Initial expenses. An idea to decrease a bit the starting speed of the players

[neldot]

It seems fair to me that the starting base should have a cost, deducted from the starting budget of the player.

This cost could be (at least) the monthly cost of the gates itself.

This rule, if implemented, would forbid players from starting in airports bigger than 200k (with an initial budget of 500k).
For example, if the starting base was a 250K airport, the initial money of the player should be reduced to 500.000-250.000x2 = 0 euro.  This way, players will be forced to choose mostly small/medium airports (50K/200K) to start with, otherwise they won't have enough money left to spend in gates acquirement.

Of course, the starting budget could be raised, for example, to 1.000.000 euro, so the players could choose a 350k airport as starting base, but at the cost of having only 300k money left to spend in gates (1.000.000-350.000x2=300.000).

I think that this rule would benefit the dynamics of the game, slowing down the initial economy, thus making the opening of a "big hub" as a target to reach, not a granted initial "gift".
Furthermore, that will reward the initial strategy of the player in choosing the base, whilst currently too many players simply choose a very big airport to have an initial advantage in route prices.

What do you think?

[Tiger In Training]

This is a very interesting suggestion.

It is my personal opinion that at the start of worlds, the airlines that base at ORD, ATL and LHR just run away at the top of the rankings. After a couple of days they are already ordering jets.

I'm not industry expert, but I'd imagine it's a lot easier to start an airline out of a small airpoet than a large one, for the simple reason of starting up costs. Hence, increased reality?

I believe it would make the game more strategic and interesting. Slightly harder to predict as well, possibly.

However, People basing at large airports means people spent more time on the game. Giving people less reason to log in (a slower economy) may not be beneficial for the game.

People would start asking for loans in order to start at the big hubs. People may not like public worlds as starting cash is 500k (though this would probably be reviewed should a suggestion like this be implemented) and may opt for private worlds where starting cash can be rather large. This would, in my opinion detract competitiveness from the game.


If done well, this suggestion could improve game play.

[CHR]

I think the idea has quite a lot of potential. In fact, I would suggest going as far as charging an additional fee base construction fee (perhaps not as much as the normal second base construction fee) to make smaller airports far more desirable/the only option.

I don't think that it would be bad for the game, people would just accept the need to start small - in fact I think it would encourage people to discover smaller airports (and avoid the repetitive route editing at larger airports).

The only significant problem I can envisage is that people who aren't familiar with the game may waste all their money on an expensive hub and then be unable to play for lack of money...

[neldot]

Thank you for your endorsement, Tiger In Training and CHR.