Guild Wars 2

Player Representitives.

Honestly? You need middle management to distill talking points in to something more digestible by the development team.

EVE Online uses an official player-elected council, and various other games have used appointed or player elected representatives as the community spokes piece for this purpose.

There are a few rules to follow when setting up community middle management:

1 . Player reps are not employees, and are not appointed by employees. This is a credibility issue.

2. Player reps are volunteers, and are not unduly compensated for their efforts. The meetings that EVE’s CSM get flown to are, IMO excessive. Those discussions could be had on skype or other remote means. A town hat, name icon, or title in recognition of their services is appropriate. Being rewarded with real world material goods, plane rides, etc. is not. It damages the objectivity of their feedback.

3. Player reps have access to the development process, under strict NDA. This is your filter, these are your windows to the community because they ARE the community, and these are the people that will tell you something is a bad idea before you invest time and effort in to it.

4. It is not the player’s responsibility to run an election. The job of a player rep is to grant perspective, and to collect and present feedback from whatever sector of the community he/she represents. This is a tool, and one that a small amount of effort must be invested in. That means ArenaNet investing a bit of effort in to setting up fair and unbiased nomination and election systems so that representitives can be elected easily by the public.

5. Dissent is not a dirty word. If you’re hearing overwhelmingly negative things from your reps about an idea, that’s when they are doing their job. They are preventing mistakes by giving you prescience you would not have otherwise had from inside the company bubble. This is a good thing. When you work closely on something it can be difficult to see it objectively. A cross section of your user base will always see it objectively from exactly the viewpoint you care most about.

Please no player reps or middle management or whatever you want to call it.
If I player wants to contribute to CDI- great, if not great, it just means that you are not contributing.
The last thing I want is some faceless class prefect speaking for me.
I am quite capable of that myself thanks

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Nike.2631:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

The next topic for WvW after skill lag is: Commander mechanics and Commander tag functionality.

Chris

Allow me to use my powers of true prophecy to sum up the “CDI – WvW Skill Lag” thread in its entirety before it even happens:

Players: We hate skill lag. It makes us look like incompetents.
ANet: We hate it too. We’re working on it right now.

Now its possible that on this side of the fence there are some amazing network coders who have torn apart your engine in far more detail than the EULA allows and can offer some amazingly detailed and cogent suggestions for managing your packet handling and who would risk bans for revealing they know that much about your engine architecture… And your coders might love to meet and chat with them on a level 99% of us reading will never understand… But I’m not sure its a bet I’d be willing to take, investing your single CDI WvW ‘slot’ for the week or two it would require to bear fruit or prove fruitless.

While i agree that the topic may not be suitable as a CDI topic, it is worth noting that there is a lot more to this topic than performance optimization. Opportunities and evolution on this area are also impacted by Game Design quite heavily.

However like you say more value could probably be derived from other topics such as Commander functionality.

Chris

I agree with Nike in that if there is more to skill lag than just server optimizations, it may be worth a discussion. I think that game design is something that would be interesting to discuss as well. But, considering how the first topic went, I can see this devolving into more negativity about how tier 1 servers are prioritized over others; from reading some threads about it, it seems to be an issue mostly for those servers. It would need to be heavily handled in order to keep it a positive experience.

I think if topics are centralized to one CDI at a time, then commander functionality would have broader appeal. And it is something that hasn’t had any changes to it recently and may be a way to clearly show what a direct impact the CDI can have on the game.

You might not want me to ask this, but can you explain what you meant in terms of value as a topic? I’m curious about your perspective.

Morrigan.2809:

Please no player reps or middle management or whatever you want to call it.
If I player wants to contribute to CDI- great, if not great, it just means that you are not contributing.
The last thing I want is some faceless class prefect speaking for me.
I am quite capable of that myself thanks

That’s just it though. The problem is that you, me, and hundreds of other people spouting individual opinions all at once quickly devolves in to everyone shouting in a crowded room.

You want to have your voice heard, as does everyone else, but that ends up meaning far less voices are heard in the short span of time the people at Arenanet have to actually listen.

Is it more important that your individual opinion is heard, or that the collective opinion of specific sections of the community is heard?

PopeUrban.2578:

Morrigan.2809:

Please no player reps or middle management or whatever you want to call it.
If I player wants to contribute to CDI- great, if not great, it just means that you are not contributing.
The last thing I want is some faceless class prefect speaking for me.
I am quite capable of that myself thanks

That’s just it though. The problem is that you, me, and hundreds of other people spouting individual opinions all at once quickly devolves in to everyone shouting in a crowded room.

You want to have your voice heard, as does everyone else, but that ends up meaning far less voices are heard in the short span of time the people at Arenanet have to actually listen.

Is it more important that your individual opinion is heard, or that the collective opinion of specific sections of the community is heard?

Anet pays professionals to do that. They’re community managers. And they dont disappear when they decide to enjoy their hobby through another game.

I, too, am against player representatives. It is hard enough to be heard just on the forums. Why would a player have any more ability to read threads than a Dev? And how can they be unbiased? Every player, Every Player will want their own preferences considered most. I feel there would be even less chance to be heard if there were player reps. I prefer, if I am to be unheard, to be so without the middle man.

What does CDI stand for? I’ve looked around but find only more use of it but no explanation for what it means.

Collaborative Development Initiative, I believe.

Collaborative Development Initiative

It is a process that was “initiated” weeks ago and is aimed at providing a more interactive “collaboration” between players and developers (or other employees depending on the topic) to mold the future of the game “development”.

Originally, it began with a discussion on whether this would be something positive for the community and asked for feedback and suggestions. Then, a call for topics in the three main play types resulted in the first round of collaboration. PvE, PvP, and WvW all had CDI threads to discuss the main global issue players indicated were their top choices. This thread, and those in the two other areas, is designed to get feedback on what was good and bad about the discussion and how to make it better going forward.

At least, that is my understanding.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Each thread has an owner, I am the owner of the PVE thread. My plan is to work with each of the owners to help them grow to better handle the topics moving forward. I want the individual owners themselves to reply and connect in a meaningful and relevant manner, thus it is disingenuous for me to go in and own another thread (never mind taking into account the time that would eat up for me). However this does not preclude me from working with the guys and girls to build a better path to success in this initiative.

Thanks for clarifying that you are not the owner of each thread. It is good to know you do not have to manage all of them.

One question after looking at this post from you and other posts on the thread, does this mean that you will have a CDI question in each area (PvP, WvW, and PvE) going on at the same time or just one at any given time. Or am I reading this wrong and nothing about that has been decided yet?

And dude!!! Huge props for handling some of the beating you get here. It is pure class the way you compose yourself on the thread.

PopeUrban.2578:

Morrigan.2809:

Please no player reps or middle management or whatever you want to call it.
If I player wants to contribute to CDI- great, if not great, it just means that you are not contributing.
The last thing I want is some faceless class prefect speaking for me.
I am quite capable of that myself thanks

That’s just it though. The problem is that you, me, and hundreds of other people spouting individual opinions all at once quickly devolves in to everyone shouting in a crowded room.

You want to have your voice heard, as does everyone else, but that ends up meaning far less voices are heard in the short span of time the people at Arenanet have to actually listen.

Is it more important that your individual opinion is heard, or that the collective opinion of specific sections of the community is heard?

I do not disagree or agree with the idea of player volunteers. There seem to be some already in the forums that are actively trying to help other players and provide easier paths for developers to get information from players.

I disagree with this reasoning entirely though. A forum isn’t like a room of people; two hundred people can post in the same minute and have their opinion “heard”, there is no shouting over each other; If everyone says the same thing, what is the point of a summary? The effect of reading the same thing 100 times is probably more profound than reading it once saying 100 posters agree. And if there are differences, those should be heard as well.

Also, the CDI is not a good place for this because collaboration can be stunted. I’ve seen some posts that are sarcastic, but taken literally until pointed out; you have those the troll and shouldn’t be taken seriously; there are just idea posts and summarizing those could breakdown the ability to takeaway something important; there are posts that change minds about a topic because it is well reasoned; there are disagreements that lead to further discussion; etc, etc. Collaboration is actually about all those individuals getting to say what they want, even if it is in the minority, even if it is a “bad” idea. Someone can say the same thing as five other people, but in a different way, that makes more sense, provides a clearer reason for it, or in a more thought provoking way.

In this situation, I would rather hear a summary and guidance from a dev than another player so I know it is being read by them and how they are reading it.

To answer your question, my preference would be to read all the individual opinions rather than the collective.

PopeUrban.2578:

Morrigan.2809:

Please no player reps or middle management or whatever you want to call it.
If I player wants to contribute to CDI- great, if not great, it just means that you are not contributing.
The last thing I want is some faceless class prefect speaking for me.
I am quite capable of that myself thanks

That’s just it though. The problem is that you, me, and hundreds of other people spouting individual opinions all at once quickly devolves in to everyone shouting in a crowded room.

You want to have your voice heard, as does everyone else, but that ends up meaning far less voices are heard in the short span of time the people at Arenanet have to actually listen.

Is it more important that your individual opinion is heard, or that the collective opinion of specific sections of the community is heard?

As far as I understand this is the purpose of CDI so that individual player can give their feed back about specific topic to the Dev’s .

It is hardly shouting in a crowded room.

If I give feedback in these threads I know there is a high change it will be read- I don’t particularly need a Dev to respond to me personally- but I know that I can provide feedback here.

Whether it is acted on in a the way I want is not really relevant either because I know that the Dev’s want the best experience for everyone and will take what I say into consideration- especially if many people feel the same.
If someone else states my views more eloquently than I can I will upvote their post

Why would I need a spokes person for that?

Thanks for the info Inculpatus cedo and brittitude!

You are most welcome, Causic. =)

Chris Whiteside.6102:

morrolan.9608:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

The next topic for WvW after skill lag is: Commander mechanics and Commander tag functionality.

Then when is WXP cause that is a definite hot button topic and has been for a long time?

Hi Morrolan,

I am only aware of the top three in each area and WXP wasn’t one of them. I would imagine WvW progression was pretty high up though. It is certainly a discussion i would like to see.

Chris

The commander system would be a great next topic for WvW. I’ve seen a lot of ideas from the community around that and I think it could make for really good discussion.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

That is a good point. Let’s see if there is anymore commentary about that Topic proposal and then go from there.

Chris

I’ll throw in another voice against Skill Lag as a topic for the WvW CDI, with a different reason. I think that if you polled the community again today, skill lag would not get nearly the focus it did previously. The original call for topics was posted right around the beginning of WvW Season 1, which caused a significant increase in skill lag for a lot of players, making it a bit of a hot issue at the time (particularly because it got worse shortly after we were given assurances that it would be getting better).

The November 12th patch brought some significant improvements to skill lag. It’s both made it a much smaller issue for many players, and lends a lot more credibility to the promises that it will be addressed.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Yep it means i would be able to contribute both the WvW and PvP threads.

Chris

Sounds fair enough, after all you only have so many hours in the day and these topics do have quite the weight on them.
Which means since I’m mostly PvE I can skip out on reading forums for two weeks!
I’ll be able to use that time for game related or mini painting related things.

Well

It seems that my previous post to this discussion was moderated without notification or simply put deleted. So I can honestly say, yes some of us do go unheard and ignored.

With that said.

First order of the process, you might consider trying to fix this so if we do go Unheard, weare at least notified.

Thanks

I’m not certain what the content of your original post was, folly.

I will say this, though. If a person is disrespectful to a developer, throwing out ad-hominems, or is having too much fun with the kitten filter, it can likely be expected that a CC Rep will respond to it quickly, without any connection to the developer himself or herself.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

whyme.3281:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

FYI if we go with the next topics from the initial call for topics threads (Global) then they are as follows:

PVE: Ascended Gear
PvP: Rewards and Progression
WvW: Skill Lag

These are all pretty focused topics which means we will be able to enter into the discussions more readily in terms of time. The bigger the topic the more divergent the discussions and this makes it harder for us to give them our full attention.

Chris

Can we see a complete list of the next 3+ topics?

Hi Whyme,

Here is the data you requested:

WvW Request for Topics Results

1 Population (Imbalance)
2 Skill Lag
3 Commander (functionality, system, tag)

Chris

I believe there is little players can talk about regarding skill lag. havent the dev told us that skill lag is a server issue and unless there are players that have knowledge in server optimization, we cant help you.
another subject that is related to skill lag but one that the community can give you their thoughts is giant blob fighting another giant blob causing skill lag and how to reward smart play instead of rewarding the server with the most people.

PS: Chris if you take part in the WvW thread, i have hope for it to actually achieve something.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Here is the data you requested:

PvE Request for Topics Results

2 Ascended Gear/Ascended Items
3 Class Balance

WvW Request for Topics Results

3 Commander (functionality, system, tag)

PvP Request for Topics Results

3 Build Diversity

((Cracks knuckles)) I have nine 80s… Believe that I have a few thoughts on the ascended gear acquisition process!

I don’t have a commander tag, but I do follow one around for a couple hours each week. I’m looking forward to hearing more about that and maybe finding a way to get one other than spending the coin I rarely allow to build up to 100g (see the care and feeding of nine 80s, above…).

I think it would be interesting if class balance and build diversity were somehow linked – either sequentially or running side-by-side. They are closely related topics. I actually rather approve of the minimal split between skill behaviors in different modes, but it puts a very high level of onus on the designers to seek equitable solutions for all 8 of the professions. Before throwing around solutions, I plan to have some very revealing questions to ask in those threads…

Not a match for my own list of 3 back during the poll, but certainly some things I think the community can sink their teeth into .

Pssstttt, Chris,
Still waiting on that response about community manager/community co-ordinator roles being a little ‘redundant’ for lack of a better term. :P

For the WvW topic could we please start out with the Population/Participation imbalance? Pretty please?

I for one think this is the single biggest problem that people face in WvW right now. I play WvW a lot, and it is so frustrating in the weeks where we get rolled not because of lack of skill on our part (we have some really amazing and talented commanders on our server who have done things with zergs I never thought possible) but because we simply don’t have the participation that the other servers have. The outmanned buff doesn’t help a server win at all. I think it is a self perpetuating problem:

1) Not enough people show up in WvW on Gate of Madness
2) Those that do get rolled over and over again because HoD has a million more players on the map
3) Those that did show up don’t want to participate anymore because they feel that anything they do is useless
4) Repeat week after week ad nauseam.

As a dedicated WvW player I would love to see this one be at the top instead of Skill Lag or even ahead of commander abilities (yes I’m a commander myself so I would benefit from that discussion).

eleshazar.6902:

For the WvW topic could we please start out with the Population/Participation imbalance? Pretty please?

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Collaborative-Development-World-Population/first
Is that not it?

eleshazar.6902:

For the WvW topic could we please start out with the Population/Participation imbalance? Pretty please?

I for one think this is the single biggest problem that people face in WvW right now. I play WvW a lot, and it is so frustrating in the weeks where we get rolled not because of lack of skill on our part (we have some really amazing and talented commanders on our server who have done things with zergs I never thought possible) but because we simply don’t have the participation that the other servers have. The outmanned buff doesn’t help a server win at all. I think it is a self perpetuating problem:

1) Not enough people show up in WvW on Gate of Madness
2) Those that do get rolled over and over again because HoD has a million more players on the map
3) Those that did show up don’t want to participate anymore because they feel that anything they do is useless
4) Repeat week after week ad nauseam.

As a dedicated WvW player I would love to see this one be at the top instead of Skill Lag or even ahead of commander abilities (yes I’m a commander myself so I would benefit from that discussion).

we already did that. I don’t know if you missed it or just think the wvw players deserve another chance at the topic but this time with meaningful input from anet instead of what we got.

nethykins.7986:

Pssstttt, Chris,
Still waiting on that response about community manager/community co-ordinator roles being a little ‘redundant’ for lack of a better term. :P

I’m not sure why you say that. The community managers still handle thousands of threads each day. Moderators will still be needed even (maybe especially…) in CDI threads to comb out off topic and abusive posts. Community managers also serve an important function in identifying and forwarding along specific concerns, but in this case that’s unnecessary as there is a Developer-Owner present to do that directly. The handful of CDI threads will likely become magnets for response, which is mostly the point (as long as those responses remain topical). After that I think a fair portion of the burden to use the threads well fall on the posters. To fall back on a previous analogy – Its an open mic on the big stage. The spotlight will be on you. Don’t squander the opportunity.

My prophecy powers are tingling that the next one of these evolution threads will have a lot more emphasis on how to write good rules and guidance for posting into CDI threads. That “post #2” I envision following the topic primer in post #1. Once the Devs step up their game with what’s been discussed here, it’ll be time to help fellow posters step up ours .

PopeUrban.2578:

Show Spoiler

hide spoiler

Player Representitives.

Honestly? You need middle management to distill talking points in to something more digestible by the development team.

EVE Online uses an official player-elected council, and various other games have used appointed or player elected representatives as the community spokes piece for this purpose.

There are a few rules to follow when setting up community middle management:

1 . Player reps are not employees, and are not appointed by employees. This is a credibility issue.

2. Player reps are volunteers, and are not unduly compensated for their efforts. The meetings that EVE’s CSM get flown to are, IMO excessive. Those discussions could be had on skype or other remote means. A town hat, name icon, or title in recognition of their services is appropriate. Being rewarded with real world material goods, plane rides, etc. is not. It damages the objectivity of their feedback.

3. Player reps have access to the development process, under strict NDA. This is your filter, these are your windows to the community because they ARE the community, and these are the people that will tell you something is a bad idea before you invest time and effort in to it.

4. It is not the player’s responsibility to run an election. The job of a player rep is to grant perspective, and to collect and present feedback from whatever sector of the community he/she represents. This is a tool, and one that a small amount of effort must be invested in. That means ArenaNet investing a bit of effort in to setting up fair and unbiased nomination and election systems so that representitives can be elected easily by the public.

5. Dissent is not a dirty word. If you’re hearing overwhelmingly negative things from your reps about an idea, that’s when they are doing their job. They are preventing mistakes by giving you prescience you would not have otherwise had from inside the company bubble. This is a good thing. When you work closely on something it can be difficult to see it objectively. A cross section of your user base will always see it objectively from exactly the viewpoint you care most about.

This is an interesting idea. I’m familiar with EVE’s CSM and it has been very beneficial for that game. I’m not sure that anything that in-depth is appropriate for GW2 though. EVE lives and dies by it’s player communities- alliances, politics, wars and so on. It’s a true sandbox- content is created by the players and what they do. In that environment, keeping the community actively connected to the devs is a requirement.

In GW2, it’s much more the amusement-park design format. Actually, I get the impression it’s supposed to be about halfway between, but it’s leaning very much towards the park format right now. In this case, it’s more important for the Devs to have strong control over their world. I want to see their vision, their art, their story. What I want from my end is strong, fun, balanced gameplay. They don’t need to run the concept of a new zone past a player council to see if it would fracture the community (most of the time, anyway- see Ascended gear). We just want more quests, more bosses, new loot, and so on, and are happy to explore what’s given to us.

The most valuable feedback then is going to be on what kind of design works best. What quests were fun, what was boring. What skills are balanced, what’s useless, what’s OP, what’s fun, what encourages creativity and what’s useless. What combat mechanics are fun are which ones are boring, which ones restrict gameplay (eg: Defiant) and so on. Thus I think community representatives would be better implemented as Advocates, rather then a big council.

For example, back when I played Shadowbane there were community “Class Advocates”. They were generally elected on each Class’ specific forum, and were active forum users with a strong discussion record and a passion for their class. Thus, all you are doing is creating an official path of communication for what already happens. The Advocates would discuss balance of their class, the role they play, and all that, keeping a constructive discussion going. Players would bring up problems to them, and the Advocate would feed that information to the Devs. It’s no CDI, but it keeps a constant stream of community information going to the Devs at all times.

This might be a good idea for GW2- especially with WvW and how quickly things can change in PvP environments. Not only can people be appointed for classes, but PvP, WvW, etc. It would work in tandem with CDI I think, since all the small issues (bug reports, skill balance tweaks, itemization, so on) are being discussed at all times alongside the big CDI focus of that week. Think of it as a “low hanging fruit cannon.”

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Hi Whyme,

Here is the data you requested:

PvE Request for Topics Results

1 Living World
2 Ascended Gear/Ascended Items
3 Class Balance

WvW Request for Topics Results

1 Population (Imbalance)
2 Skill Lag
3 Commander (functionality, system, tag)

PvP Request for Topics Results

1 Game Modes
2 Rewards (progression)
3 Build Diversity

Chris

As already mentioned, Skill Lag doesn’t seem like it’ll lead to meaningful collaborative development. It would also seem that Ascended Gear/Ascended Items would be a poor topic choice, although for a different reason.

While there may have been a lot of relevant player input months ago, at the current point of ascended gear development/implementation what would be the point? It’s already all in game except ascended armor, and that is clearly already designed if not completely done being developed. So unless there’s some future gear tier being considered that would benefit from the process, it would seem a waste.

My conclusion is that while player input into topics is good, you should use a heavier hand in picking topics that have a better chance of being beneficial to actual future development of the game.

Inspired.6730:

While there may have been a lot of relevant player input months ago, at the current point of ascended gear development/implementation what would be the point? It’s already all in game except ascended armor, and that is clearly already designed if not completely done being developed. So unless there’s some future gear tier being considered that would benefit from the process, it would seem a waste.

Without expending all of my ammo now, I’d say there is a lot that can still be tweaked with Ascended gear present and future to make it less oppressive. Beyond things like tweaking the recipe requirements, as a bare minimum nod to alt friendliness I’d like to see all Ascended gear become account bound without ever soul binding. Then If I do spend a month or so on each item, I can at least pass them around inside my own stable of characters. I have more elaborate proposals, but that should illustrate that there are things that can still be done.

Small technical suggestion for future CDI threads – if you are going to have multiple-post summaries/summary bumps as seen in the Living Story thread, you may want to lock the thread for a few minutes while you make those bumps so that they don’t end up with player posts interspersed.

Finite thread durations will help cut down on summary bloat and I’m still hopeful that if the summary can be concise enough to fit in a single post, it could be slipped into the designated ‘Answer’ post that appears at the top of every page following the ‘Question’ post containing the thread Primer. Primer & Summary appearing at the top of every page could go a long way towards ease of access to new posters just tuning in.

Nike.2631:

I’m not sure why you say that. The community managers still handle thousands of threads each day. Moderators will still be needed even (maybe especially…) in CDI threads to comb out off topic and abusive posts. Community managers also serve an important function in identifying and forwarding along specific concerns, but in this case that’s unnecessary as there is a Developer-Owner present to do that directly.

I say it because from what interaction they have with the community (and from what you’ve also described), it feels like it’s closer to a alternative title of Moderator.

I stated in an earlier post when i first asked the question, why is it that I see the community managers never really communicating with the community, and when it is, it’s often to give a warning, tell someone they’re incorrect and present them with fact, or closing a thread.

Even my single interaction with a community manager came from asking why threads were being deleted/closed on a ‘shoot first, ask questions later’ policy way back earlier this year. First I got an infraction for bringing it up, then I got a response from a community manager, and I even Thanked them for responding, then the thread was closed.

So much for communication.

I sincerely hope you, or Anet don’t think community managers should just sit back, collect info on what’s bugging us, but never reach out to us?

I understand this is a dev owned thread, but does that make them exempt from adding to the discussion, or visibly assisting, and hell, maybe they may even communicate…with the community.

I suppose I’m just alone in thinking this.

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

Um, thanks, Nike. I think we shouldn’t have to resort to ‘formatting schemes’ to have our posts read, but whatever works. I get the feeling it may be all for naught, anyway. The other threads are like ghost-towns. I will leave it in your more capable hands. =)

I somewhat disagree. There have been posts in the cdi that were a bit obnoxious with overly large bolded font that was formatted more than the usual post. Whether or not these are attempts to illicit developer response, i dont know. Obnoxious regardless.

cesmode.4257:

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

Um, thanks, Nike. I think we shouldn’t have to resort to ‘formatting schemes’ to have our posts read, but whatever works. I get the feeling it may be all for naught, anyway. The other threads are like ghost-towns. I will leave it in your more capable hands. =)

I somewhat disagree. There have been posts in the cdi that were a bit obnoxious with overly large bolded font that was formatted more than the usual post. Whether or not these are attempts to illicit developer response, i dont know. Obnoxious regardless.

I don’t mind that stuff at all. anything that helps organize a posters thoughts so it doesnt ramble on is a plus for me.

While I would love to have an interesting and innovative idea to progress the development of the CDI as a tool for players and devs to stop hating each other come to a greater and more thorough understanding of each other’s needs and vision, I’m afraid I don’t. No Chris Whiteside reply for me. :’-(

What I do have is a caution, and in fact something of a plea, for players to not expect the impossible out of these threads and to remember that the developers do not simply often have to strike a fine balance between completely contradictory and mutually exclusive player desires; they always have to, and expecting the developers to weigh your personal pickin’ bone more heavily than someone else’s is a recipe for frustration, disappointment, and thread-derailing diatribes.

A fantastic example is Ascended gear. There are many, many, many players (among them myself) who feel that Ascended gear was a mistake – it’s too hard to get, it’s too unforgiving for players with acute altitis, etcetera. There is also a significant number of players who feel that Ascended gear wasn’t enough; that it’s too easy to get, that it doesn’t have enough advantages over exotic, etcetera. Any initiative to ease the pain of one group is an initiative which will be almost certain to incite and anger the other, and what so many players forget from their places hip-deep in their own camp’s vendetta is that each player’s viewpoint is as valid as any other.

Nobody wants something specifically to be mean and cruel to other people who want not-that-thing. They want something because they feel it will make the game better, or because they feel it will cure a deficiency the game is currently suffering. Arguments, anger, and rustled jimmies arise when players forget that what seems like a blindingly obvious problem with an equally easy solution to them is, in fact, no such thing to someone else.

If we can – pretty please - keep this sort of thing in mind, I think we’ll have a much better time discussing normally-incendiary things like rewards, gear and progression in CDI topics. Which is important since it seems to be a hot-button issue in all three CDI areas and is very likely to pop up in the next phase of the initiative.

cesmode.4257:

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

Um, thanks, Nike. I think we shouldn’t have to resort to ‘formatting schemes’ to have our posts read, but whatever works. I get the feeling it may be all for naught, anyway. The other threads are like ghost-towns. I will leave it in your more capable hands. =)

I somewhat disagree. There have been posts in the cdi that were a bit obnoxious with overly large bolded font that was formatted more than the usual post. Whether or not these are attempts to illicit developer response, i dont know. Obnoxious regardless.

I’m not sure I understand. You disagree that we shouldn’t have to resort to ‘formatting schemes’ to have our posts read? I would think every post that is polite should be read (but not necessarily responded to – that would be silly). If only certain ‘eye-catching’ posts are read by the Devs, what exactly is the purpose of these CDI threads? Just a place for the favored few to ‘represent’ us? Sounds like the ‘rep’ idea without a vote, even.

Twice, if not more often, it has been brought to attention that it seemed certain posts (posters) were granted more attention. I hope it just appeared that way, so everyone can be heard. I would not have thought, previously, my beloved ArenaNet would do otherwise.

DevilLordLaser.8619:

While I would love to have an interesting and innovative idea to progress the development of the CDI as a tool for players and devs to stop hating each other come to a greater and more thorough understanding of each other’s needs and vision, I’m afraid I don’t. No Chris Whiteside reply for me. :’-(

What I do have is a caution, and in fact something of a plea, for players to not expect the impossible out of these threads and to remember that the developers do not simply often have to strike a fine balance between completely contradictory and mutually exclusive player desires; they always have to, and expecting the developers to weigh your personal pickin’ bone more heavily than someone else’s is a recipe for frustration, disappointment, and thread-derailing diatribes.

A fantastic example is Ascended gear. There are many, many, many players (among them myself) who feel that Ascended gear was a mistake – it’s too hard to get, it’s too unforgiving for players with acute altitis, etcetera. There is also a significant number of players who feel that Ascended gear wasn’t enough; that it’s too easy to get, that it doesn’t have enough advantages over exotic, etcetera. Any initiative to ease the pain of one group is an initiative which will be almost certain to incite and anger the other, and what so many players forget from their places hip-deep in their own camp’s vendetta is that each player’s viewpoint is as valid as any other.

There’s also a third group of players who is willing to accept anything has long as they perceive quality in it (no matter how subjective that can be), and might get disappointed to patches that they would otherwise be excited for. And Ascended Gear can really be a fantastic example for that too, and it’s a topic that I’m anxious to discuss about once the time comes. So I’m hoping that those initiatives do not have only the sole purpose of giving what each group of player wants, because as you said, that can be nearly impossile, but also to help and give feedack to Anet so they can improve what they want, and make their ideas more appealing to fans and non-fans alike.

I think in regards to formatting and presentation, the best practice will simply be reminding posters to give their best effort towards readability and clarity in the guidelines post appearing in each thread. Maybe strongly encourage a quick tap of the ‘Preview’ button to look at your own words on the page before firing them off.

I’ve slammed face-first into the enforcement of upper limits that ultimately detracted from the possibilities of the thread and I similarly don’t want to see fixed lower limits causing people to be arbitrarily ignored for not being layout and editing masters – that’s not a required skillset for having something useful to contribute to these discussions.

We’re also going to get into difficult territory reminding people that in CDI your odds of being read are exceptionally high, but your odds of garnering a direct response are still limited. If you are here to advance the state of the game, being read is the critical accomplishment. Getting a response should be more about receiving guidance that can help hone your ideas further and less about crowing over the perceived celebrity of your ‘Dev Responses Count’. Speaking from experience, its fun and all to indulge in a little banter with the Devs, but the posts I REALLY crave are the ones that answer my more technical questions so I can present better proposals in the future.

Even if it does feel really awesome to see your name in the quote box, eh Nike? :p

But yes. Glory hogs derail the entire process, and ironically are the last sorts that ArenaNet should be speaking to. Nobody likes an attention [REDACTED], and devs with very limited forum time really, truly can’t be bothered to spend precious replies stoking egos.

ANYWAYS. I just remembered something else I was going to chime in on. Chris, you mentioned a summary-of-events every three pages, I believe? Or at least as near as the frantic posting frenzy in these threads allows. I think that is an absolutely fantastic idea, possibly even a vital one. I know I missed out on the Living World CDI because I caught it five or six days late, and by the time I realized what was going on all I could do was click the little white arrow beneath each dev reply and follow what was said that way. I didn’t get a chance to speak up and add my own ideas to the pile despite having some serious opinions on Living Story.

You, yourself, have claimed that it’s extremely difficult to keep up with the post frenzy in CDI threads, and doing so is more or less your job (or at least a significant part of it). My job is to sit in my cubicle and answer tech support questions for nine hours – it is impossible for me to keep up with a CDI thread properly, and that feels really terrible. I haven’t even properly read this one – just dev-skimmed it to read the red replies because that’s all I’ve got time for.

I think you’d see posts from a lot more people who don’t have time to keep up/catch up on the entire thread if you posted those frequent recaps. They’d certainly get annoying for people who did keep up, but frankly I don’t give a small cat :p The rest’a youze folks can skip the recaps if ye don’t need ’em, eh?

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Hi Inculpatas,

Regarding the discussion about one thread at a time. The advantage for us currently is that the team could concentrate on one topic at a time rather than having three threads to keep up with and therefore have more time to get involved. It would also allow me to enter the discussion of the threads in different areas. Note i am still undecided about this particular discussion. I to am very worried about the time it would take to rotate between topics and for this reason alone that could be a big enough con to not move forward with the above proposal.

about those threads and how you should approach them (1 week pve, 1 wvw, 1 pvp or whatever you end up with): are we talking about only discussing one specific area at a time or does it mean you are discussing AND developing only one area for that specific time?

i believe it’s about discussion only, but just to be sure

i think the cons on 1 by 1 are legit, but the pro is so uber (plus the bonus pro of having an amazing discussion leader) that i’m voting for the one after another version.
another argument are ‘multi area players’ – they are also able to focus on one discussion and maybe some of ‘the others’ will join the discussion which they won’t have done in the other way and may come up with good suggestions.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

I also think i made a mistake by starting three threads about the process evolution of CDI. The goal of this particular thread type is to raise issues, discuss solutions, and brainstorm new opportunities.

I think this goal could have been better served by just having a single thread where all contributors could have discussed the global evolution of CDI together bringing up relevant examples for their specific areas.

I think that having more than one concurrent CDI thread with ANet participation isn’t a good idea, both for the discussions and the process feedback. Your enthusiasm for this initiative ensures that whichever thread you are watching the closest will outshine the others.

DevilLordLaser.8619:

Even if it does feel really awesome to see your name in the quote box, eh Nike? :p

Would it surprise you to know I take as much, maybe more, pleasure in posts like this from other players?

We know Chris and some of the other Devs are dedicated to reading all the posts. You said it yourself: many players don’t have the time to read anything but redname posts.

In this environment, being eloquent enough or persuasive enough to get other players to stop and think about and even respond to your position is the high accomplishment . Likewise I try to applaud posts I think are promoting a good concept and politely criticize posts that rouse my concerns.

Despite it being very favorably ‘thumbs-up’d I was a little bummed no one said anything about Doctor Orwen’s Theater of the Ages. I thought for sure somebody would giggle at the Kappa and her dancing moa’s flourish…

Ahh…unless you were there, keeping up with that massive thread (I assume), you have no idea what ‘Doctor Orwen’s Theater of the Ages’ is. When summarizing in the future, as I have said before, maybe a line or two explaining what the ‘post topic du jour’ is will enable others to contribute without spending all their available time searching through the thread for explanations. =)