[CONFIRMED] Political restrictions?

[Stebah]

That does sound interesting ALT! But at the end of the day it's still a simulation game, it's good that you want to have some realism (at that point already better then CA as nobody flies from SDQ to NRT..) but don't make it to realistic. At least not yet. Everybody could/should pitch in on what they want in terms of realism if you'd ask me.

Now I do have a question.. Would it be possible to change your HQ one time like it was in CA? I kind figured out that demand to/from my current HQ is not as high as I thought.. CA issues

[Zortan]

I don't want political restrictions, personally. I like the openness of the game.

[ALT2870]

The question in the end is do we loose more players adding it or not? Either way you might loose players but possibly more if you do add it.

The biggest thing is that in my opinion you have to add it before final release. You play with fire doing it later, like in CA with runway restrictions.

I think subsidies either way should be added but that is for later if we don't do restrictions.

[Unknown98]

Yeah if I were to add it I would want to add it prior to final release. I wouldn't want to add something that inherently changes the entire gameplay after release.

You could argue we'd lose players either way. Some want more realism and the lack of that would turn them off. Some prefer more open gameplay, and the lack of that turns them off. I can't make everybody happy. In a way I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.

One thing I would like to point out, because our route demand is realistic (compared to how cyber airlines operated) there is ultimately a limit on passengers on any particular route. Allowing completely open gameplay allows larger airlines the ability to open an endless amount of routes, removing any cap on potential growth and making it more difficult for new players to get established. You can argue that people would or wouldn't do that, but the fact remains that they can, and some will. In my opinion, adding some form of political restrictions will ultimately allow the game to be more receptive to a larger number of players. And that is a good thing.

In my own personal opinion I like the idea of implementing political restrictions as they exist in the real world, and allowing subsidiaries to be created to "get around" the restrictions in a way. Similar to the way the Virgin Group did it. Virgin Atlantic, Virgin America, Virgin Australia, etc. Not only does that make it more realistic by implementing the restrictions, but it extends the life of the game in a way by giving established airlines something else to do once they reach their peak. But that is just my opinion.

[ALT2870]

Exactly.

I feel subsidies keep it open while being fair.

That being said as an option you could have airline tiers (I'll make a topic on that in a second.) With a low tier airline having a smaller cost.

Overall I agree restrictions should be added the more I think about it.

[Unknown98]

Alright; so based on these discussions I'm going to tentatively mark this as "Confirmed". If anyone else has further thoughts on it feel free to comment. But for the longevity of the game I feel like implementing political restrictions along with subsidiaries/fees of some sort for operating outside of those restrictions is the correct choice for the future of the game.

I won't actually begin working on this for a while, still have lots to do before then.

[Aeal]

Thank you