Scenario Testing for Ladder Points?

[Kool Kat]

H2H has recently stated that testing under its auspices is not appropriate for "large: and "super large" scenarios. Fair enough.
So for example if I design a size 5, 20 turn scen, I can get benefits by putting it through the H2H system, but a size 10 day/night 75 turn scen will not get me anything, points-wise. That sounds fair, I don't think!!

Gents:

I plan to "limit" my comments on this topic until more players weigh in on the subject.

However, having stated the above concerning "large" and "super large" scenarios being tested in the H2H Section... I would be willing to consider each scenario submission on a case-by-case basis... regardless of scenario size... IF and this is a big IF... both scenario developers and their play tester team would pledge to remain committed and dedicated to testing the design and moving such a design through the H2H process in a timely manner. If such a commitment was made... I would set a deadline as to when the scenario needed to become "H2H Approved" and if not approved by that set date, it would be removed from the H2H Testing section.

Bottom line, I can't have numbers of testing slots occupied with either "large" or "super large" designs for over a year... preventing other designers from uploading and testing their "smaller" creations because testing slots are occupied.

[Otto von Blotto]

Not being a designer I don't have a lot to add or contribute but I do tend to have at least one play test game going most of the time so heres my thoughts.

The test games I play are both H2H and non H2H designs, some I get points for others I don't. It doesn't really bother me either way it about helping designers build a better game.

What Dave described at the start of the thread was wrong and gaming the system.
Is the system right, No probably not, it isn't fair for large designs to be left out of H2H but it is also right that the limited places within H2H go to designs that have a fair chance to pass within an expectable time period.

Do I have any answers no but a possible suggestion, what if designers that are in the club get some points when there designs are played on a ladder game that way popular fun and balanced games that are played a lot gain the designer more. ? Just an idea.


PS. Anybody want to do some non-pointed testing to help out a fledgling designer improve his baby. ? see thread link below.

https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards...#pid354329

[Herr Straße Laufer]

I think the H2H system is not on trial here?

It is about a designer who uploads a scenario to gain ladder points "for his effort" and then removes it so that no one else can play it and receive those same ladder points.

Huib mentioned the generic SM "games" that can be reported. That has traditionally been the place to record scenarios that have been played but not uploaded. Most are eventually uploaded to become regular scenarios.

My thought is play a game and get the points. Test the game and get the points. But, do not upload a scenario for the simple task of gaining points that no one else can achieve. It's a fairness/moral issue.

For example, I can create a size 10 scenario. It could take me two or three days. Random map, put in a couple large units from the OOB, and then slap them down into a scenario. "Play a few turns" with a willing opponent from both sides. Upload the scenario and report a major win and a major loss. Then remove the files from the dBASE. My opponent and I just "earned" 180 ladder points.
How long before I can put up ten of those type of scenario and earn the 1800 ladder points?
That is what I meant by the integrity of the ladder.

Now if I make a size ten scenario and put it into H2H and it is approved I gain 200 ladder points ... once. What system is better?

It does take a lot of work to design a scenario and get through H2H testing?
I do not understand why anyone would deny designers and testers, who are working to make good, balanced, and fun scenarios for all to play, points for their effort.
In the distant past no points were given. Or, very little. H2H was a waste land.
Now, we are getting more scenarios designed for play by e-mail because of the points issued and more members volunteer for testing. Isn't that what the club and the game needs?

As far as medals instead of points?
I think that any one who designs five or more scenarios that are uploaded to the dBASE should receive a "scenario designer" medal. Any one who uploaded ten or more should receive a silver medal and twenty or more earn the gold medal.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water?
H2H is a viable source of balanced and fun scenarios. And, they do make exceptions for larger scenarios. That was evident in Dan's large West Front scenario that just passed testing?

We've stepped up in the H2H area. Let's not step back because someone tried to "game the system" through a "stunt method"?



HSL

[Larry Reese]

Holy cow, there are several book length novels here! I was going to respond with my two cents but I just can't read through everything at this point so I will hold off. Other than saying I think there is a place for this because, especially with large scenarios, there needs to be some way to pay back the play testers for applying their time and efforts to the scenarios. When I do it, I recommend that no matter what the end result, the game is recorded as a draw. Both sides get points for their time and no one is penalized in the win loss ratio (well, when you have a good one, you are, but what the hell, the price of testing right?).

I don't know, I'm cool with whatever the club decides as a whole regarding policy.

LR

[Kool Kat]

Gents:

We've only had approximately ten (10) different folks weigh in on this topic?

But over 208+ views of this thread?

That's roughly only 6% of the CS ladder population!

No interest? Everyone ok with a minority view / input into this subject?

[Jason Petho]

But over 208+ views of this thread?

Views aren't unique.

If you read the thread 20 times, that is 20 views.

Jason Petho

[Kool Kat]

Views aren't unique.

If you read the thread 20 times, that is 20 views.

Very true Jason!

You've developed a number of CS scenarios... so, what's your thoughts on this thread topic?

[Jason Petho]

You've developed a number of CS scenarios... so, what's your thoughts on this thread topic?

I don't make scenarios for points.

Jason Petho

[Tide1]

If people need a reward let it be medals. I've recieved ladder points for stuff a couple of times I like the bling better I've collected plenty of bling from the Blitz over the years including one for testing scenarios over at the TOC forum.

[Larry Reese]

On that point, people get points for example for winning the picture identification contest (I used to participate in that regularly). If you can get points for identifying a picture, why can you not get points for committing months (at least in the case of large scenarios like most of mine) to play testing? I'm not talking about myself here, I'm talking about others who have play tested these scenarios against their friends and other folks in the club. Personally, I'm more interested in win percentages/ESL than point totals, but that's me. Moreover, I'm not sure I really grasp why this is apparently such a big deal to some folks here. Why not just take a vote either of the club membership or of the officers, or Jim could just make a ruling, and be done with it? Seems a great deal of to-do about something of very little overall importance to me.

But then, again, I'm not as active in the club as some and perhaps there are nuances here I'm missing. Anyone have a short explanation of the overall concerns about this?

LR