Is Aces High II soon to become just a memory of good times past?

[Gman]

We can all talk about this round and round, but for the most part, it's just conjecture.  Nobody but HTC has the numbers, the cold hard facts regarding player numbers since the company began.  HT being the whizz he is at coding, math, equations, graphs, and the like, I'm certain has mapped out quite accurately what has gone on with his business since it began.  I think this is why the price dropped from 30 a month to 15 once upon a time, as the math predicted more business overall with that sort of pricing.

When the game was first being built, the people that were around then saw rapid and constant change in the game, which gives the impression of a company that is dedicated and caring.  I would argue just because that change/improvement slows, it doesn't necessarily mean that the care and dedication is gone.  Hence the new AH that's coming.  The numbers will take care of themselves once it's out, it's almost a certainty.  

This is NOT an easy game to play.  Boo's post is pretty telling in fact, and it reminded me of my own experience.  When he first started, he got killed a lot, even though he obviously had a lot of sim/flying/etc time already in other games or whatever.  It was the same for me.  I learned quickly thanks to Fester/Citabria teaching me in early days, however the first week, although I thought I was a sim expert pilot, I was demolished just like Boo.  It is no different for many others out there.  This may not be the "study" or lots of buttons to push/stuff to do type sim like a DCS one, but in terms of the actual GAME, the fighting, the combat, there is NO other place out there like this IMO, where skill and ability plays such an important factor, and that skill taking so long to actually achieve.  Getting good at a first person shooter for example, is much, much easier than being a top pilot here. I would know, I played Quake2/3 with the absolute best clan in the world when I was a kid, when it was the biggest online thing going, and that was a snap compared to getting good enough to even win half of the fights I would get into here.

This being the case, this game attracts a certain type of client, and I do agree that it's unfortunate that more don't come to try it, but the reality is even advertising and such will never bring the huge numbers that a game like War Thunder or World of Tanks or whatever will bring, as the competition is higher here, and the time and effort to get to be a good player is far, far harder here than anywhere else.  Despite this, I still believe that a lot of people will be coming out of the woodwork when that new beta arena download hits the frontpage.  I would wager my fortune on it, and I think for quite a while after that, the numbers issue will attend to itself, and we can all go back to complaining about other issues then at least.  I do think that more numbers will fix a number of other issues, one being the hot topic 12 hour thing, as switching to find a fight won't be needed often when an arena is packed with 4 or 500 players - there will be fights to be had everywhere then IMO.  I live in hope.

[Brooke]

You get older, and either are tired by the game itself (quite nromal for any game), or the increasing real world requirements (career, family,...) start keeping you away more and more.
But that happend all the time, not just now. Even when AH was new many old (coming from AW and such) players

They are all weaklings who, like the elves in Tolkien's works, can't muster the will to continue and shuffle feebly off to oblivion. 

[Randy1]

I think we are going to need bigger drop tanks with the flying time needed to find a fight.  Tonight bombing GVs was about as good as it got.

[muzik]

but ive always thought it lacked a great game to go along with it.   i think the graphics arent great either.  

...For me, the flight model is the only thing that keeps me here. the game part of it is boring to me.

BULLSEYE.

That missing "great game," has been missing since Air Warrior, I knew it then and patiently waited for the game to grow. Now I kick myself for not going to programming school.

I have no problems with the way graphics are now. I know they are far behind other games, but that has never been what made the game great. Everyone who played knows it and knows that holding graphics to a level that was more accessible to the average PC owner was one of the best decisions HTC has made.

The core of this problem is a natural cycle for about every player in every game.

Not true. This is not a Hasbro board game. AH is not confined by a nostalgic expectation to be... "the same as it was when I played Monopoly with my family as a kid."

Computer and console gamers do not settle for out dated games. They see how games have improved and evolved over the years and spend billions to see the newest thing in gaming.

You get older, and either are tired by the game itself (quite nromal for any game)

Your absolutely right, but in this industry, video games don't just get put on the closet shelf until the kids get old enough. They die. Just like Monopoly, most players will eventually quit and rarely, if ever come back. It just wont be interesting anymore.

That's a lot of lost revenue for a game that could, with some resolve, throw new things into the mix on occasion to reinvent the game.

[Lusche]

You are misinterpreting my words.

[BaldEagl]

There have NEVER been any "mulit-pronged attacks." That's another fantasy you imagined to support your theories.

There were in AW.  I know because I'd spend all week planning them for our squad night.  It was easy to do in AW as the maps never changed and only three bases in RRE were capturable.

We'd depart from multiple bases with staged departure times, follow irregular courses so as not to draw attention to or at least add confusion to our radar signatures and hit multiple targets.  A typical mission included dropping all the strats of the BZ or CZ with B-17's (pilot and gunner on board plus an escort fighter) and hitting key resources at bases around our primary objective while the main force (fighters and bombers with gunners) rendezvoused to hit and flatten some uncapturable base in BZ/CZ land.

The squad disbanded after AW.  I'm not saying anything similar happened in AH as it would be logistically more difficult not knowing what map's going to be up but to say it's never happened isn't true either as it clearly did in AW.

BTW, It actually does happen in AH.  You should try flying in scenarios (P.S. there's one going on now).

[Meatwad]

Yes there was. On sunday nights we had RJO (Rook joint ops) back in AH1

[muzik]

You are misinterpreting my words.

Your silence suggests othewise. I don't believe you'd let that that happen and not tell me how I was wrong.

There were in AW.  I know because I'd spend all week planning them for our squad night.

AW had base caps for some time, which was a great idea that was poorly executed.

but to say it's never happened isn't true either as it clearly did in AW.

Multi-pronged attacks have one specific purpose, to divide enemy strength or divert it in some manner. That is impossible in AH because AH doesn't have base restrictions on player sorties and players have unlimited lives. If one country attacks three different enemy bases, it has ZERO strategic value.

If that enemy, has 100 guys logged on, it makes no difference if you attack one base or 20. They will divide and allocate themselves how they choose to, not how your "multi-pronged attack" wants them.

And if your country has 100 or 500 guys logged on, it makes no difference because just as you may be dividing the enemy up to defend muliple bases but you are spreading your own infinite troop strength also.

It's a zero sum strategy and all that really goes on is a bunch of scattered fighting.

There is only one way to conduct anything remotely similar to a multi-pronged attack in AH that actually has a strategic effect and that is to take out ords, troops, specific hangars of some type, etc. In that case, people often send attackers to multiple bases with the intent on limiting a countries ability to fight back.

My comment was specifically aimed at fugi's attempt at aggrandizing AH strategic play and I don't believe he was referring to hitting ords or troops. I believe he mentioned attacking "bases" and was referring to player v player attacks, not players attacking some ords and other resources.

BTW, It actually does happen in AH.  You should try flying in scenarios (P.S. there's one going on now).

But then we weren't talking about scenarios. I would love to fly scenarios if they weren't restrictive and provided me with the "at will" access that I get in the MA.

[Tinkles]

Your silence suggests othewise. I don't believe you'd let that that happen and not tell me how I was wrong.

Who would bother replying to an 'all knowing' being such as yourself?

I've been playing since '97, I've seen it all, which explains how I know you're wrong.

As for my post on topic, I acknowledge that players have left due to various reasons. However, I don't think it's time to yell out "abandon ship", considering HTC hasn't said anything on the matter, and putting 95% of their time and effort into updating the graphics isn't telling me that they are hurting too bad.

I think, if nothing else, that the graphics will retain the players that it has, and invite or attract other people to play again, or fly here for the first time.

[Lusche]

Your silence suggests othewise. I don't believe you'd let that that happen and not tell me how I was wrong.

Because you were so much wrong that I, being tired at almost 5am, had/have almost now idea where to start. I still can't understand how my very limited comment in reply to Scca can create a reply like

"Not true. This is not a Hasbro board game. AH is not confined by a nostalgic expectation to be.."

because nowhere I was implying or even thinking about such thing. But that should be obvious if you read my post in reply to Scca's. I merely pointed out that the phenomenom of players leaving AH for personal (carrer, age family) reasons is, and has been, a universal one. I made no other point, nor did I try to.

[The Fugitive]

Your silence suggests othewise. I don't believe you'd let that that happen and not tell me how I was wrong.


AW had base caps for some time, which was a great idea that was poorly executed.

Multi-pronged attacks have one specific purpose, to divide enemy strength or divert it in some manner. That is impossible in AH because AH doesn't have base restrictions on player sorties and players have unlimited lives. If one country attacks three different enemy bases, it has ZERO strategic value.

If that enemy, has 100 guys logged on, it makes no difference if you attack one base or 20. They will divide and allocate themselves how they choose to, not how your "multi-pronged attack" wants them.

And if your country has 100 or 500 guys logged on, it makes no difference because just as you may be dividing the enemy up to defend muliple bases but you are spreading your own infinite troop strength also.

It's a zero sum strategy and all that really goes on is a bunch of scattered fighting.

There is only one way to conduct anything remotely similar to a multi-pronged attack in AH that actually has a strategic effect and that is to take out ords, troops, specific hangars of some type, etc. In that case, people often send attackers to multiple bases with the intent on limiting a countries ability to fight back.

My comment was specifically aimed at fugi's attempt at aggrandizing AH strategic play and I don't believe he was referring to hitting ords or troops. I believe he mentioned attacking "bases" and was referring to player v player attacks, not players attacking some ords and other resources.

But then we weren't talking about scenarios. I would love to fly scenarios if they weren't restrictive and provided me with the "at will" access that I get in the MA.

You can't even agree with your self! First you say that multi-pronged attacks are impossible, then you say that if you attack 1 base or 20 that the enemy WILL split up as they want to defend. I hate to break it to you but that is what a multi-pronged attack is supposed to do.

Had you read my mission layout you would have seen that I had two small wings to deack two bases while a third group attacked a third to give the buffs and goon time to climb out and hit one of the bases that had been deacked. In the mission laid out 2 base would have been damaged. ...ords' ack, radar and so on with a third having been deacked ready for a vulch. 30 guys shut down a 3 base front, capture at least 1 base, control a couple sectors of airspace, and create 3 separate fights. Strategy.

Again you won't see stuff like this because it isn't how the game is played these days. If you put together a squad of like minded players you could do it and it may turn some of those "instant gratification" types to a more strategic game play, but I just don't see it happening.

[Masherbrum]

I plan on returning in the fall.

[muzik]

Who would bother replying to an 'all knowing' being such as yourself?

You bring up a valid point there.

I don't think it's time to yell out "abandon ship"

Great, I never said anything about abandoning ship either. I don't think anyone in this thread suggested that either. So...  yea.

I still can't understand how my very limited comment

because nowhere I was implying or even thinking about such thing. But that should be obvious if you read my post in reply to Scca's. I merely pointed out that the phenomenom of players leaving AH for personal (carrer, age family) reasons is, and has been, a universal one. I made no other point, nor did I try to.

First of all, it was not a personal attack, sorry if I hurt your f f feelings.

You replied to the same question we all replied to, the OP's question. And you assumed that the downturn in player populations is the result of a "natural cycle."

Being a numbers guy you should certainly know that the "natural cycle" you are talking about has a statistically predictable percentage and that AH has gone WAAAAAAAAAY past that.

You imply that this "cycle" is unavoidable. Again, this is not Monopoly. Online games, especially small ones, have to continue to grow and innovate or they will go out of business. AH is not exactly etched into the wall of notorious pop-culture traditions of western society. If AH was World of Warcraft, they wouldn't have to worry about a "natural cycle" or, in all likelihood, a huge portion of it's players being bored or fed up with their game.

And finally you used the example of AW players coming and going, when from what I recall, AW grew bigger from the time I joined until they shut down. Maybe not like wildfire but it was growing....   If you're not growing, you're falling behind.

[Lusche]

You replied to the same question we all replied to, the OP's question. And you assumed that the downturn in player populations is the result of a "natural cycle."

No. Simply no, I did not.
As explained, I strictly commented on a particular part of Scca's post, which I quoted.
And at no point in this post I "assumed that the downturn in player populations is the result of a "natural cycle." I never said or even implied such a thing. I merely stated there always had been such a cycle, even in the "good old days".


You read way too much into my post beyond that.

And finally you used the example of AW players coming and going, when from what I recall, AW grew bigger from the time I joined until they shut down

I never said anything lkie that. You totally made that up.

I merely defined "old players" in the early days of Ah beinng ones which already had been playing AW for years, thus being "old players" while Ah still being new. I didn't comment on AW and it's numbers & growth at all.

[The Fugitive]

No. Simply no, I did not.
As explained, I strictly commented on a particular part of Scca's post, which I quoted.
And at no point in this post I "assumed that the downturn in player populations is the result of a "natural cycle." I never said or even implied such a thing. I merely stated there always had been such a cycle, even in the "good old days".


You read way too much into my post beyond that.

I never said anything lkie that. You totally made that up.

I merely defined "old players" in the early days of Ah beinng ones which already had been playing AW for years, thus being "old players" while Ah still being new. I didn't comment on AW and it's numbers & growth at all.

I don't think he reads anything. I think he just posts what he want whether its true or makes sense or not.

As for AW, It grew much as AH did with more people coming than those that left. Today unfortunately we are not getting people joining as fast as we are losing them.