Jump to content

Photo

Players are cheating or exploiting any game bug???

R6

  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1
ashwinmpillai

ashwinmpillai

    New Member

  • Member
  • 9 posts

User's Awards

2      

I have been playing AE for quite some time, like 3-4 years. In every season you can see at least one player cheating. he gets all the aircrafts, will be the number one, will get huge valuation. how is this possible? Right now I am playing R6, there one guy with an airline named "Saudia" he owns over 10000 planes, owns 200 gates in almost all the airports of Saudi Arabia. He ranks number 1 in the game world, he is operating flights to routes where demand is not there!!! How is generating revenue? Surely he is cheating or exploiting a bug. Guys any idea why this is happening!?

 

Please find the screenshots attached for your reference

 

 



#2
Bonza

Bonza

    Supersonic lover

  • Member
  • 28 posts

This has been happening for years.

the devs won't do anything about it


Australian 

Favourite Planes:Concorde,747,A318,L-1011,L-1049

Thinks he can find MH370 just through reading books

Favourite Airline:Qantas


#3
Airboss777

Airboss777

    Just don't mess with me

  • Member
  • 570 posts
  • Website:http://www.aviationcrap.blogspot.com.au

User's Awards

20    15    9    2   

Have you asked the player? As they say, if you can't beat them, join them.



#4
TarquinShrapnel-Carruthers

TarquinShrapnel-Carruthers

    Itinerant project manager

  • Member
  • 133 posts

User's Awards

3    3    3    3   

I have been playing AE for quite some time, like 3-4 years. In every season you can see at least one player cheating. he gets all the aircrafts, will be the number one, will get huge valuation. how is this possible? Right now I am playing R6, there one guy with an airline named "Saudia" he owns over 10000 planes, owns 200 gates in almost all the airports of Saudi Arabia. He ranks number 1 in the game world, he is operating flights to routes where demand is not there!!! How is generating revenue? Surely he is cheating or exploiting a bug. Guys any idea why this is happening!?

 

Please find the screenshots attached for your reference

It is known as spamlining, and is a problem in many of the worlds. It works because the game's model for connecting passengers is unrealistic because it generates extra passengers at every hub. Sadly, the devs have shown no interest in fixing it.

 

Because I don't play like this I am no expert but my understanding is that you need a couple of hubs with pax numbers to start.

 

If you are going down this route, a) please don't and b. I suggest you play in Open worlds. If not, a) good on you, and b. play for reputation rather than value.

 

That said, what a cool route map.



#5
Abhorsen

Abhorsen

  • Member
  • 60 posts

User's Awards

   2      

Me. Not a cheat or bug exploit, just a weird game mechanic as per the post above. Wanted to try the strategy and see how it would go.

 

That said, what a cool route map.

:D



#6
TarquinShrapnel-Carruthers

TarquinShrapnel-Carruthers

    Itinerant project manager

  • Member
  • 133 posts

User's Awards

3    3    3    3   

Not a cheat or bug exploit, just a weird game mechanic as per the post above. 

 

Not sure how you distinguish between a weird game mechanic and a bug.



#7
Abhorsen

Abhorsen

  • Member
  • 60 posts

User's Awards

   2      

Not sure how you distinguish between a weird game mechanic and a bug.

 

Bug would be a genuine programming error on the part of the devs. For instance, if I was able to trick the game into delivering a 737 every week instead of every 2 weeks, that would be a bug. Then again, everyone seems to draw the line just above what they're doing, so maybe some folks around here would be ok with that.

 

The game is working as it's supposed to from a technical perspective. I'm sure the devs didn't expect the strategy to be so strong, and it definitely isn't realistic (like much of this game), but that doesn't make it a bug.



#8
TarquinShrapnel-Carruthers

TarquinShrapnel-Carruthers

    Itinerant project manager

  • Member
  • 133 posts

User's Awards

3    3    3    3   

The game is working as it's supposed to from a technical perspective. I'm sure the devs didn't expect the strategy to be so strong, and it definitely isn't realistic (like much of this game), but that doesn't make it a bug.

 

Yes, it works technically but that does not mean it isn't a bug. Whatever the cause - unintended consequence or bug - we agree that it is unrealistic. Certainly there are other unrealisms but this is the only one that really distorts game-play. That all said, we are dancing with the semantics. It is what it is and the devs show no interest in fixing it.

 

Then again, everyone seems to draw the line just above what they're doing, so 

 

I agree with this. For example, I am OK with high price/low quality IFS; my rationale for it being OK is that there is a downside (poor IFS rating, which affects reputation, route take-up, etc.) whereas exploiting the connecting passengers feature does not.



#9
Abhorsen

Abhorsen

  • Member
  • 60 posts

User's Awards

   2      

For example, I am OK with high price/low quality IFS; my rationale for it being OK is that there is a downside (poor IFS rating, which affects reputation, route take-up, etc.) whereas exploiting the connecting passengers feature does not.

 

Fair. My rationale is that using connecting passengers doesn't affect the average player who isn't playing for valuation/rank. The strategy makes its own demand, and even on routes where there's competition I usually have 0% (or maybe 1%) market share since my prices are usually ~3x default. And if players are playing for rank but still demanding realism, it feels like they're asking who can make the least realistic realistic airline, since all those unrealistic tricks (scam IFS, 660Y 744s, $7 wages etc) are going to increase your profits and rank. I just don't buy that as an argument and figure that as long as I'm not preventing folks from making their own fun airlines, it's fine.

 

This is also part of the reason I chose to operate in Saudi Arabia - when I joined 5 years after the world started there were no other airlines there, so figured I wasn't unreasonably taking market share from anyone in the setup.

 

Never going to advocate (for example) for the kind of spamlines that operate with $1 fares on routes, though, since that directly affects players who want to operate them. Guess we all have different lines.



#10
KINGXyro

KINGXyro

    OMGZ I LUUUUV AE!!!

  • Member
  • 579 posts

And that is why I started playing for reputation lmao



#11
Saspunas

Saspunas

    New Member

  • Member
  • 1 posts

Looks funny and weird. Hope devs will fix that.



#12
kellykeli

kellykeli

    trumpet go doot

  • Member
  • 100 posts

User's Awards

2    2       2      

One idea  that could both nerf spamlining and also adding an interesting element of world progression to larger hubs is to charge an exponentionally growing traffic fee, based on a combination of the proportion of total flights that your airline contributes to, and the total number of flights operating out of that airport divided by the number of runways at that airport (as in all airlines combined). It would obviously ruin spamlining because your individual contribution is exponentionally scaling, but it would also increase the cost of flights at large hubs limited by the runway count, such as Heathrow or San Diego, placing a greater need to run only the most profitable routes out of those flagship airports. Also, since the individual contribution to that cost (your flights / runway count) will be factored into the overall contribution (total flights / runway count), you could feasibly have a huge megaairline struggling to turn profit on a route that a smaller airline could still make money on, since the smaller airline contributes less to the total traffic.

 

Traffic fee = c1 * (Your airline's flights / Total airport flights)n *(c2 * Total airport flights / number of runways at the airport)

Where c1, c2, and n are variable depending on the size and importance of the airport. Obviously smaller airports would have a lower c1/c2 value, but the n value could be higher since smaller airports would employ less skilled controllers and workers who may struggle to scale when compared to, say, Kennedy Steve.

 

Also, if runway count becomes a factor, then maybe we could have airlines pool their money to try and expand the number of runways? There could be a system where an airline petitions with the airport authority to build another runway, and the airlines with hubs at that airport can be asked to vote for an expansion. If the vote passes, all airlines at the airport can be asked to make a contribution towards the expansion project by a certain deadline, or contribute more than is required for benefits, such as reduced traffic fees or increased maximum terminal size. Airlines that don't meet this expansion fee will be hit a temporary increase in traffic fees, but this will return to normal in a few months since nobody wants their game to end like this. Obviously this increase in traffic fees will scale based on contribution size v.s. required expansion fee, so if you would be only given a light smack on the wrist if you've made it to 80% of what was needed while you may be priced out of the airport entirely if you didn't contribute anything and are a large presence at the airport. Alternatively, there could be no negative consequences for not meeting the expansion fee, but add a system where the expansion could fail if the airlines collectively don't raise enough money and everyone is stuck with an airport with more demand than supply could satisfy.

 

Expansion fee = (c3 * (Your airline's flights / Total airport flights))n

Where n obviously also scales on airport size. It would cost more for a larger airport to expand their runways, as they are in more important areas, i.e. adding an additional runway to Heathrow or JFK would be much more expensive than adding an additional runway to, say, middleofnowhereville regional, which is surrounded entirely by farmland. The constant C3 is just there so the expansion actually costs something, maybe it could be a function of total passenger traffic? These expansions should be extremely expensive, so expensive that no single airline should be able to solely fund the expansion, because then it would just promote even further spamlining, wouldn't it?

 

This method would also mean that airlines with a larger presence at the airport would be required to contribute more towards expansion fees - another way to address the fact that airlines can reach trillion dollar valuations in this game.

 

I know that AE 4.0 is dead, but I just felt like rambling and you're just gonna have to deal with it.


B757-200 best plane you can't change my mind


#13
Ashcreek115

Ashcreek115

    AE Player

  • Member
  • 33 posts

Spamlining seems to rely on a feedback loop.
I actually managed to figure out kinda how it works with my main Australian airline in R7.

You can get to a point that the game can fill entire aircraft with connecting pax. Nothing new there, we've known this for ages.
However, these connection pax also count for total passenger numbers. This is intended (I think), to show total journeys.
Whats not intended, is these connecting pax creating more connecting pax. The game calculates the amount of connecting pax off of how many passengers pass through the airport. So if you start spamlining, the connecting pax form a feedback loop. You get more pax through a hub, which creates more connecting pax, which lets you fill more seats, and repeat ad infinitum. 

I believe Yuxi has said before that the connect pax can't connect twice, and while in code that may be true, I think the game is still taking connecting pax into account when making more connecting pax.



#14
Thatflyerguy

Thatflyerguy

    AE Addict

  • Member
  • 212 posts

User's Awards

2      

wow that route map is sick lmao


msg-284924-0-43010000-1638583211.gif






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: R6

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users