Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: TheRapier on November 27, 2014, 02:15:12 AM
-
The Fester map in the MA has an approximate area of 250,000 square miles.
At peak of 300 players, each player has 800 square miles to themselves.
At the low point of 100 players, each player has 2500 square miles to themselves.
Is it any wonder that players are complaining that they can't find a fight? Does anyone even look at the maps to see if they are appropriate to the number of players? It should be obvious, but this is a totally and completely fixable problem. Doesn't require new code work or development. What is the point of letting the game just languish this way?
I'm trying very hard to understand how this is a rational move and honestly, I can't find it.
-
I think the fester Map is fine. Easy to find fights with the way the fronts are set up. just need the Dar and HQ problems fixed.
-
At the low point of 100 players, each player has 2500 square miles to themselves.
100? :lol
It was like that about 6 years ago.... ;)
But I agree with glzsqd. Fester map is much better adapting to changing player numbers thanks to it's initial small fronts than many other maps.
-
The problem with most maps is that the bases are too far away. Combat becomes difficult to control when both parties have to fly further for some action, more ganging will occur, and uneven battles will constantly take place.
Festers Map, while being large, has bases that are closer together, and bases that have strategic concepts such as the rows of Vbases in the middle. The map has many aspects that allow for people to enjoy any aspect of the game they choose, while encorporating those styles for other people to battle and have fun. I think it is actually the best map in rotation and I've never not been able to find a fight, again, cause the bases are closer.
I like the concept of smaller maps. But bases should be around 15 miles apart, not 25>. It allows for better close quarter more action fighting.
-
100 players on a map was nearly ideal condition for the kind of fighting i liked. But hey... seen 18 players on 2 years ago. Just alt+f4-ed.
Since that, im not playing regularly.
-
I think the fester Map is fine. Easy to find fights with the way the fronts are set up. just need the Dar and HQ problems fixed.
Well there is also the issue of the PT spawns over dry land
-
Well there is also the issue of the PT spawns over dry land
It isnt actually dry land. Detailed water has to be on to see it though
-
It isnt actually dry land. Detailed water has to be on to see it though
As well as the water in front of the fighter spawn hangar on several airfields. If you don't have "detailed water" on, you will be in for a surprise at takeoff :D
-
As well as the water in front of the fighter spawn hangar on several airfields. If you don't have "detailed water" on, you will be in for a surprise at takeoff :D
I didnt notice that....yet :noid
-
A162, with detailed terrain & water
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/deton_zpsc6f14048.jpg)
without detailed terrain & water
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/detoff_zps6bd4782c.jpg)
-
There is also a vehicle field on the Fester map where if you turn right coming out of the spawn hanger your tank immediately sinks into a lake.
-
Wow . . .
I take it that the massively over the top maps are ok and that you'd never want to play any time other than the 3 hours of peak a day? The guys that are not in the US just need to give up the game? Folks that can't play peak in the US should take up WOW?
The really brilliant thing about the BBS is that it can never, ever achieve consensus on any change because people can't get out of the "well its ok for me, playing as I do from the US at peak" comment and think more broadly about the health of the game overall. It's beyond apathy more like a micro self centeredness. The world could collapse brick by brick around and as long as a brick doesn't drop in your cereal, everything is fine.
To be fair, the BBS shouldn't be a replacement for a devoted developer but here it seems to be.
IMHO, it is appalling that this game only functions 3 hours a day out of 24. It is appalling that the weekend numbers barely go above 300 at their PEAK. It is appalling that no one in this "community" seems read the trend.
May I suggest a different way of viewing the wish list? For a year, try to think of how a suggestion would affect the overall health of the game instead of how it would affect just you. How it affects you in the game will be a moot point when there is NO game. That might change some of way it works here. In a year either this will be a thriving place or a smoking hole in the ground. IMHO it doesn't seem to be a lot to give up to see if it can be made to thrive.
What is obvious is that how things have been done has got us here. If here is where you want to be that's great. My problem is that I can remember when the arena peaked at 600 or 800, when you could find a fight as easy as lifting from a field. I can remember when there were 3 or 4 games in this genre. Now there is ONE game and it can't even fill ONE arena. With that memory its hard to see this as anything other than the tail end. When something as basic as tailoring the map size to the number of players escapes both the developer and the players, you have to wonder where the thing is headed.
-
Wow . . .
I take it that the massively over the top maps are ok and that you'd never want to play any time other than the 3 hours of peak a day? The guys that are not in the US just need to give up the game? Folks that can't play peak in the US should take up WOW?
The really brilliant thing about the BBS is that it can never, ever achieve consensus on any change because people can't get out of the "well its ok for me, playing as I do from the US at peak" comment and think more broadly about the health of the game overall. It's beyond apathy more like a micro self centeredness. The world could collapse brick by brick around and as long as a brick doesn't drop in your cereal, everything is fine.
To be fair, the BBS shouldn't be a replacement for a devoted developer but here it seems to be.
IMHO, it is appalling that this game only functions 3 hours a day out of 24. It is appalling that the weekend numbers barely go above 300 at their PEAK. It is appalling that no one in this "community" seems read the trend.
May I suggest a different way of viewing the wish list? For a year, try to think of how a suggestion would affect the overall health of the game instead of how it would affect just you. How it affects you in the game will be a moot point when there is NO game. That might change some of way it works here. In a year either this will be a thriving place or a smoking hole in the ground. IMHO it doesn't seem to be a lot to give up to see if it can be made to thrive.
What is obvious is that how things have been done has got us here. If here is where you want to be that's great. My problem is that I can remember when the arena peaked at 600 or 800, when you could find a fight as easy as lifting from a field. I can remember when there were 3 or 4 games in this genre. Now there is ONE game and it can't even fill ONE arena. With that memory its hard to see this as anything other than the tail end. When something as basic as tailoring the map size to the number of players escapes both the developer and the players, you have to wonder where the thing is headed.
So let me get this straight.
Because people disagree with your analysis of one particular map you think that the way to garner support is to berate the entire community and HTC.
To you it's obvious that your one single suggestion will completely turn the tides in subscriber numbers and save the game. Do me a favor and do a little search. There have been numerous threads, discussions and ideas tossed around as to how to turn those tides. To contend that the entire player base is apathetic to the situation is to blatantly dismiss every other suggestion that's been made.
I'm going to stop now before I really get angry.
Have a nice Thanksgiving.
-
May I suggest a different way of viewing the wish list? For a year, try to think of how a suggestion would affect the overall health of the game instead of how it would affect just you. How it affects you in the game will be a moot point when there is NO game. That might change some of way it works here. In a year either this will be a thriving place or a smoking hole in the ground. IMHO it doesn't seem to be a lot to give up to see if it can be made to thrive.
Rapier - I have known you in two games and have had a lot of laughs with the Muskies in both of them. I won't claim to understand how you think, but I know you are sincere.
I used only a clip from your post but since it resonated with me, I will comment.
I don't claim to have any more knowledge about this topic than what everybody can see with their own eyes. What I do know is that HTC, based on observation, will not 'surge hire' to get changes done any faster. I do know that they have a strategy to make changes to game play aiming to improve subscription numbers. I do know that they would be working on it, but the graphics upgrade in progress took a higher priority. I do know that they have a development process that is not different from most shops out there. I do know that HiTech has a firm understanding of his customer demographic and has educated himself on what the customer-to-be needs and wants. I do know that HTC is committed.
The wish list serves a purpose, as you are aware. However it, like a large number of topics on this BBS, gets bloated and sometimes personal. A little pro-con is needed, but very little. I wish we could limit ourselves to only two sentences of pro-con on the wishlist. It takes a serious amount of time for HTC to wade through the horsepucky comments to get to the gems. That's entirely my opinion and I'll probably suffer for it.
I very much like your idea to focus more on wishlist topics that would help attract the customer-to-be. That's what resonates with me and likely irritates a lot of folks here who haven't quite figured out that there's no such thing as status quo ("home sweet home") in online gaming. It's 'change or die' on methamphetamine.
I know you have seen at least two MMO's go under in your years. I've only seen one but it was painful to watch. I think you were on the Confirmed Kill alpha? In any event that was the saddest...a game with outstanding potential dying in the studio.
Stay the course, Rapier.
Respectfully,
Ratsy - Raider_DD - AKRaider
:salute
-
The thing is, you know things are rather bad if even Rapier comes forward with the same general complaint.
He comes forward with actual sincerity and only gets it thrown in his face...
Yes, we all know the numbers are low, instead of arguing how low and or why like a gaggle of beaurocratic trolls why not shaddup and have fun?
Make your own fun and stop expecting it to be handed to you especially when anyone thinks they can control how/why anyone else plays their game...
-
I know you have seen at least two MMO's go under in your years. I've only seen one but it was painful to watch. I think you were on the Confirmed Kill alpha? In any event that was the saddest...a game with outstanding potential dying in the studio.
Huh? I thought Confirmed Kill was Hitech's first go at a combat flight sim and that it became Warbirds (which he sold to a larger company and then left, for some reason, to create Aces High)?
And Warbirds hasn't quite died yet has it? Plus there is War Thunder and World of Tanks (both of which, I think, operate on an economic model of Free to Play, maybe Pay to Win).
-
Confirmed Kill was an effort originally funded, produced and developed by Eidos Interactive. It died in beta when Eidos pulled the funding (saturation of games in the genre). I'm pretty sure that HTC was developing AH during this time frame.
:salute
-
Well I think you might be thinking of the EIDOS reboot of Confirmed Kill (they kept ownership of the name I suspect). I know the original existed as I played it for quite awhile. Maybe Hitech can give a brief history of his simulator coding and correct me? Or maybe he doesn't want to bring back painful memories? ;) (Instead of partnering with larger companies, which I suspect went south on occasions, he now has his own company and keeps it small.)
-
confirmed kill was hitech's game.. I played the beta.. around 1995 or so.
he changed the name to warbirds before it launched.
in other words, it was the same game
-
Teetering past the very edge of OFF TOPIC.
Not the same game. Two Games with the same name, perhaps.
The Eidos effort was made in 1998-99.
I was unaware that Warbirds was ever anything but Warbirds. You learn something new every day.
:salute
-
BE sorry you got miffed but you are angry about something I didn't say. That is one of the reasons I generally stay out of the BBS, people running around like testosterone laced spitting cobras, looking at someone or something to get mad at. Anyone or anything will do, you just have to take something they said and extrapolate it out to something they didn't say.
The mega point is, this game and this genre is dying. It doesn't have to and the micro self centeredness of each player has contributed to the problem but its not the only thing. Developers have been behind the curve and not really thinking. They have played the game of playing to the micro self centeredness and thought they were serving the community. The real requirement of the developer is to think about the overall health of the game, not developing niche bits of it.
I have been in game and software development for almost 15 years. This genre got me into it. It has been a death of a thousand cuts to see it slowly waste away. And it wastes away for all the wrong reasons. Not because the game play isn't compelling. The game play can supply something that no MMORPG can, an infinitely variable game world. The variability is made up by the player interactions. Every time you step into the arena, its a different place, even if its a different map. Every fight you have is a different fight. It's where the concentrations are. The single most important piece of that in this kind of game is the MAP SIZE!!! Map size makes or breaks the ability of gamers to interact. When the map size is bigger than the number of players, the game can't hit critical mass. For the developer to lag more than a YEAR and not see this is something wondrous and I'm not saying in a good way. For HUGE maps to be the rule and not the exception implies a certain blindness.
For good or ill, AH is the last Mohican. Unless something else should arise.
In my heart of hearts, it is obvious something needs to change. Part of it lies with HTC to take action. Part of it lies with the player community to get out of "What's in it for me?" or "Waaaaaaaaaa, this affects my favorite exploit!!" and switch gears to evaluating what DOES work. When HTC does something that works it needs to be supported by the players wholeheartedly and not drowned in the noise of "Waaaaaaaaaaaa!" Look at this BBS objectively. How could anyone serve a community so contradictory?!! Every point has an equal and opposite point. That is what physics calls non movement. And that is where we sit.
The initial measurement should be number of player interaction per hour. First your push that up in peak hours and then you expand it from peak. The map is the simplest, easiest way to do that. Then you focus on game play basics. Insure that those work right, reliably, all the time. Only after you have that covered, then add new features. People will tolerate a lot, but they won't tolerate you wasting their leisure time with crappy game play.
The mega point is that the current set up of developer inaction and player apathy/micro self centeredness is a death sentence. Sure as gravity.
-
Well thought out arguments for smaller maps (even temporary) continue to be brought up and ignored. Your points are all well thought out and will sadly also likely be ignored.
At this point the only compelling reason to keep an account is FSO... which is fun if having its own ups and downs. Pretty sure that will fade soon as well.
Ah well.
-
Teetering past the very edge of OFF TOPIC.
Not the same game. Two Games with the same name, perhaps.
The Eidos effort was made in 1998-99.
I was unaware that Warbirds was ever anything but Warbirds. You learn something new every day.
:salute
im reading usenet posts from 1995 about confirmed kill / warbirds beta period, discussion with pyro and hitech.
takes me back.. the whole game was going to hell then too!
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim/GMjW4qaQjPY/discussion
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim/g5kuPALdmHw/discussion
seriously.. these threads are almost 20 years old and its just like today
-
It isnt actually dry land. Detailed water has to be on to see it though
No. I have detailed water on. Also you cant spawn PTs to the areas plotted
-
Is it me, or does picture 2 look more realistic. :headscratch:
-
It's funny. Fester's map is brilliant for his efforts using the existing tools and tiles in the terrain editor to make terrain and sky that looks and feels real. Greebo did the same thing. You gave them about a day of ohh and ahh and WTG over that.
Then you got back to micro whizzing over the evils of HiTech and other players not playing some how or some way to bring back the glory days of 2002-2007. Ultimately, as always, grinding down to the heart of the whizz by increments and tiny cuts.
HiTech I am mad at you for not keeping me entertained. And not doing the "something" to force everyone to play like back in the glory days and how I want them to play today. I'm mad at you for not advertising the world to death with AH2, not trolling air shows for new blood, not making the game look like IL2\WT, not, not, not, not doing exactly what "I" want you to do to make this the supercalifragilisticexpialidocious game of my dreams to keep me from being bored. And by the way, HiTech I'm mad at you because I feel helpless about all of this. And you don't take long moonlit walks with me anymore asking how "I feeeeellllllllll" about the game.........."Waaaaaa, You has abandoned meeeee!!"
But, being guys, macho men, no girly emotions tolerated. You throw bombs in all directions to get attention. Any kind of attention unfortunately.
How many of you are too far gone for the new graphics engine in AH3 to do anything other than PO you that HiTech didn't do it sooner? Fester's and Greebo's last maps are master pieces of what anyone in AH2 could always have done, and their eye candy wasn't enough.
-
I play the game because most of the time I enjoy the game. I just feel it needs more depth. HTC doesnt have to do anything special to keep me. I have no plans on going anywhere.
BUT AH veterans enjoying the game isnt what brings in new customers.
"WOW" brings in new customers. What causes people to check out a game for the first time? Its "WOW!" AH needs more WOW
-
OK its a big map but half of it is water that no one ever ever ever will fly over and a lot of the rest is only used by bombers. If u look at the "battle zone" (area over and between Front line bases) u are down to just a few sectors where 90% of all players will be located so it isn't really that hard to find action. I don't see that the map size really matters, there are still just a few front line bases where the action takes place. More people is the solution - not smaller maps. the problem at this side of the pond at least is that no one seems to know about this game, i mean, finding 5000 people out of 7 billion that plays the game on a regular basis should not be impossible.