Unbalanced VP parameters ruining otherwise great scenarios.

[Sulman]

6 hours ago, Lethaface said:

I do remember the last UKR mission, I think it was won but at heavy cost.

You're not wrong. I did that most recently. It's only four missions and I think I got Total Victory (Red surrender), Draw, Minor Victory (terrific Platoon sized fight), Draw for a campaign win. Missions 2 and 4 were like a bucket of cold water, but I can say that I had fun and the maps were works of art. That last one is a 3hr epic that needed some retries from me until I figured out the puzzle (some of the harder ones do take the form of a puzzle where one has to find a working strategy). I actually have similar challenges in CMBS as CMBN due to the preponderance of regular or green infantry - they are hesitant to fight unless conditions are ideal.

 

6 hours ago, Lethaface said:

Courage & fortitude is a very, very, hard campaign IIRC. Perhaps changes to the engine made it harder compared to when it was designed? I wouldn't hold the difficulty of that as indicative for other campaigns in CMBN. 

I keep going back to it like a battered spouse Some of it is the realism of the simulation - mounted MG42s should be dangerous over open ground but where I notice a difference is the 'stickiness' of the defenders. You have to clobber them, and when defense-in-depth is modeled (and it usually is) I really struggle to take objectives. I miss that immediate organic support of an AFV you have in the modern games, especially for open-ground dashes.

I did try the first mission of the 'Scottish Corridor' which was absolutely exhilarating to play. Those scenarios are what keep me coming back to CM2. Beautiful map and well balanced forces. I got a tactical defeat first time out (only took 1/2 of objectives) but had an absolute hoot.

[Combatintman]

23 hours ago, Zveroboy1 said:

These are helpful and very good guidelines no doubt. But personally I can't help but think that expecting this level of work and testing in particular for amateur scenario designers is both unrealistic and in the end also counter-productive. For me it is one of the reasons why we have so few community made scenarios being released these days. The expectations and standards have become way too high.

And what this does is just create more hurdles for aspiring scenario designers. I mean put yourself in the shoes of say someone who just bought the game on Steam and wanted to give scenario design a try for fun. Chances are they are going to read this and just become disheartened and most likely give up, never publishing their work because they deem it is not good enough, leaving us with just a handful of scenario designers co-opted by Battlefront and barely anything else on the side.

I actually strongly push for the opposite approach myself. Simpler scenarios with less work involved. We want to foster more community based content and not require someone to spend 6 months or more working on a scenario. Maybe this is appropriate for an official Battlefront scenario but it should never be what's expected of an amateur scenario in my opinion.

I remember fondly the days of CM1 and also SF1 to some extent, and this is not just nostalgia talking here, where you had hundreds of scenarios being published over the years by the average joe. Maybe someone who never published anything else but had a cool idea, worked on it a little bit in their spare time and shared the result with the community. A lot more people seemed to take a crack at it back then. They just fiddled with the editor and posted the results for other people to play and enjoy.

Were all these scenarios good? No of course not. Most of them were really lacking in one area or the other, some were disappointing or just sloppy. But in the end we had way more content available to play.

 

 

 

 

 

We clearly disagree then - I don't see running five tests as particularly onerous, particularly as there are other things to look out for to ensure that the mission is polished.  Although I make scenarios for Battlefront, I've only made five and reworked one for various CM titles which is far fewer than the number of scenarios that I have knocked out for the community.  I am not a professional and I learned how to do this by reading the manual, experimenting in the editor, picking up incidental tips on threads such as these and occasionally reaching out to people via PM such as @George MC.

Making good scenarios is not difficult and if you are going to invest time in creating the map, and programming the AI, which generally are the largest time soaks, it seems strange to me that a designer would then think, "b0110cks I can't be bothered testing it more than once."

To close, remember that the OP is complaining that victory conditions are perhaps overly punitive - I agree that this can be the case which is why I set my scenario design mindset with the player very much in mind.  Whenever someone plays a scenario, they make a conscious choice to do so.  As a designer, I want them to come away with a positive experience and I certainly don't want them to think that they've just wasted an hour's/day's/week's worth of gaming time on a scenario that was not the best that I could possibly make it.

[Zveroboy1]

@Erwin Yes but my point is that there are probably dozens and dozens of CM players who have toyed with the editor and experimented with it in order to create something for their own use that would be perfectly fine to share with the community. I for one would be delighted to have more content to play with even if it is not of the same quality as the official Battlefront scenarios.

Because really this is probably the number one reason someone ends up publishing a scenario. They create something for their own use, to test things, explore a particular match up or a situation and then they decide "Hey maybe someone else would enjoy that too. Why not share it?" And most of the time other people do enjoy it even if it is not perfect.

 

Edited November 24, 2020 by Zveroboy1

[Sulman]

Relevant to the point of the topic, consider the following: Axis side gets 500/650 possible points for the terrain at the very back of the map it already holds. This VP allocation might make sense for the allies as they are the hardest (I actually think almost impossible, i lost nearly a full company on the main hill and had to give up as fire from the back hill was slowly killing my remaining men, long since ran out of 60mm (seriously ) support and all spotters were dead). The hill itself is a deathtrap. I'm going to have to find another way.

 

[Zveroboy1]

8 minutes ago, Combatintman said:

it seems strange to me that a designer would then think, "b0110cks I can't be bothered testing it more than once."

I don't think anyone ever said that, this is a plain straw man mate. Clearly testing it just once won't do. But there is a difference between testing it several times and expecting amateur designers to spend 6 months working on a scenario.

I strongly disagree as well because this is way too elitist an approach for me.

What you propose is a great set of guidelines for the purpose of making official Battlefront scenarios. I know that you meant well and were trying to be helpful but for the average aspiring scenario designer it is simply unrealistic and detrimental to expect this kind of work and it is setting the bar way too high.

If you have been reading the forums for a long time, you're bound to have noticed the number of people who regularly post in a thread about an idea they had, who started working on it in the editor and never finished it. Or at least never published their work. You know it is something that happens a lot. The way I see it, we should encourage these people to release their work.

Again I know you meant well but when you basically say "if you don't go to these lengths then you fail at scenario design" that just contributes to the problem imo.

I guess it is a matter of quantity vs quality in a way. But personally I'd rather have a lot more community content available even if it is not of the highest standard than the situation we have now where it is barely a handful of published scenarios per year for each game.

 

 

[MikeyD]

I tend to take victory point scores with a grain of salt. After the battle the victory screen tells me how many men died and how many survived. Whether I was awarded 500 or 5000 points for my efforts is beside the point. I've mention before that seem to be (at least) two types of player. The 'immersion' player and the 'play to win' player. Points totals are very important to the 'play to win' types. Immersion types got all the gratification they needed just being outside a village on a moonlit night watching the tracers fly overhead.

[Sulman]

2 hours ago, MikeyD said:

I tend to take victory point scores with a grain of salt. After the battle the victory screen tells me how many men died and how many survived. Whether I was awarded 500 or 5000 points for my efforts is beside the point. I've mention before that seem to be (at least) two types of player. The 'immersion' player and the 'play to win' player. Points totals are very important to the 'play to win' types. Immersion types got all the gratification they needed just being outside a village on a moonlit night watching the tracers fly overhead.

I disagree only to the extent that points can determine whether you progress in a campaign, and as such they're pretty important. Outside of that, I'm all about the playing experience. I wouldn't have tried some of these maps a half-dozen times If I wasn't!

[Erwin]

2 hours ago, Zveroboy1 said:

for the average aspiring scenario designer it is simply unrealistic and detrimental to expect this kind of work and it is setting the bar way too high.

The challenge is that newer "comers" to the game may accept a lower standard as it's all so new and exciting for them, but longtime players who know the game inside out need more polished content.  

It's the same for any entertainment product.  Anybody can make a movie, but it's tiresome to watch a poor production when one is used to seeing better.  Or any artist who expects their first works to be praised.  The "average" is not good enuff other than when learning to become more polished content.  But, then one needs to have your game tested by one's mates and volunteers so as to find out where it falls short and so one can rectify.  

Am reminded about the criticism made vs millenials and "Z" generations - they expect a prize and pat on the back even for mediocre work - just for making the effort.  That may work at school... but not in RL.  Playing a CM2 game often requires a significant commitment of time.  It's tiresome (unless one is playtesting of course) to waste several hours only to realize the scenario doesn't work.

Everyone started somewhere.  The best designers committed many hours to learn the editor and then created memorable work.

 

[Zveroboy1]

45 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Am reminded about the criticism made vs millenials and "Z" generations - they expect a prize and pat on the back even for mediocre work - just for making the effort.  That may work at school... but not in RL. 

I am neither a millennial nor gen Z, no one is expecting a cookie or a pat on the back. I just wish there was more scenarios available to play and trying to encourage new people to contribute and post their work. That is all. 

And knowing how long it takes to design a scenario and how victory conditions is the last step in the process, I personally tend to not look a gift horse in the mouth too much.  Because before you can do VP calculations, you first have to do some research on the battle you want to portray, work on the map and this part alone can take several months, then worry about units placement, then AI plans. And by this stage you have already playtested the battle 3-4 times easily to make sure the AI does more or less what you want and that the balance is right for each plan. Now on top of it you have to conduct more tests for VPs. This is usually the point where it stops being fun and can easily become a chore.

Then there is the elephant in the room. Except in a handful of lucky cases, there is almost zero feedback when a scenario is published.

So yeah personally I am not going to be too picky if everything else is good and polished and the last stage is slightly less so.

46 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Playing a CM2 game often requires a significant commitment of time.  It's tiresome (unless one is playtesting of course) to waste several hours only to realize the scenario doesn't work.

Frankly I find the role reversal here a bit disturbing. Someone goes out their way to flesh out something they have been working on in their spare time for free and that took weeks if not months to finish, posts it for the community to enjoy and you are worried that they might waste -your- time? Sorry but this is taking the piss.

Again this attitude is imo one of the reasons why we have only a trickle of new scenarios published.

It is my conviction that the community has become too demanding and it has a stifling effect. In other words if we have less community made scenarios it is not only because creating scenarios is harder or because lots of designers got co-opted by Battlefront. It is also because lots of people who before did release their work don't do it any more. Right now I bet there are probably hundreds of scenarios or pet projects sitting on people's hard drives in various states of completion. Almost none of them would make the cut or see the light of the day because they don't meet the ever increasing quality standards.

1 hour ago, Erwin said:

Everyone started somewhere.  The best designers committed many hours to learn the editor and then created memorable work.

People can not improve and get better at their craft if the expectations are so high that they never get started in the first place though.

Now I realise the OP was talking about an official battlefront scenario so this is probably off topic and doesn't even apply to the situation at hand and I apologize for the long rant. Besides I have already tried to get my point across as best as I could so instead of just repeating myself I'll take a rain check.

 

[MikeyD]

A number of scenarios are designed without a built-in 'solution'. You're presented with a tactical problem and the tools you'd likely get to accomplish the task in the real world. Your task isn't to find 'the right' way to win, just to find 'a' way to win. When I put together 'Riva Ridge' for Rome to Victory I put allies on one side of a mountain ridge, Axis on the other, and had them fight for the peak. I had no specific tactical solution in mind. That bit's up to you.

I do cringe when new players announce "I'm going to build a historically accurate downtown Antwerp and have two battalions fight it out!" Oooooh, no no no. I can guarantee the map will never get finished. You don't jump from getting your learner's permit to immediately racing in the Grand Prix. Your first scenario? Make it MUCH smaller, make it MUCH simpler, and do it for fun. Its not a dissertation for a PhD in military history, you won't be graded on it, its just a pleasant way to pass an afternoon. There are no stakes so just relax and enjoy yourself.

[Erwin]

8 hours ago, Zveroboy1 said:

Someone goes out their way to flesh out something they have been working on in their spare time for free and that took weeks if not months to finish, posts it for the community to enjoy and you are worried that they might waste -your- time?

Don't forget that many of us spend a large amount of time as playtesters.  I have spent literally hundreds of hours playtesting a single scenario because the designer had already done even more work to create an xnt scenario that made it worthwhile to spend that much time assisting to make it even better.  I have also playtested for designers who didn't do the work required (and were somewhat unappreciative of the feedback).

8 hours ago, Zveroboy1 said:

It is my conviction that the community has become too demanding and it has a stifling effect.

The "community" is very demanding and has always been that way.  That demand for higher quality has probably increased as the price to own all the games increased from the $30-$40 range for CM1 games back in 2020, to what must be around $500 if one currently owns all the CM2 games and modules (and updates) etc.  And that only gives us 1943-1945.  Customer expectations are higher as the skill set of the best designers has increased and we have come to expect better quality - or boredom sets in and folks leave the "community".  That is the competition.  

Assuming the talent exists, one cant expect to be in the Olympics if one isn't prepared to do the work.

Edited November 24, 2020 by Erwin

[SimpleSimon]

33 minutes ago, Erwin said:

The "community" is very demanding and has always been that way. 

One glance at the DCS forums reveals a similarly demanding "community". People want to be in charge of development and will have to just settle for the fact that they aren't. If guys wanna see the glass half empty they always will. I don't blame customers for continuously pushing for better products, as long as they understand that necessarily requires higher costs in development that they should be prepared to pay especially to an independent developer like Battlefront. A little bit of self-teaching goes a long way though, and my mileage from the games has been greatly extended by teaching myself the capabilities of the mission editor and AI plans. The engine's peer competition is not Graviteam or Steel Division (of which I have plenty to say about both) to me but still Advanced Squad Leader and the whole generation of hex-based wargames that influenced it decades ago. 

If Battlefront has made any mistakes, it seems to me like jobbing out scenario and campaign design to the community is one. Some of the base scenarios in the games are either badly researched or over-scripted or both. There's way too much fixation on painstaking set-piece battles and scripted encounters "I read in a cool book" etc. The Mission Editor is a valuable insurance policy against that and for me it's more than adequate  but it takes some know-how and self teaching and the resources for that are sort of thin and it's not going to be suitable for everyone. 

I suppose a defense could be made of this in that it saves time and enables modules to be shipped with a lot of variety in out-of-the-box scenarios and campaigns. It's a good defense too, but i'm reaching a bit of an unhealthy burn-out point in my engagement with the games where i'm rather distrustful of briefings and suggestions from the designers. 

 

[MikeyD]

Is the CM community all that demanding on 3rd party scenarios, though? They'll rake an undeserving title release scenario over the coals but they're usually appreciative of a civilian's efforts from out in the CM gamerverse. The usual complaint is 3rd party scenarios get no feedback at all - even for the good ones. 

One problem with recreating meticulously researched historical engagements is the disappointment factor when the results don't match history. When that AT gun that famously held off the assault dies on the first turn, or Wittmann's Tiger gets immobilized on muddy ground at the far end of the map.

Edited November 24, 2020 by MikeyD

[Glubokii Boy]

17 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

Is the CM community all that demanding on 3rd party scenarios, though? They'll rake an undeserving title release scenario over the coals but they're usually appreciative of a civilian's efforts from out in the CM gamerverse. The usual complaint is 3rd party scenarios get no feedback at all - even for the good ones. 

Yepp...this is fully correct imo...

Part of the problem is that the new designers puts to much preasure on them self...to provide stuff that atleast vaguely resemblence the quality of the stock scenarios and stuff made by the community veterans..

I don't think it is so much the community that demands top quality stuff from the newbies...but rather they themself.

The result is the same though...few simpler scenarious are being made...as we are well aware...

The preasure to deliver higher quality stuff is no doubt there...but from who...? and how to find a way around it...?

 

[MikeyD]

People would laugh at how I put together scenarios. They usually start out as a brainless test scenario. If I have more fun with it than I ought I'll enlarge the map and add some building clusters. Then I reverse-engineer a backstory. My brainless random scenario become a fight in the foothills of the Alps the day before the end of the war. My random Blue force become forward elements of the First Armored Division out of Verona and my random Red force becomes members of Army Group Liguria. So the scenario-making sequence of events is fun / tactical situation / historical context / force specifics. Not the other way around.

[SimpleSimon]

17 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

People would laugh at how I put together scenarios. They usually start out as a brainless test scenario. If I have more fun with it than I ought I'll enlarge the map and add some building clusters. Then I reverse-engineer a backstory. My brainless random scenario become a fight in the foothills of the Alps the day before the end of the war. My random Blue force become forward elements of the First Armored Division out of Verona and my random Red force becomes members of Army Group Liguria. So the scenario-making sequence of events is fun / tactical situation / historical context / force specifics. Not the other way around.

I take your method quite seriously MikeyD, and I believe it pays off. I just think that what you might not realize is that your notion of fun sounds quite a bit like my notion of intuitive. Bet if you name some scenarios you've designed, they'll generally be the ones I have positive memories of or have found no need to rework or edit. 

Unfortunately it seems like a lot of guys are using an inverted version or your construction here, which goes like "start with an order of battle / read one account / profit????" 

Edited November 24, 2020 by SimpleSimon

[Lethaface]

1 hour ago, SimpleSimon said:

I take your method quite seriously MikeyD, and I believe it pays off. I just think that what you might not realize is that your notion of fun sounds quite a bit like my notion of intuitive. Bet if you name some scenarios you've designed, they'll generally be the ones I have positive memories of or have found no need to rework or edit. 

Unfortunately it seems like a lot of guys are using an inverted version or your construction here, which goes like "start with an order of battle / read one account / profit????" 

Well there's always plenty of ways to skin a cat. I can imagine people reading / learning about a battle and getting excited to recreate it in the CM editor. Of course that by itself is not a guarantee for a 'fun' scenario. Different people float different boats, so there might be people who feel that historical accuracy is more important than playability. Etc etc.
While I started playing CM with CMSF, pretty exclusively in RT. Over time and with more CMx2 games, PBEMs and larger scenario's I mostly switched to WeGo. However, now and then I go back to RealTime and it is often much fun. Getting into interesting situations mainly because I couldn't pay attention everywhere. Finding a couple of remains of what was once a defense, fighting a heroic last stand and succeeding to hold their ground kind of stuff.

So, I guess the main point I was trying to make was that what is fun is different for people. I might feel similar with regards to what I like, but there's plenty of otha fish in the sea ;-).

[Glubokii Boy]

1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

People would laugh at how I put together scenarios. They usually start out as a brainless test scenario. If I have more fun with it than I ought I'll enlarge the map and add some building clusters. Then I reverse-engineer a backstory. My brainless random scenario become a fight in the foothills of the Alps the day before the end of the war. My random Blue force become forward elements of the First Armored Division out of Verona and my random Red force becomes members of Army Group Liguria. So the scenario-making sequence of events is fun / tactical situation / historical context / force specifics. Not the other way around.

I think many Cm:ers do simular things, including me, and enjoy their results...In private...

But then the old release monster shows its uggly face and those scenarios gets tucked away somewhere on the harddrive...Never to be seen again...

It is one thing to design a scenario for only your own pleasure but quite something different to design something for others to enjoy...eventhough nobody needs to pay for community scenarios/campaigns...

I think it is quite natural that designers want to do their best...when others are to experience their work...and therefore perhaps aiming to high...

 

[Zveroboy1]

On 11/24/2020 at 2:38 PM, Erwin said:

Assuming the talent exists, one cant expect to be in the Olympics if one isn't prepared to do the work.

No offence but I think you clearly got pretty hung up on my elitist comment and as a result you're completely missing the point.

This isn't what this is about at all. It is about encouraging more people to play with the editor and publish their work. I have no idea where you got this idea in your head that this was in any way related to a "competition".

[Erwin]

On 11/23/2020 at 5:52 PM, Zveroboy1 said:

I for one would be delighted to have more content to play with even if it is not of the same quality as the official Battlefront scenarios.

Because really this is probably the number one reason someone ends up publishing a scenario. They create something for their own use, to test things, explore a particular match up or a situation and then they decide "Hey maybe someone else would enjoy that too. Why not share it?" And most of the time other people do enjoy it even if it is not perfect.

You made this statement and it's fine.  There is nothing to stop anyone from designing a scenario and making it available to the community.

However... There is the implication that even a mediocre offering should be played and applauded and the chap given a pat on the back and no criticism should be made.  The reality is that because there are good scenarios already available, it is unlikely that many will want to commit time to playing a mediocre game when they have a large choice of better content. 

The best approach is go ahead and design whatever is desired, and by all means release it as well.  However, it is simply unrealistic to expect that a work that cannot compete with the better offerings that are already available will receive much appreciation.  

[Lethaface]

3 hours ago, Erwin said:

You made this statement and it's fine.  There is nothing to stop anyone from designing a scenario and making it available to the community.

However... There is the implication that even a mediocre offering should be played and applauded and the chap given a pat on the back and no criticism should be made.  The reality is that because there are good scenarios already available, it is unlikely that many will want to commit time to playing a mediocre game when they have a large choice of better content. 

The best approach is go ahead and design whatever is desired, and by all means release it as well.  However, it is simply unrealistic to expect that a work that cannot compete with the better offerings that are already available will receive much appreciation.  

Social customs differ among people, cultures and probably planets. Also, not all scenario's are created equal  , but that doesn't mean that one can't have fun with 'lesser' ones.

I think that @Zveroboy1 says, although less direct, that the way some people (including you here) talk about 'lesser' scenario's might make people, who created something for fun, feel less enthusiastic about sharing their stuff. And that that's not helping more people into becoming interested in scenario design and sharing among the community.
Criticism can be worded in many different ways.

[Erwin]

33 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

...that doesn't mean that one can't have fun with 'lesser' ones.

Of course different folks have different tastes.  However, my impression was that the complaint was that folks critiqued the "lesser" (for want of another word), scenarios and/or didn't give the praise that the designer felt was deserved.  If one needs that affirmation it's best to have one's mum play the scenario. 

The fact is that we now have 13 years of evolution of CM2 scenarios and campaigns so that the experienced designers have become very good.  Yes, that makes it hard for newbies to compete.  However, while many xnt designers (and modders) drop away after a few years, every generation of players still produces new great designers and modders regardless.  

However, few have that talent and devotion.  So, am firmly in the camp that we should expect to pay BF to produce well-tested scenarios and campaigns in add-on modules.

Edited November 26, 2020 by Erwin

[Glubokii Boy]

New designers no doubt have a steep hill to climb before seeing the sunny side...

First they need to learn the editor...next step is to design a scenario...after that comes playtesting...ALONE in most cases i belive...and then when they have finally finished their work and release their scenario...SILENCE ! 

It is unfortunatelly not uncommon that these releasethreads recieves no comments at all...at best a few thankyou...

They get no feedback when designing the scenario because of a lack of playtesters..and no feedback after the scenario has been released either.

I belive that most of us forum members are guilty of this lack of feedback to help new designers...they are pretty much on their own...

Some people will have what it takes to ignore this silence and keep on designing more and more scenarios...getting better and better and finally getting accepted as good designers...but many will not...

Working for several months and then not getting a single comment...has to be less then inspiering.

Ones you have established yourself as a skilled scenario designer...playtesters  are willing to sign up and plenty of comments will be recieved after release as well...but if you are a scenariodesigner just starting out...you dont get that....making scenariodesigning less rewarding.

If we as a community cant get more of feedback going i dont think we will ever see more scenarios being released.

 

 

 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

On 11/21/2020 at 6:43 PM, Sulman said:

I take the point about collateral damage, but there's some places where it's prohibitive. CMSF2's 'into the valley' is a perfect example. Good luck taking out the plethora of ATGM teams in buildings without damaging those buildings. And you have to take them out.

That seems a bit unfair, it's my understanding that ROE typically state that once a building has been identified as an enemy firing position it's fair game.

There might be good reasons for still assigning Preserve VPs to a defended location (preservation of intelligence, religious structures etc. or to represent civilians still occupying the structures), I've done so myself.....But (as I was advised by the good @Combatintman many moons ago) the designer should go to great efforts to stress these factors in his briefing so that the player can make a reasonable judgement call (I blew up whole city blocks to see how many VPs it would cost!  ).

Edited November 26, 2020 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Zveroboy1]

8 hours ago, Erwin said:

So, am firmly in the camp that we should expect to pay BF to produce well-tested scenarios and campaigns in add-on modules.

Just out of curiosity here, how do you see this working exactly?

Battlefront already struggles with the current schedule and barely manages to publish a new game every year or every other year. Granted they could in theory have people work on scenario packs in parallel. And fair enough they have done so in the past once or twice.

But in any case, this is only feasible if you assume the current official scenario designers do not already have their hands full and are not already busy working on battles or campaigns for the new games in the pipeline. And let's say they do happen to have finished their assigned jobs and their battles are ready; you would have to put them back on the virtual assembly line right away so they would basically have to do it all year long full time?

Because where else do you think these experts in the art of scenario design would come from? Perhaps there is some sort of secret untapped scenario makers travelling guild for war sims whose members ply their wares to the highest bidder across the lands? And when they hear through the grapevine that Battlefront is looking for designers, all the best and brightest will come knocking at the castle gate with offerings?

Sure I'd buy scenario packs but personally seeing as they're likely to be few and far between I'd rather rely on the community to provide extra content.