone, it would reduce the size of airlines in the 2nd world where airports aren't large enough.
JS's alternative still uses points but links it to the n° of aircrafts based brings something more, as the global capacity (in terms of max a/c total and max a/c per base) is directly taken into account, and then there is the growth over time.
Another direction/complementary solution would be to directly link the number of planes to the size of the base to determine the points needed to operate such a base. Thus, more less crowded bases would be allowed (if you cannot fit hordes of planes in one airport).
As in this proposal (values to be adjusted, obviously, only a rough draft):
I really like that latest version of this proposal Tha_Ape put forward, having the number of points take into account both the size and number of planes makes a lot of sense to me.
Additionally as JS suggested, having the point limit grow over time gives another dimension to it.
+1
Quote from: dandan on September 17, 2018, 07:25:40 AM
sounds reasonable, but one should start with a few more points. i mean, in 5 years, even i expanded into more than 50 planes, i think ;)
The years and levels could be tweaked. Not all Game Worlds start in 1950. In 1960 game start, the player would start with 3 points good for 200 aircraft right from the start.
I think all of the game worlds should be able to convert to this (if Sami decides to go forward with this proposal).
I've liked the idea of a points system since the idea was first floated about 4 years ago. It makes sense. It allows more freedom with any type of airline you choose to operate and the ability to play the game until the end, unlike the current system that maxes out 21 years early.
So yeah, this gets a huge thumbs up and a +1 from me.
Quote from: MuzhikRB on February 25, 2017, 08:15:06 AM
What I propose:
1. remove ac limit outside of hq.
2. Remove base limit.
3. Remove base opening time limit.
Instead:
Set up base points system.
Example:
Small base - 1 point.
Medium base - 2 points.
Large base - 4 points.
Very large base - 5 points.
Each player has 20 points. HQ counts in to this limit.
What it will allow?
Different strategy. You can open up to 20 small bases or just 4 very large. (HQ can be downgraded as well)
Or 1 very large hub and 15 small. And later you cannot upgrade it to very large because of limit.
And even opening small bases you can have thousands of planes.
Or you can open several medium bases in small places, build good airline and then conquer big airport without ac limits.
This is a great idea. I'd only change the point limits from max. 20 to 5 + 1 per 10M inhabitants in the country. This would balance the limit proportionally to the country which is being played.
Quote from: wilian.souza2 on September 18, 2018, 12:29:36 AM
This is a great idea. I'd only change the point limits from max. 20 to 5 + 1 per 10M inhabitants in the country. This would balance the limit proportionally to the country which is being played.
That would give roughly 108 points to a player based in China - just insane. 19 to Russia (but 34 to USSR), only 11 to France, etc.
And only 6 to the UAE, (forcing to reenact Emirates / Etihad).
I think this would go too far.
basically
as i wrote initially - the system is flexible. points allocation can be tuned up and down according to GW reality.
but the main idea - i see that from posts - is to go from current limits to something else has got a lot support.
Sami has great testing facility - BWs and special short-term GWs. Why not just try it there ?
this limits do not affect core game mechanics - I dont think it will take too much time to code it and just try. then we will see real effects of it.
lets just do it.
However... Will it be too hard to understand with all these points etc? For a casual user I mean...
Quote from: Sami on September 18, 2018, 11:12:50 AM
However... Will it be too hard to understand with all these points etc? For a casual user I mean...
If the modification is explained very clearly right when a player joins this test game and the table remains easily accessible afterwards, I don't see it as a big problem - just need an initial emphasis on it.
Quote from: Tha_Ape on September 18, 2018, 05:34:12 AM
That would give roughly 108 points to a player based in China - just insane. 19 to Russia (but 34 to USSR), only 11 to France, etc.
And only 6 to the UAE, (forcing to reenact Emirates / Etihad).
I think this would go too far.
It would satisfy those players playing in highly populated countries willing to cover the maximum demand they can while giving a chance for a second airline to establish in a small country. In 2010's Brazil of GW2, I and my main opponent would be limited to have 5 very large bases each (= 25 points), allowing a healthier competition and perhaps more space for other airlines to establish. So I think my proposal is pretty fair.
It would also have the benefit to change dynamically over time, as overall population increases.
Quote from: Sami on September 18, 2018, 11:12:50 AM
However... Will it be too hard to understand with all these points etc? For a casual user I mean...
The system could calculate the points system ang give the following status:
Number of base points used: 20/30
Number of allowed bases left: 10 small or 5 medium or 3 large or 2 very largeAnd detail the points system in the manual.
Quote from: wilian.souza2 on September 18, 2018, 11:29:50 AM
It would satisfy those players playing in highly populated countries willing to cover the maximum demand they can while giving a chance for a second airline to establish in a small country. In 2010's Brazil of GW2, I and my main opponent would be limited to have 5 very large bases each (= 25 points), allowing a healthier competition and perhaps more space for other airlines to establish. So I think my proposal is pretty fair.
It would also have the benefit to change dynamically over time, as overall population increases.
To get back to my example, China ans 108 points means that one could have 21 bases in China!!! How many aircraft would that mean? 5000? One airline could take it all (while in today's games it needs at least 4 or 5 airlines to be pretty well covered, not counting the regional carriers).
And on the other hand France, 11 points would allow CDG as main hub and then Orly, that's all. Far from what Air France has IRL, just for a reference (10 total).
But Pakistan, which IRL or in the current games is a medium market would allow around x3 bases compared to France...
The problem here is that you don't play with a geography, or a tiny country in which the demand is high, you play with a country that's populated or not. While a few places would become suddenly very interesting, most of them would suffer from this system.
The example of Brazil is relatively balanced, but plenty of others aren't.
Quote from: Sami on September 18, 2018, 11:12:50 AM
However... Will it be too hard to understand with all these points etc? For a casual user I mean...
Instead of calling "points", just call them "levels".
Player can open a base at a certain "level" and increase the base level later on to a higher level...
Quote from: JumboShrimp on September 18, 2018, 12:04:35 PM
Instead of calling "points", just call them "levels".
Player can open a base at a certain "level" and increase the base level later on to a higher level...
Right. It's quite easy to understand that a "large" base with 10 medium planes and 20 large planes is not at the same level that a "large" base with 250 large planes.
Indeed, it even makes more sense.
The math would be a little complicated, but it's still only counting to 20 (or 25, or whatever).
Another way to think about it, is that an airline gets a basing point for every year in operation (or other criteria) and then can spend those points on expanding their bases. For those GW's that start late, players could be allocated initial points as well. The question would be whether or not points should be accrued solely based on time in operation of whether a player can earn additional points through achieving milestones (I.e., two extra points for adding 25 routes previously unserved by any airline) or through cash payments (I.e., two points can be purchased for x million dollars)
We can calibrate how this would best work, but I think a combination of airport size (x points to upgrade from medium to large base) as well as number of planes allowed (x points in order to base another y frames at that base) could work.
Quote from: dmoose42 on September 18, 2018, 01:17:25 PM
Another way to think about it, is that an airline gets a basing point for every year in operation (or other criteria) and then can spend those points on expanding their bases. For those GW's that start late, players could be allocated initial points as well. The question would be whether or not points should be accrued solely based on time in operation of whether a player can earn additional points through achieving milestones (I.e., two extra points for adding 25 routes previously unserved by any airline) or through cash payments (I.e., two points can be purchased for x million dollars)
We can calibrate how this would best work, but I think a combination of airport size (x points to upgrade from medium to large base) as well as number of planes allowed (x points in order to base another y frames at that base) could work.
Excellent ideas about earning points - For years in operation etc. Other ideas to earn points:
- total number of destinations served
- additional passengers carried (every certain number would earn a point)
- same for cargo
The_Ape posted a good refinement (table) about how to spend points on a base, on either more aircraft that can be based or larger aircraft.
Quote from: Tha_Ape on September 18, 2018, 11:50:44 AM
To get back to my example, China ans 108 points means that one could have 21 bases in China!!! How many aircraft would that mean? 5000? One airline could take it all (while in today's games it needs at least 4 or 5 airlines to be pretty well covered, not counting the regional carriers).
And on the other hand France, 11 points would allow CDG as main hub and then Orly, that's all. Far from what Air France has IRL, just for a reference (10 total).
But Pakistan, which IRL or in the current games is a medium market would allow around x3 bases compared to France...
The problem here is that you don't play with a geography, or a tiny country in which the demand is high, you play with a country that's populated or not. While a few places would become suddenly very interesting, most of them would suffer from this system.
To address this, we could multiply the population with a factor considering the country's economy - GDP per capita for example. The reference factor would be the world's average GDP pc, considered 1. On a country with 2x that average GDP, the multiplying factor would be 2 and for a country with half that average, it would be 0,5 - multiply that with the population and the result will be considered in scoring. It would balance things out, allowing airlines in rich countries with low population (like France) have more bases and limit the possibilities for airlines in poor, highly populated ones (like China, India and Indonesia)
my thoughts about mixing gdp/population into the equation:
sounds as if the result would be to basically reduce the possibilities in small countries with already low demand, right? when actually the interest should be to reduce the possibilities in big airports in big countries. so the whole thing is counterproductive! you want to prevent the airline in ATL and LHR from going to another big airport, not the one in timbuktu.
@Sami, regarding your question, if people will understand the rule:
if you carefully explain it, maybe make a note in the manual on it, i am very sure it wont be harder to get for players than the "too small" rule, the frequency spamming + the price insensitivity of passengers, the "too many fleets penalty", ... but i guess you know my opinion on those undocumented issues by now.
my preference:
a point-system sounds good to me, considering maybe both airline fleet-size as well as base size and aircraft-size; the proposal of MuzhikRB sounds reasonable. additionally, maybe lift the planes outside HQ rule and replace by a general plane-limit, so that the selection of the HQ which has to be done in the beginning isnt all that important anymore / or optionally make it possible to move the HQ during the game.
even better:
if the points could be used to maybe venture into other countries at specific point-costs (at least in secondary or tertiary markets) somehow, so that the map is a bit better populated. because in most countries people dont need to worry about the limit of bases anyway (see https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,77662.0.html )
Quote from: dandan on September 18, 2018, 02:27:32 PM
my thoughts about mixing gdp/population into the equation:
sounds as if the result would be to basically reduce the possibilities in small countries with already low demand, right? when actually the interest should be to reduce the possibilities in big airports in big countries. so the whole thing is counterproductive! you want to prevent the airline in ATL and LHR from going to another big airport, not the one in timbuktu.
I've made some experiments and found out that:
- Calculting points in function of population only is pretty fair in most countries, but will distort things in India and China and will limit possibilities in low populated, rich countries;
- Mixing population and GDP in the equation will correct things for rich and low populated countries, but will limit a lot the possibilities for highly populated and poorer countries.
So we can use both calculation methods and pick for each country the method which gives the highest result, and set an absolute maximum of 60 points (= 12 VL bases) to weed out the outliers.
This method I propose doesn't reduce possibilities in countries with low population and poor economy. They already offer low possibilities, and my proposal guarantees at least 5 points, which is enough for a very large base.
For me - GDP system is totally different from my initial one.
As I see it - it is much more difficult for casual player.
two examples:
1. China and India. 1950-1980 - GPD is poor, population is fair a lot. then GDP will increase a lot. So what to expect ? How to predict ?
2. Europe - we should calculate country GDP or EU GDP? if country GDP then some of the players will get more points in open Europe market because their HQ is in Germany and not in Poland
Economical downturns and crisis - GDP goes down - so we will remove points from player ?
IT becomes too complicated IMHO. And then we again will be strictly sticked to countries history lines of GDP/population numbers.
By removing AC limit totally (as I proposed) and playing only with base limits we are more strategy-variable not depending on population, GDP etc.
Like - FUEL scenario goes insane ? player can change his fleet from 300 large planes to 600 medium, etc etc.
China has more demand? Great - you can open 4 VL bases and concentrate on international demand or you can open 10 medium bases spamming with 4000 ACs for home demand or.... or... depends on your imagination, limiting only base limit and 3-family limit.
Quote from: MuzhikRB on September 18, 2018, 04:10:02 PM
For me - GDP system is totally different from my initial one.
As I see it - it is much more difficult for casual player.
two examples:
1. China and India. 1950-1980 - GPD is poor, population is fair a lot. then GDP will increase a lot. So what to expect ? How to predict ?
2. Europe - we should calculate country GDP or EU GDP? if country GDP then some of the players will get more points in open Europe market because their HQ is in Germany and not in Poland
Economical downturns and crisis - GDP goes down - so we will remove points from player ?
IT becomes too complicated IMHO. And then we again will be strictly sticked to countries history lines of GDP/population numbers.
It's not as complicated as you think. You propose a maximum of 20 points for every player. I propose to tailor this limit according to the country's population and economy, in a span from 5 to 60 points, as explained in my previous post.
For each country, this limit will be calculated by 2 methods: in function of population only (5 + 1 per 10M people) and in function of population and country's GDP (which will multiply the result of that same formula by a factor which is a relation of the country's GDP over the world's average GDP); the system will adopt the highest result between the calculation methods for each country and will not allow more than 60.
As only the highest results are picked, there's no risk of having to close a base by reduction of the maximum points for base limit because the country has gone poor - unless if it loses population, too... which is improbable in 99% of the scenarios!
And the average player doesn't need to know in detail how the base limit points are calculated - just tell that the base limit points "are calculated considering the country's population and economy level, and will be no less than 5 and not more than 60" and then show him the points available for him.
The rest of your proposal, Muzhik, will remain untouched.
The country / GDP / population: I don't think this should be in any way related to bases and players. And it would only make hard countries even harder to play. This is not really the problem to be solved.
The problem to be solved: In the past, 3/4 through the game, the player would realize that the next objective to realize can't be realized because of Out of the base limit. So the player can:
a) race as fast as possible to the unachievable objective then hit the wall
b) be discouraged, give up the futile effort (even if it is just short of hitting the wall).
What changed now:
1. Game extended 15 years from 2020 to 2036
2. Cargo uses the plane limits twice as fast.
So now a player realizes 1/2 throught the game that hitting the wall is inevitable, instead of 3/4 of the way through. Not a good way to keep the player motivated if the effort is ultimately futile.
Example: I opened a base at ORD, thought about competing with the players there. But realized that I can't really achieve anything there with the limit, if another base, Baltimore has already consumed 1/2 of my limit.
So building a wall, that the player can race toward and hit with the head - that is not exactly the best motivation to stay in the game for 1 RW year...
I think the combination of base points (levels) that can grow over time either automatically or as a player achievement is something that is motivating, rather than the the demotivating aircraft limits...
Example #2: I started in Turkey twice (before cargo). Half way through the game, at about 400 of the plane limit used, I realized that I can't effectively competed with remaining players. So I dropped the game, left AWS for s short hiatus. Than a couple of GWs later, I did it again, played Turkey, disposed of competitors in 1 or 2 airports, but knew that the plane limit would prevent me from competing with remaining airlines in Turkey, so quit again...
Notice Muzhik's subheading: Long-term GW competition.
Right now, after playing successfully, the innevitable outcome is to hit the wall, without being able to engage competitors fully.
When there are huge BKs of players with 1000 aircraft, I would say majority are from boredom / demotivation, rather than result of competition.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on September 18, 2018, 06:55:11 PM
When there are huge BKs of players with 1000 aircraft, I would say majority are from boredom / demotivation, rather than result of competition.
absolutely. its my first GW (GW2) but its terribly sad how many players just leave, but understandable. and i doubt thats in the interest of the game-makers either.
I agree. The mechanism should be designed to encourage achievements that enhance the player experience - the striving aspect would definitely enhance the player experience. Happy to help develop a more thorough write-up if it would be helpful.
Quote from: dmoose42 on September 18, 2018, 07:25:52 PM
the striving aspect would definitely enhance the player experience.
I agree. And I was thinking about some ways to increase the striving aspect - one of the ways I thought was revampimg the credit system entirely, adopting the bond system and making the airlines start 80-90% leveraged (allowiing as much leverage as the credit rating permits), instead of the usual 40-50% (?). I will detail it later. That, along with the extinction of aircraft out of HQ limit and the adoption of points system for base limits, would take competition to a new level.
when I was thinking about it my main goals were about:
1. This is Airline Management game - there should be no limits how much ACs I can control.
2. There should be some kind of limit - like anti-monopoly IRL, so it will be no overdomination
3. Player should have chance to become the biggest, richest airline without having HQ in ATL/LHR/ORD or similar bases.
in my setup 20 points are 4 VL bases.
What does it mean: USA market - players started in ATL/LAX/JFK/ORD/DWF can open base in every competitor HQ and fight till last penny till the end of 50-70years GW. Because there will be no limits. At the same time, someone started in CHA, living in safety for 30 years can also decide to join the big boys in some of the bases without AC limit.
to that bloodbath we will add regional airlines, which can open 5L or 10M bases and spam with medium planes where it is possible. but nobody of them can dominate totally.
4th fleet penalty will not allow big boys to have medium family, and regional airlines cannot go LH, because of base and fleet limits.
the same for europe. when EU opens everybody who is brave enough can attack everybody. One was playing regional strategy with medium planes and therefore started in 2tier base, then 30 years later he see big BK in EU big base - he can close everything (except HQ) and change his game plan totally (even not flying at HQ at all) and go to L and VL planes.
Why not?
but none of them can really dominate, and it will not be known from begining anymore that biggest airline in the end will be from top5 airports
Quote from: dmoose42 on September 18, 2018, 07:25:52 PM
I agree. The mechanism should be designed to encourage achievements that enhance the player experience - the striving aspect would definitely enhance the player experience. Happy to help develop a more thorough write-up if it would be helpful.
I would be happy to hear your ideas. There should be 2 (or more) different achievement tracks:
- for expanding into bases
- for expanding airport (different thread)
BTW, as a side benefit to motivating players players to to the next achievement, it would also prevent people from shooting themself in the foot. Just yesterday I noticed an airline bankrupting that has 3 bases with about 20 aircraft.