Board Game Arena

Hi everyone! My game Xanadú is in alpha now, but I wanted to ask you how you have tackled the new review process. I have invited my board game community to enter and play the game, but they have told me that it is difficult to enter and find players to play with, so I think I will have to help them organize them. I'm thinking on proposing a tournament on the alpha version or something like that to organize gameplay sessions, but I don't know if that is a good idea or if you have tackled the situation in a different way. I know that devs could test the games easier because of our multiple accounts, but its harder for them to do so.

Also, where do they leave the reviews? Is this clear for you?

Thanks!

To the admins, I think having an open alpha for all the players in BGA would be a better idea. This is why:

1. You could clearly communicate that this games are buggy, but they could be trying new games sooner if they choose to try games in alpha mode, which will give players something to look for, and will not have to wait for a full release (it would also create noise on the upcoming games and projects).

2. It would be a lot easier for players to find active tables and test the games.

3. For devs that are doing this as a hobby, the burden of organizing alpha games could become a roadblock. Devs with a bigger community could have their games approved faster, and not necessarily the games that are more ready for release.

4. You could create a whole gamified experience around players that test alpha games (medals, gifts and the sorts).

Of course, this would mean a bigger responsibility on the devs in terms of releasing to alpha when they know they have a more complete game. I know "alpha" means a more in-house testing, but having a special section for alpha games in the public platform still would count as games that are "not ready for beta release", and that "will be" buggy. But this is only an idea, and I'm sure you have reasons not to (like knowing that BGA guidelines are being met), but this could be done by giving more weight to more experienced players and to BGA reviewers.

Still, nice work on everything you are doing!

Have you tried turn-based games?

Hi there.
I have currently rallyman gt in alpha.
I made a post on facebook in dedicated group.
I now have 25 testers. Some of them know each other in real life so it is easy for them to regroup.

But for others, it is hard to catch up. This afternoon i had 5 solo games running at the same time and all of them complaining to play solo.

We definitely need something for testers to find games. It could be open beta, or just a dedicated chat for the group.

I also do not know the reviewers leave reviews.
But i had one bug report and i have to admit that is the moste efficient bug report system i have ever seen.
Big applause for the architect.

somiryu wrote: ↑30 April 2020, 12:43 I think having an open alpha for all the players in BGA would be a better idea.

That would be exactly like releasing the game without any qualification process, going from one situation where all games where carefully reviewed and curated by the admins to a situation where games would be released immediately without checking.

We are trying to find a middle ground.

somiryu wrote: ↑30 April 2020, 12:43 1. You could clearly communicate that this games are buggy, but they could be trying new games sooner if they choose to try games in alpha mode, which will give players something to look for, and will not have to wait for a full release (it would also create noise on the upcoming games and projects).

We don't want a lot of buggy games available to a large audience. We have the stability of the platform to consider, and we already get a lot of emails! People in general don't heed warnings.

somiryu wrote: ↑30 April 2020, 12:43 2. It would be a lot easier for players to find active tables and test the games.

Yes. But what we propose now is much easier than what we had before: you had to get an admin for alpha feedback

There is also the fact that this is new and even if it has been announced on the forum not a lot of our experienced users have discovered this new process. With more BGA reviewers, more games will get going (real time or turn based). There is about 7000 players meeting the conditions to be a BGA reviewer currently. Only a fraction has joined yet, which is logical since the process is only one week old.

Also, BGA reviewers with a premium account can use hotseat mode to playtest the game against themselves.

somiryu wrote: ↑30 April 2020, 12:43 3. For devs that are doing this as a hobby, the burden of organizing alpha games could become a roadblock. Devs with a bigger community could have their games approved faster, and not necessarily the games that are more ready for release.

Experienced players do not need the developers to organize games. They'll use turn based, or use messaging in the BGA reviewers group.

Maybe the term review was a little confusing, as you seem to be thinking about user reviews like on a store. We are looking for expert reviews to create a trustable qualification process. So having a big community does not really count for the approval process: only the official BGA reviewers (our "experts") can give their approval.

somiryu wrote: ↑30 April 2020, 12:43 4. You could create a whole gamified experience around players that test alpha games (medals, gifts and the sorts).

We'll probably do that in some way, for the BGA reviewers. But it will take some thought, some work and some time, as you can imagine.

somiryu wrote: ↑30 April 2020, 12:43 Of course, this would mean a bigger responsibility on the devs in terms of releasing to alpha when they know they have a more complete game. I know "alpha" means a more in-house testing, but having a special section for alpha games in the public platform still would count as games that are "not ready for beta release", and that "will be" buggy. But this is only an idea, and I'm sure you have reasons not to (like knowing that BGA guidelines are being met), but this could be done by giving more weight to more experienced players and to BGA reviewers.

Still, nice work on everything you are doing!

Thanks a lot for your feedback, much appreciated!

We are aware that we need to give alpha-testing more visibility and polish the process. We have added the alpha forum and given access to the review process for developers as a result of this feedback. This should get more visibility to the process, and more alpha games going!

Mistergos wrote: ↑30 April 2020, 19:53 I also do not know the reviewers leave reviews.

Developers whose account is linked to a game are now able to join the BGA review process: https://boardgamearena.com/reviewers
But you cannot approve your own game

Een wrote: ↑02 May 2020, 09:53 Developers whose account is linked to a game are now able to join the BGA review process: https://boardgamearena.com/reviewers
But you cannot approve your own game

I tried that already I really like my game.

I still did not found where to see the reviews already done, if any. Any link on reviews?

Een wrote: ↑02 May 2020, 09:53 I tried that already I really like my game.

Een wrote: ↑02 May 2020, 09:53 I still did not found where to see the reviews already done, if any. Any link on reviews?

You get an email each time an approval is submitted (that's explained in the email we sent you just after your game is pushed to alpha; it seems that we'll need to put this info elsewhere then...)

Note that you should get feedback and bugs first, then after some time improving the game, approvals. It's not meant to be instantaneous! And if you got approval too fast, we would be cautious

Thanks for the detailed answer! I still think an open community process could be achieved with the right communication strategy and the right rules put in place, "crowd" is the key word here, but I get the idea of the middle ground and I do agree that if a big enough number of users become reviewers, it could achieve the same results, so I'll cross my fingers and help as I can. Just, don't dismiss the idea, it might be a problem to solve with some creativity (weighting reviews by user experience and role, for example), but might be something to consider in the future. For now, we'll make our best to make this work.

Had a player that didn't understand how to leave a review. I think it was someone who had already tested the game before the alpha was rolled out (I had already several rounds of testing before going alpha), so maybe he didn't try playing the game again or something. Be whatever the case, I think, being a new process, people could have a tutorial of sorts when they enter a the group of an alpha game.

Kudos for the reviewers forums and allowing devs to become reviewers. That also might move the process along!