Update on Desperation Morale Update

[Michael Dorosh]

'Cause I think if someone is willing to pay for the pack .. and like a scenario to actually suggest playing it .. AND can find another player to play it .. then bother to RATE it afterwards .. is probably biased towards the positive.

Dunno. By the same token, anyone who feels they have been well and truly ripped off about something will sometimes tend to want to go online and rant about it in a poor rating, which balances out the bias the other way. I mean, I thought that was Yelp and Google Review's whole business model.

 

[Brad M-V]

Something else needs to be considered; If most of these CH scenarios have been renamed and sold 4 or 5 times already, shouldn't they be considered play tested at least 3 to 4 times so far? <dives for cover>

 

[hongkongwargamer]

Something else needs to be considered; If most of these CH scenarios have been renamed and sold 4 or 5 times already, shouldn't they be considered play tested at least 3 to 4 times so far? <dives for cover>

It gets better .. 3 to 4 rounds of playtesters who PAID for the privilege.

 

[mhrabak]

Mark thank you for maintaining an excellent resource for ASL players; at the end of the day, I consider DM a valuable tool in my toolbox/arsenal to make an informed decision on what to spend my hard-earned money. I value your opinion, and I will continue reading your reviews with an open mind.

Once again, THANK YOU!

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Something else needs to be considered; If most of these CH scenarios have been renamed and sold 4 or 5 times already, shouldn't they be considered play tested at least 3 to 4 times so far? <dives for cover>

It also means there is no need to review them 4 or 5 times. Note that MMP has re-released dozens of scenarios as well, as updates in newer products - which makes the stats given earlier have that much less weight.

 

[RandyT0001]

Something else needs to be considered; If most of these CH scenarios have been renamed and sold 4 or 5 times already, shouldn't they be considered play tested at least 3 to 4 times so far? <dives for cover>

Nah. Feedback, such as it is, is generated during playtesting and the corrective changes are made before the initial publication. The feedback given after publication, such that it is, generates errata that may or not be incorporated into the next version / edition of the product. Caveat emptor!

 

[Michael Dorosh]

MMP clearly states what was the previous code of the scenario, tells right on the top of the card if it was changed or not from the previous version and publishes the changes made.

Also these republished scenarios are add ons to products with significant new content.

All true, I only meant to point out that re-releases would also affect the reporting stats.

Although it is interesting that MMP has made changes to the original scenarios re-released in Yanks 2, FKaC, Rising Sun etc. and no one describes it as "unpaid playtesting." Nor should they, it is part of the process of game development. SPI's model of introducing lots of games, selling them quickly, and then replacing them a few years later has been around for 50 years.

EDIT - I see Cary has beat me to the punch.

 

[RobZagnut]

You would have to demonstrate that number of playings reported is proportional to the actual number of playings. Since reporting is a voluntary action there's plenty of room for doubt on that assumption. As one person commented there may be a difference in the behavior of reporting based on which publisher published the scenario. You would also have to demonstrate that reported playings is proportional to quality. Reported playings may instead be proportional to quantity sold. It may be that one publisher produces a large number of scenarios published that only sell a small number. Your number may measure a business model and not quality. Quality of scenarios vs. number of reported playings seems like they would be at best only slightly related if at all. There are so many other possible paths to the results that you would have to go back and get much more data even to begin to show there is a correlation.

JR

I don't have to do anything, they're my calculations. You do it the way you want, I'll do mine.

I'm showing that 77% of CH scenarios haven't been reported on ROAR. And that although being in business 10 years longer MMP has almost half the number of published scenarios.

 

[Pitman]

There are many Critical Hit products that no one has even bothered to enter into ROAR.

 

[RobZagnut]

All true, I only meant to point out that re-releases would also affect the reporting stats.

Although it is interesting that MMP has made changes to the original scenarios re-released in Yanks 2, FKaC, Rising Sun etc. and no one describes it as "unpaid playtesting." Nor should they, it is part of the process of game development. SPI's model of introducing lots of games, selling them quickly, and then replacing them a few years later has been around for 50 years.

EDIT - I see Cary has beat me to the punch.

You make it sound like a bad thing. I for one appreciate the fact that MMP went back and fixed some of the older scenarios with known problems due to the changing style of play for the new generation of players.

I was involved in the Yanks v2 PLAYTEST. Perry sent out an email to all their PLAYTESTERS listing the scenarios they were looking to change. For example, I knew Lost Opportunities was unbalanced in favor of the Germans, but played it again so I could give him better feedback on how to fix it.

MMP could have sat on their hands and published all of them as is, but they went the extra mile to run a new PLAYTEST on those older ones. They should be commended for it.

And add that to the fact that v2 core modules include double or triple the number of scenarios from old General and Annuals, and that makes for a tremendous value.

 

[dlazov]

It seems to mostly go like this.

1995 Scenario Pack ABC released. 8 Scenarios based in Russia from 1944-1945. $10.99
1999 Scenario Pack ABC re-released as New and Updated. Same 8 scenarios, but scenario 3 has 3 new typos and scenario 6 has removed one 4-6-7. $12.99
2004 Scenario Pack ABC re-released as Scenario Pack XYZ. Same 8 scenarios, same 3 new typos, scenario 6 was removed and a new scenario inserted with 6 Russian air craft vs. 10 Opel Blitzs. $19.99
2006 Scenario Pack XYZ re-released as Scenario Pack XYZ II. Same 8 scenarios as the original 1995 pack but all scenarios were renamed and 4 Bonus scenarios added 2 in the PTO and 2 in NA. $29.99
2010 Scenario Pack XYZ II re-released as Scenario Pack XYZ II Updated and Monster version. Same scenarios from the 2006 pack but scenario 3 and 5 had added 5 more typos, scenario 7 removed 2x 4-4-7 Russian squads and all counter artwork was updated to the new (at present time) CH counter artwork. $29.95
2014 Scenario Pack XYZ II re-released as Scenario Pack 1A. Same 8 scenarios from the 2010 pack, plus 4 more bonus scenarios that were taken from the 2004 and 1999 versions and renamed and renumbered the whole pack. $39.99
2019 Scenario Pack 1A re-released as Scenario Pack Monster Gulf Pack I, same scenarios as 2014 pack but with new CH counter artwork and all scenarios re-configed to use the new map boards (see below) and the scenario back ground on two scenarios was swapped whole sale from scenario 7 to scenario 11 and vis-versa. Also added were 12 map panels and 2x 5/8 counter sheets to play with the new scenarios. $69.95

That is just the history of one scenario pack's lifetime, now add the same process for the other 900 scenario packs and HASL and whatevers.

And you wonder why Mark has some issues keeping up with not only the insanity of it all, but the financials of it all.

 

[TopT]

Nah. Feedback, such as it is, is generated during playtesting and the corrective changes are made before the initial publication. The feedback given after publication, such that it is, generates errata that may or not be incorporated into the next version / edition of the product. Caveat emptor!

Just an add on to what Randy is saying. CH will re-publish a scenario using the exact same OOB, from the original scenario, but changing the maps to their new map panels. This could be nothing but bad as the new maps look nothing like the original boards (IE: no way this was play tested).

All of this being said, CH has published scenarios/ CG's that are fun and exciting. To say anything otherwise is just not true.

Their business model sucks balls though and Mark's site does a great job of informing the community of what is good and what to absolutely avoid at all costs.

 

[von Marwitz]

What astounds me, honestly, is how many ASLers there are who simply don't care whether or not a product was playtested.

I absolutely agree to you.

On the other hand, though, most ASLers buy ASL stuff that they know they'll never play - be it playtested or not.

Personal examples:

I own all MMP HASLs but probably will never play them despite their being playtested and many of them a blast to play, which I am conscious of. But given the choice of playing dozens of regular scenarios or one CG, I prefer a selection of regular scenarios.

I own in between 3000 and 3500 scenarios plus many more that I have come across electronically or in tournaments. I don't even know, how many I own. Most of them are playtested for sure. Yet, I keep buying ASL stuff every year despite having played only between 30 to 40 scenarios per year for a while. So if I stopped buying at once and kept up that rate, I'd be served for 100 years to come without even touching a CG.

So in a certain way, it does not even matter if scenarios are playtested or not if you never play them. Certainly, I know that this comparison is lame to a point, as with playtested scenarios I have at least the option to select from stuff that will likely be more fun to play than untested scenarios.

von Marwitz

 

[von Marwitz]

Some numbers:

On the archive, CH accounts for 1950 scenarios (23% of all "known" scenarios). Of these, 418 have been rated. Averaging 6.35 (somewhere between "above average" and "good" on the archive's descriptions).

In comparison, MMP have published 1024 scenarios and of which 852 have been rated, averaging 6.54.

The average rating across the whole database is 6.6113

Looking at your argument, though, you have to take something into consideration which you did not mention:
In the early days of CH, there were a number of scenario packs which were good and saw a lot of play. There were not many alternatives for TPPs and publications of AH/MMP were scarce. The newer publications of CH hardly see any play at all or - at the minimum - much less than those early ones.

As a consequence, the "good" ratings are overrepresented for CH as for the newer untested ones and endless rehashes there are no bad ones, more precisely, no ratings at all.

von Marwitz

 

[Vinnie]

MMP do reissue scenarios and sometimes change the code on them but when they do, they make it clear what it used to be (eg. 119 reissue of G24 just grabbingbranfom numbers). CH domt even tell you a pack used to be called something else.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I absolutely agree to you.

On the other hand, though, most ASLers buy ASL stuff that they know they'll never play - be it playtested or not.

Or buy it for purposes other than to play - my own example is buying the Rocherath-Krinkelt HASL to get map and order of battle data to use to make scenarios for another game system (which would then of course get playtesting in the new system).

 

[daveramsey]

Looking at your argument, though, you have to take something into consideration which you did not mention:
In the early days of CH, there were a number of scenario packs which were good and saw a lot of play. There were not many alternatives for TPPs and publications of AH/MMP were scarce. The newer publications of CH hardly see any play at all or - at the minimum - much less than those early ones.

As a consequence, the "good" ratings are overrepresented for CH as for the newer untested ones and endless rehashes there are no bad ones, more precisely, no ratings at all.

von Marwitz

I wasn't making any argument, just presenting data (just for clarity).

 

[von Marwitz]

I wasn't making any argument, just presenting data (just for clarity).

Ah, ok. My bad.

Cheers,
von Marwitz

 

[bprobst]

All of this being said, CH has published scenarios/ CG's that are fun and exciting. To say anything otherwise is just not true.

Yes, but so what? I don't think anyone believes that all CH products ever published have been uniformly 100% awful. There are plenty of real examples to prove otherwise.

The point is that the chances of anything that CH publishes now being any good is very, very poor. The CH publishing model (no playtesting, making arbitrary and untested changes to reprints, no attempts to actually solve problems, put the blame for any rules issues on the customers not being sufficiently "open minded") in fact guarantees that poor quality is the expected end result. Anything that CH have published recently is only actually good by accident, and at the current CH price points can very rarely even be considered "good value".

You'd think that people who learn and play ASL would be of above-average intelligence. The fact that CH continues to survive in what must be a relatively difficult market suggests otherwise.

 

[hongkongwargamer]

I absolutely agree to you.

On the other hand, though, most ASLers buy ASL stuff that they know they'll never play - be it playtested or not.

Personal examples:

I own all MMP HASLs but probably will never play them despite their being playtested and many of them a blast to play, which I am conscious of. But given the choice of playing dozens of regular scenarios or one CG, I prefer a selection of regular scenarios.

I own in between 3000 and 3500 scenarios plus many more that I have come across electronically or in tournaments. I don't even know, how many I own. Most of them are playtested for sure. Yet, I keep buying ASL stuff every year despite having played only between 30 to 40 scenarios per year for a while. So if I stopped buying at once and kept up that rate, I'd be served for 100 years to come without even touching a CG.

So in a certain way, it does not even matter if scenarios are playtested or not if you never play them. Certainly, I know that this comparison is lame to a point, as with playtested scenarios I have at least the option to select from stuff that will likely be more fun to play than untested scenarios.

von Marwitz

Conclusion :: All these issues will go away if all ASL modules/ Scenario Packs double in price.