(05-08-2022, 11:24 AM)Shad Wrote: (I'm the site admin if you don't know my username, I haven't been active much in the past 12 months)
Thank you for posing the question, goosebrown! Without putting my thumb on the scale I'd like to add some additional info you (plural, not just GB) may or may not know:- I find this entire discussion intensely amusing because in essence you are asking for a way to climb the ranks faster. Perhaps you don't know that when the site launched and the ranks were created they were calibrated against the total scenarios in existence at that time? If you like I can change the counting formula and also recalibrate them to the present Library scope...
I think that I am not so interested in climbing the ranks faster (In fact, I like the badges, but they don't motivate me), but I am more interested in going in depth. There is learning to be had from doing each side in a scenario. I really like that idea. For me, that is way more important than seeing how many scenarios I can play. I get that is a desirable stat, but I really only care about 1940-1943 and maybe the Pacific. I would like to be an expert rather than a generalist. I especially have no desire at this point to play Russians or late war scenarios. Being vaporized by a King Tiger or a JSIII has some charm, I admit, butIt is not as interesting as having a gun duel with a PzIIIh and some armed track or a Lee/Grant.
Imagine someone who plays through Eastern Front as Russian only or Never plays a french side but goes through how many games? I think the double count EVEN with a recalibration of the advancement scale would be better for me.
But that is me.
Thanks for reading it all and thinking it through and talking about the creation decisions.
25% remain unplayed. I thought it would be far more. Some are pretty obscure.
