http://www.wargear.net/games/player/71132

Care to expand on the reasoning of the question?

There does not appear to be anything interesting or innovative about it, and the graphics detract even further from the experience.

I haven't played a game yet, but this is my analysis from just looking at the map: There are five two territory continents spaced around the board at +2 each.  There is no elimination bonus, and cards scale slowly.  There are territories with a defensive bonus, linked to the continents, with no unit limit.  My guess is that this map is going to be a sluggish defensive map with stalemates any time good players get together.

This map reminds me of wargear quest, one of the most boring maps ever (sorry Raptor).

I'm not saying it's a good or bad board, but that's a reoccurring question with what the Review system should be.  Is the Review we just for reviewing borders/territories/continents/etc. and not quite as much gameplay, or should it throw out boring boards too?

The definition of good gameplay changes so much from player to player that the Review system is more of a filter for completely horrible boards (ie Jpegs with a board thrown together) and checking the board build than actually questioning the "fun-ness" of the board.  (I would question the Black color and the confusing borders as if it should pass or not, although this was brought up in the Review game and the panel was told they were fixed...)

There are multiple threads on this...with still no complete definitive answer :p

BlackDog wrote:

This map reminds me of wargear quest, one of the most boring maps ever (sorry Raptor).

Eh...to each his own.

http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Wargear+Quest/Ratings

Somwhat related, I'm curious how much rating bias exists.  For instance, I tend to only rate maps that I play often, as I like to put a reasonably thought out review.  I tend to only play maps that I like, so I don't play the maps that I would review poorly enough to review them.

Also, I will admit that I probably wouldn't have picked this battle if it wasn't a Wheel of Time map... my expectations are pretty high.

I complained about the black and blue being so similar and the borders being hard to decipher between two black territories especially during the review game.   What I didn't say during the review and should have is it felt half done.  The graphics were a good start but it needs more refinement.

Whether it makes for a boring game or not is to a large extent up to each player.  Personally I love WarGear Quest.  I've had many a fun game on that map.

My $0.02

BlackDog wrote:

Somwhat related, I'm curious how much rating bias exists.  For instance, I tend to only rate maps that I play often, as I like to put a reasonably thought out review.  I tend to only play maps that I like, so I don't play the maps that I would review poorly enough to review them.

This point has also been made before.  I have been known to play a board that I suspect I won't like just to give it a poor review (provided that my suspicions are confirmed).

Personally I  would prefer a review system that let's a wide quality range of boards through; for instance, where the review board checks only for functionality and obscenity, clear borders, etc.  From there I'm thinking a system where the board works it's way up into the visibility of the general public's view through a number of different filters such as rating, how often it has been played, etc..

Really, it's not that far from this  right now.

BlackDog wrote:

Somwhat related, I'm curious how much rating bias exists.  For instance, I tend to only rate maps that I play often, as I like to put a reasonably thought out review.  I tend to only play maps that I like, so I don't play the maps that I would review poorly enough to review them.

I feel teh same way, and have the same concerns.  There was some talk about having a weight to your rating based upon # of games played, and I think this would help a bit with this, because I would feel more comfortable reviewing a board I haven't played much if I knew my rating would not count as highly.  I think the general consensus was behind having the weighting, but I don't know if it ever made it on to the feature request list.   Maybe their needs to be an official thread in the 'suggestions' forum for that to happen?

Ozyman wrote:

BlackDog wrote:

Somwhat related, I'm curious how much rating bias exists.  For instance, I tend to only rate maps that I play often, as I like to put a reasonably thought out review.  I tend to only play maps that I like, so I don't play the maps that I would review poorly enough to review them.

I feel teh same way, and have the same concerns.  There was some talk about having a weight to your rating based upon # of games played, and I think this would help a bit with this, because I would feel more comfortable reviewing a board I haven't played much if I knew my rating would not count as highly.  I think the general consensus was behind having the weighting, but I don't know if it ever made it on to the feature request list.   Maybe their needs to be an official thread in the 'suggestions' forum for that to happen?

Maybe, ..or maybe not.    I dont' recall that a consensus was reached in that discussion either.

I believe I made the point that a weighted ratings system would further inflate the ratings because players who would rate the board as poor will be less likely to be willing to put in the games to make their opinions count.

Certainly that is one factor.  I'm not sure if it would be overpowered by more people like blackdog & I feeling comfortable rating the board after a single bad play.  It would probably depend on how the weighting is applied.

I wonder if there is a way to make our collective wisdom easily accessible to mapmakers and Dev-testers alike.

Defensive borders are so tricky to make work that a list of potential problems and solutions might be helpful to mapmakers, Dev-testers, and reviewers alike.

These suggestions would have to be somewhat detailed in the case of defensive borders. For example, the map brought up can be made to work with no limits on the castles. (Limits allow greater flexibility in other parameters, but I could list numbers for cards/continents/elimination bonuses that makes the map under question very playable.)

Viper wrote:

What I didn't say during the review and should have is it felt half done.  The graphics were a good start but it needs more refinement.

Which is the exact reason I didn't join the review game - to let others see if they saw the same thing i did.

BlackDog wrote:

Also, I will admit that I probably wouldn't have picked this battle if it wasn't a Wheel of Time map... my expectations are pretty high.

I've talked to him about expanding on the WoT theme and have a number of graphics that i want to use; but i am struggling to come up with unique gameplay for some of them. For example, the Tar Valon map I'm using, I can't think of a better way to do this other than mimic the Gothem map.

Maybe Blackdog should be added to the board review group?  I know he has the relevant experience.

So, is this the mandate of the Board Review group?  Sounds more like an attribute you'd want a Dev player to have.

M57 wrote:

So, is this the mandate of the Board Review group?

I'm not so sure that's been answered.  And I would argue both sides of whether it should or shouldn't be :P...meaning I'm still not super sure which way the Review group should handle boards.

We need to do this by backwards design, which means that first we should to come to some consensus about the qualities of boards we'd like to see make it to the general population, and if you want to bump it up another level, how would we like to control board visibility/hierarchy/access, etc?

My vote is for the reviewers to make sure that the boards that go live work properly and are as described.  They should have appropriate graphics and stalemates should be unlikely.  Outside of that, I vote for the free-market system.  The best rating system is the open table list.  Good boards get played and other boards do not.  This is the conclusion that I made after I started the most recent discussion on the review process (original I argued for a tougher review process).

Alpha wrote:

My vote is for the reviewers to make sure that the boards that go live work properly and are as described.  They should have appropriate graphics and stalemates should be unlikely.  Outside of that, I vote for the free-market system.  The best rating system is the open table list.  Good boards get played and other boards do not.  This is the conclusion that I made after I started the most recent discussion on the review process (original I argued for a tougher review process).

I'm pretty sure I fundamentally agree with you at this point, but I feel that if we go this route that the rating system should be powerful and influential because if we adopt a "let anything that works pass the process" approach, we'll need to prepare ourselves for some pretty crappy offerings, both visually and functionally.  I think I could get more excited about this path if there was a strong development/support structure in place for designers.  Maybe something like a mandatory Dev game where suggestions could be made for first time designers.

I can definitely be swayed from this leaning.  There are definitely advantages to having a rigorous and admittedly more subjective review process.