Guild Wars 2

Check this awesome example out:

Proposal Overview
Ranger pets as options.

Goal of Proposal
Fix the Ranger class mechanic by giving options.

Proposal Functionality
Given the current class mechanic is a band-aided handicap, almost anything will be improvement and only serve to better enhance the Ranger’s playstyle. Perma-stow pet and replace with buff to ranger in straight stats so that Ranger is putting out 100% of the intended damage.

Associated Risks
None. Unless you consider countless people who main Rangers extremely happy they don’t have to deal with a pet.

Post Word Count (Discussion Posts):
No discussion needed. People who don’t want pets don’t have to use them and aren’t handicapped for it. People who want to use pets still get to use them. Win-win.

Total Post Word Count: 103

For the WvW EotM CDI I will make a list of the critically important things that are important to implement in the old wvw maps. 200 words may be a bit limiting as to what we can elaborate on. Explanations are of critical importance. 500 words would be a more realistic limit if there’s a limit, especially if we’re explaining why or the how to implement things. In general scientific abstracts are 200 words, and 500 words are about a page long.

Anyways, thanks for engaging in a discussion with us!

Hey, Chris, it was great you responded to my post, but I edited while you were posting, and (now this is a problem – someone you might be discussing something with won’t go back and see edits, so probably should not edit posts, but make new ones) I stated I was still confused because of your initial post in this thread.

Suggested Proposal Format:

Proposal Overview
<A short description of the proposal that is being put forward>

Goal of Proposal
<What problem are you trying to solve with your proposal>

Proposal Functionality
<How does your proposal work in regard in relation to the current design of GW2>

Associated Risks
<What risks or problems can you foresee with this proposal which you would like to have assistance on from other members of the CDI>

^Nothing about word limits on Proposal-posts.

Suggested Post Word Count (Discussion Posts):

150

^Here is where you suggest a limit.

Seems opposite to what we discussed in my previous post. Thus, I am a bit confused.

i will need to write a dissertation about what you guys have to do to fix rangers. i find the word limit insulting. not only do we do the work for you, but we cant even do it properly.

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

insanemaniac.2456:

are detailed, exact, comprehensive suggestions what the devs are looking to get out of the CDI? i cant imagine yall need us to tell you more than “xxxx sucks because of ____” with maybe some kind of general suggestion for direction.

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

I’ve counted the words of my suggestion regarding ranger shouts. It’s 643 words long. And that’s the suggestion alone! 200 words wont be enough. :’(

perhaps you need to cut back on detail. like dont propose any numbers. distill your ideas.

This is my suggestion I’m reffering to.
I don’t think I could cut something, atleast not that much to get below 200 words.

here:

shouts in general dont do enough.

- search and rescue has great functionality, but i often end up sacrificing my pet and utility cd to aoes without getting a rez
- guard and protect me are blatantly underpowered and need reworks
- sic em is situational, but using it as a preventative measure is weak and allowing it to be a countermeasure would give it a much nicer niche
- RaO and HaO have effects similar to what id expect from a shout, but they dont have a traitable classification

this is only 90 words. you have room to add more and youve explained how shouts are bad and a little of what youd like to see from a rework. making tons of suggestions for added functionality isnt necessary and clutters up your point.

What does CDI stand for? ______ Development Improvement?

insanemaniac.2456:

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

insanemaniac.2456:

are detailed, exact, comprehensive suggestions what the devs are looking to get out of the CDI? i cant imagine yall need us to tell you more than “xxxx sucks because of ____” with maybe some kind of general suggestion for direction.

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

I’ve counted the words of my suggestion regarding ranger shouts. It’s 643 words long. And that’s the suggestion alone! 200 words wont be enough. :’(

perhaps you need to cut back on detail. like dont propose any numbers. distill your ideas.

This is my suggestion I’m reffering to.
I don’t think I could cut something, atleast not that much to get below 200 words.

here:

shouts in general dont do enough.

- search and rescue has great functionality, but i often end up sacrificing my pet and utility cd to aoes without getting a rez
- guard and protect me are blatantly underpowered and need reworks
- sic em is situational, but using it as a preventative measure is weak and allowing it to be a countermeasure would give it a much nicer niche
- RaO and HaO have effects similar to what id expect from a shout, but they dont have a traitable classification

this is only 90 words. you have room to add more and youve explained how shouts are bad and a little of what youd like to see from a rework. making tons of suggestions for added functionality isnt necessary and clutters up your point.

Thanks for summing my thoughts up quite nicely.
I might use this for an outline but still consider to post my whole suggestion behind a spoiler.

Muramasa.6487:

What does CDI stand for? ______ Development Improvement?

Cooperative Development Initiative.

It would be nice if the initial post in the ranger CDI could sum up the thoughts the devs had when they designed the ranger so we can base our suggestions on those thoughts.
Personally I don’t want to change the overall classdesign but improve those bits who aren’t performing that well right now.
Anyhow, it would be extreme helpfull if you, the devs, could outline the efforts you are about to do to fix the pets. There are a lot of suggestions from simply removing the pet up to switching the control of the pet to the client side, which would be a lot of coding to be done.

I wonder if we’d benefit from some much more basic tips? Things like “please re-read your posts from the beginning before hitting ‘Post Reply’. The ‘Preview’ button can be very helpful for this.” Maybe I will have to get off my rump and put together that tutorial after all .

While I’ve laid out my reservations before, I am intrigued by the Associated Risks header. To sincerely play the part of devils advocate against your own creation is a very high level of play in my experience. Glad to see it put forward… but I’m not holding out a lot of hope it’ll be well-utilized. Would love to be wrong on that one.

P.S. 113 words to say the above .

Proposal Overview
Redesigning the Thief’s Gameplay

Goal of the Proposal
Increasing their Skill Variety/Tactical Options, improval of their role as Supportr/Control, making them less dependent from Stealth, making space for more useful Utility Skills, making them, what they should originally be – the fastest most mobile Class of GW2.

Proposal Functionality

• Move selectable Venoms to F2-4
• Change Shadow Steps into Shadow Walks functionally that let you move with increased speed (66%) and dodge hits meanwhile under Stability.
• Merge Traits/Utility Skills
• Let Thiefs steal up to 3 independant Items, 2 normally, 3 when traited. Remove the Shadow Step on Steal and add it back as a Trait Effect as Shadow Walk
• Raise the range of Heartseeker to 600
• Raise Shortbow Range back to 1200 and raise therefore Longbow Range to 1500.

Associated Risks
- Shadow Walks could be too OP as Solution for making Stealth lesser dependent

Word Count to this Point: 143
——

Hmm, I’m surprised that I got this so consice together

mistsim.2748:

i will need to write a dissertation about what you guys have to do to fix rangers. i find the word limit insulting. not only do we do the work for you, but we cant even do it properly.

The suggested word limit is on discussion posts, not proposals (which I think should try to stick to the one post/5,000 character limit). You seem to have fit your commentary within such a limit quite easily. I doubt you’ll have any serious problems in that regard .

Orpheal.8263:

• Raise Shortbow Range back to 1200 and raise therefore Longbow Range to 1500.

I wont say I’m against this, actually I’m not. But the ranger can trait his longbow to shot further, which has to be increased also. Would we end up having 1800 range minimum? Might be too much.

Orpheal.8263:

Proposal Overview
Redesigning the Thief’s Gameplay

Goal of the Proposal
Increasing their Skill Variety/Tactical Options, improval of their role as Supportr/Control, making them less dependent from Stealth, making space for more useful Utility Skills, making them, what they should originally be – the fastest most mobile Class of GW2.

Ok, while I like the basic info, I’d dump, shorten, or replace most of the generic Headers. You don’t need to open with ~

Proposal Overview
Redesigning the Thief’s Gameplay

…when you could cut to the chase with line 1 reading~

Increasing Thieves’ Skill Variety & Tactical Options

Its the first thing we see – make the title itself the overview. Made possible because your approach is tightly themed and leads itself to a nice, punchy summary like that .

Associated Risks
- Shadow Walks could be too OP as Solution for making Stealth lesser dependent

Reread that. I think you could be clearer. I feel there’s a good insight here. Work it through a little more.

Nike, it was just an example for myself to see, if I could follow that twitter like format system, because I’m very sceptical about it, if I find it not too much limitating and wanted to see it just for myself, how it looks, if I just try it with something, that I want to see getting optimized in regard of the Thief here, how it looks when I do it

I was just following only the Example Format that has been posted before me.

Surely I could have made it slighly more consise by putting some content of the proposal already into its headline, like what you did here with it

Increasing Thieves’ Skill Variety & Tactical Options

MesmeForever.3612:

I’m a little confused, but from what I gather, we’re…

1. Deciding on a format for
2. Concisely letting Anet know what changes we’d like to see implemented when we
3. Discuss Ranger balance tomorrow

…though Anet has not directly confirmed or denied #3 (which I understand, just being clear). Is that right?

Or is it this case that…

1. We’ve been deciding on a concise format so that
2. We will post CDI topics in the decided format in this thread in preparation for when
3. We discuss whichever ones Anet decides upon tomorrow, which Anet will reveal…when it’s ready? (sorry, I had to)

Just the 1. one in particular. Some examples how to use the format we discussing and some things we want to see in the CDI discussion from the dev side.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

This post outlines a suggestion for how CDI members could format their ‘Proposals’ in CDI topics. It also puts forward a suggestion for general discussion post word counts.

Suggested Proposal Format:

Proposal Overview
<A short description of the proposal that is being put forward>

Goal of Proposal
<What problem are you trying to solve with your proposal>

Proposal Functionality
<How does your proposal work in regard in relation to the current design of GW2>

Associated Risks
<What risks or problems can you foresee with this proposal which you would like to have assistance on from other members of the CDI>

Please try to be as concise as feasible with your proposal. This however no suggested word count for proposal posts.

---

Discussion Posts

No suggested format.

Suggested Post Word Count:

200

I wanted to post this first before putting up the new CDI topics to get a quick read on your thoughts.

Chris

Updated with your feedback. Thanks.

Chris

This is 100x better. Doesn’t limit suggestions and encourages them to be well thought out while limiting the Text Wall replies. This is how it should be done.
Thank you.

I’m excited to see how the discussions play out with these guidelines in place.

Chris, will they be somehow visible outside the opening post, without you needing to manually bump them every couple pages?

Here I was, trying to condense all my suggestions in an easy-to-read bullet point format, and now you want me to limit it even further with separate issues and the how-to’s? You think I want to spend 5 days worth of making posts of every individual suggestion with all the benefits, potential risk factors and why it should be so-and-so? Are you paying me?

Why should I bother with more restrictions when these CDI topics are all a farce anyway? You guys knew the Ranger has had severe issues since launch and now we are called upon to fix your game?

So I am just going to copy-paste my earlier post as I don’t have time to suddenly translate all my suggestions and follow a ‘format’ like it’s a board-meeting. My list is easy enough to understand and I don’t need to explain every single issue in a multi-stage format. Sorry to be blunt but this is your game, so please deal with it.

Gee, I think people are still confused about which posts have a (suggested) word limit, and which posts don’t.

Aveneo.2068:

Here I was, trying to condense all my suggestions in an easy-to-read bullet point format, and now you want me to limit it even further with separate issues and the how-to’s? You think I want to spend 5 days worth of making posts of every individual suggestion with all the benefits, potential risk factors and why it should be so-and-so? Are you paying me?

Why should I bother with more restrictions when these CDI topics are all a farce anyway? You guys knew the Ranger has had severe issues since launch and now we are called upon to fix your game?

So I am just going to copy-paste my earlier post as I don’t have time to suddenly translate all my suggestions and follow a ‘format’ like it’s a board-meeting. My list is easy enough to understand and I don’t need to explain every single issue in a multi-stage format. Sorry to be blunt but this is your game, so please deal with it.

Because the more restrictions they add and the more formatted every post looks the easier it is to sort them into categories and summarily dismiss those they don’t like. I’m sure they could get some underpaid temps and interns to do it though seeing as none fo the suggestions will ever go anywhere.

Whatever happened to that CDI about WvW coverage?
Why were these pushed back from Monday to Wednesday to Thursday(maybe Friday)
Why do we need to concentrate all the feedback into one easy thread for you when you have moderators that do that?
Does the search function not work? Can you not just put in “dredge fractal” and see the myriad bugs suggestions and proposals?

/rant

Sadly, the Search Function does not work. A Search Function that was operational would be a great QoL addition to the forums. Especially in the Dev Posts thread. =)

Aveneo.2068:

Here I was, trying to condense all my suggestions in an easy-to-read bullet point format, and now you want me to limit it even further with separate issues and the how-to’s? You think I want to spend 5 days worth of making posts of every individual suggestion with all the benefits, potential risk factors and why it should be so-and-so? Are you paying me?

Why should I bother with more restrictions when these CDI topics are all a farce anyway? You guys knew the Ranger has had severe issues since launch and now we are called upon to fix your game?

So I am just going to copy-paste my earlier post as I don’t have time to suddenly translate all my suggestions and follow a ‘format’ like it’s a board-meeting. My list is easy enough to understand and I don’t need to explain every single issue in a multi-stage format. Sorry to be blunt but this is your game, so please deal with it.

So you can’t separate out your ideas more?

Proposal Overview
Shorten the Dredge Fractal

Goal of Proposal
The Dredge Fractal is way too long with low reward to show for the time spent. Some groups spend upwards of an hour and a half on just that fractal alone.

Proposal Functionality
*Decrease console time needed in the cage room
*Reduce number of dredge at the door
*Remove final boss and let clown car be the final. (Make final boss a new Boss Level Fractal?)

Associated Risks
None that I can think of.

See, you can take a bullet list and split it into categories.

Companies tend to respond better to suggestions if you can prove to them that your suggestion will solve a problem but not create too many other problems. Or the problems would be a lesser evil.

One problem I forsee:

How do you want people to label which proposal they are responding to?

I have a feeling several people will likely have several different methods to solve several of the problems in the various topics.

How would I let readers know that I’m responding to A’s suggestion and not B’s?

Or responding to C’s discussion point on A’s suggestion?

Aveneo.2068:

Here I was, trying to condense all my suggestions in an easy-to-read bullet point format, and now you want me to limit it even further with separate issues and the how-to’s? You think I want to spend 5 days worth of making posts of every individual suggestion with all the benefits, potential risk factors and why it should be so-and-so? Are you paying me?

Why should I bother with more restrictions when these CDI topics are all a farce anyway? You guys knew the Ranger has had severe issues since launch and now we are called upon to fix your game?

So I am just going to copy-paste my earlier post as I don’t have time to suddenly translate all my suggestions and follow a ‘format’ like it’s a board-meeting. My list is easy enough to understand and I don’t need to explain every single issue in a multi-stage format. Sorry to be blunt but this is your game, so please deal with it.

I think this post exemplifies an important point that was raised in the last Evolution thread. Here we have a poster who has put thought into what they would like to see in regards to the topic at hand but is feeling a reluctance to post due to the constrictive format. If this is a how a poster who has put the work in feels, just imagine how intimidating it would be for someone who maybe isn’t that strong in written English or who just comes up with a great idea on the fly put hasn’t put it into any sort of format at all.

And, in all honesty, I’m sort of feeling the same way. I would like to put in my input on the coming topics but I don’t necessarily see them as fitting into the given format. This makes me even more concerned that ideas I do post are going to get short shrift because they aren’t created using the proposed template.

I do understand that having some sort of formatting or system makes it easier to parse what is being said. I also agree that shorter more concise posts are something I myself would love to see instead of the continuous run on 3 or 4 post long novels that tend to get written in the CDI threads. I just feel it may be dangerous to put in place such a strict format as anything other than something that is purely optional. As was brought up before, the more rigid the CDI becomes (or even just appears), the more the casual participant is going to be scared away from participating.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

---

Discussion Posts

No suggested format.

Suggested Post Word Count:

200

I wanted to post this first before putting up the new CDI topics to get a quick read on your thoughts.

Chris

I suggest that general discussion posts be encouraged to tag themselves. For example, <Ranger>
<PVE>
<Shortbow>

And so on. It will make it easy to browse through the thread looking for a specific subject.

StriderShinryu.6923:

And, in all honesty, I’m sort of feeling the same way. I would like to put in my input on the coming topics but I don’t necessarily see them as fitting into the given format. This makes me even more concerned that ideas I do post are going to get short shrift because they aren’t created using the proposed template.

This is already covered by the unformatted general discussion posts. Perhaps these should be emphasized a bit more so that people like yourself aren’t driven off before even finishing the OP.

Example: Have the following line (or one like it) be the first sentence in every CDI OP.

When suggesting a specific idea, please use the following format. Unformatted discussion posts are also encouraged.

List of format

Seera.5916:

One problem I forsee:

How do you want people to label which proposal they are responding to?

I have a feeling several people will likely have several different methods to solve several of the problems in the various topics.

How would I let readers know that I’m responding to A’s suggestion and not B’s?

Or responding to C’s discussion point on A’s suggestion?

perhaps with the quote button, like i just did

sorry, bit snarky, but i think youre reading too deep and diving into the shallow end…

StriderShinryu.6923:

I would like to put in my input on the coming topics but I don’t necessarily see them as fitting into the given format. This makes me even more concerned that ideas I do post are going to get short shrift because they aren’t created using the proposed template.

Now you’re making me feel evil… radical, even… since I’m not planning to follow this format verbatim for anything I propose in the upcoming CDIs.

It says “suggested”. Twice. I’m not going to ignore it. There’s elements that they want to see like a summary up front and some self-examination of downsides. There’s an emphasis on core techniques like brevity and clarity. But, I don’t envision human readers – Host-Dev or Players – fired with enthusiasm at the prospect of the sheer monotony of reading 177 copies of “Form A” either. I choose to believe it is there to provide a baseline. That its a floor, not a ceiling.

Maybe I’ll get ignored and build up some bile for the CDI process like others have been clutching tight for months. Believe me, I have a few rude comments about how the Commander Tag thread went, but I’m willing to allow that each outing is a separate attempt, by different people, and a rung on an overall ladder, not a microcosm of the entire process forever and ever. We’ll see. I’m willing to build a couple of “off-beat” proposal posts to find out.

Wish me luck .

I can understand that the devs feel the need for a better overview so that they don’t need so much time going through all the post, but honestly I feel discouraged now… Of course the thread says “suggested” format… but it still gives me the feeling that it should be done and I am not sure I can bother with this anymore since I just don’t have time to press everything into such a format… I was discouraged before, since I felt most of the posts got ignored anyway and the discussion was always only between a few members, but now making a format, saying discussions should be kept under 200 words etc, is making me feel even more outside of this than before… good luck with your CDI.. if I can somehow manage perhaps I’ll add something if not, it’s not like it would really matter.

I want you all to read the OP’s post closely. It says you can make your suggesting as long as you want as long as it is concise and precise as possible. The discussionposts however should be limited.

I pretty much like the suggested format. However, keep in mind that it’s impossible to have the same format.
For instance, this format is very good and very efficient to talk about class balance.
However, if you look at other CDIs, for instance, fractals, it’s pretty much impossible to use that structure, since you already have to make categories for each aspect of fractals, and sub categories for each map so if you split even more between problem and resolution …. I mean it’s really impossible to do that for fractals CDI ….
Is it a format you MUST absolutely follow otherwise you won’t be read ? Or is it an adviced format to follow when possible ?

Proposal Overview
Fractals future and past

Goal of the Proposal
Having a healthy discussion with the Players and veterans of Fractals about:
- Fractal Reset? (Past)
- Fractal future / plans to make it a fair challenge when leaderboards are comming.
- Design of AR what is playerbase thinking about the current design / Should Content not be available for the most skilled Player because they don’t have enough gear.

Proposal Functionality
•Give us some insight on the thoughts of reseting the Progress of many Players without having a compensation for the time spent
•What plans you have to make fractal leaderboards and fractals all in all high end Content that is worth playing it and a place for skillfull gaming?
•Getting some ideas together how to improve the current design of geargated instead of skillgated fractals because of the AR desgin
•work out some sort of compensation or title that can be awarded to the Players that put in loads of effort in this high end pve section.
• Accountbound rewards that aren’t RNG. For example Traders that have items for pristine relics or Money that you unluck every 10 Levels completed with Special rewards that you can only get if your at Level 81 for example…

Associated Risks
– Loads of flaming if not communicated clearly , especially the Point about fractals reset

I really hope I’ll get my answer about the reset and can start playing fractals again without the fear of having deleted my time invested in a part of the game that gives already way less rewards than farming blindlessly skilless dungeons.

Do you want every proposal to begin with a Dot? people like dot’s..

But i like the format, maybe post a suggested
idea that seems interesting under your Tag if you want a discussion about the subject to have more then 100 views and replies. And maybe have a disclaimer that anything off topic gets deleted to keep it clean.

because usually the topic gets buried under “The bigger E-ween” discussion.

I’ve had a post all written out with everything I would like to say on Monday. Do I have to use the said proposal? I mean it’s not much of a proposal, but everything I think should get looked into. I’ve put quite some work into writing it =/

I want to go on record and say that I suggested limiting word counts or having some sort of formal structure during the first CDI overview discussion(after the talk about living story)…Many folks shot me down saying that it was a dumb idea, that they cannot put their thoughts into a structured format or that they should not be limited to word count.

I still think we should be limited to word count. If you say that you will not enforce a wordcount, people will continue to post pages and pages of ideas making it insanely difficult for YOU to keep up with (as well as the rest of us). And if there were a word count restriction, there should also be a restriction on the number of subsequent posts…so that Player A reaches limit in post # 1..he posts, and continues with post #2 until he reaches wordcount, etc.

You guys (the players) really can be concise. Its not difficult. In the corporate world it pays to be concise. No one reads what you wrote if it is pages long.

Chris,

There are those of us (myself especially) who’s ideas on a subject tend to get very fleshed out in their description. And being restricted to 200 words presents a personal challenge.

Just to quantify. 200 words at an average of say 5 characters per word would make about 1000 characters per post. As I recall the limit on the forum for characters is ~5000. So posts maximum limit would only be about 1/5 the size of a standard forum limit.

Suggestion: Put a word counter along side of the text box so we can see how much space we have left to type, to close out our presentations.

Yalora Istairiea.6287:

Chris,

There are those of us (myself especially) who’s ideas on a subject tend to get very fleshed out in their description. And being restricted to 200 words presents a personal challenge.

Just to quantify. 200 words at an average of say 5 characters per word would make about 1000 characters per post. As I recall the limit on the forum for characters is ~5000. So posts maximum limit would only be about 1/5 the size of a standard forum limit.

Suggestion: Put a word counter along side of the text box so we can see how much space we have left to type, to close out our presentations.

Suggestion: type up your suggestion in a word processing tool that can give you a word count.

Bonus: apparently many forum posters don’t have spellcheck in their browser, (not pointing fingers,) so this could help on the spelling/grammar as well.

…snip

Suggestion: type up your suggestion in a word processing tool that can give you a word count.

Bonus: apparently many forum posters don’t have spellcheck in their browser, (not pointing fingers,) so this could help on the spelling/grammar as well.

Ah yes but word processing tools tend to change the formatting once you copy and paste into your forum text box.

Oh well it was just a thought, ignore it as you see fit

Yalora Istairiea.6287:

…snip

Suggestion: type up your suggestion in a word processing tool that can give you a word count.

Bonus: apparently many forum posters don’t have spellcheck in their browser, (not pointing fingers,) so this could help on the spelling/grammar as well.

Ah yes but word processing tools tend to change the formatting once you copy and paste into your forum text box.

Oh well it was just a thought, ignore it as you see fit

I’m not sure about all browsers, but in Chrome there’s a Paste as Plain Text option which helps sometimes.

I like Nike’s idea about a title/headline.
Having a title/headline on each proposal will make it alot easier to identify which replies belong to which proposals.

Each discussion post could start with something like:

=
Regarding [proposal] by [user]:

=
Think this will make it easier to follow each discussion.