I'm relatively new to the game, not sure if my suggestion has been brought up in the past...
I know it's been widely complained by many players that due to parameter setting in AS, many players have to choose Short-haul recliner for economy class for >1200km if they want to succeed, which is totally insane compared to the real world. I think there can be an easy fix: adding seat option limits for all classes. For example:
Economy class: options are limited from "Slimline HD" to "Comfort Plus"
Business class: options are limited from "Comfort" to "Open Suite Deluxe"
First class: options are limited from "Lie-flat 140" to "Luxury Suite"
I think this feature will greatly improve the reality of the game and remediate players' complaint. In addition, it doesn't block you to set up an LCC or promote an all-business product. It may also remediate the over-emphasize on pax transfer in the game. And most importantly, compare to adding a Premium Economy class (which I think is a very good idea), this seat limit feature is very very easy to implement! (simply change the front end user HTML, not even need to change the back end or tweak parameters.) It can also be introduced to every live game sever by simply letting players know if they don't update cabin configuration by the deadline, their over-the-limit seats will be downgraded to the highest possible option in the corresponding class while keeping all personalized settings (seat number, additional F/A and pitches)
I also feel the seat width & pitch should be updated for some options, but seat option limit is definitely priority.
Except that at present the games demand system does not support that. You would have planes flying around with very low ORS ratings, and during low AGEX very few would survive. The demand system is due to be over hauled soon. We shall see then what works or not.
I would not want a minimum seat type per class but a limit to the upside is absolutely desirable. As it stands now, the majority of seats are obsolete in competitive markets.
Looking at this "problem" objectively, we might as well go back to the original cabin system that was in place a few years ago. You could select between high density, standard and premium seats which is as much as you get out of the current system. (Check out fleet lists on Hoover).
What am I saying though, we only have temporary game worlds where this could have been tried and tested. Fixing this is not even on the plan for 2019.
So you are "relatively new" and you are already making demands which you "think" are "very very easy to implement" and more than that, in red.
The reason I made "very very easy to implement" bold and red simply because I do think that's very easy - add two new small windows using HTML and one "if" logic in the Javascript (may not even necessary), and you can even leverage your existing CSS format. I truly believe one developer one afternoon is more than enough. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Except that at present the games demand system does not support that. You would have planes flying around with very low ORS ratings, and during low AGEX very few would survive. The demand system is due to be over hauled soon. We shall see then what works or not.
What I suggested was actually grey out/block buttons or popping out different seat list when players creating configuration. I don't think it will affect demand system.
How this really should be addressed, is a new ORS engine. In real life the price has way more effect on the customers choosing than the "luxury" in AS.
AND you cannot have the demand engine with pricing having more effect without a diverse passenger types, because there are many for whom pricing is irrelevant or not the first consideration. Price is, for example, not the first consideration for at least 25% of all travellers.
P.S. it’s really telling all these …let’s call them … “unusual”…ideas are coming from people who cannot make it on legacy severs…
AND you cannot have the demand engine with pricing having more effect without a diverse passenger types, because there are many for whom pricing is irrelevant or not the first consideration. Price is, for example, not the first consideration for at least 25% of all travellers.
P.S. it’s really telling all these …let’s call them … “unusual”…ideas are coming from people who cannot make it on legacy severs…
Fully agree a more comprehensive and better ORS engine is ideal. But that will take quite much effort and time to develop. Thus while waiting for a perfect (or 90% perfect) solution which takes years to build, I can live with a 30% perfect solution which can be implemented in one day in the mean time.
So you are "relatively new" and you are already making demands which you "think" are "very very easy to implement" and more than that, in red.
I feel that a more positive, objective response would be appropriate to users who are just trying to think along and do suggestions. No need to scare them off with such negativity.
As always… new ideas get grounded by experienced players, because „it‘s. not possible and has always been like that“.
The limit on seat options is one way to tackle to biggest downside of the game: missing price sensivity! While it is not an optimal solution and a increased price elasticity in the ORS formula would be desirable, it‘s not the worst idea.
@Tal0n: What‘s the problem if planes fly around with low ORS ratings? Currently everyone flies around with ORS 99 which is ridiculous and it makes it impossible to distinguish your offering, even if you have better seats and a lower price. And because everyone would be limited to these seats, the effect would be the same to everyone (so no relative difference in general). And why do you think the ORS ratings get lower at all? It‘s easy to offer standard seats in economy with an ORS rating of 99. And hey - during low AGEX seasons, bad airlines (and there are many) shouldn‘t survive!
@rubiohiguey: Not sure where you get the 25% number from (people not looking at the price). I‘ve worked in revenue management before and I can tell you, that this number is way off. We estimated that around 2-3% of all passengers do not take price as a factor (even most of corporate customers do nowadays) and that for around 80-85% it‘s the biggest single factor for their journey. Or why do you think all these low costers got big in the first place? And please, start to be a bit nicer to newcomers on here!
Here in AS the number of passengers influenced by price is felt to be 0. That‘s ridiculous!
I still personally believe that low cost carriers need better representation in AS, it seems they are barely feasible in game mainly due to the fact that you cannot make ancillary revenues? I think implementing a system to make ancillary revenue would definitely benefit the game and may see some new strategies being implemented
I still personally believe that low cost carriers need better representation in AS, it seems they are barely feasible in game mainly due to the fact that you cannot make ancillary revenues? I think implementing a system to make ancillary revenue would definitely benefit the game and may see some new strategies being implemented
Agree. But it’s not because of the missing ancillary revenues, it’s because it‘s not possible to differentiate your offering through price in the first place.
LCCs also work in real life, because they manage their costs much better than a legacy carrier. There is literally nothing you can do in AS to manage your costs, so that makes it also very difficult to operate with a lower cost base to offset lower ticket prices.
LCCs also work in real life, because they manage their costs much better than a legacy carrier. There is literally nothing you can do in AS to manage your costs, so that makes it also very difficult to operate with a lower cost base to offset lower ticket prices.
So is cost management likely to be implemented at any point? Otherwise every airline in AS will just follow a legacy carrier model, which isn’t exactly realistic
The whole point of the sim is the be realistic right? Don’t get me wrong, it’s a great sim but surely couldn’t hurt to see a new way of playing the game?
LCCs also work in real life, because they manage their costs much better than a legacy carrier. There is literally nothing you can do in AS to manage your costs, so that makes it also very difficult to operate with a lower cost base to offset lower ticket prices.
So you are "relatively new" and you are already making demands which you "think" are "very very easy to implement" and more than that, in red.
Completely unnecessary remark (as many more from this user).
New or not, everyone has the right to contribute their ideas and this one idea is indeed great IMO. Things will be more fair for everyone and closer to reality. A good hub, good connections and key interlining agreements will have a much bigger role in the success of an airline.
LCCs also work in real life, because they manage their costs much better than a legacy carrier. There is literally nothing you can do in AS to manage your costs, so that makes it also very difficult to operate with a lower cost base to offset lower ticket prices.
Yes, partly, but most important ancillary revenue is the biggest contributing factor to LCC profitability. Without ancillary revenues thinking of LCCs is ... A nonsense.
It’s quite easy to substantiate this via Google search.