H2H Seems to be dead.

[Mr Grumpy]

you do now :)

Thanks....... :bow:

[Mr Grumpy]

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.

PM sent! :)

[Mr Grumpy]

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.

Hawk,
We have covered this already, you either test or play a ladder game, you cannot do both with a scenario at the same time.
Please no more talk about this..........

[Hawk Kriegsman]

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.

Hawk,
We have covered this already, you either test or play a ladder game, you cannot do both with a scenario at the same time.
Please no more talk about this..........

First off, John was inquring as to why the H2H was dead. I told him my thoughts.

Second: I offered constructive ideas to make it better.

Third: you slapped me down. Fine...consider me done with the H2H.

Enjoy the wasteland Foul.

Hawk

[Glint]

I have to agree with Hawk to some degree. I've built a large scenario for WF with a buddy and were playing it out as a test play. We both play games for fun and we're thouroughly enjoying it and others are interested in trying it.
In the Blitz, it seems that there are some who want historical accuracy, others who want to win at all costs, others who play for the fun, etc., all valid reasons when considering the number of members.
Personally, and I've said this before in a previous post that never got a response, I'll play any scenario offered, in the database out of enjoyment, win or lose, why, as a designer, do I have to go through the process of it being play-tested through H2H for verification of it being 'acceptable'?
There are so many different views on what is enjoyable, as mentioned before, what is the criteria for a 'Quality Scenario'?
This is not posted in a contentious manner, just speaking from the heart!
Peter (Glint)

[Mr Grumpy]

I have to agree with Hawk to some degree. I've built a large scenario for WF with a buddy and were playing it out as a test play. We both play games for fun and we're thouroughly enjoying it and others are interested in trying it.
In the Blitz, it seems that there are some who want historical accuracy, others who want to win at all costs, others who play for the fun, etc., all valid reasons when considering the number of members.
Personally, and I've said this before in a previous post that never got a response, I'll play any scenario offered, in the database out of enjoyment, win or lose, why, as a designer, do I have to go through the process of it being play-tested through H2H for verification of it being 'acceptable'?
There are so many different views on what is enjoyable, as mentioned before, what is the criteria for a 'Quality Scenario'?
This is not posted in a contentious manner, just speaking from the heart!
Peter (Glint)

Hello Peter,
Yes, for your scenario to be considered a blitz "approved" scenario it has to pass through the testing system, i am afraid there is no way round that.

If the players want a section of the club where they can upload untested scenarios to a list, then that is something you will have to ask Red Devil for and is outside my area of responsibility :)

To be honest we are using the testing system over at PzC without the particular problems you mention,however it does pay to know that your testers are players who will give you top detailed feedback and once again it would be better for a designer to arrange the tests rather than just upload the scenario and allow any players to test it.

[Mr Grumpy]

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.

Hawk,
We have covered this already, you either test or play a ladder game, you cannot do both with a scenario at the same time.
Please no more talk about this..........

First off, John was inquring as to why the H2H was dead. I told him my thoughts.

Second: I offered constructive ideas to make it better.

Third: you slapped me down. Fine...consider me done with the H2H.

Enjoy the wasteland Foul.

Hawk

First point no problem,

Second point no problem,

Third point you were aware that you cannot have both, so why keep asking for it?

Sorry if you consider the word "please" a slap down, i cannot think of a more polite word i can use?

With 10 scenarios moving to the approved list in just one year, the wasteland over at PzC is going rather well IMO. :chin:

[Huib Versloot]

I think the H2H as is, is not so bad. The designers just have to be on top of it and try to get their scns through by mobilizing testers.
To simplify things:
I do think a single rate for the overall scenario would be sufficient instead of 3 separate ratings for balance (which nobody can judge), briefings and enjoyment. This could be a rating from 1 to 10 where a couple of ratings of 7 or higher would be sufficient to pass. Or by a question in the testreport: Do you think this scenario has sufficient quality to be approved: yes/no.

[Mr Grumpy]

I think the H2H as is, is not so bad. The designers just have to be on top of it and try to get their scns through by mobilizing testers.

Thank you Huib, i agree, i believe the amount of success in a section is 100% linked with the amount of effort designers put into arranging tests & following them up.

To simplify things:
I do think a single rate for the overall scenario would be sufficient instead of 3 separate ratings for balance (which nobody can judge), briefings and enjoyment. This could be a rating from 1 to 10 where a couple of ratings of 7 or higher would be sufficient to pass. Or by a question in the testreport: Do you think this scenario has sufficient quality to be approved: yes/no.

Well the thought behind the ratings is that enjoyment and the briefings are as important as the balance, hence 3 ratings. A scenario can be very balanced but a attritional nightmare and hence the balance score could be high, but the enjoyment score very low, how could you reflect this in one rating?

As we are human :chin: :) the ratings will always be a judgement by the testers and different testers will always have slightly different opinions, if you use good testers the chances are the ratings will be good reflection on how good/bad a scenario is.

Thank you for your input

[Glint]

FOUL WROTE : -

Hello Peter,
Yes, for your scenario to be considered a blitz "approved" scenario it has to pass through the testing system, i am afraid there is no way round that.

If the players want a section of the club where they can upload untested scenarios to a list, then that is something you will have to ask Red Devil for and is outside my area of responsibility

To be honest we are using the testing system over at PzC without the particular problems you mention,however it does pay to know that your testers are players who will give you top detailed feedback and once again it would be better for a designer to arrange the tests rather than just upload the scenario and allow any players to test it.

Thanks for your reply Foul.
My comments were purely intended as discussion and from an uninformed member lol!
I admire the work people voluntarily put in on the Blitz and my comments were no reflection on the calibre of testers, just want to make that clear.
From the 'uninformed' angle, I seem to remember playing a game or two where the scenarios were uploaded to the site and scored without them being approved scenarios?
I maybe wrong, but don't think so.
This is basically what my previous comments were about. If the afore-mentioned is possible, it rather negates the need for scenarios to be approved other than for the benefit of those who wish only to play ' officially approved scenarios' ?
Maybe I'm missing something here?
regards
Glint