H2H Seems to be dead.

Von Luck · 02-01-2008, 04:46 AM,

Nobody doing new scenarios as things seem to have died here.

Hawk Kriegsman · 02-01-2008, 05:16 AM,

See my topic about 2 down from this one as to why I will not be testing.

Thanx!

Hawk

Herr Straße Laufer · 02-01-2008, 05:39 AM,

I'm working on a theme series for EFII Matrix.
I will be taking the maps from early German advances and do battles on them from later in the war as the Germans retreated.
Obviously, they will be hypothetical and balanced to PBEM.

I was going to hammer out some kinks in the first one before uploading to scenario testing. :stir: Whip

I, too, can see the slowdown in scenarios being uploaded. And, I understand where the Hawk is coming from. :eek1:

I need to think some things through and bounce them off some officers and members.

cheers

Ed

**Mr Grumpy** · 02-01-2008, 06:20 AM,

Well the linchpin to the whole H2H test system is the designer, if the designer is not active and working with the section Rep there will be no progress :(

It is the designers responsibility to arrange tests for his scenarios and to use the feedback gained to improve the scenario, even if we arrange tests the effort may be wasted if the designer does not make use of it! :hissy:

There are many designers who make the effort to upload scenarios and then take no more interest in them, i have never quite worked out why they did the upload in the first place :conf:
It is not lack of scenarios being uploaded we have a problem with, it is the fact the ones uploaded already are just not moving through the system!

I also changed the bonus points system to reward a designer for a scenario moved through testing to the approved list, but that seems to have had no effect on the amount of tests arranged.

Over in the PzC section we have passed many new scenarios onto the approved list, but only because myself, Volcano and CptCav have really put in many hours of testing effort, so that proves to me that the system does work :)

**Mr Grumpy** · 02-01-2008, 06:26 AM,

Mr. RoadRunner Wrote:I, too, can see the slowdown in scenarios being uploaded. And, I understand where the Hawk is coming from. :eek1:

I need to think some things through and bounce them off some officers and members.

Ed

Ed,
I am happy to discuss any ideas you may have, but i cannot join in a dicussion on the officers forum as i don't have access.

Chuck10mtn · 02-01-2008, 08:46 AM,

I'm willing to test some scenario's out to help. What I'm afraid will happen is that my ability or inability to play will result in the results being slanted or at best unreliable. I'm not sure which would be worse bad feedback or no feedback, but I'm willing to help out.

RedDevil · 02-01-2008, 01:00 PM,

Foul. Wrote:Ed,
I am happy to discuss any ideas you may have, but i cannot join in a dicussion on the officers forum as i don't have access.

you do now :)

K K Rossokolski · 02-01-2008, 02:54 PM,

I must be getting senile -I could have sworn I posted to this earlier today!!!!

A tale -maybe a year ago I put in a test report for WF -Cold Hard Fact. Neat small Bn size game, good history piece North Africa, US vs Vichy. Due to finger trouble I gave it a 100% score across the board. Tried to cancel this -couldn't. Emailed H2H a couple of times, asking my report be axed, and I would submit a new one. No answer, no action. The report is still there, as is Cold Hard Fact. A game at least as good as some of the new Matrix scens, a couple of which are completely one sided. Should be out in the game by now, but it sits in H2H and rots. Shame.
H2H is IMO dead in the water, and I dispute that this is due to lack of design efforts. There are hundreds of scens in the various theatre databases, many not played. Some are awful, some I have played are top stuff. A lot are much better history than game, but does that matter?

What are the issues?

A. The inability to agree on the term "balanced" -what it actually means for us, how important it is etc. IMO, agreement will never be achieved. Does it matter?

B. 4 passes at level 8 seems a big ask. Such an evaluation scheme assumes inter alia equal ability and attitude to the scen.

C. There are issues concerning formal reward for H2H testing. No comment.

D. Probably a lot easier to test a scen as a SM (hence ladder qualified) with a friend , maybe 2, if it plays OK fine put it in the DB. Winners get the appropriate points for the test, depending on the game size. Maybe ask subsequent players for input, perhaps come out with a V1.01 or 2.
What's wrong with that.

E. The Matrix developments , now and to come, have and will generate huge opportunities, and hopefully demand for new scens. Wars actual and hypothetical before and after WWII come into play -Spanish, Ethiopian, hopefully Korea, maybe we can restart WWI (as a game, of course. And others

H2H as is will not do.

Hawk Kriegsman · 02-02-2008, 12:41 AM,

Chuck10mtn Wrote:I'm willing to test some scenario's out to help. What I'm afraid will happen is that my ability or inability to play will result in the results being slanted or at best unreliable. I'm not sure which would be worse bad feedback or no feedback, but I'm willing to help out.

Actually that is not a problem provided you and your opponent play the scenario twice (once as each side).

Thanx!

Hawk

Hawk Kriegsman · (This post was last modified: 02-02-2008, 01:04 AM by Hawk Kriegsman.)

Foul. Wrote:It is the designers responsibility to arrange tests for his scenarios and to use the feedback gained to improve the scenario, even if we arrange tests the effort may be wasted if the designer does not make use of it!

Actually the designer of Attack on the Move e-mailed me and gave me new scenario files to try.

To be perfectly honest when I play scenarios I don't watch the replay. However for playtest I do watch the replay. This takes more time for me. Then I have to do a write up which also takes time.

Bonus points with no credit for a game played does nothing for me.

I want credit for the match played and bonus points for my write up.

Now some will argue about win and loss etc. While that is a valid concern I can tell you that if you set up a test in a proper way then it is a non-issue.

What I mean is:

If I test a scenario and obtain a result, there is no accurate way to know if the sceanrio is balanced. I only have played one side. Maybe my opponent and I are not of equal ability.

What should be required is that a sceanrio gets tested by having the sceanrio be played twice by the same 2 testers (once as each side) then they should do a write up of the scenario.

To see that I mean go look at my write ups for Attack on the Move.

As the American I rated the sceanrio much better than I did when I was the Germans. If I had not played the Germans my report of the sceanrio would have lookded pretty good. If I had only played the Germans my report looks bad.

What should be is that I do one report commenting on the scenario in total (both sides) after playing both sides.

That would be the best way to get accurate evaluations.

Thanx!

Hawk