Guild Wars 2

Hi Chris (and all),

Long time reader, first time poster – it’s hard to find the time to keep up, so hopefully these format changes will make it easier to do so!

Regarding multiple CDI topics, I recall that the last time three were run simultaneously, there were issues that upset some of the community regarding the seeming difference in attention paid to each thread. As much as that was largely due to time constraints, I suspect there’s also an aspect of approach that was different between the thread owners.

It’s a bit presumptuous, but I’d like to suggest that you and the other thread owners try, if possible, to block off a half-hour stretch for a few of the first days of the new CDI threads to just sit together in a meeting room and each work your own CDI threads, even if it’s just catching up on the day’s posts.

I think the whole venture would benefit from opportunities to discuss the discussions among yourselves, and I think that (most importantly) the other thread owners will stand to benefit from some “live action mentoring” at the outset to maybe get a sense of how you’ve approached these posts and users and how you felt you were able to coax value out of them.

I hope that’s helpful on some level. Thanks for all your hard work; I think you’ve done a great job being genuine and candid (as much as you can be), and I hope the other thread owners have as much success.

Mikuchan.7261:

Not saying that no posters could make unbiased posts. But the one reading the summary would not be sure if it’s biased or not unless the poster of the summary has an interest in being unbiased and the reader knows that.

I go back and forth on this. Its workload, and if that workload can be shuffled off to a reliable volunteer from the community, that frees up the Host to spend more time interacting rather than summarizing. If a chronicler is recognized by the Host, I’d like to think they’d be motivated to do the job well (and receive the accolades and continued recognition in future threads) over distorting the process to advance their personal agenda.

I’m probably a hopeless romantic in this regard, or just don’t see how anything going on in an MMO is worth the breach of integrity involved in deliberately biasing a task taken on willingly.

Instead of summaries, per se, what if Chris did something like this…

Topics/proposals that have seem to run their course:
<list with high-level “understanding” that was reached… e.g. Ranger sword autoattack is clunky and shouldn’t root you in place>

Topics/proposals that are interesting and could use more discussion:
<similar list as above>

Topics/proposals that aren’t being discussed that I’d like to introduce:
<list>

Instead of just giving us a “this is what you said,” it gives us closure on some items and provides a path forward for the next 3 pages (and beyond.)

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Keep in mind their is a difference between summary’s and the final CDI proposals. Summaries are the collated idea and discussion points every 3 pages and the CDI Proposal appears at the end of the whole thread and puts forward the CDI groups focused proposal for the team at Anet.

Hmm. At one point we had some mighty summaries being delivered in a second parallel player-created thread (marked with a red balloon since a Dev stopped in to post ‘thanks’). Maybe if there was just a pointer to a thread housing the summaries instead of cramming them in-line in the main thread we could cut down on the bloat. Can we trust that anyone interested enough to read a summary is willing to click a link to get there? (I’m not sure we can, honestly.) Aaaaand, (to beat a horse that’s wounded, but hopefully not dead yet) if the threads were put into Q & A-mode the summary or link to summary thread could be stored in the Answer post and held neatly at the top of each page without adding to the page count at all .

Just wanted to clarify for the purposes of our current discussion, which by the way I am enjoying very much.

Having a shared language for elements of the process can only help. And now I have a mental note to add a glossary to the tutorial, since the question “What does ‘CDI’ mean?” continues to pop up from time to time (as it should since we continue to attract new participants ).

Nike.2631:

Hmm. At one point we had some mighty summaries being delivered in a second parallel player-created thread (marked with a red balloon since a Dev stopped in to post ‘thanks’). Maybe if there was just a pointer to a thread housing the summaries instead of cramming them in-line in the main thread we could cut down on the bloat. Can we trust that anyone interested enough to read a summary is willing to click a link to get there? (I’m not sure we can, honestly.) Aaaaand, (to beat a horse that’s wounded, but hopefully not dead yet) if the threads were put into Q & A-mode the summary or link to summary thread could be stored in the Answer post and held neatly at the top of each page without adding to the page count at all .

Placing all the summaries in a thread of their own could make catching up on the discussion much more simple and attractive. If a new person can read through four pages instead of forty to get all the major talking points, I’m all for it.

It’s also important that a summary make a clear note whenever a topic is nudged out of the CDI by the dev. Adding links to these topics’ non-CDI threads might be helpful.

As for who does them, I prefer keeping that in the hands of players, who have already proven willing and more than capable. However, I would prefer that they have a set format, and that summary threads be locked to contain nothing but the summaries.

Whoever does the ‘Summaries’, please try to actually summarize the pertinent discussion points, rather than just a list of links to the discussions. If there was time to read through the many, many posts to keep up, there would be no need of summaries.

It’s fine to have both, but it could be found less than helpful with just a list of links. Thank you.

Keep reading about those CDI threads…yet none are up.
You have a flexible calendar at Anet…monday…then wednesday…then never ?

Nike.2631:

Demanding that everyone have read and compared every post to their own position before making their proposal is simply not a reasonable expectation.

I fail to see what’s too “hardcore” about this. Infact I’m frankly getting very fed up with people who just burst into on-going discussions without even understanding the most basic principles of what’s being discussed, then expecting their words to carry more “weight” just because what they say is more redundant. I’ll be the first to admit I got a straight D- in reading comprehension in school but learning to ‘be respected’ on the internet changed that inattentiveness pretty fast. No, that’s not asking too much for people to at least skim each page to get a general sense of why certain overly-general proposals were already made obsolete by Iteration. Anet claims it loves iteration. Therefore so should all of its design participants….

Fenrir.6183:

Keep reading about those CDI threads…yet none are up.
You have a flexible calendar at Anet…monday…then wednesday…then never ?

I agree totally with you.

I have to follow someone or ask in the forum or create a new topic just to get informed when the cdi will start. Why is it not possible to create a new Topic informing us about the Delay?

ilr.9675:

Nike.2631:

Demanding that everyone have read and compared every post to their own position before making their proposal is simply not a reasonable expectation.

I fail to see what’s too “hardcore” about this. Infact I’m frankly getting very fed up with people who just burst into on-going discussions without even understanding the most basic principles of what’s being discussed, then expecting their words to carry more “weight” just because what they say is more redundant. I’ll be the first to admit I got a straight D- in reading comprehension in school but learning to ‘be respected’ on the internet changed that inattentiveness pretty fast. No, that’s not asking too much for people to at least skim each page to get a general sense of why certain overly-general proposals were already made obsolete by Iteration. Anet claims it loves iteration. Therefore so should all of its design participants….

But towards the end of the discussion when there are 40+ pages, even skimming would take ages to do.

What a person should do is:

1. Read the Summaries Page. Entire thing if it’s first post, or just the new topics if it’s not
2. Read the first post of the CDI post to make sure you stay on topic and all that good stuff like noting suggested formats and word counts if it’s your first post
3. Read the last 2-3 pages of the thread

ilr.9675:

Infact I’m frankly getting very fed up with people who just burst into on-going discussions without even understanding the most basic principles of what’s being discussed, then expecting their words to carry more “weight” just because what they say is more redundant.

The worst feedback submitted is simply no feedback at all. While proposing the same thing for the umpteenth time can be annoying, (See: Dungeon Forums) it’s not much effort to direct someone to the past discussion if they have reached some conclusion. There is also value in submitting feedback that is not being heavily influenced from what has been said before.

Nike.2631:

Demanding that everyone have read and compared every post to their own position before making their proposal is simply not a reasonable expectation.

ilr.9675:

I fail to see what’s too “hardcore” about this. In fact I’m frankly getting very fed up with people who just burst into on-going discussions without even understanding the most basic principles of what’s being discussed, then expecting their words to carry more “weight” just because what they say is more redundant.

It’s not an issue of hardcore, its observable reality from basically every CDI thread so far: Its not a closed meeting room where everyone needs to be settled in their seats by 5-after-the-hour and then we talk things out as a fixed and finite body. Its not a Player Council. People keep coming in. For WEEKS. And we leave the door open for them and actively invite them in.

If we want that to be true (and I think we do) then we have accept demonstrable reality that some of the people strolling in are going to look at a 20+ page count and reject the notion of even a quick scan through the thread entire, read the first post (even though it’s now wildly out-of-date because of three rounds of new Developer questions), and spout something that makes the most ardent Day One-Hour One participants roll their eyes, if only in private.

Its a price we pay for openness & deliberately setting the barriers to entry fairly low.

Its also why I keep harping on using the Q&A mode and editing/updating the initial post rather than in-line bumps. The first couple of posts are all we can rely on people having read, and the Devs adding new questions mid-thread without updating the first post is the single largest cause of the narrative fracturing. Mid-thread announcements of “I have updated the first post” would be bloody brilliant compared to trying to pick them out of the stream because you know its in there somewhere between pages 34 and 37…

Summaries are important – there are people on the cusp that if you give them a 1-4 page way to catch up on a 20+ page shambling behemoth, they’ll absolutely jump at the chance to feel well-informed and more confident in their contributions. But the reality is this is a game, and people have limited time to volunteer. If we don’t take these steps, summaries out where people can find them and initial posts that stay relevant through editing, there WILL be more “I haven’t read past the first post, but here’s what I think” non-sequiturs scattered like birdshot all through the meat of the discussion.

…And more of us “hardcore” participants rolling their eyes .

I agree with few forespeakers on A-net dropping the ball with the ranger CDI.
It was to be at 17th. It’s 21st and still no CDI. Now i read someone (but not from A-net) say it’s on Monday. I can understand logic behind such a decision, sure.

But you were to “deliver the goods” at 17th A-net. You moved it to 20th and still nothing. If you didn’t deliver then it’s your sole duty to apologize and provide us a robust, sure date when it’ll happen, instead of sweeping it under the rug.

I’ll have you know i have major ranger rewamp ideas written down. That i had to slice to pieces and tag according to your “CDI post format” suggestions. Extra work i’m not getting payed for, that you asked for. But fine. I want to make the difference. And now the CDI for which i took quite the time out of my recent week to prepare material for is giving us the slip without any notice instead of being put up as announced.

Unacceptable.

Gee, you are up late, Chris! And on a work night! That’s dedication! =)

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

Whoever does the ‘Summaries’, please try to actually summarize the pertinent discussion points, rather than just a list of links to the discussions. If there was time to read through the many, many posts to keep up, there would be no need of summaries.

It’s fine to have both, but it could be found less than helpful with just a list of links. Thank you.

I’ve posed this question before, but no one answered, so I’ll ask it again in the light of your post:

What would we like the summaries to look like?

• A log, which describes the posts made in the past x pages in a more or less chronological order. (Like Bezagron did in the horizontal progression CDI here. or like Guhracie did in a bullet point list over here.

• A proposal, as if we were forming the proposal from the start, adding any new developments with every new proposal. (Like Chris did in the vertical progression CDI here.)

• An article, which collects the information of the posts, but reorders it to make a more coherent text. (Like Isaiah did in the vertical progression CDI here.)

• A navigation system within the thread, which points you to some significant developments in the thread. (Like I did in the vertical progression CDI here - links not working anymore – or like Orphael does over here.)

• A navigation system outside of the thread, which can be used to find summaries and to describe the latest developments. (Like I did in this thread over here.)

• Something new! Is there anything you’ve been missing?

They all have their strengths and weaknesses, and to some extent they all serve a different purpose. But summarizing takes quite a bit of effort, so if some summary-styles work better than others, it could save some of us a lot of time to know what works best.

And a different, but equally important question:

How large can a summary be, while still inviting people in? (Assuming the summarizer is using a good format) Are you willing to go through 2 full posts? How about 5?

Following up on this: If we are to cut anything to make our summaries shorter, where would you suggest we cut these words?

Ah ok that’s much better. Official confirmation from A-net employee. I’ll hold you to your word on that chris and get back to that ranger rewamp of mine then:)

Word limit encourages the use of active voice. Competant writers should be able to communicate with concision as opposed to being meticulous and verbose. Passive, drawn out responses indicate uncertainty and lack cohesion. The goal is to expidite Chris’s reading, as such our points should reflect that. From what I’ve read on the first few pages there’s deffinitely ways to cut down on word count. I’m by no means a published or even competant writer, but we dont’t have to be to not exceed the word count.

CDI asks alot from the devs, it’s only fair they ask something of us aswell.

This is rapidly turning into just a rehash of the last process thread.

I understand that no one person has the time to read every single post in every single thread, and some of them are more worth reading than others. However, there is no format or process to eliminate human idiosyncrasy. When soliciting feedback from such a large group of people, it is always going to run the gamut from inspired to inane, and from cryptically terse to breathtakingly long-winded.

What bothers me is the prospect of the process becoming hoops to jump through for an illusion of interaction. “Give us your feedback…but only if ____.” “Tell us what you think, but not if ____.” Not all worthwhile feedback is perfectly-formatted sound bites that look good on paper, and not all perfectly-formatted sound bites that look good on paper are worthwhile feedback. Have we as a species really lost the ability to process written information more than two sentences long?

I really want the CDIs to be more than a paper exercise or a PR gimmick. Maybe we should just kinda…get on with it, lest we end up having the same circular administrative discussions instead of actual dialogue about the game content itself. For Anet’s part, is there scope for an internship of some kind for a person or persons to go through the forums/CDI topics, summarise, and report back on particularly salient ideas?

You are my hero.

(and “cryptically terse” is now my phrase for day )

Nike.2631:

You are my hero.

(and “crytically terse” is now my phrase for day )

‘cryptically’ =p

timmyf.1490:

Instead of summaries, per se, what if Chris did something like this…

Topics/proposals that have seem to run their course:
<list with high-level “understanding” that was reached… e.g. Ranger sword autoattack is clunky and shouldn’t root you in place>

Topics/proposals that are interesting and could use more discussion:
<similar list as above>

Topics/proposals that aren’t being discussed that I’d like to introduce:
<list>

Instead of just giving us a “this is what you said,” it gives us closure on some items and provides a path forward for the next 3 pages (and beyond.)

From my understanding, ‘high-level of understanding’ is the widget the CDI produces, NOT content changes. Content changes may be a byproduct of that widget. The summary is the general form of the widget.

From my perspective, the weight of demonstrating a high level of understanding falls on the developer. The forum will never lack for players trying to demonstrate a high level of understanding. The developers, being of one voice, also have an easier time demonstrating a high level of understanding.

The principal con to having the devs compile the summary, imo, is that it opens them up to accusations of not understanding or caring when there is a delay in updating the summary.

Placing the summary as the second post was brought up in the past process evolution threads. I would consider using that idea just as a test of the effectiveness. Updates to the summary would need to be time stamped.

Lost Witch,

I think all of the above is the …‘easiest’ solution. If we converted your descriptions into a Venn diagram, all the descriptions would share a lot of overlap.

My suggestion would be to keep the summary format/style as plastic as possible, able to evolve to better fit the evolution of each CDI thread. This approach is more work, but I think more profitable.

My structural suggestions:

Post 1
Introduction to the topic and goal of the discussion. Most importantly, a description of the design philosophy behind the topic. (What is a Tyrian Ranger)

Post 2

A log effectively describing player generated ideas, with links to more detailed descriptions. The description should include pros and cons.

Posts 3-x

These depend on the tech behind the forum. These posts could be set up for one idea with pros and cons = one post. Forum participants who do not want to post an opinion can up vote the ideas they like the most.

The Lost Witch.7601:

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

Whoever does the ‘Summaries’, please try to actually summarize the pertinent discussion points, rather than just a list of links to the discussions. If there was time to read through the many, many posts to keep up, there would be no need of summaries.

It’s fine to have both, but it could be found less than helpful with just a list of links. Thank you.

I’ve posed this question before, but no one answered, so I’ll ask it again in the light of your post:

What would we like the summaries to look like?

• A log, which describes the posts made in the past x pages in a more or less chronological order. (Like Bezagron did in the horizontal progression CDI here. or like Guhracie did in a bullet point list over here.

• A proposal, as if we were forming the proposal from the start, adding any new developments with every new proposal. (Like Chris did in the vertical progression CDI here.)

• An article, which collects the information of the posts, but reorders it to make a more coherent text. (Like Isaiah did in the vertical progression CDI here.)

• A navigation system within the thread, which points you to some significant developments in the thread. (Like I did in the vertical progression CDI here - links not working anymore – or like Orphael does over here.)

• A navigation system outside of the thread, which can be used to find summaries and to describe the latest developments. (Like I did in this thread over here.)

• Something new! Is there anything you’ve been missing?

They all have their strengths and weaknesses, and to some extent they all serve a different purpose. But summarizing takes quite a bit of effort, so if some summary-styles work better than others, it could save some of us a lot of time to know what works best.

And a different, but equally important question:

How large can a summary be, while still inviting people in? (Assuming the summarizer is using a good format) Are you willing to go through 2 full posts? How about 5?

Following up on this: If we are to cut anything to make our summaries shorter, where would you suggest we cut these words?

For this summary system, I think a navigation system would be the best, with maybe a log summing up the gist of it.
Namely the navigation system links to the proposals themselves, with the log summing up the discussions that take place, since they are two different things more or less.

On another note, I think this proposal format should probably be copy pasted to the beginning of each of the CDI threads, so that people know how best to give feedback, until we all get used to it.
Because I guarantee you that there are people out there who are going to make suggestions in the CDI that haven’t read this thread.

Edit: While I was in the shower I thought of another idea.
Chris, you know how next to your name you have red splash highlight, and that makes you stand out like a sore thumb.
Well, could we get say a pale blue version of that made up?

The reason being is that it could be used by the devs to highlight individual posts, and in this case Proposal posts. Not only would this make them much easier to see, but it would create a positive feedback loop. You would want to use the proposal format, as the highlight would make it easier to see, and thus you end up making it easier to read, everyone’s a winner.

What do you think?

Yoh.8469:

Well, could we get say a pale blue version of that made up?

The reason being is that it could be used by the devs to highlight individual posts, and in this case Proposal posts. Not only would this make them much easier to see, but it would create a positive feedback loop. You would want to use the proposal format, as the highlight would make it easier to see, and thus you end up making it easier to read, everyone’s a winner.

What do you think?

I was also thinking that if the summaries are player-made, they should be highlighted somehow…
I know that when I spent a day or two without looking at a CDI thread, I’ll pass quickly through the pages, putting +1 to ideas I like, but without reading everything, mostly checking for red posts to know how the discussion evolved…

Having some players’ posts highlighted would be wonderful

Otherwise, having a few first posts reserved for updaters to make links to main proposals and sum up discussion could be an idea

About The lost Witch’s question: I love these kind of summary :
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/CDI-Character-Progression-Horizontal/page/56#post3487339
Though they must be hard work, gives a good idea of what went on if we missed things, or just as refreshers… and it’s easy to look up things for more details
(and all the links catches the eye, so not too hard to find among the other posts)

The Lost Witch.7601:

What would we like the summaries to look like?

Readers need to be able to digest all the key information from three pages of posts, in the space of one single post. Crediting and links are of less use in getting up to speed on the discussion, (if they wanted this much info, they would just read the three pages), but can be helpful when trying to get more detail or reply to what was brought up.

I recommend a bullet list of talking points independent of their source posts and posters. Sub-bullets can be used to list subtopics and counter-arguments as needed.

Links to individual posts can be fused into the text. You can link to as many posts as you have words to make into links. With direct access to the posts themselves, we don’t need poster names present in the summary at all; they serve little purpose here other than in cultivating bias.

Anything that detracts from the discussion points themselves should be hidden or removed, so that people trying to get up to speed are willing to actually use the summaries to do so.

Laurelinde.4395:

… an illusion of interaction….

Heheh.

I really want the CDIs to be more than a paper exercise or a PR gimmick.

So you’re suggesting the entire thing be something other than a political fire drill?
Well that’s really going to come down to the capacities of the Ranger community at large, isn’t _it? For the most part, many forum-going members have shown capacity for rapid adaptation. Therefore the “format” doesn’t matter to them. Arbitrary limitations have never stopped them before, why would now be any different? And I’d argue this is what the Devs want. It’s the most expedient means of addressing this huge all-encompassing problem without actually addressing the format problems themselves and where the bulk of all Design considerations are ultimately always aligned according to Jonathan Sharp (due to efficiency concerns, which have just been re-confirmed once again here).

If you are already having doubts, I’d highly suggest checking out other non-affiliated forums to get a clearer sense of what this will really require of the community as a whole to break that format monopoly.

The Lost Witch.7601:

Following up on this: If we are to cut anything to make our summaries shorter, where would you suggest we cut these words?

Cut every single thing that is incongruent with their primary Skill-balancing team’s design philosophies over the past year. Starting with (for example): “Let me just stash the Pet and get a big fat base damage increase to my range attacks!”. This is only an example, but it’s an example none the less of a massive series of arguments that are NOT 100% compatible with all 3 game mode types simultaneously. Every single reasoning for it or thread related to it, is best left out of the discussion as well. It’s not for lack of effort or “quantity” either that those threads have been unanswered for more than a year. It’s for design-consistency.

Thanks for responding to my questions!

Psientist.6437:

My structural suggestions:

Post 1
Introduction to the topic and goal of the discussion. Most importantly, a description of the design philosophy behind the topic. (What is a Tyrian Ranger)

Post 2

A log effectively describing player generated ideas, with links to more detailed descriptions. The description should include pros and cons.

Posts 3-x

These depend on the tech behind the forum. These posts could be set up for one idea with pros and cons = one post. Forum participants who do not want to post an opinion can up vote the ideas they like the most.

This suggestion seems to presume a summary thread, in addition to the original CDI. Or am I misinterpreting this and is it supposed to go inside the main CDI?

I agree with keeping a flexible approach to summarising btw, the way the CDI-threads develop are wildly different. The suggestion you describe would probably make it easier for players to grasp the basics of the thread, but perhaps laying down the core of design philosophy is better left to the devs? (Which doesn’t mean it can’t be done, just that it is up to the devs to do so.)

Yoh.8469:

For this summary system, I think a navigation system would be the best, with maybe a log summing up the gist of it.
Namely the navigation system links to the proposals themselves, with the log summing up the discussions that take place, since they are two different things more or less.

So very similar to the way we did it with the horizontal character progression thread.

Is there any way in which we could improve the visibility of such a navigation thread? I’ve heard a Q/A idea, perhaps a sticky? The red swash probably helped quite a bit on the previous navigational thread, but there were still plenty of contributors that seem to have missed it altogether.

Jocksy.3415:

Otherwise, having a few first posts reserved for updaters to make links to main proposals and sum up discussion could be an idea

About The lost Witch’s question: I love these kind of summary :
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/CDI-Character-Progression-Horizontal/page/56#post3487339
Though they must be hard work, gives a good idea of what went on if we missed things, or just as refreshers… and it’s easy to look up things for more details
(and all the links catches the eye, so not too hard to find among the other posts)

Well, in a way, the character progression threads had some of this first post-summary stuff in them. The OP was updated with links to summaries, but apparently people still missed those?

Also, yeah, I really liked Bezagrons summary style. They added up to become a pretty long read themselves, but I guess with more narrow topic choices, this should be easier to keep up.

Gulesave.5073:

Readers need to be able to digest all the key information from three pages of posts, in the space of one single post. Crediting and links are of less use in getting up to speed on the discussion, (if they wanted this much info, they would just read the three pages), but can be helpful when trying to get more detail or reply to what was brought up…

…You can link to as many posts as you have words to make into links. With direct access to the posts themselves, we don’t need poster names present in the summary at all; they serve little purpose here other than in cultivating bias.

Anything that detracts from the discussion points themselves should be hidden or removed, so that people trying to get up to speed are willing to actually use the summaries to do so.

Yeah, the linking system is really nice.

I guess the poster names would function not only to give credit though, but also to more easily distinguish between related ideas. (As was the case with the variety of subclass-ideas.) Though, on the other hand, it would be of more use as a reminder to those that already follow the thread, than that it would be in a summary for newcomers.

ilr.9675:

Cut every single thing that is incongruent with their primary Skill-balancing team’s design philosophies over the past year. …

This may very well be sarcasm, but in case it is not:

Censoring ideas is probably not the best way to summarize, since players will keep making the same posts then, as they assume that their ideas have not been mentioned before. On top of that, you’re putting a lot of trust in the summarizer to be aware of design-consistency. And most importantly, these threads have tremendous brainstorm potential, a process that is limited severely by sticking to design-consistency.

Hey Chris,

While reading this thread I came up with an idea for the ease of reading proposals, following discussions, summarising, … It has to do with forum functionality. I think it ties in nicely with The Lost Witch’s forum navigation idea.

I was thinking of adding a filter function to the forums, specifically built for CDI threads. This could be a dev only function, or accessible to all posters.

The first thing that could be added is a tag function. Give posters the option to tag their post as a ‘proposal’ or ‘discussion’ post. Then, based on that tag function, make a filter function that shows only ‘proposal’ or ‘discussion’ posts. This way you can get a very quick overview of all proposals that have been made.

The second thing I thought about, was to link every discussion post to the main proposal post. This can be done with normal links or tags. You could also add a spoiler drop down to every discussion post, which contains the main proposal.
Again, make a filter function to filter out discussions about a specific proposal.

Obviously, if this is implemented it has to be easy to use. If it’s tedious to use, then it will just annoy everyone.

The first idea is simple: put the two options at the top of the reply box. If you pick ‘proposal’, the correct format for your post will load. Same with ‘discussion’.

For the second idea I was thinking about giving every ‘proposal’ post a number. Then when you’re writing a ‘discussion’ post, give the poster the option to pick a ‘proposal post number’ from a drop down menu. This will automatically link that post to the original proposal. If you reply to a discussion post, the proposal number will be copied. You could make it so that if the poster doesn’t link a proposal to his post, someone else can still do it in his place.

Of course this has to be coded by whoever is in charge of writing code for the forums, so it all depends on what they think about this. I’m not a programmer so I have no idea if this is feasible, but I thought I’d post my idea in case it helps. (I’m sorry if the post turned out a bit too long)

On the subject of “How have the CDIs actually had an impact?” I have to say:

The progression path for the new bladed backpacks from blue stats all the way up to Ascended matches a suggestion in the Character Progression thread almost word for word.

Which makes the turn around time on that crazy fast.

Lost Witch,

The format I described would be for the CDI thread itself.

Post 1 would be created by the thread owner, in the next round of CDIs the developers will own the threads and the folks best able to describe the design philosophy behind the existing content being discussed. For instance, Tyrian Rangers are not Tyrain Warriors burdened with a pet.

Post 2 would look a lot like the proposal format Chris Whiteside described in the first post of this thread. As players generated ideas about each heading, those ideas would be logged.

Posts 3-x would likely not happen for this next round of CDIs. I picture them being used in the future. They would be inserted after the thread had run its course and provide a way to measure popularity of ideas with up-voting.

I strongly disagree with anything that would cultivate bias, especially a unique icon for player posts. The reward of participation should be enough. The reward of playing content that we helped in designing should be enough. Please never reward players with anything more than a ‘shout out’. For instance, Kitten had a great idea about fishing and the game is better for including that idea.

edited post coffee for spelling and grammar

Chrissyyyyyyy
What i would like to see in Ranger CDI:

- The thoughts behind the Design of the ranger
- Which builds do devs Play in PvP with Ranger (and yes you Need to say that a lot of devs Play ranger, most People cant believe it)
- The minds of the Balance Team on the current Ranger. I think Chapman already did it after Eagle Eye Bug few months ago.
- Do not allow that Player compare with other classes. I know you already stated it…but some People dont want to understand that every class has its own playstyle.
- Be serious against utopic Balance suggestions. This Community is difficult because they strongly believe…the ranger is the weakest of them all.
- Its absolute needed to Show in CDI the Balance notes for ranger. When the notes are good (probably even with a super duper wombo Combo mega giga buff a lot of ranger will say…“no. too weak”) we will less see People flaming around.
- You will probably know the most suggestions in ranger Forum, something like that “Druid ranger/Staff Ranger”, “Remove pet/Stow Pet for dmg buff” and state ur thoughts…and pls dont use anets favourite sentence “Nothing is off the table”. Please please not!
- The thoughts behind the ranger weapons. I think the most ranger hate themselfes…errrr the weapons of their class… Longbow and Axe main Hand for example.

Chris…i think u know it, but this CDI will be difficult for ur Team.
prepare yourself bro.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Hi Snow,

I would suggest putting the feedback in the thread once it opens. I have read it but it will be worth re-posting it for your fellow collaborators can think about it to.

I don’t see why it will be ‘Difficult’. The CDI is something that we embrace because it connects us with the community and therefore leads to an even better game.

However if the implication is that folks are going to be rude to the team or anything along those lines then the only folks it will be ‘difficult’ for will be the posters who take this approach.

Aside from this I am very much looking forward to reading that CDI (-:

Chris

i think he thinks itll be diffcult because (and i agree) within like 2 days of it opening, youre gonna have like 200 unique posters each with 1-5 full length posts worth of input, and at least as much comment volume.

frankly id forgive allie if shes unable to keep up with it. i can hardly stand to read page long revamp/overhaul/tweak posts any more, and ive read nowhere near the amount that allie is about to be forced to keep up with. so much of it is just insipid.

wow chris nevermind that a dev responds me on a weekend
okay i repost it on monday.

it is just that a lot rangers think anet hates rangers. Most of them just see the nerfs rangers got and not the buffs. They dont want to understand anet. U stated the pets are difficult to fix and they just keep saying “fix it NOW”. thats not fair and there is the difficulty.

but okay that doesnt belong to this thread

to ur Suggestion for the cdi
the idea is really good and fits perfect for cdi and i think for the balance forum.
but maybe it is needed to say that when someone has different ideas, that he writes different posts.

I too, because I expect to see happen in the official thread always far more open minded constructive and healthy discussions, in which also you Devs add your opinions to it and share your thoughts with us, what I personally find 10000times more valuable, than any opinions and thoughts from other class biased people, or such people, that die hard try to change the opinions of others due to their own biased likings

Thats why I personally liked also the whole CDI discussion around the horizontal progression, in which I personally was participating in alot due to this.
Well, you see simply said a clear difference in threads, that are lead by a Dev and where Devs put into the discussions their questions to give the community more food for thoughts and further discussion, as when suhc threads are hold only by community members alone. Such kind of discussions often tend to go out of control quickly, if some people with complete different opinions like black and white crush into each other.

Personally I find it sad, that the official Thread god already 3 times postpone, but oh well, what takes time, takes time, so simple, to more inspired and eagerly awaiting am I the next week, once the CDI’s about the next topics start by the coming Monday then.

I personally find the CDI is far more relaxing to read, because the initiative is lead by clear rules, that if all participants follow them, that it can lead only into developing collaboratively a much better game. And thats in the end the key goal, which is important.

Thats the soul of this initiative. One, that can live only up in healthy constructive unbiased discussions.

Especially in the Ranger CDI we can absolutely expect to see coming up an insane amount of suggestions, ideas, concepts ect. and they all should be treated, like how you personally also want that your own input to the CDI should get treated also.

when we just look to the class forum activity.
with 235 sites in ranger forum its one of the most active betweens the classes.
just necro and thief are so active too.

hundreds of ideas will come.
i think the best woukd be for ranger cdi strict themes we discuss
like
-pets (ai. attacks. use. superior pets. useless pets.)
-traits (synergy. traitlines with wrong traits. useless traits. important traits)
-weapons (viability. possible changes. synergy between weapons.)
-ranger ingame (wvw. pve. pvp. dungeons. team play.)
-other stuff

otherwise in the first two hours we will see three sites and more and we cant discuss because there are too many themes that we rangers like to discuss.

I’ll be honest: the forum equivalent of grabbing a Balance Team Dev and holding them down while they’re hit with a waterfall of comments and ideas and last desperate hopes is the sort of mildly unpleasant experience they’ve kinda earned for themselves by letting the issues with that profession fester for more than a year. You can go into the various profession forums and see mixes of enthusiasm and irritation that align nicely with the percentages that came in on the recent poll, but the Ranger forum… it exists mostly in a state of despair. Over 90% percent of the players who responded indicated Ranger was in need of attention. The platitudes being scattered around claiming Rangers are in a good place Need. To. Stop.

We’ve needed to have this talk for a long time, and if its a bit impassioned, a bit outraged, a bit royally ticked-off, then that’s part of what the Devs need to hear too.

I was wondering if you, Chris, could open a new subforum where all the earlier and current CDI threads could be moved over. I can’t find those in this subforum, they vanish too fast.

They are all linked in a sticky at the top of the forum page~

Collaborative Development – Master Sticky

Maybe not as graceful as a sub-forum, but moving/renaming them has broken the links so leaving them in-situ seems best.

It even has the format proposal, thought the copy there is slightly out of date…

Orpheal.8263:

I too, because I expect to see happen in the official thread always far more open minded constructive and healthy discussions, in which also you Devs add your opinions to it and share your thoughts with us, what I personally find 10000times more valuable, than any opinions and thoughts from other class biased people, or such people, that die hard try to change the opinions of others due to their own biased likings

Thats why I personally liked also the whole CDI discussion around the horizontal progression, in which I personally was participating in alot due to this.
Well, you see simply said a clear difference in threads, that are lead by a Dev and where Devs put into the discussions their questions to give the community more food for thoughts and further discussion, as when suhc threads are hold only by community members alone. Such kind of discussions often tend to go out of control quickly, if some people with complete different opinions like black and white crush into each other.

Personally I find it sad, that the official Thread god already 3 times postpone, but oh well, what takes time, takes time, so simple, to more inspired and eagerly awaiting am I the next week, once the CDI’s about the next topics start by the coming Monday then.

I personally find the CDI is far more relaxing to read, because the initiative is lead by clear rules, that if all participants follow them, that it can lead only into developing collaboratively a much better game. And thats in the end the key goal, which is important.

Thats the soul of this initiative. One, that can live only up in healthy constructive unbiased discussions.

Especially in the Ranger CDI we can absolutely expect to see coming up an insane amount of suggestions, ideas, concepts ect. and they all should be treated, like how you personally also want that your own input to the CDI should get treated also.

I agree, having the CDI has made discussing important topics for development a great deal more valuable, as well as more engaging to actively discuss.
The only think it needs to work on it making it easier to read, and highlight posts of importance.
We need to be able to filter through the share bulk of posts to find the good stuff.

Wow! Judging from this thread, all CDI threads, except Ranger, will be ghost towns, and all but forgotten.

I hope whoever presides over the Ranger CDI thread is ready for the deluge. Think I will steer clear…sounds like a bloodbath coming. Lol.

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

Wow! Judging from this thread, all CDI threads, except Ranger, will be ghost towns, and all but forgotten.

I hope whoever presides over the Ranger CDI thread is ready for the deluge. Think I will steer clear…sounds like a bloodbath coming. Lol.

I sadly agree, especially if people keep on responding in the same type of “quality”, like they just did in my preperative For Monday- Brainstorming/Sandbox-Thread, which is the reason why I decided to let it get closed by a Mod today…

If everything what you will see in the CDI on Monday are only silly destructive answers like

ohhh, this is OP
Ahhh that is so ridiculous
uhhh, those are insane

then good night.

This are not the people with that you can talk constructively a slightest bit over anything.
What alot of people must understand here in the first place is, that Anet surely wouldn’t make a whole CDI about the Ranger Class, after we the community have chosen this class out to be discussed, if they wouldn’t plan to use the CDI also not too to make some bigger changes on the chosen Class, if that should end up later to be part of the Ranger Proposal to make the class alot better balanced, more fun to play and functionate simply better in regard of its clumsy class mechanic that are their pets.

Because the real only one, who decides over it, what is OP, what is insane and what is really ridiculous or just impossible out of whichever reasons is – ANET
Nobody else.

So if people don’t begin to overcome their biases and to stop with their mentality of the “nothing may touch my beloved things – or I quit” way of bribe thinking, the class CDI will quickly fail.

This kind of CDI will be only successful, if all participants are objective and contructive to whatever for suggestions will be made for the Ranger, otherways the CDI just has only the potential to turn out into a flame wars

Cause if this kind of CDI becomes a great success now, chances are very good, that we will see in future also CDI’s for the other Classes to follow for the to the ranger compared more too strenghtful classes, like especially the Warrior in the first place
Or perhaps before somethign like that gets continued, I’d like personally to see my CDI about Sub Classes first tehe ^^, right Chris ??

The Lost Witch.7601:

This may very well be sarcasm, but in case it is not:

Censoring ideas is probably not the best way to summarize, since players will keep making the same posts then, as they assume that their ideas have not been mentioned before. On top of that, you’re putting a lot of trust in the summarizer to be aware of design-consistency. And most importantly, these threads have tremendous brainstorm potential, a process that is limited severely by sticking to design-consistency.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that….

It was intended as more of an “unwritten Guideline” for best anticipated chances of successfully having one’s idea “talked about” among the team. And they don’t HAVE TO know what those design patterns/philosophies are ahead of time, they just have to pay attention to and follow the lead of contributors who already know them; mainly Conquest mode veterans who are most familiar with why Ranger got changed so much in the first place. It’s very simple actually and has been a long-standing tradition since 2005

of course it will happen that someone has balance ideas that would be probably really OP.
but i thi k it is important for anet that they read other minds of that ideas. otherwise we would had never saw the balance previews for october and december.

okay in real i think only ranked pvp players and experienced wvw commanders should have the right to discuss about balqnce suggestions instead of players who have less knowledge about balance.