Gents: :smoke:
Quality H2H scenarios can be produced ONLY if players agree to help play test game designs.
It is really that simple... and that difficult to accomplish. :chin:
It is a partnership. An agreement between the scenario designer and the CS player community.
As a scenario designer, I pledge to do the following:
* Research the historical battle
* Develop an accurate map
* Produce OOB's for both sides
* Play test scenario (both sides) against the AI
* Play test scenario (both sides) against a few regular opponents
But, here is what I need from players - especially folks who want to see new content and quality H2H scenarios...
* Need players willing to help play test new scenario designs
Do you want quality H2H scenarios... or not?
Designers certainly don't have to go through the H2H process. I can "slap" a new scenario together in a few hours and upload it into the scenario database... but is that what CS players really want? :eek1:
I think all players can point to standard CS scenarios that are "lacking" in some aspect... and I can almost guarantee those designs that fall short, did NOT go through quality play testing by multiple players.
And, yep, I bet we can all come up with excuses as to why we don't step up to help test new designs... but if CS players don't step up... where does the blame for lack of new content and scenarios fall upon?
A play tester recently confessed to me:
"One reason I do not play much RS is due to a lack of scenarios."
There are currently 15 new CS scenario designs sitting in H2H waiting for test game players. There is your new content!
Again, it is really very simple. You want new content and scenarios... then many more CS players need to step forward and make it happen.
Well said, and I will support playtestesters & designers all the way
I'd like to test KR's scenario with the Italians invading Albania. I have a fetish for playing minor allies and Albania is probably about as minor as one can get (did Luxembourg put up any opposition in 1940).
Please let me know if you want to test that one.
Without wishing to demean the efforts of others and I tip my hat to them for their' efforts and devotion, I personally as a player, would say that over the decade or more of playing games here, I've either picked a scenario from the database at random or, played one the opponent suggested.
Overall I have enjoyed the games I played, many I felt I was losing from an early start, odd ones I've drawn or lost. Most of them however, I have enjoyed the 'playing' of the game. Whether they were stock or h2h scenarios, or even ones knocked up by the two of us, wasn't an issue.
The point I'm trying to make is, whilst h2h is a fine attempt to achieve a certain level of perfection, quote,
'' And, yep, I bet we can all come up with excuses as to why we don't step up to help test new designs... but if CS players don't step up... where does the blame for lack of new content and scenarios fall upon? ''
perhaps there are many players who do not feel the need to step-up? Equally, many have reasons, not excuses, that precludes them from stepping-up.
I personally, do not see many of the comments regarding a lack of scenarios on the mb, maybe I miss them? But there are still a lot of games getting reported as played?
Perhaps the h2h community should not use 'lack of support' as a reason for any shortcomings, h2h was something the site offered the players, some took to it some didn't?
Anyway, no offence intended guys, just my perception on things.
regards
Peter
(02-19-2010, 05:35 AM)glint Wrote: [ -> ]'' And, yep, I bet we can all come up with excuses as to why we don't step up to help test new designs... but if CS players don't step up... where does the blame for lack of new content and scenarios fall upon? ''
perhaps there are many players who do not feel the need to step-up? Equally, many have reasons, not excuses, that precludes them from stepping-up.
Peter, I agree that many players do not feel the need to step up... and I'm sure that there are many reasons why these players don't feel inclined to do so... but that is the stated problem, not the solution?
(02-19-2010, 05:35 AM)glint Wrote: [ -> ]I personally, do not see many of the comments regarding a lack of scenarios on the mb, maybe I miss them? But there are still a lot of games getting reported as played?
Peter, it is not the lack of overall CS scenarios that is a problem, it is the testing of new content and new scenarios that is a problem.
(02-19-2010, 05:35 AM)glint Wrote: [ -> ]Perhaps the h2h community should not use 'lack of support' as a reason for any shortcomings, h2h was something the site offered the players, some took to it some didn't?
Please Peter... this is not a case of "us" against "others." H2H is a part of the CS community... we are ALL part of the CS community... I hoped that CS players would be willing to help develop new content and scenarios... some have and others, as you stated earlier, are not so willing? It would be helpful if more CS players would be willing to step up and help test new content, that's all I'm trying to get across. I think we can all agree that scenario designs that are play tested by many different players and go through several rounds of revision, will play better then those designs that do not?
(02-19-2010, 05:35 AM)glint Wrote: [ -> ]Anyway, no offence intended guys, just my perception on things.
regards
Peter
No offense taken Peter. I'm glad you weighed in with your comments... hopefully others will too?
Fair comment Mike. I'll think more about the solution !
I still feel testing of content is a case of playing a scenario and liking it or not, followed by perhaps a report of how you felt about it, i.e, ratings, points out of ten, balance score.I thought the original database did that? The report of a game has the facility to make your comments, surely more information can be gleaned from that info, than hoping to get people involved in play-testing, which is possibly more time consumed, on top off time spent playing games?
Perhaps have a system where a completed game cannot be reported unless the 'experience facility' is filled in by both players?
And thanks Mike for welcoming my comments, as you say, perhaps more people will put some input into the thread?
regards
Peter
Hi All
I find scenario testing and development a crucial part of the game. After having played 200+ scenarios it is often difficult to find a good one. For myself, with a passion for WF, had it not been for Huib's and Don Fox's new scenarios, I probably would have packed in this game awhile ago
Cam
(02-19-2010, 07:11 AM)glint Wrote: [ -> ]Fair comment Mike. I'll think more about the solution !
I still feel testing of content is a case of playing a scenario and liking it or not, followed by perhaps a report of how you felt about it, i.e, ratings, points out of ten, balance score.I thought the original database did that? The report of a game has the facility to make your comments, surely more information can be gleaned from that info, than hoping to get people involved in play-testing, which is possibly more time consumed, on top off time spent playing games?
So, your idea Peter, would be to collect game information and ratings from players at the
conclusion of a scenario - currently some voluntary information is shared - correct? Then would designers go back and make revisions to their designs - kind of like a work in progress? H2H takes a different approach and works from the concept / development of a new scenario design with play testing and revision work completed
before the scenario is published.
(02-19-2010, 07:11 AM)glint Wrote: [ -> ]And thanks Mike for welcoming my comments, as you say, perhaps more people will put some input into the thread?
regards
Peter
Hopefully all CS players feel free to leave constructive comments and input on the Blitz forums?
Hi Mike,
I do see where you are coming from, a good concept true, and agreed.
Perhaps the h2h section could be where designers wish to obtain comments about their' scenarios in a bid to improve their' skills. Nothing wrong with that providing you have enough support from playtesters.
''So, your idea Peter, would be to collect game information and ratings from players at the conclusion of a scenario - currently some voluntary information is shared - correct? Then would designers go back and make revisions to their designs - kind of like a work in progress?'' -(Mike)
Spot on Mike. The database hopefully, could provide space for feedback once played and reported, as I said, one could be unable to report a game unless both players have filled in the report.
Regards whether a designer would then go back and revise the scenario would remain to be seen. Perhaps another utility could be, run the database like a football league, (British, not American, lol) where, every now and then, scenarios that have not been played a certain number of times get relegated from the database, a way of removing the deadwood perhaps?
That way large scenarios could be introduced as well which, as re another post from HSL, would not be feasible to be playtested in h2h.
Just putting this together off the top of my head, as I wish to be constructive in this thread, - not just criticising without offering possible solutions!
All the best,
Peter
Hello.
As designer , I Agree with Mwest's words in all, but I know that testing scns is an ingrate task to many players. They prefer to play a nice, balanced scn where they put all your strategic knowledge about wargames. Design mistakes are not permited in custom scns because this is the cause of their battle failure and the report will be contradictory in their comments.
I enjoyed all player testing my scns and thanks for your help, but in order to H2H section, I prefer to do an own and major testing game with some of my regular opponents. But I would like see the H2h section with many players working...:conf:
Major testing mean we will stop the game when we found a big mistake in design, or major bug, retesting the same scn few times, change sides, probe new units performance, adjust turns and innovations....
We usually play the same scn 4-5 times in the testing phase, and we only report one time this work. The players prefer pick a scn fully reported and played by many players than others with an apparent single test.
Maybe this scn can be fully tested by own designer, but anybody knows this fact. :hissy:
The final aspect of all, the designer prefer wait for H2H section to get a labeled scn with quality stamp.
Just an idea: In order to get more info about the scns played, maybe the players when submit the final score to the Blitz they must be obligated to report the comments about design to get the points for the ladder.
Cheers.
Chema