Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: seano on June 30, 2014, 12:44:09 PM
-
Hey Hitech, this game is really starting to get boring due to lack of players. you guys better start hitting the airshow circuit or something. Do Something Please!!!!!
-
I'm a broken record but.... :aok
-
I expect there will be a more aggressive advertising campaign after the graphics update. If not, it has been nice flying with you guys. :salute
-
Rotating in these big maps with current numbers is making a worrisome situation even worse. Its kinda self defeating. As in player logs on, see's huge map with very few Dars, and says "the heck with it" and logs out.
Sure on Thurs. and weekend nights the lads come out but its the other times that worry me. Its the loss of Euro and Asian players that worry. Of all the years its the loss of LWA K/Ds in the last year that worries most.
Still a great flight model model and community. I doubt Im going anywheres soon. But there is an 800 lb Gorilla in the room and we might as well all say we see it.
-
Yeah i was on 9ish PACIFIC and 47 guys on 20 in the tower and a massive map?! shiferbrains?!
-
Rotating in these big maps with current numbers is making a worrisome situation even worse. Its kinda self defeating. As in player logs on, see's huge map with very few Dars, and says "the heck with it" and logs out.
Sure on Thurs. and weekend nights the lads come out but its the other times that worry me. Its the loss of Euro and Asian players that worry. Of all the years its the loss of LWA K/Ds in the last year that worries most.
Still a great flight model model and community. I doubt Im going anywheres soon. But there is an 800 lb Gorilla in the room and we might as well all say we see it.
Yeah, but when the solution is 'Move to F2P round based arcade combat', some of us don't want it.
Wiley.
-
Yeah, but when the solution is 'Move to F2P round based arcade combat', some of us don't want it.
Wiley.
I don't want that either. But what if I told the reason player numbers are declining are some of the anti-fighting/anti-fun dynamics of the game, which many seem convinced are needed to keep players?
(New guys logs in a few times in a week and can't easily find a fight in any arena for various reasons, he's probably not gonna be here any longer than the trial period.)
EDIT: This game has to make itself known to the kind of people who would enjoy it. Classic airplane rags, advertisements on Youtube when people look up WWII plane stuff. Maybe another TV commercial. You almost cannot find this game if you don't know what it is already. Go ahead and Google "WWII flight simulator" and see what you get.
And when people get here, they've got to reliably find action or they are not going to stay. These points are the bottom line of it all.
-
I
EDIT: This game has to make itself known to the kind of people who would enjoy it. Classic airplane rags, advertisements on Youtube when people look up WWII plane stuff. Maybe another TV commercial. You almost cannot find this game if you don't know what it is already. Go ahead and Google "WWII flight simulator" and see what you get.
And when people get here, they've got to reliably find action or they are not going to stay. These points are the bottom line of it all.
And R/C magazines and web sites.
-
Go ahead and Google "WWII flight simulator" and see what you get.
Actually AH is an online game and has almost no use as an offline game. If you Google "WWII flight simulator online" Aces High is the third link.
-
Actually AH is an online game and has almost no use as an offline game. If you Google "WWII flight simulator online" Aces High is the third link.
It was not when I just tried it, didn't even appear on the first page. Curious.
-
Yeah, but when the solution is 'Move to F2P round based arcade combat', some of us don't want it.
Wiley.
Thankfully, HiTech said this game isn't suited for a F2P business model and I agree.
ack-ack
-
It was not when I just tried it, didn't even appear on the first page. Curious.
It appears for me 3rd on the list using the keywords "WW2 online flight sim" and "WW2 flight sim online".
ack-ack
-
Bing is not as kind as Google.
-
"combat flight sim"
No aces high :old:
-
Yeah, but when the solution is 'Move to F2P round based arcade combat', some of us don't want it.
Wiley.
AH physics combined with a matchmaking program and you have a winner.
-
"combat flight sim"
No aces high :old:
Well, to be fair, AH isn't an offline combat flight sim as the drones don't actually engage in combat. ;)
-
Well, to be fair, AH isn't an offline combat flight sim as the drones don't actually engage in combat. ;)
They used to do so...I guess that changed during my 2 year hiatus.
-
AH physics combined with a matchmaking program and you have a winner.
Where is that vomiting emoticon wheb I need it :uhoh
-
Lost another long time flyer today. Not because of the game necessarily but it's a loss none the less. :airplane:
-
Bing is not as kind as Google.
Bing? *piiifff* :)
I hope the OP is wrong...but methinks hes not far off base.
-
"MMPOG WWII Air Combat" = #1
-
Now back on topic.. SAVES ACESHIGH!!!.
My account is still active, but just don't enjoy the game anymore. I am hoping the coming update will reboot the game.
-
I know that a lot of guys stick around just for FSO alone. They don't spend as much time in the MAs as before.
I am working to get more guys to sign up and have 2 for sure and possibly 3 more on top of that.
I always thought we were bombarded by squeakers during the summer. Did something change?
I personally believe that another ad campaign on cable and satellite should be launched. The graphics are there. In the DFW metroplex alone there is a huge population. Local radio ads could work to draw more attention. Especially for the local company. :rock
-
I know that a lot of guys stick around just for FSO alone. They don't spend as much time in the MAs as before.
When I checked this at two points in the past, I found the FSO pilots to be very much active in the MA on average
I always thought we were bombarded by squeakers during the summer. Did something change?
I guess times have changed and they play different games now.
I personally believe that another ad campaign on cable and satellite should be launched.
And are you going to pay for it? ;)
-
Well, to be fair, AH isn't an offline combat flight sim as the drones don't actually engage in combat. ;)
I didn't add Offline or Online to any search ;)
-
Actually AH is an online game and has almost no use as an offline game. If you Google "WWII flight simulator online" Aces High is the third link.
I beg to differ, it's quite fun with staged missions...
It's just unfortunate that this feature is rather unknown... Even before they were called staged missions, offline missions were somewhat plentiful...
-
And are you going to pay for it? ;)
If I win the lotto, I'd chip in. :pray After I build me a virtual cockpit with hydraulics... :devil
Just found out I live about 6 miles from HiTech Creations! Just moved in this past week. :eek:
I will be attending the next convention should one ever happen again.
-
126 on 10:27pm PST
Daylight savings thin primetime out a little
-
AH physics combined with a matchmaking program and you have a winner.
Yep, it'd be popular. I for one would want nothing to do with it most of the time, but it would be popular.
Wiley.
-
Me thinks the worst. AH has done nothing since what, April. And there is no indication this is changing.
If this world is going to be saved it will likely be st our hands. We'll need to create a gorilla marketing plan and work to take it viral.
Who can make some promotional videos? They need to end with a link to the subscription page.
-
I'm going to throw this out there: You've got a main arena that actual aviation buffs 30+ years of age often find so boring they log out. I mean, it was a chore finding a fight at 7:30pm central time in the MA last night..that's dead center of prime. How is one going to keep new younger players like that. A hard look needs to be taken at every dynamic of the MA to see whether said dynamics promote PvP combat or detract from it.
-
We will have new graphics in next release. this will attract new players who need the immersion.
Change to terrains that force the fight to choke-points.
Removing radar-bar when HQ hit only makes the fights harder to get.
If a field flashed and we have no radar-bar (the radar blips we can live without though), I do not know if I have 0 or 32 enemy plane to look for within the radar sector when it flashes.
-
Yeah, but when the solution is 'Move to F2P round based arcade combat', some of us don't want it.
Wiley.
I know I dont. Not an option for me, I dont even consider such games as "flight games".
-
We will have new graphics in next release. this will attract new players who need the immersion.
The whole game can look like you are actually sitting in the cockpit of a fighter over-flying real terrain, and that STILL won't hold new players (or old ones) if they fail to find fights too many times when they log in.
-
The key for me is the fight. By fight I mean fighters. I know many here enjoy the buff / GV action but for me it is fighters or go home.
I live in Australia so I accept lower numbers are the norm. Usually 35 to 65 players. About half will be in GV's, some in buffs...does not leave much for a wanna be fighter pilot like me.
Add to that the map is so huge people can avoid each other easily.
I think the graphics etc are fine. Sure, improve them if you can / want to but that is not the issue. The issue is we need to find a way to promote consistent and lasting fighter combat encounters within the MA or people will log off and when the log off often enough they will leave.
Other than smaller maps and perhaps 2 countries I am not sure what the answer is. Perhaps not allowing a base to have its fighter hangars shut down would encourage a hardy few to defend but if it is deacked and being vulched they may well log off in frustration anyway (after venting on 200 of course)
-
I can't wait to see the new graphics on the 200 base maps...
An instant action button would go a long way to make the pvp possible again...
-
Almost noone even know aces high exist, w 7 billion people on the planet it should be hard to get 5000 more players to the game but people wont join if they never have heard of the game.
-
The answer is to attract new players and bring back the old ones.
Better graphics will attract new players. More action on smaller maps will bring back old ones and retain the ones already playing.
-
Perhaps not allowing a base to have its fighter hangars shut down would encourage a hardy few to defend but if it is deacked and being vulched they may well log off in frustration anyway (after venting on 200 of course)
Wirbles exist ;)
When I say hangars should no longer be destructible objects, I include the VHs. Picture it: The attackers drop the acks and starts vulching. Some of the vulchees up wirbles to defend their runway and take vengeance on the vulchers. The attackers bring back bombers and jabos and take vengeance on the vehicles stacked on the runway. Then the defenders up cannon birds to take vengeance on the bombers...on and on it goes.
The cycle of carnage is much superior gameplay over the typical story: Attackers drop hangars and shoot some town objects. Someone brings a troop transport. Done. *Yawn* :rolleyes:
-
Wirbles exist ;)
You make a good point...
Why not this?
Any Airbase = VH is indestructible; Must kill troops to stop a resupply elsewhere for the amount of time per current conditions
Any Vehicle base = Storch hanger is indestructible; Maybe push it a little further away from the MR
Any port = Storch hanger is indestructible
Would slightly change the dynamic of the base take while promoting the fight. Base take would take longer...
-
Something needs to be done . When I joined five years ago, there was about 700 to 900 on at any time, now it's around 300. I don't think new planes or tanks would help that much. We could use some new maps, maybe a winter and desert map. People claim there is cheating going on (just saying what one hears)and stopped playing so much. I love WW II airplanes and this is the only way I can them. Save the game! :old:
-
Me thinks the worst. AH has done nothing since what, April. And there is no indication this is changing.
If this world is going to be saved it will likely be st our hands. We'll need to create a gorilla marketing plan and work to take it viral.
Who can make some promotional videos? They need to end with a link to the subscription page.
Just a thought, but it might make sense to do that after the graphic update.
-
And are you going to pay for it? ;)
I already am :old:
Coupled with the fact that good advertisements pay for themselves :old:
-
I beg to differ, it's quite fun with staged missions...
It's just unfortunate that this feature is rather unknown... Even before they were called staged missions, offline missions were somewhat plentiful...
I still think that the online potential for this is huge. Having missions automatically running for people to fly anytime should bring more people in who will end up trying the MA.
We have a few working missions running in the Playroom arena.
I'm big time committed to building these once the system is fixed.
Also check out what is possible with a combination of mission building, terrain building, and custom objects.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,364001.0.html
-
Well as for new planes and vehicles I think AH has certainly delivered and then some.
The 29, the TU, Brewster, Yak 3, 47M, Tiger ll, and new TDs have been huge even to a non-GV'er. I'd love to see the TDs fleshed with a Russian one.
The Betty and 111 have been huge for the events crowd. Seeing dozens of Hurri's over your huge 111 formation during BOB was a sight I'll never forget. Anyone with even a little knowledge of how hard it is to model a gaming vehicle should all know Aces High has come thru and more with introductions and updates. And the characteristics realism, matched up against other realistically modeled planes/vehicles, is a remarkable experience. No, I dont think modeling and updating has been any less then outstanding.
Being a flight History Buff I have plenty of respect and admiration for those who want stuff like PBYs, like Boomerangs, I-talian tri-motors, D-520s, IAR 80s, ....ect But frankly I think sexy is the way to go to bring in new players.
The new terrain looks like its going to be great tanking country and even tho I hate GV'ing I dont care what they do as long as they join the game. So why not add even more firepower to the GV game instead of worrying about filling sets so much. I bet the SU-100 would make any GV'er salivate. Its mean enough to take on a Big Kitty without hesitation.
But best of all would be a commitment to a 1946 arena. The stuff we already have would still be available in it and contracts were signed, planes/GVs designed and built, a new era of combat flight developed and improved "both new models and existing ones" at the time those bombs were dropped in August'45 before they could see combat.
The standard for the arena could be "model flown/tested/prototype by the time of the surrender". Imagine the new stuff, and improved older stuff, that could be modeled? Very exciting to picture ......no? The Bearcat alone makes me want to slobber. Or a KY-J7W. Or RN Vampire?
-
I feel like 1946 arena would just become the new MA. And that's not a good thing, IMO. I really enjoy the immersion, and that would ruin it for me.
Besides, unless you give the jets free of cost, I feel like it would be mostly US/UK planes shooting at US/UK planes, which would be incredibly boring for me.
I mean the Germans have the Do 335, and the Russians have the La-9, and not a whole lot else. The Japanese are utterly screwed, having the A7M and not a great deal more.
-
I beg to differ, it's quite fun with staged missions...
It's just unfortunate that this feature is rather unknown... Even before they were called staged missions, offline missions were somewhat plentiful...
Yeah, you're right, I forgot about offline missions. Oops.
-
I'm going to throw this out there: You've got a main arena that actual aviation buffs 30+ years of age often find so boring they log out. I mean, it was a chore finding a fight at 7:30pm central time in the MA last night..that's dead center of prime. How is one going to keep new younger players like that. A hard look needs to be taken at every dynamic of the MA to see whether said dynamics promote PvP combat or detract from it.
The problem is they have the choice for PvP, but choose to take the path of least resistance. This makes for a boring MA. most games take the decision out of the players hand and force people to interact, not so much in AH.
-
The problem is they have the choice for PvP, but choose to take the path of least resistance. This makes for a boring MA. most games take the decision out of the players hand and force people to interact, not so much in AH.
Seriously, what is the problem here? I signed up when I saw that History Channel commercial so I could shoot planes with a plane. I'm assuming 99.99% of the peeps who sign up are thinking the same thing. So how HAS it come to this?
-
Me thinks the worst. AH has done nothing since what, April. And there is no indication this is changing.
If this world is going to be saved it will likely be st our hands. We'll need to create a gorilla marketing plan and work to take it viral.
Who can make some promotional videos? They need to end with a link to the subscription page.
dude you ever think how smart you are :). why not create a webpage, full of great promotional videos, link it to aces high and whoever subscribes you get paid for it. you get 5 bucks for the first month and 2 bucks for every month after that for as long as that player stays in the game.
you can save aces high and quit your day job. go for it, here's more details.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/company-info/support-affiliate
go for it what do you have to lose?
semp
-
Seriously, what is the problem here? I signed up when I saw that History Channel commercial so I could shoot planes with a plane. I'm assuming 99.99% of the peeps who sign up are thinking the same thing. So how HAS it come to this?
I came to Aces High from that same commercial on the History Channel (or maybe it was the Military Channel) 18 months ago and was excited by all the WWII aviation hardware, but immediately went through this thought process...
Rooks, Bishops, Knights...meh
Where is London, Berlin, Guadalcanal...meh
Maybe the sandbox could use some more structure. Maybe the sandbox could use real maps. With AI bomber formations rolling every 15 or 20 minutes from various "real" locations heading to Berlin and London a new player could wing up in a set of buffs or fly as an escort fighter right away and "get it." My first few weeks in the MA were spent mostly trying to figure out the chaos of 3 enemy combatant countries in a fantasy world. I don't think its primarily the graphics or the economy. Maybe player's expectations have changed over the last 15 years.
Just saying...
-
Seriously, what is the problem here? I signed up when I saw that History Channel commercial so I could shoot planes with a plane. I'm assuming 99.99% of the peeps who sign up are thinking the same thing. So how HAS it come to this?
Aces High is one of the first true MMO games, if not the first. While the graphics and flight models have been updated, not much has been done for the gameplay itself. In some ways this game is a relic of the past. I don't think it would be that hard to make it better either, add choke points, and only allow players to fly from bases relevant to the action. Just seems like we don't have enough structure, something is definitely off.
-
Aces High is one of the first true MMO games, if not the first. While the graphics and flight models have been updated, not much has been done for the gameplay itself. In some ways this game is a relic of the past. I don't think it would be that hard to make it better either, add choke points, and only allow players to fly from bases relevant to the action. Just seems like we don't have enough structure, something is definitely off.
oh they did, remember that map with 300k mountains? only way to take a base was bring 100 players and there would be 100 defending. that map sucked so much it was taken out of rotation.
semp
-
Rooks, Bishops, Knights...meh
Where is London, Berlin, Guadalcanal...meh
Thanks for reminding me of this. Nowadays the ACM chess-game is the important thing to me, and I don't really care whether it is a historical match-up or a P-51 crossing swords with a Typhoon. But when I first started, the historicity was more important to me. It sounds like the Axis versus Allies arena would fit your bill. Unfortunately, that arena basically committed suicide through silly things like no-icons (only realistic for simulating legally blind pilots), and through a culture that often turned it into a dueling arena with historical maps. You'd often seen the two most maneuverable planes, Spits and 109s in the ETO for instance, duking it out. God forbid anyone up a Jug or a 190 and hit and run, that is nothing like historical fighting *at all*.
-
I actually find the off hours more enjoyable than peak. I'll take a 2v2 fight over a bunch of knights racing to clear my 12 any day.
-
I actually find the off hours more enjoyable than peak. I'll take a 2v2 fight over a bunch of knights racing to clear my 12 any day.
I completely agree. The off hours are the best hours when you can get some people into one place to furball. That's when the greatest fights in the game happen. Flying during the peak hours is just for screwing around with friends since the fights are pretty boring. Chasing 190s and P-51s back to their ack. Having "friendlies" ignore you on vox asking to keep the fight 1v1 or asking them to clear your 6 while you kill the plane on your 12 only to have the blow right on by the one on your 6 just to clear your 12. I no longer take anything serious during the peak hours anymore. I just use my time flying gunship bombers, seeing how many planes I can scare into running away at once, or chatting on country/200.
Off hours > Peak hours! :aok (if we can get a small furball going that is)
-
I beg to differ, it's quite fun with staged missions...
It's just unfortunate that this feature is rather unknown... Even before they were called staged missions, offline missions were somewhat plentiful...
Crabby,
What are the staged missions...where do I find them, how do I play them.
Thanks!
-
Off hours > Peak hours! :aok (if we can get a small furball going that is)
At the current numbers off hours are just dreadful to me. Even euro primetime suffers a lot, if you came here for the same thing I came for: To fight large MMO battles and experience a wealth of gameplay options.
Where once flying at US prime was a luxury for me, it's these days almost mandatory to get a comparable reliable fun level. I didn't come here to chase a single con here and there.
-
Crabby,
What are the staged missions...where do I find them, how do I play them.
Thanks!
You can find some in the staged missions forum for offline use:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/board,410.0.html
and there are a few that work online here:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,364012.0.html
-
I actually find the off hours more enjoyable than peak. I'll take a 2v2 fight over a bunch of knights racing to clear my 12 any day.
The off hours are the only time I can get a kill in a 2v2 type fight. Way too many good players on during U.S. prime time so I try to avoid those hours.
-
At the current numbers off hours are just dreadful to me. Even euro primetime suffers a lot, if you came here for the same thing I came for: To fight large MMO battles and experience a wealth of gameplay options.
Where once flying at US prime was a luxury for me, it's these days almost mandatory to get a comparable reliable fun level. I didn't come here to chase a single con here and there.
The numbers at off hours is dreadful but if you can convince everyone to fly in one area then it's a lot of fun. Just now in the MA we're deep in the off hours with less than 30 people in flight and 255 bases. Rooks got a few people together and went for base captures. I had some awesome fun fighting against them anything from 1v1 up to 1v6 (mostly 1v3's or more). I had more fun in those 30 mins I was logged on than I have had during the entire past month peak hours combined.
I don't know if it's just that the people on during the off hours are mostly all fighter jocks or what, but I seem to get way better fights during the off hours. During the peak hours I spend 99% of my time chasing 190s and P-51s back to their ack.
-
Yeah we'd be back to two arenas again. And the 1946 one wouldnt be limited to 1946 only. It could be a perk farmers heaven or a perk users heaven and it wouldnt be limited to only new designs but also the more advanced designs of already established aircraft. Most of all the Soviet design companies. Including their first jet.
As long as "prototype" was the standard there would be many additions. But...I dont much want to turn this into a 1946 thread. It was just an idea. One I dont think is going to happen.
I feel like 1946 arena would just become the new MA. And that's not a good thing, IMO. I really enjoy the immersion, and that would ruin it for me.
Besides, unless you give the jets free of cost, I feel like it would be mostly US/UK planes shooting at US/UK planes, which would be incredibly boring for me.
I mean the Germans have the Do 335, and the Russians have the La-9, and not a whole lot else. The Japanese are utterly screwed, having the A7M and not a great deal more.
-
On the WW2 Buffs facebook page, I managed to slip in a link to the AH page.
LOL
-
Maybe an air conditioned small trailer to take to the 4 big ww2 air shows a year. Like I said, the game dynamic is good. The flight characteristics are good.
Someone was saying they joined up looking for Berlin, London, etc, I've been saying for years, give us the cool small dirt runway airbases from those other specialty arenas. These are good ideas. Also I agree there should be only 2 countries. There would be way more awesome fights with just 2 sides fighting. The numbers are so low and the gameplay so stale, why not try any of these.
Quote this post if you agree
-
Maybe an air conditioned small trailer to take to the 4 big ww2 air shows a year. Like I said, the game dynamic is good. The flight characteristics are good.
Someone was saying they joined up looking for Berlin, London, etc, I've been saying for years, give us the cool small dirt runway airbases from those other specialty arenas. These are good ideas. Also I agree there should be only 2 countries. There would be way more awesome fights with just 2 sides fighting. The numbers are so low and the gameplay so stale, why not try any of these.
Quote this post if you agree
Some version though AHs lack of response....
I know there was a response to the 2 country thought, essentially been there done that. I get it though much has changed since AH apparently did that over a decade ago. The side switch rule alone would likely have a very different impact on a 2 country theater. I also like having maps correlate to the actuals. Let us fight over Western Europe for a few days, with Air launches, to incentive buff fights. Then move to the Pacific, etc.
Anyway...something must be done
-
Some version though AHs lack of response....
I know there was a response to the 2 country thought, essentially been there done that. I get it though much has changed since AH apparently did that over a decade ago. The side switch rule alone would likely have a very different impact on a 2 country theater. I also like having maps correlate to the actuals. Let us fight over Western Europe for a few days, with Air launches, to incentive buff fights. Then move to the Pacific, etc.
Anyway...something must be done
air launches for buffs could be used if used back far enough, and not automatically at 25k. say 3 sectors from an enemy base?
-
air launches for buffs could be used if used back far enough, and not automatically at 25k. say 3 sectors from an enemy base?
Agreed. Maybe it is staggered, one sector gets you 10k, two sectors starts at 15k, three sectors 20k. I don't know, rough ideas but that which we incentivize we'll get more of.
-
patchwork
-
Yeah i was on 9ish PACIFIC and 47 guys on 20 in the tower and a massive map?! shiferbrains?!
Most time I see a small map and log.............boringggggggg gggggggggggggggggggggg
Has anyone even thought that maybe people have other things to spend money on, I don't know like food, rent, bills. Or maybe the younger generation might not like flight sim game and don't want to LEARN how to play cuz it's not XBOX? Also for the "I can't find a fight" guys.......BSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS S. Go to the eye doctor and get you eye's checked. I have logged on different times of the day and night and can always find a fight. It's not the game that is the problem it's US...you and me, we want, want, want and never think of the years that HT and his small staff have done for all of us over many years. If you WANT more maybe we should be paying $50-$60 per month then we might expect more, other wise thank HT for the many years of very cheap entertainment :salute
-
Some version though AHs lack of response....
I know there was a response to the 2 country thought, essentially been there done that. I get it though much has changed since AH apparently did that over a decade ago. The side switch rule alone would likely have a very different impact on a 2 country theater. I also like having maps correlate to the actuals. Let us fight over Western Europe for a few days, with Air launches, to incentive buff fights. Then move to the Pacific, etc.
Anyway...something must be done
Hadn't seen it suggested but I like it. I question the value of the 3-way.
-
I actually find the off hours more enjoyable than peak. I'll take a 2v2 fight over a bunch of knights racing to clear my 12 any day.
Sat and Sun mornings (EST) definately my favorite time to play :aok Great bunch of guys on at that time, on all countries
-
Maybe an air conditioned small trailer to take to the 4 big ww2 air shows a year. Like I said, the game dynamic is good. The flight characteristics are good.
Someone was saying they joined up looking for Berlin, London, etc, I've been saying for years, give us the cool small dirt runway airbases from those other specialty arenas. These are good ideas. Also I agree there should be only 2 countries. There would be way more awesome fights with just 2 sides fighting. The numbers are so low and the gameplay so stale, why not try any of these.
Quote this post if you agree
In the van, you could have 4 or 6 or so commercially available hardware setups, all somewhat dfferent and all logged into the DA so that all the clowns could sit down and have some death matches against each other. They could try out some of the various aircraft and get some instruction in how to best use the one they're flying. They could try some of the various pedal/stick/throttle/seat/trackir combos out - and get ballpark prices on them. It'd be a great way to demo the game. Consider, the numbers are so low that even the additions of a couple of hundred avid new players would make a HUGE difference. Further, I'd estimate you could do a small van setup for less than $100k - although to really do it right, it'd be better to go motor home on its ace and do it up right.
-
Most time I see a small map and log.............boringggggggg gggggggggggggggggggggg
Or maybe the younger generation might not like flight sim game and don't want to LEARN how to play cuz it's not XBOX?
Can we stop with the "younger generation" crap. Just cause some people like xbox doesn't mean you have to generalize the entire group. There are plenty of 50 year olds who play xbox easy mode games too
:bolt:
-
Can we stop with the "younger generation" crap. Just cause some people like xbox doesn't mean you have to generalize the entire group. There are plenty of 50 year olds who play xbox easy mode games too
:bolt:
Hush up, youngster......AND GET OFF MY LAWN!! :old:
-
Can we stop with the "younger generation" crap. Just cause some people like xbox doesn't mean you have to generalize the entire group. There are plenty of 50 year olds who play xbox easy mode games too
:bolt:
exacto mundo. my guess based on my squad and all the other squads I have been in is that the average age is at least 30+ and I wouldnt be surprised if it was 40+.
in the last 3 years I have known 2 players that are under 30, one in his mid 20's the other was 18 I believe.
semp
-
Can we stop with the "younger generation" crap. Just cause some people like xbox doesn't mean you have to generalize the entire group. There are plenty of 50 year olds who play xbox easy mode games too
:bolt:
Nope!
It's not so much an "age" thing its a style thing. Us old timers for the most part play the game as a bunch of guys trying to relive...... what we where lead to believe in all those black and white movies we watched.... the glory days of WWII!
The younger generation.... those brought up with Nintendo and Xbox... are gamers. They play the game to beat the game. That is how they were brought up and how they play games. My son is 26 years old and has a list of games he has "beaten" and its a pretty impressive list.
Thats the difference, us old timers pretend we are pilots, and the younger generation are just playing a game.
-
Nope!
It's not so much an "age" thing its a style thing. Us old timers for the most part play the game as a bunch of guys trying to relive...... what we where lead to believe in all those black and white movies we watched.... the glory days of WWII!
The younger generation.... those brought up with Nintendo and Xbox... are gamers. They play the game to beat the game. That is how they were brought up and how they play games. My son is 26 years old and has a list of games he has "beaten" and its a pretty impressive list.
Thats the difference, us old timers pretend we are pilots, and the younger generation are just playing a game.
you mean all those guys jumping on live grenades to save their friends or doing anything to die first instead of their friends.
or where everybody complains about the mission for the first 45 minutes of the movie and how it's a waste of time then they go in and complete the mission with only 2 or 3 guys left alive. then they all limp away with arms and legs bandages but singing patriotic songs so all the new soldiers coming in feel inspired.
Oh yeah and everybody whines about getting promoted or being recommended for a medal.
semp
-
you mean all those guys jumping on live grenades to save their friends or doing anything to die first instead of their friends.
or where everybody complains about the mission for the first 45 minutes of the movie and how it's a waste of time then they go in and complete the mission with only 2 or 3 guys left alive. then they all limp away with arms and legs bandages but singing patriotic songs so all the new soldiers coming in feel inspired.
Oh yeah and everybody whines about getting promoted or being recommended for a medal.
semp
No that is recent hollywood where the hero always dies....of just about.
Im talking about black and white movies where the hero carried 6 extras on his back back to safety after wiping out the machine gun nest with nothing but his bayonet.... long before your time.
-
Hush up, youngster......AND GET OFF MY LAWN!! :old:
You'll have to come and get me :neener:
-
Fugi is correct, my 10 year old stepson is so much better than me at military games on the Playstation, I have years of military training, firearms training, military history research, not insignificant combat experience, and he kicks my bellybutton all over the place on Playstation military games.
Saying that he is developing a keen interest in AH so won't be long before he can whup me at that too!
I get the impression that the younger players are able to play to the electronic "rules" of games much better than the older generation. When I was 10 I spent my time making dens and having catapult fights with other local kids :old:
-
Fugi is correct, my 10 year old stepson is so much better than me at military games on the Playstation, I have years of military training, firearms training, military history research, not insignificant combat experience, and he kicks my bellybutton all over the place on Playstation military games.
Saying that he is developing a keen interest in AH so won't be long before he can whup me at that too!
I get the impression that the younger players are able to play to the electronic "rules" of games much better than the older generation. When I was 10 I spent my time making dens and having catapult fights with other local kids :old:
LOL!!! same here but we used slings! What were we thinking! LOL!!!
-
LOL!!! same here but we used slings! What were we thinking! LOL!!!
Absolutely, we should have been breaking off saplings and vandalising cars :old:
I remember nice round stones zipping past my head and no thoughts of losing any eye :rofl
-
My son is 26 years old and has a list of games he has "beaten" and its a pretty impressive list.
Yep, my son is 33 and has the same kind of list. He goes through games like eating a bag of potato chips :lol
-
Nope!
It's not so much an "age" thing its a style thing. Us old timers for the most part play the game as a bunch of guys trying to relive...... what we where lead to believe in all those black and white movies we watched.... the glory days of WWII!
The younger generation.... those brought up with Nintendo and Xbox... are gamers. They play the game to beat the game. That is how they were brought up and how they play games. My son is 26 years old and has a list of games he has "beaten" and its a pretty impressive list.
Thats the difference, us old timers pretend we are pilots, and the younger generation are just playing a game.
I ain't out to "beat the game", far from it :old: and I sure as hell ain't an old timer...
-
No that is recent hollywood where the hero always dies....of just about.
Im talking about black and white movies where the hero carried 6 extras on his back back to safety after wiping out the machine gun nest with nothing but his bayonet.... long before your time.
that's what I am talking about. that's all I saw growing up back in the 60's and early 70's. the only new movie that I saw growing up was Rocky and starcrash. didnt even see star wars till the 80's.
semp
-
that's what I am talking about. that's all I saw growing up back in the 60's and early 70's. the only new movie that I saw growing up was Rocky and starcrash. didnt even see star wars till the 80's.
semp
My family queued for 2 hours in the rain to watch Rocky for my big brothers birthday.
When we go in sight of the doors he decided he didn't want to see it any more.... so we went home :uhoh
-
For X-mas I think I'll buy my kid a flight rig for his gaming computer and get him going on flight. He's USAF now and I want him to get a sense of his History. :salute
-
Thats the difference, us old timers pretend we are pilots, and the younger generation are just playing a game.
ACM is a game. One that WILL appeal to the part of the male mind (of any age or generation) that loves strategy and tactics, whether chess, jujitsu, Risk, dogfighting, whatever. IF it is presented properly.
-
ACM is a game. One that WILL appeal to the part of the male mind (of any age or generation) that loves strategy and tactics, whether chess, jujitsu, Risk, dogfighting, whatever. IF it is presented properly.
Indeed, and air combat will always have some appeal, even to those not interested in historical immersion.
If I had my wish, the game would be expanded to cover all historical phases of all types of air/land/sea combat... A never ending timeless virtual war that runs from WWi to present...
I note, at this time, the significance of what is often called bandwagon effect" to this, or any other, MMO.
-
If I had my wish, the game would be expanded to cover all historical phases of all types of air/land/sea combat... A never ending timeless virtual war that runs from WWi to present...
Interesting, though probably not practical. It has always been assumed that WWII air combat would be the niche with the largest market.
-
In some ways, because of the effect cited, it actually makes sense. The problem is that the fixed cost of all that development imposes a big barrier.
-
Thats the difference, us old timers pretend we are pilots, and the younger generation are just playing a game.
I'd say that summarizes the community here quite well, and probably explains the high amount of resistance to what other sims (games) establish as the norm for the genre.
The problem is, sooner or later, you run out of old-timers; and if you haven't maintained a steady influx of new gamers to take their place, you end up with a dead game.
-
I'd say that summarizes the community here quite well, and probably explains the high amount of resistance to what other sims (games) establish as the norm for the genre.
The problem is, sooner or later, you run out of old-timers; and if you haven't maintained a steady influx of new gamers to take their place, you end up with a dead game.
Or, as younger generations age they may not want the fast fix from a game like WarThunder that they do in their teen and 20 something years. There will always be players aging into their 30's and 40's which would be my guess as the average age in Aces High and as I've gotten older I have wanted more and more realism and less instant gratification. There will always be a market for the 30+ age bracket also...and someone will fill it. I wouldn't play WarThunder even if Aces High didn't exist...too frantic and hair brained for me.
-
Or, as younger generations age they may not want the fast fix from a game like WarThunder that they do in their teen and 20 something years. There will always be players aging into their 30's and 40's which would be my guess as the average age in Aces High and as I've gotten older I have wanted more and more realism and less instant gratification. There will always be a market for the 30+ age bracket also...and someone will fill it. I wouldn't play WarThunder even if Aces High didn't exist...too frantic and hair brained for me.
Exactly, but the outreach to that group, the group that wants something more than a "McSimulator" , is nearly nonexistent. THere used to be some military channel advertising. I think you could reach the right group generally if you targeted Dixcovery/TLC/NatGeo type audiences.
I'm just not buying all this defeatist talk, as if WWII Combat sim appeal was limited to "average" Harley Davidson buyers and, like that group, ages a year, on average, every year. No. this has an appeal that will stretch forward quite a ways. Indeed, there is NO OTHER ERA IN HISTORY that featured this kind of all out, to quote the movie GOON, "gay porn hard" action of masses of aircraft going at it hammer and tongs.
(http://www.scene-stealers.com/wp-content/uploads//2012/04/goon-schrieber.jpg)
If you ask me, all of these defeatists should be rounded up, und dan, you could hang them from lightposts with a sign around their necks, "Ich bin ein uberlaufer"!
In fact, maybe that ashould be the AH advertising slogan, "Gay Porn Hard!" - and you could get the Team Captain from Goon to be the rep, god knows he's probably not busy these days. Anyway, see the movie, it's hilarious. As for AH, don't give up the ship.
-
It is projected next year tablet sales will exceed combined desktop PCs and laptops sales .
-
It is projected next year tablet sales will exceed combined desktop PCs and laptops sales .
Doesn't matter since you really can't play AH on a tablet.
ack-ack
-
I was going to say... Ross the Boss Rhea isn't playing AH on some sissy tablet.
I've got an ipad. It's for watching movies on the airplane (and for skyping) because the ones Delta offers up in business class SUCK WHALE, as do their monitors. My wife plays games on her ipad, therefore, playing games on ipads is for girls and twinkie-eating, redpop-swilling meth-addled teens. AH demands a better setup.
Ultimately, this thing is going to have to be sold on differentiation, not cost or convenience. As in:
you want accurate flight models and an immersive experience? AH. Everything else out there is for losers who can't afford the price of admission. If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch. 15 bucks? Pah! That is near as makes no difference to an AH user. THey should probably increase it.
In marketing, it's called "snob appeal" and it explains why some products actually become LESS attractive when made more affordable. I'm not proud to say it, but I remember back in the 90's, just as DVD was replacing VHS, going in to get a replacement VHS machine. I'd had a fairly expensive JVC pro-series editing deck and wanted something similar - but everything was suddenly less than $200 bucks. I managed to find one that was a little more, and walked out feeling placated.
We need a similar aura around AH. I think for those aware of th egame, that aura exists. Indeed, my old buddy in FL who refuses to pay for his gaming declared as much. The useless turd, however, still will not pay, on principal.
-
In marketing, it's called "snob appeal"
I think a good deal of that market is more interested in stuff like DCS, where you get the joy of half hour startup sequences etc to REALLY show people how you can press a button and sit in a chair watching a gauge move slowly.
We're this weird twilight of more hardcore than WT fans, less hardcore than DCS style fans, and there's nothing else out there comparable to AH. It scratches our itch, but it's not a common itch for people to have.
Wiley.
-
Doesn't matter since you really can't play AH on a tablet.
ack-ack
Me thinks you missed the point.
I wonder if the best strategy is to developer the game to a much higher level and increase the cost. More exclusive type thing.
-
Doesn't (didn't) Warbirds cost more? How's that working out?
-
We're this weird twilight of more hardcore than WT fans, less hardcore than DCS style fans, and there's nothing else out there comparable to AH. It scratches our itch, but it's not a common itch for people to have.
I think AH hits the biggest POTENTIAL niche in flight sim gaming. The trouble is that nobody knows this game exists.
-
You people forget this is not a Air Combat Flight Sim!!!!!! Aces High is just a game that has WW 2 stuff in it. It will never be anything but a game!!!!
Aces High is a few steps above Warbirds and a few steps below IL-2 Strumovk 1946 or IL-2 Cliffs Of Dover. The only way for AH to ever become a
a Combat Flight Sim is to up grade the game and change the game play. However that will never happen, because the AH community will never change.
-
You people forget this is not a Air Combat Flight Sim!!!!!! Aces High is just a game that has WW 2 stuff in it. It will never be anything but a game!!!!
Aces High is a few steps above Warbirds and a few steps below IL-2 Strumovk 1946 or IL-2 Cliffs Of Dover. The only way for AH to ever become a
a Combat Flight Sim is to up grade the game and change the game play. However that will never happen, because the AH community will never change.
What are you basing this on?
-
From experience!!! I have played Air Combat Flight Sims since 1987. I have seen them come and go. Aces High is no where near a true Air Combat Flight Sim.
-
Well I too have played simulators for many years and I think AH is a smashing and splendid combat simulator, and I am able to evidence this because of my experience. No qualification needed :old:
-
You may think it is smashing and a splendid combat simulator, you are welcome to your opinions as I am. To me Aces High is just a game period!!!
As for me no qualification needed either!!!!!
-
For me personally I found clod a waste of money. It just made me want to play AH more.
-
You may think it is smashing and a splendid combat simulator, you are welcome to your opinions as I am. To me Aces High is just a game period!!!
As for me no qualification needed either!!!!!
I was being pedantic, what i was asking for were your reasons behind your conclusion, and what you believe is wrong with the game. :old:
-
I have always assumed the IL-2 games were Aces High's main competition, but I sure do hear a lot about WarThunder on this board. The IL-2 games are what compete for my time with the MA and I think AH would gain more players than lost if it became a true WW2 game like IL-2. I can't imagine many players leaving AH if it went to 2 sides and real maps, but a lot of IL-2 players would come on board. The biggest puzzlement to me is the chess piece format on fantasy maps. Its not something you tell your friends about with excitement when you first play AH, but rather something you get used to, kind of.
-
I was being pedantic, what i was asking for were your reasons behind your conclusion, and what you believe is wrong with the game. :old:
Outside of FSO, Snapshot, This Day and special events you can't just log on and get the classic plane matchups of WW2 (other than a contrived fight in the DA) for one thing. Spitfire vs P-51 is pretty goofy. Very few mission opportunities on many nights, and when you're escorting, intercepting, or flying bombers the target is A57 not Berlin or the hundreds of other famous WW2 targets. I play AH but it lacks the WW2 immersion many players are looking for. And I can't imagine new players coming here looking for chess pieces over fantasy maps...that part has never made sense to me.
-
Hear, hear...
There's nothing I like better than an accurate matchup. The chess piece thing seems stupid to me as well.
-
Hear, hear...
There's nothing I like better than an accurate matchup. The chess piece thing seems stupid to me as well.
How stupid would this game be with 80% of players wanting to play on the Allied side in a two-sided match up? Take a look at the plane stats every month and compare the usage of the P-51/Corsair/Spit/La-7/P-47/P-38/F6F/Yak/Typh/B-17/B-24/Lanc/A-20 with the 109/190/110/262/N1K/A6M/Ki/C.205/Ju-88/G4m/Tu2 and see what most people want to fly.
I wonder what a two sided game would be like, but not as an "accurate" Axis v Allied game. The open sandbox concept is what keeps my interest after all these years.
-
There's nothing I like better than an accurate matchup.
Not really doable without a huge amount of rules & restrictions. Probably scripted missions with AI and limited player slots would work best
-
WW2 aviation combat sims are possible. We rarely have balance problems in the IL-2 online games.
-
WW2 aviation combat sims are possible. We rarely have balance problems in the IL-2 online games.
IL-2 is an open sandbox type game with hundreds of players in the same arena?
-
WW2 aviation combat sims are possible. We rarely have balance problems in the IL-2 online games.
And yet here you are :headscratch:
-
And yet here you are :headscratch:
Non sequitur. If someone likes hamburgers is that person required to eat at Burger King, or is permissible to also eat from Windys or McDonalds?
Just sayin' sir. :salute
-
Non sequitur. If someone likes hamburgers is that person required to eat at Burger King, or is permissible to also eat from Windys or McDonalds?
Just sayin' sir. :salute
Of course he is, he would not however be allowed to stand in the middle of McDonalds with a Burger King advertisement :old:
Just Saying
-
Of course he is, he would not however be allowed to stand in the middle of McDonalds with a Burger King advertisement :old:
Just Saying
I don't think he's doing that. I'm pretty sure we (i.e. the community) have discussed the pros and cons of other WWII simulations before on the forums, as well as compared and contrasted the pros and cons of these sims with AH. It is the later I beleive he is attempting to do, mon ami. :salute
On a side note: Speaking as one who likes a good hamburger every now and then, I don't want to give the wrong impression....I don't think it is ever permissible to eat one at a McDonalds, a Windys OR a Burger King. *blech* :D ;)
-
And yet here you are :headscratch:
I am just brainstorming on how to get folks to come here who aren't. IL-2 is not a secret and to pretend it is would be to bury our heads in the sand. Cliffs of Dover can support and often has 100 players on a server. I'm sure Hitech could do the same thing on a much bigger scale.
And I'm not broadcasting a commercial...I don't like the complex engine management on the Cliffs of Dover servers, I prefer the way the planes in Aces High are set up. Cliffs of Dover is also narrow in scope. I really think if Hitech tried to compete in the WW2 market they would dominate it and I often wonder if they would lose many existing players with a format change...I don't think so, but then that's just my opinion.
If you also add the online IL-2 1946 players you can often find 150 IL-2 players on any given night that would be ripe to play Aces High WW2.
-
Speaking as one who likes a good hamburger every now and then, I don't want to give the wrong impression....I don't think it is ever permissible to eat one at a McDonalds, a Windys OR a Burger King. *blech* :D ;)
Wendy's rocks oh yeah! :banana:
McDonald's & Burger King bleh!
-
Wendy's rocks oh yeah! :banana:
McDonald's & Burger King bleh!
I agree.
As far as the game, it's probably the most fun I've had out of any flying game I've ever played, and I'm sure I'm part of the "younger generation." Matchmaking games can be fun, I enjoy a game of CoD4 or TF2 every once in a while, but Aces High is a different kind of game. When I saw the commercial for it on the history channel, I was expecting an AvA style game. Now that I'm used the the 3-sided war though, I can't imagine it would be better any other way.
-
IL-2 is an open sandbox type game with hundreds of players in the same arena?
Well, exactly. It has to be one or the other. If it is open sandbox, you'll have stupid/improbable/impossible matchups. If not, you may have entry delays driven by balance issues. The question is, have we traded off the right thing?
-
Just my opinion, I don't think you will ever see a 2 sided axis, allied setup in the main arena. WB tried it long ago, along with a rolling plane set and also just my opinion, it didn't work.
-
Outside of FSO, Snapshot, This Day and special events you can't just log on and get the classic plane matchups of WW2 (other than a contrived fight in the DA) for one thing. Spitfire vs P-51 is pretty goofy. Very few mission opportunities on many nights, and when you're escorting, intercepting, or flying bombers the target is A57 not Berlin or the hundreds of other famous WW2 targets. I play AH but it lacks the WW2 immersion many players are looking for. And I can't imagine new players coming here looking for chess pieces over fantasy maps...that part has never made sense to me.
If that was what people are looking for, the AvA would be the full arena.
FWIW, HTC's tried different country setups from 2 to I think 4, 3 was determined best for playability. Not entirely sure how that relates to things these days, but that's what they determined. They did put thought into it.
Well, exactly. It has to be one or the other. If it is open sandbox, you'll have stupid/improbable/impossible matchups. If not, you may have entry delays driven by balance issues. The question is, have we traded off the right thing?
I'm here for the sandbox, it seems quite a few people are. From what I've seen over the years, there's a pretty decent sized allied bias in numbers. The guys that fly Axis planes tend to be fairly fanatical about flying them, but there are fewer of them most of the time. Constant number imbalance would get old.
The real world/real maps also aren't particularly designed for playability.
Wiley.
-
I'm here for the sandbox, it seems quite a few people are. From what I've seen over the years, there's a pretty decent sized allied bias in numbers.
Absolutely.
Just think of the impact of plane capability in a "war sandbox" game like we have. Compare the allied bombers to the axis ones. Yes, axis has 262s but that doesn't change the fact that they can't strike nearly as hard as the allied forced could.
So only a scenario like setup with clearly defined targets and strict population (and plane!) control would make for a balanced game. Like a AH scenario.
-
I am one that would leave immediately if AH turned into full blown WW2 sim.
who ever said AH is not a combat sim...is very wrong.
it is NOT a WW2 sim....
it is most definitely a COMBAT sim using WW2 equipment.
it is the ONLY true Combat sim with WW2 equipment.....incredibly accurate and well made models of said WW2 equipment.
and no lame pushing buttons to simulate "engine" control..
thats what is great about AH....it is ALL about the COMBAT.
whether it be combat in planes Tanks or Bombers.
-
I'm sure many here have wt accounts from when they checked it out, I do.
I "tastefully" spammed the txt box in there last night describing the beneficial advantages of ah.
Better fm, realistic views, huge arenas, and more to do than mini scenarios.
Others in here should do the same. it's best to make positive posts that will make them want to try ah.
-
I think AH hits the biggest POTENTIAL niche in flight sim gaming. The trouble is that nobody knows this game exists.
I disagree. Sandbox multiplayer with no clearly defined goals is not for everyone. I'm here because that's the kind of game I like playing. I don't like two equal teams on a small map with a small goal for the round that will be over in 15 minutes. I want it to feel like an area for me to operate in, with a variety of more or less random things going on in it. I decide what I want to do, and try to accomplish it. There is nobody telling me to go blow up the CV group headed this way, I decide whether I want to or not.
For a lot of people who want to dogfight, WT gives them bite size guaranteed action, round based, 'fair' fights. The arcade mode is vastly the most popular, with dwindling numbers as you move up the realism scale to more or less what we have here in round based format. It seems to me the vast majority of gamers want to be told what to do, to be given a short term goal that they can accomplish, then move on to what the game says the next short term goal is.
Unfortunately people just don't seem to be able to handle the type of gameplay that's here. About the closest game to this one I've seen in recent memory other than Warbirds which only has around 15 people on in primetime last time i checked, is Planetside 2.
I was there pretty early for it on release, seemed like a lot of fun. Focus in PS2 is more on infantry and ground than air, but it's the same type of idea in that you've got a big map, 3 countries (apparently more people than HTC and WBs think that's the magic number) and are free to do as you like on that map. Hording abounds, so does spawn camping. It started out with huge numbers, then faded to (spitballing here) about 1/3 of what it started out with at the most. Been a while since I logged in, but they started out with at least double the amount of servers they had in the beginning, and have had to merge them a couple times. A lot of people left due to the horde or be horded gameplay and boredom it seems.
It just seems to me most gamers need the game telling them what to do at all times for some reason.
I'm sure many here have wt accounts from when they checked it out, I do.
I "tastefully" spammed the txt box in there last night describing the beneficial advantages of ah.
Better fm, realistic views, huge arenas, and more to do than mini scenarios.
Others in here should do the same. it's best to make positive posts that will make them want to try ah.
I wholeheartedly disagree with that. The last thing we need is a rep for spamming. I know if I see people spamming about a game on another game it makes me far less likely to check it out. Just seems like a really low class thing to do.
Wiley.
-
...that's why I said "tastefully" and to stay positive.
"hey, anyone in here tried aces high?"
"no, what is it?"
that's where I talked about how great ah is, not that it's better than wt (even though you and I both know that).
A few said thanks, and another said "if you like ah, you should try il2." Nobody in there said anything negative.
Wt advertises more than ah. I'm betting that there are many in there that would prefer ah if they only heard of it, and then tried it.
-
The addicting part of AH is like golf. In golf, at times I can hit just as good of a shot as Tiger Woods could have if he was making the shot. Not every shot. Not every other shot but it will happen. When it does it gives me great satisfaction. AH is the same way. When this tour started as an example I had 16 fighter kills in a row to zero deaths. That will not happen again anytime soon but for that time in the game I was a super pilot. I made all the right declensions and made all the right moves. I have had equally bad moments.
We play for our moments of triumph not matter how far apart those glorious moments might be. That is HTC market. A WW2 simulation game that is addictive.
-
I disagree. Sandbox multiplayer with no clearly defined goals is not for everyone.
blah, blah, etc...
spamming about a game on another game it makes me far less likely to check it out. Just seems like a really low class thing to do.
Wiley.
Wiley, I too like the sandbox thing at times. Sometimes, I want practice and self-initiated activity. Other times, I want organization and realism. It's like the difference between playing singles tennis and playing soccer. I've played and enjoyed both - but they are not the same sport. To ensuire broad appeal, the game needs to cover both bases - but currently only covers one for about 124 of 128 hours every week (unless you're in the lunatic time warp, in which case its 100 hour metric days and the coverage is a little different, when lucid).
As for the earlier comments regarding the AvA arena and the "unpopularity" of that arrangement, as evidenced by the population at any time: Using that standard, the only "popular" arena is Late War main. Nobody likes mid, early, WWi, or DA (or those would always be full, doncha know) - OR - there is a significant bandwagon effect and people simply go to the arena that consistently draws the biggest numbers and is the most unregulated. In all, I found this argument to be laughably specious. USing this standard, we'd have ONE arena, or better, choose to shut the whole thing down.
No, the net needs to be broader and the numbers need to be large enough that preferences of all types can be supported. We know BnZ likes the DA. I used to spend a certain amount of time in AvA. Nobody plays in either place any more and so we all end up in the MA, where stupid icons and unrealistic matchup are the order of the day and everybody must love it - otherwise they'd be doing the combat equivalent of masturbation over in the arena of their choice. NEWSFLASH: schtupping even an ugly girl beats being a one-man band, at least sometimes.
I'm starting to think some of the critics of this BBS are right: ossified to the point of being moribund.
-
NEWSFLASH: schtupping even an ugly girl beats being a one-man band, at least sometimes.
And just when I thought I've seen everything this forum has to offer... :lol
Thanks man....That sentence right there brightened my whole day. :D :aok
-
No, the net needs to be broader and the numbers need to be large enough that preferences of all types can be supported. We know BnZ likes the DA. I used to spend a certain amount of time in AvA. Nobody plays in either place any more and so we all end up in the MA, where stupid icons and unrealistic matchup are the order of the day and everybody must love it - otherwise they'd be doing the combat equivalent of masturbation over in the arena of their choice. NEWSFLASH: schtupping even an ugly girl beats being a one-man band, at least sometimes.
I'm starting to think some of the critics of this BBS are right: ossified to the point of being moribund.
This game is a niche within a niche within a niche. I think a lot of you guys are grossly overestimating the endless streams of people who would put forth the equipment and time investment to play here if only they knew about it. The people who are casually interested in it get their itch scratched by the F2P stuff.
Wiley.
-
Again I find myself in limited agreement with you, Wiley. It is highly specialized and, as it sits currently, is overspecialized because of the limited numbers. What i'm saying: it'll likely always be niche-y, but need not be nested nichey. In part, it's how we've made the world, in part how the world was to begin.
That said, if you are telling me that AH would not benefit from broader awareness, I'd tell you that there are more than 200-300 (or even 2000-3000) WWII air combat enthusiasts who would probably pay money for the experience. What were the WT numbers, again? What about WoT, to whom we lost so many players?
-
Let me first say that anyone who thinks that the problems in Aces High can be anywhere near addressed by updating the plane set is insane.
Part of the problem with this game is not only the shrinking player base, but the player base that the game is shrinking to. Namely a bunch of crochety old men who still complain about Call of Duty Xbox playing teenagers, despite that these are things that are nearly 15 years old now and the people who grew up on them are in their twenties and thirties. (note everything that I'm going to say is grasping at straws, conjecture, non-researched [I haven't even played this game seriously in years but still can somehow not keep myself from the boards] and not sugar-coated/somewhat tongue-in-cheek, so if you've got one foot in the grave and a thin skin I suggest you change your colostomy bag in lieu of finishing reading this post)
As far as I remember in 2007 this 'old guard' still had itself together, but it's pretty clear that at this point a lot of these people are just fed up with video games and moving on to knitting or something or are dying (the current 'old guard' will from here be referred to as the 'near-dead guard'). The ones that are still left seem to be so bitter about not having anything better to do at 85 that they do nothing but complain on 200 about how much better things were in the fifties because race mixing was still illegal in their state. This provides an extremely hostile environment for people who still have hope left in their life upon entering the game. This is a problem, because these are the people, in their teens, twenties, and thirties, who should a) be filtering through the game and b) be forming a new 'old guard'.
Part of the issue is that this game is catered toward the near-dead guard.
"Graphics don't matter!"
"that's dumb, all I care about is combat!"
"anyone unwilling to put in three months of floundering and being made fun of is unfit to play this game!"
"shirts with flames on them are cool!"
The game play issues of Aces High are difficult to address and I suspect a lot of the stagnation comes from the shrinking player base as opposed to actual problems with the game mechanism anyway. The and while the shrinking player base of course probably has a lot to do with the gameplay mechanics, there are other things which make this game less conducive to a new generation of players that can also be looked at. But never are. Because most everyone here is almost dead. You'll refuse to believe these are issues, but, rest assured, they are.
And, let me first say, that I think that the terrain update is a fantastic step in a great direction, not only because of an increase in tangible graphic capabilities with stuff like ambient occlusion and more terrain vertices or whatever, but aesthetic. Aesthetic is something this game has a huge problem with.
Removing the graphic capabilities, it just looks like a game from like 2003 (liberally). The menus and utilitarian controls (like the auto takeoff sign or whatever) just all look awful, half baked, and one-to-one-and-a-half decades dated (which makes since since a lot of them largely are). This is not going to be fixed with higher resolution textures or bump mapping. It just all needs redone in a way that is more in line with what you would expect from a professionally done video game in 2014, not an indie game from 1999. While obviously icons are here to stay, they can probably be looked at in a way that will make them look a lot less '1999'- maybe change the font, just make them a little smoother. Perhaps things that are usually in the middle screen (like 'auto takeoff enabled') into a special 'game/status message' box on the screen. Make the radio look a little bit cleaner and more modern. The website is similar. Further, the screenshots section of the website shows screenshots from a long long time ago, with old terrain engines, very old plane models, etc. and generally makes the game look outdated and pretty crappy.
As noted the terrain update I think is a huge improvement, and this goes along with aesthetic. Previous game elements, as well as most custom design elements, feature weirdly high contrast color schemes which old people seem to interpret as "HD". This may be a biological issue (perhaps their eyes just can't perceive subtleties in color?), but it's likely simply an issue of aesthetic that has never been allowed to adapt with the times. The new terrain is great because the colors are so much more subdued, there's so much more subtlety, and everything seems so much more organic and soft. Some of the buildings, I think at least, are still a little bit 'photographs with the contrast cranked' looking, but it's definitely a step in the right direction. But the bright colors I suspect much of the aging population of this game equates with 'vividness' or something has to go, quickly, in a big way. It's just something that goes into giving the game an amateurish and very outdated appearance, even as the graphical capabilities get much better.
You may think that this is stupid, a lot of work for nothing material, but that's why this game fails to grab new players. That attitude is out of touch with what makes a twenty-something feel like they're playing something immersive and professional. It's why Aces High will never pick back up until it ditches its fifteen-year-old aesthetics.
Go to WoT and you find another game that, despite also coming from a relatively small developer, feels professional, immersive, and somewhat 'serious'. Guess which game is going to seem immediately more appealing to someone who's in for a realistic WWII experience.
Also all of the old AH I models should be updated by now because seriously
-
. Namely a bunch of crochety old men who still complain about Call of Duty Xbox playing teenagers, despite that these are things that are nearly 15 years old now
:lol :aok
-
This game is a niche within a niche within a niche. I think a lot of you guys are grossly overestimating the endless streams of people who would put forth the equipment and time investment to play here if only they knew about it. The people who are casually interested in it get their itch scratched by the F2P stuff.
Wiley.
QFT.
In all honesty, AH is somewhere above the "super realism" niche, but well below the War Thunder niche when measuring the number of people who would potentially be interested in playing. War Thunder in its simplest form (Arcade) is nothing more than a 1st / 3rd person shooter with wings...no more realistic than playing the latest Call of Duty.....but that is attractive to those who just want action without investing a ton of time in learning ACM, reading, dying a ton, etc.
Welcome to the instant gratification generation. :frown:
-
Part of the problem with this game is not only the shrinking player base, but the player base that the game is shrinking to. Namely a bunch of crochety old men who still complain about Call of Duty Xbox playing teenagers, despite that these are things that are nearly 15 years old now and the people who grew up on them are in their twenties and thirties. (note everything that I'm going to say is grasping at straws, conjecture, non-researched [I haven't even played this game seriously in years but still can somehow not keep myself from the boards] and not sugar-coated/somewhat tongue-in-cheek, so if you've got one foot in the grave and a thin skin I suggest you change your colostomy bag in lieu of finishing reading this post)
GET OFF MY LAWN, KID!!!! :old:
QFT.
In all honesty, AH is somewhere above the "super realism" niche, but well below the War Thunder niche when measuring the number of people who would potentially be interested in playing. War Thunder in its simplest form (Arcade) is nothing more than a 1st / 3rd person shooter with wings...no more realistic than playing the latest Call of Duty.....but that is attractive to those who just want action without investing a ton of time in learning ACM, reading, dying a ton, etc.
Welcome to the instant gratification generation. :frown:
I guess he's right! :rofl :D
-
Aces High might serve a pretty small niche but the idea that the game is inaccessible because it takes too much effort or isn't instant gratification enough is silly. There are games that are mind-numbingly boring compared to Aces High (see any of Paradox Interactive's sandbox grand strategy titles) (which also serve a pretty small niche by the way) but present an immersive user experience and are professional looking and 'with the times' aesthetically and do very well (see the flourishing success of Paradox Interactive) with a good market (20-30 year olds).
-
Welcome to the instant gratification generation. :frown:
I heard that stuff 30 years ago. My parents probably heard the same 60 years ago...
-
I heard that stuff 30 years ago. My parents probably heard the same 60 years ago...
Meh...kids these days! :old:
:)
In all seriousness, I have to disagree somewhat with the idea the learning curve has nothing to do with the number of players interested. Sorry guys, but many people have less and less free time these days just trying to make ends meet....unless they are unemployed, of course. Regardless, both are significant factors lowering the number of potential users. Many who find themselves overworked would likely use what little free time they have on something that they can pickup and learn quickly, rather than something it will take years to master. Just IMHO, of course....honestly I hope I'm wrong!
-
Meh...kids these days! :old:
:)
In all seriousness, I have to disagree somewhat with the idea the learning curve has nothing to do with the number of players interested. Sorry guys, but many people have less and less free time these days just trying to make ends meet....unless they are unemployed, of course. Regardless, both are significant factors lowering the number of potential users. Many who find themselves overworked would likely use what little free time they have on something that they can pickup and learn quickly, rather than something it will take years to master. Just IMHO, of course....honestly I hope I'm wrong!
I don't think it has *nothing* to do with learning curve. I don't think people have no interest in playing hard games any more, though, because that's ridiculous. Once failing that Aces High does have is that there's no tutorial system or anything to get you into it. You can go into the deserted training arena or you can get eaten alive in the MA, which from what I understand no longer has anyone in it who hasn't been playing for two years. I'm sure that turns a lot of people off, I don't know why it wouldn't. In fact, I don't know why anyone without significant flight sim experience would get into this game at this point.
-
Again I find myself in limited agreement with you, Wiley. It is highly specialized and, as it sits currently, is overspecialized because of the limited numbers. What i'm saying: it'll likely always be niche-y, but need not be nested nichey. In part, it's how we've made the world, in part how the world was to begin.
Here's how I see the rock and hard place they're up against. Choosing any of the games in this genre requires some kind of compromise. Some things people won't compromise on, others they will. For example, some people love them some engine management and feel it's a critical part of the experience. They wind up in IL2 or DCS. Some people want constant action. They're in WT and WoT. Some people don't want to have to learn much. They are also in WT and WoT.
AH is built around open world large map (even our "small" maps) unstructured combat. A good number of people tolerated that to get their WWII combat fix, but they prefer round based, goal based gameplay. When they got options that were more inline with their gameplay preferences, they jumped ship.
The people who prefer the open world style gameplay this has to offer are now a larger proportion of the player base and it's probably the 'no compromise' part of gameplay for them because it's pretty much the only viable game with that gameplay left.
That said, if you are telling me that AH would not benefit from broader awareness, I'd tell you that there are more than 200-300 (or even 2000-3000) WWII air combat enthusiasts who would probably pay money for the experience. What were the WT numbers, again? What about WoT, to whom we lost so many players?
Completely different game styles though. Open world vs instant action round based, both of them. A night of AH, even when numbers are awesome, still is a completely different gameplay experience from a night of WT.
The gameplay of those other two games is more in line with what the vast majority of gamers are looking for when they look for a game. Bite sized objectives, constant fair fights.
Aces High might serve a pretty small niche but the idea that the game is inaccessible because it takes too much effort or isn't instant gratification enough is silly. There are games that are mind-numbingly boring compared to Aces High (see any of Paradox Interactive's sandbox grand strategy titles) (which also serve a pretty small niche by the way) but present an immersive user experience and are professional looking and 'with the times' aesthetically and do very well (see the flourishing success of Paradox Interactive) with a good market (20-30 year olds).
Huge agreement about the UI and aethetics. It is stuck in the 90s, which doesn't bother me but I understand why it's unattractive to people who are used to current design.
The thing with the mind-numbingly boring games, don't know a thing about Paradox's stuff, but I'm thinking in terms of WoW and soforth. They're mind numbingly boring, and they take up an immense amount of time, but there's very little that a person cannot do in most modern games if their time investment is high enough. Eventually they will get to see all of the game. There is only so good a person can get at a game like AH. Everybody has a cap on their capability, and a large number of gamers don't like to be shown where that cap is, unless it is near the top of the game. ;)
Wiley.
-
Huge agreement about the UI and aethetics. It is stuck in the 90s, which doesn't bother me but I understand why it's unattractive to people who are used to current design.
The thing with the mind-numbingly boring games, don't know a thing about Paradox's stuff, but I'm thinking in terms of WoW and soforth. They're mind numbingly boring, and they take up an immense amount of time, but there's very little that a person cannot do in most modern games if their time investment is high enough. Eventually they will get to see all of the game. There is only so good a person can get at a game like AH. Everybody has a cap on their capability, and a large number of gamers don't like to be shown where that cap is, unless it is near the top of the game. ;)
Wiley.
I think there are probably reasonably sized sections of the player base from WT and WoT who want a sand box WWII experience but are put off by a lot of the baggage that comes with Aces High. It's just a hard game to get into for a lot of reasons. Sand box or close-to-sandbox is still pretty big in gaming, is still what a lot of titles are moving to. Even the new Legend of Zelda game is moving toward sandbox. And people are excited. MMOs are still extremely popular. Blaming these design features on Aces High's fall from grace is stretching it. If people can find enough things to do they'll always be having fun.
Paradox Interactive's games- namely games like the Europa Universalis series, the Crusader Kings series, the Victoria series, the Hearts of Iron series- consist of the player staring at a map and a bunch of charts and after 20 hours of intensive gameplay- intensive in that it requires a lot of planning ahead, not that it's exciting- you may have made some weird tweak to the outcome of history. Russia is fascist and united the slavs or something, Scotland colonized the Americas and beat England. You have to be a gigantic history nerd to care in the slightest about any possible outcome of the game. 90% of it consists of looking at graphs and tables. There are exciting but realistically short periods of war. Think of a game like Civilization or Total War, but make it 10,000 times more complicated, the goal is to more-or-less survive instead of taking over the world, and it's just not fun. That's a Paradox Interactive game. And they do pretty well for themselves and are constantly expanding.
I also like playing their games a lot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pepYGRty7k
-
Completely different game styles though. Open world vs instant action round based, both of them. A night of AH, even when numbers are awesome, still is a completely different gameplay experience from a night of WT.
Wiley.
I see that but I also see it like sport. Consider competitive anything, but let's go with tennis, because I know my players and "the type". The USTA experienc eis for those who love to play but also want to test themselves. Those who just love to play may not want the test. Yet both love the sport.
With AH, can we agree that the MA/open sandbox is playing just for he love of the sport? Events carry more weight. Something is on the line.
Now, the player base that like sthe current experience is either too small or we're absent awareness "out there". THere may be growth potential for the game structure "As is", although the points made earlier about look and feel still apply.
THe events-based play is, otoh, relatively undevleoped within the game and may offer sifnificantly more growth potential I'm wondering: would there be any sale opp. in a Big Week series of events that were organized and coached by the Staff, broadcast by means of an advert blitz? Perhaps a week of nonstop organized play set up in an SEA specifically for newcomers? You could trance 'em in in groups, with intructions by means of forced country membership and radio tuning.
Bottom line: I don't think AH needs to sell its soul to succeed.
-
I think there are probably reasonably sized sections of the player base from WT and WoT who want a sand box WWII experience but are put off by a lot of the baggage that comes with Aces High. It's just a hard game to get into for a lot of reasons. Sand box or close-to-sandbox is still pretty big in gaming, is still what a lot of titles are moving to. Even the new Legend of Zelda game is moving toward sandbox. And people are excited. MMOs are still extremely popular. Blaming these design features on Aces High's fall from grace is stretching it. If people can find enough things to do they'll always be having fun.
I think there's a distinction there though. Legend of Zelda isn't PvP. Most MMO's allow for co op vs NPC's and/or limited PVP. Most pure PVP games are not MMO, but rather are more rounds based like CoD, WT, WoT.
How many MMO pure PVP sandbox games are out there, and more importantly doing well? Off the cuff, I can only think of Planetside 2 and AH that are open world, MMO, pure PVP. They are also plagued by hording and spawn camping because those two things go with the territory.
Paradox Interactive's games- namely games like the Europa Universalis series, the Crusader Kings series, the Victoria series, the Hearts of Iron series- consist of the player staring at a map and a bunch of charts and after 20 hours of intensive gameplay- intensive in that it requires a lot of planning ahead, not that it's exciting- you may have made some weird tweak to the outcome of history. Russia is fascist and united the slavs or something, Scotland colonized the Americas and beat England. You have to be a gigantic history nerd to care in the slightest about any possible outcome of the game. 90% of it consists of looking at graphs and tables. There are exciting but realistically short periods of war. Think of a game like Civilization or Total War, but make it 10,000 times more complicated, the goal is to more-or-less survive instead of taking over the world, and it's just not fun. That's a Paradox Interactive game. And they do pretty well for themselves and are constantly expanding.
I also like playing their games a lot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pepYGRty7k
Cool. Completely not my cup of tea, but I get why people like it.
Wiley.
-
I see that but I also see it like sport. Consider competitive anything, but let's go with tennis, because I know my players and "the type". The USTA experienc eis for those who love to play but also want to test themselves. Those who just love to play may not want the test. Yet both love the sport.
Seems to me like a reasonable comparison. My other hobby is billiards. League nights vs practice vs tournament play, same stuff.
With AH, can we agree that the MA/open sandbox is playing just for he love of the sport? Events carry more weight. Something is on the line.
Now, the player base that like sthe current experience is either too small or we're absent awareness "out there". THere may be growth potential for the game structure "As is", although the points made earlier about look and feel still apply.
THe events-based play is, otoh, relatively undevleoped within the game and may offer sifnificantly more growth potential I'm wondering: would there be any sale opp. in a Big Week series of events that were organized and coached by the Staff, broadcast by means of an advert blitz? Perhaps a week of nonstop organized play set up in an SEA specifically for newcomers? You could trance 'em in in groups, with intructions by means of forced country membership and radio tuning.
Bottom line: I don't think AH needs to sell its soul to succeed.
Don't know. I came up in Warbirds. Their S3 event is in some ways more grueling than FSO over here. In my newb days, I spent approximately 4 months of 3 hours every Sunday night before I got my first kill. Most of those evenings were spent trying to find my squad once I got out of limited icon range. Granted a lot of it was due to limited icon settings, but it was also the top shelf players in the game going against you all the time. Looking back, I'm kind of amazed I stuck with it, and thought I was having fun. ;)
I'd be worried about a 2 weeker's capability to function in an event. Maybe if the forced country membership and radio tuning was done correctly, I still could easily imagine it being completely confusing and overwhelming.
I think you would also run into the Allied bias with a lot of events. Too many people want to be in their shiny allied ride taking on the forces of e-vil, not as many want to be the forces of e-vil.
You'd also pretty much need to set it up so they get to the action quickly. Too much flight time before pewpew makes Newb a dull boy in most cases.
As I see it, the heart of the issue is most of the ideas start with, "First, we need a couple hundred players in the same place at the same time with the same motivation. Then, we have Events/better MA/better DA."
Wiley.
-
Wiley, I too like the sandbox thing at times. Sometimes, I want practice and self-initiated activity. Other times, I want organization and realism. It's like the difference between playing singles tennis and playing soccer. I've played and enjoyed both - but they are not the same sport. To ensuire broad appeal, the game needs to cover both bases - but currently only covers one for about 124 of 128 hours every week (unless you're in the lunatic time warp, in which case its 100 hour metric days and the coverage is a little different, when lucid).
As for the earlier comments regarding the AvA arena and the "unpopularity" of that arrangement, as evidenced by the population at any time: Using that standard, the only "popular" arena is Late War main. Nobody likes mid, early, WWi, or DA (or those would always be full, doncha know) - OR - there is a significant bandwagon effect and people simply go to the arena that consistently draws the biggest numbers and is the most unregulated. In all, I found this argument to be laughably specious. USing this standard, we'd have ONE arena, or better, choose to shut the whole thing down.
No, the net needs to be broader and the numbers need to be large enough that preferences of all types can be supported. We know BnZ likes the DA. I used to spend a certain amount of time in AvA. Nobody plays in either place any more and so we all end up in the MA, where stupid icons and unrealistic matchup are the order of the day and everybody must love it - otherwise they'd be doing the combat equivalent of masturbation over in the arena of their choice. NEWSFLASH: schtupping even an ugly girl beats being a one-man band, at least sometimes.
I'm starting to think some of the critics of this BBS are right: ossified to the point of being moribund.
There's that word again. Tell us what's so stupid about them. What would be "smart" icons to you: 4k? 3k? 2k? 1k? none? Maybe you don't understand that icons substitute for real-world visual acuity, which no monitor in existence can even come close to. Turn off your own icons and report back how life-like it is. ;)
-
For now I think HTC should consider letting 128x128 terrains in the MA, in addition to the 256x256 terrains. Put the 512x512 terrains on leave for now. With the numbers of players we currently have during U.S. prime time, I think that 128x128 terrains would offer much more sustained combat, as it will substantially decrease the problem of players "looking for a fight but can't find one". I really wish they would test it out for a week or two, just to see the results, which I believe would be positive for almost everyone. I'd be happy to supply the terrains. We just have no use for the huge 512x512 terrains anymore. Downsizing would increase the fun factor imo. :salute
-
My suggestions are based on enthusiasm for Aces High and I agree with Ink on the quality of the plane set and FM's. Cliffs of Dover is not turn based, it works just like Aces High where you log in as either Axis or Allies and do what you want when you want where you want, and the sides are always nicely balanced in player numbers. Its pretty much set up just like the MA but based on WW2 maps and opponents. The maps rotate based on damage to ground targets from bombing and strafing and of course stopping those things through dogfights. But the plane set is limited and with overly complicated engine management and I always think "Man, if only AH would go with WW2 maps and opponents in the MA!"
-
There's that word again. Tell us what's so stupid about them. What would be "smart" icons to you: 4k? 3k? 2k? 1k? none? Maybe you don't understand that icons substitute for real-world visual acuity, which no monitor in existence can even come close to. Turn off your own icons and report back how life-like it is. ;)
Okay, agreed: the term is insufficiently informative to be actionable. Let's try "overly informative". Does real-world visual acuity give you an error-free readout of the aircraft type and range and closure? Does it do identity: friend/foe? If it did, I wouldn't have read about any friendly fire incidents.
I've played sans icon. AvA had it as convention. What I'd like to know: how much information is "lost" at the same distance, RL to monitor. I ask because, once within about 3k, it was usually pretty easy to identify type and direction. I'm certain there is some loss. Perhaps an A:B comparison is in order comparing, perhaps an analog shot to a screen cap, both from the same perspective and distance.
The other substitution I could make: too large and format-challenged... but that's more style than function - but can become a function issue when many icons are in close proximity.
If you must have icons, a progressive one would be a better choice. For example, if IFF and type don't become apparent until 3k, then have that info light at 3k, etc. As is, I think the icons are depriving us of the fog of war. They should, ideally, only supplement the visual when the visual is lacking. Admittedly, the matter might require some additional study, but to carte blanche state that the icons are sound as is is as uninformed a pronouncment as calling them stupid (mea culpa). Indeed, I'd be interested to hear the rationale for the current icon setup and why it varies b/w MA and SEA (typically).
Those two, with regard to this matter, are kind of like two guys who claim to be Jesus: one of 'em must be wrong. So, forgive the shorthand now that I've given you the underlying substance.
-
you have to be careful with a photo comparison,due to the camera lens involved.when using say a 50mm lens for pics,you are actually making things look farther away.this is done to be able to fit more into the picture.100mm is equal to real life or 1x(1 power)in 35mm cameras. 200mm would be 2x or 2 power on a scope or 35mm camera. most gun cameras are NOT 100mm.most digital or film cameras are not 100mm lens equavilent to 35mm cameras.if using a zoom lens most people are confused and and sucked in by false advertising as to what zoom is and does to actual picture size. for instance you go to the store and buy a camera that has 30x zoom..and i go to the store and buy a camera with 5x zoom. and my zoom is better than yours and you dont know why.the confusion is, in this case, 30x is only half the equation. 30x what? 30 x 2 equals 60..5 x 100 equals 500. in this case 5x is better than 30x as far as how much you can zoom on a long shot. if you want to take a photo at an airshow to compare screen shots in aces high you need to know the distance the aircraft is from you and the camera needs to have the lens set at 100mm at 35mm equivilent.if you have a 30 or 40x zoom find out what the starting size of the lens is in 35mm equivilent. and then calculate what it needs to be at ,to be 100mm(35mm camera equivilent)of course the easiest would be to get a 35mm type camera that is digital and get a lens that is close to 100mm. 105mm is most common.or take the photos with real film in a 35mm camera with a 100mm lens and transfer to digital to post.35mm camera is not a reference to the lens.it is a reference to the film.just dont take a pic and think its correct.i hope this helps
-
Does it do identity: friend/foe? If it did, I wouldn't have read about any friendly fire incidents.
Except for M1 crews, A10 drivers and British troops on the receiving end :old:
-
AH could definitely use some ideas from planetside 2
-
AH could definitely use some ideas from planetside 2
NO! How dare you make such a suggestion! Any sensible ideas/features/standards from any other games, much less features that are standard on every other game in this genre(except AH) should be completely ignored. If you like those games so much go play them and leave this one alone! :rolleyes:
-
Let me first say that anyone who thinks that the problems in Aces High can be anywhere near addressed by updating the plane set is insane.
Part of the problem with this game is not only the shrinking player base, but the player base that the game is shrinking to. Namely a bunch of crochety old men who still complain about Call of Duty Xbox playing teenagers, despite that these are things that are nearly 15 years old now and the people who grew up on them are in their twenties and thirties.
Also all of the old AH I models should be updated by now because seriously
+1
I recently did two focus groups on a pending website. The parents and older folks worried about content, etc. The younger generation worried about graphics, speed and variety of information, etc. They ultimately wanted something that looked like Windows 8, with tons of little icons to rapidly sort through numerous bits of information. We climbed out on a limb and made the website with the look the young'ns wanted with information the parents want. Now, our webiste is the most visited and copied amongst our peers.
That being said, no matter the changes, marketing matters.
-
Except for M1 crews, A10 drivers and British troops on the receiving end :old:
I remember this incident well.
Also, thanks to Alpini for his informed discussion on the lens consideration you'd have to take to do an informed A:B comparison.
-
I remember this incident well.
Also, thanks to Alpini for his informed discussion on the lens consideration you'd have to take to do an informed A:B comparison.
The guy that instructed me on my medics course served in Desert Storm, he said the casualties from the Maverick strikes on them 2 Warriors were collected in 3 bodybags.
18 men :salute
-
Yep, my son is 33 and --- goes through games like eating a bag of potato chips :lol
Game reviews share the same, the argument being how many hours of entertainment a single game will give.
My wife's godson once said that he used to be in the top ten or so in Runescape, at which point he got tired of being superior and quit. Then he tried AH for some time in his mid-teens, learned some and quit, came back after a year or two for a couple of months and quit again. He was on a totally different level in any game than I could ever reach, even when he was between five and ten and I was in my mid-thirties. As I looked him and the other kids play I noticed that they did not think logically like I would have done, instead they simply read the pixels to react on the right spot, learning the games by heart. Had they used the same intensity at school they'd all be professors!
-
It is projected next year tablet sales will exceed combined desktop PCs and laptops sales .
I've been reading the same news. There's a couple of things that average people can't usually see:
In ads there's a bunch of tablets and only a couple of PC's. Some years ago my customers asked if they have to upgrade their desktop to a laptop because according ads desktops no more seemed to exist. Not long ago I was asked the same question, this time about tablets and laptops.
Another thing is that most people have a decent PC or laptop for their needs for the next few years, but they don't have a tablet. What will they buy? Yupp, something they don't have yet...
-
Search YouTube for Aces High. All kinds of trash comes up. Most of what's relevant isn't very new. Not many gameplay videos being put out, which is our fault as a community. That said, I'm shocked at how many folks who enjoy milsim games that know nothing about AH. That is HTC's fault. Combine the low visibility with a steepish learning curve and a restrictive free trial and you have a lack of fresh blood.
-
PJ, I remember flying with my Dad when I was younger and seeing another Cessna crossing right to left in front of us. It was over one nautical mile away. To me, it looked so big and near I was afraid we were going to crash into it, and I yelled. Also one is easily able to distinguish sedans from pickup trucks on the highway 5,000 feet below.
The difficulty in spotting things in the air more lies with the fact that the sky is enormous, and our field of vision can only cover a small part of it at a time. Nothing on a computer screen can simulate both the vastness and the ability of good human eyesight to see and identify distant things in clear air. All in all for gameplay purposes, IMO it is better to err on the side of seeing the bandit too easily than on the side of legally blind pilots. Know an "ace" trick for no-icons? Turning your resolution down so dot contacts pop out more. :rolleyes: No thank you.
Edit: More on having icons vs. none
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,254180.msg3135888.html#msg3135888 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,254180.msg3135888.html#msg3135888)
-
I have an older computer hooked up to my 60 inch tv, I have to run lower graphics to maintain 60fps, that being said I can long range a contact ( f4iend or foe unknown) at just one pixal, ussully 8-12 kms out, I know if there high or low and can start planning my position weather to be offencive or defencive till I know more, but thats just how it is,
Being from the consol generation, played through gen 3 to 8 (current), was a semi pro competitive player in Canada (prairies) and the northern states for call of duty ( retired at 24,) currently 26 and found this game a year ago, I liked it for the competitive Nature, those that fight me ( not catch me being a dweeb from time to time lol) know this.
For my generation achievements, graphics matter ( look at the early ps4 xbox 1 war when the box couldn't get 1080p native) I feel this graphic update is a step in the right direction, even thou I will most likely be running low graphics. But growing up a history nut in school, I also have what the old guard has in wanting to know more and understand the ins and outs of this game, most people dont like taking time to get good at a game, but soon the cod gen will realize as I have 7-10 years playing the game made you good. There will be playors to play this game and marketing will fix that, and marketing after a graphics update makes sense. Only time will tell what the future brings, and I hope this game stays and I wish I found it in my teens back in the 04-05 era...... my 2x cents
-
, most people dont like taking time to get good at a game,
This gets repeated over and over as an excuse for why AH isn't doing well. Meanwhile, millions of teenagers are spending hours practicing their complex combos, at least as difficult as guitar chords, for playing their fighting games against online competition. I've given a couple of console fighting games a whirl. You don't get to the top level of those in a week, a month, or a year.
-
Thats true but they started on mortal combat back on any earlier consol, they have played that type before, this game would be new to them thus time consuming, if its not instantly gratifying they will leave.
Edit. For example Titanfall on the xbox 1 was easy for me to play, it was instantly fun as I was ahead of the curve, but they had ai bots/ supper easy to kill so someone never having played a fps could jump in and feel like they did good ( also ur guaranteed a titan.) Thus its imieddiatly satisfying, name something Ah has that a noob could be instantly having fun, ps titanfall had a tutorial you had to play for ah does not have that
-
Do we need an entry-level arcade to subsidize the operation so that we hoary denizens can lurk in some kind of inner apple..., er, sanctum?
-
PJ, I remember flying with my Dad when I was younger and seeing another Cessna crossing right to left in front of us. It was over one nautical mile away. To me, it looked so big and near I was afraid we were going to crash into it, and I yelled.
............
Edit: More on having icons vs. none
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,254180.msg3135888.html#msg3135888 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,254180.msg3135888.html#msg3135888)
(Sigh) There is MUCH more discussion on icons over the years. In contrast to your example, a few weeks ago I was flying near a local VOR. I happened to spot a PA28 perhaps a mile away and maybe 500 feet above me. He banked towards me and descended a bit in the turn. Ultimately I had to nose down to miss him. I'm sure he never saw me.
Many people with computers of varying capability have been able to successfully fly in the AvA no-enemy-icon arena for years. Most of them believe it is a far better rendition of flying than the full icon environment. Perhaps we are all wrong, but real world tactics that make no sense in the MAs - rolling to keep your enemy in sight even if you're fighting torque, break turning to fly beneath your pursuer come to mind - suddenly do make sense.
That said, I am not sure that making the game more difficult will help attract new players.
- oldman
-
No, indeed... We need to think more like a pusher. The two-week trial is a decent idea, but the beginner needs some fast food. We need a dumbed-down WT style starter kit for people, one where most of the setup decisions are canned. The no icon thing is a discussion amongst the graybeards.
That said, old man, my experience, limited though it was, says AvA no-icon was a significantly more interesting and exciting experience. And yes, losing your enemy down there in the weeds was a viable disengagement tactic. Even the camo becomes more significant when you're not carrying a big red billboard around.
-
I have gone to the ava many times over the years since I joined. I have never been able to spot the airplanes untill they're almost next to me. I have missed them from 200 or 300 yards because I cant tell the airplane from the shadow.
and I have a really nice set up. a year or two ago some guy asked for runways on bases to have a better contrast than the background. to be honest many players before had problem seeing them until perhaps 2k away.
get rid of icons and you will get rid of most of the player base if not all.
semp
-
Okay, agreed: the term is insufficiently informative to be actionable. Let's try "overly informative". Does real-world visual acuity give you an error-free readout of the aircraft type and range and closure? Does it do identity: friend/foe? If it did, I wouldn't have read about any friendly fire incidents.
I've played sans icon. AvA had it as convention. What I'd like to know: how much information is "lost" at the same distance, RL to monitor. I ask because, once within about 3k, it was usually pretty easy to identify type and direction. I'm certain there is some loss. Perhaps an A:B comparison is in order comparing, perhaps an analog shot to a screen cap, both from the same perspective and distance.
The other substitution I could make: too large and format-challenged... but that's more style than function - but can become a function issue when many icons are in close proximity.
If you must have icons, a progressive one would be a better choice. For example, if IFF and type don't become apparent until 3k, then have that info light at 3k, etc. As is, I think the icons are depriving us of the fog of war. They should, ideally, only supplement the visual when the visual is lacking. Admittedly, the matter might require some additional study, but to carte blanche state that the icons are sound as is is as uninformed a pronouncment as calling them stupid (mea culpa). Indeed, I'd be interested to hear the rationale for the current icon setup and why it varies b/w MA and SEA (typically).
Those two, with regard to this matter, are kind of like two guys who claim to be Jesus: one of 'em must be wrong. So, forgive the shorthand now that I've given you the underlying substance.
Your desire to change the icons is based off a false assumption that the MA is a "war". There is no command or official objectives for any side. Leaving aside the argument of what a "realistic" icon range should be, the icons help people find the bad guys. That's what the MA is about, fighting. Having a war simulation is the job for special events and FSO. The MA is about spontaneous fighting in whatever manner you choose. Icons expedite fights. I don't want to play "hide and seek" to get a fight out of someone.
You can call my view uninformed because it doesn't coincide with yours, but HTC knows more about making a game work than you do. The icons work just fine, except for the 600' wirble icons. That's a mistake IMO.
-
(Sigh) There is MUCH more discussion on icons over the years. In contrast to your example, a few weeks ago I was flying near a local VOR. I happened to spot a PA28 perhaps a mile away and maybe 500 feet above me. He banked towards me and descended a bit in the turn. Ultimately I had to nose down to miss him. I'm sure he never saw me.
My Dad did not see this airplane until several seconds after me, because it was low on the cowling and not where he was looking. The sky is big. Then after he did spot it, he pointed out that we weren't nearly as close to colliding with it as I assumed :) Similarly, the problem here is not you were hard to see-the problem was his eyes weren't on you. Computers can't simulate this factor. And having your eyes directly focused on a virtual aircraft 6000 feet away and not being able to tell anything except "there be a dot" simulates nothing but legally blind pilots.
-
Your desire to change the icons is based off a false assumption that the MA is a "war". There is no command or official objectives for any side. Leaving aside the argument of what a "realistic" icon range should be, the icons help people find the bad guys. That's what the MA is about, fighting. Having a war simulation is the job for special events and FSO. The MA is about spontaneous fighting in whatever manner you choose. Icons expedite fights. I don't want to play "hide and seek" to get a fight out of someone.
You can call my view uninformed because it doesn't coincide with yours, but HTC knows more about making a game work than you do. The icons work just fine, except for the 600' wirble icons. That's a mistake IMO.
The point about expediting fights is valid and coincides with some of the earlier discussion; there is both a need/want for quick engagement and for greater realism. The lack of numbers deprives us of variety even as you tell me the only way is the MA way. No. But I'll accept that, at least for the MA and, as you state, leaving aside issues of accuracy, there is merit in the use of icons -and for the reason you state.
That said, now where do I go for realism? Guess I'm SOL and that thing about my 14.95 and playing it how I like only applies so long as how I like is MA. FSO and special events only, I guess...
As for the second point, ht has made a fine game, it's a pity that its "working" a death spiral. As I say, changing nothing carries the risk that nothing changes. All that said, I'm now more than ever convinced that we need some kind of "McAH" that serves up fast and sloppy arcade action. This icon discussion is completely collateral to that and would only matter, especially in the terms by which we evaluate it, to experienced players. Noobs should have easy mode and, IMO, icons are integral to that.
You asked why I called them stupid. I gave you an answer mainly related to their accuracy. We're no longer discussing that, apparently -but that's okay. As a game mechanism in the MA, I will concede some merit to these.
Finally, I called uncritical acceptance of the icons as configured no less uninformed than uncritical rejection of the icons as configured. I didn't call your view unconditionally uninformed. Indeed, you've played this longer than I and clearly have distinct and discriminating opinions regarding the icons ( eg regarding the wirb and the game mech). I am glad to know these since they've helped me to understand the foundation of the case in favor of icons, even if I still differ.
Love the screenies w/ captions, btw.
-
The point about expediting fights is valid and coincides with some of the earlier discussion; there is both a need/want for quick engagement and for greater realism. The lack of numbers deprives us of variety even as you tell me the only way is the MA way. No. But I'll accept that, at least for the MA and, as you state, leaving aside issues of accuracy, there is merit in the use of icons -and for the reason you state.
That said, now where do I go for realism? Guess I'm SOL and that thing about my 14.95 and playing it how I like only applies so long as how I like is MA. FSO and special events only, I guess...
As for the second point, ht has made a fine game, it's a pity that its "working" a death spiral. As I say, changing nothing carries the risk that nothing changes. All that said, I'm now more than ever convinced that we need some kind of "McAH" that serves up fast and sloppy arcade action. This icon discussion is completely collateral to that and would only matter, especially in the terms by which we evaluate it, to experienced players. Noobs should have easy mode and, IMO, icons are integral to that.
You asked why I called them stupid. I gave you an answer mainly related to their accuracy. We're no longer discussing that, apparently -but that's okay. As a game mechanism in the MA, I will concede some merit to these.
Finally, I called uncritical acceptance of the icons as configured no less uninformed than uncritical rejection of the icons as configured. I didn't call your view unconditionally uninformed. Indeed, you've played this longer than I and clearly have distinct and discriminating opinions regarding the icons ( eg regarding the wirb and the game mech). I am glad to know these since they've helped me to understand the foundation of the case in favor of icons, even if I still differ.
Love the screenies w/ captions, btw.
I don't believe that the lack of numbers is due to the game itself. A lack of advertising and a stale economy are the culprits. The numbers were good up until the beginning of this economic malaise. Since then, most people have less disposable income. Also, there are a lot of free games that have chiseled away at HTC's already small piece of the pie.
Now that War Thunder has such huge exposure, the numbers drop has gotten steeper. Free with nice graphics will beat $15/month with antiquated graphics for most first time flight combat gamers. That's got to be the reason for the AH overhaul in progress, keeping up with the Joneses. HTC has likely been resting on their laurels for a few years and now are improving the look. Hopefully, they are also stepping up the updates for planes that haven't been updated in many years.
I don't believe there is anything fundamentally wrong with the game play in the MA. Look at "Monopoly", it's been basically the same game all these years. Change just for change's sake is not always a good thing (see November, '08). Making the game into a more realistic war simulation isn't what most people want. They want to be pretend pilots and have pretend battles, not mimic the actual WWII pilot's real life: 99% of the time boredom, 1% of the time sheer terror. Separating people into multiple arenas every day, with different degrees of realism isn't going to work when you have low numbers to begin with.
What other game provides what you are seeking, btw? Pretty sure the "realism" arenas in War Thunder aren't exactly filled to capacity. Most want instant action, just like in our game.
-
Last time I played WT you had to wait about 10 minutes for the dozen or so players to join so that the "full real" server could launch. Half the time it never launched it timed out. The biggest reason WT has a huge number of players isn't because it's free, it's because you don't need a joystick to play. There is absolutely nothing in WT that I would like to see emulated by Aces High.
-
I like aces high. I want to "save" aces high.
let's make it more like those games I don't like as much as aces high!
:aok
-
I like aces high. I want to "save" aces high.
let's make it more like those games I don't like as much as aces high!
:aok
Exactly. :lol
There are a few players who I have encountered who have trouble seeing even with the icons being how they are. While I understand why some want the icons off for more realism or for possibly of attracting new sticks/more fun. I think it wouldn't have the results that were intended. IF you want icons off, then by all means, turn them off on your computer. While the rest of us will still have ours on, which gives us an edge, you can still have your realism. If that is what you are here for, it should trump you dying by those with icons on.
-
I like aces high. I want to "save" aces high.
let's make it more like those games I don't like as much as aces high!
:aok
No, let's make part of Aces High more like those games I don't like as well as Aces High and have those parts subsidize the part I like. This is the time-honored trick of using other people's money to underwrite what you yourself want.
WT uses a similar two-tiered system with their arcade battles and their real world battles. One to get the sheep in the door and begin the critical cash-extraction process, the other to keep 'em there after they get tired of fast food.
-
As for your points, Caldera, I guess I'm not especially upset with AH game play mechanics either. I'm frustrated at the lack of players and the resulting impact that has on the variety of gameplay available. It used to be that I could go to AvA and get a reasonable no-icons fight.
Indeed, all this crap about changing the MA would likely be moot if there were in-game viable alternative arenas. This stuff is all deckchair rearrangement. What we need is to get the bilge pumps working. And its a vicious circle: no new revenue means less plowback into innovations and wishlist items.
Thinking of the WT comparison: perhaps if the "McAH" were free but offered only severely limited planesets and options latitude, we could entice the free-riders to pay for upgrades. This, of course, is a step down the slippery slope of the WT business model.. And yeah, when I tried it out, I bought some aircraft upgrades. I hated that HE51's roll characteristics.
-
WT uses a similar two-tiered system with their arcade battles and their real world battles. One to get the sheep in the door and begin the critical cash-extraction process, the other to keep 'em there after they get tired of fast food.
That I've seen, that doesn't seem to happen over there though. Any time I've checked out FRB or even simulation mode, my experience was identical to Floob's, and I've seen enough posts saying the same thing, I don't think that experience is atypical.
If this game updated the DM, all the graphics and models, went f2p, and made an arcade arena after a marketing push I have no doubt it would gain popularity.
I am also nearly positive the current arenas would lose population.
Wiley.
-
So then the question becomes:f AH did these things and saw a transient decrease in current arena pop and a large increase in the new McArenas, would the revenue recovered later - if/when people transitioned to "paying" status - be worthwhile/ net postive. IE, can we "buy" share up front and make it pay back end or is this approach just a big loser.
It would be interesting and informative if we could see Gaijin's results using the same approach. It wouldn't necessarily be predictive, though, because perhaps AH offers more and would be more attractive once people were in the door (or maybe even the opposite, dpending on what the clientele really want and are willing to pay for).
-
I'd be ok with a free to play model, just tweak it a bit. Free to play players log in and like a 2 weeker can only see default skins allow them to see only one fighter, one bomber, and one gv. If you want more then only $15 a month to open the rest of the toys.
This way you bring in more player. They have time to learn their way around. They provide more resources to generate more fights. And more than likely they will subscribe to get the better equipment once they have learned enough to make it worth their while.
-
No, indeed... We need to think more like a pusher. The two-week trial is a decent idea, but the beginner needs some fast food. We need a dumbed-down WT style starter kit for people, one where most of the setup decisions are canned. The no icon thing is a discussion amongst the graybeards.
That said, old man, my experience, limited though it was, says AvA no-icon was a significantly more interesting and exciting experience. And yes, losing your enemy down there in the weeds was a viable disengagement tactic. Even the camo becomes more significant when you're not carrying a big red billboard around.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record: *****Staged missions***** With repair and a few changes to the mission system we could have an arena with no cross country coms where everyone fights against AI and they can begin with airstarts.
-
At the risk of sounding like a broken record: *****Staged missions***** With repair and a few changes to the mission system we could have an arena with no cross country coms where everyone fights against AI and they can begin with airstarts.
I hope we NEVER see air starts in this game. Spawn camping at 20,000 feet! :O
I think had HTC been able to continue with the "Combat Tour" setup they were working on it would have played well into todays gaming experience. Each team having a central command "leading" it toward the win. With out direction everyone is floundering around doing their own thing and not getting anywhere. Having a bit more structure would keep the "WWII realism" guys happy, mission guys would be happy as they would ALWAYS have a mission running, and the guys who just want fights would find them all over the place both in the air and on the ground.
-
I hope we NEVER see air starts in this game. Spawn camping at 20,000 feet! :O
I think had HTC been able to continue with the "Combat Tour" setup they were working on it would have played well into todays gaming experience. Each team having a central command "leading" it toward the win. With out direction everyone is floundering around doing their own thing and not getting anywhere. Having a bit more structure would keep the "WWII realism" guys happy, mission guys would be happy as they would ALWAYS have a mission running, and the guys who just want fights would find them all over the place both in the air and on the ground.
Thinking more for a beginners arena where only one side can be joined and the other just AI so no spawn camping.
-
I'd be ok with a free to play model, just tweak it a bit. Free to play players log in and like a 2 weeker can only see default skins allow them to see only one fighter, one bomber, and one gv. If you want more then only $15 a month to open the rest of the toys.
This way you bring in more player. They have time to learn their way around. They provide more resources to generate more fights. And more than likely they will subscribe to get the better equipment once they have learned enough to make it worth their while.
Good idea.
-
I'd be ok with a free to play model, just tweak it a bit. Free to play players log in and like a 2 weeker can only see default skins allow them to see only one fighter, one bomber, and one gv. If you want more then only $15 a month to open the rest of the toys.
This way you bring in more player. They have time to learn their way around. They provide more resources to generate more fights. And more than likely they will subscribe to get the better equipment once they have learned enough to make it worth their while.
How about another way to tweak it: All of the toys but only for half an hour a day or even less? Even the perking system could be included. Why not longer than half an hour, you might ask? Well, for a working family man like I am one full hour may often be enough at the end of a day. A few sorties crowned with some kills on the buffer give a warm feeling for bedtime. Usually it would take several minutes to even find a place where there's action and for a beginner also some time to figure out which plane to choose so the real flying time would be much less. Pay if you want to fly longer!
Or maybe an even shorter time, like 20 minutes a day OR one sortie? That would allow for both a hectic furball defending a field as well as a looong bombing mission, or even sitting in an M3 with troops under a tree watching buildings pop up under a chess piece flag.
I don't know much about coding, but I suppose neither of those would be harder to accomplish than a mute or the current 2 weeks system.
-
How about another way to tweak it: All of the toys but only for half an hour a day or even less? Even the perking system could be included. Why not longer than half an hour, you might ask? Well, for a working family man like I am one full hour may often be enough at the end of a day. A few sorties crowned with some kills on the buffer give a warm feeling for bedtime. Usually it would take several minutes to even find a place where there's action and for a beginner also some time to figure out which plane to choose so the real flying time would be much less. Pay if you want to fly longer!
Or maybe an even shorter time, like 20 minutes a day OR one sortie? That would allow for both a hectic furball defending a field as well as a looong bombing mission, or even sitting in an M3 with troops under a tree watching buildings pop up under a chess piece flag.
I don't know much about coding, but I suppose neither of those would be harder to accomplish than a mute or the current 2 weeks system.
I wouldn't do it that way. They could fly the "top 10" for 5 hours a night. No you want to give them a taste, and make them pay to play with the rest of the toys.
-
You could give them one free sortie in every plane and vehicle and then a limited set to choose from afterwards.
-
I wouldn't do it that way. They could fly the "top 10" for 5 hours a night. No you want to give them a taste, and make them pay to play with the rest of the toys.
I don't quite understand. Do you mean that a new guy could master a plane to survive for hours in a single sortie? If they're that capable I'd better retire! Unless they'd just fly between the safe bases far from the fronts.
But I understand your concern and here's a solution: Refueling would not be allowed during that one sortie/20 minutes. The guy who could survive in any plane until his tank is empty would either be a satisfying opponent to the most demanding fighters or a pathetic background traveller who'd fly equally happy offline except for the illusion of company in the radio buffer... Which pops up a third group into my twisted imagination: Those who'd like to join the discussion on 200 without a paid account. But that would also be possible with the limited plane set suggestions, even worse because of no time limitations.
-
I don't quite understand. Do you mean that a new guy could master a plane to survive for hours in a single sortie? If they're that capable I'd better retire! Unless they'd just fly between the safe bases far from the fronts.
But I understand your concern and here's a solution: Refueling would not be allowed during that one sortie/20 minutes. The guy who could survive in any plane until his tank is empty would either be a satisfying opponent to the most demanding fighters or a pathetic background traveller who'd fly equally happy offline except for the illusion of company in the radio buffer... Which pops up a third group into my twisted imagination: Those who'd like to join the discussion on 200 without a paid account. But that would also be possible with the limited plane set suggestions, even worse because of no time limitations.
Sorry I misunderstood. I thought you were proposing that a new player could fly EACH AND EVERY plane but only for half an hour a day.
-
Sorry I misunderstood. I thought you were proposing that a new player could fly EACH AND EVERY plane but only for half an hour a day.
Ahh... The language barrier! :salute
Yes, I meant to limit the daily playing time to that half an hour or one sortie. During that time the player would be able to use any plane, even perked ones if he's earned them and get a new plane as many times as he can during that said time. And if he's on a longer trip he would be able to extend his first and only sortie past that half an hour until running out of gas or getting shot down. I don't know how long a bomber could stay up but with the refuel limit it wouldn't be a problem anyway. I'd like to see the pilot who'd fly a formation of Lancasters for another hour just for fun after dropping the eggs!
-
marketing when new engine is ready
guys (curators) at Pima A&S museum looked at me funny when I mentioned the game, as if to say such a thing exists?...
-
marketing when new engine is ready
guys (curators) at Pima A&S museum looked at me funny when I mentioned the game, as if to say such a thing exists?...
Those guys would be wise to maintain a bunch of sim stations so that the clientele could sit down, strap in, and get a taste of some head to head action against each other. If they set up a room with 8 or a dozen such stations, they could bring small groups in for ten minute quick and dirty gang on gang action as part of their museum experience...
Yet another data point counter to the "our market is exhausted" whine. No. Awareness is the first hurdle. Those guys are natural clientele.
-
I really agree with the comments made by Motherland on page 10 of this post. I'm 28 years old and for many gamers in my generation, the aesthetic of Aces High seems very dated. I know HTC is working on a new graphics engine, but I also hope they invest in professional user-experience design to clean up the interface in-game (not to mention on their web properties) and bring it up to 2014 standards. Also, I really hope they make the terrain look more like that in War Thunder and the newer IL-2 series games. Unfortunately, some of the video teasers of the new graphics engine still have that old AHII look to their ground textures. I'm remaining optimistic because I love the gameplay, but I hope UXD and real-life terrain texturing are top priorities for HTC right now. Just my two cents... :salute
-
I would have to agree with Fugitive's earlier post about having a central HQ leading specific attacks on bases. I t would make the game, in my opinion, much more fun because you have a goal from one base to another.
-
I hope we NEVER see air starts in this game. Spawn camping at 20,000 feet! :O
I think had HTC been able to continue with the "Combat Tour" setup they were working on it would have played well into todays gaming experience. Each team having a central command "leading" it toward the win. With out direction everyone is floundering around doing their own thing and not getting anywhere. Having a bit more structure would keep the "WWII realism" guys happy, mission guys would be happy as they would ALWAYS have a mission running, and the guys who just want fights would find them all over the place both in the air and on the ground.
I used to run 5 man missions within Nazgul, that would piss off my fellow Rooks in RJO. The problem is that most simply follow those who really Pigeon hole themselves tactically. Our missions would grab more bases than the Main group and we would face resistance. It also was not "whack-a-mole" bs either. It comes down to the lack of ability to best gauge the sweet spot of the map and strike while the iron is hot.