Jump to content

TGIF 2014: scenario list, discussion, and house rules


Volcano

Recommended Posts

Ummm-m-m... tried to open the scenario for 25 Apr after downloading it successfully, but was greeted by a dialogue box that told me that the system could not open the map. Not sure if this is a security feature, or a fault with the download, or just me corking up what ought to be a fairly simple procedure. Any clarification will be most welcome! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 467
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Moderators
It's possible to use passwords...

Yes, all that can be done, or we can just avoid looking over the enemy's side. I just don't want to password everything since most scenarios are intended to be used as examples for budding scenarios designers, not to mention that it takes far too much time that I do not have to do all that, when all we have to do is exercise a little self restraint.

So far, looking over the enemy's side has been the worst part about posting the scenario early, and will probably be what kills this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far, looking over the enemy's side has been the worst part about posting the scenario early, and will probably be what kills this.

I certainly hope that doesn't happen, so I just wanted to identify at least one option short of the :nukem: one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Hmm well, I think part of the problem is that if someone is planning on CO'ing, then they will naturally have a look at both sides to decide which they want to CO. There is nothing wrong with wanting to look at both sides for that purpose, but I think a good rule of thumb is to not open the scenario in the editor, only open it as if you were hosting a session by yourself, and go to the side you want. Then go back and pick the other side, and then decide which you want to CO.

It takes a little longer to do it that way, but at least it doesn't give away too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

OK, everyone put your reading hat on now -- there is something that needs to be mentioned here to quell backroom gossip and the usual tireless fomenting of dissent within the community. I was going to mention this before next TGIF in Teamspeak, (and I still may hit upon it if the mood strikes me), but I think it is better to create a post to be thorough:

Last week I gave vague intel to the Blue side on where minefields were located in the scenario (!TGIF T72 Mission 3-2_v7) during the Planning Phase. This was done because it was discovered that a serious mistake was made when creating that "v7" variant -- BLUE was lacking ALL of their mineplows. Essentially, when you convert a vehicle type in the Mission Editor, the mineplows get removed in the process and you have to add them back and, in haste, this was overlooked by the person who edited the scenario (me). In the end, this meant that 20 tanks should of had mineplows but did not. Combined with the fact that RED had 16 minefields, just enough time to get to the objective normally, and that map updates were changed to own-party map updates only (which can make minefields especially troublesome and realistic since you have to mark their locations yourself), it was deemed that the scenario was going to be a disaster if it proceeded as it was.

So, in the planning phase when this was noticed, and after we were over 30 minutes behind schedule, a dilemma landed in my lap: three choices quickly came to mind.

1) Do I let the scenario proceed, knowing it was broken, and watch as BLUE was slaughtered and, by extension, those participants pissed off by the outcome?

2) Do I tell everyone I overlooked something and screwed up the scenario, then fix, have everyone go back, and break the CO's plan (who obviously put a lot of time into making it)?

3) Do I tell the BLUE CO some vague intel about minefields, to makup for the fact that he was missing the sufficient assets to deal with them?

A judgement call was made and I chose option #3 for several reasons:

  • Since BLUE didn't have sufficient assets, nor enemy map updates, it was deemed that it was easier to just tell them a vague location of where the minefields were, so there wouldn't be any crying and moaning about there being "too many minefields" and no breaching assets (although the Blue CO still complained anyway at the end, ugh). This decision was based on the idea that it would be just like seeing enemy mined region type graphics on the map, which is something the side that has the minefields wouldn't have been aware of anyway (i.e. those mined region circle type map graphics are only seen by the side without the minefields and you never really know what level of intel the enemy has about you).
  • The other options were not something that I wanted to do, because I did not want to break the Red CO's plan (since he put so much time into it), and "just letting the scenario play even though it is broken" is never an option with me as it is just not fair to those on the broken side.
  • I was on the OPPOSING SIDE to the side that intel was given to, which demonstrates impartiality.
  • That said, with 20/20 hindsight I should have told Red CO that intel needed to be shared in the planning phase, which would have nipped the the issue in the bud, so to speak. I am sure the Red CO would have agreed under the circumstances (or would have said that it was OK to fix it and break his plan perhaps). My mistake there.

Now you all know what happened and why it happened. A couple of things to mention here for all to understand going forward:

1) In a discussion since, it has been determined that next time I will ALWAYS do Option #2 above from now on (edit the scenario and break the plans). This now seems to be the lesser of all evils. As a CO, just be prepared that your plan may be broken at the last minute and backup your plan by saving an image to copy it from if that happens. (I wanted to avoid this at all costs, but "oh well".)

2) If you perceive that someone has wronged you or someone else, then discuss it openly, either directly via PM with that person, or tactfully and respectfully bring it up in the forum. This thread is a perfect place for TGIF related issues like this, and is intended as a forum of discussion in that regard. Call me out if you think I did something wrong during TGIF and I will explain why I did it, I expect everyone else to do the same with each other and I will do the same to you. In other words: stop the gossip and dissent, confront the perceived offender. (In this particular case, the Red CO discussed the issue with me directly and I explained, and we came to understand each others point of view and I will adjust how I go about addressing the issue next time. This is conflict resolution, and it is how the issue should be addressed.)

3) There has always been just one requirement for TGIF scenarios: they must be "fair" in the sense that both sides should have an equal chance at winning. This comes down to appropriate force ratios vs. equipment types, time limits, and sufficient assets are available. (Of course you never quite know if a new scenario is balanced until it is played for the first time, but we have always taken care to edit a scenario if it playing it proved that it was broken or not balanced. If it is not balanced, it doesn't get played again until it is edited.)

4) Most importantly, whatever needs to be done to balance a TGIF scenario WILL ALWAYS BE DONE, but there are many ways to go about it so if someone is offended with a specific decision then we will adjust to that. (As I did here.) Generally speaking, if anyone has a fundamental problem with the rationale that TGIF scenarios are intended to be "fair and balanced" then, well, do not participate.

-----------------

There you have it, all on the table and into the spot light. This whole issue has been one more black mark against posting the scenarios early, since none of this would have been an issue before because there wouldn't have been any plans to break, but we will move forward, adjust, and carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far, looking over the enemy's side has been the worst part about posting the scenario early, and will probably be what kills this.

It would suck to lose it because people can't control their egos.

It's possible to use passwords and triggers to conceal almost everything from all but the most persistent cheaters, if the designer is willing to do a little extra legwork and players are willing to accept some novelty and a little extra effort of their own.

There's alot of stuff like that has to be done anyway, especially when it comes to complex missions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Volcano,

Just in case (because I haven't seen it posted earlier) ....

THANKS to you and Sean and the others that actually make TGIF possible.

I at least appreciate that you have other/better things to do with your spare time than turn up week after week and generate interesting scenarios for the community and then take the flak for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Volcano,

Just in case (because I haven't seen it posted earlier) ....

THANKS to you and Sean and the others that actually make TGIF possible.

I at least appreciate that you have other/better things to do with your spare time than turn up week after week and generate interesting scenarios for the community and then take the flak for it.

Much appreciated, thanks, although Sean does most of the sacrificing. :bigsmile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Volcano,

Just in case (because I haven't seen it posted earlier) ....

THANKS to you and Sean and the others that actually make TGIF possible.

I at least appreciate that you have other/better things to do with your spare time than turn up week after week and generate interesting scenarios for the community and then take the flak for it.

+1. Very good point, Mark. I should have mentioned this before, but hopefully better late than never. Mea Culpa. Well Done! :luxhello:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) In a discussion since, it has been determined that next time I will ALWAYS do Option #2 above from now on (edit the scenario and break the plans). This now seems to be the lesser of all evils. As a CO, just be prepared that your plan may be broken at the last minute and backup your plan by saving an image to copy it from if that happens. (I wanted to avoid this at all costs, but "oh well".)

I don't doubt for a minute that your only objective is to ensure competitive balance. I think that giving Blue the intel was the best option under the circumstances. I'd rather have you do that than modifying the .sce and breaking my plan at the last minute. Even with a screenshot, it's still rather time consuming and error-prone to recreate graphics.

Edited by MDF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm well, I think part of the problem is that if someone is planning on CO'ing, then they will naturally have a look at both sides to decide which they want to CO. There is nothing wrong with wanting to look at both sides for that purpose. . . .

I would add that the enemy OOB (except for later-spawning units) has always been in plain sight in the Assembly Area, and as a player I always look over all sides to see which vehicle set appeals to me the most.

If you want to avoid giving this super-easy intel, have all vehicles except the COs set to spawn-if. That won't help if COs still want to start the Planning Phase to see the map and briefing, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's alot of stuff like that has to be done anyway, especially when it comes to complex missions.

You're preaching to the choir on that one. :) The trigger-encryption thing takes maybe 10 minutes of time in the editor, which is negligible in comparison to the total time required to create a mission. But this and some of the other stuff I outlined are novel, and sometimes people reflexively reject novelty.

Edited by MDF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm well, I think part of the problem is that if someone is planning on CO'ing, then they will naturally have a look at both sides to decide which they want to CO. . . .

This problem also can be mitigated to a degree with partially-variable orders of battle. Each side would have a core OOB, plus the option to select plausible additional assets via triggers. Some or all choices would come with point penalties. We already do this in numerous missions, so it's not much of a leap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
I would add that the enemy OOB (except for later-spawning units) has always been in plain sight in the Assembly Area, and as a player I always look over all sides to see which vehicle set appeals to me the most.

If you want to avoid giving this super-easy intel, have all vehicles except the COs set to spawn-if. That won't help if COs still want to start the Planning Phase to see the map and briefing, though.

Yes, well I don't want to give the impression that the CO cannot look over both sides -- I look at it sort of like chess where knowing the initial situation is not bad, because you really don't know what will happen after that. But, as with everything, this can be taken to the extreme.

However, there is a fine line with just looking at both sides and taking it to the too far. For example, if one side is conducting a deliberate/static defense, with battle positions and so forth, then marking those positions for artillery calls is wrong. Any sort of note taking about the enemy's force and disposition should also be forbidden. The only intel that should be gleaned from looking at both sides should be a brief glancing overview of the situation.

If we can all stick within those boundaries then there is nothing to worry about. I have faith that we can, as a community, avoid the temptation to scientifically study the enemy side -- which is why I am still posting the scenario early. :)

Edited by Volcano
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...