I don't have talent when it comes to the pretties.

I could rant and rant about the review process, I'm sure we all could. All I'll say is that everyone in a review game should vote should vote for a map. This 1 vote makes or breaks thing is silly. If we're worried about folks not voting, display the finished game and put VOTE instead of YOUR TURN, that links to the voting page.

Rarely in one game can anyone determine if a board plays well- only if it plays terribly/gimmicky. In REV's I've asked for links to other matches just so I have more to go on. So long as the map meets graphics/clarity/family-friendly standards, and doesn't play horribly, put it out there. If it's fun, people will play it. If not, they won't. If the system could retire boards that haven't been played in a while (Defining "a while" is the tough part, and should be something proportional to the number of seats total of Live/Finished games), then all is sorted out naturally, and we've spread out the tough love of a single review failure over the whole site.

Let the public try out boards, and collect votes that way, even let them fill out prereviews if they fancy (guess they could simply leave in-game comments). Collect the votes. The public votes don't matter, but there's a larger sample size of opinions that can help the reviewers make their decision.

Could even give the public testers some reward for trying out a new map. Better reviewers could be added to the DEV/REV list and given (lifetime or longtime) premium.

Damn. Once I get going...

i do wish there was more than one vote to make or break a board in REV...

My general practice is to simply open up the idea of whether or not the board should pass in the game comments. I put in my two-cents pass or fail, and then ask for any other opinions/suggestions on the matter. Usually if no other reviewer objects to the action within a day or so then I go ahead and pass or fail the board accordingly.

So, I'd like to think that with my system it's a bit of a majority system even though only one actual person does the official voting.

I agree Toaster that's exactly how it's supposed to work... if the reviewers don't come to an agreement amongst themselves during the course of the review game then it should probably be discussed more widely on the forums like in the Rent is Due case.

I'm not sure there's a huge benefit in having a formal voting system, although if the review panel want it I'd be happy to implement it.

I did that and didn't like it. I also tried to make them nearly transparent but it just didn't look right.
The real problem here Mongrel is that I like the way it looks and don't think that it is so unclear that the map is overly confusing so I'm not willing to sacrifice the looks I like for something I feel is not required. This is why we have the review board, for map makers like me. I don't have an issue with their decision other than not agreeing with it, but I'm also not going to fudge the system or give up my opinions because of it. Having a map become live isn't all that important to me anymore.

This is what I've been saying since Day 1 that the DEV/REV process was being implemented. Sure, it'd be nice if everybody had a lively discussion in the comments and things were tweaked, adjusted, and improved, and then all the Review players reached a consensus and one person went ahead and clicked the button on everyone's behalf.

In practice, what happens is that a board designer, usually somebody who's already known to the Board, submits a board, I have no idea if DEV games have been played on it, we blitz through one game and then the designer goes "so, somebody's gonna pass my board, right?" and then someone does.

I'd like to see more balance improvement happen in DEV/REV games. The people submitting boards these days are skilled enough that the majority of submissions already without question meet the minimum standards laid out in the guidelines and mentioned above by Mongrel, but I rarely think the board as submitted is perfect or can't be improved. I find that typically when I do have opinions about the way a board plays - not strong ones, mind you, but input on ways that balance or playability could be strengthened - I express them and either the other players say "yeah, maybe, but it works alright as is" and/or the designer says "I disagree" and no changes are made and the board is passed in short order.

So presumably it wouldn't help if there was a voting system? If you were the only dissenting voice then your vote would be overruled.

asm wrote:

I have no idea if DEV games have been played on it

The Review tab shows the number of Dev games played, then the Games List shows Public games played, but can't see the Private ones (or if they were played or just terminated).

I wish REV games were simply REV games and less like DEV games (I'm guilty of DEV suggestions in REV games too), but I guess I don't really see that happening (just because it's a difficult thing to do).

RiskyBack wrote: Having a map become live isn't all that important to me anymore.

That's cool, I respect that.  However, the way the site is set up is such that live boards are the easiest to create games on.  It's the easiest way to secure a population of players who are regulars to the map.

So, it is important to me as a player which boards get passed, what criteria are used, etc.

RiskyBack wrote:  I don't have an issue with their decision other than not agreeing with it, but I'm also not going to fudge the system or give up my opinions because of it. Having a map become live isn't all that important to me anymore.

We're having this discussion because the system IS fudged. I gather that most people are willing to overlook some lack in clarity for what could be a real hit.

@ Toaster and Tom: What we've found is there are some boards that can be discussed during REV but not resolved.

Two possible solutions. If a board is failed then it goes to a majority vote to overturn. (same if someone passes). If it is not overturned in 3 days, it goes live. Or we could just move the discussion to the forums and resolve it there.

@ Hugh's excitement for 3-legged race:  Right now I'm doing the mindless strategy (bail on the triangle, take a card, wear down the doomsday device every turn) in the REV and it's working very well. If I win this way, should I fail the board? I had El conq link me to a couple games, one had a thrilling finish, but it appears "playing to win" and "playing how the designer wants you to play" can be different. If I lose, I'll retract this whole paragraph. But if I win, I'm starting a thread so we can discuss this map. I've made suggestions, I think EC is on vaca, so we'll see.

In fact, any map should have a test where folks try to break it. In particular, any map with capitals should be DEV tested to see if a player can be knocked out before taking a turn.

We go back to the same statement. Release it. If the board can be exploited or someone finds a gimmick, that's certainly wasn't the designers intent, it's probably not the reviewers fault, it just happens sometimes.

@Yertle: I know that Nygma DEV's games a few times before pushing to REV, barring WF ports.

I also enjoy doling out freemium memberships as if I run the place.

Another site (StrategyGameNetwork) takes the approach that they only consider boards for promotion to Live once a certain number of Dev games have been played - I guess the main reason for this is that they want evidence that the board has been playtested properly. One other side benefit is only boards which are going to be reasonably popular make it through to review.

I suppose this could probably be gamed and might suffer from a tendency to favor well known designers but perhaps a min completed Dev games before review submission is allowed would be a good idea.

Mongrel wrote:

In fact, any map should have a test where folks try to break it. In particular, any map with capitals should be DEV tested to see if a player can be knocked out before taking a turn.

We go back to the same statement. Release it. If the board can be exploited or someone finds a gimmick, that's certainly wasn't the designers intent, it's probably not the reviewers fault, it just happens sometimes.

Agree with the first para, disagree with the second. If there's an easy exploit on a board, is IS the designer's, the DEV testers' and the REV board's fault. Sure, you're not going to catch absolutely everything, and a website full of sneaky shysters is occasionally going to come up with clever ways to outsmart designers that nobody previously thought of, but that doesn't excuse the people behind the scenes from doing their due diligence - which currently WE DO NOT DO.

Don't mean to pick on Eddie, but as a shining example of this phenomenon: Clue is broken, completely unplayable. I said before it was published that it needed work and potentially a total re-balance. Other players either disagreed or didn't care, Ed said it was a straight port and that was good enough for somebody to push the button. Turned out I was right.

I'd be surprised if there weren't other examples of this out there somewhere too. There's just not enough hoops to jump through to release a board.

tom wrote: So presumably it wouldn't help if there was a voting system? If you were the only dissenting voice then your vote would be overruled.

 That doesn't make me any less right. At worst there should be more checks & balances installed before a board can be published to at least give people more time to realize that I am.

Mongrel wrote:

@Yertle: I know that Nygma DEV's games a few times before pushing to REV, barring WF ports.

Huh?  I didn't bring up Nygma. 

tom wrote: One other side benefit is only boards which are going to be reasonably popular make it through to review.

I suppose this could probably be gamed and might suffer from a tendency to favor well known designers but perhaps a min completed Dev games before review submission is allowed would be a good idea.

 Eh, dunno if I'd be a fan of that, I think it would make fewer boards go Live, but I'm not sure that's a good route to take.  A Min number of DEV games, perhaps 1 at least, really not sure if it should be more that that.

There should absolutely already be a requirement that a DEV game be completed before a board can be submitted for Review. I actually thought there was.

Yertle wrote:

Mongrel wrote:

@Yertle: I know that Nygma DEV's games a few times before pushing to REV, barring WF ports.

Huh?  I didn't bring up Nygma. 

You brought up REV'ing being used as a replacement for DEV'ing. I was saying there is thorough playtesting on new creations from the Enyg-lab. Dunno about ports. People have giant problems with clue. I think it's an OK board, I don't care to play it much, but it's FAR from a broken board.

ASM It's just easier to agree with you on all the other stuff, since I do, in principle.

I did mean it from the Designer perspective, but really even the Reviewer perspective. I think it's hard not to give DEV feedback during the REV (which, like I said, I do the same thing), but, ideally, I think it should be two different things. DEV games for feedback/changes, while REV games are just here's my board, it's done.

Mongrel wrote:

clue. I think it's an OK board, I don't care to play it much, but it's FAR from a broken board.

It's a ticking time bomb. If you get deep enough into the game that card sets get into the 20's or so, which you should do with some regularity after a couple games (assuming multiple people don't get booted without playing a turn), the game becomes unfinishable. Bonus sizes relative to unit counts and board size become negligible, making it impossible to "break" anyone's position in one turn, and unit caps make it impossible to do enough damage to significantly weaken any one player in one turn. Unless somebody gets so tired of the game that they sabotage themselves or go all-out against one other player in order to let another one win, the game will just drag on.

It's trivially easy to arrive at a stalemated late-game position with 2, 3 or 4 players, and it happened to me in one of my first 2 ranked games played on the board. When 3 good players play a game for a month and end up agreeing to terminate rather than resorting to virtual coin flips to determine a winner, that should set off alarm bells.

Yertle wrote: I did mean it from the Designer perspective, but really even the Reviewer perspective. I think it's hard not to give DEV feedback during the REV (which, like I said, I do the same thing), but, ideally, I think it should be two different things. DEV games for feedback/changes, while REV games are just here's my board, it's done.

I like this as an intellectual proposition but in terms of real-world QC it's just backwards. I'd end up "voting" no on a lot of boards just because I think they could be better. And if this were going to be the case, I'd advocate for a full vote from any Reviewer who played in the submission game, because otherwise you'd have a lot of boards get passed by one person because they were merely "good enough."

In a parallel example, I really don't think your Mario World is ready for release; you seem to disagree. I'm guessing Weathertop will end up passing it because it's playable. I personally think you could do better, and I think individual games on the board won't usually be all that fun, although the board in general is fine. What's the answer here in terms of Review Board principle? I'm not sure if you played DEV games on it or how many, and before you mention again that I can easily find out this information, I just don't think the onus to do that should be on the person in my role. If you want to go with "here's my board, I'm confident in the way it plays, it's ready, say YES or NO," I would just say no. But cecause that's not the way I think things should work, necessarily, it's going to get passed, like other boards about which I've had misgivings have passed before it.

asm wrote:

What's the answer here in terms of Review Board principle? ... If you want to go with "here's my board, I'm confident in the way it plays, it's ready, say YES or NO," I would just say no.

Then you have a different interpretation of the Review system than I do. 

IMO reviews are just to make sure the board is finished, playable, and not looking like junk. The public then determines if it's good or not by how much it's played and/or Rated.

The Board system could be cut down a lot by the previous system tom mentioned, but I like the approach that WF had and that WG expanded on, it's open yet semi-restrictive to keep out the 45 second designed maps (or should be IMO).