Where have all the warriors gone?

[Kingtiger]

I am late for this discussion so my post might seem out of context but here is my point regarding 12A original question:

Scenarios do not have to be fair. but the goal of the scenario should be fair. One side can without a problem be a underdog and get their ass kicked as long as the goal is reachable anyway.

Say for a example a scenario with remnants of a CT with orders to defend a position as long as possible to let the brigade get a way. Having that CT crushed is fine (well... in a sense...) as long as the victory condition are in property of the mission, so you can achieve a victory if you hold the enemy for X time or caused % of casualtys.

Putting down time on a scenario where you know you will get your ass kicked without any compensation for it is hardly fun. We all have a life to tend to and offering 1-3 hours of that precius time just to get asses kicked aint that fun. Sure it can be a good learning experience if there is a good enough base for it, ie you actually stand a chance to win the scenario instead of been handed crappy equiptment, ammo and settings.

But, I can agree with you that the SB community over all have become lazy as F*ck preferring to fight in perfect conditions with best possible units and settings. But I think that is a sidestep of the evolution SB has taken last 10 years.

Remember back in SB1 and early SB Pro PE we didn't have many vehicles and where used to make do with what we have, now we have the option if bigger and better vehicles and natural selection tells us to use the stuff that gives us the best chance of surviving.

Of course, then there is also the thing with WHY you play SB Pro. To have FUN or to LEARN? If you play SB Pro to relax and have fun you want scenarios you can win or have fun playing, while when playing to LEARN you don't have a problem with a crappy scenario as long as you debrief it and learns from it.

Me, I am a "warrior" in your category as I can play any crappy unit and try to do my best with it (unless its a Russian/soviet thing, I hate communists), feck I have the biggest blast when fighting with M113, Warriors, Older Leos, Leo2A4 etc when my skills (or lack of) actually account for something instead of just having the superior vehicles on my side.

Just my 50 öre

/KT

[Rotareneg]

I too prefer asymmetrical scenarios. It doesn't need to be unbalanced or balanced, it just seems more entertaining when both sides aren't both trying to capture the same objectives at the same time, or whatever.

[12Alfa]

I am late for this discussion so my post might seem out of context but here is my point regarding 12A original question:

Scenarios do not have to be fair. but the goal of the scenario should be fair. One side can without a problem be a underdog and get their ass kicked as long as the goal is reachable anyway.

Say for a example a scenario with remnants of a CT with orders to defend a position as long as possible to let the brigade get a way. Having that CT crushed is fine (well... in a sense...) as long as the victory condition are in property of the mission, so you can achieve a victory if you hold the enemy for X time or caused % of casualtys.

Putting down time on a scenario where you know you will get your ass kicked without any compensation for it is hardly fun. We all have a life to tend to and offering 1-3 hours of that precius time just to get asses kicked aint that fun. Sure it can be a good learning experience if there is a good enough base for it, ie you actually stand a chance to win the scenario instead of been handed crappy equiptment, ammo and settings.

But, I can agree with you that the SB community over all have become lazy as F*ck preferring to fight in perfect conditions with best possible units and settings. But I think that is a sidestep of the evolution SB has taken last 10 years.

Remember back in SB1 and early SB Pro PE we didn't have many vehicles and where used to make do with what we have, now we have the option if bigger and better vehicles and natural selection tells us to use the stuff that gives us the best chance of surviving.

Of course, then there is also the thing with WHY you play SB Pro. To have FUN or to LEARN? If you play SB Pro to relax and have fun you want scenarios you can win or have fun playing, while when playing to LEARN you don't have a problem with a crappy scenario as long as you debrief it and learns from it.

Me, I am a "warrior" in your category as I can play any crappy unit and try to do my best with it (unless its a Russian/soviet thing, I hate communists), feck I have the biggest blast when fighting with M113, Warriors, Older Leos, Leo2A4 etc when my skills (or lack of) actually account for something instead of just having the superior vehicles on my side.

Just my 50 öre

/KT

Never to late my friend:wink2:

[Volcano]

"Balance" does not have to equate to balance of equipment and force ratios. For example, you can have insurgent scenarios where there is no doubt they will be defeated, but the balance instead comes from strict and unforgiving scoring conditions -- such as a mission failure for the superior side if they suffer light casualties (>10% or less). I just think everyone thinks of the literal sense when it comes to balance, but some sort of balance must always be considered in a the design of a good scenario.

Edited December 14, 2013 by Volcano
typo

[Lt DeFault]

I think another problem is a kind of "target fixation". Sometimes it's easy to lose sight of the big picture in the fog of war. From what I've experienced, it's common to want to annihilate whatever is in front of you, regardless of the consequences.

This could also be due in part to the way gaming has evolved over the years. Games tend to put the player in the "starring role" as the savior of those around them. And why not? Given the choice, who would pick the supporting role or cameo? After all, it's more fun to be the hero, right?

But that's where the crux of the problem is. Steel Beasts is a training tool; a simulator, not an action movie. It's goal is to simulate real world situations for the purpose of training. And unfortunately, in the real world anyway, you are not the star...sorry.

As I said, I personally enjoy any scenario in which I get to participate. Heck, I've even been told my job in a given scenario is to stay where I am and die...just not too quickly. :biggrin: But hey, if that's my task then I will do it to the best of my ability.

I might be in the minority here, but I get the most out of SB when I get to be part of a team. Doing my part, however small, to achieve a shared goal gives me a great amount of satisfaction. That's a big part of what drew me to SB in the first place: watching videos of players working like a well oiled machine to get the job done, whatever that may be. For me, it's like joining the military...but part time and without all the downsides.

[Azure Lion]

Of course, then there is also the thing with WHY you play SB Pro. To have FUN or to LEARN? If you play SB Pro to relax and have fun you want scenarios you can win or have fun playing, while when playing to LEARN you don't have a problem with a crappy scenario as long as you debrief it and learns from it.

/KT

For me, both.

[AKM]

Having read through the entire thread at once and having had some pick-up game experience under my belt now, seems to me that Gibson about hit the nail on the head early on with the distinction between "Simming" and "Gaming," and with regards to training tool versus "Beer and Skittles" mission design.

I have about twelve years of experience organizing multiplayer games for other sims and some games. You have to delineate between the two approaches. I enjoy learning, it's why I've always been in the simulator niche. For me, an interesting lesson and something designed to one hand while drinking a beer with the other brand-of-entertainment are the same; this is not the norm. I was able to draw in a pretty good cadre of players who like a realistic challenge (all of them military, ex-military or deeply involved in that way of thought) and we've been going strong since then.

But when you gain (in the case of SB Pro PE, functional) mastery of a topic, another lesson becomes boring. Sure, you might learn some little new trick or something like that, but the odds are pretty low.

Entertainment promises some sort of emotional feel-good return by whatever method. Usually this is some base exercise of dominance and wreaking virtual havoc. It's a hell of a lot of fun, I play a lot of games too.

The entire discussion of game balance and so on revolve around that dichotomy. All the pick up games I've played have been, basically, exercises in gunnery. There's always been a selection of vehicles, generally either Leo 2A5A2DK and M1A2 SEP, and conditions for gunnery have always been perfect. It's been of the 1991 "Hulk Smash" variety. One mission was much more involved, and that was much more entertaining - for me. One vote, while the bulk voted for variations on a theme of DESERT STORM.

It's perfectly legitimate, comes down to how you prefer to use your time. A more rigid distinction between gaming and simming could be made; rather than trying to bring in as many bods as possible, smaller realistic scenarios could be made to reduce span of control issues and entertain a hard core of simmers, while there seems to be no shortage at all of the more game-y scenarios.

There's also the opportunity to have a REDFOR commander play chess against a mostly human BLUFOR, and I believe that's been used to great effect in some campaigns - Nordic Battlegroup for instance. Such a structure might provide the best combination of challenge and "break some shit" gaming; just put the guys with a beer in one hand into the main effort and let them blast their way forward.

[Tjay]

But, I can agree with you that the SB community over all have become lazy as F*ck preferring to fight in perfect conditions with best possible units and settings.

Just my 50 öre

/KT

With all due respect KT, that cannot be said of Marko's Soviet Virtual Unit who use WP equipment (T72/BMP/BTR/BRDM) to conduct scripted and H2H missions against NATO equipment every Monday evening. These sessions are great fun and also work as 'Know Your Enemy' exercises for UK Armour. And UKA, equipped with the CR2 and the Warrior can hardly be said to be at the cutting edge of technology. :clin:

[Tjay]

I might be in the minority here, but I get the most out of SB when I get to be part of a team. Doing my part, however small, to achieve a shared goal gives me a great amount of satisfaction. That's a big part of what drew me to SB in the first place: watching videos of players working like a well oiled machine to get the job done, whatever that may be. For me, it's like joining the military...but part time and without all the downsides.

+1. So that's two of us. :clin:

[Kingtiger]

With all due respect KT, that cannot be said of Marko's Soviet Virtual Unit who use WP equipment (T72/BMP/BTR/BRDM) to conduct scripted and H2H missions against NATO equipment every Monday evening. These sessions are great fun and also work as 'Know Your Enemy' exercises for UK Armour. And UKA, equipped with the CR2 and the Warrior can hardly be said to be at the cutting edge of technology. :clin:

Well, there IS a difference between being a underdog and a masochist mate :bigsmile:

[Tjay]

Well, there IS a difference between being a underdog and a masochist mate :bigsmile:

And as recent events have shown, SVU can identify that difference when we see it.