hi all

The new board submission / review system is now live. The process for submitting a board goes something like this:

1. Designer clicks on link to submit board for review. This takes him to a game creation page which allows him to pick how many players he would like in the review game and whether teamplay should be on - all other options are fixed - i.e. board default values.

2. All the site's board reviewers are automatically invited to the review game and can join on a first-come, first-served basis.

3. Reviewers provide feedback to the designer via in-game messages. The designer is free to make changes to the board as in Dev mode (e.g. updating the image / adding missing borders etc) so that review games don't have to be continually restarted when problems are found. Games can be restarted at any time as per Dev mode games.

5. Once the game is complete the reviewers decide whether to pass or fail the design - at this point the designer should know if there are any additional issues that he needs to address if it is a fail. Hopefully they will have worked through updating any minor faults or the board will go back for a major redesign.

6. Any reviewer can then pass or fail the board via the 'Review Boards' tab (this info is recorded in the database in case of any dispute!)

I've added the following as Board Reviewers, thanks for volunteering! You should now see the 'Review Boards' button when you click on the Boards tab.

Toaster
asm
KrocK

Hopefully the new system will work well, reviewers please provide any feedback on how you go with it and if anyone else would like to be a reviewer please let me know.

cheers

Tom

I take it you can't be your own Reviewer correct?

What happens if one Reviewer Fails the board and another Reviewer Passes the board?

Do you have a set of guidelines for what Fails and what Passes?

tom wrote:

I've added the following as Board Reviewers, thanks for volunteering! You should now see the 'Review Boards' button when you click on the Boards tab.

I don't seem to have this?

Also this reminds me of a minor gripe, when invited to a game I'd like to see who invited me? In this case it's a fairly important piece of information.

And I second Yertle's question. I already know exactly how I feel about this board from the very first look: Graphics are alright but could be better if the designer put in 5 minutes of effort, and gameplay is unbalanced but the majority of public players won't care. Is that a pass? It's a 3-star review at the most on WF.

i also am slightly in the dark about a passing grade for a map. i understand that we will be looking for missing borders/continents etc.

maybe if you could give us a example of a pass/fail map on WF so we can at least have a base standard.

I'm just looking more for a general guideline. Is 'alright' good enough?

I'll throw my name into the hat as a reviewer. That should also solve the problem of what constitutes a passing/failing grade. I.e. whatever I decide.

I'm in for being a reviewer also.

I think the main thing that should be considered is if the map is playable. I don't like some maps just because I don't, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be open for other people to play. Some of my maps will probably be pretty far out there with theme and gameplay. They will look decent and they will have a certain gameplay that some people just won't dig. Does that mean that a map like Risky Kong wouldn't be allowed on this site even though it is playable and a lot of fun for those few who seem to enjoy that style of play?

I'm just concerned that this process might limit somethings. I like the idea but I just want it to be a system to make sure that the map is playable, isn't just a hodgepodge of circles and that the reviewers goal is to get the most from the creator and from the map and not just to say what should and should not be on the site.

RiskyBack wrote:
I think the main thing that should be considered is if the map is playable.

IMO, I agree with this.  While I don't think it is personally necessary to have 100 Risk maps, on WF they seem to get quite a bit of play even if it is really just a different graphics and minor gameplay changes. 

I think the thing that will potentially be great is the ability to "Label" a map as Risk/Geography, UMS (Use Map Settings), etc.

asm wrote:

I don't seem to have this?

It should be visible now, sorry. Thanks Risky and IRoll11s,  I added you too.

As regards the criteria for acceptance, I'd say at a minimum level it needs to be:

- Playable
- No missing borders
- Not a ripoff of someone else's design (e.g. copied from another site without the designer's permission)
- Based on a family friendly image

RiskyBack wrote:

I'm just concerned that this process might limit somethings. I like the idea but I just want it to be a system to make sure that the map is playable, isn't just a hodgepodge of circles and that the reviewers goal is to get the most from the creator and from the map and not just to say what should and should not be on the site.

I pretty much agree with this statement, however I think there needs to be a bit more effort going into a map design than just copy image from Google maps, plonk on 10 territories, connect the dots as borders and release.

asm wrote:

And I second Yertle's question. I already know exactly how I feel about this board from the very first look: Graphics are alright but could be better if the designer put in 5 minutes of effort, and gameplay is unbalanced but the majority of public players won't care. Is that a pass? It's a 3-star review at the most on WF.

I think in this case the reviewers should point out to the designer how the board can be improved and work with him on getting it to a decent level.

Yertle wrote:

I take it you can't be your own Reviewer correct?

What happens if one Reviewer Fails the board and another Reviewer Passes the board?

Yes, correct.

Any reviewer can press the pass button at any time - it's an open system, not a vote. I'm expecting that reviewers work together, if it's not unanimous then maybe discuss it with the rest of the reviewers. I could set up a separate secret forum area for this maybe?

tom wrote:

asm wrote:

I don't seem to have this?

It should be visible now, sorry. Thanks Risky and IRoll11s,  I added you too.

 

Seems a bit buggy because it shows the Live/Submitted/Dev/Retired tabs of the Board Designer page, which clicking on one of those takes you back to your Board Designer page.  And you need the Submitted one highlighted.'

Then it is showing the Kingdom of KrocK by Cartographer?  Is that correct?

throw me on the list too.

Yes, that board is just there for testing I did. I agree, the second row of navigation bar tabs shouldn't be there when reviewing boards, I'll get rid of it.

You should see 'Pass' and 'Fail' links on that board all being well.

Thanks weathertop have added you also :)

asm wrote:

Also this reminds me of a minor gripe, when invited to a game I'd like to see who invited me? In this case it's a fairly important piece of information.

But it's always the host of the game? Or do you mean in the email / PM notification?

tom wrote:

But it's always the host of the game? Or do you mean in the email / PM notification?

I don't see where it says who the host is, unless it's on another screen? Am I just missing something dumb?

tom wrote:

As regards the criteria for acceptance, I'd say at a minimum level it needs to be:

- Playable
- No missing borders
- Not a ripoff of someone else's design (e.g. copied from another site without the designer's permission)
- Based on a family friendly image

Agreed that these are minimum requirements. I'd fail a map (or promote fixes in the case of missing borders) without hesitation that didn't meet any of these criteria.

tom wrote:

I pretty much agree with this statement, however I think there needs to be a bit more effort going into a map design than just copy image from Google maps, plonk on 10 territories, connect the dots as borders and release.

...

I think in this case the reviewers should point out to the designer how the board can be improved and work with him on getting it to a decent level.

This is more what I'm talking about. The map in question is basically this. So does that constitute a fail? It just... isn't good. I'm not even really sure what kind of constructive criticism I could possibly offer. It's not necessarily bad, there's just very little going on. Here's an image, here are some territories, now fight over them.

tom wrote:

 Any reviewer can press the pass button at any time - it's an open system, not a vote. I'm expecting that reviewers work together, if it's not unanimous then maybe discuss it with the rest of the reviewers. I could set up a separate secret forum area for this maybe?

I think a super secret forum area is a good idea here. And I'm not sure I understand your first sentence - all it takes to release a map is one reviewer's click? I think there should be more than that. 3 or even 5 people clicking, maybe. It would still be easy to fast-track a board we know is going to be good, but I think more opinions should be going into the decision-making process than just one person's.

asm wrote:

I think a super secret forum area is a good idea here. And I'm not sure I understand your first sentence - all it takes to release a map is one reviewer's click? I think there should be more than that. 3 or even 5 people clicking, maybe. It would still be easy to fast-track a board we know is going to be good, but I think more opinions should be going into the decision-making process than just one person's.

It would be a good idea (if is going to stay as a single reviewer can pass a board) to have a forum where each board can have its own thread is it can be discussed before it is decided. also if the board is failed and the designer has any complaints Tom can check to see why and tell the designer "well you board just kinda sucks!"

KrocK wrote:

asm wrote:

I think a super secret forum area is a good idea here. And I'm not sure I understand your first sentence - all it takes to release a map is one reviewer's click? I think there should be more than that. 3 or even 5 people clicking, maybe. It would still be easy to fast-track a board we know is going to be good, but I think more opinions should be going into the decision-making process than just one person's.

It would be a good idea (if is going to stay as a single reviewer can pass a board) to have a forum where each board can have its own thread is it can be discussed before it is decided. also if the board is failed and the designer has any complaints Tom can check to see why and tell the designer "well you board just kinda sucks!"

wouldn't some of that (if not most) take place in the comments portion of the game you're playing? i'd think the designer would want to keep tabs on the reviewed game in case questions arise..

Yeah as cool as a super secret forum section sounds I don't think it's necessary. Anything you can say about a board under review should be able to be read by the board designer in the regular comm section.

weathertop wrote:

wouldn't some of that (if not most) take place in the comments portion of the game you're playing? i'd think the designer would want to keep tabs on the reviewed game in case questions arise..

You would think that. The guy in the game I'm in hasn't said a word.

asm wrote:

weathertop wrote:

wouldn't some of that (if not most) take place in the comments portion of the game you're playing? i'd think the designer would want to keep tabs on the reviewed game in case questions arise..

You would think that. The guy in the game I'm in hasn't said a word.

maybe just another nail in the coffin. if he's not willing to see what's what with his game, you think it's worth anyone's time to be messing with it? PM him yet to see if maybe he just didn't know about it?