Another kind of 0.5 frequency abuse?

[Max2147]

no, you dont gain time, you cut capacity in half.
the current formula plays out in a way that, when there is no competition, its better to fly a 0.5 route for 3000 rather than a 1 frequency for 1500.
i have routes where someone put a 1x frequency for 1300 with a full plane, where a 0.5 frequency of the same plane barely makes 100% at 1500 price, hence the guy with 1 frequency clearly wins.
wherever there is competition, 0.5 will quickly be replaced by higher frequency, since thats the only way to make money.
0.5 only works well when you are monopoly in a market.

You do gain time.  A 0.5 routes only uses half the hours that a 1 frequency route uses.  If you operate all 0.5 frequency routes on a plane then you get twice the routes in.  If all the routes that plane flys are monopoly routes, then you get twice the profit on that plane compared to what you'd get if you were playing the game realistically.

That also means that if a competitor who only uses legit routes starts up in your base, he can only compete on half of your routes (if he has the same number of planes).

So exploiting this loophole is a huge advantage, which is why I want to see it closed (and why those who are exploiting it don't want to see it closed).

[ALFC]

it uses half the blocktime because it flies HALF the distance. thats not gaining time. what you are trying to say is that you can diversify your destinations twofold with a given plane. that has nothing to do with gaining time or capacity. its about diversitfying your route network, which pays off well if you evade competition. its legitimate, it should be fixed but only hardcoded and properly.
dont accuse players of exploiting, there are clear rules about limits of this, and all players can play by these rules. 0.5 rules are also realistic, since they represent less than daily connections, which are about as common as sliced bread.

[Pacific]

Exploitation?  Yes and No because...

...Is it allowed? Yes.

Was 10x 0.5 allowed last round?  Yes, for 4 game years.

Is it allowed now?  No.

Is that an improvement?  Yes.

Do I hope Air Elbonia consumes enough alcohol so he can enhance the LF script to close this loophole in the next round?  Yes.

[dktc]

Is it a loophole? Yes.

Can we close the loophole without creating other problems? No.


For the record...

Do I want the loophole closed? Yes.

Do I believe closing the loophole is the sole solution? Yes.

Do I believe there is anything wrong with the concept of 0.5? No.

[Air Elbonia]

You need to read my post closer.  I'm suggesting a long-term, hard-coded fix to the problem that removes the logical problem but still allows as many legitimate 0.5 routes as airlines want.

I'm asking for a limit of 2x endpoints per plane, which is completely different than 2x 0.5 routes per plane or 2x 0.5 routes per destination.

I just suggest the 2x 0.5 routes per plane limit as a short-term fix until the longer-term fix can be implemented.

I know that fixing this problem would hurt some airlines (including yours), but that's the price you pay for playing the game illgoically.  When you exploit loohoples you can't complain when those loopholes are closed.

oh yeah. i forgot to say why that's a bitter failing point, the simple 2x.5/plane checks.

A, B are focus cities.
A-C (.5)
A-B (1.0)
B-D (.5)

logical breakdown.

[Max2147]

Yea, that's a tough one, and it's not covered by my endpoints proposal.

Still, I think a limit of 2x endpoints per plane would remove the vast majority of illegitimate 0.5 routes without eliminating legitimate 0.5 routes.  I haven't written code for a while, but I imagine a simple endpoint check (plane arrives at city on a x.5 route, but does not depart on a x.5 route) wouldn't be too hard to create.  Once a plane has 2 endpoints, don't allow the person to create routes that would create a new endpoint (unless it's replacing one of the old endpoints).  

So in response to dktc's comment, I think the loophole can be closed, with the only problem being the inconvenience to players who are currently exploiting it.

[Air Elbonia]

Yea, that's a tough one, and it's not covered by my endpoints proposal.

Still, I think a limit of 2x endpoints per plane would remove the vast majority of illegitimate 0.5 routes without eliminating legitimate 0.5 routes.  I haven't written code for a while, but I imagine a simple endpoint check (plane arrives at city on a x.5 route, but does not depart on a x.5 route) wouldn't be too hard to create.  Once a plane has 2 endpoints, don't allow the person to create routes that would create a new endpoint (unless it's replacing one of the old endpoints).  

So in response to dktc's comment, I think the loophole can be closed, with the only problem being the inconvenience to players who are currently exploiting it.

my hangup on that, is the debate about that hard rule would crop up, and likely wind up about as fierce as this debate is.  moving from one problem to a similar problem isn't necissarily positive advancement.

[Max2147]

Yea, that's a tough one, and it's not covered by my endpoints proposal.

Still, I think a limit of 2x endpoints per plane would remove the vast majority of illegitimate 0.5 routes without eliminating legitimate 0.5 routes.  I haven't written code for a while, but I imagine a simple endpoint check (plane arrives at city on a x.5 route, but does not depart on a x.5 route) wouldn't be too hard to create.  Once a plane has 2 endpoints, don't allow the person to create routes that would create a new endpoint (unless it's replacing one of the old endpoints).  

So in response to dktc's comment, I think the loophole can be closed, with the only problem being the inconvenience to players who are currently exploiting it.

my hangup on that, is the debate about that hard rule would crop up, and likely wind up about as fierce as this debate is.  moving from one problem to a similar problem isn't necissarily positive advancement.

I guess I don't see where the debate on the hard 2-endpoint rule would be.  It would still allow legitimate 0.5 routes.

As far as the people exploiting the current loophole, that's too bad for them.  They've been making extra money off of the loophole, so they should be glad it was there while it was.  If you want to be nice you can give them a few weeks' warning before you put the endpoint cap into effect.

[Air Elbonia]

Yea, that's a tough one, and it's not covered by my endpoints proposal.

Still, I think a limit of 2x endpoints per plane would remove the vast majority of illegitimate 0.5 routes without eliminating legitimate 0.5 routes.  I haven't written code for a while, but I imagine a simple endpoint check (plane arrives at city on a x.5 route, but does not depart on a x.5 route) wouldn't be too hard to create.  Once a plane has 2 endpoints, don't allow the person to create routes that would create a new endpoint (unless it's replacing one of the old endpoints).  

So in response to dktc's comment, I think the loophole can be closed, with the only problem being the inconvenience to players who are currently exploiting it.

my hangup on that, is the debate about that hard rule would crop up, and likely wind up about as fierce as this debate is.  moving from one problem to a similar problem isn't necissarily positive advancement.

I guess I don't see where the debate on the hard 2-endpoint rule would be.  It would still allow legitimate 0.5 routes.

As far as the people exploiting the current loophole, that's too bad for them.  They've been making extra money off of the loophole, so they should be glad it was there while it was.  If you want to be nice you can give them a few weeks' warning before you put the endpoint cap into effect.

it would only allow some legitimate one-way flights, and would disallow many others.

i know that if i scrap one-ways, there will be consistent, and numerous suggestions of implementing one-way flights. if i change it in some way, i tend to expect a reaction these days. i'd expect complaints that the system won't allow A-B-C-D (if A/C or B/D are focus cities) one-way chains. if i made it a 2 one-way rule.

I am, however, poking as many intelligent minds as i can for ideas of how to calculate and enforce this... conundrum.  it is unfortunately, somewhat of a poorly designed backend to do so.

[Max2147]

But I'm not proposing the 2x 0.5 routes per plane rule as a long-term fix!!!!!!

My original posting on the subject:

For a longer-term fix that allows legit 0.5 routes but bans cheating ones, you can't look at the number of 0.5's per plane. Instead you have to look at a plane's endpoints. In other words, where does a plane spend the night? No matter how many routes of whatever frequency a plane has, it can only have two endpoints. That's the real logical issue.

An endpoint is an airport a plane arrives at with a 0.5 route and doesn't depart from with a 0.5 route. If the airplane operates only 1 frequency routes then the endpoints could be anywhere in the network. Focus cities don't factor into it at all - it's just where the plane ends up.

So as an immediate short-term fix, put a limit on 2x 0.5 routes per plane. Once you figure out how to code a 2x endpoint limit per plane rule into the game, replace the short-term fix with the longer term fix.

With the 2x endpoint per plane limit (NOT 2x 0.5 routes per plane limit) the A-B-C-D type routes would be legal.  That rule would eliminate almost all of the illegitimate 0.5 routes and allow all the legitimate ones.

[Air Elbonia]

But I'm not proposing the 2x 0.5 routes per plane rule as a long-term fix!!!!!!

My original posting on the subject:

For a longer-term fix that allows legit 0.5 routes but bans cheating ones, you can't look at the number of 0.5's per plane. Instead you have to look at a plane's endpoints. In other words, where does a plane spend the night? No matter how many routes of whatever frequency a plane has, it can only have two endpoints. That's the real logical issue.

An endpoint is an airport a plane arrives at with a 0.5 route and doesn't depart from with a 0.5 route. If the airplane operates only 1 frequency routes then the endpoints could be anywhere in the network. Focus cities don't factor into it at all - it's just where the plane ends up.

So as an immediate short-term fix, put a limit on 2x 0.5 routes per plane. Once you figure out how to code a 2x endpoint limit per plane rule into the game, replace the short-term fix with the longer term fix.

With the 2x endpoint per plane limit (NOT 2x 0.5 routes per plane limit) the A-B-C-D type routes would be legal.  That rule would eliminate almost all of the illegitimate 0.5 routes and allow all the legitimate ones.

see. the great problem with the endpoint rule is. there's no solid endpoint.

technically you can create routes at any point in the chain, so any determined endpoints would be in a constant flux depending on the routes generated. the game doesn't track specifically the order of the routes being created (thereby cannot base validity off of that) in a meaningful way. you can create X-Y; Y-Z; then create a few routes from X, then a few routes from Z...  design flaw, i know. but. honestly, being faced with a huge process and changes to get multiworlds up and running, i'd like to figure out how to make it work without a drastic redesign... there's enough of those in process at the moment. -_-

[blastpast]

it uses half the blocktime because it flies HALF the distance. thats not gaining time. what you are trying to say is that you can diversify your destinations twofold with a given plane. that has nothing to do with gaining time or capacity. its about diversitfying your route network, which pays off well if you evade competition. its legitimate, it should be fixed but only hardcoded and properly.
dont accuse players of exploiting, there are clear rules about limits of this, and all players can play by these rules. 0.5 rules are also realistic, since they represent less than daily connections, which are about as common as sliced bread.

well actually it is gaining time. 1 is flying 4 hours, but .5 is flying 2 hours. per day. that's gaining 2 hours because you're pretending the flight ends and the plane is magically sent back to the origin airport for a new route.

now this isn't a solution, but i was saying before that you could tempararily charge an "overnight fee" for half routes. or you could charge fuel and staff costs, along with deducting one hour for every .5 route as a "fee" for a phantom return. rather than keeping it the way it is now.

or we can just keep things the way they are, have that one bit of innacuracy, and just all play the game with this loophole on "even" ground. i still think what i was saying earlier would be good but maybe i was saying it wrong or something. and i can't draw a picture because im not that creative as LOT 737.

[Max2147]

see. the great problem with the endpoint rule is. there's no solid endpoint.

technically you can create routes at any point in the chain, so any determined endpoints would be in a constant flux depending on the routes generated. the game doesn't track specifically the order of the routes being created (thereby cannot base validity off of that) in a meaningful way. you can create X-Y; Y-Z; then create a few routes from X, then a few routes from Z...  design flaw, i know. but. honestly, being faced with a huge process and changes to get multiworlds up and running, i'd like to figure out how to make it work without a drastic redesign... there's enough of those in process at the moment. -_-

If the endpoint can't be determined, then that's fine.  The way I think of it, a plane that has a 1-frequency route from AP1 to AP2 as its only route has 0 endpoints.  Yes, technically it does overnight at one of those airports, but the game doesn't care which.  It's only when a plane ends up at an airport by an x.5 route that endpoints come into the picture.

Basically, a plane will have 0 endpoints until an x.5 route is created.  At that point the airports on either end of that become endpoints.  From then on, a plane can only fly x.5 routes from those endpoints.

Let's create a theoretical route structure for a plane to see how the process should work.

The plane's airline has AP1 and AP5 as bases.
Restricted airports: Plane cannot fly a x.5 route to/from this airport, unless it is to/from an endpoint.  Once a plane has endpoints, all the non-endpoints become restricted airports.

Starting out: Plane has 0 endpoints.

Route 1: AP1 (1) AP2
- Plane still has no endpoints
- Resticted airports: None

Route 2: AP1 (0.5) AP3
- AP1 and AP3 become endpoints
- Plane has 2 endpoints (AP1, AP3)
- Restrcted aiports: AP2

Route 3: AP1 (0.5) AP4
- AP4 becomes an endpoint, replacing AP1
- Plane has 2 endpoints (AP3, AP4)
- Restrcted airports: AP1, AP2

Route 4: AP5 (0.5) AP4
- AP5 becomes an endpoint, replacing AP4
- Plane has 2 endpoints (AP3, AP5)
- Restricted airports: AP1, AP2, AP4

Route 5: AP5 (1) AP6
- Endpoints unchanged
- Plane has 2 endpoints (AP3, AP5)
- Restricted airports: AP1, AP2, AP4, AP6

Route 6: AP5 (1) AP2
- Endpoints unchanged
- Plane has 2 endpoints (AP3, AP5)
- Restricted airports: AP1, AP2, AP4, AP6

Route 7: AP5 (0.5) AP3
- AP3 and AP5 no longer endponts
- Plane has 0 endpoints
- No restricted airports

Route 8: AP1 (0.5) AP7
- AP1 and AP7 become endpoints
- Plane has 2 endpoints (AP1, AP7)
- Restricted airports: AP2, AP3, AP4, AP5, AP6

Route 9: AP5 (0.5) AP8
- Route disallowed because plane has 2 endpoints, and AP5 is not one of them.

So to sum up the plane's routes:
AP1 (1) AP2
AP1 (0.5) AP3
AP1 (0.5) AP4
AP5 (0.5) AP4
AP5 (1) AP6
AP5 (1) AP2
AP5 (0.5) AP3
AP1 (0.5) AP7

Possible route the plane takes (not the only possible one): AP1 -> AP2 -> AP1 -> AP4 -> AP5 -> AP6 -> AP5 -> AP2 -> AP5 -> AP3 -> AP1 -> AP7 (reverse the next day)

Now I'm not sure if that'll be any help, but I always found logical excersizes useful when coding.

[Air Elbonia]

see the thing is. a .5 + a 1 equals an endpoint of both tails of a .5; though round trips are perfectly valid 100% of the time from any round trip flight. also. round trip flights are valid from both endpoints of .5s

if cit1-cit2 is .5; cit2-cit3 can be 1, but the end point is cit2.  creating round trip flights from cit3 is fine, but not .5's (logic breakdown).  creating .5's from cit1 is fine, creating rt's from cit1 is fine. now. if after this they decide to create a round trip from cit3. the anachronisms are where it hits hard. to determine endpoints we need some place to start from, but being able to go out of order means there's no solid place where it "starts" because it can be extended or modified at both ends.  once there's no good starting point, how do you point the code to figure this out.  sure, a rational human mind can figure it out... but code needs specific instructions/scenarios to break down any potential problems.

[Max2147]

Not sure I quite get the scenario you're describing.  As you said, they can create roundtrips from cit3.

In terms of coding, you'd have to work out some sort of test to run on each airport in a plane's network to see whether it's an endpoint or not.  The basic logic would be: If (endpoint test) = yes, then: Create roundtrips or x.5 routes, else: only create roundtrips with that plane from that city.  If a plane doesn't have any 0.5 routes in the system, then you don't even have to run the test.

Not quite sure how'd you'd deal with the AP1 (0.5) AP2 (0.5) AP3 (0.5) AP1 issue (no endpoints in that system), but I'll put some more thought into it.  Either way, I think endpoints is the best idea to run with because it eliminates the illogical routes without eliminating the logical ones.