Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Redd on November 20, 2013, 07:22:47 PM
-
Something I was thinking about after I posted in another thread.
The game is really struggling at the moment in the off-peak hours.With 50 people logged on the MA is not much fun .When you look at country numbers
there are about 30% of people "in flight" . So they are either in gv's or sitting in the tower looking for something to do , or afk.
The usual pattern is a bunch of gv'ers wandering around somewhere , 10 people in buffs bombing strats and undefended fields,
leaving about 6 or 7 people flying fighter planes looking for some sort of fight or engagement.
So what typically happens is I log on - look around the map - see occasional little blips of radar across the map (buffs usually)
so I either log off , fly around for a while bored , or go make a coffee , (1 more sitting in the tower).
I know people whine about the old days all the time , but this didnt happen in the old days because "everyone" was flying a plane.
So I was thinking of a couple of solutions.
1. Numbers in MA hit < 75 , GV's are unavailable.
and/or
2. Numbers in MA <75 , Map switches automatically to a small map (finish the war - give everyone some perks)
This problem at the moment is self-perpetuating , less people in the air = no fights = less people logging on to fly.
I know this will probably sound silly to some an unplalatable to others , but I can't see the numbers heading anywhere but down given where they are at now. At it's heart and soul Aces High has always been about Air Combat , we need some off-peak.
The game used to have a pretty strong community of people outside the US flying in off-peak , along with the shift workers an US night owls , they are dissappearing.
-
Something I was thinking about after I posted in another thread.
The game is really struggling at the moment in the off-peak hours.With 50 people logged on the MA is not much fun .When you look at country numbers
there are about 30% of people "in flight" . So they are either in gv's or sitting in the tower looking for something to do , or afk.
The usual pattern is a bunch of gv'ers wandering around somewhere , 10 people in buffs bombing strats and undefended fields,
leaving about 6 or 7 people flying fighter planes looking for some sort of fight or engagement.
So what typically happens is I log on - look around the map - see occasional little blips of radar across the map (buffs usually)
so I either log off , fly around for a while bored , or go make a coffee , (1 more sitting in the tower).
I know people whine about the old days all the time , but this didnt happen in the old days because "everyone" was flying a plane.
So I was thinking of a couple of solutions.
1. Numbers in MA hit < 75 , GV's are unavailable.
and/or
2. Numbers in MA <75 , Map switches automatically to a small map (finish the war - give everyone some perks)
This problem at the moment is self-perpetuating , less people in the air = no fights = less people logging on to fly.
I know this will probably sound silly to some an unplalatable to others , but I can't see the numbers heading anywhere but down given where they are at now. At it's heart and soul Aces High has always been about Air Combat , we need some off-peak.
The game used to have a pretty strong community of people outside the US flying in off-peak , along with the shift workers an US night owls , they are dissappearing.
+1
-
Maybe more mid-sized maps would help..NDisles size,
-
Dude no joke was thinking the same thing , being sick, and at home all day last couple of days. Its like 85% bombers 10% gvs and 5% airplanes. I was thinking inst this suppose to a "flight sim" and I guess personally, I can't understand why people would rather fly bombers and be in tanks but it seems that's the "thing". Idk I don't get it either redd.
-
Yep. Agree with op
-
maybe in between the regular airfields we already have include smaller airfields which only enable early birds. So people can get to fights even quicker while possibly adding more plane variety. These early bird only airfields are connected to the regular bases making them themselves unable to captured unless the field they are connected to is captured itself. heck i dunno.
X --------- / / ----------- X
^
like this.
-
Small maps yes. No gvs maybe not. Assuming those guys would be in fighters if no GVs were available might be wrong. They might play some other game, go to bed, or organize their action figure collection instead.
-
The game is really struggling at the moment in the off-peak hours.With 50 people logged on the MA is not much fun .When you look at country numbers
there are about 30% of people "in flight" . So they are either in gv's or sitting in the tower looking for something to do , or afk.
"in flight" includes players in GV,as well as field guns.
Dude no joke was thinking the same thing , being sick, and at home all day last couple of days. Its like 85% bombers 10% gvs and 5% airplanes.
I mostly fly buffs at low peak hours, because there often is not much reason for me to up a fighter with less than two dozen players actually in a plane all over the map. Or I'm up to hunt down a strat runner.
-
I like number two better. I think for thin crowds the importance of every player enjoying themselves goes up. I suspect that people tooling around in bombers or shelling un defended bases are experiencing more fun doing that then they think they would in air combat. So the tricky question is how do you make it more fun to engage without degrading the game? What if instead of a smaller map you could dynamically close bases to concentrate upping to just a few close bases? If one side got to steamrolling you could limit there equipment options instead of just doing it by population. Nobody likes to be cannon fodder all the time.
-
I do think that active map area should scale with number of people flying.
Folks have discussed this elsewhere, and there are various things to figure out with it, but I think that it is the way to go.
-
Dying? It's been dead for months and months...
-
I still think Medium sized maps should become the standard for all hours. Period.
-
And then when ENY kicks in it is quite hilarious hahaha ...
-
"in flight" includes players in GV,as well as field guns.
Beat me too it,, maybe the op would like to rethink his original post?
Why would anyone want to eliminate play? Or players?
I remember being the only one on for hours at a time late night,, there was
GVs then,,,,,around the time of the jeep,, I used to go drive around tank town waiting for someone to come along so 50 is a good bit better than then!
If GV players don't fly and you remove the ability to GV when numbers are low,, how does that help anyone?
On another note,, I see more players during the time the newest map is up than any other time,, so if it was me, I'd figure out the average number of players during each map to see if arena population is affected by map design,,, just a thought.
-
Make the Stuka Available at V Bases!
Historically Stuka were parked a "stones throw" from the GV's they were shooting? Introduce the air war at GV bases. Stuka can take off just like the little tard plane.
Only Seams Fair,
Edit: and while your at it give it the same view distances aswell!
-
Actually you guys are right. GVing and bombing are very important and a big aspect to the game. I understand where redd is coming from though. I hope we can have all sorts of players in the game, To make it ultimate!!!! So hopefully we can just get more people in the game. I think the maps are great from a realistic POV. but without H2H close combat style game play the game may lack excitement as of now in the off hours
-
I vote that we all up A-20's and spend the off-hours bombing GV's into oblivion.
-
It's not that I have anything against gvers I'm just advocating that players are somehow funneled into some sort
of engagement activity during times when there low numbers - im sure there is more than one way to do that - I like the closed
bases option as well
pretty sure gvers fly as well dont they
-
+1
-
Greebo's map shows this up badly, I have seen guys getting wtgs on 200 recently for landing kills in ships guns and manned guns :rofl changing times it seems.
-
Make the Stuka Available at V Bases!
Historically Stuka were parked a "stones throw" from the GV's they were shooting? Introduce the air war at GV bases. Stuka can take off just like the little tard plane.
Only Seams Fair,
Edit: and while your at it give it the same view distances aswell!
Adequate runway?
-
It's not that I have anything against gvers I'm just advocating that players are somehow funneled into some sort
of engagement activity during times when there low numbers - im sure there is more than one way to do that - I like the closed
bases option as well
pretty sure gvers fly as well dont they
one thing I've found during my years in this game,, not everyone is an ace fighter pilot,, even with a lot of training some will never be great at it,, me for example,, I've adopted a style of fighting that is best suited to my ability and the planes I like to fly,,I'm not a great dog fighter ,, I do well in bombers and GVs,,I'm ok with that,,I've spent roughly 8 years driving tanks and bombing stuff into oblivian , I can get a good fighter score,, I love the jug, but it and my style will get me killed more times than not unless I stick to what I know and what I like, many GV guys don't fly at all,, yet play and contribute to the game a great deal.
At any time anyone can up a fighter or bomber and go fly towards the enemy,, but there are maps in rotation that lack more than a very few opertunities to GV,, and there are very GV freindly maps,,, but no consistency like the fighters have,, also I believe that the ability to rotate a map, at will ,,by one side or the other has created a problem,,
I'm not sure how to correct it, but I do believe the large horde is hurting player population.
I've played pretty much, all the time for 8 years, I've been part of the horde in mid war, and it is fun to win the map, if your on the winning side,, it's also fun to defend, if you have a chance of defeating the horde, right now the best way to defeat the horde seems to be resupply the town with M-3s as fast as you can,,, that's not combat,, and combat makes this game work...
This all just my opinion,, I don't have stats to back up my theories, just my observations.
One solution might be to figure out a better way to defend,,,another ,make base capture easier so it doesn't take so much organization to get a capture,,, for me, it seemed that the maps lasted a lot longer when one person could kill and capture a town singlehanded ,, and one person could prevent it!
-
I still think Medium sized maps should become the standard for all hours. Period.
:aok
-
I still think Medium sized maps should become the standard for all hours. Period.
^^^
That! 250+ bases, 5:30AM EST time right now, 50 players online, 20 are afk, 15 are in flight, half of those are probably in gv/bombers at 30K/ or also afk. We do not need all these bases. :(
-
^^^
That! 250+ bases, 5:30AM EST time right now, 50 players online, 20 are afk, 15 are in flight, half of those are probably in gv/bombers at 30K/ or also afk. We do not need all these bases. :(
tonight was surprisingly active - probably had 6 engagements in 2-3 hours , that's furballing for off-peak
-
I've got to agree it's often very boring to fly during the day in euro hours. Even the evenings are bad sometimes, such as last night; almost 200 people were online and yet i couldn't find a fight for a2a which involved more than 3 or 4 people. I flew a sector and a half to the nearest base a couple of times to try and start a fight, and despite dropping ord on the town no-one upped- although one guy did man an 88mm. IMO Ozkansas (and other large maps) effectively kills off gameplay for euro times, its too large and the bases are too far apart.
-
Yesterday oz kansas. Rolls take Tt effectively killing the short duration fight for most everyone. Many including myself log. Why? Size of the map. It was the only immediate collective thing they felt like doing. Despite the fact that in doing so they killed the fight. Irony?
I joined another on line sim last night.
Ah has the best thing going. If this came was playable on an Xbox or ps, we would have big numbers. But, the gaming pc is a dying breed. Too expensive. So folks flood to consoles and their half baked eye candy laced games.
-
Other ideas aside from smaller maps:
Increased advertising via History & Military channels.
Increase free trial to 3 weeks or add in more tutorials for the two weekers (possibly being implemented now)
Introductory rate of $9.95 for the 1st 3 months for new subs. (Not sure if "new subs" could be completely verified, to prevent present players from abusing this.
Chances are, HTC is well aware of declining revenues are taking steps to boost subscriptions, i.e. new graphic engine, "Playroom" films and perhaps a few goodies being kept under wraps.
Side note: ENY pisses off a lot of players. Pre-noon (EST) ENY for Bish can often be in the high 20's. Hitech & Skuzzy have repeatedly said that the present side balancing system is here to say but I fear it's driven away players. And yes, I know all the pro ENY arguments...just sayen.
-
This is what is stopping me from really coming back to the game, lack of fights.
-
It's been hard watching Aces High, the game I love, die a slow and painfully obvious death. Meanwhile, simcade games like War Thunder, who can't even implement hat-switch views and fix rubber band controls are making a fortune.
-
Butcher, if there was a Fightertown (3 sides, small map, 3 fields) with fighter based aircraft only (no GV's, buffs, or destructible hangars...hence no war to win) would you return?
I'm not suggesting elimination of any presents arenas; just adding in this new one. Perk points/costs would apply...no ENY. Basically a free for all for air combat.
-
It's been hard watching Aces High, the game I love, die a slow and painfully obvious death. Meanwhile, simcade games like War Thunder, who can't even implement hat-switch views and fix rubber band controls are making a fortune.
Looking at their forums, it seems they have their share of problems. Not sure how much is bluster, but if you believe some of the posters, WT FRB is dead as soon as Il2 BOS comes out.
+1 for smaller maps. Hopefully the upcoming graphics update will attract and help retrain new peeps. :pray
-
This is what is stopping me from really coming back to the game, lack of fights.
+1
Butcher, if there was a Fightertown (3 sides, small map, 3 fields) with fighter based aircraft only (no GV's, buffs, or destructible hangars...hence no war to win) would you return?
That would be close to DA lake?
Shutting bases down when few players are online is an interesting idea.
-
It's been hard watching Aces High, the game I love, die a slow and painfully obvious death. Meanwhile, simcade games like War Thunder, who can't even implement hat-switch views and fix rubber band controls are making a fortune.
I watched this happen to Warbirds a few years ago. Same complaints. They have 11 players on at times during daytime USA. Pathetic.
When I came here the WWII arena was fun and active. Now it is dead.
+1 on smaller maps, too.
-
It's the world Economy. If people can hardly afford to support their family there is not much room for fun and games. Parents still will buy what their pesky Kids want and they see the Ads on the Tele for the next kill the cop game.
When a lot of us were younger being a fighter pilot was the ultimate Job with many movies and tv shows about.
When was the last Fighter Movie you've seen?
The transition from PC's to tablets and other internet access doesn't expose many young ones to PC gaming.
Many TV commercials you can see now are for the console games. Somehow they sell a $400 console and $50-$70 games and then oh you need a new system in a year for more eye candy. :rolleyes:
-
Many TV commercials you can see now are for the console games. Somehow they sell a $400 console and $50-$70 games and then oh you need a new system in a year for more eye candy. :rolleyes:
Actually the advantage of consoles is that the hardware is static for seven or eight years. An XBOX360 from 2005 is just as capable as an XBOX360 now. This year there is a new generation of consoles being released by Sony and Microsoft, but the next generation won't be here until 2020 at the earliest. It is PCs that used to demand frequent updating, though that has slowed as it has become normal for titles to be released for PC/Xbox/Playstation at the same time which limits the PC to, more or less, what the current topline consoles can do.
-
+1 the difference in the off peak hours 4 years ago to now are terrible....doesn't seem like anyone is actually playing at times.
-
Hopefully the graphics update helps bring in new players.
-
+1 the difference in the off peak hours 4 years ago to now are terrible...
Though it's just reflecting the overall drop in numbers. Peak numbers have suffered as well, it's just more noticeable at 'low tide'
-
Though it's just reflecting the overall drop in numbers. Peak numbers have suffered as well, it's just more noticeable at 'low tide'
Do you know what average peek numbers where say 5 or 6 years ago with the split main's, compared to now?
-
I seem to recall the split mains being about 250-300 and 150-200. Titanic Tuesday would sometimes get past 700.
-
Ive said this a thousand times. The "economy" is not high on the list for reasons why people leave games. Maybe more so with pay per month games but still, despite the economy, gamers will pay to play their favorite games.
I expected a down turn in the arena after BF4 and COD G came out, plus a few other games. As for those two, and despite their graphical beauty, most of all BF4, I think the coders who wrote the games were riding the rock pipe. Talk about numerous problems!
I think improved graphics will bring players back to AH. Playing these other games reminds me of how well written Aces High actually is. With a new graphics look I'll probably be the first to come back. It would be great to get the old Euro crowd back as well. I can remember when USA morning and afternoon time had the most skilled players on.
-
These are the changes I see that need to be added.
1 Il-2 and Ju-87 d3 and G2 avaliable at the vbase
2 Smaller maps.
3 Every map has a tank town.
4 Less than a 120 players on a aera of the map can become a three way fight with a set of airspawns 15k from each other at alt of 10k.(could be done over TT)
5 When there is less than a 120 players on the map: Ack and town buildings, and hangars (i.e. vh down for 30 min)stay down for 2x longer. Also 5 troops to capture the base.
6 Ad campaign about new graphic in the Gamer magazines and maybe on youtube.. Nothing like haveing ads all about.
By the way HTC I love the new graphics.
-
Folks IMHO it has nothing to do with the game. The game has not changed. As a matter of fact since it's inception it has presented more ways to engage in virtual battle.
Most of us that are still here from the beginning of AH loved the game because of historical possibilities. We still do. That's why by in large you will find us in FSO and in
scenarios and rarely in the MA. In the beginning it was always about the fight. Even sided fights. Now, ( this is in no way an insult to those in the community with about 5 years or less)
the game play has changed. Some want instant action, that can be understood. Some want instant success. The internet has provided instant action first person shooter games
that are easier to play. They provide instant gratification and success in a short period. GV'ing is point and pull the trigger. No FM to learn or acm is needed. This is not a bad thing to
those that wish to do this and I certainly won't knock those that do. It is their money and they always should do what they enjoy.
I could've made this shorter without writing all the text above. Fact is the gamer has changed, not the game.
-
Do you know what average peek numbers where say 5 or 6 years ago with the split main's, compared to now?
In Sep 2010 (still having the split system at that time) we had about 400-550 players in LW at peak. Today we barely break the 300.
In the heighday we had something like 500-700 IIRC. And you would have to add the EW&MW numbers, which also had been considerably higher than what they are now (though always minor compared to LW). For a time we even had ~100 players in MW at peak... today MW has about the same activity level EW once had...
But I could give more precise numbers for activity in terms of kills. When I joined AH about this time 8 years ago (single LW back then), we had about 1M air to air kills per quarter (as shown by plane stats). This quarter we will get just about over 400K
-
11:44AM EST US. I logged on in hopes of finding an air to air fight. Not one to be had.
Didn't used to be that way. Unfortunate.
-
I remember when the old main arena had 700+ players; it was glorious.
-
I remember when the old main arena had 700+ players; it was glorious.
yeah this hasn't happens in a while. I'm shocked if I even see 500
-
Boy do these comments sound familiar. :noid
-
Assuming HTC does not want to retire the big maps it is probably easiest just to have a switch from small/large map rotation to just small map rotation at some point in the day. Just have the map for each rotation start in the same position it ended the previous day.
Shutting down some bases on a map during low numbers hours seems like a solution, but it has its complications. The current MA maps are not designed around the idea and it would be hard to select fields in such a way as to be fair to all sides whatever the front line position. Also, what do you do about CVs? Preventing off peak players from using them is not really on.
I vaguely recall HTC trying something like this years ago, they didn't limit which fields you could up at but which fields you could take to just a handful. It wasn't popular with players and was dropped pretty quickly IIRC.
Another possibility is rather than deny the use of bases, just make certain bases more attractive for players to attack. Lets say each base is given a points score on the map, for instance 2 for a port, 3 for a V or small airbase , 4 for a mid, 5 for a large field. To win the war you now have to get X points off the other two sides. Give a handful of bonus bases double or triple or more points score. This would encourage win-the-war types to attack those bases. Also destroying objects at those bases doubles or triples the players' individual scores as well. This then encourages the score-obsessed to attack those bases. The "I-just-want-to-fight-someone" guys are then more likely to find some action at those bases.
-
Though it's just reflecting the overall drop in numbers. Peak numbers have suffered as well, it's just more noticeable at 'low tide'
Yea your right I don't see the difference in the fights during peak except the actual number when I log in and it is amazing I remember when the first Titanic Tuesdays came out we had almost 800 in one arena!!!! Was awesome if your rig could handle it.
-
Ive said this a thousand times. The "economy" is not high on the list for reasons why people leave games. Maybe more so with pay per month games but still, despite the economy, gamers will pay to play their favorite games.
I expected a down turn in the arena after BF4 and COD G came out, plus a few other games. As for those two, and despite their graphical beauty, most of all BF4, I think the coders who wrote the games were riding the rock pipe. Talk about numerous problems!
I think improved graphics will bring players back to AH. Playing these other games reminds me of how well written Aces High actually is. With a new graphics look I'll probably be the first to come back. It would be great to get the old Euro crowd back as well. I can remember when USA morning and afternoon time had the most skilled players on.
had lots of friends quit the game because of the economy, with no jobs they couldn't afford the subscription and the internet. some have found jobs that don't pay as much as they did before. now the find themselves with older equipment they can't afford to replace. it doesn't just cost15 bucks a month to play.
as for kills like lusche said, I'll be lucky if I get 200 kills in a month as I don't have a lot of time to play. wonder how many of us were lucky enough to keep our jobs but have twice the workload of before, no way I'm the only one.
semp
semp
-
I vaguely recall HTC trying something like this years ago, they didn't limit which fields you could up at but which fields you could take to just a handful. It wasn't popular with players and was dropped pretty quickly IIRC.
"Capture order" - had many problems, one of them being again that themaps had not been designed for it.
Another possibility is rather than deny the use of bases, just make certain bases more attractive for players to attack. Lets say each base is given a points score on the map, for instance 2 for a port, 3 for a V or small airbase , 4 for a mid, 5 for a large field. To win the war you now have to get X points off the other two sides. Give a handful of bonus bases double or triple or more points score. This would encourage win-the-war types to attack those bases.
I've been preaching this for years. Concentrate activity and create sustained battles by creating key objectives, without taking everything else outta play :aok
-
Another possibility is rather than deny the use of bases, just make certain bases more attractive for players to attack. Lets say each base is given a points score on the map, for instance 2 for a port, 3 for a V or small airbase , 4 for a mid, 5 for a large field. To win the war you now have to get X points off the other two sides. Give a handful of bonus bases double or triple or more points score. This would encourage win-the-war types to attack those bases. Also destroying objects at those bases doubles or triples the players' individual scores as well. This then encourages the score-obsessed to attack those bases. The "I-just-want-to-fight-someone" guys are then more likely to find some action at those bases.
I really like this idea. Two ways to win the war, the traditional way and grind it out, or a blitz on a few key bases that absolutely must be defended.
-
looking at LoL, dota2, starcraft2, minecraft, CS:GO...saying that pc gaming is dieing is just wrong.
I closed my AH account mostly because euro times was boring, I was thinking it was just a break but coming back just to wait in the tower isn't epealing just yet. This has been reported for years but HTC doesn't seem to care. Fine. I will check the new graphics offline but I doubt it will be enough for me to come back. We'll see.
-
looking at LoL, dota2, starcraft2, minecraft, CS:GO...saying that pc gaming is dieing is just wrong.
I closed my AH account mostly because euro times was boring, I was thinking it was just a break but coming back just to wait in the tower isn't epealing just yet. This has been reported for years but HTC doesn't seem to care. Fine. I will check the new graphics offline but I doubt it will be enough for me to come back. We'll see.
Well, hopefully the improved graphics bring more players into the game.
-
Well, hopefully the improved graphics bring more players into the game.
After new graphics ,know one will know or care if HTC dose not dump a ton of money and time into advertising here and across the pond.
-
Well, hopefully the improved graphics bring more players into the game.
I hope so, but most Euro players ended up playing aces high by pure luck, I don't think they will find the game more easily with new graphics.
My wish is that Aces High gets packaged for steam. The stream of new players would be massive.
-
And Linux. I am done after XP goes away because I hate Windows 7 and 8.
-
Butcher, if there was a Fightertown (3 sides, small map, 3 fields) with fighter based aircraft only (no GV's, buffs, or destructible hangars...hence no war to win) would you return?
^^^this would make me leave after 10+ years :salute
-
^^^this would make me leave after 10+ years :salute
same here, i enjoy dropping bombs on GV's
-
As someone who has played this game since beta I have been recently underwhelmed with the quality of A2A fights. I remember back in my golden years we'd be up till 5 am sometimes flying, some of the best fights were after midnight! Dunno what happened.
-
As someone who has played this game since beta I have been recently underwhelmed with the quality of A2A fights. I remember back in my golden years we'd be up till 5 am sometimes flying, some of the best fights were after midnight! Dunno what happened.
Everybody decided that if you aren't a base horder you're worthless.
-
As someone who has played this game since beta I have been recently underwhelmed with the quality of A2A fights. I remember back in my golden years we'd be up till 5 am sometimes flying, some of the best fights were after midnight! Dunno what happened.
One could fight practically 24/7. This Game used to cause a lot more...sick days...and divorces then it does now.
<S>
-
One could fight practically 24/7. This Game used to cause a lot more...sick days...and divorces then it does now.
<S>
Maybe that is a sign we are starting to grown up finally. :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
^^^this would make me leave after 10+ years :salute
Why? I'm in no way suggesting replacing LWMA with F-town...just kicking out an idea for those who want an A2A and nothing more than A2A. ::::shrugs:::
-
Many have made good points....
I have to say that after not playing this game at all for (I think) 7 years.... then returning.... I was shocked at how little this game has changed. I play quite a few games, Lock on, Call of duty, World of Warcraft, IL2, Falcon4, and so on. Some of the games I play have not changed much in years. Others.... the most popular ones.... rarely stay the same for more than a year or two.
Change can be good and bad but it almost always keeps people invested from what I have observed. Just my humble opinion here..... but AH could really use some new "Content" What that content should be I will leave up to others. Its clear that the game is not growing. In fact is has less people online than when I left.
That being said.... I flew some sorties last night and had a ball.
Dave/Vorc
-
I flew some sorties last night and had a ball.
That's what it's about! :aok
-
Something I was thinking about after I posted in another thread.
The game is really struggling at the moment in the off-peak hours.With 50 people logged on the MA is not much fun .When you look at country numbers
there are about 30% of people "in flight" . So they are either in gv's or sitting in the tower looking for something to do , or afk.
The usual pattern is a bunch of gv'ers wandering around somewhere , 10 people in buffs bombing strats and undefended fields,
leaving about 6 or 7 people flying fighter planes looking for some sort of fight or engagement.
So what typically happens is I log on - look around the map - see occasional little blips of radar across the map (buffs usually)
so I either log off , fly around for a while bored , or go make a coffee , (1 more sitting in the tower).
I know people whine about the old days all the time , but this didnt happen in the old days because "everyone" was flying a plane.
So I was thinking of a couple of solutions.
1. Numbers in MA hit < 75 , GV's are unavailable.
and/or
2. Numbers in MA <75 , Map switches automatically to a small map (finish the war - give everyone some perks)
This problem at the moment is self-perpetuating , less people in the air = no fights = less people logging on to fly.
I know this will probably sound silly to some an unplalatable to others , but I can't see the numbers heading anywhere but down given where they are at now. At it's heart and soul Aces High has always been about Air Combat , we need some off-peak.
The game used to have a pretty strong community of people outside the US flying in off-peak , along with the shift workers an US night owls , they are dissappearing.
:airplane: I agree with you that we need to do something to re-generate some interest in off hours. I know that I will get some negative feed back, but I think that Hi Tech needs to make the game more attractive by expanding the overall aspects of the game. Sure, the new terrain will help some, but some of the suggestions that I have posted in the "wish" section, the addition of the LST's, the addition of the manufacturing plant,(suggested by someone else), connected to rail yards are two that come to mind right now. The factory idea would certainly add a whole new perspective to the game, as it could be assaulted with not only aircraft, but tanks and or surface vessels. Submarines would also be a good addition also.
I know this game was built as a "flight" simulator, using WW2 aircraft and is by far the best on line, but I would bet that we are not tapping over 5% of the players who would play, if we had a more expanded Navy presents, not to mention, foot soldiers. Wouldn't it be a "hoot" to have, when you are a foot soldier, a WW2 bazooka instead of a .45 pistol. Then we would have a real reason for the Pentil guns on the GV's.
Just my thoughts!
Now that my wife, Barbara is confined to a nursing home, with no hopes of ever coming home again, this game is the only thing which I look forward each day and I respect each and every player in this game. (Just wish they would quit shooting down my bombers, LOL)
-
Change can be good and bad but it almost always keeps people invested from what I have observed. Just my humble opinion here..... but AH could really use some new "Content" What that content should be I will leave up to others.
I still would be interested to hear what kind of 'new content' you are thinking about in general. In the 7 years we got a lot of new content added to AH: 26 planes and 13 vehicles (not counting the refurbished ones), new terrain and graphic improvements, new strategic system, new arenas, entirely new vehicle control system. So I would assume you are thinking about new gameplay mechanisms?
-
Why? I'm in no way suggesting replacing LWMA with F-town...just kicking out an idea for those who want an A2A and nothing more than A2A. ::::shrugs:::
If you made just a Fighter town it would look like the WWi arena in no time.
A GV arena might do alright, but that would take even more players out of the Main and we are running low now.
I've been saying the fights are drying up for a while now. More and more players are STAYING in the horde instead of moving on to become a more accomplished player. Todays players seem to be ok with being mediocre. When I first started here and was handed my butt by Wldthng, or Dreid, or any of those "aces" back then it made me want to get better so I could give it back to them. Most of us did.
As time has gone on more and more player don't want to bother to put in the time to get better at fighting or bombing or GVin. They seem to be happy with just hanging in that gang and rolling base after base with numbers instead of with skill. Why dogfight when your just going to lawndart dropping ords anyway.... your teammates NEED the hanger down!... and just up another one just in case. Why learn to hit targets with single bombs when you and 12 of your friends are just going to carpet bomb EVERYTHING anyway. And GVin is the worst. COD with tanks! Run around with your hair on fire trying to kill more than you are killed :rolleyes:
Defenders hardly defend... especially against 5-7 on 1 odds, why bother? How many players are good enough to stand even a small chance at doing that? Attacking LOL!!! better use a fast plane with cannons to get there and put enough rounds in to get a kill before your 10 buddies get there. It's how "gamers" play.
If history isn't the draw any more what is? What will draw players in who want to fight, A2A, base to base and so on? While I look forward to the new graphic updates, I hope there are some game play adjustments coming as well.
-
Defenders hardly defend... especially against 5-7 on 1 odds, why bother? How many players are good enough to stand even a small chance at doing that?
Here's a very fun thing to do -- it's one of my favorite situations in the MA. When you see a field getting swamped, go there and up A-20's from the hangar (not the airfield). If the odds are huge against you, yes, you get shot down a lot, but the A-20 can take enough damage to give you some shots the enemies as well. It is very satisfying to get some of that swarm, and the beauty is that you can go up again right away and get into action immediately -- no waiting. ;) (Well, unless they take down bomber hangars.)
-
The game is boring.
Too many fly around in their own ack hoping it'll do their job for them.
Too many worried about score and avoid fights at all costs.
Scoring system is a joke.
50 ton tank stopped dead in it's tracks by bushes.
Spitfires fighting Mustangs.
PT boats and torpedo planes are worthless against CV ack. Can't even get within range before you're shot down.
All towns and bases look the same on every map.
Maps are too big and not enough maps in the rotation.
Finding yourself in a 5 vs 1 is the norm not the exception.
No trains or armed convoys to blow up anymore.
No factories spread out across various places on the maps......just packed in one spot protected by laser ack.
No variety in naval shipping to attack. It's either the ack factory CV task group or nothing.
After a while most folks get tired of the same ole thing map after map, tour after tour, year after year. I'm bored with AcesHigh............ and football comes on in 15 minutes.
-
No trains or armed convoys to blow up anymore.
We do have trains (I've shot up quite a number of them lately :)), and I can't remember having ever seen armed convois in the 8 years I'm playing
After a while most folks get tired of the same ole thing map after map, tour after tour, year after year. I'm bored with AcesHigh............
That's a thing almost all players experience in almost all games. Very few, if any, games change so fundamentally to provide the same level of excitement as if you were new to it. Burning out on a game is a natural cycle.
-
After a while most folks get tired of the same ole thing map after map, tour after tour, year after year.
Come fly in "This Day in WWII" events and in scenarios. :aok
-
Why not a carrier war now and then or a Solomon Islands map that would encourage dogfights in The Slot?
-
I know this is a far out idea but ,a lot of times there is like two bishes attacking rooks and 3 rooks there and 4 nits attacking bish with 1 nit their.
What would make for better fights now that numbers are where they are at is if we had only 2 country's?
-
Defenders hardly defend... especially against 5-7 on 1 odds, why bother?
I wonder if this would change if suddenly you couldn't see anyone's stats, just your own. I think that the majority of people have at least some amount of score potato in their blood because they know that they will be judged by their stats within the community. I believe that this underlying need to protect ego by protecting stats causes many people to fly much more timidly as possible.
-
I know this is a far out idea but ,a lot of times there is like two bishes attacking rooks and 3 rooks there and 4 nits attacking bish with 1 nit their.
What would make for better fights now that numbers are where they are at is if we had only 2 country's?
That's what we had in Warbirds and it worked well. With lower numbers three countries is one too many.
-
I know this is a far out idea but ,a lot of times there is like two bishes attacking rooks and 3 rooks there and 4 nits attacking bish with 1 nit their.
What would make for better fights now that numbers are where they are at is if we had only 2 country's?
The only way you could do a 2 sided country set-up would be to use a forced side balancing thing. Other wise people would log in and join the side with numbers just to be on the "winning side".
I wonder if this would change if suddenly you couldn't see anyone's stats, just your own. I think that the majority of people have at least some amount of score potato in their blood because they know that they will be judged by their stats within the community. I believe that this underlying need to protect ego by protecting stats causes many people to fly much more timidly as possible.
I think it's more that fighting against 5 to 1 odds just isn't all that much fun. I'll up once or twice, but getting wheels up and a few turn and maybe a shot or two before getting hit by 3 guys gets old fast. I hate sitting in the tower listening to the "hits" on my plane go on and on and on. Why would anyone WANT to defend against stuff like that? Unless your really good at dodging, and have a crap load of luck it is more an exercise in futility than getting your plane to sink in the sea on an AH map!
Even if it is score that holds them back, add a multiplier for the out number guys at a base. Could it/would it be abused? Not any more than the rest of the score system. :rolleyes: There is no reward for defending, and when hopelessly out numbered it isn't even remotely fun for most people.
-
Why not a carrier war now and then or a Solomon Islands map that would encourage dogfights in The Slot?
Snapshots are awesome and quite a few times i've done the solomons scenario, unfortunately barely even 20-30 show up for it. Its well worth the fight, last time was F4u-1 and P38G against Tony's and A6m3's
-
The only way you could do a 2 sided country set-up would be to use a forced side balancing thing. Other wise people would log in and join the side with numbers just to be on the "winning side".
I dont agree so much with this,if all 20 people playing are on the same side and sitting in the tower because the other country is empty,i think plenty will side balance like so often happens in MidWar.
-
I dont agree so much with this,if all 20 people playing are on the same side and sitting in the tower because the other country is empty,i think plenty will side balance like so often happens in MidWar.
And EW was ruined that way... 12 players on one side, 1 or 2 on the other, and none of the 12 would ever switch (but at some point heavily whine about the 'unfair' ENY)
-
And EW was ruined that way... 12 players on one side, 1 or 2 on the other, and none of the 12 would ever switch (but at some point heavily whine about the 'unfair' ENY)
Early for a long time has had a squad that loves to milk run.I think late war players have a bit more fight in em... a bit
-
Early for a long time has had a squad that loves to milk run.I think late war players have a bit more fight in em... a bit
Most players are very country loyal and will stay on their team almost no matter what... and rather log off due to eny than switch sides. You can currently see that at offpeak hours, where bishland often has massive numerical advantage and often horrid ENY (ENY 24 not rare)... and all you see are heavy complaints about the ENY system, often followed by "screw this, I'm loggin, fix that crap HiTech"
-
Most players are very country loyal and will stay on their team almost no matter what... and rather log off due to eny than switch sides. You can currently see that at offpeak hours, where bishland often has massive numerical advantage and often horrid ENY (ENY 24 not rare)... and all you see are heavy complaints about the ENY system, often followed by "screw this, I'm loggin, fix that crap HiTech"
That's what we had in Warbirds and it worked well. With lower numbers three countries is one too many.
Well it has worked in other places and AH needs help.I think trying knew things because bad things MIGHT happen is to easy handed. I notice many people offer things that might help and many other players like to talk about what might happen.Not that your not right,but doing nothing is not helping.
-
The other day I watched a pilot (We'll call him Bob) scream and rant at a newer player (We'll call him Steve). The ranting was caused because Bob was being chased by a Pony, and instead of trying to fight said Pony he was running in a straight line on the deck stick stirring for all he was worth while berating Steve because he wasn't catching and killing the Pony in his F6F.
Yes it's Bob's fifteen bucks and if he wants to fly like a tard he can. But the way that you play the game effects how much or how little everybody you come into contact with enjoys their fifteen bucks, which in turn effects how many fifteen dollar subscription fees HTC receives each month. In my opinion the players who put "winning", score, and saving face above all else have done more harm to Aces High then any problems the game might have.
-
Well it has worked in other places and AH needs help.I think trying knew things because bad things MIGHT happen is to easy handed. I notice many people offer things that might help and many other players like to talk about what might happen.Not that your not right,but doing nothing is not helping.
Agreed, there are some ideas that are just plain.. well, they wouldn't work. However, some ideas I've encountered could work or at least assist with problems like this.
The other day I watched a pilot (We'll call him Bob) scream and rant at a newer player (We'll call him Steve). The ranting was caused because Bob was being chased by a Pony, and instead of trying to fight said Pony he was running in a straight line on the deck stick stirring for all he was worth while berating Steve because he wasn't catching and killing the Pony in his F6F.
Yes it's Bob's fifteen bucks and if he wants to fly like a tard he can. But the way that you play the game effects how much or how little everybody you come into contact with enjoys their fifteen bucks, which in turn effects how many fifteen dollar subscription fees HTC receives each month. In my opinion the players who put "winning", score, and saving face above all else have done more harm to Aces High then any problems the game might have.
Scores do no one any favors.
Yeah, a few names come to mind. The phrase "All these people here, and no one can check 6 me?"
-
Not that your not right,but doing nothing is not helping.
Well, I do fully agree that something big has to happen, but just doing something for the sake of doing something is not unlikely to make things work. It's easier to (further) break stuff that to fix it :old:
Most ideas soung great initially and/or from an individual point of view, but would have a lot unintended consequences. That includes my own ideas... ;)
-
The other day I watched a pilot (We'll call him Bob) scream and rant at a newer player (We'll call him Steve). The ranting was caused because Bob was being chased by a Pony, and instead of trying to fight said Pony he was running in a straight line on the deck stick stirring for all he was worth while berating Steve because he wasn't catching and killing the Pony in his F6F.
Yes it's Bob's fifteen bucks and if he wants to fly like a tard he can. But the way that you play the game effects how much or how little everybody you come into contact with enjoys their fifteen bucks, which in turn effects how many fifteen dollar subscription fees HTC receives each month. In my opinion the players who put "winning", score, and saving face above all else have done more harm to Aces High then any problems the game might have.
I think I might have been the chasing Pony. I emptied my 51B's clip into a wiggler the other day. Thinking the whole time that this was ridiculous. Try reversing, it's fun, extends the fight, and half the time (or more), you'll force me out front and get me with the snapshot. Stick stirring is like diving down to pick a bandit when a squadron-mate is having a good rolling fight. Just don't do it.
-
So is it even worth me spending $15 a month again on Aces? Seems not much has changed from Feb when I quit playing.
-
I think it's more that fighting against 5 to 1 odds just isn't all that much fun. I'll up once or twice, but getting wheels up and a few turn and maybe a shot or two before getting hit by 3 guys gets old fast.
Man I wish I could find only 5 to 1 odds. The last couple of months I was amazed how many enemy's a Spit I will draw. I finally had to switch back to a IX so I'd stand a chance. Might switch back though 'cause the I's more fun.
What I don't like (being a Bish) is my only choices are to fly with the horde (which I won't do) or fly against the horde.
I agree though that it gets tiring so after several sorties I just go sit somewhere in a GV or field gun and relax waiting for someone to come along.
-
So is it even worth me spending $15 a month again on Aces? Seems not much has changed from Feb when I quit playing.
After all this time being here, I wonder what you would expect to change in general gameplay in just a few months without any actual change in gameplay mechanisms ... ;)
-
Another thing no one seems to have mentioned is the 12 hour rule change from around July 2011, I think this had a big effect on the A2A guys and stagnated the game from an A2A perspective. Seems to be a bunch of guys in GVs is all thats left now.
-
So is it even worth me spending $15 a month again on Aces? Seems not much has changed from Feb when I quit playing.
The only thing worth my money lately has been FSO, scenarios, and some fun DA time with the few good fighter sticks left in the game.
-
After all this time being here, I wonder what you would expect to change in general gameplay in just a few months without any actual change in gameplay mechanisms ... ;)
lol good point, think I will just wait and invest in to some more matrix games.
-
For score maybe more emphasis should be put on getting multiple victories/buildings in a short period of time? Like rewarding the score player for being aggressive? In games the carrot works better than the stick IMO.
Bombers and fighters would be lower and the more concentrated environment would create more combat I believe.
-
Another thing no one seems to have mentioned is the 12 hour rule change from around July 2011, I think this had a big effect on the A2A guys and stagnated the game from an A2A perspective. Seems to be a bunch of guys in GVs is all thats left now.
. 'Splain, please.
-
Snapshots are awesome and quite a few times i've done the solomons scenario, unfortunately barely even 20-30 show up for it. Its well worth the fight, last time was F4u-1 and P38G against Tony's and A6m3's
But do a map that way in MA. Run it for a week if nobody wins it before switching.
-
So back to the original issue
The way to achieve a better situation for off-peak would be to switch to small maps @ X:am in the morning US time, and revert to normal rotation at Y:pm in the afternoon US Time.
No-one's gameplay is affected , it won't fix all the problems people have raised, but it would make the game more enjoyable for Euro's and Oceanics.
This would be a nice easy fix
-
For score maybe more emphasis should be put on getting multiple victories/buildings in a short period of time? Like rewarding the score player for being aggressive? In games the carrot works better than the stick IMO.
An idea I've put forward a few times is to reward players for fighting while outnumbered. Every time a player scores a kill a score multiplier would be applied based on the number of red and green icons visible at the time. So more red than green = higher score and vice versa. This punishes those who hide in hordes picking and rewards those who up to defend a field from a horde. It gives the score-obsessed a reason to engage a more numerous enemy and so should mean more combat for everyone.
-
The game is boring.
Too many fly around in their own ack hoping it'll do their job for them.
Too many worried about score and avoid fights at all costs.
Scoring system is a joke.
50 ton tank stopped dead in it's tracks by bushes.
Spitfires fighting Mustangs.
PT boats and torpedo planes are worthless against CV ack. Can't even get within range before you're shot down.
All towns and bases look the same on every map.
Maps are too big and not enough maps in the rotation.
Finding yourself in a 5 vs 1 is the norm not the exception.
No trains or armed convoys to blow up anymore.
No factories spread out across various places on the maps......just packed in one spot protected by laser ack.
No variety in naval shipping to attack. It's either the ack factory CV task group or nothing.
After a while most folks get tired of the same ole thing map after map, tour after tour, year after year. I'm bored with AcesHigh............ and football comes on in 15 minutes.
^^^^^this is so true :salute
-
An idea I've put forward a few times is to reward players for fighting while outnumbered. Every time a player scores a kill a score multiplier would be applied based on the number of red and green icons visible at the time. So more red than green = higher score and vice versa. This punishes those who hide in hordes picking and rewards those who up to defend a field from a horde. It gives the score-obsessed a reason to engage a more numerous enemy and so should mean more combat for everyone.
I like this idea! :aok
-
Most ideas soung great initially and/or from an individual point of view, but would have a lot unintended consequences.
Those exact words were reiterated by Hitech and Pyro at an AH Con Q&A a few years ago.
-
Those exact words were reiterated by Hitech and Pyro at an AH Con Q&A a few years ago.
Sounds like a company not willing to take risks.Sometimes you need to not fear and take big steps.
-
An idea I've put forward a few times is to reward players for fighting while outnumbered. Every time a player scores a kill a score multiplier would be applied based on the number of red and green icons visible at the time. So more red than green = higher score and vice versa. This punishes those who hide in hordes picking and rewards those who up to defend a field from a horde. It gives the score-obsessed a reason to engage a more numerous enemy and so should mean more combat for everyone.
Or a script that zooms the map in and out based on players. Same map, just can't use or see all of it when the numbers get below a certain threshold.
-
You could make it free to play during off hours. It's definitely a chicken egg thing, more players means more fun means more players.
-
You could make it free to play during off hours. It's definitely a chicken egg thing, more players means more fun means more players.
More non paying members? Most euro members already in game dropping their subscription, as peak hours are very late night for them anyway?
-
More non paying members? Most euro members already in game dropping their subscription, as peak hours are very late night for them anyway?
I agree, I am in Florida, US - but due to my work schedule I tend to play in off hours, can I get my account free too? Nope - I paid for 10 years even though I generally fly off hours - it was best $15 I spent each month even the years I payed and didn't play.
-
It's all easy for us to point out things haven't changed much, and that's why - stagnant gameplay, old aircraft models, poorly designed terrain etc. And yes, they all contribute.
But the biggest and real issue HTC faces is twofold and inter-twined.
First - they only charge $15 a month. Second - the genre who love WWII combat simulators are getting old and there are less of us each year. And when you have a diminishing subscriber base who don't really pay that much each month, it could spell a slow and painful death for Aces High.
At $15 a month, it's really hard for Dale and Doug to bring on new programmers and architects to increase the rate of development and put in new enhancements.
I think they should look at increasing their cost to $20 per month and use the extra money to speed up development cycles and improve their already great product. That way we CAN get subs, better strategy, new maps, more planes, vehicles, and ships!
But that doesn't come cheap and it would mean increasing the fees.
What do you guys think about paying more to get more?
-
You could make it free to play during off hours. It's definitely a chicken egg thing, more players means more fun means more players.
Or x number free until the numbers reach a certain level. I.E. once it hits X number the freebies start getting restricted down to zero on a 2:1 basis or something...
As for the slow and painful death, this happened to Warbirds. I don't know if increasing the price is an option, but I bet we could donate extra $ on our own if it went to such things as development...
-
What do you guys think about paying more to get more?
FWIW with myself still being in the "New & Shiny" mindset toward online play (I'm just about to start my 2nd *week* of paid play), I think the $15 is a pretty good deal and wouldn't be opposed to a reasonable increase in subscription fees.
-
Well I like the flat subscription model and I detest freemium. That said if you have a time period that is dead I don't think incentivizing players to participate or try out that period is a bad idea. I can understand the negative opinions on free off peak accounts, it seems inequitable and throat cutting. It's an idea that comes from the theory that player quantity is important to the quality of the game and that therefore during a low population time period each player is more valuable to the game than they would be during peak hours. It is as if you had two different markets, like off-peak electricity.
I'm not very serious about free accounts but if you change that to more resources for marketing off peak it's the same thing in terms of cash costs but probably much better in terms of social cost.
Another thing, with the different geographies in off peak play is the game different because of latency?
-
the way the MA is made certainly shows that player numbers impact on gameplay quality...
playing with 150ms never stopped the few from being top notch
-
It's all easy for us to point out things haven't changed much, and that's why - stagnant gameplay, old aircraft models, poorly designed terrain etc. And yes, they all contribute.
But the biggest and real issue HTC faces is twofold and inter-twined.
First - they only charge $15 a month. Second - the genre who love WWII combat simulators are getting old and there are less of us each year. And when you have a diminishing subscriber base who don't really pay that much each month, it could spell a slow and painful death for Aces High.
At $15 a month, it's really hard for Dale and Doug to bring on new programmers and architects to increase the rate of development and put in new enhancements.
I think they should look at increasing their cost to $20 per month and use the extra money to speed up development cycles and improve their already great product. That way we CAN get subs, better strategy, new maps, more planes, vehicles, and ships!
But that doesn't come cheap and it would mean increasing the fees.
What do you guys think about paying more to get more?
I would not gripe a bit. :aok
-
We could go NASCAR and sell corporate skins in the planes...
"SuperAce 200: Hey P-51 with the Viagra skin, good fight. Get it up again and we'll finish this."
-
I would not gripe a bit. :aok
I would pay more, but I have a feeling that 15 is a sweet spot and raising it might discourage subscriptions. If you use my logic a player is worth more to the game than their subscription fee so that if you increase revenue by say 5 dollars a player but lose 1 in 10 players your player contribution has not gone up by 3.33 a head but by less because of the loss of the missing player's presence added to the value of the game.
Also we are all free to send in more money right now.
I think every air museum in the country should have a couple is pits with AH2 playing gratis. What would that cost?
-
I would pay more, but I have a feeling that 15 is a sweet spot and raising it might discourage subscriptions. If you use my logic a player is worth more to the game than their subscription fee so that if you increase revenue by say 5 dollars a player but lose 1 in 10 players your player contribution has not gone up by 3.33 a head but by less because of the loss of the missing player's presence added to the value of the game.
But by adding more value for the money, you could increase active account numbers and have better retention of existing players. Not to mention the extra development, features, and playable objects could also completely revive a stagnate brand (and yes, it is a stagnate brand nearing the end of it's product life-cycle).
An extra $5 - or charge $19.95 per month, means a 33% increase in operational revenue. It means Dale and Doug can do more with 33% A lot more. Just a thought. ;)
-
An extra $5 - or charge $19.95 per month, means a 33% increase in operational revenue. It means Dale and Doug can do more with 33% A lot more. Just a thought. ;)
Only if nobody quits and new customers aren't put off by it... which is highly questionable ;)
-
The game is boring.
#1 Too many fly around in their own ack hoping it'll do their job for them.
#2 Too many worried about score and avoid fights at all costs.
#3 Scoring system is a joke.
#4 50 ton tank stopped dead in it's tracks by bushes.
#5 Spitfires fighting Mustangs.
#6 PT boats and torpedo planes are worthless against CV ack. Can't even get within range before you're shot down.
#7 All towns and bases look the same on every map.
#8 Maps are too big and not enough maps in the rotation.
#9 Finding yourself in a 5 vs 1 is the norm not the exception.
#10 No trains or armed convoys to blow up anymore.
#11 No factories spread out across various places on the maps......just packed in one spot protected by laser ack.
#12 No variety in naval shipping to attack. It's either the ack factory CV task group or nothing.
After a while most folks get tired of the same ole thing map after map, tour after tour, year after year. I'm bored with AcesHigh............ and football comes on in 15 minutes.
#1 I think auto ack should be dropped down to 4 per base and mannable ack stays as they are. That way there is some defense for the base if no one is available or isn't there, however not overpowering.
#2 & 3 Agreed. The score means absolutely nothing. Just gaming the game. Personally, I think "ranks" should be gone, they shouldn't exist. Keep the statistical stuff, accuracy percentage, times died or killed. But other than that, rank shouldn't exist. It has NO PURPOSE WHATSOEVER, other than to say that you were a 'Task Group Commander". I think ranks should be gone. Instead, to take its place, should be (on the front page) accuracy and kills. For bombers bomb accuracy and overall damage/destruction. For GVs accuracy/kills/troops killed (latter for fun).
Because overall the only thing that you can do with your 'rank' is take control over a task group from someone else. I think the front page should promote combat showing the accuracy rating, the kills of the successful.
#4 Not really sure how this will be addressed in the terrain update. Will wait to comment on it after we see the limitations of this new terrain and whether or not an effective solution can be implemented.
#5 Due to them being allies? I agree on that, it takes me and some others out of it. Or having 109s escorting B17s to drop on those taking off in p51s. Not really sure what to add that hasn't already been said on that in the past. If you want realism go to the FSO/Scenario events, if you want just goofing off fun go to the DA/ Squad in the MA.
#6 Fully agree. Then the guns open fire from a medium distance away. And that isn't even if a player is in the tower. IF they are, they can hop in the guns and take you out. Can see them further out with that beyond sniper-quality vision. I can identify what plane skin you chose from 9k away in the 5in, even with my crappy video card.
#7 Would love variety, would absolutely love it.
#8 Agreed, again. :lol If the map editor was updated to a point where a PHD in HiTechnics wasn't required, then I wouldn't mind making maps or making towns more.. realistic and challenging to get into.
#9 Yup. Gang-bangin is alive and rabid in Aces High. The hoard lives and is eating well as usual.
#10 No real purpose for them either. There are no factories for which they come to or fro, they simple drive around in a path and park in a building. Or, if you are lucky enough to have a spawn into a HQ or Strats (which normally all players are 20k+ unable to interact with trains or convoys) then you might get a shot at one. If you survive long enough.
#11 Yup. While they have a more overall purpose than before, they aren't really in the game. They are taken from it, hidden.. like an easter egg. You have to work to find it, which is good, in a way, for how powerful they are. That you could cripple a factions radar system or ack system, but, they are all in one place. Instead of being separated and having sectors where factories would be supplying resources to bases near it, trains and convoys would be going to and fro to these bases, and it would be a strategic target for that area. IF you want this base or that base, hit this factory, so down times are increased, hit the convoys and trains, so you can have a more available opportunity/window to take this base. (That has been mentioned too many times to count as of recent months).
#12 I'm not sure how to respond to this one, from my perspective it's... not really specific. Elaborate please. (Might just be me, no insult intended, it's probably on my end, just asking for more clarification).
And to your last sentence. I agree, like in Fallout "War, War never changes". The combat hasn't really changed here either. The easier to use systems have always been used. Some will take a less-taken path and take off in a higher ENY plane, or use torps to take out a fleet. Instead of using Lancs or B26s . Some use these easier methods because they want to be jerks, or because they can get points easier or kills.
But my explanation is this. Because they CAN! Since there aren't any limitations on it, they will do it! You add new tools, to play with, but why would I use those tools that are harder for me to use and craft this thing I want to make, or do this thing I want to do, when I could use this and it would be much easier?
Why fly a TBM and take a Vbase when I could take an f4u or f6f and do it even easier, be more manuverable, have more firepower, and be able to dogfight EASIER? (Don't get me wrong TBMS can be a challenge in the right hands.) It shouldn't be like this.
Geez, I talk to much. :uhoh
My rant is over, what I have said many others have said over the years. I think with this new terrain HiTech (if not already doing so), need to update many of these things and address them accordingly.
*Disclaimer* In no way do I intent to insult or offend anyone with this post, if you were insulted or offended I apologize for that wasn't the intent of this post.
Respectively,
Tinkles
:cheers:
-
But by adding more value for the money, you could increase active account numbers and have better retention of existing players. Not to mention the extra development, features, and playable objects could also completely revive a stagnate brand (and yes, it is a stagnate brand nearing the end of it's product life-cycle).
An extra $5 - or charge $19.95 per month, means a 33% increase in operational revenue. It means Dale and Doug can do more with 33% A lot more. Just a thought. ;)
no game on the market in that expensive. That account value thingy doesn't hold any water, we're not in limited supply
-
I still would be interested to hear what kind of 'new content' you are thinking about in general. In the 7 years we got a lot of new content added to AH: 26 planes and 13 vehicles (not counting the refurbished ones), new terrain and graphic improvements, new strategic system, new arenas, entirely new vehicle control system. So I would assume you are thinking about new gameplay mechanisms?
All the additions you listed do matter.... yet in my eyes its the same game with the same gameplay I left 7 years ago. Not bashing at all, just being honest. So yeah.... I am talking about more than maps and new aircraft models.
I will offer a couple things here that I think would be good since you asked.... however as I said in my original post I really would prefer to leave this stuff to the people who do it for a living. People who are far smarter than I honestly.
One thing that I really LOVE about all the "Lock on Modern air combat" games is the true feeling of speed you get when flying. Especially when flying close to the terrain. It just feels like I am going fast.... all the time. You can almost get that sinking feeling in your stomach like on a roller coaster when in a dogfight. AH on the other hand feels slow and almost predictable in terms of graphic terrain and overall feel. I do understand that we are "flying" WWII model aircraft here and not a supersonic fighter but 400MPH is still damn fast. I think it should feel like it. It doesn't.
Second.... AH offers no "Immersion" whatsoever. It does offer the best online dogfighting anywhere. Yet I never feel that I am a pilot. Remember when AH1 was becoming AH2 and there was talk from HTC about AI aircraft? What happened to all that? Give me the ability to load terrains, draw up way points and flight paths. Let me set up 100 AI bombers at 30k over a historical map. Let me and friends if they are available roll our Mustangs from the runway to the way points to intercept and protect the bombers.
Make it more of a simulator in terms of the actual operation of the aircraft. IL2 offers "Complex engine management" Opening and closing cooling ducts, tuning engine mixtures and so on. I am not saying copy their stuff. I am saying give me an engine start procedure like an actual pilot follows. Something..... anything except just hitting "E" and rolling off every time. Currently Its all way to arcade until you are actually in the dogfight.
Just my thoughts.
Dave/Vorc
-
Its a chicken and egg thing. You need desirable stuff to recruit and retain customers and you need capital to get desirable stuff to market. In a situation where revenues are going down, that capital usually needs to come from somewhere other than product price increases. The risk of driving total revenue lower and losing base while you work on the new and improved product is big. Often a lower price is used to help with retention in the interim.
-
Second.... AH offers no "Immersion" whatsoever. It does offer the best online dogfighting anywhere. Yet I never feel that I am a pilot. Remember when AH1 was becoming AH2 and there was talk from HTC about AI aircraft? What happened to all that? Give me the ability to load terrains, draw up way points and flight paths.
Thank you for taking your time to answer in such detail, much appreciated :salute
Regarding to the AI pilots, that is implemented in the form of "staged missions", which can be put to use in special events, custom arenas and the AVA... where indeed AI missions were flying over historical terrains 24/7 at several extended occasions in the past 2-3 months. However, the player response to that (AvA) seems to have been lackluster, despite quite some bit of advertising by the AvA team.
-
So is it even worth me spending $15 a month again on Aces? Seems not much has changed from Feb when I quit playing.
Yes! It's still the greatest hobby there is! :aok Also, come play in "This Day in WWII" events with us.
-
An idea I've put forward a few times is to reward players for fighting while outnumbered. Every time a player scores a kill a score multiplier would be applied based on the number of red and green icons visible at the time. So more red than green = higher score and vice versa. This punishes those who hide in hordes picking and rewards those who up to defend a field from a horde. It gives the score-obsessed a reason to engage a more numerous enemy and so should mean more combat for everyone.
so you would reward players who only pick and run. I have fought as many as 20 while flying alone a couple of times. but I had about 10k advantage. I nailed 5 or 6. did I actually fight for those kills? nope, I wasnt really any better than they were when they started vulching the base.
so the question becomes is what is actually fighting? if a couple of guys up to defend against a horde then they get called ack huggers, hey couple here did in this thread. if you dont hide in the ack till somebody makes a mistake then you become just a pick kill and vulch when upping again. if you come from another base to get the "horde" then you are yourself just picking while not really fighting.
then let's say 5 or 6 guys up and kill the "horde" attacking while some rtb due to ammo or fuel. then the uppers become the "horde" as they chase the guys back to their field then themselves start vulching.
point I am trying to make is whatch what you guys call "pickers", "horders", "ack huggers", ad infinitum, we all are the same. is like trying to argue if the shot was a front 1/4 or a ho. the line is very fine. and all the others walk on the other wrong side, except of course yourself.
semp
-
If you remove the "picking" from my idea it doesn't alter the principle. I pick and everyone else does from time to time, it is just there are too many players who do nothing but that and it is making the game less fun for many players, just less fights/time basically. Score is what drives many of these players to fly this way, so why not alter in a way that generates more fights? It was more the hiding in the horde thing than the picking anyway, it is far easier to kill when many vs few than vice versa, so why shouldn't score reflect that?
In your example of staying 10K over 20 guys and picking 5 of them off you still ran the risk of someone showing up with alt and forcing you to fight. In that situation you risk getting sucked down into the horde, while he can use it as an escape route. If this player wanted to improve his score under my idea he might let you extend away a bit and fight you out of icon range of his mates. A refinement to the idea might be to factor the range of the icons into the score equation, so 3 nearby green icons might balance six distant red ones etc. So then a bunch of red icons far below you would have less of an effect.
-
If you remove the "picking" from my idea it doesn't alter the principle. I pick and everyone else does from time to time, it is just there are too many players who do nothing but that and it is making the game less fun for many players, just less fights/time basically. Score is what drives many of these players to fly this way, so why not alter in a way that generates more fights?
In your example of staying 10K over 20 guys and picking 5 of them off you still ran the risk of someone showing up with alt and forcing you to fight. In that situation you risk getting sucked down into the horde, while he can use it as an escape route. If this player wanted to improve his score under my idea he might let you extend away a bit and fight you out of icon range of his mates.
greebo if most players choose to fly in a horde isnt it because they actually enjoy flying with the horde. so your statement making them not fly with a horde wont actually make it less fun for the majority of players instead of making it more fun for less players?
for example today at a81/a85/p67 area there was horde against horde. and if anybody from either side says that they were just holding back the horde I'll call them a lier to their face. it was one gigantic furball that was fun for a great deal of people. if you had wanted to break up that back and forth "hode/furball" it wouldnt have been as fun for most of them who were there.
so it goes back to what exactly is the problem with some guys. do you prefer to fly in a 1v1 fights and if so then ask others who prefer to fly the way you do or do you want to fly in a big free for all furball where either you have numbers or they have the numbers but it's fun either way?
do you want to please the minority of players who want quality "fights" or as I call them "bs fights where they want a guarantee they win every time" or just "go dive in and see what happens" kind of fight?
I pay my 15 bucks to go dive in and see what happens and have a good laugh and drink a few with a couple of friends. if you want me to participate in "your idea of quality fights" then I am off to play wot.
semp
-
All I am trying to achieve from this is to give an incentive to score-driven players to engage more often in situations which are not a surefire win for them. Personally I don't expect to get a fair one on one fight in the MA and I'm more likely than most to be one vs many the way I fly. I even get a kick out of seeing how long I can last in that situation.
But often now I log on and see a big red bar over one field and a big green bar over another and no other fights. So it is either join a horde or fight one. With the score mod I'm suggesting the more score-driven players on both sides might be tempted to go fight the red bar than join the green one and then everyone gets a more even and fun fight. The take-the-base players will still want to create a local imbalance to achieve their aims and the score mod wont stop them doing that.
-
greebo, I totally understand what you are saying, on the other hand try to understand what the other players are saying. most dont log in to win the war or have "quality fights/bs fights/my own term". they just log in to shoot laugh and have a god time for maybe an hour or two, perhaps three. as much as you wan to make somebody to follow a "order of how to the game should be played according to fugitive" and i am just mentioning fugitive just for the heck of argument. try to understand that most players just want to have a good time for an hour or two.
have you been in the middle of a furball and look at the names in the furball and realize that most of them are actually long time players? they arent noobs that just log in the day before. these are players that have 1 year to more and longer and just want to get into a a fun fight before they log off.
what most guys fail to realize is that it isnt just the guys who joined two weeks ago in the "horde" and I call that in loose terms (spell check doesnt work after 8 beers) but guys who have been in the game waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy longer than that.
so how do I know that? well mostly because when I am for/against the horde who kills me or I kill are mostly players that have been around for more than a couple of months.
some players that have been around for 5 or 6 years or longer love to say that only noobs fly in "hordes" but the truth is that "noobs" just follow the more experienced players into the "hordes" and if you look at the hordes you will see that just as many "noobs" as "long time players" are in the mix.
which brings back to the original question. do people fly in the "hordes" because they dont know better or just because they know there will be "another horde" waiting for them
semp
-
If someone just wants to "shoot, laugh and have a good time" then what I am proposing will have no effect on how they play whatsoever. It is only people who care about score that it will affect and they will either adjust their tactics to the new score system or simply score less highly than they did before.
-
If someone just wants to "shoot, laugh and have a good time" then what I am proposing will have no effect on how they play whatsoever. It is only people who care about score that it will affect and they will either adjust their tactics to the new score system or simply score less highly than they did before.
I would rather have friendly fire turned on in the MA and penalize people for shooting down allies by both lowering their score and deducting a large number of perk points. Those who make a real habit of this (Such as people who might decide to shoot down allies for fun.) would be removed from the game. Plenty of other games have friendly fire and it works fine except for some occasional annoyance. It's not difficult to out-fly or escape from multiple cons but it's much less likely when you turn around and see 5+ late war uber-planes wiggling their rudders and spraying cannon over one another. I figure the horde will eventually self regulate and stop doing things like this, or they'll all shoot each other down. Problem solved.
-
All I am trying to achieve from this is to give an incentive to score-driven players to engage more often in situations which are not a surefire win for them.
Why? What's to be gained for HTC as a business, and what's to be gained for players?
-
Why? What's to be gained for HTC as a business, and what's to be gained for players?
he's trying to give players a reason to fight the horde and bring balance to the MA.
"Hey look he's got an idea lets flame him!!!"
-
he's trying to give players a reason to fight the horde and bring balance to the MA.
"Hey look he's got an idea lets flame him!!!"
Okay understand the first part of what you write. I've flown since 2002, and I don't know what "balance" in the MA would look like. Unless you mean all countries having roughly the same # of players in flight at roughly the same time.
-
Getting off-topic :) I just want to fix off-peak not the game .
SMALL MAPS !!!!
-
Okay understand the first part of what you write. I've flown since 2002, and I don't know what "balance" in the MA would look like. Unless you mean all countries having roughly the same # of players in flight at roughly the same time.
Balance would be group of players fighting each other 24/24, not avoiding each other to capture undefended fields like we see nowadays.
+1 to small maps
-
My only problem with coming back is the fact I remember the past 10 times I quit and came back - nothing changed, its tough to spend $15 only to fly FSO or scenarios. The 12 hour change really doesn't help the fact If I hop once and the fight dies, I am through for the day.
Right now it looks like I might want to invest $100 into the new IL-2 sturmovik game
/before someone considers this a whine or bashing Aces - its far from it, I had good and bad memories in every game, Aces is one of the very few I hung around for 10 years, only Falcon 4 and some games like Panzer General, Bombing the Reich have I stayed around for that long.
-
Butcher, don't think your post a whine at all.
I know nothing about IL2. What does $100 buy you?
-
Butcher, don't think your post a whine at all.
I know nothing about IL2. What does $100 buy you?
http://il2sturmovik.com/ (http://il2sturmovik.com/) Look at some of the video's, the graphics and gameplay so far are "stellar". only problem is its goign to take a while to finish up, as right now there are no guns supposeably.
-
Sorry Redd, I'll stop hijacking the thread.
-
I think HTC should go back to the daily arena change they had during the split MA times. Instead, have the US prime arena switch to the EURO prime arena daily. Euro arena can have only small maps and this way the battle continues on a EURO map, but when the numbers go up for US they can run any map.
Greebo didn't knock this thread off track, Semp did with his usual head in the ground type posts. I think Greebos idea has merit and could help too. Adding the multiplier will encourage those that play for score to use those times where there is an unbalance to fight. It won't effect play in a head to head furball as both sides are more even and so a multiplier won't come into effect. It also won't effect the beer drinking, crap shooting crowd as they don't care about score. If they are hiding in a horde they may have a few more "score" minded people diving on them, but I don't think it would be enough to crush a horde. In a low number arena the threshold will be reach quicker like ENY does now and so may bring more people looking to tweak their score to fight in those low number situations as well.
-
Getting off-topic :) I just want to fix off-peak not the game .
SMALL MAPS !!!!
-
for example today at a81/a85/p67 area there was horde against horde. and if anybody from either side says that they were just holding back the horde I'll call them a lier to their face. it was one gigantic furball that was fun for a great deal of people. if you had wanted to break up that back and forth "hode/furball" it wouldnt have been as fun for most of them who were there.
That just sounds like an old fashioned furball.
It's only a horde if there's little to no opposition so technically, a horde vs horde battle can't exist.
-
That just sounds like an old fashioned furball.
It's only a horde if there's little to no opposition so technically, a horde vs horde battle can't exist.
I agree, to me a horde is an overwhelming group vs no defenders at all or very little - its not because one country can't defend, its they are probably facing 2vs1 at that point and can't spare vs dozens of attackers against undefended bases.
Furball is two large groups against each other.
-
nerf ther field ak so people can do what they came to do and fight planes! :old:
-
Balance would be group of players fighting each other 24/24, not avoiding each other to capture undefended fields like we see nowadays.
+1 to small maps
how would you accomplish that? dont you think that if people want to fight somebody else they would do it? for example yesterday there was a bf-109 high above the furball at about 15k. I started climbing to him as he tried to pick another guy that was around 12k, when he ran out of altitude he "extended" really fast. he came back a few minutes later at 17k by then I was at 15k. he again pulled back out of icon range and came back at 20k. by then I was like forget it, he just wants easy kills. so I went back down to the furball at sea level. he 109 stayed high above all picking those unaware.
so here comes the question, who are we to try to force that 109 to play according to what we think the game should be played? if he wants to avoid and just pick then that's the way it is. if people want to milk towns only from 40k then let them. they pay their damn 15 bucks to play according to how they wish to have fun.
ah has it right. it is dangerous to try to force people to play the way they dont want to play for one reason only, they will quit. like I said before, look around at any furball or horde and you will see that most of them are long time players and not guys who have been around for a month or two here.
the thing about people playing late at night is some just want to milk run in either gv's or buffs while others want to fight. and some come here whining that there isnt any fights late at night instead of asking on 200 if anybody is willing to fight somewhere. what makes you guys think that those that are milk running are actually gonna stay if you force them to do something they dont want to do? the irony is that if they are forced to fight, they may just log you will be back here in a few weeks complaining that "there used to be 50 players online but now we only have 5".
semp
-
how would you accomplish that? dont you think that if people want to fight somebody else they would do it? for example yesterday there was a bf-109 high above the furball at about 15k. I started climbing to him as he tried to pick another guy that was around 12k, when he ran out of altitude he "extended" really fast. he came back a few minutes later at 17k by then I was at 15k. he again pulled back out of icon range and came back at 20k. by then I was like forget it, he just wants easy kills. so I went back down to the furball at sea level. he 109 stayed high above all picking those unaware.
so here comes the question, who are we to try to force that 109 to play according to what we think the game should be played? if he wants to avoid and just pick then that's the way it is. if people want to milk towns only from 40k then let them. they pay their damn 15 bucks to play according to how they wish to have fun.
ah has it right. it is dangerous to try to force people to play the way they dont want to play for one reason only, they will quit. like I said before, look around at any furball or horde and you will see that most of them are long time players and not guys who have been around for a month or two here.
the thing about people playing late at night is some just want to milk run in either gv's or buffs while others want to fight. and some come here whining that there isnt any fights late at night instead of asking on 200 if anybody is willing to fight somewhere. what makes you guys think that those that are milk running are actually gonna stay if you force them to do something they dont want to do? the irony is that if they are forced to fight, they may just log you will be back here in a few weeks complaining that "there used to be 50 players online but now we only have 5".
semp
I don't think any one is talking about FORCING anyone to do anything they don't want. What people are suggesting is making things more advantageous to play a different way. You want to horde, go ahead, but if you try taking bases with a smaller group it is easier. You want to pick above a crowd, go ahead but you get a better score if you fight the horde instead of being part of the horde and picking from above.
Nobody is trying to force any one to do anything, nor take anything away from anyone. Just giving people more options.
-
I don't think any one is talking about FORCING anyone to do anything they don't want. What people are suggesting is making things more advantageous to play a different way. You want to horde, go ahead, but if you try taking bases with a smaller group it is easier. You want to pick above a crowd, go ahead but you get a better score if you fight the horde instead of being part of the horde and picking from above.
Nobody is trying to force any one to do anything, nor take anything away from anyone. Just giving people more options.
no options have been given that will give an advantage over what we have now. and what exactly will the score do for me? will it give me better planes? more rockets? other than take command of a cv, score is meaningless in this game except for those who like to talk about their "skill".
some of the ideas proposed to "fight hordes" are funny as hell. for example the give more perks to fight up and defend the base to "fight the horde".
just some quick things that I see as funny.
-who gets the most perks? the first one to up? what about the second and 3rd who up to defend?
-what if 20 guys up trying to get the extra perks then realize nobody is going to get them? there's gotta be a cap othewise everybody will just get perks for upping.
-in the point above will the first couple of guys who upped then come back to post about how some dweebs are ruining their extra perks?
-will there be calls on country chanel asking people not to up because there's already 5 defending and you will ruin their perks?
-wont the extra perks actually contribute to even less people defending so as not to ruin other people's extra perks?
which will bring you back to people posting threads about how so and so is ruining the game by talking crap to others who up and ruined their "extra" perks.
you guys need to think a bit more about how your "change for the better" may turn into a "change for the worst".
semp
-
nerf ther field ak so people can do what they came to do and fight planes! :old:
-
As this game has evolved with more mechanisms added on to the burden of base taking and wining the map. We have become more large group centric and stagnant by the growth of the complexity to fight and have fun. Or even what the definition of a fun fight is anymore.
Furballs are group affairs with many not engaging into the fight until they are above 12k and have the comfort of a flock to reduce their personal risk. In many cases lately it's not worth the trouble to engage unless you bring some help. Even if you do, I've observed a new phenomenon that there always seems to be the second or third wave higher up your group didn't account for. It's not worth attempting to return at higher alts to try and furball with the high groups. They just go higher with a second wave higher still.
I'm not sure what has happened to base captures. Only a few years ago we captured many more in an evening than we do now. Today the complexity of the mechanisms have hoards stalled around the maps not accomplishing anything other than using up their evening with no guarantee of achieving objectives that seemed possible a few hours earlier. Stalled achievements directly impact what a person measures as fun. You can make any game just one tooth too many to be pulled, and players stop thinking the effort is worth the reward.
I know we are in a low economic era. I wonder still, how many canceled subscriptions were due to not perceiving enough fun for the amount of effort wasted in the small amount of time each evening they had for the game. Not every one wants to play RISK when all they want to do is have fun for a few hours.
Too many of the solutions from our more enlightened strategists are some form of changing the MA game more RISK centric. Even FSO centric. Most customers are paying for a few hours of mindless fun who play in the MA. Didn't Hitech just recently mention something about players won't use things in the game if they are too complex? So what happens when the game becomes too complex?
-
Too many of the solutions from our more enlightened strategists are some form of changing the MA game more RISK centric. Even FSO centric. Most customers are paying for a few hours of mindless fun who play in the MA. Didn't Hitech just recently mention something about players won't use things in the game if they are too complex? So what happens when the game becomes too complex?
War in the Pacific admirals edition is one of the most complex games on the market with a great following and fan base. Some people find "War thunder" a nice little arcade game, but still some people prefer more complexity and realism. Some games go all out while other games like war thunder anyone with a mouse can do just fine. Its apples to oranges in my experience to find a gap between the two, Aces high does play out both to a degree.
Falcon 4 had quite a few squadrons that flew 110% realism, I flew it for years on end - I knew hundreds of pilots did as well. Most really just don't take the time to learn that complexity and call it a quit after one sortie.
-
Sorry Redd, I'll stop hijacking the thread.
Greebo , you can do whatever you want , (a) you fly a Hellcat and (b) I still owe you for all the awesome skins of yours I use ;)
-
no options have been given that will give an advantage over what we have now. and what exactly will the score do for me? will it give me better planes? more rockets? other than take command of a cv, score is meaningless in this game except for those who like to talk about their "skill".
Who cares what it does for you? You have already stated you like to just login drink beer and hang with buddies. None of these suggest should or would effect you. It's not ALWAYS about you.
some of the ideas proposed to "fight hordes" are funny as hell. for example the give more perks to fight up and defend the base to "fight the horde".
just some quick things that I see as funny.
-who gets the most perks? the first one to up? what about the second and 3rd who up to defend?
-what if 20 guys up trying to get the extra perks then realize nobody is going to get them? there's gotta be a cap othewise everybody will just get perks for upping.
-in the point above will the first couple of guys who upped then come back to post about how some dweebs are ruining their extra perks?
-will there be calls on country chanel asking people not to up because there's already 5 defending and you will ruin their perks?
-wont the extra perks actually contribute to even less people defending so as not to ruin other people's extra perks?
which will bring you back to people posting threads about how so and so is ruining the game by talking crap to others who up and ruined their "extra" perks.
Once up the multiplier is figured much like the perk cost is figured. At that point it wouldn't matter who else ups. On top of that upping against the odds also means you will most likely not last long enough for that multiplier to be enforce very long and when reupping you would get a new multiplier.
you guys need to think a bit more about how your "change for the better" may turn into a "change for the worst".
semp
At least we are thinking, you just ignore whats right in front of your face and post accordingly.
-
Redd - good post mate.
Smaller maps fix the problem. I'm not sure as to why the small map rotations were stopped a couple of years ago. That the smaller map kicked in our evening forced crew to fight. Even with 50 people you could find a decent fight.
That being said, sometimes just one v one is the one you chase.
Though as we both saw last night, you and I were only trying to "Spitdweeb" around and the problem was runners not numbers.
Cheers
-
Who cares what it does for you? You have already stated you like to just login drink beer and hang with buddies. None of these suggest should or would effect you. It's not ALWAYS about you.
Once up the multiplier is figured much like the perk cost is figured. At that point it wouldn't matter who else ups. On top of that upping against the odds also means you will most likely not last long enough for that multiplier to be enforce very long and when reupping you would get a new multiplier.
At least we are thinking, you just ignore whats right in front of your face and post accordingly.
we arent at war and this game doesnt affect the world around us. so it is always about me just the same as it is always about you. if it wasnt, neither one of us would be paying 15 bucks a month.
semp
-
we arent at war and this game doesnt affect the world around us. so it is always about me just the same as it is always about you. if it wasnt, neither one of us would be paying 15 bucks a month.
semp
(http://www.getbullish.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/ostrich-head-in-sand.jpg)
-
(http://www.getbullish.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/ostrich-head-in-sand.jpg)
LOL!!!! :aok
-
(http://www.getbullish.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/ostrich-head-in-sand.jpg)
greatest complement you can give, if you cant actually contradict a point then you resort to personal attacks :salute.
semp
-
greatest complement you can give, if you cant actually contradict a point then you resort to personal attacks :salute.
semp
At least his comment made sense, yours..... not so much
-
greatest complement you can give, if you cant actually contradict a point then you resort to personal attacks :salute.
semp
You make it sound as though I have said something unpleasant about your mother.. If my amusing photograph (Which I feel perfectly illustrates your responses.) has hurt your sensitive feelings I apologize.
Every single time somebody starts a thread suggesting changes you pop up with essentially "Game is fine, nothing wrong. If you aren't having fun quit.", when clearly numbers have dropped enough that a lot of us who are left are concerned about it. I think the new terrain engine is amazing and I think it will lure some new players into the game and hopefully bring some of the old ones back. But I also think that without changes to the game mechanics the terrain engine is just eyecandy and that will only distract players from the things that have caused them to leave the game for so long.
-
I think its a bit late for the "don't like the game, leave it!!!", as people now are actually leaving...
I think the off hours map switch should be put in action again, with only small maps for off hours, even if it means playing on 13 years old maps.
-
Every single time somebody starts a thread suggesting changes you pop up with essentially "Game is fine, nothing wrong. If you aren't having fun quit.", when clearly numbers have dropped enough that a lot of us who are left are concerned about it.
But what's the problem? Clearly people have just followed semps advice so there's no real problem. Right? :rolleyes:
-
as people now are actually leaving
In this thread as well as a few others, the way folks talk would leave one to believe that subscriptions are declining. I have no way to know if that be true or false. I suppose those also who write the same have no way to know either.
Since we're not privy to HTC's subscription rate, why would anyone bother to guess?
-
In this thread as well as a few others, the way folks talk would leave one to believe that subscriptions are declining. I have no way to know if that be true or false. I suppose those also who write the same have no way to know either.
Since we're not privy to HTC's subscription rate, why would anyone bother to guess?
It is easy enough to see. At one time we had over 600 people flying prime time US which brought HTC to the split main arenas. Now we have trouble hitting the "max" number the split arenas had but on a single arena. Look at the scores. If you did capture a single base you would be tied with all the other players that didn't capture a base and that number use to be in the 5000 area. Now its in the 3000 area. There can't be THAT many more people tied that the number would drop that much, so you can be pretty sure that again, the numbers are dropping.
As to the "why", only HTC really knows and that is only if the players leaving answer the exit questionnaire.
-
In this thread as well as a few others, the way folks talk would leave one to believe that subscriptions are declining. I have no way to know if that be true or false.
Everybody here for some time can compare the number of player's online now & then (especially when you keep notes ;)), which is actually more of interest for us players and the gameplay than the 'number of subscribers' - the latter thing is a business matter.
You can also see on the stats page the number of kills and deaths per tour, which is mainly a result of player numbers. Furthermore, the stats page give you the number of players in each plane... and last you can simply look at the lowest rank numbers.
Years ago the lowest number of players at off peak time has been around 100. These days they occasionally drop below 40.
-
If you did capture a single base you would be tied with all the other players that didn't capture a base and that number use to be in the 5000 area. Now its in the 3000 area.
Simply look at the rank number for any player in 'base captures' in attack mode to see the relative change, as nobody will get any.
-
I dont agree so much with this,if all 20 people playing are on the same side and sitting in the tower because the other country is empty,i think plenty will side balance like so often happens in MidWar.
Just did one of my rare forays into MW:
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/blob_zpsfc904b39.jpg)
Was totally reminded of old EW, both in overall number as well as the high number country was walking as a single force over the map, with no way to really engage them as a single pilot. If you really are that great to stop them 1 vs 5-10 (hardly possible), they will strike just elsewhere.
Got a feel of history repeating. ;)
-
An idea I've put forward a few times is to reward players for fighting while outnumbered. Every time a player scores a kill a score multiplier would be applied based on the number of red and green icons visible at the time. So more red than green = higher score and vice versa. This punishes those who hide in hordes picking and rewards those who up to defend a field from a horde. It gives the score-obsessed a reason to engage a more numerous enemy and so should mean more combat for everyone.
This idea is amazing.... I am usually surrounded by 3-6 red planes in my Stuka I get one or 2 of them and maybe a tank or 2 but one of them usually gets me in the end.
-
Just did one of my rare forays into MW:
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/blob_zpsfc904b39.jpg)
Was totally reminded of old EW, both in overall number as well as the high number country was walking as a single force over the map, with no way to really engage them as a single pilot. If you really are that great to stop them 1 vs 5-10 (hardly possible), they will strike just elsewhere.
Got a feel of history repeating. ;)
Like i already stated ,that's where milk runners go,and i can go in later or at anytime to prove my points as numbers are dynamic. And btw i have stoped 5 and more of em..ask the FF's about me. :neener:
-
You make it sound as though I have said something unpleasant about your mother.. If my amusing photograph (Which I feel perfectly illustrates your responses.) has hurt your sensitive feelings I apologize.
Every single time somebody starts a thread suggesting changes you pop up with essentially "Game is fine, nothing wrong. If you aren't having fun quit.", when clearly numbers have dropped enough that a lot of us who are left are concerned about it. I think the new terrain engine is amazing and I think it will lure some new players into the game and hopefully bring some of the old ones back. But I also think that without changes to the game mechanics the terrain engine is just eyecandy and that will only distract players from the things that have caused them to leave the game for so long.
that's because most ideas are not very well thought out and people dont actually see that perhaps the change wont be for the better. for example this one about giving extra perks to those who up to defend against a "horde". when you first look at it it sounds like a great idea. but then when you really think about the specifics about how it will or should be implemented then you realize that it may actually be bad for the game.
for example yesterday we had some really cool furballs around 3 or 4 bases in the northwest corner (cant remember the map). we kept pushing their fights all the way back to their base furballing the full way till vulch time then they would push us back to our base then vulching back, it was awesome. at which point would you consider giving extra perks in this situation? if somebody ups to defend before they enter they dar circle does that mean he wont get extra perks? so some lucky guy that ups 3 seconds after he does will? why? wont the first guy get mad about how the game is stupid as he didnt get extra perks and comes post a thread that he's quitting.
and how do you expect the definition of a horde to be coaded? if there's a furball of 20 against 20 and one side kills 18 while losing 5 does that mean it is now a "horde" because it is 15 v 2? so the next guy that ups will get extra perks but what about them two guys? or the other 18 that were defending? why should the lucky guy get extra perks for doing nothing other than just waiting in the tower to up at the right time?
wont the other 20 players that were defending get upset? wont it make some people just wait in the tower for the right time to up?
semp
-
that's because most ideas are not very well thought out and people dont actually see that perhaps the change wont be for the better. for example this one about giving extra perks to those who up to defend against a "horde". when you first look at it it sounds like a great idea. but then when you really think about the specifics about how it will or should be implemented then you realize that it may actually be bad for the game.
for example yesterday we had some really cool furballs around 3 or 4 bases in the northwest corner (cant remember the map). we kept pushing their fights all the way back to their base furballing the full way till vulch time then they would push us back to our base then vulching back, it was awesome. at which point would you consider giving extra perks in this situation? if somebody ups to defend before they enter they dar circle does that mean he wont get extra perks? so some lucky guy that ups 3 seconds after he does will? why? wont the first guy get mad about how the game is stupid as he didnt get extra perks and comes post a thread that he's quitting.
and how do you expect the definition of a horde to be coaded? if there's a furball of 20 against 20 and one side kills 18 while losing 5 does that mean it is now a "horde" because it is 15 v 2? so the next guy that ups will get extra perks but what about them two guys? or the other 18 that were defending? why should the lucky guy get extra perks for doing nothing other than just waiting in the tower to up at the right time?
wont the other 20 players that were defending get upset? wont it make some people just wait in the tower for the right time to up?
semp
No, you would just get mad because you wouldn't get much any points by riding with the horde. And this is how it should be. It would take immediately away the incentive of hording, only noobs would flock in large numbers as a crutch and anyone interested in score would pick even fights instead. Score multiplier could be had also with scoring kills in early war birds vs late war. The eny multiplier and perks are not strong enough, a single kill on C202 should score the same as 10 kills in a tempest.
-
and how do you expect the definition of a horde to be coaded?
simple, just a perk point multiplier based on enemy / friendlies in range. 10 enemy vs 10 friendly = perks*1.0, 10 enemy vs 5 friendly = perks*2.0, 10 enemy vs 1 friendly = perks*10.0, 1 enemy vs 10 friendly (horde), perks*0.1
etc.
of course it could be tweaked (10x might be a bit excessive)..
-
simple, just a perk point multiplier based on enemy / friendlies in range. 10 enemy vs 10 friendly = perks*1.0, 10 enemy vs 5 friendly = perks*2.0, 10 enemy vs 1 friendly = perks*10.0, 1 enemy vs 10 friendly (horde), perks*0.1
etc.
of course it could be tweaked (10x might be a bit excessive)..
Not necessarily. The multiplier should be made so that it REALLY hurts your score to horde. Basically a base capture on a milk run with no defenders would yield you close to zero score. The score would actually be zero unless there were the acks defending the field :D
-
What's the goal of these ideas: eliminate the possibility of a bunch of guys flying together to take a base?
-
What's the goal of these ideas: eliminate the possibility of a bunch of guys flying together to take a base?
No, eliminating unfair gameplay. Most games have 'auto balancers' to prevent all dweebs from joining the larger side in order to rape the smaller side repeatedly untill they decide to quit. The plane point multiplier would be an incentive for players to use early war birds in order to gain score faster. It would balance the game field because 'pro' players would use EW birds for large score gains as they have skills to kill the noobs in the super planes. The noobs then again would need to use the super planes just to survive untill they learn to play good enough to survive with early war birds and gain some real score.
If the scoring would be jilted in a way that the only way to achieve nr 1 rank would be to play using a challenging plane it would both even up the learning curve and add usage to the planeset.
-
Like i already stated ,that's where milk runners go,and i can go in later or at anytime to prove my points as numbers are dynamic. And btw i have stoped 5 and more of em..ask the FF's about me. :neener:
I can only go there now due to the lag I get in the main arena. Other than that is 1 v 1s in the DA :cry
While I agree some go into EW/MW for perk farming. Others don't.
-
Another thread with plenty of good suggestions (SMALL MAPS!) getting buried beneath the bad ones, and semp's usual idiocy...
...that will be completely ignored by HTC
:bhead
-
that's because most ideas are not very well thought out and people dont actually see that perhaps the change wont be for the better. for example this one about giving extra perks to those who up to defend against a "horde". when you first look at it it sounds like a great idea. but then when you really think about the specifics about how it will or should be implemented then you realize that it may actually be bad for the game.
for example yesterday we had some really cool furballs around 3 or 4 bases in the northwest corner (cant remember the map). we kept pushing their fights all the way back to their base furballing the full way till vulch time then they would push us back to our base then vulching back, it was awesome. at which point would you consider giving extra perks in this situation? if somebody ups to defend before they enter they dar circle does that mean he wont get extra perks? so some lucky guy that ups 3 seconds after he does will? why? wont the first guy get mad about how the game is stupid as he didnt get extra perks and comes post a thread that he's quitting.
and how do you expect the definition of a horde to be coaded? if there's a furball of 20 against 20 and one side kills 18 while losing 5 does that mean it is now a "horde" because it is 15 v 2? so the next guy that ups will get extra perks but what about them two guys? or the other 18 that were defending? why should the lucky guy get extra perks for doing nothing other than just waiting in the tower to up at the right time?
wont the other 20 players that were defending get upset? wont it make some people just wait in the tower for the right time to up?
semp
So just because you don't know/understand how the points/perks would be awarded its a bad idea? :rolleyes:
simple, just a perk point multiplier based on enemy / friendlies in range. 10 enemy vs 10 friendly = perks*1.0, 10 enemy vs 5 friendly = perks*2.0, 10 enemy vs 1 friendly = perks*10.0, 1 enemy vs 10 friendly (horde), perks*0.1
etc.
of course it could be tweaked (10x might be a bit excessive)..
...and it would be figured like the perk price/multiplier when you launch. It wouldn't change as the situation changes while your in the air. You launch with even numbers you don't get any multiplier. But lose 75% of your force IF you reup after you land/die you now get a multiplier because your outnumbered.
What's the goal of these ideas: eliminate the possibility of a bunch of guys flying together to take a base?
Not eliminate it, but either make it harder for a larger force to accomplish it's goal, or give more incentive to defend/fight against such a large force.
-
MA off peak is dying. This isn't about hordes etc. it is about a critical mass of players that is required for the game to transcend. It may well be that the terrains available now work well with over 100 players but lousy with less. Is there a population number below which you won't bother logging on? Do you think some combination of smaller terrains, easier or harder base capture, two country arena, shut down of all other arenas, in the off peak or when total population numbers pass below a trigger, basically densification of the battle sphere, would improve the experience of playing with a low head count?
-
MA off peak is dying. This isn't about hordes etc. it is about a critical mass of players that is required for the game to transcend. It may well be that the terrains available now work well with over 100 players but lousy with less. Is there a population number below which you won't bother logging on? Do you think some combination of smaller terrains, easier or harder base capture, two country arena, shut down of all other arenas, in the off peak or when total population numbers pass below a trigger, basically densification of the battle sphere, would improve the experience of playing with a low head count?
Me being euro I can tell you this: It's bad enough to have low numbers when you log on off-peak. But to have the numbers 50-20-10 really makes gameplay pointless for the side which happens to be the 10 and largely also to the side that is the 20. The 50 horde mindlessly steamrolling fields fighting mostly auto ack while the low numbered players either spend 30 minutes climbing for each sortie and eventually get picked or simply give up and move to gv or field guns. The stupidest part is that it's not even fun for the 50 anymore with so little targets to shoot at. But hey, it makes for a great k/d stat when you always have 10 friends wiping your tail, doesn't it?
The lower the numbers, the higher the impact of hordeing is.
-
The lower the numbers, the higher the impact of hordeing is.
Now this is one thing I fully agree with you :)
And the lower total numbers are, the higher the chances are that they are totally lopsided.
-
Now this is one thing I fully agree with you :)
And the lower total numbers are, the higher the chances are that they are totally lopsided.
Cool, so you may see where I'm coming from with my silly ideas on making carrot/stick incentives for players to balance the playing field.
-
No, you would just get mad because you wouldn't get much any points by riding with the horde. And this is how it should be. It would take immediately away the incentive of hording, only noobs would flock in large numbers as a crutch and anyone interested in score would pick even fights instead. Score multiplier could be had also with scoring kills in early war birds vs late war. The eny multiplier and perks are not strong enough, a single kill on C202 should score the same as 10 kills in a tempest.
lol, I fly a pony which gives me like 1 perk point for every 20 kills. I couldnt care less about the perks, I got thousands that I dont use as I dont fly perk planes or gv's. so perks are useless for me. same goes for score points. if I really care about score, I wouldnt auger so much just because it's faster than landing the plane to go somewhere else.
btw ripley anybody interested in score will never pick even fights. you dont get to be #1 rank by actually fighting every single time. you get it by picking and vulching. pick any category and you will only be #1 rank if you avoid fights.
semp
-
Cool, so you may see where I'm coming from with my silly ideas on making carrot/stick incentives for players to balance the playing field.
Oh, I fully see where you are coming from, I just don't see most ideas in this thread work very well ;)
But of course, it doesn't matter, as there's only one guy any of you will have to convince... and that's not me :old:
-
MA off peak is dying. This isn't about hordes etc. it is about a critical mass of players that is required for the game to transcend. It may well be that the terrains available now work well with over 100 players but lousy with less. Is there a population number below which you won't bother logging on? Do you think some combination of smaller terrains, easier or harder base capture, two country arena, shut down of all other arenas, in the off peak or when total population numbers pass below a trigger, basically densification of the battle sphere, would improve the experience of playing with a low head count?
whats used to control horde prime time US will help control them prime time Euro. Like MrRipley said 50-20-10 the 50 is STILL a horde. I think the easiest and quickest thing would be going back to the arena switch each day like when we had the split arenas. Using only the smaller maps for Euro time would help playability, but be a bit of a bummer as they would have fewer maps to "roll" through :devil
lol, I fly a pony which gives me like 1 perk point for every 20 kills. I couldnt care less about the perks, I got thousands that I dont use as I dont fly perk planes or gv's. so perks are useless for me. same goes for score points. if I really care about score, I wouldnt auger so much just because it's faster than landing the plane to go somewhere else.
btw ripley anybody interested in score will never pick even fights. you dont get to be #1 rank by actually fighting every single time. you get it by picking and vulching. pick any category and you will only be #1 rank if you avoid fights.
semp
Again, it's not about you! We all know your very happy with your head in the sand drinking beer and shooting the crap with your buddies. This pertains to the other players who are seeing an issue with game imbalances.
Oh, I fully see where you are coming from, I just don't see most ideas in this thread work very well ;)
But of course, it doesn't matter, as there's only one guy any of you will have to convince... and that's not me :old:
Maybe these ideas aren't the best, but it may spark an idea to that one person that you are referring to. ;)
-
Maybe these ideas aren't the best, but it may spark an idea to that one person that you are referring to. ;)
so why is it wrong when I give you some reasons why it wouldnt work so you can go back to rethink and come up with a better idea?
semp
-
that's because most ideas are not very well thought out and people dont actually see that perhaps the change wont be for the better. for example this one about giving extra perks to those who up to defend against a "horde". when you first look at it it sounds like a great idea. but then when you really think about the specifics about how it will or should be implemented then you realize that it may actually be bad for the game.
for example yesterday we had some really cool furballs around 3 or 4 bases in the northwest corner (cant remember the map). we kept pushing their fights all the way back to their base furballing the full way till vulch time then they would push us back to our base then vulching back, it was awesome. at which point would you consider giving extra perks in this situation? if somebody ups to defend before they enter they dar circle does that mean he wont get extra perks? so some lucky guy that ups 3 seconds after he does will? why? wont the first guy get mad about how the game is stupid as he didnt get extra perks and comes post a thread that he's quitting.
and how do you expect the definition of a horde to be coaded? if there's a furball of 20 against 20 and one side kills 18 while losing 5 does that mean it is now a "horde" because it is 15 v 2? so the next guy that ups will get extra perks but what about them two guys? or the other 18 that were defending? why should the lucky guy get extra perks for doing nothing other than just waiting in the tower to up at the right time?
wont the other 20 players that were defending get upset? wont it make some people just wait in the tower for the right time to up?
semp
I'm not saying every idea is perfect, but at least people are thinking. Saying that you dislike an idea is one thing, but you seem to be in denial that there is a problem at all.
-
edit: wrong thread
-
Me being euro I can tell you this: It's bad enough to have low numbers when you log on off-peak. But to have the numbers 50-20-10 really makes gameplay pointless for the side which happens to be the 10 and largely also to the side that is the 20. The 50 horde mindlessly steamrolling fields fighting mostly auto ack while the low numbered players either spend 30 minutes climbing for each sortie and eventually get picked or simply give up and move to gv or field guns. The stupidest part is that it's not even fun for the 50 anymore with so little targets to shoot at. But hey, it makes for a great k/d stat when you always have 10 friends wiping your tail, doesn't it?
The lower the numbers, the higher the impact of hordeing is.
Interesting, I did not realize the dynamic was that bad. It sounds like it devolves into a sort of solitaire, where accomplishing the mission of capturing bases is played against the computer. What effect do you think making bases harder to capture for the bigger side would have? If staged missions worked better do you think they could play a role in balancing numbers when the total population is low?
It seems to me though, that hordeing might be considered a symptom of low numbers that is relieved by an increase in population rather than the cause. I recognize there is probably a negative feedback loop with population decline and it sounds like hordeing is one of the stronger mechanisms at work, and yet it also might be responsible for keeping more rather than less people on below some critical number.
-
lol, I fly a pony which gives me like 1 perk point for every 20 kills. I couldnt care less about the perks, I got thousands that I dont use as I dont fly perk planes or gv's. so perks are useless for me. same goes for score points. if I really care about score, I wouldnt auger so much just because it's faster than landing the plane to go somewhere else.
btw ripley anybody interested in score will never pick even fights. you dont get to be #1 rank by actually fighting every single time. you get it by picking and vulching. pick any category and you will only be #1 rank if you avoid fights.
semp
If a C202 kill will land you 100x points it will mean that people will pwn any easy-mode riders in a jibby.
I know CURRENTLY nobody wants to pick even fights to boost their score. This is why I was suggesting to change the scoring. How come you didn't realize that? LOL.
-
Interesting, I did not realize the dynamic was that bad. It sounds like it devolves into a sort of solitaire, where accomplishing the mission of capturing bases is played against the computer.
Yes exactly, most times I played lately I was asking the opfor why don't they log off and play offline if they want to fight auto ack with no opposition. Completely senseless and stupid.
-
lol, I fly a pony which gives me like 1 perk point for every 20 kills. I couldnt care less about the perks, I got thousands that I dont use as I dont fly perk planes or gv's. so perks are useless for me. same goes for score points. if I really care about score, I wouldnt auger so much just because it's faster than landing the plane to go somewhere else.
btw ripley anybody interested in score will never pick even fights. you dont get to be #1 rank by actually fighting every single time. you get it by picking and vulching. pick any category and you will only be #1 rank if you avoid fights.
semp
Well said Semp. I fly exclusively both variants of the pony and I'll never be even top 100 because I'll chase that running rabbit right through his ack and under his twenty foaming at the mouth friends above. I do enjoy the angry pms I get from top 100 types after I've smoked them. So many egos it's funny and a little sad. In fact when I was last on I had one guy angrily accuse me of pulling my cables to avoid a shootdown. Whatever the heck that means.
-
I think the impact of score on gameplay tends to be significantly overrated. Folks don't horde and grab bases for score, especially not in fighters. Competing with 20 other guys for a single kill doesn't really help your score.
It's just like ENY limits generally never made a significant number of players switch to the outnumbered side (not even when it was 1h), even though they complain a lot about not being able to fly 'their' ride. At worst (best?) they just log off instead or stay in tower waiting for someone else to log.
For many players, contributing to a base capture is their main (and sometimes only) way to get a small share of "victory". They often have little means of winning any other way (Most folks that complain here about hording are way above the average pilot in skill level.) A battle for base that doesn't end with a capture is a lost battle. Flying together increases their chance for a victory. Winning the war is the ultimate victory. Kinda easy to say they should cherish the fight and not the grab when you are not the one dying 9 out of 10 times in regular, 'noble' combat ;)
And defending the base just does not give them the same feel of accomplishment. No big fanfare telling everybody "A44 has been defended by Rooks". Furthermore, defending is reactive, and ppl want to have the initiative. That's why you never read "I'm tired of capturing bases, who wants to defend one with me?", but frequently the opposite.
It's mostly about psychology, and relatively little about score or perks...
-
I'm not saying every idea is perfect, but at least people are thinking. Saying that you dislike an idea is one thing, but you seem to be in denial that there is a problem at all.
I never said I disliked the idea. but the idea without specifics is just a brain fart. people need to really think about specifics and how it will affect the game for all. I have pointed out some reasons why that is a bad idea. you want to look at another idea? ripley's idea of making the c202 give you 100x points. do you really think that it's gonna make people up swarms of ew, mw planes in the ma just because it gives you more points? cause I have some land in the ew and mw arena to sell you. you already get more points for upping ew and mw planes anyway.
semp
-
Yes exactly, most times I played lately I was asking the opfor why don't they log off and play offline if they want to fight auto ack with no opposition. Completely senseless and stupid.
Did they answer? I don't think I would call it senseless it's just a different card game that you would find boring. I'm guessing that it is socially rewarding to work together even if the opposition is close to non existent. I'm not saying its good for game play over all but I think it is a valid way for people to entertain themselves.
-
I'm guessing that it is socially rewarding to work together even if the opposition is close to non existent. I'm not saying its good for game play over all but I think it is a valid way for people to entertain themselves.
Firstly, for those around the world where their prime time is the dead of night in America, the best idea in my addled mind to increase the fun for their prime time hours is to recruit amongst their friends to subscribe to AH.
Secondly, it seems to me that "game play" as used in Pembquist's sentence is . . . is . . . well I don't know what to call it. I understand entirely what "to work together" means.
So what is "game play?"
-
Did they answer? I don't think I would call it senseless it's just a different card game that you would find boring. I'm guessing that it is socially rewarding to work together even if the opposition is close to non existent. I'm not saying its good for game play over all but I think it is a valid way for people to entertain themselves.
That is why hording can't be removed from the game. It would be like taking away GV's it's part of the game now. So how to bring the scales back a bit more level?
I agree with Lusche, scores and perks don't effect ALL people, and for the reasons he stated. I do believe that more people take scores and perks into consideration than they admit and those are some that can be "rewarded" with more by using a C202 or a P40.
Firstly, for those around the world where their prime time is the dead of night in America, the best idea in my addled mind to increase the fun for their prime time hours is to recruit amongst their friends to subscribe to AH.
Secondly, it seems to me that "game play" as used in Pembquist's sentence is . . . is . . . well I don't know what to call it. I understand entirely what "to work together" means.
So what is "game play?"
It's "how" the game is played. Today it is turning more and more towards the only battles you see are hordes rolling bases. A few years ago it was NOE after NOE until HTC changed the DAR. Long ago it was missions like we ran in the Mafia where we had de-ack teams and high alt buff runs hitting 2 and 3 bases at once either to capture or prep for capture. Where planning was paramount to create these great missions we would run on squad nights.
Game play changes as the player base changes. The old days we were into the "history" of it, then came the "kids" running NOE's avoiding all fights, now its the hordes overwhelming the fights. Between the economy and this type of game play that seems to bore the heck out of people quicker after which they move on to another game the numbers are dropping much quicker than they have before.
-
Well, I agree with you Fugitive. I don't think all that many agree with us though.
What this reminds me of is around 2004 the big tool shedder furballer thing when all the changes came down. What I fancy, and might be entirely wrong, is a good number of posters who talk about game play (not you mind you) are looking for the ideal set of circumstances that would create air to air fights that meet their internal wishlist of what "good fights" are. Those posts don't sound like posts from folks who love country tactics and country victory. Again, I could be as wrong as wrong can be, but that how it sets with me.
-
So what is "game play?"
By "game play" I guess I mean the totality of the play experience of all players. If, for instance, you were to take steps to remove the rewards experienced by those described as horders, (such as removing the ability to capture a base,) while you might increase air combat you would diminish game play. A prominent feature of AH is its breadth of game play. It is very much a persistent sandbox with little structure. In my opinion this is the defining characteristic of its game play and I don't think it is appreciated as much as it should be. Despite its challenges I think it affords a broader and therefore superior experience than games that use structured mission based design. The fact that it can encompass structured mission based design, (special events,) while maintaining space for more anarchic activity is an example of what makes it good.
-
you already get more points for upping ew and mw planes anyway.
No, you don't. If you kill someone you get more perks but plane choice has no effect whatsodever on score given the same nuumber of kills in each.
-
I never said I disliked the idea. but the idea without specifics is just a brain fart. people need to really think about specifics and how it will affect the game for all. I have pointed out some reasons why that is a bad idea. you want to look at another idea? ripley's idea of making the c202 give you 100x points. do you really think that it's gonna make people up swarms of ew, mw planes in the ma just because it gives you more points? cause I have some land in the ew and mw arena to sell you. you already get more points for upping ew and mw planes anyway.
semp
As already pointed, EW birds do not give any score multiplier, they only gain you perks faster which alone is obviously not enough of an incentive to use them on wide scale. However if your score would REALLY be dependent on them on a scale of not going anywhere in rank just by flying tempests...
People use lawndarting etc. as it is in order to accumulate points faster. So why wouldn't they gain a score multiplier by fighting in a lesser plane? Late war birds would lose a lot of their appeal if they didn't give you practically any score. And then there would be an easy learning curve towards the more challenging planes (if you want to rank high that is). I'm sure most noobs would want to find out ways to rank higher in the game, using late war birds would leave them at the bottom scores (rightfully so IMO) so they'd quickly learn that in order to step up the score ladder they need to learn to fight with harder planes.
The increased use of EW birds would also turn the game more towards turn&burn instead of 'hover at 20k, zoom for a pick, extend for a sector then return for the next pick' that MA is now.
-
That's what we had in Warbirds and it worked well. With lower numbers three countries is one too many.
and then they would do that stupid four country thing with about three people on each side.
-
It's mostly about psychology, and relatively little about score or perks...
Ok then what about simply adding system messages for towns changing flag color? LIke "A86 town flag is not white anymore!" and award perks to the players in the vinicity? You could argue perks could be easily farmed that way, but you'd have to be near the hot spots to get them.
-
People use lawndarting etc. as it is in order to accumulate points faster.
in other words you have no idea how the score system works :rofl :rofl :rofl
semp
-
in other words you have no idea how the score system works :rofl :rofl :rofl
semp
Probably better than you do. They choose to lawndart instead of flying back to save time, they might get killed on the way back anyway. They get a lot of score even if they suicide.
-
Something I was thinking about after I posted in another thread.
The game is really struggling at the moment in the off-peak hours.With 50 people logged on the MA is not much fun .When you look at country numbers
there are about 30% of people "in flight" . So they are either in gv's or sitting in the tower looking for something to do , or afk.
The usual pattern is a bunch of gv'ers wandering around somewhere , 10 people in buffs bombing strats and undefended fields,
leaving about 6 or 7 people flying fighter planes looking for some sort of fight or engagement.
So what typically happens is I log on - look around the map - see occasional little blips of radar across the map (buffs usually)
so I either log off , fly around for a while bored , or go make a coffee , (1 more sitting in the tower).
I know people whine about the old days all the time , but this didnt happen in the old days because "everyone" was flying a plane.
So I was thinking of a couple of solutions.
1. Numbers in MA hit < 75 , GV's are unavailable.
and/or
2. Numbers in MA <75 , Map switches automatically to a small map (finish the war - give everyone some perks)
This problem at the moment is self-perpetuating , less people in the air = no fights = less people logging on to fly.
I know this will probably sound silly to some an unplalatable to others , but I can't see the numbers heading anywhere but down given where they are at now. At it's heart and soul Aces High has always been about Air Combat , we need some off-peak.
The game used to have a pretty strong community of people outside the US flying in off-peak , along with the shift workers an US night owls , they are dissappearing.
I shall be back in a week to give you those early morning kills against my G wagon redd and my new digital storm comp.
-
I shall be back in a week to give you those early morning kills against my G wagon redd and my new digital storm comp.
Will be good and bad to see you Pawz ;)
Some good fights tonight , couple of handy shades floating about
-
Maybe we should cater to the console crowd with airspawns et al. While Tt on oz kansas provides instant fight for many, it also sucks up numbers to fight the war. When the rooms took all of Tt it seemed the numbers online dropped. What kills me are the guys on 200 bragging about killing a fight, they don't realize by getting people who seek that fight to log .... A lot .... They kill the game. In every ma map there must be places where furball era and gvrs can fight that is not tied to the overall war effort. Make the central v bases on Tt maps uncaptureable. Bring back a fighter town with airspawns.
The solution is not looking at how to retain it is in looking at how to draw.
-
Maybe we should cater to the console crowd with airspawns et al. While Tt on oz kansas provides instant fight for many, it also sucks up numbers to fight the war. When the rooms took all of Tt it seemed the numbers online dropped. What kills me are the guys on 200 bragging about killing a fight, they don't realize by getting people who seek that fight to log .... A lot .... They kill the game. In every ma map there must be places where furball era and gvrs can fight that is not tied to the overall war effort. Make the central v bases on Tt maps uncaptureable. Bring back a fighter town with airspawns.
The solution is not looking at how to retain it is in looking at how to draw.
The current maps aren't designed for airspawn combat. For example smpizza. Even if you had an airspawn into the middle of tanktown, what if one of the enemy airspawn fields were captured? Does that make it so that the nearest airfield of that side becomes an airspawn ? That would make it so the next enemy base would have to be an airspawn to balance it out, otherwise it would give them an 'unfair advantage'.
While I do agree that sometimes it is hard to find combat, and sometimes time consuming to reach a fight only to have it die a few moments after getting there. It wouldn't be beneficial (in my opinion) to have air-spawns in the MA.
Not only that, in order to cater to the console crowd, you would have to make the gameplay much much easier, making the learning curve that of perhaps... walking up stairs with flip flops.
Eh, to be honest, looking at many of the games that have come out for 'this generation' it is sort of a hand-held experience, one way or another. Which isn't something that HTC is known to do (they still don't have a tutorial of basic things for the game that are a necessity to play!). Many games have a simple "press this that and the other to get your character or vehicle to do what you want". Sometimes happening each time you get into the vehicle, or after you respawn (like in Halo 4).
And check out this for anything else.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,356382.0.html
:salute
:cheers:
-
The current maps aren't designed for airspawn combat. For example smpizza. Even if you had an airspawn into the middle of tanktown, what if one of the enemy airspawn fields were captured? Does that make it so that the nearest airfield of that side becomes an airspawn ? That would make it so the next enemy base would have to be an airspawn to balance it out, otherwise it would give them an 'unfair advantage'.
While I do agree that sometimes it is hard to find combat, and sometimes time consuming to reach a fight only to have it die a few moments after getting there. It wouldn't be beneficial (in my opinion) to have air-spawns in the MA.
Not only that, in order to cater to the console crowd, you would have to make the gameplay much much easier, making the learning curve that of perhaps... walking up stairs with flip flops.
Eh, to be honest, looking at many of the games that have come out for 'this generation' it is sort of a hand-held experience, one way or another. Which isn't something that HTC is known to do (they still don't have a tutorial of basic things for the game that are a necessity to play!). Many games have a simple "press this that and the other to get your character or vehicle to do what you want". Sometimes happening each time you get into the vehicle, or after you respawn (like in Halo 4).
And check out this for anything else.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,356382.0.html
:salute
:cheers:
Airspawn GVs on tank town? Make it 10k please :devil
-
We seem to have strayed a bit off-topic. All Redd wants are small maps during off-peak hours which I think is pretty reasonable given the number of players in the EU timezone these days.
-
We seem to have strayed a bit off-topic. All Redd wants are small maps during off-peak hours which I think is pretty reasonable given the number of players in the EU timezone these days.
But you're asking HTC to address a symptom of a larger issue - a shrinking player base. What HTC could do is close the Early and Mid war arenas so that those players would use the AvA - which uses small map in historical match-ups. That way we have two arenas - one suited for after-hours/smaller player base and the MA where hoards of 20 Spits can chase done that lone NIKI. :D
-
But you're asking HTC to address a symptom of a larger issue - a shrinking player base. What HTC could do is close the Early and Mid war arenas so that those players would use the AvA - which uses small map in historical match-ups. That way we have two arenas - one suited for after-hours/smaller player base and the MA where hoards of 20 Spits can chase done that lone NIKI. :D
99% of the guys who fly EW/MW are either there to farm perks, or there because for some reason they want to take bases with no opposition. Most of the time when I go in there I get flamed for being the only guy on one side defending bases. I suspect that if those arenas are shut down they will leave the game rather then go elsewhere. Which is a shame because I love flying in the AvA.
-
99% of the guys who fly EW/MW are either there to farm perks, or there because for some reason they want to take bases with no opposition. Most of the time when I go in there I get flamed for being the only guy on one side defending bases. I suspect that if those arenas are shut down they will leave the game rather then go elsewhere. Which is a shame because I love flying in the AvA.
with my idea anyone could farm perks, while defending
Ok then what about simply adding system messages for towns changing flag color? LIke "A86 town flag is not white anymore!" and award perks to the players in the vinicity? You could argue perks could be easily farmed that way, but you'd have to be near the hot spots to get them.
-
with my idea anyone could farm perks, while defending
What is stopping someone from simply landing within the vicinity of that flag and doing absolutely nothing but chilling watching everyone fight. I am sure someone would do that just to gain easy perks. You have to think in a dweebs perspective.
-
What is stopping someone from simply landing within the vicinity of that flag and doing absolutely nothing but chilling watching everyone fight. I am sure someone would do that just to gain easy perks. You have to think in a dweebs perspective.
Manned acks would be excluded. Also if you are in the vinicity but not protecting the town it might never come white again :old:. And looking at the dweeb's population and it's tendancy to vulch I wouldn't stay on the runway doing nothing when the field is under attack :D
-
The solution is not looking at how to retain it is in looking at how to draw.
There is a lot of truth in this but I don't think its an either or. More numbers would make for more retention, and retaining people for the worst part of the learning curve is a necessity.
I think that while not taking existing customers for granted by any means, it is more important to make new players experience as good as possible so that they will convert to long term subscribers.
-
The solution is not looking at how to retain it is in looking at how to draw.
In my humble opinion it is too late for AH to draw in any significant amount of new players without being both free to play and upgraded considerably in the graphics department.
Sad to say I know...but I am convinced it's true.
All of the great things that AH has going for it count for nothing when potential new players see something like War Thunder, which may be an inferior game, but is free and pretty.
That's without even mentioning the steep learning curve of AH which makes it really tough for all but the most dedicated to get satisfaction from the air combat part of the game.
War Thunder is free, EASY, and graphically stunning. AH simply can't compete with that when it comes to drawing in new players, in the long run.
So it's my opinion that we have to look at ways of retaining players, instead of believing that it's possible to make some kind of magical comeback and gain a lot more.
HTC's ignoring of the problem of low player population during Euro + Pacific prime times for the last year or so has just led for most of us in those time zones to unsubscribe.
-
In my humble opinion it is too late for AH to draw in any significant amount of new players without being both free to play and upgraded considerably in the graphics department.
HTC's ignoring of the problem of low player population during Euro + Pacific prime times for the last year or so has just led for most of us in those time zones to unsubscribe.
I hear you, but I also think that numberswise 100 new players is a significant amount for AH so maybe its about not competing with other games but being a niche that interested people can't help but knowing about.
Your last part is depressing because it points out how critical a critical mass of players is. I'm not much of a video game person, is AH Obscure? Or is it known about and passed over?
-
In my humble opinion it is too late for AH to draw in any significant amount of new players without being both free to play and upgraded considerably in the graphics department.
Sad to say I know...but I am convinced it's true.
All of the great things that AH has going for it count for nothing when potential new players see something like War Thunder, which may be an inferior game, but is free and pretty.
That's without even mentioning the steep learning curve of AH which makes it really tough for all but the most dedicated to get satisfaction from the air combat part of the game.
War Thunder is free, EASY, and graphically stunning. AH simply can't compete with that when it comes to drawing in new players, in the long run.
So it's my opinion that we have to look at ways of retaining players, instead of believing that it's possible to make some kind of magical comeback and gain a lot more.
HTC's ignoring of the problem of low player population during Euro + Pacific prime times for the last year or so has just led for most of us in those time zones to unsubscribe.
Aces High is not the last of the subscription genre. There are other games that still make money with the same business model.
-
In my humble opinion it is too late for AH to draw in any significant amount of new players without being both free to play and upgraded considerably in the graphics department.
Sad to say I know...but I am convinced it's true.
All of the great things that AH has going for it count for nothing when potential new players see something like War Thunder, which may be an inferior game, but is free and pretty.
That's without even mentioning the steep learning curve of AH which makes it really tough for all but the most dedicated to get satisfaction from the air combat part of the game.
War Thunder is free, EASY, and graphically stunning. AH simply can't compete with that when it comes to drawing in new players, in the long run.
So it's my opinion that we have to look at ways of retaining players, instead of believing that it's possible to make some kind of magical comeback and gain a lot more.
HTC's ignoring of the problem of low player population during Euro + Pacific prime times for the last year or so has just led for most of us in those time zones to unsubscribe.
you havent been around for a while have you? and there's no such thing as free to play model. somebody has to pay and those who pay, pay a lot more.
semp
-
Since this game has no cheats to find and make you a fast track killz gauwd. But, you want to attract and retain a generation that expects some form of this so they don't have to spend years earning their skillz like we do. Come up with solutions based on the following reasoning.
Most of this generation won't go to the TA or DA and spend any time. So their AtoA conduct is atrocious, lame, gamey and so forth. They are probably just as frustrated and fed up trying to get any where quickly in our Old Farts game as we are with their conduct. They come to our game from their other games that allow them to advance quickly because the games are designed for attention spans of gnats.
We compound their frustration and gamey conduct because we want everyone to suffer the same way we did "earning" our game experience and knowledge. So we suffer their blundering around playing our game in their irritating fashion while agreeing as the in-group, it's all their fault for being lame and killing our game.
You want to keep more of the new generation, you gotta give up something to get them past that long initial period of being only our TARGET paying their painful dues because we had to.
Fighter to Figther combat is the core of this game and probably the first thing attracting most new players. The biggest thing that gets them all killed is not knowing what to do after the merge. They all HO and run after loosing to the merge a few times and nothing else for the most part if they stay around for a while.
An answer is to come up with "three easy things" a new player can read telling them in simple wording what to do at the merge. Then get Hitech to add this in plain view in the tower or on the clip board. Even if it's obvious we vets will then look for newbs to do these three things. None of the newbs and less advanced players will. So then the newbs will have a bit more confidence in our game, along with something to build from other than grouchy old farts yelling at them for trashing the game.
We have ACM gawds in this game between the Trainers and the DA with the experience to craft three "simple tactics" in "simple language". The reason for "three" has to do with what will be remembered under stress by the new player unused to a 3D combat environment in the air. Whether or not they work will always be understood to reflect the player's ingenuity. That they exist matters more in giving a new player somewhere to start their learning experience.
If it isn't easy to read and in front of their noses, they won't bother to do much else than hop in a ride and get frustrated. Aces High is not exactly War Blunder the Arcade Game now is it? Complexity drives people away.
-
Since this game has no cheats to find and make you a fast track killz gauwd. But, you want to attract and retain a generation that expects some form of this so they don't have to spend years earning their skillz like we do. Come up with solutions based on the following reasoning.
Most of this generation won't go to the TA or DA and spend any time. So their AtoA conduct is atrocious, lame, gamey and so forth. They are probably just as frustrated and fed up trying to get any where quickly in our Old Farts game as we are with their conduct. They come to our game from their other games that allow them to advance quickly because the games are designed for attention spans of gnats.
We compound their frustration and gamey conduct because we want everyone to suffer the same way we did "earning" our game experience and knowledge. So we suffer their blundering around playing our game in their irritating fashion while agreeing as the in-group, it's all their fault for being lame and killing our game.
You want to keep more of the new generation, you gotta give up something to get them past that long initial period of being only our TARGET paying their painful dues because we had to.
Fighter to Figther combat is the core of this game and probably the first thing attracting most new players. The biggest thing that gets them all killed is not knowing what to do after the merge. They all HO and run after loosing to the merge a few times and nothing else for the most part if they stay around for a while.
An answer is to come up with "three easy things" a new player can read telling them in simple wording what to do at the merge. Then get Hitech to add this in plain view in the tower or on the clip board. Even if it's obvious we vets will then look for newbs to do these three things. None of the newbs and less advanced players will. So then the newbs will have a bit more confidence in our game, along with something to build from other than grouchy old farts yelling at them for trashing the game.
We have ACM gawds in this game between the Trainers and the DA with the experience to craft three "simple tactics" in "simple language". The reason for "three" has to do with what will be remembered under stress by the new player unused to a 3D combat environment in the air. Whether or not they work will always be understood to reflect the player's ingenuity. That they exist matters more in giving a new player somewhere to start their learning experience.
If it isn't easy to read and in front of their noses, they won't bother to do much else than hop in a ride and get frustrated. Aces High is not exactly War Blunder the Arcade Game now is it? Complexity drives people away.
Spot on bustr. For once I actually understood 100% of your post :D (and I'm being serious :lol )
I agree. But the things is, the question becomes what exactly do we sacrifice or 'give up' to get some of this generation in? I'm not sure what we could give up to get more in, but at the same time keep the unique attributes that Aces High is known for.
:airplane:
-
Aces High is not the last of the subscription genre. There are other games that still make money with the same business model.
I did not claim AH was the last game using a subscription model and I'm not sure what your point is.
My point is that 9 out of 10 people wishing to play a WW2-era combat flight sim will end up with War Thunder and not AH because it is easy to get kills even if you're bad, it requires no monthly subscription, and it looks fantastic.
I know that AH is the better game...I have repeatedly told friends who play WT that AH is a better game...can I get any of them to switch over? Can I f**k!
The one person out of that group who tried the AH free trial in the past (before WT came out), told all the others that it was too hard for him to even get a single kill despite playing for hours and having me attempt to help him.
-
an instant combat button would help, even with AI's as enemies
-
You want to keep more of the new generation, you gotta give up something to get them past that long initial period of being only our TARGET paying their painful dues because we had to.
Fighter to Figther combat is the core of this game and probably the first thing attracting most new players. The biggest thing that gets them all killed is not knowing what to do after the merge. They all HO and run after loosing to the merge a few times and nothing else for the most part if they stay around for a while.
If it isn't easy to read and in front of their noses, they won't bother to do much else than hop in a ride and get frustrated. Aces High is not exactly War Blunder the Arcade Game now is it? Complexity drives people away.
Spot on. I would like to see some kind of dueling ladder that would match up new players of similar skill level who are on at the same time. One of the bigger frustrations for a new player is the time spent getting to a fight vs the time the fight lasts. One turn than death does not even get the adrenaline going, whereas 5 minutes of maneuvering against somebody as bad as yourself teaches volumes about the basics of SA and accelerated stalls. A little structure in this area might accelerate the learning curve.
-
Spot on. I would like to see some kind of dueling ladder that would match up new players of similar skill level who are on at the same time. One of the bigger frustrations for a new player is the time spent getting to a fight vs the time the fight lasts. One turn than death does not even get the adrenaline going, whereas 5 minutes of maneuvering against somebody as bad as yourself teaches volumes about the basics of SA and accelerated stalls. A little structure in this area might accelerate the learning curve.
I'm not saying this is a bad idea...but...
A) It will never be implemented
B) The vast majority of players in AH don't actually want a fair fight
C) See A
:(
-
I wonder if a "beginners' arena" would help keep new players (an arena available only to accounts with less than X kills, with maybe some AI set to beginner skill flying around). You'd have to preclude access by accounts from any credit card that ever had an account attached to it with more than X kills (so that you can cut down on losers to try to swindle their way into the arena when they shouldn't be there).
Also, in addition to stall limiter, maybe have blackout/redout limiter, with all the limiters and autotakeoff being enabled upon fresh install of the program.
-
My feeling is that the best way to go with respect to off-peak is scaling active map area by numbers in flight. By that, I mean disabling more and more outlying fields as player numbers go down, and enabling them as player numbers come back up.
However, perhaps another way to achieve the same is to scale incentives differently outside the desired area. For example, once only N people are on, shooting someone down or destroying objects outside of a particular area is worth less, or it takes more bombs/shells/troops to kill objects in the outside area, or ack is more deadly in the outside area. In other words, work on disincentives for flying in the outlying area.
-
Most people don't want a fair anything when the out come is them loosing. That's human nature. I'm targeting the new player who has no clue just how unfair this game really is. When you think about it, a common story for us all was, after a while someone told us a simple thing we could do in a given situation. Over night it changed our personal game play so we enjoyed the fight better because we had a better chance at getting the outcome we wanted.
Most of us have blundered around for years with no one sharing info because it's human nature not to share how to beat the other guy. $14.95 per\mnth says you aren't sharing anything that might mean you suddenly become a looser at the hands of the loosers you've been propping your ego up with for a few years now. Making them earn it the hard way while you beat their brains in over and over and over again is acceptable while you feed your ego.
That is too complex, time consuming, while most new potential subscribers just want to have fun. Not be your whipping boy just to play a stupid game.
So give the new and average players three things that will work to improve their game play if they have the ingenuity to work with them. Get them posted prudently where they see them all the time in the game. Three simple things to do at the merge to improve their outcome against other newbs and average players. The three simple things otherwise you would make them feed your need for hours in the DA, that you could have simply told them without beating their brains in as the price.
We are at a low numbers stage where we are top heavy in experienced hungry sharks. We won't impress new players with our type of game so they want to stay very long if all that happens is they die the moment they come near us. Most of them won't go to the TA, and we will never know they came, got abused, and went. But, at least we will have another scalp to feed our addiction while we complain about the low numbers and the death of the game in this forum.
-
Most people don't want a fair anything when the out come is them loosing. That's human nature. I'm targeting the new player who has no clue just how unfair this game really is. When you think about it, a common story for us all was, after a while someone told us a simple thing we could do in a given situation. Over night it changed our personal game play so we enjoyed the fight better because we had a better chance at getting the outcome we wanted.
Most of us have blundered around for years with no one sharing info because it's human nature not to share how to beat the other guy. $14.95 per\mnth says you aren't sharing anything that might mean you suddenly become a looser at the hands of the loosers you've been propping your ego up with for a few years now. Making them earn it the hard way while you beat their brains in over and over and over again is acceptable while you feed your ego.
That is too complex, time consuming, while most new potential subscribers just want to have fun. Not be your whipping boy just to play a stupid game.
So give the new and average players three things that will work to improve their game play if they have the ingenuity to work with them. Get them posted prudently where they see them all the time in the game. Three simple things to do at the merge to improve their outcome against other newbs and average players. The three simple things otherwise you would make them feed your need for hours in the DA, that you could have simply told them without beating their brains in as the price.
We are at a low numbers stage where we are top heavy in experienced hungry sharks. We won't impress new players with our type of game so they want to stay very long if all that happens is they die the moment they come near us. Most of them won't go to the TA, and we will never know they came, got abused, and went. But, at least we will have another scalp to feed our addiction while we complain about the low numbers and the death of the game in this forum.
Unless I missed it in this post. What exactly do you recommend be the "three things to improve gameplay?" I'm all for improving the newbies experience, I just want to hear what you have to offer/ideas you have for this situation.
-
You didn't read very far back did you.
Post three simple ways to respond at the merge besides a HO which will help them have a higher chance of surviving the fight against new and average players.
Over the years, more than a decade, I've listened to this exact story repeated by new players. Eventually some vet mentions something simple to do just at the merge to a new player. This new player has suddenly gotten a new lease on his game life because no one up to that point would tell him anything in simple terms. It's always go to the TA, go to the DA, or an arcane answer only meaningful to someone who already knows the answer and never thought about a way to simplify it, or cared to. You don't know the new player, so why give out good advice to someone you don't know or are invested in?
Trainers are in the business of training and DA gods are in the business of DAing. No one ever gets up in the morning and asks themselves: How can I simplify this and put myself out of business?
It's Hitech's job in the end to invest in the future. We just want to win at all costs and feel good about our $14.95.
-
Small maps for low numbers time periods.
Bring back the free 8 player arenas.
Ditch MW and EW arenas.
Update cockpit graphics.
Enable lead computing gunsights for new players. First 30 days.
-
Small maps for low numbers time periods. +1
Bring back the free 8 player arenas. Not sure on this, they were abused last time they were up, which was one of the big reasons why they were taken down.
Ditch MW and EW arenas. -1
Update cockpit graphics. Probably will be happening with the new terrain update, or soon after
Enable lead computing gunsights for new players. First 30 days. Then I can make a 'shade account' (for example), and kill anyone with my 'aimbot like skillz' IN a word, no.
-
All of the great things that AH has going for it count for nothing when potential new players see something like War Thunder, which may be an inferior game, but is free and pretty.
Good graphics and Free-to Play mode are important but not the main factor in bringing a new customers into the game in big numbers.
If for example War Thunder had come to the market with only Full Realism Arena with joystick control only their project would have already been dead. Nice graphics and F2P would not have helped enough.
What makes War Thunder successful is a mouse control that gives new players an ability to play the game effectively by giving directions with mouse to internal AI pilot which performs the actual maneuvering. It is very easy to implement and very effective solution to bring the new players into the game.
What was not done well by War Thunder developers so far is that they did not achieve the goal of customer migration from mouse controlled arcade arenas to joystick controlled FRB arenas. Many players had already been hooked by gameplay and actually have bought joysticks but they found it to be too difficult to them to play the game with joysticks and after some attempts returned back to mouse controlled mode.
HTC still has a chance at that moment to implement these things better, if they want to get out of trouble with their shrinking customer base. The following steps should be done:
1) Effective mouse control must be implemented. It will immediately give the new people ability to play bombers and GVs effectively and for fighter pilots will make it possible at least to learn the SA and some hit'n run tactics (with F3 mode with gunsite), but they should always be willing to migrate to joysticks to be competitive in dogfights.
2) After two week trial period a customer should get a clear message that from now on his is playing the game on Free - to Play basis with only early war planes and GVs available. If he wants to get access to the whole planeset he must subscribe.
3) Graphics updates and planeset updates are also important in bringing/keeping customers in the game but not a top priority at that moment.
-
HTC still has a chance at that moment to implement these things better, if they want to get out of trouble with their shrinking customer base. The following steps should be done:
1) Effective mouse control must be implemented. It will immediately give the new people ability to play bombers and GVs effectively and for fighter pilots will make it possible at least to learn the SA and some hit'n run tactics (with F3 mode with gunsite), but they should always be willing to migrate to joysticks to be competitive in dogfights.
Mouse control, sure. I think you can already play that way. You should have to fly the plane, not just point the mouse cursor somewhere and let the plane magically fly there. You need some skill.
External F3 mode as a choice in the main arenas? Absolutely NOT. Keep players in the cockpit if they want to fly fighters in the main arenas. This is a game, yes...but it's not supposed to be an arcade shooter game that happens to use airplanes.
-
Mouse control, sure. I think you can already play that way. You should have to fly the plane, not just point the mouse cursor somewhere and let the plane magically fly there. You need some skill.
External F3 mode as a choice in the main arenas? Absolutely NOT. Keep players in the cockpit if they want to fly fighters in the main arenas. This is a game, yes...but it's not supposed to be an arcade shooter game that happens to use airplanes.
The chance to survive for HTC now is to make balanced arena where people with no skills (mouse control and F3 view) would be able to play vs people with skills (Joystick control and no F3 view) and where both parties will have fun.
-
2) After two week trial period a customer should get a clear message that from now on his is playing the game on Free - to Play basis with only early war planes and GVs available. If he wants to get access to the whole planeset he must subscribe.
So if I'm willing to limit myself to EW equipment I don't have to pay? I'm all in on that!
-
So if I'm willing to limit myself to EW equipment I don't have to pay? I'm all in on that!
You might have already spent a lot of money for the years you were subscribed to AH. Why not give you the opportunity to play for free with EW planes if you want to? If some ex-subscribers return back on F2P conditions it is better to have them playing in arenas to keep the numbers up. There will be no reason to quit, people will go to F2P if they not willing to be subscribers and can re-subscribe at any time when they feel it's the right time (to jump into the new planes for example, and HTC would be motivated better to bring new planes into the game).
-
If they go F2P, it would be better to put a $/Gold/whatever price on late war and popular aircraft. People can fly a limited set of aircraft for free, and have to buy the "premium" rides for real money. Subscription is a business model that is fast becoming obsolete in the gaming industry.
-
If they go F2P, it would be better to put a $/Gold/whatever price on late war and popular aircraft. People can fly a limited set of aircraft for free, and have to buy the "premium" rides for real money. Subscription is a business model that is fast becoming obsolete in the gaming industry.
F2P is going to bring in a crowd that I don't think any of us want. The game can survive without it.
-
F2P is going to bring in a crowd that I don't think any of us want. The game can survive without it.
The game can survive. Famous last words. See the folks over at Totalsims about that delusion.
-
If they go F2P, it would be better to put a $/Gold/whatever price on late war and popular aircraft. People can fly a limited set of aircraft for free, and have to buy the "premium" rides for real money. Subscription is a business model that is fast becoming obsolete in the gaming industry.
You are right - more options is always better. But for the quick start without tweaking a lot existing system/customer base it is good enough to begin with F2P (EW) and subscription options. If F2P numbers rise quickly it is time to add planes-for-cash options and other flexible payment solutions.
-
F2P is going to bring in a crowd that I don't think any of us want. The game can survive without it.
I believe any us would love to spot the crowd of D3A's or Spit1's instead of flying on an empty map.
-
So if I'm willing to limit myself to EW equipment I don't have to pay? I'm all in on that!
me too, some ew planes are actually pretty good :).
semp
-
I believe any us would love to spot the crowd of D3A's or Spit1's instead of flying on an empty map.
I once saw a crowd of d3a's with my pony, them bastages in my country killed them all before I could get there. we didnt lose a single plane.
semp
-
Small maps for low numbers time periods.
Bring back the free 8 player arenas.
Ditch MW and EW arenas.
Update cockpit graphics.
Enable lead computing gunsights for new players. First 30 days.
Disable the lead computing gunsight after ten victories. That way it isn't abused and noobs can get the taste of shooting down an enemy. Then they might get hooked.
Perhaps allow Spit I free unlimited or something...
-
I wonder if a "beginners' arena" would help keep new players (an arena available only to accounts with less than X kills, with maybe some AI set to beginner skill flying around). You'd have to preclude access by accounts from any credit card that ever had an account attached to it with more than X kills (so that you can cut down on losers to try to swindle their way into the arena when they shouldn't be there).
Also, in addition to stall limiter, maybe have blackout/redout limiter, with all the limiters and autotakeoff being enabled upon fresh install of the program RR.
Anything AW is not welcome here.
Newb arena ... No
RR......No
:cheers:
-
Yep, I remember the relaxed-realism arena in AW. The problem, though, was that the RR arena didn't seem very effective at getting more people into the FR arena. RR players who tried FR found it hard, and they got shot down, and they went back to RR. FR players fretted about how to get RR players to graduate to FR and stay there.
I think it's better to have options to turn off (if you want) in the Main Arena. You are then in the Main Arena, not separated. You can turn off the options if you wish. It makes it simpler to fly, but has performance disadvantages (stall limiter doesn't allow you to pull as many g's as if you have it turned off, same for blackout/redout limiter if those were enabled, etc.).
-
A lot of these suggestions are essentially abandoning the entire concept of a flight simulator. I get that we want to attract new players, but sacrificing what this game is at its core is entirely the wrong way to go about doing so.
I can't speak for others, but for me, the difficulty and learning curve were a very large part of the draw for me to begin with.
If HTC wants to bring in more players, the answer is marketing. You advertise, you update your website (so much needed here - there's a whole thread for it, but in short: a blog for generating lots of fresh content - which will help the next part, optimizing the site for search engine visibility {this is SEVERELY lacking at present}, and modernizing its design), extend your trial period to allow new users to get their feet under them before having to pay, and maybe offer incentives for referrals. Say, get a month or so free for any referrals that subscribe after their trial.
The loss of quality players that would likely result from scaling down the realism and difficulty would FAR outweigh any benefits of an influx new, inexperienced, and unskilled (not that I have much room to talk here) arcade-jockeys. :old: :joystick:
-
A lot of these suggestions are essentially abandoning the entire concept of a flight simulator. I get that we want to attract new players, but sacrificing what this game is at its core is entirely the wrong way to go about doing so.
Thank you! I agree 100%.
- oldman
-
Maybe it isn't logical to try and make AH similar to other games i.e. graphically astounding and easily accessible. Perhaps a better strategy would be to exploit its uniqueness such as the unrivaled flight simulation and realism. Are there many other simulators in this line?
How about giving players like Dolby (for example) and the others who excel at making movies some incentive to do so, say if they release a vid each every three months and setting up an area on the forum where we can all contribute ahf files as raw material. There's an awful lot of Dogfights episodes and other WWII aviation videos on YouTube, ensure Aces High vids are always suggested afterwards too. This might bring unexpected customers and places no workload on HTC.
How about increasing the trial period from two weeks to a month? Two weeks possibly too short to get anywhere on the learning curve.
Another suggestion is to make the TA a more interesting place, a place where even experienced players would hang out for fun, perhaps with an aerial parcour over the lake say, with different degrees of difficulty (something like the old Pilot's Wings game). This way new players could be encouraged and assisted, much more so than an empty TA.
I've seen two retired people join in the last month, perhaps that is an interesting demographic to recruit from. One of these is presently having a problem getting up to speed to take off. Minor issues like that should be jumped all over by an introduction session with a trainer or a manual.
Just some thoughts <shrug>
-
I'm not sure either if such a thing (swarms of point-and-click mouse players) would work. First is that they would probably only play if it were free, so the initial part adds no revenue for HTC. Then, to get to real flying, they'd have to pay and suffer the shock of really flying an airplane, which means that probably few of them would make that transition. The key would be how many of them make the transition. Meanwhile, it might mean that the typical plane we engage in the game is a horrendously flown point-and-click plane, and so fights for us would degrade greatly in quality. Also, you'd have to make the point-and-click flying so much worse than more-realistic flying that you don't lose current customers who decide to save $15/month and go to the free point-and-click play. It's hard to know if it would work OK or disastrously backfire.
-
Maybe it isn't logical to try and make AH similar to other games i.e. graphically astounding and easily accessible. Perhaps a better strategy would be to exploit its uniqueness such as the unrivaled flight simulation and realism. Are there many other simulators in this line?
How about giving players like Dolby (for example) and the others who excel at making movies some incentive to do so, say if they release a vid each every three months and setting up an area on the forum where we can all contribute ahf files as raw material. There's an awful lot of Dogfights episodes and other WWII aviation videos on YouTube, ensure Aces High vids are always suggested afterwards too. This might bring unexpected customers and places no workload on HTC.
How about increasing the trial period from two weeks to a month? Two weeks possibly too short to get anywhere on the learning curve.
Another suggestion is to make the TA a more interesting place, a place where even experienced players would hang out for fun, perhaps with an aerial parcour over the lake say, with different degrees of difficulty (something like the old Pilot's Wings game). This way new players could be encouraged and assisted, much more so than an empty TA.
I've seen two retired people join in the last month, perhaps that is an interesting demographic to recruit from. One of these is presently having a problem getting up to speed to take off. Minor issues like that should be jumped all over by an introduction session with a trainer or a manual.
Just some thoughts <shrug>
+1
I especially like the idea of adding to the TA: Maybe add an obstacle course or two, similar to the Red Bull Air Races?
-
A lot of these suggestions are essentially abandoning the entire concept of a flight simulator. I get that we want to attract new players, but sacrificing what this game is at its core is entirely the wrong way to go about doing so.
I can't speak for others, but for me, the difficulty and learning curve were a very large part of the draw for me to begin with.
If HTC wants to bring in more players, the answer is marketing. You advertise, you update your website (so much needed here - there's a whole thread for it, but in short: a blog for generating lots of fresh content - which will help the next part, optimizing the site for search engine visibility {this is SEVERELY lacking at present}, and modernizing its design), extend your trial period to allow new users to get their feet under them before having to pay, and maybe offer incentives for referrals. Say, get a month or so free for any referrals that subscribe after their trial.
The loss of quality players that would likely result from scaling down the realism and difficulty would FAR outweigh any benefits of an influx new, inexperienced, and unskilled (not that I have much room to talk here) arcade-jockeys. :old: :joystick:
I don't think anybody wants to dumb down the game. I know what you mean about the challenge of the learning curve. That said if there was a little non compulsory structure to enhance learning I think you would see more free trial to subscriber conversions. Everything you say about marketing is true but I would argue that before spending on that the game should be better prepared to convert new players, it just isn't now. The low hanging fruit has fallen and the new crop is harder to pick.
-
A lot of these suggestions are essentially abandoning the entire concept of a flight simulator. I get that we want to attract new players, but sacrificing what this game is at its core is entirely the wrong way to go about doing so.
I can't speak for others, but for me, the difficulty and learning curve were a very large part of the draw for me to begin with.
If HTC wants to bring in more players, the answer is marketing. You advertise, you update your website (so much needed here - there's a whole thread for it, but in short: a blog for generating lots of fresh content - which will help the next part, optimizing the site for search engine visibility {this is SEVERELY lacking at present}, and modernizing its design), extend your trial period to allow new users to get their feet under them before having to pay, and maybe offer incentives for referrals. Say, get a month or so free for any referrals that subscribe after their trial.
The loss of quality players that would likely result from scaling down the realism and difficulty would FAR outweigh any benefits of an influx new, inexperienced, and unskilled (not that I have much room to talk here) arcade-jockeys. :old: :joystick:
Letting noobs have the computing gunsight until five or ten kills in is not sacrificing anything. It baits the hook.
-
...
How about increasing the trial period from two weeks to a month? Two weeks possibly too short to get anywhere on the learning curve.
...
This couldn't hurt. They could look at the stats and see what happens. If it drives numbers it was a good idea.
-
Smaller maps. Takes way too long to find and get into a good fight. When numbers are down (<200 people in arena) - automatically smaller map.
-
change the map rotation plz?
-
SUMMARY OF THIS DISCUSSION
1 Two weeks more of free subscription. I.e. 1 month.
2 Lead computing gun-sight for the first 10kills
3 Smaller Maps for off peak ours ( under 200) people
4 Marketing ( Aces High as unique.) Point out why it is better than other FPS flight simulators.
6 Tutorial
7 Movies made by players. (i.e sent in by other players)
8 Run a add in War birds magazine.
Anything else I am missing
-
SUMMARY OF THIS DISCUSSION
1 Two weeks more of free subscription. I.e. 1 month.
2 Lead computing gun-sight for the first 10kills
3 Smaller Maps for off peak ours ( under 200) people
4 Marketing ( Aces High as unique.) Point out why it is better than other FPS flight simulators.
6 Tutorial
7 Movies made by players. (i.e sent in by other players)
8 Run a add in War birds magazine.
Anything else I am missing
9 Up subscription fees to 19.95 per month
-
9 Up subscription fees to 19.95 per month
And you are sure this won't mean less subscribers? ;)
-
9 Up subscription fees to 19.95 per month
:lol yeah right :lol Hello this 2013, not 1993
-
And you are sure this won't mean less subscribers? ;)
If anything they should drop the pricing to 9.95, in my opinion. You don't increase your base by raising prices.
But I would add...
10. With the release of the new terrain system, re-release the game as Aces High 3 to generate a little new buzz.
And I really think you can give the LCG to noobs for much longer than 10 kills.
-
:lol yeah right :lol Hello this 2013, not 1993
Exactly, smacktard. Kids buy used games for 29 bucks at GameStop and play as much as they wish for no charge. Way to go Einstein with the whole reasoning thing....
-
Exactly, smacktard. Kids buy used games for 29 bucks at GameStop and play as much as they wish for no charge. Way to go Einstein with the whole reasoning thing....
:huh :rolleyes: :lol
-
9 Up subscription fees to 19.95 per month
Nobody would care but I would quit with that price... Not worth it.
-
If anything they should drop the pricing to 9.95, in my opinion. You don't increase your base by raising prices.
But I would add...
10. With the release of the new terrain system, re-release the game as Aces High 3 to generate a little new buzz.
And I really think you can give the LCG to noobs for much longer than 10 kills.
+1..
holy !@$% PFactorDave is back?! Good to see you sir. :salute
-
2 Lead computing gun-sight for the first 10kills
It's not a good idea to enable the LCGS for new players for a limited time as it does really nothing for them at that point and gives then an unfair advantage over the regular player base. If you really want to help new players, the other suggestions about a tutorial for new players or a 'training academy' (similar to the one Air Warrior used to have) or even a dedicated new player arena (again, similar to what Air Warrior had) would be more beneficial in not only helping new players get over the steep learning curve but also increase retention rates.
If you were to give a new player the LCGS in the MA for a limited time, all you are doing is a crutch that he's going to be forced to rely on and once you remove it, the new player will flounder and in most cases, would probably end up leaving the game.
ack-ack
-
+1..
holy !@$% PFactorDave is back?! Good to see you sir. :salute
Thanks! Good to be back! Except for the part where I suck even more than before my break. That's a lot of sucking!
I have been having fun though.
-
Nobody would care but I would quit with that price... Not worth it.
If you actually read my previous posts, the $19.95 meant a 33% increase in revenue to hire more staff and update/add more aircraft, vehicles, subs, ships and gameplay improvements like better terrains. Not just bump it up to $20 bucks a month for no reason. That is worth $4.99 a month IMHO and the price of a 5-bucks latte. Think we could do with one less latte for a much better Aces High?
-
If you actually read my previous posts, the $19.95 meant a 33% increase in revenue
That sounds like a fact, but it's an assumption. One that I personally would believe to come true, because it doesn't take into account the effect on subscription numbers, both current & future.
Think we could do with one less latte for a much better Aces High?
I can't. Or better: I won't, and most certainly my wife won't, who is paying my account ;)
Many other's wont as well, because price barriers don't work that simple. There is a (mostly psychological) limit how much consumers are wiling to spend for a certain product. Once past that level, number of purchases drop of rather rapidly, even if it's "just a tad more".
-
Many other's wont as well, because price barriers don't work that simple. There is a (mostly psychological) limit how much consumers are wiling to spend for a certain product. Once past that level, number of purchases drop of rather rapidly, even if it's "just a tad more".
This is very true. A well run company will balance retention, new accounts, and subscription costs very carefully to try and hit that sweet spot where everything is maximized. Not an easy trick. I assume that for years and years, HTC has felt that 14.95 was that sweet spot.
I simply wonder if maybe the sweet spot for a game that appears somewhat dated these days may actually be lower than 14.95...
My hope is that HTC can really freshen things up with the new terrain system and hopefully, a few other surprises to bring the game into a new era. Enough so that 14.95 becomes the sweet spot again.
-
Once a post like this starts up, it becomes more of a community venting process for frustrations with the game and it's creator. Very often the timing is on the tipping point of a change. At the moment it's rather obvious player numbers have tapered off along with poor game play and the subsequent insecurities being aired about the future of the game.
So how long are you going to flog Hitech even though he has announced a rather dramatic upcoming change to the game?
I do hope Hitech will release something more for us to look at that shows our future environment to come with how our aircraft, vehicles and ground objects together will look to us when we finally get to download the new changed version. That's often a good indicator he is very close to releasing the new update.
-
Some of you may remember a time when AH actually was F2P...
-
Once a post like this starts up, it becomes more of a community venting process for frustrations with the game and it's creator. Very often the timing is on the tipping point of a change. At the moment it's rather obvious player numbers have tapered off along with poor game play and the subsequent insecurities being aired about the future of the game.
So how long are you going to flog Hitech even though he has announced a rather dramatic upcoming change to the game?
I do hope Hitech will release something more for us to look at that shows our future environment to come with how our aircraft, vehicles and ground objects together will look to us when we finally get to download the new changed version. That's often a good indicator he is very close to releasing the new update.
the OP just wanted mall maps in Euro/Pac time , not 3000 dissertions on how to fix the game.
-
I think new players would be best helped if there was an actual, scheduled training curriculum hosted and run by the trainers in the TA.
Course topics might include topics as basic as setting up your controllers and getting off the ground to more advanced topics like BFM, bombing and dive bombing in attack mode.
Combine that with a one month free trial and an actual game manual (I printed the original out and stuck it in a three ring binder divided by topic and had it beside me every time I played starting out) and potential new subscribers wouldn't feel so lost when they first jump into the game.
I've seen guys sitting on the runway trying to figure out how to start their engine or keep their bomber moving in a straight line or going 1 mph in a GV and when I tried to help they obviously hadn't even figured out the comms system. I'd guess most if not all of those were lost subscriptions.
It will do little good to draw a whole bunch of new people into the game only to have them leave in frustration.
-
the OP just wanted mall maps in Euro/Pac time , not 3000 dissertions on how to fix the game.
very true Redd.
But fixing the playability of maps for off hours due to dwindling numbers isn't just throwing a map on an arena and hope it sticks/fixes the issue. Could it be as simple as it just opens up the debate as to how to we fix it correctly than address a symptom?
If you keep stubbing your toe on a coffee table, is the solution to just move the table or do you ask other questions, like is the table too big or is the issue bigger than the table? Are we not just curious about the issue and being guys, want to fix it for good?
-
I think new players would be best helped if there was an actual, scheduled training curriculum hosted and run by the trainers in the TA.
Course topics might include topics as basic as setting up your controllers and getting off the ground to more advanced topics like BFM, bombing and dive bombing in attack mode.
Combine that with a one month free trial and an actual game manual (I printed the original out and stuck it in a three ring binder divided by topic and had it beside me every time I played starting out) and potential new subscribers wouldn't feel so lost when they first jump into the game.
I've seen guys sitting on the runway trying to figure out how to start their engine or keep their bomber moving in a straight line or going 1 mph in a GV and when I tried to help they obviously hadn't even figured out the comms system. I'd guess most if not all of those were lost subscriptions.
It will do little good to draw a whole bunch of new people into the game only to have them leave in frustration.
Great point but I think some of the XBOX gen don't want to learn, they just want fast action :salute
-
Great point but I think some of the XBOX gen don't want to learn, they just want fast action :salute
19 pages and I couldn't read them all but did anyone suggest running some AI missions in the MA off peak? I know when I fought them in the AVA they were tough although you can get them to auger like noobs. :D
Would that interest the Euro players? Having something to shoot at is better than flying around the lonely skies. :airplane:
-
Great point but I think some of the XBOX gen don't want to learn, they just want fast action :salute
You might be right about some... But wouldn't it be nice to create some systems that will make it more noob friendly for the others who are willing to learn?
The worst thing that could be done is to simply throw up our hands and say nothing can be done because xbox gen blah blah blah.
This is a niche game, we need to pursue niche players.
-
19 pages and I couldn't read them all but did anyone suggest running some AI missions in the MA off peak? I know when I fought them in the AVA they were tough although you can get them to auger like noobs. :D
Would that interest the Euro players? Having something to shoot at is better than flying around the lonely skies. :airplane:
now that would be cool.
semp
-
Great point but I think some of the XBOX gen don't want to learn, they just want fast action :salute
More like instant gratification....if you can't win easily then buy something that will turn the tables...or quit..
and if none of that works...cheat...
talking with my son and nephews about this stuff ...it clearly comes across as the norm these days
although it is known as glitching...not cheating....if you find a good glitch you are the man!!!
My eldest nephew actually only plays games to find the glitch..
To be fair though...he loves AH but can't afford to play....and it is not a price thing ...it is a lazy SOB who won't work thing... so he gets no money..
-
One of my nephews is a gamer since he's a baby almost, after a while he realized that every block buster is basically the same game, and now looks for small independent gems. These gems usually cost 30$ one time grand max on steam.
It's hard to talk someone into playing aces high when you announce its an independent game costing 15$ a month, fixed price, and that you need to enter your credit card that goes to an unknown database for monthly milking. I thrust HTC but new people don't just yet and the interface doesn't feel securised.
Also for 15$ you can get every major MMO out there.
-
More like instant gratification....if you can't win easily then buy something that will turn the tables...or quit..
and if none of that works...cheat...
talking with my son and nephews about this stuff ...it clearly comes across as the norm these days
I heard the very same things 30 years ago, and I know my dad was being told the same. We just did not get called "xbox" generation ;)
Young people are young people and ever have been, and they always have less patience and less will to "work for it " than 'we' believe to have had back then, be it 2013, 1983 or 1883...
Times are ever changing, and each new generation has new interests, new focus, new ideas. Styles are changing, music, movies, games. It's just different. As long as you fight changes with a "everything is worse today" or "this was good enough for Granpa, it should be good enough for you" attitude, you are fighting a loosing battle and become history yourself...
-
I heard the very same things 30 years ago, and I know my dad was being told the same. We just did not get called "xbox" generation ;)
Young people are young people and ever have been, and they always have less patience and less will to "work for it " than 'we' believe to have had back then, be it 2013, 1983 or 1883...
Times are ever changing, and each new generation has new interests, new focus, new ideas. Styles are changing, music, movies, games. It's just different. As long as you fight changes with a "everything is worse today" or "this was good enough for Granpa, it should be good enough for you" attitude, you are fighting a loosing battle and become history yourself...
well said bro
-
One of my nephews is a gamer since he's a baby almost, after a while he realized that every block buster is basically the same game, and now looks for small independent gems. These gems usually cost 30$ one time grand max on steam.
It's hard to talk someone into playing aces high when you announce its an independent game costing 15$ a month, fixed price, and that you need to enter your credit card that goes to an unknown database for monthly milking. I thrust HTC but new people don't just yet and the interface doesn't feel securised.
Also for 15$ you can get every major MMO out there.
so he buys what 1 every other month? so it's the same as the subscription to ah? I am curious how exactly do you pay while buying games in steam? with a credit card? check? paypal? dont know where you live but the most secure way of paying around here is a credit card.
semp
semp
-
so he buys what 1 every other month? so it's the same as the subscription to ah? I am curious how exactly do you pay while buying games in steam? with a credit card? check? paypal? dont know where you live but the most secure way of paying around here is a credit card.
semp
semp
Yes he buys one every now and then, but being a teenager he can't engage in paying every month, or doesn't want to. A lot of people don't want to try a game even if its free at first knowing that it will be 15$ after 2 weeks, no matter how good the game is. Steam accepts paypal, credit cards, and all kinds of e-money. Steam redirects to a "secure" website and you could think looking at the interface that it is much secure than aces high. Does aces high transmit your credit card number over the net uncrypted? I can't know.
I have another friend in his 30's that does nothing or games all day long but will rarely pay for games, as it would make him a "geek" :headscratch:
Paying is not all about the money, it's a lot about psychology (see apple).
-
It's hard to talk someone into playing aces high when you announce its an independent game costing 15$ a month, fixed price, and that you need to enter your credit card that goes to an unknown database for monthly milking. I thrust HTC but new people don't just yet and the interface doesn't feel securised.
Even major MMO's see the same issue with people reluctant to use their credit cards due to security fears. It's why alternative payment methods (like game cards) are starting to see more use than before. More MMO's are moving to using 3rd party vendors to handle the payments, this way the credit card information is stored on the 3rd party vendor's servers, eliminating a potential security issue with the MMO's storing the customer's credit card info.
ack-ack
-
Even major MMO's see the same issue with people reluctant to use their credit cards due to security fears. It's why alternative payment methods (like game cards) are starting to see more use than before. More MMO's are moving to using 3rd party vendors to handle the payments, this way the credit card information is stored on the 3rd party vendor's servers, eliminating a potential security issue with the MMO's storing the customer's credit card info.
ack-ack
In Planetside 2 you use points that you buy from steam, which feels comfortable because your CC number doesn't go to sony, and because its where you got the game in the first place.
-
Security of my credit card with HTC is probably the last thing I will ever be concerned about.
I would actually be more worried about giving my card number to Steam. They're a far larger and much juicier target for hackers with ill intentions.
-
Security of my credit card with HTC is probably the last thing I will ever be concerned about.
I would actually be more worried about giving my card number to Steam. They're a far larger and much juicier target for hackers with ill intentions.
probably, but a mention about encryption and security on the aces high credit card page wouldn't hurt.
-
probably, but a mention about encryption and security on the aces high credit card page wouldn't hurt.
I am assuming you live in paris. here in the us if you have a problem with unauthorized charges all you do is call the cc company and they will remove the charges, it's the law. paying with cc for me is the most secure way. I have paypal also but I use that to buy other games or hardware I feel like using.
semp
-
The game is boring.
Too many fly around in their own ack hoping it'll do their job for them.
Too many worried about score and avoid fights at all costs.
Scoring system is a joke.
50 ton tank stopped dead in it's tracks by bushes.
Spitfires fighting Mustangs.
PT boats and torpedo planes are worthless against CV ack. Can't even get within range before you're shot down.
All towns and bases look the same on every map.
Maps are too big and not enough maps in the rotation.
Finding yourself in a 5 vs 1 is the norm not the exception.
No trains or armed convoys to blow up anymore.
No factories spread out across various places on the maps......just packed in one spot protected by laser ack.
No variety in naval shipping to attack. It's either the ack factory CV task group or nothing.
After a while most folks get tired of the same ole thing map after map, tour after tour, year after year. I'm bored with AcesHigh............ and football comes on in 15 minutes.
Amen!!
-
I am assuming you live in paris. here in the us if you have a problem with unauthorized charges all you do is call the cc company and they will remove the charges, it's the law. paying with cc for me is the most secure way. I have paypal also but I use that to buy other games or hardware I feel like using.
semp
same here they pay back the unauthorized money (happened to me in the past, somehow I was buying fuel in northern africa), but waking up with your account taxed is never a good feeling :)
I'm not saying it will happen with HTC, I'm placing myself in the new customer's place.
-
I am assuming you live in paris. here in the us if you have a problem with unauthorized charges all you do is call the cc company and they will remove the charges, it's the law. paying with cc for me is the most secure way. I have paypal also but I use that to buy other games or hardware I feel like using.
semp
Some states and countries require by law to mention a company's billing server is secure.
ack-ack
-
same here they pay back the unauthorized money (happened to me in the past, somehow I was buying fuel in northern africa), but waking up with your account taxed is never a good feeling :)
I'm not saying it will happen with HTC, I'm placing myself in the new customer's place.
I got mine set up so I get an email on charges over 25 bucks. so far no unauthorized charges except for my gf's.
semp
-
I got mine set up so I get an email on charges over 25 bucks. so far no unauthorized charges except for my gf's.
semp
in some stores the payment redirects to my bank's website, which sends a text message to my cell phone that I have to enter on the website to confirm authorization.
In aces high its "enter cc number" and that's it. I was actually thinking about intercepting the packets sent to HTC see if it's crypted at least. Dunno if that breaks the end user agreement tho.
-
pretty she it also breaks the law.
semp
-
pretty she it also breaks the law.
semp
I think in Paris the law is such that ripping off Americans is actually compulsory :)
-
19 pages and I couldn't read them all but did anyone suggest running some AI missions in the MA off peak? I know when I fought them in the AVA they were tough although you can get them to auger like noobs. :D
Would that interest the Euro players? Having something to shoot at is better than flying around the lonely skies. :airplane:
It is good temporarily solution to keep current players entertained but will not fix the root problem of bringing new players into the game.
If easy mouse control with F3 view and gunsite is implemented together with F2P option it will start bringing big numbers of new players into the game.
-
Security of my credit card with HTC is probably the last thing I will ever be concerned about.
I would actually be more worried about giving my card number to Steam. They're a far larger and much juicier target for hackers with ill intentions.
Where the hell is the Like button dammit!
-
"Sniffing" the packets going to and from your own computer is perfectly legal.
-
I think in Paris the law is such that ripping off Americans is actually compulsory :)
:rofl
"Sniffing" the packets going to and from your own computer is perfectly legal.
as long as I don't try to reverse engineer aces high
-
:rofl
as long as I don't try to reverse engineer aces high
EULAs are not legally binding in many countries.
-
EULAs are not legally binding in many countries.
and make sure you tell them that banning you is not legally binding either :rolleyes:.
semp
-
and make sure you tell them that banning you is not legally binding either :rolleyes:.
semp
Each company can do whatever they want with their customers but there's nothing _illegal_ about breaking the EULA in many countries. In fact the limitations posed by the EULA are in themselves considered illegal in many countries.
-
Each company can do whatever they want with their customers but there's nothing _illegal_ about breaking the EULA in many countries. In fact the limitations posed by the EULA are in themselves considered illegal in many countries.
ripley perhaps you misunderstand sarcasm sometimes. go to court and complain that you breaking the EULA and getting banned is not legal since the EULA arent legal. it was a joke dude.
semp
-
semp owns this thread and all others :cheers:
-
ripley perhaps you misunderstand sarcasm sometimes. go to court and complain that you breaking the EULA and getting banned is not legal since the EULA arent legal. it was a joke dude.
semp
Oh I failed to see the humor there but I got your point. In fact I would support making certain things punishable by law, such as online game cheats. They're detrimental to the game community which reflects on happy customers and from there directly to sales figures.
Most companies treat caught cheaters way too lenient. Public humiliation and lifetime ban would be appropriate imo.
-
semp owns this thread and all others :cheers:
:lol
He has more willpower to argue his point till all others drop. All other bbs posters are week and like little girls! :rock
-
:lol
He has more willpower to argue his point till all others drop. All other bbs posters are week and like little girls! :rock
In most arguments the wisest ones catch the moment of no return soonest and stop arguing. Something I often wish to do more myself. But sometimes I fall for the trolls.
-
Oh I failed to see the humor there but I got your point. In fact I would support making certain things punishable by law, such as online game cheats. They're detrimental to the game community which reflects on happy customers and from there directly to sales figures.
Most companies treat caught cheaters way too lenient. Public humiliation and lifetime ban would be appropriate imo.
Yeah but then they wouldnt be able to buy the game again, and again, and under new names keep cheating and keep making the game maker money. Thats why the rules are so Lax. They want to make them look just stringent enough to appear like they give a damn yet dont want them that stringent that they cut into their money flow.
Be glad Aces High never had to deal with that drama. BF4 has so many hackers I think they ban together to protect each other and shush community anger.
-
In fact the limitations posed by the EULA are in themselves considered illegal in many countries.
Only if those provisions in the EULA are illegal. However, if the provisions of the EULA meet a country's legal criteria, the EULA will stand in a court of law. We've had many people try and sue the company I work for, claiming our EULA for our online games is illegal and we've won each time in court, both in the US and in various EU countries.
ack-ack
-
How did we go ? Been thinking about dusting off the gear ...how are things off-peak (aussie time) did anything improve ?
-
No
-
I don't expect numbers to pick up until the update hits. It is my hope to see numbers like we did when I first started in Tour 113.
-
Id like to see smaller maps for a bit... till numbers go back up
-
I would very much like to see smaller combat areas when numbers are smaller. That's the best way to make off-peak playable, in my opinion.
-
I Dont think off hours are that bad, ok sometimes it is but there also qoute a few nice furballs going on from time to time, often more balanced than the super hordes u encounter during prime time.
-
I would very much like to see smaller combat areas when numbers are smaller. That's the best way to make off-peak playable, in my opinion.
Yeah this is something I'd like to see too. If there is some why to open and close fields correlating with the #s in the arena. I think it would make the fighting area smaller and force players to actually battle each other on the map. This would at least make the combat action more fun during off hours. The more players that arrive say 50, 100, 150 and so on, will open more bases and create larger sections of the map to fight in.
-
I have an idea: When any side is below 30 players, disable gvs and buffs. Get AH back to its roots, having fun in air combat.
-
I have an idea: When any side is below 30 players, disable gvs and buffs. Get AH back to its roots, having fun in air combat.
Even less players is no anwer.
-
Even less players is no anwer.
Having most of the players fighting against AI is no answer either.
-
Are there any game theory guys that play/post here, and have an opinion? I know I sound like I'm grasping at straws, but I had to ask. War Thunder makes an attempt at forcing a Nash Equilibrium in its fixed-headcount, timed arenas. You have a set objective, and you can't go off the farm and do your own thing. None of that applies in Aces High (at least it doesn't in practice). The way AH is set up, with freedom to work as a team or freedom to just log in and have fun on your own, equilibrium theory goes out the window. You end up with a situation of the game being like a broken clock being right twice a day: every now and then, when sides are somewhat even and a majority of each side is into working in groups, then a majority on all sides have a good experience. The rest of the time, the gaming experience value is poor for players in at least one of the three countries, which likely results in fewer players playing during that time. Unfortunately, the only way to induce something close to an equilibrium is to force a common player behavior in the players, like War Thunder. I don't see how you can do that in AH. I think the problem isn't in the game. The problem is the freedom in behavior the game allows. I don't think there is a quick fix.
-
Pictures speak a 1,000 words...........Rooks aint buying this new 5 min rule for HQ
(http://www.2ndusss.info/June%209th%20stats.jpg)
-
Are there any game theory guys that play/post here, and have an opinion? I know I sound like I'm grasping at straws, but I had to ask. War Thunder makes an attempt at forcing a Nash Equilibrium in its fixed-headcount, timed arenas. You have a set objective, and you can't go off the farm and do your own thing. None of that applies in Aces High (at least it doesn't in practice). The way AH is set up, with freedom to work as a team or freedom to just log in and have fun on your own, equilibrium theory goes out the window. You end up with a situation of the game being like a broken clock being right twice a day: every now and then, when sides are somewhat even and a majority of each side is into working in groups, then a majority on all sides have a good experience. The rest of the time, the gaming experience value is poor for players in at least one of the three countries, which likely results in fewer players playing during that time. Unfortunately, the only way to induce something close to an equilibrium is to force a common player behavior in the players, like War Thunder. I don't see how you can do that in AH. I think the problem isn't in the game. The problem is the freedom in behavior the game allows. I don't think there is a quick fix.
You can have those kind of game mode arenas in AH, you just make an arena for those game modes while keeping the MA as it its. For example, there can be an arena that is PvE staged missions and another with PvP staged missions. With HiTech's recent post about some of the game modes he's working on, I think that's the direction AH will be going.
-
That is so boring I would be gone. Freedom of how you want to play the game is still the best way. I hated the forced structure games.
Are there any game theory guys that play/post here, and have an opinion? I know I sound like I'm grasping at straws, but I had to ask. War Thunder makes an attempt at forcing a Nash Equilibrium in its fixed-headcount, timed arenas. You have a set objective, and you can't go off the farm and do your own thing. None of that applies in Aces High (at least it doesn't in practice). The way AH is set up, with freedom to work as a team or freedom to just log in and have fun on your own, equilibrium theory goes out the window. You end up with a situation of the game being like a broken clock being right twice a day: every now and then, when sides are somewhat even and a majority of each side is into working in groups, then a majority on all sides have a good experience. The rest of the time, the gaming experience value is poor for players in at least one of the three countries, which likely results in fewer players playing during that time. Unfortunately, the only way to induce something close to an equilibrium is to force a common player behavior in the players, like War Thunder. I don't see how you can do that in AH. I think the problem isn't in the game. The problem is the freedom in behavior the game allows. I don't think there is a quick fix.
-
Pictures speak a 1,000 words...........Rooks aint buying this new 5 min rule for HQ
(http://www.2ndusss.info/June%209th%20stats.jpg)
I have plenty of similar pics just before the change was made to 5 to 125 minutes (no, it's not just "5 minutes") , for all sides. even worse ones.
-
That is so boring I would be gone. Freedom of how you want to play the game is still the best way. I hated the forced structure games.
100% wholehearted agreement. Unfortunately we're a minority in the gaming community. I like the freedom to fight an enemy that has the same freedom to do anything we want.
And that's the problem. I think in the backwhen a lot of people were putting up with the open world freedom because AH was the best WWII PVP game available for a long time. When WT and other similar games came along, it became popular because among other reasons, they get a quick relatively fair fight.
You can have those kind of game mode arenas in AH, you just make an arena for those game modes while keeping the MA as it its. For example, there can be an arena that is PvE staged missions and another with PvP staged missions. With HiTech's recent post about some of the game modes he's working on, I think that's the direction AH will be going.
I think so too, and that worries me because I've seen so often in the past where additional game modes either get all the dev attention, or people perceive that they are getting all the attention, and the old game mode languishes. Attendance drops in the old mode as people move to the new shiny, low attendance begets low attendance, and the diehards like myself either quit or put up with low numbers.
Hope I'm wrong, but I could potentially see new modes saving the game but turning the MA into something resembling AVA or EW.
Wiley.
-
Pictures speak a 1,000 words...........Rooks aint buying this new 5 min rule for HQ
Dundee, those numbers aren't that far off from what they were months ago. I play most mornings EST on rook, and the bish morning shift is pretty active pretty much every morning. One thing I would note is that it's usually the knights that are tail end charlie when it comes to morning numbers, not rooks. I think looking at today's Rook numbers and trying to tie it to the 5 minute rule is akin to trying to add 2 and 2 and coming up with 17.
-
You cannot legislate fun into a dying playground. The more get involved the worse you make it. Your starting to sound like a bully
Something I was thinking about after I posted in another thread.
The game is really struggling at the moment in the off-peak hours.With 50 people logged on the MA is not much fun .When you look at country numbers
there are about 30% of people "in flight" . So they are either in gv's or sitting in the tower looking for something to do , or afk.
The usual pattern is a bunch of gv'ers wandering around somewhere , 10 people in buffs bombing strats and undefended fields,
leaving about 6 or 7 people flying fighter planes looking for some sort of fight or engagement.
So what typically happens is I log on - look around the map - see occasional little blips of radar across the map (buffs usually)
so I either log off , fly around for a while bored , or go make a coffee , (1 more sitting in the tower).
I know people whine about the old days all the time , but this didnt happen in the old days because "everyone" was flying a plane.
So I was thinking of a couple of solutions.
1. Numbers in MA hit < 75 , GV's are unavailable.
and/or
2. Numbers in MA <75 , Map switches automatically to a small map (finish the war - give everyone some perks)
This problem at the moment is self-perpetuating , less people in the air = no fights = less people logging on to fly.
I know this will probably sound silly to some an unplalatable to others , but I can't see the numbers heading anywhere but down given where they are at now. At it's heart and soul Aces High has always been about Air Combat , we need some off-peak.
The game used to have a pretty strong community of people outside the US flying in off-peak , along with the shift workers an US night owls , they are dissappearing.