Certified Scenario List?
 

In the course of playing DW, nothing has brought me to the heights of satisfaction like playing and completing a really well done scenario.

At the same time, nothing has crapped me out more than wasting three hours on a broken scenario...

So, I was hoping that we could pool our collective SubSimmer knowledge and compile a list of scenarios that 1) work well with stock DW 2) work well with LWAMI 3.xx.

This really is not that hard, all we need to do is have a thread created and stuck in the mission design forum. Then, when you complete a mission that you thought was both interesting to play and, perhaps more imporant, at least functional within the design intentions of the scenario creater, you can post the mission title and a short description to the thread so other people looking for good scenarios can quickly reference you knowledge. Also, of course, if you have played some in the past, please review those when the thread is created.

So, let's do this? Perhaps one list for single player scenarios and one list for multiplayer scenarios.

Cheers,
David

I'd better stick those two here .. because people who don't design missions does not go there. Comments and improvements should be of course posted there. This list should be as simple as possible.

Ok, I agree, I think it is of enough importance that it should be maintained on the general forum. :up:

Cheers,
David

I agree with the idea.

When I made my mini-campaign I only had few replies from friends and only a couple from "unknown" (they identified themselves, but I didn't knew then before), people.

Having opinions or point of views from other people is very iportant, not only for correcting bugs or improving the game experience, but for having new ideas and gaining morale for creating new missions: very iportant because sometimes you get stuck in a mission design an finally you give up (it happened me twice when trying to create a campaign for Sub Command :damn: ).

Also could be a good option if someone played a mission designed for, say, the stock game, but runs ok with LWAmi.

I hope this idea works :yep:

You're gonna make me go through all mine and make adjustments, aren't you?

Good Idea
 

I agree totally. It would be good to have some feedback - so far I've only had 1 or 2 comments about my missions. The usual problem is that once you create a scenario, you usually play it "your way", possibly never finding a bug caused by someone else doing something unexpected.

I agree with FERdeBOER that most missions can be played with or without LWAMI, the main difference being the difficulty. (When I refined my missions to work with LWAMI, I had to remove 70-90% of aircraft:D.) Also, the missions can be very different each time you play them, depending on the randomness created to the scenario by the designer.

Miika

Ahem.

Ok, people, cough up the list of Single Player and Multi-Player Scenarios available for download at SubGuru that you have personally played and found to be 1) play-ablely bug-free 2) worth whatever time you spent playing it.

I said now sailor! :x :arrgh!:

Seriously... this is SOOO worth the community's tiny bit of time that is required for this to happen.

Cheers,
David

If someone makes this list, I'll add a symbol or other indicator on my download page for each 'certified' scenario.

Wait, so no one who has looked at this thread has EVER played a scenario from SubGuru? :o

:down:

Cheers,
David

PS Take two minutes... look in your log file or Scenario directory... bring up some fond memories, post them here, be a rockstar.

PPS Why haven't I posted my scenario list... well, that's because I haven't played a scenario in over a year, so that's kind of why I'm interested in the list in the first place, also because I think it's a good idea, given the nature of DW missions. So show some love people...

Besides the FFG being ****ed over by it's "corrected" draft, what else would wonk a mission in 1.04?

Without a few exceptions, you don't see virtual navy multiplayers on this board. So you wont get any respons from them I am afraid.:-?
I did read probable more then thousand mission reports to learn what they want for maps, because they didn't react when I asked them what they liked.
Gives you a good feeling to see how people have fun playing maps you made.:yep:

RIMPAC CSG "works" just fine. Not that I had any reason to think it wouldn't. :shifty:

In case you were wondering, a Nimitz class CVN takes 9 minutes to sink with no spillover damage.

I think I've been voicing an idea like this before too. Some missions just worked... like crap. Others were fine, and a few were great. Too bad you can't find the great ones without wading through the... less great.

However, for some 'random person' to be able to decide if a map is 'good enough' to get a 'certified stamp' is something that easily falls apart fast.

For anyone (e.g. Molon) to "certify" his own missions holds implications I think we're all aware of.

Also, there are several scales a game should be rated up against.

Complexity - with the standard sub vs sub instant detection deathmatch being at the bottom
Technical problems - bugs in the missions, triggers that won't fire correctly, etc
Information - is the player ever left wondering "what the heck am I supposed to do"? Dropped into the middle of the ocean told to search, without limitations on the search area? Told to attack a cargo ship, with 13 of them to choose from?

And more that I've probably not thought of yet.

I think that putting up the "profile" of those scores give more meaning than "certified or not certified".

What is it about me in particular that makes those implications more obvious? It's silly anyway; I "certify" my scenarios by sending them to Bill (or in previous lives, to Timmy G, Fish, or Phantom). [And yes, I know the mosquito boats in ARG still collide sometimes, but I have that issue with formations all the time...If someone has substantial advice for preventing it, I'll listen--but I'm on my 4th version of that one and I'm not doing another revision unless I know it will be an improvement.]

I guess going through dozens of SCX scenarios has just turned me off to the idea. Yes, it was hard finding the good scenarios and you never really knew if the one you were playing would work as it was supposed to, but that's the price you pay for using aftermarket missions. Eventually, I came to recognize the names of a few good designers that I knew to have faith in, and that got me through OK.

I guess if we could do better, we should, but what factors determine if a scenario is certified, and who decides? LW's idea doesn't even begin to explain anything that we'd need to know to make a list. And considering that it looks like my skeptical ass is only one to post comments on a scenario in response, others either don't get it either or don't care.

Using categories as Kage has suggested clarifies the issue of what 'certifiation' would mean, but it doesn't help on the authority problem. I suppose if someone wanted to do the web-work, it could be something people vote on. But in a community as small as ours, polls won't mean that much. A few careless responses throws the whole system out of whack. I can just see it now; a scenario ends up with a piss poor "information" rating because the designer gave the player a flaming datum, a time, and a classifiation, but not a bounded Op Area marker on the Nav map. The rating player couldn't be bothered to figure out how far away the target could have made it, so he rates the scenario poorly.

I think no matter what, any rating is going to be very subjective. It'll be so subjective that it won't mean a damn thing, unless the rating is the opinion of someone who we all know well enough to know in what aspects we should trust the opinion and in what aspects we would expect to disagree. I don't really feel like volunteering anyone for that.

What made you the obvious choice for an example was the things you've been saying earlier in the thread - stuff about your own missions that when interpreted in this context... though that was probably not what you meant.

I agree with everything you say, though. If it's done through a vote system it's a problem of differing standards for each player. I've seen cases where they attach a description to each number, giving a guideline for what number to select. That helps alleviate it somewhat, but far from entirely. And assumes people read it.

The opposite would actually work, if the one person doing it is good enough. Everyone would just have to find out how they were playing it in comparison to that person. This would, however, be a huge job (as you point out) and we're not having a lot of volunteers.


The idea behind the "profile" is that people are different, and like different things. And if two missions have a similar profile, and they liked one, there's a good chance they will enjoy the other. Though I guess adding 'buggyness' as part of the profile itself is a bad idea :oops:

I think the drawbacks to this is obvious - newcomers won't get their missions played as much, at least by the veterans, and the lack of feedback makes them quit. Then, when the "oldtimers" then "retire" from mission making... who makes the missions?

My comments earlier are basically somewhat offhanded remarks about the objective/subjective problem. Most DW Scenarios are objectively functional. About the only ones that are not are those that started in water too shallow for the FFG since its draft was corrected in 1.04, and those are getting fixed. It's just seems silly for me or to certify, for example, SeaQueen's RIMPAC mission, since we know without even playing it that it won't be "broken" and anything else I might have to say is just my opinion. (Then again, that's never stopped me before...too easy!!!:hmm:)

I'm prone to goof up as much as the next person. Have you played that one, btw? What did you think? I worried it was too easy. I don't like how they make the improved KILO basically a supersub because while it's good, it isn't THAT good. Lately I've been playing with Harpoon mostly, but I haven't by any stretch given up on Dangerous Waters. I just have been interested in different questions lately (STK ops and stuff).

No, you're not as prone to goofs as the next person, because you keep your scenarios KISS-simple. There aren't a lot of triggers, scripts, etc. invovled that could cause something to go wrong. This is kind of what I mean by taking note of different designers. When you put something out, I expect it to be large, open-ended, simple, and reliable. I also know I'm probably going to beat it on the first try.

As for RIMPAC, I played on manual TMA, and I ended up bloggling the positions of the screen ships before I had to go deep to avoid detection. I ended up within about 4nm of one of the DDG's because of that, but the AI couldn't capitalize on that. After evading or or two shots from the SVTTs I was in position to take out the Nimitz. I ended up two hits short since to of the wakehomers went backward first, but a breif sprint and a few shanked ASROCs later and the Nimitz was on the bottom.

The design was all fine, but I thought that it was rather sad that the AI couldn't hit me when they should have had me on active or at least triangulated passive.

Manual TMA is part of the fun! :-) Did it draw a highly offset angle for you or was it pretty much straight in?

Yeah... sometimes the AI is slow to take shots. It's strange though, because sometimes it is too quick and endangers itself.

So long as I didn't goof things. :-) When I play that one, I make it my goal to not have anything shot at me until after I've hit the CVN. Once I start running, they can shoot all they want. My theory is that any torpedoes are bad torpedoes, hence, privately I consider the mission a failure if they manage to get a shot off at all. Ultimately the scenario is pretty similar to NATO EXWAR Exercise except someone said they wanted to attack a CSG so I figured I'd oblige them. If you can do well in that one, you can do well in this one.

They came pretty much straight on.

I thought this one was a bit harder than the other one. The screen was harder to penetrate, and the skimmers had more firepower to bring to bear. I don't think the other scenario had any ASROC shooters, and there were definitely no airborne helos. Skimmers generally do a poor job of reacting because they race in with their sonars washed out, so helos and ASROC capability can make a big difference.