Good and Bad Scenarios

[Kool Kat]

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.

Agree! As a scenario designer, I always design my scenarios for human versus human play. HAL is so predictable and anemic, it makes little sense to design scenarios for play versus the AI. We are members of a gaming ladder club that emphasizes H2H play and competition - correct? :chin:

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.

Agree. I find it best to play several games versus the AI... and if you can beat HAL by approximately the same point margins playing either side... than your scenario is ready for some H2H test play! ;)

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.

Agree. A scenario designers' "core test team" should be a mix of players with different skill levels... and also folks who you trust to give honest and unbiased feedback / comments on your design.

What is is that makes a scn good? For me the answer is easy, it is fun to play.

Agree. "Fun" is one of my top 3 scenario design criteria... up there with "balanced" and "allowing several options for both attackers and defenders to pursue."

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

Cautionary agree. It is my hope that the majority of developers have thoroughly tested their design before uploading into the database... against multiple players with various skill levels... AND have been willing to accept comments, criticism, and input to their design... AND made improvements based on test player feedback? :chin:

One of the main reasons I took the H2H Custodian position, is that I have (and currently) utilize this "testing method" and know that it works. I like to have a "process" with controlled scenario versions and play tester comments that evaluate the same criteria and capture all this feedback in a report format. This is not to state that other players, who do not use the H2H process, can't develop balanced, fun, and exciting scenarios! Of course they can and do! :)

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.

Cautionary agree. I have come across... shall we say... less than "stellar" designs in the database... but thankfully they are few and far between? :chin: