We have to deal with it whether you like it or not there will always be someone that will do this for the sake of being first or in the top whatever, but if you're experienced you will notice that they:
- Don't update their prices
- You can lower your prices and take 99% of the demand and they wont realise
- They wont affect you as much as you think 
Bad m*****f*****
Subsidiaries do not have regional hubs to the extent of AE ISADs. Unfortunately, your argument is entirely moot.
Connecting passengers.
Airline & Alliance hub glitches.
$1 Fare glitch.
Make Connecting Pax dependent on Daily Demand - e.g. Connecting Pax can only be 20% of Daily Demand at most. This would most definitely kill off most ISADs.
Well if it bothers you so much why don't you start working on the code for it? AE is written in a combination of PHP and Javascript if I remember right.
Can you not even comprehend what I'm posting? Yes, regional routes do have inflated prices, but not to the range of these blatantly unrealistic, beyond belief prices of thousands of dollars, which you never encounter with normal regional routes. Additionally, Dubai doesn't even apply in this situation, because you can't serve any regional hubs from them, and Atlanta doesn't even make sense at all - you don't have dozens of tiny regional airports being hubs and pouring a DOP of tens of millions, if not billions, of profit where there is practically no connection to major airports unless you transited a dozen times. I cannot begin to even fathom your ego.
Oh dear.....
All of this most likely because the connecting pax function does not compensate for other connecting flights... in relation to the demand... and the population of earth... I think. Its as if a route from airport a to airport c can be filled up with the equivalent direct route demand through a route using connecting airport b, but there can be like 20 different routes with different airport 'b's and all of the will fill up the demand of the direct route. This also means that one route can be serving hundreds if connection routes, and therefore be filling hundreds of times more than they should (which explains the Image in the first post) . In both cases, demand is pretty much being pulled from thin air. I think this is why spam airlines can exist, along with the allowance of spam IFS (which I believe there should be a measure of how willing a passenger is to buy it, so unreasonable prices wont make money).
I had attempted to establish a route from JSJ, the model regional hub in this game, to the nearby major airport, Harbin. However, this did not work, and it thoroughly explains why the most well-known ISADs have to "set-up" before they truly take root - they require alliances to facilitate ISAD regional hubs not supported for a single ISAD. I had to have another ISAD in my same alliance to operate a regional hub in another region, from which there could be a possibility of having the two establish a hub for use by the alliance of ISADs to bypass what I believe is the Singleplayer Major Hub ISAD Restriction - no single player can create a massive, successful ISAD without the use of an alliance bypass so as to reestablish the bimodal distribution of passengers not created for singleplayer ISADs in large hub airports. This hypothesis has not been tested yet, although I aim making strides towards doing so with my second airline in R3, Aero Xinjiang.
This explains why he only plays in the unlimited airlines/player worlds... so he can use an alliance composed entirely of ~100 of his own airlines to make massive amounts of conn demand.
I've succeeded creating a solo ISAD. So did BJ-88 on this forums in China. We were busy trying to outspam each other and just as I got hold of 3000 planes (thanks Jarkii), the game fubared on me. 
BJ-88 1st, me 2nd on that round.
It just needs a lot more setting up than alliance-based ISAD.
Emperor of AE - Most Trophies, Undefeated. Universally beloved.
60
63
143
14
3
This explains why he only plays in the unlimited airlines/player worlds... so he can use an alliance composed entirely of ~100 of his own airlines to make massive amounts of conn demand.
Check our trophies. We have won multiple rounds in limited-airline worlds.
We have also won multiple rounds prior to adopting ISAD strategy, relying on the green pax strategy dubbed "realistic" here.
We find the "realistic" strategy more boring and repetitive than the ISAD strategy. Winning basically involves avoiding megaroutes and concentrating initially on shorter routes with higher price-per-mile-flown. It was as easy to win with that strategy as with my current ISAD strategy.
Also, I don't understand how any people who love realistic airlines hate the competition in game. Extreme competitions are normal in real life. No airlines make any profit on economy class passengers on routes like JFK-LHR. Economy class passengers are there to fill the seat, they only make money on business class or first, and maybe premium economy. Seems like many "realistic" player here doesn't understand the situation in aviation industry. They got angry when things doesn't go their way and when they didn't make any profits on certain routes and ended up bankrupt. Though luck, that's how airlines work in real life, they didn't make profits on major routes and they have to re-structuring their strategy in real life 24/7.
Longtime AE Player
Also, I don't understand how any people who love realistic airlines hate the competition in game. Extreme competitions are normal in real life. No airlines make any profit on economy class passengers on routes like JFK-LHR. Economy class passengers are there to fill the seat, they only make money on business class or first, and maybe premium economy. Seems like many "realistic" player here doesn't understand the situation in aviation industry. They got angry when things doesn't go their way and when they didn't make any profits on certain routes and ended up bankrupt. Though luck, that's how airlines work in real life, they didn't make profits on major routes and they have to re-structuring their strategy in real life 24/7.
1. We don't have that many passengers in real life.
2. Airlines don't use extremely old aircraft (AE-level oldness) in large quantities in real life. At most, their aircraft are around ~30 years old.
3. Airlines don't have AE-size profit margins in real life.
A trombone player
Check our trophies. We have won multiple rounds in limited-airline worlds.
We have also won multiple rounds prior to adopting ISAD strategy, relying on the green pax strategy dubbed "realistic" here.
We find the "realistic" strategy more boring and repetitive than the ISAD strategy. Winning basically involves avoiding megaroutes and concentrating initially on shorter routes with higher price-per-mile-flown. It was as easy to win with that strategy as with my current ISAD strategy.
Most of us players here play by mostly realistic ways. You and your "empire" represent the "barbaric scum" that is trying to overthrow the entire community into chaos. If you find this game boring to play without exploits, please find another game to play. I doubt that you would be anything if airports have hard traffic limits restricting aircraft movements anyway.
1. We don't have that many passengers in real life.
2. Airlines don't use extremely old aircraft (AE-level oldness) in large quantities in real life. At most, their aircraft are around ~30 years old.
3. Airlines don't have AE-size profit margins in real life.
A trombone player
1. No s***.2. No s***.3. No s***.You are trying to justify your arguments about real-life aviation vs a free online game. Did you know how many hours and money someone needs to spend to create a free online game to fit your demand?Also, you are trying to force people to play realistically even though the game doesn't have any rules about what kind of airlines you could run. After all, it's not cheating, otherwise, the Moderators would have banned the practice or the players who've done it
They said that they had to upgrade their servers to handle the spamlines.
The game owners are having to spend IRL money so a handful of exploiters can tell everyone else that they are slaves.
Does this sound like its against a rule? Maybe more than one?
They said that they had to upgrade their servers to handle the spamlines.
The game owners are having to spend IRL money so a handful of exploiters can tell everyone else that they are slaves.
Does this sound like its against a rule? Maybe more than one?
There is no way to handle spamlines. It is there because it's not cheating or illegitimate. It's basically using real-life strategy and ramp it up a few notches. Using an extremely old aircraft is not new thing in real life aviation, many cargo and airlines in less developed countries use old aircraft that are older than 20 years old.
The first thing you need to do is to practice what you preach. As far as I'm concerned, no spamlines players ever force Realistic players to became spamlines. I never force you to make spamlines. Nor do I ever complained about how realistic airlines ruined the game for me. You are demanding that all players follow YOUR DEMANDS so you could sleep better at night.
Does this sound like you are being hypocritical most of the times? Yes, you are.
Bad m*****f*****
I mean, I'd argue that using the game's connecting passenger mechanic to essentially generate passengers and revenue from nothing isn't necessarily cheating and more exploiting an already broken mechanic.
I think I already said earlier that y'all could either A: Actually discuss how that mechanic works and how it can be fixed to cut down on this behavior. Then from there have a detailed discussion as to how to program that in such a manner that a new exploit isn't easily found. Or y'all could B: Yell at each other as to which model for running airlines is superior.
I mean, I'd argue that using the game's connecting passenger mechanic to essentially generate passengers and revenue from nothing isn't necessarily cheating and more exploiting an already broken mechanic.
I think I already said earlier that y'all could either A: Actually discuss how that mechanic works and how it can be fixed to cut down on this behavior. Then from there have a detailed discussion as to how to program that in such a manner that a new exploit isn't easily found. Or y'all could B: Yell at each other as to which model for running airlines is superior.
Except that the generation of passengers and revenue from "nothing" is The systems itself. Not an exploitation of the systems. The demand itself is created by calculating the populations of the 2 cities. It doesn't take account of socio-economic differences between the 2 cities your airlines flying to. Mainly because it would be really hard to determine that and took really long time to perfected it.
In real life, routes like GMP-CJU is the busiest routes in the world with SYD-MEL followed at number 2. But the actual demands in the game didn't reflect that.
Also, I never told anybody they can't operate realistic airlines or not. If you want to, you are welcome to do so. Which is different compared to the hypocrites who love to enforce all players to play realistically.
Bad m*****f*****
I mean the mechanic itself isn't all too bad, it's just the scale it's taken to. My regional routes from Chicago to Bum****middleofnowhere, Nebraska very much rely on this mechanic to hold some semblance of profitability. However when you start to generate more passengers per day for just your airline (not including the other 300 or so airlines in a game world) than there are people on Earth, then you start to think "hey maybe there should be some limits on this" or "hey maybe we should take another look at this mechanic to see if we can tweak it".
I'm personally in the "costs rising towards an asymptote as airlines grow larger" group, but this line of thinking runs into issues with economies of scale and things like that. But I think we can agree that even if you can put 20 billion people per day on your airline, you run into issues like "where do people find the time to work to pay for the 3 plane trips they're taking a day?" or "where do you find the skilled labor necessary to maintain fleets in the tens of thousands running 20 hours a day?".
Bad m*****f*****
But the real bottleneck isn't calling people out for taking advantage of AE as it is designed, or yelling at them back, or generation of ideas to improve the game. It's the actual nitty gritty of programming what invariably ends up being a more complicated simulation than the current version of AE. Yes AE is a simulation, not a very good one, but it says so in the header of the website. And compared to some other "simulators" out there AE is pretty not bad tier.
Like I keep saying, AE is programmed in PHP with some Javascript thrown in there. If y'all really have that big an issue with any gripe one might have with AE, then the onus is on you to fix these issues by putting in the work to develop an airline business simulator. Otherwise you're just adding to the noise, the car is in neutral and the engine is just revving going nowhere.
Bad m*****f*****
Of course since the predominant train of thought in AE is the anarcho-capitalist dream, you could just leave AE for a more complex (albeit paid) airline business simulator. Take your business elsewhere and in the face of declining ad revenue from sketchy Russian sources AE would be forced to innovate or die. Even in the free realm there are alternatives to AE, ranging from free mobile games to other more complicated desktop based versions in development. The guy who used to run Cyber Airlines is developing essentially its sequel. The common thread between all of these games is that they're actually in active development as opposed to AE. And that last point really makes debates like this moot since even if we all reach a consensus to change a certain game mechanic, who's going to program it into the game?
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
Sign In
Create Account
Back to top
