Jump to content

Cranford

Members
  • Content Count

    2
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never
  1. To expand on my earlier post and make some suggestions as to rating categories. I was thinking about what rating categories I would be most comfortable with as a user of the SD, but would also help to give feedback to designers. Looking through the earlier posts on the thread, I would suggest the following criteria: Overall quality (Head to head) Overall quality (vs AI) These two would allow reviewers to comment on their overall enjoyment of the scenario similarly to the current playablity ratings. As a user I would find this kind of ranking helpful in finding scenarios to play, particularly as it is not planned to aggregate scores or provide top 10 lists. Other categories which seem to be useful to either designers or downloaders would be: Briefing Map design Balance Design for AI - human as Allies Design for AI - human as Axis Challenge as Allies Challenge as Axis The definitions of these might be along the lines set out in Michael Dorosh's first post in this thread but with some of Michaels criteria combined e.g. Briefing (execution) and briefing (general) combined into Briefing. Just my 2 cents.
  2. AK Two questions occur from the thread as a whole and the proposed design. Are you still planning to implement the 'I played as' facility suggested by WWB and mentioned in one of your earlier posts? Are you proposing to have the ratings and/or text comments against an 'overall impression/fun/ playability' category, and also to have ratings/text comments against a set of supporting criteria such as balance, map quality etc (where the author has allowed this)? If so, does this thread need to come up with proposals, input or possibly even consensus on the list of supporting criteria that can be rated?
×
×
  • Create New...