Korsun Relief Scenario

[Spook]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Fundamentally though the main flaw of the Depot is one that is very difficult to address - a lack of reviews, as Mace pointed out. I fully agree with him, and have come to the same conclusion as him. I am speaking as someone who is blessed (well, most of the time ) with a lot of reviews though, but I am still very frustrated about this.

The bottomline is that while the Capt. Kernow approach of 'all is reasonably well' works for many designers and players, it no longer works for me. There are not enough reviews, and that needs to change as far as I am concerned. I have tried pretty much all I can to encourage reviews (provision of the link to the Depot and my email in the briefing, linked in my sig), but to no avail. That is a real shame.

It's as I said before. Human nature is to download, to get "something for nothing" per se. In this case, the download is done to get a new-crafted scenario and then get added mileage out of CMBB play. Going back then to review the scenarios seems like "work," even if something so simple as to just to issue a one or two-liner statement with numerical ratings.

And as much as the CM system has a strong following in the "grog" historical wargaming community, it's still a relative niche group compared to those who contribute reviews or ratings for a site like Gamespot.

A "call to arms" statement is needed within the Scenario Depot site that reminds downloading CM gamers that providing feedback encourages participation in the scenario design cycle. Where to provide such a statement within the site, and in what format, can be dickered on, but it needs to be presented fairly obvious if increased review feedback is to be expected.

[Ken Talley]

Andreas, I did some scenarios for West Front. I remember how they wanted a variety of types of scenarios to please a wide audience. Yet there are certain types of scenarios that I wouldn't design to save my life. The nice thing about designing scenarios for myself is I only design scenarios that I like and want to play. I really put the time and effort into them because they are for me. And if other people like the same type of scenarios as I, then they are welcome to enjoy them as I enjoy them. Since I am not designing the scenarios for anyone but me, if others don't like it, no loss.

Although I must admit it bothers me when a scenario I know is good, is slammed for reasons that are uncomprehensible to me. I know it is good-at least, to my taste. And I feel that some, that might enjoy it, will never play it because of the rating. But then people must rate as they feel right. And some people only enjoy playing the AI. Some people only like monster scenarios or tiny scenarios. Some people like the movie "Titanic" and DiCaprio. Somebody explain that to me.... If I had rated the Titanic, it would have never made it to the theaters. And.... not everyone is going to like my scenarios. But then it was only designed for me. So does it really matter.

There is no perfect solution for comparing individual preferences. But I think the closest solution is a "gut reaction" or "fun" factor rating above, and in addition, to the existing system. Everybody understands "fun".

I thank Keith for just providing a site to upload and download scenarios.

[ December 11, 2002, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: Ken Talley ]

[Berlichtingen]

Ok, let's see if I can get my point across with a couple of examples...

First, let's look at the current system with regards to how useful a tool it is to designers.

Le Camp Crossroads was a fairly popular scenario in CMBB. It garnered 22 reviews. The average score for briefing is 8.09. This is pure crap. I have never written a briefing that deserves better than a 7. I know that, because I hate writing briefings, I'm not good at writing briefings, and I spend as little time as possible on writing briefings. Now that 8.09 indicates that I write wonderful briefings... how is that helpful? Classic example of score inflation to achieve a desired end result.

Now, let's look at it from a erviewer's point of view (sorry Rune, nothing personal)...

Reut Canal:

Decent Map

Decent Briefing

Balanced

Playable PBEM

Should have a decent rating... however, I found the scenario to be deadly dull. As a reviewer, I would rather give an overall rating of say 2 out of 5 because I didn't like the scenario. And explain what was good or bad in the write up. In this case, I'd be saying with the score... 'not my cup of tea' and in the write up... 'Rune, it wasn't anything you did wrong.

[Spook]

Originally posted by Ken Talley:

Some people like the movie "Titanic" and DiCaprio. Somebody explain that to me.... If I had rated the Titanic, it would have never made it to the theaters.

Well, it was at least cool on the special effects done to show the ship sinking. But otherwise, I'm as mystified as you. In fact, it got so that I wanted the lead acting pair to go down with the ship.

[Ken Talley]

I know...it was so funny...the only part that I enjoyed was watching the ship sink.

[Bruno Weiss]

I dunno, I kinda like the nudie scene.

[WWB]

Originally posted by Ken Talley:

[snip]

As a category, perhaps [replayability] isn't as important as balance or PBEM suitability but does provide good information.

Bingo. Problem is now it is just as important as map design or playability, not to mention briefings. Really, it is a yes/no question, not a numerical rating.

Looking over this thread here I think it is clear there is a general agreement tha there needs to be some sort of "Fun Factor" rating that should be weighed very heavily, for that is the be-all, end-all when it comes down to it. Add that and change the way the total rating is calculated, either by weighting or just forgetting the idea altogether and one will have a much more accurate system than we have now.

WWB

[Watson & Crick]

To expand upon what Berli and others are saying. Why should each subcategory be added into the final score or at least have the same weight when it *may* have no relevance? I can think of several case where I thought a scenario was overall very "fun", but using the current point system it would score low.

Case 1;

A non-english speaking person makes a nice map with a very well balanced force. The briefing is crap, but it is just a fictional meeting engagement scenario. However, I had a blast playing it against a friend. As a matter of fact I thought that it was the Mother Of All Scenarios for head to head play. If I rated via the current system, the briefing score would really drag the "overall score" down.

Case 2:

A scenario against the AI. The designer has cleverly made a scenario utilizing reinforcements to make the AI launch an assault of biblical proportions. One that really has you wondering, what, when and where the AI is going to hit you next. Each turn, your practically crapping your pants wondering whether or not you would be forced to autosurrender to the "lowly" AI. You barely eek out a win and you feel like Audie Murphy. Obviously, you absolutely loved this scenario. However, if you were to replay this scenario, there would be no surprises. Replayability would thus drag an otherwise great scenario overal score down using the current system

As others have suggested, A simple "fun" rating is best. You can leave the other categories there, just don't include them in the fun rating. The reviewer can figure out for themselves how much WEIGHT each "sub-category" affected their "fun." That way things that have no relevance to a certain type of scenario will not drag the score down and thus keep others from missing out.

[Ken Talley]

I think we may be reaching a consensus.

Quick, somebody check out the weather conditions in hell before someone shows up and disagrees.

[Ken Talley]

One minor point. Keith is there any chance of adding an editting function for the authors? A mistake stays there forever.

[coe]

btw, what exactly was the historical outcome of Von Lauchert?

[rune]

After the original attacks where scores of Panthers were lost...the Panthers tried keeping their face to the enemy. They lost a few when the Russians charged them at high speeds, but they held the line at the dry creek bed.

Rune

[demoss]

Running around in crappy tanks for too long will do that for you - I guess you forget that armor is actually intended to stop incoming fire!

"Hey, Hans, you tink maybe we should put this front armor between us and the enemy?"

"Nein, Fritz - they told us to do that with panzer III, und again with panzer IV, and it never did no good. Let's just shoot them first with big f#$*(&! gun."

Doug

[Admiral Keth]

Originally posted by Ken Talley:

One minor point. Keith is there any chance of adding an editting function for the authors? A mistake stays there forever.

This is a task which I have nearly finished (about 4 hours more work), but my day job is consuming waaay more time than I would prefer (12+ hour/day). Authors will be able to edit their own scenarios descriptions, as well as respond to reviews. Both of these features were in the system prior to the move to the new servers, I just have not had a moment to reinstitute them.

I have several other tasks in the queue as well, including the CMBB Operation submission page.

I'm on holiday between 12.20.02 and 01.05.03. I'm going to do my best to finish up these tasks for everyone.

[Admiral Keth]

Originally posted by Flammenwerfer:

What about a survey style system with the numerical quant. calculated internally for each of the categories- Briefing, Map, Force Balance, Play vs AI, PBEm Play.

Very Poor(1)- Poor(2) - Average(3) - Good(4) - Very Good(5) - Exceptional(6)

Something like this...

I think you may be close to what is the true source of the issue. A failure on my part to precisely explain the rating values in a manner which is precisely understood by the reviewers, as well as agreed upon by the authors.

I everyone can agree upon:

1) Categories which are meaningful, as well as

2) Scores which are exlicitly explained

then I think I can develop a system which will elicit more meaningful responses from the players.

[Admiral Keth]

Originally posted by rune:

Admiral Keth and Bigdog's site.

All,

I personally own the server space, code the PHP and MySQL pages, design and maintain the database, upload and link the scenario files, and perfom daily backups.

Bigdog and Harv gracious capture screenshots and interact with the authors. I genuinely appreciate their extremely hard work, plus putting up with me.

Paul Synott does some data work.

The long and the short of it is that the buck stops with me on whether the site meets your needs, as well as the needs of the players. Everyone who comments here contributes to the design and functionality of The Scenario Depot.

The Scenario Depot was originally (and still is) intended to be a forum for the scenario authors to showcase their products, receive (hopefully) constructive feedback, and improve the appeal of their scenarios based on responses from the players.

So, what does all this mean? If the scenario authors are dissatisfied with the nature of the response system, then they must necessarily decide amongst themselves (preferably within this forum) what would be most meaningful to them.

The original system was semi-designed upon everyone's initial idea of what they would like to see in a rating system, as well as the types of categories they needed to see (there's a thread around here somewhere regarding this).

What has happened here is that, after some usage, the original rating system is shown to be inadequate. Therefore, the time has come to completely revamp it based on the input from the authors. You guys tell me...how do you want it to work? In addition, how do you want to handle the 1000's of existing scenarios and reviews?

I think at this point I would prefer that we all agree upon a single course of action prior to me putting one finger to the keyboard.

[Conscript Bagger]

Originally posted by demoss:

"Hey, Hans, you tink maybe we should put this front armor between us and the enemy?"

"Nein, Fritz - they told us to do that with panzer III, und again with panzer IV, and it never did no good.

Bull. An uparmored PzIII (a model with "30+30" armor in front) is giving my BT-7s fits in a QB right now...

[Ken Talley]

Keith, I don't want to speak for everyone but I thought a consensus was building.

I think people wanted to keep your existing system but replace the overall averaged rating with a single "fun" or "gut reaction rating independent of the existing categories.

Everyone, is there a consensus? Any comments?

Keith, I am glad to hear that you are adding the editting function. That will come in handy.

One other suggestion for the depot you might consider. When a new scenario is added into the depot, it shows up with "new" label to bring attention to this new scenario. Is there anyway to add a "update" or "new version" label for old scenarios which have been updated? I know that I update scenarios as I receive feedback. But people have no way of knowing that a later version is available which they may have downloaded but not played. An "update" label would draw attention to scenarios which have been improved due to feedback. Just a thought.

[flammenwerfer]

Ken-maybe it's a bit early to call a consensus..

I think a 1-5 'gut' system would make the reviews even more subjective, which is the main problem with the current system.

As an Ex. the quality of the map is very important to me, so i like being able to check the 'map' score before i download a battle, while briefings are not, I barely read them...

Replayability should be replaced with an Overall Playabilty(or fun/immersion) category. That way a scen. with a sparse briefing, an un-inspired map...etc that happens to play like gangbusters, final average score would be inflated or a 'boring' scenario with a stunning map and an amazingly immersive briefing final avg. score would be brought down.

[ December 12, 2002, 09:44 PM: Message edited by: Flammenwerfer ]

[Cpt.Kloss]

Originally posted by Andreas:

[You crack me up just like this Cpt. Kloss chap - is there something you want to say, or are you just a little coward ASL Vet? I would respect you a bit more if you showed some spine.

------------------------------

Andreas,I haven't criticized you for some time...because I see no reason to. More, I agree with a lot of your recent thoughts on various threads (although I still do not like you).

regards

[Admiral Keth]

Originally posted by Ken Talley:

When a new scenario is added into the depot, it shows up with "new" label to bring attention to this new scenario. Is there anyway to add a "update" or "new version" label for old scenarios which have been updated?

Yes, it is entirely possible, as well as a good idea. I'll add it to the "List O' Things To Do".

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Cpt.Kloss:

Thats alright, it is mutual. I have been known to hold grudges

All the best.

[Andreas]

Adm. Keth, first of all thanks a lot for the great service that the Depot provides. You know that I have always supported the idea and the implementation of the work. I think it is great that you and the others offer so much of their time to perform this service for the CM community.

It is good to see that you take this discussion as driven by our feeling that the scenario depot could be, and should be improved. I think it is proof that designers think it is a great contribution, and very relevant, because otherwise we would not argue for 120 pages over what the improvements should look like.

Now to answer one of your questions - how to deal with the old scenarios when/if redoing the criteria. IMO it would be alright to leave them be. There is no need to redo scores, or tinker with the reviews at all (although there maybe coding issues I am not aware of, being an idiot when it comes to webpages). Just focus on the future, and introduce a cut-off point.

[demoss]

Bull. [Wink] An uparmored PzIII (a model with "30+30" armor in front) is giving my BT-7s fits in a QB right now...

1941, right? That's cuz your BT-7 is shooting blanks.

[desim8]

Originally posted by rune:

To me a 0-9 scale the average is 5, to you it is 70%. Now how many other people rating it different ways?

Hi rune just some quick comments, on the above.

Personaly 40% = pass (I'm from UK, that's what a pass is in our education system). Just to show how one persons scoring can vary from what other people might expect.

I agree with not totaling/averaging the scores up and only having one score per review 1-5.

Also demand a written review, don't except just scores.

Remove reviews without comments.

There must be some editorial control over all reviews. Otherwise some idiot could go on and review people he didn't like deliberately badly mulitiple times. A badly written/considered review is misleading to the downloaders as well as hurtful to the designer

I assume Amazon maintains editorial control over the reviews on its site.

Also I would perhaps remove low rated/ few downloads scenarios after a time(1yr/6mnths?). Essentially throw the bad ones off!

Harsh and perhaps not what the owners want or have time to do.

Just some ideas which may be way of

Dave