Are there any game theory guys that play/post here, and have an opinion? I know I sound like I'm grasping at straws, but I had to ask. War Thunder makes an attempt at forcing a Nash Equilibrium in its fixed-headcount, timed arenas. You have a set objective, and you can't go off the farm and do your own thing. None of that applies in Aces High (at least it doesn't in practice). The way AH is set up, with freedom to work as a team or freedom to just log in and have fun on your own, equilibrium theory goes out the window. You end up with a situation of the game being like a broken clock being right twice a day: every now and then, when sides are somewhat even and a majority of each side is into working in groups, then a majority on all sides have a good experience. The rest of the time, the gaming experience value is poor for players in at least one of the three countries, which likely results in fewer players playing during that time. Unfortunately, the only way to induce something close to an equilibrium is to force a common player behavior in the players, like War Thunder. I don't see how you can do that in AH. I think the problem isn't in the game. The problem is the freedom in behavior the game allows. I don't think there is a quick fix.
