Good and Bad Scenarios

[Jason Petho]

By that I mean that both sides may be able to obtain a victory of some sort without distorting the historical content of the scenario.
The positioning of the VP's certainly seem to hold the key to the success of this.

Possibly the single best point in the whole thread.

I am inclined to agree.

Jason Petho

[Glint]

Thank you Eric for that endorsement! That means a lot coming from an old master and despite past heated matters, lol! Sincerely, thanks for that Eric. I hope others will see it that way and accept. Matter is closed as far as I'm concerned and all is well between me and the Moderators and understood. I hope we can all move on now

[Hawk Kriegsman]

Thank you Eric for that endorsement! That means a lot coming from an old master and despite past heated matters, lol! Sincerely, thanks for that Eric. I hope others will see it that way and accept. Matter is closed as far as I'm concerned and all is well between me and the Moderators and understood. I hope we can all move on now

No problem Peter. As you well know I call them as I see them and I am not shy about expressing an opinion.

For me what happens on these boards with others has no bearing on whether I will play them or not.

All that matters is that they are a fun, honest opponent. If I have opponent that I have differing veiws on we just keep the email banter limited to the game.

I do not have to like my opponents I just have to respect their ability to play the game.

And for the record my name is spelled: Erik

Thanx!

Hawk

[Glint]

Sorry ERIK, my brother's name is Eric, lol!

[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

[Ashcloud]

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.

[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:

[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: