Guild Wars 2

So it’s an established fact that the devs can’t speak on what is in development. Whether or not you agree with it, that’s how it is and it’s unlikely to change. But I don’t want a discussion about that, instead I’d like to propose something for the opposite end of the development cycle, the post mortem.

For those who don’t know a post mortem is essentially a review of a project just finished to determine what went right, what went wrong, and how can it be used to make future projects better. More information can be found at the following links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmortem_documentation
http://blog.codinghorror.com/game-development-postmortems/

I suggest that the devs (Chris Whiteside in particular) do a post mortem with the community after each significant feature release (CE changes, TP changes, Trait changes, Megaserver changes, etc). While you can’t tell us about things while they’re in development, talk to us about it after. Walk us through things like:
*What problem was this meant to solve?
*You chose XYZ, what didn’t you chose to go with?
*If you felt ABC wasn’t a solution, why wasn’kitten
*What problems came up that forced a shift in how the feature was designed?
*What impacts did you predict this feature would have on the game?
*What actual impacts did this feature have on the game?
*etc

Why do this? Doing a post mortem like this would help the players see why and how certain features come out the way they do. If we understand how things happened it might help us accept some of the features we don’t like. If we know how things go through development then maybe we can predict some issues and answer them in future CDIs.

It may also help developers learn where/why players disagree with some of their decisions. Maybe there was a critical decision to be made on something and the devs thought going left was better, but in the post mortem the players see the decision that needs to be made and think going right was better. Knowing those kinds of specifics for past features can help everyone avoid similar problems in future features.

We may not be able to talk with developers about things in development, but I believe a good post mortem and a good CDI can really help bridge the gap and make for stronger features that both the devs and players like.

Also I should state, Post Mortems should be done for both the well received and the poorly received features. While there are fewer complaints about the well received features we can learn just as much from those.

I’m trying to figure out my appropriate response to this.

+1
Yes, please!
OMIGERD YES!!1!
Upvote.
I do believe, old chap, that I am highly inclined to agree.

…Okay, that was silly, but yes to this. Not only is this an excellent way to communicate with the community, but it also gives us insight into what other ideas the devs have considered and which ones they favor.

Great idea. You have my support +1

I would love to see something like this. However, I refuse to believe that the changes we are seeing implemented are being done so by the dev team believing they are making for a better player experience, NPE excepted.

These changes appear to be monetization changes that are being pushed on the devs and us. The devs have to make them as palatable as possible. For those that are intolerable they have to hold their noses, code them in, then ride out the storm.

If what I believe is true, there can be no post mortem, or it will be very selective, since there is no way to bring about changes to these items without them risking their livelihoods. The purpose of the CDI’s is to find out what the community wants most, then ally those changes with some of the more distasteful monetization changes they will have to deal with from home office and find out how tolerant the community would be to other monetization plans.

I love this idea, but it won’t happen because:

Anet will not get rid of the CDI. That alone took an astonishingly long time to get started, and to establish who would be doing it, what would be the discussion format, etc. If they ever did do this, we would probably have to wait a year or so.

We might finally know if Greatest Fear was dropped by accident or on purpose.

I too, really like this idea. However, like Roybe, I am skeptical of the openess of information we would receive. I understand that businesses make confidential decisions and that we don’t need to know every little thing, but even an attempt to communicate on some of the more visible changes would be a great thing,

In short, treat us like adults. We understand that the business needs and consumer needs don’t always mesh, but a conversation bringing us both a little closer to a solution tolerable to both sides would go a long way to build loyalty and trust.

Wishfull thinking, but I see 2 problems here:
1. Anet would need to communicate with own playerbase
2. Anet would need to know why they do the stuff they do

For the first one – they had more than 2 years to work on that, and the communication simply suck. I don’t say, that they can’t change it, but I don’t believe they will even consider it. They tried – they actually tried some time ago (3-4 months I think?) and utterly failed (in my humble opinion ofc).
About second – let me just point out things like, changing the leveling system (elite slot unlock moved to lvl 40 and down -almost back- to 31), gem store, trait system, changes in lore…
…oh skritt! I’ve become hater! We’ll it suits me right for now XD

I wasn’t suggesting removal of the CDI. This wouldn’t touch the CDI at all, I was just using the CDI as an example of a part of developer communication and how it could work in conjunction with a post mortem.

Some of the devs have shown they’re committed to being as open as possible and communicate as much as possible. John Smith and Chris Whiteside come to mind for that. While there are limits on what they’re allowed to talk about, they do try to talk about things, John in particular with the economy. I know some people don’t like how he talks but it doesn’t change the fact that he DOES actively participate and talk with the community. Chris actively participates in the CDI’s and I think he’d be an integral part of any post mortem.

While they’re limited on some of the things they discuss, there is still a lot they can discuss. They could say that feature X wasn’t able to be implemented because of technical reasons without going into those reasons. Or they could say it’s a manpower issue and they didn’t have time to do it effectively. The point is, there are ways for them to communicate about how things are developed that don’t violate their confidentiality.

Just like the CDI, I think it would take some work for both players and devs, but it would be worth it. If people show an interest in the idea then it could happen.

Wizzlock.3492:

Wishfull thinking, but I see 2 problems here:
1. Anet would need to communicate with own playerbase
2. Anet would need to know why they do the stuff they do

For the first one – they had more than 2 years to work on that, and the communication simply suck. I don’t say, that they can’t change it, but I don’t believe they will even consider it. They tried – they actually tried some time ago (3-4 months I think?) and utterly failed (in my humble opinion ofc).
About second – let me just point out things like, changing the leveling system (elite slot unlock moved to lvl 40 and down -almost back- to 31), gem store, trait system, changes in lore…
…oh skritt! I’ve become hater! We’ll it suits me right for now XD

Yes, it’s wishful thinking.

We can’t change past communication but hopefully we can make it better going forward. And maybe if time permits there can be post mortems for previous releases like the traits.

I think that this is an excellent idea. It would help ANet go on the offensive instead of always being on the defensive after changes have gone in. Also coming right out and saying “Yes, this change had this downside, but we felt it was the best of a few unfavorable choices” will help a lot of people look at things from ANets perspective as well as their own, and first impressions are very important.

Post mortems on changes could be a great thing. They could also be an official spot for feedback on changes and serve as a centralized place for the Dev’s to see that maybe there was a better way to implement a change and gather the ideas needed to make a quick improvement on a recent change. Let’s face it, none of us are perfect and maybe there’s an idea out there that’s better than what was originally come up with and developed and getting those ideas quickly and easily can’t be a bad thing.

Torsailr.8456:

Wizzlock.3492:

Wishfull thinking, but I see 2 problems here:
1. Anet would need to communicate with own playerbase
2. Anet would need to know why they do the stuff they do

For the first one – they had more than 2 years to work on that, and the communication simply suck. I don’t say, that they can’t change it, but I don’t believe they will even consider it. They tried – they actually tried some time ago (3-4 months I think?) and utterly failed (in my humble opinion ofc).
About second – let me just point out things like, changing the leveling system (elite slot unlock moved to lvl 40 and down -almost back- to 31), gem store, trait system, changes in lore…
…oh skritt! I’ve become hater! We’ll it suits me right for now XD

Yes, it’s wishful thinking.

We can’t change past communication but hopefully we can make it better going forward. And maybe if time permits there can be post mortems for previous releases like the traits.

Sure, and I agree with You.
Maybe with this kind of attitude from Anet I wouldn’t leave the game (I still read forums – I care about Guild Wars brand, not so much for GW2…). For now, I really don’t like the direction that game is set on, I do not like the attitude of Anet (I would call it pure arogance from lack of better word in my vocabulary, but it’s might by just me), and I really really hate the feeling that creative team have no idea what to do with the product. All their “major plans” looks like duct taping bulletwounds, not planned moves on chess board.