Message text Mmmmmmhhhhhh.... I don't think I like that. In fact, I don't like it a bit.
In fact, I think that's really very much uncorrect.
In fact, consider this a polite complaint. 
I don't like shoot-the-chicken games. For that reason, I just don't sign up (and tend not to create them on purpose - and never create lists of them).
But I think that comments in the scenario should be enough to discourage the potential chickens, without the need to resort to changing scenarios mid-way and / or setting them up with misleading titles.
If we think a scenario is seriously unbalanced and potentially abusive, let's just remove it (nobody will miss it anyway).
Also, I propose (again) we create an easily-readable rating for each scenario, maybe in the form of a "symbol + a comment":
SYMBOL:
2 crosses = heavily biased towards the germans - allies almost never win
1 cross = slightly biased towards the germans - skilled allies may win against unskilled germans, but with effort
"equal" sign = balanced scenario - equally skilled players can have a fair fight
1 bullseye = slightly biased towards the allies - skilled germans may win against unskilled allies, but with effort
1 bullseye = heavily biased towards the allies - germans almost never win
A "balance bar" would achieve the same effect, and is probably more readable.
COMMENT:
stuff such as "difficulty increased for germans on large maps" or "easier to win for allies with free placement" or "newbies, stay away from the german side!"
The scenraio master could be in charge of classifying scenarios, maybe using input from the forums (or statistics)
I think this would be a feasible solution. The scenario rating and comment would need to be made available in the scenrio list, so that you immediately target the kind of open scenrios you prefer.
Skymasters?
--- Message edited by dr.falko |
|
|
Donate
Leagues
Gonzaga
Blue Max
Cartagena
Wooden Ships...
King Me!
VampiRing
