Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mad Russian

Why there are few reviews given...

Recommended Posts

rune

Member

Member # 821

posted December 02, 2003 07:06 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Going to reply to the poster from the Scenario Depot. While I applaud greatly the work of Admiral Keth, you now see why I have given up on the depot, and no longer post scenarios there.

Spoilers in case you haven't played it yet....

*

*

*

Yes, you don't get it, as seen by the postings here. According to you, it is not playable since the Germans don't have tanks on turn 1.

Let's see, I have Nafziger, An Army at Dawn and others that all say the attack was led by, wait for it, by recon assets. You complain that tanks don't show up till turn 5.

So, five minutes into a battle you cannot launch a tank attack. If anything, the tanks arrive too early. However, i compressed what happened into a shorter time span. Use the few minutes to RECON and find out where the enemy is. Once that happens, you tanks have arrived and then launch the attack you planned. People here say all the time they want time to plan and then attack, they don't want to start in a fight right away.

The reason I picked the scenarios authors on the CD are they realize, there is NOT one style of play. Read all of the above to see how different people approached this differently. Don't get locked into it has to be one way or nothing.

No, you cannot surprise the Americans. No kidding. The engine doesn't allow that. You can set the tone, and most players will abide by that, but being a demo, I allowed it so players can try all sorts of things to get a feel for the game. There are also people who will always try gamey things, their loss. We have always designed the scenarios to be played with the default settings the first time through, and then play around if they want.

Out of about 35 emails I got, 4 asked questions, 3 thought the scenario was so-so, the rest loved it. You attacked it since it didn't fit you thinking. Sorry you didn't like it, but will take those numbers anyday.

Rune

--------------------

Berli on Lindan's comment of a Rune Scenario:

"Ah come on... if you were in an Italian tankette and a slight breeze started blowing, wouldn't you bail out? "

This comment was made on the scenario of the week thread postings.

I find it very dismaying that this type of answer is given, not on the SD where the review was posted, but here, where the reviewer may not even see it. No wonder players don't give reviews.

It is the right of every player to give his opinion and to have his opinion respected. Just as it is the right of the designer to be respected.

In his response Mr. "Rune" states that this is why he doesn't put scenarios on the SD any more. I would repsond, that if you can't take a bad review, you shouldn't put your work out in the public eye.

By the way I am the reviewer Rune doesn't appreciate. I post my scenarios and allow for player comments. And I answer every one of them directly. Not behind their backs or on another board on another web site.

Comments would be good.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rune

Member

Member # 821

posted December 02, 2003 07:06 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Going to reply to the poster from the Scenario Depot. While I applaud greatly the work of Admiral Keth, you now see why I have given up on the depot, and no longer post scenarios there.

Spoilers in case you haven't played it yet....

*

*

*

Yes, you don't get it, as seen by the postings here. According to you, it is not playable since the Germans don't have tanks on turn 1.

Let's see, I have Nafziger, An Army at Dawn and others that all say the attack was led by, wait for it, by recon assets. You complain that tanks don't show up till turn 5.

So, five minutes into a battle you cannot launch a tank attack. If anything, the tanks arrive too early. However, i compressed what happened into a shorter time span. Use the few minutes to RECON and find out where the enemy is. Once that happens, you tanks have arrived and then launch the attack you planned. People here say all the time they want time to plan and then attack, they don't want to start in a fight right away.

The reason I picked the scenarios authors on the CD are they realize, there is NOT one style of play. Read all of the above to see how different people approached this differently. Don't get locked into it has to be one way or nothing.

No, you cannot surprise the Americans. No kidding. The engine doesn't allow that. You can set the tone, and most players will abide by that, but being a demo, I allowed it so players can try all sorts of things to get a feel for the game. There are also people who will always try gamey things, their loss. We have always designed the scenarios to be played with the default settings the first time through, and then play around if they want.

Out of about 35 emails I got, 4 asked questions, 3 thought the scenario was so-so, the rest loved it. You attacked it since it didn't fit you thinking. Sorry you didn't like it, but will take those numbers anyday.

Rune

This comment was made on the scenario of the week thread postings.

I find it very dismaying that this type of answer is given, not on the SD where the review was posted, but here, where the reviewer may not even see it. No wonder players don't give reviews.

It is the right of every player to give his opinion and to have his opinion respected. Just as it is the right of the designer to be respected.

In his response Mr. "Rune" states that this is why he doesn't put scenarios on the SD any more. I would repsond, that if you can't take a bad review, you shouldn't put your work out in the public eye.

By the way I am the reviewer Rune doesn't appreciate. I post my scenarios and allow for player comments. And I answer every one of them directly. Not behind their backs or on another board on another web site.

Comments would be good.

Steve

Steve Hines amplified the critique of your review with some other points at the depot.

Let's look at your review point by point.

Incidentally, it isn't fair ball to complain that your review was trashed, without linking to it or reposting it here.

I guess I don't get it. Apparently none of you played the Germans in this scenario. I thought the scenario was added just for the demo not a REAL scenario. The balance is terrible. IMHO. See the spoiler below.
Sure, that's your honest opinion. Could you have stated this less confrontationally? Probably. You basically state here "I have no idea why anyone likes this scenario. It is not a REAL scenario." Can we forgive rune for getting his back up from the getgo? I think so.

SPOILER*****

There are NO German tanks at the start of the scenario. The show up on turn 5 by the time the Germans get FIVE tanks the Americans have THIRTEEN antitank weapons either on tanks, halftracks or AT guns.

The question here is "so what"? Is the game 6 turns long? No. Is force conservation part of playing a scenario? Yes. Did anyone require you to run your five tanks forward without doing a recce with the scout cars?

I would suggest, as rune did, that your poor perforance as Germans had more to do with your impetuousness than it did poor scenario design.

After the Germans get his tanks he can drive down inside the bowl and be shot at from all sides and have the Americans rip his tanks apart with flank shots or he can sit back and fight long distance and have them killed one at a time. Your choice.
Steve Hines succeeded to use the terrain to advantage, read his review.

You never mention if you were playing the AI, playing with the American default setup, or how many times you tried this scenario before pronouncing it "terrible." I would suggest a good review does all of those. You've done none of them.

Here is a news flash for you
Was this really necessary?

the Americans aren't surprised nor will they ever be.
That's a given. The briefing was obviously written to add flavour and atmosphere. Given that it is impossible to detract from any intelligent person's approach to the game, why mention this? Incidentally, why were you reading the American briefing if you were playing the Germans?

AND when the defender outnumbers the attacker and has flanking shot opportunities from all points on the map it isn't going to be a good day.
This is a valid criticism, if true.

As a demo scenario yes. As a scenario to play on a regular basis no. I thank the designer for putting it together and showing the differences in German and American armor
Valid opinion, but not supported by anything you presented earlier, save for the second to last section quoted here.

For me, personally, to consider this a valid review, you would have needed to include

a) how many times you played the scenario

B) how you played it (ie vs. human or vs. computer)

c) if vs. Computer, did you use the default setup?

I would also expect at least some hint as to how the scenario could have been made better. You didn't bother. It is easy to criticize, far less easy to help. If you have some sort of clairvoyance or special skill as a scenario designer, it didn't show through at all in this scenario. You came across as a blowhard with nothing to offer the designer but grief and petty complaints about the briefing quality.

I don't blame him for taking a run at you, or not wanting to email you. Why you would think that, given this reception, rune would want to seek you out for your counsel is beyond me - you came across as having nothing to offer, did you not?

Next time, a few gentle suggestions might be more appropriate than blindsides. Then maybe the stage would be set for interaction with the designer. Come on, did you really not notice that you didn't include a single positive comment, save the thank you at the end? Even if a scenario is terrible, a good reviewer will offer one or two positive comments on things he likes. To then complain that the designer didn't discuss it with you is folly, given your presumed attitude towards his intelligence and his creation.

If that's your good idea of an acceptable review, please don't post any more, or at the very least, don't complain when people take offence to them. I'm surprised rune bothered to respond at all.

[ December 07, 2003, 12:40 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my review of Cutting off the Head (CMBB), a scenario I hated. See if you can tell the difference between your approach and mine.

Review done after one run through PBEM as German. MINOR SPOILERS THROUGHOUT, BEWARE!

BRIEFING - very well done. Places scenario in historical context, free of grammatical errors. Two minor spelling errors in German briefing - "MG 32" (sic) and "Kubelwagon" (sic). Minor grammatical error in Russian briefing - "all in told" used instead of "all told". Otherwise, brief, concise, uses standard format found on the CD battles.

Map Design - very good map; typical of the terrain, just the right size for an action like this, realisticly sculpted.

Force Balance - so unbalanced as to be unplayable. Germans are padlocked in place, which is an annoyance for many people. I can sort of understand it, as it is to simulate a surprise attack. But while the force is supposed to represent a divisional headquarters, no research has been done into such a headquarters - usually a full company was deployed with a divisional HQ (called the Divisional Escort company) for example. The number of AT guns seems high and in too close a concentration. Even if this is based on an historical order of battle, the paltry force given the German player really has no way of fighting, and this is a very one-sided scenario. Had the preferred method of play been listed as "vs. AI" I could understand, but this is not a PBEM scenario by any means.

I am not rating replayability or Playable vs. AI.

Too bad, the map and briefings were terrific. Suggest the scenario author read Buchner's GERMAN INFANTRY HANDBOOK for a detailed breakdown of an infantry division, though not of the escort company. Generally, one would expect at least 100 infantry troops in and about the HQ. Again, if this represents the historical OB, that is fine, but it does not make for a game "suitable for PBEM play."

Hope to see more by this designer in the future, he is on the right track. Perhaps an improved version of this scenario with a beefed up German force could be considered? It's refreshing to see pure infantry scenarios and always nice to see historical ones with good briefings like this one had.

Link to the Scenario Depot page for CUTTING OFF THE HEAD

Read Charlie Kibler's review also, and then read the comments of the scenario designer. Note how he thanks us for our help.

Do you think maybe this scenario designer got some use out of our reviews?

Do you think other players did, too, by perhaps giving this one a miss, or altering the balance as the designer then suggested, due to our comments?

What use do you think your review really was to either players waiting to try Fruhlingswind, or to rune himself?

Here, compare rune's response to you with the designer of Cutting Off the Head - tell me if you spot the difference here, too.

Hi folks,

This is just a response to the last couple of reviewers. First - I greatly appreciate the time you both took to review the scenario - this is the only way I can get better. I made this battle from reference material and tried to make it as close to the real situation as possible. I realize that this has probably made it very difficult for the German Defender. I have no way of editing this battle so I can only offer that the Axis side should take a +25% unless he or she is feeling very confident. I still recommend playing this against the AI from the Soviet point of view as the computer is generally weak on attack (especially across the snow!).

Again, thanks for the comments! I was a little scared to make any more battles after this one but I am trying a new tact. Please come check out my MM maps and let me know what you think.

Cheers,

My conclusion here is that you have no business blaming rune for people not reviewing scenarios; quite the contrary - reviews like yours have driven designers away from the Depot. I know of at least one designer - on the beta team for CMAK no less - that has as much as said so. Perhaps he'll post here to amplify my comments.

Either way, I hope this has been instructive to you. If designers need to learn some lessons about how to make scenarios, I think it is just as valid to say that a lot of reviewers have a few things to learn about creating a sense of community rather than just a private playground for their own bitterness or preconceived notions on how to play CM.

[ December 07, 2003, 01:02 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well hello Michael, nice to meet you.

What I found most offensive is the answer here. If he is going to give an answer why not to me? Why not somewhere that he knows I will get it?

I will agree that he didn't have to answer me. BUT if he did why not send it to me?? When I answer my reviewers I post it with the review. I saw Steve Hines remarks, he is entitled to his own opinion, as are you, Rune and I.

You make some good points. So let me answer some of them.

I didn't put my review up here, I just responded to what Rune already posted. I can easily post the review as well if you think it should be here.

I played the game once as the Germans in a PBEM. I did recon the Americans. The German briefing said the Americans were not expecting anyone. I went and researched the scenario, AFTER, I played it.

I saw the G/L's on the right with my infantry and waited until I had all 15 German tanks on the map. Then I tried a long range duel with my Pz III's hull down. When that didn't work, I advanced towards the G/L's with my Pz III's, to be hit in the flanks by the HT's, 37mm ATG's and Shermans. Which all together outnumbered my tanks. By the time all the German armor arrives in tact the surprised Americans have had tanks reinforce them. How surprised is that? Maybe the scenario isn't as unbalanced, as the briefing is misleading.

You are right about my being a bit more diplomatic about the opening comments. What I should have done is wait a bit for the smarting to wear off before doing the review.

The German briefing states that the Americans are not prepared to defend...now you have played this sceanrio...and know full well that they are in fact ready to defend and will with great determination.

See you assume that I did no recon. I knew exactly where the G/L's were when my first five PzIII's came on and I knew that the G/L's alone outnumbered me. So I waited for the rest of the German tanks to show up before attacking.

"Here's a news flash for you", falls under cool off, before you write the review. Sorry about that one too. I apoligize to you, Rune, for those two comments. They were uncalled for and very unprofessional on my part.

You state that the Americans being not surprised is a given. Why is that? The designer can show them being surprised in a couple of ways. One way is by having the American armor not start showing up, until AFTER, the German armor is on the map. Another is to have AT guns, that appear AFTER a time on the map. So that the German actually gets to operate against a defense that isn't up and running on all cylinders.

I assure you that I lost tanks from hits on three sides. That is flanking shots from all corners of the map. I know that, when I had all my Pz III's and advanced, there were Shermans, HT's and ATG's.

There were six reviews given on the SD for the scenario. Not one of them met any of your criteria for a valid review. The only exception being that some of them stated which side they played.

According to the previous reviews I found on the SD there didn't seem to be anything wrong with the scenario. It was a great scenario. The only thing I have against it is the play balance. The play doesn't match the briefing. IMHO. That sets the whole tone of a scenario for me. Obviously that wasn't the just of the game.

What petty comments about the briefing?

I did not offer him any advice. What good is that going to do? The scenario is on the disk. Is he going to change the version before it ships? No, the review was for other players, with the intent of letting them know this scenario may be very tough as the Germans. Even unwinnable. As you say none of the reviewers stated what side they played. I thought I made it quite clear that I played the Germans. You even stated I did.

Apparently I don't view positive remarks in the same light as you do.

I am sorry that I appear as a blowhard with nothing to offer. That was certainly not the intent. I do not have a Phd. but I don't consider myself an idiot either. I have designed wargame scenarios since 1972 and have been involved in producing from scratch several. Some of them tactical level WWII armor games such as CM produces.

I saw somewhere, and I believe it is on your thread about reworking the SD review system, that the review closely relates to the amount of success a player has with the scenario. I believe that is true. It was in my case. If I had cooled off first I would have replayed the game before doing a review on it. The previous reviews had been so positive that I wasn't prepared for the result that I got. For that I need to apoligize to Rune again. The review should have been done later and with more research. I'll give you that.

The reason that this thread is here at all is because Rune did answer my review. BUT he did it here where I might not have ever seen it. You state that it is easy to critisize without offering suggestions. I suggest it is easy to respond to your criticism if the other person never sees it. IF he was going to answer he should have answered me. Otherwise he should have followed your course of action, written the review off as my being a blowhard, and forgot about it.

I will take your advise on doing reviews to heart though. I agree, that you should state which side you played, clearly, how many times it was played and which style game was done.

Thank you for taking the time to engage in the thread. I am still not sure that I agree with the rest of the world, that it is a great scenario, but there are a lot of people who like it. Maybe, the percentages just went against me, or maybe the rest of them should play the guy I played PBEM to see if they can beat him.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I read that review some time ago. Along with the other reviews.

Your advice is essentially for his "next" work, is it not? Do you think he is going to reissue this scenario? I think he probably won't. So that means that the suggestions you make are for later work. I guess in that regard I could have made some suggestions. See the post below to your first set of comments.

I firmly believe that we get better by getting reviews. I was in fact going to post another review on the SD to alter some of the tone of the review after playing it again. Once again, I don't have a problem with what Rune thinks of my review or me. It is the fact that he made the comments and then to my way of thinking hid them over here.

________________________________________________

Either way, I hope this has been instructive to you. If designers need to learn some lessons about how to make scenarios, I think it is just as valid to say that a lot of reviewers have a few things to learn about creating a sense of community rather than just a private playground for their own bitterness or preconceived notions on how to play CM.

_________________________________________________

And what bitterness or preconceived notions would those be? I have nothing against Rune or anyone else in this business. Without the guys like Rune who busts his butt to get out a scenario for us all to play CM would be much less a game.

Just as a quick question, who do you think is qualified to review games? The designers? The players? Anyone? Just curious.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I addressed most of your second post above, but to reiterate:

Originally posted by Panther Commander:

Your advice is essentially for his "next" work, is it not? Do you think he is going to reissue this scenario?

My comments demonstrated several things

a) I did not feel his scenario was balanced for PBEM play as advertised and others should not expect the same

B) I appreciated the hard work he did and felt he had value as a designer, and not so coincidentally, a human being

c) I gave my comments serious thought, and rated aspects of the scenario not mentioned by the rating system (ie map appropriateness, a biggie for me, as well as historical content)

Overall, my comments were designed to show that I had seriously considered many aspects of this scenario and hadn't simply taken a visceral reaction. This was for the benefit of others reading my review and wondering if they should heed my advice.

I think he probably won't. So that means that the suggestions you make are for later work.
I suggested right in my review a reissue with beefed up German forces, as the briefing and map were good. You did read that, right? ;)

And what bitterness or preconceived notions would those be? I have nothing against Rune or anyone else in this business. Without the guys like Rune who busts his butt to get out a scenario for us all to play CM would be much less a game.
The notion of not using recce, which was erroneous. As stated, I am probably over my head discussing gameplay, as I've not played this particular scenario firstly, and secondly don't consider myself an above average CM player in general.

Just as a quick question, who do you think is qualified to review games? The designers? The players? Anyone? Just curious.
Myself, and anyone who rates my scenario designs as a 10 without fail.

ba dom bom

I think I actually answer this in the last post, if you don't feel I've answered the question sufficiently, I'll attempt another reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope not mad at what he had to say. Just that, if I hadn't stumbled into the particular thread he was in, I'd have never gotten his comments in return. The designers comments to a review are as important as the review itself to me. I read what the designer intended to happen. That often clears up many a disputed issue.

Every designer I know and that more than likely includes Rune spends HOURS and HOURS getting thier work ready for use. When you consider the fact that his is included on the CD it is even more impressive. I obviously wasn't ready for the debacle I met. To a certain extent that is Rune's fault as well as mine. I should know better than to take a designers breifing as gospel. I have seen too many of them be mis-direction. I personally don't use that tact but I know it exists.

I would be happy to play test. I have a group that has diverged from the semi-retirement of CSDT. The new group is Historical Scenario Group (HSG) and we design and playtest our own material. I am currently working two Kharkov 1943 operation and eight CMBB battles. There are three that are in playtest at the moment in addition to the others. I just made a scenario for the first time that has a version to play against the AI and also one for H2H play. I'm not sure how the players will respond to that approach. Feel free to jump into the PT circle at any time.

Or if you want to do CMAK you have to wait until mine gets here.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I like to refer to as a "Can o Worms" thread...

Not sure if I am the guy Mike was referring to on the CMAK beta team (I suspect he means another gent I am thinking of) but both Rune and I have in fact stopped posting our scenarios at the Depot until there is a change made to a new system, for a variety of reasons.

First, I get much better feedback on my scenarios via email than I do in reviews at the Depot with the current system. Also, I have access to a dedicated group of testers that are varied enough in their opinions to help provide me good feedback.

Second, (I won't rehash the contents of other threads here) it is difficult to get a consistent numerical rating with the current review system.

Third, brain-dead and pompous idiot reviewers gave me a bad taste on the whole process. Every designer has a jerk or two they will think of when they read this paragraph. I won't even get started here on that guy. :rolleyes:

I know talented designers that quite literally stopped producing scenarios after dealing with a few of these types of folks. My and Rune's response was simply say 'screw this' and make the scenarios we like without exposing them to the current review system at the Depot. :mad:

Once things switch over to the new system I will probably participate fully. I WILL donate to the upkeep of the Depot if Admiral Keith posts a paypal link, and I will buy that gentleman a beer when I finally get to meet him. It is because of people like the Admiral, or the other designers - people that put hours of unpaid effort into creating scenarios or websites that can be enjoyed freely by all - that the CM series has become successful even beyond the merits of the individual games.

jw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A can of worms huh? That is an interesting analogy. There are several that I would see would fit in that category. Not sure I thought this was one of them, but everybody gets a say.

What system would you like to see implemented? I see about a three way split on the thread. I really don't care what is done but the number system 1-10 I think is broke and needs fixed.

We use playtesters at HSG as well. And there are scenarios that I know of that have 200+ downloadson them and not a review so the SD obviously is doing it's intended job. We still do post to the SD however. It is the best place for gamers to get fresh scenarios all in one place.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

disclaimer: I have read only the first few posts on this thread

Any review is valid if what is written is the reviewers honest opinion and feelings.

There is a difference between detailed editorial feedback (like my friend telling me that 75mm artillery support should be 81mm mortars instead), and general feedback.

If someone says "I hated the scenario my side had no chance to win" then they clearly felt that they had no chance to win.

It could well be that they played poorly or based on false assumptions. That raises the issue of managing their assumptions via the briefings. If you want someone to start with recon and then launch tank attacks, it could be suggested in their briefing.

Discounting a review because the assumption is that the person played poorly is foolish. Most people who start playing a game will be bad at it at first. A scenario designer may decide that it is an "advanced" scenario only for expert players. That is reasonable. But that should be an explicit decision the designer makes, not just that people who can't win suck and should be ignored or insulted.

Now I'm not saying that an angry, insulting review is well written or the best way to handle things. I'm just saying that designers need to view reviews as a tool for them to use. Use them to challenge your assumptions instead of interpreting them based on you presumptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by dugfromthearth:

Now I'm not saying that an angry, insulting review is well written or the best way to handle things. I'm just saying that designers need to view reviews as a tool for them to use. Use them to challenge your assumptions instead of interpreting them based on you presumptions.

You, Mr. Dugfromthearth, should not assume too much. You know, for most of us designing scenarios is a hobby done at free time, not a public service job. It is not to be supposed that all scenario designers always want to please everyone. As a matter of fact, many if not most designers create their scenarios just to annoy and nauseate unsuspecting players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't tell if you are trying to be funny or are serious.

I design scenarios. I have two up on proving grounds for CMBO. I know it is a hobby.

I cannot figure out what you think my assumption is since your comment was in no way related to what you quoted from me.

and my name is not capitalized.

nor are my sentences.

but then posting on message boards is a hobby of mine, not a public service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by dugfromthearth:

I can't tell if you are trying to be funny or are serious.

Cheer up man, I was joking. :D Maybe I had a point initially in mind, but I get carried away easily...

How did you come suspecting that I would have been serious anyway..? Next time I guess I'll add that I'm a 60 years old grandma from Iceland whose favourite pastimes are knitting Christmas stockings and farting in public places... well, that's not that far from the reality, I guess. Maybe I'll just use a smiley to signify my mood, although there isn't a proper smiley for me. It would be something like a combination of these: :D :mad: :rolleyes: :eek: tongue.gif :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I come from posting on the IGN boards about the MMORPG Asheron's Call. People on those boards post the most amazing things and are serious about it.

It takes awhile to get the feel of a message board and figure out if people really are that crazy or are just joking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.....If I may just interupt for a moment

Just a few comments ... in response to this threads topic ... not any particular post or individual.

Why are there few reviews given ......

I've played scenarios from designers from various locations - Although I dont play as many as I'd like, some I give feedback on, others I admit that I'm guilty of not sending any, not for any particular reason .... sometimes I just forget ! :(

Sometimes I just dont find the time to go back to the site, find the scenario and post the feedback.

BUT I SHOULD !

Appologies to any designers who's battles I have played and failed to give feedback.

(no smiley, no sarcasm - genuine )

I also think quite a few people just dont get into the habit. If you mainly play QB's or BFC scenarios / operations there is no need to send any.

Whatever the reason I dont think its done through a lack of appreciation for those of you who devote your time to creating the battles.

There seems to be more feedback at the Proving Grounds that the Scenario Depot....Why?

Well....I think that is mainly because people know these scenarios are 'beta' versions and rightly or wrongly people feel the designer genuinly wants feedback and their comments will have more impact on the finnished battle.

There is also a core group of newer, less well established scenario designers at the site (Oh, am I gonna get flammed for saying that :rolleyes: ) These guys are all playing each others scenarios ..... and learning from it. Many are only just producing their first scenarios and are confident that they will get feedback and advice not totally ignored ... or worse !

Whereas at the Scenario Depot I think people feel these are the 'finnished' product, not subject to change as they are produced by some of the 'recognised' names in CM scenario design.

I would hate to think that we will no longer see the likes of rune, jwxspoon, andreas and many others making their works available. Hopefully whatever changes are made at the Scenario Depot will improve the feedback situation. At the SD, its not the quality of the sceanrios that needs to improve .... its those using the site that need to change.

Remember, these are just my rambling thoughts on the matter and they dont really count.

But this thread has served to remind me that I can be lacking in giving feedback where due.

I will endeavour to improve on the situation.

(go on test me ... email me a CMAK scenario to try :D )

Thanks for reading ... you may now go back about your business ;)

Lou2000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In defense of the SD, TPG also has the issue of lack of reviews, or not as many reviews as the designers would want. There's some messages from a couple of designer's on the home page now to this effect. However, the one thing that is helping the author's is the scenario discussions area, which is less of a restricted "rate this, rate that" and just more of a "give us some notes about the play".

Some stats from TPG:

Scenarios at site: 124

Official "Reviews": 159

"Discussion" Posts: 599

Members: 610

Granted, some of the posts are simple one line "thank you's" but I think the majority of them make for quite interesting reading and I would think would help the scenario author immensely. They read like AAR's, give suggestions, requests and ask questions of the author as to why such things are present or absent.

I guess that the "Discussions" area would be closely resembled by the SD's "AAR's" section. Perhaps more enphasis could be put to utilize that area of the site?

I'll agree 100% with Lou though, I and many (most?) just want to grab a scenario, play it and then move along. It's almost a "chore" to go back and gather notes/thoughts and write a review that you 1). Hope doesn't offend the author 2). Is as accurate as possible ("was that a PzIIIh that took out my ATG...I forget...do I just say "that tank"? This review is going to look bad if I don't go back and get the model of that damn tank!") 3). In the case of a ratings system, what do you rate this particular scenario against? What is the "baseline" to model your ratings on? None are given, so everyone has their own interpretations.

I'm getting wrapped around the wheel here, but as I posted many posts ago, I think getting the scenario author's and the players of the scenarios to actually communicate together would not be a bad thing. The scenario discussions area on TPG are by far the most popular item and actually, it's fun to post a mini-AAR or to probe the author for their thinking on some things.

Just another $.02, I'm now out $.06! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...