The conversation on a recent thread has got me to take yet another look at the board Review process here.  I took a very quick look at the way the CC community deals with issues involving board quality, and I have to say, I think ours is lacking, both in terms of oversight and support.

It's important to point out that it is precisely because WG offers such powerful and open-ended tools for designers that there is a need for a more organized system for review.   Apparently, other sites only have circle-fill capabilities, yet they have a multi-tiered review process with specific criteria checked off on the way.

Now I'm not suggesting we incorporate a 5-step system with medals for hoops jumped through. That is anti-thetical to the spirit of how this site operates.  But there are elements that we could consider incorporating into our process with an eye to maintaining the informal (and to the degree that it's possible) non-hierarchical nature of the current process.

I'll start by throwing out two ideas for consideration and debate..

A dedicated Review Board Design/Explorer/Message board for each board submitted.

Yes, we kind of already have one - it's called the Review game, but it's the very last and only required step in our process. Not only that, but only reviewers can see it, and technically the board should be all but complete when it reaches this stage.  Currently, designers have to be pro-active about all aspects of development. There's no help unless you ask for it.  I'm not shy - I have no problems in this area, but others.. I feel horrible when a designer submits a board that is nowhere near ready for consideration. This page should be open to all (not all designers are reviewers), so prospective designers can look at and learn from how the process unfolds for others. Lurking is encouraged. Over time, maybe an up-load area could be added so that members could help out and even collaborate. We would keep the Review game as the last formal step.

Require Fog images, and textures (something other than solid colors) on the board images where there are no fill areas.

This one is predicated on the premise that with well over 200 boards, there is no reason not to raise the bar higher on the quality designs.  As weathertop noted, WarGear has the most powerful designer in the game; it is capable of supporting maps as beautiful as can be found on any site, and better because of the fill map capabilities, yet we tolerate some of the worst boards that can be found out there. This is not my critique, this is what the review sites say. Personally, I would even require a semi-transparent overlay in the board image in the fill spaces, unless there is a valid and game supporting reason not to.  Now for those who might argue that this is unfair and it will discourage budding designers, I would counter that my first suggestion will go a long way towards remedying this.

I cede my remaining minutes to..

Step 1 - Review Board -- Map passes review as it is now and becomes a public board available for open play by anyone at any time. Also become eligible for graduation to Step 2. These maps are functional, if not beautiful, and let map makers create something that ends up shared by the community even if its not awesome. All of our first maps sucked, but if it weren't for the positive feedback of sharing and caring those maps, very few designers would probably come back for a second.

Step 2 - Public Boards are open to community voting via a revamped version of the existing rating system. Upon meeting a set of criteria, certain to be debated ad nauseum by you nerds, the map graduates to "Official" status and is available for tournament and ranked play. Whatever is the default board sorting method shows these maps first, and there is a tag for sorting them out.

If medal / ranking chasers want new boards to get more championship or whatever points, then they'll have to go play the reviewed but unofficial maps. Also, I know my boards are being played, as I see them go by in the queue and I can watch the games played counter go up, but I very rarely get any review emails anymore. I would like to see something that helped promote feedback from the community.

Map-making contest winners can be granted this status immediately.

Step 3 - Official Boards are eligible for Tom (or surrogate) to stamp with some special "Wargear Select" to be the featured, default set of maps that represent the site to new users. This should probably be a small percentage of existing maps, and requiring something particularly exquisite to receive the stamp in the future.

Here is something I wrote while you were posting Cram - there are similarities..

It may not pass the hierarchical smell test but..

Make it such that a board doesn’t have to pass the highest standards of review.  It simply gets an “Acceptable/Playable” stamp, which enables anyone to open a game on it from the proposed SubmitDesign page.  Games on A/P boards count in all the stats and tournaments can be held on them, etc.  In all respects, they hold the same statistical power as any other board.  However, they would only show up in the Games Page with the A/P filter on.  This would encourage the designer to bring the board quality up to the highest of standards, but it would not be required.

In fact, what I’m describing is a 2-step process, but he difference is that it is one that  gives designers reasonable options.

@Cramchakle,

Your ideas are fine, but as far as I can tell, they are post-review (filter the crap out) solutions.  I'm trying to propose a design process that supports burgeoning talent while promoting excellence - yet doesn't kill merely functional offerings.

Right now, we leave designers out in the cold to figure it out for themselves , right until the last step - where we have to skewer them if they don't have things up to snuff. It's trial by fire.

M57 wrote:

@Cramchakle,

Your ideas are fine, but as far as I can tell, they are post-review (filter the crap out) solutions.  I'm trying to propose a design process that supports burgeoning talent while promoting excellence - yet doesn't kill merely functional offerings.

Well, they are post review. We currently have dev games and the review board can always kick a map back asking for improvements. They can also tell the author during the review game that, "Hey, this map is ok, and if you want to release it you can, but in our experience, it isn't good enough for community promotion so maybe you want to tweak it."

Once a map is past review, we still have the versioning system. I've updated lots of maps post-release. I've been doing stealth graphics updates on some of my older maps lately. As far as I can tell, it affects nothing but the version number. If someone wants to become official, even if their initial release doesn't pass muster, they can update with a re-version.

I actually couldn't hardly tell a difference between your post at 08:52 and mine, so maybe I just didn't get my points out the way I thought I had.

And, per past conversations, set the review bar just a bit higher. No circle maps (already policy I think?), must have custom cards, must have fog and neutral layers.

Yeah - but Dev games pretty much require that a board is reasonably functional..  Many first timers need help with simple things like making borders.. and understanding how to make a fill-map, etc..

i'm talking about a process where a noobie could paste a copywritten jpg from the internet and slap it in as a board - and be gently let down/helped/nurtured/instructed..

Think of it as a Designer Workshop area -- that leads to A/P, and finally a fully certified WG map.

M57 wrote:

Yeah - but Dev games pretty much require that a board is reasonably functional..  Many first timers need help with simple things like making borders.. and understanding how to make a fill-map, etc..

i'm talking about a process where a noobie could paste a copywritten jpg from the internet and slap it in as a board - and be gently let down/helped/nurtured/instructed..

Think of it as a Designer Workshop area -- that leads to A/P, and finally a fully certified WG map.

The Designer Workshop area is one of the purposes of the Board Designer's Chat forum.  I imagine what you are proposing though is a formal must go through these steps process, rather than being optional...as we can see that those that just pull the jpeg from the internet probably aren't going to go through the optional steps (ie hitting up a forum) before hand.

Yertle wrote:

M57 wrote:

Yeah - but Dev games pretty much require that a board is reasonably functional..  Many first timers need help with simple things like making borders.. and understanding how to make a fill-map, etc..

i'm talking about a process where a noobie could paste a copywritten jpg from the internet and slap it in as a board - and be gently let down/helped/nurtured/instructed..

Think of it as a Designer Workshop area -- that leads to A/P, and finally a fully certified WG map.

The Designer Workshop area is one of the purposes of the Board Designer's Chat forum.  I imagine what you are proposing though is a formal must go through these steps process, rather than being optional...as we can see that those that just pull the jpeg from the internet probably aren't going to go through the optional steps (ie hitting up a forum) before hand.

That, and I'm proposing a dedicated "forum-like" page for each map submitted - with things like a board explorer, links to the board designer, maybe a communal sandbox area to report missing borders, broken factories, etc.  Eventually, when boards can be opened up to invited individuals for collaborative efforts, this page will come in extra handy.

I think we've been approaching this issue as Reviewers and Keepers of the Quality Level, and have lost the perspective of the noobie.. The system/process needs be as pro-actively friendly, accessible, and helpful as possible to the first-timer.

In fact, it could be modeled on the current "view" page.. with the board's analytical stats on the left, etc.  Just rename it and tack on a message board for starters.

http://www.wargear.net/Workshop/12345

Then all you need is a place where they can be found - The Designer's Workshop.  It doesn't have to be anything special. -- just a list with links to boards submitted to the workshop would be fine to start, but the key is that everyone has access.

A dedicated Review Board Design/Explorer/Message board for each board submitted.

Yes, we kind of already have one - it's called the Review game, but it's the very last and only required step in our process. Not only that, but only reviewers can see it, and technically the board should be all but complete when it reaches this stage.  Currently, designers have to be pro-active about all aspects of development. There's no help unless you ask for it.  I'm not shy - I have no problems in this area, but others.. I feel horrible when a designer submits a board that is nowhere near ready for consideration. This page should be open to all (not all designers are reviewers), so prospective designers can look at and learn from how the process unfolds for others. Lurking is encouraged. Over time, maybe an up-load area could be added so that members could help out and even collaborate. We would keep the Review game as the last formal step.

 

Pride, and my mothers voice in my head make me weary of putting my errors out in public, but I have to +1 this idea. 

It would have/ would still be kinda nice to see what kind of process others have gone through, for exactly the reason M57 said.  We put all the necessary tools on the bench, and let the noob at them. Then they make a reasonable but crooked birdhouse, and we send it back saying "Not good enough".  

I had a hard time with the endless revisions on my first board,  and was almost too frustrated to finish it, but I had a strong vision, so I persevered.  -And the community is actually helpful - I could imagine some people wouldn't stick it through.

Cramchakle wrote:

Step 1 - Review Board -- Map passes review as it is now and becomes a public board available for open play by anyone at any time. Also become eligible for graduation to Step 2. These maps are functional, if not beautiful, and let map makers create something that ends up shared by the community even if its not awesome. All of our first maps sucked, but if it weren't for the positive feedback of sharing and caring those maps, very few designers would probably come back for a second.

Step 2 - Public Boards are open to community voting via a revamped version of the existing rating system. Upon meeting a set of criteria, certain to be debated ad nauseum by you nerds, the map graduates to "Official" status and is available for tournament and ranked play. Whatever is the default board sorting method shows these maps first, and there is a tag for sorting them out.

If medal / ranking chasers want new boards to get more championship or whatever points, then they'll have to go play the reviewed but unofficial maps. Also, I know my boards are being played, as I see them go by in the queue and I can watch the games played counter go up, but I very rarely get any review emails anymore. I would like to see something that helped promote feedback from the community.

Map-making contest winners can be granted this status immediately.

 

Step 3 - Official Boards are eligible for Tom (or surrogate) to stamp with some special "Wargear Select" to be the featured, default set of maps that represent the site to new users. This should probably be a small percentage of existing maps, and requiring something particularly exquisite to receive the stamp in the future.

I really like these ideas.  I think they are both simpler to understand and simpler to implement than the other suggestions.  Yes they are post-review, but this is actually a plus in my mind, because it can also easily be applied to the existing maps that have already gone through review.

I also think it will provide incentive for map makers to go back and rework older maps of theirs, which I think is a great thing for designers to do.  In my experience there is a certain level of fatigue that sets in with making a map, so taking an extended break and coming back to it is often very helpful, but who wants to let your awesome map sit for 6 months?   Also, having the chance to see many more games on your map than you would ever get in dev status makes the flaws more obvious and gives you lots of ideas for improvement.

Ozyman wrote:

Cramchakle wrote:

Step 1 - Review Board -- Map passes review as it is now and becomes a public board available for open play by anyone at any time. Also become eligible for graduation to Step 2. These maps are functional, if not beautiful, and let map makers create something that ends up shared by the community even if its not awesome. All of our first maps sucked, but if it weren't for the positive feedback of sharing and caring those maps, very few designers would probably come back for a second.

Step 2 - Public Boards are open to community voting via a revamped version of the existing rating system. Upon meeting a set of criteria, certain to be debated ad nauseum by you nerds, the map graduates to "Official" status and is available for tournament and ranked play. Whatever is the default board sorting method shows these maps first, and there is a tag for sorting them out..

Step 3 - Official Boards are eligible for Tom (or surrogate) to stamp with some special "Wargear Select" to be the featured, default set of maps that represent the site to new users. This should probably be a small percentage of existing maps, and requiring something particularly exquisite to receive the stamp in the future.

I really like these ideas...

So, could you fly through step 1 and 2 at the same time? It sounds like you couldn't. Obviously, you wouldn't want to exclude all existing boards from tournament play until they get a Step 2 stamp of approval, but yet, you don't want all existing boards to be grandfathered to S2 status, do you?

BTW, this idea is not necessarily in conflict with the bulk of my proposal. In fact, I think the more steps and hurdles there are in the process, the more the need for a strong support system.   We need to attract and nurture designers, and that's not going to happen by tightening the noose at the top.

I guess I thought you were going a different direction with this.

In light of recent conversations and spending some time hopping around the nets, it is apparent that our site is plagued with a perception of ugly boards.

Certainly, your suggestion of building up better designers from the bottom is a good one.

It should probably be accompanied by a finer mesh filter at the top, too.

>So, could you fly through step 1 and 2 at the same time? It sounds like you couldn't. Obviously, you wouldn't want to exclude all existing boards from tournament play until they get a Step 2 stamp of approval, but yet, you don't want all existing boards to be grandfathered to S2 status, do you?

Maybe any board that has at least 10 reviews and an average rating above 7.5 could automatically get S2 status (numbers pulled directly from my ass).  The rest have to go through the regular process.

>BTW, this idea is not necessarily in conflict with the bulk of my proposal. In fact, I think the more steps and hurdles there are in the process, the more the need for a strong support system.   We need to attract and nurture designers, and that's not going to happen by tightening the noose at the top.

I agree.  I thought your ideas were good to.  More pre-review support for new designers is always welcome.  The only real disadvantage to a 'Desginer workshop' area is the amount of work it would take from Tom.

Geeze. With 200+ boards, a couple of them are not going to be the prettiest, but seriously, not all game-play is about pretty boards.  Some games are awesome, and mediocre looking. Like Rent is Due. Love that board, probably doesn't fit the "beautiful standard".

I have some beautiful maps, and the games stink. Their not even good enough for public development games... 

Look at it this way:  Be careful to not create a system that ensures a great game maker - who is also a mediocre graphic artist - won't be able to make maps. 

ratsy wrote:

Geeze. With 200+ boards, a couple of them are not going to be the prettiest, but seriously, not all game-play is about pretty boards.  Some games are awesome, and mediocre looking. Like Rent is Due. Love that board, probably doesn't fit the "beautiful standard".

I have some beautiful maps, and the games stink. Their not even good enough for public development games... 

 

Look at it this way:  Be careful to not create a system that ensures a great game maker - who is also a mediocre graphic artist - won't be able to make maps. 

I agree entirely.

But the point is that new users are going to show up, see ugly maps and leave without trying. It helps to have a pretty storefront.

Also, if we revamp the rating system to match some suggestions that have been made elsewhere -- such as adding categories for graphics, mechanics, fun, then you can make the standard X points in 2 out of 3, or exceed some total in all 3. A million ways to skin that cat.

Cramchakle wrote:

I guess I thought you were going a different direction with this.

Yeah - I wasn't even sure myself.

Especially considering the ongoing evolution of factories, making a board on WG is becoming much more than a cartographic endeavor capped off with a bunch of circles and then some rules check-boxes and fields. In fact, the designer is so powerful that half the boards coming through aren't even maps. 

I just think that there is a steeper learning curve when it comes to pulling off a quality map here, and I remember many a frustrating hour trying to figure out how to do something in the designer that I consider relatively simple now.  And quite honestly, I find it frustrating now when I'm trying to help someone with a board, switching back and forth from that tiny chat pop-up to Messages or in-game comments.

You're certainly right about there not being many maps lately where we fight over borders on a political map, that's for sure. Even when we do that, there's always more to it than plain old RISK.

ratsy wrote:

Look at it this way:  Be careful to not create a system that ensures a great game maker - who is also a mediocre graphic artist - won't be able to make maps. 

..are you talking about me?  I consider myself somewhere close to that category.  Well, maybe not even a great game-maker, but I don't consider myself to be a graphic artist.

I think we should be able to achieve consensus for a system that accepts all work that meets playability and minimal graphics standards, but nurtures and promotes quality work, letting it become more and more visible and accessible to the community as it bubbles to the top.

No, absolutely not M57.  I was thining of J-bomb with his land, air and sea map, or the recent middle east map that came out from theironrelic, or riskyback with his penchant for hand drawn graphics.   All great boards, and good fun to play.  Those guys do their best with the graphics, and I think that's good enough.  

I can totally understand the desire for a pretty storefront, but user generated content is always going to be... not so professional.   And it is important to keep this place user generated content friendly.