Where have all the players gone?

[Agent360]

I think one of the main reasons AH is not growing is the "massive online combat" thingy that HTC "wants" to happen but never has and never will. And this is why the MA game play is the way it is.

The maps are stupid..not realistic and there are never new ones. Real world geography would help.

The game play should allow smaller maps.

The game play should allow a country win in about 1 hour...NOT days and days of the same map.

If the map was designed to win in an hour then combat would be intense and the concept of strategic play would work.

HTC has the attitude that the maps should be made by the players....DUMB...HTC needs to make a whole crap load of them...if its not won in an hour re set the map.

[Easyscor]

<snip>
A smaller group of players is ok as long as it pays the bills at HTC, but they will have to get rid of all the medium and big maps. Not enough number to support them. Small maps drive the lower number of players closer together and so make more game action. Maybe add a few new small maps to fill in the spots of those removed. I know building maps is a major project, but I wonder (...and maybe a map maker could help here) but is there a way that 6-10 people could work on the same map to spread the project out? Instead of 6 months by a single player, a team could build one in a few weeks. Is this something that could be done? If so, could one of the map makers come up with an outline of how to split it up and spread out the work load? Just a thought. 

Since you raised the issue... and I might be qualified to make a comment...
Six to ten people would be completely unworkable. It's hard enough to find two people who agree on game-play issues and after all, that's the first thing isn't it. Three might work, two is more likely, but if anyone bails, then the original project concept dies. If I were to pick, then the perfect team would be two people. It would include an artist to create textures for both water and land, and to paint the terrain with those textures. The art work is as important as the layout of the terrain and it's the only customizing allowed in MA terrains. Partner number two would be responsible for the elevations, placing the bases and all the mundane issues in building the terrain. That would be a pretty equal division of labor, but agreement on game-play would be the most likely thing to destroy the partnership, so that would be their first hurdle.

I think one of the main reasons AH is not growing is the "massive online combat" thingy that HTC "wants" to happen but never has and never will. And this is why the MA game play is the way it is.

The maps are stupid..not realistic and there are never new ones. Real world geography would help.

The game play should allow smaller maps.

The game play should allow a country win in about 1 hour...NOT days and days of the same map.

If the map was designed to win in an hour then combat would be intense and the concept of strategic play would work.

HTC has the attitude that the maps should be made by the players....DUMB...HTC needs to make a whole crap load of them...if its not won in an hour re set the map.

Wow. Greebo's Grinder isn't that old, and it took him at least(?) two years to create it.

Real world geography would help.

No, real world geography doesn't work for MA terrains. With one or two exceptions, a real world terrain would kill game-play. And the exceptions would need severe distortions to both elevations and aspect ratio.

The game play should allow a country win in about 1 hour...NOT days and days of the same map.

Nope, I liken that to a merry-go-round. It becomes boring very quickly. I might be willing to go so far as to suggest that the setup tables loaded with each terrain should be customized for each terrain. Harder to reset for smaller maps and easier for larger terrains. Perhaps tweak AI ack lethality, or more logically, adjust the percentage of town buildings to take down according to the terrain. I would never want to see resets in under a day, nor a terrain lasting a week or more.

[chris3]

moin

play wot Agent ;-)

some bomber missions take longer than 3 houers. and if i fly my 410 for bomberintercepting i mostly fly longer than 2 houers. So thats a kind of realistik if you want fast aktion every gamplay goes to unrelismus.
so it is complet ok that the maps will be on some days, if you want fast aktion go to a frontline were the fight is.

If you do not finde a fight it s just because not much players are online.
And thats of cours a problem.
But its not the gameplay or boring maps the problem is that you need to pay for the game and thats what nobody want to day. im here over 10 years now and i only got one frind playing aces high, and belive me im doing alot to get people to aces hig. But always thay say : oh you need to pay for this, no, noway thats stupid or not up to date. Interestening is that these peoples are the thame wich buy gold in wot for some amunition. lol

In my point of view alot will change if the players could stay in game after thair 2 week trial. Thay need be able to hold an foot in game, to learn more about the game. It could be look like that. After the 2 weeks you are only alowed to fly and drive low butget vehicles or planes. so you are able to see what happen al around in the game, you get in contact with the old timers and you get enough time to start loving this game.

At the moment its like that, you downloade the game on monday, you fly 2 times and play again at the weekend, you dies alot and at the next week you do not have much time and at the next weekende your time is over and you lost your interest in the game.  Hope i could explain it understandable.

in my point of view its the only way today to get the people into the game. If HTC will not change anthing in that way we will see that the numbers will go more down and more down by time. And thats makes me realy unhappy.

Low Playernumbers causes less interest in game thats a bad circle.  

cu christian

[gyrene81]

You obviously haven't flown in the FRB (Full Real Battles) arenas recently.  A year ago I would have agreed.

would you pay $15/month to do what's needed to get to the point of what they call full realism? i'm not a "console grinder" which is the description that fits the majority of people in warthunder. there is no "learning curve", it's jump in and go, even if you don't have a joystick. just like nearly every other mmo and console shooter out there, you grind through the game chalking up brownie points and rewards to unlock new toys and new levels.  i've experienced the "full realism" and it's almost verbatim the same as il2's version of full realism. engine management and added controls are no more "full realism" than bushes stopping tiger tanks. and it is still "pay to win", because you need "gold" to get new planes, and you can buy "gold". for $115 you can get enough gold for a 1 year premium account and have enough left over to buy airplanes and "advanced packs" with planes and extras that cannot be earned.

[Max]

There are numerous posts in this thread suggesting that ________ is broken, and players are leaving because of it.

I disagree. HTC has been tapping my checking account for $14.95 since '01. Gameplay is much the same now as it was back then. They HO'd then; they HO now. They vulched then; they vulch now. Picktards, toolshedders, hordes...they were all there in '01.

Couple of years ago, HT capped the LW arena to promote more civilized game play; everyone griped. Titanic Tuesday became the slugfest the LWA is on any given day/evening.

Let's face it, players leave for a variety of reason...lack of time, money, interest, etc.

Could a few things be tweaked a bit differently? Sure. New maps (small, med, lg) would be great. ENY can be irritating to some, but the resolution is simple; change sides. (No need to flame...you're preaching to the choir)

Bottom line...for $15 @ month, if you're into WW2 combat simulation, Aces High delivers a pretty good bang for the buck.

[Shifty]

I disagree. HTC has been tapping my checking account for $14.95 since '01. Gameplay is much the same now as it was back then. They HO'd then; they HO now. They vulched then; they vulch now. Picktards, toolshedders, hordes...they were all there in '01.

Same here. I don't see a big difference now from 2001 when I started.

[olds442]

Sony Computer Entertainment is basically grovelling to get more indie devs to make more games for PS4.

methinks HTC should also make this game for PS4 via Playstation Network to bring in some fresh blood.

New generations of consoles such as PS4 will have longer longevity.  In fact, Sony Computer Entertainment is projecting 10 support for PS4... and what's radically different compared to past Playstations is that PS4 will use PC architecture.

Current PCs are more powerful than the PS4. I doubt the PS4 could run Aces High as it uses a APU.

[titanic3]

Current PCs are more powerful than the PS4. I doubt the PS4 could run Aces High as it uses a APU.

Before I installed a 6870, the onboard Intel G41 chipset could run AH with most of the detailed turned on. I'm sure the PS4's APU can run AH no problem..getting AH to the PS4 is a different story.

[SirNuke]

Before I installed a 6870, the onboard Intel G41 chipset could run AH with most of the detailed turned on. I'm sure the PS4's APU can run AH no problem..getting AH to the PS4 is a different story.

he was refering to single threaded cpu power, that ah loves but the ps4 lacks

[icepac]

Been here two years and haven't yet performed two missions back to back that are anything alike unless upping from cv to deack on a capture attempt.

Anybody who uses "stale" to describe the sim should also apply the term to thier flying.

Even after 2 years, there are some parts of the sim I haven't yet explored and I haven't flown but a handfull of the planes yet.

I don't know about you guys but I get a good rush using 2000+ year old tactics that the enemy is somehow not aware of.

Try something different.

I got a huge amount of enjoyment recently on the craterma map by driving around the enemy base and climbing the mountain to come in behind the bad guy who was over tank town shooting down on our guys.

[TonyJoey]

My only gripe would be maps. The average size of an MA map needs to decrease and the rotation needs to be shortened to maybe 3 or 4 days. Having the same massive map for a week straight with relatively little action at any particular one spot on the map is not very fun, but other than that the game is still very much enjoyable to me.

[Zoney]

The game play should allow a country win in about 1 hour...NOT days and days of the same map.

If the map was designed to win in an hour then combat would be intense and the concept of strategic play would work.

Ridiculous.  Yeah lets interrupt/disrupt gameplay every hour.

- Infinity x Infinity

[Pand]

would you pay $15/month to do what's needed to get to the point of what they call full realism? i'm not a "console grinder" which is the description that fits the majority of people in warthunder. there is no "learning curve", it's jump in and go, even if you don't have a joystick. just like nearly every other mmo and console shooter out there, you grind through the game chalking up brownie points and rewards to unlock new toys and new levels.  i've experienced the "full realism" and it's almost verbatim the same as il2's version of full realism. engine management and added controls are no more "full realism" than bushes stopping tiger tanks. and it is still "pay to win", because you need "gold" to get new planes, and you can buy "gold". for $115 you can get enough gold for a 1 year premium account and have enough left over to buy airplanes and "advanced packs" with planes and extras that cannot be earned.

So you still haven't answered the question... you have or haven't played FRB recently?   Flight model updates for 100+ aircraft were introduced over a month ago.
 
"Pay to Win" is far from the model.  I often fly a 109F4 and consistently down all those other players who have now paid to lose.  No one jumps into Full Real Battles without a learning curve, although I would agree with you 100% for Arcade and Historical Battles.

Granted I haven't flown an actual WWII aircraft in real life, but the way the aircraft handles, dealing with wind gusts, and unstable air (in the clouds) are just a few of areas in the game that align with my real world experience piloting aircraft. 

[gyrene81]

My only gripe would be maps. The average size of an MA map needs to decrease and the rotation needs to be shortened to maybe 3 or 4 days. Having the same massive map for a week straight with relatively little action at any particular one spot on the map is not very fun, but other than that the game is still very much enjoyable to me.

would maps with fewer bases change the player behavior enough that more people enjoy logging in than not? if so, then what would be the minimum number of bases needed to make the fight worth while and lower the incidence of hording, or rolling undefended bases and winning the war in 5 minutes or less? maybe it's time for not just lower numbers of bases but, maybe a change in the bases themselves and how things work with the bases. the way it is now, 4 guys can sneak a base just by white flagging the town.

[gyrene81]

So you still haven't answered the question... you have or haven't played FRB recently?   Flight model updates for 100+ aircraft were introduced over a month ago.
 
"Pay to Win" is far from the model.  I often fly a 109F4 and consistently down all those other players who have now paid to lose.  No one jumps into Full Real Battles without a learning curve, although I would agree with you 100% for Arcade and Historical Battles.

Granted I haven't flown an actual WWII aircraft in real life, but the way the aircraft handles, dealing with wind gusts, and unstable air (in the clouds) are just a few of areas in the game that align with my real world experience piloting aircraft. 

i didn't see you ask a question Pand. i've been playing the game at least 2 or 3 times a week for the past 7 or 8 weeks, and those "flight model updates" were not noticeable at least in arcade and historical modes. and no i haven't played frb since the last update.

pay to win is absolutely the model, just like every other free play mmo out there. you can buy your way to victory, just look at the "extras" that can be had and it's as plain as the nose on your face. the fact that you're winning fights in frb mode against the pay to win planes says a lot about either the caliber of players there and/or the flight models. take your pick.