How should PG-HQ count scenario plays for player stats

[goosebrown]

I hate whippersnappers.

[plloyd1010]

That's Colonel Whippersnapper to you!

[Schoenwulf]

Well, I think I'm going to risk not being in total agreement with the Colonel, but the point system delineated doesn't really work for me. It just seems cumbersome as compared to just giving credit for one play each side and one play solo. My vote was just for counting those plays as one each, but only if that is not very much work for the site management folks. This is the best game site solely devoted to a game series online as is, so nothing to change unless it's an easy switch.

[Shad]

(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:

• PG-HQ only stores one rating per user per scenario. If you play it 2x the most recent rating overwrites the prior rating. The rational behind this method (instead of allowing a rating each play) is that the scenario rating is exactly that - a rating of the scenario - not a rating of this particular play. Of course there's no guarantee members are actually keeping that in mind when rating a scenario more than once.
  
• The member rankings - private, sergeant, etc. - only give credit for unique scenarios played because they exist to motivate players to play the series widely, not deeply. This is admittedly a selfish stance by PG-HQ itself, as the higher our scenario play and AAR coverage the higher our value to the members. It is both frustrating and amusing that even after all these years and TEN THOUSAND PLAYS recorded we still have 25% of the PG universe with zero plays in our library.
  
• There are other awards and stats for people who play lots of scenarios. Most of that is recognized in the Annual Awards which have a multi-year backlog that I will start clearing soon.
  
• 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...
  

PS - making the change discussed would be trivially easy and would also incorporate all past plays (Wayne)

[goosebrown]

(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.

[Shad]

I think Tour of Duty medals are what you're aiming for then, based on your comments here.

[goosebrown]

Maybe. I still think one count per side is the right way, but I defer since I am just having so much fun playing unless I am Americans in Task Force Kern and I do some very stupid things early on...

[treadasaurusrex]

IMHO, every scenario play should count without exception, as blackcloud6 and others have suggest in the past. 

However, I support the compromise of counting one play for each side of a given scenario, and also one for a solo play.

[Blackcloud6]

Another reason to count all plays is with the advent of VASSAL play, more people are playing against each other.  I’ve had this happen a few times: Player A want to play Scenario X, one he has not played. But his buddy, Player B, says no because he already has played it and it won’t count on PG-HQ.   Let’s facilitate playing, not hinder it.

[plloyd1010]

... he already has played it and it won’t count on PG-HQ.

Sames like a pretty lame excuse to me. (Player B that is.) I can't tell you how many privates and corporals look up to us perpetual sergeants. Can't tell you because they are so well hidden I can't even find one of them.

I still think once for each side is the right number to count. If every play counts, and someone really thinks PG-HQ ranks mean something. I see dozens of Mentoring scenarios being replayed. On the other hand, why not just lie? Who can verify or disprove a solo play? Who could change it, even in a validated dispute?