That's fair enough. It really is an open question in my mind, both as to what the Review system is as well as what it should be.

Is it unfair that I hold you to a higher standard than some? Maybe. But you earned it.

I've never played a game of Clue that didn't finish naturally, well before unit caps played a significant factor. Never experienced the board choking itself out, but my sample size of games is small, smaller still because most were relatively enjoyable team games. If that type of suffocation happens on the regular then sure, issue.

Yeah I think we should hold to a narrow interpretation of the review process, which is why I came down on the side of letting the players be responsible for checking borders.

I've been guilty of overreach while reviewing games, as have others. It's tough when a lot of reviewers are map makers themselves, and tougher that so many are good players too (asm excluded).

Maybe we could add some more subtle criteria to the review process, like making sure the game does not have a significant chance to end in stalemate. (almost all boards can, especially with 3 people left). Maybe add in 'gross strategy errors', where the designer didn't realize that you could do X Y then Z which completely bypasses the way the board was 'meant' to be played. Maybe add in the requirement that significant border deviations must be marked. Maybe add in 'ugly ass artwork'. (It's like porn, you know it when you see it).

Until that happens though, all of the above should not be grounds for a fail. Every board mentioned here as a test case of 'I wouldn't have passed that' should have been passed, including the one that started the thread.

Mongrel wrote:

@ 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 the abstract, this is a tough question, perhaps deserving of a new thread.  While it's not great when you find an exciting duel really has some backdoor unintended strategy, this rarely comes out in the Dev games.  I too try to break the map in the Dev games, but it can be hard to assess.  I'd advocate something like a multi-tier map system, where only the maps that withstand the test of time go to the higher tiers.  This way, users new to a broken duel map could still be playing in the exciting way intended by the map maker.  The map would be public, but it wouldn't have made it to the higher tiers due to the discovered backdoor.

In the concrete - I will be highly annoyed if there is any truth to what you are suggesting.  We (me, solo, ElConq, and CorpPun) have been testing with various numbers for almost a year.  Many test games have been played.  With the current numbers, your strategy often went this way: A player gets a small edge in the beginning, starts to place in the ovals and decides that is what they'll do from now on.  The other two players recognize the lead in the race as being more threatening than anything on the board.  They weaken the shit out of this player, if not entirely eliminate him off the triangle.  They then proceed to catch up, and the early jumper loses the race by 15-25 armies.  After all, the early jumper's cycle is something like 3,3,cards,3,3,cards where the other players have something more like 10,10,cards,10,10,cards, often maxing out the 18 every turn by the end.  Now, if instead of acknowledging the early jumper as needing attention, the other two players fight, my suspicion is that the early jumper wins or at least nearly wins.  Of course, one of the main points of the board is that there is a breaking point where you should abandon the triangle and race.  It is inevitable, but going for it too early has been punished in several test games already.   

I haven't seen a 3-way duel quite like it, I think it is effing brilliant, but if it turns out it can be improved from what we believe are working numbers, I'm sure he'd make a change...   

For reference, http://www.wargear.net/games/view/13092

Continuation of last lengthy post: If Mongrel's oval strategy turns out to be dominant, then all players employ it and the reverse of the expected strategy prevails: from time to time someone plays on the board to get a slight productivity edge. The "designer's intention" as far as I understand it wasn't to just play in the triangle and whoever wins there wins the game. It's a race, but it is hard to win that race without playing in the triangle.

Strayed far from the thread. I side on wanting games with possible backdoor strategies to be public, and if such strategies are found, the success of the board is affected until improvements are made, which would be at the discretion of the map maker as to whether said improvements are ever made.

Hugh, the ability to create a map with a definite flaw that can get exploited evenly among all the players in the game is a dream of mine.
How cool would that be for someone to figure something out that the designer intended and wipe up in a few games until he/she plays someone who also employs that and then the people in that game use it until a game of all people who use the strategy play in the same game and it is epic beyond all epicness!
That's a dream since most gambits like this are usable by position only but I gotta say it would be a great if I could possibly come up with it but I figure that if Cram hasn't yet it just can't be done.

Sorry about the off-topic here, but I need to rebutt (huh huh he said butt!)

asm wrote:

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.

Don't be back-assing your way out of this and layin it on my capable shoulders. If you don't feel it's worthy of passing, then borrow my balls and fail it. I've given my thoughts on the board, and given you ample time to back yours. I don't have a strong opinion either way on the Mario board; but you do. Take the responsibility given you (or rather that you took on) and do what you feel is right. Or is this all stemming from the fact that I'm about to beat you twice in a row? 

Hugh wrote: For reference, http://www.wargear.net/games/view/13092

The "designer's intention" as far as I understand it wasn't to just play in the triangle and whoever wins there wins the game. It's a race, but it is hard to win that race without playing in the triangle.

I'm winning and in a boring way. "Boring yet successful" is never a designer intention, and my point of contention. I had a plan from the beginning, I haven't thought much about any turn since, and it appears to be working.

I've already typed and deleted a lot. We're essentially arguing about something that's not even a confirmed problem yet. But I enjoy the lively discussion.

And risky, I think the best designs have little trinkets emerge that no one saw coming. (See: Conway's game of life).

Mongrel wrote:

"Boring yet successful" is never a designer intention,

Oh how wrong you are......Ever play The Angel Problem on TOS?

weathertop wrote:

asm wrote:

In a parallel example, I really don't think your Mario World is ready for release; you seem to disagree.

If you don't feel it's worthy of passing ... do what you feel is right.

By any criteria of the Review process (http://www.wargear.net/help/display/Board%20Review) does Mario (Copyright blah blah blah of course :P) or Rent fail?

IMO, Review process isn't for what feel's right or what you personally think of a map, the REV is does it fulfill the outline agreed upon.  I think Reviewers probably can give their "Rating" of a map in a Rev game, but failing because they would give a map a low Rating isn't in the criteria.  If that changes or only "popular" boards should be released, then that's a change to the Review process IMO (which I wouldn't agree with if WG is to be an "open" board design site).

Like I've said, I do think the artwork shouldn't be completed in 45 seconds for a map, so something along those lines could/should be added perhaps.

(As for Nygma, since he's already come up once, and we've had this discussion in a Review of his, I have asked questions to make sure a map is complete and just asked if everything has been checked since he has some complicated borders at times and things have been missed in the past, and all boards that have a 0 in the DEV games column make me cringe a bit.)

well i'd say yes on Rent do to the ... oh wait there isn't a bullet item for unclear or confuzing...thought there was something like that. a 'makes sense' or something clause.

the mario one yes due to the unbalanced setup (from asm's POV).

weathertop wrote:
the mario one yes due to the unbalanced setup (from asm's POV).

The "unbalanced setup" of Mario is not a scenario , it's Random.  Or should Global Warfare fail because it has an "unbalanced setup" when Player 1 starts with all or near all of Australia?

i'm just relaying what i think asm's problem was/is.

Don't do that, Yertle. You know as well as I do that those are not comparable situations.

You're absolutely right, as I said originally, I'm not going to fail the board just because I think it could be better. I wouldn't have failed Rent either, under this interpretation.

asm wrote: Don't do that, Yertle. You know as well as I do that those are not comparable situations.

It's a cheap shot ya, but to a degree it is a very similar situation.  Especially when the start is Random with the few +1 territories.

I think of a Starting Scenario of Player 1 has 50 units, Player 2 has 5 units as an "Unbalanced game start-up scenario", of course that's an extreme too, but 6 units to 4 units due to a Random start up seems different IMO. 

I don't say this just because it's my board, but it was brought up with Rent too since that's a Random start, which to me is balanced.  The unbalanced cry is thrown around wayyy too often (it was on WF too) and, IMO, is many times just a cop-out.

And yes, I'm sure it seems like I came to complain and whine until it was released/passed, but I really am thinking of all maps and not just my own, and hopefully I would defend anyone's map not just mine or Risky's since those are the two that have come up.

Cram says to me quite often that I have to stop trying to achieve a balanced map and try to get a fair map. Everyone has an equal shot of getting the initial +1 bonuses on both of the maps in question. The fact that someone else does and you don't is not a reflection on the map but rather a reflection on how the math fates feel about you as a person! If I get beaten in a game because I lost a 12 v 3 battle I can't really blame that on the map. I usually just blame it on Yertle regardless of it being his map or if he is even in the game.

RiskyBack wrote:

Mongrel wrote:

"Boring yet successful" is never a designer intention,

Oh how wrong you are......Ever play The Angel Problem on TOS?

HA! Noted and retracted.

RiskyBack wrote: Cram says to me quite often that I have to stop trying to achieve a balanced map and try to get a fair map.

What's the difference between fair and balanced?  I'm not sure I grasp the subtleties.

Balanced means that no matter what every player starts off with the same amount of armies, same access to bonuses and same initial bonus. Fair means that every player has an equal opportunity to have each starting location, initial bonus.
It's really about starting scenarios.
Take my Gauntlet map for example. If you choose a color you get a specific starting location every game and it never changes. If I made it so one color had easy access to all bonuses at the beginning of the game it would be unfair but still balanced since everyone gets the same amount of units and initial bonuses (I still fear that is true with Wizard sometimes but nobody has complained and I haven't really been winning that much on the map).
On some maps the initial small bonuses are available to players and so someone might start with a bonus but it was chance and it could have just as easily been given to someone else. That is fair but maybe not balanced for that game. That is not an issue with the map it's just bad luck like with bad rolls it is part of the game.
I don't think I said that very clearly but I hope you get my drift. It's really hard to get Fair and Balanced without some sort of BAO play because always the first few players have a chance of dismantling the last player if that works well for them.
I can't speak for all map makers but I know that I put a lot of thought into stuff like that when I am making a map and try my level best to make them fair and balanced but I strive for Fair at the very least otherwise nobody will ever see the map except for Yertle and Dr. Horrible.