Playtesting and designing Scenario's

ScoobySnacks

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
530
Reaction score
10
Location
CT
First name
Mike
Country
llUnited States
I was wondering what the process or philosophy was for playtesting and then publishing new scenario's. I know publishers playtest, yet once published some come out as dogs while others are 50/50 after 100 or 1000 plays, based on what I see in Roar for example. I see far different numbers of plays as well for scenario's published from the same pack and it got me to wondering how important is "balance" during playtesting? Is the goal 50/50 or 60/40 or is there really no goal? Are playtesters generally so experienced that their skill level can overcome things that the average or new player may not be able to, and a scenario that they like becomes completely one sided once sold to the public? What causes some scenario's to become far more popular then others, can publishers guess that before release? I've read how some scenario's need only minor changes from playtesting while others have needed major renovations. How do those do once released?
 

Ronnblom

Swedish Terminator
Joined
Dec 18, 2004
Messages
1,213
Reaction score
142
Location
Linköping, Sweden
Country
llSweden
That's quite a few questions, of which for some the answer would be a manual - wait a minute, Mr Pitcavage already did that. :)

I can only speak for Friendly Fire of course. How other people go about this business, I do not know.

I was wondering what the process or philosophy was for playtesting and then publishing new scenario's. I know publishers playtest, yet once published some come out as dogs while others are 50/50 after 100 or 1000 plays, based on what I see in Roar for example. I see far different numbers of plays as well for scenario's published from the same pack and it got me to wondering how important is "balance" during playtesting?
Balance is very important, but it is not only hard to archive but also hard to know when you've actually archive it or not - even long after publication and many, many ROAR reports. You might even find it hard to define what balance is. :)

And balance is (obviously?) not only important in a competitive environment - it's also more fun when the game is close when you play "for fun".

Is the goal 50/50 or 60/40 or is there really no goal?
Our goal is 50/50 given ideal play from both sides, but I would say 60/40 is also OK.

Are playtesters generally so experienced that their skill level can overcome things that the average or new player may not be able to, and a scenario that they like becomes completely one sided once sold to the public?
Yes, I think that happens, and that is one of the reasons for it being so hard to understand if your scenario is balanced based on ROAR records. Not only need you have very many playings before you can say anything with some certainty, but also, just as you say, will ROAR reflect average play. But then, it might be the case you prefer to know the "average play" balance and not the balance under ideal conditions (without saying those ever appear).

With "simple" (meaning, less likely for people to screw up in one way or the other) scenarios, ROAR will say more.

What causes some scenario's to become far more popular then others, can publishers guess that before release?
Yes, pretty much. You know what most people appreciate and even more so what they don't want. For example, I knew already before we printed Friendly Fire Pack 3 that FrF21 Cavalry Brigade Model wasn't going to be the most popular scenario in the pack, even though I thought it was probably my best design. And there's a simple reason for it: it has Cavalry. People generally avoid having to read new rules (quite understandably - I do too).

But it does happen you're wrong, of course. I didn't expect so many to play FrF20 Adolf's Amateurs. What I was right about was many people having strong opinions about it. :) Especially playing the attacker (Germans) is both frustrating and hard, and it easy to screw up and lose the game already at set up. I included it in the pack because I like it myself, and because a few players have really loved it.

I'm sure you could analyze and find a cook book for scenario design. But that would probably be counter-productive. Because I believe the single most important factor determining if a scenario is going to be good (innovative, balanced, high quality etc) or not is how much effort you are willing to put into it. And since we're not paid to do ASL R&D, often the effort follows how fun it is. Following a receipt is no fun.

Is the goal 50/50 or 60/40 or is there really no goal?
Our goal is 50/50 given ideal play from both sides.

Are playtesters generally so experienced that their skill level can overcome things that the average or new player may not be able to, and a scenario that they like becomes completely one sided once sold to the public?
I think you're best off having a playtesting team that have a little of everything. But of course, the experienced, and more importantly, skilled players are those contributing the most. And yes, I think it happens a lot the ROAR record is misleading (both ways of course - the scenario might be both more or less balanced than it seems). Generally what contributes to this kind of discrepancy is that the scenario is very different - those scenarios only the skilled and creative players can handle the first playing or that it utilize rely on some generally misunderstood or unknown rule that make a large impact on balance.

I've read how some scenario's need only minor changes from playtesting while others have needed major renovations. How do those do once released?
For us, playtesting and designing is an iterative process. I can't see a pattern between number of iterations and how the scenarios do once they are out in the wild. What you should avoid when using this process it to have too many iterations - you will simply grow bored.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
That's quite a few questions, of which for some the answer would be a manual - wait a minute, Mr Pitcavage already did that. :)
Among others. In addition to the published literature on the subject, this forum is also a good source of info - as your post demonstrates.

I think most of the questions raised are matters of opinion rather than of fact, and the community tends to divide on most matters of opinion rather radically.
 

Glennbo

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
7,086
Reaction score
671
Location
Detroit, MI
Country
llUnited States
I recommend that nobody tries any of this weird "scenario designing" thing. I've got that covered. You just play. :)
 

trevpr1

ASL Player
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
5,651
Reaction score
680
Location
Preston
Country
llUnited Kingdom
That's quite a few questions, of which for some the answer would be a manual - wait a minute, Mr Pitcavage already did that. :)

Its OOP though isn't it? You'll have to settle for a copy if you can find someone...
 

ScoobySnacks

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
530
Reaction score
10
Location
CT
First name
Mike
Country
llUnited States
I guess I should clarify the intent of the question. They originated from looking at ROAR type lists to help figure out what to play. I own close to 300 scenario's with about a dozen actual plays. How do I answer the question "What do you want to play next?" I have started using the roar list picking scenario's with a lot of plays and are pretty balanced. That lead to the first two questions, why are some more popular then others and what makes some more balanced then others? It then lead to my next thought related to wondering if designers and playtesters have those scenario's flagged at least in their mind even before the scenario's are released? Experienced players also seem to be able to pick scenario's out just by looking at the setup and determine how good they are? What stands out for you, I can't make that determination?
 

tenebre

Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
278
Reaction score
2
Location
Kiev
Country
llUkraine
I can pretty much garauntee that no playtester cuold posibly imagine screwing up and losing as bad as I do when playtesting ;-)

I think that it is honestly impossible to perfectly playtest any scenario and that very experienced players are teh ebst to use as the goal but ineperienced players can throw the appearance of balance WAY off.
I played a couple "dog" scenarios.. as the side who suposedly always wins. and still lost. haha
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
That lead to the first two questions, why are some more popular then others
The presence of rare armour and elite units I would guess - which scenarios do you feel are more popular than others?

and what makes some more balanced then others?
Elegant design/extensive playtesting.
 
Top