Jump to content

The next CM scenario site???


Recommended Posts

I've kick started this thread off so you guys can express your opinions as to where the next CM scenario site should be.

My view is that it should be linked to the Proving Grounds. This is the natural way to go as scenario designers can get their beta scenario's well play tested before it's uploaded to the new CM scenario site. This then will help to reduce the amount of badly made scenario's that show up now and then.

GJK at the Proving Grounds has shown an interest in building a site but not for a few weeks yet due to work pressure.

There again, should there be two or more sites hosting scenario's?? :eek:

Maybe you think it shouldn't be linked to the PG site?? :rolleyes:

Post your views here! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'll give a brief summary of how I anticipate a scenario site would work/function should I do it:

1. Functionality would be close to what TPG has/does now. We wouldn't need the discussions area for each scenario but instead, have a reviews section that is displayed with the scenario listing.

2. This would be a log in system type site. Again, the *only* reason that it's controlled via log in is that scenario authors are adamant about knowing who has downloaded their wares. I can only log that if people first log into the site before downloading.

3. The big new "key" feature would be an easy export function to take a scenario from TPG to TSD. Authors will have a link for each scenario at TPG that would then present them with an encrypted text file (a scenario "card" if you will) that they can then take to TSD and do a one-click scenario upload (ok, maybe 2 clicks). The "card" would then input all the same information that they entered once pertaining to the scenarios parameters.

4. The bug-a-boo: scenario ratings. How it should be handled will be up to you guys. I know that the original SD had some issues with people - you either hated it or loved it. How can I do better? FWIW, have a look at www.boardgamegeek.com. I like the way that they do simple ratings there. It's on a curve - which I could implement. Should we have ratings on individual components of the scenario or just on the scenario as a whole? Do we really need ratings at all? Your thoughts here.

5. We can have a front page discussion board as TPG has. Authors can post notes about the new scenarios that they've posted etc.

Other features?

A "spoilers" section for more in depth discussion of individual scenarios where spoilers/AAR's can be posted?

I'm sure it will come up - an AAR section. Perhaps I can adapt what is the "Discussions" area on TPG to function like an AAR section at TSD. I will have to weigh the option to allow screenshots. The problem with allowing them is that you'll get screenshots that are 1600x1200 in dimensions weighing in at a mb each or more all the way down to a tiny 150x150 image that nobody can see. I have no way of resizing or controlling the images that would get uploaded except to individually modify each image myself. If somebody is familiar with "Image Magik", perhaps you can give me some scoop on it (it reportedly will allow image manipulation via code on the fly).

What else would be wanted/needed? Suggestions, ideas, thoughts needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the two things you want in any site are stability and longevity. The ideal would be to set something up at CMHQ, but to have someone from outside run it. Matt doesn't have the time to run something like this himself, but the CMHQ site seems well-armored against the inevitable events that cause the other sites to eventually wink out.

The Scenario Depot is a universal resource, and as such should be aimed at serving everyone, rather than one particular group of hobbyists. One of the nice things about CMHQ is that in the years that it has been in existance it hasn't gone down very often, in spite of the low maintenance. Not many hobbyist sites can say the same thing.

Another possibility would be to set the new site up at CMMODS, but to get BFC to subsidize it. That would at least take the financial burden off of COH, though it wouldn't do much about the demands on time and energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WOW... From your reply GJK it sounds like you are interested in the proceeding with this challange. Go for it as UDAMAN!!!

I agree with most of what you said... for Screenies in an AAR you can always have the author place the screenies at The Photo Dump which is a free site and can be linked to. Granted an extra step for the author but small compared to the time of writing an AAR.

As far as ratings, that is always a touchy subject. To me basic feedback (1-10 or somefink simple) is cool.

Ease of use is another key for both the designers and players.

I do like the idea of the 'linking' of The Proving Grounds and the location of the 'New Depot', as mentioned by British Tommy...

Heck when you think about it you could almost mirror what you are doing for TPG , with some minor modifications and thus not create a big headache for yourself... You have all the basics there and more...

If I can be of any help please let me know...

That is all...

-FR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone is going to do the work I would be willing to contribute. The admiral had a paypal link on his site, I think that once it is figured out where things go someone should put out a call and then people can donate up front to someone who is going to put in a lot of effort.

My 2 cents is that the site ought to start out simple, just a way to get scenarios, and then get more complex. We don't want to wait 6 months to get the site back up again and have it perfect, rather have something workable sooner and then add to it. The review and upload should be simple up front, can get more complex later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Philippe:

I think the two things you want in any site are stability and longevity. The ideal would be to set something up at CMHQ...

CMHQ almost went down earlier this year (see news info on the site). I don't think that is a option at this point, the site is dead for anything but early CMBO mods and some CMBB and CMAK ones.

I'm all for a GJK run SD, I like the way the TPGs is setup and I think having the systems linked would be great for designers and players alike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I guess this means that I won't be playing "The Mighty Endeavor" this weekend as much as I wanted to. :(

:D

Sorry for the OT, but if anybody has the game Carrier by Victory Games, I just finished the map on the remake of my Vassal module for it: Carrier Map (very big image!). Those are fun to redraw. smile.gif

Ok guys, I'll start putting some stuff together over the weekend perhaps. I'm not going to get into a bickering match regarding the ratings of the scenarios at this point. Personally, I think do a rating/review should be quick and easy. If you have it broken down into multiple sections and you start asking for detailed reasons about x, y and z - you'll get that many fewer reviews overall. I *think* that's what the problem was at the old site, it was too much of a chore to leave a review so very few people were doing it. Again, I like what BoardGameGeek does for their game ratings. I simple 1-10, single paragraph review and then it's compared and rated on a curve with other games. We can build upon that at a later point if we must.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TPG is a cool site, that would be a neat idea.

Likes, dislikes...

TSD:

-loved the side bars,

-loved the top 20 lists,

-loved the bare-bones (quick loading) HTML,

- the search engine was good, the icon-ised lists search results were neat

- wish I could've seached for 2-player-preferred games

- would like an 'omit' feature in searches (eg. omit night games or whatever... or omit scenarios by Panzerman and Steve Overton - only joking!)

- the scoring was cool, screen shots were cool

- the reply-to-review was really cool (although the TPG full forum is even better)

TPG:

- the forums are super-slick

- the rollovers etc. work a bit funny on my system and the 'designer' html is kind of slow to load (IE for Mac, it hates lots of other web sites too). I like the bare bones look like CMMODs.

- The search parameters are a little bettter than TSD was. (like being able to pick 'best played as')

- I like the way the search results are returned in some ways better than TSD (eg. includes designer name), but the TSD unit icons etc. were cooler

- I liked the way TSD had reviews and ratings right at the end of the game description

Both very good - anything similar to either one would be immediately well received.

Wish list:

- For those designers you really want to punish (haven't we all felt like that?) a top 20 most hated scenario list?

- A balance parameter that shows which side is stronger and by how much rather than just a balance rating. (did that make sense?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Whatever you guys decide to do, please do not allow to rate balance! Much better would be a rating from easy to hard for a certain side.

Because of rating the balance, unbalanced battles revceived a lower rating at TSD, no matter how historically accurate, exciting and great they were, because everyone expects always balanced battles and so we have the situation, that only balanced battles have a good image now, which is absolutely wrong IMO.

And it makes a huge difference, if i play every battle with the ideal of balance in mind. Victories or defeats are always judged absolutely and therefore no one wants to play unbalanced battles - who wants to lose? But if you know, the side you play is rated HARD, while the other side is EASY, then the battle result is seen with completely different eyes. And then it also gets more attractive for scen. designers, to make unbalanced but exciting battles again.

[ August 28, 2005, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(eg. omit night games or whatever... or omit scenarios by Panzerman and Steve Overton - only joking!)

Okay Kip, the gloves are off after that!! :mad: tongue.gif

Just like always, 10% of the people do 90% of the work... :D

Steiner14...an easy - hard rating is no better. What you may consider easy I will more than likely consider hard. Every rating system is a judgement call by the player and we are all at different levels. When the SD was up and running I watched for reviewers that seemed to have about the same skill level as I do and noticed how they rated a particular scenario.

Something that I think would be of particular worth along those lines would be to allow a search for particular reviewers.

Just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW I agree that allowing a balance rating is very problematic and should be avoided.

In place of that, allowing actual results to be recorded would allow people to reach their own conclusions.

My experience with the CMxx Scenario Balance Indication Tables has taught me that even very experienced players can make the wrong call about a scenario balance based on only one playing of it.

The only way to tell is to look at what results are achieved over many playings.

GaJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Steiner14:

Panther Commander,

if you've played against humans, you know, where you stand.

Judging a scenario easy - medium - hard - very hard should be for scenario designers with some experience no problem.

To have at least a subjective rating from the designer is better, than absolutely no knowledge.

I don't understand the, "played against humans" comment. I've playtested dozens of scenarios against people, many of them in this thread, and have often found that we differ on how we view the results of the battle.

I do almost exclusively historically based scenarios, both designing and playing, so I might well accept a scenario as being very unbalanced, while you on the other hand may care nothing for the historical value of the scenario and see it as being grossly out of balance.

IMHO, any balance rating is a very subjective issue. I do think though, that you will find reviewers whose views you share, and when you do you can go with their view of scenario balance as it closely concurs with your own.

I am a scenario designer with some experience and that is exactly the problem. I have made and posted to the Scenario Depot more than 100 scenarios. With that level of experience, whatever that means, if I put a difficulty level on my scenarios it will only be good for anybody at the same experience level as I am at. Also, would I rate a scenario that I did when I first started making my scenarios with the same rating I would if I made that same scenario today?

As a scenario designer I am constantly striving for a way to determine where the scenarios I make land. I've had scenarios reviewed that were supposedly both too hard and too easy all at the same time.

How can that happen? Easy, it is the skill level of both the designer and the player that come together to determine if the player had a good gaming experience. I came up with a scale to use for my vs AI scenarios that works as well as anything I have ever seen. It works like this...

Computer Experience Bonus: Computer Experience Bonus: Add computer experience bonus relative to the experience you have as a player. Good player +1, above average player +2 and very experienced player +3.

While this is not perfect it is at least an attempt to allow you to determine how to play my scenarios. But once again, this scale too is subjective to your own interpretation of what skill level you think you have as a player.

Using an easy-hard or a number rating system is at best subjective and at worst subjective. It is also the best system out there. At some point in a review I want to know if you liked it or not and why. That is always going to just be your opinion and bottom line is that is what I'm asking for. Both as a designer and a player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My one suggestion about the site is to make it as easy to access for outsiders as possible, and go very, very light on the fancy graphics and moving parts.

I frequently have problems downloading scenarios from TPG when I haven't visited in a while. I've also found that the delays for loading up the download page can be pretty long if you have a slow connection. Perhaps a way around it would be to show a list of scenarios and then give someone a choice between reading the description or going direct to the download. By the time I've researched a scenario enough to decide that I want to download it I don't usually want to wait for a huge html page to reload.

Perhaps you should consider doing away with the registration step altogether. After all, why do you really need it? (Unless it prevents bandwidth piracy).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Philippe:

Perhaps you should consider doing away with the registration step altogether. After all, why do you really need it? (Unless it prevents bandwidth piracy).

Registration is so that it can be recorded who has downloaded what - one of the major requests that scenario authors had.

As for the loading of the pages - I'm curious about what OS and browser you're using. I assume you're on dial-up as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Internet Explorer, Windows 2000, and a 56 k modem.

Knowing who downloads their scenarios is actually something of an invasion of privacy. Tolerable to some extent at TPG, but not really appropriate for Scenario Depot II. It's a very slippery slope. Designers may want to know, but they don't need to know. It won't improve the feedback they get. If someone is going to give them quality feedback, it is not because they receive an intrusive e-mail out of the blue.

Advertisers want to know that kind of thing too, and for obvious reasons. Registration is a bit like a form of tracking software, in that case, and it has the added disadvantage of interfering with the free and open distribution of the product. Keep it by all means at TPG if you think that is what your clientele wants, but don't use it at the new Scenario Depot because your clientele is very different there, and values its privacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was it a problem at TSD I, which had registration as well? Hey, it doesn't matter to me - in fact, if there's no registration it's easier for me to code the thing. ****, guess we'll have to start a discussion to see if we want it at TSD or not.

Thanks Phillipe.

G.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...