40 replies to this topic

[iraqi]

Originally posted by grumpyone

Originally posted by iraqi
yep here's another one:

http://www.airlineem...php?player=6970

and one more, same routes:
http://www.airlineem...php?player=7763

rgds Martin

[Edited on 11/22/2005 by iraqi]

Undercutting is not what the original removal was all about, it was the name that was in question.

These two you say are the same and require removal, where is it?

Aaaaah okay, couldn't read the name anymore..
anyway undercutting is one thing, but charging 0 and 1 usd and losing 20mil a year is something else i guess ;-)

[drv4truk]

It's not about the name with these. They were probably set up by the same person to either hold gates or hold the route until another airline can shift aircraft there. There are too many people creating multiple airlines and using one to help out another or setting them up just to ruin routes. Look at Everywair, Eurotrash Air and others that are not making money at all.

[iraqi]

Originally posted by drv4truk
It's not about the name with these. They were probably set up by the same person to either hold gates or hold the route until another airline can shift aircraft there. There are too many people creating multiple airlines and using one to help out another or setting them up just to ruin routes. Look at Everywair, Eurotrash Air and others that are not making money at all.

Like I said in my post b4 this one, I was unable to check what the reason was of the removal, as the airline's name had been changed already..

[grumpyone]

Originally posted by drv4truk
It's not about the name with these. They were probably set up by the same person to either hold gates or hold the route until another airline can shift aircraft there. There are too many people creating multiple airlines and using one to help out another or setting them up just to ruin routes. Look at Everywair, Eurotrash Air and others that are not making money at all.

One must understand that the 4 letter worded names that TourqueWrench removed is what this post was all about.

We must keep AE free of such foul worded names.

PSA, I know your concern is the price dumping of usless airlines and feeders that have been talked about many times. Until AE has a more stringent secruity measure of a player becomming a feeder or dumping just to be a pest, we all must live with this, one can only hope that these are deleted if not used after the 14 day cycle. Which should be reduced at 3 days.

[AeroLinear]

14 IS rather lenient. most games use a 3-7 day policy.

[TorqueWrench]

Belive me, myself and miller are discussing this issue, users abusing the system will not be tolerated in the next version of Airline Empires...

[wingnut1981]

One thing you have to keep in mind though when deciding how long an account has to be inactive before being deleted is that there are many valid reasons why an honest player couldn't log in for a period of time. Business trip, vacation, holidays, etc. 14 days may be a bit long, but 3 days is way too short.

[airline55]

What about a "vacation button" where you could list how long you were going to be away?

[wingnut1981]

Then you'd just have the cheaters clicking the vacation button once a week. Not a bad idea, but (in my opinion) doesn't do much to eliminate the original problem of feeder/route killer airlines.

[b-west]

Another interesting airline: http://www.airlineem...php?player=5633

Just flies all his planes back and forth between sin & bkk

[dianemather]

Originally posted by wingnut1981
Then you'd just have the cheaters clicking the vacation button once a week. Not a bad idea, but (in my opinion) doesn't do much to eliminate the original problem of feeder/route killer airlines.

That's as may be but some people do have legitimate reasons to be away for periods longer than 3 days - I for one will be away for 2 weeks at xmas - if I don't get an opportunity to log in then by the 3 day rule I would be done for - that hardly seems fair. Even 14 days could be a hardship for some people.

[grumpyone]

Originally posted by wingnut1981
Then you'd just have the cheaters clicking the vacation button once a week. Not a bad idea, but (in my opinion) doesn't do much to eliminate the original problem of feeder/route killer airlines.

True, but the AE security issue needs to be addressed, as the IP stops some but many know how to beat the system.

14 days is far too long and some say 3 is too short, the alliance issue needs to be considered as you can have an alliance member log into your account to keep it active.

Then again, one valid idea whould be to have all players join an alliance before that are able to play, this way, there is EYES looking at them from the start. Make it harder to cheat and with the away from PC issue another alliance member can keep their account active. Just a thought.

[drv4truk]

The 14 days isn't an issue and I don't think that should be changed. It should be enforced though. I know people that have gone away for over a month with no one watching their airline or logging in for them and the airline never reset. If you go away and have an alliance member watch your airline for you, then you can no longer buy/sell aircraft from that person.

Just killing off the unprofitable airlines would be easy by getting rid of the ones that have negative value(??) (abusing the aircraft ordering bug) and the ones that remain unprofitable. There are a large number of them with $1 and $0 ticket prices that have -$1M to -$10M per month losses.

[AeroLinear]

what psa said. delete those airlines that are unprofitable for an extended period of time. even if they aren't cheating this is sort of a "game over" that would help keep retards from clogging up the server and cheaters alike. no offense if you happen to be retarded. i just don't want you taking up precious bandwidth/database space flying 3 planes between 2 cities 40 miles apart because you "didn't know any better"

[Edited on 11/22/2005 by AeroLinear]

[grumpyone]

Originally posted by AeroLinear
what psa said. delete those airlines that are unprofitable for an extended period of time. even if they aren't cheating this is sort of a "game over" that would help keep retards from clogging up the server and cheaters alike. no offense if you happen to be retarded. i just don't want you taking up precious bandwidth/database space flying 3 planes between 2 cities 40 miles apart because you "didn't know any better"

[Edited on 11/22/2005 by AeroLinear]

doh doh doh doh watch it man, doh doh doh...

Talk nice in the words you use or do not talk at all. Picking on the doh doh doh.

[legion242]

Originally posted by AeroLinear
what psa said. delete those airlines that are unprofitable for an extended period of time. even if they aren't cheating this is sort of a "game over" that would help keep retards from clogging up the server and cheaters alike. no offense if you happen to be retarded. i just don't want you taking up precious bandwidth/database space flying 3 planes between 2 cities 40 miles apart because you "didn't know any better"

[Edited on 11/22/2005 by AeroLinear]

Would also free up plenty of "airspace" so to speak: gates, etc. that could be used by legitimate players.

[BarbulaM1]

Most new airlines are not profitible at all, deleting those that are not would not be a good idea. Not to mention, 1 airline would in theory use three database rows (I would think), and each forum post on most forum systems use 1 row per post (Im sure you can infer what Im getting at here). A system that requires administrative concent when using more than one airline on one IP range would be nice. (70.42.56.xxx) and automaticly updates ones IP when logging in, so that they can only login to that one account with that IP, unless given administrative aproval.

[AeroLinear]

that's not a good idea. many of us (including myself) play from several locations, not to mention many also play from the same location (i.e. colleges). all around bad idea when you have, like in my case, probably 20 or so people playing AE all from 1 external IP.

[mcminty]

Originally posted by wingnut1981
One thing you have to keep in mind though when deciding how long an account has to be inactive before being deleted is that there are many valid reasons why an honest player couldn't log in for a period of time. Business trip, vacation, holidays, etc. 14 days may be a bit long, but 3 days is way too short.

3 days??!?

I am going away on holiday at christmas for 4 weeks. I will not be able to log on into AE because ill be in Vietnam/ cambodia. Unless, of courese, they have internet in the remote areas.

Is there any way for my account to be protected from destruction?

[BarbulaM1]

Most places like schools run a back bone ISP and they play from an extended IP range, not from one route to one external IP. (my school is 52.0-54.256 for external IP, each computer runs on the backbone line). Also it would not prohibit you from playing in other locations...