Poll: Next game world

[LemonButt]

sami--I assume there is a global function to interact with the database for slots, something like checkSlots(<airport>).  Would it be fairly easy to setup a game world where instead of checkSlots(<airport>) you have checkSlots(<player>) and each player would have their own exclusive slot pool?  Players wouldn't need to buy slots at the destination airport--only at their base.

I think it would be interesting to see how a game world would turn out if every player had the same # of slots regardless of the airports they are based at.  They would increase gradually over time as they do now, but it would be a truly level playing field to see who can generate the biggest returns on a fixed resource.  So if the starting slots are 10/hour for each player, you could have 1 player or 20 players starting at LHR and each player would have the same resources (slots) at their disposal.

This would also teach players how to be a good steward of resources.  There is nothing that upsets me more than being at a slot constrained airport where an hour will have 0 slots available except for Saturday which will have some ridiculous number like 20 slots left because players don't know how to stagger their B-checks.  If players had their own slot pool, they could still do this, but it would be at their own peril.

[Jona L.]

If not the next couple of days, hopefully on the next weekend...weekdays are always a pain because not all of us can easily access and do our assessment for HQ location in the middle of the week.  Maybe veteran players have no issue as they've already sussed out the airports.

3 Options...

a) pre-plan your base like about 80% of us
b) have your alliance assign you a base if you are uncertain, and your alliance is decent enough to do that kind of planning
c) go anywhere, and restart once you get home... you have a 24hr hole anyways

[Jona L.]

sami--I assume there is a global function to interact with the database for slots, something like checkSlots(<airport>).  Would it be fairly easy to setup a game world where instead of checkSlots(<airport>) you have checkSlots(<player>) and each player would have their own exclusive slot pool?  Players wouldn't need to buy slots at the destination airport--only at their base.

I think it would be interesting to see how a game world would turn out if every player had the same # of slots regardless of the airports they are based at.  They would increase gradually over time as they do now, but it would be a truly level playing field to see who can generate the biggest returns on a fixed resource.  So if the starting slots are 10/hour for each player, you could have 1 player or 20 players starting at LHR and each player would have the same resources (slots) at their disposal.

This would also teach players how to be a good steward of resources.  There is nothing that upsets me more than being at a slot constrained airport where an hour will have 0 slots available except for Saturday which will have some ridiculous number like 20 slots left because players don't know how to stagger their B-checks.  If players had their own slot pool, they could still do this, but it would be at their own peril.

And this is the least bit realistic for what reason?

THIS IS A SIMULATION, NOT A SANDBOX COMMIE GAME.

Edit:
And about the Saturday slots... LIVE WITH IT.

If you can't manage to run LHR, don't go there. easy thing. I did LHR all the time, loved it there. Now I don't have the time anymore (especially with slots not coming out JAN 01 every year)... I simply don't play LHR anymore.

[lilius]

sami--I assume there is a global function to interact with the database for slots, something like checkSlots(<airport>).  Would it be fairly easy to setup a game world where instead of checkSlots(<airport>) you have checkSlots(<player>) and each player would have their own exclusive slot pool?  Players wouldn't need to buy slots at the destination airport--only at their base.

I think it would be interesting to see how a game world would turn out if every player had the same # of slots regardless of the airports they are based at.  They would increase gradually over time as they do now, but it would be a truly level playing field to see who can generate the biggest returns on a fixed resource.  So if the starting slots are 10/hour for each player, you could have 1 player or 20 players starting at LHR and each player would have the same resources (slots) at their disposal.

This would also teach players how to be a good steward of resources.  There is nothing that upsets me more than being at a slot constrained airport where an hour will have 0 slots available except for Saturday which will have some ridiculous number like 20 slots left because players don't know how to stagger their B-checks.  If players had their own slot pool, they could still do this, but it would be at their own peril.

This is such a cool idea and should be tested sometime! Hope that we get the ultra long gameworld for this time but a shorter one with this type of test would be really interesting.

[lilius]

And this is the least bit realistic for what reason?

THIS IS A SIMULATION, NOT A SANDBOX COMMIE GAME.

Edit:
And about the Saturday slots... LIVE WITH IT.

If you can't manage to run LHR, don't go there. easy thing. I did LHR all the time, loved it there. Now I don't have the time anymore (especially with slots not coming out JAN 01 every year)... I simply don't play LHR anymore.

Sami asked for ideas. This is one of them. "Live with it" 

[LemonButt]

I get the feeling people are going to hate any idea I come up with, simply because it came from me.

P.S.  If terminals ever get implemented, it would work this same exact way.

[dmoose42]

Lemonbutt, I may not like all your ideas - but I am a fan of the terminal idea...

[LemonButt]

And this is the least bit realistic for what reason?

And also this is realistic because IRL airlines don't have free run on gates.  They typically have assigned gates/terminals/concourses and if they are underutilized or go completely underutilized, then it is a lost opportunity.  Imagine going to the jetBlue terminal at JFK on the last Saturday of the month and it is a ghost town with zero flights, zero pax, and zero employees in the terminal because every aircraft in the fleet is undergoing a B-check that day.

I also can't control who flies into the airports I choose to base at.  I can stagger my B-checks etc, but if there are other players using up slots there will almost always be "empty terminals" on Saturday because as I mentioned, many players aren't good stewards of resources and don't stagger their B-checks.

[Jona L.]

And also this is realistic because IRL airlines don't have free run on gates.  They typically have assigned gates/terminals/concourses and if they are underutilized or go completely underutilized, then it is a lost opportunity.  Imagine going to the jetBlue terminal at JFK on the last Saturday of the month and it is a ghost town with zero flights, zero pax, and zero employees in the terminal because every aircraft in the fleet is undergoing a B-check that day.

I also can't control who flies into the airports I choose to base at.  I can stagger my B-checks etc, but if there are other players using up slots there will almost always be "empty terminals" on Saturday because as I mentioned, many players aren't good stewards of resources and don't stagger their B-checks.

IRL B-checks aren't all done in the last week of the month either But meh, I learned to live with it.

And this assigned terminal stuff isn't valid for all airports either. In some airports an airline or alliance will have a designated terminal, but often they payed a lot for that overhead.

E.g. in DUS the A-Terminal is LH only and a few of the *A partners may use it, too. But that is only so, because in 1996, when the airport burned down, LH also put in a major part of the financing for rebuilding the A-Terminal, and to date pays a lot for it to be LH/*A only.

Terminals B and C are used for ALL airlines, and none have assigned gates (except Emirates and Etihad which pay quite a sum to get the same gates everyday).

So if you want to have this included, a lot of steps have to be taken first.

a) Airlines must be allowed to build/buy/lease whole terminals (at accordingly high cost of course)
b) Alliances must be able to build/buy/lease whole terminals (to be used by alliance members at a rate payed to an ALLIANCE account, from which new terminals can be build/bought/leased)
c) to make "b)" work: alliance accounts, to be filled with the member fees, and used to deduct cost of terminal maintenance, and buy/lease cost etc.
d) Airport slots must become leased equity or buyable, and if buyable also sellable. E.g. airlines IRL sell slots to each other, too.
e) Airport growth must become dynamic, i.e. an airport with a lot of unused slots should not grow, since it is not utilized, and an airport with few/no available slots should continue to grow, in order to accommodate the need for more traffic.

Though points b) and c) are more or less optional, they would still be a nice addition, once we are at the whole matter.

I didn't say I generally dislike your ideas either, I just dislike ideas (from anyone) that are not thought through to the end.
I am overall on the line with you about terminals there, but a slightly altered sight at it (see points above).


cheers,
[SC] Jona L.

[lilius]

IRL B-checks aren't all done in the last week of the month either But meh, I learned to live with it.

And this assigned terminal stuff isn't valid for all airports either. In some airports an airline or alliance will have a designated terminal, but often they payed a lot for that overhead.

E.g. in DUS the A-Terminal is LH only and a few of the *A partners may use it, too. But that is only so, because in 1996, when the airport burned down, LH also put in a major part of the financing for rebuilding the A-Terminal, and to date pays a lot for it to be LH/*A only.

Terminals B and C are used for ALL airlines, and none have assigned gates (except Emirates and Etihad which pay quite a sum to get the same gates everyday).

So if you want to have this included, a lot of steps have to be taken first.

a) Airlines must be allowed to build/buy/lease whole terminals (at accordingly high cost of course)
b) Alliances must be able to build/buy/lease whole terminals (to be used by alliance members at a rate payed to an ALLIANCE account, from which new terminals can be build/bought/leased)
c) to make "b)" work: alliance accounts, to be filled with the member fees, and used to deduct cost of terminal maintenance, and buy/lease cost etc.
d) Airport slots must become leased equity or buyable, and if buyable also sellable. E.g. airlines IRL sell slots to each other, too.
e) Airport growth must become dynamic, i.e. an airport with a lot of unused slots should not grow, since it is not utilized, and an airport with few/no available slots should continue to grow, in order to accommodate the need for more traffic.

Though points b) and c) are more or less optional, they would still be a nice addition, once we are at the whole matter.

I didn't say I generally dislike your ideas either, I just dislike ideas (from anyone) that are not thought through to the end.
I am overall on the line with you about terminals there, but a slightly altered sight at it (see points above).


cheers,
[SC] Jona L.

When someone wants to experiment a little, embrace it...

Its just for one game, its not the end of the world if it doesnt pan out as the best thing ever.

[LemonButt]

The point of terminals would not only be to reflect real life better, but also to force players to run a more realistic airline.  If you want the game to reflect reality better, step one would be forcing players to not only buy takeoff slots, but also landing slots which would make the game virtually unplayable.

As I mentioned, I am based at Paris - Orly which is closed from 23-04.  The number of flights that land at 4am everyday would delay every flight taking off the rest of the day as I think at least half my fleet lands at 4am everyday.  The more realistic part would be forcing players to spread their flights throughout the day versus having every flight takeoff at 5am.  If a player only has 5 slots avail in the 05/06/07/08 hours versus being able to use 20 slots in the 05 hour alone, this is much more realistic.

BTW the terminals idea has been fleshed out way further in the Feature Requests forum.  The idea for a gameworld is giving every player the same resources and seeing who can utilize them best.  I also don't appreciate being called a communist repeatedly by people on this forum considering all my ideas are based on equal opportunity versus equal results (i.e. communism).  Many players believe competition = scorched earth versus actually competing and beating the competition with strategy, so push-back on ideas that provide players with equal opportunity to compete is expected.

[ucfknightryan]

sami--I assume there is a global function to interact with the database for slots, something like checkSlots(<airport>).  Would it be fairly easy to setup a game world where instead of checkSlots(<airport>) you have checkSlots(<player>) and each player would have their own exclusive slot pool?  Players wouldn't need to buy slots at the destination airport--only at their base.

I think it would be interesting to see how a game world would turn out if every player had the same # of slots regardless of the airports they are based at.  They would increase gradually over time as they do now, but it would be a truly level playing field to see who can generate the biggest returns on a fixed resource.  So if the starting slots are 10/hour for each player, you could have 1 player or 20 players starting at LHR and each player would have the same resources (slots) at their disposal.

This would also teach players how to be a good steward of resources.  There is nothing that upsets me more than being at a slot constrained airport where an hour will have 0 slots available except for Saturday which will have some ridiculous number like 20 slots left because players don't know how to stagger their B-checks.  If players had their own slot pool, they could still do this, but it would be at their own peril.

The big issue I see with this is that under the current demand system it will put the players at larger airports at a huge disadvantage on routes to smaller airports, as they will almost certainly have to fly bigger metal even on short routes due to limited slots relative to demand at the big airport, while the airline at the smaller airport will not be so constrained. Unless the slots available to each player are at a high enough level that they're basically unlimited in which case what's the point of even having slots?  I also suspect the end result of not needing slots at the destination airport would be that every single airline in LHR goes broke always, since everyone else in the world will inevitably bomb that route to 100%.

I also suspect that under this system you'd see lots of collusion among airlines at the same base since they'd be unable to dominate the airport themselves, they'd just gang up to attack other players.  Who would then be unable to fight back on their own, because they're unable to get the slots to do so even if they could get the aircraft and money.

[Mr.HP]

The big issue I see with this is that under the current demand system it will put the players at larger airports at a huge disadvantage on routes to smaller airports

And why should players at larger airports have advantage on routes to smaller airports? They've already had big demand to/from a lot of vacant small airports

If it turns out that basing at large airports is becoming too difficult, then everyone will change strategy, and basing at 2nd and below tier airports

[ucfknightryan]

And why should players at larger airports have advantage on routes to smaller airports? They've already had big demand to/from a lot of vacant small airports

If it turns out that basing at large airports is becoming too difficult, then everyone will change strategy, and basing at 2nd and below tier airports

If everyone is avoiding big airports it would be a sign the game has been broken.  Badly.

Also I never said players at larger airports should have an advantage over the airlines at smaller airports on the routes between them.  I said that the players at the smaller airports should not have an advantage over the player at the larger. Those are not the same thing.

[Mr.HP]

You didn't, but the fact is large airports are always crowded, because they offer more advantages and benefits than small airports do. So, IMO, no need for making the big airlines there even more beneficial

[Jona L.]

BTW the terminals idea has been fleshed out way further in the Feature Requests forum.  The idea for a gameworld is giving every player the same resources and seeing who can utilize them best.  I also don't appreciate being called a communist repeatedly by people on this forum considering all my ideas are based on equal opportunity versus equal results (i.e. communism).  Many players believe competition = scorched earth versus actually competing and beating the competition with strategy, so push-back on ideas that provide players with equal opportunity to compete is expected.

And I think that in AWS competition has been decreased to hoping that your competitor is too stupid to take a dump, and you hope he gets bored and you can rund your airline after that. Prices, seat quality, speed, CI and these "small" factors are just not strong enough in AWS. It has come to the point where it is virtually impossible to really compete with someone till he dies.

And your idea would not change that fact. It would merely make us have more players in LHR, all being equally rich, and non could take out each other.

IRL airlines do not compete for who can maximize utilization of his resources, they compete for maximization of market share, thus profits. The result of the continuing growth is that airlines have to do resource management, once they run out.
But e.g. AB and LH would not sit at a table saying "you get 20 PAX more per slot used than us, so you win, congratulations". LH will merely say: We pushed you out of the market with better service, better connections, better frequent-traveler advantages, etc. WE WIN. The ultimate result being: AB is broke, and soon to become "Etihad Europe" (just predicting the future here, seeing it all happen close up).

Airlines nowadays have to maximize the utilization of what they have, true. but they had 50 years and more to secure the slots they have now. And they don't take more because there are none, not because the airport says "you have 10 slots that hour, sorry, we don't give you any of the 30 other free ones".

In AWS slot control is so far the only way to keep competition small.

I hope you do see my point.

I notice, that you have a different idea of competition, but we play a game/sim that projects one of the most cut throat businesses there are in the world (except maybe hitmen, which cut throats more often), so accept the fact, that in this industry competition does mean "scorched earth" as you put it. And it is not the happy colorful "we are family" idea you seem to have on this. (See? I can call you something else than a commie, too ).

If you want to play without trouble and compete where you want, open up in some Polynesian airfield, and fly 10 seaters between islands. You can make your airline as realistic as you like .


And for the record, I try to make 7-day-scheduling as much as possible, increasing fleet utilization, and also moving the A/B-checks through the week.

When someone wants to experiment a little, embrace it...

Its just for one game, its not the end of the world if it doesnt pan out as the best thing ever.

As for this:

The community has clearly vote for a long GW, so this is out of the question. If someone wants to experiment "a bit" which in this case would mean to change the whole game mechanic, use a testserver, and not a full featured GW for this, which the whole community embraces.

If everyone is avoiding big airports it would be a sign the game has been broken.  Badly.

Agreed!

cheers,
[SC] Jona L.

[[SC] - King Kong]

Where is my like button?

[ezzeqiel]

In AWS slot control is so far the only way to keep competition small.

To me that means the game's broken... it's not a sign that the game is working...

I notice, that you have a different idea of competition, but we play a game/sim that projects one of the most cut throat businesses there are in the world (except maybe hitmen, which cut throats more often), so accept the fact, that in this industry competition does mean "scorched earth" as you put it. And it is not the happy colorful "we are family" idea you seem to have on this. (See? I can call you something else than a commie, too ).

Current slot system is a lot more commie to me than the system lemonbutt suggested many times...

I remember him asking (in several posts and along other people like me), a free market slot system (the same thing I requested on this thread several posts earlier), just as RL is...


Do you really think there's no price on this world that would make LHR expand ?? of course there is a price... EVERYTHING in this world has a price... this fictional cap on AWS slots and the first come first serve thing is a lot more commie than a free market based slot system with terminals and unlimited slots implemented...

(of course in practice the slots will be limited to the astronomical price, but theoretically they are unlimited)

The community has clearly vote for a long GW, so this is out of the question. If someone wants to experiment "a bit" which in this case would mean to change the whole game mechanic, use a testserver, and not a full featured GW for this, which the whole community embraces.

IF sami creates an "experimental" game world, you are free to join or not to join... it does not need to be a special test server... it's an experimental world... you don't like, stick to the "modern times" world (which I don't like)

[Sami]

The starting game world will use 'standard' settings. Possible shorter scenario later on (next month) could have some special stuff then, depending on the ideas.

Starting date of the next scenario will be this Friday btw. News will be posted shortly.

[lilius]

The community has clearly vote for a long GW, so this is out of the question. If someone wants to experiment "a bit" which in this case would mean to change the whole game mechanic, use a testserver, and not a full featured GW for this, which the whole community embraces.

We will have JA, DOTM, MT and now the "new world" and all running with normal settings. If 1 of 4 or 5 was one with some experimenting and twists that could create some challenge for us I dont think it would matter that much.