Change of Personnel in the H2H Section

[Jim von Krieg]

Greetings Peter and all others,

At a minimum, IMHO one of the player testers should be an experienced CS player. However, even after I say it, there is something to be said for two less experienced players going through a scenario as well. They may just see something with less jaded eyes that others miss.

I would prefer some experienced players go through it at first, then less experienced players go through it after it's been worked a bit. Of course, that is based on my long time experience. Being somewhat of a realist, I know there are multiple ways of doing things, but I want a little methodology...

It came out a little stronger than intended, but when I say its "crap"... I feel pretty confident that many other players will concur because it probably lacks some of what I call the basic components of a good scenario...

I agree, not everyone will feel that way though and it is definitely a matter of opinion... Yet, I feel strongly that a little QA/QC from a dedicated crew will over time make a better crew of designers, play-testers, and finally, good scenarios. It also seems to maintain a nucleus of old and new blood for the game...

I don't call a scenario crap lightly, but I have enough experience both professional and personal to see what will work and what is probably not going to work....

Yeah, yeah... Make way for "von Krieg's" over-inflated opinion of himself.. And remember, if I come to visit a town near you please ensure the doors are double-wide for my super-sized ego... :blah:

There is no requirement that a scenario go through our process... and not using our process does not mean the scenario is not a good one... Not everyone has the time to contribute... and nobody's going to say anything because you didn't work it through us... at least they better not...

Regards as I step down from the :soap:,

Jim

[Huib Versloot]

On a different note: My H2H approved CS scenarios are by now outdated versions of scenarios that were updated and included in 1.03/1.04. So actually they should be removed from the H2H approved section to avoid confusion and mixing of different versions of the same scenario. Perhaps the new staff can take care of that.

I would also recommend that H2H approved scns are not stored in a separate user-unaccessable table in the database, but in the same table as regular scenarios. After all there is a flag available to distinguish them when running an sql query.
I'm sure Raz has the technical expertise to do this.

/H

[Glint]

'' There is no requirement that a scenario go through our process... and not using our process does not mean the scenario is not a good one... Not everyone has the time to contribute... and nobody's going to say anything because you didn't work it through us... at least they better not... '' - JvK

That's really all I was getting at Jim, thanks for the clarification!

regards
Peter

[Mr Grumpy]

On a different note: My H2H approved CS scenarios are by now outdated versions of scenarios that were updated and included in 1.03/1.04. So actually they should be removed from the H2H approved section to avoid confusion and mixing of different versions of the same scenario. Perhaps the new staff can take care of that.

I would also recommend that H2H approved scns are not stored in a separate user-unaccessable table in the database, but in the same table as regular scenarios. After all there is a flag available to distinguish them when running an sql query.
I'm sure Raz has the technical expertise to do this.

/H

Huib,
It is now possible with the new H2H for the scenario listing at the aproved list to show a URL link to the scenarios listing in the DB rather than files, in this way the files can be just located in the CS scenario DB rather in both places, would you like me to do this for H2H-Prelude in the Swamp and H2H-CCR /7 into the Breach ? :)

[Huib Versloot]

On a different note: My H2H approved CS scenarios are by now outdated versions of scenarios that were updated and included in 1.03/1.04. So actually they should be removed from the H2H approved section to avoid confusion and mixing of different versions of the same scenario. Perhaps the new staff can take care of that.

I would also recommend that H2H approved scns are not stored in a separate user-unaccessable table in the database, but in the same table as regular scenarios. After all there is a flag available to distinguish them when running an sql query.
I'm sure Raz has the technical expertise to do this.

/H

Huib,
It is now possible with the new H2H for the scenario listing at the aproved list to show a URL link to the scenarios listing in the DB rather than files, in this way the files can be just located in the CS scenario DB rather in both places, would you like me to do this for H2H-Prelude in the Swamp and H2H-CCR /7 into the Breach ? :)

Excellent! Yes please I can than update these scns in the regular DB with the correct version. Thanks a lot.

Huib

[Mr Grumpy]

Excellent! Yes please I can than update these scns in the regular DB with the correct version. Thanks a lot.

Huib

Done! If you view the CS approved list your scenarios now have URL in the download slot, click this and it takes you to each scenarios listings the CS scenario DB. :)

I know this has been a long time coming but this is just one of the 25 or so improvements Raz & myself made to the H2H, still not perfect but getting there!

[Von Luck]

As long as any criticisms are valid and constructive and are passed off board to the creator then the problem then is with the scenario creator.

I like to playtest HSL`s scenarios and I am not afraid to make positive criticisms and we havent fallen out ...... yet !

One of my worries is that people seem to take offence very quickly, as evidenced in recent problems on the forum.
I'm currently doing a couple of playtests of H2H scenario's and to be quite honest I don't like them for a variety of reasons, but I'm reluctant to evaluate them honestly as I don't want to offend the creator and start another flame-war on the forum.

Antoni is correct as long as its not offensive and your making a valid point about the scenario ie not enough armour or to many fixed units etc etc then no probs your giving the designer positive feedback which he should take note of along with other comments from other playtesters to balance or correct faults in it.Most designers welcome this feedback to get their scenario right.

---

As a person who has been doing a lot of testing scenarios out for designers I have no feelings of elitism. I enjoy helping these people out, will I tell somebody ( designer ) that in my opinion the scenario is bad, yes, But I will have reasons for stating as much, along with what I THINK will help to make it better. If a designer can't take critism then I hope they don't put their designs before H2H for approval. I don't design and have no interest in doing so, but helping people with theirs is fun, when else can you play a game that nobody else has played before. Just my thoughts on why H2H should work.

Chuck

Correct Chuck i do the same an honest opinion on the merits of the scenario and what might be needed are what were on about if the designer doesnt like it why put it up for playtesting, hell were only trying to improve it through the playtest method.

[Montana Grizz]

I enjoy playing a "test" scenario against the designer.

We jointly critique the game as we proceed through it.

If I make a major error in tactic or strategy, it is obvious to the designer and taken into consideration when evaluating the balance.

I realize that the designer may not want to play his scenario versus 20 different people, but I do believe he should be involved in a number of those tests.

I've played scenario's rated slightly pro Axis by the designer while others rated it moderate to significantly pro Allies? What's with this?

I usually look at player names and accept the opinions of the better players.

Just some observations.

Pat

[Mr Grumpy]

I enjoy playing a "test" scenario against the designer.

We jointly critique the game as we proceed through it.

If I make a major error in tactic or strategy, it is obvious to the designer and taken into consideration when evaluating the balance.

I realize that the designer may not want to play his scenario versus 20 different people, but I do believe he should be involved in a number of those tests.

I've played scenario's rated slightly pro Axis by the designer while others rated it moderate to significantly pro Allies? What's with this?

I usually look at player names and accept the opinions of the better players.

Just some observations.

Pat

Good points Pat, although it might seem strange for the designer to be involved in the testing process we have actually found that it really can help the designer to fully understand the testers feedback from the designers tests and any others running on his scenario and it is something i encourage.

Some designers test their scenarios but don't submit a report as they feel (for them) that is not appropriate, again i have no problem with that either.

[Chuck10mtn]

I enjoy playing a "test" scenario against the designer.

We jointly critique the game as we proceed through it.

If I make a major error in tactic or strategy, it is obvious to the designer and taken into consideration when evaluating the balance.

I realize that the designer may not want to play his scenario versus 20 different people, but I do believe he should be involved in a number of those tests.

I've played scenario's rated slightly pro Axis by the designer while others rated it moderate to significantly pro Allies? What's with this?

I usually look at player names and accept the opinions of the better players.

Just some observations.

Pat

Pat,
I agree with what you said. If the designer plays a lot of different people he's bound to get many different games from the same scenario?? No 2 people will play it the same so this way he sees it from many different perspectives and routes of attack and defense.

Chuck