Is it possible to bring AH graphics engine up to par?

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Are there ANY high-res 1st person shooter games which have thousands of square miles of active map, as well as 500+ people online on the same map?

Eve online for example has 80k+ simultaneous players and astronomically large maps. It's not exactly FPS but beside the strategy part you also have a 3rd person live view of the scene. The engine has to be built so that it's displaying only (and ONLY) the things that the player can actually see and render them. If the engine renders things hidden from the players view, it has failed (and this includes anything hidden behind walls etc. even if they're inside the 'bubble of view'. So the size of the map is practically unlimited, the only challenge is to deal with the player 'bubble' and others in it.

[The Fugitive]

Are there ANY high-res 1st person shooter games which have thousands of square miles of active map, as well as 500+ people online on the same map?

It's been a long time since we have had that here too.  

The point isn't whether the graphics are good enough for us, but are they good enough for NEW players! Personally I can take of leave the eye candy. My box is a new build and can run everything we have pretty much all maxed out and it doesn't have an issue with it. The problem is as compared VISUALLY with the current crop of games out there.... WT, WoT, CoD and so one the graphics look old and dated. Add on top of that the steep learning curve and a subscription that is NOT free and it makes this game a hard sell.

Getting new players to check it out is ok .... TV ads, magazine ads, airshow ads and so on, but if these people don't stick around whats the point of dragging them in? The learning curve is something that I'd hate to see disappear. I would hate to see the game turn any more "arcady" than it is. Graphics and subscription ARE things that could be worked on.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

It's been a long time since we have had that here too.  

The point isn't whether the graphics are good enough for us, but are they good enough for NEW players! Personally I can take of leave the eye candy. My box is a new build and can run everything we have pretty much all maxed out and it doesn't have an issue with it. The problem is as compared VISUALLY with the current crop of games out there.... WT, WoT, CoD and so one the graphics look old and dated. Add on top of that the steep learning curve and a subscription that is NOT free and it makes this game a hard sell.

Getting new players to check it out is ok .... TV ads, magazine ads, airshow ads and so on, but if these people don't stick around whats the point of dragging them in? The learning curve is something that I'd hate to see disappear. I would hate to see the game turn any more "arcady" than it is. Graphics and subscription ARE things that could be worked on.

Perhaps AH could implement a free to play relaxed realism arenas, then when players develop they could migrate to the paid 'veteran arena'. Of course as the trend nowadays goes, perk planes could be purchased for extra money in the f2p side.

[The Fugitive]

I'm sure there are a number of ways to do it. Air Warrior had a "newbies arena". Any one could fly there, but once you high "x" amount of points you could no longer get ammo. It gave you time to get an idea of how to fly and bomb. If you ran into a "vet" in the skies he could give you a fight, but not shoot you down. I use to do a lot of "recruiting" in there for my squad. If you ran into someone that had ammo he was a newbie as well and you had a chance to win a fight. Less frustration led to more people migrating over to the main arenas.

The important thing is setting a limit. First to keep the "sharks" out of there, and two to get the newbie to move on into the Mains. I don't think you want to split the players if you don't have to. Look at the arena split we had. In prime time US it was ok, but prime time Euro it sucked because they just didn't have the numbers to make them both work. The solution (a third arena that was open only Euro time while the other two arenas were closed) seemed to work well.

Making a f2p setup I think would be the best way to go about it. It's familiar to the newer players. Give them a restricted plane/vehicle set with the option to add more up to a full $15 a month subscription for the full set. This keeps the new players in the Mains increasing the population and so the fights. Also, it shows the f2p players what is available and how much better it is than the limited set they have. Sure you might get a very subscriber to switch to the limited set to save a few dollars (tho I think HTC could "customize" that limited plane set to make that a bit less desirable to most).

Subscription fixes are easier to do than building a new graphics engine. If it brings in more players its a plus to the game play options. If it brings in more money its a plus to HTC, and with more money maybe the new graphics engine would be easier to build.

[titanic3]

Are there ANY high-res 1st person shooter games which have thousands of square miles of active map, as well as 500+ people online on the same map?

Planetside 2. Arma 2/Arma 3. Here's the thing, you don't see 500 players in AH in the same area. I think your 2004 PC would explode long before that. 64 players is the magic number. Enough to make a small part of the map interesting, and enough to keep the gameplay interesting. They could push it to 128 like some maps on BF 1942 did (that's also a 10 year old game). AH supports 500 players on a map, but have you ever seen all 500 players in a single area? Even in FSO, they're all far apart enou that AH barely renders them besides as a dot on the minimap. I would gladly settle for a 64 player arena with a map big enough to support both the 64 players, keep gameplay interesting, and be filled with nice graphics. WarThunder does this except its gameplay isn't all that great. If AH followed the same path but with their flight models, I think it would actually get recognition from other gamers.

Oh, and play FSX. The map is the size of the world. The graphics are better and you can play with other people (up to 32 I believe?). Now we don't need a world sized map, drop it down to 1/4 or even less and add in more room for players. Hell, I'll even settle for FSX graphics.

[Zacherof]

It's been a long time since we have had that here too.  

The point isn't whether the graphics are good enough for us, but are they good enough for NEW players! Personally I can take of leave the eye candy. My box is a new build and can run everything we have pretty much all maxed out and it doesn't have an issue with it. The problem is as compared VISUALLY with the current crop of games out there.... WT, WoT, CoD and so one the graphics look old and dated. Add on top of that the steep learning curve and a subscription that is NOT free and it makes this game a hard sell.

Getting new players to check it out is ok .... TV ads, magazine ads, airshow ads and so on, but if these people don't stick around whats the point of dragging them in? The learning curve is something that I'd hate to see disappear. I would hate to see the game turn any more "arcady" than it is. Graphics and subscription ARE things that could be worked on.

When I logged on yesterday I was surprised to see on 300 but 430ish on during prime time. Things might be looking up

[715]

Several people have mentioned the F2P (Free to Play) economic model.  Can someone who actually plays one of the new F2P online simulations please describe how the F2P actually works out?  I have seen disturbing online user reviews that claim F2P is really P2W (Pay to Win); that you have to pay, and pay a LOT, or you are just cannon fodder.  Can anyone confirm or counter that opinion?  I'm happy to pay $14.95 a month for AH, but I'm not going to pay an indeterminate, possibly very high, amount just to get access to a plane or vehicle that isn't completely useless.

[titanic3]

Several people have mentioned the F2P (Free to Play) economic model.  Can someone who actually plays one of the new F2P online simulations please describe how the F2P actually works out?  I have seen disturbing online user reviews that claim F2P is really P2W (Pay to Win); that you have to pay, and pay a LOT, or you are just cannon fodder.  Can anyone confirm or counter that opinion?  I'm happy to pay $14.95 a month for AH, but I'm not going to pay an indeterminate, possibly very high, amount just to get access to a plane or vehicle that isn't completely useless.

One of the most popular F2P MMO is called League of Legends. Zero pay to win, all you pay for is purely cosmetics. You can easily play the game without spending any amount of money and still be competitive. Millions of players, an eSport competitive scene, and played internationally in Asia, Europe, Oceania, NA, and recently SA.

If you want to apply that concept to a flight sim, allow users to pay for appearance customizations to their planes. That means nose art, designation, color, or whatever. The Pay to Wn model rarely ever has the same income as the true F2P model. It also helps to have an awesome game of course  . I payed well over $100 for League of Legends simply because I wanted to support the game and stand out a little bit. There are stories of people who spent $1000+ on purely cosmetic items. Even competitive players who play for real life money and as a job, are not required to spend a single dime on the game.

[Tank-Ace]

Basically, the game is free, but you pay for extras.

However that has been corrupted as of late. There seems to be a new "free to play, pay to win" model, epitomized by WoT.

Sure, everything is "technically" free. But by the game's mechanics, you have to be VERY good to make a net gain in credits at higher tier matches. Or you can pay for premium to earn extra credits, or even a special that will not you roughly 10x the gross credits earned in a tank of the same tier.



Something I thought of though, is if HTC went with a limited f2p model, they would have to separate the noobs for a time as well. Otherwise their lack of skill would only be compounded by the limited plane set.

Perhaps borrow AW's noobs arena concept, and combine it with a limited plane set. After 6 months, you cannot access the noob arena, but you can access the MA's from day one.

[titanic3]

Basically, the game is free, but you pay for extras.

However that has been corrupted as of late. There seems to be a new "free to play, pay to win" model, epitomized by WoT.

Sure, everything is "technically" free. But by the game's mechanics, you have to be VERY good to make a net gain in credits at higher tier matches. Or you can pay for premium to earn extra credits, or even a special that will not you roughly 10x the gross credits earned in a tank of the same tier.

.

That's why League of Legends is so popular, one of the few F2P model without any BS. IMO, the $15 per month model is just no longer viable. Two other games cling on to it, EVE and World of Warxraft (and its playerbase is decreasing every month). It's either a pay one time thing, or a F2P with micro transactions. I would prefer AH go with the pay one time model ($40). It's not a grade AAA title, so asking for $60 as the norm is pushing it and will likely scare away potentional buyers. Put it on Steam and you're guaranteed to rack in at the very least a few thousand players.

[Tank-Ace]

Well then where do the updates come from, if they're not making steady money?


A one-time fee wouldn't work for AH.

[guncrasher]

Umm WT claims they have 2 million subs already. So obviously there are a LOT of people who have the hardware.

most will play with pos puters that wont be able to handle ah.  my gf's laptop can play wot with about 15 fps at minimum settings while only gets 5 fps in ah with minimum settings.

btw I have a good fast computer and play ah with full frames and everything on except em and shadows at 2096.  I only get about 35 fps and lots of stutters if playing with everything maxed in wot.  and zoomed in, I cant keep track of action in heavy fights.



semp

[guncrasher]

That's why League of Legends is so popular, one of the few F2P model without any BS. IMO, the $15 per month model is just no longer viable. Two other games cling on to it, EVE and World of Warxraft (and its playerbase is decreasing every month). It's either a pay one time thing, or a F2P with micro transactions. I would prefer AH go with the pay one time model ($40). It's not a grade AAA title, so asking for $60 as the norm is pushing it and will likely scare away potentional buyers. Put it on Steam and you're guaranteed to rack in at the very least a few thousand players.

first there isnt guarantees on anything except death and taxes.
second, what kind of micro transactions are you talking about?  perks?  buy airplanes like in wot?  that would be dumb.  and last there's already whining about hordes and ho's and based on how players act in wot, do you really want to see hundred of players diving in hoing everything they see before they crash or die? 

go play wot and wowp and see if that's what you really want to happen in ah.  because if that happens, lots of long time players will be gone in a flash.

one thing that attracts long time players is that you make a lot of friends here.  there's the fights and stuff happening on 200 but that just ads to the fun of it.  in games like wot you can go hundreds of games without seeing a friend on either side unless you platoon.  in ah you have to really go out of your way to go a day without somebody on either side saying "hi".


semp

[titanic3]

first there isnt guarantees on anything except death and taxes.
second, what kind of micro transactions are you talking about?  perks?  buy airplanes like in wot?  that would be dumb.  and last there's already whining about hordes and ho's and based on how players act in wot, do you really want to see hundred of players diving in hoing everything they see before they crash or die? 

go play wot and wowp and see if that's what you really want to happen in ah.  because if that happens, lots of long time players will be gone in a flash.

one thing that attracts long time players is that you make a lot of friends here.  there's the fights and stuff happening on 200 but that just ads to the fun of it.  in games like wot you can go hundreds of games without seeing a friend on either side unless you platoon.  in ah you have to really go out of your way to go a day without somebody on either side saying "hi".


semp

So I'm guessing you didn't read any of my posts.

One of the most popular F2P MMO is called League of Legends. Zero pay to win, all you pay for is purely cosmetics. You can easily play the game without spending any amount of money and still be competitive. Millions of players, an eSport competitive scene, and played internationally in Asia, Europe, Oceania, NA, and recently SA.

If you want to apply that concept to a flight sim, allow users to pay for appearance customizations to their planes. That means nose art, designation, color, or whatever. The Pay to Wn model rarely ever has the same income as the true F2P model. It also helps to have an awesome game of course  . I payed well over $100 for League of Legends simply because I wanted to support the game and stand out a little bit. There are stories of people who spent $1000+ on purely cosmetic items. Even competitive players who play for real life money and as a job, are not required to spend a single dime on the game.

Then color me intrigued, do you want a small puny playerbase or do you want a large expansive playerbase? Because people here are crying for more players but then there's people who want AH to remain as small as possible so they can say "hi" to their buds. Make up your mind. If you want small, then let the game stay the way it is until it dies. If you want large, advertise, change the business model, do something to attract more players.

[Karnak]

Many MMORPGs offer a hybrid system.  You can pay a monthly fee and have full access, perhaps barring some cosmetic things that everybody has to buy if they want it, or you can purchase things al la carte but play for free.  Sometimes there are other restrictions on the free players, such as loot quality that can drop being capped below where it is if you pay for it.

In terms of AH this could be translated as something like:

Free to play, but only have access to a limited number of units/weapons and perks earned at 1/4th normal rate and having to purchase the access to other units and weapons or you could opt to pay a monthly fee as now and have full access and regular perk earning rates.

FTP units might look something like:

A6M5
B5N2
Bf109G-6
C.202
C-47A
*F4U-1C (perk fighter)
G4M1
He111H
Hurricane Mk IId
La-5FN
LVT(A)2
*Mosquito Mk XVI (perk bomber)
P-51B
Panzer IV F
SBD-5
Sd.Kfz. 251
*Sherman VC (perk GV)
Spitfire Mk V
500lb/250kg class bombs

As a starting lineup that hits key points without giving away the farm, you get a P-51, but not the D, a Bf109, not the K-4, a Spitfire, not the XVI.  All functions in the game can be done, including something to spend perks on, but in all cases there are better, tempting things to get.  Unit costs would probably have to be based on ENY rating or such so a Spitfire Mk I might cost $0.50 and a Spitfire Mk XVI might cost $4.00.

*A strong argument can be made that no perk units should be in the base FTP package, but rather that the temptation to buy something to spend the perk points the player already has earned would be a good way to make more money.


Ultimately, I have no way of knowing the economics of such a system as applied to HTC.