Broker

[dktc]

Im adding to the discussion.   Brokers are realistic.. (in a way... just that receiving scraps at 12.5% seems way off)

Agree. Consider that we are pulling DC's out from the desert... we should be paying even less :twisted:  

[Jps]

DC's can be sold easily... Just that it doesn't happen when Hampo and DEX flood the market.  

[Argonith]

Then unofficial ones will rule the market... :twisted:

I don't mind that... if the players at large don't mind paying 133% for every plane they buy, and 50% lease rates...

Oh... why shouldn't AM be Pet Shop Mogul? School Mogul? Shipping Mogul? Hotel Mogul? Restaurant Mogul? Hardware Store Mogul? I have yet to hear a valid argument is well (<- completely sarcastic)

What's wrong with people having to pay more? The structure of a broker deal seems to be a premium service: you get the plane in roughly the same amount of time, but the timing of cashflows is more advantageous for the airline. As well, the airline gets to pick the timing of when he 'picks up' the airline. For instance, if I buy an aircraft right now, I have to log in 24 hours later exactly, or else I feel I didn't optimize my purchase. With a brokered aircraft, I don't have to be so precise.

Therefore, I argue it is a premium service. As well, we keep on talking about how fast airlines are growing in this game. If we take away -10% discount planes, people will grow just a tad slower.

I also feel your sarcasm is unwarranted dktc, but I can understand that this is an issue you've debated for a very long time, and you're thinking back to all the arguments you had before, which unfortunately I am not privy to, and hence I cannot sympathise with your position.

As for realism, MrOrange, I think we all agree this game is not really realistic. As I mentioned elsewhere, allowing profitable B737 routes from Chicago to Anakulak in Alaska (PAX 6000) is ludicrous. When I mentioned this should be 'fixed', you said that there are many more airlines in this game than in real life, so we must create a more accommodative market to 'soak up the companies', if you will. So then, yes, it's still an argument between playability and realism, but I think playability should trump realism, because like someone else said (in the aforementioned 'philosophical' suggestion thread by Aytch), sometimes too much realism doesn't lead to more diversity of strategy, but just more tedium (e.g. class-separated fares).

It is a debate that will rage on (playability vs realism), but I don't think you should immediately dismiss my suggestion because it makes the game 'less realistic'.

Also, nobody addressed the fact that this would free up more time for the current 'official' brokers.

[MrOrange]

there are many more airlines in this game than in real life, so we must create a more accommodative market to 'soak up the companies', if you will.

Did I say that? :? Not that I don't believe you, it's more like I don't believe myself. I get that a lot. It could also be my English, which sometimes only makes sense if you translate each word separately to Dutch and then translate the entire Dutch sentence again.

No, AM isn't realistic. Multiworlds adds a lot of realism already, making the individual worlds less saturated and keeping the number of airlines to a more realistic level. It also, because of the setup of it, costs me a lot of time to set up brokerages, simply because I would have to look after six airlines, which is not what I want. I'd be happy with one. I would have been really happy with an automated broker system, where some random computer-driven broker has a lot of planes at different ages and different prices and leases/sells them like crazy, but we don't have that. As soon as we have that, I'll give up the brokerage, but for now, indeed time is a problem. Really, all that keeps me in 4 worlds at the same time right now is my conscience. On a sidenote, the realism/playability debate will probably keep on buggering us, simply because it is essential in deciding how AM will progress from here. I'm more in favor of realism, because eventually realism, when incorporated into the game in the right way, should make the game as playable as a game of chess. There are some really good examples of realistic-yet-playable (even airline management) sims on the internet, to illustrate my point. Your suggestion is OK, don't misunderstand me, it only probably comes at the wrong time for some of the longer-present players. You can't help that though.

[dktc]

First, you are privy to the arguments. Just read back several pages, in general chats, bugs, and suggestions. You can read all those information you are asking for. Therefore, I don't understand your complaint when you have not put enough effort into solve that issue yourself.

Second, this is airline mogul. I could argue that airlines operate hotels, CD stores, cruise... etc. (See EasyJet and Virgin's). Do we need to add those in here as well? They are at least somewhat realistic while brokering new planes has never been a business for airlines.

Third, as I have said, this is not my issue that someone else have to pay more for the same thing. I understand perfectly well that having someone finance a plane for you is a premium service. However, ask those players out there. 90% of them do not understand that, and 60% think we are already overcharging them with 1% profit.

Fourth, it is not the issue of whether it is a premium service. It is more like when you could pay $1 for something now, why would you ask to pay $5 for the same thing tomorrow (assuming no inflation / inflation in one day is less than 500%).

Fifth, when you said you don't have to be using the plane precisely at 24 hours, that is BS. It is only your perception, while fact is, if you don't get the plane precisely within the hour that is it ready, you are leaving it idle and wasting the chance to make profit out of it. You are just giving unwarranted excuse to yourself, or you don't understand time-value-money. Either way, that concept is incorrect.

Sixth, this would not free up more time for the current official brokers. This would get rid of them. Those are concepts that you should be able to differentiate and please don't ask me to argue why they are not the same.

Seven, we are not the one who dismiss your "suggestion" because of realism. The majority of players are saying that official brokers should not have airlines because of realistic reasons, and we are trying to address that. (In fact, we have come up with a solution of which Stephen and Will rejected.) Seeing that on this topic, realism trumps playability for the majority of players, there is no reason for us to go against them and allow airlines to broker. It is only fair in that case. You can't have everything you want at the same time.

Eighth, continuing on the previous point, as you have pointed out, this is an on-going debate and for a very long time. Can you at least give us some credit that we have debated it? Would you consider that we have thought this out before your "suggestion"? Have it ever occured to you that your "suggestion" is new only to you, but is well worned for us and that a decision have already been made long ago? Relating back to the first point, please read the old post on this topic.