When (and not "if") reviewing scenarios...

[voidhawk]

Although I am in no way associated with the excellent Combat Mission Scenario Depot (other than as a happy user), I feel it is perhaps worth going over some of the tips for reviewing scenarios. These tips are not new, and are in fact already listed on the web site itself, but I have seen many reviews where they are not followed...

1) Don't give away any spoilers in the "Comments" section! A reader wants to see how good a scenario is, not what will happen in it.

2) If you gave not played a scenario PBEM, leave that rating at "0". This will not impact the final rating. There is no need to add a rating so as not to "mark the scenario down". Adding a high score here when not even played PBEM may well result in that scenario showing up on the "Top 10 PBEM" list, which is not necessarily correct.

3) Same for "Against AI"; if you have only played PBEM, leave it as "0" - see number 2 above.

I hope I am not stepping on anybody's toes here; I'm just trying to make the reviews more helpful, as I think they are of great value myself.

Please spend some time adding reviews of scenarios played, and spend some time on the "Comments" section. Not only does it make you think about what you liked or disliked about a scenario, it is also a chance to give something back to the community and provide some interesting reading for others.

[Andreas]

I can only second all of that. I find that sometimes scenarios seem to be 'upmarked' (e.g. no briefing except for the points level, yet gets an '8' on briefing). I also agree on the spoilers bit - at least you should always put SPOILER in there to make people stop reading.

Finally - I know a lot of people here are too lazy to review scenarios, or don't think it worth their while. That's fine, and it is their perogative. Unfortunately it is pretty much the only feedback we designers get after the playtesting, and in many ways it is the only motivation that designers have. Some of us spend months working on and off on a single scenario. Some of you then spend weeks playing it PBEM, or hours playing it against the AI. Maybe some more of you could spend the 3 minutes it takes to review one? Even if you don't like it, review it. Otherwise, how is the fare going to get better? The good old English 'mustn't grumble' attitude won't change things.

So, off you go. Link is in my sig.

[Gpig]

Actually, this brings up a point I'd like to share about that website . . .

I believe you (as the reviewer) should be able to go back and EDIT YOUR REVIEW.

I've made many reviews on the website, AND made my share of mistakes. (I happen to be blessed with the not so rare, idiocy gene.)

It would be nice to go back and edit some of my mistakes. As every time I visit the website, some of my glaring mistakes are just sitting there, mocking me.

Gpig.

[Pzman]

Yes we do need more reviews, because at least hafe, if not more, scenario at the depot have not been. And as the other said...hey how can we make better battles if you don't tell us what you want!

[Berlichtingen]

Yes! Review, review, review! I second everything stated here so far.

[WWB]

Review them scenarios!

An interesting anecdote: I have but one scenario in the Depot (so far). I was chatting in CMHQ chat one night, and it turned out that this guy had played the damn thing at least 20x. I encouraged him to review it, but he never got around to it.

I third it all, and add that if there are not at least 300 more reviews by noon on saturday, I will be forced to send Lindan over to Warpheads to sacrifice the Rabbit.

WWB

[Admiral Keth]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gpig:

...I believe you (as the reviewer) should be able to go back and EDIT YOUR REVIEW....<hr></blockquote>

Gpig,

I'll look into this, but it's not going to be quick or easy. I would have to implment some manner of security feature (possibly a site-wide login) which would allow only the original reviewer to edit their own reviews. This would be a major overhaul of how things are done.

[Admiral Keth]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andreas:

Finally - I know a lot of people here are too lazy to review scenarios, or don't think it worth their while. <hr></blockquote>

Andreas,

Very true. Since I implemented the download counters on 11.14.01, there have been 4420 total downloads. About 360 per day.

Gang, someone out there is not submitting reviews. Reviews aid scenario authors and other CM players by indicating what you like or dislike about a particular scenario. This enables authors to design scenarios which are more balanced, more challenging, and just more fun.

Reviews should not be AAR's or spoilers. I am currently designing an AAR section specifically for this purpose. There, you will be able to detail the action without giving away too much to the review reader. This will be in place in a couple of weeks.

[Bigdog]

Edit would be nice I echo Gpig I need to do some editing myself

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gpig:

Actually, this brings up a point I'd like to share about that website . . .

I believe you (as the reviewer) should be able to go back and EDIT YOUR REVIEW.

I've made many reviews on the website, AND made my share of mistakes. (I happen to be blessed with the not so rare, idiocy gene.)

It would be nice to go back and edit some of my mistakes. As every time I visit the website, some of my glaring mistakes are just sitting there, mocking me.

Gpig.<hr></blockquote>

And Voidhawk you are right on the mark, with your comments.

[Pzman]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andreas:

Finally - I know a lot of people here are too lazy to review scenarios, or don't think it worth their while. <hr></blockquote>

I agree fully. Its a pain to know that over 100 people downloaded my newest scenario "Hamlet of hell", 26 of which did so from the scenario depot, have not reviewed it! Knowing what people think of our battles is the most important thing. Now this is just an idea, but I think we should take this to the regular CM forum, as most people spend on that forum rather then time here. I think that most of them go...oh look the scenario forum thats for scenario designers and testers, not my kind of place.

[ 11-26-2001: Message edited by: Panzerman ]</p>

[Andreas]

Done

[Ligur]

Hear hear! I support this! Since starting to dl scenarios from the Depot I've reviewed every single one I got from there (tho that is not too many, been into TCP/IP quick battles of late). I would encourage everyone else who reads this board to do it too! Think of all the good stuff we get to play when CM:BB comes when the guys into scenario making have been properly schooled by players =)

But remember, I don't think that many people who play CM or use the scenario depot necessarily come to the board or try to be a part of the community.

A few of my friends who play CM have never even considered registering here, or reviewing scenarios. I guess you need a sort of involved type of person for that.

A suggestion to webmasters hosting CM sites: pimp this official Combat Mission Message Board more with direct links. It might bring more people here, and get them more involved in the community, providing more feedback to the 3rd party modders and scenario authors and so on.

[Andreas]

Ligur, you know that our Der Kessel Byte Battles™ are written especially for TCP/IP?

[Ligur]

Andreas: thnx!

[Ligur]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Admiral Keth:

...Gang, someone out there is not submitting reviews. Reviews aid scenario authors and other CM players by indicating what you like or dislike about a particular scenario. This enables authors to design scenarios which are more balanced, more challenging, and just more fun.

Reviews should not be AAR's or spoilers. I am currently designing an AAR section specifically for this purpose... <hr></blockquote>

That will be good. Now, if I don't spew out spoilers, it is very hard for me to, and I quote again:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Reviews aid scenario authors and other CM players by indicating what you like or dislike about a particular scenario<hr></blockquote>

exactly specify what I don't like to the author, a simple "force balance was not good" will be vague when I really mean that last 88mm AA gun, and since the scenario depot and the reviews are there, I feel we should/could use that as a forum of discussion, without having to send email to each author separetely when I want to say something.

Where do I draw the line? It has been said the authors want to hear about their scenarios, but is a score of "9" for something enough, or do they want to hear more?

[SlowMotion]

> exactly specify what I don't like to the author, a simple "force balance was not good" will be vague when I really mean that last 88mm AA gun

I think very detailed information like that should be hidden under an AAR button or something, like AdmiralKeth hinted. The addition of these AARs will be a very interesting addition. Reading detailed AARs of battles you have also played can be really interesting, especially for scenario designers.

>s a score of "9" for something enough, or do they want to hear more?

More Reading detailed feedback on what was good and what was not. No matter how many number categories you add, it's never as good as free form text. I wish more people would go and review even one currently unreviewed battle. There are still hundreds of those left.

[Wild Bill Wilder]

I like the idea of ratings. It is not the final voice, but it is one that should be heard. The final voice is heard from the downloads of the scenario.

Germanboy spoke of points for scenario briefings.

Normally I take bad marks along with good marks in stride. It does kind of hurt, though, when some folks consistently vote a "1" for scenario briefings because the style or the method of introduction does not appeal to them.

It is, however, something I can and will live with.

[Admiral Keth]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by SlowMotion:

[QBI think very detailed information like that should be hidden under an AAR button or something, like AdmiralKeth hinted. The addition of these AARs will be a very interesting addition. Reading detailed AARs of battles you have also played can be really interesting, especially for scenario designers.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>

No hint...flat out saying "It's in the works". Got a couple of mySQL vagaries to overcome, but it should be in place shortly. There will be a button displayed on the Scenario Synopsis page which will pop up a new window for AAR's. Thus 'spoilers' will not be displayed unless the viewer explicitly wants them to be displayed.

I'll keep everyone posted.

[voidhawk]

Another thing you might like to consider when reviewing a scenario is to try and form your own ratings and comments before looking at the other reviews for that same scenario. With human nature being what it is, it is otherwise easy to become influenced by the existing reviews and start agreeing with them. At least, I found that happening to me.

Better to form your own opinions first, and then look at the other reviews. After all, it is your review!.

[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: voidhawk ]</p>

[Michael Dorosh]

Admiral, I just put my bio up - I don't like the "age" field, since this will not automatically update. You might want to indicate year of birth instead.

[Frenchy]

I have not downloaded many scenarios from the depot but of those that I have I ahve reviewed them. Here are some stats based on scenarios I have submitted to the Depot:

A Desperate Stand

DL - 14 Reviews 2

14 percent of those downloaded reviewed the scenario

Counter attack at Remiremont

DL - 8 Reviews 0

No Reviews

Wingen-sur-Moder

DL - 12 Reviews 1

8 percent of those downloaded reviewed the scenario

Philippsbourg

DL - 10 Reviews 2

20 percent of those downloaded reviewed the scenario

Goya (made the list based on 1st review)

DL - 37 Reviews 3

8 percent of those downloaded reviewed the scenario

Taking the totals:

5 scenarios

81 downloads

8 reviews

9% of those downloaded reviewed the scenario

I guess it does reinforce the lack of "reviewing" by most of the CM players...too bad.

[Admiral Keth]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Admiral, I just put my bio up - I don't like the "age" field, since this will not automatically update. You might want to indicate year of birth instead.<hr></blockquote>

Michael,

Good idea. I'll make the change as well as add some edit author pages this weekend.

[Michael Dorosh]

Admiral - have you ever considered a percentage rating, the way the General Magazine used to rate SL scenarios? IE 60%-40% pro British if you believe the balance is a bit lopsided, or 50-50, etc.?

You could have two fields, one where you pick a number between 1 and 100 (perhaps in multiples of 5, ie 5, 10, 15, 20 etc.)

The second field would let you select "favours Allies" or "favours Axis" while a 50 percent would automatically bring up "evenly balanced." A third field might let you qualify with comments, ie "when played PBEM" or "when played against AI"

[Admiral Keth]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Admiral - have you ever considered a percentage rating, the way the General Magazine used to rate SL scenarios? IE 60%-40% pro British if you believe the balance is a bit lopsided, or 50-50, etc.?

You could have two fields, one where you pick a number between 1 and 100 (perhaps in multiples of 5, ie 5, 10, 15, 20 etc.)

The second field would let you select "favours Allies" or "favours Axis" while a 50 percent would automatically bring up "evenly balanced." A third field might let you qualify with comments, ie "when played PBEM" or "when played against AI"<hr></blockquote>

Michael,

Excellent suggestions. I'm presuming that these values would be associated with the individual reviews? Or would they be more appropriately associated with the AAR's?

I'll begin design and testing this weekend.