Guild Wars 2

Cactus.2710:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Cactus.2710:

Psientist.6437:

Khisanth.2948:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Palador.2170:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Are we going down this path again Gidorah?

Chris

Nah. By now, nobody actually expects you guys to talk with us about it.

But even if you did, an entire CDI on it would be overkill.

Personally I think a CDI on the BLT would be good to do at some point.

Chris

It should be two separate CDI. One for the gem store. One for the part where players are trading stuff with each other. Stuff like the very obvious missing/broken bits in the search function. The two are different enough that they shouldn’t be discussed together.

I somewhat agree. A CDI about the gem shop would likely revolve around definitions of P2W and vertical item progression. We have discussed that amongst ourselves already and the only pertinent information Arenanet could offer is their own definitions. Personally, I think providing those definitions is necessary. Suspense is all well and good in story telling but not in the monetization of storytelling.

Hello Chris Whiteside and thank you for the response. Would you be able to describe the process the dev team used in deciding upon the next topic? I’m not looking for a gotcha moment, just think it would help in the process of mutual emulation. Knowing how the dev team chooses topics would help us choose future topics.

Say what?? You want us to chose topics that ANet wants to talk about instead of topics that we want to talk about. How sycophantic can you be? The whole idea of this thing is for players to be able to bring up topics and idea/complaints/suggestions that are important to us … irrespective of what ANet thinks. Not that any of that has worked, of course, but still …

The CDI group discussed determination of topics in this thread and decided to try having us choose the next topics for this round (previously topics were voted for). We will see how this goes and go from there. I would suggest you read the thread thoroughly before making just broad assumptions in future.

’ Not that any of that has worked, of course, but still ..’

Finally I am sorry you feel this way about the CDI. Should you have been following it closely you would already have seen the massive impact it has had in game.

Regardless thanks for your feedback.

Chris

You’re right … I shouldn’t have generalized. I am (or at least was) primarily a WvW player, and I’ve been extremely disappointed in the total lack of response (notice I didn’t say results) to the extensive WvW CDI threads. I think my comments apply perfectly to them. We poured our hearts out in them and believed you when you said we’d get some sort of summary and feedback on the many constructive ideas offered there. We got none of that, hence my “not that any of that worked” comment.

Thanks for the clarification Cactus, I understand. I will discuss this with Colin and we can go from there.

Chris

unleashed.8679:

Just one thing:

don’t make the topics of the CDI too big. Probably start more smaller topics instead of one big one. (if possible)

Thanks Unleashed. I have updated the summary.

Chris

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Hi All,

In summary we will be doing the following changes to best working practices around the CDI based on this discussion:

1: I will ask collaborators to discuss and propose points succinctly.
2: I will build a ‘suggested’ template for the format of proposals.
3: We will do broader advertising of the CDI topics so more community members are aware.
4: I will post specific dates for the start and end of CDI topics.
5: We will not let topics run and run. (To be honest I am quite disappointed with much of the commentary being way of topic over the last few pages and this is due to me leaving the thread open when it had run its course.)
6: We will reassess Topic determination after the next round of CDI topics.
7: Where possible we will try to run CDI topics concurrently.
8: I will discuss the creation of a sub forum for CDI with the Community team.
9: Posts will be removed moving forward if they are not pertinent to the topic of the CDI.
10: CDI Topics will be less broad in order to ensure a more focused discussion.

Thanks once again for your input and passion toward Guild Wars 2 and in this specific case the CDI.

We now know the topics for the next round of CDIs and I will publish these on Friday.

Chris

Update:

9: Posts will be removed moving forward if they are not pertinent to the topic of the CDI.

Chris

Update:

10: CDI Topics will be less broad in order to ensure a more focused discussion.

Chris

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Hi All,

In summary we will be doing the following changes to best working practices around the CDI based on this discussion:

1: I will ask collaborators to discuss and propose points succinctly.
2: I will build a ‘suggested’ template for the format of proposals.
3: We will do broader advertising of the CDI topics so more community members are aware.
4: I will post specific dates for the start and end of CDI topics.
5: We will not let topics run and run. (To be honest I am quite disappointed with much of the commentary being way of topic over the last few pages and this is due to me leaving the thread open when it had run its course.)
6: We will reassess Topic determination after the next round of CDI topics.
7: Where possible we will try to run CDI topics concurrently.
8: I will discuss the creation of a sub forum for CDI with the Community team.
9: Posts will be removed moving forward if they are not pertinent to the topic of the CDI.

Thanks once again for your input and passion toward Guild Wars 2 and in this specific case the CDI.

We now know the topics for the next round of CDIs and I will publish these on Friday.

Chris

Update:

9: Posts will be removed moving forward if they are not pertinent to the topic of the CDI.

Chris

stale.9785:

Chris, can you address, at all, the over the top locking and deletion of entire threads over one or two posts?

There are thousands of suggestions that are worthwhile, and simply disappearing, because someone dared say anything less than wonderful about Anet.

For an example – the last one I took part in was completely removed because I pointed out that the game is rather poorly optimised for high-end systems. Nothing rude, just a statement of fact. Then something like 2000 posts just disappeared, because that qualifies as “Calling out of an Anet employee”.

It’s things like this, more than anything, that lead to the entire “the devs never listen” attitude throughout the forums/game.

I will work with our community team and look into this.

Chris

Please let me know folks if there is anything I have missed before I lock and sticky this thread.

Chris

Cactus.2710:

Psientist.6437:

Khisanth.2948:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Palador.2170:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Are we going down this path again Gidorah?

Chris

Nah. By now, nobody actually expects you guys to talk with us about it.

But even if you did, an entire CDI on it would be overkill.

Personally I think a CDI on the BLT would be good to do at some point.

Chris

It should be two separate CDI. One for the gem store. One for the part where players are trading stuff with each other. Stuff like the very obvious missing/broken bits in the search function. The two are different enough that they shouldn’t be discussed together.

I somewhat agree. A CDI about the gem shop would likely revolve around definitions of P2W and vertical item progression. We have discussed that amongst ourselves already and the only pertinent information Arenanet could offer is their own definitions. Personally, I think providing those definitions is necessary. Suspense is all well and good in story telling but not in the monetization of storytelling.

Hello Chris Whiteside and thank you for the response. Would you be able to describe the process the dev team used in deciding upon the next topic? I’m not looking for a gotcha moment, just think it would help in the process of mutual emulation. Knowing how the dev team chooses topics would help us choose future topics.

Say what?? You want us to chose topics that ANet wants to talk about instead of topics that we want to talk about. How sycophantic can you be? The whole idea of this thing is for players to be able to bring up topics and idea/complaints/suggestions that are important to us … irrespective of what ANet thinks. Not that any of that has worked, of course, but still …

The CDI group discussed determination of topics in this thread and decided to try having us choose the next topics for this round (previously topics were voted for). We will see how this goes and go from there. I would suggest you read the thread thoroughly before making just broad assumptions in future.

’ Not that any of that has worked, of course, but still ..’

Finally I am sorry you feel this way about the CDI. Should you have been following it closely you would already have seen the massive impact it has had in game.

Regardless thanks for your feedback.

Chris

Hi All,

In summary we will be doing the following changes to best working practices around the CDI based on this discussion:

1: I will ask collaborators to discuss and propose points succinctly.
2: I will build a ‘suggested’ template for the format of proposals.
3: We will do broader advertising of the CDI topics so more community members are aware.
4: I will post specific dates for the start and end of CDI topics.
5: We will not let topics run and run. (To be honest I am quite disappointed with much of the commentary being way of topic over the last few pages and this is due to me leaving the thread open when it had run its course.)
6: We will reassess Topic determination after the next round of CDI topics.
7: Where possible we will try to run CDI topics concurrently.
8: I will discuss the creation of a sub forum for CDI with the Community team.

Thanks once again for your input and passion toward Guild Wars 2 and in this specific case the CDI.

We now know the topics for the next round of CDIs and I will publish these on Friday.

Chris

Palador.2170:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Are we going down this path again Gidorah?

Chris

Nah. By now, nobody actually expects you guys to talk with us about it.

But even if you did, an entire CDI on it would be overkill.

Personally I think a CDI on the BLT would be good to do at some point.

Chris

gidorah.4960:

Nike.2631:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

We can discuss any part of the game that is already live.

gidorah.4960:

like watchwork picks?

((Grrr. Froth. Snarl. Grrrr…))

I approve of enlightened self-interest and creative monetization.

The watchwork pick is neither of those things.

lol i dont particularly care about the pick i care that they want to stonewall people by ignoring them long enough till they get bitter and make the forums worse. its how the wvw forums got so toxic devs ignored them till people lost all respect for the wvw dev’s.

Are we going down this path again Gidorah?

Chris

nethykins.7986:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

One thing of note:

’ I would hate to see the CDI become the tune that we all dance to around the uncomfortable issues.’

The CDI would be utterly pointless if this became the case (-: The game gets better because of tackling tough issues in the CDI. The Living World CDI was ‘Uncomfortable’ and Iam extremely happy with the positive impact that topic has already had in the game.

Chris

Playing devils advocate here:
I recall the first set of CDI’s heavily reinforcing the notion that if you guys can’t talk about something, then it’s off limits, no questions asked.

That’s not at all uncomfortable for us, but it’s a hell lot more uneasy for you to discuss – meaning, you can’t simply say you’ll tackle tough issues, when there are things, no doubt, be required for us to “back down” on, (so to speak)

I’d love to quote from one of the CDI’s but, hell…they’re titan threads.

We can discuss any part of the game that is already live.

Chris

CDI update. We are still finalizing the topics for the next CDI round. Thanks for being so patient.

Chris

Psientist.6437:

Hopefully, Arenanet choosing the next topic/topics doesn’t preclude the player-base from choosing topics in the future. It would be very interesting to see if we could development our own process for bringing organized content ideas forward. I would hate to see the CDI become the tune that we all dance to around the uncomfortable issues.

edit : and fishing

It does not preclude the community from choosing topics in the future. What we will do is once the next round of topics is over we will discuss how we feel the method of choosing the topics went this time and how we can evolve that moving forward if we all feel it is necessary to do so.

One thing of note:

’ I would hate to see the CDI become the tune that we all dance to around the uncomfortable issues.’

The CDI would be utterly pointless if this became the case (-: The game gets better because of tackling tough issues in the CDI. The Living World CDI was ‘Uncomfortable’ and Iam extremely happy with the positive impact that topic has already had in the game.

Chris

We are currently deciding the next round of topics and will update soon.

Chris

Arghore.8340:

Summary of Discussion – [8 feb 2014]

CDI-planning:
- Should include at least 2 weekends to maximize particiption, best to start on Friday.
- Limit CDI duration, to avoid the discussion running into a mush.
- Topic ‘picking’ is still to be decided upon. Suggestions include:
• ANet picks all topics
• ANet suggests options, the community votes on one to discuss.
• The community brainstorms and perhaps votes, but ANet decides on the topic.
• Alternating ANet Picks and Community Nominations.
- It is suggested to have these votes ‘in game’ or on another site announced in game, so that the whole community and not just the forum one gets to have a say in this.

Processes leading upto the CDI
- The CDI needs to be announced better, maybe even in-game to draw in more people and get a more diverse crowd/feedback.

The CDI-thread itself
- Increase visibility. CDI threads could become a different kind of sticky just below the ruler on the board or have a different color.
- Topic scope. Formulate topics that are more precise, yet broad enough to inspire feedback.
- The CDI thread on the mainboard could be just a brainstorm thread on issues related to the CDI topic, or a main running discussion. The CDI would then have a sub-forum, where ANet is able to split off ideas that spark heavy discussion, so that these singular topic discussions don’t overtake the main discussion and reduce its size.
- A sub-forum should be governed by Anet, they should make the threads, so this doesn’t end up as ‘just another’ forum section.
- CDI topic Primer. Opening post to include a descriptive ‘primer’ establishing the field being discussed.
- Summary placement. The 2nd post could be reserved for more procedural information: a running summary, links to the various related sub-forum topics.

In regards to the posting in the CDI-thread
- Dev responses. ArenaNet members should try to reply more towards the thread as a whole and ask general questions, rather than address players and ideas directly. Avoid a sense of favoritism.
- Use a format for posting suggestions/proposals. Discussion remains free-form.
- Be brief. Keep post size short, and use clear language so that readers can get the points without having to deal with the details.
- Posts that are entirely off topic from the CDI’s scope will be removed from the thread.

In regards to technical solutions
- To combat lengthy posts it is suggested to apply: Word limits. Post limits or flood control. Chris mentions (bit below here) these will not be applied.
- Displayed threads in two places if possible: appropriate forum for topic and CDI specific forum
- Explore software options:
• A more ‘reddit’ like forum section, using branching response structure.
• A Public Tracker (JIRA) function.
- An easier way to generate a link to a specific post would help, esp. when using them to create a table of content, but also in these summaries.
- The Q&A format may be able to be used to keep a certain Dev post displayed on top of each page.

Feedback from past CDIs
- Announce CDI impact. Add some way to clearly see the CDI influencing the game (patch notes, acknowledged in devs posting on the board).

Thanks for the summary Arghore,

Quick note that this thread will be locked tomorrow morning following a summary and the announcement of the next topics which the devs will be choosing.

Chris

Bump for exposure.

Chris

A number of members of the CDI have mentioned hard locks on word counts so I wanted to address this.

We will not be putting a hard lock on word counts. Instead I will request that posts are as concise where appropriate and suggest a template for addition of new ideas and proposals.

Chris

gidorah.4960:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

I think we have discussed most everything.

However several CDI members brought up the importance of accessibility and welcoming folks with open arms so I think it is worthwhile us leaving the thread open until Sunday so new or returning members can share their thoughts.

Chris

no comment on how poor communication outside the cdi affects the cdi?
any plans to fix it so that so off topic stuff so it doesnt come up or are you getting your response to the watchwork pick ready for when it does inevitably come up in the next cdi?

Hi Gidorah,

Off topic discussion will be removed from the thread.

Regarding your first question I am currently researching this topic.

Chris

I think we have discussed most everything.

However several CDI members brought up the importance of accessibility and welcoming folks with open arms so I think it is worthwhile us leaving the thread open until Sunday so new or returning members can share their thoughts.

Chris

Let’s try and stay on topic please?

Specifically discussing CDI best working practices.

Chris

I think the discussion is still good and valuable so I will keep the thread open.

I am still thinking about topic resolution based on the ongoing conversation.

Chris

Lilith Ajit.6173:

Chris, is that also when you will be announcing the next topics?

Hi Lilith,

Yes.

Chris

Quick update to say I will be closing this thread on Sunday.

Chris

Laurelinde.4395:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Lilith Ajit.6173:

Then I think it makes the most sense to have a format for the initial posts. If you’re struggling, that matters, and it should be up to us to help, especially if we want feedback.

Don’t get me wrong I LOVE the CDI but you are correct, for example the last CDI took up a huge amount of my free time during the holiday period. Whilst that isn’t ideal, it pales in comparison to my concern about not being able to give a discussion the attention it is due.

So far I think i have done an ok job with this, but I know I could do a lot better.

It really does boil down to time. Also it helps that I have a very patient wife!

Chris

Unfortunately, then, I think this comes down to money, like most things. If Anet are serious about maintaining the CDIs in this fashion, and refining them to this degree, then I think that clearly they will need to dedicate some time to it. If it is not feasible for you to answer all the points yourself, and I can imagine it is not, then they are going to have to allocate some resources to it – ie, hire some dedicated people to liaise with the community and feed back from the devs. It is not workable or appropriate either for existing employees like yourself to take on a full second job in this way, nor for a handful of particularly articulate forum posters with a lot of free time to work as unpaid consultants in this manner.

Basically, if as you say you are keen to do this properly, then, well…do it properly and allocate the time and manpower, rather than nitpicking the formats. Otherwise the whole CDI process becomes destined to fail as a worthless paper exercise, IMO.

Edit: Apologies, this sounds harsher than I intend it, but I am not sure how to soften it, exactly.

Sorry I think you misunderstand. My point is we have multiple members of staff who participate in the CDI as well many others who read the threads. Thus my request for us to be more efficient in the manner in which we communicate will lead to the CDI having a higher value impact on the game as a whole due to freeing up more time for both discussion and work.

Chris

P.S: I didn’t think your post was harsh at all.

ThFH.6048:

Thanks for getting back to me Tyops.

There is no clique but I can see why folks might thank that. I see myself as a fellow contributor and thus folks shouldn’t be excited to see me reply to their post or deflated if I don’t.

I think the way to manage this is for folks to keep posting when they feel value in doing so and I will do my best to drill deeper into the posts. One of the reasons this has been hard is due to the length and volume of posts.

Chris

A possibilty to avoid clique-yness could be to ask more open questions. Chris summarizes the general feeling in the thread and asks a question not directly towards an individual but towards everyone.

e.g. Instead of asking one person to give an example of how to standardize the CDI suggestion posting and this becoming unoffically the future standard (this is a bit how I understood it while reading the suggestion and answers about this suggestion). Ask everyone to think about it and post something.

Yep I was thinking about this, good idea.

Note I am aware of the irony of the direct reply and agreement (-:

Chris

Lilith Ajit.6173:

Then I think it makes the most sense to have a format for the initial posts. If you’re struggling, that matters, and it should be up to us to help, especially if we want feedback.

Don’t get me wrong I LOVE the CDI but you are correct, for example the last CDI took up a huge amount of my free time during the holiday period. Whilst that isn’t ideal, it pales in comparison to my concern about not being able to give a discussion the attention it is due.

So far I think i have done an ok job with this, but I know I could do a lot better.

It really does boil down to time. Also it helps that I have a very patient wife!

Chris

StriderShinryu.6923:

Iason Evan.3806:

It would be nice to hear, “We got green lit for this one guys! We are iterating on this idea, but this thing that you guys wanted will make it into the game in some form or another.” or “This one is off the table for ‘X’ and ‘Y’ reasons, sorry!”

Bingo.

It’s always nice to be able to look back weeks/months later and say “Hey, that thing there sort of looks like something we talked about in the CDI” but doing so doesn’t really add much to the CDI while it’s happening. If we are to be collaborators, we need more insight into the actual process beyond “We talked about that in a meeting” or “Good idea, now talk about this instead!”

Sorry Strider and thanks for your contribution in many of the CDIs (so please don’t take this personally) but we will not comment on work in progress. This is because we can choose to shelve, rebuild or ‘can’ content or a feature at any point and we don’t share info on features or content until we are happy with the quality.

This mitigates disappointing the community and allows us to develop at the appropriate pace.

Chris

Tyops.5894:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Hi Tyops,

Thanks for posting about your concern. Could you clarify what you mean by insular in this case please? This way I can have a better understanding of how to reply to your concern.

Chris

Certainly,

Sorry I couldnt get back to it until now what with being at work. To be perfectly fair I was probably being overly cynical, but part of the concern remains.

I am a habitual lurker in the CDI threads and routine dev-post stalker, and through natural progression it appears to me that the CDI threads have already become quite clique-y. There is a small group of high-volume high-profile poster who tend to discuss more or less only each other’s posts and also tend to draw most of the interaction from devs.

Although this evolved entirely naturally, unless you’re in it, it can make the community appear insular.

Taking it a step further and codifying how this community interacts with a series of semi-arbitrary rules developed by that community can make it appear markedly less accessible to outsiders, lurkers, and other low volume users.

That is largely where my concern resides.

I appreciate the aims of the CDI. I am really looking forward to seeing what comes of it. I feel GW2 is near a tipping point and that many of the enhancements discussed in the horizontal/vertical development threads really really need to happen quite soon. Then I look at how long it’s taking to get the WvW account wide ranks and I am terrified.

edits to fix typos.

Thanks for getting back to me Tyops.

There is no clique but I can see why folks might thank that. I see myself as a fellow contributor and thus folks shouldn’t be excited to see me reply to their post or deflated if I don’t.

I think the way to manage this is for folks to keep posting when they feel value in doing so and I will do my best to drill deeper into the posts. One of the reasons this has been hard is due to the length and volume of posts.

Chris

Arghore.8340:

Reading over the summery on this page. I was somewhat struck by the last sentence:
“Bump. Looks like we are close to moving onto the next topics!”

Then when reading over the comments made there after, and realizing I got to posting my comments 2h after this summary, I nearly missed contributing to this CDI again. So what is the thing here, I hardly visit the forums during the week, you know like ‘RL’ stuff getting in the way. And if topics only run for like 5days, you will only get the feedback of the most active, most present people. Basically those that make you wonder if they even have time to actually play GW2 :P (said jokingly, and maybe even a bit jealously, I wish I still had the time to play both GW2 and be on the forums that much) … This then also ties in with the responses made about getting an isolated CDI feedback community. If topics run for a short amount of time, there will only be feedback from those that frequent the forums, hence I would like to suggest:

- Keep the CDI thread running for a period of time that includes at least two weekends

If the topic needs a longer period, than that is just fine, but if the topic seems not to need that much time, closing it early may exclude a lot of people that have a live next to GW2 (not meant as an offence, as you know what I mean). But may well be as emotionally invested in the game as any other player.

---

Related to this is the ‘conclusion’ reached, that there should be just 1 CDI thread, and ‘no’ CDI sub-forum. I am not too sure if this is a good idea… The CDI process may well need both (ill get the details in a few).

Now I see how one big thread and over 50pages can deter anyone from diving into a topic, and how summaries may give readers somewhat of an overview, yet leave no room for nuance and details. Now I thought about a system like Reddit (I think it is), where people respond ‘to a post’ instead of ‘to a thread’, which in ways can divide a thread into several sub discussions. This is a step forward, but, it will also mean that there may well be whole discussions on the same topics, running side by side. Nothing warrants that each discussion line is just about one aspect of a certain topic. Making the discussion, in essence, even harder to follow…

So what does a CDI thread need? Well it largely depends on the scope of the topic at hand. Yes that is an open door, but it’s not less true… So the broader the topic, the more likely the discussion will be hard to follow, summaries will end up less specific. And even more dangerous, summaries may lead to ‘pre-conclusion’ on issues, where (in my views) these are all feedback threads and conclusions are meant to be drawn in ANet staff meetings. Broad topics will also lead to very long threads, discouraging those that get in late, or those that just do not have the time to keep up with it.

Yet, there is something to say about keeping at least some broadness to topic formulation. If you make a topic to narrow and specific, the discussion will be over very soon, people are less likely to come up with interesting things, or even be ridiculed within the thread for bringing something up that ‘from the scope of the discussion’ is totally ‘out of the box’.

Aka. the feedback as a whole benefits from a broad topic, while the process of discussion (and keeping up) benefits a lot if there is a narrow scope.

Now if this were to be something like an IRL meeting, there would be a clear agenda of what to discuss, these topics would be set by a chairmen, and we would all work off these topics one by one (leaving one person with the daunting task of writing it all down, the poor soul). With the internet though, and the actual process of feedback, where you want a somewhat broad topic and receive responses ‘out of the box’ to determine the discussion, that is somewhat impossible. ‘Or is it?’

This leads me to ‘conclude’ that the process of the CDI should be ‘cut up’, not in time, as we now have the benefit of the internet and a forum structure to discuss all topics ‘basically at the same time’. But ‘cut up’ in a sense that we should have a discussion running on the ‘issues’ within the topic at hand. And a sub-forum that has threads running on these specific topics. The main thread could also ‘house’ a copy of the in-discussion summaries, and would stay open to include specific topic that come up, or that a new person may bring up. This would give the CDI process the following structure:

this post was cut, as it was getting to long, see next post by ‘me’

Hey,

I will keep this thread open a little longer then.

Chris

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

I like the idea of the following:

- Include a topic primer (The CDI thread owner will do this)
- Create a template for proposal ideas starting with a ‘User Story’ and then formatted in a similar way to Nike and other’s suggestions I will create this)
- No word limit as the hope is that the new format will help with more concise communication.
- Topics for the next round will be chosen by the Devs and will run concurrently where possible.
- Following the next round of topics we will discuss whether or not we like Devs choosing the topics.
- The CDI will not have its own sub forum currently as the concern is there won’t be enough exposure.
- We will do more to expose new CDI threads to the community when the go live.

I think we need to continue to discuss:

- Tech improvements for the CDI forum.
- Anymore ideas or thoughts?

Chris

Updated ^^

Bump. Looks like we are close to moving onto the next topics!!!

Chris

Tyops.5894:

This thread is reading more and more like a step by step guide on how to make the CDI threads even more insular.

Hi Tyops,

Thanks for posting about your concern. Could you clarify what you mean by insular in this case please? This way I can have a better understanding of how to reply to your concern.

Chris

Chris Whiteside.6102:

I like the idea of the following:

- Include a topic primer (The CDI thread owner will do this)
- Create a template for proposal ideas starting with a ‘User Story’ and then formatted in a similar way to Nike and other’s suggestions I will create this)
- No word limit as the hope is that the new format will help with more concise communication.
- Topics for the next round will be chosen by the Devs and will run concurrently where possible.
- Following the next round of topics we will discuss whether or not we like Devs choosing the topics.
- The CDI will not have its own sub forum currently as the concern is there won’t be enough exposure.
- We will do more to expose new CDI threads to the community when the go live.

I think we need to continue to discuss:

- Tech improvements for the CDI forum.
- Anymore ideas or thoughts?

Chris

Updated ^^

Randulf.7614:

And if people present their ideas differently to the format, will they be ignored/deleted/encouraged to re-write?

None of the above. It will just make it harder for folks to keep up with the thread and contribute meaningfully thereby.

Reducing ideas down to their core will also allow me to share ideas more efficiently.

Chris

Nike.2631:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Good format and process in my experience absolutely do not negatively impact creativity and problem solving.

…This is going to get rather esoteric, isn’t_it ? That’s all right, a Process Evolution thread really does seem like the right place for it.

Yes, structure has its uses. A joke about the limitations of haiku is way more funny when delivered within the limitations of haiku . I can, if pressed, still dance inside a cage, and sometimes the bars provide opportunities I wouldn’t have dancing on an open field. (And there IS a certain camaraderie to be had in all being locked up together …)

On the contrary design within constraints have led to some of the very best ideas I have seen/played.

Absolutely. Recognizing constraints is KEY to practical solutions. There’s a huge difference between “can it be done?” and “should it be done?” and correctly answering the second question take a lot higher degree of awareness of the limitations where the first question is about capabilities.

I’ve just found the most amazing leaps forward come from recognizing when a widely perceived limitation doesn’t actually exist. That makes me extremely hesitant about introducing them artificially where they may not be necessary.

I’d be a lot happier with the ‘player story’ form if its presented as a “if you are in doubt how to proceed, try this.” rather than enshrining it so that the hidden subtext is “Nike, next time you pop one of your ‘Episode Previews’ just don’t, because its going to get deleted. Bad dog, no biscuit.”

It also raises a question of does this sort of formatting need to extend to response and discussion? Or is it only an issue for initial presentation? Where does “fill out Form A” start and stop?

As mentioned earlier (-: specifically for initial presentation of ideas (-: Discussion et all will be unconstrained (-:

Chris

Chris Whiteside.6102:

I like the idea of the following:

- Include a topic primer (The CDI thread owner will do this)
- Create a template for proposal ideas starting with a ‘User Story’ and then formatted in a similar way to Nike and other’s suggestions I will create this)
- No word limit as the hope is that the new format will help with more concise communication.

I think we need to continue to discuss:

- CDI having its own section in the forum.
- Tech improvements for the CDI forum.
- How we decide the subject of topics ( I am leaning toward the DEVs picking the next round and seeing how that goes)

Chris

Bump

Lilith Ajit.6173:

Nike.2631:

I want to be very clear: I support the principles of good presentation over rigid formatting.

I’ve said it before – CDIs are about creating art. When we explore making art, we often need to demonstrate our understanding of art. To illustrate our points, but also to seek critique and review to improve upon it. That requires a degree of freedom. Freedom, in turn, requires a degree of responsibility.

CDI have become possible because the game has had time to teach about the game. Clear formats are an excellent tool for teaching processes, but they cannot be the highest level of contribution we will tolerate. I’ve been infracted for reaching higher before. I don’t want to see good posts being deleted again because they didn’t fit in a box.

You do not foster creativity by enforcing conformity.

I guess I don’t understand how format limits creativity.

Look at Shakespearean sonnets, for instance.

Anyway, I just think that a format would help collaboration with everyone, not how creative your posts look. I think what’s really important is the content, and a format would best portray that content.

Good format and process in my experience absolutely do not negatively impact creativity and problem solving.

On the contrary design within constraints have led to some of the very best ideas I have seen/played.

Chris

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Honestly, my last bit of input I can think of right now?

- Set up the forum topics and aggressively delete completely off-topic posts (no infractions unless it breaks code of conduct). Topics which arise out of natural progression of conversation which wind up off topic get split into their own CDI thread with a link in the first post to the original thread so people can find context where needed.

- On the players side, try to be neat and concise with your ideas unless asked to elaborate. On the devs side, if you need elaboration ask via PM unless you intend to discuss it openly. This will prevent elaborations from bogging down threads and allow you to still collect the information.

- Announce CDI threads starting on the patcher screen so anyone starting the game is made aware they are being done.

- If possible, allow one (1) in-game session somewhere where a dev or two can log a chat so players in the game who don’t visit the forums may include their input. Alternatively, some way of in game getting people to put in their ideas without needing to come to the forum from the game. Something to do while waiting on the wurm/marionette?

- Definitely try to get all CDI topics to run concurrently and receive similar amounts of developer attention/input/feedback.

‘- Announce CDI threads starting on the patcher screen so anyone starting the game is made aware they are being done.’

We definitely need to do a better job of letting folks know when a CDI starts.

Chris

Malchior.5042:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Malchior.5042:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Question:

- Should we run the WvW, PVP and PVE concurrently or one at a time for the next round of CDI topics?

Chris

I’d only run them concurrently if one developer from each discipline can be available for some amount of time during his/her work day. The unequal contribution between yourself, Chris, and say the WvW team during the Commander Tag CDI made WvW players feel like they were being ignored, or at the least, being shafted.

Granted, I’m well aware that WvW team was 100% involved in developing EotM at the time. I was there in the Public Test and saw how much got accomplished between releases.

If Arenanet has the resources to designate one Host-Dev (to use one of Nike’s terms) per CDI thread, then I’d be comfortable with each thread running concurrently. Otherwise, let’s just keep it to one at a time.

Ok let’s run them concurrently. I will delete that part of the question section.

Chris

Alright Chris, thanks!

Any idea who you’d recommend to be host Dev of the PvP and WvW sections? Josh Davis has been doing decent in communication with both communities recently.

Also, I sent you a message on Twitter when you find the time, sir.

‘Any idea who you’d recommend to be host Dev of the PvP and WvW sections? Josh Davis has been doing decent in communication with both communities recently.’

That would be for Colin to work out.

If we find that one area is to busy to give the pertinent CDI the time it is due then we would not have a CDI for that area during that time.

I will read my twitter when i get a sec (-:

Chris

Lampshade.7569:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

4: Post writers should aim to be concise and to the point using examples where necessary. (We need to improve here)

1: We need to keep thread and post sizes more manageable. Should we put a limit on the word length of posts?

Forum design is an issue and its obvious that many people struggle to properly convey their thoughts due to this. After all, if you want to communicate, you need better ways to do so.

The solution ( and not just in this particular issue ) should be a shared responsibility though. Give us better tools, but dont be afraid to ask players for whatever you need.

In this case, my idea would be that you upgrade the forums but in exchange you would give us some posting guidelines and expect us to properly format our posts in order to be taken seriously.

2: How are we going to chose topics moving forward, for example, by votes or by Anet choosing them etc?

You choose possible topics, players vote.

Good post Lampshade. I love your enthusiasm for collaboration and shared responsibility.

Chris

Malchior.5042:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Question:

- Should we run the WvW, PVP and PVE concurrently or one at a time for the next round of CDI topics?

Chris

I’d only run them concurrently if one developer from each discipline can be available for some amount of time during his/her work day. The unequal contribution between yourself, Chris, and say the WvW team during the Commander Tag CDI made WvW players feel like they were being ignored, or at the least, being shafted.

Granted, I’m well aware that WvW team was 100% involved in developing EotM at the time. I was there in the Public Test and saw how much got accomplished between releases.

If Arenanet has the resources to designate one Host-Dev (to use one of Nike’s terms) per CDI thread, then I’d be comfortable with each thread running concurrently. Otherwise, let’s just keep it to one at a time.

Ok let’s run them concurrently. I will delete that part of the question section.

Chris

Randulf.7614:

Are we over complicating this a lot? surely it will put many contributions off if we start going into templates etc

Personally I think a template will make it easier for collaborators.

Chris

I like the idea of the following:

- Include a topic primer (The CDI thread owner will do this)
- Create a template for proposal ideas starting with a ‘User Story’ and then formatted in a similar way to Nike and other’s suggestions I will create this)
- No word limit as the hope is that the new format will help with more concise communication.

I think we need to continue to discuss:

- CDI having its own section in the forum.
- Tech improvements for the CDI forum.
- How we decide the subject of topics ( I am leaning toward the DEVs picking the next round and seeing how that goes)

Chris

videoboy.4162:

First, I really like Malchior’s User Story idea.

Secondly, to answer you question Chris, I think that the CDI could continue in the same manner they have been. However, I think there needs to be one major change: posts that don’t pertain to the actual topic of the moment need to be moved.

For example, in our last thread, there was a point where you specifically asked us to brainstorm about Sub-Classes. Instead on posts brainstorming on that subject, we ended up with massive walls of texts about Fractals or condemning the idea of sub-classes entirely.

Neither type of post was bad per se, but they each completely took away from the topic at hand, preventing us from having the best discussion possible, about the topic. Those posts should have been moved elsewhere, in order to keep the thread focused.

Yes i agree with removing posts that don’t pertain to the topic at hand. I will do this moving forward.

Chris

Malchior.5042:

At Chris’ request, I’m going to further define the structure I laid out in a previous post regarding User Stories.

For those who are unfamiliar with the term, user stories are a method of determining requirements or opening discussion for the development of a software project.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_story

• The story is written as one or a couple of sentences where the developer (in this case, each one of us) makes a request or statement that they want the piece of software to perform. The statement is usually written in the most simple language or vocabulary as possible, as if a user (or in our terms, a player) were speaking to the developer directly.

For example – As a <role>, I want <goal/desire> so that <benefit>

“As a WvW player, I want stronger defensive tools/rewards, so that zerging across objectives is lessened and defense is more valued.”

• After the basic story is established, the poster could spend a couple paragraphs detailing their design. Again, whenever possible, the most basic language and vocabulary should be used. This way, any player of any language can understand the design, critique it, and offer their own insight.

• The idea of simplified user stories would allow people like Chris and other contributing Devs to get a quick overview of what the player wants and why they want it. If the Dev agrees with the player or the player touches upon an aspect or design that may already be in discussion or development by Arenanet internally, then the developer can read through a player’s detailed design suggestions.

• Interesting user stories Devs can “Favorite” or “Tag” to be explored further, or used within the final proposal at the company roundtable.

Essentially, it puts us, the players, in the developer’s chair as if we were at one of Arenanet’s SCRUM or Sprint meetings.

Personally, I feel establishing a format for a concise presentation like a user story would help us cut down on a lot of the redundancy, confusion, and length that have existed in previous CDIs.

As a <role>, I want <goal/desire> so that <benefit>

Something akin to this structure or user story template at the beginning of every player’s post would make elements like type of player, intent, and scope much more visible from a simple statement.

I really like this idea. Obviously for discussion we discuss bit for design proposals this is genius!

We actually work like this internally.

Chris

For all of you that have said welcome back, thank you.

It’s good to be back working with you all again. Sorry for the delay on this one.

Chris

Morrigan.2809:

Orpheal.8263:

1) There shouldn’t be a limit, but instead an earlier splitting off of “Hot Topics”.
When you see, that out of the CDI is crystallizing itself a new discussion specificly around 1 made idea/proposal and that discussion raises in its size very quickly to the point, that it draws all the attention out of the original thread’s topic, then open up a new official CDI thread for this Hot Topic.

Example: The Horizontal Progression Thread had basically 2 very big Hot Topics.
Housing and Sub Classes. 8howeve,r the last one already will get later its own topic, so much is already sure)

The original thread would have been much clearer and smaller, if the Devs would have reacted earlier on this way, how the discussion is flowing.
Would they have made for Housing and Sub Classes their own CDI Threads, two very large parts of the discussion would have been shifted over into their own places where people could have discussed further specificly only about these topics.

This would have made the whole discussion for everybody easier to read, without having tons of completely different suggestions and discussions over X other things being mixed together followed later by tons of summary postings so larger the thread became…

2) ANet should choose absolutely. They know best, what of our ideas are even feasible and which not. You can’t say, that we get ignored, if they choose out a topic from a gargantuan list of topics, that we have discussed together

And even if they would choose as next CDI the topic about Mounts, then you would have to accept that! Completely regardless of what you personally think about that topic, if you like it or not. Especially if a topic like this would come out of a Player Voting, this would show even more that behind this topic stat alot of people, which like this feature, when a feature like Mounts would win a Voting (not to mention the constant creation of threads about them would be already more than enough to show anet, that there are already alot of people, who do like them)

1)I like this a lot- we can start with a broad topic like Horizontal Development was and as soon as it becomes more focused split it into separate CDI threads.

They can even be sticked at the top of the main thread

A TL;DR would also be helpful- more so than limiting the word count

2) I like Vol’s idea here were we alternate between player chosen concerns and things the Anet team would like to discuss
Alternatively Anet should just decide what they would like player input on

Regarding:

1)I like this a lot- we can start with a broad topic like Horizontal Development was and as soon as it becomes more focused split it into separate CDI threads.

Would the expectation be that the split topics are parked and then tackled in order or that they are running together. Because if it is the latter then I can say without question that I personally wouldn’t have time to engage appropriately on more than one thread at a time.

Chris

Finnway.2183:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

As a note. The two topics were separate and discussed as separate entities.

Chris

Yes, but even after they were split in half they were still too broad. The more gameplay systems a CDI touches upon the more there is for posters to brainstorm on and post about. Horizontal and Vertical progression both cover most of the game.

Agreed.

Chris

Finnway.2183:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

1: We need to keep thread and post sizes more manageable. Should we put a limit on the word length of posts?

Pick narrower topics. “Horizontal vs. Vertical Progression” is almost as broad as you can get. When you pick broad topics like this it eats up developer time and poster time just trying to catch up with the thread and it discourages posters from posting.
Also, you’re getting feedback from a narrower group of people who have the time to read the posts and get caught up, and also who post actively (hence making the thread longer and contributing to the problem).

Chris Whiteside.6102:

1: More Focused Topics! (Done!)

I would argue this wasn’t accomplished the Horizontal/Vertical progression threads. You changed the community chosen subject —Ascended Gear-- to progression in general.

As a note. The two topics were separate and discussed as separate entities.

Chris

Malchior.5042:

Chris, even more so than the two elements you’ve presented, I feel the CDI could benefit from being isolated from the forums.

The limited structure of the forums is not very conducive to large roundtable discussion amongst a large group of people. Even more importantly, it’s not ideal when a sub-topic arises or the focus of the conversation changes between parties.

For the long-term growth of the CDI, perhaps something like a collaboration site, or user storyboards would make not only Player to Dev interfacing easier, but also Player to Player interfacing. TBH, some of our best ideas and proposals have come from a handful of people discussing ideas left and right, with minimal interjection from Arenanet. Perhaps using an open-source user storyboard could allow players to track their favorite users more efficiently and allow everyone to source their ideas into categories, which can then be tied back into the overall focus of the CDI discussion at the time.

On that note, perhaps a structure for discussion, proposals, or user stories could help keep suggestions more concise and less lengthy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_story

As a <role>, I want <goal/desire> so that <benefit>

Example below

As a PvEr, I want stronger Dungeons so that groups can be challenged more and more cool rewards can be added to the game.

^ Basic User story. From here, can expand into discussion or proposals to achieve user story.

Yeah to be clear everyone should feel free to discuss any area that they want to see improved around the CDI Process. The questions/statements I put forward are the ones that I would like to put forward.

Chris

Closing this thread as the CDI Process Evolution 2 thread is live.

Chris