My thoughts on the H2H and CS.

[Mr Grumpy]

First i would like to be clear that i have never played CS so i may not have all the facts about how the CS titles function or the differences between the old and new versions.

However CS seems to be going through the same denial about the H2H that we had at CM until recently.

The H2H system is far from perfect, but it does provide a framework for scenarios to be tested and approved if the will is there to do it.

The facts are that testing projects have been very successful on the OpC, CM and TOAW ladders.

Until this year i was bombarded with posts, PM's and emails from CM players who also said the H2H system could not work, these players all had one thing in common that they would upload a scenario and then take no further part in the testing process imagining the "testing pixie" would come along and organise this for them. :chin:

Now these players scenarios have been removed a new band of CM designers have come along prepared to put in a little leg work in order to push their scenarios along, result..........we have seen several CM scenarios pass through testing with several more on the way, the H2H system has not been changed since i was told it would not work, what has changed is the willingness of players to put some effort in. :soap:

So i believe with some effort the H2H could work at CS just as it does on other ladders, but at the moment that vital ingredient is sadly missing. ;)

[Glint]

I agree wih you foul, that would be great. But, what about the people who put the time into scenario buildng, that others play quite happily, and also accept some will like it, some won't? They can make a contribution to the site with new scenarios, but don't consider they need to be 'checked out' by an elite bunch of guys? I personally have created a few that guys have tried out and tried out ones others have created, quite happily. All these scenarios are going to waste cos they have to be ok'd by a few that may try them out and test them!
regards
Peter

[medlinke]

I think the H2H is a great concept, but I'm curious about the perceived need for additional scenarios that have been vetted by this process.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Sorry Foul. I firmly disagree with your premise.
The H2H system was, and is, cumbersome, to say the least. And, scenarios going through the process are no more "vetted" then one's that are added to the dBASE without using the process.

CM had it's special cases. CS is a whole 'nuther' animal.

Ed

[Smedley]

My two cents:

Having playtested a few scenarios, I can see both sides of this issue.
The H2H area is a good place to introduce new scenarios. If they are 'announced' on the main MB, they may get some interest. Many players are looking for new scenarios to try. However, with the recent release of the ME 1.04, we have a bunch of new ones to pick from. This reduces the demand for new scenarios and the need for a H2H vetting process. This is a temporary problem, soon the new ME scens will get played through and the demand for something new will return.

We need to increase the incentive to playtest new scenarios. The points awarded for playtesting are too low. Also, it would be nice to be able to count the playtest as a completed game. I also believe the criteria for approval is too strict. We should lower the bar for approval from 4 reports of '8' or higher to 3 reports of '7' or higher.
I also feel that the briefings score shouldn't be used to rate the scenario. This may give scenario designers more incentive to place their efforts in the H2H section.

Rob

[Huib Versloot]

Another problem is that H2H approved scenarios are stored in a separate table. This means that, as opposed to scenarios in the "normal" database, the designer can't change them anymore after they've been approved. Any scenarios I made through H2H and that are in the approved area are now totally outdated and replaced by new ones that came with the Matrix package.

I agree with Foul that if the designer puts in some energy the scenarios can move through H2H relatively fast. On the other hand I also agree with Ed, that this testing tells the designer very little. One might as well put a scenario in the database straight away and make modifications later based on results and comments as they come in.

/H

[medlinke]

Well it sounds like there might be a better way to handle H2H then based on what I'm seeing.

Incentivize the Process for players:

1. Provide another factor complexity factor point for playtesting. So if your size modifier for the scenario is 3 it becomes 4 when playtesting.

2. Provide playtesters another 50 points for writing a review of the scenario to drive the feedback that designers want.

So...

A draw on a 3 size modifier scenario would give players 24 points (6 * (3+1)) = 24 Then if each player wrote a review they'd end up with 74 points for single playthrough.

3. Allow H2H playtests to count as played games. They are after all supporting the club. The club has officially supported the H2H scenario by posting it for play. Just because it's not on the official roster shouldn't detract that folks spent scarce gaming time helping make TheBlitz better.

Incentivize the process for designers:

1. Appropriately promote the new scenario. If people don't seem to be biting maybe add some other kind of incentive to get people to play it.

2. Lower the barrier to for approval as Smedly noted from 4 reviews of 8 to 4 reviews of 7. Looking through the most played scenarios I don't see that many with 8s and above. It seems pretty unrealistic to assume that every follow-on is going to achieve that highly. This may also encourage first time H2H participants.

3. Any H2H that gets included in a tournament automatically gives the designer a 100 point bonus and a new badge for designers with scenarios that make it into a tournament.

It just makes sense that if you don't see the participation you're expecting a change needs to be made based upon player feedback. Hopefully folks will continue to contribute constructive ideas about how to appropriately incentivize the whole process and this makes it into policy here.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

I was a huge proponent of larger incentives.
There are a lot of hoops to jump through to stick with a scenario through the H2H process. I was shot down when asking for more points by the thought, "we are here to promote the game and not gain individual ladder position through large points or game reports (of playtested games)." For me, I would have given points and medals to all scenario designers and playtesters. It is a real pain in the butt to guide a scenario to fruition.

The club was always about just "playing the games".
In the end, game ratings when the game is reported, gives as much data over the course of time than a few (or a couple) of players who ferry a game through H2H.

I'm honestly not saying do not use the system if members want to. I'm saying that if member/designers do not want to use it they have other options opened to them to get their designs played.

An approval rating means less to me than the critical rating of games reported by the many that would play it.

RR

[K K Rossokolski]

I agree on the points issues raised by Medlinke. Previous discussion on this over a long period has lead me to believe that a significant bonus would be an incentive to playtesting. Allowing a game to be counted as a ladder game would further help. Not everyone is here for love of the game only. (I for example like being in the Top 20). That may revive H2H, but the rewards should be significant...testing a game is much more than playing it. This IMO has been resisted by the hierarchy.
I would go further than Medlinke in the lowering the scenario qualifications...we are not vetting people for jobs in national security.
Nor are we recruiting for astrophysicists..... I think two results of 5 or more...a pass grade is enough. As for designer recognition..why not..a badge for 5 scens passed through a revamped H2H.
This should ensure the scen meets the requirements of basic QC and playability. How the scen performs in the gaming world...we the people...the market... will decide.

[medlinke]

I certainly respect the notion that the club should shy away from rewarding players for merely pumping their stats. Clearly that's not the intent of the club and I would hate for incentivizing the H2H scenario playtest process to be seen in that light.

My argument is really a corellary to what Foul has said about the importance of the H2H process. If TheBlitz feels that the H2H is that integral to the life of the club, it's much easier to demonstrate that importance through incentives than banging merely banging a drum and hoping people follow.

I absolutely agree that H2H created scenarios are important to the continuing health of the community. Foul is dead on in reminding folks of that importance and I don't think CS is exempt due to a huge catalog of available scenarios.

The issue is that the system, as it stands, appears flawed. Now, that said, implementing the kind of sweeping changes that are proposed isn't as simple as waving a wand! If there are scoring changes, etc. then all that has to be coded which means a significant investment of someone's time to code it, test it, and implement it on the site.

Very interesting discussion though!