FSO participation -- what would it take for scenarios?

[Fencer51]

As much as our friends from Europe bring to the game, the question has to be are Scenarios bringing more fun to more people in their current time and day or would they benefit from a different time and day.

If you put them on a weeknight there is no good time.  Later than 9pm starts to be a problem for east coast fliers, while that is but 6pm for the west coasties.

If you move it the best time is Saturday evening.

Also FSOs are going to have more action because they are designed that way.  Each frame is set up to ensure a battle, typically 4 locations to defend and 4 to attack for each side.  Not all FSOs are historically accurate, but most give the players a good sense of action at that time and location depicted.  Which is exactly what they are supposed to do.

A scenario is to be a historically accurate battle (within the bounds of the current gaming engine), with historical units, airfield locations, objectives and all the other tidbits which bring people like HAJO their immersion.  A good scenario design ensures that there will be action.  A scenario does allow the different sides to make their own decisions on what they hope to accomplish each frame.  But good CO with the motivation to maximize the experience for the players (on both sides) can go a long way in a scenario to keep it real and ensure that everyone has a good time.  But there are those who let their obsession with winning get in the way of the enjoyment, then you see gaming of the event and everyone suffers.

[daddog]

I would venture to say in the combat over Europe or the PAC for that matter some sorties just came home empty handed.  Some saw so much action they didn't return.  So saying that you were bored because of no action is really missing what the Scenario is about.  It is History.

I understand that Hajo. I understand quite well that 8 flights out of 10 resulted in long boring flights without action, but that will not build a popular event no matter how close to history you get.

By far the majority of players who enjoy events want to fly with friends, engage and shoot down enemy aircraft, and fly in some kind of historical setting. That is how FSO has been designed from day one. You may say Scenarios are designed much the same way, but they are not. Not by a long shot. There are fundamental differences in their design and that IMHO is why they are not as popular as FSO. From his post above Fencer understand those differences.

These comments are not intended to slam Scenarios so please don’t take them that way. I am just answering the questions and responding to comments straight forward. FSO’s and Scenarios are very different animals and I have always fought hard against any element of Scenarios being injected into FSO. I fully understand why FSO is much more popular, but I am not so sure those that love Scenarios always do. This thread, is in part, evidence to that.

[Hajo]

So the question is...do we want to turn Scenarios into shooting galleries for quick gratification?  I understand the point about your squadmates wishing to fly with them etc.  There is nothing preventing your squad or any squad for that matter flying in the same squadron in a Scenario.  When I've had opportunity I've recruited who I wanted to be in my squadron in a Scenario.  They were usually squadmates and friends I've made through the many years in participating in events in AW and Aces High.

Dad  I've had some boring flights in an FSO also.  No action.  We were given an assignment to defend and nothing came into our area.
I've had a great deal of fun participating in both scenarios and fso.  I'm happy that most times in both events I've had great fights and a lot of fun.

And Dad...I didn't' take it as a slam on Scenarios.  Just thought I'd present a viewpoint you might not have considered.

Also I might add the time that a Scenario starts would probably be a large factor of course of participation.

[Easyscor]

I agree with daddog, any event without action, or one where you peddle the hamster cage for two hours only to see a horde come in and end your day isn't one I call enjoyable, yet I absolutely love scenarios. IMO Hajo and Fencer have put too much emphasis on the historical aspects in this thread, and shown too little emphases on the fun game-play of a balanced and well designed scenario.

[TUK]

Me an my guys like the friday nights.  Perfect night, and perfect time , no matter what time zone.... Would try for tuesdays for sceanarios.  Alot of people dont like the Titanic Tuesday format. Maybe a good night for you....... good luck.. Tuk151

[Brooke]

What I wanted to know was why there are many folks who play in FSO's who don't play in scenarios.

90% of responses are that it is because of the time slot -- so I have my answer.

To address some of the other discussion:  scenarios attempt to create a realistic battle while taking into account playability.  Flying around for 2 hours seeing no enemy is dull and is not a goal of scenarios or FSO's.  Nevertheless, it has happened to me -- rarely -- in both scenarios and FSO's.  The risk of it happening is probably greater in scenarios, but the goal is for it not to happen, and occurance of it causes discussion and possible design adjustments if that particular scenario is run again.

[Fencer51]

I agree with daddog, any event without action, or one where you peddle the hamster cage for two hours only to see a horde come in and end your day isn't one I call enjoyable, yet I absolutely love scenarios. IMO Hajo and Fencer have put too much emphasis on the historical aspects in this thread, and shown too little emphases on the fun game-play of a balanced and well designed scenario.

Funny, thats not what I thought I said.  A good scenario design ensures there will be action.  There is no reason to take a historical event, turn it into a scenario and bore the crap out of people.  There is every reason to take a historical event, look at what action occured, recreate that action, and present it as a portion of the battle.

I could do a heck of a scenario for Bodenplatte, I am sure Stampf and his guys would love to fly it!  But I doubt the Allies would.  Yet that battle is perfect for a snapshot.  You have to choose the events you are trying to recreate.  Just because a battle is famous and can be recreated historically does not mean that it should be.  Midway comes to mind for one.    Now in DGS action was the entire battle, after we hauled 120 bombers to 22k.    I as Allied CO could have tried to evade the Luftwaffe, tricked them, left the northern guys hanging for 3 hours and ran all the bombers against southern targets etc..  But as I said, a CO has a responsibility to play it straight and ensure that everyone on BOTH sides enjoys the event.

[Hajo]

Easycor....then what is a flight sim for?  Scenarios simulate a battle in WWII.  We are simulated Pilots who participated in that battle.

If it weren't for those battles we would have what?  Made up Scenarios?  I've had more fun in Scenarios then any aspect of this game.

FSO comes in a close second.  Since we base our Scenarios on Historical Battles there will be fights, and plenty of them.

If we go to far to the extreme of making them for fun only then why have scenarios?  Methinks the fights encountered or not encountered

have a lot to do with the COs orders for the day.  Same thing happened during WWII.  Sometimes you've called it right, sometimes not.

I would not participate in Scenarios at all if there were no History involved.  And if we make them for fun only...I might as well go to the

MA's.  Or Axis vs allied.  History is what our scenarios are based on.

[Easyscor]

My point is that you can have both history and fun. Scenarios are fun, most of the time, but by stressing only the history, I don't think the fun comes across. It's also the case that some rides in any given scenario are going to be a tough assignment, and that the experienced scenario player or FSO guy will spot it going in. Our FSO guys should feel right at home in a scenario, and they should check out the rules, I think they're still in the draft stage atm, and if this one looks interesting, jump in and get your feet wet.

[Hajo]

Easy agree with you about fun.  Fencer pointed out the Cos have a lot to do with that in their planning.

I've had as much fun in scenarios as FSOs mostly because they are historically based, and when you run into a fight lookout.

BoB, DGS were a hoot.  Can be bored for 40 mins, then all of a sudden 20 to 25 enemy showup and the next 5 to 10 mins. is a

swirling fight.

[daddog]

Dad  I've had some boring flights in an FSO also.  No action.  We were given an assignment to defend and nothing came into our area.

Rgr Hajo. Me too. But the difference is when FSO is working as it should that should never happen. Everyone knows what to attack and what to defend. In may of the past Scenario designs you have one side trying to out plan the other. For those over looking the giant map moving the chess pieces that can be pretty exciting, but those that have sorties without an enemy in sight it is pretty boring.

Sounds like You, Fencer and others feel confidant that Scenarios can be designed so lack of action is never a problem. I think you can.

All moot I guess. Brook has  decided it is a time slot issue, not a design issue.

[Brooke]

All moot I guess. Brook has  decided it is a time slot issue, not a design issue.

I think it would be more accurate to say, "The majority of players feel that it is a time issue, not a design issue."  I'm not deciding things here -- I'm just listening to what people are telling me.  (Also, I didn't consider it moot, as I addressed it.)

There were 12 people who responded so far.  8 said time slot was the issue.  One said lack of action (design) was an issue.  One said substituting aircraft was an issue.  One said the issue was lack of it being based around MA squads.  One said that frequency of running was the issue.

This is all good and useful feedback.

I thank people for their input so far  -- and welcome more to come.

[forHIM]

Time slot & Time commitment.  First, the time they are ran is really bad for me.  Second is that for the majority of FSOs, I read the objectives, read the orders, and maybe spend a bit of time flying the assigned aircraft, but not usually.  So my time invested to fly with my squad is very little.  Typically registering for a scenario, you are being asked agree to a certain level of commitment/time (practice, team meetings if on command staff, etc). 

My $0.02

[daddog]

Brook you said...

90% of responses are that it is because of the time slot -- so I have my answer.

Then you said...

I'm not deciding things here -- I'm just listening to what people are telling me.

 

I took your first statement as a decision when you said you had your answer. With less than 15 people responding, frankly I was surprised you concluded you had your answer since hundreds participate in Scenarios.

I will now stay out of it now and let others who participate in Scenarios much more frequently than I do respond. 

[Anaxogoras]

There were 12 people who responded so far.  8 said time slot was the issue.  One said lack of action (design) was an issue.  One said substituting aircraft was an issue.  One said the issue was lack of it being based around MA squads.  One said that frequency of running was the issue.

One of those also said that there were too many rescues in the recent BoB.  One rescue is enough.