What's the Status of Multi Worlds?

[AytchMan]

What's the argument for limiting each world to 500 players?  I understand that it's saturation but why?  Shouldn't it be self-regulating?  If too many players flood into one game, they should lose money and flood themselves back out, shouldn't they?

[Blue Sky Mine]

What's the argument for limiting each world to 500 players?  I understand that it's saturation but why?  Shouldn't it be self-regulating?  If too many players flood into one game, they should lose money and flood themselves back out, shouldn't they?

In theory, yes. But I'd very much doubt that would work in the real game. Players have not shown too much common sense in the past of this game

[StephenM]

What's the argument for limiting each world to 500 players?

I'd say from an argument against the limit, the database would grow to quite a large size as each world that has a smaller number of users will make the game easier, making more money available and for airlines to grow larger than in a more congested world. As a result the ammount of data stored in the database would also be effected by a large number of small worlds, and greater demands placed on the server.

[luke3]

I agree on some sort of limitation over the worlds, I see it right now towards the end of this round where Europe for example is just flooded with airlines and it is almost impossible to open a route without other 5 competition airlines already operating it, which leads some people to charge ridiculously low prices on routes or a continuous battle on who can lower the price more to beat the competition and have a decently full aircraft. It would make things much easier and more serene

[AytchMan]

blue sky--

...But I'd very much doubt that would work in the real game. Players have not shown too much common sense in the past of this game

But that's exactly why it would work.  Even in AM's current financial fantasyland, don't $1 routes lose money?  Pile enough players into an airport and they will all bleed until someone yields.  Since I hear a lot of players decrying severe competition, perhaps the underlying issue is:  do most players want a serious simulation of the airline industry (which is a brutal marketplace) or an instant-billionaire stroll in the park?  I understand that MW costs are being raised but, unless the increase is breathtaking, a protected 500-player arrangement will continue to feature the ten-day billionaires.

[AytchMan]

StephenM--

I fully understand if it's a server issue.  But I'm not understanding your supporting argument.

...the ammount of data stored in the database would also be effected by a large number of small worlds, and greater demands placed on the server.

You seem to be saying that the removal of the 500-player limit would result in more worlds with fewer players each.  I think the opposite would occur -- there would be fewer worlds with more players each.  It would be an odd result indeed if the removal of the limit reduced the number of players per world.


luke3--

It would make things much easier and more serene

This goes directly to my instant-billionaire argument.  If this is indeed what most players want -- in essence, a protected, heavily-regulated industry akin to the US up until the late 60's (date?) -- then AM is right on target and I need to stand down.  But, frankly, I don't see this as nearly as much fun as the highly-competitive, financially-dangerous environment in which airlines operate in most of the world today.  It's (mostly) an exercise in adding planes and routes.

[StephenM]

StephenM--
I fully understand if it's a server issue.  But I'm not understanding your supporting argument.
...the ammount of data stored in the database would also be effected by a large number of small worlds, and greater demands placed on the server.
You seem to be saying that the removal of the 500-player limit would result in more worlds with fewer players each.

The player limit will be more in the line of 1,000-1,500. Its less worlds, but there should be less data as it would be more saturated compared to a 500 player limit world.

[a1b23]

what years will there be since the round ends in less than 1 hour.

Oh steven i pm you could you chek it out

[pseudoswede]

what years will there be since the round ends in less than 1 hour.

It has been mentioned many times in many threads: no one will know what years (or length of the rounds) until the multi-world code is up and running. It will be randomly generated from now on.

[Leitner]

The end of the world is near.

 

[AytchMan]

stephen--

Maybe I'm using the wrong number; I don't know where I got the 500 from.  My point, though, is that, except for the system performance issue, a limit on the number of players per world should be unnecessary.  A robust financial model should police each MW admirably, regardless of the number of players.  Within reason, at least.  In some sense, the issue is moot either way:  if the financial engine is revised to the point where it's a challenge to make a profit, it will make little difference if the number of players is fifty over the limit or fifty under.

Actually, I'm now more interested in finding out if the majority of players favors a protected environment so everyone can make their billions.  This would put me right off my cornflakes but that's a separate thread.

[yourefired]

I'd go with a happy medium of 750, especially with the increase in costs. Maybe a progressively smaller world as the years get later and fuel costs go up...?

i.e. 1250 in the 80's when oil was like $20 a barrel, but more like 600-750 in the 2000's when oil is fluctuating between $70 and $120 a barrel. That's how it works in economics anyway....as costs go up and economic profit approaches zero from the positive side. When costs go up further and economic profit falls below zero, firms exit the market until economic profit equals zero (in a perfectly competitive market anyway).

Given that 1550 players show up in the rankings page (that includes airlines plagued by mismanagement are bleeding red ink), and assuming we gain and lose some players, and go with an estimate of 2000 players, and assuming people evenly distribute among the rounds, most worlds will be nowhere near saturation anyway.

[Chavaquiah]

[...] if the financial engine is revised to the point where it's a challenge to make a profit, it will make little difference if the number of players is fifty over the limit or fifty under.

Actually, I'm now more interested in finding out if the majority of players favors a protected environment so everyone can make their billions.  This would put me right off my cornflakes but that's a separate thread.

Yes, that should be a separate thread. Start it and I'll comment a little bit further. (In short, I agree with you.)

However, I think that AM's player base must be taken in consideration. Even though it's stupidly easy to make money right now you'll notice how repetitive are the demands for mo' money, for easier growth.

A balance must be kept between a proper business simulation and the kind of game that appeals to thirteen years old players. I bet it's not easy.

Personally, I'd love a game with some degree of difficulty and I hope MW moves a little in that direction.

I don't know if this is at all feasible (and if it isn't just forget about it, please) but would it be possible, sometime in the future, to have different worlds with different parameters and degrees of difficulty? From the incredibly easy to games where bad decisions can actually have dire consequences and, eventually, lead to bankruptcy?

[AytchMan]

mg35pt--

New thread in General Chat.

[ZoopahPotatoAirlineZ]

how will brokers work?