General Reserve Hangar and RH2 Updates

[Navigata07]

So I've been thinking about this for a while, and it's really unfortunate that the game doesn't encourage fleet expansion. This limits the flexibility of the player and of course it affects alliance tasking. I personally think that building one's fleet should be encouraged by the game, and my idea of a revamp is to promote fleet growth. Here are my suggestions:
1) Alliance Tasking Based On Only Active Fleet
This is the first change that is needed, and I've been stating it for weeks. When the tasking is based on the entire fleet, players will not want to keep the smaller planes in their fleet, which is a problem when you obtain rare small planes, like the rainbow owl or the s3 swift. They may be small, but they are rare nonetheless. Without this change, fleet expansion is pointless, and needs to be the first issue addressed.

2) Change Greenie Cost Of Reserve Hangar Slots
I would make two changes here:
a) Cut current greenie cost in half. For instance, to open up the 5th spot, you currently need 40 greenies. Make it 20 instead
b) Provide an option to pay for the spot with coins. Simple formula: Coin Cost = (Greenie Cost/10)* 1e6. So for the 5th spot, the new coin cost would be 2 million coins, which in itself is not easy to collect.

3) Change Reserve Hangar 2 Token Costs
Unfortunately, I don't remember all the costs associated with RH2 (if anybody remembers them, place them in the thread please), but I do vaguely remember that it is very costly in terms of gold and silver tokens. Here are my suggestions
a) Cut all token costs in half. To purchase RH2, the cost is 200 gold, 2000 silver. Make it 100 gold and 1000 silver instead. If the initial cost is too cheap, then leave the initial cost as is, but cut all other token costs in half. That I think is a fair compromise.
b)Purchase slots for silver tokens only. I suggest for every slot, it should cost an additional 1000 tokens. So for the 5th slot, it would cost 5000 silver tokens. The gold tokens should only be used to upgrade the hangar, since with each upgrade, youre getting additional slots unlocked. That unlocking should come at the cost of gold tokens, since those are harder to obtain.

4) If these recommendations seem too easy for the player, then why not make it a sale that is offered once a month instead of all the time? That would at least be a good middle ground and would be something that patient players can look forward to on a monthly basis. I think offering it all the time is certainly fair, but I'm not crunching the financial numbers at GI, so I am willing to compromise with this option.

I believe with these changes, fleet expansion would be encouraged, and more players would invest into the game either through greenie purchase or time. It's a win for both the player and the developer, as a reduction in costs may encourage more greenie purchases as well as more time commitment. Let's make it happen GI.

 

[LX Air - Teresa]

Completely agree.
A suggestion on weekly tasks : a compromise would be leaving planes in RH2 (and only this one) out. All others planes, both active and in r h1 would be considered for the assignment of weekly tasks.

 

[Navigata07]

Completely agree.
A suggestion on weekly tasks : a compromise would be leaving planes in RH2 (and only this one) out. All others planes, both active and in r h1 would be considered for the assignment of weekly tasks.

Yes I thought about that too, but Im trying to avoid the gold token rush again. I would prefer to avoid doing more adventure flights if I can help it 😅

 

[Bob69bob]

So I've been thinking about this for a while, and it's really unfortunate that the game doesn't encourage fleet expansion. This limits the flexibility of the player and of course it affects alliance tasking. I personally think that building one's fleet should be encouraged by the game, and my idea of a revamp is to promote fleet growth. Here are my suggestions:
1) Alliance Tasking Based On Only Active Fleet
This is the first change that is needed, and I've been stating it for weeks. When the tasking is based on the entire fleet, players will not want to keep the smaller planes in their fleet, which is a problem when you obtain rare small planes, like the rainbow owl or the s3 swift. They may be small, but they are rare nonetheless. Without this change, fleet expansion is pointless, and needs to be the first issue addressed.

2) Change Greenie Cost Of Reserve Hangar Slots
I would make two changes here:
a) Cut current greenie cost in half. For instance, to open up the 5th spot, you currently need 40 greenies. Make it 20 instead
b) Provide an option to pay for the spot with coins. Simple formula: Coin Cost = (Greenie Cost/10)* 1e6. So for the 5th spot, the new coin cost would be 2 million coins, which in itself is not easy to collect.

3) Change Reserve Hangar 2 Token Costs
Unfortunately, I don't remember all the costs associated with RH2 (if anybody remembers them, place them in the thread please), but I do vaguely remember that it is very costly in terms of gold and silver tokens. Here are my suggestions
a) Cut all token costs in half. To purchase RH2, the cost is 200 gold, 2000 silver. Make it 100 gold and 1000 silver instead. If the initial cost is too cheap, then leave the initial cost as is, but cut all other token costs in half. That I think is a fair compromise.
b)Purchase slots for silver tokens only. I suggest for every slot, it should cost an additional 1000 tokens. So for the 5th slot, it would cost 5000 silver tokens. The gold tokens should only be used to upgrade the hangar, since with each upgrade, youre getting additional slots unlocked. That unlocking should come at the cost of gold tokens, since those are harder to obtain.

4) If these recommendations seem too easy for the player, then why not make it a sale that is offered once a month instead of all the time? That would at least be a good middle ground and would be something that patient players can look forward to on a monthly basis. I think offering it all the time is certainly fair, but I'm not crunching the financial numbers at GI, so I am willing to compromise with this option.

I believe with these changes, fleet expansion would be encouraged, and more players would invest into the game either through greenie purchase or time. It's a win for both the player and the developer, as a reduction in costs may encourage more greenie purchases as well as more time commitment. Let's make it happen GI.

Puh-lease!! I hate to say it (and sincere kudos for the thought process that goes into your regular ideas on game improvement), but you need to take off those rose tinted glasses. (I’m trying to learn to use a bit more diplomacy)

As annoying as some features are, thousands of players have dealt with them and moved through to bigger and better things. Airport City is an awesome game but (and this may shock some of those who constantly post “it’s not fair” or “I’m entitled to” or “GI must...) it’s primary purpose is as a tool to generate income and profits for a commercial enterprise.

In response to your points above...
1) The issue has merit and warrants some modifications but there is no way that the roadblocks in place now will simply be lifted that easily. This game actually requires a lot of sacrifices along the way - it’s up to the players to plan a way to minimise it. I’ve sold dozens of carpet planes, more S3 variants of PPD, TurboProps and Jets than I’d ever want to go back and count. That’s because when I moved to alliance destinations, alliance maps and S3 collecting, I played the game the same way as I did when I started from the very beginning. Start with PPD and work your way back up. I suspect around 99% of players have done it the same way. I AM AN IDIOT (diplomatically sledging almost everyone without actually saying so ). With a bit of thought and planning, I could have done the entire S3 fleet without having to sell a single aircraft.

Either way, planes come and go. You think All Nippon Airlines still want to fly their B747-SP aircraft? (A model that fit a niche requirement, was produced in small numbers and was awkwardly short in length) It was special in appearance and a classic version of a classic aircraft. No airline can afford to say, “we love our planes so we‘ll keep one of those and 2 of those”. That’s the deal that everyone has play by and it sounds harsh, but if you can’t afford to sell and rebuy as needs arise, then the game may not be at the right level to be using them.
Maybe... A new RH3? Aircraft stored in there don’t get considered for missions/tasks etc. but it’s extremely expensive to move aircraft in and bring them back out? Like cold storage or The Boneyard in Arizona? Allows flexibility without reducing the difficulty.

2&3) Please Mr CEO of GI, we understand that your job is to provide good dividends to the owners/shareholders and you’ve been doing a fantastic job based on the growth and longevity of the game. How would you (and they) feel about reducing your sales by say 15%? The customers will love you for it and if it goes smashingly well, you may even claw back 1-2% from more spending. Your bonus will be a little lower for the next 6 quarters because your KPIs won’t be met, but think of the fans! the GI devs might love the idea but the *ching ching* money grabbers *ching ching* bean counters *ching ching* oxygen thieves *ching ching* ahh, senior level accountants won’t even unlock their “open door policy” locked doors to consider it.

4) Come on let’s take a wild stab, for arguments sake, about the players who acknowledge that the game has provided them with 100s, even thousands of hours of valued entertainment and are actually willing to throw a little cash GIs way... what would we guess the ratio would be of greenies purchased on days 1-11 of the fortnight vs the x3 weekend sale period? We have to allow a small spike on half price land weekends because some people just can’t wait 😝. The vast majority of greenies sales (which would be their most profitable part of the game- can’t buy land? Can’t expand) would be on the sale weekend. The difference in value simply forces people to wait. The same idea with hangars (which are significantly higher in value than even the top 3x buy) and having to wait an extra 2 weeks? The decision is too easy. A monthly deal for that isn’t a huge impost in the overall scheme and would hardly affect their sales, just make them dribble in longer and spike every 8 weeks.
we aren’t crunching the numbers, just asking for favours- they’d be crunching numbers continuously and theirs are suburbs apart from we’d come up with.

Consider the things we have asked for in the past (contract/collection buildings are the prime example) which they have delivered. if asked what we thought was a good value deal before those buildings were released, nobody would have even dreamed or suggested they would be higher than around 25% of what the real GI prices were. we were stunned at the prices when they came out but surprise! It was a slow start but anyone wanting to expand had to jump on board and wear it or fall behind.

Having written War & Peace (again 😩) I wish I’d simply started with that analogy - we wanted X and expected to pay Y, they gave us 1.3Xa/b and slammed us for Y^3. Real historical comparison, how do you think the suggestions will be received?

 

[Wasted Eagle]

Unfortunately, I don't remember all the costs associated with RH2 (if anybody remembers them, place them in the thread please), but I do vaguely remember that it is very costly in terms of gold and silver tokens. Here are my suggestions

This reminds me so much of that journalist who wrote that article about that guy with the thing in the place. Didn’t remember it all, but shared it anyway...
#searchbarisyourfriend

 

[Navigata07]

Puh-lease!! I hate to say it (and sincere kudos for the thought process that goes into your regular ideas on game improvement), but you need to take off those rose tinted glasses. (I’m trying to learn to use a bit more diplomacy)

As annoying as some features are, thousands of players have dealt with them and moved through to bigger and better things. Airport City is an awesome game but (and this may shock some of those who constantly post “it’s not fair” or “I’m entitled to” or “GI must...) it’s primary purpose is as a tool to generate income and profits for a commercial enterprise.

In response to your points above...
1) The issue has merit and warrants some modifications but there is no way that the roadblocks in place now will simply be lifted that easily. This game actually requires a lot of sacrifices along the way - it’s up to the players to plan a way to minimise it. I’ve sold dozens of carpet planes, more S3 variants of PPD, TurboProps and Jets than I’d ever want to go back and count. That’s because when I moved to alliance destinations, alliance maps and S3 collecting, I played the game the same way as I did when I started from the very beginning. Start with PPD and work your way back up. I suspect around 99% of players have done it the same way. I AM AN IDIOT (diplomatically sledging almost everyone without actually saying so ). With a bit of thought and planning, I could have done the entire S3 fleet without having to sell a single aircraft.

Either way, planes come and go. You think All Nippon Airlines still want to fly their B747-SP aircraft? (A model that fit a niche requirement, was produced in small numbers and was awkwardly short in length) It was special in appearance and a classic version of a classic aircraft. No airline can afford to say, “we love our planes so we‘ll keep one of those and 2 of those”. That’s the deal that everyone has play by and it sounds harsh, but if you can’t afford to sell and rebuy as needs arise, then the game may not be at the right level to be using them.
Maybe... A new RH3? Aircraft stored in there don’t get considered for missions/tasks etc. but it’s extremely expensive to move aircraft in and bring them back out? Like cold storage or The Boneyard in Arizona? Allows flexibility without reducing the difficulty.

2&3) Please Mr CEO of GI, we understand that your job is to provide good dividends to the owners/shareholders and you’ve been doing a fantastic job based on the growth and longevity of the game. How would you (and they) feel about reducing your sales by say 15%? The customers will love you for it and if it goes smashingly well, you may even claw back 1-2% from more spending. Your bonus will be a little lower for the next 6 quarters because your KPIs won’t be met, but think of the fans! the GI devs might love the idea but the *ching ching* money grabbers *ching ching* bean counters *ching ching* oxygen thieves *ching ching* ahh, senior level accountants won’t even unlock their “open door policy” locked doors to consider it.

4) Come on let’s take a wild stab, for arguments sake, about the players who acknowledge that the game has provided them with 100s, even thousands of hours of valued entertainment and are actually willing to throw a little cash GIs way... what would we guess the ratio would be of greenies purchased on days 1-11 of the fortnight vs the x3 weekend sale period? We have to allow a small spike on half price land weekends because some people just can’t wait 😝. The vast majority of greenies sales (which would be their most profitable part of the game- can’t buy land? Can’t expand) would be on the sale weekend. The difference in value simply forces people to wait. The same idea with hangars (which are significantly higher in value than even the top 3x buy) and having to wait an extra 2 weeks? The decision is too easy. A monthly deal for that isn’t a huge impost in the overall scheme and would hardly affect their sales, just make them dribble in longer and spike every 8 weeks.
we aren’t crunching the numbers, just asking for favours- they’d be crunching numbers continuously and theirs are suburbs apart from we’d come up with.

Consider the things we have asked for in the past (contract/collection buildings are the prime example) which they have delivered. if asked what we thought was a good value deal before those buildings were released, nobody would have even dreamed or suggested they would be higher than around 25% of what the real GI prices were. we were stunned at the prices when they came out but surprise! It was a slow start but anyone wanting to expand had to jump on board and wear it or fall behind.

Having written War & Peace (again 😩) I wish I’d simply started with that analogy - we wanted X and expected to pay Y, they gave us 1.3Xa/b and slammed us for Y^3. Real historical comparison, how do you think the suggestions will be received?

Not even sure where to begin....got bombarded with a whole lot of words that I had to sift through to get your point. Well since it's so much, I think I will respond with a few points based on what I could gather:
1) If your statement was indeed 100% correct, then we wouldn't be able to purchase 36 fuel in an hour for 720 coins and PEBs would not have the same percentage as a solid rocket fuel. GI has made changes that played out well for the consumer....whether that was a profit or a loss to them, I can't say. However, my guess is that they were at least ok with making that arrangement.
2)At the end of the day, this is the Suggestions section of the forum, where players can share their ideas that could make the game better in their eyes. Many ideas are shared...and very few are even viewed much less considered by Ivan and the GI team. However, there are those select few that show up in the game in some way, shape, or form, and that my dear AC comrade is why I come here. It's not expected that GI would do things exactly as I state them, but even if it does show up in a different form, I would be happy...because I directly impacted a game that I enjoy very much. If there are other numbers that work better for them, then go for it.
Bottom Line: This is just an idea. It's purpose is to get others thinking about the stated problem/solution and hopefully garner enough attention from Ivan to mention it to his team. If that's as far as it gets, then Im quite happy with that. However, a failed suggestion will not stop me from suggesting, because eventually, one will stick....and that one will make all the previous failures worthwhile. Appreciate the thoughts though

 

[Navigata07]

This reminds me so much of that journalist who wrote that article about that guy with the thing in the place. Didn’t remember it all, but shared it anyway...
#searchbarisyourfriend

I actually did search for it, but didnt find it when I tried. I eventually did find it though because someone posted it in a related thread in this same Suggestions section. Thanks for the help though

 

[Bob69bob]

Not even sure where to begin....got bombarded with a whole lot of words that I had to sift through to get your point. Well since it's so much, I think I will respond with a few points based on what I could gather:
1) If your statement was indeed 100% correct, then we wouldn't be able to purchase 36 fuel in an hour for 720 coins and PEBs would not have the same percentage as a solid rocket fuel. GI has made changes that played out well for the consumer....whether that was a profit or a loss to them, I can't say. However, my guess is that they were at least ok with making that arrangement.
2)At the end of the day, this is the Suggestions section of the forum, where players can share their ideas that could make the game better in their eyes. Many ideas are shared...and very few are even viewed much less considered by Ivan and the GI team. However, there are those select few that show up in the game in some way, shape, or form, and that my dear AC comrade is why I come here. It's not expected that GI would do things exactly as I state them, but even if it does show up in a different form, I would be happy...because I directly impacted a game that I enjoy very much. If there are other numbers that work better for them, then go for it.
Bottom Line: This is just an idea. It's purpose is to get others thinking about the stated problem/solution and hopefully garner enough attention from Ivan to mention it to his team. If that's as far as it gets, then Im quite happy with that. However, a failed suggestion will not stop me from suggesting, because eventually, one will stick....and that one will make all the previous failures worthwhile. Appreciate the thoughts though

As I tried to imply at the beginning, I do applaud the the thought that goes in to trying to improve the game. And I have no doubts that GI sometimes see the gems amongst the rocks and do their magic. Creative ideas and collaborative minds should always be encouraged (no meetings, though. Nothing good ever comes from meetings ). I also agree that by getting ideas out there, people’s brains will be stimulated to help build on those ideas or form even more to consider. By you sharing your visions for hangar improvements, my brain came up with the RH3 idea. My idea might be a complete fizzer but without the stimulation from your comments, my RH3 idea may never have entered my mind.

New concepts and improvement ideas are great but any suggestion of changing their cost structures or significantly modifying the difficulty are so far away from what GI would consider, even trying to make such suggestions is pointless (and please know I’m not trying make anyone look silly here because I’ll be the first to put my hand up and admit that any estimations that I might consider reasonable would also be galaxies away from what GI would think). For instance, If i put out a poll of what people thought would be a reasonable amount of prep to do a flight to Mars on their new silver launch pad - a journey that would need 10000 fuel and take 5 days to return but could possibly reward 10 gold tokens- even the most conservative players estimates would likely be incorrect by a factor above 10. The collection buildings were a prime example of that. When they were released, minds exploded at the prices! Nobody would have been close to guessing what GI would charge, but in the end they’ve sold like hot cakes!

The cynic in me doesn’t allow too many feel-good thoughts that GI has changed something as valuable as PEB drop rates just because it would make us happy. I’ll bet there was a huge amount of discussion on the pros and cons of the change, the longer term impact and so on. At the top of the list of pros would be how the change would benefit GI. PEB drops are much better but the 2 unit yellow barrels were introduced as drops as well, helping to water down the “even odds” for all space fuel item drops. Gi also introduced some tricky new ways to eradicate bug manipulation where some people were launching but expending very little fuel. Maybe by improving the drop rates, the need for GI to keep finding ways to squash the bugs, which they’ve been working on continuously for some time (read: years) will reduce as the number of people trying to find or create a new bug reduces since the benefits have been diluted.

erma-gerd, done it again 😔

 

[LX Air - Teresa]

The collection buildings were a prime example of that. When they were released, minds exploded at the prices! Nobody would have been close to guessing what GI would charge, but in the end they’ve sold like hot cakes!

But don’t forget that only happened after GI adjustments on contract prices 😉

 

[Bob69bob]

But don’t forget that only happened after GI adjustments on contract prices 😉

I actually wasn’t aware of that. It’s funny how cheap the contracts are considering buying 6 of each of the 2 buildings used for coins or pax or collectibles I think I was well underway testing them out to try and find handy tricks that would sweeten their cost, even slightly. The outlay of gold tokens was scary.

 

[Awesomerowend]

I like the ideas you have been throwing around - I've had some thoughts about this and my idea would work something like this

(Long Term) PLANE STORAGE BUILDING
Provide long term storage for planes. Once inserted in this building planes do not count towards Alliance Task Calculations

Level 1 (cost: 25 greens) - possibly 7 days to construct - consider needing (4x4 special items to construct, each costing 25 silver, no gold, can be bought from Duke only)
This level will have 6 slots (#1 free, #2 5 greens, #15 greens, #4 25 greens, #5 35 greens, #6 45 greens)
Total cost = 150 greens & 400 silver
Once a plane is added to a Level 1 slot, it will cant be removed for 7 days (alternative 10 days)
The only way to remove a plane early from this level is by paying a Early Release Fee of 1 Greenie
Level 2 (cost: 150 greens) - possibly 10 days to construct - consider needing (8x4 special items to construct, each costing 25 silver, no gold, can be bought from Duke only)
This level will have 6 slots (#1 free, #2 10 greens, #3 20 greens, #4 30 greens, #5 40 greens, #6 50 greens)
Total Cost = 300 greens & 800 silver
Once a plane is added to a Level 2 slot it can't be removed for 30 days.
The early release (penalty) fee is 2 Greenies
Level 3 (cost: 300 greens) - possibly 15 days to construct - consider needing (16x4 special items to construct, each costing 25 silver, no gold, can be bought from Duke only)
This level will have 6 slots (#1 free, #2 20 greens, #3 40 greens, #4 60 greens, #5 80 greens, #6 100 greens)
Total Cost = 600 greens & 1600 silver
Once a plane is added to a Level 2 slot it can't be removed for 4 days (alternative 5 days).
The early release (penalty) fee is 3 Greenies

Once the minimum storage time has lapsed, planes can be removed for free.

The main positive for players is
* Flexibility in fleet management, and storage of "special planes", but at a (steep) price.

The main positive for GI would be - another attractive place to spend greenies might increase sales (and I hope profit).

Other notes:
Possible pitfalls could be room for cheating - to minimize it might have to be an online only feature.
The storage times is deliberately long, to avoid blatant alliance task manipulation - or at a minimum it will be expensive to manipulate it.
The 3rd level release is deliberately the shortest storage time, to encourage players upgrading to the maximum level.
18 storage slots correspond to 2 planes of each of 9 types

Feel free to diss/discuss this.

Cheers from Cape Town
Bertus

 

[Navigata07]

As I tried to imply at the beginning, I do applaud the the thought that goes in to trying to improve the game. And I have no doubts that GI sometimes see the gems amongst the rocks and do their magic. Creative ideas and collaborative minds should always be encouraged (no meetings, though. Nothing good ever comes from meetings ). I also agree that by getting ideas out there, people’s brains will be stimulated to help build on those ideas or form even more to consider. By you sharing your visions for hangar improvements, my brain came up with the RH3 idea. My idea might be a complete fizzer but without the stimulation from your comments, my RH3 idea may never have entered my mind.

New concepts and improvement ideas are great but any suggestion of changing their cost structures or significantly modifying the difficulty are so far away from what GI would consider, even trying to make such suggestions is pointless (and please know I’m not trying make anyone look silly here because I’ll be the first to put my hand up and admit that any estimations that I might consider reasonable would also be galaxies away from what GI would think). For instance, If i put out a poll of what people thought would be a reasonable amount of prep to do a flight to Mars on their new silver launch pad - a journey that would need 10000 fuel and take 5 days to return but could possibly reward 10 gold tokens- even the most conservative players estimates would likely be incorrect by a factor above 10. The collection buildings were a prime example of that. When they were released, minds exploded at the prices! Nobody would have been close to guessing what GI would charge, but in the end they’ve sold like hot cakes!

The cynic in me doesn’t allow too many feel-good thoughts that GI has changed something as valuable as PEB drop rates just because it would make us happy. I’ll bet there was a huge amount of discussion on the pros and cons of the change, the longer term impact and so on. At the top of the list of pros would be how the change would benefit GI. PEB drops are much better but the 2 unit yellow barrels were introduced as drops as well, helping to water down the “even odds” for all space fuel item drops. Gi also introduced some tricky new ways to eradicate bug manipulation where some people were launching but expending very little fuel. Maybe by improving the drop rates, the need for GI to keep finding ways to squash the bugs, which they’ve been working on continuously for some time (read: years) will reduce as the number of people trying to find or create a new bug reduces since the benefits have been diluted.

erma-gerd, done it again 😔

You're absolutely correct. I'm sure lots of discussions went into each of the adjustments that were made, and since I'm not a finance expert, there is no way I would know if my suggestions are even sound. That's why I also emphasized that some form of compromise to benefit the developers would be expected and more than welcome, because I certainly understand the need to be a profitable company with a profitable project. Maybe the RH3 is the way to go...who knows. That's the beauty of the suggestions section; it's a hotbox of ideas that spurs even more ideas from inspired readers.

 

[Navigata07]

I actually wasn’t aware of that. It’s funny how cheap the contracts are considering buying 6 of each of the 2 buildings used for coins or pax or collectibles I think I was well underway testing them out to try and find handy tricks that would sweeten their cost, even slightly. The outlay of gold tokens was scary.

Best investment I ever made with my gold, and it pays dividends when it comes to doing map flights. I would certainly invest in them if I were you...the pax anyway. (Maybe I shouldn't have used dividends, as it appears you're a stocks/bonds expert 😅 )