So Then What Does One Do When........

[Mike Abberton]

If we are truly going to treat the Matrix version as a new game, and if we are going to recognize that the scenarios are affected (some for the better, some for the worse) with the new rules, then does it make sense to have two sets of scenarios in the database?

Stats such as balance, rating, win-loss ratios, etc. that can be used to pick a scenario to play (something I do almost every time I start something new) will be misleading depending on what version they were played under. It will also serve to identify to those who choose to return to the Talonsoft version what scenarios are Matrix only.

Any thoughts?

[Herr Straße Laufer]

The point I think I was trying to make is that we have never had a perfectly set of balanced scenarios. Therefore, a change in the assault rules or other changes will not necessarily alter the sum total of balanced scenarios.

I slightly disagree. Scenario designers, then, made attempts at balance based on formulae they knew would make the scenario "close to balanced" and made for PBEM.
As for effecting the balance of balanced scenarios? I think the new assault rule definately does. Especially those scenarios of limited turns and having a lot of built up terrain/town. Factor in the morale of the units too! :)

Some that were unbalanced may become more balanced for example. If I only wanted to play perfectly balanced scenarios I would have a very limited set of scenarios to play from. Sometimes the fun is beating the odds, overcoming a critical situation etc. This might not mean winning all the time, it might mean doing the best with what you have got. It would be quite easy for any player to tweak the victory conditions if their sole concern was balance with a view to a potential victory.

Excellent points. Yes, some that were unbalanced become balanced. Especially some of those designed versus the AI.
I cannot accept that two players of relative equal ability playing an unbalanced scenario will have much fun. But, that is my personal opinion and I will not fault you for feeling different. I take no joy in beating an opponent of "lesser" ability in an unbalanced game.
Balancing scenarios are actually a bit harder now. Remember, the assault formula also contains random results that effect success or not. Over the course of a game, those random results can become a major factor in "tilting the balance". The old assault rules had a predictability that allowed a designer to get much closer to balance. I think the game engine "taking over" removes fun from the game.

I actually agree with you that some of the results from the new assault rules do not always produce plausible outcomes. I think what we had before was worse in terms of realism and simulation however.

Thus, my original request that 1.04 be looked at? Maybe the existing assault rules are so tough and random that they lose as much "realism" and "simulation" as the old? "Who's your Superman?" plays in my head. ;)
And, there are many who like the game as a ... "game"? A simulation that is a game?
Maybe there is a balance out there that does not include the "take it or leave it" choice we have now? :chin:

I thought it was really good of Matrix to listen to the concerns and to make the new rules optional.

I am unclear what your concern is now. It seem you are against any sort of change to what you regard as a classic game? Can you accept that there are many people who want to see change and who prepared to put up with teething problems to achieve that change?

I think they proved they listened when we got the fix for version 1.03.
If I was not clear in my concerns, forgive me. I tried to stick to my topical theme.
A) I only put forth that I believed the new assault rules were not the "toned down" ones that we were told. The random event portion does not help to bring realism or help the simulation.
B) That the increase in indirect artillery effectiveness versus armor produces more "unreal" results. It should have been more effective than the old but they seemed to have tweaked it and made it too strong.
C) And, that games scale is being ignored. If it is a simulation based on "realism", variable visibility would not have even been a thought. Nor should engineers that build bridges, etc.

You imply that all these things are teething problems?
That then assumes growth?
If so, a few are spending a lot of time to stifle the debate/questions?
Teething?
They also go a long way to justifying the changes by saying that "they" have created a "new game"?
If it is not John Tillers/Talonsoft/Matrix/Campaign Series, what is the new game they want us to play?

Just some thoughts. Please do not read my comments as if they have been done from anger. There is no anger.
More simply, it's frustrated curiosity that I am vocalizing. :smoke:



Ed

[Herr Straße Laufer]

If we are truly going to treat the Matrix version as a new game, and if we are going to recognize that the scenarios are affected (some for the better, some for the worse) with the new rules, then does it make sense to have two sets of scenarios in the database?

Stats such as balance, rating, win-loss ratios, etc. that can be used to pick a scenario to play (something I do almost every time I start something new) will be misleading depending on what version they were played under. It will also serve to identify to those who choose to return to the Talonsoft version what scenarios are Matrix only.

Any thoughts?

This is something that I wanted to discuss in the future.
Even a simple "designed using version 1.04 extreme assault rules" in the scenario description will go a long way? But, it would fall short if a member does not look at the scenario when they go to choose it? Or, the scenario designer did not take balance into consideration regardless of version?



Ed

[Scud]

If we are truly going to treat the Matrix version as a new game, and if we are going to recognize that the scenarios are affected (some for the better, some for the worse) with the new rules, then does it make sense to have two sets of scenarios in the database?

Stats such as balance, rating, win-loss ratios, etc. that can be used to pick a scenario to play (something I do almost every time I start something new) will be misleading depending on what version they were played under. It will also serve to identify to those who choose to return to the Talonsoft version what scenarios are Matrix only.

Any thoughts?

I think that would be a good way to go, but theblitz web programmers would have to do a little brainstorming to come up with an approach that wouldn't take hours and hours of programming.

[Mike Abberton]

If we are truly going to treat the Matrix version as a new game, and if we are going to recognize that the scenarios are affected (some for the better, some for the worse) with the new rules, then does it make sense to have two sets of scenarios in the database?

Stats such as balance, rating, win-loss ratios, etc. that can be used to pick a scenario to play (something I do almost every time I start something new) will be misleading depending on what version they were played under. It will also serve to identify to those who choose to return to the Talonsoft version what scenarios are Matrix only.

Any thoughts?

I think that would be a good way to go, but theblitz web programmers would have to do a little brainstorming to come up with an approach that wouldn't take hours and hours of programming.

It would be great if a giant copy/paste could be done in the database, and then a group edit to place one copy in the "talonsoft version" and the other in the "matrix version". It would look like two separate games in the pulldown (sort of like the old RS:Gold versus regular RS). Not sure if the Blitz database format supports that, but we can do similar things with Access here at my work, I think. We'd have to remove any 1.04 specific scenarios from the Talonsoft list.

As far as divvying up existing game results, you'd either have to pick a date and assume anything older than that date is Talonsft and anything newer is Matrix. That date could be the release date of 1.03 or 1.04 or some other date. Since the Matrix changes pre-1.03 were pretty minor from a game mechanics point of view, that seems like the natural break point. Not sure if that is possible, though. Otherwise, you'd have to just pick a date to implement the two "games" and assume all the old results are Talonsoft, I guess. That way the Matrix scenario listing could start from scratch to build up accurate win/loss ratios, ratings, etc.

[Von Earlmann]

Stats such as balance, rating, win-loss ratios, etc. that can be used to pick a scenario to play (something I do almost every time I start something new) will be misleading depending on what version they were played under. It will also serve to identify to those who choose to return to the Talonsoft version what scenarios are Matrix only.

Any thoughts?

Good Lord........the last thing I would use to choose a scenario are the ratings of balance at the Blitz.............the list of so called balanced scenarios where one side has consistently won is too large to fathom..........entertainment and playability are keys to me.......I have played some terribly skewed scenarios that were fun.............I've played a lot more of the so called popular and balanced ones that were an absolute joke and a bore

The same list of so called balanced scenarios contains some of the worst ones for entertainment I have ever played...............I suggest if you want true balance try Chess or checkers..................they start out about the same everytime.

Let's keep it simple if we can?

VE

[Mike Abberton]

Earl,

Whatever stat you use to pick scenarios (win-loss, balance, entertainment, the star rankings, etc.), they are all suspect with the change to 1.03/.04. Game postings (including any of the subjective ratings) made under Talonsoft are likely to be different under Matrix 1.03/.04, for the better or the worse.

There could be scenarios that were total uninteresting walkovers for the attacker under the Talonsoft version that are entertaining nailbiters under 1.04. I think some of the fun and balanced original Talonsoft scenarios played under 1.04 will be frustrating experiences.

As someone who prefers playing blind scenarios, I like to have as much guidance as possible when picking something off the list. I tend to use a combination of all the stats, instead of one overriding stat. Win/loss can indicate "balance", but I agree with you that some of them are terribly un-fun scenarios to play. The entertainment rating will influence my decision, but not if the only people rating it as a 10 are winners who got Major Victories or if one person (especially the designer) rated it as a 10 five times.

If you pick your scenarios at random, than I agree that it won't make any difference to you either way.

Anyway, just my thoughts. There's been no response from club officers yet, so I don't suspect much will happen anytime soon.

Mike

[Huib Versloot]

Why are people assuming that 1.04 has automatically affected balance of scenarios? There is no evidence for that whatsoever. The only thing that apparently has emerged so far is that some players have not found the proper tactics yet. This is no wonder since the previous system also took many of us years to master to perfection. It just takes time. The concept of balance is so subjective that it will be near impossible to see if it has changed.
I don't not think win/loss ratios will suddenly change drastically, and even if they do this could be a temporary thing. Time will tell. Scenarios are played with various optional rules by various players, this may also affect the outcome of the battle. Maybe a certain side has an advantage when played with armor facing off.... who can tell...
None of the existing scenarios has been made with the S D C routine as the key tactic in mind. If the use of that that tactic was the only factor to make the scenario balanced, it can't have been the best of designs right?

[Scud]

eesh, everytime one of you comes up with a new argument I find myself agreeing and changing my mind. The only reason I thnk older scenarios may have their balance altered is when time is a major factor in achieving victory. I've played a ton of really good ones where victory/draw/loss came down to the final turn. I've always liked those ones the best. Assaulting, I think we can agree, will in most cases take a bit more time to successfully achieve and I can only assume will hurt those designs. Of course, on the other hand, it might improve others. So who knows?

[Huib Versloot]

The only reason I thnk older scenarios may have their balance altered is when time is a major factor in achieving victory.

I agree there. In another thread I already said that I will adapt my own designs accordingly (but that's only about 3 or 4 out of 37).
It is obviously a very easy change to make; just increase the # of turns in the scenario header in the editor.