Unfortunately, a board that I have submitted for review, “War Of The Roses” has not been passed.  As far as I am aware, it is completely functional, with no missing borders, factories, etc.  The quality of the graphics is acceptable.  In fact, it meets with all of the criteria that I am aware of for passage. yet, the majority of the reviewers (2 out of 3) feel that it for various reasons is not acceptable for inclusion in the list of accessible games on the site..

The reasons they find the board not acceptable..

They “..don’t like the way a person wins.., and “..it does not seem fair..,” and “..it is not fun.”

It is “..convoluted..” and “..deliberately confusing..,” and as such “..will just become a vehicle to exploit those playing for the first time so they can easily gain ranking.”

All the above quotes are taken from the last 7 posts ..which were just about, if not the only posts made by those players during the entire game.

http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/5089

http://www.wargear.net/games/view/289989

Personally, I do not feel as if I should have to defend the board from the above allegations. Suffice it to say, I have no plans to change or dumb-down the board in order to make it available to the community at large.  If the board remains unpassed or is failed (I have asked for a timely verdict, but no one has failed it yet), I suppose I will continue to play it as is in Dev mode with those that enjoy it as much as (or maybe not quite as much as) I.

I believe the board and its quality of game-play speaks for itself, and hopefully some here that have played it in Dev games will be able to comment on the matter.

I've only played one game of War of the Roses. Yes, it is complicated but not all of the players on this site want to play games that are slight variants of RISK. 

Ranking doesn't matter - people who care about it will always find ways to game the system and people who love playing deep games that require strategy rather than just tactics and lucky rolls will play a board because they like it.

The negative reviews boil down to "It's not the type of game I like" which is a completely wrong reason to reject a board.

In short, please reconsider the board, and unless something is actually broken, approve it.

Agreed.  I really like it, but then again I like complicated.  Will endorse as soon as I can.  What idiots!

I have no problem passing the map for the exact reasons specified here.  Yeah, I think the map is a tad needlessly complicated, but then I think that 2 1/2 Men is not funny in the least, so my opinion is not the larger view.  I will follow this thread and give a couple days for the opinions of others in the review game to voice opinions, but I'll pass it on Tuesday unless convinced otherwise.  I hope that sounds reasonable.
I've stated this before, and I will again, I don't think the job of the review board is to decide what gameplay is going to be popular or if they like or dislike a maps nuances, it is the job of the board to be sure the map is up to site standards.  Are the graphics fully complete?  M gets a resounding YES from me here.  Are the borders and territories clear to play?  M gets a Yes and No here just because the bonus structure is complicated, but it is described well if you choose to learn.  Is the map interesting and an asset to the site?  Tottally!  I think the site has a grading scale of a maps difficulty and we should be able to have difficult maps here for people who want them.  I'm not likely to play this often, but that certainly doesn't mean that other's won't and I really think it is a innovative use of the current design tools and that is a win in the RiskyBook.
On another note, however, I would like to see a standard version of the map released where it is a conquer and cash play.  This map's layout is fantastic and makes me upset that I didn't design it.  The choke points are enhanced by unusual borders and territory shapes that I think would make puddling difficult and favor bold aggression (which is what I do).  This is a strong suggestion mainly because I want to play it this way, it in no way is a basis for my vote on the map.  I just think it would be fun, and I'm all about the fun!

I played a few development games on this map and will admit that I thoroughly enjoyed it and was keen for it to be passed.  I found it to be well thought out and to have interesting and unique game dynamics.  For the reasons that it is potentially being failed, that it is "unfair" and "deliberately confusing", is more a complaint against the description/understanding of the game then of the game itself.  Obviously once the game is understood it is actually quite fair and a good board to be enjoyed by those who undertake to understand it.  After all, the responsibility for a player to understand a board is his/her own.  I have spent much time myself reading descriptions and watching histories of the highest ranked players specifically to educate myself so that I, hopefully, do not succumb to such tactics and I expect others to do so as well. If someone does their homework, however, they should be able to excel on this board, and that in-itself means that it is most definitely fair. 

Furthermore, as I read in the comments, I don't see why any board should be dumbed-down to the lowest common denominator for it to be passed.  That could discourage our board makers from utilizing all the tools at their disposal to make sophisticated boards and, of consequence, they'd end up producing 100's of variants of boards with basic dynamics and typical end game scenarios.  I think our designers, if they desire it, should be encouraged to stretch their imaginations to the furthest to try and create unique boards with creative dynamics.  They may not end up being everyone's cup of tea and they may end up as just niche games.  But, if they are well constructed and fair (which this board actually is), and meet the graphical requirements, then is "complicated", really a reason to fail such a board?

If "complicated" is what we are left with, then that is not an issue with the board, but an issue with the instructions.  When I first played Axis and Allies (the real board game, not the one on this site) I read the instructions before I started and then referred to them again on several more occasions through my first couple times playing.  Sure, when I first played risk, one pass was enough to "get it", but Axis and Allies is a great game too!  Just because one board has to be learned more then another doesn't mean it shouldn't be sold at the toy store!

I'm positive that all we need to do here is to iron out the description.  If something feels complicated to someone then please tell M57 how the description (which is basically the instruction manual) can best be written to elucidate any potential player on how to avoid any pitfalls.  When I first played this board the most confusing aspect to me was the use of mercenaries and how and when to use them.  I believe that M57 has already tweaked his review on this point, but even during the game play I was able to figure it out by myself before it came to using them.  If the board was already live, however, I would have simply watched a history before playing and all my confusion would have been lifted.  So, the tools are there for any player to go into a game with their eyes open.  It is up to the player to actually open them though.

So, in conclusion, I'm left wondering why a board like this has been failed, and the message that it sends to our board-makers given the reasons for it.  Is the target actually the lowest common denominator, do we really only want boards where anyone can just walk into them and know exactly what's going on?  Is there really a problem with expecting a player to practice due diligence and read the instructions first? Is there really no space for more complicated and sophisticated boards?

Thanks for reading,

Erick

Counterpoint (for balanced communications):

1. The review team has passed my boards before with the same kind of comments you've got there.  Most of what they are discussing is "Possible" reasons to fail the board, although none of them seems to openly be against passing it.    - Discussion of possibility (even bad ones) is the only way to ensure we don't rush headlong into destruction - 

2. Give them time. BE PATIENT.  Your like a father trying to get his kid to ride a bike for the first time.  Totally involved, excited and engaged, but You gotta let it try for itself, give it space to ride on it own.  Let go of the bike.  It'll be fine.  -The review board takes it's time so they don't make mistakes. This is good, let them. You spent months making the map, a couple more weeks won't kill you. 

3. Being defensive is (unfortunately) the only position you can be in at this point. You made creative genius, and you gave it to a review panel. Just know, the adversarial feel of things is built right into the process. 

4. You have to understand that some of what is written there probably reads waaay more negatively than it was intended. 

5. I FEEL YOUR PAIN, and understand your frustration: but it's just an empty cage if you kill the bird.  They haven't failed you yet. 

Oh, and it's a new idea. Conservative thinking will always resist new ideas.

..."You gotta Kick at the darkness till bleeds daylight"...

Sorry, I refreshed to see if any new entries had been put and it reposted.

I think it should pass because of the brilliant use of factories alone.  I feel like this is one of the reasons we follow the new feature implementation threads so closely, we want to see what new ideas can come out of the new design tools.

I thought it was a foregone conclusion that it would pass.  I have enjoyed my games on this board so far.  I like it when a board makes me go back and read the description to teach myself the nuance of the gameplay.  I like the multiple layers of action.  The Lords section the game reminds me of the tech trees in invention, except instead of simply augmenting the play on the main map it becomes the focal point of the endgame.

I think we can all agree it isn't for everyone, but I think we can also all agree that we need people like M57 to tinker around with the tools and innovate.

I was in a number of the DEV games for this and i'm left scratching my head here.

I completely understand the comments that it's complicated, because it is. but *needlessly* or *intentionally confusing* i just don't understand. the concept itself is pretty simple really, you gain shields to fill markers & you gain units in hand by continent/territory bonuses. you then use the units on the markers and units in hand (placed on the mercs) to attack the final goal.

the ONLY complicated (really) thing about this board is trying to find the matching shields. and this was my only offer for improvement that was too time consuming for multiple reasons for M to fix at that stage of development - to somehow color-code the shields' worth so at a glance you knew which shields were worth what. 

i can understand jbomb's point of having all units in hand instead of on the markers, BUT that defeats the whole theme of the game and would drastically change game-play. if you're not strong enough to get a large house, you have to get multiple small houses and a large merc army to have a chance. 

but to M: definitely be patient, you posted many comments essentially paraphrasing or repeating the description. while i agree that was the smallest amount of discussion in a Review game i've ever seen - you still came off as the impatient parent wanting to dress the kid to get out of the house instead of letting them have the practice to dress themselves even tho it'll take a bit longer.

i think after some digestion this will end up where it needs to be.

@j-bomb/toaster et all - don't let the comments here bully you into doing something you don't want to do, we definitely need those anti-mob views to be heard. 

+1 weathertop.  Well said.

berickf wrote:

I played a few development games on this map and will admit that I thoroughly enjoyed it and was keen for it to be passed.  I found it to be well thought out and to have interesting and unique game dynamics.  For the reasons that it is potentially being failed, that it is "unfair" and "deliberately confusing", is more a complaint against the description/understanding of the game then of the game itself.  Obviously once the game is understood it is actually quite fair and a good board to be enjoyed by those who undertake to understand it.  After all, the responsibility for a player to understand a board is his/her own.  I have spent much time myself reading descriptions and watching histories of the highest ranked players specifically to educate myself so that I, hopefully, do not succumb to such tactics and I expect others to do so as well. If someone does their homework, however, they should be able to excel on this board, and that in-itself means that it is most definitely fair. 

Furthermore, as I read in the comments, I don't see why any board should be dumbed-down to the lowest common denominator for it to be passed.  That could discourage our board makers from utilizing all the tools at their disposal to make sophisticated boards and, of consequence, they'd end up producing 100's of variants of boards with basic dynamics and typical end game scenarios.  I think our designers, if they desire it, should be encouraged to stretch their imaginations to the furthest to try and create unique boards with creative dynamics.  They may not end up being everyone's cup of tea and they may end up as just niche games.  But, if they are well constructed and fair (which this board actually is), and meet the graphical requirements, then is "complicated", really a reason to fail such a board?

If "complicated" is what we are left with, then that is not an issue with the board, but an issue with the instructions.  When I first played Axis and Allies (the real board game, not the one on this site) I read the instructions before I started and then referred to them again on several more occasions through my first couple times playing.  Sure, when I first played risk, one pass was enough to "get it", but Axis and Allies is a great game too!  Just because one board has to be learned more then another doesn't mean it shouldn't be sold at the toy store!

I'm positive that all we need to do here is to iron out the description.  If something feels complicated to someone then please tell M57 how the description (which is basically the instruction manual) can best be written to elucidate any potential player on how to avoid any pitfalls.  When I first played this board the most confusing aspect to me was the use of mercenaries and how and when to use them.  I believe that M57 has already tweaked his review on this point, but even during the game play I was able to figure it out by myself before it came to using them.  If the board was already live, however, I would have simply watched a history before playing and all my confusion would have been lifted.  So, the tools are there for any player to go into a game with their eyes open.  It is up to the player to actually open them though.

So, in conclusion, I'm left wondering why a board like this has been failed, and the message that it sends to our board-makers given the reasons for it.  Is the target actually the lowest common denominator, do we really only want boards where anyone can just walk into them and know exactly what's going on?  Is there really a problem with expecting a player to practice due diligence and read the instructions first? Is there really no space for more complicated and sophisticated boards?

Thanks for reading,

Erick

+1  Well said.

I can understand if "the board" needs more time to review a complex map, but if the issue is not one of time but arbitrary rebuttal of complexity I think that's a problem.

I've been in several Dev's. Each one improved from the last. I still don't have a perfect handle on end game. But, isn't that part of the experience?  I haven't played an original style risk board since my first month of joining. Why? Because it became too boring for me.  If you don't want to play big boy maps? Don't join them. 

On another note, however, I would like to see a standard version of the map released where it is a conquer and cash play.  This map's layout is fantastic and makes me upset that I didn't design it.  The choke points are enhanced by unusual borders and territory shapes that I think would make puddling difficult and favor bold aggression (which is what I do).  This is a strong suggestion mainly because I want to play it this way, it in no way is a basis for my vote on the map.  I just think it would be fun, and I'm all about the fun!

+1

I'd play it both ways.  You could also release the "basic" version under a different title so as not to mix the board points.  I don't know about anyone else, but tend to be prouder of the points I get on complex maps.

Only thing I don't like about it is how similar the shields look. It takes me a long time to sort through and figure out where the sets are located. I don't find anything else about it to be difficult. Are they real shield patterns from the time period?

I dev-tested this game... I thought it was awesome.  The only issue I had was similarity of the shields... but a game in and I got it.

I think the shield bit is brilliant and really enjoyed the games.  It has complexity without being complicated - and gameplay was intuitive.  Capture continents, gain troops, attack crown. It doesn't have artillery, counter-intuitive borders/artillery or even border-modifiers.  The gameplay in small games was both fun and quick (though I haven't played large games yet).

I thoroughly enjoyed each playthrough and can't wait for it's release!

itsnotatumor wrote:

I'd play it both ways.  You could also release the "basic" version under a different title so as not to mix the board points.  I don't know about anyone else, but tend to be prouder of the points I get on complex maps.

Not to get too far off topic, but I think this is also an argument for having some better tracking by scenario.  Most scenarios are not just minor mods, but usually represent boards that can play quite differently from each other.   I think players should be able to get points/ranking by scenario.  Plus as a map maker it would be very useful to be able to see stats like 'wins by seat position' by scenario, because then you could tweak starting values a bit to remove that bias.

I guess maybe you wouldn't want this for all scenarios though.  Maybe if you could designate them as a Minor or Major scenario.

i think in the long run we need to make a clear criteria of what a board needs to be passed.

i now realize that when it comes to the review people tend to try and make suggestion on how they want to see a board play out, (including myself). but that is not how a review board should be. reviewers should be looking for faults in a board, and in some cases graphics, but not game play, unless it is clearly lopsided.

i also think we should add a forum for dev. games so people (weather in a game or not .) can post suggestions and or comments on said board. i know my boards are all lacking things and although i may or may not change things it would be helpful to have feed back. board ratings are fine and all but if anyone is like me, i have over a 100 non rated boards. not because i do or do not like them but rather it seems a chore for me to rate them.(sorry).

the forums seem to get more action/post, so a forum seems more useful.

anyway like i always say to my kids "don't sweat the petty thing, pet the sweaty things"  :)

Korrun wrote:

Only thing I don't like about it is how similar the shields look. It takes me a long time to sort through and figure out where the sets are located. I don't find anything else about it to be difficult. Are they real shield patterns from the time period?

Addressing this most common "compliant"about the board, and I'm not saying it's not valid, but understand the inspiration for this board is a game from my youth.  And yes, the shields are modeled after historically accurate ones.. as are the house names, etc..  I modified, moved, and changed things around to suit my vision for game-play. As you can see, the board-play is more complex, and there are many more houses (in a deck of cards). I don't remember how it played but the premise was similar - collect house support.

Obviously, I've played at least 20 or 30 games on my board so I know it pretty well, and sure - every once in a while I find myself hunting down a stray shield. But really, by the second game ..you will know where to look. Surely, finding a shield on my map is no more difficult than on this map..  (and my borders are clearer ;)

Your version could certainly be improved, M, by adding a place called Cockermouth.

Hmm.. I purposely didn't use the original board to name my territories, and unfortunately I didn't find Cockermouth in my research. No doubt, I would have used it.  Darn!

You're right, there's always room for improvement.