Forums

(11-18-2011, 04:21 PM)Glint Wrote: [ -> ]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

Gents: :smoke:

Interesting topic... :chin:

Adhere to the game scale - 250 meters / hex and approx. 6 minutes / turn Movement and fire rate / range tables were built using this scale... so it makes sense to stay within these game perimeters.

IMHO, more scenario designs should be taken through the H2H process. Here is a defined process that allows test players to rank various aspects of a new design and provide feedback to the developer in a standardized format. It allows many different players, all with various skill levels, to test and offer constructive criticism to a new design.

Does it guarantee a fun, exciting, and balanced scenario? Not always. Does it guarantee a "good" versus "bad" scenario? Not always. But, it does increase the chances... that with more folks playing a test design... taking a scenario through a defined and regimented process... and with a developer who is willing to listen to test players' comments and make improvements to his creation... that a "good" scenario emerges more times than a "bad" one using this process.

Other ways to improve the chances of producing "good versus "bad" scenarios...

Designers should run initial test games against both the AI and a few regular opponents.

This will help identify and shake out any "gross abnormalities" (e.g. skewed victory conditions, strange unit starting positions, terrain that does not make sense, etc.)

Some of my earlier scenario designs, I did not follow these initial steps... and as other play testers began their test games... these "gross abnormalities" began very evident :eek1: ...and I mentally "kicked myself" for not being aware of these issues... and having to spend (at least) another test round ironing them out. :mad:

IMO, if players choose not to take their designs through H2H... after they test their creations against both the AI and a few regular opponents... they should open up the testing to a larger group of players... to better ensure more "balanced" player feedback. This larger group of test players will help provide more objective feedback and help guard against the syndrome of too may "Yes" men, who are only massaging a developer's ego by telling him what he wants to hear! ;)

I also believe that a scenario design that goes through an initial "shake down" prior to either uploading into H2H or opening the testing to a larger group of players, will also test "better"... and while players who test new designs are not playing the scenario to "play it," but looking more to review the design for a number of variables, players may get more "enjoyment" out of testing a design that plays better initially then one that does not? :chin:

Maybe one reason more players don't step forward to help play test H2H or other new designs, is the "fear" that their time will be "wasted" on a poor design? :chin:

In the end, we should all applaud players who take the time to create new scenarios for all to enjoy!

I'll weigh in.

For historical scenarios, I want to come away understanding what the commanders of the side I play went through. If history records they should have flanked left instead of attacking the middle, I want to see why if I do either. I want the same equipment...no PzV's blitzing into Poland in 1939, for instance. I could never design one of these, as I expect the designer to have researched the event thoroughly and have a much greater knowledge than I. It must take a ton of time and dedication. Hats off to those that do these.

Fictional scenarios are best when they could have happened, just didn't, rather than a what would have happened if..., at least for me. I'm not really interested in the Germans invading London, for instance.

For fictional, I prefer a larger map, which provides greater options. I enjoy feints, making my opponent expect an attack on his right, when all the while I'm getting ready to hit his left. I like lots of ambush options in the terrain, both for me and my opponent.

I dislike scenarios that are too "sloggy", where, due to mud or snow, my guys are forced to advance at a snails pace. OK for historical, of course, but when playing for fun, I want mobility.

I love playing with new stuff. Especially the late war armor.

I like air attacks. Especially when they're mine...not so much when they're my opponents. :rolleyes:

I haven't done too much play testing. When I have, I pretty much can only comment on the playability. Hard for me to suggest another type of equipment, as my understanding of what should have been used at this place, in this time period, is spotty at best.

Game time constraints, scale, etc, doesn't matter a whole lot for me, as long as I don't "feel" it. If I consciously note that could never happen in 6 minutes, then I find that a flaw, albeit not anything I can't live with, afterall it's a game and if I'm enjoying it that's all that matters.

I want a fairly eevn chance at a draw. HATE scenarios that I know I'm going to lose almost from the get go, merely because of the design. I don't mind as much if I lose to a superior opponent, I just don't want the design to be the factor.

Good or bad, though, I admire and respect people who do for others. Scenario designers keep the game alive for all of us and get little in return other than a high number in the "times downloaded" field. So thanks, guys.


Dave

As pretty much a strict modder and not very much experienced at scenario design, I envy you guys that DO have the gift!! I've tried, but usually don't have the time needed to produce a work of art like you all do, but I try. I guess what I need to do is either consult some of you designers, or read what tutorials there are on design, as I love the Axis Minors, and would very much like to make some scenarios dealing with them. Thanks to all that design, and also, as a closing statement, I know this is primarily a gaming ladder club, but thank you all so very much for allowing me to introduce mods here, with out condemnation, as the Matrix forum is pretty much dead anymore, and this one is very active! I've got more downloads on my K'talans in 2 weeks than I did in a few years before. I am working on a huge overhaul on all of those, and intend to try and design a few scenarios also, so please bear with me!!

Mike

Myself, I like historical scenarios, but which have been modified for play balance in the scenario.

One might not have a chance to win militarily, but the VP's gives one a way to win the scenario. I was working on a historical scenario a bit back but got side tracked & I hope to get back on it soon.

Designing a scenario gives one a whole new appreciation for what has gone into this particular game!

(11-20-2011, 03:14 AM)RADO Wrote: [ -> ]Myself, I like historical scenarios, but which have been modified for play balance in the scenario.

One might not have a chance to win militarily, but the VP's gives one a way to win the scenario. I was working on a historical scenario a bit back but got side tracked & I hope to get back on it soon.

Designing a scenario gives one a whole new appreciation for what has gone into this particular game!

Totally agree with you here as to balance.
It may be harder to balance a historical scenario. Some that I have seen become un-fun to play. Others were more fortunate.

As long as each side has a chance to win, that is pretty much all that is needed?
Plus, when you think about historical scenarios, you can put every unit and every tree in place, after the first turn it is no longer historical? It reverts to a game?
Unless the only way to win is to follow the historical track of each unit and hope they have similar results when moving and shooting?
I see historical scenarios as being formulaic.

Good points!



HSL

One can only draw up a historical situation as it was at a particular point in time. To me, the fun of historical games is that you as the player are put into a military situation at a particular time & place.

Now, what would you do? That's what makes it fun! The play balance is a must and is certainly one of the most difficult aspects of any scenario. Sometimes, historical authenticity must be sacrificed to a degree for play balance.

:)

HSL

I too, tend to like the balance more than the historical accuracy. I also tend to like a larger scenario because I feel it gives more options with the forces at hand. With that being said I feel that in the larger scenarios, balance seems to shrink from the forfront and is replace with shear numbers and for me greater enjoyment with all the troops I have at my hands. I can make a couple of mistakes but still have the troops and time to maybe pull something out.

For the system, H2H is the real way to go at least until HAL gets better, but wait, hear me out I have to talk a bit about HAL because he was my first opponent.

As for HAL, I have played a lot against HAL and found the right combination to devastate the computer and send him back to the airwaves almost everytime with everything balanced. HAL to me is not a thinker but a mindless doer. HAL tends to loadup on victory hexes, moves erratically and uses all his smoke and airpower early. He commits tanks first and infantry second and drops artillery in the oddest of places. He has minimal understanding of the power of combined arms and because of that he squanders any advantage he may have. He is not a thinker like a real player. However, he has some redeeming factors too. HAL will tend to close assault when you least want it and he likes to save AP's for op fire. He is not afraid of losses and will lie in wait with an ambush when you really don't want it. I find HAL becomes a little more interesting when I give him an advantage of 5-10%, turn off armor facing and turn on extreme assault.

As for scenarios in general I don't really have an opinion either way of good or bad. When I play a scenario I try and get into the head of the designer and figure out what he/she was trying to do. In that end I have to agree with most here about designing with a bit more forward thinking. For me when I designed "Forty-five clicks to Moscow" I tried to think what will the map look like 5-10-15 turns down the road against equal players. Are the VP hexes in the right place for where I want to be down the road and given that will my forces still be reasonable intact, that in the endgame I have a shot attacking or defending. To often I have seen what looks to be a good scenario at start for an attacker but as its played it becomes painfully aware that VP's with the current force mix just are not attainable. Same is true in reverse for the defender as it relates to holding your ground only to find your outnumbered 4-1 and your positions come crashing down one by one.

Like some I wish I had the time to design more but as was said it can be a lot of work before the first draft is out and every draft after that.

Hats off to those that do the extra work and give us all the extra enjoyment.

Thanks
Ivan the Big:smoke:

(11-19-2011, 11:18 AM)Warhorse Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks to all that design, and also, as a closing statement, I know this is primarily a gaming ladder club, but thank you all so very much for allowing me to introduce mods here, with out condemnation, as the Matrix forum is pretty much dead anymore, and this one is very active!

Hey Mike! :smoke:

Yes, indeed. You will find the Blitz forums to be "very lively" and never dull? ;)

And, by all means... please introduce new topics and threads... it's what interjects "new blood" and ideas into the club!

BTW... I saw where "Battle Kat" proposed a "modder sub-forum"... and I think it's a great idea! :)

Hopefully, the moderators can make it happen!

---

(11-20-2011, 04:37 AM)RADO Wrote: [ -> ]The play balance is a must and is certainly one of the most difficult aspects of any scenario. Sometimes, historical authenticity must be sacrificed to a degree for play balance.

Totally agree sir! :)

For me, I think "good" scenarios are ones... that given two players with equal skill levels... either side has an equal chance of winning the game.

A correctly balanced scenario interjects a wonderful degree of "excitement" and "fun" when playing these matches!

Scenarios are like the old spaghetti western with Clint Eastwood............the good...the bad.......and the ugly :-)

VE