Stumbled across this site when browsing Warlight.net: PlayRiskOnline.  Has WarGear at 4.6, but looks like the review was from a while back (well probably not too long ago, but long ago in WarGear terms).  (Doesn't have WF.)  Dunno how to contact him, but thought it was interesting.

Warfish is probably not on there since it is "beta" and not open to the public.

A whois search seems to indicate that contact could possibly be made at:

[email protected]

Not at all a bad set of reviews. I think he considers Warlight a little too highly, but its his opinion. They do have a lot of cool features, though, and a nice polish.

With regard to Wargear, the community will come with time, so that can take care of itself. tom has showed a great commitment to taking care of the polish on the site, so I think that'll be a non-issue in short order.

The points I saw that probably deserve the most attention were all about his "maps" heading. I mostly agree with the sentiments I interpereted, which were "you don't need a ton of maps, especially if they suck." ConquerClub only has 141. I've only seen a handful, cause I couldnt stand their interface and left after a few days, but I agree, the maps were all very pretty. I think the eye-candy is probably what draws in the most players, too.

We've got our 'vetting' system, now. I wager it will need a lot of revision, but its a start.

To continue rambling, though, I do like that on Warfish, despite the fact that 8/10 maps were utter trash, anyone could contribute to the community. Most everyone's first few maps were garbage in some way. The community then groomed them into something more. So, I see having an open design platform as a huge advantage.

The problem that arises is that a casual observer has a hard time distinguishing the signal from the noise. The general public shows up, sees a page with 2 neat maps and 8 crappy ones, and away they go. (Or, in the case of Warfish, the see 1 crappy one and that's it -- its up to their friends who are already established in the community to keep them there).

The Point:
We have a vetting system. We have an open design platform. Let's help keep our best foot forward by setting up a tiered board sorting system. Let the review group continue with their yay or nay thing, but then when they come across a board that is truly exceptional, flag it as featured. Sticky these maps to the top of "boards" page. (Of course, right now, we don't even have that full, but we will). Let the Wargear's Choice boards sit atop the list despite the public's reviews.

So there, the skeleton of a suggestion. Have fun fleshing it out.

Hey,

I run PlayRiskOnline.net and you can email me at [email protected]

I did write the WG review several weeks ago, and I intended to revisit the sites and update their reveiws on a monthly basis. There seems to be a lot of change going on so hopefully WG rating will go up. The purpose of the reviews is to help people find the Risk clone that suits them but another purpose is to help site owners improve their sites, by taking the reviews into account. Ofcourse it's just one persons opinion, but I like to think I know what I am talking about. It certainly isn't fun playing games on all these sites when some of them are mind numbingly awful.

I think WG has great potential and look forward to re-reviewing it shortly.

Oh and I am in the process of reviewing WF. Just waiting to finish up a few games.

Thanks for stopping by, Dennis. Hope to see you again next month!

Oh, and if you are reviewing WF and haven't tried playing a RiskyBack map you won't get a true feeling for the site.

Cramchakle wrote:

Let the review group continue with their yay or nay thing, but then when they come across a board that is truly exceptional, flag it as featured. Sticky these maps to the top of "boards" page. (Of course, right now, we don't even have that full, but we will). Let the Wargear's Choice boards sit atop the list despite the public's reviews.

So there, the skeleton of a suggestion. Have fun fleshing it out.

This. This is an oustanding idea.

^^ Yes I like this idea too.

Thanks for the review Dennis, I agree with most of what you said, this site and all the other gaming sites on your list will live and die by the strength of the community so I think on that basis CC has to be the top dog (for now!).

DennisG wrote:

 I intended to revisit the sites and update their reviews on a monthly basis.

Just wondering if there is going to be a update soon. there has been a ton of changes since Ive been here and the review was written before i even joined. my 2 cents are any thing less then a full 2-3 point jump is far to conservative

Cramchakle wrote:

With regard to Wargear, the community will come with time, so that can take care of itself. tom has showed a great commitment to taking care of the polish on the site, so I think that'll be a non-issue in short order.

I've got two short suggestions for the community part:

- a forum category for off topic discussions
- a facebook fan page could be a good idea

I hope this has helped.

I'm still not sure the off topic is needed, especially since this General Discussion is used the least, adding another forum with fewer threads/posts doesn't make sense to me.

Facebook page, I'd had thought about that as well, not sure if tom is on there or not, but a good idea IMO.

I'd join a facebook group. :D

I'd join it, for moral support, but I don't use facebook.

I have updated my review. WG has gain .3 points, mostly due to increased forum usage and more maps. I would really love to see a handful of maps that have high aesthetics. I know that looks alone do not make a good map, but it's an indicator that there is some talented and dedicated people involved. IMO, every site should have a few smashing maps to show off and attract new users.

Additionally, I think WG pulls up the rear in terms of game options. So variety there would bring up the fun factor for sure.

Keep improving!

http://www.playriskonline.net/#WarGear-Risk

DennisG, if you see this could you please give us an example of a map from one of the other sites that you feel is aesthetically high quality? That's not really my thing as I'm in it for the fun of playing and familiar themes but upon reading your reviews it seems that only Conquer Club got a good rating and that you seem very much against user loaded content. I'm just curious as I have played CC and wasn't a fan but there is a chance that the UI really made any sort of aesthetics completely lost on me.
Thank you very much for doing this and I appreciate your efforts.

P.S. tom, if you want I can make a Facebook Page for Wargear. Yeah, I'm probably not the person you want doing that but I thought I'd offer.

Wow, map aesthetics and customizable game options would have NEVER been the two things I'd guess would be seen as WarGear's weaknesses.

I guess the Europe 1560 map downloaded straight from Google Images that every other site uses is more "aesthetic" than Cramchakle's WarGear version?

RiskyBack wrote: 

P.S. tom, if you want I can make a Facebook Page for Wargear. Yeah, I'm probably not the person you want doing that but I thought I'd offer.

Sure, go for it Risky. Let me know what you need from me.

Here is some examples of maps that represent the height of aesthetics for me,

http://maps.conquerclub.com/Brazil.L.jpg

http://maps.conquerclub.com/Siege!.L.jpg

land grab has some too

http://landgrab.net/landgrab/maps/The%20Extreme%20Ireland/map_image.jpg

here is a decent one from strategygamenetwork.com

http://www.strategygamenetwork.com/images/worldmaps/map-132.jpg

I there there are some positive aspects to user loaded maps, but often the quality is drowned out by the easily created and uploaded maps, like this one

http://landgrab.net/landgrab/maps/Soccermap/map_image.jpg

which competes for attention at the same rate as other maps.

I think a little quality controls on the visual and gameplay sign could go along way.  Landgrab allowed user uploaded content but also 'endorses' the good maps which land them in their map browser for others to see.

I also agree that the base interface for CC is poor, which is why there are so many user created scripts and addons to help it along.

I don't see how those are any more appealing than Cramchakle's Infection, RiskyBack's GearWars, or Red Baron's Medieval Europe (though the Extreme Ireland map is very pretty).

I still do like the idea of having a WarGear Classics list that displays prominently on the Home page (at least with default settings) -- that would help present the site's best face to new users.