Good and Bad Scenarios

[majog]

I know I am a bit late on adding my 2 cents to this but as someone that has designed literally hundreds of scn's and posted a mod that has ladder points felt I wanted to jump in here.


To start with most scn designers put loads of work into one and try to make them playable with a win possible by either side. Also most developers tend to design the scn with HvH in mind as if you design against to be played against the AI they are usually out of balance for a HvH game.

That having been said as previously stated most historical battles were unbalanced so to balance them the designer usually adds an objective or exit hex that mirrors histoical objectives and if taken have a point value that creates a balanced approach to the game. For instance in one game I designed where the Germans have a high loss rate the VP hexes have high values to allow the Germans a chance of victory. David often programs many of his games with high VP hex values for that reason.

Also most designers play test numerous times against the AI to start with and then numerous times against another human to see how balanced they are. These are mostly not reported on the ladder and if they are go down as a draw just to give someone credit for playing a 30 turn game. I know Bazooka Breath for one had to be really tired of helping me play test DGVN scn's as we sometimes played a single scn 5-10 times to get changes right.

That having been said, do we always get things right? No. A lot depends on who was willing to play test against you. Also I remember one game where the feedback from my playtesters was all over the board and we went back and forth 6 ways from sunday. In the end the game did not mirror historic alignment and was not balanced.

It is also often hard to design a historical scn that is fun without taking some liberties in objectives or unit placement. Heck some of the scn's I have seen posted that state historic have more Tiger tanks on the map then the Germans had in all of WWII but they are fun to play.

So when stating good or bad a lot is in the eye of the player. Many players don't like huge scn's, other don't like night scn's, and others only like armor match ups. What is is that makes a scn good? For me the answer is easy, it is fun to play. In DGVN, I created a historical account of Hamburger Hill. It is fairly accurate, long, and difficult. I would not call it a good scn though as I personally hate to play it. I like scn's with lots of Heuy / air support and dynamic ability. I always felt that was one of the major differences with the Vietnam Conflict over previous ones was the dynamic nature of the forces and ability to get in and out over greater distance in a more timely manner.

But back to the discussion, is that good or bad? I think once most developers post to the blitz ladder that game has been tested several times and comes down to the individual ability of any one player over another to win (heck I lose more than win so am cannon fodder in my opinion) and the indiviual preferences of players weather it was enjoyable or not. I will provide another real world example here. David gave Charlie 66 and myself a scn to play test for him which he felt was balanced. Charlie usually beats me 2-3 games. I usually tie or draw against David. It was a WWII West Front Night scn. I got a surrender from Charlie with him as the Germans and with me as the Germans a major win against David. Is that balanced? It was a night scn so Charlie hated that and also the overall unit placement to start the game. I enjoyed it. Does that make it a good or bad scn? I have played very one sided scn's that I have lost and felt they are good scn's.

In the end, I think once a scn hits the ladder it should be counted. Most people on this site are very honest with high morals and ethics and would not post crap. While there my be the occassional lesser scn out there I think it is not the rule and everything else relating to good or bad is debateable based on individual preference. Let's give the developers a break and the benefit of doubt to all that if they are posting on the ladder it may not be your cup of tea but is a good scn from the ladder stance.

Just my 2 cents.

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:



HSL

Nice post majog, I agree - and I think that all who play CS should respect designers who put in hard work to provide us all with new content that keeps the game we love alive and well.

Thanks Ash.:bow: