Why not just make them scenarios of one board?

There's 5 (if you're just talking about the Mario 3 boards)...I believe I've thought/suggested this before as well.  I still don't think it would be a terrible idea...  This is always a slightly slippery slope.

We could certainly use the Go-Geard Boards for precedent.  The theme is the same, yet all of the boards are different graphically.  There are a different numbers of territories in the maps.

On a site-wide aesthetic level, I think having similar boards at the highest search hierarchy is convoluted and messy. Unless there is a difference that makes play on one of the boards mechanically different in a significant way such that a different set of skills is necessary to play one or the other then maybe, but consider..

With Go-Geared, the mechanics of 1-sided vs. 8-sided dice makes them play VERY differently (in the 1 sided version you can't attack your opponent at all), yet I was amenable to grouping them. 

There are other advantages to grouping.  Ratings and Rankings will have much larger participation, in effect giving the boards more opportunity to become "popular."  With these boards, I see no reason to believe that one board should be Rated or Ranked differently than another, and even if there is some disparity of opinion, the rater can include that information in a review.

I'm inclined to err on the side of more scenarios, and less boards, but I think it's up to the individual map maker to make that call.

i too am apt to think similar boards by the same designer (and in some case multiple designers) could be scenarios under the same board. I know there's been some pushback in the past, mainly due to rankings and ratings and different board ID#s.

in this instance i would htink that 'mario world' is the generic name, and the individual boards would have their own scenario. however, can you have scenarios within scenarios? (not that i think this one does, but it may occur if we do combine things).

I think the project of the Mario maps started before Scenarios and so the designer continued the trend to make new maps of it.  If we're gonna be that way why not just open up a World Map for scenarios and call it "Maps Risky Won't Play" so my search is easier?

Different Scenarios all count for the same map in the rankings so I don't have any problem at all with there being multiple boards of the same theme by the same designer and Mario World is a good example.  It is a certain style of play that some people really enjoy and so they get to compete for points on multiple maps.  If they were all scenarios a person who plays just 1 version could own all the points while someone who plays all of them is neglected while if they were all different maps the 2nd player would have more points on more maps but lose on just that one.  My point is that there are reasons either way, although I don't know if what I said is a reason for it (my guess would be no).

Besides, shouldn't something like that be suggested at the time of review and if not, then it is how it is and that's that?!

One long term fix could be to differentiate between two types of scenarios.  Like major vs. minor revisions.   Major revisions could be counted separately for scoring & ranking, etc.  (basically treated as separate maps, but organized under a single map) but minor revisions would all be treated as the same map.  I envision it like a tree:

Board

Major Revision 1

Minor revision 1.1

Minor reivision 1.2

Major revision 2

Minor revision 2.1

Minor revision 2.2

This separates the two functions of scenarios: organizing similar boards under a single board, tying very similar versions of a board together for ranking purposes.

RiskyBack wrote:

Besides, shouldn't something like that be suggested at the time of review..

Probably so.. though there are no clear guidelines at this point.   No one thought to ask me until after I released Go-Diced - and the reviewer of Go-Diced was aware of the existent Go-Geared board at the time of the review.  I was gently persuaded by the community to merge the boards.

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/2012p1/New_board_not_showing_up_on_Boards_page

My favorite post from that thread:

Hugh wrote:

"I'd feel a bit sleazy grabbing major points for both boards."

RiskyBack wrote:

If they were all scenarios a person who plays just 1 version could own all the points while someone who plays all of them is neglected while if they were all different maps the 2nd player would have more points on more maps but lose on just that one. 

Besides, shouldn't something like that be suggested at the time of review and if not, then it is how it is and that's that?!

Agreed on both points.
+(1+1) = +2

Maybe we should better define what a "Scenario" is vs a "New Map."
I thought the point of a new scenario = same map, same gameplay, with maybe some tweaks to cards/rules/starting positions (see:  different versions of Base 9, for instance)
While "New Map" = anything different more than the above.

(It's why I wasn't a fan of combining Go-Diced and Go-Geared:  they play VERY different, so I'd have thought that they should be different maps)

As soon as the graphics are different, I think they're different maps.
As soon as the gameplay changes, I think they're different maps.
All of the Marios play the same, but they feel to me like they are different boards.
Same is true with all the Risk Clones.

Ozy - I understand where your head's at, but I'd lean towards "Major Revision" = "New Board" and save Tom any new programming.  Hence, Mario's stay separate (and in related news:  Go could also be split into 2 boards again, Geared and Dice)

i agree they're different boards, and if you're going to use Ozy's tree on the Mario stuff - itd be more like (with some liberties for clarification):

Mario World
   World 1 (default)
   World 1 (castles)

   World 2 (default)
   World 2 (castles)

   World 3 (default)
   World 3 (hordes)

stay away from the word revision as that would be used for fixing something in a particular map. all the above would be "rev 1" as they were initially released. but say World 1 (default) had a missing border (that wasn't missing from the castles version) it would become:

Mario World
   World 1 (default) rev1.2

With Go it'd be:

GO
Go-Geared
Go-Geared (reserved-available for more scenarios)

Go-Diced
Go-Diced (reserved-available for more scenarios)

Whatever your definition of scenario vs. new map, it will have to find a way to include Simulgear.  This style of play is VERY different yet the board can look exactly the same.

Well, Go Geared and Go-Diced have 9x9 boards and 11x11 boards.  The irony is that if I was to make them separate Games I would have an 8x8 and an 11x11 for each game.  It's the dice mods that makes it a different game.  For all intensive purposes, one game uses dice, and the other doesn't.  That's quite a difference.

IMO it makes sense to use scenarios when the theme is consistent.  I believe the only current objection to this is the ranking question.  

How easy would it be to have rankings for each scenario? Win-win?

Mad Bomber wrote:

am i missing something?

go diced and go geared are the same board......same number of territories......

Are you missing something: I think yes.
My prediction is that you, like most people, don't actually use dice in the Go-Diced version, and just play it like you would play Go-Geared.  I don't.

Sure if I'm playing well, and ahead from the beginning, I won't use the dice.

But put me behind in the game, and I play VERY differently (scrappy, and using the dice to make HUGE moves on my opponent to try to gain the advantage back).  My guess is that guys like Hugh, Black Dog, probably you (Mad Bomber), just play the tactical, and have never had someone use the dice to their advantage.

I had a game where M57 was schooling me, and with a series of a few lucky roles I'd turned the entire game on him.  That's what makes Go-Diced different than Go-Geared.  But if you never play against someone who is willing to make that attack, then you'd never see the difference.

I was mixed about what the right thing to do with GG.  On the one hand the mechanics of game play are radically different, with one giving players the option to use the dice, which completely alters correct strategy in many cases. 

On the other hand, the same skill-set must be developed to be successful on each.  The boards are similarly themed (if not for the fact that some are larger than others. 

In the end, I think combining them for statistical purposes was the right call.  It's not becoming a "popular" board, so summative stats gives it more clout when it comes to ratings and analysis.  In my opinion, once stats can be broken out by scenario, there's very little in way of argument to separate them.   Mario-3 would benefit similarly.

Navigating the top hierarchy is becoming cumbersome.  When you create a game and pull down the select game menu, it goes way off the screen.

BTW, I thoroughly enjoyed losing that game to Boris.  It validated the design all the more. He did exactly what was needed to beat me.

(RE the win over M57:  In his defense...I did get great rolls, and he has continued to slaughter me in most other games we've played together)

I... I think this looks like searching for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Cramchakle wrote:

I... I think this looks like searching for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Well, I guess it all depends on whether or not you think the top board list is getting crowded.

Mad Bomber wrote:

top board list? none of these boards are top rated.....i must be missing something

By top board I mean top of the board selection hierarchy, not top rated.

Just now seeing this thread, sorry. I'd be fine doing whatever. I was originally planning on making several scenarios for each Mario World which is why multiple boards made since. But now i don't think that'll happen so i'd be fine with whatever you all decide. 

As far as the board list goes, there will continue to be more and more boards released to crowed the list. What if instead of listing them all together, they were grouped? So, for instance, when you go to the board list there are 8 choices: Classic, Duals, All Boards, etc... this would clean things up i think.

(sorry if this is kind of a hijacked thread)