Playtest for Ladder points?

[Palantir]

With WHQ now having a CM Forum Scenario Design section would making playtest scenarios eligibile for Ladder points help get players involved in the process?

[Lurker]

Sounds interesting. How would that work? Would the tester get credit for points and a victory if he wins? What if he loses? Is this vs humans or the AI?
Questions, questions, questions :cheeky:

[Palantir]

Right now the "plan" is that it would be for ladder points only as the idea is not necessarily to win the game but test the scenario for playability and critical flaws. It's hard for the designer sometimes to fairliy test his own creation when he knows every single detail concerning units/reinforcement schedule, the map etc. Playtesters would be required to supply a detailed report to the designer.

But I'm open for suggestions & comments.

[Arom Dov]

I thought that the idea behind playtesting was to guage if the scenario was balanced in a way that the skill of the players determined the victor, not the weight of the equipment on one side or the other. If a first version of the scenario was unbalanced to one side or the other, due to terrain, troops, armor, access to VPLs, then the victor may be getting "unfair" (for lack of a better term) ladder points. I have playtested scenarios before, and don't mind putting my $.02 to the designer, but I would not play them for ladder points. In fact, some of the best scenarios I have played have been playtested by 3-4 players, several times, with edits being made based on the comments by the playtesters.

[Palantir]

Oh I agree that a scenario should be based ultimately on "skill" in handling your troops. But one aspect of playtesting is also design balance.

Lets say I design a scenario that has Axis HVY tanks arriving on T8 while Allied Hvy's/ ATG's don't appear till T11.
As a designer (all things being equal) I know I have 3 "free" turns to race to good positions and do that in my own playtesting (because I know that). Thus I get good positions & easily rip up the advancing Allies and I think I made the scenario unbalanced.

But if I have players test it for me not knowing that, their style of play will be much different that mine because I "know all." Maybe their playtesting will show that in those 3 turns the Axis are much more caustious and in fact the game is balanced skill wise.

Both players (if PBEM/TCP) would get the same points for playtesting not if they win or lose. How many points is up for discussion.

The points should be low in my opinion & just act as a "thank you" for helping out the WHQ CM designers. Would 10% be too low(high?) of the normal game points awarded based on purchase points? You'd have to play 10 playtest games to equal 1 normal game. I doubt if anyone could/would make a "career" on the ladder doing this.
But as I said it would at least reward players and act as a small incentive to help out & it would benefit everyone else in the community.

I'm just looking for a concensus of opinion on the idea.

Anyone?

Palantir

[Arom Dov]

equal points to each player for playtesting is acceptable, and may generate interest in playtesting - which in turn would help the designer.

[Lurker]

Lets say I design a scenario that has Axis HVY tanks arriving on T8 while Allied Hvy's/ ATG's don't appear till T11.
As a designer (all things being equal) I know I have 3 "free" turns to race to good positions and do that in my own playtesting (because I know that). Thus I get good positions & easily rip up the advancing Allies and I think I made the scenario unbalanced.

But if I have players test it for me not knowing that, their style of play will be much different that mine because I "know all." Maybe their playtesting will show that in those 3 turns the Axis are much more caustious and in fact the game is balanced skill wise.
Palantir

The only problem with that approach is if an unbalance is possible once all becomes known then once it's played x number of times and players in general learn this data then theoretically they could 'race ahead' in those three turns the same as you would. I think balance would have to come from the scenario itself more so than from a lack of knowledge of it.

The minimal ladder points approach may be a good idea as an incentive to get testing done that would otherwise not occur. After all, one can get minimal ladder points every game anyway in a normal ladder game just by losing. So if "padding one's ladder points stats" is a concern for some then there's the argument that those who have the time to play the most normal games will pad their stats anyway without ever having to win a game.

Either way is fine with me though. Let me know if you need something tested and I will help out without any points.

[KG_Werfer]

There should be a way to get more people to play test these scenarios without figuring in ladder points, the newness of some scenarios and being one of the 1st to try them is enough here ;)

However the designers want to do it is ok, at least if the scenarios are playable and the one that you sent me Palantir looks very playable :rifle:

[[nzn]]

Why not playtest like you were really playing? Just gives you grip with reality :)

Yes.

[Palantir]

Reality is fine but when you expect to have a decent chance to win and suddenly discover it's no chance at all due to a bad design is the problem.

And, what I as a designer don't want to discover AFTER I have posted a game I think is finished & playable from both sides.

What I see with play-testing
(for real) is the possibility of some really lopsided unbalanced games. As a designer I can only make educated "guesses" on how each aspect of my game design will affect a particular side or game.

EX. Do I have the "axis" armor coming in too soon & will they overrun the map easily or should I have replaced the 4 weaker allies ATG's for just one excellent ATG to slow them down? Did I give one-side an overwhelming superiority in INF anticipating that the other-sides mortar teams would compensate? Such questions can only be answered by players who are not expecting "X" to happen in response to "Y."

As a designer I don't want players to lose due to a fatal design flaw that I couldn't see because I know every detail and how to "adjust" around it.

Concerning playing a scenario multpile times & then knowing how to "win." Almost any scenario can be played like that- I'm sure a scenario concerning "Custer's Last Stand" could be played & studied enough to be won by Custer in some fashion and that is acceptable because it required the players skill to develope a winning strategy.

But say the designers took away 1/2 of Custers horses assuming that the indians would not use their horses- that would be a fatal design flaw.

When you design a scenaro from scratch you are making assumtions like that concerning the placement of every hill & stream & addition of every AFV etc. You assume how it will affect the game from a perspective of knowing what bothsides have & need to do. So a fresh view to spot those "hidden traps" is needed with no liability for either play-tester.

[[nzn]]

Playtesters need to be cold-headed pros with no passion for extra wins.. but who would refuse from some extra points??? :D

[Palantir]

I'm hoping for some more feedback on this question, and won't make any firm commitments probably until the poll closes on the 10th.

[KG_Werfer]

There is so much more to CM (and other games) than a ladder. Ladders are fine and dandy in their own way, but when you have a game such as CMBB/BO that has so many other positive aspects (like operations) then why just settle for flashy single day scenarios? Especially when play testing some that are not fair?
The only way to make both single battles and operations better is to try them out and give feedback to the creator, whether it be a single battle or an Operation and it seems oh so wrong to give victor/loser points for going ahead and completing these as such, since there are faults in every scenario no matter how many times it has been tested and also in every players game.

If it seems inevitable to keep playtesters interested.....Then give them a few points, but Would prefer it not so the case here.

KG_Werfer

[ER_Chaser]

I think it is a good idea. Actually TOAW session had been practicing this for a long time now. And the result is good and encouraging.

[Double Deuce]

There is so much more to CM (and other games) than a ladder. Why not set up a playtest based on an elimination style tournament. Something where the scenario is played mirrored by a couple sets of players. No ladder points but a ribbon or special pic/sign file as an "Official WFHQ Playtester".

[Palantir]

Hmmmm, that is an interesting idea.
Are you thinking for just play-testing once or getting the ribbon for "x" number of playtests?

[Artur]

I would certainly give ladder points to:
1.Playtesters
2.Scenario authors
3.Map authors.

These people make the game much better and serve the community like no other people do.
Of course some criteria should be defined like.
1.Playtest X scenarios with y size and write precise reports on it.
2.Make X scenarios of y size which are rated above 8 (1-10 scale) by at least 5 or 10 people
3.Make X maps of y size which are rated above 8 (1-10 scale) by at least 5 or 10 people.

The main idea begind this is to encourage the creation of scenarios, operatios(or campaigns in other games) and maps (especially for pbem).
A game is not "dead" untill people are making new scenarios and maps for it IMHO.The more we get the better...

[Palantir]

I'm not for giving points for map makers. (Even though I'm one of them)
Maps can be cranked out in droves by the "auto-generater."

I don't think points for designers would "help" any. I'm making scenarios because I like it and have fun doing the research and designing.

The problem is getting players to play-test the designed scenarios so they are quality designs. (Although I have not seen much activity in the WHQ CM design department.)

As it stands 66% of the respondents above wouldn't mind seeing bonus points for testing games. So I think those will becoming along soon "officially," with the requirments for doing so.

Roughly: an AAR post concerning the scenario would be required (good or bad) & one sent to the designer.
The play-test game would be reported as completed like a normal end game report. (although only bonus points (2-10?)will be awarded for the testing.)
These will be entered manually by the Ladder Master Moderator.

Hopefully this will encourage players to not only start designing games but players to help out & test them.

[KG_Werfer]

It is an honor to be able to help by play testing, the authors do the hard stuff with the research.
Whether or not points are given, as long as there are not more than 1/2 dozen games going at once, will be glad to help out as long as the scen looks interesting and an opponent can be found.

A special "thanks" for all of the designers, whether it be for battles/operations or mods.

KG_Werfer