Rules about Allied Basing and Targeting

[vitongwangki]

Today I have learnt a lesson from Sami.

He told us some rules about two members of same alliance could do on opening base in an airport.

1. Same alliance cannot supply routes more than 200% of demand.
...



no more indeed.

How could you complain if more than one member from same alliance come to attack you, even you are the only one in that airport?

The answer is no. Even they have 4 or even 6 come to attack on you, you have no way to object.

Sami, Sigma or EYguy, feel free to make correction and explanation.



I guess in every gameworld there will be bloody war, between alliance, or Alliance to free players. I will respect the decision of management and go all the way where management allows.

[JumboShrimp]

How could you complain if more than one member from same alliance come to attack you, even you are the only one in that airport?

The answer is no. Even they have 4 or even 6 come to attack on you, you have no way to object.

Smaller airline have always been subject to all out competition.  Until v1.3, big airlines were completely shielded from competition, hiding behind the Top 20 Airport basing restriction.   Version 1.3 opened things up a bit, but big airlines still don't face the same competition that small airlines do.

A big airline of 500+ aircraft could compete with 6 bases of 100 aircraft and still not face the same level of competition that a small 50 aircraft airline faces when someone opens a base and bases 100 aircraft at the base.

For those who like to play in a sandbox, there is always HKG, SIN, TPE, BKK...

[vitongwangki]

Smaller airline have always been subject to all out competition.  Until v1.3, big airlines were completely shielded from competition, hiding behind the Top 20 Airport basing restriction.   Version 1.3 opened things up a bit, but big airlines still don't face the same competition that small airlines do.

A big airline of 500+ aircraft could compete with 6 bases of 100 aircraft and still not face the same level of competition that a small 50 aircraft airline faces when someone opens a base and bases 100 aircraft at the base.

For those who like to play in a sandbox, there is always HKG, SIN, TPE, BKK...

Then how about one 500 planes company facing 3 or 4 500 planes company?

[Sami]

Okay, I sort of knew that you will start a public debate about this. Thing seems to be that alliance 1 opened bases at an airport where airline from alliance 2 was already based. Then later airline from alliance 2 opened base to an airport where airline from alliance 1 based. So everyone is basing everywhere and both sides are complaining to me...

I investigated one case a bit closer, with following results:

- Told that everyone is free to open base anywhere. No restrictions about that, apart what the system sets for available airports.

- Airline or alliance may not supply over 200% of the estimated demand.

- Airline or alliance may not directly target another airline on his routes.
  - Now this is where it gets tricky. I know that you guys at alliances are directly trying to compete with each others and try to take each others down. And partly this seems to have crossed the limit of good taste already. So I would wish a bit better standing from alliances to this matter.....

  - However from the standpoint of the rules; if you open a base to an airport where an other airline already is you MUST open routes to destinations he is NOT serving too, this was made clear to both parties. So you cannot just open routes to all the destinations the other airline serves as that would be just targeting him.

  - However ... if the airline is dominant at that airport and flies to 90% (or more) of possible destinations it becomes tricky. The airline could be so dominant that there simply are no 'free' routes left, so every route you open would be considered targeting him since there are no choices.. Doesn't really make sense doesn't it? (ie. to become immune to competition you should fill every route from that airport)

I guess in every gameworld there will be bloody war, between alliance, or Alliance to free players. I will respect the decision of management and go all the way where management allows.

Would also like to add that it's not a good idea to start fooling around. The basic rules are above and should be rather clear in my mind and there is no need to start twisting my words in a way that is most favourable to some occasion. But to give an example, if let's say 6 airlines of the same alliance suddenly appear to the same airport then there is something wrong and that's something I'd put to immediate halt - since it's way beyond normal.


Seems that some of you have forgotten all about the spirit of fair play and I would like to remind of it (as I would not like to pose even more restrictions to alliances). https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Manual/General/Rules/#Playing

[vitongwangki]

  - However from the standpoint of the rules; if you open a base to an airport where an other airline already is you MUST open routes to destinations he is NOT serving too. So you cannot just open routes to all the destinations the other airline serves as that would be just targeting him. However if the airline is dominant at that airport and flies to 9/10 of possible destinations it becomes tricky. The airline could be so dominant that there simply are no 'free' routes left, so every route you open would be considered targeting him since there are no choices.. Doesn't really make sense doesn't it? (ie. to become immune to competition you should fill every route from that airport)

I guess if the dominant airline is free to allied attack on, then the bloody war between those giants will happened. And to win the game, they need to have more number in the same country or region, to kick the giants out of the game.

On the other hand, what you mean is if an airline based in small airport dominated almost all possible routes, he is free to be attacked, even in allied way?

[JumboShrimp]

Then how about one 500 planes company facing 3 or 4 500 planes company?

Still, nowhere near the level of competition when a 500 aircraft company opens a base HQ of 50 aircraft company.  Which happens every day.

Perhaps under the rules that allow more competition, airlines will compete with other airlines their size, instead of squashing small companies...

[vitongwangki]

Still, nowhere near the level of competition when a 500 aircraft company opens a base HQ of 50 aircraft company.  Which happens every day.

Perhaps under the rules that allow more competition, airlines will compete with other airlines their size, instead of squashing small companies...

That's real-life but not AWS, as you always say AWS doesn't necessary reflect the real-life. I guess if strategically I want to give competition to a certain player, I can use allied basing also, according to Sami's judging once I can find some free routes.

[stevecree]

What I cannot understand is when SC moved 2 airlines into FRA against a small Elite airline I raised the issue....SC defended the move...and my concerns dismissed.

So how can you defend it when you do it, but complain when someone does it to you ?

Sami has spoken now....we know what we can and cannot do....so let's just get on with the game all being aware that we are not immune to competition from maybe more than one competing airline, as long as the lines Sami has drawn are not crossed.

[Kadachiman]

What is the average age of an AWS player? 12?
Because that is how most of you act when it comes to complaining about alliances - and that is regardless of which alliance you belong to.

Grow up people and enjoy the game and enjoy your alliance for what it was intended for, and that is to help each other get the most out of this game.
At the moment you are carrying on like a bunch of primary school girls.

PS - If you don't like my comments then ask me to leave the alliance I am in if you want to, as I joined to learn more about the game and to get more enjoyment from the game, not to get involved in worthless arguments.

Regards Darryl

[Peanutoil]

What I cannot understand is when SC moved 2 airlines into FRA against a small Elite airline I raised the issue....SC defended the move...and my concerns dismissed.

So how can you defend it when you do it, but complain when someone does it to you ?

Sami has spoken now....we know what we can and cannot do....so let's just get on with the game all being aware that we are not immune to competition from maybe more than one competing airline, as long as the lines Sami has drawn are not crossed.

I tried to be polite here. But i need SAC to be clear with some points before we have a discussion. Let me show you the difference between two situation.

1. Blackburn Air has much routes without serving and I'm going to serve them. at least ten routes I started were not served by Blackburn. But this time msir (REAL air) 100% copy my routes while Jetcity flies only few of them (<5 when i send the PM to Sami) You can see the difference.
2. The time for LLL and Me opening base in FRA was separated for at least 3 years as i remember. But this time Herman and msir opens in CDG only barely over one year range.

Sami is now making the things clearer but it still needs further clarification.
1. How would you define normal or abnormal move? It is normal for an alliance to have 2 member opening same base under your current decision. What meant by "beyond normal"? Please gives us objective numbers otherwise it will become dictating but not managing.

Finally, I know Sami did much work on trying to make the game better. Please keep it up!

[Sami]

Defining what is normal and what is not is not easy. And to give preset rules for every occasion is not possible.

But off the top of my head I would say that 3 airlines from the same alliance at any given airport is too much. And if two airlines from same alliance open bases at a third airport they shouldn't do it at the same time (several months apart, a year perhaps?).

[stevecree]

Finally, I know Sami did much work on trying to make the game better. Please keep it up!

+1 to that

[Sanabas]

Defining what is normal and what is not is not easy. And to give preset rules for every occasion is not possible.

But off the top of my head I would say that 3 airlines from the same alliance at any given airport is too much. And if two airlines from same alliance open bases at a third airport they shouldn't do it at the same time (several months apart, a year perhaps?).

I would suggest that if two airlines from the same alliance are in the same airport, then they shouldn't have ANY routes in common from that base.

[stevecree]

So by taking the info in this thread we can say no more than 2 airlines from the same alliance in the same base.  The bases should be opened at least 12 months apart.  Routes should not all target a based airline if at all possible. Plus two airlines from the same alliance should not serve more than 200% demand combined on the same route. Make sense ?

[alexgv1]

For those who like to play in a sandbox, there is always HKG, SIN, TPE, BKK...

Sandbox?! Try saying that when I had to clean up my "sandbox" at TPE after the bloodbath with LSAIR... one of the most epic battles I've had.

You really do stick your nose in it too far.

[JumboShrimp]

I would suggest that if two airlines from the same alliance are in the same airport, then they shouldn't have ANY routes in common from that base.

There is already a limit of 200% of demand per airline.  If 2 airlines from the same alliance are flying that route (regardless of where they are based), all flights by the same alliance are treated as if they were by the same airline (subject to 200% limit).  That rule is already in effect.  I don't know if it is only verbal or system enforced.  But, IMO, it is a good enough rule, and it is universal (meaning, it applies regardless of where the airlines are based).

If there is already a rule in place that does the job, I am not sure if we need another rule that does exactly the same job.  It would just make Sami's job more difficult...

[JumboShrimp]

Sandbox?! Try saying that when I had to clean up my "sandbox" at TPE after the bloodbath with LSAIR... one of the most epic battles I've had.

Of course I meant after an airline dominates those "sandbox" airports.

[alexgv1]

Of course I meant after an airline dominates those "sandbox" airports.

I don't feel to guilty if I've earnt that sandbox... 

[Sanabas]

There is already a limit of 200% of demand per airline.  If 2 airlines from the same alliance are flying that route (regardless of where they are based), all flights by the same alliance are treated as if they were by the same airline (subject to 200% limit).  That rule is already in effect.  I don't know if it is only verbal or system enforced.  But, IMO, it is a good enough rule, and it is universal (meaning, it applies regardless of where the airlines are based).

If there is already a rule in place that does the job, I am not sure if we need another rule that does exactly the same job.  It would just make Sami's job more difficult...

The 200% limit isn't a clearcut number (because demand isn't a clearcut number, because you're not sure exactly what seating arrangement your alliancemate has, etc), and I'm 99% certain the system doesn't automatically pick it up the way it does 200% from a single airline (I *think* LFPO-LLBG in JA has over 200% between my 2 flights and western global's 2 flights. I'm not sure though.) So any violation of it would need to be reported & manually looked at, and there's plenty of scope for saying 'we thought we were only at 190%/I reported them because I thought they were over 200%'. Simply saying that 2 airlines in the same base can't share a route is far less ambiguous, should only be correctly reported, far quicker to check if it gets reported, and not open to misinterpretation.

[vitongwangki]

Defining what is normal and what is not is not easy. And to give preset rules for every occasion is not possible.

But off the top of my head I would say that 3 airlines from the same alliance at any given airport is too much. And if two airlines from same alliance open bases at a third airport they shouldn't do it at the same time (several months apart, a year perhaps?).

I would say if in some large airport, 200 planes isn't enough to serve half of the demand. I think the limit should lift up in some big airports (maybe top 50 airports?)