Borisovka Station - Atlas_TH - SPOILERS

[Andreas]

Hi there, can't respond to reviews on the Depot yet, so I do it here.

You raise two points in your review:

1. Infantry-weak Soviet forces.

This scenario represents the attempt by a Soviet armoured force that is far ahead of the main effort to seize a German position from the march. Because of that, there is no artillery other than Katyushas (who were very mobile themselves), and there is only the infantry that could ride on the tanks. I agree that ideally the Soviets should have more infantry - I am sure that e.g. the commanders of 47th and 37th Mech Brigades near Belyi in November 42 did think the same too, or the commander of 25th Tank Corps at Tatsinskaya, in December 1942. Historically, the tank-heavy make-up of Soviet mechanised forces at this time of the war made them infantry weak as soon as they outran their accompanying rifle divisions. The scenario consciously depicts what happens next, it was not a decision about balance.

2. The designer and one reviewer both are Der Kesselites

Yep - and almost everybody should know it. We review each others scenarios after playing/testing them. We have done so all the time in the past. I know that other groups don't do this. Since we are open about our allegiance, I don't think there should be a problem with it. While I agree that it may appear unsavoury, I have yet to see a Der Kessel scenario being hyped by a fellow member of our group when everybody else thinks it is sh*te.

I would be interested in others' views on this though, although I am not sure we would want to change that approach.

[WWB]

Since you asked andreas, I think, due to the vested intrest Der Kesselites/B&Ters/whomeverites have in seeing their groups scenarios well recieved, that group should not review the battles on general principle. Reviews are supposed to be from impartial third parties IMHO. Other members of your group, especially those who happened to have playtested a battle, are not quite impartial enough.

I do realize that there is another way. If you want to comment on the battle, say it is great, etc, how about just giving a zeroed out review. So it does not effect ratings but will allow you to comment.

The best policy really is to post a few AARs from the playtest. Lets one comment without screwing with things.

WWB

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

Since you asked andreas, I think, due to the vested intrest Der Kesselites/B&Ters/whomeverites have in seeing their groups scenarios well recieved, that group should not review the battles on general principle. Reviews are supposed to be from impartial third parties IMHO. Other members of your group, especially those who happened to have playtested a battle, are not quite impartial enough.

I can't really agree with you, but I will abstain from reviewing scenarios in the future

[Andreas]

Wyatt, thanks for the comment. I also don't agree with you, but will not review scenarios in the future either then.

[Andreas]

Okay, I thought a bit about this. Basically I think that there is some flawed thinking behind the idea that bias comes into the reviews. I also think that this attitude is harmful to quality scenario design, and people producing scenarios for the first time.

1. Flawed thinking

The same accusation of bias could be levelled at me if I review a scenario from e.g. B&T, or by any other designer. And it may well be correct - I have a certain bias towards what I like scenarios to do and be like. Based on that I feed back into the design process, and based on that I review them. I do not play scenarios other than for play-testing, so a policy that discourages reviews by play-testers will remove me from the list of reviewers at the Depot. It will mean that I will not review Lindan's excellent 'South of Heaven' scenario, since I tested it. I do not have time to write detailed AARs either, so that is not an option. I also think that if there is a clear statement and openness about it, then there is no problem. I also have to see the evidence that shows that we are unduly biased in our reviews (both Berli and me). Very specifically, are our reviews of other Der Kessel scenarios significantly higher scoring than the average score of the scenario? I do not believe that is the case. If it is not the case, then what is there to worry?

2. Impact on new designers and quality design

While Der Kessel and B&T could agree to something like this internally (although I am not in favour of it), I do think that it would not stop the practice completely. Since I do believe that Der Kessel puts out good scenarios, it will reduce the number of reviews of these good scenarios. Simple as that. It will also bar me from making my opinion on a fellow designer's piece of work known in an easy and accessible way. The matter is more serious for new designers, who will have to rely on the reviews by their playtesters to make sure that the scenario receives some visibility at the Depot. It appears to me that once a review of a scenario has been posted, it is likely that its DLs will increase, and more reviews will be posted. A positive snowball effect. I have no proof of this, but it is an impression of mine, I would be interested in how others see it.

So, in closing, I fundamentally disagree with the premise that my bias disables me from reviewing a scenario fairly, and through the scoring system pointing out its strong or weak points. I believe that both Berli and I, as well as other Der Kesselites have been evenhanded in our reviews, and removing us from the list of reviewers just will increase the share of fairly useless, grade-inflated reviews of which we have too many already.

I can understand why people think that there might be a problem, but I would like to see some proof of that, other than a hunch, or a stance based on a general principle.

Having said that, I will not review anything until this has been thrashed out a bit more.

[Dook]

Originally posted by Andreas:

The matter is more serious for new designers, who will have to rely on the reviews by their playtesters to make sure that the scenario receives some visibility at the Depot. It appears to me that once a review of a scenario has been posted, it is likely that its DLs will increase, and more reviews will be posted. A positive snowball effect. I have no proof of this, but it is an impression of mine, I would be interested in how others see it.

Two comments. First, Andreas is spot on regarding the importance of playtester reviews for new scenario designers. My only scenario at the Depot has been d/l'd 211 times [as of this morning] but the only review is from one of my playtesters. I think that favorable review has encouraged people to d/l it, but I wouldn't have sent the scenario to the depot if the playtester had said the scenario had serious problems.

Second, as should be evident from above, the positive snowball effect is as yet unproven. The review may have helped encourage downloads, but it hasn't produced additional reviews. Is this because the scenario really isn't that good? Download it, play it, and review it and let me know.

[Dook]

An additional thought on members of the same design group reviewing each other's battles. Since the better known design groups typically produce consistently high quality battles, I usually know that a DK or B/T battle will be pretty good. Thus, group members' ratings don't sway me one way or another. I will say that I do pay more attention to the comments of designers whose work I like. The idea to comment but not actually rate battles might therefore be a good idea, but I don't see the issue as a big problem.

[Potvin]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Hi there, can't respond to reviews on the Depot yet, so I do it here.

You raise two points in your review:

1. Infantry-weak Soviet forces.

This scenario represents the attempt by a Soviet armoured force that is far ahead of the main effort to seize a German position from the march. Because of that, there is no artillery other than Katyushas (who were very mobile themselves), and there is only the infantry that could ride on the tanks. I agree that ideally the Soviets should have more infantry - I am sure that e.g. the commanders of 47th and 37th Mech Brigades near Belyi in November 42 did think the same too, or the commander of 25th Tank Corps at Tatsinskaya, in December 1942. Historically, the tank-heavy make-up of Soviet mechanised forces at this time of the war made them infantry weak as soon as they outran their accompanying rifle divisions. The scenario consciously depicts what happens next, it was not a decision about balance.

2. The designer and one reviewer both are Der Kesselites

Yep - and almost everybody should know it. We review each others scenarios after playing/testing them. We have done so all the time in the past. I know that other groups don't do this. Since we are open about our allegiance, I don't think there should be a problem with it. While I agree that it may appear unsavoury, I have yet to see a Der Kessel scenario being hyped by a fellow member of our group when everybody else thinks it is sh*te.

I would be interested in others' views on this though, although I am not sure we would want to change that approach.

Atlas_TH here under a new name b/c I've changed my computer and my internet access due to a nasty, nasty bug.

Anyway, let me first start by saying that Andreas is a damn good designer. I've enjoyed many of his games; if fact, one of his scenarios is on my top 5 list.

1. Thanks for the explanation. I did not downgrade the scenario in that regard. More of a "ahh shucks, many tanks, open fields, no infantry support."

2. Your work stands on its own, not worried about people 'fanboying' you, per se.

However...

I think that play testers are by rule NOT UNBIASED. They helped create the scenario, they guided the production toward their own preferences. And when they review, they are biased in that the scenario was partially made to their specs. They should like the scenario, they helped make it.

I guess I have no problem with site-mates ranking reviews if they did not play test it, but that's just me.

In all honesty, I'd take any review (assuming the person owns up to his association with the designer) than none at all.

Perhaps, wwb_99 (another fine designer) has a good idea about the all zeros...?

-Atlas_TH

[jwxspoon]

Good points by all and a good topic of discussion. My 2 cents on the matter are that playtesters or members of a specific design house should not fill out a complete review on their own group's products. I think it runs the risk of crossing the line of promotion and into self adulation.

I used to rate everyone's scenarios, (B&T's included) until Wild Bill and SuperTed gently reminded me of the above. After thinking about it, I came to the conclusion that they were right and I have not reviewed a scenario from one of B&T's designers since.

However I think a zeroed out review provides a great opportunity for a playtester to provide comments about the scenario, and in the future I will make a point of writing up zeroed 'reviews' for any scenarios from my own design group.

I will of course continue to review and pan Berli and Andreas' scenarios, just because......

(kidding...sheesh)

[ October 18, 2002, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: jwxspoon ]

[Scott B]

I haven't really made up my mind on this one. For one, I actually didn't know it was B&T policy to not review our own stuff until like last week. This is something that I personally don't do, but I'm incredibly lax at reviewing in general. As Andreas will attest, I often require some prodding to review even the stuff that I like - I just almost never visit the depot, or, for that matter, play scenarios that I'm not playtesting for the team these days.

That said, I think there's a fair argument to be made either way. On the one hand, in the case of Der Kessel I don't mind that they review their own stuff because it has the Der Kessel label on it. I have a high opinion of their product in general, and as such that colors my impression more than any review. There could be a scenario by Berli or Clubfoot or Andreas and it could have straight '1's and I'd still check it out if it caught my attention. Hell, for that matter I'd want to go see what the heck was wrong.

I have read enough reviews and AARs to notice the rather strong correlation between a player's success in a scenario and whether that player rates that scenario highly. It's human nature; wargamers in general are rather competitive, after all. So in some respects I could be pushed to admit that the win/lose bias can be more significant than the playtester/design team bias.

Every reviewer brings bias to the table, period. Some folks only like the small stuff, and others only play vs the AI; some people like almost everything they play, and others think a '7' is a good rating (the lack of a decent scale really seems to mess with the scores - you also get people who say one thing in their text and their numbers reflect differently). I think that the best reason to not review a teammate's scenario is to avoid the appearance of impropriety. In this case, I can't see any reason why Berli could be seen as being improper; certainly it should be noted that his review actually brought down the overall rating of Andreas's scenario, by almost half a point.

However, a player who didn't know any better and saw a scenario that was by me, for example, and reviewed highly by Wyatt and Jeff, might have reason to suspect their motives. So that's why it makes sense to me to not do it; if you don't care that you might give that (unwarranted) impression, then it doesn't seem improper to fairly rate a fellow team member's scenario.

I do, however, strongly support the reviewing by playtesters of scenarios by "unaffiliated" designers. When I see a review by a playtester of one of these scenarios, it tells me two things:

1) this scenario was playtested.

2) whatever the designer actually says about the scenario.

This is certainly a step up from zero feedback whatsoever.

This is a useful discussion. At the very least, I think that any (useful, honest) feedback mentioned on the review list is better than no feedback or destructive criticism, no matter from whom it originates. I hadn't considered the 'zero points' review - if that doesn't hurt a scenario's actual end point total (can't see why it would, but never seen it done) then it seems a happy middle road that I would encourage B&T members to take.

Thoughts?

Scott

[WWB]

The more I think about it, zeroed out comment type reviews are appropriate for the battles done within your own group. That will keep scoring from getting skewed while getting comments out there.

I did not really think about the lone wolf types, they have less collusion concerns than most of the parties to this discussion and should have a bit freeer reign.

Actually, at this time, I think there are only three groups about: B&T, DK and The Scenario Design group. I would not mind seeing another few pop up myself.

WWB

PS: Atlas, saw your review of Katukov Strikes Back. The scenario is mis-labeled fictional, it is actually historical. I take no responsibility for the map, as it is transferred straight from a 1:50K topo. As for the padlocks, well, that was where the 10cm gun was and the briefings explains why the tanks were stuck where they were.

[ October 19, 2002, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: wwb_99 ]

[Runyan99]

Much ado about nothing, if you ask me. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. The Scenario Depot all about collecting as many opinions as possible. Therefore, everyone who is inclined to post a review should do so. Self-imposed rules for who can, and cannot, review scenarios seems silly.

[Clubfoot]

Well, if one asserts that in-house reviews carry a real or imagined whiff of impropriety (ie. score-boosting), it stands to reason that any review by a designer of any other designer's scenario could be said to create a similar but opposite stench (ie. score-sandbagging).

But... That's ok. If you want to review, review says me to ye. If you think it's in bad taste to do so, don't. Will I appreciate your reviews? Sure. Even if they're negative? Yeah. Will I feel slighted or hold it against anyone if they don't review? Nah.

Just do whatever you think is right, fellas. I trust ya.

[acrashb]

Originally posted by Runyan99:

Much ado about nothing

Right. If someone slants a review, it will show up - likely in the actual text of the review, since none of us are propaganda experts.

[Aacooper]

My opinion is that scenario design is not a competition... I believe everyone at Der Kessel is a big boy... and there's no harm in reviewing your buddies' scenarios. If you're a playtester, you should say so in the review. The more reviews out there, the better.