Breaking out of the Box

[Tankertony]

Thanks for the heads up on that scenario Schwerpunkt. And I completely agree with your last sentence, which is exactly what you did: get the word out there. And there's no better way than in the forums. 

And as for how a scenario is tagged, H2H, best played as ..., yeah, it is what it is, a rough, subjective, usually incomplete indicator of how best to play the scenario. A system perhaps unworthy of The Greatest Game Ever Created By Mankind (except for, cough, chess...).

One thing is for sure, especially among the original batch of scenarios, was if a scenario was marked, Best played as Axis, you could expect a good portion of the Allied units to be fixed. And this made them a big turn-off for head to head play, because most players don't have much fun when most of their forces are fixed.

[Hawk Kriegsman]

The other issue with the H2H scenario testing was players reluctance to be critical about the scenario and its design. 

A natural occurrence since they are playing and testing with friends, so it is hard to bash them. 

There are a number of H2H scenarios that are approved and have glowing reports from the testers that are unplayable rubbish. 

A tester has to be as critical as possible, which is hard to do and can lead to some hurt feelings. 

Ask Warhorse or Mile West about their experiences testing with me. 

[Herr Straße Laufer]

I agree with Erik.
A few of mine were herded through H2H. One it was tedious and two the testers should have been more critical. A lot of mine are crap and should be remade or not listed as H2H.



HSL

[Scud]

I wonder what a better solution to H2H might be. A "staff" of volunteer playtesters who test every submission perhaps? That might lesson the tendency to go easy on a friend's scenario. It would certainly negate the designer from having to find his own playtesters by way of forum advertising. 

Dave

[Ashcloud]

I wonder what a better solution to H2H might be. A "staff" of volunteer playtesters who test every submission perhaps? That might lesson the tendency to go easy on a friend's scenario. It would certainly negate the designer from having to find his own playtesters by way of forum advertising. 

Dave

I like it, I want to be on staff.

[Big Ivan]

Can a scenario be made without an author? I think it can. In this way your battery (excuse the pun) of testers would not know who made the scenario, therefore there would be honest albeit critical comments regarding the playtesting. 

All new creations would have to go through one person (Test Master) and only that person would make the scenario available to the play testers minus the authors name.

I also suggest a play test group/volunteer group of at least 6 members where you could have the trial scenario being looked at a minimum of 3 times for the first round. Then the second round players would switch up.

Example:  

The play test team (as an example): Big Ivan, Scud, HSL, Hawk, Ashcloud, Josey Wales.

First round play:
Big Ivan & HSL.
Hawk & Josey Wales
Scud & Ashcloud

Second round play:
Big Ivan & Hawk
Scud and HSL
Ashcloud and Josey Wales

etc etc for how many rounds you want to go. But my gut is two rounds is probably enough. That is six critiques for feedback.

After each round players would report their observations to the Test Master who would keep detailed records. When your done with each round (all games) the Test Master would inform the author of the findings. At that point the author could either modify the scenario for play in the second round or let it go another round w/o modification. After two rounds of play there should be enough critique where the scenario should be updated if needed by the author or heaven forbid scraped.

Also the play testers need to get some type of point reward for their efforts a little more lucrative than what is laid down in the H2H section. 

Just throwing this out there to see what people think. The most important thing to me is keeping it manageable and moving along while at the same time giving good honest feedback.

[Warhorse]

The other issue with the H2H scenario testing was players reluctance to be critical about the scenario and its design. 

A natural occurrence since they are playing and testing with friends, so it is hard to bash them. 

There are a number of H2H scenarios that are approved and have glowing reports from the testers that are unplayable rubbish. 

A tester has to be as critical as possible, which is hard to do and can lead to some hurt feelings. 

Ask Warhorse or Mile West about their experiences testing with me. 

I always appreciated that too, ! Only way to get it right!

[Hawk Kriegsman]

I wonder what a better solution to H2H might be. A "staff" of volunteer playtesters who test every submission perhaps? That might lesson the tendency to go easy on a friend's scenario. It would certainly negate the designer from having to find his own playtesters by way of forum advertising. 

Dave

I could be on that staff for sure.  I have no friends whose feelings I can hurt. 

[Hawk Kriegsman]

Can a scenario be made without an author? I think it can. In this way your battery (excuse the pun) of testers would not know who made the scenario, therefore there would be honest albeit critical comments regarding the playtesting. 

All new creations would have to go through one person (Test Master) and only that person would make the scenario available to the play testers minus the authors name.

I also suggest a play test group/volunteer group of at least 6 members where you could have the trial scenario being looked at a minimum of 3 times for the first round. Then the second round players would switch up.

Example:  

The play test team (as an example): Big Ivan, Scud, HSL, Hawk, Ashcloud, Josey Wales.

First round play:
Big Ivan & HSL.
Hawk & Josey Wales
Scud & Ashcloud

Second round play:
Big Ivan & Hawk
Scud and HSL
Ashcloud and Josey Wales

etc etc for how many rounds you want to go. But my gut is two rounds is probably enough. That is six critiques for feedback.

After each round players would report their observations to the Test Master who would keep detailed records. When your done with each round (all games) the Test Master would inform the author of the findings. At that point the author could either modify the scenario for play in the second round or let it go another round w/o modification. After two rounds of play there should be enough critique where the scenario should be updated if needed by the author or heaven forbid scraped.

Also the play testers need to get some type of point reward for their efforts a little more lucrative than what is laid down in the H2H section. 

Just throwing this out there to see what people think. The most important thing to me is keeping it manageable and moving along while at the same time giving good honest feedback.

This is an excellent idea. 

They key here is to get 6 really solid /dedicated long time players to do this. 

It is too demanding for the casual / inexperienced player.

Scud and Jason perhaps would have to be in charge of recruitment.

I would suggest it be done by invitation only and not as a general post.  A general post will ensure you get volunteers who have no idea what they are signing on for and will most likely quit.

Scud and Jason would know who to recruit based on their knowledge of the player base out there. 

Ideally it would be 6 players who are right around the same level of skill.

One of the things I noticed in some of the H2H test matches from the past was a skilled player playing a much lesser skilled player. Sometimes the lesser skilled player would win and both sides say it was balanced. When other results from other play testers seemed to disagree with that.

Unbalanced play testers will not work well.

Actually Big Ivan came up with a pretty good list out of the box. 

I might suggest 3 rounds if there are 6 testers.  Also which testers play each other should be randomized for best results. 

Something to think about for sure.  

I suppose even already approved H2H scenarios good be given a second look over if time permitted.

[Hawk Kriegsman]

The other issue with the H2H scenario testing was players reluctance to be critical about the scenario and its design. 

A natural occurrence since they are playing and testing with friends, so it is hard to bash them. 

There are a number of H2H scenarios that are approved and have glowing reports from the testers that are unplayable rubbish. 

A tester has to be as critical as possible, which is hard to do and can lead to some hurt feelings. 

Ask Warhorse or Mile West about their experiences testing with me. 

I always appreciated that too, ! Only way to get it right!

Anytime you need assistance, let me know.