Guild Wars 2

I just have to say it:

TL;DR… Have people gone bat-droppings CRAZY?

What are they teaching in schools now that after you go to the trouble of boiling your entire screed down to a couple of one-line statements that encompass your complete thought in stand-alone easy-reading form… you then BURY IT at the absolute back end of your post?

If you can deliver your core thought in a couple of one-liners *&(#$^!@ LEAD WITH THAT. Make those points when people are still extending you the courtesy of their polite attention rather than assuming their eyes glazed over and hoping you can pick them up at the end when they are more likely to have gotten up and fixed themselves a sandwich than they are to be still scrolling down past a wall of blather.

Rant over.

1) No limits please, it’s one thing that really get on my nerves on other forums where I reach a limit but still have a lot to add.
That and people will just make a second post after the limit for the first is reached.
How about an option to add optional bullet points to the end of posts

2) Seems to me Anet already decide what topics go forward and which ones to kill. The WvW topic recently closed by Josh for instance, yes it has passed on a lot of info to Josh and can be closed, but there are so many other threads mods close because their contents reflects too negatively on the game.
Second, Josh mentions he also closed that post as that is what the CDI threads are for. So when are we going to have one for WvW only? Or has there already been one? Point there is that WvW players most likely do not check the General Discussions sections so any such CDI could go mostly unnoticed by many WvW players.

Concise and frank: You guys really should decide soon and with authority how you are going to roll out new permanent content. Be it an expansion that we buy or rolling out new permanent zones every few weeks, I really feel like we are overdue for permanent PvE zones, a breadth of new skills, races, outposts and stories. You know: Like an expansion.

(1)

If you can deliver your core thought in a couple of one-liners *&(#$^!@ LEAD WITH THAT.

This, but further: If you can make your point in just a few sentences, that’s all you need. If the rest is optional, make the choice and cut it out.

It works well when Chris asks for posts in a specific format. People generally fall in line. Also, we need to keep the thread community caught up and focused.

I suggest replacing the CDI thread whenever focus is changed by the dev.

For example, if Chris thinks we’ve covered the current base and wants to narrow discussion down to such-and-such, the old CDI X Phase Y thread would be closed and temporarily stickied. He would then create CDI X Phase Z. His opening post would summarize the current direction of discussion, then set goals and a desired post format for the new phase.

(2)
I like back-and-forth in topic selection. The final topic should have the approval of both sides.

Nike.2631:

If you can deliver your core thought in a couple of one-liners *&(#$^!@ LEAD WITH THAT.

This exactly. To me it’s all about visibility.
If people really want to be able to include their walls of text because they feel they need it to explain their ideas properly, please make some sort of mandatory format with:

1. Headline
2. Short concise description – the user story “As X I want Y” could be included here
3. Long version

The short version serves its purpose best at the top along with a title to catch your attention.
If the poster has more than one point to his/her suggestion, each point could be given a number and there could be a corresponding numbered short description in the start.

Also, one suggestion per post would be nice.

Nike.2631:

I just have to say it:

TL;DR… Have people gone bat-droppings CRAZY?

What are they teaching in schools now that after you go to the trouble of boiling your entire screed down to a couple of one-line statements that encompass your complete thought in stand-alone easy-reading form… you then BURY IT at the absolute back end of your post?

If you can deliver your core thought in a couple of one-liners *&(#$^!@ LEAD WITH THAT. Make those points when people are still extending you the courtesy of their polite attention rather than assuming their eyes glazed over and hoping you can pick them up at the end when they are more likely to have gotten up and fixed themselves a sandwich than they are to be still scrolling down past a wall of blather.

Rant over.

Sorry that not all of us have multiple hours to read every post in a single thread where every post is an essay.

This has been a major issue for me. I tried to follow previous CDI threads. But I couldnt keep up or stomach the amount of walls of texts individual regular posters were contributing. Its not necessarily a bad thing but when certain individuals basically take control of the thread and drive off other people who cant keep up, the ideas begin to focus around what the regulars want and not what the majority wants.

The horizontal CDI thread is a perfect example of this. I saw some really cool and awesome ideas that a lot of people mentioned early on. They mentioned them in concise clear posts. When the thread started to focus, people started to post huge walls of texts about player housing and so on which completely overwhelmed the concise ideas. Im not sure what the actual numbers are but Im guessing most players would rather more meaningful content than something trivial like player housing (a matter of opinion obviously). Unfortunately those opinions arent able to speak loud enough to make themselves heard over the essay writers. I certainly dont have the time or drive to contribute that much. But does that mean my contribution are less valid? Ofcourse not, but thats how it tends to get filtered.

A simple solution would be to use less broad subjects in the future. And final choice of the subjects discussed should be given in a simple poll with possible choices selected by anet. Preferably accessible in game if possible. This way we can contribute to the area we are passionate about and avoid conflicting directions.

May I suggest to have patch notes that are directly impacted from our CDI discussions flagged as such when posted?

Example:
-Reduced the number of achievements required for the meta achievement in half. — Living Story CDI

This way, we have tangible evidence that our discussions are being applied in practice and, do not take this the wrong way, we do not simply hear developers say “it has been enormously helpful”. Im one of those people that needs to see it to believe it…so having some sort of flag or notification that tells me that a change in a patch has been directly influenced by our discussions here. I’d like to believe this is something that everyone can get behind.

1) I think the user stories idea is great. I’d suggest that, when players describe themselves, they also describe their experience/inclination, eg. a beginner PvP player, an experienced PvE player, a player who’s a rabid explorer. It gives us more information and lets us ensure we’re getting a full spectrum of experiences. I’d hope that people will, on the whole, be mature enough not to discount people’s opinions just because they self-identify as inexperienced in a particular game mode.

I think other software design practices might be helpful, as well. I would love to get some personas involved – they’re detailed descriptions of a character that represents a player type the designers are trying to design for. If you follow Magic the Gathering at all, you might have heard of Timmy, Johnny and Spike, the Magic the Gathering personas. It’s much easier to imagine how ‘Alicia’ will feel about an idea than ‘WvW players’. If ArenaNet have personas internally, it’d be great if we could have access to them.

2) I’m happy for ArenaNet to suggest topics they’d like to talk about, and I think this initiative will have the most credibility when ArenaNet are comfortable with taking problems they’re kicking around internally and getting the CDI to assist with the initial brainstorming. Still, I think there are lots of issues that I think players want to get off their chest still, so maybe it’d be best if we do another round of voting. I can imagine a call for votes giving a few suggestions that ArenaNet think would be valuable, and then saying ‘or your choice!’ so that if there’s still something burning players up then they’ll suggest that.

I see “TL;DR” as this:

TL;DR:
This is what I want.

Long version:
This is what I want and why I want it.

A TL;DR doesn’t really replace a long version that explains things in detail.
It’s just a short summary without much detail at all.
You can catch the reader’s attention and make them interested in reading the long version that explains what it’s all about.
But yes, it should absolutely be on top, not on bottom.

Hi Chris,

In answer to your questions, I feel as follows:

1, There is nothing wrong with people writing a large detailed description of their idea, if it helps them to get their point across. However, no one should have to read through an entire design document. So as a way to keep this available and accessible, I would suggest the following:

Put a Bold Title to your Post (very briefly describing your idea)

Summary

• Provide (in as brief a form as possible)
• A list (to make it easier to read)
• To summarize your idea (showing the main features of your idea)

Describe Your Idea in More Detail
Try to be concise and to the point. Walls of text are ok, so long as they are skimmable and easy to read. When I say skimmable, I mean they have highlighted sentences to make it easy to find sections of your description.

Maybe include titled paragraphs
To break up your idea into easier to read chunks.

2, I personally think a combination of the two would be more beneficial to both parties. If Anet can provide a list of important, current and/or common topics to talk about, the community can then vote on which they feel needs addressing first. We can always add a footnote if we wish to bring other topics to the table.

Headline

Short summary (a.k.a. TL;DR)
This is an example of what a structured post could look like.
It is easy to navigate and you can see what the person is arguing about directly without reading it.
The post is visually short and easy to look at and easy to skip looking at.
Then if you’re interested you can expand it and look at what the person is talking about.

You can also combine it with Malchior’s type of writing so that here in the short summary you can write that:
As a <role>, I want <goal/desire> so that <benefit>
And then expand on it in the spoiler tags.

Mikuchan.7261:

Headline

Short summary (a.k.a. TL;DR)
This is an example of what a structured post could look like.
It is easy to navigate and you can see what the person is arguing about directly without reading it.
The post is visually short and easy to look at and easy to skip looking at.
Then if you’re interested you can expand it and look at what the person is talking about.

You can also combine it with Malchior’s type of writing so that here in the short summary you can write that:
As a <role>, I want <goal/desire> so that <benefit>
And then expand on it in the spoiler tags.

Topic 1 headline (click to expand)

hide spoiler

And you write about the first topic here.

Topic 2 headline (click to expand)

hide spoiler

And the second topic goes here.

Etc (click to expand)

hide spoiler

And so on.

I think this is perfect. Would be much easier to read through.

I like the idea of having a Forum Template to condense posters ideas into a more specified path without restricting the creativeness of the poster and reducing the overall clutter and length of the thread.

Example of Forum Template:(only about 2" of page space)

Title: This would be a pre-made textbox of 60 characters containing the topic of the post.

Summary: Another textbox of 180 characters giving a Three line tl;dr synopsis for readers to breeze over and decide if they want to delve further into the bulk of the details to follow.

Details:

Now I know that this method would make that Summary line of the utmost importance to get readers hooked on opening your Detail spoiler. Yes a few brilliant ideas will get lost due to poor choice of their tl;dr line but for the sake of all involved, I think the return on investment would be greater.

As a final note:
Off topic posts: Even though I am generally adverse to censorship, I think that if the ANet Hoster of the thread is very specific on the rules of the CDI, stating Any off topic discussion will be removed from the thread, then I would condone it in this specific case. You have been warned, if you post off topic…your post gets deleted.
<Edited for spelling and formatting>

Please increase camera distance and give us an FOV slider. There are enough posts about with thumbs up that I’m surprised it has not been addressed further. The first FOV increase was a good step but did not completely resolve the issues.

Also, the camera needs to have a no clip feature so that it doesn’t spas out when hitting the tiniest of objects. This is insanely frustrating especially for jumping puzzles.

Mikuchan.7261:

Headline

Short summary (a.k.a. TL;DR)
This is an example of what a structured post could look like.
It is easy to navigate and you can see what the person is arguing about directly without reading it.
The post is visually short and easy to look at and easy to skip looking at.
Then if you’re interested you can expand it and look at what the person is talking about.

You can also combine it with Malchior’s type of writing so that here in the short summary you can write that:
As a <role>, I want <goal/desire> so that <benefit>
And then expand on it in the spoiler tags.

Topic 1 headline (click to expand)

hide spoiler

And you write about the first topic here.

Topic 2 headline (click to expand)

hide spoiler

And the second topic goes here.

Etc (click to expand)

hide spoiler

And so on.

This is perfect. Would be awesome if we could get everyone to use such a template.

The subforum idea is nice but it doesn’t solve the “i didn’t read previous <ascendant material required> number of posts”. Also a “free for all” forum CDI section would just generate more of this threads and definitely cause more fragmentation and chaos.

As the subforum idea goes, and i like it, i suspect it would need to be like one of the “News and Info” forum section. Anet make a CDI subforum, the currently CDI thread get open and sticked, no user can open new ones, as interesting topics come up on the main thread Chris open a new thread regard that. This is the only way i can think to have a productive subforum.

Bobocell.1738:

The subforum idea is nice but it doesn’t solve the “i didn’t read previous <ascendant material required> number of posts”. Also a “free for all” forum CDI section would just generate more of this threads and definitely cause more fragmentation and chaos.

As the subforum idea goes, and i like it, i suspect it would need to be like one of the “News and Info” forum section. Anet make a CDI subforum, the currently CDI thread get open and sticked, no user can open new ones, as interesting topics come up on the main thread Chris open a new thread regard that. This is the only way i can think to have a productive subforum.

I agree with your points.

Sirius.4510:

I still maintain (from last time this thread was held ) that part of what gets in the way with the CDI is the forum format itself. It’s a completely flat structure within a thread, which means that zeroing in on discussions that I might have something to say on proves a little bit difficult. Multiple threads would fix that at the cost of not being very organic – if the topic starts to diverge, you then have to have a moderator split the thread to retain that kind of structure.

The format used by Reddit conversations seems far more suited to this kind of thing. I don’t know if forum feature additions for the sake of the CDI are realistic, but if it is within ArenaNet’s abilities, it should definitely be considered.

Until then, we can still attempt to mitigate the issue with those “TL;DR” blocks. I don’t advocate a post length limit because it isn’t going to be easy for everyone to deal with (and while editing your work to shorten it is a valuable skill for published work, it just slows things down for this). But trying to use a “summary” followed by “detailed explanation and examples” structure at least means that people can read a small block of a post to quickly gauge its topic before committing to read it or more on to the next. That way I don’t have to participate every day (or do a big chunk of heavy reading) to know whether something I am thinking has already been said.

I have to agree with Sirius’ observation. A forum just makes it very difficult to follow individual trains of thought without neglecting others.

A reddit allows for discussion of a grand overview, while tracking individual trains, but it’s too open to misinterpretation and griefing through the Karma system.

Perhaps not immediately, but in the future, I feel Arenanet should create their own Discussion Board, Meeting Space, Confluence, or something using open-source software, so players can discuss with the developers freely.

Since Chris seems to schedule CDI interaction into his weekly schedule as it is, perhaps an allotted time of 30-45 min of work hours for each involved CDI dev to discuss with players on this new Discussion Board could allow for ideas to flow more freely, without being stifled by the restrictions of forum design.

Well this thread fell apart quickly. 3 Pages in and personal attacks everywhere. I don’t think there is any hope for CDI’s at this rate if we can’t even do this one right.

Aeonblade.8709:

Well this thread fell apart quickly. 3 Pages in and personal attacks everywhere. I don’t think there is any hope for CDI’s at this rate if we can’t even do this one right.

I’m not really sure where you see a personal attack.

Anyway:
I like the ideas brought forward for the format of the posts.

I don’t think there’s been any personal attacks just discussion of ideas,

On the one line summaries ,while they would be nice I think people may need more than that to describe what they want in a manner that sounds reasonable to others. otherwise ideas surmised poorly but otherwise sound may be neglected.

Mikuchan.7261:

Headline

Short summary (a.k.a. TL;DR)
This is an example of what a structured post could look like.
It is easy to navigate and you can see what the person is arguing about directly without reading it.
The post is visually short and easy to look at and easy to skip looking at.
Then if you’re interested you can expand it and look at what the person is talking about.

You can also combine it with Malchior’s type of writing so that here in the short summary you can write that:
As a <role>, I want <goal/desire> so that <benefit>
And then expand on it in the spoiler tags.

Topic 1 headline (click to expand)

hide spoiler

And you write about the first topic here.

Topic 2 headline (click to expand)

hide spoiler

And the second topic goes here.

Etc (click to expand)

hide spoiler

And so on.

I also think this is perfect. IF we we are to make a size limit I believe it should only be to restrict the size of the summary. People do need to elaborate at times to convey their message and they shouldnt be restricted from doing that in my opinion but obviously I can understand that size of these posts is become epic bordering on legendary. I feel this is a good compromise.

Aeonblade.8709:

Well this thread fell apart quickly. 3 Pages in and personal attacks everywhere. I don’t think there is any hope for CDI’s at this rate if we can’t even do this one right.

I didnt see personal attacks either but if there they shouldnt be allowed for sure and not just during the CDI.

That being said lets make a distinction between personal attacks and respectful disagreements. There were some instances when someone put forward a suggestion and others replied to discuss why they thought that wouldnt be a good idea. As long as its respectful and just focusing on the idea itself I think thats okey, well actually more then okey actually quite healthy and needed.

Nike.2631:

I just have to say it:

TL;DR… Have people gone bat-droppings CRAZY?

What are they teaching in schools now that after you go to the trouble of boiling your entire screed down to a couple of one-line statements that encompass your complete thought in stand-alone easy-reading form… you then BURY IT at the absolute back end of your post?

If you can deliver your core thought in a couple of one-liners *&(#$^!@ LEAD WITH THAT. Make those points when people are still extending you the courtesy of their polite attention rather than assuming their eyes glazed over and hoping you can pick them up at the end when they are more likely to have gotten up and fixed themselves a sandwich than they are to be still scrolling down past a wall of blather.

Rant over.

True. Usually a summary goes at the start, however with forums I think the TL;DR works at the top or the bottom of a post because you have to scroll past the entire post anyway to get to the next one.
However, the disparity between where people put a TL;DR does break away from any form of format that this thread is trying to nail down.

If we go with a set format for posting in a CDI thread, it needs to be clearly stated with each post (with perhaps a link to an example), and the moderators need to enforce the format heavily.

Overall the format I’d like to see would be unrestricted length, but two part:
1st – A small paragraph summary (“small” because some grammar troll will write a four page paragraph just to spite the rules.). This part is required, posts without it would be removed by moderator.
2nd – The main body describing in detail what the individual is trying to convey, but at the same time this part is not required to be present

Both parts of the format are vital to keeping things flowing. The folks who truly do not have time to read everything in depth can get a quick view of what others are thinking, and have the ability to add their own thoughts without having to add the 2nd part. It also provides a quick review for any devs that might read through.

I’d also suggest that to provide visual accuity, the first part, the summary, should be bolded.

1. Thread length has to be kept to a manageable length but you still need room to express your view. It’s a tricky balance.

2. Anet should list topics they’re willing to discuss and then let players vote on those specific topics. Alternately, let players suggest a range of topics, let Anet pick the ones of those they’re willing to discuss and then have the vote.

Vayne.8563:

1. Thread length has to be kept to a manageable length but you still need room to express your view. It’s a tricky balance.

2. Anet should list topics they’re willing to discuss and then let players vote on those specific topics. Alternately, let players suggest a range of topics, let Anet pick the ones of those they’re willing to discuss and then have the vote.

1. If you take a look at my post above you will see that it allows you to write your little heart out and it only takes up about 2" of post space
2. I agree that ANet should pick the topics from the plethora of topic suggestions which the community has already presented in previous postings. They must have a huge list compiled by now.
   I’m not sure how I feel about player voting. I see some issues there but will need to ponder some more on that issue.

Let’s see if I can get this new format down:

As a player genuinely interested in providing collaboration where it is most relevant and needed I would like A-Net to choose the topics for the CDI which will allow the developers to focus discussion where they feel it is most beneficial to them right now.

Players are always able to start a thread on any topic, and developers do visit those threads and take ideas from them but, for now at least, the CDI is the only thread where the devs choose the topic and ask us, as players, to provide input, ideas and to brainstorm solutions.

The story method seems a very viable solution to keeping ideas clear, concise and easy to read.

1) Yes. Allow one to three sentences at most. Keep the topic narrow and pose a clear, yes / no question for players to respond to in each OP, with brief supporting reasons.

2) In-game polls please.

Gulesave.5073:

(1)

If you can deliver your core thought in a couple of one-liners *&(#$^!@ LEAD WITH THAT.

This, but further: If you can make your point in just a few sentences, that’s all you need. If the rest is optional, make the choice and cut it out.

It works well when Chris asks for posts in a specific format. People generally fall in line. Also, we need to keep the thread community caught up and focused.

I suggest replacing the CDI thread whenever focus is changed by the dev.

For example, if Chris thinks we’ve covered the current base and wants to narrow discussion down to such-and-such, the old CDI X Phase Y thread would be closed and temporarily stickied. He would then create CDI X Phase Z. His opening post would summarize the current direction of discussion, then set goals and a desired post format for the new phase.

(2)
I like back-and-forth in topic selection. The final topic should have the approval of both sides.

The major problem that I see with this is that not everyone has the ability to visit the forums everyday. Consequently, a reader may have something very viable, creative or insightful to add, but find the thread already closed and the discussion gone in another direction.

Closing threads is bad. Threaded discussion is good and, while it is beyond the current ability of these forums, it is something that should be strongly considered.

1. World length limitation can help to keep posts focused and sort out those anecdotes and polemics (even if they’r funny to read sometimes).
But if there is no total posting limit in a CDI thread, one will simply post again I assume.

2. There should be a topics compilation of all main GW2 features which should each have a subdivision listing more specific aspects of a feature.
e.g.:
x/y progression
- armor
>crafting
>stats
>upgrades
- rewards
>DE rewards
>dungeon rewards
>fractal rewards
- skills
>aquisition
>balancing
>build access/changing
>elite skills
gameplay
>dungeons
>living story
>personal story
black lion tading post
>filter
>gems
>sellables/soulbound/account bound

Well something like this, this just a quick suggestion
This compilation should come from Anet for obvious reasons I’d say.
Each forum user has two votes, one “main vote” and a “secondary/specific vote” and can choose a main topic and optionally also a specific topic (which can be under a different topic as the main vote).
This could help indicating hot spots if present and general tendencies.

Further, CDI should get its own section where all discussions go in and with a sticky where one post gives a summary for a concluded discussion with a link to the discussion thread.
This would greatly improve accessibility and reinforce the impression that this CDI is an effective rather than a smoke screen attempt, which “a discussion on how we would like to discuss” could be perceived of.

I think that there’s room for both short, cincise posts and longer, essay style.

The key would be that the rules for posting would have to be set out at the beginning of the thread.

Example
Developer: I want to start to discuss (X). Posts should be as follows:
a. rule 1
b. rule 2
c. etc.

That way anyone who doesn’t follow the “suggested” format can be safely moderated.

Vayne.8563:

2. Anet should list topics they’re willing to discuss and then let players vote on those specific topics. Alternately, let players suggest a range of topics, let Anet pick the ones of those they’re willing to discuss and then have the vote.

I disagree with this. While Arenanet has final say in what gets changed in the game, if they are going to allow the players to influence things, they need to accept that the players may in fact be concerned about something that the devs might wish to brush under the rug. Allowing Arenanet complete control over what topics are discussed in regards to the future of the game would turn the CDI stuff into nothing more than a choreographed dance in which the lines were pre-written and the end determined. This isn’t aimed at issues like mounts and all that, but at giving the players the ability to say “hey, we really would like more emotes/animations” and for the devs to face the reality that maybe they need to dedicate more time to that specific problem*.

*not to say that the devs have extra time or don’t care, but if Arenanet is serious, they should allow for some resource shifting based on what the players are interested in

Lilith Ajit.6173:

Nike.2631:

Rant over.

Sorry that not all of us have multiple hours to read every post in a single thread where every post is an essay.

I’m sorry if you thought my momentary rant was anything other than expressing the desire for posts to be concise, easily absorbed, and better serve people who have limited time to view or contribute.

Yes, I for example have set aside a lot of time to provide volunteer assistance in these threads. While I throw ideas out, I also spend hours in dialogue with fellow posters, either encouraging them or trying to provide constructive criticism that challenges them to make their offering better. I am not alone in this, and I’m glad to see others trying to talk with their peers. I want the process to be inclusive. I don’t go around stomping on people’s faces trying to drive them away so that I can lord it over the CDI process.

One thing that concerns me is the threads have consistently grown so long that they scare people off. I hope we can get a change in process/format that helps make the CDIs less scary to people. Its going to take improvement along a couple of fronts and while the structural changes are in Host-Dev’s hands, we can also do a better job of making reading those pages and pages of posts a more entertaining, rewarding, and brief undertaking.

The Host-Dev is reading the entire thread. Any player who does that too is automatically going to have a leg up on being in tune with the Host Dev and an edge in writing posts that resonate for them. That is unavoidable. So lets make that barrier to entry as small as we can .

First, I really like Malchior’s User Story idea.

Secondly, to answer you question Chris, I think that the CDI could continue in the same manner they have been. However, I think there needs to be one major change: posts that don’t pertain to the actual topic of the moment need to be moved.

For example, in our last thread, there was a point where you specifically asked us to brainstorm about Sub-Classes. Instead on posts brainstorming on that subject, we ended up with massive walls of texts about Fractals or condemning the idea of sub-classes entirely.

Neither type of post was bad per se, but they each completely took away from the topic at hand, preventing us from having the best discussion possible, about the topic. Those posts should have been moved elsewhere, in order to keep the thread focused.

Nike.2631:

Lilith Ajit.6173:

Nike.2631:

Rant over.

Sorry that not all of us have multiple hours to read every post in a single thread where every post is an essay.

I’m sorry if you thought my momentary rant was anything other than expressing the desire for posts to be concise, easily absorbed, and better serve people who have limited time to view or contribute.

Yes, I for example have set aside a lot of time to provide volunteer assistance in these threads. While I throw ideas out, I also spend hours in dialogue with fellow posters, either encouraging them or trying to provide constructive criticism that challenges them to make their offering better. I am not alone in this, and I’m glad to see others trying to talk with their peers. I want the process to be inclusive. I don’t go around stomping on people’s faces trying to drive them away so that I can lord it over the CDI process.

One thing that concerns me is the threads have consistently grown so long that they scare people off. I hope we can get a change in process/format that helps make the CDIs less scary to people. Its going to take improvement along a couple of fronts and while the structural changes are in Host-Dev’s hands, we can also do a better job of making reading those pages and pages of posts a more entertaining, rewarding, and brief undertaking.

The Host-Dev is reading the entire thread. Any player who does that too is automatically going to have a leg up on being in tune with the Host Dev and an edge in writing posts that resonate for them. That is unavoidable. So lets make that barrier to entry as small as we can .

I agree, for the most part. I guess my largest issue is that when the thread starts, I’m totally on top of it. But then I go to bed, and it’s already unmanageable for me. I can only imagine Chris’s after break reading.

This is why I think the idea of having a specific format (with spoilers and tl;dr summaries) are important for the average reader. I’m a very avid forumer. And even I can’t keep up with it. I can only imagine a new person to the CDI must feel.

Are we over complicating this a lot? surely it will put many contributions off if we start going into templates etc

Chris Whiteside.6102:

I like the idea of the following:

- Include a topic primer (The CDI thread owner will do this)
- Create a template for proposal ideas starting with a ‘User Story’ and then formatted in a similar way to Nike and other’s suggestions I will create this)
- No word limit as the hope is that the new format will help with more concise communication.

I think we need to continue to discuss:

- CDI having its own section in the forum.
- Tech improvements for the CDI forum.
- How we decide the subject of topics ( I am leaning toward the DEVs picking the next round and seeing how that goes)

Question:

- Should we run the WvW, PVP and PVE concurrently or one at a time for the next round of CDI topics?

Chris

I think it would be accessible for the CDI to have a forum either in the news/game release, etc, and keeping it so that only devs can create threads. The CDI forum should also have active moderation for the un constructive posts and the ones that do not follow the desired format.

I would love to have the CDIs run concurrently. It would be disappointing for me to not be able to participate in any, as I don’t wvw or pvp. But that’s my own selfish thought.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Randulf.7614:

Are we over complicating this a lot? surely it will put many contributions off if we start going into templates etc

Personally I think a template will make it easier for collaborators.

Chris

Just remember, a lot of people come home from work and want to make fresh contributions by just banging off a few constructive ideas and haven’t the thought process or energy to edit to a template. I think the CDI has worked rather well in this way so far.

I like the idea of a template and having a spesific CDI forum. My suggestion would be to stick it in the Game section just above where General Discussion is, so max amount of people can easily see it. As for the threads in PvE, PvP, and WvW- it would be great if it is possible to run them concurrently. If not, so be it. sorry for format, posting from my dumb phone

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Question:

- Should we run the WvW, PVP and PVE concurrently or one at a time for the next round of CDI topics?

Chris

I’d only run them concurrently if one developer from each discipline can be available for some amount of time during his/her work day. The unequal contribution between yourself, Chris, and say the WvW team during the Commander Tag CDI made WvW players feel like they were being ignored, or at the least, being shafted.

Granted, I’m well aware that WvW team was 100% involved in developing EotM at the time. I was there in the Public Test and saw how much got accomplished between releases.

If Arenanet has the resources to designate one Host-Dev (to use one of Nike’s terms) per CDI thread, then I’d be comfortable with each thread running concurrently. Otherwise, let’s just keep it to one at a time.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

4: Post writers should aim to be concise and to the point using examples where necessary. (We need to improve here)

1: We need to keep thread and post sizes more manageable. Should we put a limit on the word length of posts?

Forum design is an issue and its obvious that many people struggle to properly convey their thoughts due to this. After all, if you want to communicate, you need better ways to do so.

The solution ( and not just in this particular issue ) should be a shared responsibility though. Give us better tools, but dont be afraid to ask players for whatever you need.

In this case, my idea would be that you upgrade the forums but in exchange you would give us some posting guidelines and expect us to properly format our posts in order to be taken seriously.

2: How are we going to chose topics moving forward, for example, by votes or by Anet choosing them etc?

You choose possible topics, players vote.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Malchior.5042:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Question:

- Should we run the WvW, PVP and PVE concurrently or one at a time for the next round of CDI topics?

Chris

I’d only run them concurrently if one developer from each discipline can be available for some amount of time during his/her work day. The unequal contribution between yourself, Chris, and say the WvW team during the Commander Tag CDI made WvW players feel like they were being ignored, or at the least, being shafted.

Granted, I’m well aware that WvW team was 100% involved in developing EotM at the time. I was there in the Public Test and saw how much got accomplished between releases.

If Arenanet has the resources to designate one Host-Dev (to use one of Nike’s terms) per CDI thread, then I’d be comfortable with each thread running concurrently. Otherwise, let’s just keep it to one at a time.

Ok let’s run them concurrently. I will delete that part of the question section.

Chris

Alright Chris, thanks!

Any idea who you’d recommend to be host Dev of the PvP and WvW sections? Josh Davis has been doing decent in communication with both communities recently.

Also, I sent you a message on Twitter when you find the time, sir.

So on choice of topics, I’d honestly like as much feedback from devs on what they want to hear about. For instance, folks might chomp at the bit for one on precursors and crafting and such, but we might get very little discussion from that (due to things like, devs obviously can’t tell us much, so there wouldn’t be much of a discussion).

I’d like it to be that the devs say “we are looking to improve x, can we ask the community their thoughts, and maybe pick their brains?” I just feel like that might be the most mutually useful.

Anyway, that’s my two copper.