Ozyman wrote:

If a map sucks it doesn't get passed by the review committee right?

IMO, that not what the Rev committee does.  The Review is does the map have what it says it has and is playable.  Sucky maps should be caught in Development.

Um... but if a sucky map were submitted for review, I'd reject it.

IRoll11s wrote: I have nothing to add, I just want people to click on my signature.

Man, that just keeps going and is really ...

asm wrote: Um... but if a sucky map were submitted for review, I'd reject it.

That was the reason why I wanted to join the review team; it wasn't just to preview new boards.

I seem to remember someone saying that after the board list hit 100, there might be a need for a different system of organizing and presenting available/sanctioned/approved/..yada yada woof woof boards.  As more and more of these  boards are approved the obvious presentation solution would be one that lets the cream rise to the top.

Assuming this is the case, if the point of the review process is to vet functioning non-offensive boards then sucky shouldn't enter into the equation.  I have mixed feelings about this.  I mean ..if my boards fall into the sucky category, then I'm all for functioning non-offensive.  My point ..or better ..my question:

Is there a standard?  Assuming there is, to what degree is subjectivity involved in that process?  Fairness, for example, seems to be on the short list of subjective attributes.  Unclear borders falls into that category as well.  Should four territories defined by the intersection of two lines all be able to attack each other? Obviously, it depends on the type of map and other things like consistency of design, but there is a degree of subjectivity depending on how the territories are outlined.  I'm playing in a dev game on Viper's "Earth Reversed" map, and some of the borders that bothered me didn't bother other test players..  Same on my King of the Mountains map.  the 3-d angle makes some of the "behind the mountain" borders a bit less clear than I originally thought they were.  Test players brought this to my attention and though I agreed with many of their observations, I nonetheless stood my ground on one or two.

For me, I am looking for boards that are different from what is already out there. (for example a new world map should not be the same world map that exists already with a new graphic.)

These boards should function properly and should have a description that grants someone whose hasn't played before an idea of how to play and what is different/special about this board.

I will also take into consideration if the board can be broken in some way. Mainly here I want to see that the board is not going to lead to a place of never ending, but I wouldn't necessarily fail a board under these guidelines just give my thoughts to the designer and review team.

With all of that said, I have not participated in the review process yet as I was just added to the review team this week.

I have no comment on the review process or sucky boards at the moment, so going back to this thread's original topic of an auto-hordes button....

If this is implemented and you're wanting to make sure it isn't abused in the sense it knocks out innovativeness of new boards, perhaps it could be enabled/disabled by a premium member much like the work/non-work mode or the designer icon options. That way only those who know about it & know where to look to enable it could do so, and those who don't won't. :)

I don't see the point.  Either you have it or you don't.  It's unlikely that I'd ever us it, but I see nothing wrong with a Hordify button.  If that's what designers want and hordes boards become more and more popular, ..why not?

On the other hand, if in a fashion similar to circle-fill, it is thought that hordes boards are gauche and to be frowned upon, why bother to create the button in the first place? Let them hordify the old fashioned way.  Making it and hiding it sends a mixed message.

Personally, I'd rather see the Tom's talents focused on some of the more innovative designer features that we have been discussing.

Just make your maps! Jeez.....it's not that big of a deal. Yes, Hordes! is a pain to make sometimes and mistakes are often made but just do the work, do the testing or don't make the map.
Next people will be asking for a random map generator to be embedded into the site so they don't have to worry about all that tedious graphics work.
If you don't want to put in all the bonuses, then make a conquer and cash map and become the most popular map maker on the site. If you want to do something like Hordes! or something else that is a little different than stop waiting for someone to do it for you and just do it!
Just so you all know, I have done Hordes! maps with over 220 territories and didn't have a Hordes! button to do it. That map didn't even get released because it was boring and lame.
I am going to continue to try to find ways to use the tools here to do stuff they were not intended to do. I am going to keep on trying to break the site. That's 80% of the reason map making is fun for me (also it keeps me from actually working at work).
That's my 2 cents and you can keep the change.

RiskyBack wrote:... Yes, Hordes! is a pain to make sometimes and mistakes are often made but just do the work!

damn right it can be a pain...just started testing a 284 territory Hordes style map http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/973/Board and i hope it plays well or i might start breaking dishes (not the fancy dishes, or my wife will break my manhood)

IRoll11s wrote: You could always add the option but then bury it in the back of a file cabinet with a sign in front saying "Beware the Leopard".

Just got this reference :)