AirwaySim

The GW#1 replacement is due in a few weeks, so let's see what are wishes for the starting era.

Hoping to include cargo in this game as well right from the start (some work there is still needed, and one IT project for one airline has taken a fair bit of my recent time, but it's soon ready over there).

55 or 65.

Voted 55, but would be equally happy with 65.

70 is gw4 standard. 60 is just a horrible start date because of the crossover between piston and jet, and results in so much annoying legwork for a long time. 5 years earlier to make that legwork pay, or 5 years later to make that legwork lesser, would be perfect.

While I wont play due to time, I voted 1965. GW3 default is 1995, GW4 default is 1970, GW2 default has been 1960, and recent GW1 is 1950. From the perspective of starting with a new generation of aircraft, and with the thought of keeping certain time frames in mind with each game, I would actually propose default start dates as follows:

GW1 1945-1948 to coincide with the release of the first post WWII era props - DC-4, Boeing 377, Convair 240, etc. Gives enough time to build on the early props before transitioning into first gen jets. 1950 is good but I would like to see it a few years earlier.

GW2: 1962-1965 as the first gen jets are all in production. Pick from DC-8, 707, VC-10, Comet, Caravelle and the DC-9 and 737 are on the horizon.

GW4: 1972-1974: Second gen jets are in production. DC-10, L1011 wide body jets are starting production, the DC-9 and 737 lines are in full swing, and air travel is growing at an exponential rate.

GW3: 1990-1995. Modern 3rd gen jets are flying, next generation aircraft are in the works and it provides a good 40 year game.

I second yearofthecactus on the 1960 start. Too late to invest in props, but too soon for most jets. Its just a bad year to begin a game as it makes the start up process overly complicated.

Just my 2 cents....

Now that's a really good idea, this way personal preferences of different people can be catered for within the framework of existing gameworlds. Neat :)

I have voted for earliest possible start as I simply like those props but if that game is to start slightly later '62-'65, with all major early jets announced, would be a better choice than simply 1960, for the reasons stated by previous posters.

I like 1945 as you can get time out of your initial investment, But would like to start with something other than DC3's or B307's.

1965 is also good as you can jump right into jet scheduling.

Personally I think it's important to have variation in start dates, so while I like the 50's, we've just done that, so for me it's a 65 or 70 start. It's a totally different tactical start. I think going for a 1940's start is a bit soon for trying that, if it was to become an option I think adding some of the other 1940's aircraft that are a bit " left field," to provide more choice. Avro Lancastrian etc.

I agree with the assessment that each GW should probably have a generally similar start period each time it restarts. So that we have a 50's already, it makes sense for the next to be 60's, 70's and 80's as each restarts. Not necessarily in that order. Personally I think 80's rather than 90's gives plenty of diverging strategies for the 90's. Do I go Classics now or do older aircraft used and to NG's etc.

Quote from: ZombieSlayer on October 19, 2017, 09:08:15 PM
While I wont play due to time, I voted 1965. GW3 default is 1995, GW4 default is 1970, GW2 default has been 1960, and recent GW1 is 1950. From the perspective of starting with a new generation of aircraft, and with the thought of keeping certain time frames in mind with each game, I would actually propose default start dates as follows:

GW1 1945-1948 to coincide with the release of the first post WWII era props - DC-4, Boeing 377, Convair 240, etc. Gives enough time to build on the early props before transitioning into first gen jets. 1950 is good but I would like to see it a few years earlier.

GW2: 1962-1965 as the first gen jets are all in production. Pick from DC-8, 707, VC-10, Comet, Caravelle and the DC-9 and 737 are on the horizon.

GW4: 1972-1974: Second gen jets are in production. DC-10, L1011 wide body jets are starting production, the DC-9 and 737 lines are in full swing, and air travel is growing at an exponential rate.

GW3: 1990-1995. Modern 3rd gen jets are flying, next generation aircraft are in the works and it provides a good 40 year game.

I second yearofthecactus on the 1960 start. Too late to invest in props, but too soon for most jets. Its just a bad year to begin a game as it makes the start up process overly complicated.

Just my 2 cents....

Quote from: freshmore on October 19, 2017, 10:34:55 PM
Personally I think it's important to have variation in start dates, so while I like the 50's, we've just done that, so for me it's a 65 or 70 start. It's a totally different tactical start. I think going for a 1940's start is a bit soon for trying that, if it was to become an option I think adding some of the other 1940's aircraft that are a bit " left field," to provide more choice. Avro Lancastrian etc.

I agree with the assessment that each GW should probably have a generally similar start period each time it restarts. So that we have a 50's already, it makes sense for the next to be 60's, 70's and 80's as each restarts. Not necessarily in that order. Personally I think 80's rather than 90's gives plenty of diverging strategies for the 90's. Do I go Classics now or do older aircraft used and to NG's etc.

While not fully ready*, several early 1950s models were added(https://www.airwaysim.com/Information/Aircraft (https://www.airwaysim.com/Information/Aircraft)). If we can squeeze cargo in, alot of family trees are filled out for the 1950/1960s time frame. We could do a 1948 start. That said, I think 1965 would be better overall. I want to fill out all our aircraft family trees with there respective Combi and freighter models before going big with another early GW start.

Whichever date ends up the winner... please please dont start the GW with increased pax demand. Start small = slower growth. The struggle should be the first 3 years with low demand, not bottle necked over lack of aircraft (sitting on millions with nothing to do but camp twitter/UM).

Talentz

Changed my vote after reading some replies and thinking about it. I enjoy the early era with piston and turboprop planes and the strategy involved with them, was lucky that GW2 was getting ready to start when I first joined. So I would like to see another early start in 1950 or earlier, but I voted for 1970.

Reason being, first we just had a 1950 start a few months ago and second I think there should be 2 really long GWs and 2 medium length ones. GW2 is about 18 months play time, that is a long wait to get to play with the early aircraft again. So if you have another GW similar to GW3, except starting in 1950 or earlier and only running for around 40 years that would allow more chances to get to play with the early birds.

So my suggestion would be something like this:
GW1 - Long, 1970-2035
GW2 - Long, 1945-2035
GW3 - Medium, 1995-2035
GW4 - Medium, 1945-1985

There are quite a lot of interesting comments in here!

Well, I completely agree with the idea of "fixed" starting date for each GW, so if we can't / don't want to play one we know when to come back.

Agreed also on the earlier starting date for the one starting in the 50s. Indeed, 1946-47 (just that little change) would give piston engines a little more chance (apart from DC-7 and Connies). The idea of being stuck for some years flying rusty tin cans from WW2 is kind of exciting, before jumping in the revolution that are DC-6, -7 and such. Yes, that would mean relatively short range for the first years.

Though, the thoughts about the missing data (either on earlier models or for cargo) are really pertinent, and this should be fixed before such a GW (1965 for the next one seems good and requires only cargo data).

Another interesting point would be to have a small randomization of the starting date (say, +-2 or +-3 years, so not the same ACs are available and it would make each GW a little more different.

Pre-1950 is not supported by the game engine but I suppose it is not too big deal to extend the base data for a few years (1947->).

QuoteWhichever date ends up the winner... please please dont start the GW with increased pax demand. Start small = slower growth. The struggle should be the first 3 years with low demand, not bottle necked over lack of aircraft (sitting on millions with nothing to do but camp twitter/UM).

While I'm all for a slower, more tactical start I would not necessary want a low demand settings in a game. The side consequence of such situation is that many of the marginal routes are not feasible to serve, even towards the end of the game, especially in the long haul market. And vice-versa, with an increased demand quite a few interesting destinations would become possible, adding to the fun and flavour. Similarly, lower demand setting limit attractiveness of many larger plane types and who doesn't like A380s :) The solution could be to have a more gradual demand increase, starting low, growing slowly initially and then picking up the pace, ending with a nice, booming economy. Is that even possible from game engine perspective?

Quote from: Sami on October 20, 2017, 07:57:38 AM
Pre-1950 is not supported by the game engine but I suppose it is not too big deal to extend the base data for a few years (1947->).

It would be good to see if we can have cargo with planes from 50s  ;D

Quote from: Elladan on October 20, 2017, 08:55:58 AM
While I'm all for a slower, more tactical start I would not necessary want a low demand settings in a game. The side consequence of such situation is that many of the marginal routes are not feasible to serve, even towards the end of the game, especially in the long haul market. And vice-versa, with an increased demand quite a few interesting destinations would become possible, adding to the fun and flavour. Similarly, lower demand setting limit attractiveness of many larger plane types and who doesn't like A380s :) The solution could be to have a more gradual demand increase, starting low, growing slowly initially and then picking up the pace, ending with a nice, booming economy. Is that even possible from game engine perspective?

I think he was talking about the same. not to START with increased demand.
Low demand GW (like we have in GW4 now) is also not much fun.
But in current GW2 - everybody sitting on billions already while flying 5-7 fleets. :-\

Quote from: MuzhikRB on October 20, 2017, 01:46:31 PM
I think he was talking about the same. not to START with increased demand.
Low demand GW (like we have in GW4 now) is also not much fun.
But in current GW2 - everybody sitting on billions already while flying 5-7 fleets. :-\

I agree. No offence to Sami, but the set up in GW2 has been nothing short of a colossal failure from a game play standpoint. Chalk it up to experience and lets not start a game ever again with these parameters (please!) 700 players in 1950 only works if both demand AND production rates are proportionately increased.....but 700 people vying for 20 slots a month production rate DC-6 and Connie can end in nothing but frustration and anger for the player. The outcome could have been much different (and much more enjoyable) if the planes of the day were supplied with appropriate production rates of 50+ per month.

But more realistically the start should be as it has in the past for early starts. 200-250 players to start, growing by 1 each game month with appropriate demand and production rates for this number of players.

1950 and 1965 quite close so far.

(I would prefer 1950 of these two since the other world is right now at 1965 so might not be the best idea to have two worlds at the same phase.. but let's see, since 1965 is better if we consider cargo...)

Quote from: Sami on October 21, 2017, 11:50:42 AM
1950 and 1965 quite close so far.

(I would prefer 1950 of these two since the other world is right now at 1965 so might not be the best idea to have two worlds at the same phase.. but let's see, since 1965 is better if we consider cargo...)

A 1965 start will look like a vastly different world than a 1950 start that is in 1965 currently.

I voted for the 1965 start as the most recent 1950 start was the worst game start that I have experienced in my years playing here.

1947 start with 200 max initially would be just peachy.

Quote from: Zobelle on October 21, 2017, 02:07:16 PM
1947 start with 200 max initially would be just peachy.

Considering first long game world with Cargo I guess there will be dozens of players miss the chance of starting Day 1

Quote from: [ATA] VitoNg on October 21, 2017, 02:26:20 PM
Considering first long game world with Cargo I guess there will be dozens of players miss the chance of starting Day 1

Another reason to push for a later start. 1965ish with 350 or so would make more people happy!

lack of early cargo plane is yet another reason 1965 is a good idea.

Quote from: ZombieSlayer on October 21, 2017, 02:32:06 PM
Another reason to push for a later start. 1965ish with 350 or so would make more people happy!

So long as frames are available.

And they aren't DC3's or JU52.

Quote from: gazzz0x2z on October 21, 2017, 05:38:18 PM
lack of early cargo plane is yet another reason 1965 is a good idea.

We have 1950s era aircraft pretty much in database. Its the late 60s and onward that we are thin on. I didn't realize the scope of what I was doing when I decided to research more aircraft models... I think by the end of all this, we'll have another 150 or so more aircraft models in the game.  :P


Talentz

1950 w/700 players (terrible at the start) felt like you actually only had 5-10yrs of smooth sailing before the great props went out of style. I welcome a 1940's start with limited players (200-250)

However a mid 60's start would also be interesting especially for cargo.

Quote from: Zobelle on October 21, 2017, 02:07:16 PM
1947 start with 200 max initially would be just peachy.

Unfortunately, Sami said

Quote from: Sami on October 20, 2017, 07:57:38 AM
Pre-1950 is not supported by the game engine but I suppose it is not too big deal to extend the base data for a few years (1947->).

Though it's not possible with a 1950 start (or only after, not before), a small randomization of +- 2/3 years would be nice and force people to change their strategies (at least the initial ones) from one similar GW to the other, it would add a little flavor.

Personally I'd like to see a shorter game world. Sometimes these long games worlds get boring, waiting game year after game year for aircraft and or slots. The first 5 years of a game world are fun, as time goes on it drags.

Quote from: bdnascar3 on October 22, 2017, 05:06:10 PM
Personally I'd like to see a shorter game world. Sometimes these long games worlds get boring, waiting game year after game year for aircraft and or slots. The first 5 years of a game world are fun, as time goes on it drags.

We used to have 20-30 year period specific game worlds. There were 3 games, The Jet Age which ran from the 50's to the 70's, Dawn of the Millennium which ran from the 70's to the 90's and The Modern Times which ran from the 90s to the 2010's, all give or take 10 years. They were funi n their own right, but all were more of a sprint than a marathon. I like both types but both get old for different reasons.

Inppsted earlier about what I thought my ideal start dates for our current array of games should be, but if I were scheduling the offerings of AWS it would be more like this:

Long World 1 and 2: games run ~90 years, or roughly 20 real life months. Games start at 10 month intervals.

The Modern Times (Old GW3): 40-45 year game running from the early-mid 90's to mid 30's.

Dawn of the Millennium: 40-45 year game launching in the early 70's and running until about modern day.

The Jet Age: mid-late 50's start running 40-45 years to the mid-late 90's (stopping prior to Ch. 3 requirements).

Plus the normal array of mini games and beginners worlds.

This keeps all (Well, most since uoiu can never please everyone) players happy with a variety of offerings a d time frames.

I'd like for of those "Challenge" game worlds...long haul challenge, regional challenge, cross the pond, ...loved those.

Personally 50's was an interesting experiment but I think there is a lot of tweeks to be made. Too many players for the aircraft production rates, margins and ability to make huge amounts of money is too easy for the price of the aircraft we are buying, lower demand but picking up the usual levels by 60-70's. Might be worth setting up a 50's mini scenario to explore settings in this era before going back to it for a full game and it would be an opportunity to test cargo in the 50's and 60's.

Personally I would favour a late 70's early 80's if I was given that choice. Because another game starting in the 60's, in a way makes little sense, that being said another 50's doesn't make sense given the feedback for it as we want a variation in the starts. Also as we lack a full game spanning 70's to 2020's at the moment I would advocate something in that era. The next world to start can then potentially become the 50's world, which isn't that long looking at things, possibly not long enough to run a test scenario though.

1965 is a rather clear winner (at the moment so far), so that'll be then.

The next world after that will be a 1950s start.

Quote from: Sami on October 24, 2017, 07:48:14 PM
1965 is a rather clear winner (at the moment so far), so that'll be then.

The next world after that will be a 1950s start.

So that means the current GW3 will NOT restart as a Modern Times scenario, correct?

Ah yes, it was GW#3 that was up next... I meant that 1950 will be the starting year of the next ultra-long game. GW#3 will be the same time frame as the current one.

Quote from: Sami on October 27, 2017, 04:21:14 PM
Ah yes, it was GW#3 that was up next... I meant that 1950 will be the starting year of the next ultra-long game. GW#3 will be the same time frame as the current one.

Ok, thank you for the clarification.

Quote from: Sami on October 27, 2017, 04:21:14 PM
Ah yes, it was GW#3 that was up next... I meant that 1950 will be the starting year of the next ultra-long game. GW#3 will be the same time frame as the current one.

Champagne   8)

Quote from: Sami on October 27, 2017, 04:21:14 PM
Ah yes, it was GW#3 that was up next... I meant that 1950 will be the starting year of the next ultra-long game. GW#3 will be the same time frame as the current one.

If I didn't get you wrong ... that means 1965 for GW#4 and 1950 for the next and upcoming GW#1  ;D ?

Sami

what about game speed settings ?

I really like the system we have in GW4. where at the start it was 35 and then downgraded to 25.

30 seems to be pretty good.

Makes easy for picking from your order book 3 frame every 4hrs.

Agree, 30 is a nice round number and works well.

Just for information: I'm a few days behind my intended schedule, but details of GW#1 will be posted after some more cargo aircraft data is finalized. Stay tuned  :)

Since GW#1 will be the first full world with cargo, I'd expect the interest to be quite large. Already we have 300+ people who have pre-joined (and I haven't even sent out the email newsletter yet). ... So it might end up being full house quite quickly and people are left out. In such case should I push GW#3 restart to an earlier date (let's say 30th Nov) or launch a short challenge game?

I'd personally go for the anticipation of GW#3.

The main point is to balance all GWs, and as for now GW#2 is quite crowded and GW#1 will be. So let's start #3 earlier, as it might relieve a bit the tension.
A short game wouldn't be so efficient in that purpose. And since the duration of GWs is different, it doesn't really matter on the long run.

I'd say ,no, keep it as is. In past people leave an old GW to start a new one, so GW2 will go down in participation. But again, as in the past, people will get bored with the new GW and leave. We need to find a way to keep the interest for players to stay full GW. or join an existing GW, which a lot of players are afraid to do because they can't win, not that they can starting in the beginning, but its a perceived feeling.

I am for the mini game and pushing GW3 ing 2018 TBH. Two full games starting two weeks apart is too quick. It would be better to give players a month to get past the start up period in one game before starting another.

Changed my mind after reading the 2 comments above.
While what I said was well intentioned, it was maybe a bit hasty (that will to "spread" players).
The proposition of Zombieslayer seems fairly good, and it doesn't contradicts bdnascar's one.

Quote from: ZombieSlayer on November 20, 2017, 11:21:07 PM
I am for the mini game and pushing GW3 ing 2018 TBH. Two full games starting two weeks apart is too quick. It would be better to give players a month to get past the start up period in one game before starting another.

Agreed but imo gw 3 should start before gw2 now we will have gw1 and 2 playing with a few years span, and not offering any modern time scenarios atm. Now we get people into two early worlds most will be in both, but when modern times then start people will bk big time joining there as they recon gw1 and gw2 is more or less same time stage.

Quote from: [ATA] Sunbao on November 21, 2017, 12:16:06 AM
Agreed but imo gw 3 should start before gw2 now we will have gw1 and 2 playing with a few years span, and not offering any modern time scenarios atm. Now we get people into two early worlds most will be in both, but when modern times then start people will bk big time joining there as they recon gw1 and gw2 is more or less same time stage.

I agree, starting GW3 first would make more sense if it were an option with Gw2 already announced and taking pre registration (sami?)

Quote from: ZombieSlayer on November 21, 2017, 01:51:27 AM
I agree, starting GW3 first would make more sense if it were an option with Gw2 already announced and taking pre registration (sami?)

yeah probally not an option, but yes would make more sense, and also offer players a better spectra of worlds. first you done dc10 in gw1 then a month later you do same in gw2, sure not optimal.

Quote from: [ATA] Sunbao on November 21, 2017, 01:58:42 AM
yeah probally not an option, but yes would make more sense, and also offer players a better spectra of worlds. first you done dc10 in gw1 then a month later you do same in gw2, sure not optimal.

Were forgetting that the next GW will feature CBD-Cargo; Currently, the majority of freighter and combi aircraft favor the 50/60/early 70s era. Advertising a cargo game and then launching it a lack of modern day diversity will drive Sami mad with "why isn't A3XXX freighter/combi in the game blah blah blah ~~~"

Original schedule works better and an early Jan 2018 GW3 - with a greater selection of aircraft to compliment the era will work best. This gives Sami enough time to work through any bug/feature requests that pop for GW2 and additional time to add aircraft data/tweaks to the DB.


Talentz

Perhaps GW3 could launch with CBD for passengers if there are no major hiccups in GW1? If that one launches in Jan'18 it will still give some time for development/observing, unless of course we are nowhere near seeing that feature...

Quote from: [ATA] Sunbao on November 21, 2017, 12:16:06 AM
Agreed but imo gw 3 should start before gw2 now we will have gw1 and 2 playing with a few years span, and not offering any modern time scenarios atm. Now we get people into two early worlds most will be in both, but when modern times then start people will bk big time joining there as they recon gw1 and gw2 is more or less same time stage.

i fully agree

it will be only 5  years different between gw1 and gw2. better to postpone one month and start GW3 first.

additionally some mini game with cargo could be started to optimize some features, that will be helpful in terms of long gw.

nothing bad with postponing i think. it better that start a mess.

Disagree.

From a personal point of view, GW3 really doesn't interest me, for me it's about the long games only.

From an alliance perspective, planning has been in place for weeks now to recruit and organise the logisitics; and I know that's true for Elite as well, and presumably all the others. To switch at this late stage to an alternating plan would effectively ruin all that groundwork, and also the anticipation of the new features in the game world from the beginning.

Quote from: yearofthecactus on November 22, 2017, 12:30:19 AM
Disagree.

From a personal point of view, GW3 really doesn't interest me, for me it's about the long games only.

From an alliance perspective, planning has been in place for weeks now to recruit and organise the logisitics; and I know that's true for Elite as well, and presumably all the others. To switch at this late stage to an alternating plan would effectively ruin all that groundwork, and also the anticipation of the new features in the game world from the beginning.

your own members sure don't agree with you at least not those spending time on responding in here.

And well sure there has been planning but to switch to later start date would not make any major changes to the stuff already planned.
Starting gw2 now, will just kill gw1 faster nah im doing bad, nah i want to have cargo, nah want to be with all others.
I really fear gw1 will loose so much extra players then usual as people want to try cargo specially when the world is so few years apart.

Well, GW1 seems already set up on Sami's side, trying to alter it now seems unreasonable to me.

GW3, OTOH, may be negotiated. I'll be part of it, of course, in Algiers (https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Routes/Airport/DAAG) this time, if my alliance agrees, and have no opinion on when it should start. I'd just like to point out that for players involved in both GW1 & GW2, having 2 game start to manage at the same time might be really a no-go. But that's just the opinion of someone not concerned. I'll start GW3 full speed, not being annoyed by the aftermath of the GW1 start.

Quote from: [ATA] Sunbao on November 22, 2017, 02:55:55 AM
your own members sure don't agree with you at least not those spending time on responding in here.

You don't know what/who I'm talking about! Alas, "my own members", and Elite are different entities on this one.

I do think that given the time frames, and the fact cargo wasn't ready earlier, Sami should have restarted this GW1 in 1950, and then made the next one 1965. Alas,
that hasn't happened.

My issue isn't the world is starting on Friday; I think it should. My issue is that the world is starting in 1965 and not 1950, given the current gameworld 2 time frame. It would surely be nice given it's the very first cargo world to go from the beginning in all honesty.

I agree with several previous comments regarding the not so great timing being proposed for the upcoming game worlds.

I for one will not be participating in GW1 because the launch takes place at a very bad time for many US players (Thanksgiving). Made comically worse that the specific date is on "Black Friday".

If the next game world launched in mid-December then I will likewise not participate given it would occur during the run-up for the Christmas holidays.

I'm all for a major game world launch in early 2018 however. As was mentioned previously, there should be a break (I'd say at least 6-8 weeks) between major game worlds for those that want to play two at a time and not be overburdened. A minor "challenge" game world could fill in the time between if need be.

GW4 will finish in 30 days - just before Christmas. With GW1, GW3, GW4 and potentially a smaller scenario there will be no shortage of worlds to jump on in the near future.

I would say Thanksgiving shouldn't play a big negative role. Firstly, because actually there is nothing much to do on day one. It's a 24 hour grind where literally nothing can be done, and the rest of the first days are at a weekend, so we're not talking here about putting lots of peoples noses out of joint.

Secondly, whilst people not joining because they don't like the timetable is fair, the game-world by all measures so far looks like it may be over-subscribed. In that regard, not joining is unlikely to deter Sami - why would it. If not joining means someone else gets an opportunity, there's no cumulative negative effect.

As Rad pointed out above, GW3 and GW4 will both restart in the upcoming few weeks. Loads of opportunities to join new game worlds, and continue to focus on the new ones.

Quote from: yearofthecactus on November 23, 2017, 11:43:18 AM
I would say Thanksgiving shouldn't play a big negative role. Firstly, because actually there is nothing much to do on day one. It's a 24 hour grind where literally nothing can be done, and the rest of the first days are at a weekend, so we're not talking here about putting lots of peoples noses out of joint.

Secondly, whilst people not joining because they don't like the timetable is fair, the game-world by all measures so far looks like it may be over-subscribed. In that regard, not joining is unlikely to deter Sami - why would it. If not joining means someone else gets an opportunity, there's no cumulative negative effect.

As Rad pointed out above, GW3 and GW4 will both restart in the upcoming few weeks. Loads of opportunities to join new game worlds, and continue to focus on the new ones.

What is thanksgiving....

Quote from: [SC] - King Kong on November 23, 2017, 05:39:45 PM
What is thanksgiving....

That whole worldwide game thing... LOL.

Quote from: Zobelle on November 23, 2017, 06:04:33 PM
That whole worldwide game thing... LOL.

Thanksgiving is a worldwide thing? Since when?

Quote from: Japanese Commuter on November 23, 2017, 06:08:03 PM
Thanksgiving is a worldwide thing? Since when?

I meant that people forget that this game is played worldwide.

Thanksgiving isn't global.

Quote from: Zobelle on November 24, 2017, 02:14:59 AM
Thanksgiving isn't global.

And thank god for that, what a humongous waste of peoples time...

Quote from: Japanese Commuter on November 24, 2017, 01:01:23 PM
And thank god for that, what a humongous waste of peoples time...

Yeah, because every other holiday everywhere else in the world is perfectly legit and totally not a waste of time. SMH...

Late Summer Bank Holiday is certainly the clear winner when it comes to the most productive holidays.  ;D