I'm now running Rapid Air in World R5 which flies from the United Arab Emirates. Since the start of this game world, I have come to an understanding with alin2s1 who is running Emirates that we will avoid competition and fly different routes. Not long after I decided to share control of my airline with alin2s1 because I was to tired of running the airline with all the new aircraft pouring in. Now I'm thinking, since effectively alin2s1 controls two airlines that are flying out from the same bases, we should try merging our airlines and I believe he would like that to happen. Is it possible if we try this out now in AE 3.1 with our airlines as experiment and see what problems we'll face if this is ever incorporated into AE. I know that many have talked about mergers. I agree that mergers should be limited to airlines of the same country of origin (or union), otherwise mergers should be regulated somehow, both players would have to agree on the merger, no mergers are allowed between airlines controlled by the same player and number of mergers should be limited to one or two. I believe that this system would not be abused if its planned out this way, no airlines would be buying up each other for the sake of creating a huge airlines that dominates the world, over-riding restricted worlds. If airlines do merge, the airline should be owned by both players, with both being allowed to manage the airline. Although we should allow airlines to pool their resources together, I do not see the up-side to this, with only one airline rather than two, airlines would have to wait longer for aircraft deliveries of the same amount, so this system of merger would not be abused. The up-side to mergers is that there will be two or more people running a single airline, making the airline more efficient and better managed. Other than all this, I'm tired, and I don't want to see my hard work go to waste. Can we try this out now and we'll see how it works?
Merger Test?
#1
Posted 17 February 2013 - 03:07 PM
#2
Posted 17 February 2013 - 03:20 PM
There is a way to merge the airlines that involves bankrupting airline A, and using airline B to pick up as many used aircraft from airline A as possible, then routing the old airline A routes with airline B. It's a long and drawn out process, but it can be done. Thus I don't think that a merger function is all that necessary.
#3
Posted 17 February 2013 - 03:29 PM
That would be slow, painful and risky. Why would anyone want to waste all their effort and cease operations?
#4
Posted 17 February 2013 - 03:34 PM
Mergers are always slow, painful and risky...
#5
Posted 17 February 2013 - 04:04 PM
Risky in another sense, but not dumping your precious aircraft in the market for others to take. I'm for mergers that unite two airlines into one, not scrapping one and have another pick up whats left.
#6
Posted 17 February 2013 - 04:05 PM
#7
Posted 17 February 2013 - 04:17 PM
#8
Posted 17 February 2013 - 04:28 PM
So long as there's the potential for mega-airline A and mega-airline B to combine into mega-airline C, a merger function will never be implemented into AE
#9
Posted 17 February 2013 - 04:56 PM
Why would two mega airlines merge into one when the number of aircraft order slots they can have would be reduced? Anyway, regulations would have to be in place. Could we just try this out? My idea is that we would simply merge our airlines together (aircraft, history, staff, finance,etc.) then we'll iron out the problems of IFS/IFE, minor routes issues and which alliance to choose. It can't be any simpler.
#10
Posted 18 February 2013 - 04:01 PM
Why would two mega airlines merge into one when the number of aircraft order slots they can have would be reduced? Anyway, regulations would have to be in place. Could we just try this out? My idea is that we would simply merge our airlines together (aircraft, history, staff, finance,etc.) then we'll iron out the problems of IFS/IFE, minor routes issues and which alliance to choose. It can't be any simpler.
Any simpler?
What you are suggesting would be a nightmare to try and implement in AE3.1. Mergers have been tossed around for ages, but it always boils down to simplicity to implement and fear of abuse. Perhaps when AE4 rolls around, we'll have some sort of merger tool, but with the present version it is unlikely to ever happen.
Note: I am not a developer, these opinions may not reflect the developer's stance. The information given above is based on my best knowledge from chatroom discussions and forum topics.
It's really me, now. #backtoAE
#11
Posted 18 February 2013 - 05:50 PM
I've studied previous talks on mergers and I think my idea I came out on my first post on this thread is fair and abuse-proof (please read). What I'm suggesting now is an one-off opportunity to test a merger out in AE 3.1 so we will get to find out the technical problems players would face while going through a merger and we'll see how we can iron out these problems so that mergers can be implemented in AE 4.0.
#12
Posted 18 February 2013 - 05:54 PM
I've studied previous talks on mergers and I think my idea I came out on my first post on this thread is fair and abuse-proof (please read). What I'm suggesting now is an one-off opportunity to test a merger out in AE 3.1 so we will get to find out the technical problems players would face while going through a merger and we'll see how we can iron out these problems so that mergers can be implemented in AE 4.0.
We seem to be fasing a problem here....Almost everybody requesting a addition to the game says something like "It is quick and easy just add it to AE 3.1"
- it is not easy to add an addition with the snap of the fingers.
- If Yuxi and the Developers added in every Suggestion to "test" It would take forever even if it was quick.
- Take a look at some of the older suggestions there is a trend of saying lets just test it out as it is easy attitude. Notice how many "easy" tests have been tried.
#13
Posted 18 February 2013 - 06:03 PM
I understand that and I believe every player knows that programming things are a pain in the a*s. We are all offering suggestions to make the game better. However it would be kind of you to read my first post thoroughly before posting your comments. Some of us do actually put in effort in writing these suggestions.
#14
Posted 18 February 2013 - 07:05 PM
Nothing has been implemented so far that was called "easy", but the developers should know best, although I believe that they are trying to collect for AE 4 as sole project right know (to divert efforts into).
#15
Posted 19 February 2013 - 07:13 PM
I've studied previous talks on mergers and I think my idea I came out on my first post on this thread is fair and abuse-proof (please read).
I like the idea of mergers...but I can see where it could easily be used to abuse the system. Say you are wanting to grow your airline faster, but obviously restrictions on aircraft buying/leasing limits how fast you can get aircraft to grow your airline. So you create a second airline/account and start ordering and building a route structure that would complement, and not compete, with your first one..then you merge, effectively creating one large airline in less time than it would have taken you to grow each normally. Where there is a will to abuse a game/loophole, people will find a way. Sure they could add restrictions, etc, but then it gets more and more complicated for the developers to implement and a simple feature/idea just gets messy.
#16
Posted 19 February 2013 - 07:24 PM
I see a problem though: If one airline orders say 100 aircraft and the other airline has 100 orders of the same aircraft too, would the "new" airline get 200 aircraft in the same timeframe as others 100 (unfair) or would one of either airline's orders be placed behind the orders of the other (quite in the usual game logic, but having some problems) or would only the orders of one airline (perhaps the one with the most orders of that aircraft) "survive" the merger?
And of course there remains the problem of people creating double accounts.
#17
Posted 20 February 2013 - 05:02 AM
You didn't read did you?
I like the idea of mergers...but I can see where it could easily be used to abuse the system. Say you are wanting to grow your airline faster, but obviously restrictions on aircraft buying/leasing limits how fast you can get aircraft to grow your airline. So you create a second airline/account and start ordering and building a route structure that would complement, and not compete, with your first one..then you merge, effectively creating one large airline in less time than it would have taken you to grow each normally. Where there is a will to abuse a game/loophole, people will find a way. Sure they could add restrictions, etc, but then it gets more and more complicated for the developers to implement and a simple feature/idea just gets messy.
In my very first post, I mentioned that mergers between your own airlines MUST NOT BE ALLOWED! READ FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! Which is what everyone agrees on. What I'm saying is, which is what I've been REPEATING FOR NUMEROUS TIMES BECAUSE PEOPLE NEVER BOTHERED TO READ, is that if two airlines owned by different players determines that a merger would be more beneficial, they would merge (and please refer back to my first post and read through THOROUGHLY).
DA*M, Why do people always jump to conclusions?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
#18
Posted 20 February 2013 - 06:16 AM
well you could just have a good friend on ae and just merge with them? also your tie up with alin2s1 is probably on the border of breaking game rule 2. Why don't you slowly transfer routes from one to the other? also why can't airlines that aren't in the same country merge? if anything, airlines in the same country is even worse as it's reducing competition, and why bother pouring more coding work into 3.1 when really work should be on 4.0 the merge thing if it does materialise can be implemented into 1 4.0 world and be labelled as a beta.
#19
Posted 20 February 2013 - 08:54 AM
You didn't read did you?
In my very first post, I mentioned that mergers between your own airlines MUST NOT BE ALLOWED! READ FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! Which is what everyone agrees on. What I'm saying is, which is what I've been REPEATING FOR NUMEROUS TIMES BECAUSE PEOPLE NEVER BOTHERED TO READ, is that if two airlines owned by different players determines that a merger would be more beneficial, they would merge (and please refer back to my first post and read through THOROUGHLY).
DA*M, Why do people always jump to conclusions?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Keelung, people are reading your post, and pointing out the problems. So long as players are allowed multiple airlines in multiple worlds, then deals can and will be struck involving takeovers that game your proposed system.
#20
Posted 20 February 2013 - 09:09 AM
Keelung, people are reading your post, and pointing out the problems. So long as players are allowed multiple airlines in multiple worlds, then deals can and will be struck involving takeovers that game your proposed system.
You didn't read too........................................................
otherwise mergers should be regulated somehow.....no mergers are allowed between airlines controlled by the same player and number of mergers should be limited to one or two
This was what I said. Regulation is the key. On the side note, I did think about something that would naturally stop some players from trading airlines - humanity. "Why didn't you work on that airline more?" " Why would I trade with you now when that airline sucks?"
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users