Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Scenario General => Topic started by: Brooke on August 02, 2018, 03:24:59 AM
-
I think all CM's but me consider a "scenario design" topic to be a bad idea -- because they see too many players losing it. I'm wondering if even players want it anymore.
Please pick one of the letters below.
A. I want the old way. (The old way was as follows. The writeup was done in private by the CM team, with no public discussion or input. Then it was posted to the public, and there were no changes allowed afterward. Suggestions about the design were not wanted, as there would be no further changes regardless.)
B. I want the current way.
C. I want a "scenario design" topic in a private forum, where it would work as follows. Anyone initially requesting entry gets in. Anyone who gets all hot under the collar gets his post replaced with "please make your case more calmly". If a person gets too many of those "calm down" reminders, he gets removed from the forum.
-
A. Haven’t flown scenarios long but I’m a simple kinda guy. Gimme a set of planes to pick from and tell me where I’m going is all I need
-
A. Or C. To much passive aggression... I know it comes from a good heart but it separate our community and in the end no one would care anymore...
DutchVII
-
I would suggest letter 'C'.
I would of had recommended 'A' years ago when we had massive numbers. The numbers on the game have declined so much it makes a general discussion more manageable and allows for the few players that are left to have their voices heard.
edit: If you do go for option 'C', I would recommend you add EVERYONE that requests access. Allow past misgivings that have occurred to be forgotten and attempt to move on. That goes for BOTH parties!
-
Fire the current CMs, get new blood in there and go with A.
-
C. Not many of us were fans of A.
-
B
Because A means people just leave and not say anything because nothing will be changed anyway. C means less publicity and this forum already has someone to remind users the rules etc, just report to moderator.
-
Having been on both sides of the fence I think you are damned no matter what way you go as someone will be angry.
Seems to be the best compromise is to have a private forum where the CMs and the CO and XO for both sides can meet to discuss concerns would be the best bet. If the CO of each side wants to add additional people to that forum, then they can bring it to the group and let them know why.
It falls on the CO for each side to then sell it to their team based on the decisions the CO and XO had in the design discussion.
There is no perfect way obviously, but too many cooks make it just as miserable as how it was when it was just the CM design team having to present it.
-
As I've recommended already when I was still a CM.
1) Come up with a design or completed writeup.
2) Share amongst CM team and privately amongst community members who you would personally like input from like Guppy, Devil, and others.
3) Make any adjustments you feel might be needed through thier input.
4) Share write up publicly and open registration for public.
I never understood the voting and design by community aspect. If you want help from someone knowledgeable ask them directly. Don't bog yourself down with negativity.
-
edit: If you do go for option 'C', I would recommend you add EVERYONE that requests access. Allow past misgivings that have occurred to be forgotten and attempt to move on. That goes for BOTH parties!
+1 :salute
-
As I've recommended already when I was still a CM.
1) Come up with a design or completed writeup.
2) Share amongst CM team and privately amongst community members who you would personally like input from like Guppy, Devil, and others.
3) Make any adjustments you feel might be needed through thier input.
4) Share write up publicly and open registration for public.
I never understood the voting and design by community aspect. If you want help from someone knowledgeable ask them directly. Don't bog yourself down with negativity.
Couldn’t agree more. Have set dates in each calendar year with theaters already chosen and hash out the write ups.
-
C
One-eye
-
D.
CM Team has several scenario write-ups ready. Community Votes on the Title/Topic. Scenario Write-up is issued to community immediately after vote concludes. After a week, CO's may be selected allowing time to decide if they want to, and if they can assemble a team they feel strong about. If Multiple CO requests, we do a simple lottery with an RNG. Once CO's are selected, if there are ANY concerns, they may then bring them up to the CM heading the event (Who, by the way, would be in a role of coordination, not aviation for the event). No changes will be made without getting input from the community unless it is a game altering flaw. Allow a week. The Teams will have enough to start planning while they wait for this process, so no time is lost.
Do this twice a year. MAYBE 3 times since the write-ups are already there. We don't need more, nor is there adequate time.
Those choices, A and B, are black and white, then you gave C as a suicide pill.
-
Seems to be the best compromise is to have a private forum where the CMs and the CO and XO for both sides can meet to discuss concerns would be the best bet. If the CO of each side wants to add additional people to that forum, then they can bring it to the group and let them know why.
I agree with you on the context, but from what I have seen of the scenario community on the forums, a few people are unhappy and feel their opinions are not being heard. If you have only CMs and CO/XOs in discussion of scenario design it will continue the thought that the scenario design is a "good old boys club" as CMs choose the CO/XO for each event.
-
B - total transparency.
C would only be acceptable to me if the design forum was opened to viewing by everyone when the side forums are.
-
As I've recommended already when I was still a CM.
1) Come up with a design or completed writeup.
2) Share amongst CM team and privately amongst community members who you would personally like input from like Guppy, Devil, and others.
3) Make any adjustments you feel might be needed through thier input.
4) Share write up publicly and open registration for public.
I never understood the voting and design by community aspect. If you want help from someone knowledgeable ask them directly. Don't bog yourself down with negativity.
This is more in line with the "A" old style that Brooke incorrectly tried to define.
-
Lets go with ROC's version of old style. Good, it's settled, let's move on!
-
As I've recommended already when I was still a CM.
1) Come up with a design or completed writeup.
2) Share amongst CM team and privately amongst community members who you would personally like input from like Guppy, Devil, and others.
3) Make any adjustments you feel might be needed through thier input.
4) Share write up publicly and open registration for public.
I never understood the voting and design by community aspect. If you want help from someone knowledgeable ask them directly. Don't bog yourself down with negativity.
This
-
As I've recommended already when I was still a CM.
1) Come up with a design or completed writeup.
2) Share amongst CM team and privately amongst community members who you would personally like input from like Guppy, Devil, and others.
3) Make any adjustments you feel might be needed through thier input.
4) Share write up publicly and open registration for public.
I never understood the voting and design by community aspect. If you want help from someone knowledgeable ask them directly. Don't bog yourself down with negativity.
+1.
-
As I've recommended already when I was still a CM.
1) Come up with a design or completed writeup.
2) Share amongst CM team and privately amongst community members who you would personally like input from like Guppy, Devil, and others.
3) Make any adjustments you feel might be needed through thier input.
4) Share write up publicly and open registration for public.
I never understood the voting and design by community aspect. If you want help from someone knowledgeable ask them directly. Don't bog yourself down with negativity.
This is better, almost there and it needs item 3) modified.
3) Engage the side COs and X0s for comment. Make any adjustments agreed to by the designer and the COs on behalf of their command staff as needed.
Finally, two more to make it read as follows:
1) Come up with a design or completed writeup.
2) Share amongst CM team and privately amongst community members who you would personally like input from like Guppy, Devil, and others.
3) Engage the side COs and X0s for comment. Make any adjustments agreed to by the designer and the COs on behalf of their command staff as needed.
4) Share write up publicly and open registration to the public.
5) Once the rules are agreed by the COs at step 3 there will be no changes.
6) Side COs are responsible for addressing any of their side's concerns. (They have accepted the write-up and rules as amended.)
If this became a reality, I would likely participate in scenarios again.
-
As I've recommended already when I was still a CM.
1) Come up with a design or completed writeup.
2) Share amongst CM team and privately amongst community members who you would personally like input from like Guppy, Devil, and others.
3) Make any adjustments you feel might be needed through thier input.
4) Share write up publicly and open registration for public.
I never understood the voting and design by community aspect. If you want help from someone knowledgeable ask them directly. Don't bog yourself down with negativity.
This... :aok
-
As I've recommended already when I was still a CM.
1) Come up with a design or completed writeup.
2) Share amongst CM team and privately amongst community members who you would personally like input from like Guppy, Devil, and others.
3) Make any adjustments you feel might be needed through thier input.
4) Share write up publicly and open registration for public.
I never understood the voting and design by community aspect. If you want help from someone knowledgeable ask them directly. Don't bog yourself down with negativity.
+1
-
The only thing wrong with Nef's suggestion is that you still release it to the public and follow that with "No changes will be made." What if someone has a valid point or idea that the private members did not think of? A design of any kind (FSO, Scenario, Snapshot, etc.) should never be released to public with the words, "No changes will be made." As Devil said, public makes it completely transparent. So long as changes can still be made once it hits the public forum, I have no issue with it at all.
Either way, it does not really matter. With as many good minds as we have here, we can get it close enough to pass. :salute
-
What Nefarious said. A
-
IMO I would love to be more involved with scenarios now so I'd pick C. I at least would like to put my 2 cents worth in!!! :cheers: :salute
-
As I've recommended already when I was still a CM.
1) Come up with a design or completed writeup.
2) Share amongst CM team and privately amongst community members who you would personally like input from like Guppy, Devil, and others.
3) Make any adjustments you feel might be needed through thier input.
4) Share write up publicly and open registration for public.
I never understood the voting and design by community aspect. If you want help from someone knowledgeable ask them directly. Don't bog yourself down with negativity.
This.
-
Mostly B. It's not perfect but it's better than talking to a brick wall. Here's how it was in past FSOs, scenarios, and anything:
1) The setup is announced and is final. You can't make suggestions until next time. We're not taking suggestions for next time until we discuss it. We won't tell you when we're discussing it. We've made our decisions. The setup is announced and final.
That didn't work. It was a bad system with no input or feedback.
B is definitely better, though if the concern is over it becoming a vocal minority platform or a quagmire of dissent, here's how you fix that: Announce the setup. Have 1 week of comments. Take the top 3 comments and JUST those comments can lead to discussion and compromise or change on the design.
Example: The planeset would be one discussion (as in this case). The scoring would be another (say, in a DGS type of setup how bomber player %s tie into scoring, etc), or map setup/layout and fields, distances covered, fleet positions, the geographical logistics might be another.
Limit the conversation but allow players input and discussion. Then put a 2-3 week limit on those 3 discussions in total, and after that a decision is made by the CMs taking those topics into consideration and a FINAL write-up is issued. That keeps it from becoming a festering process and keeps people on-track and focused to an issue, rather than being combatitive or difficult for the sake of being heard.
I think B with a slight change to keep it a shorter discussion is better.
-
Mostly B. It's not perfect but it's better than talking to a brick wall. Here's how it was in past FSOs, scenarios, and anything:
1) The setup is announced and is final. You can't make suggestions until next time. We're not taking suggestions for next time until we discuss it. We won't tell you when we're discussing it. We've made our decisions. The setup is announced and final.
That didn't work. It was a bad system with no input or feedback.
B is definitely better, though if the concern is over it becoming a vocal minority platform or a quagmire of dissent, here's how you fix that: Announce the setup. Have 1 week of comments. Take the top 3 comments and JUST those comments can lead to discussion and compromise or change on the design.
Example: The planeset would be one discussion (as in this case). The scoring would be another (say, in a DGS type of setup how bomber player %s tie into scoring, etc), or map setup/layout and fields, distances covered, fleet positions, the geographical logistics might be another.
Limit the conversation but allow players input and discussion. Then put a 2-3 week limit on those 3 discussions in total, and after that a decision is made by the CMs taking those topics into consideration and a FINAL write-up is issued. That keeps it from becoming a festering process and keeps people on-track and focused to an issue, rather than being combatitive or difficult for the sake of being heard.
I think B with a slight change to keep it a shorter discussion is better.
I agree. Releasing to public along with "no changes will be made" should be avoided. If there is a private forum with upstanding community members hashing out details, that is great. But, if it goes from there to the public with the words "no changes will be made," nothing has been solved. It would make for a shorter discussion, I feel, considering the brainpower that was hopefully involved in the private discussion. However, the event is for the public and while it will never meet everyone's satisfaction, it should be the goal of the designers to have it meet most people's satisfaction. In that regard, I feel that Brooke has done well with this scenario.
-
Having been gone from the game close to 7 years now, my opinion on this wont carry much weight. Option C would be preferable, seeing that many scenarios don't see a 2nd go around.
Other wise I would opt for A but open a discussion after the event to address what some may see as shortcomings to it.
Those who design these can never make everyone happy, heck alot of them end up with the wrong side coming out on top. Not the designs fault, but the skillsets of the pilots can skew the best intentions.
I CO'd 2 of these, read and reread the rules and and such, and both times I could find holes that were neither allowed or disallowed. As the CO, I would have hated having a hole that benefited me plugged.
If the discussion were to take place prior to CO's being selected, and possibly using Krusty's suggestion of limiting the field of potential "fixes" or "desires" Then C would be my first choice.
<S>4440
-
<S>4440
Good to see you man, hope all is well!
:salute
-
On one of my rare visits to the forums - I vote for Nef! :airplane: