15 replies to this topic

[IRelayer]

First I want to give a HUGE thank you to the creator of this game and all of the people that play it and enjoy it and help it grow. I just found out about this little gem the other day, and have started playing with a sense of ambition. I realize that in any game that is as open as this one is, the early bird gets the worm. I have played many MUDS (Dragonrealms mostly) and games such as Everquest and I can tell you that this problem exists anywhere...whoever is first will inevitably have a competitive advantage over people who enter later. This is to be expected. It is how the world works. You would expect an airline such as United to have a huge competitive advantage over an airline such as JetBlue. For every JetBlue or Southwest, however, there are 10 Legends, Independence Airs, etc...so it is perfectly reasonable to expect a small level of success from startups entering a saturated market.

I also realize that the people who have been playing the game longer might have a bit of a bias towards the current system. But I believe there are ways to even the playing field just a bit...not to favor new entrants, but to give them some hope. I myself could barely afford another J-31...and the profit I am making with three planes and six routes falls far short of the monthly gate leasing costs, not to mention the fuel bills. I am stuck in a vicious cycle, a downward spiral with no hope of recovery. No way I am going to make any money whatsoever in the forseeable future. Plus the way that the game is constructed, any airline can fly anywhere with no restriction. This is a completely unrealistic aspect of the game. In real life, JetBlue can't start flying DEL-BOM or something like that but in this game, it seems, any airline can start that route no matter what...all that is required is money. I see a lot of airlines that are US domestic airlines flying fifth-freedom routes in Europe. Those rights are given out only to a select few. I believe the only roughly analogous operation in existence today are Continental with CO Micronesia and Copa Airlines...and those are subsidiaries. If this is allowed to continue in subsequent versions of the game, it would be a huge dissapointment.

With that said (and I think you will agree these are all valid critcisms), I would like to offer a few suggestions as to how to improve the game to give new entrants at least a fighting chance of success.

1) Implement a route management system that requires "FAA" approval for odd frequencies and pricing. For example, Empire Air is now running most east coast commuter routes (PHL-JFK, for example) with A330 equipment for $10 or even $0 dollars. This is completely ridiculous, but also easy to solve. If someone wants to undercut the competition, fine, but within a certain boundary. For example, if it is made so that it is not only uneconomical but suicidal to run this route with an A330 at that price, and if it is made so that such pricing must be given "approval" first, I believe that is a sufficient barrier to prevent cheating. Other barriers could be put up.

2) Implement a hub/focus city/maintenance base system that requires an airline to at least decide upon and declare a focus city before beggining operations that use more than oh...2 gates at a time. If you use more than 2 gates, you must declare that city a focus city, if you use more than 10 gates, you must build a hub, if you use more than 20 gates, you must build a terminal, if you use more than 40 gates, you must make that city a maintenence base. You are also limited as to how many focus cities you can have, how many hubs you can have, and how many MB's you can have. Of course I am just arbitrarily picking milestones, but I think you get the general idea.

3) Implement a leasing system. This is imperative. I'm sure it has been suggested in the past. This will be the ultimate equalizer.

4) Implement a more realistic slot usage structure. Right now, if I am not mistaken, an A330 requires the same amount of slots as a J-31. If I am mistaken than please ignore this suggestion. But an A330 should require a lot more slots than a J-31 does. Also charge LESS per gate for smaller airports and MORE per gate for larger ones. Right now they are pretty even.

5) Finally...give startups more than just 19-seat commuter aircraft, 5 gates, and $5 mil for startup cash. Start-up giveaways should be dynamically determined from the point of entry. If one wishes to start at ORD, for example, they should receive a larger sum of startup cash and a bigger plane, at the very least. If one wishes to start at Wichita, however, they should get a lower amount, and a smaller plane. There should be goals that have to be met in a certain period of time (presumably the startup cash and planes are provided by investors) to satisfy investors, and if these goals are not at least partially met in time, the airline is liquidated. So an airline starting up at ORD should get more, but be required to do more to keep flying. Similarly an airline starting up at Wichita should get less, but be required to do less to keep flying.

For instance: ORD...$50,000,000 startup cash (not enough to buy a new plane, but enough to get going and stay on your feet for at least a small period of time), an A319 or a 73G or something similar, and a good amount of gate space.

Goals: at least 65% system-wide LF for the first year, at least $5,000,000 yearly operating profit for the first year, at least 4 destinations served in the first year, etc etc...you could make up a bunch of these goals and they would be very easy to track.

Wichita: $5,000,000 startup, one J-31. Goals: at least 50% system-wide LF for the first year, at least $500,000 yearly operating profit, at least 2 destinationes served in the first year...


Anyway, I am pretty tired now that I wrote all of that (took me 45 minutes) and I'm sure I'll think of more...and I'm sure noone will take the time to read this. But if someone does, I would like to know what they think about it.

-IR

[Tump]

Phew, quite a post and you took your time, respect in that matter.

Ok now to awnser:

1) I would say 50% of the people here would agree to that, the other 50% not. And miller22, the creator of AE, is one of the 2nd group. He said that he wanted this game to have a completely open market in all its forms.

2) I do not quite see why that would be needed..... Edit: after closer look, that maintainance base is quite a good idea.

3) Is being worked on/is going to be worked on

4) Has been suggested in the past and though I agree with you there, this has not been changed during the last 2 resets and I doubt it will ever be.

5) Disagree. For the people that start now those 2 beeches may seem like they have nothing (which is quite true actually hehe) - but remember that when everyone started from blank we all had that, and can you imagine the chaos when everyone is going to start from the big airports cause they all want those bigger planes so badly at the start....

[Edited on 9/8/2005 by Tump]

[TimS]

Originally posted by IRelayer
1) Implement a route management system that requires "FAA" approval for odd frequencies and pricing. For example, Empire Air is now running most east coast commuter routes (PHL-JFK, for example) with A330 equipment for $10 or even $0 dollars. This is completely ridiculous, but also easy to solve. If someone wants to undercut the competition, fine, but within a certain boundary. For example, if it is made so that it is not only uneconomical but suicidal to run this route with an A330 at that price, and if it is made so that such pricing must be given "approval" first, I believe that is a sufficient barrier to prevent cheating. Other barriers could be put up.

Not sure that will work well, since it is hard to do automatically. Setting a limit (50% above, 50 % below average fare) would be easier to at least partially avoid rediculous fares, but still, there are always way around it.

2) Implement a hub/focus city/maintenance base system that requires an airline to at least decide upon and declare a focus city before beggining operations that use more than oh...2 gates at a time. If you use more than 2 gates, you must declare that city a focus city, if you use more than 10 gates, you must build a hub, if you use more than 20 gates, you must build a terminal, if you use more than 40 gates, you must make that city a maintenence base. You are also limited as to how many focus cities you can have, how many hubs you can have, and how many MB's you can have. Of course I am just arbitrarily picking milestones, but I think you get the general idea.

I like this idea. Though I would put the maintenance base from the start and have all planes have at least one route leading to/from their maintenance base. That way, spreading out on a wide, not connected network is not as attractive anymore. (The unconnected networks have always been things I didn't like, though I'll live with it anyway.)

3) Implement a leasing system. This is imperative. I'm sure it has been suggested in the past. This will be the ultimate equalizer.

I believe that is already in the making

4) Implement a more realistic slot usage structure. Right now, if I am not mistaken, an A330 requires the same amount of slots as a J-31. If I am mistaken than please ignore this suggestion. But an A330 should require a lot more slots than a J-31 does. Also charge LESS per gate for smaller airports and MORE per gate for larger ones. Right now they are pretty even.

I agree there as well, and read something on that elsewhere on the forum.

5) Finally...give startups more than just 19-seat commuter aircraft, 5 gates, and $5 mil for startup cash. Start-up giveaways should be dynamically determined from the point of entry. If one wishes to start at ORD, for example, they should receive a larger sum of startup cash and a bigger plane, at the very least. If one wishes to start at Wichita, however, they should get a lower amount, and a smaller plane. There should be goals that have to be met in a certain period of time (presumably the startup cash and planes are provided by investors) to satisfy investors, and if these goals are not at least partially met in time, the airline is liquidated. So an airline starting up at ORD should get more, but be required to do more to keep flying. Similarly an airline starting up at Wichita should get less, but be required to do less to keep flying.

I am not sure that would be fair.. And, as Tump said too (only just saw the post), it will cause a huge focus on large airports.

For instance: ORD...$50,000,000 startup cash (not enough to buy a new plane, but enough to get going and stay on your feet for at least a small period of time)

You can get a few very nice Q400s or Saab 2000s for that amount of money. Not a good idea.. You have to earn the money for them. I did in this busy market, why can't others?

[Edited on 10509.08 by TimS]

[IRelayer]

Originally posted by Tump
Phew, quite a post and you took your time, respect in that matter.

Ok now to awnser:

1) I would say 50% of the people here would agree to that, the other 50% not. And miller22, the creator of AE, is one of the 2nd group. He said that he wanted this game to have a completely open market in all its forms.

Well if realism is the goal, then something must be done to prevent cheating. Not unfair competition, or price fixing, or all that other "fun" stuff...that is fine if anti-trust laws are not in effect...but something must be done about the rampant cheating that is going on. By cheating I mean offering $0 dollar fares with a huge plane on a short route just so noone else can make any money.

2) I do not quite see why that would be needed.....

It would serve as a choice: either focus your operations on a select few cities or spread them out...it would be more fun that way and it would prevent people from just flying everywhere with absolutely no restriction whatsoever. Whether these are superhubs like AA@DFW or focus cities like Southwest@LAX is another thing, but at least make it so that it becomes a little more about determining how best to use your resources.

5) Disagree. For the people that start now those 2 beeches may seem like they have nothing (which is quite true actually hehe) - but remember that when everyone started from blank we all had that, and can you imagine the chaos when everyone is going to start from the big airports cause they all want those bigger planes so badly at the start....

It wouldn't be chaotic at all if it were done right. Its not like a startup with 1 A319 is going to be able to dump capacity all over the place. And the people that started with those 2 Beeches and have enormous airlines right now, by and large, have played the game the longest and didn't have to deal with the issues of a completely saturated market. Also, at the larger airports, it would be really hard to stay in business...even with that larger airplane.

Anyway thanks for reading.

-IR

[Tump]

About point 1, undercutting:

1) It is not cheating. It is setting someone else of a route since a certain airline wants to create a huge marketshare for itself. The airline that does it will have significant losses itself, so there is no direct advantage for him...

But, add to that undercutting should be done with some reason, not some airline with two beeches doing it.. they should not be allowed - also cause they could be possible 'feeders' - search forum for what I mean with that if you don't know.

* Cheating = Making an unfair adavante of a bug / code that will place you in advante - I don't consider undercutting as cheating and many others do as well. (Though I disagree on $0 fares)




2) Well I've been thinking a bit about what you said. And I do partly agree now; Airlines should focus them to at least a country or an entire region (Europe).... personally I have kept my airline stick to two hubs, while I see others scatter over the world. Making your location more or less fixed adds a bit of realism... but as with other things, miller would like to keep it an open world and market...... so guess nothing will happen.



3) Trust me it will be chaotic, no matter what. And everyone will get its fair chance again with a next reset, just be patiant and enjoy the game now. Also a good suggestion is to make some friends in-game that can help you grow


[Edited on 9/8/2005 by Tump]

[Edited on 9/8/2005 by Tump]

[Coeurlion]

Nice thoughts.

I agree on the zoning of Airlines monstly, keeping to your area, like an Autralian co. cant Jump into Europe and fly like a European based co. or a US co. to Asia. Imagine American Airlines doing a flight from Shang Hai to Beijing. Thants the main issue. If the Ultra big co. want to expand then (stock market) once they reach a certain size they can by out or do a joint venture with a local airline.

Im in the middle, with luck and with skill was able to grow in Europe to the size that I am. But When I see the companies from Asia come over and further saturate the market and place chaos with some low ball price it aggrivates me and I where a start up I would say "the hell with this". I Also think that Foreign co. should not be able build a terminal. Its like its home base and you cant buy a gate but out of no where someone for West BubleFTruck buys 20 gate terminal and blah blah. If im that agrevated imagine the small or start up co.'s

There a need for more cities and blah blah. Im kinda heated. Even though this slows me down, but the open free market will only end in the reverse of the real world that the The first top airlines will be the winners or the only ones to survive in this game cause they will dominate everything. Real life, smaller insects like JetBlue come in and win. LOL thats why Jamaica wont let SouthWest or any LCC to come in to its market and compete with its national money maker airline Air Jamaica.

What a ramble. Sorry about that. :cool:

[alexm3]

Originally posted by IRelayer

3) Implement a leasing system. This is imperative. I'm sure it has been suggested in the past. This will be the ultimate equalizer.

5) Finally...give startups more than just 19-seat commuter aircraft, 5 gates, and $5 mil for startup cash. Start-up giveaways should be dynamically determined from the point of entry. If one wishes to start at ORD, for example, they should receive a larger sum of startup cash and a bigger plane, at the very least. If one wishes to start at Wichita, however, they should get a lower amount, and a smaller plane. There should be goals that have to be met in a certain period of time (presumably the startup cash and planes are provided by investors) to satisfy investors, and if these goals are not at least partially met in time, the airline is liquidated. So an airline starting up at ORD should get more, but be required to do more to keep flying. Similarly an airline starting up at Wichita should get less, but be required to do less to keep flying.

For instance: ORD...$50,000,000 startup cash (not enough to buy a new plane, but enough to get going and stay on your feet for at least a small period of time), an A319 or a 73G or something similar, and a good amount of gate space.

Goals: at least 65% system-wide LF for the first year, at least $5,000,000 yearly operating profit for the first year, at least 4 destinations served in the first year, etc etc...you could make up a bunch of these goals and they would be very easy to track.

Wichita: $5,000,000 startup, one J-31. Goals: at least 50% system-wide LF for the first year, at least $500,000 yearly operating profit, at least 2 destinationes served in the first year...

-IR

I agree on those two points because that, in addition to gate costs, is 90% of why I'm making no money. I start with only $5 million, flying 2 B1900s on routes that have 737s or Dash 8s on them...

I totally agree as well with the idea of leasing. If the newbies could get larger planes by leasing, it would give them a decent chance. This doesn't mean a newbie can instantly get an A330, but an EMB-170 or a 737 or A318 or something, and then they can more effectively compete with the more established airlines in their region.

[Jankstar]

i have to agree that the startcapotal or the size of the aicraft given to startups has to be increased, otherwise there is no chance to enter the market and grow alittle for them

[mma]

Originally posted by LiveAirlines.com
Reading posts in this, and other Forums, I sense some resentment, even animosity from people who run, program or both AirlineEmpires.

Being a webmaster, you MUST always keep an open mind, welcome feedback, be it constructive or congratulatory. This is the only way to ensure LONGEVITY be it for a web site, a game, etc....

Before hastily replying to a post that may have already been discussed, keep in mind, some are new users, or someone REALLY wants a specific feature... IF you decide you do not want to add it, or not at this time, take the time to reply and simply explain your views... don't feel attacked, and especially DON'T come accross as defensive. That might not be your intent, but keep in mind that THIS is one of the Internet's biggest downfall: text responses do not contain intonations; they are implied by the wording and structure of your reply. The recipient of your reply does NOT know how you intended to "say" what you wrote; it can only be assumed (not always correctly).

So, what am I trying to say?

Be open minded. Be kind with your replies. Each new user who dares post something, should be percieved as a compliment: they are trying to tell you something.... and if it is something that HAS already been said, kindly explain that is was discussed, if yes or no it was adopted, and instead of saying "LOOK IT UP", be proactive, and provide a hyperlink to THAT thread. It will be percieved by ALL as a gentler approach, and encourage others (new AND not so new) to ask questions, offer valuable suggestions maybe offers of help.

In the end, the main goal, I am assuming is to ensure the current users STAY, and new prospective users are not scared away.

My 2 cents

Then Nat and a few others in this AE Forum should take Schooling with you......if you are right !!!!!

[VC-10]

I agree with the leasing, and also the abolition of the Beaches. would it not be better for the new airline be given x $ to spend on aircraft of his her choise? Ie 2 beaches or a Dornier 328 for example. I imediately sold by beaches as I learnt after my first airline that beaches in general loose money(It died after I went on holiday) so I am still trying to sell a beach to finance a Dornier!!!!!Because this system only uses 2 beaches, the market is FLOODED with second hand Beaches.

[mandala499]

2) Implement a hub/focus city/maintenance base system that requires an airline to at least decide upon and declare a focus city before beggining operations that use more than oh...2 gates at a time. If you use more than 2 gates, you must declare that city a focus city, if you use more than 10 gates, you must build a hub, if you use more than 20 gates, you must build a terminal, if you use more than 40 gates, you must make that city a maintenence base. You are also limited as to how many focus cities you can have, how many hubs you can have, and how many MB's you can have. Of course I am just arbitrarily picking milestones, but I think you get the general idea.

In other countries, this is not a requirement... many airlines don't bother calling it a hub, what's the difference between focus city and U just flying heaps from a city without connectivity? Nothing. I think the hub policy on AE is about right, and reflects the situation in many parts of the world. One common denominator exists... GATE SPACE LIMITATIONS.

The maintenance base is a nice idea. However, in real life, you can operate without a maintenance base at all. The heavy checks are outsourced. Perhaps what can be done is every X hours or so, your plane won't be available for a day or a few days or a month (for overhaul)... and the distance to of the plane to the nearest MX base is time factored into those overhauls.

4) Implement a more realistic slot usage structure. Right now, if I am not mistaken, an A330 requires the same amount of slots as a J-31. If I am mistaken than please ignore this suggestion. But an A330 should require a lot more slots than a J-31 does. Also charge LESS per gate for smaller airports and MORE per gate for larger ones. Right now they are pretty even.

Perhaps categorize gates into certain sizes? Or make the gate rates change every month depending on demand/utility/usage and that price is then charged to all users of the airport.

5) Finally...give startups more than just 19-seat commuter aircraft, 5 gates, and $5 mil for startup cash. Start-up giveaways should be dynamically determined from the point of entry. If one wishes to start at ORD, for example, they should receive a larger sum of startup cash and a bigger plane, at the very least. If one wishes to start at Wichita, however, they should get a lower amount, and a smaller plane. There should be goals that have to be met in a certain period of time (presumably the startup cash and planes are provided by investors) to satisfy investors, and if these goals are not at least partially met in time, the airline is liquidated. So an airline starting up at ORD should get more, but be required to do more to keep flying. Similarly an airline starting up at Wichita should get less, but be required to do less to keep flying.

I think the point of this game is to make it a level playing field as well as a challenge. I think leasing would basically sort this problem out.

--
About the "advantage" of the ones who are already big... isn't that just like the real world? The only realistic tool to make it fair is leasing.

Until leasing takes off, I guess the only fair way is for everyone to start off with 2 Beeches/J31s. Once leasing is available, anyone can start with anything he/she wants provided the money's there for the lease deposit.

[miller22 (inactive)]

Great thread. I'm off to church, but I'll respond this afternoon

[miller22 (inactive)]

All of these posts are well thought out and raise some great points. Airline Empires is by no means fixed, and we are always looking to add more features, and change current ones. I'll respond to each of the original points, and a few of the other threads.

Originally posted by IRelayer

...With that said (and I think you will agree these are all valid critcisms), I would like to offer a few suggestions as to how to improve the game to give new entrants at least a fighting chance of success.

1) Implement a route management system that requires "FAA" approval for odd frequencies and pricing. For example, Empire Air is now running most east coast commuter routes (PHL-JFK, for example) with A330 equipment for $10 or even $0 dollars. This is completely ridiculous, but also easy to solve. If someone wants to undercut the competition, fine, but within a certain boundary. For example, if it is made so that it is not only uneconomical but suicidal to run this route with an A330 at that price, and if it is made so that such pricing must be given "approval" first, I believe that is a sufficient barrier to prevent cheating. Other barriers could be put up.

I agree with this. We've been talking about putting protections against predatory pricing for a while now. We've finished the base functions for the new load factor algorithms, which is allowing us to go back and make wholesale changes. Preventing predatory pricing is one of those changes, its just a matter of deciding how to implement them. In reality, airlines can't price a market strictly to take a loss that they can handle, but their competitors can't. So, where do we put the cutoff where the price cannot be lowered any further? Do we prevent route pricing below profitable? Do we prevent more than a 10% loss. If we do this, no airline would be able to open a route that wasn't (or at least almost wasn't) profitable. How then do we handle pricing changes to the route? If the route is below the current cuttof point are they not allowed to change their price? I agree something needs to be done, but I'm not sure exactly what needs to be done.

2) Implement a hub/focus city/maintenance base system that requires an airline to at least decide upon and declare a focus city before beggining operations that use more than oh...2 gates at a time. If you use more than 2 gates, you must declare that city a focus city, if you use more than 10 gates, you must build a hub, if you use more than 20 gates, you must build a terminal, if you use more than 40 gates, you must make that city a maintenence base. You are also limited as to how many focus cities you can have, how many hubs you can have, and how many MB's you can have. Of course I am just arbitrarily picking milestones, but I think you get the general idea.

I like the idea of requiring a terminal be built when you occupy a certain number of gates. This will keep the number of gates owned by a single airline down, and allow more players to enter the market. There is no reason, however, to designate a city a focus city or a maintenance base, and the only reason to designate it a hub is to start allowing connecting passengers. I'm also not privy to limiting the size of your airline by limiting the number of hubs you can have since it would alienate the larger airlines. You would reach a plateau in the game where you cannot move any further.

3) Implement a leasing system. This is imperative. I'm sure it has been suggested in the past. This will be the ultimate equalizer.

Oh the story behind this one... While the template has been drawn out for this, development has stopped because of the inability to prevent, or even mitigate cheating. There are some plans to move into different types of games, in different worlds, which could allow us to implement different rules and bring in the ability to contract with other players.

4) Implement a more realistic slot usage structure. Right now, if I am not mistaken, an A330 requires the same amount of slots as a J-31. If I am mistaken than please ignore this suggestion. But an A330 should require a lot more slots than a J-31 does. Also charge LESS per gate for smaller airports and MORE per gate for larger ones. Right now they are pretty even.

I agree, and we do plan on this in the future. Unfortunately, with the current events in the airline industry and the security (or lack of which) of my job, development is moving at a snails pace. Rest assured that I'm listening, and whole-heartedly agree.

5) Finally...give startups more than just 19-seat commuter aircraft, 5 gates, and $5 mil for startup cash. Start-up giveaways should be dynamically determined from the point of entry. If one wishes to start at ORD, for example, they should receive a larger sum of startup cash and a bigger plane, at the very least. If one wishes to start at Wichita, however, they should get a lower amount, and a smaller plane. There should be goals that have to be met in a certain period of time (presumably the startup cash and planes are provided by investors) to satisfy investors, and if these goals are not at least partially met in time, the airline is liquidated. So an airline starting up at ORD should get more, but be required to do more to keep flying. Similarly an airline starting up at Wichita should get less, but be required to do less to keep flying.

We've discussed the idea of beginning with no aircraft, and a lump of cash, and I think its something we'll move foreward with. I just don't see the benefits of starting with different levels of cash dependent upon where you set up operations. I think everyone should start even.

Anyway, I am pretty tired now that I wrote all of that (took me 45 minutes) and I'm sure I'll think of more...and I'm sure noone will take the time to read this. But if someone does, I would like to know what they think about it.

-IR

I'm glad to see someone of experience with MMPOG's putting together a well thought out post.

[Edited on 10-2-2005 by miller22]

[piercey]

Alright, I have issues w/ 2

2) Implement a hub/focus city/maintenance base system that requires an airline to at least decide upon and declare a focus city before beggining operations that use more than oh...2 gates at a time. If you use more than 2 gates, you must declare that city a focus city, if you use more than 10 gates, you must build a hub, if you use more than 20 gates, you must build a terminal, if you use more than 40 gates, you must make that city a maintenence base. You are also limited as to how many focus cities you can have, how many hubs you can have, and how many MB's you can have. Of course I am just arbitrarily picking milestones, but I think you get the general idea

I don't know. What if the alliance feature was now in place. airline a has hub at xxx. airline b is in same alliance as airline a and has a lot of hubs/focus cities that airline a doesn't fly to. if their was a limit to how many airline b can have w/o having a terminal, (will say 10) and he/she needs to run a lot of frequencies, they're stuck.

[airline55]

I like the idea of a time bank (similar to the way the aircraft operation time works).