MA Off-peak is dying

[Vraciu]

An idea I've put forward a few times is to reward players for fighting while outnumbered. Every time a player scores a kill a score multiplier would be applied based on the number of red and green icons visible at the time. So more red than green = higher score and vice versa. This punishes those who hide in hordes picking and rewards those who up to defend a field from a horde. It gives the score-obsessed a reason to engage a more numerous enemy and so should mean more combat for everyone.

Or a script that zooms the map in and out based on players.  Same map, just can't use or see all of it when the numbers get below a certain threshold.

[pembquist]

You could make it free to play during off hours. It's definitely a chicken egg thing, more players means more fun means more players.

[Lusche]

You could make it free to play during off hours. It's definitely a chicken egg thing, more players means more fun means more players.

More non paying members? Most euro members already in game dropping their subscription, as peak hours are very late night for them anyway?

[Butcher]

More non paying members? Most euro members already in game dropping their subscription, as peak hours are very late night for them anyway?

I agree, I am in Florida, US - but due to my work schedule I tend to play in off hours, can I get my account free too? Nope - I paid for 10 years even though I generally fly off hours - it was best $15 I spent each month even the years I payed and didn't play.

[Mister Fork]

It's all easy for us to point out things haven't changed much, and that's why - stagnant gameplay, old aircraft models, poorly designed terrain etc.  And yes, they all contribute.

But the biggest and real issue HTC faces is twofold and inter-twined.

First - they only charge $15 a month.  Second - the genre who love WWII combat simulators are getting old and there are less of us each year.  And when you have a diminishing subscriber base who don't really pay that much each month, it could spell a slow and painful death for Aces High.

At $15 a month, it's really hard for Dale and Doug to bring on new programmers and architects to increase the rate of development and put in new enhancements.  

I think they should look at increasing their cost to $20 per month and use the extra money to speed up development cycles and improve their already great product.   That way we CAN get subs, better strategy, new maps, more planes, vehicles, and ships!

But that doesn't come cheap and it would mean increasing the fees.

What do you guys think about paying more to get more?

[Vraciu]

You could make it free to play during off hours. It's definitely a chicken egg thing, more players means more fun means more players.

Or x number free until the numbers reach a certain level.   I.E. once it hits X number the freebies start getting restricted down to zero on a 2:1 basis or something...

As for the slow and painful death, this happened to Warbirds.   I don't know if increasing the price is an option, but I bet we could donate extra $ on our own if it went to such things as development...

[SlidingHorn]

What do you guys think about paying more to get more?

FWIW with myself still being in the "New & Shiny" mindset toward online play (I'm just about to start my 2nd *week* of paid play), I think the $15 is a pretty good deal and wouldn't be opposed to a reasonable increase in subscription fees.

[pembquist]

Well I like the flat subscription model and I detest freemium. That said if you have a time period that is dead I don't think incentivizing players to participate or try out that period is a bad idea. I can understand the negative opinions on free off peak accounts, it seems inequitable and throat cutting. It's an idea that comes from the theory that player quantity is important to the quality of the game and that therefore during a low population time period each player is more valuable to the game than they would be during peak hours. It is as if you had two different markets, like off-peak electricity.

I'm not very serious about free accounts but if you change that to more resources for marketing off peak it's the same thing in terms of cash costs but probably much better in terms of social cost.

Another thing, with the different geographies in off peak play is the game different because of latency?

[SirNuke]

the way the MA is made certainly shows that player numbers impact on gameplay quality...

playing with 150ms never stopped the few from being top notch

[waystin2]

It's all easy for us to point out things haven't changed much, and that's why - stagnant gameplay, old aircraft models, poorly designed terrain etc.  And yes, they all contribute.

But the biggest and real issue HTC faces is twofold and inter-twined.

First - they only charge $15 a month.  Second - the genre who love WWII combat simulators are getting old and there are less of us each year.  And when you have a diminishing subscriber base who don't really pay that much each month, it could spell a slow and painful death for Aces High.

At $15 a month, it's really hard for Dale and Doug to bring on new programmers and architects to increase the rate of development and put in new enhancements.  

I think they should look at increasing their cost to $20 per month and use the extra money to speed up development cycles and improve their already great product.   That way we CAN get subs, better strategy, new maps, more planes, vehicles, and ships!

But that doesn't come cheap and it would mean increasing the fees.

What do you guys think about paying more to get more?

I would not gripe a bit.

[Aspen]

We could go NASCAR and sell corporate skins in the planes...

"SuperAce 200:  Hey P-51 with the Viagra skin, good fight.  Get it up again and we'll finish this."

[pembquist]

I would not gripe a bit.

I would pay more, but I have a feeling that 15 is a sweet spot and raising it might discourage subscriptions. If you use my logic a player is worth more to the game than their subscription fee so that if you increase revenue by say 5 dollars a player but lose 1 in 10 players your player contribution has not gone up by 3.33 a head but by less because of the loss of the missing player's presence added to the value of the game.

Also we are all free to send in more money right now.

I think every air museum in the country should have a couple is pits with AH2 playing gratis. What would that cost?

[Mister Fork]

I would pay more, but I have a feeling that 15 is a sweet spot and raising it might discourage subscriptions. If you use my logic a player is worth more to the game than their subscription fee so that if you increase revenue by say 5 dollars a player but lose 1 in 10 players your player contribution has not gone up by 3.33 a head but by less because of the loss of the missing player's presence added to the value of the game.

But by adding more value for the money, you could increase active account numbers and have better retention of existing players.  Not to mention the extra development, features, and playable objects could also completely revive a stagnate brand (and yes, it is a stagnate brand nearing the end of it's product life-cycle).

An extra $5 - or charge $19.95 per month, means a 33% increase in operational revenue.  It means Dale and Doug can do more with 33% A lot more.  Just a thought.

[Lusche]

An extra $5 - or charge $19.95 per month, means a 33% increase in operational revenue.  It means Dale and Doug can do more with 33% A lot more.  Just a thought.

Only if nobody quits and new customers aren't put off by it...  which is highly questionable

[Tinkles]

The game is boring.
 
#1  Too many fly around in their own ack hoping it'll do their job for them.
#2  Too many worried about score and avoid fights at all costs.
#3  Scoring system is a joke.
#4 50 ton tank stopped dead in it's tracks by bushes.
#5 Spitfires fighting Mustangs.
#6 PT boats and torpedo planes are worthless against CV ack. Can't even get within range before you're shot down.
#7 All towns and bases look the same on every map.
#8 Maps are too big and not enough maps in the rotation.
#9 Finding yourself in a 5 vs 1 is the norm not the exception.
#10  No trains or armed convoys to blow up anymore.
#11 No factories spread out across various places on the maps......just packed in one spot protected by laser ack.
#12 No variety in naval shipping to attack. It's either the ack factory CV task group or nothing.


After a while most folks get tired of the same ole thing map after map, tour after tour, year after year. I'm bored with AcesHigh............ and football comes on in 15 minutes. 
 

#1  I think auto ack should be dropped down to 4 per base and mannable ack stays as they are.  That way there is some defense for the base if no one is available or isn't there, however not overpowering.

#2 & 3 Agreed. The score means absolutely nothing.  Just gaming the game. Personally, I think "ranks" should be gone, they shouldn't exist.  Keep the statistical stuff, accuracy percentage, times died or killed.  But other than that, rank shouldn't exist.  It has NO PURPOSE WHATSOEVER, other than to say that you were a 'Task Group Commander".    I think ranks should be gone.  Instead, to take its place, should be (on the front page) accuracy and kills.  For bombers bomb accuracy and overall damage/destruction.  For GVs accuracy/kills/troops killed (latter for fun).
Because overall the only thing that you can do with your 'rank' is take control over a task group from someone else.  I think the front page should promote combat showing the accuracy rating, the kills of the successful.    

#4 Not really sure how this will be addressed in the terrain update. Will wait to comment on it after we see the limitations of this new terrain and whether or not an effective solution can be implemented.

#5 Due to them being allies? I agree on that, it takes me and some others out of it. Or having 109s escorting B17s to drop on those taking off in p51s.  Not really sure what to add that hasn't already been said on that in the past.  If you want realism go to the FSO/Scenario events, if you want just goofing off fun go to the DA/ Squad in the MA.

#6 Fully agree. Then the guns open fire from a medium distance away. And that isn't even if a player is in the tower. IF they are, they can hop in the guns and take you out.   Can see them further out with that beyond sniper-quality vision.  I can identify what plane skin you chose from 9k away in the 5in, even with my crappy video card.

#7 Would love variety, would absolutely love it.

#8 Agreed, again.   If the map editor was updated to a point where a PHD in HiTechnics wasn't required, then I wouldn't mind making maps or making towns more.. realistic and challenging to get into.

#9 Yup.  Gang-bangin is alive and rabid in Aces High. The hoard lives and is eating well as usual.

#10 No real purpose for them either.   There are no factories for which they come to or fro, they simple drive around in a path and park in a building. Or, if you are lucky enough to have a spawn into a HQ or Strats (which normally all players are 20k+ unable to interact with trains or convoys) then you might get a shot at one. If you survive long enough.

#11 Yup.  While they have a more overall purpose than before, they aren't really in the game. They are taken from it, hidden.. like an easter egg.  You have to work to find it, which is good, in a way, for how powerful they are. That you could cripple a factions radar system or ack system, but, they are all in one place. Instead of being separated and having sectors where factories would be supplying resources to bases near it, trains and convoys would be going to and fro to these bases, and it would be a strategic target for that area. IF you want this base or that base, hit this factory, so down times are increased, hit the convoys and trains, so you can have a more available opportunity/window to take this base.  (That has been mentioned too many times to count as of recent months).

#12 I'm not sure how to respond to this one, from my perspective it's... not really specific. Elaborate please.  (Might just be me, no insult intended, it's probably on my end, just asking for more clarification).


And to your last sentence. I agree, like in Fallout "War, War never changes".  The combat hasn't really changed here either. The easier to use systems have always been used. Some will take a less-taken path and take off in a higher ENY plane, or use torps to take out a fleet. Instead of using Lancs or B26s .    Some use these easier methods because they want to be jerks, or because they can get points easier or kills.

But my explanation is this.   Because they CAN!   Since there aren't any limitations on it, they will do it!        You add new tools, to play with, but why would I use those tools that are harder for me to use and craft this thing I want to make, or do this thing I want to do, when I could use this and it would be much easier?

Why fly a TBM and take a Vbase when I could take an f4u or f6f and do it even easier, be more manuverable, have more firepower, and be able to dogfight EASIER?  (Don't get me wrong TBMS can be a challenge in the right hands.)  It shouldn't be like this.  

Geez, I talk to much.    

My rant is over, what I have said many others have said over the years. I think with this new terrain HiTech (if not already doing so), need to update many of these things and address them accordingly.


*Disclaimer* In no way do I intent to insult or offend anyone with this post, if you were insulted or offended I apologize for that wasn't the intent of this post.

Respectively,

Tinkles