Bobbaro Posted June 4, 2000 Share Posted June 4, 2000 I wonder whether a scenario site will be developed where a committee will review the proposed postings for a stamp of approval or at least review? It would be useful I think. However, I can see the reviewer's job getting onerous as we probably will have a bunch raining in for posting. Still it would be good to have some respected reviewers on a site having their say. It would also help folks less familliar with things military to have some recognised expertise comment and advise. Perhaps some subcommitees could provide some initial screensing. The say of one person should not be the final word as there is a world of room for different views. Expertise can miss or disagree and is not absolute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted June 4, 2000 Share Posted June 4, 2000 I don't know about "qualified people" but I think having a place for people to comment on a player-built scenario/operation is a really good idea. Perhaps Madmatt could include this in the CMHQ part that will house new scenarios? It could be one of those 200-word max deals, and each person (email address?) could only post about each scenario once, to keep people from turning it into a regular forum and taxing his server. I think yours is a good idea, and second it. I'd like to hear comments from webmasters out there who plan on having player-built scenario sections. Is this feasible? DjB Damn Asahi. [This message has been edited by Doug Beman (edited 06-03-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted June 4, 2000 Share Posted June 4, 2000 Oh, by "qualified people" I didn't mean anything against qualified people. I just meant that the qualified people might not be numerous enough to cover all the DIY scenarios out there, so having regular players (us Slackass Playerboys) would help fill the gap. The Asahi is sorta clouding my thinking right now. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbaro Posted June 4, 2000 Author Share Posted June 4, 2000 Well, yes "qualified" is sort of a sticky wicket. But, perhaps with a little help from some slightly less "qualified" folks the burden could be reduced. At least there may be some germ of seed here for some system. Yes, the number of scenarios would be a problem. That is the rationale behind some subcommitees for initial screening. Obviously the guys running the sites would be the ones to set up the thing and selecting from available people. They would not have to pretend to take up all available scenarios. This leaves to chance the opportunity to miss a jewel or two every now and then. I think the general public at large would probably be nominatin some and help dig out the sleepers. Perhaps via agreement among site masters the work could be distributed and there be a master location for the final cumulation of the filtering up process. As I said this only represents a seed. If it falls on stony ground so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V B Posted June 4, 2000 Share Posted June 4, 2000 Its easier to have 1 or 2 people review all scenarios then to have everyone do reviews. If you have one or two people reviewing they set a benchmark for other scenarios and fellow players can place thier beliefs on the greatness (or suckness) of the scenario due to the single reviewers constant exposure. If you folks out there are serious about having a review site I would be happy to organize with help from one or two fellow "dedicated" CM commanders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbaro Posted June 4, 2000 Author Share Posted June 4, 2000 Was not suggesting everybody, but I suspect one or two guys without help will burn out quickly, if they take on any significant part of the burden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V B Posted June 4, 2000 Share Posted June 4, 2000 No, 2 guys can handle whatever you throw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEF BUNGIS Posted June 4, 2000 Share Posted June 4, 2000 Each scenario should be play tested by at least 2 people prior to posting for download. This will work out bugs and balance issues. I understand the quick battle generator will make great battles in a short time. So the only scenarios that should be posted for download would be unusally large and complex scenarios, or historically accurate scenarios. ------------------ Better to make the wrong decision than be the sorry son of a bitch to scared to make one at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
citizen Posted June 4, 2000 Share Posted June 4, 2000 Better to have 4 different scenario sections: 1. "Balanced" scenarios that would make for "fair" PBEM games. 2. Historical scenarios 3. "Different" or "just for fun" scenarios 4. Operations There's no reason to not post any kind of scenario that someone makes. With 4 catagories, there'd be a place for every scenario to go. No need to have 2 people or a committee review scenarios. Just let the players rate the scenario after playing it (on a scale from 1-5). Once a few ratings have been compiled and averaged, you'll know how well the designer did. The TOAW scenario center goes by player ratings and that works just fine. Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echo Posted June 4, 2000 Share Posted June 4, 2000 How exactly does one become "qualified"? (sic) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEF BUNGIS Posted June 4, 2000 Share Posted June 4, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by citizen: Better to have 4 different scenario sections: 1. "Balanced" scenarios that would make for "fair" PBEM games. 2. Historical scenarios 3. "Different" or "just for fun" scenarios 4. Operations There's no reason to not post any kind of scenario that someone makes. With 4 catagories, there'd be a place for every scenario to go. No need to have 2 people or a committee review scenarios. Just let the players rate the scenario after playing it (on a scale from 1-5). Once a few ratings have been compiled and averaged, you'll know how well the designer did. The TOAW scenario center goes by player ratings and that works just fine. Matt<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm just saying that with the random battle generator, you could crank out a scenario tweeak it for a couple minutes, and post it for download. I don't think people want to download random battles when they can make one themselves. ------------------ Better to make the wrong decision than be the sorry son of a bitch to scared to make one at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V B Posted June 4, 2000 Share Posted June 4, 2000 PLayers have different opinions about how they like or dislike a scenario. The good thing about having set reviewers is that you can have players reviewers aswell. So you can use both One established that does the historical research and one that judges the likeness factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aka PanzerLeader Posted June 4, 2000 Share Posted June 4, 2000 Yup reviewers would definitely be a good idea. The battlefront section at thegamers.net needs some to review WF/EF2 usermade scenarios. 'Cos I don't want to waste my time d/loading crappy scenarios that were designed in an hour. And yes, it would be good to know which are historical and which are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danno Posted June 4, 2000 Share Posted June 4, 2000 I like the idea of having both types of reviews. Maybe one or two set, well played, well versed, qualified etc... reviewers and also a spot where the other players can leave a short review and yea or nay etc. Of course this all runs into alot of time to manage that sort of thing. btw...I like the idea of being able to add a comment about mods, new sounds etc., too. I use comments like those to decide if I spend time downloading mods or not, it really helps. ------------------ "If they are waiting for me to make the first move then I'll trick them and make my second move first." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G4A Posted June 4, 2000 Share Posted June 4, 2000 It would probably be best if a site like CMHQ set up a scenario section where any player can post a rating or short review about scenarios. The plugin/map site for Myth II is a great example at mill.bungie.org I've always found user reviews more useful than "qualified" ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted June 5, 2000 Share Posted June 5, 2000 Head over to http://toaw.thegamers.net and (TGN TOAW section) and take a look at how it is done there. Basically each scenario is rated by the players with regards to its quality vs. humans and vs. AI respectively. With the additional information given by the designer about each scenario there certainly is enough to satisfy at least my needs. M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEF BUNGIS Posted June 5, 2000 Share Posted June 5, 2000 Mad Matt: Are you following this here? What are the current plans on how to handle scenario creation, uploading and ratings for CMHQ? ------------------ Better to make the wrong decision than be the sorry son of a bitch to scared to make one at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts