Airline Mogul Forum
Airline Mogul => General Chat => Topic started by: ALFC on February 05, 2008, 12:05:02 pm
-
hello,
i think its time to re-elaborate that the game is indeed a competetive game that happens to be a multiplayer game.
Yesterday, i have replaced most of my Caravelle 10b with Airbus A300 from the Paris Hub that i operate.
Effectively, this reduced the fares on about all routes from 400+ to under 200. I have recieved many angry messages, all with very similar content:
"why do you attack me" "i am losing dop".
It is the essence of a competetive multiplayer game to make the other guy have a hard time. Please consider this when complaining on the forums and/or in private messages to other members. Dont attack and blame people for doing what they are supposed to do.
-
Well, I certainly see your point of view, if your routes get very competitive, then the best solution is to change plane, depending on the situation, either larger (more feasable) or smaller. I think most of the concerned players might have trouble grasping that. But if there are a few who are willing to deal it out, I'd say that they're doing things well. Afterall, if you do make the game not very fun, the game will lose players. But I think that the game is set up so well, that this shouldn't be a large concern for most players. Only ones who should worry are those based in larger cities, since they might not get that those larger cities will spark off larger and more competition.
Best advice I could give those players is not to attack routes with high frequency and just try to be stealthy and try to concentrate at making more routes to as many cities as they can.
-
Best advice I could give those players is not to attack routes with high frequency and just try to be stealthy and try to concentrate at making more routes to as many cities as they can.
also, dont plant your hubs in the airports where some top5 players are duking it out!
-
Also if you are pissed with a large player like ALFC, try to get 100 players to base in his base and attack him, but don't create multiple accounts to do so.
-
One one side, people should think twice before they dump an A300 or larger aircraft on a route. It requires common sence, which as ive noticed is a scarce commodity here in AM, to tactfully and effectivly draw your routes. I think common sence means deciding not to put an A300 on a route, even though you stand to profit from it. Ive noticed alot of my routes have a pretty good balance on them, they found equilibrim long ago and have since been extremly profitable, i havent needed to touch them in weeks. If i put an A300 on them, i might make 10k more than before, but in doing so i would disrupt that equilibrim and challenge those folks into acting in kind which would threaten the value of that route. Certain routes are fine, others are a bad idea for various reasons.
To blame is mainly the mathematics of AM, i really dont understand the passenger to value caluclations, but they tend to be rediculous the more people are on a route. Case in point the 1€to loadfactor issue. In real life it could be profitable to run an A300 FRA-DUS on a frequency of 9. but in this game its idiotic, yet some people do it for one reason or another. Some people have yet to meet my friend here 'diminishing returns'.
All in all i find that only about half the canidate routes for an A300 would actualy be good for that aircraft. Ya just got to have the forsight and do the reasearch and make the executive decisions to carefully pick and chose which ones, and which others might do best with a caravelle or 737.
On the otherhand i can understand that you need to make money too, thats why your here, and this aint a charity. This is capitalist theory at its quirky best. So by all means go forth and do whats best for number 1. It dosent supprise me that people will take it personaly sometimes I do, even though theres no reason to. I suppose its the lack of communication in the game thats most frusterating. But all in all you have no fault. if your really making money with those birds, and are making more than before than i suppose you made the right call to buy em and use em.
-
Best advice I could give those players is not to attack routes with high frequency and just try to be stealthy and try to concentrate at making more routes to as many cities as they can.
also, dont plant your hubs in the airports where some top5 players are duking it out!
this is the same case to another side of the world in the game.....................
people who attacks my bases.....will finally suffer....... :D
-
I generally don't have a problem with the aircraft getting bigger thing. It's something we all do.
I do think that playing against people who think that if one rotation of an A300 is good then 2 must be better :roll: or who are almost like a machine the way they can maintain their load factor at 99%, no matter how big their airline is or how many routes they operate gets old very quickly. I can't be online 24 hours a day like they seem to be appear to be able to. If I'm back to losing 10% of my DOP because of constant route adjustments by those obsessed with that 99% LF figure... then I'm not sure it's going to be worth playing anymore.
Yes, you play it as a competitive game. Not everyone is as ultra-competitive as you - some of us actually want to have fun playing it. Wading through route after route that someone has decided they want to put a double frequency A300 on for no real reason (except in some cases pettiness!) is not really fun :(
-
As said before: If you are afraid of competition you will not end up as number 1 when the round is over. If someone just wants to play he/she should look for smaller airports or move your airline to a less crowded continent. In fact I have a base where there is almost no competition. I have never touched about 90% of the routes there since created. I started last round and thought I was doing pretty good. But this round I do even better (just took over the lead in Central America :wink: ) since I learned a lot by trying different things. Dont expect to much from your first round. One advice I would give to those complaining: as in real life there are airlines working together. Try the same here. Be friendly and I am sure you will receive some help which will bring you into the higher rankings. Example: When you are based in Australia you will probably not be able to reach Frankfurt or New York with your aircrafts. Take a look at the bases there and try to find out who is based there and ask those for help. I am sure there will be at least one that is willing to help you because you dont compete with him on his routes. If you are still a small airline with some B99's flying around you may soon receive a FH-227 or even a better aircraft for a small price as they get rid of many of them when they need bigger sized aircrafts to expand their business.
-
People who make their having fun dependent on others not having high load factors are probably bound for some disappointment. And people who absolutely cannot understand the concept of sharing a route, insisting on constantly undercutting everyone else's prices, either don't realize or don't care that the outcome can only be a worthless route for all. Oh, and throwing a 747 at 1€ is not petty at all, is it?
Also, people who wait until the last second to adjust their fares, may discover that an A300 at double or triple frequency suddenly enters their routes. With the corresponding low prices.
The game conditions are what they are. Perhaps not suitable to everyone's likings. But whether you have fun or suffer self inflicted pains is entirely your choice.
-
If i have a route I've already had to adjust 3 times in 15 minutes, and it's already worth virtually nothing, I might as well make it a €1 route and stop wasting my time on it -and that's exactly what I did. Not petty - just good time management.... Possibly, if I get a chance from endless route alterations, I'll be able to do something else with it, but then the game conditions are what they are, aren't they? Without the endless drive to the bottom, I'd have more time to play logically - but unfortunately unlike some, I don't spend my entire day adjusting load factors.
I like to have a high load factor too - but if we all play for that end, then everything ends up a €1 route. On some routes, getting there quicker just gets the pain over with more quickly.
AM is actually pretty classic game theory - it's entirely possible to play more co-operatively and maximise returns better. But some don't get game theory, so will always drive for that magic 100% LF - undercutting on every route all the time to get it - and think that sharing means they should be at 100% and everyone else should be willing to accept that! It's like prisoner's dilemma - the short term view will drive some, which means that it ends up driving everyone. Of course, some will get fed up with this view of the game and people might me might throw the odd €1 747 onto a route, because they really cannot be bothered with the ongoing drive for 100%.
Maybe in multi worlds, we should split by those that understand game theory and those that don't? :D
-
*deleted by dktc: potential flame-provoking post*
-
AM is actually pretty classic game theory - it's entirely possible to play more co-operatively and maximise returns better. But some don't get game theory, so will always drive for that magic 100% LF - undercutting on every route all the time to get it - and think that sharing means they should be at 100% and everyone else should be willing to accept that! It's like prisoner's dilemma - the short term view will drive some, which means that it ends up driving everyone. Of course, some will get fed up with this view of the game and people might me might throw the odd €1 747 onto a route, because they really cannot be bothered with the ongoing drive for 100%.
Maybe in multi worlds, we should split by those that understand game theory and those that don't? :D
Forgive me for a more Socratic approach to this, but define theory. It should be more like game theories if you do some thinking about it, for example, your game theory is to have a good time, while at the same time making sure you don't kill the game, while other's have a game theory of being a Ryanair on Steroids, flying 1 Euro fares on 747s. Other's follow a theory of "every day your airline is above the red is a good day".
To be honest, I do not see how multiworlds might be able to fix this, but I think if a decent "hub effect" was added in for all the bases, at the ones who undercut by 1 Euro would not have the same effect on your airline if you fly a lot of routes unless he pushes in something huge.
-
Also if you are pissed with a large player like ALFC, try to get 100 players to base in his base and attack him, but don't create multiple accounts to do so.
:twisted:
-
AM is actually pretty classic game theory - it's entirely possible to play more co-operatively and maximise returns better. But some don't get game theory, so will always drive for that magic 100% LF - undercutting on every route all the time to get it - and think that sharing means they should be at 100% and everyone else should be willing to accept that! It's like prisoner's dilemma - the short term view will drive some, which means that it ends up driving everyone. Of course, some will get fed up with this view of the game and people might me might throw the odd €1 747 onto a route, because they really cannot be bothered with the ongoing drive for 100%.
Maybe in multi worlds, we should split by those that understand game theory and those that don't? :D
Forgive me for a more Socratic approach to this, but define theory. It should be more like game theories if you do some thinking about it, for example, your game theory is to have a good time, while at the same time making sure you don't kill the game, while other's have a game theory of being a Ryanair on Steroids, flying 1 Euro fares on 747s. Other's follow a theory of "every day your airline is above the red is a good day".
To be honest, I do not see how multiworlds might be able to fix this, but I think if a decent "hub effect" was added in for all the bases, at the ones who undercut by 1 Euro would not have the same effect on your airline if you fly a lot of routes unless he pushes in something huge.
"Game Theory" is actually a theory in-and-of itself. It's basically the case that the "best" move isn't always the universally "best" move or that each individual in a game has his or her own move which affects everyone else, but otherwise isn't the same and otherwise is "better" for their situation. such as whether to bluff or fold in a poker match.
Anyways. Yes in some routes an airline in real life can dump an a300 on 9 frequency between a city pair, however at the moment there is one key difference. Odds are the real life airline wouldn't make a real profit on that a300 route [just like in AM] however the ancillary hub effects can make international and other routes more heavily packed. I hope in a post-multi world environment, to be able to implement actual hub effect and multiclass seating which should go a long way to smoothing this reality out a little better.
-
sorry to go offtrack, but in multiworlds, how will games be rated?
-
"Game Theory" is actually a theory in-and-of itself. It's basically the case that the "best" move isn't always the universally "best" move or that each individual in a game has his or her own move which affects everyone else, but otherwise isn't the same and otherwise is "better" for their situation. such as whether to bluff or fold in a poker match.
And to put it into AM terms - if we are looking to maximise our long term returns, we can either drive for what we think is the best option for us individually (100% LF all of the time) or we can realise that by doing this, we force others who believe the same to respond, which means that we end up with routes which did bring in 100000€ now bringing in 1000€. Game theory would suggest that the best way to maximise returns is to play to maximise group returns - so accepting that running a route at 85% (for example - I have no idea where the break point is, I suspect Air Elbonia might have a better idea of that ;)) for game years at the same price will bring in long term profit maximisation than running it at 100% with a steadily declining price. Game theory also suggests that of course there will be some people who won't do this, which means everyone faces an environment in which fares on routes steadily decline as a consequence, since all other players will have their levels at which they have to act to preserve their own profits.
I'm not an expert on game theory - it's a tool that can be used in my field for trying to predict behavioural outcomes so as such I can recognise situations when it applies - and AM is definitely one of those. This individual benefit (but longterm detriment) versus group benefit (with longterm benefit) is a pretty classic situation (hence reference to prisoner's dilemma, the ultimate in classic game theory, which anyone who has ever had to study it will have been quoted as an example). Some of those effectively playing to group benefit will actually be following an individual benefit strategy, but be constrained by time (ie cannot adjust all routes 24 hours a day all the time - I guess if there was some automated way to do this for them, they'd be using it religiously and maintaining a LF very close to 100% - which of course would be even more detrimental to all players, since fares would be dropping that much more quickly!) - and from posts I've seen on here, a number of players have also realised that chasing the 100% LF all of the time is counter-productive for maintaining a good profit in the long term.
So there we have it - game theory and its application to AM ;)
-
I get random complaints too. :roll: , most of the messages are in Portuguese..Why Portuguese? I don't even base in Portugal
:lol:
-
I get random complaints too. :roll: , most of the messages are in Portuguese..Why Portuguese? I don't even base in Portugal
:lol:
The just try to imitate you: spamming :lol:
-
I don't think everyone is aiming to make all their routes 100% LF. I really don't mind routes with 75% load factor. In fact, I only edit routes below 50%.
The real problem here is that €1 makes the difference between 100% LF and 40% LF. Of course if my LF drops from 100% to 40% by just €1, I'd edit my route to make my LF100%.
-
I get random complaints too. :roll: , most of the messages are in Portuguese..Why Portuguese? I don't even base in Portugal
:lol:
Aren't you in South America? What about Brazil? :wink:
-
Sheep Air is, of course, correct about the long-term results of linear non-game theory approach to the game.
The question is whether the term of the round is long enough for the ill-result of always having 100% LF to play out. Clearly it does in some individual routes but perhaps not overall.
If that is indeed the case then a fare-adjust script or multi-player airline trumps planning and strategic thinking in this game and makes it a rather less interesting endeavor.
-
I get random complaints too. :roll: , most of the messages are in Portuguese..Why Portuguese? I don't even base in Portugal
:lol:
Aren't you in South America? What about Brazil? :wink:
He hasn't been in SA for ages, he's plagueing Europe now :lol:
-
depends what you value as a goal, for me thats bums on seats or 100%LF since you cant lose any serious money £1 routes are the way to go and a lot less hassle that trying to constantly moniter prices, once i get my airline to the size i want it, i simply start drastically dropping the prices on a price fluctating route because i have not the the time to keep up with constant changes in prices...make money in the millions but only lose it in the thousands...not much of a challange frankly in fact i reckon i could put every singe route to £1 and not run out of money before games end..i dont though, no need to annoy the nieghbors as it were.
-
I have found that if you set up your network, for the most part it is stable. Now, I do object to large aircraft being dumped on 'rural' routes. In the real world there is no way that a A300 could be sent from Palau to Saipan unless it was being used to connect to a hub (and even then, the flight would be considerably undersold). There should be some kind of constraints on the big planes, such as runway length or terminal size or something that prevents the huge planes from landing at a rural airport.
As to undercutting, I do agree that some people are after the 100% load factor. Anything above 65 is okay with me, so long as it is not my nearest and dearest competitor in the hub. I have had several routes drop down from 100s to 10s in a matter of hours - finally i ended up dropping the route and moving the plane to a more profitable one. I draw the line however when it is my ally.