It's about getting a quicker foothold into an already occupied region. It's about growing fast(er) so that you have an equal chance to grab some slots, before your super big neighbors floods an airport with his planes.
So you say, you can intervene in a soccer game in a way that both teams win? No, that´s impossible. If you (e.g. as referee) favor team A, you always disadvantage Team B.
(btw, seeing happily that yes-votes are gaining ground! Cheap leasing looks appealing - until you think twice about the consequeces for the gameplay)
i can explain you what is wrong with that: such a move is equivalent to shoving a pile of money to opponent B. it is ok to co-operate with one oponent, but it is not acceptable to push mountains of money over the table (leasing for 10% is identical to that) and therefore it is prohibited by all other means! the "cheap leasing" is just a loophole in order to do what is not allowed otherwise ... for good reasons.
Agreed. Ianmason's example borders on bullying. He is saying "if you dare to compete with me I will run you out of business by giving you competitor advantages you don't have".
That seems to be in contrast to the following,
"Every player has the right to fair competition"
"All activities your holding is involved in should be with the intention of making a profit"
"bullying other players is forbidden."
I know, I know, there is nothing stopping the "uncooperative" player from asking other players for the same deal. If he can't find anyone willing, or doesn't know to ask?
So you say, you can intervene in a soccer game in a way that both teams win? No, that´s impossible. If you (e.g. as referee) favor team A, you always disadvantage Team B.
(btw, seeing happily that yes-votes are gaining ground! Cheap leasing looks appealing - until you think twice about the consequeces for the gameplay)
Surprise surprise. It is a game. The goal is winning, not to achieve a draw or to loose. Here in this case, winning means to grow very big or to increase your influence.
That’s what I’m helping two (another player, and sometimes partially myself). That is exactly the purpose.
This is not kindergarten where the teacher scolds you when you compete with each other instead of playing nicely together with everybody. How could an economic simulation step in and say, hey, you are competing too much, we want to play together (notably like in communism ALL of the players).
I have earned all that money myself. I’m not paying more to get more money. Or do we suddenly also start to complain and say, hey this guy is growing too fast (on a new world) let’s slow him down, it’s unfair, the others don’t have a chance?
You should maybe once read “Atlas Shrugged”, by Ayn Rand. Really great book!
Readers have said that there is no business case for it...I made one.
Effectively what we are discussing is, is it fair to give one player an advantageous leg up than another. I propose to you, if you truly believe that is wrong, should be not be allowed to reject interlines?
As we know this is a game where the connection is king, as a new player you don't have many connections. You ask for interlines to increase those. We can agree as experienced players that it usually makes zero COMMERCIAL sense to IL with new players as 7/10 you will end up loosing money. So effectively if you agree to the IL you are giving a player an advantageous leg up that other players may not have because you rejected them, therefore surely that is providing an unfair advantage to some players and not others? Can every player that has voted that it's not fair say with clear conscious they have NEVER rejected an IL request?
On a side note it has to be said on pearls Ufastp is the only exception I've come across so far in AS. He graciously accepts every IL request I've seen even though it will cost him so a big well done
I prefer not to favour any competition in most cases. The exception is if it is an alliance member when as an alliance we will help him or her or a friend or somebody I mentor (who usually becomes and alliance member). I can understand Ian´s case as I have myself played in KUL and I know how large Singapore is, having a loyal partner is vital though preferably no airline at all in Singapore. Personally I had 1000 weekly A321 flights on the route. I accept all IL requests from alliance members otherwise I accept all as long as they are sensible and one of us fly to each other´s base, they are exclusive and dont directly compete with my alliance.
Surprise surprise. It is a game. The goal is winning, not to achieve a draw or to loose. Here in this case, winning means to grow very big or to increase your influence.
I don´t think an economy would work where those with endless money can do whatever they want. That´s why we have antitrust law in real life.
In an economic simulation like AS, there´s one more problem: It would be boring! A game where one monopolist dominates everything and decides arbitraily who gets a chance and who not, would be a waste of our free time.
That's what I'm helping two (another player, and sometimes partially myself). That is exactly the purpose.
You forget one aspect: By helping one player, you damage other players. There is no "win-win", you can´t help both teams to win the game! There is nothing "moral" about intervening arbitrarily in other peoples competition.
You forget one aspect: By helping one player, you damage other players. There is no "win-win", you can´t help both teams to win the game! There is nothing "moral" about intervening arbitrarily in other peoples competition.
And you forget one aspect : life is not fair and not everyone has the same opportunity or chance however much the society says they do. Professors prefer certain students over others, employers prefer certain employees over others, some employees get passed for promotion while others get promoted every year, business deals are closed based on personal relationships and not based on equal opportunity (ever heard of networking, networking, networking), some projects in organizations get approved while others are stalled… Well unfortunately that’s life and AirlineSim resembles that life. As Matth said, this is not communisim.
My view is that players should be able to determine when, on what terms, and for what purposes, they want to lease out their assets. There are stacks of legitimate, real-life examples of why companies lease assets at below-market rates. It can assist to develop a strategically important startup, it can help build an important relationship, it can help combat a major competitor, and it can help an airline deal with surplus capacity if/when it finds itself with excess aircraft.
But. I think that, at the moment, the leasing system for aircraft is too simplistic, which leaves this mechanic open to abuse.
In particular, the fact that leases can be entered into and cancelled without notice, and with fairly trivial penalties, is extremely unrealistic and (as lots of others have pointed out) is open to abuse. Similarly, the absence of a private market is a bit odd, and forces people onto the open market in an unrealistic way.
My suggestions would be:
Allow private leases/sales of aircraft;
Make leases be for a fixed term;
Make the penalties for breaking a lease during its term more realistic - one week’s rent is not realistic for cancelling a 12-year, industry standard lease;
Allow players (and maybe even AS) to negotiate those terms - if people want to give more expensive week-to-week leases with low break fees, or cheaper 3-year leases with hefty break fees, they should be able to do that.
This wouldn’t totally address the problem, as some people see it, of rich players leasing out hundreds of cheap planes to mates. Personally, I don’t think that is a problem with the leasing system - if players want to burn money by leading at a loss, they should be able to suffer the commercial cost of doing that. I think that is a problem with the massively inflated profitability in AS - big airlines can make billions each week, every week, because AS is designed to have super profits. Unless you do something about profitability, people will always adopt incredibly unrealistic, unprofitable strategies.
On a different note. When i started I may not have been able to learn enough to become a commited player if it wasn't for the new airline help program Sobelair started. BTW where are you Sobelair. Come by and say hello sometime.
I reckon the best compromise would be implementing a rule whereby you could only lease aircraft from player accounts after 3 months of services. That way you dont get "new" players setting up with 50-100 planes worth 100 million in a week and destroying an established player whose done it by the book with no help. This would make players setting up in areas of the world that already have huge airlines, think twice, surviving 3 months at a base of a huge airline would be good going and then they can receive extra help when they are established.
I also reckon a “competition panel” could also decide whether in game deals and trades are with the right intentions (like real life). You can appeal to the competition panel if you are affected by some of these “cheap leases” and the panel could either give all the aircraft back to the lessor, some of them to make it fair, or if they feel its fine then nothing at all.
Of course I know its not as simple as that, it takes coding and all that. But this way cheap leasing can still occur and its fairer? thoughts?
I also reckon a "competition panel" could also decide whether in game deals and trades are with the right intentions (like real life). You can appeal to the competition panel if you are affected by some of these "cheap leases" and the panel could either give all the aircraft back to the lessor, some of them to make it fair, or if they feel its fine then nothing at all.
Well, there already is this thing what you call "competition panel" and it's called User Advisory Board. And UAB along with AS support had determined that cheap leases are not illegal. Plus, look at the voting at the header of this thread. Do we need to drag this further?
Well, there already is this thing what you call "competition panel" and it's called User Advisory Board. And UAB along with AS support had determined that cheap leases are not illegal. Plus, look at the voting at the header of this thread. Do we need to drag this further?
More than 2000 and everybody is free to vote here in the forum. And to prevent is from new discussions: there is no way and no procedure to ask all players. UAB is voted by the players - here you go.
You can ask other players to vote here. Just remember that maybe 1% of all players is active here in the forum and 90% out of these perhaps every 3 months.
There is no obligation for anybody to be present in this forum.