Suggestion on anti-monopoly

[size="3"][font="Calibri"]Background of my suggestion[/font][/size]

[font="Calibri"][size="3"]I noticed a few players suggesting re-set game worlds after a period of time, and some others constantly asking if new game world will be introduced. This all because that under current setup of the game, on each game world relatively small number of early players will enjoy and then occupy “limited resources” in that game world, most importantly time slots in busy airports, second hand aircrafts (especially cargo versions). This early coming advantage make the game much more enjoyable for those early players then for the newly join players.[/size][/font]

[font="Calibri"][size="3"]I knew that the aspect of limited “resources” are also a reflection of the real world, and also like this design in the AS game so to make the competition harder. However, just as most players, I want to enjoy the challenge of the game but don’t want to end up in mission impossible.[/size][/font]

[font="Calibri"][size="3"]For example I run a cargo airline in Stapleton two months after the server being launched. I found that most profitable 20-30 years old second hand cargo aircrafts has been bought by the top cargo airlines established when the game world being launch. These aircrafts are much better than those left in the open market, and also better than leased aircrafts in the senses of obtaining loans. During the time I can earn enough money to buy a B737, the top airliners can buy a whole fleet of B747s, B757s, MD11s, etc, and then come back to buy out all remaining B737s, which force new players to change the plan for fleet setup.[/size][/font]

[font="Calibri"][size="3"]Secondly, early players’ rapid expansions of fleet help them to occupy limited slots in larger airports, making it much harder for follower to establish their own network which has a fit timing and also make better use of the aircrafts.[/size][/font]

[font="Calibri"][size="3"]In addition, the larger those airline becomes, the more capacity of the server being used, also make the calculation become slow and unstable.[/size][/font]


[font="Calibri"][size="3"]Instead of re-set the game world, which remove the attractive long lasting feature of the game. I would like to suggest using the game credits to put on a constraint on expansion.[/size][/font]

[font="Calibri"][size="3"]Currently AS chare 4 credits per holding per day means that never mind how big a holding becomes, it cost the player the same as new players who struggles to expend or even survive in the game world.[/size][/font]

[font="Calibri"][size="3"]My suggestion is to change the rule to 2 credits per holding per day for the first 10 aircrafts in the holding, then 1 additional credit being charged for each 10 aircrafts beyond.[/size][/font]

[font="Calibri"][size="3"]In this case, if most players’ airline eventually grow to 30-40 aircrafts, it will still cost 4 credits per day, and a size which is not too small but far not enough to creat monopoly. Players still have the option to pay more and expand larger as they wish, but in this way they contribute more to the game if they want to be the top size airlines. If they not choose to grow in fleet numbers, early players can still transform their airlines into long haul carrier by replacing smaller aircrafts to larger ones and drop out from domestic or regional routes. In this case, some limited resources will being release again to the public and can be used by new players.[/size][/font]


I don´t like the idea at all, this would just mean that players having financial advantages in real live, would have them ingame too.

But I agree that we would certainly not see megacarriers anymore, I for example would have to pay somewhere around 420 credits per day on croydon, and I don´t really think my wife would like that very much :slight_smile:

One of the major problems AS has, is that new world are just empty, no competition, you can almost fly whereever you want at whatever price you like, there will be passengers, lots of them.

Another big problem is that life is just too easy at the top, If you managed to build up your 1000+ planes, theres not much you can do wrong anymore.

If those two things could be changed, maybe simulate some kind of competition at the start (or maybe start with less demand) and make life much much harder for the megacarriers (unions, corruption, whatever), then the game might be more interesting for the late starters.

I also don’t like the idea at all. The problem are not the early players, the problem are the good players. I know many, many people who have small airlines (~30 planes in one year), but play since the gameworld has been founded, and some good player own very big airlines, but startet them some months after the gameworld has been founded.

And please have a look to the real world. After WWII, in europe many airlines started operations in this nearly new market, but only a few of them exists anymore. Same situation in AS, but in AS you have this situation after one year, not after 60 years ;).


it takes a while before new players understand all the in’s and out’s of this game. Combine that with starting an airline in a well established game world (heavy competition & less slots) and it can be quite difficult to survive. The problem is not new and has been brought up many times already. But I agree that efforts should be made to make it easier for beginners.

I have also seen cases where players operate huge airlines in China or the US, then start subsidiaries in open countries and “kill” the existing airlines. I tend to sympathise with the underdogs, but on the other hand… it’s a game, and the purpose is to manage an airline in a competitive market. The thing is, loosing a game of monopoly after you played two hours is one thing. Loosing an airline in which you invested several months is different.

I don’t know what the solution is, however, I don’t think charging more credits is the way to go. I agree with MHK on this point. Gradually increasing passenger demand may help. At least, it would make it more difficult to start in a big country on a new server and make millions by selling tickets way too expensive. Gradually increasing the starting capital may also be a good idea.

The main question is whether or not AS sees this as a problem. In the end, they are the guys who make the rules ;)


I understand that ‘early’ players do have an advantage of being able to pull the old aircrafts out of the market, but the benefit is only limited to cargo airlines, as AS passengers are very sensitive of aircraft age.

With regard to dominance at one airport, I have another suggestion, this is to limit the amount of slots one airline (or holding) can hold at one airport to say 70% of all slots. Additionally, alliances could be held to 90% of the slots (numbers can be discussed).

The benefit of this rule would be that it’s very easy to control. The maximum amount of slots at a current airport is available (should be published as well on the airport page) and instead of having the team to control this, the system would be self-regulatory because i think that a competitor could easily check if a holding or alliance holds too many slots, and in case report. There is no gray zone, as there is a simple number of slots allowed to be held by one holding/alliance/airline.

This does not open slots for everyone and the biggest airports may well be completely occupied. But at least it limits the advantage of an ‘early’ or ‘big’ airline to dominate one airport.

[font="Calibri"][size="3"]I fully agree that my suggestion may not be the best way to solve the problem of monopoly. It is base on the idea that who occupy more server capacity, who should contribute more to the AS. It only helps to restrain players’ willingness to grow too big for the server to handle.[/size][/font]

[font="Calibri"][size="3"] [/size][/font]

[size="3"][font="Calibri"]In terms of the game itself, I fully agree that gradually increasing demand and gradually increasing the starting capital are both good ideas. However individually they will be not enough to solve the problem, they only provide some help.[/font][/size]

[font="Calibri"][size="3"] [/size][/font]

[size=“3”][font=“Calibri”]I agree with voeni that only ‘early’ players in cargo sector have an advantage of being able to pull the old aircrafts out of the market. It is worthwhile to notice that it is the cargo sector has the highest level of “concentration”. In a number of servers I observed, the no.1 player is around 10 times the size of no. 20 in cargo market, whereas no. 1 passenger carrier just around double of no. 20. This level of difference just makes new players in the cargo sector way too hard to get into the game.[/font][/size]

[font="Calibri"][size="3"] [/size][/font]

[size="3"][font="Calibri"]I also think to limit the slots hold by one holding can be a good approach. But it should make a difference between head office and any other airports. For example, if an airline is based in JFK, it can hold 60% of slots at JFK, but 10% at any other airports. Otherwise if one can hold 60% of slots in any airports, it will like no limits at all especially for cargo airlines. If larger airline want to expend outside head office, it can be done by establish new subsidiaries, so the subsidiary can enjoy the higher limit at its own head office.[/font][/size]

[font="Calibri"][size="3"]After all, I think the design of the game should be easy to start, so easier to attract new players. And then become harder and harder to expend in size, so good players may enjoy the new challenges while give some room for the new players.[/size][/font]

Completely agree with this. Further, I think suggesting that it’s “impossible” to succeed after a late start sounds like giving up without trying. Regardless of when an airline starts, it takes months to become a reasonably secure going concern; most of the airlines that get in on a new server fail. While obviously large airlines have advantages that the small fry don’t, on the mature servers there are nevertheless opportunities. I can think of four or five airports in the US on Tempelhof right now that I think would be perfect nurseries in which a young, WELL MANAGED airline could succeed (I speak only of US airports b/c that’s the only area I know well enough on Tempelhof). The fun of this simulation is figuring out those strategies for success. Dumbing down the game would remove some of that entertainment value. It would be like playing musical chairs and having enough chairs for everyone.

I got a late-ish start on Tempelhof (three months after the game world opened). At that point, several of the larger airports were already effectively 100% slotted out. There were a number of giant airlines already operating. Things have gone pretty well since then.

Just my $0.02.


The word "impossible" not meaning impossible to survive and grow, but more towards changeing in traffic ranking, especially in the cargo market for the reasons of free rights (which make competation hard but more enjoyable) and advantage of hodling older second hand aircraft (which I think is the main reason that the dominance in the cargo market is much more severe).

I agree that well managed airline airline could succeed in however complex environment. However it is a paid game, it should be more friendly and easy going for new starter, so it can help more people to join in the game. I believe never mind how hard or slow it will be for a start, there will have some people can manage well a new airline even in a mature game world. But how many? It would be much better to let the beauty of challenge larter on rather than at start, so that not only new airlines facing hard competations from mature airlines (which are what happening now), but mature airline constantly facing greater level of challenges from more number and healthier new airlines.

I agree with Outlier.

Some time ago I had a look at some old game worlds. I am convinced that there are enough places where you could start a new airline. The only thing that would stop me from doing that, is the lack of slots in big airports. And if I run a European airline, I want to be able to fly to London, Amsterdam, Paris or Rome. You can make a profit without these airports, but hey… a decent airline has at least a few decent destinations ;)

I also started on Tempelhof a few months after the server started. Surviving was not a problem. And it took time to become an established airline, but not longer than it now takes on Stapleton.

If you start on a new game world, and your airline fails, you have to rethink your business model.

As for established game worlds with decreasing number of players… I don’t understand why AS does not stimulate new airlines by giving them a bigger starting capital. My Tempelhof airline won’t go bankrupth if I get a new colleague/competitor who starts with 20 million dollar.


The idea with more starting capital sounds interesting. Maybe the starting capital should increase 0.5 Million AS-$ each week after launching a server. This would help new airlines.

@friendlyxue: Even you start with 200 Mill.AS-$ a half year after a server has been started, it would nearly impossible that you will find your airline under the top 20 of the world, because the have transported some million passangers. At which server your airline work, and which company is it?

best regards


Thanks for everyone’s reply. It seems may be some of you may mistaken me as if I had my airline failed and unhappy about earlier player’s establish airline. It’s not the case at all. I run a cargo airline in Stapleton and well in top 50s in terms of freight/week figure and now comes to the rapid expand period. My initial suggestion may sounds like want to be as big as the established airlines in a short time, I’m sorry if that’s the case. I think after mhk, sobelair, voeni and outlier’s suggestion, I made it more clear in the #6, #7, #9 replies, the whole intention of my suggestion is to make [font=“Calibri”][size=“3”]the design of the game to be easy to start, so easier to attract new players. And then become harder and harder to expend in size, so good players may enjoy the new challenges while give some room for the new players, [font=“Arial”]so that not only new airlines facing hard competations from mature airlines (which are what happening now), but mature airline constantly facing greater level of challenges from more number and healthier new airlines.[/font][/size][/font]


I did not think that you - or anyone else in this thread - wants to change a few things to make it easier for himself. But we all see how difficult the game can be for a fresh player. Difficult from a "technical" point of view, and difficult from a strategic point of view. That is why several people agree that a few changes would be welcome. The questions are which measures help new players, and which measures make it easier to start in an existing game world. This and the question if AS is interested in making the game easier.

Charging extra credits per holding punishes the students amongst us, while the DINCs (double income no children) won’t care about a few credits more.

Limiting the number of planes in a holding "punishes" those who like big fleets. They will protest loudly.

Limiting the lifespan of all servers would also cause loud protest.

A good Wiki definitely helps beginners.

A good forum with support is also a great help.

We have a Wiki and a forum, but compare the number of players with the number of people who are active here… you can’t help those who don’t ask for help ;)

Mind you… the game will always remain difficult. If you take the complexity out of the game, you end up with Farmville (as Martin said in another topic). I believe it is a good idea to make older game worlds more attractive. It helps new holdings and it keeps older servers populated.

And I believe several suggestions made in this topic are valuable…

A temporary game world could serve as a sandbox where new players can test their skills and gain experience. Plus, there may be a market for players who like to start from scratch every now and then.

Less passenger demand at the beginning of a new game world sounds excellent to me.

I also like the idea of bigger overhead costs for bigger airlines (unions, corruption, bonus for CEO, …)

And a bigger start capital on old game worlds.


Just my $0.02, but I would have to agree that a pay-as-you-go policy would not seem unfair.

I already feel like I’m over-working the AS servers, and I’ve only got 6 a/c. The fact is, even though I’m a newcommer to this online version, I want to see it prosper for the developers so that they can work for us and be around until the internet is no more.

You want a large airline? Why not pay for it, you’re using up more server resources. Besides, if you’re so capable of creating a massive airline, do it again. Or don’t, either way, we should all be living, and expanding within our means; if you can only afford soo many credits a days, then you’re fleet size should be limited to the work-load you’re generating on the servers. Get what you pay for basically.

Yes, I know it’s easy for me to back-up sobelair’s idea being a newbie and all, and that introducing this idea now would be ‘hard’ on some. However, this could be an idea introduced within newer Gameworlds.

Btw, I am someone who wants the mega-airline, but if I’m going to enjoy it, I don’t mind paying for it.


Sobelairs idea for a “sandbox” sounds good. Many onlone-games have such things. So a new user can test the game, and if he is ready, he can make a good airline on a big server. And if the use the wiki and this forum, there can’t go anything wrong.:)

I think a sand-box game would be great for people trying out the game instead of giving them a full emersion game. Either that or introduce game levels, let them be on a server for a bit till they learn the ropes and then send them off to one of the other servers. New players usually just recycle through all the time or leave… the game is incredibly hard to figure out from the get go.

This is a good idea. If you operate an airline in a small market and don’t want to leave it (you’re simulating a flag carrier), new players with trial accounts that suddenly enter your market and mess up your finances for a week or two by de facto dumping can be a real problem!

I’m not sure about charging based on company size, firstly I think it penalizes those who don’t have the financial means to pay more, especially our colleagues from poorer nations, many individuals who do have the means operate several holdings, although not necessarily on the same server. In effect the trial period is a reduced payment period to start an airline.

What might be better is incentivizing the under utilized servers, so servers with low loads cost less and new servers/full servers cost more, this should lead to a more even spread of users.