Jump to content

Photo

Moderated worlds with house rules

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1
FearofFlying

FearofFlying

    AE Luver

  • Member
  • 275 posts

So I have avoided this section of the forums like the plague. Sure I have suggestions to make a great airline game, I remember playing Airlines back in the glory days almost 20 years ago which is how I found this website recently when I went looking for it.

 

And while I fully understand, accept, and am thankful that this exists at all....I must ask..

 

 

Why, with how split this community is over the right way to play, are there not private worlds run by moderators? It is clearly within the possibility of this platform to support such a thing.... why can't we have a realistic worlds with house rules for different play styles?



#2
Jamesthomeson

Jamesthomeson

    Desperate to Fly

  • Member
  • 451 posts
As far as my knowledge goes is that its because the only developer, "Yuxi" is to busy to put any further work into AE besides updating world's periodically.
t4lPIvQ.jpgUjfJ0sC.png

#3
FearofFlying

FearofFlying

    AE Luver

  • Member
  • 275 posts

I'm not sure I understand how this would require extra work. Game worlds take up server space, but unless he hosts this from his bedroom ...which judging by the uptime is not the case.. its just a copy paste start a new world sort of thing.

 

Moderators could be... at least i would think the natural choices... leaders of certain alliances dedicated to realistic play styles. If someone breaks the house rules set for the world... in other words no extra coding needed... they just get the boot.

 

Ideally these worlds would be accessible only from the private forums... basically an invite kind of thing.... an example would be skyworld alliance has its on world and sets its own rules for it.



#4
dead pigeon?

dead pigeon?

    nobody's friend

  • Member
  • 140 posts

i actually really like this idea b/c it gives more flexibility to the game and also puts more power in the hands of more active members



#5
ffxxmz

ffxxmz

    Air Galicia's CEO and future pilot

  • Member
  • 228 posts
I am totally in favour of this. Maybe I could help moderate. I am constantly researching about airline operations so I could also help others make their airlines more realistic. The problem is that the owner of this game neither updates the servers or the game nor wants to give command to people that might actually care about AE and have programming knowledges

RmzvjWC.jpg


#6
Zach21GF

Zach21GF

    AE Player

  • Member
  • 57 posts

User's Awards

5   

I don't know if this has been suggested before, I do however support this idea. Perhaps it could cost some sort of coins that has to be bought for real money, in order to pay for the extra server load.



#7
PingPong

PingPong

    Dormant VP of Universal Alliance

  • Member
  • 1,177 posts
We’ve suggested similar ideas before, such as forum alliance worlds. The issue is that mods in the game are site-wide, I think, this includes the forums and all game worlds. Also, what house rules would we set? That would be a massive issue because everyone would have different ideas about how strict or lax to be.
post-80164-0-63668800-1520707454.png
Member, Vice-President, and Website Developer of Universal Alliance

#8
sierra_tango

sierra_tango

    Aviation Enthusiast

  • Member
  • 15 posts

Also, what house rules would we set? That would be a massive issue because everyone would have different ideas about how strict or lax to be.

 

I think that this can be solved by following similar solutions like airlinesim has implemented. Each world moderator can have some standard parameters to play with and shape the house rules according to his taste.



#9
ffxxmz

ffxxmz

    Air Galicia's CEO and future pilot

  • Member
  • 228 posts
There should be a conference between those of us who want this, in order to discuss the rules, but the basics would be those:

Use realistic cabin configurations: for modern aircraft we can use Seatguru but for older aircraft, it is complicated. We should also make a database with cabin configurations of older planes, I know a lot of websites that feature cabin seatmaps of older planes, so I can share them in a subforum, and classified by type of airplane. You are not forced to use them as they are, that means that you can adapt them to meet your airline's needs, but always exercising common sense

No soviet aircraft if you are operating from a western or western-alligned country and no western aircraft if you operate from the eastern bloc or any soviet-alligned country until 1991: I think this is pretty self-explanatory, if you operate Il-18 from France just because it's cheaper than a 727, or if you operate 737's in the USSR just because it's faster than the AN-10a you will get the boot. Exceptions can be made though, such as the case of some African countries, China, Iran, etc. I know that after the glasnost and perestroika, some airlines from the eastern bloc, such as LOT, Malév and Interflug, started operating 767, 737 and A310 respectively shortly before the fall of the Berlin wall and the end of the Soviet union. In such cases it is allowed but always exercising common sense. That also applies to modern day North Korea and Cuba, though with Cuba some exceptions can be made. Cubana has operated some western aircraft, mostly leased from European carriers and Aerogaviota, a Cuban airline that caters mostly to tourists (which I also flew), flies ATR 42 along with AN-24 and 26 and Mi-8. That leads me to...

Flights over the iron curtain aren't prohibited, but keep them to a reasonable minimum: I know that some western airlines flew to Moscow and that Aeroflot flew to some cities in the western bloc along with some other airlines situated in the eastern bloc such as Interflug. However, exercise realism. If you operate a western airline, fly only from your main hub and fly only to the capital cities of those countries and if you operate a soviet airline, you can fly only from the capital city to other capital city, exceptions can be made with St. Petersburg for example

Strictly no ordering of planes past their production end date: This is self explanatory, if you have pending deliveries of the DC-7 until 1996, you get the boot without further notice. If you really need to order a specific type of airplane past its production end, there is a grace period of no more than 2 years since the production ends

No use of old planes unless it is for realistic purposes: for example, if you operate some small airline from some inhospitable region such as Alaska, Yukon, Tatarstan, Siberia, etc, it's ok to use some old propeller aircraft like the DC-6 Convair Metropolitan, AN-26 or Yak-40 but not if you operate a major airline or flag carrier. If you use a Britannia or any similar aircraft in the 80's to have an unfair fuel advantage over other airlines in order to dramatically reduce your prices, you will be warned, if you don't change your attitude, and open more routes with that type of aircraft, that will result in your expulsion

Flooding of routes with the purpose of dramatically reducing the price of air tickets is forbidden, however, using connecting passengers to raise the number of passengers in some specific routes is permitted as long as it is realistic. For example, let's say I operate Aerolíneas Argentinas or any major carrier in Argentina, I'm part of an alliance and I have a domestic hub in Aeroparque Jorge Newbery (AEP) in Buenos Aires, so I want to open a route to Neuquén (NQN), in the route configurator of the game, it shows that only between 50 and 70 passengers fly that route while in real life, that route is flown by roughly 500 passengers daily. If I have a good traffic bonus, i would raise that level as much as I can while leaving default prices so as to meet real demand. In that case, pulling profit from connecting passengers bonus is allowed but to a reasonable amount. However, doing that in busy routes is not allowed, determining where to use connecting bonus fairly is up to each one's common sense

It's not recommended to try to fill all the seat demand on mainline, high demand routes: leave something for the rest, specially if you're playing in vintage worlds, bear in mind that demand levels are modelled after modern day figures and people didn't fly that much 50 years ago because flying was EXPENSIVE, so, don't try to push 30 707’s on JFK-LHR to cover the demand because that's unrealistic as f***, put three or four aircraft and raise the price of tickets, I recommend the competition to do the same

Maxing out aircraft utilisation is strictly forbidden: the absolute maximum is 16 daily hours. For more realism, I suggest using planes as following
Regional propeller aircraft: maximum 6 or 7 daily hours
Narrowbody jets or any aircraft doing main short haul routes: 9 hours maximum
Widebody aircraft doing medium haul routes or older equivalents (720, DC-6/7, B-377 stratocruiser, Convair 880 etc...): 12 hours maximum. This applies also if a widebody such as the A300 does a short haul route
Long haul aircraft: 16 hours maximum
This chart is more of a suggestion than a rule and it's flexible as long as the absolute maximum of 16 daily hours is respected

There may be more possible rules to suggest and I may have more, but these are the basics at least for now

RmzvjWC.jpg


#10
PingPong

PingPong

    Dormant VP of Universal Alliance

  • Member
  • 1,177 posts
With regards to hours, remember that AE includes turn time, but airlines report utilisation in block time, which is gate to gate and does not include turn time. 9 hours can easily become 12-13 for short haul aircraft, and regional props do so many short routes that 6-7 can become 10-12. 12 and 16 sound good, maybe including turn this time, but we all need to remember that the world’s longest flights do not operate the same aircraft more than once per week, so on aircraft operating once per day on an 18 hour flight is not good.
post-80164-0-63668800-1520707454.png
Member, Vice-President, and Website Developer of Universal Alliance




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users