3 ways to make a new Game World suck and easy way to avoid them

[JumboShrimp]

These are just a couple of 100% downside, 0% upside items.  Feel free to add your own

1. Start the game world with 7 out of 10 useful production lines closed, let 600 airlines all fight for 3 useful production lines.

I have seen this countless times, mainly in 1960s opening dates, but also in Modern Times games.  It has surely caused a number of rage-quit moments.  GW1 is a perfect example, with all but one turbo prop lines closed, 600 players fighting for 3 jet production lines.

Solution: For a Game World start, add 10 years to closing date of every production line.  Let players determine which production line remain open, which ones close (by not getting any orders), rather than somewhat flawed game world generation process.
There could be a case of randomly closing a single popular line, forcing players to re-thing their strategy, but closing 7 out of 10 is just an exercise of frustration, not of creativity in strategy.  There are just no strategies or variations with most variables taken off the table (for no good reason).


2. With majority of useful production lines closed, make the storage of UM market nearly empty of useful and popular aircraft

Example: GW1 storage has a ratio of cargo only to passenger aircraft of 4:1, even 5:1 (in 1965 when there is no cargo) for certain production lines.
47 DC-7B
vs.
628 DC-7BF on UM

Solution: Test and Adjust


3. Make ratio of aircraft released on 24 hour Day 1 different than Day 2 or Day X.

Because, what is the best way to reward customers who pre-registered and are waiting in line to get started then to have only lemons available on UM.
While it was the most egregious in current GW2, where everyone who started on Day 1 got screwed, I consistently have seen scenario of, for example A330s in MT Game Worlds in storage, held in storage for year or more - to age them, I guess?

Solution: Test the new GW for a few days.  Without making this a huge project, just eyeball of the ratio of passenger aircraft in fleet groups released should be roughly constant, proportional to what is in storage.   Whatever code there is that breaks the proportional release of aircraft from storage is ill-advised and should be scrapped.  Because there has to be code to make things work badly, without specific code to make things worse, the system would just release aircraft from storage proportionally.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know how automated the process of creating a new game world is, but I think it is worth doing some debugging / tweaking of the Game World generation process to improve playability, reduce needless frustration

[gazzz0x2z]

upvoted for point 1. point 2 & 3 can be interesting challenges, but there is no workaround for point 1. If you can't buy anything new, you can't plan any strategy.

[JumboShrimp]

upvoted for point 1. point 2 & 3 can be interesting challenges, but there is no workaround for point 1. If you can't buy anything new, you can't plan any strategy.

I can see 2 being a challenge if 1 is false, in other words, nearly empty UM with every "new" relevant production choice being open.  But combination of both 1 and 2 is recipe for a very frustrating game start.

re: #3
I think it should follow that if the UM stock (hopefully proportional to real world ratio of aircraft produced), if the UM stock 10% of Fleet A, or, say 5% of Fleet A Model 1, it should be a reasonable for the player to assume that this aircraft will appear on UM in the same proportion on day 1, and every other day.

UM stock is an open book, if you know probability theory, you should be able to apply probability theory.

Well, there has been in the past, and there certainly was as recently as 6 months ago some code in the system that breaks this expectation.  As I am sure you recall, GW2 started with only DC-3 and Curtiss-Wright C-46 Commando as the only choices on Day 1, and then everything else on Day 2.

This does not happen by accident.  There is some code in the system that made it happen.  The same code is responsible for vast majority of irrational acting of the UM brokers.  My point is that this code should be removed.

Let me give you another, more benign, mid game example: The AI broker ends up with an order in the most highly demanded production line, in a production slot with cancelled order.  Next, the AI broker keeps this most highly demanded aircraft in storage for 5 years, and then on year 6, places it for the first time on UM with 0 miles, 0 landings.  Or, like 5 of the aircraft exactly the same (demonstrating pattern).  Kept in storage for 5 years because of some errant code.  This code just needs to be removed before it creates another disaster like the Game 2 start.  The aircraft should have equal probability of appearing on the UM when it is 1 day old, 5 years old, 20 years old.  And players should expect equal treatment of all aircraft, and make rational plans based on this rational expectation.

[SP7]

upvoted for point 1. point 2 & 3 can be interesting challenges, but there is no workaround for point 1. If you can't buy anything new, you can't plan any strategy.

In GW1 there are 1,500 DC-6BFs and only 600 passenger DC-6/A/Bs. There are even worse rations for DC-3F to 3 (1376 vs 300), C-46 (650-90). Cargo volume is so small that a single freighter between most city pairs is far and above the current potential demand.

The proportion of useful vs useless planes under AI control is the worst I've seen in my limited experience. It's so bad that 20 year old L-049 Connies that cost $400k to C-check are snapped up on the UM.

This has had the effect of making fleet choices more homogeneous. You have to go into jets because they're the only production lines open and there aren't any useful aircraft on the UM.

[gazzz0x2z]

(.../...)This has had the effect of making fleet choices more homogeneous. You have to go into jets because they're the only production lines open and there aren't any useful aircraft on the UM.

Which is very sad, as variety of strategies is an important things in the interest of the game(twice I flew 600+ A148, it was very fun, but also very efficient. A strategy usually noone does use).

[Alpha]

These are just a couple of 100% downside, 0% upside items.  Feel free to add your own

1. Start the game world with 7 out of 10 useful production lines closed, let 600 airlines all fight for 3 useful production lines.

I have seen this countless times, mainly in 1960s opening dates, but also in Modern Times games.  It has surely caused a number of rage-quit moments.  GW1 is a perfect example, with all but one turbo prop lines closed, 600 players fighting for 3 jet production lines.

Solution: For a Game World start, add 10 years to closing date of every production line.  Let players determine which production line remain open, which ones close (by not getting any orders), rather than somewhat flawed game world generation process.
There could be a case of randomly closing a single popular line, forcing players to re-thing their strategy, but closing 7 out of 10 is just an exercise of frustration, not of creativity in strategy.  There are just no strategies or variations with most variables taken off the table (for no good reason).

Agreed. Every time i play in a modern world (including the latest BW2), the DC-9 line always miraculously remained open at the beginning at the worlds , when its sons (Super 80s) and grandsons (MD-90 / 717) have been dead. I always wonder why is this so. Why does the god of sami-random seemed to prefer the Diesel 9 over its descendants?

The suggested solution would have more or less improved the issue of having too little choice (esp in the late 90s - mid 10s) where the only two reasonable options for 100 - 200 seat category are the 737 and 320.


(btw I would have built an airline with the Diesel had there been no noise restrictions all over the place. I am a huge fan of the Diesel, not so of the Super 80s and MD-90s)

[knobbygb]

As for point 1 above - that was always going to be an issue starting in 1965 - which we voted for remember?  It's just at the crossover of prop to jet and, to be honest, I consider 1965 too late to be ordering DC6, Connie, Britannia anyway - I wouldn't have done even if they were available. 1960 would have worked much better.

I agree with point 2 - that the aircraft selection contained way too many 'useless' cargo models, but actually, because of the high slot prices it's been a much slower start to the game anyway with more time to think and react.  A LOT more people than usual BK'd after the first few weeks and had to start again and rethink their strategy. I think it's worked out OK.  Perhaps some of those cargo models could have been removed, but I don't think there's been more of a shortage of good aircraft than in any other game - with the limit on affordable slots taken into account.  The balance between 707 and DC-8 on the UM was strange - something like 900+ pax 707 vs fewer than 80 DC-8 but.... well, deal with it!  It's been an interesting and rewarding challenge.

[JumboShrimp]

As for point 1 above - that was always going to be an issue starting in 1965 - which we voted for remember?  It's just at the crossover of prop to jet and, to be honest, I consider 1965 too late to be ordering DC6, Connie, Britannia anyway - I wouldn't have done even if they were available. 1960 would have worked much better.

Not just those 3 production lines, but another perhaps 10 of the best prop production line and a number all of the early jet production lines (Corvair, Comet) were closed.  This aircraft may not be ideal, but a brand new, Connie, DC-7, Comet vs. 20 year old equivalent make a huge difference.  Just 3 of these 10-15 potential production lines could have accommodated 200+ players who are languishing.

Languishing how?
- Nearly half the players (220+) have not been able to accumulate more than 15 aircraft.  If I had statistics about those who left the game out of frustration, it would be well over 1/2, IMO
- Nearly half of the players (200) are making less than 100k per week in profits.  They are probably all doomed, since they are not earning cash to order aircraft, and if they finally accumulate cash after 2-3 months, the earliest delivery is 2+ years, probably after their bankruptcies.

900+ pax 707

This single model probably saved the game world.  So there was basically 1 strategy for being very profitable.  Is that good when there is only 1 strategy, as opposed to 100 different strategies?

[Zobelle]

Agreed.

The 707 as inefficient as it is put my company on the map before I decided to refocus my market and divest of the models I held.

[knobbygb]

If I had statistics about those who left the game out of frustration, it would be well over 1/2, IMO

Well, there are currently 525 players. The original limit was 570 I think,so... hardly!

Nearly half the players (220+) have not been able to accumulate more than 15 aircraft.
Nearly half of the players (200) are making less than 100k per week in profits.  They are probably all doomed, since they are not earning cash to order aircraft, and if they finally accumulate cash after 2-3 months, the earliest delivery is 2+ years, probably after their bankruptcies.

Well, I've "been able" to accumulate 116 aircraft so far, even after a BK and restart (all good stuff, no junk), so maybe they're just not very good players and deserve to be doomed? I don't mean that in a nasty way - just that they can improve and maybe do better next time. The best way to learn the game is by failures.

It's been a tough challenge. The game is usually too easy. Bring it on!

[Talentz]

Well, there are currently 525 players. The original limit was 570 I think,so... hardly!

Well, I've "been able" to accumulate 116 aircraft so far, even after a BK and restart (all good stuff, no junk), so maybe they're just not very good players and deserve to be doomed? I don't mean that in a nasty way - just that they can improve and maybe do better next time. The best way to learn the game is by failures.

It's been a tough challenge. The game is usually too easy. Bring it on!

I thought the reason for the slow start is the high slot cost upfront. If you can't properly rapid expand in the first 6 months, then you get stuck in this slow mo type of expansion where its cheaper to lease planes then full them with routes. Also the change in RI and its effect on price increases at the start will further this trend when GW3 starts up on Sunday.

I do think there were a unnecessarily large portion of DC6BFs to DC6B at the start that didn't make really no sense.


On the issue of production lines, it seems all game worlds check historical production end dates and runs that against game year start date. 1965 turned out to be a bad year for historical production lines so it seems. But we voted for it right? lol. That's our fail to own up.

1960 start would add Comet/Brittanina/Convair/Viscount - Plus a couple of 50 seaters.

The six people who voted for 1960... maybe they knew?


Talentz

[JumboShrimp]

On the issue of production lines, it seems all game worlds check historical production end dates and runs that against game year start date. 1965 turned out to be a bad year for historical production lines so it seems. But we voted for it right? lol. That's our fail to own up.

That's why I suggested that the new game set up should add 10 years to all of the historical dates of closing of production lines, to work around this problem.

I think playability, accommodating nearly 600 players at the start of the game world, when they all have zero aircraft and want to just play the game and expand should be an important factor.

Another factor to consider:  If you take a snapshot of the airline industry at any time, supply roughly matches the demand.  But the game start, the game world may have demand for 10,000 aircraft, but the UM has only 3,000, of which 1,000 is unusable.  So there needs to be far greater production capacity than when the world is at equilibrium.

[knobbygb]

Another factor to consider:  If you take a snapshot of the airline industry at any time, supply roughly matches the demand.  But the game start, the game world may have demand for 10,000 aircraft, but the UM has only 3,000, of which 1,000 is unusable.  So there needs to be far greater production capacity than when the world is at equilibrium.

Agreed. But you're comparing the real world with what happens here - suddenly air travel is "invented" in 1965 and the skies are totally empty yet there are millions of passengers waiting to jump on a flight.  The most realistic way to fix this would be to have some 'game-generated' airlines already in existence at the start and they could go bankrupt fairly quickly. This has already been discussed and I thought Sami actually said it was being seriously considered.

[Talentz]

Agreed. But you're comparing the real world with what happens here - suddenly air travel is "invented" in 1965 and the skies are totally empty yet there are millions of passengers waiting to jump on a flight.  The most realistic way to fix this would be to have some 'game-generated' airlines already in existence at the start and they could go bankrupt fairly quickly. This has already been discussed and I thought Sami actually said it was being seriously considered.

That idea has been floating around for awhile.

But the solution is actually in the works: City-based demand.

If you look at the cargo side of GW1, the starting "current" demand is a blueprint of what's to come when CBD is rolled out for pax. Instead of starting a GW with developed routes, we'll get routes with huge potential, but much lower current demand. For Cargo CBD, current demand starts at 10% of potential. I would expect Pax CBD to reflect something similar.

When you look at the future of GW through that context of CBD, alot of the game world starting issues disappear. We then complain about ultra slow starts and flying small aircraft for alot longer then were used too


Talentz

[Jake]

Well, I've "been able" to accumulate 116 aircraft so far, even after a BK and restart (all good stuff, no junk), so maybe they're just not very good players and deserve to be doomed? I don't mean that in a nasty way - just that they can improve and maybe do better next time. The best way to learn the game is by failures.

I honestly quit after my 2nd bankruptcy... I am not going to sit around paying 3.7m for a schedule for my 707's at the freakin' start of the game... There is a reason why even the bigger players have left GW1...

[JumboShrimp]

From what I can see, a Great Start of GW3 !!!

All the issues that plagued previous game starts seemed to have been corrected in this GW.

[Jake]

From what I can see, a Great Start of GW3 !!!

All the issues that plagued previous game starts seemed to have been corrected in this GW.

Indeed, these slot costs i can work with

[gazzz0x2z]

Everyone, including me, jumped on A320. Considering the slot costs, might be a clever choice. Ankle biting with regional jets seems to be prohibitive in this GW.

[Jake]

Everyone, including me, jumped on A320. Considering the slot costs, might be a clever choice. Ankle biting with regional jets seems to be prohibitive in this GW.

In my parts of the woods everybody jumped on the A310 instead, i decided to go with 733's instead

[Talentz]

In my parts of the woods everybody jumped on the A310 instead, i decided to go with 733's instead

Stay away from the 757s. Ty.



Talentz