398 replies to this topic

[KMRobinson318]

While I welcome efforts to curb constant expansion to megalomaniacal proportions, I'm finding the changes that have actually been implemented actually make it almost impossible to even get started - at least if one is playing realistically. Hiking lease prices and maintenance costs seems to actually discourage playing realistically, and just allows further domination by spamliners, using unrealistically dense seating layouts and unrealistically stingy IFS (for example, I've seen 8F 40C 315Y on an A340-300 more than once; in the real world you'd be lucky to get away with that even on an A340-600). Reputation seems to have very little effect on actual gameplay, as these spamliners still manage to win passengers away from competing airlines with realistic settings far too easily.

 

Sadly, the game has lost a lot of its fun for me as a result, as I can't even see a way of getting started playing with realistic settings.

 

So what should have been done instead? Here are a few of my suggestions:

 

1) Make legroom and IFS have more of an impact on competition. An airline running with seats crammed in as tightly as possible and offering a scam IFS should not successfully compete with an airline offering a proper IFS and reasonable density of seating, especially when the latter charges exactly the same price as the former!

 

2) Change the IFS configuration options to something a bit more like that of AirlineSim, with options for snacks, hot/cold meals, additional meals/snacks. Amenities such as pillows, headphones etc could be left as they are. This could be as detailed or as simple as the player chooses to make it.

 

3) No discounts for extending leases. That would make it a bit harder to continue to run older aircraft into the ground and would therefore encourage replacing aircraft rather than just continually expanding fleets.

 

4) Instead of having the maximum number of seats set as a default, make every player go through the aircraft configuration stage. Then we might see just a bit less of the lazy 0F 0C 660Y going on!

 

Feel free to disregard/debate any of the above.

[mistertrasher]

Definitely agree with AE Dev's point on transitioning away from a game model involving constant expansion of airlines. 

 

In a way, it will not be possible for AE Devs to make AE fully realistic in this respect though. In the real world we have many multitudes of airlines; there are over 5000 airlines with ICAO codes. At this moment, no single server in AE allows for more than 300 airlines or so. So without the competition that airlines face in real life, airlines in AE are able to make unrealistically high profits because most routes are simply run by one airline. This in turn means that airlines in AE virtually always turn a profit and can therefore buy additional aircraft ad infinitum. 

 

One way to solve this issue is by creating servers which allow for 5000+ AE airlines. I doubt this is feasible though as it could crash the server.

 

Another option would be for AE Devs to put upper limit caps on the number of aircraft that can be purchased from each series. For example, no airline would be allowed to purchase more than 70 from the B757s series, 50 from the A330s series, etc. To avoid disadvantaging those airlines who wish to operate as a RyanAir style European budget airline exclusively with B737s or A320s, the B737, A320 and any analogous class of narrow-body aircraft could be exempt from the caps. In this instance, geography and range limits on the B737 would constrict the size of the airline. Also to stop airlines from simply buying up to the cap for each aircraft series in the game and thus in effect building huge fleets of 600+ aircraft, AE Devs might consider increasing the base maintenance costs for each series of aircraft using a variable formula in line with the number of series of aircraft which an airline has. For instance, if an airline has B737s, A330s, B757s and B777s, the base maintenance costs for each of these aircraft series would be far higher than an airline which only operates aircraft in the A320 series. Indeed, in real life it costs airlines far more in maintenance the more aircraft the airline has from different series because they each require different maintenance practices and expertise. Perhaps AE Devs could also further increase the number of maintenance employees required by the AE airline. Not sure if all this is feasible though from a programming perspective - might require consequential changes to other things and this could be time consuming for AE Devs. Just some ideas. 

 

Also a more user-friendly way to replace older aircraft in need of retirement with newer ones purchased/leased using a 'click the box on the left hand side to replace all the selected aircraft at the same time' type function would be brilliant rather than having to click into each one individually. It becomes a HUGE hassle when you have large numbers of aircraft.    

 

Otherwise this is a great game. Brilliant attention to detail with all the different aircraft types. I love being able to buy my favourite commercial aircraft and set them on my favourite routes around the world.

 

Can’t wait to see a potential inclusion of the B777X when more information becomes publicly available to allow for this, or even the rumoured B797 several years from now. 

 

 

Thanks AE Devs!   

[Quintus_Istari]

As I have stated in another topic, in theory (and I must stress this word for I do not know how the module was coded) it should be  relativelly easy to curb constant growth, with a tax over the number of planes.

 

A tax that could be added to the end-of-month tax on profits.

 

A tax equal to 0.01% per aircraft owned, would make it unprofitable to have more than a certain quantity of planes.

At the same time, growth could continue, but operators would have to sell smaller planes in order to purchase larger ones.

 

Again, in theory, such tax should be easy to calculate with very basic code modifications. But it is never too much to stress that not knowing how the programing was done, I am generally guessing.

 

Thanks

[Nat.]

I think another good way to add additional airlines without crashing the server (least I don't assume it would) is to keep the 300 airline limit but add an additional 3,800 (or any other amount) airlines that'll be ran by AI. 

 

In some or all servers, the AI can even be consisted of all real-world airlines so that players are forced to truly create their own unique airline as well. 

[v35n]

So what makes airline empires not too realistic with ultra big airlines flying is the lack of taxation and real world policies. In real life, there is a certain number of flights limited from this airport to another, so airlines can’t spam planes that much (practically gates but stricter)
There are also airspace rules, like planes cannot go into this airspace. Take Russian airspace, only one airline from each country can go into their airspace.
Some airspace also imposes heavy taxes, they should also include that, and also heavier taxes for using the atc at wee hours. Talking about that let’s talk about scheduling. They should include demand for particular hours of the day you schedule the flights. If you put too many flights at the same hour then the demand decreases.
However, these changes I feel are not necessary as they take away the fun of airline empires. Never mind if you don’t get what I’m saying my point is that the game is almost perfect the way it is and changes are probably not necessary.

[boomchicka]

I think there should be worlds that are much more detailed/less expansion based. Other worlds could be like s4b.

[m8rics]

I'm a new player and I really like airline empire's huge set of data. I wish the following improvements can be made to make it perfect:

• Currently route demand seems to be based purely on annual passenger numbers of the two airports. It should take into account the routes already opened in the same airport (which will reduce demand in general). Routes between nearby cities or the same coutries should have bigger impact. 
• Airports in the same city, the closer to the city center should have higher demand, rather than the bigger aiport normally far from the city.
• An airport can only have a limited number of flights each day. Some airports have embargo period as well. That will make slots more valuable.
• Some airports should be domestic only.
• Demand should in general increase at different speed between areas, and fluctuate with significant events, for example a fincial crisis or natural disaster./*]
• Shorter distance routes should have less demand (proportionally) on F and C class than longer distances. Currently it seems only one seat configuration needed.
• Number of seats, IFS, reputation should also affect demand at a greater level.
• Fuel price can be volatile to make it more interesting.
• Aircraft can only start from hub/HQ, but up to 2 stops can be made.
• Route can be planned before aircraft is delivered.
• Aircraft cost increase annually indexed. Currently some old planes prices are too cheap because they still have the same price 20 years ago.
• Used aircraft should cost more to change seat configuration. The delivery time should be longer.
• Load factor changes instantly after prices are changed. It should take at least a few days.

[DerpCakeFlies]

i completely agree with this. However if we wanted a realistic world, it would probably be in a new world like a super realistic world while most of the others would remain the same

[Browneyed1989]

Slots on different times of the day (with different demand / prices) would be a great improvement.

[Anthony123]

im currently running Pan Am in (R1) and the Dc10 is stopping production so i ordered 220 of them and the last one will be deliverd in 2009! Despite being ordered in 1988 and the DC10 ending production in 1988   Talk about backlog delay lolllllll

[amodsk]

I feel rather than implementing suggestions such as having upper limit on a particular plane etc. it makes more sense that there be realistic maintenance related options and safe flying of planes tied to such maintenance schedules or say seat demand tied to such age so that it automatically ensures that players don't just keep on expanding fleet but pay proper attention to their revenue/ profit stream. 

 

Also new planes scheduling can become lot more real market oriented wherein each plane has fixed limit as to how many new planes can be brought into service and price each player pays to buy a plane be dependent on how many he buys in an order, his delivery schedule (where one has to pay premium for booking more than fair share of new plane production capacity). This way new plane purchase also will necessitate strategic planning. Similar model can be implemented for leasing a plane as well.

 

This will also make plater strategically plan what kind of fleet he needs and his network accordingly than mindless expansion. 

 

Second option that can be added could be adding seasonal demand/ fares schedule so no one is sure of demand all the time. This, when complimented with short term discounts etc, will cause players to also have more flexible schedules and make each airline dependent on market demand/ supply fluctuations like real network.

 

Thirdly one can develop alliance sharing features like code share etc. which will cause players to co-operate and develop more coherent network. All this will eventually lead to one having more realistic fleet and will also add planning aspect to the game.

[Hardcore 787 Shill]

I feel rather than implementing suggestions such as having upper limit on a particular plane etc. it makes more sense that there be realistic maintenance related options and safe flying of planes tied to such maintenance schedules or say seat demand tied to such age so that it automatically ensures that players don't just keep on expanding fleet but pay proper attention to their revenue/ profit stream. 

 

Also new planes scheduling can become lot more real market oriented wherein each plane has fixed limit as to how many new planes can be brought into service and price each player pays to buy a plane be dependent on how many he buys in an order, his delivery schedule (where one has to pay premium for booking more than fair share of new plane production capacity). This way new plane purchase also will necessitate strategic planning. Similar model can be implemented for leasing a plane as well.

 

This will also make plater strategically plan what kind of fleet he needs and his network accordingly than mindless expansion. 

 

Second option that can be added could be adding seasonal demand/ fares schedule so no one is sure of demand all the time. This, when complimented with short term discounts etc, will cause players to also have more flexible schedules and make each airline dependent on market demand/ supply fluctuations like real network.

 

Thirdly one can develop alliance sharing features like code share etc. which will cause players to co-operate and develop more coherent network. All this will eventually lead to one having more realistic fleet and will also add planning aspect to the game.

This entirely. Codeshares, maintenance budgets, scheduling - all of it. We need it. Low maintenance budgets could result in fines or even hull losses, which would have a detrimental impact on reputation and pax numbers. I'm in support of all of this.

[Avelo]

This entirely. Codeshares, maintenance budgets, scheduling - all of it. We need it. Low maintenance budgets could result in fines or even hull losses, which would have a detrimental impact on reputation and pax numbers. I'm in support of all of this.

[AdmiralSirJohn]

To be honest, I'm all for anything that ends spamlining.  I don't mind a constant expansion model, but having someone essentially corner the market on any and every route and filling up the aircraft order book before the end of the first in-game day is just ridiculous.

 

Keep the model, but slow things down.  Even in sandbox worlds, make it 20 min/day, and in the realistic worlds, make it realtime.

 

As far as the "instant demand figures", I'd suggest adding a "market study" function to replace that.  It should cost money that scales with the size of the market.

 

But I'm out of the game until spamlining is ended.  It just isn't fun for me.  I'll hang here in the forums and post my livery designs instead.

[RubberDuckGaming]

To be honest, I'm all for anything that ends spamlining.  I don't mind a constant expansion model, but having someone essentially corner the market on any and every route and filling up the aircraft order book before the end of the first in-game day is just ridiculous.

 

Keep the model, but slow things down.  Even in sandbox worlds, make it 20 min/day, and in the realistic worlds, make it realtime.

 

As far as the "instant demand figures", I'd suggest adding a "market study" function to replace that.  It should cost money that scales with the size of the market.

 

But I'm out of the game until spamlining is ended.  It just isn't fun for me.  I'll hang here in the forums and post my livery designs instead.

Cornering the market on every route and filling up the order book on Day 1 is literally impossible considering airlines only start with $7.5-100 million depending on the world.

 

Sandbox worlds are meant to be super short, the 5 minute time seems to work out well to allow them to constantly reset. Realistic worlds being realtime would alter the gameplay too significantly in a way I believe most players would dislike.

 

A "market study" or similar feature would just be a bit time-consuming and impede the ability of players to make routes easily.

[AdmiralSirJohn]

Cornering the market on every route and filling up the order book on Day 1 is literally impossible considering airlines only start with $7.5-100 million depending on the world.

 

Sandbox worlds are meant to be super short, the 5 minute time seems to work out well to allow them to constantly reset. Realistic worlds being realtime would alter the gameplay too significantly in a way I believe most players would dislike.

 

A "market study" or similar feature would just be a bit time-consuming and impede the ability of players to make routes easily.

 

You may call it impossible, but that's the routemap I saw when I looked at Cathay Pacific.  Calling me a liar does not change what I saw.

[zipp]

You may call it impossible, but that's the routemap I saw when I looked at Cathay Pacific.  Calling me a liar does not change what I saw.

Again, you posting this across multiple threads does little more then prove that you are immature and not cut out for the game play.

Plus it wasn't Day 1 of the world, it would've been around 4 years into the game world when you joined.

[MrTrash]

The easiest way to end spam lining is to remove Scam IFS/IFE

Listen I use it too at times to speed up,but its time to retire it.

Second is fixing config issues and how you can optimize a config to be efficient for profit but impossible in real life.

[SushiFanta]

AE has a lot of depth with the IFS, plane configs, and hubs. The problem is that it is almost always a better return on your time to increase scale, buy more planes, and open new routes, than it is to make your airline more efficient and profitable. I think that if the market were just more saturated in general (more airlines in a world, fighting for fewer pax) then it might be more incentive to focus on efficiency and offer lower prices. However, right now you can mostly succeed just using unserved/underserved routes and avoiding competition. If there were fewer pax or they cared more about reputation/in-flight amenities, it could make the other aspects of AE more rewarding than opening new routes. I think that putting more emphasis on competition rather than expansion could make the game more engaging and make it more fun to be a regional or commuter airline without expanding infinitely.