Guild Wars 2

We definitely want to do more scrimmages. In fact, I’ll be opening a thread about this in the next week or so. For our next Ready up (after this one) we want to do an All-Star scrimmage.

I didn’t say Rangers are in the right spot. I just meant that we have to be very careful of the power creep.

Edited to add a point on the glory booster refund.

If you purchased the booster through the gem store and have not used it by the time they are removed, you will be eligible for a refund.

We’re seeing that power creep is a big problem in the game right now, so bringing the Ranger up to snuff would only exacerbate that. When we do balance patches, we like to look at every class and where they are at so we can balance appropriately throughout.

Of course, it can be hard to account for certain things when doing these patches, which is why we’re trying to do the patches less frequently so we can properly gauge what needs to be done (that’s not to say that we won’t hotfix any major issues that arise).

Yes, like I said about the sustained vs burst, it’s not necessarily fully functional in the game. This is one of those things that we would have to balance with bringing other classes down a bit as far as damage output. Burst damage needs to have risk involved, and we know that right now many classes don’t have that associated risk.

To those asking how far we would redesign – I can’t really comment on this specifically, but I can say that you should share your ideas because sometimes they inspire things to happen. Does that make sense?

I realize that many classes have high burst right now, but our intent is to limit power creep as much as possible. Just because the Ranger’s damage is more spread out, doesn’t mean it does less damage than the burst of other classes. Does that make sense?

For example: One class could, in the span of 30 seconds, do 15k damage in say 5-10 seconds, but then their burst skills go on cooldown so they have to wait out the rest of the time before they can try again. A sustained class should be able to do that same amount of damage in that same amount of time, but the damage is more spread out (hence sustained). This can be better in certain situations, and allows for the sustained class to fill a hole in a team comp.

I’m not saying this is a perfect system or that it’s even fully functional in the game, I’m just trying to explain why doing burst shouldn’t necessarily be better than doing sustained damage. It depends on the situation.

We also know that some classes right now are better at burst than others, and those are things that we look to address in balance patches so there isn’t a surplus of any one class.

The Ranger isn’t expected to do burst damage. By sustained, we mean that the Ranger should excel at surviving (resilient) through burst while still doing enough damage over time to take the opponent down.

jewishjoyride.4693:

Allie Murdock.8152:

Hey everyone,

Before things get out of hand, I want to address the aspect idea so we can move on. First of all, it’s a great idea, but there are many current issues with the profession that need to be addressed first. Our priorities to make the pet a more viable option will likely remain higher than giving an option to “permastow” the pet.

We recognize there are a number of issues with the pet AI and general functionality, so that is something that will come first. Rangers are first and foremost a pet class, but they are also great skirmishers and some of the best sustained long range damage.

I don’t want you to think we’re going to ignore the idea or the feedback around the pet, but it could very well be the case that fixing some of the major nagging issues with the pet would make it a more desirable aspect of the Ranger.

That said, if you would like to consider discussing the aspect idea, I ask that you start a thread outside of the CDI to brainstorm.

Thanks so much for all the great, constructive feedback everyone! Let’s keep it coming!

If rangers truly are seen as the Pet class of GW2 then the devs need to be devoting time to handing more active control of the pet to the player. Currently if you look at other classes that are able to summon minions we really only have maybe one more level of control compared to them. This biggest difference between us and them is that our pets are mandatory.

Please please please give us more active control of our pets abilities in combat. Current f keys could be redesigned. You could also more closely link weapon skills to pet behaviour/ability (some weapons already have this a little bit). You could do a combination of these 2 ideas (that would be really exciting). Or who knows how else you could solve the problem?

As long as the pet is 90% tied to an ai though Rangers will be seriously kitten.

That is exactly my point. We want to make sure we’ve done everything we can to make the pet desirable before we consider any options for those that don’t want to play with the pet as much.

We are extremely specific about what is being released regarding PvP in John’s blog.

To quote from it, we say the following regarding this:

• “This post is to let you know that glory will no longer be awarded as of a maintenance build that is currently planned for March 18.”
  • Given that we have been calling the next phase of PvP the feature build, I’m surprised it wasn’t assumed that maintenance != feature here. Regardless, the next quote fully addresses that.
• “The glory vendor that was introduced in the December 10 build will remain until the new reward system is released in a later update "
• “Because these rewards are being removed in preparation for the next phase of the PvP reward updates”

In nearly every paragraph of this blog post, we discuss either what exactly is happening in this build, or mention that it is not a part of the next phase of rewards.

This is why I am confused as to where the misconception came from.

In this particular case, the feature build includes the next major step of PvP rewards. The maintenance build only includes the change to glory that will support the next phase.

Could someone point me to where we have said that the March 18th build is the feature build? I’m trying to understand where the idea is coming from and why it has gotten to this point. I was out for 3 months so maybe I missed something.

Hey everyone,

Before things get out of hand, I want to address the aspect idea so we can move on. First of all, it’s a great idea, but there are many current issues with the profession that need to be addressed first. Our priorities to make the pet a more viable option will likely remain higher than giving an option to “permastow” the pet.

We recognize there are a number of issues with the pet AI and general functionality, so that is something that will come first. Rangers are first and foremost a pet class, but they are also great skirmishers and some of the best sustained long range damage.

I don’t want you to think we’re going to ignore the idea or the feedback around the pet, but it could very well be the case that fixing some of the major nagging issues with the pet would make it a more desirable aspect of the Ranger.

That said, if you would like to consider discussing the aspect idea, I ask that you start a thread outside of the CDI to brainstorm.

Thanks so much for all the great, constructive feedback everyone! Let’s keep it coming!

Shadowsong.4820:

Permastowing a pet really shouldn’t be the “solution” to clunky pet mechanics. The people who would prefer this over having the pet mechanics improved/reworked just shouldn’t play rangers, I guess.

That idea would actually be in lieu of a permastow. It would give Rangers a little more utility while not losing site of the concept of a Ranger.

Either way though, I don’t want this whole CDI to be about stowing the pets. There have been a lot of great ideas outside of this one that will help pets to be a more viable option. Perhaps just fixing some of the issues with the AI could be enough for people to feel better about the lack of permastow.

Gotejjeken.1267:

The only reason I personally would complain about this is that it takes dev time to implement, when that time could be spent fixing the ‘gimmick’ of the class and keeping the theme alive.

Anyway, that’s my two cents and I’m bowing out for now to let others contribute!

For sure! Thanks for the feedback!

ilr.9675:

thefantasticg.3984:

Allie Murdock.8152:

As Orca pointed out, some people aren’t as fond of the pets. The idea of the buff would be to appease everyone. Also, what if stowing the pet and having an aspect gave the Ranger some kind of aura that communicated to others they are in that “aspect”? Would it still feel like the pet was a part of you if them being stowed affected your physical appearance?

If not, I don’t think the aspect idea would be a necessity for players. There are definitely things that need to be done to fix Ranger pets in general, and it’s something we are well aware of. If we fixed those things, but maybe also added in the aspect idea, I think we’d be in a spot where everyone would be pleased, no?

Just musing!

Some? No. Many many people. Just have a gander at how many threads have been created in the subforum about replacing them with something. If perma-stowing during combat = aura buff I am so hard for it that if I was anymore I would explode with infinite unicorn rainbows from every orifice.

Yes, but as someone with actual Graphics/particle creation experience, I just cringe at the “Resource-Creep” attached to it. Yes there absolutely needs to be UI indicators associated with it. Yes I get that they have 40-80 artists on-hand to help. But….. the real timesink there is just usability testing & graphics driver nuances. It’s a technical mess TBH unless it just re-used assets that are already “polished”

I don’t think it’d be a huge issue, given that we already have a few skills that do something like it (Warrior’s elite Rampage comes to mind). Granted, those tend to be less “permanent”. Either way, it’s something to consider.

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Gotejjeken.1267:

IMO, the discussion on pets is becoming overcomplicated. Why not just redistribute the power, fix the F2 timing, and keep them as-is? The pet is not the problem if you swap it, its the pet hitting things that is a problem.

Also I am not super happy with the idea of stow buffs and even less happy with a perma stow. The pet is part of me as a Ranger, it is one of the core things of the class.

You may not be happy about permastowing. I would be absolutely. Furthermore, if you could stow your pet, you could still use it like you are used to. And people like me, who don’t want to rely on the pet can stow it. Simple as that.

As Orca pointed out, some people aren’t as fond of the pets. The idea of the buff would be to appease everyone. Also, what if stowing the pet and having an aspect gave the Ranger some kind of aura that communicated to others they are in that “aspect”? Would it still feel like the pet was a part of you if them being stowed affected your physical appearance?

If not, I don’t think the aspect idea would be a necessity for players. There are definitely things that need to be done to fix Ranger pets in general, and it’s something we are well aware of. If we fixed those things, but maybe also added in the aspect idea, I think we’d be in a spot where everyone would be pleased, no?

Just musing!

This Friday, February 28th at 12pm pacific, we will be airing our 6th episode of Ready Up! On the show, we will have our always glorious Mr Host Man, Josh “Grouch” Davis, along with Game Designer Hugh “Nightmare” Norfolk and Competitive QA Embed Jessica “Wubbuffet” Boettiger!

Here’s the schedule:
1. Let’s talk PvP Glory removal!
2. Story time with Jessica
3. Devs storm EotM (maybe we’ll show some secret spots)
4. PvP tournament highlights
5. Upcoming events
6. Finish with a clip from the community

Tune in on the official Guild Wars 2 twitch channel to watch: www.twitch.tv/guildwars2

During this episode, we will have the majority of the competitive team at ArenaNet to play with us!

We’ll see you then!

This Friday, February 28th at 12pm pacific, we will be airing our 6th episode of Ready Up! On the show, we will have our always glorious Mr Host Man, Josh “Grouch” Davis, along with Game Designer Hugh “Nightmare” Norfolk and Competitive QA Embed Jessica “Wubbuffet” Boettiger!

Here’s the schedule:
1. Let’s talk PvP Glory removal!
2. Story time with Jessica
3. Devs storm EotM (maybe we’ll show some secret spots)
4. PvP tournament highlights
5. Upcoming events
6. Finish with a clip from the community

Tune in on the official Guild Wars 2 twitch channel to watch: www.twitch.tv/guildwars2

During this episode, we will have the majority of the competitive team at ArenaNet to play with us!

We’ll see you then!

Angela Ranna.5638:

Allie Murdock.8152:

Many of you have suggested removing traps from the Skirmishing line. It seems the primary reason for this is because it is the crit line while traps are primarily focused on conditions.

Given the idea behind skirmishing (for Ranger, we expect them to be able to survive longer while whittling their opponent down), would it maybe make more sense to leave the traps there and perhaps swap the stats with a different line?

However you would then lose the on-crit drive that the skirmishing tree has. And where would the crit stats go then? Marksmanship might make sense but then our trees would look almost identical to thieves in stats, which may or may not be a good thing. Wilderness Survival would be a natural choice for the PvP meta, but wouldn’t make much sense for other content.

Not that it’s a bad idea, just playing devil’s advocate for a second.

Yeah, it would also mess up a bunch of builds. I spoke with the guys on this one and they aren’t super happy with the skirmishing line in general either.

Many of you have suggested removing traps from the Skirmishing line. It seems the primary reason for this is because it is the crit line while traps are primarily focused on conditions.

Given the idea behind skirmishing (for Ranger, we expect them to be able to survive longer while whittling their opponent down), would it maybe make more sense to leave the traps there and perhaps swap the stats with a different line?

Atherakhia.4086:

Proposal Overview
By now everyone is familiar with the word ‘Zoo’ and how it relates to the Ranger class. While the screen clutter is still there, the strategic value of all the minions has lessened because of the changes to tab targeting. Body blocking is still a large issue though and I am proposing we remove the spirits from the game.

snip

Removing Spirits would be a pretty big change to the class. Additionally, they are part of the “spirit” (sorry, had to) of the Ranger. I do think the idea to add it to the pet is interesting, though I’m not sure how it really makes sense (the pets aren’t the ones drawing from nature, it’s the Ranger).

Do you have any thoughts or ideas that wouldn’t necessarily remove them, but maybe help to lessen the body blocking as you said?

mtpelion.4562:

snip

When Stowed, the ranger should gain the “Aspect of the [pet name]” effect, which provides unique buffs based on the pet family and specific pet.

mtpelion.4562, you have some really great ideas in your posts. I noticed your sentiments about Ranger pets right now are shared by a lot of the community here. The quote is an idea in particular struck me as interesting.

If we weren’t able to have an option to keep the pet permanently stowed, would having an option like you suggested make it feel better to toggle the pet? It seems like the kind of thing that you could develop a strategy around (pet could be out for one reason, then you switch it up to catch opponent off-guard).

Hey everyone,

Since the announcement of Glory removal, there have been a lot of questions popping up about what this means. As such, we have put together an FAQ to help answer some of these questions. If your question isn’t listed here, it is likely that we are not ready to discuss it at this time.

IMPORTANT: Please note that the March 18th maintenance build is not the next phase of PvP rewards. For reference, check out John’s blog post here. This build will only remove glory and increase rank points earned.

Q: Why aren’t people with glory boosters being compensated with different boosters or something along those lines?
A: We will not be converting glory boosters because we announced that we would be phasing out glory in John’s blog post and it wouldn’t be fair to the players that used up all of their boosters since then in preparation for it. However, players that spent gems to purchase glory boosters directly that have not used the booster will be eligible for a refund. For those that did purchase them, they can file a ticket here.

Q: Do we need to put our PvP armor in our locker on 3/17 so it can be “converted” or can we leave it on our characters?
A: No, this is not the next phase of PvP rewards. This is a maintenance step that we need to do as we make the bigger transition.

Q: Will we be able to craft PvP related gear after 3/18?
A: Yes, you will still be able to craft PvP related gear. This build is a maintenance step that will only remove Glory and increase rank points earned.

Q: Will rank points remain the same?
A: Starting on 3/18, we will be awarding increased rank points in all areas of PvP.

Q: What is happening to the rank reward chests and their respective vendors?
A: The chests will be removed from the game as a reward. You will still keep the ones in your inventory until they are used, but we will no longer be giving them out or selling them in any avenue.

Q: Will we be able to sell PvP materials to npc vendors similar to tournament tickets?
A: These materials are not being removed as part of the maintenance build. In this update we are only removing glory and making an adjustment to the amount of rank points earned.

Q: Will we eventually be able to use PvP rank/cultural/dungeon armor skins in PvE/WvW?
A: Yes, players will eventually be able to take their looks across game modes; however, this will not be happening as a part of the maintenance build on March 18th.

Hey all,

A few of you mentioned disappointment at the lack of response so far in this thread. Yesterday was an extremely busy day for me to be actively participating in the thread, but I figured it couldn’t hurt to get the thread going.

I’ll be spending most of my day today just going over this thread and summarizing some of the ideas. I’ll try and get some of the guys in here as well to comment on specific feedback!

Please be patient, the thread hasn’t even been up for a full day!

Thanks

Alcyone.8695:

Forgive me if this is rude, but what exactly is the point of insisting that a proposal be tied to a particular game mode in a profession balance thread? Any substantial change to the profession will affect everything, and we’ve already been told repeatedly that ArenaNet does not want to split skills between the three game modes. Most posts here already read PvX because their players correctly understand this; I saw at least one saying “PvP if I have to choose” which is in the same spirit. There may be minor balance tweaks proposed that would involve small splits between sPvP and PvE/WvW mechanics, but those would affect all game types as well.

There’s no good reason to use game mode in this thread. It just takes up space. Leave it out.

The bold is not necessarily true. In unique situations, we are willing to split skills. Regardless, that is not the reasoning for asking for the game mode. Sometimes feedback is pertaining to very specific scenarios in different game modes. Sometimes there is a way to balance the class that doesn’t hurt the other game modes, but helps to bring it up in the areas where it’s felt to be weak.

Knowing a players primary game mode is very important for us to understand where they are coming from. We also want to make sure that all 3 game modes get the love they need when it comes to balance.

If that doesn’t make sense, then here is an example: Sometimes one skill can be particularly good in PvP. If a player that plays solely PvE feels that skill is weak, it would seem strange if they didn’t specify that it is in PvE when we know that it is already good in PvP.

Does that make sense?

Nuzt.7894:

Allie Murdock.8152:

barabajaga.7652:

I know that im out of topic here and not using the format proposal and i apologize for it ,but before posting any ideas about the ranger and having into consideration that this will be read by some dev ,i will like to ask something :

Would you ever (or have you) considered the removal of the pet ,knowing how borked the ai is ,and as anet says ,it can not be reworked because its tied to mob ai?

Or would you consider split the class in to two, ranger/beastmaster ,and rework the pet ai from the ground.

Again sorry for the offtopic and thx for any possible answer.

Removing the pet was something that was discussed in initial design of the class, but it is such an integral part of the Ranger’s design and philosophy.

There might be some ways that we can redesign the pet and it’s AI, but those are big projects. For the time being, we are happy to take any suggestions regarding the pet.

I can see your concern here but, the option to have the pet as such an integral part of the class is one of the largest faults of the class. Could it not be optional to have the pet as an option, basically if you spec wilderness survival your pet becomes a larger part of the class, if you choose to spec in something different to be more valuable to your group then either you don’t have the pet or it has minimal impact on the class.

That is completely valid feedback that I will relay to the designers. Thanks for taking the time to share it!

barabajaga.7652:

I know that im out of topic here and not using the format proposal and i apologize for it ,but before posting any ideas about the ranger and having into consideration that this will be read by some dev ,i will like to ask something :

Would you ever (or have you) considered the removal of the pet ,knowing how borked the ai is ,and as anet says ,it can not be reworked because its tied to mob ai?

Or would you consider split the class in to two, ranger/beastmaster ,and rework the pet ai from the ground.

Again sorry for the offtopic and thx for any possible answer.

Removing the pet was something that was discussed in initial design of the class, but it is such an integral part of the Ranger’s design and philosophy.

There might be some ways that we can redesign the pet and it’s AI, but those are big projects. For the time being, we are happy to take any suggestions regarding the pet.

Hey everyone,

If possible, please try to keep your post specific to one game mode. Also, please be sure to include the game mode at the top of your post.

Thanks!

Topic Goal
We would like to get some focused and informed feedback from you all on changes you would like to see made regarding the Ranger profession (in general). Many of you have already shared tons of great feedback on the forums, but there are some specifics that we would like to have from you, so we have decided to open up this profession CDI.

Ranger Design Philosophy: Please keep this in mind when posting feedback.
The Ranger is a resilient profession that excels at skirmishing by drawing from nature to support themselves as well as their allies. Alongside their pet, they have some of the best single target and sustained damage that will whittle their opponents down.

Suggested Proposal Format:

Specific Game Mode
<We need to know what area of the game your feedback is pertaining to. Please put here either PvE, PvP, WvW, or PvX. Each post should have only ONE game mode.>

Proposal Overview
<A short description of the proposal that is being put forward>

Goal of Proposal
<What problem are you trying to solve with your proposal>

Proposal Functionality
<How does your proposal work in regard in relation to the current design of GW2>

Associated Risks
<What risks or problems can you foresee with this proposal which you would like to have assistance on from other members of the CDI>

It is very important that you keep your ideas as concise as you can. If possible, try to keep each portion of your proposal below 200 words. Thanks!

CDI Rules:

1: This initiative is all about discussion.
2: We will not be disclosing information pertaining to what is currently in development.
3: Anger and emotion will have less impact than intelligent discussion.
4: Together we will share and evolve design philosophies which will impact how we develop the game moving forward.
5: Aggression and disrespect to a fellow community member or developer will not be tolerated, and in the extreme could lead to the shutting down of the initiative.
6: The teams primary focus is work toward the development of GW2 and therefore posting of discussion and commentary may not be as frequent as you like. Please do understand that the initiative is taken very seriously by us all and that we will be reading the discussions and joining in as often as it is possible to do so.
Please note this is not a competition, either between yourselves or the developers in regard to one up man ship. The point of this Initiative is to work together to make the game better.

Note: We will disclose the ideas we do or don’t like as a group but we will not discuss schedules or timing around implementation. If there is still concern surrounding how seriously we take community collaboration then please do take the time to think about how much impact the community has had on the working of this game over the year.

Thank you in advance for your participation!

Allie

Jorne, we have spent a good part of the day removing posts. We do not work on the weekends and wanted to make sure that those on these forums and those in Reddit understand that they are not true.

If you look at the Reddit thread, many of the comments are of people reacting and believing these notes. We do not want people to be upset by fake patch notes.

Does that make sense?

FYI

Hey everyone,

I’m sure you have all been wondering whether the ‘Leaked Balance Patch notes’ we have all seen on Reddit are true.

I am here to say that they are not. It appears the poster has taken some of the notes that we have in this thread in an effort to make their own look more legitimate, and mashed them together with some imaginary notes. These are not real patch notes.

This is a reminder that when patch notes are posted by a source other than ArenaNet, they should not be trusted. Particularly in the context of a “leak.”

Thank you for understanding!

A

Ok everyone, I’m closing this thread to collect the questions. As soon as I get the answers, we will post them on here (likely some time next week).

Thanks all!

We’ve asked everyone to post questions here so that we can draft up an FAQ for all languages. This should be up next week.

Thank you for your patience and understanding!

So, this is what happens during lunch breaks here…

Hugh asked our map artist Darrin to photoshop Chap after he saw the post. Priceless!

Darrin is the man.

Drafigo.4690:

Allie- With this group if your not answering these questions with in mins of the post your asking for trouble. lol

Sorry! This is just the way we’re going to do it!

Before you derail my thread, why don’t you wait for me to actually answer the question. Yes, the intent is to have answers on the forums. We will also be talking about them on Ready Up next week.

I doubt they will actually be posted specifically in this thread though. It will likely be a sticky and a bit more formal-looking.

Hey everyone,

We’ve been noticing that a lot of you have questions about the Glory Removal update that is coming on March 18th in the maintenance build. So, I’m opening this thread up for everyone to post their questions here, and we will answer as much as we can.

Thanks!

Moopy.7908:

ONE OF US! ONE OF US!

Hahaha this made me laugh so hard. It’s so true

Uttar.2341:

Hi Allie,

The patch did not change retaliation in WvW, it only fixed a bug in EotM. The -33% retaliation has been present in WvW for many months and I expect that nearly everyone in this thread is talking about retaliation in that context.

The main issue is that damage from retaliation is excessive for small/fast attacks which some classes are more susceptible to than others. For example, engineers with both flamethrower (4 attacks/second) and grenades (3 attacks/second). On most classes it’s mostly a few specific skills that are well balanced overall but problematic with retaliation (e.g. guardian whirling wrath).

There are many possible solutions:

1. Set an ICD, either:
   1. On the person with retaliation (e.g. will only do damage on 1 attacker every 0.5s).
   2. On the attacker (e.g. you don’t get retaliation damage again from anyone else for 0.5s)
   3. On the attacker+defender combo (e.g. 1 attacker can only get retal damage every 0.5s for every person he hits)
2. Set a damage cap:
   1. Percentage of Damage (e.g 20% of attack maximum so 500 attack would hit for 100 retal – stronger impact on glasscannons)
   2. Percentage of HP (e.g. 5% HP/s max – weaker impact on glasscannons)
   3. Fixed Maximum (e.g. 1K HP/s max – stronger impact on glasscannons)
3. Individually rebalance specific skills (e.g. flamethrower doing 4 attacks hitting 5 enemies instead of 10 attacks hitting 3 enemies).

My personal preference is for a 0.5s ICD on the person with retaliation. I believe this has the smallest impact in small-scale and the best possible impact in large-scale.

My bad! This is great feedback. I’ll pass it on to the team!

Someone mentioned that PvP is a great place to learn your class. I just wanted to add that I completely agree. It definitely helps you to learn how your class works against others.

Even in a zerg, when you’re engaging another zerg, it can easily turn into a bunch of small skirmishes as people start to spread out.

Well, let’s try out the change in WvW for a little while instead of theory crafting. It shouldn’t be as bad now. We can revisit this after a few weeks of playing if it’s still an issue.

Thanks for the feedback all!

morrolan.9608:

When you’re thinking about it if you tone down the damage from aoe you must increase the single target damage and options for specs like staff ele and staff necro.

This is why we haven’t done anything major to AoE yet. Changing AoE basically means changing the balance of the entire game. :P

He’s lurking.

I’m not trying to be insulting, so I hope you guys didn’t take it that way. It’s just as frustrating for me that I can’t talk about this stuff. I just figured you’d want to know that we haven’t given up, but I understand the frustration.

Since nothing really constructive is coming from this post anymore, I’m going to lock it.

Wish I could say more but I just can’t.

Hey all,

Just curious, with the recent change we made to Retaliation in WvW, could you guys hop into WvW and pay close attention to the numbers now? I’m wondering if the change is enough, or if it’s something we should balance further.

Thanks for the feedback!

Hey everyone,

Chris has proposed the format for the upcoming CDI (link here). Please take a look at it and share your suggestions if you have any.

Thanks!

Hey everyone,

Chris has proposed the format for the upcoming CDI (link here). Please take a look at it and share your suggestions if you have any.

Thanks!

Hey everyone,

Chris has proposed the format for the upcoming CDI (link here). Please take a look at it and share your suggestions if you have any.

Thanks!