Too Many Server Slots?

English Boards Suggestions and Ideas
1

Hello, all!

First off, I don't know if this is physically possible, because I have no knowledge in how the servers you purchase work. However, here is my suggestion. 

It is not a problem on the old servers, because most have below 300 people on them after people delete their enterprises over time. However, it is a little frustrating have 1200 Holdings on the Aspern server. 1200 Holdings is a way too large, unrealistic number of airlines compared to the real number of airlines in the world. When you consider all of the tiny airlines of smaller countries with fleets of below 10, I am wrong. However, on AirlineSim, there are no people who want to stop growing after purchasing their fleet of 4-8 starter aircraft. 

For example, there are currently 375 enterprises in the USA on the Aspern server. In reality, America only has a little over 12 large airlines, with only a few other ones even bothering to compete for their titles. However, on Aspern, I say again, there are 375. It is unrealistic (and I'm trying to make this not sound like a complaint) and too difficult, especially for new players. Now I know most people enjoy the challenge, but this is just my opinion. 

So, what I'm trying to say is, all of the servers implemented in the future, should either have a general holding cap of maybe 2-3 hundred, or there should be caps specific to each country. America would be something like 50-75, but small countries really shouldn't have more than a few. 

Please leave comments telling me what you think. I apologize if this is repeating something already suggested that I haven't seen or was already ruled out as an idea. Thank you and have a nice day!

2

USA with 375 holdings on Aspern is easier to compete on, then Tempelhof or Meigs with 4-5 large airlines and no slots.

And this is "a game". Players will drop off, etc. and in one year's time the server may have maybe 10 large companies competing in USA.

I do not see any reasons for changing this.

That is my take on the subject.

3

Also, keep in mind that AS is a for-profit (I hope!) organisation. More people, more credits. Further to what rubiohiguey2000 has said - amount of PAX is scaled up as well, that's why we have thousands of aircraft flying in US

4

Well, if you reduce the supply, the price has got to go up. How much would you be willing to pay to play AirlineSim? What you are basically suggesting is increasing the number of game servers AS provides for players. I'm not sure how many that would require, but if it required two or three times as many servers, would you pay two or three times the cost for AS? It might end up having to be more if the AS team decided they needed to hire others to help them keep the game running smoothly.

Part of its draw, for me, is the affordability of the simulation, while consistently putting out a top-notch product with continuing advancements in programming, complexity, realism, and availability. I would probably pay twice the amount, maybe three times, but if it got much more than that... I don't know. 250 credits (about two months' supply) costs just under $10 in US dollars. I'd pay $30 for two months, but if it got to $25 to $30 per month, just for one holding, I might balk a little bit at it.

5
... there are currently 375 enterprises in the USA on the Aspern server...  It is unrealistic (and I'm trying to make this not sound like a complaint) and too difficult, especially for new players. Now I know most people enjoy the challenge, but this is just my opinion. 

Hi,

every new server causes a gold rush. They should name the next server Eldorado  :-)

Existing servers are difficult, so people think they have a better chance at succeeding on a new server. There is nothing wrong with that. Over time, competition will weed out many airlines. Don't forget that the real USA also has a whole list of airlines that did not survive. Panam, TWA and many other airlines have disappeared over time.

I see two other things that make the game difficult for new players.

The game is not easy to start with... there is a steep learning curve for beginners. We all keep saying "if you go bankrupt, start again. In the end you will succeed." But I don't know if every player wants to restart half a dozen times.

Secondly the game has a growing number of experienced players. Ten years ago every player was a noob. Today there are enough experienced players on every new server to make the game more difficult for everybody (including the experienced guys). I mean... it is not only a matter of numbers.

Jan

6
Secondly the game has a growing number of experienced players. Ten years ago every player was a noob. Today there are enough experienced players on every new server to make the game more difficult for everybody (including the experienced guys). I mean... it is not only a matter of numbers.

What true words, bro. Even though I have been playing AS only for couple of months and now I think I have a more-or-less hold on "theory" of game dynamics, I am still learning new things every day, and still putting lots of theory into practice (e.g. the "exact proper" scheduling still eludes me ... not that I would not know how to schedule, it's the most finite fine-tuning that is still eluding me... but I guess that will come with time).

What I wanted to say is that MAYBE, maybe, AS could think of starting a new "beginners" server. It would have maybe only 600 accounts, and maybe even higher per-holding credits cost (e.g. 6 credits instead of 4) and they could run in on lower-level machine (eg. instead of eight core i7 running just quad core i7, etc.) but more importantly it would be available to NEW players only, e.g. players who have been playing for year or less. It could start simultaneously with a new server release that will come for general player population in the future. As has been suggested, this could be kind of beginners' server, which would restart every year. It would allow new players to get hold of game dynamics and they probably would not need to restart half a dozen of times :) Myself I would not be interested in such a server as I like some challenge and I do not consider exactly beginner myself either (maybe it's my ego :) ) but probably lots of new players would be interested.

One problem I see with this is that maybe some of Chinese friends from the Infamous Alliance would try to join in (even though the server would be limited to inexperienced players) so they can dominate again (I know there are quite a few serious "normal" players in the Infamous Alliance, and I think the most problematic ones there are our Chinese "friends"... we could have seen the whole issue in slimline HD discussion and their arguments turning into the Hit*** shouts and verbal attacks... and BTW does anybody tube already lol :) ) But again AS oversight would probably clearly see who is "experienced player" and who is noob on such a server .... and not only by looking on aircraft seating configuration, but by the general gameplay etc.

7

You'd be asking the AS team to do a lot of policing of accounts and holdings. That's a very time-intensive activity with very few results. Personally, I would rather the game expand in other ways (IE, new cabin configuration, new flight details report). The game does have a steep learning curve, but as you yourself said, you have learned the so-called ins and outs of the simulation after a few months. This game is about patience. To coin a phrase from another paradigm: this is a marathon, not a sprint. A year is hardly enough time to fine-tune the mechanics of running an AS company more than the months you, and I, have spent learning the game.

I also believe that a server for new players would need to have more than 600 accounts available, and probably would require a "full server" to run appropriately, especially at the beginning. You could say that the up-charge for new accounts would off-set that cost, but why would you want to charge new players more than old players? That goes in the face of any business model. You draw the customers in with lower prices, then slowly add charges as they get older.

Also, if you restarted a new player server every year (say, on January 1, for example), you'd be penalizing the players that find AS in, say, September. They have several months they can play, but the server has been open for eight to nine months. That's a long time to let some airlines build up, not to mention that player that arrived in September might not even have a slot. Using 600 would pretty much guarantee that it would be full after the first few weeks for the rest of the year. Even if you bumped it up to 1200, it could conceivably stay full the whole year.

9

Well, if you reduce the supply, the price has got to go up. How much would you be willing to pay to play AirlineSim? What you are basically suggesting is increasing the number of game servers AS provides for players. I'm not sure how many that would require, but if it required two or three times as many servers, would you pay two or three times the cost for AS? It might end up having to be more if the AS team decided they needed to hire others to help them keep the game running smoothly.

It's easy to calculate how much extra DBreslow want's to pay.

To reduce 375 paying customers to 12 (America numbers) he wants to pay 375/12 = 31.25 times as much for airlinesim, or about the monthly cost every day.

To reduce 1200 paying customers to 300 (Server numbers) he wants to pay 1200/300 = 4 times as much for airlinesim, or about the monthly cost every week.

10

It's easy to calculate how much extra DBreslow want's to pay.

To reduce 375 paying customers to 12 (America numbers) he wants to pay 375/12 = 31.25 times as much for airlinesim, or about the monthly cost every day.

To reduce 1200 paying customers to 300 (Server numbers) he wants to pay 1200/300 = 4 times as much for airlinesim, or about the monthly cost every week.

It can't really be broken down that easily. A server with fewer players means fewer demands on the hardware and software. Could probably cut a few corners... but the point is the same. It'd cost quite a bit more.

And even then, I'm sure most everyone would have something to complain about.

11

It can't really be broken down that easily. A server with fewer players means fewer demands on the hardware and software. Could probably cut a few corners... but the point is the same. It'd cost quite a bit more.

Only short term and with rules such as Aspern where there are limits to growth.

Long term after a while there will be just as many airplanes flying even if they are controlled by fewer airlines, so server stress should be fairly equal.

When looking at the server status it looks like a vast majority of server stress is not player related but flight/aircraft/ORS related. But ofcourse I might be wrong since only the team knows detailed information about server performance costs.

12

Long term after a while there will be just as many airplanes flying even if they are controlled by fewer airlines, so server stress should be fairly equal.

 

Good point. Hadn't thought about that. Still, like we've both said, the cost would be higher.

13

I'm not really willing to pay any more than I already am. If I'd have to pay more to participate on a smaller server, than you can forget the idea about it.

14

Hi,

reducing the number of players would not really help. You would only end up with bigger airlines.

If passenger demand is 100, airlines will grow until they offer 120 seats and then they will complain about low seat loads. If you have 10 airlines on that server, they will offer 12 seats each. If you have 2 airlines on that server, they will grow until they offer 60 seats each.

The AGEX could "clean up" a server every now and then, but AS has taken the bite out of the AGEX by changing the formula. In a way, that was silly, because even without AGEX, airlines will grow until they hit the ceiling. If the AGEX goes down, airlines hit that ceiling a few weeks sooner. That's all.

The only way to keep servers "fresh", and to weed out badly managed (mega) airlines, is make sure that passenger demand is less than the available slots. I can only speak for my own airline, but my hub in Peking will always be profitable. All slots are taken and my seat loads are 99%. Even last september, when the AGEX was down to 600, my seat loads were still 84% or so.

A new airline can only compete with older airlines if he actually can compete. Without slots, a new airline cannot even try to compete.

Lower passenger demand means that the mega airlines will operate 750 planes instead of 1500. Will that reduce the fun ? I don't think so. I won't be less happy if I can only schedule 15 daily flights between Shanghai and Peking instead of 30 daily flights. But the game would be more challenging, and older servers would be more attractive to new players... Peking would still have slots available, and new players could try to compete with me.

And by the way, on newer servers, Peking has fewer slots. Players can only go bankrupt on purpose  :-)

Jan

15

Hi,

reducing the number of players would not really help. You would only end up with bigger airlines.

If passenger demand is 100, airlines will grow until they offer 120 seats and then they will complain about low seat loads. If you have 10 airlines on that server, they will offer 12 seats each. If you have 2 airlines on that server, they will grow until they offer 60 seats each.

The AGEX could "clean up" a server every now and then, but AS has taken the bite out of the AGEX by changing the formula. In a way, that was silly, because even without AGEX, airlines will grow until they hit the ceiling. If the AGEX goes down, airlines hit that ceiling a few weeks sooner. That's all.

The only way to keep servers "fresh", and to weed out badly managed (mega) airlines, is make sure that passenger demand is less than the available slots. I can only speak for my own airline, but my hub in Peking will always be profitable. All slots are taken and my seat loads are 99%. Even last september, when the AGEX was down to 600, my seat loads were still 84% or so.

A new airline can only compete with older airlines if he actually can compete. Without slots, a new airline cannot even try to compete.

Lower passenger demand means that the mega airlines will operate 750 planes instead of 1500. Will that reduce the fun ? I don't think so. I won't be less happy if I can only schedule 15 daily flights between Shanghai and Peking instead of 30 daily flights. But the game would be more challenging, and older servers would be more attractive to new players... Peking would still have slots available, and new players could try to compete with me.

And by the way, on newer servers, Peking has fewer slots. Players can only go bankrupt on purpose  :-)

Jan

Couldn't agree more with this post....unfortunately AS perfers not to respond to these posts. They've come up so often and have been ignored every time  -_-

16

Couldn't agree more with this post....unfortunately AS perfers not to respond to these posts. They've come up so often and have been ignored every time  -_-

Why should they? I don't believe they are an outfit like Electronic Arts that pumps out title after title just to make money and put their middle finger up at everyone, but they have a bottom line. They have to make decisions that keep the business afloat. What they are doing now is, in a way, feeding the masses so they will feed (pay) them.

Just like I posted before, we are a minority. The WTWTW crowd is larger and has more money (mainly because they are larger in number). For a company to function and churn out a product, they have to make some kind of profit. To that end, they have to cater to that crowd quite a bit to get to anything that we might deem progressive or forward-thinking. Sad fact of economy.

17

Why should they? I don't believe they are an outfit like Electronic Arts that pumps out title after title just to make money and put their middle finger up at everyone, but they have a bottom line. They have to make decisions that keep the business afloat. What they are doing now is, in a way, feeding the masses so they will feed (pay) them.

Just like I posted before, we are a minority. The WTWTW crowd is larger and has more money (mainly because they are larger in number). For a company to function and churn out a product, they have to make some kind of profit. To that end, they have to cater to that crowd quite a bit to get to anything that we might deem progressive or forward-thinking. Sad fact of economy.

Yeah, I understand but I wanted to express my view....sadly, your point was proven when the AGEX was low....all these WTWTW  ^_^

18

It's been a long time since I've seen the AGEX rocket past 1000

19

....unfortunately AS perfers not to respond to these posts. They've come up so often and have been ignored every time  -_-

Hi,

they would need a lot of staff to respond to every single post  :-)

I think they read every post, and take everything into account. I remember a few suggestions that were "ignored" at the time, but are incorporated in the game since then. As Martin wrote somewhere yesterday... if he writes that something will be changed, the next day people start bitching that it takes a long time.

Why should they? I don't believe they are an outfit like Electronic Arts that pumps out title after title just to make money and put their middle finger up at everyone, but they have a bottom line. They have to make decisions that keep the business afloat. What they are doing now is, in a way, feeding the masses so they will feed (pay) them.

Just like I posted before, we are a minority. The WTWTW crowd is larger and has more money (mainly because they are larger in number). For a company to function and churn out a product, they have to make some kind of profit. To that end, they have to cater to that crowd quite a bit to get to anything that we might deem progressive or forward-thinking. Sad fact of economy.

Hmm... it seems to me that Martin and his team take a lot of pride in making this game as realistic as possible, and as playable as possible. Sure, the game has to produce income. But it's more a matter of craftmanship than go for the cash and show them the middle finger.

As for the whining. I am pretty sure some other players would say that we are whining here and now  ;-)

Enough whining and a few Tempelhof facts:

according to the weekly statistics, all airlines (combined) have offered 2.3 million more seats than last week. This isn't special. Every week, global capacity has been growing by more than 2 million seats since the AGEX has gone up so high. And as long as the AGEX stays where it is, airlines are okay... the average global seat load has also gone up from 92.1% to 92.6%.

Shouldn't someone warn people that the bubble will burst at some stage ?

;-)

Jan

20

note : Im really sorry if im not clear or if I made grammar/syntax mistakes, english isn't my mother tongue ;)

This discussion is very interesting, I find the idea of reducing server capacity to something like 600 players isn't a bad idea at all ; Some of you seem to think this would increase the price we pay to play AS, Im no expert, but if they launch a server made for 600 players, I assume it will cost less money than a 1200 players server right ? Less players, smaller server... but again, Im no expert ;

The thing I've been thinking of since a couple of day is about slot ; While i was reading this thread, I realised that the number of player was certainly the main problem, but here is what I was thinking about :

today, on Aspern, slots are decreasing dramatically : Im based at CGK and we are loosing at least 1% of them every single day. For those who had great plans, who had imagined a future for their airline, we have now to face it : we won't be able to do what we wanted ; And im not talking about flying 50 times per day in 380 between LHR and CDG, no, just to have a nice network, long haul flights to some major airports of the world... well, nothing huge, just a realistic airline !

So what to do ? how could we solve that problem and let everyone get his chance to play and have his airline as I wanted ?

- Reducing the number of players seems a good idea, but yet, even with 600 players, there will be some of them who'll play faster than others and they will take the majority of the slots on their hub ; as an example, there is a player at CGK ( we both started playing at the very beginning of Aspern ) with already more than 650 departures per week, Im only at 300/wk ; he didn't cheat as some did, we just had different strategies at the beginning ;  and here is the deal : he is taking all the slots now... so, even if we are less players on a server, there will always be some people who'll go faster than others, even with a beginners-only server ;

- Allow only a limited number of player on major hub or even countries ( USA for example, as someone said ^^ ), but it would be unfair ; in French we have an expression to describe that, in english i don't know it but it would be something like : first one to arrive, first one to get served ; It would be like a race when the new server would start and players arriving like one month or two won't get a chance to settle where they want ;

- Lastly, I was thinking about allowing a certain amount of slot to each players on every hub and make it increase with time, but I just realised that's impossible : how would we do with players who didn't start at the launching of the server ? so i just figured out, maybe we could do that, but with a maximum amount of slot per player ? Everyone based at XXX would have the same amount of slot to use, if there is a new player, this number would be readjusted.

Im gonna be honest, now that I wrote that down, I don't know what solution would be good, if there are some others, but there's one or two things I know :

--> something must be done

--> there must be a solution : today, there still airlines in the real world which open new routes to major airports, even the ones which are supposed to be saturated ( read about LH, launching a new shuttle service to LHR for example ) ; it should always be possible for players to fly to these major airports ; the 100% taken doesn't exist !

21

Hi

the game constantly makes a lot of calculations. You should check out the "game status" page; there is a link on the bottom of every page. I think server work load depends for the most part on the number of flights. More flights means more possible connections, and that means more calculations for the ORS who books the tickets. Even if all 250 players on Tempelhof go on holiday, you would still need decent hardware to keep the server running.

Obviously, on a new server there are constantly more players online. But new servers have less flights and routes, so one balances out the other. I am pretty sure you cannot use a "half price" server for a game world that only has 600 players.

And believe me or not, those 600 players will also use all slots. It will only take a little bit longer. Tempelhof only has 250 players, and all slots (at major airports) are also taken. So limiting the number of players is no solution. It makes the game less profitable for the owners, and it will only take a few extra months before all slots are taken.

Aspern was launched about two months ago. Give it another two months and airlines will start deleting. Either because they are frustrated (no more slots in their hub) or because they go bankrupt. If your business model is good, you will survive and be able to take up extra slots.

Basically, the game has two limited resources: passengers and slots (let's forget about ground space for terminals in this discussion). As long as there are slots, you can compete for passengers. You cannot compete with another airline if there are no free slots. Once you occupy the slots, you "own" an airport. Until you get bored, or until you go bankrupt if your business model sucks.

Anyway, airlines grow and keep growing until there are no more passengers, or until there are no more slots, or a combination of both.

At this moment, it seems to me that we run out of slots before we run out of passengers. So every time a new server is launched, everybody jumps on the new server and a new race for slots begins. Perhaps that is the AS business model  :-)

But Stapleton and Pearls only have 250 players. Within two years after they were launched, these game worlds have lost 80% of their customers. And income. Restarting game worlds will cause uproar and angry customers. So for me the question is: how can you make the old game worlds more attractive, or open them up for new airlines ?

The AGEX was an attempt to "clean up" older servers. But the AS team gave in when players complained about low passenger demand. And yet I think lower passenger demand is the only solution. You could also increase the number of slots, but the number of slots is perhaps closer to reality than the number of travelling passengers.

If airlines cannot add flights to a route because passenger loads are dropping (saturation point reached), and there are still slots available, they have to compete for the passengers instead of compete for the slots. And that competition never ends, while competition for the slots ends when all slots are taken.

And free slots also mean new players can start an airline on existing game worlds.

Just my two cents  ;-)

Jan