Changelog and Previews comment thread

[groundbum2]

are the QoL changes documented anyplace? I've taken a break from AWS (nice not to be on the 30 minute treadmill) mainly due to the innane up/down/left/click/down/left/click x20 routine of running a large fleet. If there's been improvements (like send 20 aircraft to D check at once, buy multiple missing slots with one click, easier 7 day scheduling) etc then I'll come back into the next game..

Simon

[Verto]

(like send 20 aircraft to D check at once, buy multiple missing slots with one click, easier 7 day scheduling) etc then I'll come back into the next game..

Simon

Great list - all not added yet.

[DanDan]

uhhhh... changes to cargo? one month gradual transition? that sounds... well, certainly a change!

[schro]

uhhhh... changes to cargo? one month gradual transition? that sounds... well, certainly a change!

This is awesome. A month by month gradual change will make it so we can't figure out where all of our revenue is going. The way this reads is that actual demand could be significantly reduced in some cases which will bankrupt many airlines (thus, making it a customer service issue in my mind).

[DanDan]

This is awesome. A month by month gradual change will make it so we can't figure out where all of our revenue is going. The way this reads is that actual demand could be significantly reduced in some cases which will bankrupt many airlines (thus, making it a customer service issue in my mind).

oh, yes, certainly bad news for cargo-airlines in multi-cargo-airport-areas

[Sami]

Option one was to implement the fix overnight, which isn't a good idea. Option two is to keep the issue present in the games which may last still over a year, which isn't happening either (since the effect of the issue was too high in some areas). Hence the gradual change to the updated version.

[groundbum2]

perhaps Sami could make available a spreadsheet showing routes currently flown that will suffer a >10% decrease in demand, sorted by gameworld?

It seems the numbers are in the system, just not visible..

Simon

[DanDan]

perhaps Sami could make available a spreadsheet showing routes currently flown that will suffer a >10% decrease in demand, sorted by gameworld?

It seems the numbers are in the system, just not visible..

Simon

yes, and make like a estimation of what demand will be in the end

[schro]

Option one was to implement the fix overnight, which isn't a good idea. Option two is to keep the issue present in the games which may last still over a year, which isn't happening either (since the effect of the issue was too high in some areas). Hence the gradual change to the updated version.

The system doesn't store enough detailed data about route performance for a player to make a determination as to which routes are suffering from the change. We have no way of gaining insight into what demand changes have occurred over time unless we manually scrape the data from the route planning pages periodically and track it outside the game (ain't nobody got time for that, other than maybe Jumboshrimp).

Should be interesting to see how it shakes out, but I joined a game world because I saw a lot of cargo opportunities (approx 1 game year ago in MT) and the description of this update makes it seem like my airline is in the crosshairs for bankruptcy.

It's not an easy choice to make (gradual change vs instant change vs wait a year), but I'd contend you will make far more angry customers by significantly nerfing demand (assuming that's the outcome) than having it run too high.

[Tha_Ape]

@schro

Well, on the other hand the airline running major cargo ops from JFK, EWR, LGA and PHL makes absolutely no sense. Should we just leave it as is?
Myself being based in AMS, should I turn every airport in the Netherlands as major cargo hubs, 90% the size of AMS?

This side effect from the bug fix that resulted in an even bigger bug was known from the start, the forums were full of mentions of it. Thus, there were different options on the table for the players:
- do nothing, keep their ops as before, and expand with caution -> they will have only minor changes to do
- exploit the bug with moderation -> moderate changes
- go all out -> face major changes / rick of bankruptcy

One can argue that this is not fair to the last category, however by exploiting a bug they knew was a bug and doing so even though they knew it would eventually be fixed... No, in my opinion this is not unfair.

[schro]

@schro

Well, on the other hand the airline running major cargo ops from JFK, EWR, LGA and PHL makes absolutely no sense. Should we just leave it as is?
Myself being based in AMS, should I turn every airport in the Netherlands as major cargo hubs, 90% the size of AMS?

This side effect from the bug fix that resulted in an even bigger bug was known from the start, the forums were full of mentions of it. Thus, there were different options on the table for the players:
- do nothing, keep their ops as before, and expand with caution -> they will have only minor changes to do
- exploit the bug with moderation -> moderate changes
- go all out -> face major changes / rick of bankruptcy

One can argue that this is not fair to the last category, however by exploiting a bug they knew was a bug and doing so even though they knew it would eventually be fixed... No, in my opinion this is not unfair.

Fixing the JFK/EWR/LGA by one airline could be as simple as disallowing bases to be within X miles or within another's catchment area which would have a far smaller impact. The point of CBD is that any base in the Netherlands _could_ become a massive cargo hub...

As far as this being a "known bug", I refer you to the Bug Reports subforum and request you to link me to where it was posted as a bug in there. I've been relatively inactive over the past few months and only kept up with the general, bug and feature request forums when I checked in. Are you saying that players are obligated to stay up to date on all forum happenings in order to know that there's some large bug that's not posted in the Bug Forum? My process for deciding to join MT was as follows: 1. Check out demand in a few bases. 2. Find a few locations with large amounts of unserved demand. 3. Open airline and play. I would hope that's no different than any other player.

Boeing should consider a program similar to "Cash for Clunkers" but instead, "757-200PF leases for 747-400BCF leases" in MT.

[Talentz]

Definitely needed a fix for displayed actual demand. Way too high. In theory, ever route you open should be an investment. Rapid expansion should largely become a thing of the past.


Talentz

[JumboShrimp]

The point of CBD is that any base in the Netherlands _could_ become a massive cargo hub...

Yes, any, but not every.

[tititaka]

Has the change already deployed?

[JumboShrimp]

Yes it is, but apparently, the exploit will be there for quite some time:

The update is effective in all current and future game worlds. For all currently running games the update is introduced gradually: The system does calculations with the updated (11/2019) and non-updated (10/2019) versions and compares the numbers, and initially chooses the higher of these two. Over the next month or two the balance is moved gradually towards the new version. This gives time to react to the changes in the environment.


When I plugged in 01/17/2020 as the date 2 months from now in MT world, it will be game date 12/28/2019 vs. current game date of 12/27/2011.  So the phase in period is going to be up to 8 game years (!!!).  That's too long, IMO.

[Infinity]

Can we please have a hard cut? Otherwise it's impossible to know when the full effect is there and it makes it practically impossible to efficiently redeploy capacity where required as it will be a very slow creeping death.

Welcome the change, but this delayed rollout is not a good idea.

[tititaka]

Can we please have a hard cut? Otherwise it's impossible to know when the full effect is there and it makes it practically impossible to efficiently redeploy capacity where required as it will be a very slow creeping death.

Welcome the change, but this delayed rollout is not a good idea.

yes, its more difficult

[Amelie090904]

Agreed, hard cut and we all know what to expect.

[schro]

A hard cut would put my airline out of business, but a slow cut would also make me not know how I need to transform it. I suppose I'm boned either way, or perhaps we get some indicator of where things WILL go if all things stay constant....

[Talentz]

Well its already happening. You can tell how a route will fill out just by looking at it and seeing how much actual demand is displayed. Under 10% is not good. 11%-29% is meh. 30%+ are good routes that can potentially reach 100%.

Were just back to how it was before ~


Talentz