So in a map I have in the Review Process it was discovered that I forgot to add in the neutrals (note: I would like the neutral color to be a little darker in the design tool as it is difficult to tell it from white and confuses this poor stoopid monkey).

Anyways, I'm gonna fix that easy enough and the game as it is can still go on but when I fix it do I have to have it go through review as a new version?  Does the first game matter anymore or should we just end it?

I'll be releasing the updates to the game messaging tonight all being well - should make in-game messages a lot more visible from the game info page.

asm - the host is in the table at the top left of the game info page 'Hosted By: tom'

Ah, got it. I think you answered this question in another thread already.

I don't know if this was intentional but I can only start a Dev mode game with people who are Reviewers. I'm not submitting the map yet, I just want to make sure I didn't miss anything and that the bonuses are balanced. It's fine for now, but I would really like to pick anybody to test my games before I submit them for release. I don't want the same people all the time.

Except Yertle since he does 80% of my debugging anyways. Thanks Yert!

I would like to see a spot where the people on the review board are able to see the games progress for the boards that are under review, so that any of the reviewers are able to look into a review game and ask a question or make a comment.

if not then maybe a hidden forum where a link to a board can be posted and the reviewers can have a discussion. just in case there is a questionable board and the reviewers that are playing the board would like a few more opinions before a decision of a pass or fail is made. i only say hidden because some people may have a less then diplomatic opinion of a board and the designer may not need to read everything that is discussed.

KrocK wrote:

i only say hidden because some people may have a less then diplomatic opinion of a board and the designer may not need to read everything that is discussed.

Heh.

I still agree with this idea.

OK, I think I'm a board reviewer but I'm not sure. I've only gotten 2 email notices about games to review, both of which were full by the time I clicked on the email link. I'm rarely going to check email for review games so that's probably always going to happen.

Other than that I have a Review Boards tab under Boards, and when I click it shows me two boards with some options.. when I click on the map name it takes me to like the Designer where it says the board is submitted and I can't make any changes. I don't want to change the board?

I have a Pass and Fail button, but why would I click them if I don't know anything about the board yet. I have a games list button which is empty, I have a start game button which I don't want to use, it's the responsibility of the board designer to start games, right?

Meanwhile several boards have been approved and I haven't seen the board, any games played on them, any of the comments about them... nothing. Not that I care about them getting approved, it's just that I'm at a complete loss about what I'm supposed to be doing here.

Can someone please clarify?

Ok so here's how it should work - the designer starts the review game and every reviewer is invited to the game. It's first come first served so if you're not checking your emails then I'm sorry that's the way it's going to happen - how else can I notify you? When I do the home page redesign I'll have as separate 'game you've been invited to' section so maybe that will help?

At the moment it is a trust system in that I expect that those reviewers who haven't taken part in the review game don't click on the Pass or Fail buttons. I could implement a set of hard rules which set when and where a reviewer can pass / fail a board with voting etc etc but I think it might be a bit of overkill? Happy to change this if the reviewers feel it should be a formal vote system.

Perhaps to improve visibility of what's happening there could be a 'Review games in progress' list on the board reviewers page?

Mmm sorry, right before I posted I had just finished almost killing myself in the process of finding out what a 'shared neutral return' means in the context of my home's electrical system while trying to rewire an outlet for a freezer off of a GFCI.

Everything is fine the way it is now, there are about a billion other things you could waste your time on =]

IRoll11s wrote: there are about a billion other things you could waste your time on =]

Yeah, like telling us who the chick in your pic is........ME-OW!  Does she read the weather on some Australian tele station?

Not that I know of... but she clearly should be.

Count me in on the review board. I think it should be treated like a jury, when a unanimous decision should be reached, no?

To elaborate... I think that boards should be innocent until proven guilty for the most part. It's hard to say after one game if the board is flawed or not, but I think that if it seems to play well, then it should go through. Unless it is provable that the board is unplayable or unfair, then it should be admitted for play.

I'd like to be added to the list of reviewers.

Edward Nygma wrote: To elaborate... I think that boards should be innocent until proven guilty for the most part. It's hard to say after one game if the board is flawed or not, but I think that if it seems to play well, then it should go through. Unless it is provable that the board is unplayable or unfair, then it should be admitted for play.

Partly, Ed, the system is simply there to make sure every map meets some (arbitrary) level of graphical competence, that there aren't Cramchaklesque-missing-borders, and isn't a blatant rip-off of maps from other gaming sites used without permission.

However, one of Warfish's greatest downfalls is that there is no lowest common denominator for maps. Any piece of tripe can be shared with the community, and we just had (have) to try and ignore it until it faded(s) into the trash heap. Open-ness is great, as it allows people to grow from nothing into something; but really, we need a separate sandbox for that. I don't think tom has really shared his overall vision for what he wants in map selection, but if I can influence it, I'd like to say that I'm happy to see things closing up a bit.

I want people to be able to make maps and there are gonna be ones on the site that I think are horrible and that's alright. What I hate is 100 of the same map. The review system should be to be sure the map is playable, that suggestions are given to the creator to make it more playable or look better and to be sure that there are map out there that are just circles over a picture of their cat with a helmet on.
If I'm in a review game with someone and they don't bother fixing broken borders, don't respond to any suggestions and still want their map released I will be hard pressed to do that, but I think of my role as more of an editor and reviewer rather than judge and jury.
I know, this sounds odd coming from me who has in the past tilted at Windmills about how many pieces of crap there was on the other site, but perhaps I've mellowed since I'm excited about stuff here. How 'bout we all try to keep Risky mellow and see if we can't avoid people doing things that annoy me.
Sound like a plan?

*hands RB a Ritalin-coated banana through the bars*

good plan! good plan!

tom wrote:
Perhaps to improve visibility of what's happening there could be a 'Review games in progress' list on the board reviewers page?

I would like to see Reviewed games or something to be able to get to a game to load the Flash Player to validate borders and such.

(I'm not entirely sure everything is working as you describe though, at least it seems like I'm seeing some inconsistencies with what's on the Board Review tab.)

Ok so I've changed the look and feel of the board review page - it's now a list of review games as opposed to a list of submitted boards. This way all reviewers can see the state of all the boards that are under review.

I've also set it so that reviewers can post game messages in review games even if they aren't actually playing.

Reviewers can now only pass or fail a board that they are playing or have played a game on.

Let me know what you guys think... I think there's a little way to go yet but hopefully it's an improvement.

Excellent. I did test posting in a two games I was not in and it did not take, so that's a little wonky. I like being able to snoop in on the maps that I missed jumping in on.

Something for your to-do pile, an option in Settings to set the number of boards shown per page. Universal for all pages that show Board tables would be fine. I would personally set mine for 500 so I never get the page numbers, because my eyes always glaze right over those buttons. It's nothing specific about the page buttons either, that's just me.