My thoughts on the H2H and CS.

[Mr Grumpy]

Well as i said in my post there may be "special" reasons why the H2H would not be as effective for CS that as a non player i may not understand.

I agree the H2H system is somewhat cumbersome, but it has been proved beyond doubt that once you understand the systems "querks" it is actually very easy to use.

I agree that the scenario should not be rated on how good the briefing is, this is not a system breaker and good testers just rate this score in line with the other scores they give.

I agree that the system could never have foreseen that a new version of CS would appear in several years making all the old H2H scenarios redundent.

If i had the ability to change all of this i would, but i cant sorry, but i believe the system still has a useful purpose if players will put the legwork in.

I disagree that a huge chunk of points or allowing designers test scenarios (which may be totally unplayable or unbalanced) to be reported to the ladder, in my experience players who crave for these things often make poor testers and i often struggle to get any feedback from them, give me the tester who does it for the love of the game any day.

Speaking from personal experience the improvement the system has made to some unbalanced and totally one sided PzC scenarios has been amazing, we have run a couple of tourneys using only H2H approved scenarios and the feedback was 100% they were the best tourneys ever organised.

So i will end my participation in this debate (you all can continue of course) by saying the system is there, it is not perfect (what is) and by teaming up with Von Luck/Valor you might like to try it out, why not have a go and make your own mind up? :)