I say just put a Sticky thread up for people to volunteer for dev testing and reviewers cant be on it.

i think the week auto Fail is a bad idea. if a board hasn't been passed in 3 days then the reviewers should get a nudge letting them know they gotta make up there mind.

that said the reviewers shouldent see a board before there has been at least one game fully played in dev. mode.

KrocK wrote: I say just put a Sticky thread up for people to volunteer for dev testing and reviewers cant be on it.

That works ok, but I'll be honest, there comes a point in a long development cycle that I simply can't stand to play another game on one of my test-phase maps. I swear I played 1000 games of Fish-Tac-Toe before I got it right. Also, it sometimes very helpful to get a perspective from people when I'm not in the game influencing things. I loved that on Warfish, I could provide a link for people to start games without having to be in them or to do a full-blown release. I know for a map or two, I released it with (beta) in the tag and let people play it like that, but it was kind of tacky.

And just to throw one more thing out there, strangers who play games on test maps are significantly more honest. When I look in on test games played by my friends, at worst they'll say its "ok." A game on the same map being tested by strangers will get a "this sucks." That's a lot more useful to me.

Looks very cool... although I'm not sure that as a newbie to the site I would want to see that sort of thing on the boards page?

no but it could be a premium perk...

weathertop wrote:

Looks very cool... although I'm not sure that as a newbie to the site I would want to see that sort of thing on the boards page?

no but it could be a premium perk...

I agree with tom (and since all newbie's get 30 days free premium...).

With the Forums so integrated I would say Test games and Helping create maps should be easy for those looking to truly gain knowledge in Map Designing, especially with the helpful community that is already present.  I'm not really sure that something extra is needed (even a Sticky).

I would like the reviewers to be able to decline a map they don't want to or can't join so they can get them off of their list. I have a bunch of maps that I am trying to work through and don't want to join every review game right now but there are a few on my list and it's making my games go to a second page and I like them all on one page.
Or you could just allow more than 15 games on one page. I'd like both things actually.

RiskyBack wrote: I would like the reviewers to be able to decline a map they don't want to or can't join so they can get them off of their list. I have a bunch of maps that I am trying to work through and don't want to join every review game right now but there are a few on my list and it's making my games go to a second page and I like them all on one page.
Or you could just allow more than 15 games on one page. I'd like both things actually.

ditto, with me being gone for a week i can't join any and by declining it would force others to join, if for no other reason than they are the last ones left. the old 'not it!' game! hehe

Done - I added a 'Decline Game' button to the Private / Review game joining page.

Ok, I actually was the one who Passed Episode 1. It did go through 2 review games and I think both of the other players would have passed it but I am impatient. I bring this up because there is a map of mine that I like but the reviewers don't so much and so I am tempted to pass it myself but instead I decided to tattle on myself.
Anyways, I don't think we should have that sort of power because we want map makers in the review panel but we don't want me abusing it anymore.

OK that shouldn't be possible - will check.

I would have passed Risky's map myself, but he beat me to it. It's a fun map, very awesome graphics, and apparently balanced from the relatively few number of games I've seen played on it. Risky, you should keep an eye on the games played on the board to see if any inherent imbalances manifest over time.

Already on top of that Kjeld. So far, Rebels have won all but one of the games but the winner has also been the player with the most experience on the map. Right now I am in a game with Magpie who has played it a few times on this site and really seems to get the map. I am the Rebels and I started off well but he has made a comeback and I think he has the game won (maybe not).
He made a great point that he thinks the Empire sees the 1st turn by the Rebels and thinks that they are dead in space and panics and starts doing things they shouldn't do. I know that I've done that in the past (actually, in this game I did when he rolled really well and took the trench from me so rather than concentrate on breaking him and setting myself up I tried to take back my lost ships and that fraked me).
The version on this site is really good and works the way it is supposed to.

RiskyBack wrote:
He made a great point that he thinks the Empire sees the 1st turn by the Rebels and thinks that they are dead in space and panics and starts doing things they shouldn't do.

This.  The map is NOT one to give up on, just like all games player's should never ever ever give up, even when they think they have lost, I've seen wayyyyy to many games turn around because of some good rolls/bad rolls/good cards/bad cards and Episode 1 is an excellent example of this.

tom wrote:
I've also set it so that reviewers can post game messages in review games even if they aren't actually playing.

I think it's possible that this stays available even in Non-Reviewed games.  I can post a message for any Public game on Yertle (unless I've been given some Privilege I wasn't aware of :P), even for Global Warfare map, which wasn't in the Review system.  I'm sure no one would abuse this though...except definitely me !

Yertle wrote:

I think it's possible that this stays available even in Non-Reviewed games. I can post a message for any Public game on Yertle (unless I've been given some Privilege I wasn't aware of :P), even for Global Warfare map, which wasn't in the Review system. I'm sure no one would abuse this though...except definitely me !

You're a Board Admin Yertle so you have lots of incredible powers, some of which you may not even be aware of yet ;)

Lol oh :P
SWEET!

1) I wouldn't mind signing up to be a reviewer, although I already signed up to be a DEV tester...

2) How do I get me a forum title? =P

Vataro wrote: 1) I wouldn't mind signing up to be a reviewer, although I already signed up to be a DEV tester...

2) How do I get me a forum title? =P

1) just ask

2) in your settings, you can give yourself one

Cramchakle wrote: I don't really want to get into reviewing maps, but I do want to get my sticky fingers mixed up in everything related to map-making/publishing. Could you please add me to the list such that I can see what's going on behind the scenes from an author's perspective? Thanks.

Can I do this as well?

EDIT: Please don't take this as a desire not to test games, as I still love doing that and will accept any test game invites that come my way. :)

Electric Monk wrote: Those are good goals, and I understand (and even agree) with the reasoning behind them.

I just don't want to see things like your boards, or even mine, getting passed simply because we are "in" with the review crew. Nor do I want to see someone like Smor (who has some popular maps, whether we like them or not) come here and have his/her designs failed because of some bias against him/her.

I also don't want to see a backlog of maps waiting for approval. I realize that some maps will take longer to play a game on than others, but we need to make sure that as the site grows, the review team gets bigger to keep new maps coming out as fast as possible.

I don't know if this is happening or not, but I remember it being discussed: I disagree with the notion of having a secret reviewers forum. In the interest of transparency, anything said about a map should be visible to the designer. Hopefully this will take place in the game comments (and the designer will read them), but it might be a good idea to have a review process forum where maps can be discussed amongst the designer and reviewers.

And is it really necessary to ban circle maps altogether? Rent Is Due is a really fun map, one of my favorites on warfish and it is circle mode. Many of the Risk clones on WF are circle mode, and are immensely popular, I would guess a lot more so than many of our groups rule-bending maps. I really can't see Rent being improved by having it fill mode, but I will give that some of the Risk clones would look better.

I mean everything I say here, but I am also deliberately going negative on it just to help keep a balance so we hopefully won't end up with an overbearing review process.

Also, is there going to be a player review capability like on WF? While the testers offer good feedback, we are also a select group whose tastes do not always parallel the mainstream, and I found player reviews to be a good source of input.

Well, we don't like Smor not because of his maps, but because he lied and cheated to game the system. It takes a real, deep down low, douchebag, cocksucking, street-sweeping, hypocritical, ass-monkey, gutter-crawling-cur of a slimeball to intentionally recruit people to submarine other people's boards or intentionally inflate your own ratings. It's one thing to invite your friends to play a map and benefit a bit from their courteous bias; its another to goad them into such behavior.

Regarding bias, yes, this will always exist. We'd be silly not to assume the review group will have some. The reason I'm pursuing some minimums is to help make sure that the review crew can't let their bias go too far; sure, a side effect we all benefit from is that the worst of the worst never see the light of day. I've got access to the review list partially to police what's going on and see if I really like the idea at all. So far, the maps I've seen get sent back to the beginning really, really deserve it.

The discussion has been had on circle mode elsewhere. It's a crutch. It's training wheels at best. We're leaving it in so that people can get a taste for mapmaking, but those maps are getting hung on mom and dad's refrigerator, not in a public museum.

Secret reviewers forum doesn't exist and shouldn't. We agree there. Hopefully it doesn't happen. And, the author is included in their review game, so they are privy all things said about it. This is good.

The backlog is something I see as a growing problem. Especially as the number of people submitting an unedited picture with circles on it continues to consume reviewer time. That, and the fact that it takes a while to play out a game on some maps. However, making sure that someone competent has played a complete game on a map doesn't seem to be asking too much. The idea here on WG so far, is to rather than creating thousands of games and letting the unbrowsably long list of maps hide the bad ones in a sea of irrelevance, to simply cull the nonsense earlier than later.

I appreciate your devils advocacy. Healthy debate will help get this right. I think you should focus your attention on how to improve it, though, and not whether it needs to exist. Something needs to exist. It should be clear, concise, and fair, but something really needs to exist. Making maps is fun, but not everything needs to be shared with the world.

I'm receptive to the review system, I never said I didn't want it at all, I'm just in favor of transparency and minimalism, or simplicity.

EDIT: ketchup :P