It's starting to seem like we may want to add some newer members to the board review list.  If anybody is interested, I'm sure there's room for a few more qualified members.

I play pretty much daily, but usually just in the evenings.  If that is often enough, I'd like to join.

Yeah, I tend to avoid reviewing SG games 'cause I just don't get it.  I think there may be a few of us in this category so I'd say it would be even more helpful if we took on a few reviewers who were willing to review SG games.

oh well, that's not me.  I haven't played a single game of SG yet (but planning to start soon).

I'm happy to help if you need it.
I enjoy a good SG game too, although I don't claim to be any good at it.

Ozy, you play enough to be on the board for sure.  You don't have to play everyday, you just have to be willing to review games when they come up.  Boris, being good doesn't matter if you're up to play.  Who do we need to inform to get some new people in?

Edward Nygma wrote:

Ozy, you play enough to be on the board for sure.  You don't have to play everyday, you just have to be willing to review games when they come up.  Boris, being good doesn't matter if you're up to play.  Who do we need to inform to get some new people in?

This has been discussed in another thread, but we really should have a Review Board Guidelines page so that reviewers AND designers are all on the same page.

There is already a Board Review Page: http://www.wargear.net/help/display/Board%20Review

but any guidelines specified on this page are implied, not specified.

As it stands right now, the board review process has an ad hoc feel, ..which is not necessarily a bad thing because this gives it a natural flexibility that is intended to make the process both painless and productive for the designer, but this is all the more reason that there should be a published list of overarching guidelines for reviewers.  One of us should dig up the thread were we discussed this and we should just get it done.  It shouldn't be that hard.

i'm not sure if i'm on that list, i don't think i am. I'd be glad to do it though.

Not sure if I'm on it or not, but I'd be willing to help with that.

M57 wrote: 

This has been discussed in another thread, but we really should have a Review Board Guidelines page so that reviewers AND designers are all on the same page.

but any guidelines specified on this page are implied, not specified.

As it stands right now, the board review process has an ad hoc feel,...

It shouldn't be that hard.

I really wish it was more set too and would love a more defined process.

I do want to see user developed boards and I think that's a huge part of the fun of WarGear, but to prevent what happened on WF with just a massive board list would be sooooo nice.  Perhaps the great Boards tab that is here helps negate the problem that WF had, but in a sense fewer can be better too IMO.

One other thing that I'd like to see is a quicker Board Review process.  I don't see the need for a board to be in a Submitted status for more than a month, which probably means the Review game wouldn't necessarily be completed prior to Pass/Fail (Fail could continue longer if the designer is working on the board).

There's a board in Review right now that the game is completed, but IMO it doesn't pass the Review (as defined by the Help), but to say it doesn't pass when some other boards doesn't feel right either. 

I agree that it all feels very wishy-washy.  I don't have the answers, and don't even know if I really have a super strong opinion as to go more lenient or more restrictive (I would probably say quality over quantity though), but would be nice to be more defined.

Threads from the past:

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/229p1/Board_Review_Guidelines Where the Help page came from.

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/112p1/New_review_system_now_live I'm not really sure much about what passes and what fails is in the thread, more so just about how the review process should be handled...I think.

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/645p1/Review_criteria_-_time_to_review Attempt to redefine the Help.

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/949p1/Board_Review_Graphics How much do graphics play a role.

*edit* This may be considered hijacking the thread, so if this is better with another new thread :) then we can go there.

Yertle wrote:

I agree that it all feels very wishy-washy.  I don't have the answers, and don't even know if I really have a super strong opinion as to go more lenient or more restrictive (I would probably say quality over quantity though), but would be nice to be more defined.

I personally vote for more restrictive.  I think that in the interest of both the designers and the players, a more restrictive review process is better.  (I am really stating that quality over quantity is what matters).

There are many boards which have been released prematurely in my opinion.  These are boards which I think where based on a great idea and could have been boards which rivaled the top in terms of game-play, but were released and now there is no reason to continue working on them.

The boards I have currently I can discuss, but will not critique other designer's boards.

Five - This board was a fantastic idea and played very well.  At the time it was initially released Mongrel and I felt that it was winnable by black with perfect play.  (This turned out to be correct, although it took around 200 games before the conditional perfect play was found.)  Since then, we released a "better" version which is much more even between black and white.  The first release led to some fantastic times on Wargear as many players tried to figure out how to win as black, but also led to many sore players and bad reviews (both official and unofficial).

Seven - This board was thoroughly play tested prior to being released and the majority of the test games turned out fantastic (this was with a very some sample of players who were all in love with the idea).  After this board was released, it became apparent that although many games were good and some were great, there were a few that were bad (irrecoverably one-sided from the start).  The scenarios which have been released since then play out much more evenly.

Prion4 - This is the first board I ever developed (back in 2003), but I worked on finalizing the graphics, borders, and bonuses for months in 2010.  At some point, I decided that I had enough and released it.  It passed review, but had a terrible end-game which could (and most of the time did) stalemate when two or three players were left and would not end.  The card-scale fixes have reasonably fixed this problem.

Day at the Races - Again this was a thoroughly play tested board prior to being released and has a sometimes stalemate type mid-game, but played pretty much how I expected.  The default version of this board plays well, but the random scenario is often lopsided and could be changed (but I am not in favor of major changes this long after release).

From the design and development of the boards above (and many I have left in design phase), I feel that scenarios should be reviewed the same as any board and I feel that three reviewers should have to sign-off on a board before the board goes live.  In reality, I suggest this not because I think that fewer boards should be released, but because I think more players (the review team) should give their input into the boards that are released on the site prior to the release.  This extended process will be beneficial for the site, so players in general (boards are not prematurely released) and for the designers (their designs should ultimately improve with more input).

As for the last part, I believe the input should be just that, suggestions, not mandates.  There should be open discussions between the designers and the reviewers during these review games.  Recently, there seems to be a laissez-faire attitude in review games where not much is discussed and the games are briefly okay-ed and released.  I would like to see more happening these final development games or more happening prior to review.  The increased discussion should in my mind lead to better boards and better designers.

I have thoroughly hijacked this thread if Yertle did not, but I feel that those who are willing to join the review process should also be willing to discuss it.  I became part of the review process because I liked the site as much as I do and do not want to see it change from the great site it is.

I agree with what has been stated.  I have about 6 or 7 boards that I have been working on, but because of game play I haven't released them.  While the ideas are good the game play didn't work.  I love the idea of quality over quantity because that is what leads to the best boards and the best sites.

I pretty much agree with Alpha, now that we have decent # of boards on the site, it would be better to shift the focus to quality over quantity.  At the same time, we don't want to discourage map makers too much (especially beginning ones).  Figuring out how to fix a board with stalemate problems, or how to tweak it so all seats have an even chance, can require many many games.  I don't know what the answer is here, maybe some sort of in-between stage between beta & a full release.  Or maybe if we had beta tournaments... I'm not sure.

I've mentioned this before, but I really think some sort of statistic available to see how many games have been voted to terminate would be useful.  I think the biggest game-play problem boards face is a stale-mate (usually via crab-game).  I think a fairly strict rule could even be helpful - something like if > 20% of all games are terminated on a scenario, that scenario is pulled from active play until the designer & council review it.  The reason I set this % fairly low is that I think in many games instead of voting to end, players get frustrated and either suicide, or quit playing and get booted.

If that is too strict, even including this percentage for view would allow players to avoid boards with a high % or allow designers to go back and review their boards that have a high %.

I apologize, this discussion probably belongs in the threat that was created by M57, but I hadn't caught up on reading at the time I posted.

The intention for this was to have more PEOPLE on the review board.  I have little to say about the standard of board quality, but I think some designers are currently held to higher standards than others, which is not terribly even across the board.  

I am certain that there needs to be more people on the review board though, especially with games with multiple reviewers declining and review boards staying open for days...  At the very least, members who have joined since the formation of the review board should have an opportunity to join,

It would be nice, and maybe give the board more authority/sense of responsibility/obligation/etc. if people were asked/invited to be on the board.

Also, how about a sticky list in the board  designers forum of who is on the board currently?

I agree Ed that board test review games have at times taken too long to start especially if it is a large board. I myself had to pull way back with the birth of baby number 2 and I'm just now coming back. One of my questions about the process, how many people have to vote to accept the design? All of them?

Side Note: Yertle.... she is adorable. I have to post a new picture of the two kids. 

AdamN wrote:

I agree Ed that board test review games have at times taken too long to start especially if it is a large board. I myself had to pull way back with the birth of baby number 2 and I'm just now coming back. One of my questions about the process, how many people have to vote to accept the design? All of them?

Side Note: Yertle.... she is adorable. I have to post a new picture of the two kids. 

Adam, Only one reviewer passes the board, but there is an unwritten protocol regarding consensus, timing, and which reviewer passes the board.  We're currently working on this on a different  thread.

I found that afterwards. Thank you.