Guild Wars 2

cesmode.4257:

-Please tell other posters to refrain from using formatted posts. It was completely obnoxious to see some people make font 50 titles, with huge underscores and uniquely formatted posts, just so their post stood out and took up the most room. I skipped right over most of those.

…

-There were many, many posts that were wall of texts. Im sure you folks didnt have time to read through each post that was 2 or 3 posts long. Maybe come up with some sort of structure for us to get our ideas across. A bulleted list, a question and answer. While some people had some great suggestions, they had some long winded posts that probably could have been shortened(myself included).

You owe me a new irony meter. Because that just bent the needle on mine. We can (and apparently SHOULD) use formatting – as long as its the formatting you approve of. And all other formatting is to be verboten.

When you’re looking for a plethora of ideas enforcing conformity is not a good first step .

For me, the details of which I want to talk : the GW lore .
Guild Wars has a rich history and full of useful topics.
Just the map below , you can make a comparison to we could rediscover :
http://i1.minus.com/i5ehlTmJSkaYv.jpg

And…
Sorry to go on a post that I really liked , and I would like to see applied .

look pictures

Shriketalon.1937:

ColinJohanson.2394:

So a fun question to ask to help direct the conversation a bit: What aspects of your favorite television shows would you think would be cool to see reflected in a game medium?

It’s a quote from a ways back, but it’s the best way to frame my response. I hope you don’t mind.

A good show must find a balance between building lore, establishing characters, indulging in instant gratification, and setting up long term investment. In many ways, a television show is an apt comparison to MMOs. They require an initial hook to get the player interested combined with long term reasons to get committed to regular viewing. In addition, they cater to many different individual’s personal tastes; viewers will get attached to certain characters, become invested in the plot, or simply enjoy the wit and banter to bring them back again and again. At the moment, however, the Living Story feels like a poor spinoff due to the overemphasis on the Saga of Scarlet. In order to achieve a solid viewing audience, the Living Story needs to find balance.

I have a thread over yonder where I go into more details, but here is a simple example of a Living Story arrangement designed to appeal to a wide audience. The idea is to reserve long term campaigns that take months of content for the most important things going on in Tyria (which are dragons, not redheaded Sylvari reverse engineering bloodstones). These fit into the January-to-May block very easily, since there are no holidays during that time frame. Meanwhile, the rest of the year is devoted to creature features, lore delves, one shot stories, and the introduction of new races in order to indulge a diverse audience. The combination of hardcore campaigns and whimsical/wonderful oneshots should satisfy the audience and keep them entertained for years to come.

If it is not to presumptuous, here is a hypothetical TV Guide To Tyria to demonstrate what the Living Story could be.

One of things I think we need more of, that was very valuable when we got it, is general design goals that you at Anet use. In particular regarding specific aspects of the game, like class balance.

For example, ‘We want the ranger to be an uber-overpowerd faceroll class that doesn’t even need the face, because the pet is totally op and you can just let the AI dominate everything for you. Hurr.’

This gives focus to the discussion and tells us where to concentrate our ideas, what’s intentional and what’s a bug, and so on. Also lets us give more directed feedback since there’s a measuring stick to compare to.

I really enjoyed actually having Devs come to the relevant threads and carry on a conversation with players. I’ve only ever seen that in one other game (EVE Online) and it’s exactly whats needed in an online game to keep the game strong.

As long as developers are responding to legitimate concerns with snide, inflammatory, and blatantly fallacious statements like:

AnthonyOrdon.3926:

Shall we give Kits to all other professions so they can properly utilize Rune of the Engineer?

It’s going to be hard for me to get into the right mindset to take any sort of “collaboration” seriously.

Reason for edit: To link to the discussion for context.

I guess “grow a skin” applies to player too.

If you think that was blatantly fallacious, then your understanding of parallels may need some work.

In case the message was too opaque it was “Runes OBVIOUSLY aren’t intended to work with all classes. Runes of Resistance will not be reworked to work with engineers any more than Runes of the Engineer will be reworked to be useful to non-engineers.”

I’m sure he’s extremely contrite that he treated the readers as smart enough to follow a fairly obvious parallel. But frankly if the discussion has to be dumbed down that far, I can see why they rarely respond at all.

Nike.2631:

I guess “grow a skin” applies to player too.

If you think that was blatantly fallacious, then your understanding of parallels may need some work.

In case the message was too opaque it was “Runes OBVIOUSLY aren’t intended to work with all classes. Runes of Resistance will not be reworked to work with engineers any more than Runes of the Engineer will be reworked to be useful to non-engineers.”

I’m sure he’s extremely contrite that he treated the readers as smart enough to follow a fairly obvious parallel. But frankly if the discussion has to be dumbed down that far, I can see why they rarely respond at all.

Apparently you don’t understand fallacies. The issue is not that there are runes that don’t work for every class. The issue is that Engineers are the ONLY class excluded from using Rune of Resistance. Why is this so hard to understand?

It is not parallel at all. Each class has a rune that caters to their mechanics pretty exclusively. That is parallel. Rune of Resistance is viable for all of them except for engineers. Now, if you can think of any other rune that functions to exclude one class, I’m pretty sure that would be parallel. Perhaps you need to swallow some of your condescension and check your own definitions before you sneer at me.

I think distress over comments in other threads may be misplaced in a thread dedicated to a discussion about CDI. If you would be so kind, perhaps you can take your argument elsewhere. =)

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

I think distress over comments in other threads may be misplaced in a thread dedicated to a discussion about CDI. If you would be so kind, perhaps you can take your argument elsewhere. =)

I think how the player base is treated in the forum is relevant to this topic, or I wouldn’t have mentioned it.

Reason for edit: I did include a link to that thread to provide context, and I feel that you are correct in that further discussion of that topic should remain in that thread.

Guhracie.3419:

Now, if you can think of any other rune that functions to exclude one class, I’m pretty sure that would be parallel. Perhaps you need to swallow some of your condescension and check your own definitions before you sneer at me.

I can think of MANY that only work for some but not all professions of which the Dev cited one example. But to your specific, excruciatingly narrow definition, Rune of the Guardian cannot be used by Necromancers, while all 7 other classes have access to a block mechanic. Runes are Not for Everyone, whether they work for 1 class, 3 classes (Runes of the Soldier), or 7 classes (Resistance, Guardian).

And yes, the point to be raised here is that conversation between adults requires a degree of acceptance that there will be some verbal rough and tumble. Talking in hushed, harmless tones is something you do with scared children, not your peers. You want to see “the Dev’s not talking nice to me!” BS that transpires on almost a monthly schedule, spend some time in the Black Lion board where John Smith regularly expects people to keep up intellectually. And funny thing, we see a lot more interaction there than many other sub-forums.

You have had an entire year to listen to the community and you have ignored us. Why should we expect these topics to be any different?

The whole LW collaboration thread to me was just more of the same. Players making suggestions. That is NOT collaboration. Devs need to put in their concerns and ideas as well. Would the playerbase like this, would going in this direction be a good idea. You don’t have to disclose anything that is currently being worked on to do so. This brings me to another point. Don’t use “we can’t talk about this” as a way to shut down something when it isn’t an issue to begin with. You can talk about things without revealing details. I felt that a lot of posts were being to defensive as if you are trying to justify your actions. Among them the 2 week release schedule. Not wanting to discuss it now means nothing will change for the next 8 months and then it might as well be to late. Nothing should be off limits. Yes, you have a schedule for the next 4 months already. That does not mean you ignore things because you don’t want to think about it or change it right now.

In short devs need to bring more to this table than they have. You say it is important than treat it as such. Don’t merely ask questions or be defensive in your replies. Also try not to manipulate. Quite a few posts were pushing towards something you wanted. It might have been subconsciously, but that make it a good thing.

Now while the PVE thread had at least some interaction the WvW one was just sad. I really don’t feel Devon Carver is suited for the position as lead. As I don’t see him truly understanding the problems with WvW. To me it seems he’s in an ivory tower ignoring the masses below. WvW has a lot of problems. A lot of them boil down to bad implementation to begin with and I don’t see that changing even though redoing some of the things would greatly benefit things in the long run. What the WvW team does though is making a inherently bad situation worse and worse.

CDI looks like very good project to me and the comunication between players and developers is much better now. That is the fact and i very appreciate it.
But i still dont feel that developers have a will to change things according our feedbacks.
Only a little things that have no important impact or those that are problem of future and developers themselves dont know how to do them yet. Only in those cases developers have a will to do or change something. But in important things and features developers dont want to change anything no matter how many people have good reasons for it.
For example cadence of releases (i dont want to talk about it, i just put it as example) where we got answer ,,This is something we dont want to change" And that is all. In a future of CDI players ask for changes of many important features in game and they will have some really valid reasons for it. Especialy if we will discuss things like (again just example) Ascended gear or conditions in PVE. But CDI will never work well if everything what we will get on serious things is ,,This is something we dont want to change"
Anet you should learn ,,the art of compromise" even if it would mean to completely overwrite your vision of game
You are the developers, you dont have to do it, but if you really want players to have impact on game and work with you on it, you should never say anything like ,,This is something we dont want to change" or ,,This is something we want to have in game"
You should be open to change anything in a game or CDI will be only chat with developers which is nice and some nice ideas can come from it, but it will never be true Collaborative development.

Conner.4702:

The whole LW collaboration thread to me was just more of the same. Players making suggestions. That is NOT collaboration. Devs need to put in their concerns and ideas as well. Would the playerbase like this, would going in this direction be a good idea. You don’t have to disclose anything that is currently being worked on to do so. This brings me to another point. Don’t use “we can’t talk about this” as a way to shut down something when it isn’t an issue to begin with. You can talk about things without revealing details. I felt that a lot of posts were being to defensive as if you are trying to justify your actions. Among them the 2 week release schedule. Not wanting to discuss it now means nothing will change for the next 8 months and then it might as well be to late. Nothing should be off limits. Yes, you have a schedule for the next 4 months already. That does not mean you ignore things because you don’t want to think about it or change it right now.

In short devs need to bring more to this table than they have. You say it is important than treat it as such. Don’t merely ask questions or be defensive in your replies. Also try not to manipulate. Quite a few posts were pushing towards something you wanted. It might have been subconsciously, but that make it a good thing.

Now while the PVE thread had at least some interaction the WvW one was just sad. I really don’t feel Devon Carver is suited for the position as lead. As I don’t see him truly understanding the problems with WvW. To me it seems he’s in an ivory tower ignoring the masses below. WvW has a lot of problems. A lot of them boil down to bad implementation to begin with and I don’t see that changing even though redoing some of the things would greatly benefit things in the long run. What the WvW team does though is making a inherently bad situation worse and worse.

The funny thing is, this “CDI Process Evolution” thing isn’t going to even hint at changing the current norm either. The Original threads consisted of players discussing between themselves mostly, and now, this thread discussing the last threads (Woah, Meta) is most likely going to come to the same conclusion.
Probably open for way longer than needed, will have little discussion with the dev team, and will probably have most dev posts simply nodding and saying “Uh-huh”…on agreeing that things need to change, but again, just agreeing with the player base, and not adding to the discussion doesn’t really progress anything.

I almost think something like a General Mass Posting of the single line:

“Dev’s. Please add to the discussion, please”

Might do more to benefit the progression of an actual ‘discussion’ than just us spouting until the end of time between ourselves on something that we ultimately have no real control over, because that’s honestly all we really need to make this pseudo discussion a real one.
At the moment it feels like any other company saying “We appreciate your concern, thanks for your input”, then just going about their normal business.

We have 814 pages with 24 topics each page and this topic will change nothing if you don’t start to see what people want.

To be honest, I’m not even sure there’s a specific need for this whole CDI thing.
I just think ArenaNet need to participate more in the Suggestions forum. After all, that’s all these threads are. It’s just harder to pick out individual ideas when they’re all bunched up in one ginormothread.

Also, some recognition of adopted suggestions would help the community feel they aren’t being ignored. Several of my suggestions have been adopted almost word-for-word, yet ArenaNet haven’t even responded in the associated threads.

Examples:
Swappable stats on Legendaries
Achievement Tracking
Daily/Monthly Achievement List Choice

EverythingXen.1835:

To those saying they never answered the tough feedback/questions… what exactly do you mean?

The only one I recall from that monster thread was why they insisted on sticking with the bi-week cadence.

What did you want them to say?

I wanted them to say, “Hey, guys. Sorry about all that Living World stuff, but we had to give it a shot, ya know? No, seriously. We had to. Or else. Ahem. Anyway, onward and upward! Work is well underway on an expansion featuring all the currently unreachable areas adjacent to our currently reachable areas, with playable bird guys, blue guys, rat guys, and more! All with armor that fits! Plus two all-new, all-different professions! Did we say two? Bah! Four!”

Among other things.

Whispers
Shhh, what does CDI stand for again ?

Curby.4897:

You have had an entire year to listen to the community and you have ignored us. Why should we expect these topics to be any different?

That’s unfair. Two things I can think of off the top of my head that were in response to discussions on the forums are magic find changes, the wallet. There are others too. Just because all the various conflicting ideas on the forums haven’t been implemented doesn’t mean we’re being ignored.

I’d like to note that there is a difference between negative feedback and negative constructive feedback.

Negative constructive feedback is what would be best for ArenaNet to see, but also the hardest for the community to provide. Because you don’t only need to point out the flaws of something, but also need to be more detailed about why the flaws are flawed in your opinion (and maybe even suggest a solution for said flaws).

Only pointing out what is bad without explaining why isn’t going to help ArenaNet, it will only make the poster feel better when they post it and afterwards feel worse because there wont be a reply.

That being said, I think ArenaNet could modify the +1 system to flag all posts as read when they are read. That would be very helpful to keep track of the thread, for both ArenaNet and the community.

I think something the devs need to keep in mind is that when you get too close to something (devs and GW2 and to a lesser extent some of the players) it’s hard to look at it in an objective manner. It helps to step back from it completely.

I think the idea of devs having a way to flag ideas from the player base that they have taken note of is a good idea. I know you guys say you read this stuff, but do you? You guys have said a lot of things that haven’t happened or aren’t going to happen this year that were supposed to. I give it leeway because you guys are a busy lot, but I think you get my point.

I think they need to just respond to the things they are ‘watching’.

Look at the 814 posts & 11K views. Two responses that are irrelevant to the conversation. Not to mention the heated debates that are fracturing the community.

JMar.3254:

I think they need to just respond to the things they are ‘watching’.

Look at the 814 posts & 11K views. Two responses that are irrelevant to the conversation. Not to mention the heated debates that are fracturing the community.

This. Why no response? Even if it is a response that makes everything I say invalid, at least then I can stop wasting my time.

Awwwwww yeeeeahhhhh

Lilith Ajit.6173:

JMar.3254:

I think they need to just respond to the things they are ‘watching’.

Look at the 814 posts & 11K views. Two responses that are irrelevant to the conversation. Not to mention the heated debates that are fracturing the community.

This. Why no response? Even if it is a response that makes everything I say invalid, at least then I can stop wasting my time.

Awwwwww yeeeeahhhhh

Spoiler alert: we’re wasting our time =)

My new goal is just get the community to understand why resetting progression is a horrible idea.

It doesn’t matter if it affects you this time, because chances are it will next time.

Every single person arguing for the change is under lvl 30 fotm.

I believe that a good majority of the negative posts here are not constructive but complaining. It is hard to wade through all of the negativity particularly since much of it is off topic. Many of the ones that are on topic are hateful and not constructive.

I would like to ask that a moderator get us back on topic or focus the topic for further discussion.

As others have already pointed out, I felt the discussion was somewhat lacking in terms of A-net responses and in A-net giving the discussion a sense of direction.
I think there was a lot more of direction in the initial Collaborative development topic.

I think it is still important that players have the opportunity to add to the discussion. That concerns suggestions or ideas can be added along the way even if not outlined by A-net.

Therefore, I don’t mean that A-net should control every single aspect of the discussion. I mean that some guidance would be nice. After all, A-net know which suggestions have a realistic chance of being reconsidered by the developers though the collaborative development topic, where we as players do not.

There were a few developer responses along the way, but very few that gave a sense of direction. Actually, some of the few I recall that did give a sense of direction were:

The response concerning the frequency of LS releases. The response was not what I personally had hoped for, but at least the answer made it clear, that frequency was not an element of the LS that was up for debate or changes. A clear answer made it possible for everyone to focus on other elements instead.

The request for Favorite/ least favorite LS, which did provide a sense of direction.

I think the Collaborative development initiative is great, but I doubt it will do much if ends up much like any other topic on the forum. By that, I mean that I assume developers/forum moderators etc. actually read those topics as well, even if no reply is given.

If the few A-net responses is caused by having 3 active topics at a time (wvw, spvp and the general pve topic) and a limited amount of time available to actually read and reply, Maybe consider having just 1 topic up at a time?

I would rather have one topic, where the developers feel invested, than I would have 3, where the responses seem fragmented, where the “ping pong” between developers and players is missing, where the last developer response is 5 pages back.

I think what goes wrong with the CDI is:

If we ask for answers in a thread over 18 pages in 2 days and about 12k views why you make certain decitions it just get looked down.

what is collaborative about Holding a Monologue?

what reason is behind : LET’S DELETE THE LEGIT PROGRESS OF PLAYERS TO INTRODUCE LEADERBOARDS?

JMar.3254:

Lilith Ajit.6173:

JMar.3254:

I think they need to just respond to the things they are ‘watching’.

Look at the 814 posts & 11K views. Two responses that are irrelevant to the conversation. Not to mention the heated debates that are fracturing the community.

This. Why no response? Even if it is a response that makes everything I say invalid, at least then I can stop wasting my time.

Awwwwww yeeeeahhhhh

Spoiler alert: we’re wasting our time =)

My new goal is just get the community to understand why resetting progression is a horrible idea.

It doesn’t matter if it affects you this time, because chances are it will next time.

Every single person arguing for the change is under lvl 30 fotm.

First please don’t hijack threads. Second don’t speak for me, I am for the change and fractal 41. Simply put 30 on is no longer the same content as it was before, how is it right to give you credit for something you haven’t done especially when it’s ranked. Are you scared you can’t easily return to level you were before? Are you not going to run it anyway for the new rewards? Take a breathe is just a game and if it’s stressing you out this much may I recommend taking some time off to destress and actually enjoy yourself. This is supposed to be fun if you are no longer having fun reevaluate how you are spending you time.

Back to the topic as it stands derailed by complaints that the devs don’t listen. Again don’t speak for me. Quit saying the devs don’t listen to us. You seem to be more mad they don’t listen to you. There are plenty of suggestions the devs have adopted, in fact I see one of mine in the edge of the mists and another in the new obsidian jp. Am I the only one to suggest those probably not. But I do know for every idea the are people for and against you can’t please everyone.

As for those saying the devs only change stuff that comes out down the line in the future. We yeah, they do have to discuss design and implement things and that takes time. Just slapping on changes because you want it now is highly irresponsible and would wreck the game quickly. If you are expecting over night changes you need to rethink that expectation.

Hate to break it to some of you but this is anets world, they just let us play in it. We are all welcome to suggest changes to how the game plays. Ultimately it is still their game and they will govern it as they see fit. Sorry if in the end that doesn’t fit your vision of what you want for the game but it frankly just isn’t your game to run.

Anyway back to the real topic could we please get back to constructive ideas on how to progress with CDI. Offer changes you think could make it better. Don’t just whinethat they don’t listen. I’d you didn’t learn when you were a kid that temper tsntrums don’t get you anywhere it may be time to learn. Please just work the problem don’t be the problem

I would like to request that the topics begin with more information from the devs. The last set of three topics just gave a couple words on the subject and said go. Then after lots of suggestions it was revealed that some things (like a longer than 2 weeks release schedule) weren’t even on the table. Next time, please give a rough guideline for our feedback so we don’t waste each other’s time. Give us an idea of changes you are considering, and tell us up front if there are things that you’re not going to consider changing.

I also feel like it would help greatly if we had a better idea of where the devs are wanting this game to go. The original manifesto seems to no longer apply and I find it very difficult to describe things as being good or bad for the game if I don’t know what the goal is. Is this game supposed to be such that everything is accessible to anybody if they put in a bit of time? Are there some challenges you mean to reserve for the hardcore? What is the current stance on horizontal vs. vertical progression? What are your goals for class balance?

For example, the Tequatl update has made Sparkfly Fen a ghost town for most servers most of the day, but people who organize into guilds dedicated to it have no trouble killing him on overflows multiple times a day. Without knowing what was intended it is hard for me to help evaluate this change. If you mean to progress the game towards having some content reserved for the dedicated players only then this is a great step! But if the goal of the living world is to encourage random people to overcome challenges as they arise then this was a total failure. Without knowing the goal the only feedback I can offer is that it sucks that nobody kills Tequatl anymore on my server during my normal playtime.

That’s just one example but I feel a lack of understanding of intended game direction is going to be a problem no matter what the CDI topic being discussed is. So to summarize; please give us more information so that we can give you better feedback.

First of all, I am sorry that my English is not good. I am not native English speaker.

The CDI evolution process I suggest these things:

1. Summaries of discussions / direction every three pages
2. More transparency of the CDI meetings / summaries of memos
3. Information what CDI meeting decide to most likely to add in the game

Thank you ArenaNet when you give us the opportunity to take part in your decision-making in matters relating to the development of the game.

Conner.4702:

The whole LW collaboration thread to me was just more of the same. Players making suggestions. That is NOT collaboration. Devs need to put in their concerns and ideas as well. Would the playerbase like this, would going in this direction be a good idea. You don’t have to disclose anything that is currently being worked on to do so. This brings me to another point. Don’t use “we can’t talk about this” as a way to shut down something when it isn’t an issue to begin with. You can talk about things without revealing details. I felt that a lot of posts were being to defensive as if you are trying to justify your actions. Among them the 2 week release schedule. Not wanting to discuss it now means nothing will change for the next 8 months and then it might as well be to late. Nothing should be off limits. Yes, you have a schedule for the next 4 months already. That does not mean you ignore things because you don’t want to think about it or change it right now.

In short devs need to bring more to this table than they have. You say it is important than treat it as such. Don’t merely ask questions or be defensive in your replies. Also try not to manipulate. Quite a few posts were pushing towards something you wanted. It might have been subconsciously, but that make it a good thing.

Now while the PVE thread had at least some interaction the WvW one was just sad. I really don’t feel Devon Carver is suited for the position as lead. As I don’t see him truly understanding the problems with WvW. To me it seems he’s in an ivory tower ignoring the masses below. WvW has a lot of problems. A lot of them boil down to bad implementation to begin with and I don’t see that changing even though redoing some of the things would greatly benefit things in the long run. What the WvW team does though is making a inherently bad situation worse and worse.

Great post, and right on target on all points.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Thanks for the suggestions and feedback i will make sure to do a summary and list actions on Monday.

I don’t want to derail the thread but i would also like to know how everyone would like the next topics to be chosen. Simply would you like to vote again or would you like us to pick the second topics on the respective lists?

Finally i have said this many times so for those that have seen it repeatedly please forgive me for the repetition, but once again i want to make it clear that the only ‘feedback’ i have asked the team not to spend their time on are those comments which are not productive. Specifically comments with no actionable substance. Whilst it is nice to see positive commentary we spend a lot more time discussing and negative criticism so we can learn more and improve the game.

Again for the feedback on how to improve the CDI,

Chris

Would you like for us to list all the honestly constructive comments that were raised by many players on the WvW CDI thread that received ZERO acknowledgement, or comment, or encouragement, and were totally ignored in the dev’s lone summary? Please give us some honest interaction on that thread before you open up another … otherwise please quit wasting our time and getting our hopes up for nothing.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Thanks for the suggestions and feedback i will make sure to do a summary and list actions on Monday.

I don’t want to derail the thread but i would also like to know how everyone would like the next topics to be chosen. Simply would you like to vote again or would you like us to pick the second topics on the respective lists?

Chris

My first preference would be for A-Net to choose the topic. If that can’t happen then going back for another vote would be best.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Thanks for the suggestions and feedback i will make sure to do a summary and list actions on Monday.

I don’t want to derail the thread but i would also like to know how everyone would like the next topics to be chosen. Simply would you like to vote again or would you like us to pick the second topics on the respective lists?

Finally i have said this many times so for those that have seen it repeatedly please forgive me for the repetition, but once again i want to make it clear that the only ‘feedback’ i have asked the team not to spend their time on are those comments which are not productive. Specifically comments with no actionable substance. Whilst it is nice to see positive commentary we spend a lot more time discussing and negative criticism so we can learn more and improve the game.

Again for the feedback on how to improve the CDI,

Chris

I vote just go with the second on the list. I don’t see a reason to delay another round of CDI with another vote this early in the process… I don’t think the other issues brought up suddenly resolved themselves.

It is not my intention to badmouth this initiative and will only give a little poke in a hopefully humorous way for you all who cotribute to this discussion so passionately as a little reminder to keep focus and not to derail [too much] into details:

A discussion about how to proceed a discussion…my take would be to have just a few, better just one (preferably on Anets side^^) who organizes and plans on how to organize CDI communication, like setting up a seperate CDI forum, start a thread for each hot topic (which should’ve been identified by now I hope) and go on from there ….observing which thread baloons and then you can have a top 10 and priorize the surely limited dev communication time.

Because I have the impression everyone who posts a suggetion or question to a dev feels entitled for a personal dev response, that some even want direct webcam access into Anets meeting rooms and so on…this wont happen and implying or enforcing such an impression doesn’t help I’d say…well, I hope you’ll get what I mean and now I’m out

EverythingXen.1835:

I vote just go with the second on the list. I don’t see a reason to delay another round of CDI with another vote this early in the process… I don’t think the other issues brought up suddenly resolved themselves.

I agree, the CDI is an interesting initiative, I want more! (And as soon as possible ^^)

Changes are coming slowly, so the earlier we get the process going, the better. Perhaps after 5 subjects or so it would be time for another vote. Since the game may have some different topics at hand by then.

Also, I have the feeling that the vote came at a relatively peaceful time, so it might be more accurate to the state of the entire game. I’m afraid that a new vote might result in an overwhelming interest in fractals. And then perhaps we’ll find out that all of our awesome long term feedback is off the table for months, since you are probably not able to fit in another big fractals-related update any time soon. (While in the meantime we have an excellent living world forum section to deliver urgent feedback on)

This could of course just repeat itself if we keep doing new votes every round.

Let’s do the current top 5 first.

I also would prefer to proceed with the topics from the already existing list. It would provide an influx of new ideas on different aspect of the game.

After the discussion of the top 3 topic I would like to see a new vote about topics within a macro topic.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Thanks for the suggestions and feedback i will make sure to do a summary and list actions on Monday.

I don’t want to derail the thread but i would also like to know how everyone would like the next topics to be chosen. Simply would you like to vote again or would you like us to pick the second topics on the respective lists?

I would like to see Anet choose the topics based on what y’all think would be the best use of everyone’s time to go into more detail on. Some feedback doesn’t need a lot of discussion, some topics can be settled in the nearer term, and some topics might need a lot of iteration to come up with a good solution. We don’t have visibility into the technical and business constraints so I think it would be best for y’all to prioritize the topics.

I realize that means a group of posters will be disgruntled when their issues aren’t addressed immediately even though they are popular, but is this a PR initiative or a development initiative?

Nike.2631:

cesmode.4257:

-Please tell other posters to refrain from using formatted posts. It was completely obnoxious to see some people make font 50 titles, with huge underscores and uniquely formatted posts, just so their post stood out and took up the most room. I skipped right over most of those.

…

-There were many, many posts that were wall of texts. Im sure you folks didnt have time to read through each post that was 2 or 3 posts long. Maybe come up with some sort of structure for us to get our ideas across. A bulleted list, a question and answer. While some people had some great suggestions, they had some long winded posts that probably could have been shortened(myself included).

You owe me a new irony meter. Because that just bent the needle on mine. We can (and apparently SHOULD) use formatting – as long as its the formatting you approve of. And all other formatting is to be verboten.

When you’re looking for a plethora of ideas enforcing conformity is not a good first step .

Wait a second.

Concerning formatting, I simply think it is a bit obnoxious to make the titles of subtopics in a post a font 50, bolded, and underlined. Just sayin…

Secondly, concerning the walls of text… I admitted I was guilty of tihs myself and Im sure devs would appreciate more concise writing rather than books that they then need to sit down by the fire and read with a glass of wine because the post is so long.

I wasn’t pointing you out. There were a few people that formatted their posts so that they jumped out at you when the majority of posts were just normal posts with regular font size text.

You can achieve formatting without the obnoxious font sizing and all of the ‘doo-daas’.

The objective to making posts a bit more concise, uniform, and free of excessive formatting is to assist Mr. Whiteside and the developers in reading the hundreds of posts that we came up with.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Thank you all for making the first CDI topic discussions such a good start. The next phase as mentioned at the start of the initiative is for us to discuss how we could better evolve the process around CDI. The key areas for me personally are as follows and based on my interactions on the PVE thread:

1: More focused Topics.
2: Summaries of discussion/direction every three pages.
3: More time to post.

Please know the expectation isn’t for you to list your top three, this is just how I did it. This is a discussion primarily and next Monday I will post the actions so we can evolve the CDI best working practices immediately.

Thanks again for your involvement,

Chris

Regarding your 3 listed above: I don’t think a more focused topic is required, since the last CDIs evolved nicely thanks to broad topics and lots of input. Summaries every few pages would be helpful since the conversation does progress quite quickly. Active discussion with devs always spurs the traffic of threads. The time to post I think was good. The last CDIs covered a lot of ground, felt progressive, and didn’t dissolved into worthless banter due to the thread outlasting its usefulness.

I also think Anet should just choose the next topic in the list, and start the new round right after. I’m personally anxious for the next discussion topic, so I wouldn’t like to see it delayed for the sake of resetting the votes.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Thanks for the suggestions and feedback i will make sure to do a summary and list actions on Monday.

I don’t want to derail the thread but i would also like to know how everyone would like the next topics to be chosen. Simply would you like to vote again or would you like us to pick the second topics on the respective lists?

Finally i have said this many times so for those that have seen it repeatedly please forgive me for the repetition, but once again i want to make it clear that the only ‘feedback’ i have asked the team not to spend their time on are those comments which are not productive. Specifically comments with no actionable substance. Whilst it is nice to see positive commentary we spend a lot more time discussing and negative criticism so we can learn more and improve the game.

Again for the feedback on how to improve the CDI,

Chris

just pick the 2nd topic in the last vote seems much easier
and here is something that is full of actionable substance. admit how poorly the wvw thread did and fix it.

I have no idea what the next most popular topics are/were. If I did, it might influence whether I wanted another vote. It probably doesn’t matter.

I think it would be best if ArenaNet chose the next topic if it was something we might be able to influence. If the next topic voted on, previously, is basically already set in stone, or is of a nature where the Devs really can’t speak about it at this time, it would likely be a waste of time to discuss it.

If, on the other hand, you (the Devs) could give a list of topics that we might have the best chance on influencing in the future, I would be more than happy to vote on which of those to discuss.

Personally, I’m leaning towards ANet picking the next topic. My main issue with the CDI to this point is a lack of actual open discussion involving the developers as more than just moderators. By having ANet pick the topic, they could choose one that they are actually willing and interested to have such a discussion on.

Sure it might be a soft ball topic, or it might be one the players don’t actually care all that much about, but at least it would involve some form of collaboration.

Add 1 separate +1 indicator on forum threads for the Devs and show how many have hit it. This would easily let people see that Devs have read their post. (Next up, complaints that “Xx devs have read my post but not responded”)

How about for the second round, the devs pick the topics? And alternate it each session? What kinds of concerns and head-scratching problems are you dealing with today?

Ultimately I’m not concerned with how CDI topics are picked: While there are many things about this game I consider Excellent, nothing is Perfect. Whatever the next topic, is if I have something to contribute I will. If I don’t, I’ll read with (mild) interest and wait for the next round.

But it’s getting to be bad comedy to see any and all crusades on other fronts get dumped here in the hopes that if they’re unwinnable elsewhere, they’ll magically be elevated to victory by sliding them in here . Take it as a sign ‘clarity of topic’ is a must.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

I don’t want to derail the thread but i would also like to know how everyone would like the next topics to be chosen. Simply would you like to vote again or would you like us to pick the second topics on the respective lists?

Hey Chris.

I think it really depends.

If some topics are set in stone, and you know you will not implement changes to those any time soon, then I think it would be a little bit silly to pick a desired topic by vote.
If the above is the case, then I think you guys have a better chance of determining which topic would provide the most value.

On the other hand, if a certain topic is high on the list and the fact that it is, makes it a candidate for a change or makeover, then I think you should stick with the vote already made.

In relation to more focused topics: Perhaps it would be an idea to ask questions, regarding the chosen topic, that you are curious about. As in, ask the question(s) in the very first post that starts the discussion, in order to to guide the chosen topic a little bit.

Iason Evan.3806:

I think something the devs need to keep in mind is that when you get too close to something (devs and GW2 and to a lesser extent some of the players) it’s hard to look at it in an objective manner. It helps to step back from it completely.

I have generally found that PLAYERS suffer from this FAR more than developers. The emotional attachment players get to their games makes it near impossible for many of them to approach it logically.

Go back to the thread and pick the second most requested topic. I presume this would be rewards or something to do with the current constant grind in the game.

As a community development initiative, it makes sense to discuss with the community the problems they have brought to your attention.

I think it’d be awesome to open up a voting system. Instead of teams just bull heading through to the next patch and then having players moan and groan about it, slow down the releases, give us some options, and let us vote. Involving the community more, and releasing more relevant game content. Maybe even set up a cycle, where players vote on which area of the game they would like to be a priority for a certain amount of time. That area of the game then gets centered in patches and updates. Once that cycle is done, open voting up again and let us help decide the next area of focus.