It's getting absurd that there's obvious trading of money going on within the games. I have reached out to many of the players who have mentioned they would stop. Instead it continues.
Plane built in 1996 is bought by X for $52 million in 2003
Sold to alliance mate Y for $158 million in 2008.
Plane still listed for sale months later by Y but X still doesn't have the money to lease it back. Y does NOT use the fleet type.
Meanwhile there are 25+ similar 330-300s on the UM for significantly less money.
I ask: if this was done honestly, why didn't X just scrap the bird and have Y acquire a much cheaper one from the UM to lease to X? You know what the answer really is. Sadly it's because it's about transferring money between the airlines within an alliance.
I abhor this practice among all alliances/players. This is why I put the satirical press release
Here's an example. There are many
But it is absolutely fine for you to send abusive messages to members who you claim to be completing 'illegal' activities right?
*Please note - contents of these messages have been covered solely to highlight derogatory language, no altering of the text has taken place.
Whilst at the same time being fully aware that members of your own alliance, one of the moderators to be precise, is doing the very process, that you claim to find abhorrent and hate, on a scale of 150+ planes?
Glass houses and stones comes to mind...
I'll get the popcorn...
Wow.
I deleted names. I didn't include anyone. Someone wants this to be a fight. I will not indulge in that.
I will just post the screenshot about one of a list of airplanes I asked this fight-provoker about. This transaction WAS reported. There was just nothing done about it. Sami is a pilot and can't police this game non-stop.
This is another reason this conversation NEEDS to be had. This is from over 8 game years ago for those outside the HATF game. This is one of at least 4 seen. Essentially a $400m transfer of cash.
I mentioned to Bradley that I'd talk with Andre. If you re-read my post, I said I hate this practice among all alliances. I mentioned ALL for a reason.
Quote from: swiftus27 on December 28, 2021, 11:59:55 AM
It's getting absurd that there's obvious trading of money going on within the games. I have reached out to many of the players who have mentioned they would stop. Instead it continues.
Plane built in 1996 is bought by X for $52 million in 2003
Sold to alliance mate Y for $158 million in 2008.
Plane still listed for sale months later by Y but X still doesn't have the money to lease it back. Y does NOT use the fleet type.
Meanwhile there are 25+ similar 330-300s on the UM for significantly less money.
I ask: if this was done honestly, why didn't X just scrap the bird and have Y acquire a much cheaper one from the UM to lease to X? You know what the answer really is. Sadly it's because it's about transferring money between the airlines within an alliance.
I abhor this practice among all alliances/players. This is why I put the satirical press release
Inside your alliance Arrowhead buy the planes of W air which makes heavy losses and then Arrowhead stores the planes.
A type the B737-300 already replaced by Arrowhead for a newer version the B737-800.
All went to direct storage.
This is not 1 or 2 but over 100 planes.
Sky members don't want to be in a fight.
They receive PM messages while we just like to play a game.
Seems like when elite members have competition who are not be beaten in the game then personal quotes appear or pm's sended.
For example the post of 1 of your managing members about my airliner changed name?
That had nothing to do with the game to other then make fun out of me.
Another person is turning this into an inter alliance war. I'm asking for this to end for all.
I even made fun of you in my last press release subtly, Aero. Not everyone has hundreds of 10 year old stored & unused dc 10s to use as a savings account.
Thus thread will get locked if you don't start discussing seriously.
Quote from: Aero on December 28, 2021, 01:29:38 PM
Inside your alliance Arrowhead buy the planes of W air which makes heavy losses and then Arrowhead stores the planes.
A type the B737-300 already replaced by Arrowhead for a newer version the B737-800.
All went to direct storage.
This is not 1 or 2 but over 100 planes.
Sky members don't want to be in a fight.
They receive PM messages while we just like to play a game.
Seems like when elite members have competition who are not be beaten in the game then personal quotes appear or pm's sended.
For example the post of 1 of your managing members about my airliner changed name?
That had nothing to do with the game to other then make fun out of me.
Calm down. All of those 737-300s will be sold/leased to Desert Air (alliance member) at the same cost (which is book value by the way) once his local competitor Skruf is BK. He will need them to cover the then vacant demand. It is only a matter of a few quarters until the sale will take place. We have managed to make Skruf unprofitable through the last few years since Desert Air began operating out of Cairo. At the current rate, it should not take more than 1-2 years for him to have a complete monopoly, doubling his demand and thus fleet size. I am currently leasing out over 300 737s to him, with those ~150 being "in store" for future needs once his competitor is gone. Since Desert Air still is rather small with limited economic opportunities, ordering them himself is near impossible. What better way is there than helping a struggling alliance member and making use of cheap/old planes by leasing them out to a much younger/newer member? If this is against the rules, I wonder why we have alliances in the game.
It is not a fraudulent money transfer scheme (buying a plane expensively and selling/leasing it back cheaply as some other alliance is doing it), but regular alliance business that is in line with AWS rules.
No one is noticing they were also bought for book..... to be sold for book....
To be fair it is about time we discussed what should and should not be allowed.
To sell A/c for Book or UM value whichever is the lowest. is ok in my eyes.
Buying A/c for 50mill and selling them on for 150mill 7-8yrs later when your about to go pop because you have lowered your prices and not hedged fuel correctly is not a reasonable way to play the game. Its not reasonable that one player should play against what is inevitably two players.
Unfortunately part of the game is that from time to time you will make mistakes and go bust.
We all need to think about what tweaks could be made to the rules as no one wants to play a game that makes them annoyed because people don't play fair.
Personally id like to see a vote on what rules people would like to see that way we will all have to accept them and will all understand what's allowed and what is not.
Okay...
I do agree that clarifications to the rules can be made and a discussion of them is always a good idea, and usually the best ideas come from the community. But that said, sale-leaseback deals are part of normal airline financing / operations, and they should not be disallowed, since the airline needs to convert his owned asset into cash and also continue operating the plane.
But I do not find it very good that already in the first few messages the thread was dragged into personal stuff, and talk about certain individual cases.
I have received a couple of reports of various cases during the last few days, and at least one is still pending investigation.
I agree it should never become personal that's NOT the way to go.
Also I agree that sale and leaseback SHOULD be allowed, as that would happen, and does in real life. Thomsons was a good example although they eventually failed in some ways. What does need to be looked at, is buying an aircraft at 50mill then when your about to go bust because you have made a series of mistakes, to then sell that on for 3x its cost. That can only ever be seen as a cash transfer. If however the sale was done at either Book or UM value whichever is the lowest then that's fine as that would be the same as in RL. After all this is a "Simulation" and should simulate roughly what happens in the real world. If my point above happened in RL then both regulators and the Tax man would have a lot to say about it I'm sure. Its the same as the US subsidising Boeing and the EU with Airbus etc
However saying that, if the community here think that what's currently going on is ok, then that's fine as we would all know where we stand, and can all play to the same set of rules. Instead of one thinking they are right, and the other also thinking they are right. In essence what we need here is CLARITY
Just setting a limit on the price you can sell it for at 1.10 of bookvalue and this problem would be solved (that would however limit the earning potential of the bigger brokers, but that's something i personally could live with if it makes these discussions go away)
So... This unfortunately seems to be a situation that continues to unnecessarily frustrate people and I agree we should try to avoid that by somehow trying to set boundaries.
Having been on both sides of the story (yes, it feels quite unfair when there is continuous or structural trading between 2 airlines, especially when one of them is struggling / on the other hand yes, it is sometimes a logical consequence of being in an alliance and part of this would be practise in real world as well), we came to the conclusion no one wanted the negative energy coming out of this and we had a discussion on Where/How do we draw the line between 'a little help' and 'structural sponsorship?' in order to keep the game fun and fair for everyone involved.
One idea that came out of this, was to re-introduce alliance min/max prices for plane trading. (Anyone knows the reason why this disappeared some years ago? Did not see the reason here...) This automatically took out the extremes for everyone. I would not mind these come back and are set at market value +/- 10% maybe, or even a fixed market value average default...
Then people can trade as much as they want, but there can no longer be discussion or frustration about unfair pricing and/or gaining an unfair advantage from this practise...
Quote from: Jetonski on December 28, 2021, 05:20:01 PM
So... This unfortunately seems to be a situation that continues to unnecessarily frustrate people and I agree we should try to avoid that by somehow trying to set boundaries.
Having been on both sides of the story (yes, it feels quite unfair when there is continuous or structural trading between 2 airlines, especially when one of them is struggling / on the other hand yes, it is sometimes a logical consequence of being in an alliance and part of this would be practise in real world as well), we came to the conclusion no one wanted the negative energy coming out of this and we had a discussion on Where/How do we draw the line between 'a little help' and 'structural sponsorship?' in order to keep the game fun and fair for everyone involved.
One idea that came out of this, was to re-introduce alliance min/max prices for plane trading. (Anyone knows the reason why this disappeared some years ago? Did not see the reason here...) This automatically took out the extremes for everyone. I would not mind these come back and are set at market value +/- 10% maybe, or even a fixed market value average default...
Then people can trade as much as they want, but there can no longer be discussion or frustration about unfair pricing and/or gaining an unfair advantage from this practise...
To be fair I had also thought about something like this. However Market value wouldn't work. Part of being in an alliance is the ability for others to buy planes for you, especially new models that if paid for by cash upfront get 30% discount. I think thats fair as its not a cash transfer. We all agree that when your in an Alliance your mates help out when ever they can. However I would be in favour of limiting the maximum sale price. Also and ive said this in the Alliance forum that one way to discourage storage of planes is for the cost to rise each quarter the plane is in storage something along the lines of it doubles every quarter.
MV doesnt tend to work because I am buying A340s up to 150m below market in HATF. I could EASILY turn around and "sell" them for max price.
Example from HATF:
https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Aircraft/View/History/169626/
1.81 year old A343E.
I just purchased for 72m from UM.
Can sell for 225m at max price.
Minimum Market price is 131m.
What's to say I am not struggling and I have about 6 of these in my arsenal (and I easily have 50 like it). I could easily make a billion from another player and could easily lease the plane back permanently.
All of this would be legit.
Ok, so then it looks like there is no 100% ideal solution and the only thing that can be done is to limit the Min & Max alliance price to avoid the extremes like it was before right?
Maybe other people having other ideas?
Maybe go back to the 3 used planes a week as it was years ago.
This slows down this rescue operations.
Quote from: swiftus27 on December 28, 2021, 01:39:42 PM
I even made fun of you in my last press release subtly, Aero. Not everyone has hundreds of 10 year old stored & unused dc 10s to use as a savings account.
Thus thread will get locked if you don't start discussing seriously.
This is it you, other Elite members all make fun of my airliner while i just want to play a game.
If someone don't go bankrupt just make fun of him/her in hope he/she stops?
How i play my game is non of other Alliance there business.
Stop provoke me.
Quote from: Andre090904 on December 28, 2021, 01:41:33 PM
Calm down. All of those 737-300s will be sold/leased to Desert Air (alliance member) at the same cost (which is book value by the way) once his local competitor Skruf is BK. He will need them to cover the then vacant demand. It is only a matter of a few quarters until the sale will take place. We have managed to make Skruf unprofitable through the last few years since Desert Air began operating out of Cairo. At the current rate, it should not take more than 1-2 years for him to have a complete monopoly, doubling his demand and thus fleet size. I am currently leasing out over 300 737s to him, with those ~150 being "in store" for future needs once his competitor is gone. Since Desert Air still is rather small with limited economic opportunities, ordering them himself is near impossible. What better way is there than helping a struggling alliance member and making use of cheap/old planes by leasing them out to a much younger/newer member? If this is against the rules, I wonder why we have alliances in the game.
It is not a fraudulent money transfer scheme (buying a plane expensively and selling/leasing it back cheaply as some other alliance is doing it), but regular alliance business that is in line with AWS rules.
Normal way is W air sell to desert air.
Why need the planes first go trough Arrowhead?
To keep W air alive?
This is not up to me to investigate.
Can I purchase 100 A320Neos for someone at launch and sell them at book? Why is this on par with buying a plane at 15m and selling it at over $100m many years later only for it to be scrapped?
the rules are planes can be bought and sold for whatever price you fancy. But the rules also say the intent when trading planes is to do so to allow the plane to fly and be operated. And not to be used for any money changing purposes, flying only.
So I'm sure Sami has some SQL written that he can run when alerted that will pickup the planes that don't appear to follow the above rules.
Simon
Quote from: Aero on December 28, 2021, 11:07:58 PM
Maybe go back to the 3 used planes a week as it was years ago.
This slows down this rescue operations.
And it would slow down fleet transitions to a point it gets a real pita. This can't possibly be your proposal. Removing the best improvement of the last year...sorry, but this is a pure facepalm from me.
Quote from: Aero on December 28, 2021, 11:22:54 PM
Normal way is W air sell to desert air.
Why need the planes first go trough Arrowhead?
To keep W air alive?
This is not up to me to investigate.
I already said that Desert Air is a new airline with limited economic opportunities. If I can function as a middleman then I will gladly do it, obviously forwarding the planes for the same price I bought them for (buying for book value, selling/leasing out for book value). Desert Air has/had no means to buy them himself. I have currently over 330 737s leased out to him and he leased already some of the 737s that I bought from W Air. The complete sale will take some time for obvious reasons, but there is nothing illegal with it.
However, I still don't understand the following (airline names anonymous, but airlines within Sky Alliance):
04-Jan-2008 Bought by XYZ ($87 128 000)
04-Dec-2007 Bought by ABC ($37 021 000)
21-Jul-2007 Bought by XYZ ($37 284 000)
Why would someone buy a plane for 37m, sell it to an alliance mate for 37m and then buy it back immediately for more than double the price? Coincidence, not paying attention to the price? Could well be, can happen. But why sell/buy it back within a month to begin with?
Interesting is that you guys have for everything an answer except for the part where make fun of others which have nothing to do with the game.
That is acceptable?
Desrt air has over 2 bln in current assets, so the funds are definitely there to buy big sum of 15 to 20mln a plane.
No middle man needed.
This is just an escape route as you guys are catched.
And Egypt competition have enough funds to survive fuel spike
Quote from: Aero on December 29, 2021, 07:55:27 AM
Interesting is that you guys have for everything an answer except for the part where make fun of others which have nothing to do with the game.
That is acceptable?
Desrt air has over 2 bln in current assets, so the funds are definitely there to buy big sum of 15 to 20mln a plane.
No middle man needed.
This is just an escape route as you guys are catched.
And Egypt competition have enough funds to survive fuel spike
You do know assets ≠ liquid funds, right?
The used aircraft market is bugged. It has been since years and recent changes have not significantly reduced the problem.
Lets see the (incomplete) list: AI can sell at random prices (and usually buys stuff noone needs!). Market standard prices dont reflect market standards. Currently a "market" exists only for two or three fleet types (excepts for game start period). Airlines need to store planes that are perfectly airworthy for years because they cant get rid of it,...
It certainly would be a priority issue to work on imho, after the overhaul of the datastructure in the background is completed!
Quote from: DanDan on December 29, 2021, 09:11:48 AM
and usually buys stuff noone needs!
This cannot be understated. It does not order the airplanes the most in demand (like 320s or NGs in current Modern times game), and where it takes planes (like 777s or 330s), it's always the versions noone wants (short range 777, why go 777 then?)
Normally I don't really feel the need to comment on the forum but I also see more and more examples of players bending the rules. Cash transfers, using troll accounts etc I've seen it all.
Groundbum summed it up well. The rules are that you can buy/sell planes at any price.
Having said that, I can understand Swiftus' comment, this has nothing to do with normal buying and selling of aircraft.
I think a lot of players are done with this kind of nonsense.
And I am one of them. I like a clean game.
You can't expect Sami to be a police officer every time.
Instead of bending the rules, mis using the rules you can also discuss the here. So it can be used to improve this game and keep the fun for everyone
Maybe for this reason the following suggestion.
All aircraft sales only via the UM.
When you sell an aircraft, it is randomly added to the UM in 1-7 days
To answer a few comments in advance.
"Then a fleet transition becomes much more difficult".
"And in reality, planes are also sold from one airline to another"
My answers.
Yes the transition will be more difficult, but no problem for a good player.
And yes, not really in line with reality. But in everyday reality, an airline also does not buy 100 new aircraft and sell them to another airline with a loss
Quote from: Aero on December 29, 2021, 07:55:27 AM
Interesting is that you guys have for everything an answer except for the part where make fun of others which have nothing to do with the game.
That is acceptable?
Desrt air has over 2 bln in current assets, so the funds are definitely there to buy big sum of 15 to 20mln a plane.
No middle man needed.
This is just an escape route as you guys are catched.
And Egypt competition have enough funds to survive fuel spike
If you're so convinced of malice then answer me this:
1. Why did Andre buy them for Market Value instead of max price?
2. Why didn't Andre just scrap them once he bought them?
I will actually agree on the observation of current assets. A lot of this began when I saw an airline buying all of my used a320s on the market. I actually DID take a screenshot of that airline and reported it because it had about 1/4 the current assets of the amount spent on my planes. The airline had 200m in current assets yet purchase many more hundreds of millions in used planes despite losing money. It was obvious then. Then we saw the A300s and knew exactly what was up.
So I'll retort: Is that A300 sale non-leaseback for a 600%+ profit ok as players intimated on the prior page or is that not ok?
in my opinion, maybe, the "used" market should be
separated by fleet type, into planes that are in high demand and planes that are in low demand:
- fleet types that are in high demand are defined by an introduction date less than X years ago (i assume 3 or 4 is a possible number for X)
- and additionally fleet types, where more than Y percent of the coming 12 (or 24) months' prod line are sold out (i assume 50 or 75 would be a possible number for Y)
for these high demand fleet types, following rules could be valid:
- sale only at value (in which case value is representing some kind of market value) [imho: should be ~the current manufacturers sales price in my opinion, for a plane at 0 years; possibly higher if production line is sold out for many months]
- a specific target customer can be selected / and possibly also the choice to select the alliance instead of a specific customer
all other fleet types one should be able to post to the used market at following conditions:
- sale/lease price starts at said "value"
- the posting cannot be done privately
- the posting isnt visible instantly, but only within the next ~7 days
- the price drops from value to scrap-value over a certain period (maybe 10 months so it doesnt have to go into another Ccheck)
- if it reaches scrap value, the AI brokers buy the plane (and can either scrap it for real or put it back on the market for whatever reason)
- exception: for planes below 1 year of age, the sale can be limited to a specific customer, but price wont be reduced over time
AI brokers should have to adhere to the same pricing! (else the whole trading doesnt work) [and possibly shouldnt have to buy all the trash from manufacturers, but thats another story]
------------------
other improvements i can think of, but arent as urgent, for the used market:
- investment in planes: basically sell and lease back, BUT it is a separate market, where airlines offer planes for sell and lease back deals - while these planes are in service; other airlines can buy these, while directly leasing them back to the offering airline at the same price again
- bundling airplanes into groups of seven (of the same fleet type) to post them to the used market
- selling aircraft directly from the production line (so to save the delivery times)
Why so complicated? Why not just go with something like:
- An aircraft cannot be sold back/leased back within X months after the first sale took place
- An aircraft cannot be sold back to the seller or another alliance member for a higher/lower amount than it has been sold for (freezing the price)
I think with these 2 rules we are good to go. Especially my 2nd suggestion would mean that any plane can still be sold to another alliance member, but there would be no more repeated money transfers possible. A struggling airline could not sell a plane expensively only to buy/lease it back cheaper or vice versa.
"An aircraft cannot be sold back to the seller for a higher amount than it has been sold for"
That one would be enough so solve the whole problem I think!!
Quote from: schlaf on December 29, 2021, 01:03:10 PM
"An aircraft cannot be sold back to the seller for a higher amount than it has been sold for"
That one would be enough so solve the whole problem I think!!
Yes. I just edited it a bit to cover it better:
- An aircraft cannot be sold back/leased back within X months after the first sale took place
- An aircraft cannot be sold back to the seller or another alliance member for a higher/lower amount than it has been sold for (freezing the price)
I think with these 2 rules we are good to go. Especially my 2nd suggestion would mean that any plane can still be sold to another alliance member, but there would be no more repeated money transfers possible. A struggling airline could not sell a plane expensively only to buy/lease it back cheaper. On the other hand, a profitable airline could not provide a cheap plane to a struggling airline only to buy it back expensively and thus giving the struggling airline cash.
Quote from: schlaf on December 29, 2021, 01:03:10 PM
"An aircraft cannot be sold back to the seller for a higher amount than it has been sold for"
That one would be enough so solve the whole problem I think!!
the whole cash4trash scheme would still work
Quote from: DanDan on December 29, 2021, 01:06:41 PM
the whole cash4trash scheme would still work
Please explain how with the following rule:
"- An aircraft cannot be sold back to the seller or another alliance member for a higher/lower amount than it has been sold for (freezing the price)
I think with these 2 rules we are good to go. Especially my 2nd suggestion would mean that any plane can still be sold to another alliance member, but there would be no more repeated money transfers possible. A struggling airline could not sell a plane expensively only to buy/lease it back cheaper. On the other hand, a profitable airline could not provide a cheap plane to a struggling airline only to buy it back expensively and thus giving the struggling airline cash."
The price would be frozen. Sales/leases within the alliance would still be allowed and possible, but the price is frozen.
Quote from: Andre090904 on December 29, 2021, 01:08:47 PM
Please explain how with the following rule:
"- An aircraft cannot be sold back to the seller or another alliance member for a higher/lower amount than it has been sold for (freezing the price)
I think with these 2 rules we are good to go. Especially my 2nd suggestion would mean that any plane can still be sold to another alliance member, but there would be no more repeated money transfers possible. A struggling airline could not sell a plane expensively only to buy/lease it back cheaper. On the other hand, a profitable airline could not provide a cheap plane to a struggling airline only to buy it back expensively and thus giving the struggling airline cash."
The price would be frozen. Sales/leases within the alliance would still be allowed and possible, but the price is frozen.
well, first of all, airlines would still be able to move out of alliance for example, to get some "subsidies".* secondly, an airline that is - lets call it "endangered - usually is endangered because it has some old/inadequate/inefficient aircraft in service; when it can sell these to another airline for a higher price than what its actually worth** (because they are in the same alliance, or maybe the ceos just like each other or for whatever reason): that is called a money transfer in my opinion. ***
i know, your two-rule proposal is simple, it would solve a lot of mischief going on, but it is bandaid on a wound what would need by now a few stitches. not saying it is not a good stopgap measure, but i think if we want to rethink the used market and give the game some extra game-play-value, we should think a bit more outside the box.
* never happened before ;)
** sure noone has thought of that before, but... hypothetically ;D
*** i am not saying i did it, but those L1011-1 were so tempting, i just had to buy them at 130% manufacturers prices back then from the very nice friendly CEO, even though they didnt fit my routes at all... ::)
Quote from: DanDan on December 29, 2021, 01:16:48 PM
well, first of all, airlines would still be able to move out of alliance for example, to get some "subsidies". secondly, an airline that is - lets call it "endangered - usually is endangered because it has some old/inadequate/inefficient aircraft in service; when it can sell these to another airline for a higher price than what its actually worth (because they are in the same alliance, or maybe the ceos just like each other or for whatever reason): that is called a money transfer in my opinion.
i know, your two-rule proposal is simple, it would solve a lot of mischief going on, but it is bandaid on a wound what would need by now a few stitches. not saying it is not a good stopgap measure, but i think if we want to rethink the used market and give the game some extra game-play-value, we should think a bit more outside the box.
- Leaving an alliance should/could be followed with a loss of CI for the airline that leaves the alliance. This should stop/hinder people from doing it. Maybe a CI loss of 20 or 30 points.
- The system itself should/could track repeated sales between the same airlines (alliance members or not) and then my first proposal would come into play (don't allow sales/leases back to the same airline within a given amount of time, just like it is not allowed to scrap immediately). To avoid further cheekiness, we could extend this proposal to not only the same 2 airlines, but ALL airlines within an alliance. The plane would have to be kept for a given amount of time before it can be forwarded to another member airline.
- Selling old scrap metal would still be allowed, BUT the plane needs to have a purpose (same as current rule)
In my opinion, (1) freezing the price of the plane after the first sale; and (2) introducing a "minimum time" before it can be sold/leased back again will help to stop 90% of the current madness.
Quote from: Andre090904 on December 29, 2021, 01:25:11 PM
- Leaving an alliance should/could be followed with a loss of CI for the airline that leaves the alliance. This should stop/hinder people from doing it. Maybe a CI loss of 20 or 30 points.
- The system itself should/could track repeated sales between the same airlines (alliance members or not) and then my first proposal would come into play (don't allow sales/leases back to the same airline within a given amount of time, just like it is not allowed to scrap immediately). To avoid further cheekiness, we could extend this proposal to not only the same 2 airlines, but ALL airlines within an alliance. The plane would have to be kept for a given amount of time before it can be forwarded to another member airline.
- Selling old scrap metal would still be allowed, BUT the plane needs to have a purpose (same as current rule)
In my opinion, (1) freezing the price of the plane after the first sale; and (2) introducing a "minimum time" before it can be sold/leased back again will help to stop 90% of the current madness.
yes, well, i think it is not a bad measure, but as you point out yourself: there is additional mechanics needed. i think it was einstein who said, always try to make it as simple as possible, but NEVER simpler than necessary. and the game is complex, so i am afraid the gamerules need to be as well.
just regarding point 2: then at least there should be a sell-lease-back option where one can sell and lease back at the same price directly, because otherwise there is no point in sell-lease-back options (whats the point of a sell and lease back if you have to wait two years until you can lease back the plane after all...) [which would fit with the "other possible improvements" in my post though and make life much easier for a lot of people as well]
Quote- selling aircraft directly from the production line (so to save the delivery times)
With this, I would also like an option like "deliver plane to airline X" while ordering the planes. I could thus order 50 Baade 152 for someone and have them delivered to this player. Obviously the player would get a notification where the player needs to "accept/decline" the delivery (imagine the trolling otherwise...). I am really sick and tired of putting hundreds of planes on the UM if I could just tell the system to "deliver to this guy at book value / recommended price". Saves so much time. Same with "bulk listings" (select all planes, list at book/recommended to airline X).
Yes, there are lots of things than can be done on the UM. But this thread is about how to avoid cheekiness and I still think my 2 proposals would work best and are rather easily implemented. Since the price would be frozen, we can actually avoid the "minimum time" to lease back. I just thought of it as an additional measure to avoid "rescue missions". Does not need to be 2 years, but what about a quarter or two...you know: "Staff is busy arranging the planes". This works with everything! ;D
Quote from: Andre090904 on December 29, 2021, 01:25:11 PM
- Leaving an alliance should/could be followed with a loss of CI for the airline that leaves the alliance. This should stop/hinder people from doing it. Maybe a CI loss of 20 or 30 points.
20-30 points loss is so insignificant that it's almost irrelevant at this point, should be dynamic where if your CI is above 85-90 you loose 50-75 CI, and you should not be able to re-join any alliances in a set period of time, say 10 years.
Also you should not be able to see any listings from the airlines in said alliance for a set amount of time, say 1 year.
Anything but a harsh penalty that could bankrupt you is just a bandaid...
This is slightly separate from the ongoing conversation but I did offer my services upon the completion of the current game world I am in to help arbitrate/deal with some of these issues when they arise so they can be properly nipped in the butt right away instead of letting them linger. Sami politely declined, to be honest. It's his game after all and I can't complain.
Quote from: Jake S on December 29, 2021, 01:47:40 PM
20-30 points loss is so insignificant that it's almost irrelevant at this point, should be dynamic where if your CI is above 85-90 you loose 50-75 CI, and you should not be able to re-join any alliances in a set period of time, say 10 years.
Also you should not be able to see any listings from the airlines in said alliance for a set amount of time, say 1 year.
Anything but a harsh penalty that could bankrupt you is just a bandaid...
Actually yes, agreed.
Quote from: Aero on December 29, 2021, 07:55:27 AM
Interesting is that you guys have for everything an answer except for the part where make fun of others which have nothing to do with the game.
That is acceptable?
Desrt air has over 2 bln in current assets, so the funds are definitely there to buy big sum of 15 to 20mln a plane.
No middle man needed.
This is just an escape route as you guys are catched.
And Egypt competition have enough funds to survive fuel spike
I do have cash, but I also need to eventually modernize my fleet. That $2b can buy me about 85 B737-800s. It doesn't go far. I would rather continue to lease older planes in order to save up to buy newer planes when I have the money. But I do still need to expand.
@swiftus:
Current assets are liquid cash and prepaid expense.
No current orders at Desert air so it is all cash,the planes could go directly from W air to Desrt air as 2.2bln is available.
So if Andre,Arrowhead buys the planes from W AIR and lease out to Desert is money laundry.
W air could lease out directly to Desert but need the money,no other explanation can be made then this(if W AIR goes bankrupt leases stay trough AI brokers).
and this is not 1 or 2 planes but 100+planes.
This is a big money injection into W AIR. 100x14mln is?
From the beginning of this game Elite members made press releases about me,while i just play a game with succesfull start.
Those press releases had nothing to do with the game and just make fun out of me.
This is not normal game play and try to bully me away.
Also in PM's.
It is time heavy penalties come for this like bankrupt an airliner in the game or block in total and that the game become fun for everyone and all this maddness will end.
Quote from: schlaf on December 29, 2021, 01:03:10 PM
"An aircraft cannot be sold back to the seller for a higher amount than it has been sold for"
That one would be enough so solve the whole problem I think!!
Totally agree
Quote from: Aero on December 29, 2021, 04:00:23 PM
@swiftus:
Current assets are liquid cash and prepaid expense.
No current orders at Desert air so it is all cash,the planes could go directly from W air to Desrt air as 2.2bln is available.
So if Andre,Arrowhead buys the planes from W AIR and lease out to Desert is money laundry.
W air could lease out directly to Desert but need the money,no other explanation can be made then this(if W AIR goes bankrupt leases stay trough AI brokers).
and this is not 1 or 2 planes but 100+planes.
This is a big money injection into W AIR. 100x14mln is?
From the beginning of this game Elite members made press releases about me,while i just play a game with succesfull start.
Those press releases had nothing to do with the game and just make fun out of me.
This is not normal game play and try to bully me away.
Also in PM's.
It is time heavy penalties come for this like bankrupt an airliner in the game or block in total and that the game become fun for everyone and all this maddness will end.
With all respect Aero and Swiftus this is a debate about what rules we think need changing not about slinging Mud. Lets try to leave the personal stuff to one side and concentrate on the future of the game.
I made this post originally without any mud slinging in mind. Seemed to hit some soft spots.
When it comes to press releases, you'll all see I have been poking fun at all aspects of the game and not individual airlines..... but mainly the weather.
Quote from: Aero on December 29, 2021, 04:00:23 PM
@swiftus:
Current assets are liquid cash and prepaid expense.
No current orders at Desert air so it is all cash,the planes could go directly from W air to Desrt air as 2.2bln is available.
So if Andre,Arrowhead buys the planes from W AIR and lease out to Desert is money laundry.
W air could lease out directly to Desert but need the money,no other explanation can be made then this(if W AIR goes bankrupt leases stay trough AI brokers).
and this is not 1 or 2 planes but 100+planes.
This is a big money injection into W AIR. 100x14mln is?
From the beginning of this game Elite members made press releases about me,while i just play a game with succesfull start.
Those press releases had nothing to do with the game and just make fun out of me.
This is not normal game play and try to bully me away.
Also in PM's.
It is time heavy penalties come for this like bankrupt an airliner in the game or block in total and that the game become fun for everyone and all this maddness will end.
Maybe everybody makes fun of you because you just annoy everyone to death and are called "Flying Green" with a big dollar symbol on your livery while having lost like what, 50bn company value in 2 years? Ever thought about that? It is not the first time you accuse Elite members of cheating, money laundry or whatever other buz word you come up with. In the end nothing of this is true. As discussed previously, the planes were bought from W Air for book value (not max price) and were forwarded to Desert Air for book value (not minimum price). There was no money being made for anyone. W Air sold them to me for a fair price and I hand(ed) them over to Desert Air for the very same price. No money was being made. In fact, those planes were listed publicly, but nobody bought them. It was not even some sort of "insider deal" or whatever...
Why did Desert Air not get them directly? Simply because he still needed to grow more and prepare for future orders (see above).
Press releases are part of the game and engage people. If you don't like them, just don't read/write them. Some people are actually having fun playing this game, you know?
And penalty in the form of a ban or forced bankruptcy? After suggesting going back to getting 3 planes per week? Sorry, but you provide one ridiculous suggestion after another and do not participate constructively to this topic. If somebody deserves punishment then you for false accusations, just saying.
Nice hallucinations everyone thinking Sami is going to reprogram the rules after every violation. You must have not looked at the Bug and Feature request backlog...
Seems like issuing penalty for outright cash transfer violations and moving is the most likely outcome.
The issue with making the rule sets locking the leasing price in a sale/leaseback is that it's too easy to do a multi-party transaction to get away with it.
If there's going to be a code change here, I would propose that the only allowed "sale/leaseback" transaction that is allowed would be one calculated by the system (and perhaps even listed in the public used market, almost like an investment). The structure here would need to be disadvantageous to the seller, so a below "market" price sale paired with an above "market" price lease that has a minimum term of some number of years. Any sale/leasebacks made outside of the systemic solution can be tattled on by other players that notice and participating airlines slapped with the appropriate trout.
For example, a DC-87C with a "market" value of $20m would be offered for $10m to the seller with a lease back at the $30m price level for 8 years (no early termination). No need for it to even leave the fleet of the selling airline!
Of course, this doesn't necessarily address the multi-airline transfer of funds scenario, but it should close a significant loop hole...
Quote from: Aero on December 29, 2021, 04:00:23 PM
Those press releases had nothing to do with the game and just make fun out of me.
Since you're (allegedly) new-ish around here, it should probably be said that Press Releases have historically been more comical and jovial in nature than serious. It's not supposed to be anything personal or a directed insult when someone mentions you, your airline, your mother or scribbles on your livery in a press release. You'll often see that those press releases also make fun of the person writing them at the same time. Sure, there's a point where it gets too personal, but that line doesn't often get crossed around here....
Quote from: schro on December 29, 2021, 05:09:24 PM
it should probably be said that Press Releases have historically been more comical and jovial in nature than serious.
Not to mention the simple fact that Swift is one of the few people using the press releases in the way it should be used, and not just as a way to spam other airlines with the fact that you are selling a freakin plane...
I digress, this is not at all what this discussion is about, so let's all just leave anything not related to the conversation about actual sale leasebacks and cash transfers behind before this thread gets locked, okay?
Yet the heavy weather continues .....
Quote from: JumboShrimp on December 29, 2021, 04:35:36 PM
Nice hallucinations everyone thinking Sami is going to reprogram the rules after every violation. You must have not looked at the Bug and Feature request backlog...
Seems like issuing penalty for outright cash transfer violations and moving is the most likely outcome.
yes, i am afraid it will be a long time until the used market is being fixed - the sad thing about it is, that i have seen quite a few players in the last 5 years leave because of legal/illegal transactions: either because they were too annoyed by the whole accusations or by the fact they got caught or by the fact the market dynamics were changed in ridiculous ways which led their airlines into bankruptcy.
hope sami will soon take the time to fix the UM properly.
Quote from: Aero on December 29, 2021, 04:00:23 PM
It is time heavy penalties come for this like bankrupt an airliner in the game or block in total and that the game become fun for everyone and all this maddness will end.
Or we could just make a new account to try and circumvent our poor prior history ;)
Quote from: Andre090904 on December 29, 2021, 04:23:00 PM
Maybe everybody makes fun of you because you just annoy everyone to death and are called "Flying Green" with a big dollar symbol on your livery while having lost like what, 50bn company value in 2 years? Ever thought about that? It is not the first time you accuse Elite members of cheating, money laundry or whatever other buz word you come up with. In the end nothing of this is true. As discussed previously, the planes were bought from W Air for book value (not max price) and were forwarded to Desert Air for book value (not minimum price). There was no money being made for anyone. W Air sold them to me for a fair price and I hand(ed) them over to Desert Air for the very same price. No money was being made. In fact, those planes were listed publicly, but nobody bought them. It was not even some sort of "insider deal" or whatever...
Why did Desert Air not get them directly? Simply because he still needed to grow more and prepare for future orders (see above).
Press releases are part of the game and engage people. If you don't like them, just don't read/write them. Some people are actually having fun playing this game, you know?
And penalty in the form of a ban or forced bankruptcy? After suggesting going back to getting 3 planes per week? Sorry, but you provide one ridiculous suggestion after another and do not participate constructively to this topic. If somebody deserves punishment then you for false accusations, just saying.
It doesn't matter if I am profitable or not.
My livery is my livery everyone have livery they like.
I just wrote here what happened.
You already misspoke as before you wrote the planes go to Desert air and now you say he pick them up trough open market,want me to post the earlier screen shot?
The question is when are situation just a business trade and when is financial support
W Air needed the $ as in your earlier statement say they go to desert air.
Normal way is it goes directly and not via another player.
Desert could have leased them directly from W Air.
Now you buy from WAir and lease to desert.
This is the discussion right?
W Air would go bankrupt if not sold the planes and only lease out, right?
Can see this at desert aircraft page.
Is it legal or not.
And if not how to prevent it
Quote from: Aero on December 29, 2021, 11:10:44 PM
It doesn't matter if I am profitable or not.
My livery is my livery everyone have livery they like.
I just wrote here what happened.
You already misspoke as before you wrote the planes go to Desert air and now you say he pick them up trough open market,want me to post the earlier screen shot?
The question is when are situation just a business trade and when is financial support
W Air needed the $ as in your earlier statement say they go to desert air.
Normal way is it goes directly and not via another player.
Desert could have leased them directly from W Air.
Now you buy from WAir and lease to desert.
This is the discussion right?
W Air would go bankrupt if not sold the planes and only lease out, right?
Can see this at desert aircraft page.
Is it legal or not.
And if not how to prevent it
Nope, you keep saying things I never wrote. W Air's planes were listed on the open UM, but did not sell. I bought them while everyone had also the chance to buy them. I then forwarded them at the same cost to Desert Air. W Air's planes would have been bought by the AI eventually, we just sped things up a bit. And again, Desert Air is a young airline with limited funds which he needs to make his own orders of more modern planes. The rule says the planes must have a purpose and that's exactly what we did.
Don't forget that Swiftus , your partner started this topic fall over 1 or 2 plane trades but we cannot say anything?
Big benefit of this trade is W Air
He received now more money then he would lease out directly to desert air or scrap the planes.
You had 200+ B737-300 stored and then buy 150+more planes while UM has tons of the type.
Have you seen the language used by Swiftus towards 1 of alliance members?
That you call normal?
And 1 of my partners cannot show that to everyone to see what happens?
We try to just play a game and friendly and confrontated with this.
Yes i speak up.
I am done this topic.
Good luck all.
Yes, W Air needed money to survive (which he won't in the end due to inactivity, but that is another story). Leasing the planes out himself to Desert Air would not have provided enough immediate cash. So instead, I bought the planes, provided W Air much needed cash and then forwarded the planes at the very same price to Desert Air since Desert Air did not have the necessary funds to buy them himself (and he also did not really fancy buying old planes if he could just lease them). There is nothing wrong with it as any sale is allowed as long as the plane has a purpuse (which they do since they are/will be flying with Desert Air). It is a classic sell + leaseback, except that the receiver is another airline.
In case of your alliance, we noticed repeated sales at different price levels, meaning money has been transferred back and forth between airline pairs. So rather than a one-time sale or leaseback (which is totally fine) the same plane has been sold back to the initial seller with a big price difference (meaning the only purpose was to generate cash without the plane changing its owner). And it's not the first time this happened in this game world...
In the end, Sami will decide (and I hope he noticed the proposals on page 2/3 to avoid such issues in the future). I am just tired of you constantly attacking us for no reason whatsoever.
Quote from: Aero on December 29, 2021, 11:10:44 PM
It doesn't matter if I am profitable or not.
My livery is my livery everyone have livery they like.
I just wrote here what happened.
You already misspoke as before you wrote the planes go to Desert air and now you say he pick them up trough open market,want me to post the earlier screen shot?
The question is when are situation just a business trade and when is financial support
W Air needed the $ as in your earlier statement say they go to desert air.
Normal way is it goes directly and not via another player.
Desert could have leased them directly from W Air.
Now you buy from WAir and lease to desert.
This is the discussion right?
W Air would go bankrupt if not sold the planes and only lease out, right?
Can see this at desert aircraft page.
Is it legal or not.
And if not how to prevent it
Why focus so much on andre and not planes literally bought and sold 600% more than purchase price and scrapped when able to do so? Care to comment on that at all?? Seems youre fixated on what Andre is doing and its not even topical to this discussion.
I'm away for a couple days, and I miss all this fun. I'm so disappointed!!! There is nothing better than another plane trading scandal!
Quote from: Aero on December 30, 2021, 07:35:29 AM
Don't forget that Swiftus , your partner started this topic fall over 1 or 2 plane trades but we cannot say anything?
Big benefit of this trade is W Air
He received now more money then he would lease out directly to desert air or scrap the planes.
You had 200+ B737-300 stored and then buy 150+more planes while UM has tons of the type.
Have you seen the language used by Swiftus towards 1 of alliance members?
That you call normal?
And 1 of my partners cannot show that to everyone to see what happens?
We try to just play a game and friendly and confrontated with this.
Yes i speak up.
I am done this topic.
Good luck all.
Let me just ask you one question.
Do you think it was acceptable for one of you Alliance members to sell 3 aircraft for $300,000,000 profit because they where going bankrupt to another Alliance member.
Please just answer YES or NO.
You mean like: "hey I'm about to fail. Does anyone want my fleet of (Plane) before I close my doors?"
Quote from: Binary11 on December 30, 2021, 03:31:37 PM
Let me just ask you one question.
Do you think it was acceptable for one of you Alliance members to sell 3 aircraft for $300,000,000 profit because they where going bankrupt to another Alliance member.
Please just answer YES or NO.
Binary11 (Binary3) in binary is speaking about 3 aircraft and 3 Hundred Million.
'Illuminati theme plays'
Quote from: dmoose42 on December 30, 2021, 01:23:46 PM
I'm away for a couple days, and I miss all this fun. I'm so disappointed!!! There is nothing better than another plane trading scandal!
Second Tuesday of every month. Be there or be square. :laugh:
I'm just here for the train wreck this thread has become. Thoroughly entertained. I have a can of gasoline if anyone needs it.
In my humble opinion....
May be to have a (human) regulator to monitor transaction in each game world would solve the problem.
Knowing that there is regulator in the game would help solve / prevent many unfavorable situations.
In real life, there will be auditors, many organizations monitoring all transactions and make sure things are going as it should be.
We can actually use same concept / setting from "Game mentoring" like "Game Regulator".
At the beginning of the game, everyone can apply for this role so we get as much as neutral people.
Once we have the case, regulator can investigate it and vote their opinion whether there is wrong doing in there
let say if result is more than 80% then, Sami can take further action
Quote from: YoYo on December 31, 2021, 02:19:00 AM
In my humble opinion....
May be to have a (human) regulator to monitor transaction in each game world would solve the problem.
Knowing that there is regulator in the game would help solve / prevent many unfavorable situations.
In real life, there will be auditors, many organizations monitoring all transactions and make sure things are going as it should be.
We can actually use same concept / setting from "Game mentoring" like "Game Regulator".
At the beginning of the game, everyone can apply for this role so we get as much as neutral people.
Once we have the case, regulator can investigate it and vote their opinion whether there is wrong doing in there
let say if result is more than 80% then, Sami can take further action
Interesting idea! But who would choose who becomes regulator and who does not? I fear in the end it would be regulators from alliance A vs regulators from alliance B meaning there won't be any conclusion either. I also fear that it would hardly be objective, but that regulators would act in the interest of themselves or their partner airlines. It's a bit like direct democracy. Sounds great, but sometimes the general public is not the best crowd to make a decision.
Quote from: Andre090904 on December 31, 2021, 02:30:56 AM
Interesting idea! But who would choose who becomes regulator and who does not?
Sure, nothing will be perfect in this world.
I think we would need to trust and be confident in the guy/girl who will be acting as regulator.
Question of how to get the regulator, may be representative from each alliance then same number from non-alliance.
Let say if there is 4 alliance then 4 regulators from alliance plus another 4 from non-alliance member and of course we still have Sami sitting on top. (If alliance disappear then adding more from non-alliance...)
Well, we should not bother Sami too much so he can give birth to my beloved A310F/A310PF ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Let hear more from other, may be they have other idea or can shape this idea into reality
I'd like to propose that A/C trading should be strictly business, meaning sellers can get the best price for popular A/Cs, and buyers get planes based on price and specs, not by who the sellers are. So, I'd like to suggest:
- No more private listing allowed
- All listed A/C go to an NPC broker, and the broker release the A/C on UM randomly in 1-7 days
- Price to be input as a range of Max and Min. Broker will release A/C on Max price +/- 1% and gradually adjust to Min price +/-1% as the plane stays on UM for a certain time. The +/- 1% is to make the price a random number, not a $100.000.000
- No name of sellers shown
- A/C history on UM got hidden, and shown only after A/C got acquired
- Add an option of sell and lease back. Sellers name the price, and the lease price got calculated from that. Lease duration is 5 years min (like ordering new A/C). This helps save 4 weeks+ of selling and leasing A/C back, also the A/C can still fly while being listed
Benefits:
- Slow down money transferring, well there's no fool proof way to prevent it anyway. Make it harder for buyers to pinpoint the A/C his mate is selling among like 30-100 other A/Cs
- Fair A/C trading chance for everyone and best profit for sellers
- Fast and simple process for sell and lease back
- ?
Drawbacks:
- Alliance will be less attractive
- ?
HP
Quote from: mp81 on December 31, 2021, 01:14:00 AM
I'm just here for the train wreck this thread has become. Thoroughly entertained. I have a can of gasoline if anyone needs it.
...damn it, I seem to have misplaced my lighter :P
Quote from: Mr.HP on December 31, 2021, 04:25:03 AM
I'd like to propose that A/C trading should be strictly business, meaning sellers can get the best price for popular A/Cs, and buyers get planes based on price and specs, not by who the sellers are. So, I'd like to suggest:
- No more private listing allowed
- All listed A/C go to an NPC broker, and the broker release the A/C on UM randomly in 1-7 days
- Price to be input as a range of Max and Min. Broker will release A/C on Max price +/- 1% and gradually adjust to Min price +/-1% as the plane stays on UM for a certain time. The +/- 1% is to make the price a random number, not a $100.000.000
- No name of sellers shown
- A/C history on UM got hidden, and shown only after A/C got acquired
- Add an option of sell and lease back. Sellers name the price, and the lease price got calculated from that. Lease duration is 5 years min (like ordering new A/C). This helps save 4 weeks+ of selling and leasing A/C back, also the A/C can still fly while being listed
Benefits:
- Slow down money transferring, well there's no fool proof way to prevent it anyway. Make it harder for buyers to pinpoint the A/C his mate is selling among like 30-100 other A/Cs
- Fair A/C trading chance for everyone and best profit for sellers
- Fast and simple process for sell and lease back
- ?
Drawbacks:
- Alliance will be less attractive
- ?
HP
This just does not make sense for big orders within alliances. If I order 100 planes for a very specific person, I want to list those 100 planes exactly to this person and not to the general public. If I spend billions on an order, I want to make sure this money (meaning brandnew planes) stays within the alliance and does not benefit some random buyer who could well possibly be a competitor. Sorry, I do not see the advantage of it, but rather a big disadvantage. This is not an improvement, but rather generating more problems than it fixes...
I would much rather see those regulators mentioned above. Not too bad of an idea. 1 representative of each alliance + same amount of non-alliance players + Sami on top. Sounds like a decent committee. Just needs some user interface (or at least an own subforum per game world) to report player activities and discuss/vote. I am still convinced everyone will vote based on his/her own interest and not objectively, but with Sami having the final say (including veto right), I am fine with it. Because imagine there is a dominating airline somewhere. Someone accuses it of something and obviously everyone would want to see it get a penalty...conflict of interest. But with Sami on top, why not.
Quote from: Andre090904 on December 31, 2021, 06:01:36 AM
This just does not make sense for big orders within alliances. If I order 100 planes for a very specific person, I want to list those 100 planes exactly to this person and not to the general public. If I spend billions on an order, I want to make sure this money (meaning brandnew planes) stays within the alliance and does not benefit some random buyer who could well possibly be a competitor. Sorry, I do not see the advantage of it, but rather a big disadvantage. This is not an improvement, but rather generating more problems than it fixes...
I would much rather see those regulators mentioned above. Not too bad of an idea. 1 representative of each alliance + same amount of non-alliance players + Sami on top. Sounds like a decent committee. Just needs some user interface (or at least an own subforum per game world) to report player activities and discuss/vote. I am still convinced everyone will vote based on his/her own interest and not objectively, but with Sami having the final say (including veto right), I am fine with it. Because imagine there is a dominating airline somewhere. Someone accuses it of something and obviously everyone would want to see it get a penalty...conflict of interest. But with Sami on top, why not.
To add to this idea because I think its the best one so far, I think there are some decent extentions to this idea that could work quite well. If anyone here has played CSGO, they have a system to catch cheaters where they crowdsource anticheat. To do this, multiple players are shown the same case, and if everyones verdict is the same, not guilty, or accused of cheating for (any in a list of reasons), then the player is banned or let free. The system could pick experienced players to view the situation, (strictly from non allifiated groups with the incident) and then if every person reports the same thing, an punishment is issued, and if not, then it can go to review from sami or other moderators.
ref plane sales snitch (sorry,regulator my bad :D)
Since AWS runs on an SQL database, Sami could publish an open read-only SQL interface to just the "planes sold in last year(gameworld, from, to,price,date,msn,sold or leased)" that any of us could write Excel/VBA etc to access. I'm sure then people would develop their own monitoring tools and for very little effort by Sami.
I'll personally slap a gold winners medal on the rump of first person to not write code to spot transgressions but instead uses AI to train itself..!
Then extend the open SQL interface to routes...!
Simon
Quote from: Andre090904 on December 31, 2021, 06:01:36 AM
This just does not make sense for big orders within alliances. If I order 100 planes for a very specific person, I want to list those 100 planes exactly to this person and not to the general public. If I spend billions on an order, I want to make sure this money (meaning brandnew planes) stays within the alliance and does not benefit some random buyer who could well possibly be a competitor. Sorry, I do not see the advantage of it, but rather a big disadvantage. This is not an improvement, but rather generating more problems than it fixes...
Just my unpopular idea. It can be done automatically. Its always subjectively when people are involved
If we talk about fair and equality for everyone then equal chance of getting AC is one of the factors. Otherwise, the big will be bigger as they have money to block the production line and store all the good AC for future usage, preventing others from getting (enough) AC to grow
Quote from: Mr.HP on December 31, 2021, 11:44:33 AM
Just my unpopular idea. It can be done automatically. Its always subjectively when people are involved
If we talk about fair and equality for everyone then equal chance of getting AC is one of the factors. Otherwise, the big will be bigger as they have money to block the production line and store all the good AC for future usage, preventing others from getting (enough) AC to grow
The system is already fair as the production slots are assigned evenly among all airlines that order that type. There is no prority given to large orders (actually large orders get a disadvantage in the production line as the production slots are spread far into the future while smaller orders will always be squeezed in somewhere). I don't see how this is unfair as of now. The game mechanisms work in the same way for everyone, meaning everyone has equal opportunities to order planes. Also, "the big" don't start big with huge amounts of cash. They work their way up the ladder. Again, everyone has the same opportunities to both "become big" and to order planes from the manufacturer.
But I agree, an automatic "deliver to airline X at book/recommended price" would be such a cool feature and save tons of time.
Quote from: Mr.HP on December 31, 2021, 04:25:03 AM
I'd like to propose that A/C trading should be strictly business, meaning sellers can get the best price for popular A/Cs, and buyers get planes based on price and specs, not by who the sellers are. So, I'd like to suggest:
- No more private listing allowed
- All listed A/C go to an NPC broker, and the broker release the A/C on UM randomly in 1-7 days
- Price to be input as a range of Max and Min. Broker will release A/C on Max price +/- 1% and gradually adjust to Min price +/-1% as the plane stays on UM for a certain time. The +/- 1% is to make the price a random number, not a $100.000.000
- No name of sellers shown
- A/C history on UM got hidden, and shown only after A/C got acquired
- Add an option of sell and lease back. Sellers name the price, and the lease price got calculated from that. Lease duration is 5 years min (like ordering new A/C). This helps save 4 weeks+ of selling and leasing A/C back, also the A/C can still fly while being listed
Benefits:
- Slow down money transferring, well there's no fool proof way to prevent it anyway. Make it harder for buyers to pinpoint the A/C his mate is selling among like 30-100 other A/Cs
- Fair A/C trading chance for everyone and best profit for sellers
- Fast and simple process for sell and lease back
- ?
Drawbacks:
- Alliance will be less attractive
- ?
HP
DRAWBACKS - Part 2: The whole blooming game becomes less attractive!
We are already completely stifled - literally throttled around the neck - by the miserable painful "3-fleet rule", which isn't actually a "rule" but when you have these big fun airlines which for many of us is what makes the game so enjoyable, trying to swap out a fleet of 300 birds would become impossible and I'm afraid if this suggestion is implemented, that would be the final straw to break this camel's back. One of the main reasons for being part of an Alliance is to help each other out with inter-alliance private sales when you quickly need to swap out 200+ planes. So then Alliances also dies off since you removed the best reason for them.
Too many complex and complicated rules already in the game for my liking. This is a GAME = we should be having fun. More and more stifling rules removes fun. Anyway, I thought the worst of all these inter-company sales and buybacks shenanigans were already sorted out by Sami to his satisfaction with revised rules in 2020 ? Do we really need more rules when this is "just the few whiskers at the very end of tail which appears to be wagging the entire dog"? Seems to me 99% of people get on just fine and when anyone spots these relatively rare incidents - just calmly and quietly report it to Sami. He always does get around to taking a look and then if he deems individual action is needed, he'll just do it.
Jack
Ugggh!!! This argument continues!!! I ran out of popcorn so I guess I'll add my two cents!
Fundamentally, what we are arguing about is "fairness" - a term that everyone understands yet is impossible to define in game terms.
A simple example. I buy at launch 50 737-800's for 35 million. When they arrive a new plane costs 80 million. If I sell them to my neighbor for my book cost, their adversary could argue they are getting a 45 million subsidy. If I sell them at market, my friend is at a disadvantage because his adversary could have bought the same frames at 35 million and now has a huge cost advantage.
Inherently our issue is a frame of reference issue. And while Sami has done a good job of combatting blatant cheating, it is inherently impossible to adjudicate these types of situations. I know. I have traded messages with Sami about others cheating and been on the end of it myself. But at the end, inherently it's a question about what the soul of airwaysim is. Is it a Uber-capitalistic simulation where the biggest can destroy the small at a whim? Is it inherently socialist (or communist) in that the state (Sami) protects people from harm through rules and regulations - or more!
Now obviously Sami has tried to find a balance - there's a competitive component, but it's more about others making mistakes than true unfettered capitalism. There are others that want to build a huge airline in a sandbox, unperturbed by competition, and are angry when things don't go their way. Sami has tried to chart a path between these shoals and quite honestly, no decision will make everyone happy. No game does.
I think we all underestimate the privilege we have here - a game we love, unfettered access to the developer - and are given influence in its evolution.
I think we all wish for more. I think we forget that it is not our game, nor our decision.
I call upon you as friends, Sami for his creation, to let us work together to make airwaysim what it can be!
Sami, if you will let me help, I am willing to donate 5 hours a week of time to making this game better. Just let me know what you need me to do!
I ask each of you! Join me in my pledge! Let us help Sami grow this game!
Happy Year to you all.
Best,
Ben
That was extremely well written, very nice, and so polite Dmoose.
Or... Maybe... Sami could create a separate game world with no rules where we could suck the life out of our competition, buy and sell planes as we please, and feast upon the pax and cargo demand as our competition bk's into the depths of capitalism. ;D
My two cents
(https://c.tenor.com/onxJjg1MgfUAAAAM/lol-laugh.gif)
8) Monkey
Quote from: dmoose42 on January 02, 2022, 02:50:27 AM
Ugggh!!! This argument continues!!! I ran out of popcorn so I guess I'll add my two cents!
Fundamentally, what we are arguing about is "fairness" - a term that everyone understands yet is impossible to define in game terms.
A simple example. I buy at launch 50 737-800's for 35 million. When they arrive a new plane costs 80 million. If I sell them to my neighbor for my book cost, their adversary could argue they are getting a 45 million subsidy. If I sell them at market, my friend is at a disadvantage because his adversary could have bought the same frames at 35 million and now has a huge cost advantage.
Inherently our issue is a frame of reference issue. And while Sami has done a good job of combatting blatant cheating, it is inherently impossible to adjudicate these types of situations. I know. I have traded messages with Sami about others cheating and been on the end of it myself. But at the end, inherently it's a question about what the soul of airwaysim is. Is it a Uber-capitalistic simulation where the biggest can destroy the small at a whim? Is it inherently socialist (or communist) in that the state (Sami) protects people from harm through rules and regulations - or more!
Now obviously Sami has tried to find a balance - there's a competitive component, but it's more about others making mistakes than true unfettered capitalism. There are others that want to build a huge airline in a sandbox, unperturbed by competition, and are angry when things don't go their way. Sami has tried to chart a path between these shoals and quite honestly, no decision will make everyone happy. No game does.
I think we all underestimate the privilege we have here - a game we love, unfettered access to the developer - and are given influence in its evolution.
I think we all wish for more. I think we forget that it is not our game, nor our decision.
I call upon you as friends, Sami for his creation, to let us work together to make airwaysim what it can be!
Sami, if you will let me help, I am willing to donate 5 hours a week of time to making this game better. Just let me know what you need me to do!
I ask each of you! Join me in my pledge! Let us help Sami grow this game!
Happy Year to you all.
Best,
Ben
Couldn't have written it better - Says it all!
It looks like we are getting somewhere!
Fully joining DMoose's idea; We should be happy with what we have and realise nothing will or can ever be perfect and content everyone.
It is also not our game and honestly; there is a reason why it is not - the people having thought it out are simply better at this so we should have faith in why something is or is not adjusted, keeping in mind there should be a 'worthwhile' balance between effort and result (not always possible) and also if you want a process to work, you should try to keep it as simple and objective as possible.
Nonetheless everyone's ideas are always welcome and you never know what comes out of it...
So, just sharing with you my half-conscious half-awake thoughts overnight due to too much obligatory food yesterday :P
Personally I would not change much to (alliance) plane trades or nr of UM buys weekly, this all goes relatively well and under normal circumstances this does not seem to cause a problem to anyone. Where we seem to cross the line and get into fair/unfair discussions (keeping in mind this is very subjective or judgemental so human referees do or will not have an easy assigment...), is when plane trades are continuing or initiated when one of the parties involved is thoroughly struggling to survive or flirting with BK. Right?
If so, we want to avoid these discussions (hence taking the human / judgemental part out of the process?) but still we want struggling airlines with just (what looks like) a liquidity problem and still having assets to have the chance to somehow 'survive' a little difficulty and convert their owned planes to cash whilst not losing the ability to use them.
Then maybe just thinking too far but what if in the 'my aircraft - view aircraft - Basic summary' overview of every plane, in the 'manage aircraft section' there would be an action like 'request a lease plan' for this plane? - To keep it (relatively) simple for coding the logic could be similar to requesting a loan; initially it could route to only the AI players and the human requestor would get a proposal saying aircraft broker X is willing to buy your plane for amount Y (value defined by a certain logic similar to how planes are brought upon the UM by AI brokers – so nothing extreme) and your ownership will be converted into a lease plan for a certain nr of years (maybe the requestor can still choose this number with a minimum of 5 (similar to when ordering new planes) and then the lease amount would differ a bit depending on term of the lease)...
That way we would still leave the option to sell/lease back for players who need it, but it would be automatic so fair and we would have (hopefully) no more of these discussions...
Plus a bonus the requestor would be freed from having to beg others for help, or from having to miss your plane for a number of weeks while the sell/leaseback is being executed, and for the other side it would remove the hassle of buying the plane, wait until arrived and then repost privately (which I'm sure is not the most fun activity for anyone - especially not if the receiving airline name starts down the alphabet)... - Also it would prevent people sending back their leased plane to the human owner just to fund an expensive D-check etc, which now also happens and can also be felt 'unfair'. This idea *could* be developed a little further; as with loans there could also be the right for brokers to refuse the financial lease plan -ex. when too much are being requested at once or the financial state is too bad-, when people have 'overcome' their little crisis they can buy their plane back, or they can end the lease prematurely (read: to avoid D-checks or when they are transitioning to a new plane type) but against payment of a fee, and I would not go that way but you *could* think about including the possibility for human players to take over the lease instead of AI within the same automated feature, I assume at slightly better terms then AI but this will also get more complex for coding and we need to be careful not to end up in what we are trying to solve now...
Maybe a bit of programming work but the most important parts are already available somewhere in other parts of the game so somehow feasable?
Anyways, following DMoose's idea; happy to donate a few hours as well.
To conclude on a different note; following Monkey's idea the difficulty level of game worlds (excl. beginner's world) is usually 'normal' and that is perfectly fine, but if once in a while there would be a special challenging 'killer' game filled with unexpected events and/or heavy dirty competition... I'm in! ;D
Thumbs up! Not a bad idea at all. I'm all for any implementation that can help to root out these unrealistic and tremendously dodgy deals. Airwaysim claims to be a highly realistic airline management simulation... This could further help to cement that claim.
Quote from: Jetonski on January 02, 2022, 02:37:08 PM
So, just sharing with you my half-conscious half-awake thoughts overnight due to too much obligatory food yesterday :P
Personally I would not change much to (alliance) plane trades or nr of UM buys weekly, this all goes relatively well and under normal circumstances this does not seem to cause a problem to anyone. Where we seem to cross the line and get into fair/unfair discussions (keeping in mind this is very subjective or judgemental so human referees do or will not have an easy assigment...), is when plane trades are continuing or initiated when one of the parties involved is thoroughly struggling to survive or flirting with BK. Right?
If so, we want to avoid these discussions (hence taking the human / judgemental part out of the process?) but still we want struggling airlines with just (what looks like) a liquidity problem and still having assets to have the chance to somehow 'survive' a little difficulty and convert their owned planes to cash whilst not losing the ability to use them.
Then maybe just thinking too far but what if in the 'my aircraft - view aircraft - Basic summary' overview of every plane, in the 'manage aircraft section' there would be an action like 'request a lease plan' for this plane? - To keep it (relatively) simple for coding the logic could be similar to requesting a loan; initially it could route to only the AI players and the human requestor would get a proposal saying aircraft broker X is willing to buy your plane for amount Y (value defined by a certain logic similar to how planes are brought upon the UM by AI brokers – so nothing extreme) and your ownership will be converted into a lease plan for a certain nr of years (maybe the requestor can still choose this number with a minimum of 5 (similar to when ordering new planes) and then the lease amount would differ a bit depending on term of the lease)...
That way we would still leave the option to sell/lease back for players who need it, but it would be automatic so fair and we would have (hopefully) no more of these discussions...
Plus a bonus the requestor would be freed from having to beg others for help, or from having to miss your plane for a number of weeks while the sell/leaseback is being executed, and for the other side it would remove the hassle of buying the plane, wait until arrived and then repost privately (which I'm sure is not the most fun activity for anyone - especially not if the receiving airline name starts down the alphabet)... - Also it would prevent people sending back their leased plane to the human owner just to fund an expensive D-check etc, which now also happens and can also be felt 'unfair'. This idea *could* be developed a little further; as with loans there could also be the right for brokers to refuse the financial lease plan -ex. when too much are being requested at once or the financial state is too bad-, when people have 'overcome' their little crisis they can buy their plane back, or they can end the lease prematurely (read: to avoid D-checks or when they are transitioning to a new plane type) but against payment of a fee, and I would not go that way but you *could* think about including the possibility for human players to take over the lease instead of AI within the same automated feature, I assume at slightly better terms then AI but this will also get more complex for coding and we need to be careful not to end up in what we are trying to solve now...
Maybe a bit of programming work but the most important parts are already available somewhere in other parts of the game so somehow feasable?
Now this is a good idea. :)
Also happy to donate a few hours a week per DMoose.
Quote from: Jetonski on January 02, 2022, 02:37:08 PM
It looks like we are getting somewhere!
Fully joining DMoose's idea; We should be happy with what we have and realise nothing will or can ever be perfect and content everyone.
It is also not our game and honestly; there is a reason why it is not - the people having thought it out are simply better at this so we should have faith in why something is or is not adjusted, keeping in mind there should be a 'worthwhile' balance between effort and result (not always possible) and also if you want a process to work, you should try to keep it as simple and objective as possible.
Nonetheless everyone's ideas are always welcome and you never know what comes out of it...
So, just sharing with you my half-conscious half-awake thoughts overnight due to too much obligatory food yesterday :P
Personally I would not change much to (alliance) plane trades or nr of UM buys weekly, this all goes relatively well and under normal circumstances this does not seem to cause a problem to anyone. Where we seem to cross the line and get into fair/unfair discussions (keeping in mind this is very subjective or judgemental so human referees do or will not have an easy assigment...), is when plane trades are continuing or initiated when one of the parties involved is thoroughly struggling to survive or flirting with BK. Right?
If so, we want to avoid these discussions (hence taking the human / judgemental part out of the process?) but still we want struggling airlines with just (what looks like) a liquidity problem and still having assets to have the chance to somehow 'survive' a little difficulty and convert their owned planes to cash whilst not losing the ability to use them.
Then maybe just thinking too far but what if in the 'my aircraft - view aircraft - Basic summary' overview of every plane, in the 'manage aircraft section' there would be an action like 'request a lease plan' for this plane? - To keep it (relatively) simple for coding the logic could be similar to requesting a loan; initially it could route to only the AI players and the human requestor would get a proposal saying aircraft broker X is willing to buy your plane for amount Y (value defined by a certain logic similar to how planes are brought upon the UM by AI brokers – so nothing extreme) and your ownership will be converted into a lease plan for a certain nr of years (maybe the requestor can still choose this number with a minimum of 5 (similar to when ordering new planes) and then the lease amount would differ a bit depending on term of the lease)...
That way we would still leave the option to sell/lease back for players who need it, but it would be automatic so fair and we would have (hopefully) no more of these discussions...
Plus a bonus the requestor would be freed from having to beg others for help, or from having to miss your plane for a number of weeks while the sell/leaseback is being executed, and for the other side it would remove the hassle of buying the plane, wait until arrived and then repost privately (which I'm sure is not the most fun activity for anyone - especially not if the receiving airline name starts down the alphabet)... - Also it would prevent people sending back their leased plane to the human owner just to fund an expensive D-check etc, which now also happens and can also be felt 'unfair'. This idea *could* be developed a little further; as with loans there could also be the right for brokers to refuse the financial lease plan -ex. when too much are being requested at once or the financial state is too bad-, when people have 'overcome' their little crisis they can buy their plane back, or they can end the lease prematurely (read: to avoid D-checks or when they are transitioning to a new plane type) but against payment of a fee, and I would not go that way but you *could* think about including the possibility for human players to take over the lease instead of AI within the same automated feature, I assume at slightly better terms then AI but this will also get more complex for coding and we need to be careful not to end up in what we are trying to solve now...
Maybe a bit of programming work but the most important parts are already available somewhere in other parts of the game so somehow feasable?
Anyways, following DMoose's idea; happy to donate a few hours as well.
To conclude on a different note; following Monkey's idea the difficulty level of game worlds (excl. beginner's world) is usually 'normal' and that is perfectly fine, but if once in a while there would be a special challenging 'killer' game filled with unexpected events and/or heavy dirty competition... I'm in! ;D
Hi Wendy - love this suggestion. It could actually fix two things at the same time, this and another that I and many others have long asked for:-
Lets say there are two identical planes on the UM, one of then is owned by an AI reseller and the other is owned by a real airline. If I lease both aircraft, as long as I passed the minimal lease period, I have the option to instantly buy-out the plane from the AI but the insane painful way to own the other plane is off-hire it (so losing the routes it runs for 2 weeks (or more if the owner doesn't relist it right away) then bring it right back where it was. All that's needed is a tick-box in the same location as your suggestion, for the plane owner to permit the lessee to buy the plane ... then both planes have the same sensible procedures.
With your enhanced idea Wendy, your suggestion fits right in at the same time and place as that fix perhaps? This one needs to go onto the Feature Requests list imo.
PS:- I'm also in on the suggested reduced-rules "cut-throat" GW ;D
Quote from: Cornishman on January 02, 2022, 07:49:48 PM
With your enhanced idea Wendy, your suggestion fits right in at the same time and place as that fix perhaps? This one needs to go onto the Feature Requests list imo.
oh, yeah, because there isnt yet about 5 features requests for this... ;)
seriously. i absolutely agree:
- many players are happy with the game and enjoy playing it.
- i love the project, even though lately i dont find the time to join a gw, but maybe sooner or later again.
BUT
- player numbers are down (subjective view of what was there ~5 years ago
- not much VISIBLE changes were done (yes, Sami explained how in the background lots was done and new changes are going to be done soon, if timeschedules are working according to plan)
AND YES
- i would be happy to help with what i can (i cant code, but maybe some specifications/reviews or data-collection or ...)
- actually this discussion here seems motivating, because it seems there is still some passion left in the players ;)
one quick thing can be done right away in a second
low down the max price to the recommended price within alliance trades.
Quote from: MuzhikRB on January 08, 2022, 10:03:44 PM
one quick thing can be done right away in a second
low down the max price to the recommended price within alliance trades.
We have been there, done that, and there were so many valid exceptions to that rule that the limits had to be relaxed.
Quote from: JumboShrimp on January 09, 2022, 06:32:04 AM
We have been there, done that, and there were so many valid exceptions to that rule that the limits had to be relaxed.
What are some of the valid exceptions?
From my understanding, selling within alliance is more about helping with fleet transition than making profit as a pro broker. So:
- If yes, then why needs to set high price?
- If no, then why not remove the private listing option, and let the sellers make the most profit out of their ACs, as I suggested (and was told it's a bad idea)
Quote from: Mr.HP on January 09, 2022, 10:37:26 AM
What are some of the valid exceptions?
From my understanding, selling within alliance is more about helping with fleet transition than making profit as a pro broker. So:
- If yes, then why needs to set high price?
- If no, then why not remove the private listing option, and let the sellers make the most profit out of their ACs, as I suggested (and was told it's a bad idea)
More often than not it had to do with the intra alliance price range not including the price the buying airline paid for the plane. For example, I buy 100 737-800 at launch for a 36% discount. Over the next 5 years the price of a new order jumps by 50%. Now the plane I paid $40m for sells new for $105m and the lowest intra alliance price is $95m. Also can go the other way. I once ordered 747 for someone for something like $100m a piece and by the time they were delivered the Max intra alliance price was $70m.
it would be much easier, if there were a market price, that reflects how much the aircraft is worth. thats the price an aircraft should cost on the used market and it should reflect the price the manufacturer asks for (since in my experience 99% of sales are for planes when they are brandnew and to a predetermined customer). anything else should be auctioned off openly - downwards.
Quote from: Mr.HP on January 09, 2022, 10:37:26 AM
What are some of the valid exceptions?
From my understanding, selling within alliance is more about helping with fleet transition than making profit as a pro broker. So:
- If yes, then why needs to set high price?
It is typically the low price that can be a problem withing alliance. Someone described a scenario where a player orders aircraft at launch discount and then, years later, when aircraft is delivered, the "market" price can be double the book value
Quote from: Mr.HP on January 09, 2022, 10:37:26 AM
- If no, then why not remove the private listing option, and let the sellers make the most profit out of their ACs, as I suggested (and was told it's a bad idea)
This one particular would completely destroy the Quality of Life. We have been there. The 2 players would have to coordinate every single sale with Discord or something, because publicly listing a highly desirable aircraft at half of the market price would result in aircraft being stolen...
Chesterton's fence for you:
Half the problem here is that people are adding to the initial problem.
The original post is about sale and leaseback cash transfers, or just selling. Both are at high prices, and usually a cash transfer to stop one member going bust. Would it be difficult to code in that when you sell to an Alliance member you can only do it at up-to 20% more than you paid for it or market value whichever is lowest.
For instance the initial post came about, after a player paid 50mill for a plane, and sold it years later for 150mill. This is what needs to be resolved FIRST
The issue of buying planes for alliance members and selling them on is to be fair a separate issue.
I still like the idea of no changes, but adding an SQL lookup so that players can look at all aircraft transactions going back a year. That way we can police ourselves. Time to implement, 30 minutes I'd say to create a view and a read-only account.
Simon
Quote from: groundbum2 on January 10, 2022, 03:43:38 PM
I still like the idea of no changes, but adding an SQL lookup so that players can look at all aircraft transactions going back a year. That way we can police ourselves. Time to implement, 30 minutes I'd say to create a view and a read-only account.
Simon
I agree.
Some of it can already be done, by looking at player's history, but some of it is not easily found, such as when aircraft was already scrapped. Without having the MSN saved, it is hard to look it up.
Quote from: groundbum2 on January 10, 2022, 03:43:38 PM
I still like the idea of no changes, but adding an SQL lookup so that players can look at all aircraft transactions going back a year. That way we can police ourselves. Time to implement, 30 minutes I'd say to create a view and a read-only account.
Simon
Also agree with this. Sami already addressed this when it was a serious issue some 18 months ago with the best "moderate" fix that works whilst still leaving enough reason for playing the game as part of an Alliance. Just because there is 1 case now and again of someone pushing the rule to it's extremes or even a "loophole", does not mean we need to change everything for everyone. Agree with the great suggestion, we have some "moderators" to watch this and if now and again a case needs escalating to Sami by those Mods, then that's the best way forward.
Quote from: Zombie Slayer on January 09, 2022, 12:30:55 PM
More often than not it had to do with the intra alliance price range not including the price the buying airline paid for the plane. For example, I buy 100 737-800 at launch for a 36% discount. Over the next 5 years the price of a new order jumps by 50%. Now the plane I paid $40m for sells new for $105m and the lowest intra alliance price is $95m. Also can go the other way. I once ordered 747 for someone for something like $100m a piece and by the time they were delivered the Max intra alliance price was $70m.
So what ?
I was talking to low down only max price to market or recommended within alliance trades. nothing more.
It can be very unique case to transfer money via selling popular new planes that were bought at launch, the same as your 747 case.
but for used planes or not popular - it will greatly reduce the ability to manipulate. and if the player will jump out and back to alliance to avoid it - it will become clear case for punishment
So what we are saying is do a bit of code ref scrapped planes. Then invent a Moderator role so that they can escalate it to Sami?
Pretty sure individuals just escalate to Sami direct now, do they not? So the point of a Moderator is what exactly? Unless it something Sami wants I don't see the point or need.
I still don't see why we the need the ability, to sell something for three times what you we have paid for it. So why not just code that out when its a used plane. If I'm honest it looks like a lot of people like the ability to be able to do that if it stops them from going bust. That's just my interpretation but I could be wrong.
Quote from: MuzhikRB on January 11, 2022, 05:58:51 AM
So what ?
I was talking to low down only max price to market or recommended within alliance trades. nothing more.
It can be very unique case to transfer money via selling popular new planes that were bought at launch, the same as your 747 case.
but for used planes or not popular - it will greatly reduce the ability to manipulate. and if the player will jump out and back to alliance to avoid it - it will become clear case for punishment
if there would be a realistic market price: fine. but a recommended price where some airlines are gone in a minute and others stay forever is just not a market price.
after this convo this still goes on:
This plane is also due for a D check.
What I find even more amazing is its the same people doing the same things.
If so it would be kind of a slap in the face of the game, and it's creator