Confusing scenario ratings

[Montana Grizz]

I've read a lot of ratings and they serve some purpose, but are often confusing.

Same scenario being rated "moderately pro axis" and "moderately pro allies"?

I suppose ones rating might be influenced by performance and strength of opposition. As a buffer against ego destruction, I sometimes chose to believe that my opponent had some advantage other than superior Generalship

So, I have resorted to giving special attention to the opinion of those players with long-term experience and superior playing skills.

On the other hand, actual win/loss results can be most useful if games played are significant in number since one can at least imagine that there was some balance of opposition across the board in the 200+ reports listed :chin:

If you believe there is a more definitive method of judging scenario balance, I would certainly like your opinion.

Pat

[Scud]

I usually go by number of times the scenario's been played, then look at the win/loss/draw columns and try to find something that has near even results. I've played a few opponents that just don't care, though. They're more interested in finding scenarios that are fun to play and don't care much if they win or lose.

Maybe there should be a fun to play column?

Nah.


Dave

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Overall the game itself is fun to play. It's simple and still kinda unique in it's genre. :smoke:

I always look at the scenarios that have the most plays to find the ones that are fun to play ... and most likely the most balanced.
Why play a scenario that is not fun? :chin:

That said, fun is usually so subjective that you can find many opposite reports. One persons foot slogging adventure in paradise is another players foot slogging adventure in torture? One players cut and slashing armored thrust is another persons surround and overrun hell? :conf:

The most interesting report is the one from the player who has reported a match from both sides. In one report its moderately pro Axis when they lost it as the Allies. Yet in the second report it is moderately pro Allies when they lost as the Axis. ;)
That might make it both balanced and fun? :rolleyes:



HSL

[Von Earlmann]

My favorite rating is the one where the scenario has mostly major victories for one side and is rated well balanced by the players.........sort of like getting rid of the budget deficit[/align] by borrowing more money :-)

[Hobbes]

My favorite rating is the one where the scenario has mostly major victories for one side and is rated well balanced by the players.........sort of like getting rid of the budget deficit[/align] by borrowing more money :-)

I think it is the victor that normally rates the scenario? :)

It would be very nice to be able to sort by balance and date again. Another good search criteria would be by date uploaded so players could look for the most recently posted scenarios. Maybe there is a way of doing this?

Cheers, Chris

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Mostly the winners report the match. But, the players can all rate a scenario that has been played without reporting it. At least we used to be able to do that? :chin:

I have not looked to see if that feature is still included. I must do a bit of research to see if you can still rate scenarios without reporting them as games played. :smoke:

Earl, it's not so much the borrowing as it is the spending. First thing I think of doing when I have a commission pay decrease is to buy a new house, car, TV, and go out to dinner every night ... and take the neighbors with me. :rolleyes:



HSL

[K K Rossokolski]

It is all very well looking at long term playing records of scenarios, which once gave a very good indication of how a scenario played, because the parameters hardly changed over time. Many of these scenarios feature trucks. How long ago...18 months?....the VP of a truck was arbitrarily increased by a factor of 3....from 1 to 3.
Surely this increase has invalidated much historic scenario data.
As for a "fun to play" column....I cannot think of anything MORE subjective.

[Mike Abberton]

There can be good reasons why different people have different perspectives on a scenario and play balance. There are a number of scenarios that have "tricks" to them for lack of a better term. Meaning simply that if side A does X, then side B has little chance to win and vice versa.

As a generic example, you could have a scenario with an exit hex and a bunch of objectives but the values are such that if the defender stands and fights, he will lose big. But if he pulls out, gives up all the objectives, but only mounts a minimal defense, he will win big. So, from player B's perspective, the scenario could be a complete cakewalk, or an impossible mission regardless of his actions (alright assuming that he plays at least minimally competently).

Mike

[Hobbes]

I watched one of my scenarios being played as a team game once Mike to get an idea of balance and one side gave up after a few turns saying it was impossible to win. The scenario has been played quite a few times now and shows as fairly well balanced. I certainly agree with you that you can miss the way to play a scenario - and sometimes I think you can just be cowed by a good opponent.
I think I have been on a few occasions!

Cheers, Chris

[Scud]

It would be very nice to be able to sort by balance and date again. Another good search criteria would be by date uploaded so players could look for the most recently posted scenarios. Maybe there is a way of doing this?

If it's entered into the database, it can be displayed, but I'd recommend suggestions going into the "Feature Requests" thread in the main forum. Not sure how often Raz looks at the CS threads. A lot of you guys have some pretty good ideas and reasonable requests/queries and I'm not sure they're being seen.

Dave