Realism v. Playability

[SeaQueen]

I've been designing a mission lately and came to an interesting conclusion: Skilled players could potentially draw the game out for about a week.

All of this depends a great deal on luck as well, and the results are probabilistic (Koopman equations for random search and exhaustive search). One can always get lucky and have things happen very fast, but the fact remained, most of the time, the scenario would take a really long time to play.

Given what I was able to determine from my research and experience, that was completely realistic too. As an ASW geek, I try hard to make scenarios which have some depth to them (get it?), but I'm also aware of the short attention spans of most players. ASW in particular has the problem of being slow paced. Has anyone developed a good rule of thumb for compromising between realism and playability?

[Bellman]

:) I am not sure whether your mission is primarily aimed at SP or MP and that's a little relevant.

In MP available player gameing time and maintaining the connection are limiting factors.
There are two schools of thought the previous NCHQ type players who feel that realism is foremost.
Starting positions well spaced to allow for the sort of RL care required in careful scouting, feeling for a
position, stealth, closing the odds down etc. On the other hand , we have players who rightly demand action/fun
within a shorter timeframe, determined by the factors above.

Harpoon faces difficult ballance issues . Many find the action too slow and in SP the remedies
are to hand. But with the new MP Harpoon Beta when do you agree to accelerate ? Can you ?

For SP what ballance ? One would not satisfy the gamer who posted that he had given up an anticedent
of Silent Hunter from boredom. ...........When challenged it transpired that he never used any in-game acceleration.
That must also be compared with the guy who played SH in realtime, over weeks, posting his action (sic) almost daily.

For me the limits would be a MP mission lasting no more than 3 hours and a SP one 2/3 days,
with average(?) gameing time.

But surely if the MP mission is designed not to 'overload' the connections, as long as the proper health
warning description is given by the designer, those who choose to play a more realistic mission will queue.
Especialy when they see the plaque on the door ! ;)

PS. ** I see no reason why a ( none platform sharing ?) MP mission,, could not have goals set at different intervals. The players could decide whether to participate in a 2, 3 or 4 course meal.

[OKO]

I agree with you SeaQueen, MP scenarios must use some compromise.

Especially against mission duration.
Real ASW engagment takes hours, even days ... you just can't do that on a MP mission with DW.

But there is tools, able to compensate this problem.
Random location is the best one.

With them, you could still have the fewer possible range beetween platforms with a very large choice of initial position.
This way, you allow at least 15 mn before any detection could occurs, and nobody knows where the ennemy will come from.

On MP mission, this is a basic rule for replayability of a mission.
When creating a MP mission, you should spend most of the time not on creating the action, but on generating the randomless, preferably on speed, bearing and even course of the targets.

If you manage to do that correctly, each time you replay the mission, you shouldn't have more informations available than if you played it for the first time.

So the 2 main factors for MP games are
1) no more informations for everyone than if they played the mission for the first time
2) At least 15 minutes before any detection occurs.

Then you have lots interesting and "realistic" possible scenarios.

I made some scenarios I replay quite often, editing them will better show you the way I proceed to try to make this kind of scenarios.
you could find the latest versions here :
http://okof4.free.fr/missions/DW/

[Miika]

I've always used a very simple way of balancing my missions - if I like playing them myself, I'm satisfied. To say it differently; no matter how you create your missions, there will always be those that like them and those that don't.

If you always make them the way you see fit, you will also be able to improve them once you learn more of the game and the mission editor.

As for me; I like those 1-2h missions after a day at work, and those longer ones on Sunday mornings. ;)

Miika

[XabbaRus]

Well SeaQueen what you can do is send the mission to Bill to put on his site.

I would be more than happy with a scenario that could take a week.

I play then save, then go back to it the next day.

That way we could try and then comment.

[SeaQueen]

Well SeaQueen what you can do is send the mission to Bill to put on his site.

I would be more than happy with a scenario that could take a week.

I play then save, then go back to it the next day.

That way we could try and then comment.

You'll probably think it's boring. But okay... I'll send it. I'm also working on some scenario notes to go with it. That way people can tell me what a ding dong I am.

[SeaQueen]

I've always used a very simple way of balancing my missions - if I like playing them myself, I'm satisfied. To say it differently; no matter how you create your missions, there will always be those that like them and those that don't.

If you always make them the way you see fit, you will also be able to improve them once you learn more of the game and the mission editor.

You know, my experience has been that the simplest scenarios to build are frequently the most fun for me. They have very minimal scripting, a reasonable amount of randomness, and a very clear goal.

[LuftWolf]

I can tell you that I am very much looking forward to playing your scenarios SQ.

BTW, when you say that the mission will take a week, is that with the detection ranges in the stock 1.03 DB? :o :doh: :hmm:

Also, have you tried LWAMI? :cool:

[SeaQueen]

I can tell you that I am very much looking forward to playing your scenarios SQ.

BTW, when you say that the mission will take a week, is that with the detection ranges in the stock 1.03 DB? :o :doh: :hmm:

Also, have you tried LWAMI? :cool:

That's stock 1.03, and there's some assumptions built into that number. Basically, I just used the Koopman formula for random search and noted that almost all of the games will result in detecting at least one of the targets after a week, assuming a 5kt search speed and a 5.25NM passive sonar range. Unless you're actively trying to avoid finding your target, it's very hard to do worse than random search, so consider that a conservative estimate. Most likely you'll do better than that. There's some things I'm playing with right now that might lead me to believe that it's a little too conservative an estimate too. I dunno...

If you increase your speed, you'll decrease your sonar range, but might increase your search rate blah blah blah... the usual compromises. It's up to you to figure out what the best one is. It's a long search puzzle, and it should be hard no matter what.

So... that's what I say when the game can go as long as a week. I have played it a couple times and had it last a few minutes too. It all depends on whether you're lucky or whether you're miserably unlucky as to whether you're stuck in grindingly long scenario. I also suspect that if you played it MP, the scenario would last on the short side because it seems like humans like to go faster when searching is difficult. I guess it makes them think they're necessarily covering more ground. Clearly it's a psychological thing, though. :-) Therefore, one would expect them to be more detectable.


I still haven't tried LWAMI.

[Bill Nichols]

Well SeaQueen what you can do is send the mission to Bill to put on his site.

I would be more than happy with a scenario that could take a week.

I play then save, then go back to it the next day.

That way we could try and then comment.

You'll probably think it's boring. But okay... I'll send it. I'm also working on some scenario notes to go with it. That way people can tell me what a ding dong I am.

It's up on my site now. I'm looking forward to hearing what others think about SeaQueen's mission. :yep:

[Bellman]

:D Very impressive Scenario Notes in PowerPoint with background and briefing SeaQueen. :|\

I hope I can do the scenario justice. Thank you. :rock: :up:

[SeaQueen]

It's up on my site now. I'm looking forward to hearing what others think about SeaQueen's mission. :yep:

We'll call it a "draft." I think they'll also say, "we can't find the boomer!"

[SeaQueen]

:D Very impressive Scenario Notes in PowerPoint with background and briefing SeaQueen. :|\

I hope I can do the scenario justice. Thank you. :rock: :up:

Yeah... I wanted to develop that a little bit more. I hope it explained my reasoning for things, though. I'm always opened to people's criticism. If someone with actual operational experience had something to say, I'd be happy. I don't know if I got the whale season right, for example. I was really creeped out when I went to sea, because I was thinking, "AH HA! Now I can get away from all this powerpoint nonsense!" and sure enough, the Captain got briefed by his crew every day in Powerpoint, right there in the wardroom. The world is going to be ruled by the powerpoint version of everything.

My trick to avoiding getting into problems with my work for this one is to use a historical scenario that I have not actually SEEN anything about. I'm just making educated guesses. A friend of mine told me what he was able to without breaking the law, so I could get some of the flavor from that. I also drew a little from Strategic Antisubmarine Warfare and Naval Strategy by Stefanick, which is a really good book on the topic. The real gem in it is the appendices.

[SeaQueen]

It's up on my site now. I'm looking forward to hearing what others think about SeaQueen's mission. :yep:

Hi Bill!

"Executive Order 12938" is not mine. As much as I love getting credit for stuff, it's always best to only take it for things one does. :-)

[Bellman]

SQ:I think they'll also say, "we can't find the boomer!"

I found the Typhoon after 10 hours game time strictly Truth off !! But.........................................she found me first. :arrgh!:

A close look at the map narrowed down the places a sneaky Boomer might hide -
(Or be hidden by an even sneekier scenario designer ;) ) But a rerun will prove whether I was
just lucky - in finding a 'needle in a haystack ! :o (Lucky - I sat on the durned thang ! :damn: )

This is not the place for AARs so I wiil just say that the mixture of variable layers and testing
acoustic conditions proved a considerable challenge ! :yep:
BTW I did seriously miss my SW. :hmm:

Nice work SQ - yes I'm going to 'play it again Sam !' :|\

[Bill Nichols]

It's up on my site now. I'm looking forward to hearing what others think about SeaQueen's mission. :yep:

Hi Bill!

"Executive Order 12938" is not mine. As much as I love getting credit for stuff, it's always best to only take it for things one does. :-)


Must be getting old :oops: meant to say "Kara Sea Strategic ASW"

:damn:

sorry...

[Kapitan]

before seawolves i didnt care if i killed a nutrel (biological) but now i have to avoid them :damn:

but sounds like a good mission i would like to try it and see

[SeaQueen]

I found the Typhoon after 10 hours game time strictly Truth off !! But.........................................she found me first. :arrgh!:

The first time I played it and found the boomer, my torpedo whiffed and I got hit by the counterfire. I hate that.


A close look at the map narrowed down the places a sneaky Boomer might hide -
(Or be hidden by an even sneekier scenario designer ;) ) But a rerun will prove whether I was
just lucky - in finding a 'needle in a haystack ! :o (Lucky - I sat on the durned thang ! :damn: )

There's nothing fancy about where the submarine is. He's uniformly distributed anywhere in the SSBN OP AREA.


BTW I did seriously miss my SW. :hmm:


Feel free to modify it if you want.

Nice work SQ - yes I'm going to 'play it again Sam !' :|\

I'm glad you enjoyed it. I wanted to make a scenario where I felt good about the time scales and distances involved, as well as the environmental issues. I really don't like scenarios where the pace of things is totally wrong, and it's only hard because it really sticks you in the middle of things for which you're totally unprepared.

[Bellman]

No AAR to spoil anything but just some general feedback on my mistakes which might help other
players of this scenario.

A postmortem (sic) showed although I thought I had been taken out with a short range 'shotgun' I had missed
a silent passive she sent earlier at 9.6 nm, while undertaking a quick burst of short term gametime acceleration.

With a vast area to search, in this my first run, I calculated that maintaining speed at 5 knots I could
undertake alternate periods of normal and accelerated gametime. So five minutes accelerated = .25 nm appx.
Then scour NB for 5 mins. then accel. etc so on.(Safe eh !).......................
Wrong - missed that passive, missed the ghost tonal !! On rerunning from a nearby 'save point' -
At 9.6 nm the single tonal was ghostly and intermittent. The result of some very tricky SSP conditions.

So for my next run in the Kara Sea :-
Lesson 1. - Dont even think of partial gametime acceleration !!
Lesson 2. - Live in NB and constantly scan.
No shortcuts - constant vigilence is the price of success. Now over the timeframe thats quite a tall order,
so I propose watches of 2 hours to maintain peak (?) alertness.

Coffee only !! ;)

[SeaQueen]

No shortcuts - constant vigilence is the price of success. Now over the timeframe thats quite a tall order,
so I propose watches of 2 hours to maintain peak (?) alertness.

Coffee only !! ;)

Yeah... I noticed that too. Most simulations have sensor issues related to time accelleration. There's various reasons for it. So, yeah... time accelleration is risky.

I've also noticed that operator attention can be a big factor in what your detection range is. In spite of the shallow water and marginal ice, I was able to get a faint PNB tonal at ~23 nm. I'm not sure how realistic that is. Something I'll have to look into I guess. I wonder if I used a more lossy bottom... huuuum...

If you were clever, you could almost put together a whole solution using just the occaisional sniff of a PNB tonal in the tens of Hz range.

[Bellman]

:D Well ''what a difference a day makes !''

Second time around mounted in my SW I hit a surface duct and am working the TMA after two tonals
on a target starting at 37 nm and solidifying at 33 nm.

With every chance she will ghost-out and her partner lurking this is going to get a little interesting. :cool:

''Gone fishing........'' I owe that sucker !! :arrgh!:

[MaHuJa]

There's nothing fancy about where the submarine is. He's uniformly distributed anywhere in the SSBN OP AREA.

Ahem... "distribution" implies there is more than one (and I don't think across games qualifies). That made me read it as equivalent to "in pieces, spread across the op area". :o

[SeaQueen]

Ahem... "distribution" implies there is more than one (and I don't think across games qualifies). That made me read it as equivalent to "in pieces, spread across the op area". :o

Across games is fine by me. Each game is a random trial, and I assume that the random number generator that the game uses for random start boxes obeys the uniform distribution. That's what I mean when I say the red sub is uniformly distributed across the SSBN OP AREA. :huh:

[SeaQueen]

Ahem... "distribution" implies there is more than one (and I don't think across games qualifies). That made me read it as equivalent to "in pieces, spread across the op area". :o

Across games is fine by me. Each game is a random trial, and I assume that the random number generator that the game uses for random start boxes obeys the uniform distribution. That's what I mean when I say the red sub is uniformly distributed across the SSBN OP AREA. :huh:

[Bellman]

:) SQ - rather than continue to post what in effect could be seen as a quasi- AAR, I have poted a follow up
in DW 'classification' about some extra powerful NB reception.