Scenarios Good and Bad

[Herr Straße Laufer]

No, I think actually, your remarks are nothing to do with the original question in my thread and respectfully request that perhaps you open your own thread to discuss what makes a respected scenario designer/ what is a rubbish designer.

This did spark a thought or two and I took Peters advice to start a new thread/discussion on this.

First there are three types of scenarios that need to be understood?

The first is the scenario that is designed for play against the AI. The second would be one designed for H2H play. The third is one where the designer is not making the scenario for either but is highlighting a specific historical event and has not taken balance or computer play into consideration.

I have not designed a scenario for play versus the AI. I know that there are many who like to play scenarios strictly against the computer/HAL. Most do not belong to, or are actively playing on, a gaming "ladder".
A good design versus "HAL" usually contains fixed units and the human playing attacker versus "HAL's" defense.
There are some scenarios listed for computer play that make for good H2H games. But, they are few and far between.

Since we are a gaming "ladder" club, I think scenarios designed for H2H play should be the most important.
A good H2H scenario design gives both players a reasonable chance of victory.
It should give the players more than one way to win (or lose) the scenario.
Balance and fun should be a the top of the designers list, with balance being the most important.
Challenging situations also help the scenario to stay "live" and played over and over.

The third category is hard to discuss. A design that is purely historical is often a thing of beauty. But, being a member of a ladder, not wanting to play versus HAL (aside from a campaign), and playing by e-mail often keeps me from playing them.

What do the members think about what makes a good scenario?
I have more thoughts but would love to hear what you have to say! :smoke:

__________________________
Thought I'd recharge this thread by reintroduction. The other thread devolved into something it was never meant to be.

I did like the thoughts of the members concerning scenarios, both good and bad.

Historical scenarios seemed to come to the forefront. GordonsHQ had a great point that said essentially, "a good historical scenario can be balanced by the placement of the victory points hexes and it should try to reenact the historical event/outcome as best as possible". Correct me if I am wrong Gordon?

Sometimes personal likes and dislikes stand in the way. I often find that designers think that putting even amounts of unit types for both sides might be the way ensure balance and it creates the opposite because of the quality of the units.

I find that hypothetical-historically based-fictional scenarios are just as good as pure historical scenarios. My view is based upon the concept that we are a gaming ladder and most things circle the ladder, and the games played.
Often the more balanced a scenario seems the more it is played. I found the old scenario dBASE easier to use, along with less time to do the research, to find balanced scenarios, so I have no hard data here.

Lets keep the scenario discussion going? If you want to, of course!



HSL

[Von Earlmann]

Ed,
There is a fourth type of scenario and that is the one the designer makes just because they have to. Sort of like why does the mountain climber climb the mountain...."because it's there".........there is no greater thrill for me than to see one of my scenarios actually create the same conditions that might have existed historically......most of mine are historically based and I call them historical novels because I don't have the resources nor the time to get every blade of grass just as it was, and I have found that is not required to make a viable re-creation. I have designed a couple of purely hypoytheticals and they are designed to just be fun to play.......balance is a very tough thing esp in the larger scenarios mainly because I have never figured out how to factor in the sp losses......to get a true read on the victory levels of my scenarios one should only use the totals of the objectives and disregard the losses.

I strongly disagree with the vp values of many units esp the German.I feel their VPs should be much higher if for no other reason than to reflect the difference between how many of any unit they could put in the field as compared to the allies industrial production......but I guess that might be another thread :-)

VE

[Herr Straße Laufer]

There is a fourth type of scenario and that is the one the designer makes just because they have to.......most of mine are historically based and I call them historical novels because I don't have the resources nor the time to get every blade of grass just as it was, and I have found that is not required to make a viable re-creation.

I have to admit that there are none of your "novels" that I do not like. They are fun to play. I've seen victory from either side.
And, mostly when you have to create something from the heart it is often the best.
Most of mine are historically based, or hypothetical based, from what I have read of a certain action or individual in action. From the heart and what I would like to see as a game situation.

I strongly disagree with the vp values of many units esp the German.I feel their VPs should be much higher if for no other reason than to reflect the difference between how many of any unit they could put in the field as compared to the allies industrial production......but I guess that might be another thread

I've always felt that way. The Germans seem to have the advantage when losing units that should be more precious than other countries who had greater industrial capacity.
I cannot say I want it changed now, because it would effect every scenario! I don't like the thought of that! :P



HSL

[Gordons HQ]

Historical scenarios seemed to come to the forefront. GordonsHQ had a great point that said essentially, "a good historical scenario can be balanced by the placement of the victory points hexes and it should try to reenact the historical event/outcome as best as possible". Correct me if I am wrong Gordon?

Correct, the above is now what I believe to hold the key to making an historical scenario payable and entertaining for both players.

Gordon

[Kool Kat]

Sometimes personal likes and dislikes stand in the way. I often find that designers think that putting even amounts of unit types for both sides might be the way ensure balance and it creates the opposite because of the quality of the units.

Gents: :smoke:

I fell into this "balance trap" in my first H2H scenario - A Deadly Meet. I wanted balance... so, of course, make sure that each side had the exact same number and unit type! ;) e.g. Russian and German engineer units are much different quality units! :eek1: It only took a few test games to see the "error of my ways" ... and it was quickly corrected! And after additional test games and adjustments... A Deadly Meet emerged from the H2H process a better, more balanced, and fun scenario for all to play and enjoy.

This is why I'm such an advocate of the H2H process... because I've seen it work and IMO, the "end products" are superior creations! :cool2:

-------------------------------

IMHO, more scenario designs should be taken through the H2H process. Here is a defined process that allows test players to rank various aspects of a new design and provide feedback to the developer in a standardized format. It allows many different players, all with various skill levels, to test and offer constructive criticism to a new design.

Does it guarantee a fun, exciting, and balanced scenario? Not always. Does it guarantee a "good" versus "bad" scenario? Not always. But, it does increase the chances... that with more folks playing a test design... taking a scenario through a defined and regimented process... and with a developer who is willing to listen to test players' comments and make improvements to his creation... that a "good" scenario emerges more times than a "bad" one using this process.

Other ways to improve the chances of producing "good versus "bad" scenarios...

Designers should run initial test games against both the AI and a few regular opponents.

This will help identify and shake out any "gross abnormalities" (e.g. skewed victory conditions, strange unit starting positions, terrain that does not make sense, etc.)

Some of my earlier scenario designs, I did not follow these initial steps... and as other play testers began their test games... these "gross abnormalities" began very evident Eek1 ...and I mentally "kicked myself" for not being aware of these issues... and having to spend (at least) another test round ironing them out. :mad:

IMO, if players choose not to take their designs through H2H... after they test their creations against both the AI and a few regular opponents... they should open up the testing to a larger group of players... to better ensure more "balanced" player feedback. This larger group of test players will help provide more objective feedback and help guard against the syndrome of too may "Yes" men, who are only massaging a developer's ego by telling him what he wants to hear! ;)

I also believe that a scenario design that goes through an initial "shake down" prior to either uploading into H2H or opening the testing to a larger group of players, will also test "better"... and while players who test new designs are not playing the scenario to "play it," but looking more to review the design for a number of variables, players may get more "enjoyment" out of testing a design that plays better initially then one that does not? :chin:

Maybe one reason more players don't step forward to help play test H2H or other new designs, is the "fear" that their time will be "wasted" on a poor design? :chin:

In the end, we should all applaud players who take the time to create new scenarios for all to enjoy!