Playtesting

wrongway149

Forum Guru
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
9,403
Reaction score
2,099
Location
Willoughby, Ohio
Country
llUnited States
m
A. Honesty - don't hold back. If your going to design ASL stuff you need a "thick skin" and learn to take criticisms well. They are being offered constructively. Given that learning to communicate well and concisely via written word is a very difficult learning curve, you need to note that 99.9% of the time they did not MEAN to come across as "bashing" on something, they were simply iterating that this is a very "broken" item and needs fixed. Most people do NOT write as they speak. The best feedback you can get , if you can get it , is try a Skype call to them for a verbal feedback, followed up by some notations via email. The more you can garner in information overall, the better you can fix what does NOT work. Ask questions.
I don't even view it as 'criticism' most of the time. By asking you to playtest, I have invited you on to the team, and expect comments as part of your contribution to said team. If it's great or if it howls, it is now a team effort.:hurray:
 

Gunner Scott

Forum Guru
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
13,737
Reaction score
2,669
Location
Chicago, IL
Country
llUnited States
As someone who likes to design interesting actions, I always playtest my own designs before submission or publishing my own pack. Back in the days of the AH game company, you had to playtest first before submitting any designs, basically you had to be in the trench's working on other people's nightmarish submissions (grab at Grabovo to name a few).

Personally, I think the worst decision publishers have made was putting the names of the designers on the scenarios themselves, it was and always has been a group effort especially if the designer does not help after the initial submission, they should have their names removed from the design credits. Basically, if your going to submit something, stay with those designs until published, show a little dedication and dont be lazy.


Scott
 

clavain

Waiting for Godot
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Messages
616
Reaction score
87
Location
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Country
llCanada
I don't even view it as 'criticism' most of the time. By asking you to playtest, I have invited you on to the team, and expect comments as part of your contribution to said team. If it's great or if it howls, it is now a team effort.:hurray:
I thought the way it was supposed to work was that if it is great you take individual responsibility, and if it howls it is a team effort? I can't remember who I heard that from, Glennbo or Jacometti... ;-)
 

clavain

Waiting for Godot
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Messages
616
Reaction score
87
Location
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Country
llCanada
I am not so sure about that. Say you want to publish a scenario pack, you need about 8 scenarios at minimum. As the designer, you will play each one 4 times at minimum - at least I can't imagine a designer worth the name not playtesting his own scenarios at all. So that's more than 30 games. There are not that many people around, that play more than 50 scenarios a year, much less spend half of their playing time for playtesting. Even if early versions of a scenario might not be played to the end, still each scenario swallows up a lot of time even for the iterations not personally played by the designer for going through the feedback, thinking about modifications etc.

von Marwitz
Everyone just needs a project manager named Jacometti. With a whip.

Edit: Or witchbottles
 

clavain

Waiting for Godot
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Messages
616
Reaction score
87
Location
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Country
llCanada
Rep ya but I'm out.

agreed, Andre.

I spent over 2 years playing through various versions of 9 scenarios, and more than 2/3rds of my available time for ASL doing so. Very little time remained for my "regular" gaming,to say the least. What I find amazing is those guys who, after doing this, come back for MORE and do another design! now that's grit.What I am truly thankful for is a group of 11 guys who pitched in voluntarily for those 2 years to help fix the "mess I created" in first place! LOL. Without their assistance, many of the scenarios would still be languishing in the "i can't make it seem to work " folder. Suggestions from them made ALL the difference.

KRL, Jon H
 

clavain

Waiting for Godot
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Messages
616
Reaction score
87
Location
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Country
llCanada
For me it's usually twice. On the occasions I have submitted scenarios to publishers without testing them myself first, I have regretted it and believe that it helped no one. It just made more work for all involved.

This is one of the reasons I am a bit 'burned out' from the whole scenario design thing.
I hear ya, and I only have worked seriously on five designs over two years (and the outline of 12 or so more for an eventual HASL). Only three of these may even see the light of day, maybe four if I get my act together over the summer for its eventual submission late in the year or next year. One shelved indefinitely for an rethink if I ever get the others done. To do it properly requires a lot of work and time, and it is easy to burn out on. Esp. if you playtest your own stuff a lot, and are trying to find time to play for fun, introduce new players to the RB, PTO, etc. etc. And oh yeah, have a life too.
 

clavain

Waiting for Godot
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Messages
616
Reaction score
87
Location
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Country
llCanada
About balance: Is there a way to calculate it? Maybe add FP/ROF and TEM and then you need 3:1 or something? Just as an indicator...

Also: how many playtests and iterations does a scenario usually go through before it's considered done?
Agreed.:smoke:
Agreed also, but FP calculations (forget the Annual article this appeared in?) and/or even BPV calculations can be useful as a _very_ rough guide, but certainly not relied on for balance without extensive playtest - including by others than the designer(s). Too many other variables that affect balance that cannot be fed into these sorts of equations (terrain, SSR, types of VC, use of high ROF SW, OBA, air support, fun, etc.).
 
Last edited:
Top