Scenarios Good and Bad

[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!