Post Malta discussion of ways to improve scenarios

[Brooke]

The discussion in "altitude and scenarios" is broadening out, so I made a new topic for it.  I'll fill it in with a few of the posts from "altitude and scenarios" to get it started.

[Brooke]

Originally from Delirium:

The altitude of the participants is the #1 reason I will not fly in scenarios, man-made restrictions help but do not eliminate the problem, the last BoB scenario is a good example, the British flights routinely flew at 40k and we ended up seeing 109Es even higher.

I'm not asking to fly in a scenario with a pre-arranged outcome (either side winning or losing) but I want it to feel at least a LITTLE realistic with altitudes, combat situation, etc.

The other reason I refuse to fly in scenarios is the lack of participation... if either side gets a large lead in the first 2 frames, you might as well cancel the remaining frames for lack of attendance on the one side. I don't care if my side wins or loses, I normally download music for the period and enjoy it during the scenario for the historical feel. Score is the least important thing to me.

List of importance to me (this would make a good poll question for the scenario site btw).

1. Realistic feel- not a carbon copy, but more than just historic match ups at 40K).

2. Participation- during BoB, I had a different XO every frame and was extremely stressful, more so since I had so many computer problems during that time.

3. Sense of fair play and respect for the other guy- this includes both the boards and the rule settings. Included is a lack of whining and static rule set, unaffected by said whining.

4. Kills- except for when I fly with Guppy in a scenario  , I don't care if I get kills, so long as the group I am flying with has fun.

5. 'Winning' the scenario- for me, taking part in a good scenario FAR outweighs the score factor.


__________________
Delirium
475 FG "Satans Angels"
Nose Art
475th Homepage
__________________
"I pleasure myself while i choke myself with the usb cables for my joystick." Morpheus


Last edited by Delirium on 11-24-2005 at 01:10 AM

[Brooke]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Delirium
The other reason I refuse to fly in scenarios is the lack of participation...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Sounds like a Catch 22 situation.

I've flown in four Aces High scenarios now (Battle of Britain, Rangoon, Coral Sea, and now Malta). While attendance usually drops off a bit as the frames go on, I haven't noticed it being that bad. Also, even reduced numbers are enough to have a very fun scenario, as you still have over 50 people per side. Here are some stats.

Let R1 be the ratio of last-frame number of players divided by first-frame number of players for side 1. Let R2 be that for side 2.

scenario, R1, R2
---------------------
BoB, 0.79, 0.97
Rangoon, 0.81, 0.83
Coral Sea, 1.05, 1.10
Malta, 0.84, 0.79

The stats don't bear out large disparities in loss of players in scenarios except possibly for Battle of Britain, and it was perhaps the closest score of all going into the last frame, with the outcome coming down to a small handful of buildings at one target not destroyed resulting in the axis just missing a win. Also, attendance in Coral Sea actually increased.

Still, scenarios aren't for everyone. This isn't an argument that Delirium should like them or play in them. This is just an analysis of player participation changes over time.

[Brooke]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Delirium

List of importance to me (this would make a good poll question for the scenario site btw).

1. Realistic feel- not a carbon copy, but more than just historic match ups at 40K).

2. Participation- during BoB, I had a different XO every frame and was extremely stressful, more so since I had so many computer problems during that time.

3. Sense of fair play and respect for the other guy- this includes both the boards and the rule settings. Included is a lack of whining and static rule set, unaffected by said whining.

4. Kills- except for when I fly with Guppy in a scenario  , I don't care if I get kills, so long as the group I am flying with has fun.

5. 'Winning' the scenario- for me, taking part in a good scenario FAR outweighs the score factor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



BoB and Malta had some very high-alt action. Rangoon and Coral Sea (at least from my perspective) didn't. Even a scenario with unrealistic altitude is more realistic than anything else available in the world, as far as I know. Certainly more realistic than the main arena and uncomparibly more so than a stand-alone sim.

I've had the same GL's in nearly every frame of every scenario. Regardless, scenarios vary. Some CO's and command staff are more organized than others, so you can't judge all scenarios by how it was in a particular squadron of a particular scenario.

Fair play is largely present in my experience. Just as you will never have a scenario (or anything else in the world) that everyone likes, you will always with group participation have a small number of people who whine about something. If you restrict yourself to participation in activities only where there are zero whiners (as opposed just to a low percentage), forget about scenarios or volunteer organizations or working in any company larger than a few people, for that matter. Whiners are always there, but unless things are bad, they usually aren't the majority. They seem more plentiful than they are because they make a lot of noise -- but in my experience, out of, say, 100 people playing, maybe 5 will be annoying whiners.

Your points 4 and 5 are not at odds at all with my experience in every scenario. From my perspective, most enjoy filling their roles even if those roles don't end up resulting in lots of kills or even winning.

At any rate, I don't bring up these points to persuade you to like scenarios. I think a person is either going to like them or not, and reasons one way or the other are irrelevant. I bring up these points only to remark that my experience is totally at odds from yours in many areas.

[Brooke]

Originally posted by Delirium:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Brooke
While attendance usually drops off a bit as the frames go on, I haven't noticed it being that bad.

Still, scenarios aren't for everyone. This isn't an argument that Delirium should like them or play in them. This is just an analysis of player participation changes over time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You weren't in the last Russian/German scenario... trust me, attendance was miserable.

I really like scenarios, I just feel as though the attitudes in the MA have trickled down to scenarios to some degree.

I'm just giving my opinion... I'm fairly certain I'm not alone, but feel free to ignore my opinion anyway.


__________________
Delirium
475 FG "Satans Angels"
Nose Art
475th Homepage
__________________
"I pleasure myself while i choke myself with the usb cables for my joystick." Morpheus

[Brooke]

Originally posted by DoK:

We're getting off-topic, but based on what I saw running Rangoon, I'd have to concur that there are serious problems.

Despite the cross-promotion with an AVG-related site and free prizes attendence was far below expectations. Even for a PTO event.

A lot of people stayed away because I wouldn't let them sign up en masse in predefined squadrons and grab their preferred rides as such. This was more disturbing as it appeared that a large number of people saw scenarios are squadron competitions - more concerned about their scores than the team (which is one reason I enforce the rule of breaking up cliques - they erode community).

I wasn't as upset by the whining (which I always expect - give someone a 1000 ft altitude edge and someone on the other side will always say it's now "unwinable" for them) as people walking off because of necessary rule changes (due to crappy attendence) or things not going their way. That's just wrong - you sign up to be part of a team - there's just too much MA attititude up in this.

The net effect of this is it really hinders the CM. You're forced to pick more popular battles or people won't fly in numbers if there aren't enough uber rides; you have to let squadrons define your registration process or they won't fly; you have to tiptoe around rulings or people will walk off. The end result is that scenarios will be run for and by "the few".


Can it be fixed? Yeah, probably. I'm convinced that large scenarios need a $5 or $10 sign-up fee, which will be used to underwrite the cost of patches for everyone, as well as provide prizes (maybe Amazon.com gift certs). That money will also help keep people in the event - if you walk off, you don't get your patch - simple. Sure, people will ***** about paying to play a game they already pay for - what else is new?

Events should have feature movies as well as image galleries and an archive of AAR's. An event should have the permanence that the MA lacks. These should be forwarded to online webzines for possible feature. All games of this genre are predominantly arena based - AH scenarios are something very different which will be interesting to a lot of people.

The key people in events - CMs, FLs, COs, and veteran pilots - need to pass on their ethics to the newer people. New people (and remember that scenarios started in 1992) and even seasoned "squadron only" people need to recognize that joining a side on a scenario is a kind of contract - you are accepting a responsibility to forge a team to meet a challenge for a number of weeks. You don't walk off. You don't fly just for yourself. In a well designed event, everyone will get a chance to shine and its worth the work.


__________________
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it." -- Voltaire

GonZoville.com

[Brooke]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Delirium
You weren't in the last Russian/German scenario... trust me, attendance was miserable.

I really like scenarios, I just feel as though the attitudes in the MA have trickled down to scenarios to some degree.

I'm just giving my opinion... I'm fairly certain I'm not alone, but feel free to ignore my opinion anyway.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Nope -- My first AH scenario was Battle of Britain 2004.

The only way to change attitudes is to participate and to be part of the group helping to change them.

Almost no one is alone in an opinion, and I'm not ignoring yours -- I'm just explaining how my opinion is different.

By the way, I was wrong on my stats above for Coral Sea. It was actually as follows: R1 = 0.88, R2 = 0.72. More in line with the others in terms of drop off but more lopsided than Rangoon and Malta.

Don't get me wrong -- I would like to see scenarios have the same attendance all the way through. That would be a lot better. However, for me, I'd much rather play in a scenario that in the end frame has 75% of what it started with than not play at all.

[Brooke]

I, too, like the idea of building up continuity and comraderie around scenarios.  I'm not sure about charging money as I'd be concerned the number of players signing up would be drastically smaller.  Still, we could try it and see how it goes.

I love the idea of patches, and I participate in getting those out.  DoK's idea of getting exposure outside the small AH scenario community and even outside the overall AH community is great.  I'd love to see articles on AH scenarios in gaming articles or even elsewhere.  In Air Warrior, we had a Wall Street Journal reporter attend a scenario once and write up his experience as a gunner on a B-17.

Also, I've thought it would be interesting to recruit into scenarios folks who are into wargaming but not necessarily being a pilot themselves.  There are a lot of people who would love helping to craft strategies and participate in command staff from the ground -- sort of like a wargame, but running it with real people in real time.  Also, it would be interesting to have more ground forces involved, and hence more targets for ground attack.  There are plenty of gamers out there who like naval and ground action.

One of the issues there is that such people might not want to pay $15/month all the time for Aces High to play in a scenario here and there.  So a system where people could pay for a single scenario worth of participation would be good.  It's like $15/month but not automatically recurring.

Folks are working to improve various areas impacting scenerios:  promotion, organization, frequency of running scenarios, building a larger base of solid, reliable players, etc.  It will take effort and time.

Another aspect that helps is making sure to get CO's and GL's who are really into it and who are good organizers, recruiters, and communicators.  Diligence of the command staff helps a scenario greatly.

[Brooke]

By the way, if anyone is reading these topics and wondering what he or she can do even without a great investment of time, here it is:  promote and participate.  Specifically:

1.  From time to time, tell people in the main arena about scenarios or briefly chat using a text channel with another about scenarios while in the main arena.  I estimate that only about 5% of the player base knows what a scenario is.

2.  Play in scenarios, recruit others to play in scenarios, and while playing and discussing, exhibit the sort of attitude you think is best for scenarios.  In attitude, lead by example.

[jordi]

I think I  have been in MOST AH Sceanrios ( 12+ and counting I think ) since I joined in 2001 ? ( Man that long ago ! )

There is a group of Scenario players who will compare AH Scenarios to what they experienced in Air Warrior or WarBirds.

Here are some of the things I have observed ( And most have not changed much over the 4 years ).

1. AH does seem to gravitate toward MA SQUADS being a bigger influence on who signs up and who they fly with.
I do not have a problem with sqaud A all signing up together for a particular squadron as long as they do not mind ME as the CO sticking some none squad members with them as needed. I look at it as a RECRUITMENT tool for that squad. Get a new person to fly with them in a scearnio and there is a good chance they may fly with them later in the MA.

2. Scenario attendence numbers vary WIDELY depending on the plane set and theatre of operations.
We had 300+ for most frames for Midway. But we had less than 100 at times for a Arab / Isreal scenario. Ruhr had a pretty high number. We even had 60+ Bomber pilots fly but we could barely scrape up 15-20 bomber pilots for this one. Most scenarios have been well designed and thought out - but it is the players that decide how POPULAR a Scenario will be. The popular ones may draw the most people but we can not fly BoB and Ruhr and Midway every year. It is up to US the CM's, CO's, GL's and pilots  to get more people to show up for the less popular or less well known scenarios.

3. AH has a very small hard core scenario asset pool of pilots, GL's and CO's
In the GOOD OLD AW Days we had a plethera of groups and people we could draw from to be CO's, XO's and GL's. Each one of these people could be counted on to draw in even more people to help fill out a roster. So on the day REG opened it was possible to have one or both sides fill up in a day or 2 ! In AH unless the reg list is very small it may take weeks to maybe fill all of the slots if we are lucky.

4. Changes in AH that we have no control over affect scenarios.
Just for Malta it took a long time to develope a NEW Terrain to work with the new Terrain editor and versions. Throw in changes to AH itself that actually changes how planes fly in the middle of a scenario does not help matters. Now Hitech has a larger population to worry abvout  than 150-200 Scenario pilots so we have to live with this stuff. But it does have an overall affect on scenarios.

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

The first 3 items listed all seem to fall back onto one area of concern. It is up to US THE PLAYERS to make things work.

The CM's or a group can create the best scenario in the world with the perfect rules, plane sets, historical flavor and intrigue. But if WE THE AH SCENARIO PILOTS do not do our part to get other people besides the CORE PLAYERS interested in them we will always have the above problems.

We only have OURSELVES to blame if numbers are low, if people do not fly all of the frames, if the petty whiners and bickerers raise thier minority voices above the silent majority.

If EVERY Person who flew in the last scenario did all they could to get just 1 more player to register for the next scenario then most of the problems above fall to the wayside.

It is incumbent amoung the SCENARIO CORE Group to make sure we keep expanding our numbers - not rest on any old outdated distant memory laurels.

[Brooke]

Good points, Jordi.  Recruitment and raising awareness of scenarios is, I too think, most important.

Which brings up another thing:  thanks, DoK, for agreeing to make a movie for Malta.  The first time I had ever seen such a thing for a scenario was your movie for Rangoon, and it was amazing to me.  I think these movies can help with recruitment and raising awareness.

[mechanic]

in my mind there is very little to be done about these 'problems'. the scenarios run spectacularly, the fights are all fun beit at 40k or on the deck.

full attendance is usually over 300 from what i see.


the times are good for Euros and yanks. not so good for eastern and oriental timezones.




the scenarios i have flown in (bob to malta) have been much fun and i hope nothing changes in the next ones to come.



bat

[Krusty]

I must add:

$10-$15 entry fee?? What is this, a LAN party? Event patches? Amazon.com gift cards? I don't want/need either, so why not let me join without any fee?

You already have to pay AH sub to get in. I don't see any reason to further charge folks. You want to INCREASE participation, not drive folks away, which is exactly what this would do.

[leitwolf]

Originally posted by jordi
[..]
We had 300+ for most frames for Midway. But we had less than 100 at times for a Arab / Isreal scenario. Ruhr had a pretty high number. We even had 60+ Bomber pilots fly but we could barely scrape up 15-20 bomber pilots for this one. Most scenarios have been well designed and thought out - but it is the players that decide how POPULAR a Scenario will be. The popular ones may draw the most people but we can not fly BoB and Ruhr and Midway every year.

Why not? I wouldnt mind flying BoB anually, its a very good setup - either side can pull off a victory and thats a key point for a scenario in a computer game.
In fact i'd rather fly a BoB setup every month then to participate in scenarios which may well be historical but are simply no fun because plane performance between the opposing sides is vastly different (late PAC-setups).

Running scenarios with a huge gap in between them is not going to produce a lot of attention. I know scenarios are a lot of work and to mitigate that work i propose mixing "old and tried" scenario setups (like BoB/Midway/Ruhr/Bigweek) with new ones and aim for a timeframe of 3months max between the scenarios. It was possible when AH had a quarter of todays #of players... and it should be possible today.

On a related note: we have a B-24 in this game for such a long time now and there was no 8th AF/LW or Ploesti scenario since its introduction. Why?

[Brooke]

Originally posted by leitwolf
On a related note: we have a B-24 in this game for such a long time now and there was no 8th AF/LW or Ploesti scenario since its introduction. Why?

Because you didn't design the scenario (or mod a previous one) and arrange to run it?  I hereby nominate you to do so.  You can count on my participation.

On the topic of frequency of scenarios, I'm all for frequent scenarios and mixing in previous designs (as opposed to just all new scenarios) to up the frequency.  Right now, one of the impediments to frequency, though (as I understand it) is the need to redo all of the terrains.  The previous terrains aren't readable in the latest version of Aces High, and I haven't heard that there is a translation tool.  Thus, all the maps must be redone, which is a large amount of work.