01-09-2016, 05:14 AM
Sounds good and I'll go through my notes as soon as my Christmas vacation's over and I'm back at my workplace, somehow I can't find things in Dropbox.
About stars vs. numbers:
Maybe make it a switch in the options menu or display both. If your target audience are aircraft/airline enthusiasts and/or hardcore gamers then I guess numbers work best as they somehow seem to be more "professional", while the star system is better for people looking at other parts of the game or who want to avoid a bit of micromanagement.
From my perspective I like the star system in GC but I also dislike its limits, for example in the car designer: I see I make a 3.5 stars car, but I can't see if it's more like 3.25, 3.55 oder 3.75 stars and after I finish the design, I get an exact number (58/100). If I would not get that exact number at the end I would probably not bother or miss the whole thing, but the mix is something that makes the perfectionist in me to create 2-4 car designs and trash all but the best directly after.
I'm also totally with the fact manufacturing aircraft is not a good thing, mostly due to real world issues (who'd purchase aircraft from a competitor airline and finance therefor their airline actions or whatever), but I like to have influence in limited perimeters _if_ you have a good image with a company and _if_ you are one of their huge customers, as that is what happens in real world, in the early days more than today.
As about dynamic city growth/demand:
Now I'm thinking about it can be that problems always were computer power, not actual programming possibilities. I can see cities get out of hand in a big country like in your example, although it could boost a former poor region like Tahiti (in my other example) or several golf states (like in real life). I think power is not to make it 100% perfect in terms of city simulation but to give the player the impression (it should feel and look like, not must be actually true) his actions but also the AI actions (or multiplayer partners) change the world.
In AirwaySim Heathrow is always the "best" city as it has always the way biggest demand. But what happened when in 1946 Gatwick took over? Or now called British Airways had not the financial power? Or the Commonwealth went bust before it actually did? As a basically Los Angeles only player I some days looked at my 2000+ aircraft behemoth airline, serving literally 140% of the available demand, and asked myself several questions:
1) Why the heck does Los Angeles Airport not expand the slot numbers? I'm the biggest employer on the West Coast, I pay a insane amounts of taxes, and Los Angeles has the space to expand. No, I have to deal with the limits of the game - and they are reached WAY later in LAX than for example in New York City or Tokyo (HND/NRT).
2) Why does Los Angeles not taking customers away from other cities? Especially if there are no airlines in Oakland, San Francisco or other nearby cities or they offer a worse experience?
That made me sad, as it brought back the fact whatever I do, no matter how good or even perfect my airline is, I can never change things. And even a 100% perfect LAX airline (and I had one, for example in the last GameWorld #4) is able to beat a _BAD_ but big Heathrow airline.
It's like a train. You sometimes can increase speed or decrease ist, you might be able to choose the train cars. But at the end it's the rails that matter, and you have no way of leaving them. That's a limit every player will experience, some earlier, some later, and it makes them leave. Personally I think games that make you leave not because you beat the game, but you just had enough of the fun for now are good. Besides GearCity right now to an extent this happened for me with Cities Skylines. I stopped playing because I sunk 250 hours in it, because I wanted (and still want) to wait for more and better mods - not because I had no room to expand or because I was done with the mechanics.
Arghs, again a way too long post. I actually invested way too much time into this Airline-Management-Thing in the last ~8 years.
About stars vs. numbers:
Maybe make it a switch in the options menu or display both. If your target audience are aircraft/airline enthusiasts and/or hardcore gamers then I guess numbers work best as they somehow seem to be more "professional", while the star system is better for people looking at other parts of the game or who want to avoid a bit of micromanagement.
From my perspective I like the star system in GC but I also dislike its limits, for example in the car designer: I see I make a 3.5 stars car, but I can't see if it's more like 3.25, 3.55 oder 3.75 stars and after I finish the design, I get an exact number (58/100). If I would not get that exact number at the end I would probably not bother or miss the whole thing, but the mix is something that makes the perfectionist in me to create 2-4 car designs and trash all but the best directly after.
I'm also totally with the fact manufacturing aircraft is not a good thing, mostly due to real world issues (who'd purchase aircraft from a competitor airline and finance therefor their airline actions or whatever), but I like to have influence in limited perimeters _if_ you have a good image with a company and _if_ you are one of their huge customers, as that is what happens in real world, in the early days more than today.
As about dynamic city growth/demand:
Now I'm thinking about it can be that problems always were computer power, not actual programming possibilities. I can see cities get out of hand in a big country like in your example, although it could boost a former poor region like Tahiti (in my other example) or several golf states (like in real life). I think power is not to make it 100% perfect in terms of city simulation but to give the player the impression (it should feel and look like, not must be actually true) his actions but also the AI actions (or multiplayer partners) change the world.
In AirwaySim Heathrow is always the "best" city as it has always the way biggest demand. But what happened when in 1946 Gatwick took over? Or now called British Airways had not the financial power? Or the Commonwealth went bust before it actually did? As a basically Los Angeles only player I some days looked at my 2000+ aircraft behemoth airline, serving literally 140% of the available demand, and asked myself several questions:
1) Why the heck does Los Angeles Airport not expand the slot numbers? I'm the biggest employer on the West Coast, I pay a insane amounts of taxes, and Los Angeles has the space to expand. No, I have to deal with the limits of the game - and they are reached WAY later in LAX than for example in New York City or Tokyo (HND/NRT).
2) Why does Los Angeles not taking customers away from other cities? Especially if there are no airlines in Oakland, San Francisco or other nearby cities or they offer a worse experience?
That made me sad, as it brought back the fact whatever I do, no matter how good or even perfect my airline is, I can never change things. And even a 100% perfect LAX airline (and I had one, for example in the last GameWorld #4) is able to beat a _BAD_ but big Heathrow airline.
It's like a train. You sometimes can increase speed or decrease ist, you might be able to choose the train cars. But at the end it's the rails that matter, and you have no way of leaving them. That's a limit every player will experience, some earlier, some later, and it makes them leave. Personally I think games that make you leave not because you beat the game, but you just had enough of the fun for now are good. Besides GearCity right now to an extent this happened for me with Cities Skylines. I stopped playing because I sunk 250 hours in it, because I wanted (and still want) to wait for more and better mods - not because I had no room to expand or because I was done with the mechanics.
Arghs, again a way too long post. I actually invested way too much time into this Airline-Management-Thing in the last ~8 years.