New section needed at the Scenario Depot?

[Michael Dorosh]

Here’s a question for the Admiral and the board

How about a section of the Scenario Depot where we can put up new scenarios that haven’t been tested yet – with the reviews there being used by the designers as feedback, and once the designer is happy with the scenario, the final version of the battle/operation can go into the “regular” section (without the previous reviews/feedback) for distribution as normal, reviews, numerical rating, etc.?

Might be better than begging playtesters in the general forum?

[Agua]

Not a bad idea. Won't result in the quality provided by dedicated playtesters, but surely will make it easier for the designers to get feedback.

[Harv]

Two things come to mind quickly...

1)Some extras would be required:

Extra work

Extra bandwidth

Extra coding

Extra maintenance

Extra complexity

2)Due to the extra complexity, some confusion may result if the test scenarios aren't removed as soon as the release version goes up. Also, if a person writes a report on a test version after the final is released it could end up in the wrong section.

It'll be the Admiral's call, but I personally don't see much overall return (for the Depot) for the time that would need to be invested.

[GJK]

Well, how about this. I was working on my own Scenario Depot (which was not to compete with THE Scenario Depot!) but one that had some extra search features added. Since I hear that Keth is already adding this extra search to the depot, I dropped my plans...but, here's an idea.

I have a version that is JUST for untested scenarios. Anyone can dump them off there and we (the public) can download and play them and right small reviews.

Once the author feels that he's tweaked out the scenario and it can move to the playtesting phase, he can then look to upload it to the Depot.

Possible issue arises though: You have a copy of the scenario that is in "debug" mode on my site and possibly the final version on the depot. So, it would be important for the author to remove the test version from my site once it is ready to move to the Depot. I see the potential though for this being overlooked and thus, we have 2 versions of the scenario floating around.

Possible solution: I automagically attach the phrase "BETA" to the filename as in: kick_butt_scenario_BETA. "Beta" is loosly used here, I can use whatever term we want.

I'm just offering this as a possible solution and again, I wouldn't want to compete with Keth's site, but perhaps complement it in a way or assist in getting scenarios developed, tested and produced.

Questions/comments welcomed as always....

GJK

[Michael Dorosh]

GJK - I like it. Sort of a Playtester's Depot or somefink.

I have a few CMBO scenarios at the depot that should not have seen the light of day; having a testbed would be cool, without the hassle of posting on the forum or rounding up and then torturing playtesters to finish the test. The Depot would benefit from only getting polished, finished products.

[ October 10, 2002, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[GJK]

I'll judge by the opinions this thread generates as to whether or not to take on the project.

And, since it would be a "proving grounds" for the scenarios, and since I'm not a scenario designer, I'll ask those of you that are what the best kind of questions to ask would be for the review/voting process.

I'm not sure how elaborate the voting system would be, except a mean average of all votes in either an overall rating or individual ratings. Maybe have it to where once the average goes above 9 (or reaches 10) the scenario is labelled "just about ready for prime time" and an email notice is sent to the author letting them know how its ranking. All kinds of possibilites...

[Michael Dorosh]

I was going to suggest no rating, but I like the idea of an automatic notification to the scenario creator.

Perhaps the crucial element is Play Balance? With a rating for Enjoyment? Novelty? (ie who wants to play 10 different 1000 point meeting engagements set in Stalingrad). Replayability? (By which I mean there is no set solution, and lots of choices for each side to have to make)

Skill Level? ie a monkey could beat the AI as either side, etc.

[ October 10, 2002, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[GJK]

Well, I think the question to ask is if there will be enough dedicated players that will take the time to download the scenario and play it AND THEN go rate/review it so that the author's have the feedback they need to make improvements.

Otherwise, the site just becomes a dumping ground for untested & unproven scenarios.

[Ace Pilot]

I think this is a great idea and would throw my support behind it, both as a playtester and possible scenario designer.

Ace

[GJK]

Well, I figure that without too much of a time investment, I can make a simple site that will allow for uploading/downloading of scenarios and a simple comments/review section that can be automatically emailed to the author after a new review is submitted. Couple that with a simple "Author's info" database so that an author can provide as much (or as little) information as they want about themselves (for contact info, etc) but most importantly, provide a way for them to generate their own authentication scheme so that only they can overwrite their scenarios with updated versions and make changes to the info screens pertaining to the scenario.

Should this become useful to more than a handful of people, I can add additional features such as a more complex rating system and whatever else comes to mind.

I would like to go ahead and add a thorough search feature for scenarios, where a visitor could search by date range (of scenario, not just submitted dates), forces composition, location, and more. This would require that the author enter such information in a provided form.

If any scenario designer's who might be interested in seeing this site come to fruition want to email me giving any suggestions or ideas please do so. Michael has already given some good points on what kind of feedback a designer would look for on the reviews of their work. Comments like that would be most helpful to me.

I'll periodically update on this board the progress of the work as it becomes available.

Gary

[Abbott]

Gary, what about a type of opponent’s finder section? It would serve two purposes, a new spot for those players tired of the ladder games and a multi-player option for scenarios under development.

[GJK]

Originally posted by Abbott:

Gary, what about a type of opponent’s finder section? It would serve two purposes, a new spot for those players tired of the ladder games and a multi-player option for scenarios under development.

As in a sort of "want ads" type of board where people can post their contact information and what they're looking for in an opponent?

Or do you mean more like what is on this board with a realtime "opponent finder" where somebody posts something as simple as "game at xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx" ?

Or both?

[lucero1148]

It's a great idea. However you might be wasting your time if no one bothers to send back a review of the scenario. Scenario Depot is a great place for scenarios but maybe 1% of people taking scenarios ever send in a review. How will you ensure to get a review back from the community who downloads the test scenarios. Most people are too lazy to take the time out to respond.

All best

Patrick

[GJK]

Originally posted by lucero1148:

It's a great idea. However you might be wasting your time if no one bothers to send back a review of the scenario. Scenario Depot is a great place for scenarios but maybe 1% of people taking scenarios ever send in a review. How will you ensure to get a review back from the community who downloads the test scenarios. Most people are too lazy to take the time out to respond.

All best

Patrick

Thanks Lucero. This is certainly a concern. I can think of 2 options, well 3 but I think the 3rd is out of the questions.

1. Make the rating system as simple as possible. Maybe not even require the reviewer to type a word but simply select on a 1-10 a dozen or so ratings for various aspects of the scenario. Maybe have an optional field that says "It is ok for the author to contact me regarding my ratings" and then they provide their email address that is sent to the author. The author can then do the follow up and ask the questions that they want to ask.

2. Have a full review as it is on the Depot and just make it clear to folks that these scenarios are first-runs and that the key to having them fully developed is the participation of everyone that downloads that scenario and plays it. Again, let the reviewer provide their email address (optional of course) but instead of for contacting, have it provided as a promise by the author that as soon as it's a done scenario they will get an emailed copy. That could be a hefty promise though if the reviews runs into the 100's.

3. This one I'm not keen on at all, but I'll throw it out there. Force visitors to login before they can download a scenario. The scenario downloaded and by whom is forwarded to the author so that they can follow up with questions. I don't see this flying well at all though.

Any other suggestions?

[ October 10, 2002, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: GJK ]

[Abbott]

Originally posted by GJK:

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

Gary, what about a type of opponent’s finder section? It would serve two purposes, a new spot for those players tired of the ladder games and a multi-player option for scenarios under development.

As in a sort of "want ads" type of board where people can post their contact information and what they're looking for in an opponent?

Or do you mean more like what is on this board with a realtime "opponent finder" where somebody posts something as simple as "game at xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx" ?

Or both?</font>

[GJK]

Got it. I can add a small board where you post what you're looking for in an opponent and that board could have a search feature so that somebody could find people looking to play particular scenarios, or if by TCP/IP certain times of day/days of the week for availability or if by PBEM, the frequency of turns a player would be willing to play per week or combinations of all of the above. Good idea.

[GJK]

As a follow-up, in the search for opponent feature, have a pulldown list that automatically populates with scenarios as they're uploaded so that someone could select the scenario that they're looking to play a match in. This would make the search for scenarios by name/by opponent more exact as we know some scenario names can be difficult to spell correctly.