Molon Labe
10-13-2008, 11:42 PM
A scenario match is a match where the objective is something other than the destruction of the opposing players.
In my mind, there are two different general types of scenario matches: Force-on-Force and Asymetric (Red v. Blue).
Force-on-force is where each side has the same order of battle. So, an example of a FoF scenario battle would be one where each side has a fleet, but instead of receiving points for killing players, a side gets points for accomplishing a stated mission (e.g. sinking a flagship, arriving at a destination). Objectives in an FoF would either be the same for both sides (be the first to arrive at X) or symetrical (Team 1 needs to do X and team 2 needs to do Y, but X and Y are pretty much the same thing). FoF scenario matches would likely be quite easy to do here because they are almost guaranteed to be balanced, since each side has the same OOB and mission.
Asymetric would be the opposite, where each side has a different OOB and different (but still opposing) missions. The typical DW scenarios involving US ASW forces vs. Russian or Chinese OPFOR subs fall into this category. The problem here is that these scenarios are almost never balanced. So, I think if we're going to do this as a competition, each match must consist of two rounds. After you play a scenario once, you switch sides and play again.
Scoring is going to present a minor challenge. The good news is we've got 1000 points to play with. The bad news is the more complex scoring gets, the harder it is to do. So I think we'll need some sort of standard format to apply to any scenario match. But, that standard format will have to be variable enough that you don't always end up with the same score whenever it's played and Blue wins.
Here's my starting suggestion:
Divide the 1000 points up into 3 groups: primary objective (500), secondary objective (250), and assets (250). Objectives would always be the negative of the other side's objectives; it would never be possible for both sides to complete their objectives or for both sides to fail. Assets would be a pool of points that you start with that you lose if you start losing platforms; since both sides might lose platforms, these will not necessarily be opposite scores. The amount of points lost per kill will be based on the proportion of the military value of the killed platform relative to the total value of all their assets in the scenario. So, if you get wiped out, you can score no higher than 750 (although probably much less since the wiped out side probably didn't accomplish their objectives either). If that's too high, the secondary objective can always be made to bolster the point share for one side's survival.
If this doesn't create enough variation, it's possible that partial credit can be given for objectives if the objective is somehow divisible (e.g. number of ships in a convoy, % damage done).
In my mind, there are two different general types of scenario matches: Force-on-Force and Asymetric (Red v. Blue).
Force-on-force is where each side has the same order of battle. So, an example of a FoF scenario battle would be one where each side has a fleet, but instead of receiving points for killing players, a side gets points for accomplishing a stated mission (e.g. sinking a flagship, arriving at a destination). Objectives in an FoF would either be the same for both sides (be the first to arrive at X) or symetrical (Team 1 needs to do X and team 2 needs to do Y, but X and Y are pretty much the same thing). FoF scenario matches would likely be quite easy to do here because they are almost guaranteed to be balanced, since each side has the same OOB and mission.
Asymetric would be the opposite, where each side has a different OOB and different (but still opposing) missions. The typical DW scenarios involving US ASW forces vs. Russian or Chinese OPFOR subs fall into this category. The problem here is that these scenarios are almost never balanced. So, I think if we're going to do this as a competition, each match must consist of two rounds. After you play a scenario once, you switch sides and play again.
Scoring is going to present a minor challenge. The good news is we've got 1000 points to play with. The bad news is the more complex scoring gets, the harder it is to do. So I think we'll need some sort of standard format to apply to any scenario match. But, that standard format will have to be variable enough that you don't always end up with the same score whenever it's played and Blue wins.
Here's my starting suggestion:
Divide the 1000 points up into 3 groups: primary objective (500), secondary objective (250), and assets (250). Objectives would always be the negative of the other side's objectives; it would never be possible for both sides to complete their objectives or for both sides to fail. Assets would be a pool of points that you start with that you lose if you start losing platforms; since both sides might lose platforms, these will not necessarily be opposite scores. The amount of points lost per kill will be based on the proportion of the military value of the killed platform relative to the total value of all their assets in the scenario. So, if you get wiped out, you can score no higher than 750 (although probably much less since the wiped out side probably didn't accomplish their objectives either). If that's too high, the secondary objective can always be made to bolster the point share for one side's survival.
If this doesn't create enough variation, it's possible that partial credit can be given for objectives if the objective is somehow divisible (e.g. number of ships in a convoy, % damage done).