Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Scenario General => Topic started by: ROC on November 23, 2017, 10:37:05 PM
-
New players will watch this video and wonder how we managed to play this horrible looking game. I wonder how many will actually sit through the whole 11 minutes.
Vet's will watch this video and catch themselves,twisting and turning with the dogfight and lose themselves in the fight, not the graphics.
Maybe, just maybe, some of the younger ones might get lost in it as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oI_yjcCCNU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oI_yjcCCNU)
What we lost, is patience. Look at the stuff that had to be done to set up a fight. Select baud rate?? WTH is that?? Right? We had to know how to do that stuff, we didn't have anything else and that's how the early days were done.
We came from an era that had no online game, no computer screen, no games on tv, nothing. We had Risk, Monopoly and such for board games, we had Dungeons and Dragons that required nothing short of a vivid imagination and dice.
We would spend all night playing Risk, or all afternoon imagining our way through D&D, and it was all imagination, patiently playing the game, even spending days before the big game working out strategy and selecting D&D roles.
When Air Warrior hit the screen, no one looked at the graphics and said they sucked, we were STUNNED that we could see what we only imagined before. We were lost in the fight, lost in the battle, fully immersed as we were before but with the added bonus of a visual cue to put us closer. We took the full immersion that we experienced in our board games and transferred that immersion into the game itself. We were there, it was natural, intuitive, instinctive, we were lost in the game, the graphics added to and expanded our imagination, not replace it.
Our scenarios were epic adventures. We looked forward to the event. Not Saturday where we flew, but the event. The event was the whole experience. We built teams, recruited pilots, stole players, enticed squads to join, antagonized our opponents and rallied enemies to fly against, we spent weeks, months on the phone, on the computer, in chat rooms, planning missions, forming attacks, playing the game, and then on Saturday we TESTED our ideas, our plans, our team and then started over again Sunday to assess our gains, review in depth After Action Reports where we counted planes lost, enemy lost, objectives gained or missed, tried our best to assess where we were in the fight and move forward. Rarely knowing where we stood at the end of the frame, rarely knowing what really happened until after the war was over. Then, we went back, compared notes on what we thought against what really was, and got excited to try new things for the next fight.
We have to post the scores now between frames. Did we win? Did we lose? No effort, no desire to log your kills, meet after the event and debrief, assess what worked, what didn't, just push out the logs. No patience, no fog of war, not thrill of the unknown. No desire to continue in spite of the results that may or may not be fact.
It seems we don't have the desire, interest, patience, and need to do these any longer. It's pretty, I'll give you that. New players test the graphics against the xbox and judge the game without any clue at all at how a complex "game" like this is played. The worst part of it all is that the team that DOES the team building, does spend the time putting players together that can fly, can communicate, can take orders, is the one that tends to win. The one who is prepared.
It's no ones fault, entertainment evolves. We were odd for playing our games when TV was available, bikes were there to ride, and other adventures awaited, but we chose to game for the imagination.
We have taken the imagination out of our game. Not by choice, but almost by necessity from a certain point of view. The events seem scripted to end up being played like the designer wanted to watch a movie unfold that he wrote, but knowing that it's most likely designed to make sure no one get's board because, well, it's hard to wait that long for a fight! What we need is a game board that allows the players to create their war and figure out how to overcome their objectives. Events should have the pieces and rule set to identify basic limits. Chess with a mountain of rules, conditions and limits is not the goal. Chess, with a few basic rules and limits and countless books on possible strategies is the goal. The pieces and the board configuration are set, what is to be done with them has to be up to the players. If you take the imagination out of the scenario, we might as well all watch TV. What needed to be planned for in the last one? Nothing. Even looking at the Allies effort in planning and mission outlines, well done I might add, was for naught as basically, their mission plans were obvious, we had a pretty good feeling where you would go, and your plans pretty much covered them all, the design made it absolutely clear what your limits were, timing had to be, and where you had to go, we just had to figure out which one you were going to use. Imagine a chess game with 4 strategic options, that's all there was. The game would have died out centuries ago but it lives on and even today new strategies unfold. The board and pieces have not changed one bit. Didn't need to add a new Crusader piece that could hop over the Queen, didn't need to change the color of the board and put LED lights into the pieces, nothing changed, but the game continually evolves because it restricts what the Game decides you can do.
We need to get back to building game boards. We are trying to find new ways to get people to fly scenarios but that is going to require inspiration, not hoping they show up.
Put the strategy back. Let us think. I was on Full scout duty, I had netflix running with a Flash episode I wanted to catch up on, still found the flight because, well, there just weren't any other options for them. In the little time I had to prepare for the event, I flew the routes, knew where they had to be based on where they weren't.
We know the plane match-ups were always unbalanced in the war. No body went into war calling the other side and saying Hey Dolphy babe, we're kinda short on Spits so can you fly the 109g and we'll toss up some extra P51s? Put the accurate setup in place, expand the boundaries and let the players figure out how THEY would have made that run that got their WW2 counterparts wiped out. You can even set it up to where it's simply impossible to take down all of the bombers, and that oil field is going to go down, no way to stop it. Ok, so if they take out more bombers than expected, then they gained so the reward is a win. If you make the objective Destroy the OilField and make it impossible not to destroy it, that is not balanced. If you make the objective Destroy the OilField and keep 50% of your bombers alive, and the other side takes out 52%, then you have a win. Did they lose the oilfield? Did the bombers bomb? Yes, stopping it was impossible, but causing more damage and attrition than they accounted for was the goal. You also have a flight of bombers who know they are going to get to target, well, some are, so they go in knowing they at least have a chance of surviving as well as actually dropping on target. They also have the nervousness inherent with knowing someone's going down, just not who it's going to be.
The designer also has to be absolutely sure that enough ordinance is in the air to actually accomplish that goal. Are there physically enough bullets to take out enough bombers to achieve the objective? Are there enough planes in the air so that a reasonable amount of survivors can get to the bombers? These take time to count, verify, test and prove, and it is impossible to do on a chart, each option must be flown and tested, each object identified, accounted for. Design an event for a few people? No, design a major event and make sure there is time to fill it up, and if it's not ready, don't run it yet, be as patient as the vet players are, we want Great events, not simply a bunch of them.
Make the effort worth the risk. The obstacles don't have to be the same, but the reward for effort must be. To have 4 lives in a squadron of B25s that are worth a good amount of points if they die but can fly 4 unanswered sorties and bomb ships and the Axis doesn't care if they do or not, that isn't a balanced reward. Had the objectives been worth 20 points and their deaths 20 (pick any number, 3 1/2 works just as well) then there was an incentive to both stay alive as well as bomb, and a clear need to take them out before they did damage.
New players for the most part have no interest in taking time to do an event. Look at the success of world of tanks and other games. Spawn, shoot, die, spawn, shoot die, run run run, instant gratification. No need for strategy, no time for strategy, no time to team build, no time to do anything. If you build events that cater to this crowd then you lose the ones who thrive on scenarios and replace them with a player base that is off and running to the next "ooh shiny" object.
If you want the base back, to recover what has been lost, remember why they worked in the first place and get back there.
In my humble opinion.
-
Well said and Amen :aok
-
If you build events that cater to this crowd then you lose the ones who thrive on scenarios and replace them with a player base that is off and running to the next "ooh shiny" object.
What stopped players who like planning and strategy doing what they like? Do not get it. The ones who like planning and such can do that. Walkons etc can just join and follow orders. What stopped you from going to allies and mess up the "script"?
-
This is NOT directed at any one person in particular. These are my personal observations...
All of this conversation about scenarios is well and good. But, when leadership begins to look down on the common player and their peers and they forget that respect is due to all, the system has already fallen.
You have already started a cycle of destruction and of loss. If you cannot love and enjoy the players just a much as you love the game, then we are done here. Remembering that being on a command staff is all about giving of yourself and remembering who you are giving all of your time and efforts to.
It is great to have all of the nostalgia and wonderful planning of these events, but who is it for? If it is just for a couple or three guys so they can remissness about the glory days of Aces High Scenarios and their great personal victories, well then again we are done here.
If you respect people and they understand what you are doing is for their benefit, then they will come out of the wood work to support your efforts. Very few of them are going to support leadership that blocks them off and have no sense of inclusion. That thinking is failed and should not be tolerated. It brings us to where we are today, "wishing for the old days". When we could design an event with every 8th USAAF Fighter Group and fill every seat.
Yes, a Der Grosse Schlacht III event with 300 players is definitely possible. But the way the CMs, CiCs, COs, GLs and planners think about these events and the people that invest their time to hangout for four weekends straight and play games with guys that they don't know, seemingly unfriendly, very secretive, non-communacative and set out to scheme and deceive from the outset must change.
If leaders are not making this investment in time and effort because they want people to enjoy what they can produce, then just step away for good and don't pick this up again. Leave this space for those that want to give to the AH community on both the Axis and the Allied side of the coin.
That's right.... Bipartisan thinking from beginning to end.
Fun for one is fun for all or not at all...
-
What stopped players who like planning and strategy doing what they like? Do not get it. The ones who like planning and such can do that. Walkons etc can just join and follow orders. What stopped you from going to allies and mess up the "script"?
In this particular case the fact that the entirety of their targets were within a 40 mile circle and the places they could launch from were well known?
Are there physically enough bullets to take out enough bombers to achieve the objective? Are there enough planes in the air so that a reasonable amount of survivors can get to the bombers?
I mean absolutely no disrespect here, but what if the answer winds up being "no" to either of those questions? If one side has a substantial number of no shows, what then? "Sorry everybody, we gotta hold off til next week"?
That is one thing I really miss about the S3 in Warbirds, is the way we were basically given a map, targets were assigned points, the planeset was given, and the CiCs came up with a plan. Usually there were obvious high point targets based on the setup to incentivize certain plans, but there was nothing stopping them from doing something else unorthodox. The problem with it was some nights if the defending CiC messed up, you had squads who didn't see anything all night. That seems to be a real sticking point here. Looking at FSOs, if a group doesn't see action most of the time they get really crusty.
Sware- So you're essentially saying every side's plan should be by committee? I could be wrong, but any TS meetings I've ever heard of to discuss strategy were not invite only were they? I was under the impression people were allowed to show to give their two bits, it's just rare that people showed up.
Wiley.
-
The HO at 4:45 made me cringe
-
Sware- So you're essentially saying every side's plan should be by committee? I could be wrong, but any TS meetings I've ever heard of to discuss strategy were not invite only were they? I was under the impression people were allowed to show to give their two bits, it's just rare that people showed up.
Wiley,
Absolutely not... The CiC should and does have the autonomy to make the final decision once all inputs have been given. The CiC "should be" open to all comments from any and every player on their side; "Just because you get them, doesn't mean you have to use them".
But there have been events in the recent past where this was not the reality.
-
Wiley,
Absolutely not... The CiC should and does have the autonomy to make the final decision once all inputs have been given. The CiC "should be" open to all comments from any and every player on their side; "Just because you get them, doesn't mean you have to use them".
But there have been events in the recent past where this was not the reality.
Hmp. Ok. I never noticed it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. I'm more content to just be a cog in the wheel and help on the tactical side if needed as opposed to strategic.
Wiley.
-
My opinions have already been voiced. Most of you have read them. Basically we need more participants. I agree with ROC, Guppy, and others on this subject as you know. The two ideas can be melded into one. Fact. We do not have the numbers that we once had. Why do others choose to play other games as opposed to this one? IMHO with today's society, which is far different then the one that some of us grew up in has, evolved. Evolution good or bad? Society is more hectic and faster then the one we grew up in. We in my generation don't need a cell phone or an iPad. We have cell phones as a convenience and do not consider it a necessity. We do have computers. Some of us are children of the greatest generation. Born during or just after the greatest generation fought and won a great war of good versus evil. We grew up with Mom being at home always while Dad worked to provide for the household. Today that is very very rare. Circumstances in today's world dictate to most families that in order to purchase a house, give children a College education and a few extras, that most parents have no choice but to work to provide our families with what our parents provided us in the 50's and 60's. We had to use imagination when we grew up. We turned simple everyday things into space ships, we slept outside at night with our buddies hunting night crawlers so that when it got dark we could sneak into a Farmers Pond and fish for Bass. Not much imagination needed today. More and more virtual reality is provide on a daily basis with special effects and technology. Can't let most children sleep out overnight now on their own for fear of what may happen in the current society. Why we even rode our bikes miles away from home without a helmet! And Mom and Dad knew and gave permission to do so. Oh the horror! I could bore many with listing the differences between the two. Lets' just say that things are different. I'm not comparing them to suggest which one was better or good or bad. I flew flight sims with my brother using a 1/48 P40 Revelle and he flew a Me109 also by Revelle in mortal combat imagined.
Simply put we need more players. The societies in which we grew up in are now different. Good or bad is not my call. The great Albert Einstein defined an idiot. You, I hope know what he said.
The amount of participation has decreased in large number yet we keep on doing the same thing. It's never going to improve unless I guess, we get more participation. I would surmise that something should be changed, because I hate to say this, considering the amount of playing the what ifs' instead of scenarios has dropped drastically through the past few years. To the point of pathetic. The player base numbers are more then large enough to have 200 to 300 players involved. Why aren't they? That's the question that needs answered. I guess make believe first person shooters in combination with more powerful graphics and video effects are more popular. Patience and the will to learn is about gone. Instant gratification is now the new norm. History has become a smaller part of our game not to mention the population of this country. I guess people forget. Scenarios at one time in this game were scenarios. Reproducing actual battles. They aren't now.
Up to the people of this venue to decide whether something needs changed. Stays Status Quo or grows or dies. The evidence is in. It's dying but for a very few. They are no longer Scenarios.
It's now become a few people shooting at one another on Saturdays. Are we going to keep it that way? Or are we going to improve? The choice is ours. Evidence recently points to the first person instant gratification "what if jousts" in the sky. Please I am trying to help and will do anything to make it better. Scenarios were looked forward to by many. ROC stated many examples of recruiting, practice, training and team building. Maybe we ought to look at that again, or just let them die. They're on life support now, and the designer and CMs can do nothing about it until the numbers pick up by at least 100%. If the numbers don't increase it will be advertised as a "shoot around" on consecutive Saturdays. It can't be called a Scenario.
-
With a couple of exceptions so far, the rest of you are missing ROC's point. Re-read his post and skip his last paragraph so as not to focus on it.
There are terrific and talented people on the CM team and two of them have posted in here. It isn't nostalgia to compare the current Scenarios to the the past. I've watched without much hope for change. The next time you're waiting for your order in a restaurant, take a napkin and doodle a time line for a scenario starting with the first design idea through development including review and possible revisions to the terrain, with the write-up vetting by the Scenario team. Keep in mind you need to make sure everyone sees action, and add in the testing and bean counting ROC is going on about. Add for recruitment of command staffs and allow time for them to build their GL corps plus open registration and a couple of weeks for those who want to practice before hand.
You'll begin see a very large difference between a scenario of the past and the four episode snapshots usually run over the last decade. I saw one publicly outlined in eleven hours and modified repeatedly right up to the week before it ran. That situation would never have been allowed in early Aces High scenarios.
I will add that it seemed to me that the recent twelve hour scenario was the exception that took the time needed to better develop an event.
Edited for an unnecessary crack and spelling.
-
My suggestions would be :
1) Design 3 Scenarios a year so each one is 4 months apart. This gives time to build up for 150 players to each side.
3) Choose a side CO early for recruitment of a Command Team
3) Command Team recruits players and get them active in forum and online practice/play
We have the talent, time, and initiative.
-
Agreed with all that has been said above. +1000
-
Hello, all. Happy Thanksgiving! :banana:
The player base is different today than it was in the 1990's. As an extreme example, in 1999, a scenario with 18 frames :O was considered to be fine and playable. Today, that is not what players want. That's OK. Things move on, and we work within the realm of what people want to play. :aok
A complicating factor is that what people want varies person to person. There is always the tension between realism on the one hand and playability, balance, popularity, etc. on the other hand. Every player has his own idea of what is a good setup, and players do not all agree.
With regard to player numbers, the player base is smaller than in the past. Scenarios have equivalent (maybe even a bit higher) fraction of the player base participating than in the past. For example, in the days of 600 people in the MA on Saturday afternoon, we were getting about 175 players/frame in scenarios (so a scenario/Saturday ratio of 0.3). Today, with (very approximately) 120-200 players in the MA on Saturday afternoon, we are getting about 70 players/frame (a ratio of 0.35-0.58).
In order to get more players, what matters by far the most is all of us chipping in to recruit people in the Open Melee arena. The personal touch. :aok
That's because most AH players do not read the message board, have never played in a scenario or any other special event, and don't know what those are. If those people are going ever to play in a scenario, it has to be through learning about it from within Open Melee.
When I recruit people from Open Melee, (1) about 90% of them don't know what a scenario is and won't look into it on their own. Of the remaining ones, here are the reasons they give for not flying in a scenario and approximate proportion:
(2) 4% Can't make the time commitment
(3) 4% Scenarios have too much flying around between fights
(4) 1% Person doesn't like some aspect of the particular design
(5) 1% Person is put off by abrasive arguing on the message board
#1 (the biggest gain) can be helped by talking to folks about what scenarios are like and encouraging them to give it a try at least once. Spreading the word. :aok #2 is helped by encouraging folks to show up for a frame if they happen to be available -- that they don't have to commit to flying every frame. #3 is helped by some designs having rapid and frequent action (Dnieper was like that, for example), and telling people so if they give that objection when such a scenario is coming up. #4 has been present from the world's first scenario in 1992 until today. It'll never be perfect, unfortunately, but we try our best. I remind people that, if they don't like this one, I hope that the next one will be to their liking and hope they'll give it a try. #5 can be helped by people not being abrasive jerks on the message board.
I think we have a great community of people here -- a great community made up of you folks! :aok My hope is that we can expand it by reaching out to folks more in Open Melee -- especially during the month prior to a scenario. There are lots of folks who will not learn of scenarios any other way.
-
That's because most AH players do not read the message board, have never played in a scenario or any other special event, and don't know what those are. If those people are going ever to play in a scenario, it has to be through learning about it from within Open Melee.
Bingo. Unfortunately, no matter what ANY of the CMs do, it will have absolutely no effect on events. Events are reliant on the numbers available in the Main Arena and nothing any of you do will fix participation in events until the game itself gains players.
It sucks and I'm not certain AH will ever recover. Even if it does recover, I guarantee it will not contain the same historical minded community it once held.
-
Just to put some hard numbers to Del's observations - I went through ahevents.org's log files this morning and compiled some data on the scenarios they have numbers for. I wish I had some numbers from Lusche to correlate MA populations with scenario attendance, but I suspect its not quite as strong as we think - for example look at "The Hardest Day", a 12-hr format late ETO scenario held in August 2017 - a real bright spot with about 190 in attendance. Maybe 12-hr scenarios are worth putting up more often?
(https://i.imgur.com/nybEMaO.jpg)
The other thing that really jumps out at me is the fall-off in attendance after May 2015. What happened to AH and scenarios after May 2015? Was it a change in personnel on the scenario team? A change in philosophy about what scenarios should be? Did the advertising budget get slashed? It looks pretty brutal.
-
Unfortunately, no matter what ANY of the CMs do, it will have absolutely no effect on events. Events are reliant on the numbers available in the Main Arena and nothing any of you do will fix participation in events until the game itself gains players
Target for Today was the first 12 hour event Nef put together. Hardest Day was the second one. MA numbers didn't change, turnout did. Why?
Some important things to note. We promoted and recruited for a very long time. Counting objects alone took over a month on each one. Each target object had the object number identified, there was no misunderstanding about what to bomb, everyone had the object list available to look at and use. Every single object was counted, identified, and the hardness was balanced against the anticipated amount of bombers, and each frame had each element balanced to make sure that a side could recover from a devastating prior frame.
Much of the items I pointed to originally, derided as personal gains, even nostalgia, were key elements of those two events. You aren't going to take the personal gains away, why do you think we play? You don't take away the nostalgia and history of the game, why do you think we play? It's obvious who those events were designed for, the players turned out to play, who do you think they were designed for? But, hey, who knows, I'm probably guessing. Those Events took a great deal of time, energy and effort to construct. Interestingly enough, the players put in the same amount of effort, as will happen each and every time.
I don't think it's the 12 hour format, although it is a good way to do an event just not the only way. Players are not going to go into events if they are not enticed, especially new players, it is the CMs who create the game board that causes excitement to get the players inspired. It isn't going to happen on it's own. Simply design an event that players can play, for all of the different reasons they want to play, and quit social engineering the game to be played they way the designer wants. I don't care if someone wants personal high score, or leads, follows, absorbs themselves in history or simply shows up at launch time. There isn't one way for everyone to think and play. Get back to designing functioning game boards with No Expectation of what they should do, simply make sure then can do what they need to do.
-
I remember watching brooke consume hundreds of dollars a month of service time on this game in 1991 and earlier. on GENIE Air Warrior, and though people who played their whole life are well aware of oboe's participation statistics, the truth is that the core game needs more participants. And I think it needs to have a completely different style initial introduction system and less quirky settings interface. A buddy of mine (addicted by brooke) had a bill topping $600 dollars in 1990 on this game in a SINGLE MONTH (i saw the bill). That 600 dollars is in old currency not inflation-calculated 2017 dollars, which is stupefying if measured in gold, silver, or other real conversions.
World of Tanks has 150 million players. Consider that.
In 2014 a flight version of World of Tanks came out but was termed a "flop" because it lacked 150 million players, but it had a GREAT way to "hook" new players trying it out in my opinion. start in air in level flight on pretty day, and slowly introduce game controls one by one in training. It was also technically a "toy" simulator.
A semi successful fremium flight sim with 10 million claimed different people trying it out at least once is WarThunder.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=dseQCcRSuuU
It allows "god view" combat visibility and other "toy" aspects. Maybe.... MAYBE.... a sim with a new player ought to allow for "toy physics" and "toy visibility" and "toy targeting" until player reaches a certain level of solo AI training missions.
ALL I KNOW IS THIS GAME , ACES HIGH, NEEDS MORE PLAYERS.
And it is the most realistic. Even in 1990 every bullet was weighed in flight. Emptying reserves allowed you to catch a tail in a mexican standoff tight circle.
Hundreds of attention grabbing online video games now exist. They are not pure accurate physics modelling games though.
But new blood might not care so much about total realism as a "hook". Maybe pretty glitzy graphics effects and cut scenes or other eye cany needs to be added to garner new blood.
I played far far more complicated games than this with hundreds of hours of real training needed, called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MechWarrior_Online and I retired after our four man lance group of "pals" dropping public skirmish style won 15 times in a row against all comers (with 8 other essentially worthless players on our 12 man side). 15 wins in a row, different maps, different players. All from amazing tactics. That game is something maybe players here might enjoy, but it too lost 90% of its players over time. Mainly because they keep changing the combat tech in the game forever pissing off players. (I do mean endlessly).
I know the problem is scenarios is really just a problem of participation and participation is a function of core player base.
Complicated games need a better way to hook new players. I know I don't play this specific game much at all, but I respect the game as implemented, but wish it had a better way to hook new players, and glitz and more "macintosh style logic" user interface seem to be a solution. It also needs better intro solo AI training missions.
If it had 10 times more active players, (not a lot to shoot for considering World of Tanks 150 million players), the scenarios would have enough participants to make everyone happier again.
This nostalgia argument loses the focus of the root problem : the game needs engineering done to hook new blood better.
Barring that, I suspect you need to just relentlessly recruit and build up excitement over a few months, perhaps.
-
I've added some info to the bar graph that might help clarify things, but it certainly doesn't tell the whole story. Just adds some facts for comparison.
(https://i.imgur.com/qBc4Oin.jpg)
I'm looking for relationships between player numbers and the scenario's setting, combatants, and format (Frame-based vs 12 hour). Unfortunately I'm treating all scenario design rules as equals, which I'm sure is a problem I can't address, and neglects recruitment and marketing efforts - also an omission (but that really can't be quantified).
Increasing the population of the MA would help scenario numbers I think, but that doesn't explain the popularity of "The Hardest Day", which did exceptionally well amid our lower MA numbers.
For myself, I believe the 12-hr format is easier to commit to - its just one day vs 4 or 6. Also this format lets you show up when you are available, and I think allows many more lives for players instead of the standard two lives. I really like it, and apparently so does the scenario crowd.
I wonder if it'd be worth trying other formats - perhaps a scenario with two 6-hr frames, staggered to cover the same overall time duration as a 12 hour scenario
but spread over two weekends?
What I hear ROC saying is the numbers are falling because less effort is now put into design, testing, and recruiting for scenarios. Is that what happened between "Target for Today" and "Southern Conquest"?
It looks to me like we are overdue for an early War CBI scenario, too.
-
The most-recent scenarios did not scrimp on work put into them and in fact had more work by CM's put into design, testing, and recruiting than several scenarios of the past. I know this because I worked not only on the past ones but also on these new ones.
-
Scenario players/frame going back to 2004.
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/misc/aces_high/scenarioPlayerNumbers201711.jpg)
-
Scenario ratings going back to 2004.
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/misc/aces_high/scenarioRating20171124.jpg)
-
Thanks for sharing those Brooke. It looks like all the scenarios except Med Maelstrom are pretty highly rated, based on the -5 to +5 scale. Yet participation is declining. So, can we conclude the driver to player decline in scenarios is not related to how well liked the scenarios are? Since, by and large, all of them have been pretty well liked?
-
can we conclude the driver to player decline in scenarios is not related to how well liked the scenarios are? Since, by and large, all of them have been pretty well liked?
I think it is mostly this:
With regard to player numbers, the player base is smaller than in the past. Scenarios have equivalent (maybe even a bit higher) fraction of the player base participating than in the past. For example, in the days of 600 people in the MA on Saturday afternoon, we were getting about 175 players/frame in scenarios (so a scenario/Saturday ratio of 0.3). Today, with (very approximately) 120-200 players in the MA on Saturday afternoon, we are getting about 70 players/frame (a ratio of 0.35-0.58).
My thoughts on how to get more scenario players:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,390546.msg5187944.html#msg5187944
-
Not surprised, but the data seems to bear out the notion that ETO Luftwaffe vs RAF/USAAF is always going to top the list.
-
In the graph, I recalculated the numbers for Target For Today to be the average of how many players per phase (instead of how many players in the entire event), so that it is computed similarly to all the others.
-
Not surprised, but the data seems to bear out the notion that ETO Luftwaffe vs RAF/USAAF is always going to top the list.
Overall I agree with that, and can probably concoct an explanation - this air campaign after all was the stuff of legend, and spawned several movies, a tv show, countless books. But then how to explain Big Week's low numbers, and that Target Rabaul, a PTO-based event, outdrew it?
Brooke, thanks for the link back to your thoughts on increasing attendance. Regarding item #1, getting the word out - do you think HTC would allow a login clipboard pop-up promo for impending scenarios? If it is well-done, it is sure to pique some interest. I love the images you've used in the homepage slideshow at ahevents.org - looking at any one of those moves me to want to find out more. Even a small blurb about the scenario with a link to ahevents.org might help, but if can include an action image I think it'd be more effective. That way we get the eyes of the players who never go to the BB.
Regarding the time commitment, I really think the numbers show that the 12 hour format has hit on something. Players are free to show up as their schedule permits and get to launch every hour on the hour. I suppose its not conducive for certain types of force-deployments required by some scenarios, but I think its a great option. It might be worth experimenting more with that concept - for example a scenario with 2 or 3 frames using staggered 8 to 10 hr formats.
<S>
-
On a whim I'd say Big Week suffered because it was a June scenario, when the weather is getting nice and people would rather be cooking out or doing something else on a Saturday afternoon.
I like the idea of the 12hr format to be honest. For me, it is tough to commit 4 hours each Saturday for a whole month, but if I find myself free for an afternoon or night I can hop in and play. I also enjoyed when Battle over Germany was run at 9:30pm est. 3:30 is tough (I'd imagine for a lot of people) but usually most people are starting to head home after dark.
-
On a whim I'd say Big Week suffered because it was a June scenario, when the weather is getting nice and people would rather be cooking out or doing something else on a Saturday afternoon.
I like the idea of the 12hr format to be honest. For me, it is tough to commit 4 hours each Saturday for a whole month, but if I find myself free for an afternoon or night I can hop in and play. I also enjoyed when Battle over Germany was run at 9:30pm est. 3:30 is tough (I'd imagine for a lot of people) but usually most people are starting to head home after dark.
I would agree with the statement about the time as well. Perhaps it would be best if the event started around 6:00 or 7:00 EST. That gives EU players a chance to fly, as well as players in NA. I do not know if it's been tried before, but I think it's worth a shot.
-
I would agree with the statement about the time as well. Perhaps it would be best if the event started around 6:00 or 7:00 EST. That gives EU players a chance to fly, as well as players in NA. I do not know if it's been tried before, but I think it's worth a shot.
Same goes for FSO tbh. When i attent i either stay the whole night up or get a few hours of sleep before the event starts. Depending on which time of year it is what i do. Its about 4-5 am for me when it starts. Not something i can really commit to. Same goes whit the last Combat Challenge. I tried to stay up but i was a zombie and gave up 20 minutes into the event.
The time when target rabaul started was excellent for me tough. pref actually an hour earlier so i can go to the bar afterwards, haha.
Ps: those charts are very interesting @ Brooke
DutchVII
-
I would agree with the statement about the time as well. Perhaps it would be best if the event started around 6:00 or 7:00 EST. That gives EU players a chance to fly, as well as players in NA. I do not know if it's been tried before, but I think it's worth a shot.
I think a poll was taken at one point and the results were mixed. The same was similar in changing FSO time, unfortunately as it is a "worldwide" game there is never a perfect answer. 9:30 was nice on the east coast, decent on the west coast, but bad for EU because it is super late over there, but it doesn't stop people from showing up on Friday night (or Saturday morning @ 4AM in EU). FSO being so late is actually better for EU because they can go to bed and wake up early rather than stay up (if it were to start at say, 9PM EST). 3PM est has always been the traditional scenario time, but it just falls mid day for the entirety of North America.
That's not to say the 9:30 start time was the reason BoG had good numbers. It was unique, had a balanced (late war) planeset, lots of time was put into it in terms of planning, advertising, drumming up enthusiasm, etc.
I've always thought it would be nice to give something for participating in events, even if it were a small amount of perks. I'm not sure how it could be regulated so someone doesn't just roll a plane and bail to get the "participation" perks. I don't want to have to entice players to play in events. I would hope they want to play on their own accord, but lots of games have freebies, daily missions, login rewards that get you in the game.
-
I also enjoyed when Battle over Germany was run at 9:30pm est. 3:30 is tough (I'd imagine for a lot of people) but usually most people are starting to head home after dark.
I had to miss that one because of the stupid time. I'm simply not able to stay up until 2:30 am to start a scenario, much less play 3 hours until 5:30 am. I did stay up until then for the first 12-hour scenario as a one-off occasion but not over four weekends.
[/quote]I would agree with the statement about the time as well. Perhaps it would be best if the event started around 6:00 or 7:00 EST. That gives EU players a chance to fly, as well as players in NA. I do not know if it's been tried before, but I think it's worth a shot.
Although a slightly better time, I would still find it difficult to start an event at 11:00 pm or midnight and then fly for 3 hours after that.
3:00 pm Eastern time has really become a tried and tested standard after years of events since the early Air Warrior days, and works out best for the widest range of timezones; obviously not perfect for everyone but can't win everything. (8:00 pm UK, 9:00 pm CET, 10:00 pm Finland, as well as 12:00 noon PST and 10:00 or 11:00 am further west). These of course are show up times with start time usually half an hour later and the event going on for a further 3 hours, and we're talking 1:30 am finish time for the Finns!
I would prefer to continue with this time slot. :old: :cheers:
-
I would generate a start time based upon the time the MA holds the largest numbers on Saturday. It is obviously the best time for most people to log in and play and would allow for the biggest pool to draw walk-ons from. It may be that it is 3:30pm EST, I haven't tracked arena numbers. But I highly doubt that is the case. I can't say for sure that it would improve numbers either, just to me seems the most logical time to try and get the most people.
-
Regarding item #1, getting the word out - do you think HTC would allow a login clipboard pop-up promo for impending scenarios?
I'd love for scenarios to be mentioned in a pop-up arena message in Open Melee if possible. I've asked about that a couple of time, but not gotten any response yet. I will ask some more.
-
We tried different scenario times. At US prime time, we got more American players and fewer European players, but the total (American + European) stayed about the same as running at 3 pm Eastern.
-
The large majority of players in Open Melee do not visit the message board and don't know what a scenario is.
If you are looking for where folks can make the biggest impact, I think it is in reaching out to folks in Open Melee and recruiting them into scenarios.
That is the untapped resource.
-
The large majority of players in Open Melee do not visit the message board and don't know what a scenario is.
If you are looking for where folks can make the biggest impact, I think it is in reaching out to folks in Open Melee and recruiting them into scenarios.
That is the untapped resource.
I'd love for scenarios to be mentioned in a pop-up arena message in Open Melee if possible. I've asked about that a couple of time, but not gotten any response yet. I will ask some more.
Can kill two birds with one stone. Pop up adverts for scenarios with an active link to the BBS for more info. Seems like a no-brainer given that HTC's most dedicated customers are the Event junkies.
Step 1: get them in events.
Step 2: get them in the BBS community
Step 3: Profit
-
Great discussion ... Been in the game for 9 plus years and it's not the same .... only from my personal viewpoint of the Knight players now on the game.
And yes, I enjoy all the updates and the new version very much. But it seems to me that we lost players who enjoyed using strategies to "win" the war such as organized missions, hitting strats and runway missions to relive pressure on a nearby base being overwhelmed. I can only judge this from being a Knight, perhaps the other countries still have this former aspect in game play.
I recall in particular 8 or 10 sets of bombers hitting a strat and encountering masses of fighters on the way. No more. In the last few months of play I can't recall a bomber mission that took out hdqs.
Perhaps when the ranks are again at the old player level, new leaders will emerge and the game will show organization and a command structure once more. But I still love this game.
-
The large majority of players in Open Melee do not visit the message board and don't know what a scenario is.
If you are looking for where folks can make the biggest impact, I think it is in reaching out to folks in Open Melee and recruiting them into scenarios.
That is the untapped resource.
Would it be possible to have the arena message pop up say two or three months in advance and say the following:
Next scenario running April 2018, Hell Over Germany (just an example)
Frame Dates: April 7, 14, 21, 28
Start time:
Allied Planeset: Etc
Axis Planest: Etc
Available Squadrons:
For further detail visit the Aces High Bulletin Board under scenarios, or visit ahevents.org/scenarios
Is that possible to be placed into the main arena message board?
-
I envision something along these lines for the MA arena message. I don't know if including an image is possible but I think an action picture grabs people more than a block of text would:
(https://i.imgur.com/CLh3sQg.jpg)
Keeping the information general reduces HTC's workload as they wouldn't have to change it between scenarios.
-
I envision something along these lines for the MA arena message. I don't know if including an image is possible but I think an action picture grabs people more than a block of text would:
(https://i.imgur.com/CLh3sQg.jpg)
Keeping the information general reduces HTC's workload as they wouldn't have to change it between scenarios.
+1
-
I only remember 1 scenario run on a Sat. at prime time. The set up was terrible from what I recall. 262s run amok and GVs also. This going from memory so I may have missed something as I don't track stuff like some.
But in my opinion you need to grow scenarios when you have the most players playing. I know that sucks for some of the players outside the U.S. But to keep trying the same thing over and over with no better numbers doesn't make sense.
I would run scenarios on off FSO Fri. nights right now and start them an hour or two earlier than FSO. This is the time of the highest numbers I have seen lately in the Main arena. You have a built in base to work with I think with all the FSO people on. You could hopefully grow it from there. Would mean moving Combat Challenge to another night but might be worth it? I also think Sat. or Sun. night prime time might work. Best numbers I have seen lately are on Fri. and Sun. nights.
To grow numbers you need to cater to walk ons at first. Make it as easy as possible for them to fly what they want and experience a scenario. Might not be ideal for the old hands in scenarios but worth the trouble to gain players.
My 2 cents :old: :cheers:
-
Nice one, Oboe!
Yep, that would indeed be great. I have asked a couple of times in the past if we can do that and haven't gotten a rejection at least. I'll keep trying.
-
Thanks for trying Brooke!
We could also make scenario-specific ads featuring combat scenes with the scenario aircraft as the run-date gets closer. The general info spot could run a handful of times a year, between scenario dates. Don't want people to see it so much that they get sick of it. This popup is scrollable, so we could include date and time info as BFoot1 laid out, below the image and description.
-
"All around me are familiar faces
Worn out places, worn out faces"
Same guys (who once were in charge) blaming the same people.
-
Same guys (who once were in charge) blaming the same people.
Unless you were actually one of those "people" long enough to find out how it is, you don't know what you're talking about. Just saying.
-
Unless you were actually one of those "people" long enough to find out how it is, you don't know what you're talking about. Just saying.
Not really a valid argument when they vote on who can and cannot be a CM.
-
How is that relevant to your post on the previous page?
Never mined.
-
Reading these post reminded me why I played the game in the 1st place. I loved the scenerios..FSO..snapshots..he ll I even loved the squads working together to reset a map on a Friday night.
The scenario was the best. The complete terror and anticipation of 5 mins of insanity made it worthwhile. Gave me a taste of what it must of been like bombing berlin..fighter sweeps in the pacific..its why I came back...
-
Welcome back :cheers:
-
Beerbtls, please join us for the next scenario, which is coming in February. :aok