What we lost, why I think we lost it, and want it back.

[ROC]

Unfortunately, no matter what ANY of the CMs do, it will have absolutely no effect on events. Events are reliant on the numbers available in the Main Arena and nothing any of you do will fix participation in events until the game itself gains players

Target for Today was the first 12 hour event Nef put together.  Hardest Day was the second one.  MA numbers didn't change, turnout did.  Why?
Some important things to note.  We promoted and recruited for a very long time. Counting objects alone took over a month on each one. Each target object had the object number identified, there was no misunderstanding about what to bomb, everyone had the object list available to look at and use.  Every single object was counted, identified, and the hardness was balanced against the anticipated amount of bombers, and each frame had each element balanced to make sure that a side could recover from a devastating prior frame. 
Much of the items I pointed to originally, derided as personal gains, even nostalgia, were key elements of those two events.  You aren't going to take the personal gains away, why do you think we play?  You don't take away the nostalgia and history of the game, why do you think we play?   It's obvious who those events were designed for, the players turned out to play, who do you think they were designed for?  But, hey, who knows, I'm probably guessing.  Those Events took a great deal of time, energy and effort to construct.  Interestingly enough, the players put in the same amount of effort, as will happen each and every time.
 
I don't think it's the 12 hour format, although it is a good way to do an event just not the only way.  Players are not going to go into events if they are not enticed, especially new players, it is the CMs who create the game board that causes excitement to get the players inspired.  It isn't going to happen on it's own.  Simply design an event that players can play, for all of the different reasons they want to play, and quit social engineering the game to be played they way the designer wants.  I don't care if someone wants personal high score, or leads, follows, absorbs themselves in history or simply shows up at launch time.  There isn't one way for everyone to think and play.  Get back to designing functioning game boards with No Expectation of what they should do, simply make sure then can do what they need to do. 

[KillyJim]

I remember watching brooke consume hundreds of dollars a month of service time on this game in 1991 and earlier. on GENIE Air Warrior, and though people who played their whole life are well aware of oboe's participation statistics, the truth is that the core game needs more participants. And I think it needs to have a completely different style initial introduction system and less quirky settings interface. A buddy of mine (addicted by brooke) had a bill topping $600 dollars in 1990 on this game in a SINGLE MONTH (i saw the bill). That 600 dollars is in old currency not inflation-calculated 2017 dollars, which is stupefying if measured in gold, silver, or other real conversions.

World of Tanks has 150 million players. Consider that.

In 2014 a flight version of World of Tanks came out but was termed a "flop" because it lacked 150 million players, but it had a GREAT way to "hook" new players trying it out in my opinion. start in air in level flight on pretty day, and slowly introduce game controls one by one in training. It was also technically a "toy" simulator.

A semi successful fremium flight sim with 10 million claimed different people trying it out at least once is WarThunder.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=dseQCcRSuuU

It allows "god view" combat visibility and other "toy" aspects. Maybe.... MAYBE.... a sim with a new player ought to allow for "toy physics" and "toy visibility" and "toy targeting" until player reaches a certain level of solo AI training missions.

ALL I KNOW IS THIS GAME , ACES HIGH, NEEDS MORE PLAYERS.

And it is the most realistic. Even in 1990 every bullet was weighed in flight. Emptying reserves allowed you to catch a tail in a mexican standoff tight circle.

Hundreds of attention grabbing online video games now exist. They are not pure accurate physics modelling games though.

But new blood might not care so much about total realism as a "hook". Maybe pretty glitzy graphics effects and cut scenes or other eye cany needs to be added to garner new blood.

I played far far more complicated games than this with hundreds of hours of real training needed, called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MechWarrior_Online  and I retired after our four man lance group of  "pals" dropping public skirmish style won 15 times in a row against all comers (with 8 other essentially worthless players on our 12 man side). 15 wins in a row, different maps, different players. All from amazing tactics. That game is something maybe players here might enjoy, but it too lost 90% of its players over time. Mainly because they keep changing the combat tech in the game forever pissing off players. (I do mean endlessly).

I know the problem is scenarios is really just a problem of participation and participation is a function of core player base.

Complicated games need a better way to hook new players. I know I don't play this specific game much at all, but I respect the game as implemented, but wish it had a better way to hook new players, and glitz and more "macintosh style logic" user interface seem to be a solution. It also needs better intro solo AI training missions.

If it had 10 times more active players, (not a lot to shoot for considering World of Tanks 150 million players), the scenarios would have enough participants to make everyone happier again.

This nostalgia argument loses the focus of the root problem : the game needs engineering done to hook new blood better.

Barring that, I suspect you need to just relentlessly recruit and build up excitement over a few months, perhaps.

[oboe]

I've added some info to the bar graph that might help clarify things, but it certainly doesn't tell the whole story.  Just adds some facts for comparison.



I'm looking for relationships between player numbers and the scenario's setting, combatants, and format (Frame-based vs 12 hour).   Unfortunately I'm treating all scenario design rules as equals, which I'm sure is a problem I can't address, and neglects recruitment and marketing efforts - also an omission (but that really can't be quantified).

Increasing the population of the MA would help scenario numbers I think, but that doesn't explain the popularity of "The Hardest Day", which did exceptionally well amid our lower MA numbers.

For myself, I believe the 12-hr format is easier to commit to - its just one day vs 4 or 6.   Also this format lets you show up when you are available, and I think allows many more lives for players instead of the standard two lives.   I really like it, and apparently so does the scenario crowd.

I wonder if it'd be worth trying other formats - perhaps a scenario with two 6-hr frames, staggered to cover the same overall time duration as a 12 hour scenario 
but spread over two weekends?

What I hear ROC saying is the numbers are falling because less effort is now put into design, testing, and recruiting for scenarios.    Is that what happened between "Target for Today" and "Southern Conquest"?   

It looks to me like we are overdue for an early War CBI scenario, too.

[Brooke]

The most-recent scenarios did not scrimp on work put into them and in fact had more work by CM's put into design, testing, and recruiting than several scenarios of the past.  I know this because I worked not only on the past ones but also on these new ones.

[Brooke]

Scenario players/frame going back to 2004.

[Brooke]

Scenario ratings going back to 2004.

[oboe]

Thanks for sharing those Brooke.  It looks like all the scenarios except Med Maelstrom are pretty highly rated, based on the -5 to +5 scale.  Yet participation is declining.  So, can we conclude the driver to player decline in scenarios is not related to how well liked the scenarios are?  Since, by and large, all of them have been pretty well liked?

[Brooke]

can we conclude the driver to player decline in scenarios is not related to how well liked the scenarios are?  Since, by and large, all of them have been pretty well liked?

I think it is mostly this:

With regard to player numbers, the player base is smaller than in the past.  Scenarios have equivalent (maybe even a bit higher) fraction of the player base participating than in the past.  For example, in the days of 600 people in the MA on Saturday afternoon, we were getting about 175 players/frame in scenarios (so a scenario/Saturday ratio of 0.3).  Today, with (very approximately) 120-200 players in the MA on Saturday afternoon, we are getting about 70 players/frame (a ratio of 0.35-0.58).

My thoughts on how to get more scenario players:

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,390546.msg5187944.html#msg5187944

[Guppy35]

Not surprised, but the data seems to bear out the notion that ETO Luftwaffe vs RAF/USAAF is always going to top the list.

[Brooke]

In the graph, I recalculated the numbers for Target For Today to be the average of how many players per phase (instead of how many players in the entire event), so that it is computed similarly to all the others.

[oboe]

Not surprised, but the data seems to bear out the notion that ETO Luftwaffe vs RAF/USAAF is always going to top the list.

Overall I agree with that, and can probably concoct an explanation - this air campaign after all was the stuff of legend, and spawned several movies, a tv show, countless books.  But then how to explain Big Week's low numbers, and that Target Rabaul, a PTO-based event, outdrew it?

Brooke, thanks for the link back to your thoughts on increasing attendance.  Regarding item #1, getting the word out - do you think HTC would allow a login clipboard pop-up promo for impending scenarios?  If it is well-done, it is sure to pique some interest.  I love the images you've used in the homepage slideshow at ahevents.org - looking at any one of those moves me to want to find out more.  Even a small blurb about the scenario with a link to ahevents.org might help, but if can include an action image I think it'd be more effective.   That way we get the eyes of the players who never go to the BB.

Regarding the time commitment, I really think the numbers show that the 12 hour format has hit on something.  Players are free to show up as their schedule permits and get to launch every hour on the hour.    I suppose its not conducive for certain types of force-deployments required by some scenarios, but I think its a great option.  It might be worth experimenting more with that concept - for example a scenario with 2 or 3 frames using staggered 8 to 10 hr formats.

<S>

[Spikes]

On a whim I'd say Big Week suffered because it was a June scenario, when the weather is getting nice and people would rather be cooking out or doing something else on a Saturday afternoon.

I like the idea of the 12hr format to be honest. For me, it is tough to commit 4 hours each Saturday for a whole month, but if I find myself free for an afternoon or night I can hop in and play. I also enjoyed when Battle over Germany was run at 9:30pm est. 3:30 is tough (I'd imagine for a lot of people) but usually most people are starting to head home after dark.

[BFOOT1]

On a whim I'd say Big Week suffered because it was a June scenario, when the weather is getting nice and people would rather be cooking out or doing something else on a Saturday afternoon.

I like the idea of the 12hr format to be honest. For me, it is tough to commit 4 hours each Saturday for a whole month, but if I find myself free for an afternoon or night I can hop in and play. I also enjoyed when Battle over Germany was run at 9:30pm est. 3:30 is tough (I'd imagine for a lot of people) but usually most people are starting to head home after dark.

I would agree with the statement about the time as well. Perhaps it would be best if the event started around 6:00 or 7:00 EST. That gives EU players a chance to fly, as well as players in NA. I do not know if it's been tried before, but I think it's worth a shot.

[TWCAxew]

I would agree with the statement about the time as well. Perhaps it would be best if the event started around 6:00 or 7:00 EST. That gives EU players a chance to fly, as well as players in NA. I do not know if it's been tried before, but I think it's worth a shot.

Same goes for FSO tbh. When i attent i either stay the whole night up or get a few hours of sleep before the event starts. Depending on which time of year it is what i do. Its about 4-5 am for me when it starts. Not something i can really commit to. Same goes whit the last Combat Challenge. I tried to stay up but i was a zombie and gave up 20 minutes into the event.

The time when target rabaul started was excellent for me tough. pref actually an hour earlier so i can go to the bar afterwards, haha.

Ps: those charts are very interesting @ Brooke

DutchVII

[Spikes]

I would agree with the statement about the time as well. Perhaps it would be best if the event started around 6:00 or 7:00 EST. That gives EU players a chance to fly, as well as players in NA. I do not know if it's been tried before, but I think it's worth a shot.

I think a poll was taken at one point and the results were mixed. The same was similar in changing FSO time, unfortunately as it is a "worldwide" game there is never a perfect answer. 9:30 was nice on the east coast, decent on the west coast, but bad for EU because it is super late over there, but it doesn't stop people from showing up on Friday night (or Saturday morning @ 4AM in EU). FSO being so late is actually better for EU because they can go to bed and wake up early rather than stay up (if it were to start at say, 9PM EST). 3PM est has always been the traditional scenario time, but it just falls mid day for the entirety of North America.

That's not to say the 9:30 start time was the reason BoG had good numbers. It was unique, had a balanced (late war) planeset, lots of time was put into it in terms of planning, advertising, drumming up enthusiasm, etc.

I've always thought it would be nice to give something for participating in events, even if it were a small amount of perks. I'm not sure how it could be regulated so someone doesn't just roll a plane and bail to get the "participation" perks. I don't want to have to entice players to play in events. I would hope they want to play on their own accord, but lots of games have freebies, daily missions, login rewards that get you in the game.