 |
|
Can we go back? - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Campaign Series (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=8) +--- Thread: Can we go back? (/showthread.php?tid=40033) |
RE: Can we go back? - majog - 04-11-2007 I guess maybe I am making this too simple but for me at least I never report balance the first time around just was it entertaining. I look at it this way... 1. Entertaining: Would I play it again. If so very likely or just nah, ok. and base my score off that. This one is all personal preference. For instance I dislike monster scn's and don't find them entertaining but Charlie66 does so took him on in one. It was a struggle to stay engaged and keep it interesting the whole way through for me so I would have probably voted not entertaining. 2. Balanced: The reason I never score this one the first time around is that games take on different lives based on what side. How can I tell it how balanced something is just from a win or loss. For instance Jumbo had totally kicked my butt around my ears on scn's I usually win. A lot of the balance is trying to determine is it one sided or did I just suck in play this time out. In the tourney I am hosting right now, my opponent and I cranked out lots of turns this weekend so we lead the pack. I have a very solid win as the US and then some. Feed back from other US players is they are not in the same boat. They are getting chewed up badly. My opponent though might argue that it was not a balanced scn. So is that balanced? I figure if I can win or loose the same game to different players then it is probably balanced. It is also why I use several test players before posting a scn, to final and balanced for HvsH play. That is not easy to do. Some of my scn's I have had to play test 10 times or more against other humans. You also have to take their feedback in to consideration and make changes which restarts the whole process. I think all we can do is what we are already doing and just fix the averaging program. The more complicated you make something the less likely it will be to work or be used. RE: Can we go back? - RedDevil - 04-11-2007 Basically what we have here is: 1) Cannot vote for scenarios without reporting the game. 2) Confusion on the numerical system of balance(IE: 4 = balanced) instead of worded (IE: Tipped towards side 1) 3) Confusion or dislike of the entertaining / challenging question on the questionnaire 4) Want of comments section retained? 5) Star rating system retained by some, not cared for by others? 6) Averaging system not properly working? 7) Simplicity, not complex. Anything else to add to this list? Anyone else wish to enter the discussion, PLEASE do it, it is your Club and it only gets better from YOUR input. We cannot promise immediate changes as other things are being worked upon and we only have 1 web programmer :) of course the priority list can be changed once it is determined what changes are needed and what effort it requires to make them happen. RE: Can we go back? - Huib Versloot - 04-11-2007 To keep it simple I would to see that only the star system is retained: optional. So if you don't feel like rating, you don't have to. On the other hand if you feel like commenting on the scenario, you have room for that. Basically I would like to see the same system as on a book site like Amazon.com. The balance rating is unnecessary since the record of the # of won and lost games for each side is way more objective than what players think is balanced. The entertainment rating is not interesting to me. Most of my own scns have received the highest and lowest possible. Without comments, these ratings don't have any meaning. Huib RE:��Can we go back? - Copper - 04-11-2007 Huib Wrote:The balance rating is unnecessary since the record of the # of won and lost games for each side is way more objective than what players think is balanced. I agree with that comment 100%. RE: Can we go back? - Digger - 04-11-2007 Yet Again I find myself supporting Huib. I look at Win/loss percentage when assessing the balance of the scenario. Though with the experiences of the current Shark Fin Soup tourney this is also pretty much irrelevant, as skill levels play a significant part in the perceived balance of the scenario. I like the star system as I think it is the easiest to use, and has pretty much become a universal method of rating things, from I-tunes, Amazon to this site. My wish list would be to a. Ditch the Old rating system entirely b. Fix up the averaging issue on the star system c. Fix up the Javascript window for the star system for the ones that are broken d. Re-enable Scenario Voting without having to report a game e. On the report game window, make it more obvious that you can write comments in the comments field. At the moment the whole area is shaded and you can't TAB into it which makes it look like YOU can't write in the field. SO make it WHITE, with a character limit and a scroll bar. I am sure that if the star sytem was fixed and was reliable and was the only option then it would be used and would service the club exceptioanlly well. Matt RE: Can we go back? - The Rattler - 04-11-2007 As far as "balance" goes i definately look at the scenario as per units available/terrain/weather and chances for success. Most scenarios i have played are in the "balanced" range and dont take into account the actual result due to my own poor performance.The enjoyment factor i base on how an engagement develops via reinforcements, placement of units and historical integrity.Somehow being in the command position of a truly historical action has much merit and makes you appreciate and learn a bit about history. Most scenarios i have rated quite highly. I must admit some of these scenarios done by Von Earlmann, Huib, Majog and Don Fox to name a few are downright excellent so hats off to those that put in the hard work in making these gems. RE:��Can we go back? - Jason Petho - 04-12-2007 RE: Can we go back? - RedDevil - 04-12-2007 he meant allowing it for the non game reporter to post his opinion. As it is now only the player who reports the game can make the vote during the reporting sequence. RE: Can we go back? - majog - 04-12-2007 If you allow people to post without reporting the game you run into a couple of questions: 1. How will anyone know if the reported even played the scn? 2. How will you keep people from voting more than once in a row and if you do block them what if they play it 2 or more times in a row. 3. How useful with the data be (accuracy) if anyone can just 'vote' on the scn and not have to neccessaryily played it? 4. What do we want the funtion of the scn voting to really be? RE: Can we go back? - RedDevil - 04-12-2007 the only way to ensure complete integrity of the system would be a closed club with membership fees.. At this point, we're relying on the members themselves to be honest and provide factual data based on their experiences. Without Raz giving some idea of coding changes needed to give us a secure voting routine that only allows 1 vote per player and only if their records show they've actually played the scenario, I have no perception of the feasibility of something like this in relation to the current system. We're a pretty close knit club with a few knuckle heads here and there, but mainly many of our members are honest in reporting games and voting on them. Can't tar the whole basket bad based on the perception that there may be a few rotten ones. I can't see anyone deliberately voting on a scenario just to screw up our ratings. |
){kind=link}