Admiral Keth

Just a quick tip regarding graphics cards... I recently upgraded to an Intel 2.6GhHz CPU, Intel MB, 1GB RAM, and an ATI Radeon 9800XT. Once I loaded CMBO, CMBB, or CMAK, the mouse would promptly cease to function. I could Alt-Tab out of the game to the Desktop, then Alt-Tab back into the game and the mouse would function thereafter. Also, several of the interface graphics, such as the mission graphic in the lower left corner, would flash on and off constantly. TCP or Hotseat games were impossible to play; each round would cause the mouse to become inoperative, resulting in the Alt-Tab Tango. The Solution! After fiddling with drivers for my mouse, sound card, video card, and DirectX, I then began experimenting with video settings. Everything failed (Ansiotropic Filtering, AntiAliasing, etc.) except for...Hardware Acceleration! Once I cranked that slider bar to its maximum setting, everything worked perfectly. So, long story short...if you have a high-end ATI card and are experiencing CMBO/CMBB/CMAK strangeness, check your video acceleration settings.

The Top 10 Lists will still exist in some fashion. However, since numerical ratings are being revised, the basis for these lists are still unclear. Again, it is the purpose of this august body to come up with ideas and solutions. I believe that topic has yet to be covered. One issue is how to enter one or more values into the new rating system based on historical values. There are thousands of reviews associated with CMBO and CMBB scenarios. Players and authors have dedicated a significant amount of effort to reviewing these scenarios; I would be loathe to resign this effort to an archive where their values had no current meaning. Their historical rating values should be reflected in the new rating system, either by a single accumulated value, or by having each historical rating translated into a new rating value. Authors and player must come up with some archival method, as well as a method for translating ratings. If not, all historical reviews will simply be relegated to an archived database table and a link provided on each scenario synopsis page, to the effect of "Read Historical Reviews".

Yes I'm not entirely clear on what you mean by the first part of your question, but YES to the second part. Here's the layout... When an author submits his new scenario, he selects whether A) he wants to have text-based reviews, and/or he wants to have graphical ratings. Reviewers will only be able to submit the type of review desired by the author. For example, an author posts a new scenario, and simply doesn't give a hoot about any rating system. He simply wants players to give him textual feedback. The author will also be able to state what aspects of the scenario he would like reviewed (or special points of interest to which players should pay special interest). this will then be displayed to players as they prepare to review the scenario as sort of a reminder of what the system is all about. The player will then only be able to submit the author-desired data, thus providing authors with a more author-tailored review system. Lastly, the author will be able to selectively have his scenarios reviewed based on specific rating categories. When the author posts a new scenario, and the author elects to have reviewrs post ratings, the author will be given a selection of catgories which he can have displayed. For example, an author is particulary pleased with his map design, and has also designed the scenario specifically for head-to-head play. The author, when the scenario is posted, will select the Map Design Category, as well as the Head-to-Head catergory. As you can see, the upcoming system is being designed to accomodate as many different authors as possible. Additional fields are being put into place, as well, to allow the Search engine: A) to search across CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK to allow authors to enter additional data by which scenarios can be found, such as "Designed for PBEM" or "Human vs AI". Grouping data will also be available, so that scenario packs, or design groups can relate their work without having to use the scenario title field.

The Victory Level/Scenario Results concept is already being coded. If the author is accepting reviews for his/her sceanrio, there will be a link within that review/rating which will provide a popup window with the results.

The design I am currently working on is as follows: A brief scenario synopsis containing limited information (Name, sides, size, region, and a few more). A link within that synopsis which will popup the entire set of detailed scenario information. This serves two purposes - the first allows for much faster page loading, and the second allows for better FOW. Text-based reviews using a 1 though 5 graphics (stars, stick grenades, hamsters, whatever) for the ratings. The player reviews can optionally (at the player's discretion) include a link to more detailed spoilers. The authors will be able to, at time of scenario synopsis post, : 1) enable text-based reviews, and/or 2) enable graphical ratings. This is the current plan, subject to the discussion in this thread.

...and yet, I would. Email me with the specific grievance and I'll take a look. Personal attacks, debates, and general nonsense is not permitted within the review system. Reviews or responses of this nature will be summarily deleted. Me, too. This is precisely the method that should be used. If anyone has a non-review message for a reviewer or author, then either: 1) Contact them and/or me via email. Contact them via this forum. III) Keep it to yourself. Absolutely, positively do not post non-review non-scenario related topics within the review system. Again, these type of postings will be deleted without so much as a "by your leave, you're deleted, mate!".

I'm still waiting for _any_ kind of concensus. I see we have at least a dozen opinions, pretty much all numeric-based (which I believe I stated that it was my preference to not implement. Once I wrap up building a shopping cart system for a paying client (within 2 to 3 weeks), I'll be turning my full attention to this task. In the mean time, I'd like to remind people of my set of criteria. The rating system should be either text-based (Excellent, Good, Average, Poor, Abominable), or graphic-based (1 to 5 stars). The rating system must non-cumulative, i.e., each review stands on its own merits and does not contribute to an overall rating. Therefore, any values associated with any aspect of the rating system _must_ be self-explanatory and understandable by any reviewer. Authors should be deciding what aspects (map design, force balance, PBEMability) of a scenario they want rated, as well as the values (as above) for each of the aspects. What should be done about historical reviews/ratings? I also like WWB's idea on page 1 regarding the "I played this scenario...". That's definitely going in. In the mean time, i'm continuing to read everyone's input...please continue to do so, but everyone needs to start agreeing on a final format. Lastly, when this new review system is finished being implemented, authors and players must necessarily be able to accept whatever reviews are posted; good, bad, and indifferent reviews will need to stand as posted regardless of the perceived intent, intellect, or integrity of the reviewer.

I need a little help ID'ing these flags: Flag 1 Flag 2

I need a little help ID'ing these flags: Flag 1 Flag 2

AAR's are already implemented. There is an AAR button beneath the Review Average Ratings column. This button will pop up an AAR screen, where you can read and submit detailed AAR's. A few people actually use them, as shown in the indeces AAR column. People _should_ be placing detailed information in this section, as opposed to including the in the reviews. Such is not always the case. Implementing a feature where the "I Liked It!" or 1 - 5 rating is displayed along with a "Read More About It" link is easily done. The link would then popup the textual review, if one was submitted. How many will then complain about "Awww, I gotta click a billion links to read the reviews. Fix It!". Who was it that mentioned something about pleasing all the people all the time?

I probably shouldn't throw any more fuel on the fire, but what about a system which allows the author to select whether they want just textual reviews, just numerical reviews or both for a particular scenario. This would enable the author to have ultimate control over the nature of the feedback. In addition, they could select whether they wanted each review to stand on its own, or have any numerical values accumulated into an aggregate value which would have no relationship to any other values associated with other scenarios. Thus, if an author chose to aggregate and average numerical review values for a single scenario he was fine tuning, any numerical value (10, 8, 5, 1) would only have weight against _that_ scenario, and have no wirght against any other scenario comparably valued. At any point, the author would then be able to deactivate the numeric system for that scenario, relying only on textual reviews. Lastly, an author could simply deactivate the numeric and textual review system altogether, and only use The Scenario Depot as a file host. This is actually fairly easy to implement in a couple of solid 8 hour days of work. Opinions...

By the by, any registration system which forces people to log in may potentially break direct links to scenarios. A fine point of this topic is: What kind of system do people want implemented? Do you want: 1) a system that requires login to view/post for the entire site? 2) a system which allows view only of the scenario synopsis, allows anonymous downloading of the scenario file, but requires login to post reviews? 3) a system which allows view only of the scenario synopsis, but requires login to download files and post reviews? IP tracking is a definite yes.

Historicality and Size search criteria are already in place for CMBB and CMAK Battles. Size is already in place for CMBO Battles, as well as CMBO/CMBB/CMAK Operations, but it seems as I somehow left off Historicality. I'll pop that in whilst I am under the hood. The Lists will definitely undergo some kind of revision. What that revision is remains to be seen. I agree...Steve/Matt/Moon; any chance of this happening?

OT - For those that care... The handle I use pretty much everywhere is one that was _given_ to me by my Star Fleet Battles group. Ahhh, SFB, now there's a thinking man's game. I predominantly played Klingons, and was moderately good. On two different non-tournament occassions I managed to beat supposed Rated Aces without breaking a sweat. On another occassion, I successfully captured a Lyran Starbase without firing a shot in anger. Yes, I have reliable witnesses. So, the "rank" is not so much wet navy rank as it is fictional callsign (which are given, not taken) than anything else. Back to the debate...

I have been keeping a close eye on the thread (in my spare few microseconds). I am at once amazed and gratified at the passion being displayed by the participants. However, everyone still seems hung up on developing an aggregating numeric-based system. I am increasingly adverse to the implementation of any kind of system which can be subverted or corrupted. Everyone needs to look at all of the suggestions being made and decide how they themselves could potentially use the system to their advantage. Therein lie the future "The SD is Broken" threads. I am still leaning towards Jeff Weatherspoon's 1-5 system, along with the series of checkboxes and textual review. I would prefer to see suggestions on how this could be expanded and made more informative or detailed without adding too much more complexity. Anything too complex will: A) Be more difficult to code, Cause players to not submit reviews, and C) End up being re-written a year down the road. Changes that _will_ be made are as follows: 1) Remove the Awards line - Maybe re-implement at a future date with better graphics. 2) Change the location of the download link - Some players have difficuly in locating this link. 3) Add the capability to search for vs. AI, and PBEM battles. 4) Add A PayPal donation link. Changes that will not be made are any system which attempts to rank scenarios against each other. This is an obviously failed system that, once you think about it, is invalid. Each scenario needs to stand on it's own merit. Ranking a 10,000 point historical scenario against a 500 point fictional Byte Battle just doesn't make sense. Therefore this system is seeing it's last days. In addition, how do the authors want to handle historical rankings? Simply archive the lot and start fresh? Leave them in place as is and ignore them for future ratings? This aspect needs to be handled in a logical and simple fashion, plus not invalidate the effort everyone has put into placing reviews over the past couple of years. In summary, the aggregating numeric system is soon to go the way of the Dodo. Let us concentrate our design efforts to a more simple and effective system. Once again, there must be a concensus, first from the authors, and then from the players, on how the system is going to work. This board system has the capability to post polls. Perhaps we can beg/wheedle/cajole MaddMatt into activating that feature for a one-time vote.

spookster, Excellent ideas all around. I think the Cabal concept desreves further exploration. I can foresee potential issues with regards to politics and existing affilliations of authors with current design groups. All of these will need to be addressed within this forum. Others have also mentioned a star-based rating system. However, unless the methodology by which reviewers post values is uncorruptable, then it will eventually face the same issues in a year's time. Prior to me putting one byte of code into place, I want as many authors to contribute to this thread as possible. Contibute ideas and methodologies. Those of us that can code, at least try to put authors' ideas into logical sequences (if-elseif-else-then, do-while, switch type statements) that I'll be able to quickly translate in PHP/MySQL. I want as large a concensus as possible before work begins. I have also had the idea put forth to me regarding moderators. Each moderator would be responsible for keeping an eye on various sections (CMBO/CMBB/CMAK/Authors) and notifying me when issues arise. If they are proficient in PHP/MySQL, then I would allow access to specific sections to expedite resolution of issues. Moderators would also double as problem-fixers, i.e., broken links re-associated, missing scenario authors contacted, screen captures for Previews, etc. I am also considering allowing authors to upload there own files. I have always held the opinion that by my receipt of the files, I can absolutely guarantee that the file being download by a player is safe. If we open it up to authorial upload, this introduces the capability for malicious intent; all it takes is for one virus to be uploaded. I'd like to hear opinions on this matter, as well as methodologies by which everyone can be absolutely guaranteed that the file being downloaded is safe. I am not averse to donations at this point. I have never had much faith in the contribution system; unless there is a tangible exchange of goods or services, people tend to take more than give. Cumulative contributions could change the priority under which work would be accomplished at The Scenario Depot. I could post a link to my PayPal account, if the community is willing to support this. Opinions, please.

All, I've managed to weather the initial onslaught of company conversion, so I'm taking a minute to put forth my thoughts on the subject. I would like to remind everyone that many hands contributed to the design of the existing system when it was implemented. Do a search; you'll see the reason for the current design. Thus, we will try this experiment one more time...authors and players, now is the time to voice both opinions and solutions. After much discussion with other individuals, as well as reading numerous past and present posts, I am forming the opinion that the numerical rating system must be scrapped. The reasons are: 1) Any numerical system is strictly subjective. Literally up to the whim and perspective of the person posting the review. Interpretaion of the numerical values by the reviewer, no matter how well explained, can be misinterpretted or ignored. Therefore any system which uses a numerical system will necessarily be skewed to individual values, and it would take a large number of excessively good reviews to avarage out a single bad review. 2) Numerical systems can be abused. Several people have pointed out that numerous scenarios are receiving inordinate scores based on whatever clique happens to be rating them. This unfairly affects groups of scenarios over individual designers. 3) Anonymity. Reviews are being posted by everybody and their brother under the assumption that they are anonymous. Therefore reviews and ratings were being posted which did not truly reflect the true value of a particular scenario. I am leaning toward implementing a system similar to the one mentioned by jwxspoon. These values would not be accumulate into any kind of total. Each review would need to stand on its own. Therefore reviews which simply stated "It sucks" can be mentally eliminated by the reader. I am strongly considering making The Scenario Depot a registration/login-based site. No more anonymous posting of reviews. If you post a review which seems out of touch with the other reviews and do not give valid reasons for your review, then the author will have the capability to contact you. You can then work out amongst yourselves. The Lists, while a decent idea at the time, have become so badly abused by inflated ratings as to become useless. The Lists will be modified to no longer include the numerical values. Instead, I am strongly considering simply showing statistics such as Top 25 Downloads (Total, Past Month, Past Quarter, Past Year). I would like to hear what other non-rating releated statictics authors would be interested in seeing. Keep in mind that any statistic-based information would start fresh from day of implementation; there is no method by which I can determine historical values. In the short term, I'll be finishing the CMAK submission and search pages before release, plus some other tasks. Be aware that I am also working on web sites for paying clients, so they necessarily get the bulk of my time. It's still going to take a few more days here at my day job to conduct damage control for the changes we've made, so I'll respond as often as time permits. I would be interested in chatting with anyone who has PHP/MySQL experience who would want to assist in these tasks. Email me directly, please, if you are interested. Lastly, if you are simply going to say "It's broken, fix it!", then the door is over there. I'm tired of people complaining, yet never offering any sort of assistance. If you are going to say "It's broken, and here are some real world methods by which it can be fixed with which everyone will be made happy.", then I'm all ears.

All, The recently-acquired company for whom I work is gearing up for a major changeover to their new identity on 11.30.03 (yep, I get to work on Sunday). I'm pretty much wall-to-wall with regards to time until then. I'll respond to any points made here in detail after this weekend.

All, I'm definitely open to new ideas on how we can: 1) Improve or modify the rating system 2) Elicit more reviews from players 3) Elicit more constructive reviews from players However, right now I'm elbow-deep in my 10-hour-per-day day job, building two complete websites for paying clients, and remodeling the bathroom. I haven't even made beer in the last 3 months. Therefore, any code-based suggestions to modify The Scenario Depot may need to wait until the beginning of next year to implement. That said, it needs to be remembered that each reviewer is unique. Everyone is going to have a different perspective on the value of any aspect of a scenario. That's why one reviewer will rate a scenario all 10's, while another may rate the same scenario all 1's. When reading reviews, the reader must take into account numerous factors, including: 1) Does the reviewer consistently rate every scenario they review low or high, or do they actually rate each scenario on its own merits? 2) Does the reviewer provide credible and constructive feedback, or do they simply post the numeric values and leave it at that? What needs to occur is for everyone, authors and players alike, to engage in debate and agree upon a comprehensive and reliable method by which scenarios can be reviewed/rated...and I mean a step-by-step "Here are the values on the form which the reviewer fills out, and here is how these values interact with each other to form a consistent rating." The new system must also include methods by which authors and players can encourage other players to constructively review scenarios. I do not want to get into coding a system upon with which few will agree, and reviewers won't use. Something else which must be considered is what to do with the old ratings/reviews. Integrate them or discard them? If integrate, there must be either a volunteer to collate the data and resolve it to the new system, or some automated method to include the ratings/reviews...or just simply attach them as archive material. The Scenario Depot is for you guys...the players and the authors. You need to tell me what you need, but you also need to help in describing how it can be accomplished.

Yep, the Author Bio option appears to be inoperative. Somehow in my over-worked, sleep-deprived, lack-of-beer, too-many-irons-in-the-fire daily activities I must have commented out some code. I'll add it back in by 11.17.03.

Just tested it...seems OK to me. Could be intermittant line outages between servers. I usually test by FTP, HTTP, and accessing my mail. I have been seeing intermittant HTTP outtages, but the FTP access is still there, so there may be some other wierdness going on. Non the nonce, I'm still backing up the database twice per day. [ October 03, 2003, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: Admiral Keth ]

Sincerest apologies. Link fixed.

OK, looks like we are back up...without so much as a "By your leave, we're futzing with the servers, Mate." At any rate, I'll be performing twice per day backups of the database. If you notice anything quirky about The Scenario Depot, email me and I'll get my webhost on it. Apologies for the inconvenience.

Looks like my webhost is performing some unannounced upgrades to the MySQL database. Everybody be patient whilst I browbeat them.

Uploaded and linked. Enjoy!