AI Patch reviewing standards suggestions

[duffarama]

As you may already know, it has been discussed that a panel of judges be assembled to review AI patches.
Link: http://www.planetcricket.org/forums/showthread.php?t=18105

Now if this were to be a successful idea, reviewing standards would need to be introduced so that all reviews would have a magnitude of accuracy, integrity and consistency. It would somewhat be like a ?law of patch reviewing? that all judges would conform to.

What do you members think would be some adequate standards of patch reviewing and judge panel induction?

Some examples include

Patch reviewing:
Length of testing period: reviewing a 50 over patch for at least 30 overs, and a test match patch for approximately a day.
Bias: reviewing a patch whilst playing against highly rated teams so that the outcome of matches played are not one sided.
Game modes: patches should be tested only in a specific gaming mode, for example hard, easy or both. Mode tested in should clearly be stated.
Date disclosure: An AI patcher has to disperse the official date of the review?s release to the review committee in advance, Because if you are making an AI patch , you should know when it'll be completed.
Conditions: The AI patcher will specify what ground conditions were chosen when using the patch.

Judge Panel Induction:
-Calculate how many reviewers/judges are needed at a given point and induct an amount depending on demand.
-After figuring out how many reviewers are required, we need to have a selection criteria for appointing reviewers.

Other:
-It it is found that, the reviews are not based on actual facts; a reviewer will lose his/her position.

Cheers and please discuss!

 

[sid_19840]

Some other things that can be added are.

For Reviewer's:

Opposition:What sort of an opposition was it played against.

Mentality:What was the Mentality of the reviewer whilst playing/testing the AI(eg:aggressive,defensive,open minded,willing to play shots,willing to loft the ball if pitched up. etc)

Experience:The expirience of the reviewer with the game.For eg-How good exactly he is with the game,what sort of scores he usually post on the board for that particular set of overs,etc.

For Judges:

-Which set of people to put and how many set of people to put in at a particular time for reviewing a patch(taking into account,any other AI patches released at that point.)

-Otherwise to generally keep a note that all reviews are being done in a fair manner.

Cheers.

 

[cricket doctor]

Common guys, feel free to discuss and post you veiws. We are making this effort for your convenience. :onpc

 

[das_vicky]

Atleast three judges in each stream of Patch for C2k5. Means 3 for AI, 3 for Bats etc. Then the patch makers abiding by the standards laid out and submitting their work to the judges. THen judges then decide on its release or infrom the patchmaker if an improvement is needed.

 

[aussie1st]

This is just for AI patches. I see no point in having judges for graphic downloads because its obvious what you are getting and the screenshots should be enough. If people want to write reviews that would be great but it isn't needed.

 

[das_vicky]

it is needed in others also . Take for example my ESPN ver 2.0. I though it was perfect but it crashed on many comps. Also the same with MegaPatch (though it is in top 5 downloads)

 

[aussie1st]

Members who downloaded those patches should tell you if there is a problem. All errors found in my patch was posted in my thread, and I know the errors with your patchers were also posted in your thread. This is more for members to do rather than a review panel. We have far too many graphic downloads for people to review.

 

[das_vicky]

ok then its subjective

 

[sid_19840]

I dont think that a panel is needed for graphics.In the dload center I feel that it is only the AI dpt. which causes confusion as all the features look so similar.With graphics you can always get a fair idea by looking at the pics and the description.

 

[aussie1st]

Anyway lets get back on topic. Are there any other rules that the reviewers should have to follow?

 

[The Spin]

We would have to have a rule to stop any patchers on the reviewing board from trying to get more downloads by just saying the other patches are terrible.

I also agree with the other rules

Date disclosure: An AI patcher has to disperse the official date of the review?s release to the review committee in advance, Because if you are making an AI patch , you should know when it'll be completed.

Duff, are you really in a position to say that. Remember Cricket Master...

 

[duffarama]

We would have to have a rule to stop any patchers on the reviewing board from trying to get more downloads by just saying the other patches are terrible.

Yeah, as mentioned previously - reviewers cannot be biased or unfair.

Duff, are you really in a position to say that. Remember Cricket Master...

Yes, but I'm sure I won't be one of the people reviewing patches. Or maybe I will be one?
Seriously, programming a cricket management game is much more time-consuming and difficult than writing a review. I'm always on time with my Youth Cluster podcast as you've noticed.

 

[The Spin]

No reviewing your own patch?

 

[duffarama]

No reviewing your own patch?

Yeah agreed on that point. Or else your patches would be getting a rating of 10 every time.

 

[The Spin]

In fact, just scrap that rule