|
Maps & Scenarios Battlegrounds and scenarios |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#5089
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Battlefields of Valhalla Discussion Thread
Hey,
@Dignan
--
Are you anywhere near a verdict on High Ways or the Highway? Being the only other active judge here, your vote on it would put the old era to rest, so to speak. @happyjosiah 's nomination for Spineback Ridge could go into the new iteration. |
#5090
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Battlefields of Valhalla Discussion Thread
Quote:
Of course, that would leave the map in limbo as far as the BoV is concerned. Whatever new system rolls out in it's place (or alongside, whatever) doesn't need the BoV to tie up loose ends. Dignan's Maps - Dignan's Multiplayer Maps
Competitive Unit Congress "It doesn't matter how you find the pot of gold, all that matters is that you beat the leprechauns". |
#5091
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Battlefields of Valhalla Discussion Thread
Quote:
|
#5092
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Battlefields of Valhalla Discussion Thread
Quote:
Quote:
I'm a firm believer in balance and paradox. I personally think you need to strike a balance between the public and the private. Too much of either is bad. You need both, at once. But that's just me. Quote:
Why I Left the C3V |
#5093
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Battlefields of Valhalla Discussion Thread
EDIT - Nevermind, turns out TREX, Tiranx, and Sir Heroscape are starting something. Hopefully it will work out well for them.
Monthly Utah Tournaments in SLC!!
Maps | Customs | Battle Reports 10 Points Under Videos "I'll save myself some time and say I pretty much 100% agree with Bigga" ~Flash_19 Last edited by BiggaBullfrog; October 19th, 2016 at 11:52 PM. |
#5094
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Battlefields of Valhalla Discussion Thread
Very excited to see some progress here. I don't care what the label or what the system is, I would just love to see some of these great maps that have never hit the table at GenCon finally get their due.
Looking for a way to get casual players involved in Heroscape? Do your opponents lack the interest or knowledge to build/draft their own armies? If so, check out Project 500! |
#5095
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Battlefields of Valhalla Discussion Thread
Quote:
So if you fine folks decide to revive the BoV (and I hugely support the endeavor!!!), I would recommend thoroughly revamping its rules/structure, along the lines of the WoS. I think @dok and I, as the two major forces in the WoS, would be absolutely fine with you borrowing/lifting anything from the WoS's structure that you like. |
#5096
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Battlefields of Valhalla Discussion Thread
Xotli, thank you! (Especially both of those are mine.)
|
#5097
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Battlefields of Valhalla Discussion Thread
Just finished reading this thread.... The Rotten Tomatoes approach does sound as if it might have some advantages too...
|
#5098
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Battlefields of Valhalla Discussion Thread
I would be no fan of a system that counted the noses of reviews from whomever, and performed calculations to pass or fail a map. As a tournament director, I would look elsewhere. To the extent that that's what some of you mean by "Rotten Tomatoes system," I'd have, as a tournament director, little interest.
Whatever the new system, the testing must be rigorous. A successful system must pressure-test the maps. In the C3V we use the public to help with playtesting but we sure as heck have a process for rigorously collecting and evaluating those tests, and *we* are the deciders, not the playtesters. That must be honored, in a way that Rotten Tomatoes does not. I would have thought that people eager to take on the role of testing might find room here or in the WoS to replace inactive judges, and perhaps (if here) tweak the rules to help with the problem of judges who become inactive. I agree with those who have suggested that, within the limits of my earlier comment about tweaking the rules. The fact is, participating in these projects can be difficult. Testing is hard and time consuming. In most real-world projects staffed by volunteers, it is to be expected that there will be turnover as some people move on and are replaced by others. That doesn't (necessarily) mean there's a structural problem, it just means it's time to find new people. You express deep gratitude to those who have left for their contributions when they were there, and you move on. Don't be hasty about tearing everything down & starting at Square 1, is my suggestion. There are eager beaver volunteers for the BoV now? They are worthy candidates for the important responsibility? Give them the keys, let them tweak the rules if they want, and move on. Finally, I will observe that I know @mad_wookiee , and he's a good guy. If he thought that his name as a "voter" on the BoV was causing the project to suffer, he would (I think) be disappointed if he wasn't just taken off. Who would want the death of the project as a legacy? So, @Dignan , I think it would be ok if you - as the de facto leader here - agreed to help by simply removing the names of the inactive judges. We all appreciate their input, we think the world of them, we are glad they contributed what they could. Tag them, give them a week or whatever to discuss other options, then give them "emeritus" status and move forward. My 2 cents. I'm trying to respond to a few different things here, and if you think my post isn't directly responding to your point, dear reader, it's because it probably wasn't. |
#5099
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Battlefields of Valhalla Discussion Thread
Quote:
As to the above, I was under the assumption that like rotten tomatoes there would be both scores. The professionals (the score that you'd likely use for tournaments) and the "general public" which would be the rest. You'd have the hard score that would be strictly from a competitive view but for those maps that don't quite make the cut you'd still have a score for more casual games. For instance if a map missed the cut due to one issue like say a certain double based figure didn't fit somewhere on the map but other than that it was a great map that everyone enjoyed, was a sturdy build, and as long as you didn't play with that figure it would be great then a casual player could see that high rating...read the "professional" reviews and see the downside and realize that situation doesn't fit them so hey...I think I'll give this one a shot. That's sort of what I thought of when I saw the suggestion. I'm not a competitive player but I do like to make sure I don't play a map that's way unfair to one side. Would I want it to be everything I love...sure...but that's just not realistic so I'm going to focus on finding things that will make me unhappy and work on fixing those. |
#5100
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Battlefields of Valhalla Discussion Thread
Quote:
Personally, as a one time tournament director, I would love to see more of the public's opinion on maps. I love what the BoV does and don't want to diminish it at all, but maps can get bogged down in the process. It's what happens. But if a map gets nominated, the public sees it, and some reviews come in from them, then as a tournament director that tells me that this map looks fun, that people want to play on it, and are willing to take time to do so and then actually post feedback on it. That says a lot about a map to me. Of course, I'll want more of a "professional" opinion on it, and that's where the official judges would come in. But if the map hasn't made it that far in the process yet, then those early reviews would be a huge help. If I need more of an opinion, I'll play on it myself (which I'll always do cause I personally won't put a map in a tournament that I haven't played on myself to ensure that it works, no matter where it comes from). Another (IMO) great potential aspect to allowing the public to participate is that I feel it would increase interest. Making and submitting maps is great, but having watched this thread for years I feel like there have been many times where people have come in and asked what they could do to help, and the answer was basically "Submit a great map and hope for a good verdict to come eventually." There's been no chance for participation, and I see a chance to improve that. In the C3V there is public playtesting. And yes, it is ultimately up to the Inner Sanctum to decide what happens with a design, but at least the public feels like they get to participate and help influence it. (Or at least they should.) I don't see why it can't be the same here, and why there can't be a system put in place to allow anyone to come in, run tests, and see the fruit of their efforts. Posting in the mapmaker's thread works, posting here works, but if there was a place where their reviews were compiled and noted, I feel like that would be a huge motivator for people to want to get involved. Which brings me to another big point of public participation. As Dad_Scaper noted, there is always turnover in volunteer projects. That's unavoidable. And I think that this kind of public participation will help with that, in that these "unprofessional" reviewers will be able to replace the "professionals" who retire. This way, rather than selecting someone who wants to help but has minimal experience, the judges will be able to select someone who has proved him/herself. It's a way for people to be able to practice and get better and reviewing maps and really getting to learn what makes great maps great. A kind of apprenticeship, if you will. Especially because, by having a go-to place for them to post reviews, they'll be able to share insights, compare reviews, and maybe learn some things that they can do better. Then, when they're inducted as a judge, they'll have a whole history of learning and improving evident to the community, and they'll be able to put more trust into their decisions. This is particularly important to me because I feel that the judges need to be people whose opinions are respected. If I don't trust that a person is great at judging a map, I won't be using their maps or their project's maps no matter how shiny the badge is, at least not for a tournament. Obviously, I'm a huge advocate of allowing public participation. I don't think the BoV is bad, however, and I don't think it needs an overhaul. But as there is already going to be a complete change in staffing, I don't see why this can't be used as an opportunity to shift some gears and make things better (subjectively, of course - some people may see the process perfect as-is, and that's okay too). This is all my opinion and theory on what would help make a good system better, but it's just my opinion and is only to be taken as the couple cents that it's worth. In the end, I just want to see map-making encouraged again, and will support whatever way that happens. Monthly Utah Tournaments in SLC!!
Maps | Customs | Battle Reports 10 Points Under Videos "I'll save myself some time and say I pretty much 100% agree with Bigga" ~Flash_19 Last edited by BiggaBullfrog; October 21st, 2016 at 01:04 AM. Reason: Maybe someday I'll learn when to just stop typing... |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|