Silkster53 Wrote:The H2H area made the designer and testers jump through hoops before receiving a "seal of approval" that never ensured anyone was going to play them anyway.
Well we cant force anyone to play approved scenarios, the point of the system was to give players confidence that if they did play a approved scenario they were sure it would have a good level of balance.
Silkster53 Wrote:Spot on for both points Foul. That is why I think letting players determine over time what is balanced and what is not, should be the way to go.
Well without any sort of structure to the process, it would be open to all sorts of abuse, especially if ladder points are involved.
Silkster53 Wrote:There is too limited a "field" of players in the H2H process to actually get a good sample result.
Well that is a issue caused by too few players helping out the Blitz community at the H2H, not the system itself IMO.
Silkster53 Wrote:I've often played my designs against opponents to test them. When we play through the first game they tell me "my side" was way too strong. Then we play the same scenario from different sides and I often hear that "my former side" was way too weak. It is at that point that I think my scenarios are almost "balanced".
Yes i agree that can be a issue in any sort of testing, that is why over at the OpC H2H we have a dedicated team of experienced players to prevent this, any CS designer could do the same if he was just prepared to put some effort in, IMO that is the whole underlying issue with the H2H.
Silkster53 Wrote:What I have a problem with, is when players that are more inexperienced report for balance and throw the scenario dBASE off.
I look at who reported what rating and then I look at the whole. I then take out the top two or three favorable and bottom two or three unfavorable reports to attempt to see how "balanced" and/or "entertaining" a scenario might be, without the wild swings being in place.
It's when you look at a scenario that has been played over a hundred times and gets a 50/50 split on wins and losses but ratings that say it is favorable to one side, that I begin to wonder how effective the individual reports are all together. But, there is good info to gleen from the current system.
I think balance can be seen in the numbers and not in what a player says about the game itself? Often the experience of play does not reflect the actual balance or imbalance? It is more the experience of the players.
As I played more and more games I often went back to scenarios that I thought were unbalanced only to find they were more balanced later when I had more experience. :rolleyes:
I've played tons of "AI only" scenarios that I found perfectly balanced for play H2H. Though, my opponents may not have felt that way. ;)
Ed
Well you are correct that the H2H scoring is open to human error or any number of variables, i never expect the system to be perfect, as long as a scenario comes out of the system more balanced and fun than when it goes in i am happy with the result, to expect any more would be unrealistic IMO.
Although i always am interested in players feedback about the H2H section, in reality there is no issue about if it works or not as the same system works just fine at OpC and CM, i believe the difference is that there is a desire to see the H2H succeed in those areas which is lacking here, all we need is a designer to come forward and have the drive to orgainise some tests and see the project through.
The whole area is designer driven, if they are halfhearted about the process it always fails, how many designers have uploaded a scenario and just left it there, yup plenty. :chin:
Archived Forums
Help
Calendar
Member List
Search
){kind=link}