How have we lost so many people to this wonderful game?

[Banshee7]

So, a question from a guy that’s been away for several years:  with numbers being low, are they using the old small maps like NDIsles and Uterus? Those are the only two I remember the names of, but you get the point.

<S>

Josh

[The Fugitive]

They do, but also some of the new maps Bustr has made. Some maps do seem to feel too big for the numbers we seem to pull at this time.

[Shuffler]

I posted earlier about many of the reasons I left the game.  This time I'll relate a short story that could easily have been added to that list.

I logged on one night, I believe it was about 1:00 AM Central (not exactly prime time) to the old pinwheel map (forget the actual name).  None of our bases had been captured so no matter what I was going to have to fly across a channel (2-3 sectors) to find a fight.  All the dar bars indicated likely single opponents across the channels.  So I upped and headed toward one of those dar bars.  Just as I was about to get there the dar bar disappeared and the next closest one was three sectors away.  My choice at this point was to fly home, bail or fly toward the next dar bar.  I always flew to kill or be killed so I headed toward the next dar bar.  It too disappeared by the time I got there.  Finally, after flying two sectors back in the direction I had just come from, I got to engage a bomber.  This was a 9-10 sector flight to get one kill and land.

Numbers do matter.  Spending 20, 30 or 40 minutes simply looking for someone to engage isn't really much fun.  And to answer your earlier question, 4.  That's how many I've survived against (on multiple occasions) fighting them all at once on my own.  Five is too many.

That is exactly why it is important to look at the map and find the fights. It could be that neither side was attacking your side. It happens sometimes. Pop over on another side and go to the fights. Much better than chasing folks who are just milking or learning to fly.

[Banshee7]

They do, but also some of the new maps Bustr has made. Some maps do seem to feel too big for the numbers we seem to pull at this time.

That was one of my biggest concerns from an outsider POV. On average, what would you say the #’s are during the week.

[The Fugitive]

That was one of my biggest concerns from an outsider POV. On average, what would you say the #’s are during the week.

100-120 on a week night, 120-150 on a weekend, seems about average these days. Friday nights sometimes jump up a bit as FSO players pop in before FSO to "warm up", but once FSO starts the numbers tank.

[DmonSlyr]

Total unironically: It was a sad moment for me when the central strats were split up, because all of the sudden those big escorted long range high alt bombing raids almost completely disappeared.
I very much liked those battles at 30k.

What was the reason for this? It seemed that zone strats worked well.

What I believe would help a lot is a zone on the map that is more important than other areas. This zone would get you double the perks and points for kills or bombings. This zone would be known as the popular area to fight in as it is the most important spot on the map. There would be 3 zones on the map that update as bases get taken. This would give players an incentive to fight in a certain spot and a path to action. Players could still fight where they wanted and roll where they wanted.

I think it would help a lot to create bigger fights that are more actionable.

That is exactly why it is important to look at the map and find the fights. It could be that neither side was attacking your side. It happens sometimes. Pop over on another side and go to the fights. Much better than chasing folks who are just milking or learning to fly.

Sometimes it's very difficult to determine which side to switch to because of often times the side with the less #s doesnt have a fight or is winning the fights currently on the map that would still make rolling boring. Its sometimes a gamble to know which team to switch to for the best fight.

[Banshee7]

100-120 on a week night, 120-150 on a weekend, seems about average these days. Friday nights sometimes jump up a bit as FSO players pop in before FSO to "warm up", but once FSO starts the numbers tank.

While not the 5-600 I remember back in the day, that’s still better than I thought (and what others have suggested).

[Nefarious]

I was pleasantly surprised a few Sundays ago to see nearly 200 (iirc it was 197-8) about 8-9pm est.

[SmokinLoon]

I'm still here!

since Jan 2008. $15 a month. I sometimes don't play for months at a time, but I do keep tabs. Between life, work, major family activity (damned kids!), motorcycles, flying, hunting, reserve police officer duties, shoveling snow, and playing Post Scriptum.... time is short.

Eventually you'll see me in the skies again. 

[yipi]

The Future in players with VR. Its to awesome for it not to be big

[Mak333]

Mak333 checking in.  Wow, it's been a while.  I can't believe almost 20 years have gone by.

I have been off and on since about 2014, from what I can remember.  I've stopped playing due to the the lack in numbers to be honest.  I'd play this over just about anything else, and what's "funny" is that while Aces High is over 20 years old, it's still a better game (by far) than anything new.  And the reason why it is, is two fold:  Game play and community.

I miss the good ole days, quite a bit actually.  I remember the Main servers being full at 600, 650, 700 people.  I would come back, but I think it's a collective loss.  That is to say, I wish more people were on, but wishing doesn't do anything for numbers. 

In any case, I might re-up the subscription for a couple of months and see how it goes.

[Ciaphas]

Isn't stopping playing because of lower numbers creating even lower numbers?

That logic has never made much sense and it never will.

*edit: I wonder how many people have left because of low numbers. On these forums I think I read posts from somewhere around 20 people (I could be wrong) who left for low numbers.

If they stayed in game, they would make up a third of the players online (roughly). That's one countries population at times or 6 players for each country with 2 players left over... .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FESS67]

Isn't stopping playing because of lower numbers creating even lower numbers?

That logic has never made much sense and it never will.

*edit: I wonder how many people have left because of low numbers. On these forums I think I read posts from somewhere around 20 people (I could be wrong) who left for low numbers.

If they stayed in game, they would make up a third of the players online (roughly). That's one countries population at times or 6 players for each country with 2 players left over... .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why do you say the logic does not make sense?

There are other factors at play however numbers and population density are important factors IMO.  Population density has a big impact on gameplay dynamics and if a low population causes another aspect of the game to be adversely affected people will leave and the root cause is low player population density.  It of course depends what the individual is after and there will vary person to person.  We see this at play in other aspects of life so I am not sure why it does not make sense to you here.

The busy bar with hundreds of patrons will attract new patrons and retain existing ones far more than the same bar with only 10 patrons.  Assuming of course the patrons want a lively experience.

AH is the same.  We want a lively experience and what we get is 50 players in a venue built for 1000.  It does not hold the attention enough to stay.  The need here is to increase positive player interactions and that can be done by increasing population density per grid square.  That means either more players or smaller rooms.

[Ciaphas]

Why do you say the logic does not make sense?

There are other factors at play however numbers and population density are important factors IMO.  Population density has a big impact on gameplay dynamics and if a low population causes another aspect of the game to be adversely affected people will leave and the root cause is low player population density.  It of course depends what the individual is after and there will vary person to person.  We see this at play in other aspects of life so I am not sure why it does not make sense to you here.

The busy bar with hundreds of patrons will attract new patrons and retain existing ones far more than the same bar with only 10 patrons.  Assuming of course the patrons want a lively experience.

AH is the same.  We want a lively experience and what we get is 50 players in a venue built for 1000.  It does not hold the attention enough to stay.  The need here is to increase positive player interactions and that can be done by increasing population density per grid square.  That means either more players or smaller rooms.

Take Mak33's post for instance. He left because of low player population numbers but his leaving adds to the player number loss, it's a circular argument. If players leave because of low player population density, they only add to the low player population density issue that they claim drove them away... .


A busy bar may attract new patrons but a bar is not always busy, they all have their slow times during the day. Expecting a bar to be packed 24 hours a day or when you show up is unrealistic and may lead to disappointment.


oh, by the way, I wasn't referring to those that left for various other RL reasons. I was referring to those that left due to low numbers. This was clearly stated in my post.

[FESS67]

I was not suggesting you were referring to RL issues.

Yes, it is a circular argument.  A downward spiral if you like.  The problem is not for the client base to solve by not leaving, it is for the entertainment company to solve by retaining current customers and attracting new ones.