Vote for battle and format of the next Scenario

[Brooke]

I wouldn't call it even until I see the fighter force dispersement.

Bruv gets a Storch.

[Bruv119]

No way, I'm spit 9 G/L if dolby gets a 109F.    This is called country balancing 

[LCADolby]

No way, I'm spit 9 G/L if dolby gets a 109F.    This is called country balancing 

You mean Spit5

[Devil 505]

Brooke, I've mentioned it before - why not have a 12 hour frame during a conventional multiple frame scenario? The game as a whole and events in particular are struggling with lack of players. I think there needs to be an effort to have events available to the maximum amount of players.

While both being labeled "scenarios" the 4-frame and 12-hour formats each have strong merits and equally strong criticisms, I do not see any tangible conflict in having both. This way we can have maximum participation while maintaining long term immersion and team building.

[TheBug]

Damn, was getting my hopes too.  Oh well, not worth resubbing for a one day event.  Guess this game just keeps evolving outside of anything I consider interesting.    

[Bruv119]

3x 3hr ending in one 12hr??   

[Frodo]

Frodo, before you read any of the following, know that I do hope you fly in it.  Even if it isn't your first choice, it can be fun, and I hope you are there. 

OK, now on to particulars.

That's only part of it.

Prior to this, we had a lengthy discussion of the whole universe of possibilities, allowed any suggestion, collected up 17 different battle formats, then voted to narrow it down to 4 from among the 17.  That discussion was here:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,379992.0.html

The voting process overall was open for three weeks with this being only the tail end of it, and I sent out e-mails to attendees of Scenarios telling them about the final voting.

I can't use more time than this because I have three months between running of Scenarios, where we need at the very least 1 month for design and 1 month for recruiting (and preferably more).  There is a schedule; we have to get on with it; and I did my best to let people know if they wanted to participate.

There is no "you guys" in charge.  There is one Scenario CM -- me.  If I were deciding it on my own, it wouldn't be one frame, and you can see my failed suggestions for theme of the battle in the topic referenced above.

Instead of me deciding, I opened it up to all suggestions and let everyone vote, and I had the whole process take up a few weeks (which is about the most that can be devoted to it).

I don't think it can't get much more fair, open, and inclusive than that.

So, it isn't you first choice, but please do fly with us.  I think you can still have a lot of fun, and folks like me will be glad if you are in it. 

I read the discussion thread you referenced and posted in it and voted. A lot of people did not and the voting thread got some attention from the base but was not left up long enough in my opinion. How was the process open for 3 weeks? I guess you are including the discussion thread as part of that? A lot of players didn't pay attention until you put it up for an official vote. Saying you had it up for a vote for multiple weeks is a stretch to fit your argument it seems. You even point to the vote tally in the one voting thread as the basis for the decision, nothing about other threads.

And no the 12 hr. is not my first choice. I can't sit there for a 12 hr scenario and have the same concerns as Krusty and a lot of others have voiced. At best I would get 1 frame of a 12 hr scenario as opposed to maybe 4 frames of a regular scenario.

What was the name of the 12 hr scenario you ran? If I remember the numbers were dismal for it also. Just seems nothing is being done to try to increase numbers. Just the same old thing expecting different results. 

[puller]

I read the discussion thread you referenced and posted in it and voted. A lot of people did not and the voting thread got some attention from the base but was not left up long enough in my opinion. How was the process open for 3 weeks? I guess you are including the discussion thread as part of that? A lot of players didn't pay attention until you put it up for an official vote. Saying you had it up for a vote for multiple weeks is a stretch to fit your argument it seems.

And no the 12 hr. is not my first choice. I can't sit there for a 12 hr scenario and have the same concerns as Krusty and a lot of others have voiced. At best I would get 1 frame of a 12 hr scenario as opposed to maybe 4 frames of a regular scenario.

What was the name of the 12 hr scenario you ran? If I remember the numbers were dismal for it also. Just seems nothing is being done to try to increase numbers. Just the same old thing expecting different results.

Target for Today was the name and it was Nefarious that ran it...

Snailman did a chart on the participation of the 12 hour scenario and it was more than the last like 5 scenarios combined or some such thing...

No one is asking for you or anyone for that matter to sit for the entire 12 hours...now the scenario CMs will ask that the group leads and the CICs for each side to probably try to be there the entire time...but that's even a stretch...hell Devil and I rode out the whole 12 hour scenario and didn't have to sit for the entire 12 hours...with flight opening once an hour we did sorties that lasted through the flight opening and got killed right after the window closed...gave us a good 45 min or better to stretch legs, eat or whatever....

For those of you that did not participate in the scenario Target for Today....why don't you not comment about what it was like or it's downfalls or shortcomings...and Frodo I'm not talking to you at all saying this...

 Target for Today was THE most fun I have had in a scenario yet...it was a total blast from start to finish....I've never seen a bomber group as big as the one that we came across about half way through the scenario...

Y'all can hate on the 12 hour idea all you want...but I have a funny feeling it wouldn't matter if it was a 12 hour scenario or a traditional 4 frame you wouldn't show up...

[Brooke]

A lot of players didn't pay attention until you put it up for an official vote.

Then for those people, they had a full week to make a vote that they knew was coming.  As I said, regardless, that's the time we had available, because everything has to fit in.  Prior to the previous Scenario, there was no voting at all.

And no the 12 hr. is not my first choice. I can't ...

Whatever you do in a Scenario, unfortunately, there will be some people who can't make the time, can't commit to that particular span, can't do those particular dates, etc.  That's why I vary things -- so that I can give other preferences their day.  I put format up to a vote.  12-hour won.  Next one will be 4-frame (and then unfortunately a different set of people won't like it or can't do it).

What was the name of the 12 hr scenario you ran? If I remember the numbers were dismal for it also. Just seems nothing is being done to try to increase numbers. Just the same old thing expecting different results.

I didn't run it, but it was called "Target For Today".  Below are stats on all Scenarios back to 2004, which are at odds with your recollection.  Also, the whole reason for trying 12-hour is to try some new things.





I don't think most people are planning to play the whole 12 hours of the frame.  They are planning to play the several hours of it that fits best with their schedules.  I hope that you will fly the hours that fit with your schedule. 

[Brooke]

By the way, for the scientifically inclined out there, average player numbers for Target for Today (one 12-hour frame) and the various 4-frame scenarios are not exactly the same statistic in the following way.  The way I create these statistics is to look at the "players" stat in the log for each frame, and take the average over all frames.

In the case of the one 12-hour frame, I am getting the total number of players who took off at least once in that single frame.

In the case of the 4-frame events, I am getting the average number of players who took off at least once.  The total number of players who took off at least once would be greater than the average but not as large as four times the average.  It is greater than the average because the exact same set of players will not be present each frame -- some new players will be coming in from time to time while some former players are not in that frame.  It is not equal to four times the average, though, because not *all* players are different frame to frame.  However, I would not be surprised if the total number of players in a 4-frame event were 1.5 times the average.

So, if you want to compare a single 12-hour frame to multi-frame events in participation, you need to multiply the multi-frame average participation by a factor, perhaps something like 1.5.

[Devil 505]

3x 3hr ending in one 12hr??   

I think it would be easier on the planning staffs to have the 12Hr be the first, but having it last might cure the typical final frame population lull.

[Brooke]

I understand the motivation for 12-hour plus other frames.

I do very much like things to be more than one day, but I'm not in favor of a mixed format.  The reason is that it would take twice the design work.  Best is to have M N-hour frames, where folks can pick M and N, but N is the same for all M frames.

[Frodo]

Thanks for the stats Brooke.

I was basing what I remember on how many players are in the arena to fight against in a scenario. Yes it is hard to compare a 1 day 12 hr one to a 4 day. But the 12 hr. was a little less or roughly the same as the numbers the scenarios have been drawing per frame?

Puller I don't have your crystal ball but I think a lot of players would love to fly a scenario again. But a lot don't want to fly one with 30-40 players per side at best. It is hardly worth the time.

My main point is try something like a Sat. night scenario. If the same effort was put into it that was put into the last scenario, I bet you could double the numbers.

Anyway my 2 cents worth and I hope something else will be tried in the future.   

[Guppy35]

Motivated COs and GLs is the best bet to getting better numbers.  But it means beating the bushes, on the part of the GLs to get commitments from players to participate and to work hard to give those same players a reason to want to.

I didn't GL in the last one.  My original GL disappeared without comment.  His XO did his best, but by frame 4 it was me and three walkons.   If we hope to get old timers back we need to give them a reason to want to show up and that's where the GLs and the command guys make a difference.  Do I think we can get 300?  Not with the numbers overall in game, but I think if enough folks who believe in these things were willing to go the extra mile we could do a lot better. 

[Brooke]

The best way to get people to play is for every player to be recruiting and for squads to get into the action.

If you are in a squad and want to help, it is your job to get your squad into it.

If you are not in a squad and want to help, it is your job to recruit people you know.

Scenarios are currently pulling a similar percentage of players as before, but from a smaller player base.  For example, in the days of 600 players in the MA, Scenarios were pulling about 175 players (or about 30%).  Recently, I took a look at how many were in the MA when we were pulling 75 players into a Scenario -- the MA at prime-time Saturday then was about 200 (so we were at about 38%).

To get more players into Scenarios is work that must be done by the whole community -- it can't be done by me and a few others on the community's behalf.  We don't have enough reach to personally interact with all players, which is what it takes.