Korsun Relief Scenario

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

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

It's not that ASL scenarios are poor scenarios to begin with... they were never intended for play with FOW. Many were very well designed... for playing ASL</font>

Thanks Berli - since I never played ASL or SL, I did not know that. That pretty much explains everything.

[Cpt Kernow]

Yes.

But I would have panned it for Allied v AI.

This would have stoped others playing it this way:Result!

If you want to give feedback you can by reviewing your own scenerio and just giving 0's for everything.

With respect (I dont want us to go the way of ASL and Andreas) Given that this is a scenario "not made for popular consumption" as it puts other considerations above the "fun" element, I thought you might have been reconciled to reviewers pointing this out.

I think the scenario depot has to be judged firstly on whether it helps us the gamers choose scenarios we want to play and on protecting the feelings of designers second. I dont think it can be failing on the latter because of the huge bulk of scenarios downloaded to the depot, a process that might have been interrupted if designers found the experience too negative.

Its just that for me the depot works just fine. However I would rethink this if bad reviews made you and others like you stop designing scenarios as I depend on you to keep this game alive. ( a process dependent on the scenario designer)

So if you get a bad review, just have a stiff upper lip and keep churning out the scenario's for no pay and sometimes no thanks.

Cheers.

Kernow.

[Cpt Kernow]

With respect for everyone.

Rune you cant compare comments made about your scenario ( which where made discursively ) with the comments: "I think all ASL conversions I have played are ****e and a waste of my time." and "They are the worst scenarios I have ever touched"

Andreas was a lot more damning in what he said about ASL's scenarios.

To be called pathetic in response whilst not fair is at least to be expected.

I think reviewers should post there opinions but should do so in a discursive and reasoned manner.

Anyway

Peace :cool:

[ December 11, 2002, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Cpt Kernow ]

[Danzig]

Well, I have always been vocal in my praise of rune and his scenarios. I think what everyone is missing here is that a truly great scenario designer is going to have a variety of different types of scenarios to play. Different people like different things...heck even the same person will like different things. Sometimes I want to fight a uphill, hard to win scenario. Sometimes I want to play a big AFV battle with little cover so the firefight gets hard and heavy. Sometimes I want to be challenged to come up with new tactics, or to learn to adapt my tactics to situations.

Variety is the spice of life, and no one is ever going to be completely happy all the time. rune just plain rocks as a scenario designer and the CM community would be severly lacking if it wasn't for his dedication to making all these lovely battle to play out!

*cheers* rune!

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Cpt Kernow:

With respect for everyone.

Rune you cant compare comments made about your scenario ( which where made discursively ) with the comments "They are the worst scenarios I have ever touched"

Andreas was a lot more damning in what he said about ASL's scenarios.

To be called pathetic in response whilst not fair is at least to be expected.

I think reviewers should post there opinions but do so in a discursive and reasoned manner.

Anyway

Peace :cool:

Kernow, I am sorry, but that was not just my opinion but that of my PBEM partners as well. I stand by it too. The scenarios I played were beyond hope or redemption, with discursive (is that a word?) and reasoned discussion or not.

How is that more pathetic than your opinion on Rune's scenario?

You should also reread my comment if you think that I meant ASL Vet's scenarios (none of which I ever played, but I will also make sure now that I never will, since he is obviously interested in different things than I am when it comes to scenarios). I talked about 'ASL' scenarios that I had played.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Cpt Kernow:

So if you get a bad review, just have a stiff upper lip and keep churning out the scenario's for no pay and sometimes no thanks.

This is quite funny. You can also just find yourself somewhere where your work is appreciated a bit more, and where you can be sure to be able to do things you are interested in without getting stick for that from some cretin and very little, if any, positive feedback from all the others.

[Cpt Kernow]

I think calling a scenario "****e" is perhaps a bit undiplomatic and is not that constructive.

Whilst not neccesarily pathetic one would perhaps expect the scenario designer to repsond with a comment just as undiplomatic and unconstructive.

Dont take this the wrong way but calling a scenario ****e is a bit Kloss or in my experience Schroener like and perhaps there was another way for you to voice your opinions.

Yes discursive is a word.

[rune]

Cpt,

I didn't say anything about the way you reviewed it, rather had an email come to me, I would have known it was lsited wrong on the depot. You may play it as Germans and still not like it...and that is fine. But, the scored are all added up, so say someone gave it a 8.80 and you gave it a 2.4 based on an error. the scenario averages a 5, and players skip it not bothering to read the details.... see the problem?

Thick skin or not, this could pan a decent scenario because someone just didn't play it the right way. I have had the Iron Roadblock slammed for balance and replayability. Umm..it is a tutorial, marked as a tutorial. I can name you at least 4 scenarios panned, and the reviewer played the wrong side, or maybe even picked the wrong scenario. Since all the scores are averaged in, they take a hit and could be skipped, and for a reason that is silly...and that is my point. Since only a few people rate scenarios, a panning can hurt a good scenario big time.

Rune

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Cpt Kernow:

I think calling a scenario "****e" is perhaps a bit undiplomatic and is not that constructive.

Whilst not neccesarily pathetic one would perhaps expect the scenario designer to repsond with a comment just as undiplomatic and unconstructive.

Dont take this the wrong way but calling a scenario ****e is a bit Kloss or in my experience Schroener like and perhaps there was another way for you to voice your opinions.

Yes discursive is a word.

Hey, you did not have to play them I actually reviewed them very harshly on the Depot too, and again, I did not name any scenarios, nor would I do that when using such strong language. And again - nowhere did I say or even insinuate who may have designed them, and in actual fact ASL Vet was not the designer of any of them.

BTW - thanks for the help with 'discursive', I did not know that word existed. You may want to check its meaning though I think I am usually far too discursive

[Iconoclast]

Rune,

No problem with your answering here before seeing your home email; I'd normally be in the same boat-- with the exception that I couldn't even be reading the forums from work without big troubles. (As you said, another subject for another time. )

I'm glad to hear that the AAR and variable reinforcement locations are on "the list" for CMII. I still think there is a lot of value in having another field on the scenario list for "type", but understand there is competition for a limited number of character spaces. BTW, I was using "tutorial" as a euphemism for any scenario designed with 'teaching a lesson' as one of its primary goals, rather than describing only those turn-by-turn walkthroughs.

I'm not sure that going to a system of 1-5 stars, letter grades, or percentiles is going to get around the facts that: a) everyone has differing criteria, and the tyranny of small numbers means unless you have a "best seller" or CD distro scenario, one low review will really skew your numbers. This is just intrinsic to subjectively applying numbers without a common baseline.

There is some tension between supplying feedback solely to a scenario designer and making it available to a wider audience. Both are appropriate, IMO. If I come away from a PBEM game saying "well, I've just wasted a month of my gaming life" I want to a) tell that to the designer (hopefully with reasons why, in the form of constructive suggestions) let others know c) try to lay out why I hold this OPINION (not fact, my subjective impression) in a manner that others can evaluate even if the don't agree with my beliefs. These are not mutually exclusive goals.

I actually do practice self-censorship, in that when I have had less-than-flattering things to say about the efforts of a fledgling designer I have opted *only* to send a polite and constructive email ("thank you for taking the time to design this... thought you might be interested in the following feedback/able to answer these questions") to him. In these cases I have opted NOT to post a public review of a scenario rather than post something that might discourage someone from creating and sharing more stuff. Only well-established guys like Rune get the dubious benefit of my unvarnished opinion in public. See, a backhanded compliment.

I, too, wish that The Scenario Depot had a way of letting you track reviewers as well as designers. That way if you find someone whose tastes run like yours, you can follow in their gaming footsteps; likewise, if their preferences are the antithesis of yours, you can always pick what they panned. Either way it's a win.

Jim

[rune]

Actually I can..ASL Vet comes in and implys I would insult a person for a bad rating. Never have. Someone speaks about ASL scenarios and not his scenarios in general, and is insulted. Double standards...

Go back and read what I said, I never said Jim's opinion was wrong, for him it is correct. Not did I ever insult Jim. However if someone is not sure about something, ASK. If you didn't tell me about the way the scenario was marked play as Allied, I would have never known. I think rating as 1-5 as an overall rating would work. Software places do that for user reviews already...and hey, it worked for the movies for years...

Rune

[rune]

Jim,

Yep, I see your point. Then how about a system where you can see the amount of stars 1-5 whatever and the comments, but does NOT add the scores together. Forces the players to read the comments and make a better decision rather then an low number due to one rating. I know if I would see 2 5 star opinions and then a 1 star opinion, I would want to knwo why before I played the scenario, rather then maybe skipping a 3 star rating.

Poor Keth and bigdog...redesigning THEIR work. They of course can tell me to sod off...and I would not be insulted. However I know they like feedback and want to get better just as much as I want to be a better designer.

Hopefully someone comes along and has a brillant idea on how to balance the scores better.

Rune

[ASL Veteran]

The reason I called you pathetic Andreas is because you chose to slam something that wasn't even a part of the topic (which I thought was turning into a discussion about scenario design philosophy). ASL was irrelevant to the ideas that were being put forward. Not once did I mention ASL or even use it as a gauge to correct scenario design (although after seeing your posts, I suppose I should let Ray Tapio know that everything he has ever made is pure crap - even though his whole company is based upon it). In fact, my example of good scenario design was a scenario made by Kwazydog - "All or Nothing"!

I merely expressed a difference of opinion about something and you chose to slam something that wasn't even a part of the thread's topic. If you use a philosophy that is different from a philosophy that I prefer - more power to you. Everyone already knows that you are the best scenario designer on the web, so what are you all bent out of shape about?

It is obvious that your scenarios are not the problem, but that the way the scenarios are scored at the depot are the problem. As long as informed scenario players can score your scenarios in a method that is more friendly and understanding to your philosophy, your scenario designs will be proven to be the superior ones that we all know they are. Not only should the scoring system be changed, but I think there also needs to be a method of pre screening reviewers to ensure that they are suitable for posting commentary on a scenario.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

It is obvious that your scenarios are not the problem, but that the way the scenarios are scored at the depot are the problem. As long as informed scenario players can score your scenarios in a method that is more friendly and understanding to your philosophy, your scenario designs will be proven to be the superior ones that we all know they are. Not only should the scoring system be changed, but I think there also needs to be a method of pre screening reviewers to ensure that they are suitable for posting commentary on a scenario.

I think the only thing that is obvious from this post is your complete lack of judgement on these matters, your tendency to make hyperbolic unsubstantiated claims, and a general aversion to other people having different opinions from yours.

I brought up ASL conversions as an example for something I could not find myself to enjoy, to put it mildly. Your statement 'However, to me replayability is the most important criteria since it tells you how much that gamer wants to play that scenario again. If he plays it once and decides to discard it - well that's a failure in my mind.' is equally taken out of thin air to make a point about something that is important to you. It basically asssigns almost all my scenarios to be 'failures' in your mind. Which is pretty harsh as a judgement. That did not lead me to call you 'pathetic' though.

You still have not answered any of my questions, instead you continue going on about how evil it is for scenario designers to suggest a different scoring system. How about you breathe into that brown paperbag a few times and try to answer them?

[rune]

Where in any of the replies did ANYONE say pre-screen the reviews or reviewers? Hmm...No where. What was said:

"If you aren't sure about something, ASK before giving a bad review".

Common sense approach. No where was it stated nor implied that you should change your review...but ask if you aren't sure.

So AGAIN, YOU take something and change the context. Same way you implied I was bashing Jim for his review. The same exact thing you just accuse someone else of doing.

Double Standards

Rune

[ December 11, 2002, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: rune ]

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by rune:

[QB]Actually I can..ASL Vet comes in and implys I would insult a person for a bad rating. Never have. Someone speaks about ASL scenarios and not his scenarios in general, and is insulted. Double standards...

Okay, first off the fact that this thread exists is an indication that you are unhappy with a review that you recieved ... doesn't it? I wouldn't use the word insult ... slammed just means that you felt that the reviewer hit you and you hit back ... here ... on the forum. That's all that was intended by the slam remark. I never implied that you were being insulting. I would characterize it more as an angry response to a negative review.

Second, Andreas slammed a whole genre of scenarios with a few casual dismissive lines. It would be similar to me saying

"Well, I guess if your view is formed by CMBB CD Scenarios, it would explain why I think all CMBB CD Scenarios I have played are ****e and a waste of my time. I usually thought they were badly made, but it may just be that they are actually bad scenarios by design. Just shows how different tastes can be."

I hope that you can see why I took exception to his remarks Rune.

[ December 11, 2002, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: ASL Veteran ]

[Andreas]

I would also quite like to know where I said anything about pre-screening? Or where I suggested that my scenarios were perfect/superior and the reviewers are at fault for scoring them low?

I think ASL Vet has completely lost it by now (no news there then), so it will be fairly amusing to see what comes next.

[rune]

Tryign to get this back on topic. Let us take xyz scenario. Decent playability, a LOT of fun, maybe semi historical, but the briefing is short. In that reviewers opinion the map is a little less then average. So, for that particular person the review is 8 for pbem, 8 for Fun, 2 for briefing, and 4 for map. Averages out to a 5.5. One other review gave it straight 8s across the board, likign the scenario. Overall rating posted is a 6.75 and someone skips it. It was skipped due to the fact that someone didn't like the briefing nor liked the map.

Where as if just rated for fun 4 stars and 4 stars gives it a four star rating, and a scenario that could have been skipped most likly would not be. Or if we did away with the combination score totally, a 4 star review and comments followed by the same thing.

Is it perfect? Nope...does the scenario get a more realistic feel for fun? yep. However, that is why I started the thread..to gain feedback on a better scoring system, or at least point out the foibles of the present system.

Rune

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I would also quite like to know where I said anything about pre-screening?

Sarcasm is something that you may have learned in high school or college.

Or where I suggested that my scenarios were perfect/superior and the reviewers are at fault for scoring them low?

It's implied

I think ASL Vet has completely lost it by now (no news there then), so it will be fairly amusing to see what comes next.

In answer to your questions - YES.

How do you do it - that's up to the designer to figure out because there is no one 'right' way. Every scenario has a life of it's own - and there is a lot of art involved that is specific to the designer. I said that I view a low score on replayability to be important and you don't. So why do you keep getting bent out of shape about it if you don't think it is important? I think the scoring system is fine the way it is.

[rune]

No ASL, way off the mark. The thread exists to talk about the scoring system and how to balance it all better for the long run. As I stated COUNTLESS times, not every scenario is for everyone. There are as many different styles of playing as there are players. It is why I make a wide variety of scenario types. So you assumed I was putting down Jim, when nothing was farther from the truth...and I even apologized to him for the misunderstanding. [but not for thinking the scoring system needs an overhaul]

I shake my head at some of the reviews, like saying a fictional scenario doesn't have a historical force. Yet, in the scenario it IS marked fictional. Why should that bring down the overall score? I could ask Admiral Keth to change things or reply...but too many people look at the score and nothing else...a shame really. How many here KNEW a 0 was a non-rating? How many people put a 5 in cause they didn't know?

Why should a single review, subject to HUMAN ERROR, cause a scenario to get a low rating. In all honesty, if scores were done away with completely, and just feedback given, it wouldn't break my heart...BUT...I understand what Admiral Keth and Bigdog are trying to do. However, a more fair away of assessing is needed. To me, the bottom line is...WAS IT FUN? give it a rating for that, and maybe for pbem play, as I can see the concern there. Maybe do not add and average the scores, let the readers read the feedback comments.

However, I could be off the mark. It is why i started the thread, to get other scenario designers feedback. Talking with a lot of designers, they all feel something just isn't right. Well, that is easily said, but comming up with a fix we all can live with is what I am after.

Berli, Andreas, WWB, JWXSpoon, myself, and others from Boots and Tracks and Der Kessel feel the same way. Others feel no changes are needed...so what is the compromise? I wish I knew...

Rune

[Andreas]

Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

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

I would also quite like to know where I said anything about pre-screening?

Sarcasm is something that you may have learned in high school or college.

Or where I suggested that my scenarios were perfect/superior and the reviewers are at fault for scoring them low?

It's implied

</font>

[rune]

One addition to this...on a 0-9 scale system, 5 should be the average. How many people out there won't look at a scenario below 7? Below 8? How many people really understand a 5 is average?

a scoring system of 1-5 everyone is familiar with. 1=bad 2=ok, 3=average, 4-above average, and 5=outstanding. How many online voting places for reviews use the 1-5 star system? Why do movie critics use it? It is used because most people understand it right off the bat.

As I said, wish I knew the answer. Just can't help but feel the system, as is, is flawed.

Rune

[Spook]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I think ASL Vet has completely lost it by now (no news there then), so it will be fairly amusing to see what comes next.

What comes next is my telling the bickering parties to CHILL.

ASL Vet, you've now laid it out as to what it was about Andreas's initial comment that set you off. Fair enough, perhaps that initial comment on ASL scenario conversions seemed too strident on face value.

But where I go with Andreas on this is that there is a world of difference to labeling a specific opinion as "pathetic" versus applying that term to another poster on a direct, personal level, something we can all be mindful of.

Well, one value of this thread is that I've been made aware again of the Scenario Depot site. I have several CMBB reviews I am wanting to submit in my own turn.

[Sesam]

I'm more concerned that it is difficult to get any reviews. The designer is very lucky if he'll get one review per 100 downloads. Therefore one bad score will ruin the overall score of the scenario. If there would be more reviews per scenario this wouldn't be such a problem.

Maybe reviewer could give only points, the written comments could be optional. I'm sure it would increase reviews.

Matti

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by Andreas:

but I do have problems with wilfull misrepresentation of my statements.

In no case did I offset a single one of your posts with quotations and make any representation about the content (other than rolled eyes of course).

Basically you just admitted that you made up anything you said (lied, to put it bluntly) about my motives. That was all I needed to see.

I never made a statement of fact regarding what your motives are - my powers of ESP are much too limited to know what actually goes on inside your head. However, I did relate my opinion that your scenarios are all exceptionally well designed and excellent scenarios to play.