A Case for Counting Repetitive Scenario Play

[Blackcloud6]

PG-HQ only counts one's first play of a scenario and has always done so.  Shad explained the reason for that a long time ago, and frankly I have forgotten what that was but i do remember at the timer it seemed reasonable.

But now since we have PG-Uber for VASSAL and a competitive ladder, I'd like to ask for consideration of changing the policy to allow multiple plays of scenarios for one's play count towards rank.  Here are my reasons for asking such:

1.  PG-Uber gives us a door for increased competitive play against other PG players throughout the world.  It has been common in tactical wargaming circles to switch sides after a scenario play and have a go at the same scenario playing the other side.  Since the goal of PG-HQ and PG-Uber is to encourage play, if people want to switch sides and play again, let's encourage this.  It gives us more plays.

2.  Switching sides and playing the scenario again is a good teaching tool.  A more experience and capable player could then show the beginner how to win , or teach certain tactics and techniques etc.  Since we have a mentor program, and beginners need to play much beyond the mentorship, let's encourage play that help players learn.

3. True balance is discerned through many playing of a scenario.  There truly needs to be a large number of playing to level out all the variances that can occur.  Let's encourage more plays of a scenario to be able to better analyze balance.  Also, there may be scenarios that are seemingly unbalanced becasue one side is not being grokked properly by players at the start of their first play.  But during their first (and subsequent) play they may gain insight into what the designer was trying to do in the scenario and be able to figure out a path to victory for the losing side.

4.  As part of #3, there have been many times after I AAR my own solo playing I figure out how things could have been played differently, but I am reluctant to play a scenario again becasue time is precious and if I want to advance my number of plays, i move on to another scenario.  The ranking system and keeping track of plays is, for me frankly, a good motivator to play PG.  Why hinder it?   Some people like to play scenarios many times for many reasons.  Let's not discourage them for doing what they like or want to do.  Let's encourage them to play PG; a play is  a play after all.

[triangular_cube]

The flip side is someone could just play 50x of a 5 turn into scenario to rank up. I'm not entirely sure someone would be compelled to do that, but they could. 

I guess they could just lie about playing 50 different scenarios if it was that important to them anyway and honesty didnt matter. 

I cant speak to any technical limitations that may or may not exist for it.

[plloyd1010]

The discussion on PG-HQ ranks was just over a year ago. I don't think there was a real rational for unique plays. It was based on series coverage more that anything else.

I have mixed feeling on counting multiple plays. It would certainly help Schoenwulf and myself. With as many people as Bob has mentored, he should be eligible to join the joint chiefs by now.

On the other hand, I could see counting a a completed shared play on each side (as in both participants have claimed the shared play) and/or 1 solo play. Or 2 solo plays and one open-ended shared play. How Drew would work that logic, no idea. It probably isn't a serious consideration until shared play entry is operational again and the ladder has its kinks worked out.

[triangular_cube]

Speaking of ranks, is the monthly promotion post a bot post that is broken or is that manual? I noticed we didnt have one for September yet.

[treadasaurusrex]

I concur wholeheartedly with Blackcloud6's rationale and find his arguments in favor of allowing repeated plays of scenarios to be quite compelling. Most AARs are written by first time scenario players and often they are years old. The vast majority are apparently written by solo players, so we are only hearing half the story in terms of the arbitrary numbers assigned by the writers. Needless to say these reviews are subjective, and if the players writing them are not widely experienced PG aficionados, the observations and their points of view are likely to be fairly narrow in scope.

As a community, I think that we should revisit this conversation in the interest of enhancing the system and encouraging wider play and additional players.

[Shad]

Blackcloud6,

I appreciate you making such a detailed and thoughtful argument for adjusting the rank calculation methodology.

Ranks are one of the oldest features on the site and as such date back to the dark ages where 99% of PG plays was solo because there was no real online play besides voice chat and 2 copies of the game (ugh).

I'm open to changing how this calculates. I don't have any special attachment to it.

That being said, allow me to throw a dead fish on the table - what if we just looked at total turns played? Why value a 5 turn scenario the same as a 120 turn monster? PG-HQ can tabulate that just as easily as individual games played.

The core purpose of player rank is to convey the individual's level of experience in playing PG. When you see someone with a high rank you should appreciate their commitment to the series. However you wish to calculate that is fine, so long as the mystique is preserved.

Thoughts?

[Blackcloud6]

Turns played for rank is interesting.  They are already tabulated.  The same train of thought, though, could be taken down the track further.  A turn in a game with low counter-count is not the same as a turn in monster scenario, n'est-ce pas?

I suspect that those who have played many scenarios have played various sized scenarios.

I would bet, though, that people will recognize d scenarios played better than total turns played; and having ranks tied to scenarios keeps logic with modules played, AARs etc.

Now as I was typing this, this thought popped into my head: maybe instead of ranking by turns played, keep it at scenarios played but maybe give a bonus for size, like a multiplier, varied by scenario size.   That actually might be cool and kind of fits with the AAR bonus.  This might combine the best of both notions.

[triangular_cube]

Turns played for rank is interesting.  They are already tabulated.  The same train of thought, though, could be taken down the track further.  A turn in a game with low counter-count is not the same as a turn in monster scenario, n'est-ce pas?

I suspect that those who have played many scenarios have played various sized scenarios.

I would bet, though, that people will recognize d scenarios played better than total turns played; and having ranks tied to scenarios keeps logic with modules played, AARs etc.

Now as I was typing this, this thought popped into my head: maybe instead of ranking by turns played, keep it at scenarios played but maybe give a bonus for size, like a multiplier, varied by scenario size.   That actually might be cool and kind of fits with the AAR bonus.  This might combine the best of both notions.

If we factor in all that arent we just recreating the bounty system that already exists though?

Unique plays or not unique plays, I like the simplicity of scenarios played for ranks. Just my opinion.

[plloyd1010]

On the other hand, something like the bounty system might be a good way to work multiple plays. Something with diminishing returns, but always with a bit of a payout.

[triangular_cube]

On the other hand, something like the bounty system might be a good way to work multiple plays. Something with diminishing returns, but always with a bit of a payout.

If we want to use bounties or some derivative of the bounty system into ranks like that, I would caution against factoring in diminished value if for recorded plays by other players.

It makes sense that the second, third, fourth, etc plays receive sequentially less bounty in its own system, as the system is incentivizing our collective coverage completion. 

It really doesnt make sense that a newer player would be disadvantaged in a similar way when it comes to ranks. 

I am aware of the distinction of what I am saying versus what you were saying, of multple plays by a single player having diminished returns. 

I'm just putting out more food for thought.