Airline Mogul Forum
Airline Mogul => General Chat => Topic started by: etkuo on August 06, 2007, 11:30:30 am
-
The use of 0.5 frequency "cheat" is growing into a ridiculous situation. :evil: :evil:
This is only one example:
http://www.airlinemogul.com/airlinemogul/view_route.php?id=135723
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y181/etkuo/Xanga/1.jpg)
-
This is not really a bug, it's a player using the game engine to dump a lot of planes on the same route. Still, it can be annoying. I think 0.5 frequencies should be limited to 1 per plane, i.e. only one route with a 0.5 frequency per plane. Otherwise, it wouldn't even be realistic as the plane would have to magically transfer from one airport to the other in a flash. Which is cool, but if that's possible, it would eliminate the need for airlines in the first place. And the game would be boring without airlines.
-
This is not really a bug, it's a player using the game engine to dump a lot of planes on the same route. Still, it can be annoying. I think 0.5 frequencies should be limited to 1 per plane, i.e. only one route with a 0.5 frequency per plane. Otherwise, it wouldn't even be realistic as the plane would have to magically transfer from one airport to the other in a flash. Which is cool, but if that's possible, it would eliminate the need for airlines in the first place. And the game would be boring without airlines.
sorry for the wrong choice of word... anyway you got a good suggestion there
-
I already mention this before,this round should end quick. :roll:
three focus city I pulled out from,are ruining by 0.5 airlines.
KUL: http://www.airlinemogul.com/airlinemogul/view_airport.php?id=625
FUK: http://www.airlinemogul.com/airlinemogul/view_airport.php?id=848
CGK: http://www.airlinemogul.com/airlinemogul/view_airport.php?id=656
-
Again, you've picked the wrong word :wink: @Singaporeair: I know that, I actually got it from you :) I think it's an easy change to make, and it can be done this round without having to end it.
-
And it's ok for people to use this still ? :(
-
I guess anyone who want to do this honestly should limit the number of 0.5 flight to 2 per plane, the theoretical limit. In the future, a weekly base scheduling system for each plane can be used, kind of like a TV schedule. That can make sure the people people schedule their flights with consideration of time and location of the planes. But that may require a lot more effort from the developers, who develop a more complicated system, and the players, who need to spend more time to schedule the flights.
-
The theoretical limit would indeed be 2. A weekly schedule would take a lot of time to code, and it would mean lots of other things would have to be changed, which would probably mean about half of the game would have to be redesigned. I think you can improve the player's awareness of time and location by not letting them create lots of 0.5 routes.
-
That's true, it will be a much simpler fixed by limiting the number of 0.5 flight per plane and per route.
-
I agree with the limit of 2 per plane, that is most likely fair. But I think the LF Formula needs to be adjusted aswell as in theory there shouldn't be as much profit with multiple 0.5 frequencies.
-
No, the profit should equal the maximum profit for a 1 frequency flight.
-
about LF formula
you can't really "SHARE" your route with your competitor right now,even with the same price,same plane.
the latest airlines enter the market will have 100% loading while the other only got probably 60%-70% loading.
Then,endless price cutting war start.Until someone decide to give up that 30% loading or the price reach $0. :lol:
-
Yeah, I have the same problem threre. Even when there is still passanger capibility for that route.
-
theoretically sharing is just a lot harder to find.
two competitors flying a crj-100 on a route one-way each should likely set their ticket price based off of what it takes to hit 100% LF for a round trip.
I've been tinkering with my little test script here and there for how to slow the game down a bit.. and i think presently i've got a concoction that pulls about 20% of the revenue out at first go, and will likely be reducing the effect competition has by a bit (a bit more then that when i get codeshare's worked out properly). It also curves revenue upwards more now, so likely it should pull down the gap a bit between 5 .5 freq and 1 2.5 freq route.
When i figure out how to code the limit of 2 .5 frequency flights in reasonably well, it will be put in. it is, however, tricky to work out (hell, at present the close route isn't perfect enough, but it's pretty hard to "break"). the only issue is one plane flying 5 .5 freq to the same dest would still be valid (as they would result in circuits).
One final note, just because he's got a lot of 3550 euro ticketed planes, doesn't mean they're all at 100% lf.
-
I hate the 0.5 frequencies, The current situation has escalated to me purely hating the CRJ as an aircraft, i used to be fond of this bird in real life :lol:
AEB thanks for the work goin into it :roll:
-
I agree this is a problem. 0.5 frequency plus ultra cheap CRJ allowed this "cheat".
-
I think despite what might happen now might be a good time to fix the CRJs price.
-
I agree. Can you post a list of planes you do change though. So I can update my price list.
-
I agree. Can you post a list of planes you do change though. So I can update my price list.
That and could you let us know when you will change the price, so we could get some stocks in advance? :P
-
Now that would be something your going to have to take a chance on. ;)
-
Oh come on, give us a break :P
-
Well then, may be now is a good time to buy them. :)
-
I can understand a legitimate use of the 0.5 frequency.
If you have two hubs at DEN and ORD, you could run a 0.5 frequency from ORD to IAD, then another 0.5 frequency from IAD to DEN.
Perhaps we need a check to ensure that the aircraft has a way to get to the next departure airport on the schedule?
Example:
An airline is running a 777-300ER on the CLT-MHT route using 0.5 frequency. This makes no sense. The aircraft is simply remaining at MHT. It never leaves MHT. Perhaps, the simulation needs to address "ferry" flights. Where the aircraft is "ferried" to the next scheduled departure, the fuel costs of the "ferry" should be included.
BTW- This 0.5 frequency 777-300ER seems rather stupid IMHO.
-
We assume that the aircraft is capable of flying a return flight to the hub for all one-ways (the next day).
and usually short-route large aircraft are just using up leftover hours from long-haul routes.
-
One solution might be to make it impossible to do 0.5 frequencies where a "1" is possible.
Ie. Heathrow to Dusseldorf with a 737-300 (No 0.5's - maybe 1.5/2.5?)
Heathrow to Johannesburg with a 767-300ER (0.5 frequency allowed, as thats all the aircraft can manage IIRC)
It'd maybe be more complicated, but could it be tied in with demand as well? Where routes with average or poor demand could be flown one way, but routes with good or excellent demand couldnt? (where range allows).
This might encourage airlines to operate "unpopular routes". I might send an ATR42 from Cardiff to the Isle of Man one way, but I might not be able to turn a decent profit doing a daily return.
in the real world, airlines often operate 3weekly frequencies on long haul or low demand... but rarely do for high density commuter routes. I see no reason why a longhaul flight cant land, stay overnight and return!!! I also dont see why a shorthaul flight would only fly one way when a return home is perfectly possible!
Apologies if this has been suggested before.
-
I think one .5 flight per plane is realistic... but not more!
-
I think one .5 flight per plane is realistic... but not more!
Nah... realistically, most planes on domestic routes in US are flying one way, and in loops. That is they fly from A->B, B->C, C->D, D->E, E->A. Those are all 0.5 frequencies. They may never fly the other way in months (because those flights are taken cared by other planes). The problem exists more on how the revenue is calculated for 0.5 flights than having them be available.
-
A->B, B->C, C->D, D->E, E->A.
That's the way many flights are operated, and also "via" routes, like Amsterdam-Singapore-Sydney for KLM. Would love an option like that.
And I try to stay away from 0.5 but I have two 0.5 flights on different aircraft so they can be used 100%. It's annoying when som airlines run 60 0.5 routes and just a handful 1 routes from their hubs :(
A 1 route should always be more profitable than a 0.5!
-
A 1 route should always be more profitable than a 0.5!
I will rephrase that....
... a 1 route should always be at least as profitable as 2 0.5 routes
-
this is sorta weird....
ALQ157188 Luoyang Beijiao 0.5
ALQ200867 Luoyang Beijiao 0.5
ALQ200870 Luoyang Beijiao 0.5
ALQ155401 Luoyang Beijiao 0.5
ALQ153845 Luoyang Beijiao 0.5
ALQ150051 Luoyang Beijiao 0.5
ALQ157219 Luoyang Beijiao 0.5
ALQ154921 Luoyang Beijiao 0.5
ALQ157021 Luoyang Beijiao 0.5
ALQ200872 Luoyang Beijiao 0.5
ALQ155367 Luoyang Beijiao 0.5
ALQ200866 Luoyang Beijiao 0.5
CH7158732 Zhengzhou Xinzheng 0.5
CH7158727 Zhengzhou Xinzheng 0.5
CH7158725 Zhengzhou Xinzheng 0.5
CH7164480 Shanghai - Hongqiao 0.5
CH7164481 Shanghai - Hongqiao 0.5
CH7158733 Zhengzhou Xinzheng 0.5
CH7158734 Zhengzhou Xinzheng 0.5
CH7164485 Shanghai - Hongqiao 0.5
CH7164486 Shanghai - Hongqiao 0.5
CH7164484 Shanghai - Hongqiao 0.5
CH7164479 Shanghai - Hongqiao 0.5
CH7164478 Shanghai - Hongqiao 0.5
CH7158717 Zhengzhou Xinzheng 0.5
CH7158730 Zhengzhou Xinzheng 0.5
CH7158716 Zhengzhou Xinzheng 0.5
CH7158718 Zhengzhou Xinzheng 0.5
CH7158720 Zhengzhou Xinzheng 0.5
CH7158719 Zhengzhou Xinzheng 0.5
CH7164477 Shanghai - Hongqiao 0.5
CH7158723 Zhengzhou Xinzheng 0.5
CH7164476 Shanghai - Hongqiao 0.5
CH7158724 Zhengzhou Xinzheng 0.5
CH7158729 Zhengzhou Xinzheng 0.5
MKA161888 Sydney 0.5
dww158762 Fukuoka 0.5
AAW168788 Bangkok 0.5
CPX178906 Hiroshima 0.5
CPX204573 Chennai/Madras - Meenambakam A 0.5
CPX195749 Urumqi Diwopu 0.5
CPX169776 Guangzhou 0.5
NEO204682 Sanya Fenghuang 0.5
NEO201351 Fuzhou Chengle 0.5
NEO203976 Singapore 0.5
NEO203747 Osaka-Itami 0.5
NEO200741 Sanya Fenghuang 0.5
NEO200742 Sanya Fenghuang 0.5
NEO204830 Osaka-Itami 0.5
NEO201338 Fuzhou Chengle 0.5
NEO201342 Fuzhou Chengle 0.5
NJ193988 Fuzhou Chengle 0.5
NJ193985 Fuzhou Chengle 0.5
NJ193981 Fuzhou Chengle 0.5
NJ193419 Fuzhou Chengle 0.5
NJ193923 Sanya Fenghuang 0.5
NJ191721 Sanya Fenghuang 0.5
NJ193417 Fuzhou Chengle 0.5
this was what I found for arrivals at Beijing Capital Airport. I wanted to fly there from BEG--but all the gates are taken for this!
-
Don't see why it is weird (care to elaborate??). This is what is happening all around Asia... and the world in AM.
-
Don't see why it is weird (care to elaborate??). This is what is happening all around Asia... and the world in AM.
Not weird, it's an outrage! :D
It should not be allowed for the same airline to run 6 Zhengzhou Xinzheng at 0.5, for example.
-
Don't see why it is weird (care to elaborate??). This is what is happening all around Asia... and the world in AM.
Yah, nearly the same at CDG. It's mostly ok with the big airports though.
-
Suffered by 0.5 airline......
They can just open the same route as mine (one by one...)
Using 0.5 to take my revenue away... :roll:
Unbeatable 0.5 kingdom - even cut off price and larger plane. :roll: :oops:
I 've try my best to prevent opening 0.5 airline, and
I don't mind competition and even being defeated,
but seems that the situation make those who are not 0.5 airline feeling exhausted... :roll:
-
I'm sick of the 0.5 fools. It's not really a cheat its just cheap.
I've had about 10 routes attacked overnight by 3 airlines using the stupid 0.5 frequency cheap shot. I just lower the price to making a loss. That way all of their aircraft on that route will be operating at a bigger loss than me.
-
Being new here, I've unintentionally placed 1 x 0.5 routes all over the place where it was deemed more profitable than 1 x 1.0.
I hope single 0.5s everywhere is considered "acceptable".
-
Acceptable varies from player to player, also so does "realism" and the "goal of the game".
.5's are fine, they're designed to be used.
multiple .5's is alright (though the design part is trying to be cleaned up for next age), as it has a good economic motive behind it (again. this is trying to be cleaned up). more then a few might raise a little ire, but -shrug- in my opinion. a few dozen to the same city... thats... see next statement.
Almost nobody likes high frequency, multiple overlapping routes. They're technically not illegal, but of late they're becoming problematic.
-
Definately problematic. 0.5 frequencies aren't a problem when there's only one aircraft per airline doing that on a particular route. It's when they have about 4 aircraft all on 0.5 frequency deliberately to drive price and competition down.
I've noticed one airline doing it alot on my routes. Lets see how he/she handles me putting my 773ER's on those routes.