Guild Wars 2

Fortus.6175:

As long as this isnt one big “placebo” to calm the masses (which at this point I would be ‘ruining’ it by saying it is a placebo) then Im ok with these threads.

I would like to see a little more of “Well, we are discussing these things: x. but these are completely out of question so please dont even consider it”. I liked how in the balance threa for Dec 10 we SAW the changes, we saw stuff being changed because we asked for it and we had good basis for this. But so far with these threads, all I see is a giant black hole, and no ‘light’ coming out of the white[red] hole.

you bring up a good point I feel that when they release the balancing patch, trying to work out something for all 8 professions in a small time frame might be too much similar to how having 3 CDI going at once might take it toll.

I main a thief and at first i really hated most changes. I still dislike them and i feel some of the nerfs were uncalled for but i believe i can work around them. the community also brought alot of charts and calculation to the table yet one of the main response we received is “You are getting a buff” while all the numbers said otherwise.

(off topic: a good thief is capable of managing their initiative and rarely runs out. so increasing its regen is pointless)

Vi Au.8341:

Hi Chris,
How are you going to pick topics? As you probably know, i posted something concerning the next WvW topic: skill lag. which in my opinion isnt a very good topic because it stems from overpopulated servers (and we already “discussed” that) or server issues on anet side that we have no control or very little knowledge of. Is it possible to add a second thread during the 3 day CDI process evolution to “vote” on potential topic?

the current topic on the table is the commander system i believe almost everyone is ok with skipping skill lag as it isn’t as rich of a topic.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

HI Vi Au,

‘Is it possible to add a second thread during the 3 day CDI process evolution to “vote” on potential topic?’

Yes i think that would be a good idea. Many have said that they would like us to pass on skill lag with the next in the list being Commander functionality. If we went with this then after the 3 area topics close and we do the next Process Evolution we could vote again.

However it was also put forward by quite a few people that the Dev team should choose the topics for each area, specifically in regard to the most pressing topics for us in terms of working together through the CDI.

Personally i think their are pros and cons with both options but i would like us to make a decision about that action following the decision around area topic cadence.

Chris

since it is the beginning of the process It should be pretty fair to experiment and see what work’s.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

HI Vi Au,

‘Is it possible to add a second thread during the 3 day CDI process evolution to “vote” on potential topic?’

Yes i think that would be a good idea. Many have said that they would like us to pass on skill lag with the next in the list being Commander functionality. If we went with this then after the 3 area topics close and we do the next Process Evolution we could vote again.

However it was also put forward by quite a few people that the Dev team should choose the topics for each area, specifically in regard to the most pressing topics for us in terms of working together through the CDI.

Personally i think their are pros and cons with both options but i would like us to make a decision about that action following the decision around area topic cadence.

Chris

So, hopefully this is short, but I’d like to propose an idea. There has been discussion as to whether the players or the devs should choose the topic and each has its own merits.

With that in mind I’d like to propose that we take a middle ground approach. Do the voting process as we did before, but have devs choose which topic would be best to discuss from the top 5 or some such number. The hope behind this idea being that we take a large part of the pros from both categories and leave a few of the cons behind.

Haik Camus.1530:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

HI Vi Au,

‘Is it possible to add a second thread during the 3 day CDI process evolution to “vote” on potential topic?’

Yes i think that would be a good idea. Many have said that they would like us to pass on skill lag with the next in the list being Commander functionality. If we went with this then after the 3 area topics close and we do the next Process Evolution we could vote again.

However it was also put forward by quite a few people that the Dev team should choose the topics for each area, specifically in regard to the most pressing topics for us in terms of working together through the CDI.

Personally i think their are pros and cons with both options but i would like us to make a decision about that action following the decision around area topic cadence.

Chris

So, hopefully this is short, but I’d like to propose an idea. There has been discussion as to whether the players or the devs should choose the topic and each has its own merits.

With that in mind I’d like to propose that we take a middle ground approach. Do the voting process as we did before, but have devs choose which topic would be best to discuss from the top 5 or some such number. The hope behind this idea being that we take a large part of the pros from both categories and leave a few of the cons behind.

this might lead to problems if dev’s dont pick the most popular topic because it is hard and instead skip to an easy topic. i think most agree skipping skill lag is good but what if the dev’s wanted to skip pop imbalance and the players didnt agree it was a good idea.

That is true, but also keep in mind if a topic is passed over it isn’t going to be passed over to something no one cares about. In addition, with the final topic being chosen by the devs the players will ideally get to see more of the colaberation part of the CDI. If the devs get ‘forced’ into a topic they can’t do much about or talk much about the CDI can’t succeed and that is bad for all parties.

Haik Camus.1530:

That is true, but also keep in mind if a topic is passed over it isn’t going to be passed over to something no one cares about. In addition, with the final topic being chosen by the devs the players will ideally get to see more of the colaberation part of the CDI. If the devs get ‘forced’ into a topic they can’t do much about or talk much about the CDI can’t succeed and that is bad for all parties.

well you arnt wrong at all it is something that can be handled reasonably but the way it is working now is also being handled reasonably where we reached a player picked topic that cannot be discussed well so we skip it. I’m not sure either system is really wrong but I prefer the way it is now where if we have a topic that cant be talked about we just skip to the next most popular.

Agreed, but I would like to put forward that the devs probably know better than us how well a topic can be discussed. Another thing I’d like to point out is the whole top 5 thing was mostly a random number. I don’t really see an issue with it being 3 or even 2, but the main idea being that we avoid trapping ourselves in a situation that can only leave everyone feeling angry.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

I have asked the PVE thread if they want to move ahead with the proposal of 1 topic running at a time with a week of conversation around it. Once 3 topics have concluded (1 for each area) then we would have say 3 days of a single CDI process evolution thread and then back to the next topic.

Do we feel like this is a good cadence to move forward with?

Note this should accelerate our combined experience with the CDI and thus does not preclude us all deciding to change the model should we find that we are at a point to do so.

Chris

Also note that i think if we move forward with this proposal that the first area topic would be in WvW, then PvP and then back to PVE.

Chris

Any chance we can get some meaningful feedback from the first WvW CDI thread before we move on to another one?

i dont play on eb but there is no skill lag on borders. i think they made a great job last time. i think if they polish the system a little more we can talk about the body blocking (as in gw1) that would eliminate the 100 men blobs and make place to other builds not just hammer train

Chris,

The player base throw a ton of ideas at you. So far so good.

Now pick the topics that Anet finds actually interesting and that fit their current game design philosophy.

And also rule out what is fully aginst your current vision of GW2 (e.g. lower map cap for WvW will never happen as this is bad for players and for Anet).

For stuff that is between both just say it so. Not off the table but not active thoughts are put into this. Just have it listed somewher for future reference.

After the gathering of ideas it is now time to filter them out. We players cannot do that. You have to do it, as you keep your current core philosophy secret. We cannot know what’s going on inside your head. You have to tell us.

Basically we need to enter a more detailed discussion of ideas. You prioritize them open a thread and the thread comes to a conclusion (not another political statement by Devon with no conent please). One topic after another.

Multiple WvW topcis will not work as the Anet WvW team is too small and devs don’t have the time.

The discussion comes to a conclusion (basically you stop it at some point and post a summary). This conclusion will enter the development process as Anet. This does not mean it will get implemented but also does not mean it will be ignored. It is in there and in your process you check against the wishes and idead of the player base. “Will it blend?”

Once you discussed coming changed internally, provide a summary to the player base of what can be made publiuc. Similar to the Dec. 10 balance patch. Then the player base will let you know what it thinks of it. Still time to adjust things.

And you do not have to provide detailed metrics. Just replace them by a variable. If it is about balance for exampe: 50% of x are as good as 50% of 500 for discussing an ideas. The players’s don’t need to know the actual numbers, but the balance behind it. And for the balance the total numbers do not need to be revealed.

But right now the ball is in your park.

Which ideas of the player are acceptable for you to be discussed into more details?

Cactus.2710:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

I have asked the PVE thread if they want to move ahead with the proposal of 1 topic running at a time with a week of conversation around it. Once 3 topics have concluded (1 for each area) then we would have say 3 days of a single CDI process evolution thread and then back to the next topic.

Do we feel like this is a good cadence to move forward with?

Note this should accelerate our combined experience with the CDI and thus does not preclude us all deciding to change the model should we find that we are at a point to do so.

Chris

Also note that i think if we move forward with this proposal that the first area topic would be in WvW, then PvP and then back to PVE.

Chris

Any chance we can get some meaningful feedback from the first WvW CDI thread before we move on to another one?

I’m also curious about what was learned from the Population Balance CDI.

Do the players wait six months to a year before there’s a patch with Anet’s fix for this?
Is there a time when we CAN expect a patch?
Will the players be informed on the progress(not dates, but stage of development) of a patch?
Do you need more player feedback with the CDI patch you are considering?
Does the player portion of CDI stop when the thread is closed?

WilliamDaBloody.2591:

Chris,

The player base throw a ton of ideas at you. So far so good.

Now pick the topics that Anet finds actually interesting and that fit their current game design philosophy.

And also rule out what is fully aginst your current vision of GW2 (e.g. lower map cap for WvW will never happen as this is bad for players and for Anet).

For stuff that is between both just say it so. Not off the table but not active thoughts are put into this. Just have it listed somewher for future reference.

After the gathering of ideas it is now time to filter them out. We players cannot do that. You have to do it, as you keep your current core philosophy secret. We cannot know what’s going on inside your head. You have to tell us.

Basically we need to enter a more detailed discussion of ideas. You prioritize them open a thread and the thread comes to a conclusion (not another political statement by Devon with no conent please). One topic after another.

-SNIP-

I think this touches on a notion that’s been mentioned repeatedly on the PvE thread as well: it’s really important to manage expectations. Yes, WvW people are really unhappy about several issues at the moment, but if the dev’s make clear that for instance, one of those issues will not be changed due to either ANet internal policy towards the game or that it may be changed but the workload to get it done is such that players shouldn’t expect anything for the next few months… then yes please! sure, we won’t be happy about a “no” or a “not yet”, but at least we can then shelve those issues and focus on something else.

so, a practical suggestion on how to manage expectations: as I’m asuming you guys are aware what the most vocal issues are, perhaps in the opening post of a CDI thread, you can shortly acknowlege them. Something along the lines of:

“First, a quick FAQ: 1) the input from the skill lag discussion has been taken into consideration and is being discussed further within the team. We may circle back to this later. 2) population balance policy will not be changed as that would clash with ANet policy. 3) the WvW next topic after this one will be rewards.

In this thread we will be focusing on Commander Tags funtionality, please keep your comments on topic"

but, you know, not my more-or-less-wishful thinking, but actual ANet ideas on the matter.

I think something thats been raised and that is probably the biggest deal here is going to be managing expectations in the CDI as stated in the last topic. A lot of the reason I didn’t get hugely into the CDI was that I honestly feel a lot of players (especially the ones who shout loudest about the problems) don’t understand how low rach or not a problem is to tackle.

would players be willing to hang around a year for a fix when something else a couple down on their list might be do able in a couple of months.. I do feel that some more direct feedback on setting this would be very valuable.

Im not suggesting we give people a date for a fix just the ability to go “ok this is a big issue itll take time” or “this is fairly low hanging fruit”
If that makes sense

Chris Whiteside.6102:

style.6173:

@Devon,

I think there needs to be a variety of involvement from ANET people in the WvW thread. You have a lot going on. So does everyone else. Would be good to see more ANET presence though.

Comments such as this are not phrased properly though. “To be clear, this initiative is about discussion and not necessarily about action. When we find ideas that fit within our scope and the core philosophies of the game we do take them further, but that isn’t the goal of the whole thing, nor should it be the expectation that we will take action on any and all ideas.”

The D in CDI stands for development. If all that will happen is discussion, there isn’t much point for these threads.

Hi Style,

CDI is designed to create mind share and effect design philosophy and therefore will effect development. Personally i think DC covered that pretty well in his post. I would have worded the first sentence slightly differently though:

‘To be clear, this initiative is about discussion and not necessarily about action.’

‘To be clear, this initiative is focused around discussion which in turn will effect how Guild Wars 2 is developed moving forward.’

We will and do talk about ideas put forward to or created by the CDI that we intend to take further, however we won’t be talking about timing around feature deployment etc.

Hope this helps.

Chris

@Chris:

I think what you say makes a lot of sense. As long as CDI will allow an open discussion on a particular topic and then certain pieces are then turned into action, it is a good thing. I think there is a general perception right now that there is a ANET vision for WvW that is not adjustable. It will be good to see some flexibility on that.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

\
I vote at this time that we discuss Commander functionality next as it also impacts PVE. This topic however would be discussed in the WvW forums.
Chris

First off, thanks for the increased level of engagement, even with those of us who are not entirely cordial

Second, I have no idea how much the way of work hours changes to the commander UI will take; but even relatively minor changes (being able to change the color of the icon or even a really rudimentary squad UI) will be a very welcome change to WvW.

Lastly, though we might not like what’s said; sometimes it’s best to start with a list of what is “off the table” in order to prevent speculation or needless conversation about an idea that’s a non-starter. Even if it’s “off the table for now and might be brought up later” it’s best to rip that band aid off quickly before people start beating dead horses in non-constructive ways.

Thank you and ANet for the great work you have done and will (hopefully) continue to accomplish.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Sounds like we want devs to pick topics based on a short vote during the CDI process evolution phase.

I vote at this time that we discuss Commander functionality next as it also impacts PVE. This topic however would be discussed in the WvW forums.

Regarding your question Cactus i will ask DC to do a summary of valuable points garnered from the discussion. He is however away for the holiday so we should be patient in that regard in terms of a reply.

Chris

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Defeated-State/first#post3263170

Please read this thread and think about it as it does help the undermanned server to face the over stacked server.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Sounds like we want devs to pick topics based on a short vote during the CDI process evolution phase.

I vote at this time that we discuss Commander functionality next as it also impacts PVE. This topic however would be discussed in the WvW forums.

Regarding your question Cactus i will ask DC to do a summary of valuable points garnered from the discussion. He is however away for the holiday so we should be patient in that regard in terms of a reply.

Chris

Can part of this discussion be about how the commander functionality could also be used in sPvP (providing direction / commands / etc) ?

Really.. Really..
Look I don’t disagree that Commander tags cud use some loving in game.. but is this really the most pressing issue that the game faces… I think the previous CDI highlighted things a lot more important, things that need action and some tough love.. sooner rather than later.
If all this is going to do is throw veils over topics that have already demonstrated so much concern and frustration (and continues to do so) then expect participation to grow thinner both in the CDI and in game… some servers have very few players even bothering to tag in anymore when all that awaits is face stomping repeatedly.. sure I get your thinking to discuss all facets of the game, but you have designated teams in PvE , WvW that should be able to think independently when it comes to identifying and rectifying things related to their areas of expertise.. Comm Tag is far from being the biggest issue in either of those facets of the game imo so why avoid the things that are and get the ball moving unless your happy to see , WvW (you know one of those facets of the game you so proudly marketed out to us all) sink lower into the gimmick bin.
Apologies if this sounds blunt but really, really!

@ bloodstealer
Can you be constructive and indicate whatever topics you would like to discuss from the previous CDI that were not already discussed plenty in it?

Can we have a dialogue about the inclusion of PvE Living World content into WvW. I haven’t heard much positive about this; but a great number of people are concerned that a steady “content creep” may ultimately subvert the whole objective of WvW from team based PvP to a multi-server Vs. PvE environment.

Let me add that I have no problem with the latter, but not if it takes the place of the WvW format.

Bloodstealer.5978:

Really.. Really..
Look I don’t disagree that Commander tags cud use some loving in game.. but is this really the most pressing issue that the game faces…

When you consider this topic potentially encompasses different ways of grouping beyond just 5 players then yes it is a pressing issue. Personally I would rank WvW progression/WXP higher but both are issues that need to be discussed.

Bloodstealer.5978:

Really.. Really..
Look I don’t disagree that Commander tags cud use some loving in game.. but is this really the most pressing issue that the game faces… I think the previous CDI highlighted things a lot more important, things that need action and some tough love.. sooner rather than later.
If all this is going to do is throw veils over topics that have already demonstrated so much concern and frustration (and continues to do so) then expect participation to grow thinner both in the CDI and in game… some servers have very few players even bothering to tag in anymore when all that awaits is face stomping repeatedly.. sure I get your thinking to discuss all facets of the game, but you have designated teams in PvE , WvW that should be able to think independently when it comes to identifying and rectifying things related to their areas of expertise.. Comm Tag is far from being the biggest issue in either of those facets of the game imo so why avoid the things that are and get the ball moving unless your happy to see , WvW (you know one of those facets of the game you so proudly marketed out to us all) sink lower into the gimmick bin.
Apologies if this sounds blunt but really, really!

no it seems pretty reasonable the most pressing concern is the pop imbalance and we probably deserve a redo on it since the first one went so poorly. but the next most voted on thing was commander tag and it could also use some attention.

yup. i think not the tag is the most important, but if they want lets talk about it. and maybe the pop balance also not the most important. if they make a game mode what everybody want to play we dont need to redistribute wvw players

McWolfy.5924:

yup. i think not the tag is the most important, but if they want lets talk about it. and maybe the pop balance also not the most important. if they make a game mode what everybody want to play we dont need to redistribute wvw players

i do not understand at all what you are saying.

Isaiah Cartwright.8569:

I would love to help field a discussion on the commander system, I know there are a few other topics everyone brought up but I think a good brainstorm about how to improve large scale communication/origination has very large impact on WvW. This is also becoming more important in PvE as we move forward with large scale encounters. So I think it would be a fun discussion as there is a lot of room to improve the current system.

• Battlefield style command rose with common commands like stack on me, advance on me, hold here, fall back, etc.

• Ability to enter information about what you are doing, which is shown with a hover over the commander icon on mini map or a pop out box. It would also be nice to be able to enter information for voice chat like Teamspeak and Mumble, maybe even auto link in the appropriate format. Other ideas for features here are a donate siege to commander link, and thank commander option that works into some sort of rep system.

• Designate squad sizes between 5 and 40 players or so, make it easier and more intuitive to join and leave squad, and increase rewards for players in squad on objective taking and defense when the commander completes the same objective. This would make it much easier to run smaller groups for roaming and havok without having a bunch of mystery tags everywhere, and might be a reasonable check on full map zergs.

• Make commander tag account bound, refund players that have multiple tags.

• Give guilds the ability to research a guild commander tag that can only be seen by guild members.

I’m bummed that the rate of CDI activity is getting cut to 1/3 of its initial vision- especially after seeing what I feel were most of the weaknesses of the initial launch detected, dissected, and likely resolved (or at least greatly improved) in this thread. If we have to crawl before we can walk, ok, but I’ll always be wishing we could get to the point where process dances even if it means another 1/3 or 1/2 of the threads fall short along the way.

I worry that with all the eggs in one basket, we risk having one bad mis-step or failed attempt make the whole process look bad because there’s only one thread at a time. It really restricts the rate at which we can detect problems and improve the process and it cuts the actual collaboration off to a trickle of what it could be.

zen.6091:

Isaiah Cartwright.8569:

I would love to help field a discussion on the commander system, I know there are a few other topics everyone brought up but I think a good brainstorm about how to improve large scale communication/origination has very large impact on WvW. This is also becoming more important in PvE as we move forward with large scale encounters. So I think it would be a fun discussion as there is a lot of room to improve the current system.

• Battlefield style command rose with common commands like stack on me, advance on me, hold here, fall back, etc.

• Ability to enter information about what you are doing, which is shown with a hover over the commander icon on mini map or a pop out box. It would also be nice to be able to enter information for voice chat like Teamspeak and Mumble, maybe even auto link in the appropriate format. Other ideas for features here are a donate siege to commander link, and thank commander option that works into some sort of rep system.

• Designate squad sizes between 5 and 40 players or so, make it easier and more intuitive to join and leave squad, and increase rewards for players in squad on objective taking and defense when the commander completes the same objective. This would make it much easier to run smaller groups for roaming and havok without having a bunch of mystery tags everywhere, and might be a reasonable check on full map zergs.

• Make commander tag account bound, refund players that have multiple tags.

• Give guilds the ability to research a guild commander tag that can only be seen by guild members.

save it for the actual thread but all seem like good ideas

Nike.2631:

I’m bummed that the rate of CDI activity is getting cut to 1/3 of its initial vision- especially after seeing what I feel were most of the weaknesses of the initial launch detected, dissected, and likely resolved (or at least greatly improved) in this thread. If we have to crawl before we can walk, ok, but I’ll always be wishing we could get to the point where process dances even if it means another 1/3 or 1/2 of the threads fall short along the way.

I worry that with all the eggs in one basket, we risk having one bad mis-step or failed attempt make the whole process look bad because there’s only one thread at a time. It really restricts the rate at which we can detect problems and improve the process and it cuts the actual collaboration off to a trickle of what it could be.

i agree it would be nice if they could do it 3 at a time but i think they showed they can’t do that. So i think i prefer 1 good discusion at a time instead of 2 good discusions and 1 poor one.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

HI Folks,

I just posted this on the PVE forum. I am keen to finish of our current phase and get going, so let us know if you agree with this proposal:

’So Izzy has joined in on the WvW thread and would like to discuss Commander Functionality which impacts WvW and could potentially be used effectively in PVE content. I therefore propose the following:

1: We work on one topic at a time (for the time being). In a rotation of WvW, PvP and then PVE.

2: The WvW topic will be Commander functionality.

3: We will also discuss potential Commander functionality as it relates to PVE.

4: The discussion will be housed in the WvW area.

Unless we have major disagreement then we will go ahead with this.

Tomorrow i will summarize our actions for evolution of the CDI process and on Monday our next topic will begin.

Quite honestly i am looking forward to getting back to topic discussion (-:

Note: New topics will be chosen during the CDI Process Evolution phase once we finish the next topic rotation.

Chris’

Chris

The main concern I have with this is that you might go for topics which cross over like that, while they don’t all necessarily cross over nicely. Say, if the sPvP folks really really want to talk about sPvP maps, that doesn’t really cross over well into pve or wvw.

I do like the idea of a 2-3-day vote, 1-week discussion, though, and if it doesn’t adequately explore everything, you can always extend it or continue the discussion elsewhere.

Isaiah Cartwright.8569:

I would love to help field a discussion on the commander system, I know there are a few other topics everyone brought up but I think a good brainstorm about how to improve large scale communication/origination has very large impact on WvW. This is also becoming more important in PvE as we move forward with large scale encounters. So I think it would be a fun discussion as there is a lot of room to improve the current system.

To start with:
1. Squad should be an actual group with icons showing all group members like in raid groups in other mmos.
2. With the functionality added in 1. maybe restrict no. of squad members to say 30 maximum.
3. Members should be able to see where other members are on the map as with the current 5 person grouping system.
4. Tag should be able to be turned on for group members only to see, not the rest of the map (with the option for everyone on the map to see it remaining).
5. Info for each player should include supply.
6. It should be account wide, if you can make fractal progression account wide you can make this account wide.

morrolan.9608:

Isaiah Cartwright.8569:

I would love to help field a discussion on the commander system, I know there are a few other topics everyone brought up but I think a good brainstorm about how to improve large scale communication/origination has very large impact on WvW. This is also becoming more important in PvE as we move forward with large scale encounters. So I think it would be a fun discussion as there is a lot of room to improve the current system.

To start with:
1. Squad should be an actual group with icons showing all group members like in raid groups in other mmos.
2. With the functionality added in 1. maybe restrict no. of squad members to say 30 maximum.
3. Members should be able to see where other members are on the map as with the current 5 person grouping system.
4. Tag should be able to be turned on for group members only to see, not the rest of the map (with the option for everyone on the map to see it remaining).
5. Info for each player should include supply.
6. It should be account wide, if you can make fractal progression account wide you can make this account wide.

save this for monday

Commander Tag: Not the most important thing but a thing that can be worked on isolated from other issues across PvE as well.

At least we are focusing on something.

Looking forward to the discussion and will put my thought into it:

Preview of what bothers me most on this topic:
- Larger radius to count players and supply. It’s a bit small.
- Guild Comanders
- Private Squads (like a 30 player party that only when inside the squad see the tag). Basically Raid Groups.
- /supplyInfo is not a chat command anymore (introduce a commander UI)
- All the more detailed stuff about information is already provide via a lot of different overlayes. So focus probably a bit more on API information so 3rd party devs can do what’s needed for WvW.

WilliamDaBloody.2591:

Commander Tag: Not the most important thing but a thing that can be worked on isolated from other issues across PvE as well.

At least we are focusing on something.

Looking forward to the discussion and will put my thought into it:

Preview of what bothers me most on this topic:
- Larger radius to count players and supply. It’s a bit small.
- Guild Comanders
- Private Squads (like a 30 player party that only when inside the squad see the tag). Basically Raid Groups.
- /supplyInfo is not a chat command anymore (introduce a commander UI)
- All the more detailed stuff about information is already provide via a lot of different overlayes. So focus probably a bit more on API information so 3rd party devs can do what’s needed for WvW.

seems nice but again we havent started yet this is still a best practices thread. save it for the actual next thread.

@Chris Whiteside

Why can’t ANET invest in creating some real in game tools to get actual clear feedback on issues from the actual people that play the game?

A number of other studios run a system that, on logon to a server, a pop-up in game survey runs asking the player base a series of non-loaded questions ranging from yes/no, to rate something on a scale 1-10. Optional to answer (players only see it once and can opt to close)

Hell, even get really creative and make a NPC that pop’s the form and gives a fluff reward to players for completing if you want to break from the norm.

Surely getting metrics from the masses that people can choose to fill out with the anonymity/privacy of only them seeing there response is far more powerful than pitching to the small number who bother to visit, let alone frequent the forums?

Let the masses decide on chosen DEV topics via smarter tools via votes or ranking certain closed statements.

Make the player base feel more involved. Get better metrics. Make a bigger chunk of people happy. Win/Win?

Then use the forums to actually have the discussions as well as seek ideas for further ones?

Jocksy.3415:

@ bloodstealer
Can you be constructive and indicate whatever topics you would like to discuss from the previous CDI that were not already discussed plenty in it?

Show me this discussion.. all I saw was players putting views, opinions and ideas out.. then being told not to ask such and such and were not discussing this and that… there was no discussion.. it takes both parties to make it a discussion not one.. and now its been placed back in the historical documents pile to gather dust while CW and DC look to move on to things such as what is our favourite colour for Comm tags and how long should the grass be allowed to grow.. heck I vote SM should be painted pink for clarity in the next patch.. they like to re-skin things so why not new structure skins to refresh the game.

You may be happy with this time wasting exercise that seeks to sidestep around the important issues within the game, other don’t.
Server imbalances and its effect on the WvW are killing interest for many server, you think tweaking Comm tags is going to alleviate that? add the zerg rules issues into that equation and what you left with is 2 of the 3 servers barely showing up anymore… but apparently gem sales are doing well and forecasted to remain so in the short term.. until players grow tired of queuing for a lacklustre matchup and dire performance issues when there is the slightest chance of decent action.

But as I said I vote for a re-skin to SM, maybe paint some butterfly murials on the doors that randomly appear like a duck shoot at the fair – it will give the zerg something to do the next time they come a calling for some PvD or nightcap golem rushing

to the commander topic:
1: account bound tag
2: you shouldnt sell wvw tag for money. pve kids come in and tag up for capping a tower where they miss a vista or poi. commander tag should be a meta achivement (for wvw)
3: mark the zergs on the map. enemy and friendly. it will force the players to leave big blobs

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Nike.2631:

I’m bummed that the rate of CDI activity is getting cut to 1/3 of its initial vision- especially after seeing what I feel were most of the weaknesses of the initial launch detected, dissected, and likely resolved (or at least greatly improved) in this thread. If we have to crawl before we can walk, ok, but I’ll always be wishing we could get to the point where process dances even if it means another 1/3 or 1/2 of the threads fall short along the way.

I worry that with all the eggs in one basket, we risk having one bad mis-step or failed attempt make the whole process look bad because there’s only one thread at a time. It really restricts the rate at which we can detect problems and improve the process and it cuts the actual collaboration off to a trickle of what it could be.

Well i certainly understand where your coming from. So the other option is to run 3 on Monday and we go in knowing that we still have some way to go in terms of us all getting everything right in terms of the spirit of the initiative.

I am happy to do this to. Thoughts?

Chris

Yes that sounds good.

Now I’m confused. We have just had a 23 page ‘discussion’ about server imbalance and we are now about to have another multi-page discussion about commanders.

To date there has been no resolution/suggestions/insight put forward from Anet’s side on the first topic.

Discussion for the sake of it is leading us nowhere, or so it seems. The majority of players with a vested interested in WvW do not necessarily want fine details but they would like to know whether ANY of the dozens of suggestions made are suitable for further investigation by Anet.

Again, this information does not need to be too specific only whether some of the suggestions made are actually viable or not.

something along the lines of:

“We have looked at the suggestions made in regard to X, Y and Z and found 1 or 2 to be worth serious consideration and we will be looking into these ideas more closely”

It may well be none of the suggestions put forward are viable, but at the moment the official response has done little to alleviate the concerns of the players.

in short, is this simply a discussion for the sake of discussion or a discussion to highlight problem areas and find workable solutions?

Bloodstealer.5978:

Jocksy.3415:

@ bloodstealer
Can you be constructive and indicate whatever topics you would like to discuss from the previous CDI that were not already discussed plenty in it?

Show me this discussion.. all I saw was players putting views, opinions and ideas out.. then being told not to ask such and such and were not discussing this and that… there was no discussion.. […]

You may be happy with this time wasting exercise that seeks to sidestep around the important issues within the game, other don’t.
Server imbalances and its effect on the WvW are killing interest for many server, you think tweaking Comm tags is going to alleviate that? […].

1- Show me this discussion.. all I saw was players putting views, opinions and ideas out.. then being told not to ask such and such and were not discussing this and that… there was no discussion.
And these threads are actually no more than a way for the devs to let players vent :
Devon wrote “To be clear, this initiative is about discussion and not necessarily about action. When we find ideas that fit within our scope and the core philosophies of the game we do take them further, but that isn’t the goal of the whole thing, nor should it be the expectation that we will take action on any and all ideas.”
So, if anyone actually thought devs would really consider ideas… Sorry to say, they were up to desillusions

2- You may be happy with this time wasting exercise that seeks to sidestep around the important issues within the game, other don’t.
Where did you see me writing I was happy with anything? I’m at the bottom of EU Gold league, I’m playing at “night time”, I’m getting rolled on days in, days out… and leagues killed my server further. Not funny, not happy… but I know Anet is happy with their game and really do not care about what its playerbase wants/hope for… They are doing these CDI, just to make it look like they care… anyone putting his hopes up, thinking these CDI are gonna change anything… again, they are up to desilusions…

3- My question, about saying whatever has not been discussed should be put forward, was because I’m among the people who went through all posts, putting little +1 on posts I liked… The same ideas kept coming over and over, very few were new, and pretty much all also been posted on the forums in different posts…

So please, before writing things like “You may be happy with this time wasting exercise”, do make sure I’m really happy with it…
I’m just reading : “that isn’t the goal of the whole thing, nor should it be the expectation that we will take action on any and all ideas” and saying the same ideas kept coming back in the posts, so having another “discussion” on the issue is just going to be the same ideas all over again… which would be a worst idea than getting a new topic (on which – don’t get hopes up – there will be the same kinds of “this is not something we can do” and “this discussion is just to gather ideas, and we do not intend to actually act on them”)… Coming back on the first topic, unless people have new ideas, would just be even more of a waste of time than the “CDI” already is…

Post by Devon : https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/CDI-Process-Evolution/page/2#post3259938

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Nike.2631:

I’m bummed that the rate of CDI activity is getting cut to 1/3 of its initial vision- especially after seeing what I feel were most of the weaknesses of the initial launch detected, dissected, and likely resolved (or at least greatly improved) in this thread. If we have to crawl before we can walk, ok, but I’ll always be wishing we could get to the point where process dances even if it means another 1/3 or 1/2 of the threads fall short along the way.

I worry that with all the eggs in one basket, we risk having one bad mis-step or failed attempt make the whole process look bad because there’s only one thread at a time. It really restricts the rate at which we can detect problems and improve the process and it cuts the actual collaboration off to a trickle of what it could be.

Well i certainly understand where your coming from. So the other option is to run 3 on Monday and we go in knowing that we still have some way to go in terms of us all getting everything right in terms of the spirit of the initiative.

I am happy to do this to. Thoughts?

Chris

Here are my thoughts (from a WvW’er who pves and pvps).

None of them were perfect; however, the Living World and sPvP threads were well done. They were thorough. The number of responses was adequate. PvP players complained but that is largely due to the lack of actual game changes. From a collaboration PoV, I think the thread was fine.

Now, WvW was terrible. The responses were not thorough. The few responses that were made never followed up with the cons. They simply picked a side and that was it. Right now, you’re proposing one a week to rectify one problematic thread when two things would probably solve it.

(1) Limit the scope of discussion. You’ve mentioned this. Population issues covers so much. If you shrink the scope of the discussion, it will make it easier for us to discuss and easier for you to response. I really don’t believe you can mess up commander tags because while there are issues, none are as pressing or are of the magnitude of population issues.

(2) Coach or allocate more time for the WvW team. Maybe it was a busy week and it was fluke. In that case, switching to one per week is silly since it will self-rectify. Otherwise, consider allocating a bit more time to respond to the thread. Emphasize the focus on both sides of every issue mentioned. Maybe get one of the devs from sPvP or Living World to give suggestions to the WvW dev or make a couple posts.

I firmly believe the issue lies in lack of posting experience for the WvW team and we don’t need to go to one topic per week. You have so much experience. The guys in sPvP do too. Your posts in CDI and outside of it reflect that. That alone seemed to make all the difference. If the WvW team got a bit of coaching and the topic scope got narrowed a bit, I bet the WvW thread would be just fine.

Jocksy.3415:

Bloodstealer.5978:

Jocksy.3415:

@ bloodstealer
Can you be constructive and indicate whatever topics you would like to discuss from the previous CDI that were not already discussed plenty in it?

Show me this discussion.. all I saw was players putting views, opinions and ideas out.. then being told not to ask such and such and were not discussing this and that… there was no discussion.. […]

You may be happy with this time wasting exercise that seeks to sidestep around the important issues within the game, other don’t.
Server imbalances and its effect on the WvW are killing interest for many server, you think tweaking Comm tags is going to alleviate that? […].

1- Show me this discussion.. all I saw was players putting views, opinions and ideas out.. then being told not to ask such and such and were not discussing this and that… there was no discussion.
And these threads are actually no more than a way for the devs to let players vent :
Devon wrote “To be clear, this initiative is about discussion and not necessarily about action. When we find ideas that fit within our scope and the core philosophies of the game we do take them further, but that isn’t the goal of the whole thing, nor should it be the expectation that we will take action on any and all ideas.”
So, if anyone actually thought devs would really consider ideas… Sorry to say, they were up to desillusions

2- You may be happy with this time wasting exercise that seeks to sidestep around the important issues within the game, other don’t.
Where did you see me writing I was happy with anything? I’m at the bottom of EU Gold league, I’m playing at “night time”, I’m getting rolled on days in, days out… and leagues killed my server further. Not funny, not happy… but I know Anet is happy with their game and really do not care about what its playerbase wants/hope for… They are doing these CDI, just to make it look like they care… anyone putting his hopes up, thinking these CDI are gonna change anything… again, they are up to desilusions…

3- My question, about saying whatever has not been discussed should be put forward, was because I’m among the people who went through all posts, putting little +1 on posts I liked… The same ideas kept coming over and over, very few were new, and pretty much all also been posted on the forums in different posts…

So please, before writing things like “You may be happy with this time wasting exercise”, do make sure I’m really happy with it…
I’m just reading : “that isn’t the goal of the whole thing, nor should it be the expectation that we will take action on any and all ideas” and saying the same ideas kept coming back in the posts, so having another “discussion” on the issue is just going to be the same ideas all over again… which would be a worst idea than getting a new topic (on which – don’t get hopes up – there will be the same kinds of “this is not something we can do” and “this discussion is just to gather ideas, and we do not intend to actually act on them”)… Coming back on the first topic, unless people have new ideas, would just be even more of a waste of time than the “CDI” already is…

Post by Devon : https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/CDI-Process-Evolution/page/2#post3259938

I think you miss my point.. the original CDI already identified what the important issues are and what is needed to be worked on.. now that’s been swept under the carpet we move onto something else.. avoiding discussion and putting direction and process into the most pressing issues the game faces only serves to push more players away from the game.. what’s the point of having a better functioning Comm tag when you have very little left to command on your server.
You asked me to be construvtive… being constructive doesn’t mean I have to agree with the direction of this CDI and the devs pushing aside of the real issues.. but hey like everything to date there is no real direction in this its just making a big list of wants wishes and must haves over and over with nothing actually being sorted out.#
I am all for improving mechanics and systems within and related to the game.. but the core issues are paramount to there being a viable game to want to improve. If that is ignored continuously then the rest becomes nothing more than added waste.

Anyhow.. your right the CDI serves no real purpose other than a venting thread.

I think doing commander functionality discussion this week is a good idea. Can we do this and then switch back to pop imbalance one? This way people and devs have a week of rest from a very hard topic and we might actually get some useful wvw progress with commander discussion. Pop imbalance is still a major issue, but keeping this discussion going extra week isnt going to help. Better to take a week break and come back to it with a fresh look.

Commander functionality is much more of a problem than population imbalances imo. Populations shift and this can cause imbalances but players can fix that. there is almost nothing players can do to fix the weakness of squads and commander tag tools.