Can you imagine a win-win situation?

[DarekK]

Players want to play at Airport City. G! wants to make money on us.
I have good advice. Can you imagine a win-win situation?
The solution is to add the functionality of removing the limit100 for the Gold Subscription.
In a few days G! will be unbelievably rich, players happy, and I will be content with a 1% commission.

 

[Barkmi4 (Mike)]

This limit is doing my head in, can’t complete collections, can’t collect gifts, heli flights are a f*-g nightmare

 

[crescent moon (RIP)]

Players want to play at Airport City. G! wants to make money on us.
I have good advice. Can you imagine a win-win situation?
The solution is to add the functionality of removing the limit100 for the Gold Subscription.
In a few days G! will be unbelievably rich, players happy, and I will be content with a 1% commission.

Great idea - only one problem - Windows players don't have acceess to subscriptions.

 

[Husam]

Players want to play at Airport City. G! wants to make money on us.
I have good advice. Can you imagine a win-win situation?
The solution is to add the functionality of removing the limit100 for the Gold Subscription.
In a few days G! will be unbelievably rich, players happy, and I will be content with a 1% commission.

I remember that some players ask for this to remove the 100 limit with gold subscription also as crescent say Windows players they dont have it.
Its good idea agree.
100 limit a big problem for me i lost hundreds gifts that i need but cannot accepted.

 

[Spork]

I haven't noticed a difference?!

(just kidding - please don't get all mad at me)
(I'm in town all week, don't forget to tip your servers)
(yes, I've always had the 100 limit)
(ho eyoh hum)

 

[Kevin Mc]

Cancelled my gold subs. from renewing next week but will renew it if they remove the 100 limit or at least raise it to something more sensible like 500 or 1000.

 

[crescent moon (RIP)]

I haven't noticed a difference?!

(just kidding - please don't get all mad at me)
(I'm in town all week, don't forget to tip your servers)
(yes, I've always had the 100 limit)
(ho eyoh hum)

I haven't noticed much of a difference, either - (sarcasm here) - except for the main stabilizers I lose when I do a red launch, the gifts I lose to the bin when someone just returns a gift I have sent them rather than the fuel I'm asking for, repair items and flight items that drop from flights, the fact that I can't open any more launch ready chests trying for a PEB as I will lose everything else. Of course, when my surplus stock is used up, that will be a whole different story. I think I may notice a big difference then.

 

[Madge59230]

Why should i have to pay a ridiculously expensive gold subscription to up a limit that shouldnt be there. AC would be a game for the rich. Link it to level. Be more fair for us poor, old, retired, low or fixed income players. NOT a 2 tiered game related to personal status and income. Paying for 2 kids thro university, gold subscription not going to happen.

 

[Ddave1]

I bought a gold sub in March, it made a huge difference to my game and gave me new enthusiasm, but then came the mind blowing news of the limit. I cancelled the sub immediately.


Something drastic has to happen or the game will die a slow death.

 

[deepgreensea]

I quite like the v7 release so far, and the only negative impact on my game has been the removal of the ability to store fuel gifts in the warehouse, which in turn shortens my weekly map run a little. I’ve always had the 100 limit and never bothered with the subscriptions. I really enjoy the long term challenge of the game and find the update really cool.

I do rely on neighbours with multiple Planetariums and I hope enough people stay playing once their warehouse reserves run out.

 

[LX Air - Teresa]

...

I do rely on neighbours with multiple Planetariums and I hope enough people stay playing once their warehouse reserves run out.

And this is the real problem of chasing away old players! It becomes a real problem to those who stay... no planetariums to visit means less red launches, thus less money and fuel, thus slower progression.

 

[Bob69bob]

I quite like the v7 release so far, and the only negative impact on my game has been the removal of the ability to store fuel gifts in the warehouse, which in turn shortens my weekly map run a little. I’ve always had the 100 limit and never bothered with the subscriptions. I really enjoy the long term challenge of the game and find the update really cool.

I do rely on neighbours with multiple Planetariums and I hope enough people stay playing once their warehouse reserves run out.

I’m not really sure whether the opinions of those who have always had the 100 limit hold much weight in the topic of how unfriendly the change is. You’ll get no argument from me that the game looks better with 7.0. It absolutely does. A few tweaks to speed things up would help. But never having played without the limit, what other response would be expected.

Those who didn’t have the limit were just as adamant that ALL players should have the limit lifted. You may be enjoying the game as is, but you’ve never known different. The overwhelming consensus is that the gameplay has changed significantly and become far more laborious. We know that those who started with the limit would love it even more if they experienced the way the game was designed to be played. Some of the challenges are now near on impossible or will take years to finish - that cannot hold anyone’s attention. GI will need to think quickly about introducing new challenges, removing some of the old ones or modifying them significantly. Everyone likes a challenge, but nobody enjoys pouring out time and effort (and $) with no apparent reward.

Edit: Oh, and those planetariums everyone likes visiting - apart from a very small number of players that won them during the one and only time that event was held, virtually every other player that has them has invested real money in the game.

I am completely against the concept of lifting the limit on a user-pays arrangement as well. It’s bad enough battling cheats on the leaderboards without having to buy your way to the top.

 

[deepgreensea]

I do appreciate everything you say @Bob69bob and I do sympathise with those that have made real money investments in areas of the game that no longer support their strategies. My point is that this change is here to stay so I’m hoping that people who have been impacted negatively can find the same pleasure in the game as I do, even if it’s not in the same way as before.

I remember when the population limit was implemented in 2012? (my current main game is my third new start) and I see this as a similar adjustment.

Happy to stay out of the threads on this topic if I’m causing offence or resentment.

 

[Husam]

I’m not really sure whether the opinions of those who have always had the 100 limit hold much weight in the topic of how unfriendly the change is. You’ll get no argument from me that the game looks better with 7.0. It absolutely does. A few tweaks to speed things up would help. But never having played without the limit, what other response would be expected.

Those who didn’t have the limit were just as adamant that ALL players should have the limit lifted. You may be enjoying the game as is, but you’ve never known different. The overwhelming consensus is that the gameplay has changed significantly and become far more laborious. We know that those who started with the limit would love it even more if they experienced the way the game was designed to be played. Some of the challenges are now near on impossible or will take years to finish - that cannot hold anyone’s attention. GI will need to think quickly about introducing new challenges, removing some of the old ones or modifying them significantly. Everyone likes a challenge, but nobody enjoys pouring out time and effort (and $) with no apparent reward.

Edit: Oh, and those planetariums everyone likes visiting - apart from a very small number of players that won them during the one and only time that event was held, virtually every other player that has them has invested real money in the game.

I am completely against the concept of lifting the limit on a user-pays arrangement as well. It’s bad enough battling cheats on the leaderboards without having to buy your way to the top.

You 100% right
When they start fly for alliance maps they will understand why we dont like the 100 limit and should be unlimited.
I am thinking now how can i complete the alliance maps and missions this will take years for me and spend a lot of bonuses and wait for gifting in same time need repair items OMG.

 

[Arggers]

I’m not really sure whether the opinions of those who have always had the 100 limit hold much weight in the topic of how unfriendly the change is.

Sorry to be the exception to the rule, but I didn't had the limit before and I've not needed to change my playstyle in the slightest.
OK, so I'm not the most intense player, and see it more as a distraction than an addiction...

...But, (completely playing devil's advocate here) surely the point of any good strategy game is to make the player change and adapt strategies every now and again, instead of carrying on with the same old same old hoarding strategy?

For me that would make a far more interesting and long-lasting game.

 

[Bob69bob]

I do appreciate everything you say @Bob69bob and I do sympathise with those that have made real money investments in areas of the game that no longer support their strategies. My point is that this change is here to stay so I’m hoping that people who have been impacted negatively can find the same pleasure in the game as I do, even if it’s not in the same way as before.

I remember when the population limit was implemented in 2012? (my current main game is my third new start) and I see this as a similar adjustment.

Happy to stay out of the threads on this topic if I’m causing offence or resentment.

No need to remain out of the threads. My apologies if I came over a little strong - no offence was intended. No doubt, quite a few people are upset and a few people that have been a bit OTT singing and dancing about how wonderful the changes are have been a little frustrating. Your thoughts and opinions are as relevant as anyone else’s.

The core reason this thread was created was to suggest a way to somehow overcome the 100 limit, not about the V7 update in general - that’s why I probably jumped in with the response. It is hard for players that have only ever had the limit to appreciate how different the game is/was and I’m not sure that all in that situation realise that the the old gen players don’t just want our games the way they were, we want all players to be able to play the game as we have played for so long. Sometimes the frustrated players see the comments from the all praising, singing and dancing newbies as a little insensitive when we argue for all players about game quality that they, having had no opportunity to play that version, would find difficult to understand regarding the extent of change in a negative direction. Once again, I’m not directing this at you .

Although I wholeheartedly disagree with the thread suggestion, I appreciate that if a change was even a 0.01% chance, constructive ideas are far more useful than whining and spraying vitriol at Ivan and GI.

@Arggers , I’m all for ongoing change to keep things fresh and interesting. Part of the reason this game is so good is because of the great variety of challenges it encompasses. But, when a change is made to turn many of the tasks from “quite challenging” to “near on impossible” without years of monotonous, repetitive baby steps, it’s no longer a challenge - it’s a chore.

Cheers,

Bob.

 

[Bob69bob]

You 100% right
When they start fly for alliance maps they will understand why we dont like the 100 limit and should be unlimited.
I am thinking now how can i complete the alliance maps and missions this will take years for me and spend a lot of bonuses and wait for gifting in same time need repair items OMG.

Not only alliance maps. I just discovered that you cannot store more than 100 excavation maps. That’s fine up to Jumbos, but falcons need 400 to 3 star, T-birds 500 and condors 600! Even if you stocked up 100 condor maps, it will take a year (5 maps, twice a week to get 500 maps ~ 50 weeks) to just collect the maps . Of course, you can always spend greenies with Duke and buy the 20 map packs .

 

[DarekK]

Clash of Clans has an interesting solution to a different approach to "subscription"
Directly in-game you can buy a monthly package that gives you privileges. I could be also a solution for Windows players.
Subscription could be cheaper because then G! will not pay any fee for Apple or Google.
AC could copy ideas from the iconic game.

 

[Free2Play]

Something drastic has to happen or the game will die a slow death.

Hi all!

First off, I wasn't ignoring this thread on purpose, but we were very busy with finishing up the 7.2 update, and releasing that update was/is a priority.

Understandably, introducing those limits for all players (100 per item type, 6 per building type) was going to be a pain for the most dedicated players, and there's no way I could somehow talk you into believing this is a good thing for you — same rules for everyone are a good thing in general, and the inventory limits should have been in the game right from the start of it as they are present in most free-to-play games and are great for game economy, but for those who play for many years, this is certainly a change for the worse — and obviously a nerfing feature isn't going to be applauded.

The thing is, those inventory limits aren't going to dissappear no matter what else happens. They are an integral part of the game rules since 2017, and many things, like a weekly alliance mission, became easier to complete with regards to those limits in place. Those limits would stay even if every one of silver and gold subscribers cancelled their subs. Subscriptions are a way to make things a little easier and say 'thank you' for the dev team, by they're a very minor thing for Airport City in terms of revenue.

Last, but not least, 7.0 release was a tremendous success. If Airport City was a TV show running for eight seasons (which in a sense it is), within a week after that update we'd be renewed for another eight seasons. You may or may not like us for it, but drastic changes and rule changes are things that keep the game alive: Airport City would have been long gone if we didn't experiment over the years and would just add new levels every few months to the base game (although personally I'd love the level cap to increase indefinitely with new cities to explore around the world).

So, for better or worse, Airport City and its rules are going to stay, and once in a while they're going to change, too, as all things in this Universe are, and for all means, please enjoy the game for what it is. ✈

Cheers,
Ivan.

 

[crescent moon (RIP)]

Hi all!

First off, I wasn't ignoring this thread on purpose, but we were very busy with finishing up the 7.2 update, and releasing that update was/is a priority.

Understandably, introducing those limits for all players (100 per item type, 6 per building type) was going to be a pain for the most dedicated players, and there's no way I could somehow talk you into believing this is a good thing for you — same rules for everyone are a good thing in general, and the inventory limits should have been in the game right from the start of it as they are present in most free-to-play games and are great for game economy, but for those who play for many years, this is certainly a change for the worse — and obviously a nerfing feature isn't going to be applauded.

The thing is, those inventory limits aren't going to dissappear no matter what else happens. They are an integral part of the game rules since 2017, and many things, like a weekly alliance mission, became easier to complete with regards to those limits in place. Those limits would stay even if every one of silver and gold subscribers cancelled their subs. Subscriptions are a way to make things a little easier and say 'thank you' for the dev team, by they're a very minor thing for Airport City in terms of revenue.

Last, but not least, 7.0 release was a tremendous success. If Airport City was a TV show running for eight seasons (which in a sense it is), within a week after that update we'd be renewed for another eight seasons. You may or may not like us for it, but drastic changes and rule changes are things that keep the game alive: Airport City would have been long gone if we didn't experiment over the years and would just add new levels every few months to the base game (although personally I'd love the level cap to increase indefinitely with new cities to explore around the world).

So, for better or worse, Airport City and its rules are going to stay, and once in a while they're going to change, too, as all things in this Universe are, and for all means, please enjoy the game for what it is. ✈

Cheers,
Ivan.

I have to agree. Version 7.0, with the exception of the "unmentionable", is a fantastic upgrade, probably the best in the 5+ years I've been playing (except for when windows 10, ios & android were finally able to interact). The new layout took some getting used to, but it's absolutely beautiful, and the continued updates are very positive! I'm still not sure what I will do when my surplus of supplies are used up, but for now, I am certainly enjoying the game.