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.

Fully agree with this.

 unless the review panel has the ability to fix borders etc. i think it would be a waist to fail a board due to 1 or 2 missing borders (when the designer can fix it on the spot.)then have to play the board again due to a simple fix.

There should be a set # of Dev. games played before the "submit for review" button is available. i think 1 or 2 if the designer is in the review game, 4-6 if the designer isn't in the game. if no designer then the host should be auto assigned by simply going down the review list and when a review game comes up then the next reviewer in line is assigned as the Host.(start at the top then cycle down the list so everyone is a host before going back to the top).

I think the Dev. testers should go threw the asm course on "How to point out why your board sucks". that should eliminate alot of junk getting threw to the review games.

RiskyBack wrote: 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.

Both of these problems are solved with chat.

1) All reviewers have the ability to chat in all REV games, even those they are not in. I know this because I do it all the time.

2) In my hypothetical system where authors are not in REV games, they can still chat in REV games on their submitted maps if they so choose. But, again, if they have to defend choices and explain things, the map probably just isn't good enough. Keep in mind that this goes above personal preference, Risky - "in my opinion this isn't fun" is NOT a good enough reason to reject a map. The review system is intended to keep the total dreck off the site, not to make the board browsing page a "my personal favorites" page. That's why we (were) working on minimum requirements guidelines.

Again, in my opinion the review system should be streamlined for ease of use by both reviewers and authors, and keeping authors out of review games is a small but effective ingredient. I like the rule that at least 1 DEV game must be played before a map can be submitted. There's a thread (stickied by now, I hope) where plenty of people have volunteered to help authors test games, so there's no excuse not to. Once the board is submitted, the reviewers run down the basic minimums list. Is there porn on it, is the fill mode broken, does it display a horrendously poor understanding of the game engine, etc. If the answer to any of those questions is yes, it should be trivial for any one reviewer to terminate the game and reject the board. Likewise, you find one broken border in a REV game, terminate the game and reject the board.

This would work well with the "why did you reject this board" text box and/or radio buttons. But the point is that removing the author/host from the equation is a key part of this whole plan. An author who can't figure out how to make territories is an author who won't terminate his own REV game.

Require that a game be played on a given board before submission. Keep authors out of their own REV games, but allow them to chat there. Reviewers can (still) chat in any REV game. Make it easy for reviewers to quickly terminate a game & reject a board. But require them to at least briefly explain the reasons for rejection, in a way that is submitted directly to the author. This is my vision.

* 3 minor issues to address.
1. Who cares who the host is? Make it the first reviewer who joins, because I think that would require less fixes to the existing system.
2. A feature request I'd like to make: the ability to sign up to be notified (either email or, ideally, via PM) when chat occurs in a given game. As mentioned above, I like to randomly drop in to the chat in games I'm not in - of course this means I never come back because it's hard to remember/find the same game again. I'd like a button to click to have the system send me a PM if somebody responds. Make this a Premium-only privilege?
3. While I do support the "check a couple of buttons and fill out this text box to explain your rejection" idea, we all have access to the forums and each others' profile walls anyway. It should never be a mystery.


EDIT:

KrocK wrote: unless the review panel has the ability to fix borders etc. i think it would be a waist to fail a board due to 1 or 2 missing borders (when the designer can fix it on the spot.)then have to play the board again due to a simple fix.

There should be a set # of Dev. games played before the "submit for review" button is available. i think 1 or 2 if the designer is in the review game, 4-6 if the designer isn't in the game...

I think the Dev. testers should go threw the asm course on "How to point out why your board sucks". that should eliminate alot of junk getting threw to the review games.

You are too kind.

4-6 games is too many. That's too stringent a requirement. With just 1 and some diligence, any designer should be able to catch all the basic stuff (broken borders, messed-up continents, etc).

I agree with your point about the waste caused by rejecting a board for something that can be easily fixed. I was hasty there. Hmm.

Nope, I forcefully still want the designer to be in the games. If you as a reviewer can't find a tactful way to say something about a map without being a prick than maybe the mirror should be pointed elsewhere.
The only reasons to not have the creator in the review game is either to feel more comfortable bashing the map (which is silly if the creator can look into the game)
Or
Because the creator just doesn't want to play which is fine but if you don't even want to play your map through the process then why bother. I know Cramchakle doesn't really play very much and doesn't want to be in his review games but we shouldn't make rules just for that.
asm, no offense, but your assumption that if the map can't be easily understood then the map maker is wrong is a load of rich creamery butter. I don't understand how to play Baron's Pyramid of the Sun map and I've read, border checked and played numerous games, it just doesn't click with me. Other people don't seem to have that problem.
I'm not gonna log into my review games to see what is going on with it if I'm not even allowed to be in the game in the first place. That's crap!
Get the games Dev tested first and then submitted for review. That's the only adjustment I think should be changed. Everything else seems wrong to me.

RiskyBack wrote:  I know Cramchakle doesn't really play very much and doesn't want to be in his review games but we shouldn't make rules just for that.

I think you've got me a little wrong there, Risky. I'm happy to be in my review game.

Where I'd like a little disconnect is in the DEV games. For one, I like to have a map played about 20 or so times with matches including the minimum number of players, maximum number of players, and everything in between. Not only do I not have a appetite for playing that many games, but I just don't have the time to play 20+ games, and 20 games on the same map at once would likely drive anyone mad.

Plus, I like the raw feedback that comes from having a widely diverse group of people play my maps, without my being there. The usual crew does a great job, but its amazing what can come from one person outside the circle. It wasn't until after my/Gimli's "We Who are About to Die" map in the old world had been tested 20+ times, released, played for a few weeks, and then put into a tournament that someone discovered the best way to win was to do nothing. No one in all those prior games had thought to try "nothing" as a strategy. Gems like those have popped out in almost all my board development cycles.

But again, that's all about the DEV stage. I'm actually very pro-inclusion for the REV game.

For one, I like to have a map played about 20 or so times with matches including the minimum number of players, maximum number of players, and everything in between. Not only do I not have a appetite for playing that many games, but I just don't have the time to play 20+ games, and 20 games on the same map at once would likely drive anyone mad.

And this is what I consider a minimum amount of diligence before submitting a map for REV, and why I get so steamed about people who are submitting maps that have so obviously not even been played once.

I agree with Risky, I think Map Designers should be in the Review games. I guess I don't really understand why they shouldn't be in the review games.

I also agree with Risky, because he's kind of a big deal.

I understand the knee-jerk reaction here of many designers who don't want to be shut out of the possible "judgment" of their work, but honestly, what purpose (other than the piece of mind of the designer) is it to have the designer in the review game?  What an the designer bring to a review game that could be of any benefit to the process?  If anything, it would be far greater to have one less person in the game that doesn't have review decision rights and therefore a much greater chance of a "more fair" review.

This is how a Development game should go:
[Designer]
"Okay guys, welcome to my game, let me know what you think."
[A Yertle-esk Player] (if it is Yertle then, before everyone has even joined the game)
"You're missing borders A, B, C, and D"
[Designer]
"Good catch, I'll fix those."
[Player]
"I'm seeing some stray pixels around the borders."
[Designer]
"I'll upload a new image and see if it helps."

...some turns go on; you get the idea.  Close to the end of the game and:

[Designer]
"What do you think of the gameplay, is it balanced?  Are there any other suggestions for the board before we finish this game?"

...random suggestions given; disagreements back and forth...

Game ends.  Changes are made and a new Dev game is started.

Okay, this is how a Review game should work:

[Reviewer #1]

"These graphics are decent, what do you guys think?"

[Reviewer #2]

"I like 'em."

[Reviewer #3]

"Could be better, but good enough.  I give the graphics a C+"

[Reviewer #1]

"Has everyone checked the borders?  They seem intact to me, but I may have missed something"

[Reviewer #3]

"They all look good to me."

[Reviewer #2]

"Everything looks fine.  Do we need to play this one through?  Does anyone foresee any playability problems or unbalances?

[Reviewer #1]

"Seems fine to me, I'll give it a pass."

[Reviewer #3]

"Ditto."

...game terminated before completion of the third turn.

I'm not sure how other people's games have been going, but many of the Review games that I'm in look a whole heck of a lot more like a Development game than a Review game.  Having the designer in the game only slows things down and takes away the option of having one more trained/trusted reviewer in on the process.  My ideal situation is that just having a review board means that we essentially don't need one.  As in, nothing would ever be submitted for review that is sub-par, ever.

Toaster wrote:

I'm not sure how other people's games have been going, but many of the Review games that I'm in look a whole heck of a lot more like a Development game than a Review game.  Having the designer in the game only slows things down and takes away the option of having one more trained/trusted reviewer in on the process.  My ideal situation is that just having a review board means that we essentially don't need one.  As in, nothing would ever be submitted for review that is sub-par, ever.

Exactly.

Risky, here's my answer to your question, and I know you've played enough Review games already that I'm surprised it doesn't bug you too. As Toaster said, the majority of REV games that have come through the pike have been basically DEV games, and DEV games at the very beginning of the development of a board. I've been in multiple REV games where it's impossible to even begin the first turn, much less play the game out, because fill-mode territories were put down on top of a textured background image. You have too!

And we are stuck in those games. We have to struggle to try to play a turn. We've been in games where we have to team up to ELIMINATE THE AUTHOR as the only possible way to terminate an unplayable or unfinishable game. As I said above, this is why we don't need the author in review games, and are better off without it.

You know as well as I do that I don't spend a lot of time worrying about 'tactful ways to say things without being a prick.' That is a non-concern for me. If a board is garbage, I will say it's garbage, and I will not change the way I say it whether I'm saying it to you, to Yertle, to Krock, or to some anonymous map author who has no idea what he's doing. Again I'm surprised you would even consider this as a possible motivation for my position on this issue.

Basically my entire point is that the final review system that I dream about functions most properly and is most streamlined if the board author is not in the game. If a board doesn't work, I want to be able to click away from it, terminate it and reject the board. I don't want the author holding me hostage while he pleads his case. DavidNY212 gets it. We had a REV game going this morning where I told him what I thought was wrong with it. He host-terminated the game, reworked the board, invited me personally to a DEV game, it was fixed and looked awesome, I told him so, and he re-submitted the board. If only we were lucky enough that every author behaved this way. But that's not realistic.

What if you are only aloud to have 1 submission per version of a board. each version must have at least 1 DEV game played on it before it is able to be submitted. that way the reviewers know that when a game is terminated that the board must have another DEV game played on it before it gets submitted again.

i have no problem with the designer in a review game only if part way through the review game a reviewer fails the game then the game auto terminates.

I've added an option for reviewers to quit review games at any time - this should appear at the bottom of the left hand table on the game view page.

I'll add in the new options for sorting the game review page as soon as I get a chance.

Question - In none of my review games have I been able to find the tab to actually vote for or against the board. Am I just missing it entirely, or is it actually not there?

It's under the "Boards" tab, and then "Review Boards."

Aha, thanks.

My review game for the EVE UNIVERSE game ended and I received no notification either way if it was accepted or rejected. Could someone please clarify what should happen next. Thanks.

Looks like somebody thumbsed it up as it is now Live and listed on the home page under recent maps.

http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/EVE%20Universe

I suppose you should get some sort of message when a board is approved or rejected, I would think. But don't get me started again with Tom on the board review page.

How are you finding the new board review filter options asm?

If you can list out any more changes / bugs then I'll fix them up.

I'm still stuck on my versioning argument. When I sort my board review list by name, it looks something like this:
Board Review: War of the Titans 0.1
Board Review: War of the Titans 0.1
Board Review: War of the Titans 0.1
Board Review: Tree of Life 0.1
Board Review: Tree of Life 0.1
Board Review: Tree of Life 0.1
Board Review: Tree of Life 0.1
Board Review: Temple 0.1
Board Review: Plink 0.1
Board Review: Plink 0.1
Board Review: Plink 0.1

etc.

And I don't like it like that. The filtering options do help somewhat, but I'm still beefing on my original complaint about versioning and naming conventions.

How about I change the board review page so that instead of listing the games under review it lists the boards only. You could then click on the board name to list all the review games in progress for that board. Filter options would be for either Live or Submitted boards. You would only be able to pass or fail a board if you were in one of the review games.

That way you could quickly see the list of boards that are currently under review plus look at the Live boards and see who passed the board to Live + the review games that were played.

That would be an improvement.