Saipan 1944

[JayTownsend]

Not a bad idea Vince. I will consider it. The reason I rated Nihon Silk, as at first it was only a download sullement/game and not many guys were interested in download games, so I thought by doing detailed AARs for each scenario would help AP with sales.

It would be nice to still do AARs on Saipan scenarios without ranking them, but I don't see that it is possible?

So I guess I can play but not post here, only in CSW where you don't put ratings/rankings. Sure makes it hard to get promoted as to Captain around here however.

I really like KSF and ranked most of the 8 scenarios I played in that one pretty high as well but that isn't my design.

[vince hughes]

So I guess I can play but not post here, only in CSW where you don't put ratings/rankings. Sure makes it hard to get promoted as to Captain around here however.

I really like KSF and ranked most of the 8 scenarios I played in that one pretty high as well but that isn't my design.

On the two points above, maybe a post to Shad where you can show them as played but without a ranking may be possible ? On the upside, think how chuffed you'll feel with each 4 and 5 rating from somebody else !

You can also get to Captain by playing me regularly on Skype as an alternative ! I will help you get there -

On KSF, I know too well that you rate others highly where appropriate.

Take it from me Jay, I've not had the urge to play Pacific since your 2 games came out (my Pacific knowledge is well ropey as well). So you are already in bonus land because you are enthusing 'Non-Pacific-ers' to get involved !

[JayTownsend]

Thanks Vince!

[JayTownsend]

I asked Andrew if he could make it possible to do AARs without ranking them!?

Andrew says no dice:

>It's not, and I'm not going to change it. Designers should rate scenarios just like everyone else as I already stated. :-)

[JayTownsend]

    Just because it's cool looking!

[J6A]

I don't mind designers writing AARs. I encourage it. I don't think they can at all be objective in rating scenarios. I think giving them all a generic "3" rating with a disclaimer is appropriate.

[JayTownsend]

The 3 thing might work?

[Shad]

Ok, enough with this nonsense.

Here's the solution:

1. Jay (or anyone else) plays and rates naturally.
2. We include designers as a game datapoint.
3. On your My PG-HQ Profile page you get a toggle to "include developer ratings".

Checked by default. If you uncheck it then the only way you see the developer's rating for a scenario is in their AAR (if they write one) and on their profile page in the collection table.

Can we get over this now?

[JayTownsend]

Sure!

[vince hughes]

Can we get over this now?

Shad,

You are now beginning to sound like somebody who wishes to stop opinion being expressed here, somethiing you bemoan other forums and sites for doing

There is no 'getting over' the fact that a complete set of 4 and 5 ratings for a WHOLE set from the developer of THAT set. Its plain daft. Furthermore, it makes a nonsense of the whole point of the HQ. So much work (man-hours) has been put in by many people and of course, most of all by you and yet, for all that, you are going to have a 'rogue' rating for an 'expansion' sitting atop the pile. (Rogue being the partisanship and not the person btw).

To date, the best 'expansions' rate 3.91 down to 3.88 for third spot. They then go down to 3.56 for 10th. Nihon Silk is showing 4.36 a whole half point above the best or a full 12.5% more points. I'm certainly not going to let this point go until some sensibility is restored here, or the game is proven by us the plebiscite to rate that high. Other developers flatly refuse to rate their scenarios and I know that as a fact.

Instead of 'getting over' this, then the riposte is clearly

"Can we get realistic with this now"

Sorry to to be brusque, but I felt the last line on your post was brusque also.