Guild Wars 2

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Raine.1394:

I’m reminded of a town meeting in VT on the Bob Newhart show. He said, “what we need here is a stupid alert.” I like Bob Newhart a lot. CDI has to do with cooperative development. That is what I have a problem with. A game should not be cooperatively developed. That’s the job of the game developer. Hopefully they have some ideas whose time has come. The old Anet that marketed this game had a lot of great ideas. Those ideas seem to have faded to the extent they have interacted with the playerbase. Sad, really.

To be fair? The players did sort of demand it.

Yep, they did. Sad, really.

Raine.1394:

Yep, they did. Sad, really.

Honestly, I find it less “sad” and more “interesting”. Sure, I’m of the opinion the developers should be coming up with their own ideas. But when the players are going “your ideas suck quaggan feet” then I do at least think it good the devs stop and go “okay, so what are your ideas?”.

If it works out, then it could be a neat case study for future games. If it fails, then it becomes a bullet point for why you don’t let the inmates run an asylum.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Raine.1394:

Of course, I will be representing a minority opinion here, but I really don’t want to design a game with the game developer. I’d much prefer they assume that role. I think it’s great to hear, understand, and incorporate good feedback, but I really don’t think that joint development is appropriate or possible.

It’s worth noting we’re not developing it with them so much as this is a place they can listen to our ideas, concerns, criticisms, and communicate back when possible about them . . . on a central topic rather than on a broad range of them. So a more focused sort of forum.

I’d say we’re behaving more like a “focus group” than “collaborating developer”.

It’s been noted several times during the CDIs, however, ideas and input are not guaranteed to be included or acted upon. There was only a promise to listen and discuss it, not to use. The final call still is on ArenaNet.

So you pessimists out there? Yes, that does technically mean they could use absolutely nothing from the CDI threads and still be “in the right” about it.

Don’t be inane, OK?

First of all, the players weren’t the ones who coined the term Collaborative Development Initiative, or CDI. ANet did, and they were the ones who specifically proposed that devs and players jointly discuss how the game could be improved going forward.

Secondly, there was a commitment on the part of ANet to actually discuss the ideas raised in the CDI. That’s what “collaborative” means and at least for WvW it didn’t happen. It isn’t collaborative if one side just sits there listening and doesn’t respond in any manner. That’s called a wall.

Raine.1394:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Raine.1394:

We already have the forums and feedback is the purpose of the forums. What I don’t understand is the purpose of the CDI. Personally, I’m not pessimistic, just searching for signs of intelligent life.

. . . on the Internet?

Though, seriously, from what I can gather the CDI is a focused topic the forums agree on (as much as they can) and the devs put up a topic for people to weigh in, every now and then dropping in their own input. Then they bundle it all up and take it to a meeting room to discuss it in private.

Sort of like the last time I went to a bureaucratic focus group meeting. Seriously, it’s a thing I took part in once where a school board wanted feedback from administrators, students, parents, and teachers. They invited about 200 people to a convention hall on a Saturday, provided coffee, donuts, and fruit, and had a stage where someone from the board stood up there with a transparency film (remember those?) and a projector taking notes. As well as easels with paper and Sharpie markers in the lobby. End of the day they packed it all into boxes and took it back to the administration building.

Surprisingly the CDI has a better track record for listening and comprehending than that school board

I’m reminded of a town meeting in VT on the Bob Newhart show. He said, “what we need here is a stupid alert.” I like Bob Newhart a lot. CDI has to do with cooperative development. That is what I have a problem with. A game should not be cooperatively developed. That’s the job of the game developer. Hopefully they have some ideas whose time has come. The old Anet that marketed this game had a lot of great ideas. Those ideas seem to have faded to the extent they have interacted with the playerbase. Sad, really.

That’s pretty laughable, really. The great majority of the things that have been added to GW2 in general, and WvW in particular, had NOTHING to do with anything requested by the players. Did players ask for Scarlet? Did players ask for badly written Living Story content? Did players ask for more gear grind? Did players ask for siege mastery? Did players ask for more PvE in WvW?

Now go make a list of the thing that players HAVE repeatedly asked for and tell me how many of those things you see in the game?

I never said that collaborative development was a good thing, and in fact I think it is doomed to failure simply because I don’t believe that ANet is capable of sorting out the good stuff from the bad. I do think however, that good companies try to maintain a healthy and steady dialogue with their customers … they listen, they consider, they respond, and they act. ANet is woefully bad at that. It hasn’t been interaction with the players that has been the problem with GW2 … it’s the lack of it.

Cactus.2710:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Raine.1394:

Of course, I will be representing a minority opinion here, but I really don’t want to design a game with the game developer. I’d much prefer they assume that role. I think it’s great to hear, understand, and incorporate good feedback, but I really don’t think that joint development is appropriate or possible.

It’s worth noting we’re not developing it with them so much as this is a place they can listen to our ideas, concerns, criticisms, and communicate back when possible about them . . . on a central topic rather than on a broad range of them. So a more focused sort of forum.

I’d say we’re behaving more like a “focus group” than “collaborating developer”.

It’s been noted several times during the CDIs, however, ideas and input are not guaranteed to be included or acted upon. There was only a promise to listen and discuss it, not to use. The final call still is on ArenaNet.

So you pessimists out there? Yes, that does technically mean they could use absolutely nothing from the CDI threads and still be “in the right” about it.

Don’t be inane, OK?

Don’t require me to repeat things publicly stated

First of all, the players weren’t the ones who coined the term Collaborative Development Initiative, or CDI. ANet did, and they were the ones who specifically proposed that devs and players jointly discuss how the game could be improved going forward.

Which is mostly in response to the players jumping up and down and throwing hissy fits over the direction the game goes every time they make a decision. Lost Shores, Scarlet, Ascended, WXP, Scarlet, Daily/Monthly Achievement revamp twice . . . Scarlet . . .

It almost feels sometimes like they threw up their hands and went: “Fine, you don’t want us making the game, your turn”.

Secondly, there was a commitment on the part of ANet to actually discuss the ideas raised in the CDI. That’s what “collaborative” means and at least for WvW it didn’t happen. It isn’t collaborative if one side just sits there listening and doesn’t respond in any manner. That’s called a wall.

Can’t attest to what happened on the WvW CDI as I wasn’t around for it and honestly don’t have much input on it.

What I can say is they have no contract to use anything discussed in a CDI thread if they don’t want to. That’s their right, and anyone who wants to start their argument on “we decided…” forgets who it is who are the developers. Collaboration or no, there’s a point where one side is the company making the game and the other is the consumers.

Forgive the analogy, but it’s almost like a discussion between employees and their boss. Sure, there can be a suggestions box outside the office and weekly meetings about “how can we improve our business”, but the boss is still the boss and they still have to make the decisions. Presumably, of course, they’re making them for sensible reasons instead of “this was suggested by Tom and he’s dating my ex”.

Cactus.2710:

That’s pretty laughable, really. The great majority of the things that have been added to GW2 in general, and WvW in particular, had NOTHING to do with anything requested by the players. Did players ask for Scarlet? Did players ask for badly written Living Story content? Did players ask for more gear grind? Did players ask for siege mastery? Did players ask for more PvE in WvW?

Players probably did request some of that originally, and it’s entirely probable ANet took suggestions such as “we want something to work for which has an impact other than ‘ooh shiny’” and went “well there’s Ascended gear for you”. Or “we want new story-driven content” and they went “sure, let’s try this Living Story going on”. And “we want to feel like our time spent in WvW matters” becoming “WXP progression”.

In short, yes. I think some stuff was developed in reaction to player concerns. I am not going to claim the players demanded bad things and got them, only the offerings were demonstrably not what the players expected.

(I will, however, point to the Living Story writing as not any worse than what we got from this company in the past. Yes, I mean GuildWars 1 era writing.)

Now go make a list of the thing that players HAVE repeatedly asked for and tell me how many of those things you see in the game?

Are we doing this again?

- Account wallet holding all the currencies and tokens which used to gum up bank slots.
- Daily/Monthly Achievement revamps.
- Guild Missions
- Removal of the Orbs of Power and Borderlands Bloodlust when people wanted it back
- Living Story dungeon instances becoming Fractals.
- AoE Looting.
- Easing back culling with more display options to render low-quality models instead of not rendering anything at all.
- Mac OSX version.

I never said that collaborative development was a good thing, and in fact I think it is doomed to failure simply because I don’t believe that ANet is capable of sorting out the good stuff from the bad. I do think however, that good companies try to maintain a healthy and steady dialogue with their customers … they listen, they consider, they respond, and they act. ANet is woefully bad at that. It hasn’t been interaction with the players that has been the problem with GW2 … it’s the lack of it.

Actually, popular sentiment says Ascended is the problem with GW2.

Raine.1394:

I’m reminded of a town meeting in VT on the Bob Newhart show. He said, “what we need here is a stupid alert.” I like Bob Newhart a lot. CDI has to do with cooperative development. That is what I have a problem with. A game should not be cooperatively developed. That’s the job of the game developer. Hopefully they have some ideas whose time has come. The old Anet that marketed this game had a lot of great ideas. Those ideas seem to have faded to the extent they have interacted with the playerbase. Sad, really.

TBH a lot of the ideas thrown around on those threads are ideas that arenanet should already have come up with themselves.

morrolan.9608:

Raine.1394:

I’m reminded of a town meeting in VT on the Bob Newhart show. He said, “what we need here is a stupid alert.” I like Bob Newhart a lot. CDI has to do with cooperative development. That is what I have a problem with. A game should not be cooperatively developed. That’s the job of the game developer. Hopefully they have some ideas whose time has come. The old Anet that marketed this game had a lot of great ideas. Those ideas seem to have faded to the extent they have interacted with the playerbase. Sad, really.

TBH a lot of the ideas thrown around on those threads are ideas that arenanet should already have come up with themselves.

I have no doubt there are ideas some working there have thought up which have been said in the threads. I also have no doubt they pulled the brakes on suggesting things when certain ideas went entirely awry or weren’t well-received.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

What I can say is they have no contract to use anything discussed in a CDI thread if they don’t want to. That’s their right, and anyone who wants to start their argument on “we decided…” forgets who it is who are the developers. Collaboration or no, there’s a point where one side is the company making the game and the other is the consumers.

That is correct: there’s no commitment on Anet’s part to use anything from CDI. The idea was that they listen to our suggestions and desires, give us some of input from their point of view, then use whatever they deem appropriate out of that discussion to improve their game.

In the WvW CDI’s case, it is very apparent that they didn’t even bother to listen. And now we have a new guy in the WvW forum starting the whole thing from scratch: “Please give me a list of your concerns.”

Again? I don’t think so.

Lord Kuru.3685:

Again? I don’t think so.

Eh? Best input would be to link the old thread if it’s still up and go “read this before we go further”.

Hope someone gets the memo about how that one’s getting handled

Lord Kuru.3685:

In the WvW CDI’s case, it is very apparent that they didn’t even bother to listen. And now we have a new guy in the WvW forum starting the whole thing from scratch: “Please give me a list of your concerns.”

Again? I don’t think so.

eh they did a terible job on the first wvw cdi. The 2nd one went pretty well and chris said we would revisit the population topic so that the most important issue will get a real discusion. They acknowledged the mistake and made steps to address it and being negative and cynical doesnt help. We save that for when they mess up again.

gidorah.4960:

eh they did a terible job on the first wvw cdi. The 2nd one went pretty well and chris said we would revisit the population topic so that the most important issue will get a real discusion.

But has it been discussed since?

To anyone concerned with WvW CDI,

Wait until EoTM releases. It’s obvious that’s been what’s on their development track the past few months. When that release is out the door, WvW team can have more time and perhaps even more resources to develop other systems like improve commander functionality, amongst other things.

morrolan.9608:

Raine.1394:

I’m reminded of a town meeting in VT on the Bob Newhart show. He said, “what we need here is a stupid alert.” I like Bob Newhart a lot. CDI has to do with cooperative development. That is what I have a problem with. A game should not be cooperatively developed. That’s the job of the game developer. Hopefully they have some ideas whose time has come. The old Anet that marketed this game had a lot of great ideas. Those ideas seem to have faded to the extent they have interacted with the playerbase. Sad, really.

TBH a lot of the ideas thrown around on those threads are ideas that arenanet should already have come up with themselves.

I’ve said it before in other CDI’s and I’ll reiterate here. The dev’s know what can be put into the game, ie. what is technically feasible and possible before it’s implemented. Whether it be lore-related or new features requested by the masses. The ideas are to help them get over the line with new directions to take the game.

Whether these ideas are heeded at all or not is tantamount (to make use of the previously given analogy) to the boss taking all the suggestions out of the box and putting them all (unread) through the shredder.

Now if they want to have a focus group, then I’d expect the forums would be the last place they’d turn. To put this in context, and if I were a dev myself, I’d much rather take the suggestions from someone that I had the privilege of talking to face-to-face, rather than someone who has put words up on a screen. Regardless of the method, the ideas are still out there, and while we have no response from most of the ideas which are submitted, it gives off the distinct impression of being ‘stonewalled’ and thus, ironically, having progress blocked.

Part of the CDI’s spirit was transparency and trying to create in-roads for various areas of the game. As I’ve said before, dev’s are players as well, but players are not dev’s. You can see the amount of leverage this creates for the developers. While we continue to get little-to-no response on our suggestions (that they’ve asked for), it doesn’t seem worth the while to contribute.

Valandil Dragonhart.2371:

Now if they want to have a focus group, then I’d expect the forums would be the last place they’d turn. To put this in context, and if I were a dev myself, I’d much rather take the suggestions from someone that I had the privilege of talking to face-to-face, rather than someone who has put words up on a screen.

And if they’re willing to figure out a way of doing that for me or any other person who wants to meet with a dev for an hour and just talk? I’d be signing up for vacation time a couple months down the line when I could afford the airfare to take advantage of it.

As it is, this is somewhat what the Internet is for. Aside from the appropriate memetic response to that

Cactus.2710:

First of all, the players weren’t the ones who coined the term Collaborative Development Initiative, or CDI. ANet did, and they were the ones who specifically proposed that devs and players jointly discuss how the game could be improved going forward.

Secondly, there was a commitment on the part of ANet to actually discuss the ideas raised in the CDI. That’s what “collaborative” means and at least for WvW it didn’t happen. It isn’t collaborative if one side just sits there listening and doesn’t respond in any manner. That’s called a wall.

Bingo. I’m sure I’ll state it myself again later, but this remains my biggest beef with the CDI process. It’s still not collaborative. In fact, it’s actually being stepped back as far as collaboration in terms of both actual execution and even in terms of how ANet themselves are talking about it.

What the actual results of the CDI are when it comes to player input making an appearance in the game is sort of besides the point to me, because what we are actually getting in the process is not what was on the label.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Cactus.2710:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Raine.1394:

Of course, I will be representing a minority opinion here, but I really don’t want to design a game with the game developer. I’d much prefer they assume that role. I think it’s great to hear, understand, and incorporate good feedback, but I really don’t think that joint development is appropriate or possible.

It’s worth noting we’re not developing it with them so much as this is a place they can listen to our ideas, concerns, criticisms, and communicate back when possible about them . . . on a central topic rather than on a broad range of them. So a more focused sort of forum.

I’d say we’re behaving more like a “focus group” than “collaborating developer”.

It’s been noted several times during the CDIs, however, ideas and input are not guaranteed to be included or acted upon. There was only a promise to listen and discuss it, not to use. The final call still is on ArenaNet.

So you pessimists out there? Yes, that does technically mean they could use absolutely nothing from the CDI threads and still be “in the right” about it.

Don’t be inane, OK?

Don’t require me to repeat things publicly stated

First of all, the players weren’t the ones who coined the term Collaborative Development Initiative, or CDI. ANet did, and they were the ones who specifically proposed that devs and players jointly discuss how the game could be improved going forward.

Which is mostly in response to the players jumping up and down and throwing hissy fits over the direction the game goes every time they make a decision. Lost Shores, Scarlet, Ascended, WXP, Scarlet, Daily/Monthly Achievement revamp twice . . . Scarlet . . .

It almost feels sometimes like they threw up their hands and went: “Fine, you don’t want us making the game, your turn”.

Secondly, there was a commitment on the part of ANet to actually discuss the ideas raised in the CDI. That’s what “collaborative” means and at least for WvW it didn’t happen. It isn’t collaborative if one side just sits there listening and doesn’t respond in any manner. That’s called a wall.

Can’t attest to what happened on the WvW CDI as I wasn’t around for it and honestly don’t have much input on it.

What I can say is they have no contract to use anything discussed in a CDI thread if they don’t want to. That’s their right, and anyone who wants to start their argument on “we decided…” forgets who it is who are the developers. Collaboration or no, there’s a point where one side is the company making the game and the other is the consumers.

Forgive the analogy, but it’s almost like a discussion between employees and their boss. Sure, there can be a suggestions box outside the office and weekly meetings about “how can we improve our business”, but the boss is still the boss and they still have to make the decisions. Presumably, of course, they’re making them for sensible reasons instead of “this was suggested by Tom and he’s dating my ex”.

I didn’t say anything about USING anything from the CDI. Try to pay attention. What I did say is that ANet made a commitment to LISTEN and RESPOND to the ideas raised in the CDI. They said they would do that when they set the kitten thing up and that’s what “collaborative” (their term, not ours) means. They didn’t do either. Go look for what ANet captured from the 23 pages and 1,150+ posts that were a part of the WvW Population Imbalance CDI … you won’t find it. You won’t even find more than four or five posts in total from the dev who supposedly ran that CDI, and those were mostly dismissive. You can find that there if you care to.

Cactus.2710:

I didn’t say anything about USING anything from the CDI. Try to pay attention. What I did say is that ANet made a commitment to LISTEN and RESPOND to the ideas raised in the CDI.

All right then, I hope you guys for the WvW side of things get some of that going on over there. I’ll butt out of the whole bit with that

(Though personally I wouldn’t expect anything. I don’t expect any of the concerns I recall reading about on WvW could really be handled short of chucking the whole thing in a trashcan and designing it all over again from the bottom up.)

mmm I think I can see at least some ways that the Living Story CDI has impacted this release.

the main complaints- except for Scarlet- has been that the LS releases are somewhat repetitive, zerg and farmfestst with no story and just basically an AP/gold farm.

So what did we get this release?

A real effort to break up the zerg and to introduce interesting mechanics (Marionette)
No direct farm because of the delayed loot system.

The delayed loot also serves as a mechanic to lead the player to Scarlet’s Lair- which is full of really interesting things,.
It gives a lot of fuel for player speculation and is awesome.

We also got a rather interesting story scene in LA – that gives a lot of insight into the NPC’s

All in all it is a great start I think- and it is what people asked for in the CDI

Morrigan.2809:

All in all it is a great start I think- and it is what people asked for in the CDI

I hope the other stuff turns out as well as this effect.

morrolan.9608:

gidorah.4960:

eh they did a terible job on the first wvw cdi. The 2nd one went pretty well and chris said we would revisit the population topic so that the most important issue will get a real discusion.

But has it been discussed since?

not that i recall but i assumed that to mean the stated plans havent changed not that they are trying to avoid it.

Cactus.2710:

Raine.1394:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Raine.1394:

We already have the forums and feedback is the purpose of the forums. What I don’t understand is the purpose of the CDI. Personally, I’m not pessimistic, just searching for signs of intelligent life.

. . . on the Internet?

Though, seriously, from what I can gather the CDI is a focused topic the forums agree on (as much as they can) and the devs put up a topic for people to weigh in, every now and then dropping in their own input. Then they bundle it all up and take it to a meeting room to discuss it in private.

Sort of like the last time I went to a bureaucratic focus group meeting. Seriously, it’s a thing I took part in once where a school board wanted feedback from administrators, students, parents, and teachers. They invited about 200 people to a convention hall on a Saturday, provided coffee, donuts, and fruit, and had a stage where someone from the board stood up there with a transparency film (remember those?) and a projector taking notes. As well as easels with paper and Sharpie markers in the lobby. End of the day they packed it all into boxes and took it back to the administration building.

Surprisingly the CDI has a better track record for listening and comprehending than that school board

I’m reminded of a town meeting in VT on the Bob Newhart show. He said, “what we need here is a stupid alert.” I like Bob Newhart a lot. CDI has to do with cooperative development. That is what I have a problem with. A game should not be cooperatively developed. That’s the job of the game developer. Hopefully they have some ideas whose time has come. The old Anet that marketed this game had a lot of great ideas. Those ideas seem to have faded to the extent they have interacted with the playerbase. Sad, really.

That’s pretty laughable, really. The great majority of the things that have been added to GW2 in general, and WvW in particular, had NOTHING to do with anything requested by the players. Did players ask for Scarlet? Did players ask for badly written Living Story content? Did players ask for more gear grind? Did players ask for siege mastery? Did players ask for more PvE in WvW?

Now go make a list of the thing that players HAVE repeatedly asked for and tell me how many of those things you see in the game?

I never said that collaborative development was a good thing, and in fact I think it is doomed to failure simply because I don’t believe that ANet is capable of sorting out the good stuff from the bad. I do think however, that good companies try to maintain a healthy and steady dialogue with their customers … they listen, they consider, they respond, and they act. ANet is woefully bad at that. It hasn’t been interaction with the players that has been the problem with GW2 … it’s the lack of it.

Hey, couldn’t agree with you more.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

(Though personally I wouldn’t expect anything. I don’t expect any of the concerns I recall reading about on WvW could really be handled short of chucking the whole thing in a trashcan and designing it all over again from the bottom up.)

Actually, we can at least agree on that. As with most things, it’s often cleaner to start from scratch than try to tweak something that’s complex. I’ve even made some fairly extensive suggestions to that effect in the past (several times in fact), but I’m pretty certain that the WvW group no longer has the will or the resources to do much of anything at all, much less a full reboot.

Malchior.5042:

To anyone concerned with WvW CDI,

Wait until EoTM releases. It’s obvious that’s been what’s on their development track the past few months. When that release is out the door, WvW team can have more time and perhaps even more resources to develop other systems like improve commander functionality, amongst other things.

It’s always wait for this wait for that. Wait for the League to end, then we’ll get the attention we need. Wait for EoTM to come out, then we’ll get the attention we need.

Nobody wanted the Leagues and nobody wants EoTM. WvW has some very serious issues that are slowly but surely killing it and none of them are being addressed.

Lord Kuru.3685:

Malchior.5042:

To anyone concerned with WvW CDI,

Wait until EoTM releases. It’s obvious that’s been what’s on their development track the past few months. When that release is out the door, WvW team can have more time and perhaps even more resources to develop other systems like improve commander functionality, amongst other things.

It’s always wait for this wait for that. Wait for the League to end, then we’ll get the attention we need. Wait for EoTM to come out, then we’ll get the attention we need.

Nobody wanted the Leagues and nobody wants EoTM. WvW has some very serious issues that are slowly but surely killing it and none of them are being addressed.

Agree we get a lot of features “we don’t want”, sure it’s nice to have them and alot of them are pretty cool but still, the core of the game still has lots of problems that needs to be solved until you expand that core and that’s something they kept saying. Weirdly enough they don’t stick with that plan.

kokiman.2364:

Agree we get a lot of features “we don’t want”, sure it’s nice to have them and alot of them are pretty cool but still, the core of the game still has lots of problems that needs to be solved until you expand that core and that’s something they kept saying. Weirdly enough they don’t stick with that plan.

Mostly because of the groups of people who loudly proclaim if there’s not new content coming continuously then there’s no reason for them to stay. I honestly think if they worked on the core between Living Story ‘seasons’ they might be able to nail down a lot of the issues.

Not all of them, because there’s still people who can’t agree on what the issues are.

It might be an offtopic, but can there be a CDI about gemstore?

Since there are really questionable things in there for like last 3 months:
reskins, buys with real world moneys with some extra gems as equivalent and now new tools that makes previous unlimited gathering tools inferior.

Also with many items that were provided as an idea for the gem store that aren’t even remotely addressed and prices going up like crazy (mask for 500 gems and whole set of armor for 800gems, really?)

I think some people would love to get a thread to peak out loud on what is going on?
I assume it’s all because there are probably less and less customers and thats due to the way it works.

For me it makes me feel offended and when I look on GW2 and I think about gem store and how I feel also and it ties to the game experience for me. So please think about it and I will hope for CDI to enter that forum also.

aparently after the watchwork pick the only progression is from pay for convinience to disguised pay2win

Suggestion:
Whenever there is a change to the game, regardless of how large or small, could we have some sort of CDI flag in the official patch notes that tell us that the change derived from a CDI thread? It would show us that the fruits of our labor in these threads do not go un noticed, even though you say they do not. I would simply like to see in writing what changes are being made as a direct result of the CDI…not a “Yeah, lots of changed happened”.

Example:

-Reduced the number of achievements for this living story patch, and subsequent living story patches, by half. – CDI: Living Story

I’ve since stopped playing the game, and stopped contributing to the CDIs…life is too busy at the moment, and the little time I have in gaming has been diverted elsewhere for the time being. But I keep an eye on GW2 and would like this simple addition to patch notes.

in case the next CDI isn’t about fractals: Any update about your opginon around the fractal reset?

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

kokiman.2364:

Agree we get a lot of features “we don’t want”, sure it’s nice to have them and alot of them are pretty cool but still, the core of the game still has lots of problems that needs to be solved until you expand that core and that’s something they kept saying. Weirdly enough they don’t stick with that plan.

Mostly because of the groups of people who loudly proclaim if there’s not new content coming continuously then there’s no reason for them to stay. I honestly think if they worked on the core between Living Story ‘seasons’ they might be able to nail down a lot of the issues.

Not all of them, because there’s still people who can’t agree on what the issues are.

On this front there is a simple solution. The actual problem is Anet’s conception of telling a story. Their model, to date, has been episodic TV. That is, with each episode, everything resets (starts over), and we are left with an adventure which is gone when it’s over.

What if, instead, they released the equivalent of an expansion, but did it over time? Change to the living world and story would be permanent. There would actually be change, evolution, and expansion to the world. I believe this is where they went wrong, i.e., in terms of how to tell a story. That and, of course, their two week DLC value proposition. I never really got that one even when it was a was a one month DLC value proposition. You can’t even think about a story, let alone tell it, under those release cycles.

cesmode.4257:

Suggestion:
Whenever there is a change to the game, regardless of how large or small, could we have some sort of CDI flag in the official patch notes that tell us that the change derived from a CDI thread? It would show us that the fruits of our labor in these threads do not go un noticed, even though you say they do not. I would simply like to see in writing what changes are being made as a direct result of the CDI…not a “Yeah, lots of changed happened”.

Example:

-Reduced the number of achievements for this living story patch, and subsequent living story patches, by half. – CDI: Living Story

I’ve since stopped playing the game, and stopped contributing to the CDIs…life is too busy at the moment, and the little time I have in gaming has been diverted elsewhere for the time being. But I keep an eye on GW2 and would like this simple addition to patch notes.

I, too, believe it would be helpful, as an exercise, to somehow demonstrate value for this process. I doubt, however, that we will see anything along these lines. This isn’t anything that will actually help, it’s benefit is in appearing to help.

Raine.1394:

On this front there is a simple solution. The actual problem is Anet’s conception of telling a story. Their model, to date, has been episodic TV. That is, with each episode, everything resets (starts over), and we are left with an adventure which is gone when it’s over.

It’s not a complete reset a la Looney Tunes, there’s continuity. I’d say it’s similar to Castle or (the current cast incarnation of) CSI right now. It’s not like a strictly serial story which every episode is another progression of the story with no wasted filler.

Honestly, i keep going to the Lost comparison because it feels the same. The writers assure us there is a plot and an end in mind, while we don’t have all the picture until way late. At least it’s not Twin Peaks.

What if, instead, they released the equivalent of an expansion, but did it over time? Change to the living world and story would be permanent. There would actually be change, evolution, and expansion to the world. I believe this is where they went wrong, i.e., in terms of how to tell a story.

I get the feeling they were “taking it easy” with this year and trying to get into the swing of things. And they discovered they need to adjust the aim a little on how they do it. I knew that was the game of it after the first two chapters finished – they were clearly trying to get an idea of how internally to work with it. So we get the filler (Dragon Bash, SAB), the secondary plotline (Southsun), and the main plot (Scarlet) for the season.

Their failure, so to speak, largely relates to how the players got the story. If they learn any three lessons from this – I want that to be one of them. Let the players have means of keeping track of the story and make it much more accessible to them rather than buried under hints and teases.

That and, of course, their two week DLC value proposition. I never really got that one even when a was a one month DLC value proposition. You can’t even think about a story, let alone tell it, under those release cycles.

Bull. Yes you can I’ve seen it before. I had two months in which to write a novella story during my college writing courses, during which I had to submit a rough draft with notable progress every Tuesday and Thursday as well as read other students’ drafts as passed out so we could give feedback.

I know a forum where there was one writer who devoted themselves to doing flash fiction daily. By noon PST there was a story up, less than 200 words. Every day for a year.

I, in fact, had that as a New Year Resolution – a story a week for a year. Didn’t have to be connected but at least 500 words every week.

And this isn’t without even stating the obvious: Tabletop gamers who have a regular meeting schedule do it all the darn time.

You can tell a story, and it can be a compelling one. But it is not a simple undertaking and the quality isn’t guaranteed to be there for every input.

Heck, I’m currently thinking of doing a writing project where I use a deck of cards, shuffle it, and take the top card at the start of the week and at the end have a story themed for the card I pull. Then the card is set aside, and next week I pull the next card.

It’s the testing which bogs down the time between releases. And honestly, I’d trade less fancy content for more story.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Raine.1394:

On this front there is a simple solution. The actual problem is Anet’s conception of telling a story. Their model, to date, has been episodic TV. That is, with each episode, everything resets (starts over), and we are left with an adventure which is gone when it’s over.

It’s not a complete reset a la Looney Tunes, there’s continuity. I’d say it’s similar to Castle or (the current cast incarnation of) CSI right now. It’s not like a strictly serial story which every episode is another progression of the story with no wasted filler.

Honestly, i keep going to the Lost comparison because it feels the same. The writers assure us there is a plot and an end in mind, while we don’t have all the picture until way late. At least it’s not Twin Peaks.

What if, instead, they released the equivalent of an expansion, but did it over time? Change to the living world and story would be permanent. There would actually be change, evolution, and expansion to the world. I believe this is where they went wrong, i.e., in terms of how to tell a story.

I get the feeling they were “taking it easy” with this year and trying to get into the swing of things. And they discovered they need to adjust the aim a little on how they do it. I knew that was the game of it after the first two chapters finished – they were clearly trying to get an idea of how internally to work with it. So we get the filler (Dragon Bash, SAB), the secondary plotline (Southsun), and the main plot (Scarlet) for the season.

Their failure, so to speak, largely relates to how the players got the story. If they learn any three lessons from this – I want that to be one of them. Let the players have means of keeping track of the story and make it much more accessible to them rather than buried under hints and teases.

That and, of course, their two week DLC value proposition. I never really got that one even when a was a one month DLC value proposition. You can’t even think about a story, let alone tell it, under those release cycles.

Bull. Yes you can I’ve seen it before. I had two months in which to write a novella story during my college writing courses, during which I had to submit a rough draft with notable progress every Tuesday and Thursday as well as read other students’ drafts as passed out so we could give feedback.

I know a forum where there was one writer who devoted themselves to doing flash fiction daily. By noon PST there was a story up, less than 200 words. Every day for a year.

I, in fact, had that as a New Year Resolution – a story a week for a year. Didn’t have to be connected but at least 500 words every week.

And this isn’t without even stating the obvious: Tabletop gamers who have a regular meeting schedule do it all the darn time.

You can tell a story, and it can be a compelling one. But it is not a simple undertaking and the quality isn’t guaranteed to be there for every input.

Heck, I’m currently thinking of doing a writing project where I use a deck of cards, shuffle it, and take the top card at the start of the week and at the end have a story themed for the card I pull. Then the card is set aside, and next week I pull the next card.

It’s the testing which bogs down the time between releases. And honestly, I’d trade less fancy content for more story.

It would actually work if it were similar to Breaking Bad, but it’s not. It’s more along the lines of Gunsmoke. That program ran, what, 20 years, and the only real change was in accounting for the actual change of humans coming and going. The problem is the model doesn’t work because it leaves us with no tangible change. Permanent change would alleviate all the noted problems such as the grindiness of time-gated temporary achievements.

The problem arises from the fact that they haven’t been successful, to date, with actually telling a story. That’s why we are here talking about it.

Edit: Btw, an MMO is not a tabletop game or a writer’s forum. And, while testing is an important phase that’s shorted here, it is the actual design that gets the short shrift in a two week schedule. It’s not a writer’s issue. It’s a software development issue.

Raine.1394:

The problem arises from the fact that they haven’t been successful, to date, with actually telling a story. That’s why we are here talking about it.

It makes me sad I missed that CDI about it, but then I’ve said most of my piece elsewhere. They succeeded at telling a story, in a pretty bad way. I’ve seen worse (ARGs or anything related to a certain thin well-dressed male are notoriously bad about this).

What they really got wrong were a few things in particular:

- It wasn’t a steady progression of the story. Early on the chapters didn’t seem related and later on, tone and content varied quite a bit. Add in Scarlet’s flamboyance and need for theatrical appearances/behavior and that single character overshadowed stuff already having been worked on. Most of the story wasn’t released in the game but on other avenues, notably short stories on the website.

- The single linchpin character was not established well. Scarlet could have been an interesting character if we’d known even a little about her from the start other than “someone manipulated the dredge and Flame Legion into joining up”. If we’d had it telegraphed there was an experiment gone awry in an Inquest facility (shocker, that happens every thirty minutes in some places ) and there were progressive hints of things happening which we only saw ripples of . . . instead of just happening? People would have reacted better to Scarlet. Also, it really needed to be clear she didn’t flat out graduate or learn everything from all the places she visited – she just stayed until she got bored or thought she had learned everything “important”.

- The design of each release was generally repetitive. The gameplay of most of the releases remained similar in the middle period. In the first few chapters each had a distinct feel. Flame and Frost had definite character to achievements and events, Secret at Southsun did too. Cutthroat Politics was amazing for feel even if it barely was related to Scarlet. Then . . . combat moshpit central. Though it seems like they’re getting away from it again now.

- There was no sense of impact of events. After the threat was resolved each time, it seemed not to matter. Things continued the same as they were before the threat showed up with almost no changes. It never felt like the events were really leaving any mark on the world or people.

Raine.1394:

Edit: Btw, an MMO is not a tabletop game or a writer’s forum. And, while testing is an important phase that’s shorted here, it is the actual design that gets the short shrift in a two week schedule. It’s not a writer’s issue. It’s a software development issue.

I agree, there’s a lot of problems there which is probably why the software side of this has been . . . simple, in the middle phase of all this. The “combat moshpit” I referenced.

But some tabletop groups I was in? And some I’ve watched streaming records of? It’s been adlibbed improv-style theater. A group of gamers who see a plot hook and approach it from the side where the GM hasn’t got anything in mind. Or even better: “Nope. We’re not going on that quest, let’s do something else not so crazy lethal.” Or better yet . . . some character who had plot threads in the upcoming game winds up eating a death early on and the GM has a ton of notes they now have to reshuffle.

Leading to the desperate need for “I need a five minute break” where the GM frantically tries to come up with something. Anything.

Of course, the solution is one ANet chose to deal with – “instead of gaming every other week, can we make it once a month for a while?”