Spookster

I sincerely hope you are joking - this is suggesting that designing a new SD will take a year (CMBB is still going strong after 1 year) or that people will be bored with CMAK in just a few weeks. Don't forget we are expecting a new engine in a couple of years too.... > I hope so, too. < How many have you reviewed? > Too many to count. I'd suggest a Paypal button on the main page and those that wish to donate, can. I certainly would. I already have at the Mod Depot. > This will work. Terribly cheesy. I already thought the medals given out were silly (I've received a couple of them myself - funny, no one told me about it; I was checking the CMBO scenarios to download some of my moldy oldies with a view to updating them for CMAK and happened to notice the awards). What next - assigning fake ranks to all the scenario designers? With rank insignia and grandiose titles? Ugh. > Not sure what your argument is here? Too cheesy? Did you know that Keth has a fake rank? Yuck. Far too much potential for personality conflicts and perceived hurt feelings. This will only insure that some people feel excluded from the whole process and they will stop submitting their scenarios. I have no desire to have my own work put before a review board, frankly, and have enjoyed the feedback of "regular gamers" as well as fellow designers. > Lol. When I read the title message of this discussion above, I got the distinct impression you had contempt for the "regular" gamer ("First of all - the person posting the scenario gets the option of disabling some, none or all of the following criteria so mouth breathing morons don't rate him down on "historical accuracy" and "playable vs AI"...") My bad. > No. So if I want to put a scenario up at the depot, I have to have it voted on first by people I don't even know? No thanks. > Considered for the Cabal's recommended list. So the board is going to decide who is good enough (or not) to have their scenario even considered for simple submission? > No. The Cabal is simply to review scenarios already posted at the SD. My opinion is the more scenarios presented, the better for the community. > Yes. The cream will (and should) rise to the top on their own merits - not on what some elected board of governors has to say. > Actually, if you measuring the "top" as number of downloads, the biggest factors are "time of submission," "alphabetical order" and "ratings". Wait, though - if I donate 50 dollars or more via Paypal, do I get to be one of the Cabal? Slippery slope ahead... > That slippery slope is the basis for REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT...I think they have one of those in Canada. [since the Cabal will be discussing issues HERE - at this web site - the process is more open.] Except the ones that were never "permitted" on the depot in the first place - the ones who probably need the feedback the most. >Everyone may still upload to the depot, status quo. The current 1-10 system (or, if people are willing to pay A.Keth, another system) will still be used and posted. The Cabal is simply an extra method of reviewing new scenarios. In short, the "regular guy" can still rank the scenarios, and write a review. Scenario reviews have been far more useful to me than forum discussions. They don't happen here often enough to be useful. > Um...perhaps that would change with the Cabal. And by the way, if scenario reviews are so useful, why did you start this thread stressing a new numeric system? Why not kill the numbers and go with a straight review system? People seem not to prefer discussing scenarios here. See above - why presume they would just because "the Cabal" is going to discuss something? > Michael, I get the feeling by the way you write that you are an incredibly smug person. Why presume? Why presume that YOUR system is going to work? In regards to your system, I wrote above that it may be too complicated for the casual reviewer; you laughed my concerns away and called me "son". "Son"? How do you know that I'm not older than you or more experienced in life or have a Masters in Military History or a Ph.D. in Basket Weaving? Please, in the future, when you make your arguments, don't include words like "yuck" or "son", it reads poorly. Cheaper?? > Time is money? Right? Arguable; without detailed reviews, who is going to believe a simple bronze star/silver star/gold star system? This would make choosing even more difficult, as you now have a system in which, by definition, every one is a winner, but no one knows why. > Who's going to believe a 1-4 system? "Everyone is winner and no one knows why?" Did you read my suggestion? The Cabal will WRITE A REVIEW which will be posted at the SD. Personality conflicts will emerge no matter who is elected. > Like your personality and mine. We can only hope that members are not like-minded so as to add diversity to the review process. Irrelevant; let's move forward and not worry about BB and BO, as Berli and other point out. > "We" cannot move forward...Admiral Keth will move "forward"; we will ride upon his back. One of the ideas behind the Cabal is to lessen the load on the programmer. My opinion anyway. I'm not championing my system from post one, that was presented to generate discussion. > Your suggest was a good one...but it is refreshing to see a glint of modesty in your steely exterior. I'm glad it has, but we've taken a right hand turn firmly in the wrong direction. I think all designers and all players should have a voice in the process; nothing is broken at the depot, we just need a way of allowing those voices to be expressed more clearly. Cutting off entirely the ability of mere mortals to review, and restricting the ability of designers to upload their creations, is not going to do anything but kill off the depot entirely. > You assumed that the Cabal was going to take over for the SD when in fact it was to supplement the site. > In brief, I think the Cabal system is a good idea if people are willing to trust a group of critics to evaluate their work in a public forum. (Designers may, of course, opt out.) If this seems too personal...as it clearly does to Dorosh...then designers may opt to avoid the Cabal altogether. > Ironically, the greatest case against the Cabal is not what Dorosh wrote in criticism against the idea but HOW he wrote it. Designers may be afraid that member of the Cabal will write things like "yuck" or "turn firmly in the wrong direction" to belittle instead of inform. In which case, the Cabal is a very bad idea. > To those reading my reply, forgive my anger...some people just get under my skin. </font>

Concerns: 1) After CMBO, CMBB,the recently released CMAK, the time it will take AK et. al. (us) to design a new system, and all the time AK will take to implement the new system, will the CM craze be past its zenith. Will it be worth it for AK to put this together for FREE? 2) Should we (designers/players) pitch in $20 to a pool to aid in AK's efforts? I understand there is a "free rider" problem to this solution, but I'm willing, and I've only designed and posted five scenarios. (I've already gotten much > $20 out of the current system.) 3) All the suggestions I've read above and in other discussions do not completely address the problem of "fan boy" reporting, "hate mail" reporting (which is strongly correlated to how badly the reviewer got spanked in the scenario), and overall scenario bias (e.g. I hate city scenarios, love tank battles...etc.) Let me suggest a more modest fix to the system that a) grants the designer better feedback involves less bias c) keeps this particular message board in business d) uses the system that AK has in place. SUGGESTION Keep the SD as is, but allow scenarios to be tagged as follows: recommended (bronze star), highly recommended (silver star), elite (gold star). Where do these tags come from? People on this board. Three will be elected (using this message board) to a board of review (a Cabal) and one BACKUP. If two of three recommend a scenario, then it gets a bronze star. If two of three highly recommend a scenario it gets a silver star. If all members believe it is an elite scenario, then it gets a gold star. (Note: The Cabal could include five, seven, or more members...but this system needs DEDICATED CMers to work...can we find THREE?) For a scenario to be considered, it must be nominated by someone on the Cabal. If a scenario is considered, someone on the board (or a trusted proxy) should submit a quick review outlining weaknesses/strengths (though if the Cabal discussions are posted here, that may not be necessary.) Scenarios may be reconsidered. The elections for the board will be yearly. Memebers of the board may resign at any time between elections...the retiring (or vacationing)member and remaining members of the board will elect a replacement. A member of the Cabal may not nominate or recommend his own scenarios -- the BACKUP will vote instead. Pros: a) Good feedback for the designers. As the Cabal discusses a particular scenario on this messageboard, non-Cabal members can inject their own two cents. Keeps this message board hopping. (It seems a bit slow lately.) c) Cheaper than a re-programing the SD. d) More useful to gamers in choosing scenarios. Cons: a) Can we find three honorable and dedicated CMers for the Cabal? This system is useful for CMAK, but can we go back and use it for BB and BO? -Mike

Even with each numberic value explained in detail, complications arise in the thought process. "Causual" reviewers will likely pass. But I think we agree...we need more quality reviews than quantity. p.s. Wish I was young.

Definitely; a few of us have mentioned this now. I agree with John's points above too - I don't know that everyone rating high is a problem so much as people rating inconsistently. For me an 8 is average, for some 8 is well above average. Fair enough, but ultimately confusing. </font>

Xerxes, Good point, but I'd take it a step further. I'd ID individuals with a knack for writing useful commentary and give them special status (e.g. "Recon Critic".) For example, if you write, let's say, ten reviews and you gather a net of, say, 40 "useful" designations, you are a one star critic. (The formula, of course, would have to be worked out.) There are at least two benefits to such a system. A. Some reviewers may seek to join this elite group by improving their evaluations. Better evaluations = better feedback = ... better scenarios. B. Players will better identify the scenarios they want to play. I think after literally years of grumbling from the designers regarding the SD rating system, we have to realize that we cannot trust every reviewer to give us thoughtful feedback or give the players a fair evaluation. Let's give incentives to create an elite group of reviewers whose words carry more weight...because they earned that right. What say you?

Zap, I would take offense to your rather smug, arrogant reply, but I cannot stop laughing. Play Rambo this weekend. -Spookster

Zap, I think what Rambo is trying to say is that IF you try the Rome Invasion, and if your Axis opponent suspects that you're trying the Rome Invasion, by the end of turn four, the Axis should have conquered, Denmark, Poland and the LC AND placed at least three airfleets in the hexes south of Munich (and a HQ, since the Germans have so much $), which are in spotting range and attacking range of the "back door" French Army in the Adriatic when this army moves in for the attack. So on turn five, BLAM that French Adriatic Army is gone AND the allies have a bunch of transports floating around the Med while Paris is about to be crushed (since to pull off the Rome Invasion, you've pretty much pulled everything back from the Mag. Line to delay the fall of France.)

Terif, Well done. I've been following this board for many month, and I'm impressed with your ability as well as your sportsmanship. You are the king. Rambo, BEAT HIM! Find a way, anyway, but beat him. From what I've read above, Terif has gotten into your head, big time. He threw his units around the board, this way and that, razzle-dazzle. He owns you right now. Time to take off the saddle and put it on him! -Spookster

Pete, I think the idea is great, but it is my experience that "competitive" players (i.e. those who play to win) like to manipulate all elements of the game to maximize their ability to win. If you introduce a random element, they get flustered. That said, your idea will be a big hit among those who play for the "historic enjoyment" of the game and those who play strictly for fun. -Spookster

GJK, Good effort! Your dedication is most impressive. However, I am finding that more and more that people are not willing to give good feedback unless they really, really like a scenario, which, of course, is not the type of scenario that needs feedback. There are probably a dozen scenario designers who know their craft, the rest are either hopeless, learning or on the verge of greatness. How do you get those who know what a good scenario looks like to give feedback? Do you create a panel of "proven" designers? Or do you want players to give feedback? So many questions, so few answers. Good luck. -Spookster

Pete, Like you said, that last objection is a killer. You'd be surprised how many players are willing to cheat. That's why the most successful ladders are those that are members only (e.g. BoB) and well monitored. Good luck. -Spookster

edgars, ok...go ahead and do it. In general, we designers like to design original scenarios, not copy old ones. Believe it or not, the difficulty in designing is not learning how to use the editor - that's easy and something you can handle. The difficulty is studying a battle, recreating the map and the units and then molding the scenario so that it plays with some iota of balance. Give it a try. -Spookster

Comments? The TR System: Simple 50-200 measure that combines the SC World Ranking with a win loss percentage quantifier. Ranking component (RC): Rank 1: +100 Rank 2: +90 Rank 3: +80 Rank 4: +70 Rank 5: +60 Rank 6 - infinity: +50 Win Percentage component (WPC): [(Wins+1/2*Draws)/(Wins+Losses+Draws) * 100] Total Rating (TR): RC+WPC As you see, this rating system keeps the competitive aspects of the Ranking (one cannot beat up on lesser players to significantly improve TR), but allows an EASY to measure rating of a player's relative skill. It may also give the top 10 players reason to battle one another instead of waiting for Terif. (-; A few examples: Current Standings Generals Hq (ladder champion) 1. Terif : Won 120, Lost 0, Draw 0. TR=200 (RC=100, WPC=100) Officers Lounge (Challengers) 2. Codename Condor : Won 26, Lost 23, Draw 2. No games this month TR=143 (RC=90, WPC=.53*100=53) 3. jon_j_rambo : Won 33, Lost 25, Draw 0. TR=137 4. Sand Castle : Won 6, Lost 9, Draw 1. No games this month TR=111 5. Iron Ranger : Won 14, Lost 12, Draw 1. TR=114 Cadets bootcamp (rest of players) 6. Comrade Trapp : Won 0, Lost 7, Draw 0. No games this month TR=50 7. Cro_panzer : Won 2, Lost 9, Draw 0. No games this month TR=68 8. ArmenianBoy : Won 8, Lost 1, Draw 0. No games this month TR=139 . . .etc. An "average player" will have a TR @ 100. I'm sure the spread sheet can handle this. Comments? Bad idea? Good idea? -Spookster [ May 06, 2003, 09:59 PM: Message edited by: Spookster ]

As I've said before, these AARs are better than any Grisham novel. Thanks. [ March 20, 2003, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: Spookster ]

Most enjoyable.

Welcome Phemur, 1) Does not seem to be a problem as long as you give your source. If you go to the Scenario Depot (do a google search) you will find many ASL scenario for both BO and BB. 2) See 1) above. 3) This is usually the best place to find play-testers. The audience is fairly well educated, experienced in designing scenarios and, most importantly, good natured. Play-testers prefer that the pre-scenarios be almost "complete" and should include a detailed briefing for both sides and an overall history. One problem to finding play-testers: As enjoyable as CM:BB is, the designers populating this board are starting to drift away. There is not much action, or at least, as much action as even a few months ago. -Spookster p.s. I would help playtest, but to break my addiction to CM:BB, I smashed my disk a few weeks ago.

? Is your second post an attempt to plug your operation? Anyway, it is helpful when you (or anyone else) want(s) to search for play-testers to list a formal decription of the scenario/operation - place, time, force description, etc. If you do that "minimum" amount of work in preparation, it shows that you are serious about bringing this scenario/operation to market and, not surprisingly, people will be more likely to help you out with pting. Good luck.

I applaude the work Z has done to create the SC ladder, but D is absolutely right. The SC ladder is in desperate need of retooling. Happily, since all the games (won/loss) have been posted, a conversion to a "chess" - type ladder will be no problem. See www.tournamenthouse.com for an example of another ladder methodology. Cheers, Spookster.

"Ghosts of Radziechow" at the SD (http://ns9.super-hosts.com/~dragonlair.net/combatmission/) One problem: Author makes a point that this is a large scenario that should be played PBEM.

You're thinking of "Clash of Steel", which IMHO is the best strategic WWII game ever. If COS had updated graphics, head-to-head mode and played on Windows XP, there would be no need for SC, none at all. BF should buy the rights to COS and run with it.

Emar, Well said. Wish I still had CM:BO so I could play your operation, but my addiction to CM:BO sucked the marrow out of my life so I had to snap the disk in half. (Same with CM:BB.) Now I'm just a message board whore. p.s. Good to see people putting in the time and effort designing an operation! Glacey, I understand your point about those big guns, but historically that's what happened. Tiger tanks were blown 15 feet in the air by those shells. As far as playability is concerned, I think the operation is listed as versus AI - it should be biased in a head-to-head game. Cheers.

You're thinking of "Clash of Steel", which IMHO is the best strategic WWII game ever. If COS had updated graphics, head-to-head mode and played on Windows XP, there would be no need for SC, none at all. If you want to play COS and you are DOS-capable, then do a google search and find a free down-load. Cheers.

Many issues regarding scenario design: Here's one link on the subject. http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=002111#000000

?

Club, I see your point, but I doesn't answer my question. I know these are pretty good scenarios, but the downloads RELATIVE to other fine scenarios doesn't jive, IMHO. Who goes to the SD JUST to download two scenarios? And if he/she did, wouldn't other scenarios get some residual (or do they really say, "Hmmmm, my harddrive is too full for any other scenarios?")