Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Feedback on Scenarios - Campaigns

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Feedback on Scenarios - Campaigns Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Feedback on Scenarios - Campaigns - 7/26/2000 5:55:00 AM   
Wild Bill

 

Posts: 6821
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Smyrna, Ga, 30080
Status: offline 		Big Jim, Skotty and a few others have given some interesting feedback on scenarios. All designers I am sure appreciate your comments. Keep them coming. Just be gentle You guys are some of the best testers we could have so your input is appreciated...Wild Bill ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

_____________________________


In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant
Post #: 1
- 7/26/2000 7:06:00 AM   
Skotty

 

Posts: 83
Joined: 7/18/2000
From: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: offline 		No problem WB, just doing my part to make the SP community a nicer, more explovsive, hot twisted burnt out tank hull, machine gun happy place to play.

_____________________________


(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 2
- 7/26/2000 7:20:00 AM   
bigjim

 

Posts: 63
Joined: 6/3/2000
Status: offline 		Well Bill I can only rate a campaine or senario based on MY idea's of what a war game should be and that may not always coinside with what others want. I want the "feel" of the historic event BUT I want the "possibility" of rewriting history therefore I do not want a predetermed outcome BEFORE I start the game (some senario's seem to be made to let the player "see" what it was like to be on the losing side). For example I just played "crisis at Knights bridge" senario and after the "first" try I replayed it "knowing the enemy strength and STILL could only produce a "draw" as the Brit, now I am sure this was probably a "historic" out come of the engagement, but this senario is not my cup of tea. BigJim

_____________________________


(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 3
- 7/26/2000 8:42:00 AM   
Wild Bill

 

Posts: 6821
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Smyrna, Ga, 30080
Status: offline 		Precisely the point I was making earlier, Jim. We want a mix of historicity and playability, a chance to win if you please. Let me share something with you. Occasionally I will design what I consider about as close as one can get to a pure historical battle. Now I know the outcome before I start. Let's say the defense of Wake Island. Then what do I do? I set computer vs computer and watch the battle. Its amazing sometimes how much like the real thing it becomes (That in itself is a tribute to this game!). Then I begin to change some things. Oh, there are a lot of ways to do that. I can shorten the scenario, forcing the superior player to take chances. I can increase the values of the defenders or the "minority" side. Or I can set up some sneaky reinforcements (I just got chewed out for doing that in another game , in good fun of course!). I can limit ammo, I can do so many tweaks so as to begin to swing the pendulum to the middle. Once that is done, I have pretty much the historical event but with some twists and tweaks that make it exciting, challenging and fun. At least I try. And I've found that as a general rule, if it is fun for me, it will be fun for the majority of gamers who try it. Move over Skotty, it's a little tight in this hulk... Wild Bill ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

_____________________________


In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant

(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 4
- 7/26/2000 9:17:00 AM   
Drake666

 

Posts: 313
Joined: 4/22/2000
Status: offline 		I think what most scenario designers should do in their right up is give in idea what skill level of player they are makeing a scenario for. Im a expert vs the computer and even when the computer has 10 to 1 odds on me I can still win most times, but then their are other people who find it hard to win with 2 to 1 odds so what might be a good idea is have 4 ratings for a scanrio, newbie, avarage, expert and elite player level. Wild bill their makes scanarios that most levels of player can play and have a chance of winning. For that reason I play his scenarios against other players, never vs the AI. Not complaining WB, love your scenarios that way.

_____________________________


(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 5
- 7/26/2000 12:14:00 PM   
Don

 

Posts: 810
Joined: 7/12/2000
From: Elk Grove, CA (near Sacramento)
Status: offline 		I think Drake has a good idea. When my scenario was being tested I heard "great" and "excellent" from more experienced players and "way too hard" from less experienced testers. Heck, I can only get a marginal victory and I know where everything is! I left it the way it was, figuring the "vets" want a good hard fight and the less experienced players can adjust thier preferences if need be. Don

_____________________________

Don "Sapper" Llewellyn

(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 6
- 7/26/2000 12:42:00 PM   
Wild Bill

 

Posts: 6821
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Smyrna, Ga, 30080
Status: offline 		There is a place for everything, and there is a place for every type of scenario. We here try to provide easier ones, harder ones, little ones, big ones, historical ones, fictional ones, and even controversial ones (I really like those). Each of you have your preferences and your abilities. I have testers who work with me with varying degrees of talent. Some are like Drake (oh, I think I got one for ya, Drake. Want to try it? ). Old Pentti Perttula is unbeatable. He wins 'em all! Massimo Rocca is another veritable conqueror of lands and peoples. Then there are those like me, who need a lot of help And Lady Fortune often has a say in the game. She may be smiling or frowning on your efforts. But tell you what,let me take your idea one step further, Don. Instead of making all scenarios harder or more difficult to win,(was that your point?), why not make them middle of the road and then let the player make it harder or easier to win? That perhaps is the best way to go. But there is room for all, and our desire is to provide scenarios that all can enjoy, from a newbie to some of you born killers Fair enough? Wild Bill ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games [This message has been edited by Wild Bill (edited July 26, 2000).]

_____________________________


In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant

(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 7
- 7/26/2000 12:53:00 PM   
Exnur

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 6/23/2000
Status: offline 		I think Drake has a good idea. Rate scenarios as Rookie, Regular, Veteran, and Elite proficiency. Most people don't like to fiddle with the settings too much. Some feel it's cheating, some just don't bother. This way, you download scenarios that you're comfortable with, and can aspire to more difficult ones as you improve. Exnur

_____________________________


(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 8
- 7/26/2000 4:39:00 PM   
Wild Bill

 

Posts: 6821
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Smyrna, Ga, 30080
Status: offline 		Yes it is a good point, but here again, the rulings are subjective. What level is a rookie? Hard to do, sometimes, but some sort of rating system does need to be instituted. As to the settings, it may appear that few bother with them, BUT what would happen if we took them out ARGH! Wild Bill ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

_____________________________


In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant

(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 9
- 7/26/2000 8:29:00 PM   
Fabs

 

Posts: 444
Joined: 6/5/2000
From: London, U.K.
Status: offline 		I've said this in another posting but it is topical, so I'll say it again. I appreciate the efforts of scenario designers regardless of whether the scenario is easy or arduous or even unwinnable for me. I try them and draw conclusions by how easily or otherwise I can get on first time. If it is too easy and the scenario's general feel grips me, I'll get in there and change things (enemy troops morale and experience, objective positioning or values, number of turns, visibility etc.), then try again. If I get whipped several times regardless of the fact that by the third or fourth attempt I pretty well know where everything is, I'll hack it in reverse and see what difference it makes. I am not bothered by the idea of "cheating" if I'm playing the AI, I view it as a learning experience. Playing between human opponents would be different, of course, but then if one is playing against a far superior adversary then maybe one needs a game where the Great Master of the situation has some handicap (they do this in Golf very successfully). If I had a regular gaming partner and one of us regularly emerged as superior to the other, I would probably want to tilt the plying field to give the weaker partner a sporting chance (especially if it is me!). This could be achieved by agreeing to modify a scenario in favour of the weaker player. I appreciate that to some "purists" who may feel that the only game that counts is the first one you play of any particular scenario, in its intended format, this may sound like heresy of the highest order. They have their way of appreciating the game, I have mine. It's all about having fun. ------------------ Fabs

_____________________________

Fabs

(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 10
- 7/26/2000 9:12:00 PM   
victorhauser

 

Posts: 318
Joined: 5/29/2000
From: austin, texas
Status: offline 		Currently the Scenario Depot gives "star" ratings to a scenario's quality as rated by the players who have played it. Perhaps space could be made to allow for "helmet" ratings as well, where 1 helmet would indicate "for the beginner" to 5 helmets "where angels fear to tread" as rated by the players who have played it. In the discussion I've read in this thread I'm assuming that all scenarios put in the Scenario Depot were designed to be played with all Player Preferences set to 100%/Default, all Realism Panel settings to be ON, and the AI set to XXX/Default, unless otherwise noted by the scenario designer. Is this correct?

_____________________________

VAH

(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 11
- 7/26/2000 9:49:00 PM   
Drake666

 

Posts: 313
Joined: 4/22/2000
Status: offline 		Send your scen on over WB, I just hope it harder then that last one were my tank commanders were falling asleep they were so board. As for the settings wild bill I never change them, I wount things to happen in battle as hictoric as possable. I would not mind them changed to something els but I also now their are a few people who would complain about this becouse they dont play for the hictoric side of the game and wount the settings to make things harder or easyer.

_____________________________


(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 12
- 7/26/2000 10:30:00 PM   
bigjim

 

Posts: 63
Joined: 6/3/2000
Status: offline 		Hmmmm well to my point of view two things are operating here. One you have the "gamer" i.e learn all the advantages and disadvantages of the "game" and then play. Two you have the "historic gamer" who expects the values to reflect (as closely as possible) the historic values and then employs the tactics of the time to play the senario. I think most of the cries of "cheating" come from the latter type since I know I fall into that area, I am sometimes disappointed by the "rules" which I feel are inaccurate at times (tank crews assaulting tanks, losing LOS on an emplaced gun), this of course leads to the inevitable arguement about who plays the best etc etc etc, how easy the AI is etc etc, so I think that some leaway must be given to both types. Also in trying to program a game of this type the programmer is "forced" into some compromises in order to accomplish his mission. My statement is simply "remember the GAMES limitation when making senarios/campaines so as not to lose the playability factor that we all love so well BigJim

_____________________________


(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 13
- 7/26/2000 11:35:00 PM   
David

 

Posts: 25
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline 		I have been playing Steel Panthers every since the original realease. I have not though ever made a serious attempt at designing a scenerio. It is just to easy to down load one of Wild Bills. WB? Would it be worth your time to design a simple fill in the blank form for capturing the test data you or any other designer might want? The object of course would be to determine playabiliy, and as others suggested establish an expierence rating. Just a thought.

_____________________________


(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 14
- 7/27/2000 4:31:00 AM   
Wild Bill

 

Posts: 6821
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Smyrna, Ga, 30080
Status: offline 		Thanks David. That is kind of you. Long timer, huh? Its been wonderful to watch evolve, hasn't it? And still as much...no, more fun than ever! Yes, I have such a form. The Raider testers use it. I'll send you a copy...WB ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

_____________________________


In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant

(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 15
- 7/27/2000 4:34:00 AM   
Tombstone

 

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline 		I'm on the tail end of making a relatively large Kursk scenario. It's quite difficult, and I intend to rate its percieved difficulty in the associated text file. Also, does anyone have any experience naming units to match unit designations? I have GE and RU units in 1943. There are a bunch of Soviet tank brigades, and regiments. And the germans are some significant portion of the 3rd SS Panzergren div. Tomo

_____________________________


(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 16
- 7/27/2000 5:55:00 AM   
Leibstandarte

 

Posts: 122
Joined: 6/19/2000
From: Austin, TX USA
Status: offline 		Tombstone I can't wait until I can get my hands on your Kursk scenario. What do you mean by naming units? Do you mean the actual units in the game? Or a translation of the German/Russian OOB's?

_____________________________

Cavalry Trooper (8th US) and Grandson of a Leibstandarte Tanker.

(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 17
- 7/27/2000 6:16:00 AM   
victorhauser

 

Posts: 318
Joined: 5/29/2000
From: austin, texas
Status: offline 		Tomo, the best site I know of on the web regarding the Battle of Kursk is at: http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/avenue/vy75 I hope this helps.

_____________________________

VAH

(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 18
- 7/27/2000 6:27:00 AM   
Tombstone

 

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline 		I mean, like A Co, 1st Bn or something like that. Within the character limit of unit names how to fit the data in. Tomo

_____________________________


(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 19
- 7/27/2000 6:48:00 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline 		I've only had this game a couple of weeks, but I really enjoy the early Barbarossa scenarios. I hope one of you enterprising designers comes up with some Operation Typhoon scenarios, or some of the desperate fighting around the Kiev pocket in September 41. I guess I've identified myself as an Eastern Front fan, and for an old Panzerblitz fan this game is a dream come true. Thanks a lot, guys, for your attention to detail and your obvious love of what you do. As an addendum, I've been playing operational-level games (of the board type and later PC) for close to 30 years. I haven't been a big fan of tactical games (other than the previously mentioned AH board game), until SPWAW came along. As a learning tool, it is invaluable to someone interested in low-level WWII combat. To someone like me, who has previously experienced the excitement of WWII gaming only on the corps and division level, it is an eye-opening look into the nuts and bolts of what this type of combat is all about. ------------------ "Klotzen, nicht Kleckern (roughly translated, 'Use the fist, not the fingers')"--Heinz Guderian [This message has been edited by KG Erwin (edited July 26, 2000).]

_____________________________


(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 20
- 7/27/2000 9:52:00 AM   
Wild Bill

 

Posts: 6821
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Smyrna, Ga, 30080
Status: offline 		Yeah, Erwin. Makes you get out of that staff car, put on a helmet, grab a weapon or a tank can get out there, doesn't it? Tac level warfare is unique. You feel each triumph and tragedy keenly. Lose a tank in an operational game, and you don't even blink. Losing one in SPWAW can make a grown man cry!...or worse! I like both ways of gaming, but I think I enjoy being a captain more than a general. Down and dirty...blood and guts..Frontline fighting. YES! Wild Bill ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

_____________________________


In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant

(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 21
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Feedback on Scenarios - Campaigns Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.984