Messages

1

Game Strategy / Re: Plane age.

« on: April 28, 2012, 03:01:01 pm »

It also depends on the game situation.  In my world (2208), there's almost no market for used planes.  Thus, I wind up scrapping most of them so the the total value of each plane is lost.  Since I'm also way out in front, I'm only rotating the fleet at four or five years and still doing just fine.

2

Game Strategy / Re: Leasing out: how to make profit out of it

« on: March 25, 2012, 09:05:08 pm »

Leasing is a tricky endeavor.  The badly-flawed revenue model generates so much cash that established airlines will never need to lease.  As you can see in your own case, they can always afford to buy all the aircraft they need.  So, your only real market is the new entries.  These guys often find it cost-efficient to lease in aircraft as they get up to speed.  Again, this is because the revenue engine will generate far more income than the cost of a reasonable lease.  Thus, you could make some profit if you can anticipate exactly the type of aircraft the startups need.  But, for me, leasing out aircraft is far more trouble than it's worth and I've found that it rarely justifies the effort.

3

Alliances / PW 2208 -- PGU Forms Cosmic Amalgamated Alliance

« on: February 27, 2012, 05:37:29 pm »

Chamonix Delicieux, Director of Alliance Operations for PanGalactic Universal, today announced the formation of the Cosmic Amalgamated Alliance.  Ms. Chamonix stated that "The goal of the alliance is simple:  we want to take over the galaxy.  With a small, select group of alliance partners, we cannot and will not be stopped.  PGU will be looking to forge a working relationship with a very limited number of airlines in key markets.  As its contribution, PGU will provide strategic expertise** and heavy discounts on aircraft to selected partners.  Lunch will now be served in our fabulously luxurious executive retreat".

** We'll tell ya what you're doing wrong.

------------------------------------------

PGU is looking for alliance partners in any and all areas of the Middle East in PW 2208.  Please send a message to CEO For Life AytchMan von Feelgood.  If you're airline is struggling, well, Dr. Feelgood can fix what ails you.  If you want to move up in the standings, get moving on this, 'cause we ain't taking many.

4

Game Strategy / Re: Does it make any difference?

« on: February 24, 2012, 09:55:33 pm »

Choose the best seat/speed combination at the lowest price for the range you need.  The Breg and the Fairchild 227B are the worst.  I'd pick the HS-478 2B and the NAM 500 for the 1600- and 2000-mile ranges.

5

General Chat / Re: Question on the Revenue Model

« on: February 23, 2012, 06:25:34 pm »

Here's another couple of data points to add perspective to the revenue problem.  We're a little over a year into PW 2208.  Having started with a plane and cash totalling 2.5 million in net worth, PGU is now worth almost 2.7 billion.  That's an ROI of about 100,000 percent (!!!) in fifteen months.  That's so far beyond reasonable expectations as to require no further comment.  And it's routine; I can do it every time.  Beyond that, I've bought all of the planes I need and have effectively saturated all available bases and routes so I'm now sitting on one billion in cash with nothing to spend it on but bigger replacement aircraft.  That's fifteen months into a ten-year game.  The revenue model is seriously out of whack.

6

General Chat / Re: Question on the Revenue Model

« on: February 23, 2012, 05:27:17 am »

Stephen--

I first posted this back in '08 and it may shed some additional light:

http://stephenm.org/smfforum/index.php?topic=6833.msg65075#msg65075

Basically, I think that cutting the exaggerated route revenue by a substantial margin would rein in the explosive growth in the early game.  Rather than energizing players with the prospect of billions to be made, I think the current structure strips out a lot of the strategic decision-making that would otherwise be required.  At present, the early game is simply a headlong rush to add planes and routes that requires little planning or analysis.  Cutting revenue drastically would force players to choose new aircraft and select routes more judiciously.  It would also delay the late-game continuous price-cutting that becomes tedious as bases and routes become saturated.

Finally, in a different vein, I'd like to see a sprinkling of random events that require decisions by the player; this would also liven things up.  Note that I'm NOT suggesting those simple types of events where a player is simply informed something good or bad happened and he made or lost five million.  I'm suggesting the addition of decisions that offer a couple of options, each with a balanced set of benefits and disadvantages, thus requiring a little head-scratching by the player.  But this is a subject for another thread.

ETA:  I absolutely agree that games in progress should not be revised.  I think that running one or two public test worlds with a simple fix (that cuts revenue to a level that ensures a decent profit but no more) would be a useful test.  Both to see if the game runs properly and to gauge player reaction.

7

General Chat / Re: Question on the Revenue Model

« on: February 23, 2012, 04:09:49 am »

Thanks, Wishful, I appreciate the info.  I posted a cheeky screed back in '08 about the exaggerated revenue model and nothing has changed.  I still believe that a substantial cut in the net profit from each route would serve the game very well.  As it is, I think that, instead of rewarding players, the current revenue model actually removes a lot of fun from the game.  The enormous piles of cash that a player generates from the very beginning eliminate a lot of strategic decision-making and this drives many players away.  Instead of applying thoughtful strategies, player simply engage in a land rush.  We expand at a breakneck pace until all routes are saturated and the dreaded carpal-tunnel price-cutting begins.  In my view, that's why fully half of the airlines become moribund after a year or two.  If the admins fixed this one problem, I think the game would be revitalized.

8

General Chat / Question on the Revenue Model

« on: February 22, 2012, 09:48:23 pm »

I've long wondered why AM's revenue model is structured the way it is so perhaps one of the admin's can 'splain it to me in terms of a specific example.  I'm running PanGalactic Universal in Public World 2208.  On the Dubai-Al Ain run, there are currently five different airlines offering service at wildly different prices.  These range from $205 to $678.  Not only that but two different airlines are offering service on the exact same model plane at wildly different prices -- the only difference is the frequency (5x for one and 1x for the other).  It's also pretty clear that, at this stage of the game, the load factors for the five airlines on this route are all around 100 percent.

So my question is simple:  why is this happening?  A basic real-world check tells us that the prices for all of these flights should be fairly close together because the game does not offer multiple classes of service or discounts or other differentiating factors.  It's obvious that, all else being equal, multiple frequencies drive down the price significantly and, in so doing, distort the real-world economics rather severely.  Because, with rare exceptions, your average real-world passenger is not particularly price-sensitive based on flight frequency or aircraft model.  So, again, why is this happening?  But I guess my real question is this:  aren't there a few simple changes that can and should be made to AM to better model real-world economics?  Shouldn't the gap for different frequencies be narrowed or closed altogether?  If not, why not?  Is there a purpose or benefit to basing the game on an inaccurate economic model?  And the biggest question of all:  shouldn't the overall net revenue produced for any given flight be drastically reduced?  Note that my intent here is not to drive the game to model the near-bankrupt operation of many carriers.  Rather, it's to revise the revenue model to produce a more reasonable rate of return that would require some additional strategy on the part of the player to succeed.  [All questions asked with warm, fuzzy affection.]

9

General Chat / How to Fight a Major!?

« on: June 18, 2008, 05:51:24 am »

Counterpunch, Zero-G.  Find the most efficient, small-to-medium capacity aircraft in the game and put them on your routes.  Even if the major is hellbent on destruction, you'll survive although it won't be pretty.  Don't go toe-to-toe and don't rise to the bait of fare wars.  Find the price at which you can eke out a small profit.  Join an alliance (but choose carefully) and use their bases to find some relatively uncontested routes.  Maybe the alliance heavyweight can reason with the bully -- one way or another.  Spreadsheet analysis is useful but not necessary unless you're running an empire.  Whether you spreadsheet or no, make absolutely certain you understand the revenue system and particularly the costs of each route and type of aircraft.  You must know whether or not a given route/plane is profitable; your survival will depend on it.

10

Alliances / Reminder: Alliance related posts

« on: May 26, 2008, 09:55:08 am »

Question:  is there any acceptable method of contacting prospective members for an alliance that does not constitute spamming?  How do the invitation-only alliances recruit their members?

11

General Chat / A Cheeky Disquisition on the Revenue Model

« on: May 13, 2008, 06:18:32 pm »

So there I was, minding my own bidness, running a poopy little regional carrier out of Austin, Texas when, all of a sudden, barely three years into the round, I became the proud owner of a 15-billion-euro behemoth.  Now, we've all been through this rant before:  the realism freaks versus the gee-whiz instant billionaires.  But correct me where I go off the track, er, flight path.

The admins want to maintain a, how can I put this delicately, INSANE revenue model for fear of scaring the horses.  Fine and good, that's their right, it's their game.  But here's the rub:  they are pursuing a self-defeating strategy.  The very blessing that they think they are bestowing upon the benighted beer-and-pretzellers is, in fact, a curse.  Here's why:  the game consists of two parts -- the expansion phase and the competition phase (the dreaded saturation that the pretzels detest).  The early expansion is fun -- building an airline, adding routes and bases.  It's easy -- and required if you want to win -- to build up a 100-plane, 300-route carrier in no time.  But then the competition kicks in.  And the pretzels become distraught because two things have occurred.  Their 300% annual growth rate has been reduced to 20% and they've been forced to enter the Spreadsheet Olympics.  And, yea verily, they become dyspeptic.  And they bring their angst to the forum, bemoaning the $1 routes and the saturation and the 10-frequency maniacs -- all, by the way, manifestations of normal, if aggressive, free-market competition.  Conditioned to the easy early profits, they rebel when the real game starts and their path to 500-Billion-EuroWorld is blocked.  And so they complain and/or leave the game.  So, I renew the call:  stop the madness, you're killing them with kindness.  The very blandishments you're tossing at them are driving them to distraction by making the second half of each round more tedious and difficult.  Cut the revenue growth by two-thirds.  By itself, this will rein in the frenzied early pace, reduce carpal-tunnel distress from the endless fare corrections by 80%, and reserve the bloodletting fare wars to the final years of the round.

For those of you gathering up torches and pitchforks, please answer this question first:  if I'm wrong, how do you explain why so many airlines drop out of each round after two years?

12

General Chat / Company Cash vs Retained Earnings

« on: May 10, 2008, 03:19:23 am »

I noticed in W5 that, for one month, nobody paid any maintenance fees.  My monthly profit went from about 600M to 900M.  Besides being a major error, maybe this factors into the mismatch.

13

General Chat / A Deep Philosophical Inquiry Into The Very Soul of AM

« on: April 03, 2008, 04:03:16 am »

Yeah, I scrapped my first attempt when I saw that it didn't really address what you were saying.

On your current post, there's not much I can add.  I see a lot of potential for AM and I think, with MW imminent and the (possible) addition of variable difficulty, there's the potential for all of the demographic slices to find a comfortable spot.  For me personally, as one of those strategically-retentive types, I enjoy the game very much even though I grit my teeth occasionally at some of its limitations.

14

General Chat / A Deep Philosophical Inquiry Into The Very Soul of AM

« on: April 03, 2008, 02:00:00 am »

Well, you certainly ought to know.  Which leads me into the deeply philosophical portion of our program, parsing your answer rather finely.  I'm thinking maybe it's not that they find the game so difficult, it's that they don't find instant success (which is not the same thing).  Which further leads me to wonder if they are, in fact, your desired audience.  Simply put (as an impertinent, rhetorical question):  is it more important for AM to win eyeballs or hearts and minds?  I mean no offense.  I understand the economics of online projects and only pose the question to, if anyone, the non-official reader.

15

General Chat / A Deep Philosophical Inquiry Into The Very Soul of AM

« on: April 03, 2008, 01:20:52 am »

1) A simple tax would make the game less, rather than more, realistic.

I've heard others say this and I simply don't understand the argument.  Surely the imposition of a crude approximation of the myriad taxes assessed in the real world is a modest step toward realism since the current situation is no tax whatsoever.  And, for what it's worth, I've never advocated this as a final result.

Meanwhile...I've engaged in a fair amount of discussion (here and elsewhere) about what the dreaded Easy Crowd wants and why they want it.  Interestingly, I've never actually heard one of them come out and say "We want an easy game in which we make a billion euros overnight".    Are we certain that this is the case?  One can certainly infer this from some of the aforementioned squawking (I have) but has this been directly stated?