test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

CDP Topic: CDP

nitocris83nitocris83 Member, Cryptic Developer, Administrator Posts: 4,004 Community Manager
For the latest CDP, we are running two topics concurrently in two separate threads. The topic for this specific thread is the Collaborative Development Program itself. For the other current CDP topic (PvP), please go here.

We have now run 3 separate CDPs and are looking for feedback on how to improve and evolve this program. Several suggestions have already been presented in past discussions and our goal is to better gather all input to develop an action plan. The different aspects of the CDP include:
  • Duration of topics and the different phases of each topic (For example, some topics have been 2 weeks while others have been 3-4)
  • Choice of discussion topics
  • Structure of the thread (For example, a thread is left open during the full duration of the discussion phase vs. closing it periodically to do “thread so far” summaries)
  • Feedback format (How can the feedback be presented in an organized and structured manner while not being constraining?)
  • Expectations of the CDP
For this CDP, we will remove the Feedback Format requirement to allow players to present their information in their preferred format. Please keep in mind that information should still be readable (punctuation and paragraphs are your friends!) and should adhere to the CDP Conduct and Expectations.

Topic Discussion End Date: March 11, 2020

Reminders
  • We will not disclose information regarding unreleased or in-development content. This includes specific business-related metrics, dates or timelines, or licensing agreements.
  • Game development is the primary focus of the team - developer presence on these subforums cannot realistically be as frequent as the community would like. This does not mean the team is not invested in this initiative; it is taken very seriously. Thread summaries and actions plans developed once a topic has concluded its run are extremely valuable in maintaining the development team aware of the focused feedback, discussions, and community sentiment.
  • These subforums are meant to be a collaborative discussion where we all learn from each other, share perspectives, and come to the table with ideas for the improvement of Neverwinter. This does not mean that we will take action on every proposal or that positive comments from the development team are to be construed as promises.
  • Keep comments and discussions on topic and follow the CDP Conduct and Expectations.
«1345678

Comments

  • josephskyrimjosephskyrim Member Posts: 356 Arc User
    edited March 2020
    I feel that thread structure wise, it would be better to do one of the following:

    a) Have a new thread for each stage/phase of a topic. (and on phase 2 / 3 - devs should indicate what ideas they want to pursue)

    or

    b) Every idea Cryptic staff wants to "drill down" into gets moved out into its own thread for clarity.

    Also should mention I am strongly opposed to having the CDP move to any non-Neverwinter controlled medium (like reddit). I'll also echo theFabricant in saying never implement a voting system for the CDP stuff. Quality posts can and should stand on their own merits, without the need for outside advertisement.

    His idea for the CDP post formatting is good too, and should be an improvement if people actually bother to use it. : )
    Post edited by josephskyrim on
    If you can't stand on a chest, it is a mimic!
  • gromovnipljesak#8234 gromovnipljesak Member Posts: 1,042 Arc User
    A problem with CDP itself would be that we wouldn't know the impact of our feedback - it would be nice that in the last post, you add what changes are going to be considered in full, and so on.
    Eg, Fabricant has suggested lotsa things, and I'm wondering how you're gonna address those concerns.

    Create a timeline for progress you're achieving through CDP is my idea.

    Furthermore, themes, as RJC suggested, should maybe be polled?
  • tchefi#6735 tchefi Member Posts: 288 Arc User
    edited March 2020

    Problem - Post Ratings

    [wall of text]

    Solution

    [wall of text]

    Affected Player Groups

    • All Socializers - They would lose the ability to use ratings. Some may be upset by this because it makes it impossible to respond to a post without saying anything, to which I would say responding without saying anything defeats the entire purpose of a forum (which is discussion).
    I don't see that the same way as you.
    It took me around 15 minutes to read and understand your 3 posts (not native englishspeaker ^^, and i'm also at work :P).

    When I mostly agree, but do not have enough time to reply with how i think is the proper way (=sometimes it takes me 3hours before i am satisfied enough with my wording if i'm going for a wall of text...) or expand the idea or precise where i'm diverging a bit, I find the "agree" button useful to express my mind.

    I don't have as much free time as i would like to match and endure the pace of some of the participants in the CDP, especially if i would have to comment everything i'm agree or disagree with, or if I would have to "defend my trenches" against critics.

    On the other side, honnestly, i don't monitor or care about how many "like" or "agree" people get on their posts (or on mine).

    By the way BAM take my "agree" on your first and third posts :D

    All Entertainers - Those who wish to exploit their influence to unduly influence discussion may be upset by this.

    All Content Creators - Those who wish to exploit their influence to unduly influence discussion may be upset by this.

    Problems with the Solution

    • Some people who may contribute negatively, who did not contribute before because they could rate posts, may now start trying to contribute. I see this as a necessary sacrifice.
    • Posters who agree with a post but don't have much to add to it aren't able to show that they "agree" easily. Unfortunately, there is no way that I can think of to help them that does not also allow vote brigading.
    Ahhh, influence and politic....

    But i get it, you'd prefer a "public senate" where every player is his own "senator" (not electing any representative) and has to express his ideas (or rephrasing the ones of others) criticize and debate with others for the "future" so at the end we&devs can extract the juice of each idea to the last drop and taste if overall it's sweet sour or poisoned, rather than risking some kind of "voting" system to "elect" the one who has the biggest mouth, or the highest popularity, [edit : or the most freetime, frequency of posting, english fluency/richness, formatting skills] or the largest herd of lemmings blindly and brainlessly following his words (with plenty of exemples of dark consequencies history can remind us).

    I do believe the devs reading all the posts are able to qualitatively select rather than only or fully rely on the quantity of "like", but i don't think it's a huge mistake to also take quantity "voting/likes" in account.
    A bit of both may be needed.
    Post edited by tchefi#6735 on
  • theraxin#5169 theraxin Member Posts: 355 Arc User
    edited March 2020
    So, I basically just pile-on for the already mentioned issues:

    1, Symptom-solving: The CDP format does not let to clearly present problems (at least in the expected format) just to make suggestions to fix what seems to be a problem. And while there is a lot of player who take in extra miles of effort to format and present in-depth analysis of specific areas it still cannot reach the wider audience because:

    2, Structurelessness: Basically, just do the last solution that @micky1p00 said. Make all CDP topic a subforum and start with a general discussion and then raise and bucket all subtopics into a new, named discussion with the starting discussion stating the developer viewpoint on the problem. And also, off-topic ideas as they should be "removed" to make the general topic more readable, but probably not deleted, so they can be useful information later. Also, the lion share of it will probably just fall on the moderator.. which, I'm sorry for <3:D
  • thefabricantthefabricant Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 5,247 Arc User
    edited March 2020



    When I mostly agree, but do not have enough time to reply with how i think is the proper way (=sometimes it takes me 3hours before i am satisfied enough with my wording if i'm going for a wall of text...) or expand the idea or precise where i'm diverging a bit, I find the "agree" button useful to express my mind.

    I don't have as much free time as i would like to match and endure the pace of some of the participants in the CDP, especially if i would have to comment everything i'm agree or disagree with, or if I would have to "defend my trenches" against critics.

    On the other side, honestly, i don't monitor or care about how many "like" or "agree" people get on their posts (or on mine).

    The reason why I feel this way is because honestly, does saying, "I agree with this" add anything to discussion. Not really, no. Furthermore, the CDP already has a period where people can select their top 3, which is basically saying, "these are the ideas I agree with most." That phase of the CDP could probably be improved upon as well, to a top 10 instead of a top 3, although I get the idea of forcing people to choose 3, which is to make them make a difficult decision. If you agree or disagree strongly enough about something, you should be forced to comment on it and not just press a button.

    (I do not look at the ratings either, but I do hate the system.)



    Ahhh, influence and politic....

    But i get it, you'd prefer a "public senate" where every player is his own "senator" (not electing any representative) and has to express his ideas (or rephrasing the ones of others) criticize and debate with others for the "future" so at the end we&devs can extract the juice of each idea to the last drop and taste if overall it's sweet sour or poisoned, rather than risking some kind of "voting" system to "elect" the one who has the biggest mouth, or the highest popularity, [edit : or the most freetime, frequency of posting, english fluency/richness, formatting skills] or the largest herd of lemmings blindly and brainlessly following his words (with plenty of exemples of dark consequencies history can remind us).

    I do believe the devs reading all the posts are able to qualitatively select rather than only or fully rely on the quantity of "like", but i don't think it's a huge mistake to also take quantity "voting/likes" in account.
    A bit of both may be needed.

    I think absolutely no voting is needed. Honestly, what I would prefer is an anonymous forum where the names of the posters are not visible so that players can only judge a post by its content and not who posts it, with no forms of ratings available but I see this as an unfeasible option which is why I did not propose it.

    Anyhow, not going to engage in a full debate about this since it isn't phase 2 yet, only reason I responded is because I like reading your posts. :tongue:
  • cdnbisoncdnbison Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 806 Arc User
    I'll try and keep this simple:
    1. Lock / Unlock as needed - if you need time to gather up the responses, review them, and put together a response, lock the thread. Unlock it after you respond. Just leave a note saying you'll be back with your response by . We'll wait.
    2. Limit responses / moderate heavily - I don't need to see numerous posts from people talking their system up, and explaining the intricacies of how amazing their solution is, or why a different idea is full of fail. They presented it, made an argument for /against it, great. This isn't the place (IMO) to be arguing for or against these ideas, it's to be offering ideas to you to judge. Yes, a post or two on why an idea might be (un)workable is understandable, but that debate should be taken elsewhere - you, the devs, get the final say.
    3. Feedback on feedback - if something is under consideration, or is just totally unworkable, say so - like the Tabaxi, for instance. People would have loved to have seen them, but when it was explained that yeah, WotC wasn't having that, then fine. We get it. It's a non-starter, and gets dropped. If a suggestion (especially one that players seem to like) isn't going to work - say so, say why, we'll move on. Conversely, if you like something, and are looking at ways to make it happen, we'd like to hear that, too.
  • cwhitesidedev#9752 cwhitesidedev Member, Cryptic Developer Posts: 253 Cryptic Developer
    sobi#1980 said:

    The primary reason for my lack of interest in CDP over time has been because of two things:

    1) Too many off topic posts
    2) Not even a single suggestion to this date has been implemented in game. You need to provide some confidence boost by at least implementing one thing that has been suggested and agreed in the CDP, or else what is the guarantee that all the time and effort spent on my suggestions will come to fruition?

    As for the former, If you were to keep a system of rating where a person ( I can name a few but i wont) that prolong and clump the thread with unnecessary posts about their previous life history in the game, then that would help players with limited time on their hand to skim read the thread and get a general idea of the discussion and the pace at which it is going.

    Moreover, you may want to brainstorm about limiting word count of each post and even the number of posts per day by an individual in the CDP topic. The main reason for this is simple, the CDP should be about reading other people's suggestions, brainstorming (yourselves) and then presenting your own suggestion. This is clear as most if not all suggestions are always focused on a particular idea and mainly differ in their way of implementation.

    Result
    This suggestion is mainly to retain your audience but can also help with making this less of a chore for newcomers. At this point, i have read a few suggestions complaining about the volume of replies and i believe this volume can be reduced with some adjustments without actually impacting the CDP development.

    As is obvious, this suggestion will negatively impact individuals that preferred to discuss things in the CDP than brainstorm by learning from other suggestions.

    Hi Sobi,

    Thanks for your post. A couple of things. The CDP is not intended to win back/retain/boost confidence (In the CDP or in game), it is designed to help guide the future of NW. Regarding no single suggestion being integrated into the game is incorrect. However any evolution have been small so far because the larger ones take time. The roadmap clearly shows how the CDP is impacting development.

    It takes time for a working group to bed in and off topic posts are becoming less pervasive. In this CDP I am really looking for 'hard' ideas/examples of how to improve the value of the tool for which your latter paragraphs provide some insight.

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

    Chris

  • thefabricantthefabricant Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 5,247 Arc User



    My main problem with this idea that it misses the point of influencing or just really, community... But also, you went from "people shouldn't be said to like something" to "all comment deemed out of merit shall be removed" which means, you pretty much don't want to have a community discussion about it, but an effectively barred discussion with the few "meritful".

    A person's influence (yours, mine, or anyone's else) should not be a factor in deciding the eligibility of an idea. People should not vote for ideas based on the person posting the idea, or because they were told to vote for it by a friend or streamer, that directly undermines the purpose of the CDP. Almost all voting systems are flawed and if you want me to, I can provide examples of the failures of the voting system of your choice.



    But, probably most importantly, when clicking an agree button meant anything other than just wasting a post articulating the exact same thing? Maybe Chris tells us that actually the rate of agree is the arbiter of right ideas, but probably is just a convenient option.

    Pressing "Agree" on a post does not add anything to the discussion. Neither does pressing "Disagree." You are already admitting, people posting "I agree" would simply clutter the thread and would probably be removed, so why are we entertaining a button which is essentially the same thing?



    So, while stating that underlying systematic changes shouldn't be affected by votes... yeah, duh... trying to remove a marginally meaningful feature or actively censor the community because you decided their opinions to be "unworthy" is... a pretty hostile idea for a company that actually lives on the concept of being popularly played.

    I would probably go for the opposite way on the agree button, anyone that just agrees to the idea just click that thing instead of flooding the pages, but if you disagree with a popular idea, cite your reasons so the developers can read it as well.

    Nobody is being stopped from participating. There is nothing here saying, "only people worthy of participating should participate." All that I am saying is that if people want to participate, they need to add something to the discussion.



    Post ratings

    Post ratings can be abused, but I feel that they are important. I use them myself for many reasons. In my opinion every post is insightful if it is on topic even if i don't personally agree with the content of the post. Marking a post as insightful lets the author know that it has been read and their point has been heard / considered. It also gives a small incentive for them to keep participating in the discussion especially if they get developer interaction via a rating. I think that this one rating can really help Cryptic / Chris let people know they have been heard without having to post a reply or commit to agree/disagree with the ideas presented.

    LOL should be removed as an option. LOL has become the default disagree button on this forum. Replace LOL with Disagree. There is nothing wrong with a dissent choice in a CDP or even on a forum like this in general. I can disagree with you without laughing at you or your ideas. Let me disagree if I disagree, don't make me laugh at someone because I don't have another choice short of posting a reply.

    Agree, Like and Awesome... Why do we need all three? I often use the AWESOME rating for people who obviously put a lot of effort into their post and response. I don't necessarily agree what they post all of the time, but that level of effort should be applauded IMO. Are both agree and like needed? I don't really know.

    We really need better options as far as ratings go.

    The CDP should not be about validating people's egos, it should be about the game. If the only purpose of post ratings it to act as some form of validation, then it is not helping to contribute to the discussion.
  • jules#6770 jules Member Posts: 666 Arc User
    edited March 2020


    The CDP should not be about validating people's egos, it should be about the game. If the only purpose of post ratings it to act as some form of validation, then it is not helping to contribute to the discussion.

    Agreeing with somebodys opinion is not validation of somebodys ego, just what it says: Agreeing with somebodys opinion.
    I think that anybody reading this CDP at this point is heavily invested in NW and can determine if something was "promoted" because it is a genuine opinion and thus worthy every agree/like/awesome or because somebody told his/her cult to bash somebodys posts.
    Since you also do not want anybody to state "I agree" or "Same" in form of a post, an "Agree" button is a much better choice. This is not about a cult of followers, but simply cuts down the posts that would pretty much state the same thing.
    If I come to the same conclusions as, let's be sorta realistic, @oremonger#9999 or @thefiresidecat or anybody, or have the same opinion about, for example, relevance of professions, what would you expect me to do, if I can't agree with their post? Do I really have to find more ways to express the same point so I can show that this is my opinion too?
    I thought we all agree that a messy CDP doesn't help anybody, so agreeing with somebodys post is imo a good way we already have.
    I do not count my agrees. I do not think they validate me any. If I took it that seriously I would've stopped coming here after my first LOL (would've been smart, I guess).
    I do not see that as an issue, and I wouldn't have to write this post if there was a disagree button, but I would feel bad pressing LOL on your first posts in this thread, since I don't think it fits. I just disagree. I do not have the emotional capability to care enough at the moment to talk lengths about it, either.
    That doesn't mean that I think we need to up- or downvote anything in terms of "relevancy" (because we know how that would turn out, right...) but an Agree/Disagree version is not bad, and I would keep either Like/Awesome for everything emotion related, because that is why many people play a game in their free time :)

    E. for english being a difficult language.
    - bye bye -
  • thefiresidecatthefiresidecat Member Posts: 4,486 Arc User
    edited March 2020


    The CDP should not be about validating people's egos, it should be about the game. If the only purpose of post ratings it to act as some form of validation, then it is not helping to contribute to the discussion.

    Agreeing with somebodys opinion is not validation of somebodys ego, just what it says: Agreeing with somebodys opinion.
    Since you also do not want anybody to state "I agree" or "Same" in form of a post, an "Agree" button is a much better choice. This is not about a cult of followers, but simply cuts down the posts that would pretty much state the same thing.
    If I come to the same conclusions as, let's be sorta realistic, @oremonger#9999 or @thefiresidecat or anybody, or have the same opinion about, for example, relevance of professions, what would you expect me to do, if I can't agree with their post? Do I really have to find more ways to express the same point so I can show that this is my opinion too?
    I thought we all agree that a messy CDP doesn't help anybody, so agreeing with somebodys post is imo a good way we already have.
    I do not count my agrees. I do not think they validate me any. If I took it that seriously I would've stopped coming here after my first LOL (would've been smart, I guess).
    I do not see that as an issue, and I wouldn't have to write this post if there was a disagree button, but I would feel bad pressing LOL on your first posts in this thread, since I don't think it fits. I just disagree. I do not have the emotional capability to care enough at the moment to talk lengths about it, either.
    That doesn't mean that I think we need to up- or downvote anything in terms of "relevancy" (because we know how that would turn out, right...) but an Agree/Disagree version is not bad, and I would keep either Like/Awesome for everything emotion related, because that is why many people play a game in their free time :)

    E. for english being a difficult language.


    imo, just using one of the positive buttons is enough if you agree with someone. but if you disagree with what they say it's important to state why rather than just flat saying, I disagree. it's the only way to move forward and find a middle ground. I'd like to see a thank you button replace like agree or awesome. those all basically say the same things.
  • jules#6770 jules Member Posts: 666 Arc User


    The CDP should not be about validating people's egos, it should be about the game. If the only purpose of post ratings it to act as some form of validation, then it is not helping to contribute to the discussion.

    Agreeing with somebodys opinion is not validation of somebodys ego, just what it says: Agreeing with somebodys opinion.
    Since you also do not want anybody to state "I agree" or "Same" in form of a post, an "Agree" button is a much better choice. This is not about a cult of followers, but simply cuts down the posts that would pretty much state the same thing.
    If I come to the same conclusions as, let's be sorta realistic, @oremonger#9999 or @thefiresidecat or anybody, or have the same opinion about, for example, relevance of professions, what would you expect me to do, if I can't agree with their post? Do I really have to find more ways to express the same point so I can show that this is my opinion too?
    I thought we all agree that a messy CDP doesn't help anybody, so agreeing with somebodys post is imo a good way we already have.
    I do not count my agrees. I do not think they validate me any. If I took it that seriously I would've stopped coming here after my first LOL (would've been smart, I guess).
    I do not see that as an issue, and I wouldn't have to write this post if there was a disagree button, but I would feel bad pressing LOL on your first posts in this thread, since I don't think it fits. I just disagree. I do not have the emotional capability to care enough at the moment to talk lengths about it, either.
    That doesn't mean that I think we need to up- or downvote anything in terms of "relevancy" (because we know how that would turn out, right...) but an Agree/Disagree version is not bad, and I would keep either Like/Awesome for everything emotion related, because that is why many people play a game in their free time :)

    E. for english being a difficult language.


    imo, just using one of the positive buttons is enough if you agree with someone. but if you disagree with what they say it's important to state why rather than just flat saying, I disagree. it's the only way to move forward and find a middle ground.
    I can see the point, yes. But there is not always a point in arguing about certain viewpoints, as I think was in the last CDP ... it will turn into a mess of offense/defense action, and that was more about ego than any button could ever be.
    Maybe those discussions/Offtopics/sometimes bashing are a moderation-issue, I don't know. I can go with ignoring something I disagree with, tho, if I try, so in the end, a disagree button might not be the best idea, but I do not think that it is a big issue. I thought it would save some pointless arguing with rising anger levels, where one states why they do not want point a) to be introduced, the other stating they are just saying that for personal benefit, the first one stating thats a lie because of outdated and wrong data x y z, whatever.
    - bye bye -
  • ron#1747 ron Member Posts: 114 Arc User
    I think that the only problem is the usual required formats. I can't figure out how to write things with these requirements. It's really annoying :(
  • oremonger#9999 oremonger Member Posts: 213 Arc User
    edited March 2020


    The CDP should not be about validating people's egos, it should be about the game. If the only purpose of post ratings it to act as some form of validation, then it is not helping to contribute to the discussion.

    It is not about "validating people's egos" it is about letting people know their feedback has been read and considered. I have heard "Cryptic never listens to feedback" and "They don't even read their own preview forums" several times. I'm sure that someone at Cryptic read it but how can you tell if they didn't have the time to respond?

    Rating posts also helps me remember which ones I have read and which ones I haven't. When you have 10 pages of a thread it is hard to keep track. I like to read all of the comments in a thread because I think they are all valuable.

    I understand you think that ratings are useless. Your opinion. I argue that they have a place and a purpose. You have the option to ignore them, and Chris (cryptic) can see when things are being unduly influenced so what is the harm?

    Validation, and recognition are important.

  • thefiresidecatthefiresidecat Member Posts: 4,486 Arc User


    The CDP should not be about validating people's egos, it should be about the game. If the only purpose of post ratings it to act as some form of validation, then it is not helping to contribute to the discussion.

    Agreeing with somebodys opinion is not validation of somebodys ego, just what it says: Agreeing with somebodys opinion.
    Since you also do not want anybody to state "I agree" or "Same" in form of a post, an "Agree" button is a much better choice. This is not about a cult of followers, but simply cuts down the posts that would pretty much state the same thing.
    If I come to the same conclusions as, let's be sorta realistic, @oremonger#9999 or @thefiresidecat or anybody, or have the same opinion about, for example, relevance of professions, what would you expect me to do, if I can't agree with their post? Do I really have to find more ways to express the same point so I can show that this is my opinion too?
    I thought we all agree that a messy CDP doesn't help anybody, so agreeing with somebodys post is imo a good way we already have.
    I do not count my agrees. I do not think they validate me any. If I took it that seriously I would've stopped coming here after my first LOL (would've been smart, I guess).
    I do not see that as an issue, and I wouldn't have to write this post if there was a disagree button, but I would feel bad pressing LOL on your first posts in this thread, since I don't think it fits. I just disagree. I do not have the emotional capability to care enough at the moment to talk lengths about it, either.
    That doesn't mean that I think we need to up- or downvote anything in terms of "relevancy" (because we know how that would turn out, right...) but an Agree/Disagree version is not bad, and I would keep either Like/Awesome for everything emotion related, because that is why many people play a game in their free time :)

    E. for english being a difficult language.


    imo, just using one of the positive buttons is enough if you agree with someone. but if you disagree with what they say it's important to state why rather than just flat saying, I disagree. it's the only way to move forward and find a middle ground.
    I can see the point, yes. But there is not always a point in arguing about certain viewpoints, as I think was in the last CDP ... it will turn into a mess of offense/defense action, and that was more about ego than any button could ever be.
    Maybe those discussions/Offtopics/sometimes bashing are a moderation-issue, I don't know. I can go with ignoring something I disagree with, tho, if I try, so in the end, a disagree button might not be the best idea, but I do not think that it is a big issue. I thought it would save some pointless arguing with rising anger levels, where one states why they do not want point a) to be introduced, the other stating they are just saying that for personal benefit, the first one stating thats a lie because of outdated and wrong data x y z, whatever.
    Personal attacks should be moderated. disagreeing with someone means disagreeing with their idea, not the person. if you bring the person into it you've lost. You are basically saying, I don't have a valid footing to argue with so I'm going to just attack you personally instead, so people focus on that. I actually think the cdp is undermoderated. I don't think things should necessarily all be sent to the bottom depths but personal attacks should be hamstered.

    but in something like a cdp (in my *not* valuable opinion according to Chris) it is important to articulate why because it's a change that might occur in the game and if it's something with potential negative effects it is important to consider it even if it's not patting someone on the back. This game isn't in a good place. there is a real possibility of making it a less good place instead of a better place. Changes should be made with caution imo.
  • thefabricantthefabricant Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 5,247 Arc User
    edited March 2020
    Oremonger:



    It is not about "validating people's egos" it is about letting people know their feedback has been read and considered.

    Also Oremonger:


    Validation, and recognition are important.

    Which 1 is it, make up your mind. People should not need validation for providing feedback on how to improve an mmo.



    Rating posts also helps me remember which ones I have read and which ones I haven't. When you have 10 pages of a thread it is hard to keep track. I like to read all of the comments in a thread because I think they are all valuable.

    A mark as read option would work just as well, without the downsides. Perhaps you should ask for 1?



    Except that it does add to the discussion by concising multiple people's opinion into a single point. Also, as you said, if people would start "cluttering the thread" if they cannot just click a button to do exactly that, you already found out the reason why the button is needed.


    It isn't, "needed," the idea is already present in the thread. You aren't adding to it. The only time you may need to share your opinion on the post is either to defend a post you agree with, or add to it, or in the event someone else is disagreeing with it and you have a counterargument, or if you yourself disagree with it and you want to provide one. There is already a "voting" stage anyhow in the CDP, right at the end.

    And it comes with all of the downsides of any ratings system, including vote brigading, which is exactly what we do not need. My posts are exceptionally long. Say some popular streamer likes one of my posts and says on stream, "everyone go vote for that post," and then the viewers do that. Most of them won't read it and some of them may even disagree with it if they had read it. I don't want people voting for my ideas if they do not agree with them, simply because someone else told them to.



    You literally just said that people should not be stopped, except when they definitely should because they "don't add something to the discussion". Which is pretty vaguely saying "they don't add something to the discussion that I -subjectively- deem as meritful". Because it is only from your subjective view that the popularity of an idea should not matter at all and what is "worthy" to be "in the discussion" and what should be removed.

    In that sentence I meant exactly what I said, if something does not add to the discussion, it should be removed. A post that disagrees with one of mine and provides argumentation adds to the discussion, a post just saying, "I agree," does not add anything. A post saying, "this person is an idiot," is not adding to the discussion and neither is anything else off topic.

    Anything that is on topic and provides reasoning is acceptable feedback, even if the reasoning is bad. I am not suggesting to in any way to actually remove feedback for qualitative reasons, just make sure that the feedback in the thread is actually feedback.
  • thefiresidecatthefiresidecat Member Posts: 4,486 Arc User
    edited March 2020



    My main problem with this idea that it misses the point of influencing or just really, community... But also, you went from "people shouldn't be said to like something" to "all comment deemed out of merit shall be removed" which means, you pretty much don't want to have a community discussion about it, but an effectively barred discussion with the few "meritful".

    A person's influence (yours, mine, or anyone's else) should not be a factor in deciding the eligibility of an idea. People should not vote for ideas based on the person posting the idea, or because they were told to vote for it by a friend or streamer, that directly undermines the purpose of the CDP. Almost all voting systems are flawed and if you want me to, I can provide examples of the failures of the voting system of your choice.



    But, probably most importantly, when clicking an agree button meant anything other than just wasting a post articulating the exact same thing? Maybe Chris tells us that actually the rate of agree is the arbiter of right ideas, but probably is just a convenient option.

    Pressing "Agree" on a post does not add anything to the discussion. Neither does pressing "Disagree." You are already admitting, people posting "I agree" would simply clutter the thread and would probably be removed, so why are we entertaining a button which is essentially the same thing?



    So, while stating that underlying systematic changes shouldn't be affected by votes... yeah, duh... trying to remove a marginally meaningful feature or actively censor the community because you decided their opinions to be "unworthy" is... a pretty hostile idea for a company that actually lives on the concept of being popularly played.

    I would probably go for the opposite way on the agree button, anyone that just agrees to the idea just click that thing instead of flooding the pages, but if you disagree with a popular idea, cite your reasons so the developers can read it as well.

    Nobody is being stopped from participating. There is nothing here saying, "only people worthy of participating should participate." All that I am saying is that if people want to participate, they need to add something to the discussion.



    Post ratings

    Post ratings can be abused, but I feel that they are important. I use them myself for many reasons. In my opinion every post is insightful if it is on topic even if i don't personally agree with the content of the post. Marking a post as insightful lets the author know that it has been read and their point has been heard / considered. It also gives a small incentive for them to keep participating in the discussion especially if they get developer interaction via a rating. I think that this one rating can really help Cryptic / Chris let people know they have been heard without having to post a reply or commit to agree/disagree with the ideas presented.

    LOL should be removed as an option. LOL has become the default disagree button on this forum. Replace LOL with Disagree. There is nothing wrong with a dissent choice in a CDP or even on a forum like this in general. I can disagree with you without laughing at you or your ideas. Let me disagree if I disagree, don't make me laugh at someone because I don't have another choice short of posting a reply.

    Agree, Like and Awesome... Why do we need all three? I often use the AWESOME rating for people who obviously put a lot of effort into their post and response. I don't necessarily agree what they post all of the time, but that level of effort should be applauded IMO. Are both agree and like needed? I don't really know.

    We really need better options as far as ratings go.

    The CDP should not be about validating people's egos, it should be about the game. If the only purpose of post ratings it to act as some form of validation, then it is not helping to contribute to the discussion.
    re: Nobody is being stopped from participating. There is nothing here saying, "only people worthy of participating should participate." All that I am saying is that if people want to participate, they need to add something to the discussion.


    I got a pm from Chris saying exactly this. my opinion is not worthy to participate in these and he would not consider anything I said going forward because I'm a nasty troll. soo.. yeah.
  • theraxin#5169 theraxin Member Posts: 355 Arc User
    edited March 2020



    It isn't, "needed," the idea is already present in the thread. You aren't adding to it. The only time you may need to share your opinion on the post is either to defend a post you agree with, or add to it, or in the event someone else is disagreeing with it and you have a counterargument, or if you yourself disagree with it and you want to provide one. There is already a "voting" stage anyhow in the CDP, right at the end.

    And it comes with all of the downsides of any ratings system, including vote brigading, which is exactly what we do not need. My posts are exceptionally long. Say some popular streamer likes one of my posts and says on stream, "everyone go vote for that post," and then the viewers do that. Most of them won't read it and some of them may even disagree with it if they had read it. I don't want people voting for my ideas if they do not agree with them, simply because someone else told them to.

    You personally decided that what people want should have zero effect on the outcome, so for you, it does not needed. And scapegoating "influencers" to exclude almost the entire playerbase off the discussion is not really a valid reason.



    In that sentence I meant exactly what I said, if something does not add to the discussion, it should be removed. A post that disagrees with one of mine and provides argumentation adds to the discussion, a post just saying, "I agree," does not add anything. A post saying, "this person is an idiot," is not adding to the discussion and neither is anything off topic.

    Anything that is on topic and provides reasoning is on topic, even if the reasoning is bad. I am not suggesting to in any way to actually remove feedback for qualitative reasons, just make sure that the feedback in the thread is actually feedback.

    "is actually a feedback" Except that you know... agreeing with someone IS a feedback. My feedback aligning with someone else's is two feedback. Removing someone's feedback for "not being a feedback" is removing it for qualitative reasons as it does not meet the requirement by your standard to be a feedback.

    Removing something for quantitative reasons would mean to concising a lot of suggestion into a single point and marking it by how many people agreeing with it... If there was a feature that would do that...

  • micky1p00micky1p00 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 3,444 Arc User
    edited March 2020

    Feedback Overview

    Automatic template and Phase 2 format.

    Feedback Goal

    Reduce off topiciness. (Yes, I'm aware of the irony)

    Feedback Functionality

    Three things:

    1. Not sure about this, but Phase 2 can be separated into a separate thread, with summery of the ideas with links or posts. If it is separated by the person who is in-charge of the CDP it will also work as confirmation if the ideas were conveyed and understood in the manner the author meant.

    2. Phase 2 (separated or not) - discussion of the posted ideas can have a recommended format:

    Summery of the discussed idea:

    What you found to preserve from the idea:

    What you think to improve in the proposed idea:

    How would you improve upon the idea/topic:

    3. Vanila can have easily made templates, the same way pressing the top bar heading button adds the heading tags into the post, button can be made for CDP. Few years ago there was some argument about the red color in the bug reports and how cumbersome it was, I've made a video how one can add a custom button in about half hour, unfortunately I think those are long gone now.
    Regardless, making the the format clickable, with a screenshot where to press will encourage people to use it, over the structure now, where people need to create headline manually if they even bother.

    Better yet, if the template will be applied automatically to a thread, with the thread opener deciding and can swap the default template, one on phase 1, another on phase 2.

    Ready made templates are very common and helpful for example in bug reports in major repositories and common practice. (PS: should be also made for bug reports as default for all threads opened in the bug reports sub forum)

    Risks & Concerns

    Make technology work for you. Skynet may be a risk.
    Guild: The Imaginary Friends
    If you disagree with me: My opinions are my own and do not reflect on my guild and friends.
    If you agree with me: My opinions are totally the guild official policy !
    ;)
  • thefabricantthefabricant Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 5,247 Arc User



    You personally decided that what people want should have zero effect on the outcome, so for you, it does not needed. And scapegoating "influencers" to exclude almost the entire playerbase off the discussion is not really a valid reason.

    It is not excluding anyone on any criteria other than whether or not they can make an account and type a comment. If someone wants to participate, they can comment on the thread, they need to make an account to rate posts currently anyhow. The question then becomes, "is insisting people need to comment if they want to contribute a valid one," and I think an argument can be made that indeed, yes it is. The purpose of the CDP is to brainstorm and discuss high quality ideas. If people only have the ability to rate posts and not contribute in any other way, they are not doing either of those things.



    "is actually a feedback" Except that you know... agreeing with someone IS a feedback. My feedback aligning with someone else's is two feedback. Removing someone's feedback for "not being a feedback" is removing it for qualitative reasons as it does not meet the requirement by your standard to be a feedback.

    Removing something for quantitative reasons would mean to concising a lot of suggestion into a single point and marking it by how many people agreeing with it... If there was a feature that would do that...

    Phase 3 of the CDP = Choose your top 3 ideas. It works just fine for that purpose. I actually dislike that as well for the same reasons.
  • theraxin#5169 theraxin Member Posts: 355 Arc User
    But also, consider this, @thefabricant : Maybe, popular opinions are right.

    Now, look at battle Royale. Is it a meritful type of game? Meh, the battle royale concept is based on randomized and absolutely unbalanced gameplay, but more specifically, your outcome in the match pretty much depends on what weapons do you find in the first minutes. But interestingly, the most popular battle royale games are not the ones that tweak the balance the best or the most strategic. The most profitable and beloved of them is the one that made to be the most popular.

    You cannot argue why seizing a Star Wars spoiler for hundred of thousand into your game "helps the game to be better", but the thing is, that pretty mediocre type of game rakes in billions not by actually improving their game, but by creating random stylish event, costumes and creating as much revenue by popularity as it can.

    And the sad reality is, while you are trying to reason that "the feels" or the "popularity" should not matter, a popular mediocre game does better than the best 10 game I ever played combined. And if the community unilaterally wants a thing and stops playing if it does not happen... well, you can reason as well as you want, with all the merit, it does not matter.

This discussion has been closed.