Cramchakle wrote:

Vataro wrote: 1) I wouldn't mind signing up to be a reviewer, although I already signed up to be a DEV tester...

2) How do I get me a forum title? =P

1) just ask

2) in your settings, you can give yourself one

1) Consider it asked.

2) I can't find it :(.

Got to be premium I think to have a forum title.

Boo. It's feeling more and more like you have to have premium to truly enjoy the site :P.

Soo.... like anywhere else...

I know, I know. I will get Premium at some point but I'm not ready to quite yet. Wish I could get another month of it to really try out all the features... but it's already seeming like I will want to have it if I do start really getting into the site.

Cramchakle wrote:

The reason I'm pursuing some minimums is to help make sure that the review crew can't let their bias go too far; sure, a side effect we all benefit from is that the worst of the worst never see the light of day.

I agree with this.  As a Reviewer I would definitely like some sort of Guidelines that both I (and other Reviewers) know about and that the Map Designers knows about and we all follow them.  They really should be minimal, but have some content to them IMO.

As for games lasting too long, I agree, hence why after a few turns I plan on stop going after the strongest and go all out to get the game moving.  I do plan on watching to make sure I don't screw up the review process, but review games should really be Speed games and not a huge strategy on winning, at least IMO, especially since they don't count in any Win ratios or anything (and shouldn't).

Couldn't decide whether or not to start a new thread, so I'll respond with an idea here and an example.

Backlog could easily become a problem. 2 simple ideas: In a Review game, allow the game to be terminated if everyone BUT the host/mapmaker votes to terminate. Thereby cutting down on wasted time. Here's the example: http://www.wargear.net/games/view/5114

Actually something hinky is going on with this game anyway. The guy started a game that didn't work at all, there were single white pixels for territories. That game was quickly terminated (and I thumbed-down the board after Toaster Krock and I all tried explaining some things to him). Then he started up another one that at least has territory circles on it, but the map is still a long way from being acceptable. The thing is, it's in my board review list but I'm not able to thumbs it down. And he won't say a word or vote to terminate.

Anyway that brings me to my 2nd simple idea: We've got to improve the usability factor of the board review system. It is very hard to figure out what's going on. You just get one (admittedly sortable) clump that, as time goes on, is going to become completely impossible to get through. Versioning numbers don't seem to change, so it's hard to figure out which game is which, and there are always multiples of each in the list. Some of which I was in and some I wasn't. Risky submitted a map that I thought worked just fine, but he wanted to make a minor change, so terminated the game and started a new one. I'm not in the new one, but the system asks me to pass/fail the old one. What do I do? Not sure. Etc.

Maybe keeping better track of versioning would be a start. Unenabling the pass/fail when a game has had a subsequent version would be helpful. And using more categorization along with sort options is going to have to happen. The games list area got a lot better when you added the view dropdown. I think the board review list needs one as well. After you've voted on a board it should go somewhere. If you never played on a board it should go somewhere. When a board is withdrawn, changed and re-submitted it should go somewhere. Etc.

Added both Vataro and EM as reviewers, thanks guys.

asm - I agree it's currently a mess and will add view list selectors. I would suggest the following:

All
Open Games
Live Games
My Review Games <-- all games I have played in as a reviewer
Finished Games

Any other ideas?

What if Hitler joins the site and wants to become a Board Reviewer?

There, Happy Cram?

Any chance of making those options checkboxes rather than a choose-one-only dropdown? For instance, I'd find it very useful to be able to lookup All-My Review Games OR Finished-My Review Games or Open-My Review Games or All-Open or etcetera.

Would it be possible to categorize by games I have voted on as well as games I have the ability to vote on but haven't yet? (ie. subdivide My Review Games into My Review Games - Voted and My Review Games - Not-Voted)

IRoll11s wrote: What if Hitler joins the site and wants to become a Board Reviewer?

There, Happy Cram?

*Redacted for crossing the line*

If Hitler can do a fair and impartial job of reviewing maps, then by all means, he ought be allowed. Besides, I'm sure he has a better internet name than TehRealHitler.

After being involved in a bunch of review games now, I agree that they often turn into Dev games instead of the final step.

I think a simple solution to this and the problem that asm raised about terminating a pointless game would be to not have the designer playing in the review game. If a board can't easily be played (or looked at) without having the designer there explaining/fixing things then it deserves to fail.

I like that idea. The counter-argument would be that it cuts off a line of communication between the author and the reviewers, but as long as reviewers are conscientious about describing any problems they observe in the review game chat, I think that should be alright.

not bad, and good point asm. is there a way for the author to set the game up and decline playing? that way he can make sure it gets underway and have the ability (knowledge) to watch it and keep up with the comments?

asm wrote: I like that idea. The counter-argument would be that it cuts off a line of communication between the author and the reviewers, but as long as reviewers are conscientious about describing any problems they observe in the review game chat, I think that should be alright.

Possibly a problem, so how about when a reviewer hits the decline button, on the pop-up before it finalizes there could be a text field where the reviewer would tell the designer why it was rejected.  The designer would then get a PM or email with the details.  Or we could go even more specific and have a small (4-6 questions) check-box system for standard reasons of decline and then the text field explaining anything that needs specifics.

weathertop wrote: not bad, and good point asm. is there a way for the author to set the game up and decline playing? that way he can make sure it gets underway and have the ability (knowledge) to watch it and keep up with the comments?

Currently, there is no way that I know of to decline once you are the host of a game.  This does raise another problem though of, "If the designer is not in the game who will be the host of it?"  I'm fairly certain that the current game mechanics require a host player for each game.  Some possible solutions to this problem are:

1. Make the first reviewer to join the game the host of it.
2. Create a reviewer sub-set of "hosts" that would be in rotation as the next new game host. (yes, even more elitist, I know)
3. One member of the review group is randomly selected as the "host" of the game.  This only works well if it's possible to assign a host after the players have joined.

I also think that all designers should have the ability to view any game played on their designs so they can see what players think of it and be able to make better boards in the future.

I don't think it is a good idea to not have the creator in the game. Ideally, there should be at least 1 full Dev game played before it goes to review and anything mentioned the the review process should be touch ups and the creator should be in that game. Also, the map maker should be able to explain why he/she decided to do things one way and not another or make statements about why they think the map is good enough.
Perhaps if there was a way to not allow a game into review until there is at least 1 game completed on the map that would take away from review becoming a Dev game.
Speaking as a Reviewer, I don't want to be in every review game. Sometimes I just don't feel like playing the map, sometimes I've already played it and want others to get an opportunity to express their opinions and sometimes I have my own map making to do and don't want to actually play.
Speaking as a Map Maker, I want to be in all my review games. I am open to suggestions about stuff and if it is better, I'll do it, but most of the time I have a specific style of play that I want with the map to give myself and other players a choice of not just venue or borders but gameplay in general. 1 of my review games the reviewers thought the graphics should be changed, I agreed with them and changed them. In another some of the reviewers didn't think the map was fun. I disagreed and put forth my thinking of why I did it the way I did it. These are examples of how I think the review games should go. 1 of those maps had not been play tested before review and there was a lot that had to be fixed within it but that was because the review system was new.
Anyways, I think the map maker should be in any review games but that the review games should not be the 1st time it is played. Not everything will be caught in Dev games and the reviewers will understand that but most blatant stuff will be.

RiskyBack wrote: I don't think it is a good idea to not have the creator in the game. Ideally, there should be at least 1 full Dev game played before it goes to review and anything mentioned the the review process should be touch ups and the creator should be in that game. Also, the map maker should be able to explain why he/she decided to do things one way and not another or make statements about why they think the map is good enough.

This is exactly what I'd like to see done away with for Review games.  What you're talking about here Risky all belongs in the Development stage of a design and not the final review.

If a reviewer is unable to understand a board from looking at it, playing it, and reading the description then it is broken; plain and simple. 

I think it's important to keep in mind that to "reject" a design merely puts it back to the Development stage.  You're basically saying, "This doesn't seem to be finalized, fix things and try again."  It's not, "We hate you because of how dumb you are, please destroy your computer so that you may do no more harm to us here at WarGear.net."

Toaster wrote:  It's not, "We hate you because of how dumb you are, please destroy your computer so that you may do no more harm to us here at WarGear.net."

Sometimes it might be...

Yeah I thought about that possibility, but wanted to leave it to one of you more outwardly-jaded people to say it.

Toaster wrote:

RiskyBack wrote: I don't think it is a good idea to not have the creator in the game. Ideally, there should be at least 1 full Dev game played before it goes to review and anything mentioned the the review process should be touch ups and the creator should be in that game. Also, the map maker should be able to explain why he/she decided to do things one way and not another or make statements about why they think the map is good enough.

This is exactly what I'd like to see done away with for Review games.  What you're talking about here Risky all belongs in the Development stage of a design and not the final review.

If a reviewer is unable to understand a board from looking at it, playing it, and reading the description then it is broken; plain and simple. 

I think it's important to keep in mind that to "reject" a design merely puts it back to the Development stage.  You're basically saying, "This doesn't seem to be finalized, fix things and try again."  It's not, "We hate you because of how dumb you are, please destroy your computer so that you may do no more harm to us here at WarGear.net."

ditto!