Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About flammenwerfer

  • Rank
    Senior Member


  • Interests
    photography, coffee
  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Looking for this battle- Arracourt- which I designed way back when.... Was available at the Scenario Depot I. Thanks
  2. Yes, several times. :confused: Harry- COuld you send it to me. petercerda@earthlink.net Thanks [ January 08, 2006, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: Flammenwerfer ]
  3. Having problems after unziping...Error message- cannot open file; does not appear to be a valid archive. ???
  4. Keith, If you are around and not too busy please contact me, as I'm having trouble getting into the Depot. petercerda@earthlink.net Thanks.
  5. What about using the old system with a challenge provision, allowing scenario authors to 'challenge' any review that is trollish or did not follow the battle guidlines, for example. Also, reviewers would give an overall score from 1-10 which would be culmative. I think we should keep things as simple as possible, for the reviewer.
  6. I commend the Admiral for his hard work and for his superb site, but I still prefer the old system. The bullet scores combined with a scarcity of reviews has made battles indistinguishable, as some of us predicted. [ October 22, 2004, 05:43 AM: Message edited by: Flammenwerfer ]
  7. Admiral- Does this mean there will be no lists? Thanks. [ January 12, 2004, 08:30 AM: Message edited by: Flammenwerfer ]
  8. Spookster I apologize for the snippiness. I meant to say, incorrect IMHO. Though I stand by what I said. How do we define A 'quality' reviewer? One that gives high scores for the battles you like or writes eloquent remarks, or writes a review every weekend. You say one that is more dedicated..Trolls are very dedicated, with a complex system you'll get the very motivated from both sides of the spectrum. Let's avoid this can of worms and just say that all reviews and opinions are valid. I agree with you that we need to increase the number of reviews made at the SD. I dont think a
  9. The rationale is very clear. If you're troubled by the terms, then just go by the numbers. Would you rather go out with a girl who is a '9' or a '6'. [ January 10, 2004, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: Flammenwerfer ]
  10. I agree the lower end of the spectrum is not very important, discriminating between the abysmal and the poor is not the issue, what is important is determing what is simply good from what is great. A 5 point system, in effect is a 3 point system and will lump everything together. Keep in mind a scenarios 'score' is an aggregate of several reviews. Wrong. The quality of the reviewer cannot be controlled for, our task is the system. [ December 22, 2003, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: Flammenwerfer ]
  11. Would you please elaborate. A broader scale provides more discrimination and the ability to assess differences. What provides more information- Do you like? Yes or No Vs. Like Very Much, Like Somewhat, Do Not Like). [ December 22, 2003, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: Flammenwerfer ]
  12. If anyone is still listening, this is my proposal- 10- Exceptional 9- Very Good 8- Good 7- Above Average 6- Average 5- Mediocre 4- Poor 3- Very Poor An overall score with written comments for scenario reviews. Also, the first step in the review process would be this Question: How did you first play the Scenario? 1- Axis vs. AI 2- Allied vs. AI 2- 2 player If the above response does not match the Designers recomendation(s), then the numeric review will not count, only the written comments. This info will also be used to create top 10 list for AI/2 player ba
  13. Uh... it should look like a snake that swallowed a large rat. The average should be the majority. All increasing the range does is increase its vagueness </font>
  • Create New...