Game world suggestions - post here

[d2031k]

I think the best way to make the HUB system+second leg routes work is by making this as easy and as realistic as possible (Until the route rights are made). Either of the departure/arrival airport must be in your base country, and second HUB's must be in your base country. So you choose Hong Kong? Too bad. No second HUB's or second legs for you. HKG's demand will keep you busy for the whole game, trust me. I'm also against Europe being considered as one country. I know, it has about the same demand of the United States, but that's how things are! The biggest airlines in the world are from the countries with the most traffic! That's why Delta is #1, American #2, Southwest #3, United #4, US Airways #5 and Continental #6. However, I know some members over here would pick Atlanta, O'hare, LAX and DFW for their second hub to become monster airlines, so we could put a limit in the number of passengers % for the HUBs of an airline. For example, 150% available for all airlines. That way, they could chose two 75% airports as their HUB's, or one 100% and one 50% or three 50% airports or I don't know, as long as they don't exceed 150% in all of their HUB's. Maybe this limit could be modified depending the player limit and areas of the world available, like games with a large amount of members would get a tighter limit and games with a small amount of people (Like RMA) you'd get a better limit.

We're getting too off-topic, so maybe another thread to discuss this would be good? In case there's one already.

Here you go Marco  - https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,34.msg87354.html#new

[swiftus27]

Marco, essentially, you are asking that we get to run two airlines...  No problem there.  But when we ask for a multi hub system, that's what needs to be implemented.

Remember each airport has a "Size" number associated with it.  Perhaps players will get a total of 10 points.  That means they could fly out of two size 5 airports of 3 size 3 airports... 

[Monk Xion]

How about a Latin America game world? Interesting area to base in... esp. Central America. 

[Yb]

I think the best way to make the HUB system+second leg routes work is by making this as easy and as realistic as possible (Until the route rights are made). Either of the departure/arrival airport must be in your base country, and second HUB's must be in your base country. So you choose Hong Kong? Too bad. No second HUB's or second legs for you. HKG's demand will keep you busy for the whole game, trust me. I'm also against Europe being considered as one country. I know, it has about the same demand of the United States, but that's how things are! The biggest airlines in the world are from the countries with the most traffic! That's why Delta is #1, American #2, Southwest #3, United #4, US Airways #5 and Continental #6. However, I know some members over here would pick Atlanta, O'hare, LAX and DFW for their second hub to become monster airlines, so we could put a limit in the number of passengers % for the HUBs of an airline. For example, 150% available for all airlines. That way, they could chose two 75% airports as their HUB's, or one 100% and one 50% or three 50% airports or I don't know, as long as they don't exceed 150% in all of their HUB's. Maybe this limit could be modified depending the player limit and areas of the world available, like games with a large amount of members would get a tighter limit and games with a small amount of people (Like RMA) you'd get a better limit.

We're getting too off-topic, so maybe another thread to discuss this would be good? In case there's one already.

I totaly agree. This is what I have been trying to say all the time. Haleluja! 

[Yb]

I would combine the above said with the (huge) extra costs of the second hub and forbidding all 2 leg routes. That way this will SLOWER and BALANCE the game instead of making the bigger even bigger.

[Kontio]

I would combine the above said with the (huge) extra costs of the second hub and forbidding all 2 leg routes. That way this will SLOWER and BALANCE the game instead of making the bigger even bigger.

Why would there be huge extra costs for the second hub? The game tries to calculate realistic salaries for all these different personnell groups and different prices for different kinds of maintenance operations etc. Then suddenly there is an arbitrary huge cost for operating out of another hub. That doesn't make sense.

[swiftus27]

I'd still rather see frequent flyer / in flight stuff first.

[alex11369]

I agree Uzbekistan Airways is small airline and nobody know what they doing with them dictator  . What about Singapore Airlines? This airline is unknowing for people from another planet only .Present time , flight SQ61/62 Boeing-777-300 , Singapore - Moscow/Domodedovo/ - Houston/IAH/. Tickets are available for any combination of this double-leg route...

[EYguy]

I would combine the above said with the (huge) extra costs of the second hub and forbidding all 2 leg routes. That way this will SLOWER and BALANCE the game instead of making the bigger even bigger.

I agree... The second leg trick is allowing people to skyrocket their size without paying enough costs for it!

[EYguy]

I agree Uzbekistan Airways is small airline and nobody know what they doing with them dictator  . What about Singapore Airlines? This airline is unknowing for people from another planet only .Present time , flight SQ61/62 Boeing-777-300 , Singapore - Moscow/Domodedovo/ - Houston/IAH/. Tickets are available for any combination of this double-leg route...

I repat: it's one of those "case by case" evalutation done by government and airlines. Probably Aeroflot does not have enough a/c and traffic to create such a route and so the two companies agreed to those terms of the deal. Singapore Airlines also flies from SIN to JFK via FRA and sells ticket for the second leg in codesharing with Lufthansa, but this is another case by case agreement! But, for example, Qatar Airways flies from DOH to IAH without stops... Or even Emirates flies from Dubai to Los Angeles without stops, while Singapore flies there via Osaka or Tokyo.

[EYguy]

Why would there be huge extra costs for the second hub? The game tries to calculate realistic salaries for all these different personnell groups and different prices for different kinds of maintenance operations etc. Then suddenly there is an arbitrary huge cost for operating out of another hub. That doesn't make sense.

Having a double hub is an expensive thing: you have double overhead costs for the middle management and low level management stationed at the other hub. You also have to pay for relocation of personnel, maybe housing costs for people who doesn't want to move and etc... As far as I can remember, the only airline in Europe with two hubs is Lufthansa: they have the FRA and MUC airports. Lufthansa also focuses on VIE and ZRH, but simply because it OWNS the airlines based there! :-D

[LemonButt]

Jet Age is full and there are several games ending in the next two weeks--when is the next game starting?  

[d2031k]

Have a goose at this thread
https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,18532.0.html

[hybridace101]

I'm going to be quite honest with my game experiences, that is the game worlds appear to be very disadvantageous to those who enter it relatively late especially since the high-demand and high-yield routes appear to be the first ones to be occupied quickly.  That makes it almost impossible and quite unprofitable to operate bigger aircraft.  It takes a while to wait for another game world to start from scratch.  For instance, my MNL-SIN flights fluctuate dramatically in LFs (some days it is close to 100% and other days where it is less than 25%).  Also, I was forced to terminate the leases from my 77Ws because ULH routes such as MNL-ORD, MNL-YYZ and MNL-EWR are already taken and putting them in there would be risky to my operations.  Hence, accusations of veteran players dumping seats fly back and forth.

With that, I would suggest game worlds that would be single player in nature that it will be mainly economic conditions and not so much competition that would dictate how profitable a player's airline is.  In other words, the conditions, circumstances, timeframe, etc. that a player faces should be independent of what others will experience.  This should be good for novice players.  Here the player is free to experiment with different combinations and be more creative without pressure from competition.  The bottomline, the only competition a player would face would be economic conditions (such as rising oil prices, etc).  Maybe to make it a bit more challenging, you can vary the demand more significantly than in multi-player worlds where it has been quite stagnant.  

I hope you consider a single player scenario in the future.

[EYguy]

I agree... What i really would like is to start with less players in "whole world" games... Say 300-350 and then make every world a single shot world... But I would say that you can't play anymore after being bankrupt 4 times!

[hybridace101]

Besides the single player game, I would also like to propose that other game worlds have stricter rules when it comes to "5th freedom" rights.  That is players can't fly to a 3rd city away if there is a carrier based in either city that wants to fly between the latter 2 points.  For example, a carrier is based in city A and flies to city B who wishes to continue on to city C.  In order for the "5th freedom" rights to be granted to city C, there should be no carrier based in city B or city C.  If a carrier sets up a home base in city B or city C, the incumbent carrier may continue flying between those routes until the new carrier wants to fly those routes.  I really think this should address the issue of sovereignty which the game fails to address but is a reality in today's airline industry.  It's also about fairness on the part of the carriers based in the 2nd and 3rd city.   

SkyAsia, Paragon and to a lesser extent International City Airlines appear to be abusing this privilege where younger industry players can't compete well in.

[Lairyliam]

b]single player[/b] in nature that it will be mainly economic conditions and not so much competition that would dictate how profitable a player's airline is.  In other words, the conditions, circumstances, timeframe, etc. that a player faces should be independent of what others will experience.  This should be good for novice players.  Here the player is free to experiment with different combinations and be more creative without pressure from competition.  The bottomline, the only competition a player would face would be economic conditions (such as rising oil prices, etc).  Maybe to make it a bit more challenging, you can vary the demand more significantly than in multi-player worlds where it has been quite stagnant.  

I hope you consider a single player scenario in the future.

Here here, I love to tinker with my airline, and with the way some of the bigger carriers work its impossible to
do some of the things i would  like to,  i love the way this simulation works, compared to anything else i have tried (and thats quite a few) but im into the single player stuff as opposed to the daunting world of multiplayer, where it seems to many airlines are all about being as big as they can with as many big planes as possible, of course this is a reflection of only a couple of airlines in the real world,
but as mentioned above, this is only the case for a few carriers,


5th freedom restrictions would also be applauded if it was implimented into the game.....

Liam

Lairyair

[d2031k]

Surely the beauty of the simulation is the multi-player element.  Playing any simulation or game versus the computer becomes repetitive and mundane over time - computers act too predictably.  Human players act in random and odd manners which makes every single scenario completely different. 

I can see the need for a world with less players in, so you can concentrate on your airline without much competition, but I don't think the main games should be like this.  Once you've worked out a successful strategy then human players at the levels currently used are vital to keep things interesting.  Without competition, the games drag and that's partly why the latter halves of the worlds all become stale and strewn with mainly the larger airlines.

I'm sure the new hubs and freedom rights introduction features of the next version will eradicate a lot of the problems you refer to with the large airlines, as they will have to be better managed.  Currently you can leave a profitable large airline for days, even weeks without doing much other than replacing ageing aircraft.

Dave

[hybridace101]

 I'm not saying that the single player scenario should be the centre-piece of the simulation.  What I am asking is to have a game world that is more fair towards newer players.  I really hope you provide an option for single-player game worlds so we can experiment with how to manage a widebody because the older players appear to be the ones beneffiting from them.  From how I see things, there are only a few options to run my widebodies because the older players have long beneffited from being there first and their prescence on high density and high yield routes has made it impossible or unprofitable for newer players to operate widebodies.

Having said that, I look forward to the new rights management feature.  I just find it unfair that a BKK-based carrier operates routes in MNL towards IAD or some Chinese city without regard for the sovereignty of the airlines based in MNL or IAD.

People say that this is a simulation.  But in a simulation, an important element is that much of the legal and economic environment should be grounded on reality.  And that includes air rights.  For instance, my home airline Philippine Airlines wants to fly to India.  They want to do it via BKK.  Problem is they just can't do it without the proper 5th freedom rights from BKK to India.  I'm sure TG, Air India and Kingfisher would raise hell with another player giving them a run for their money at BKK.  I'm glad the new updates would somehow put these into consideration.
 
I hope you find more ways to make the gameworlds more fair to latecomers.  I know there is a saying early bird gets the worm but it is another thing if incumbent players abuse certain air rights that make it impossible for new players to effectively compete.  Thank you!

[cashacasha]

North America only
737 series only
10 million to start
No loans