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
Thank you for your reply Chris.
In regards to your above comment, is the purpose of CDP not about what the masses in general desire, especially ideas that are also healthy for the game in itself? Correct me if this wasn't how you decided on what factors were the most important by looking at the most popular ideas in the previous CDP threads? Why then would you want your current CDP participants to dwindle? Seems very counter intuitive. An interesting fact, scroll through this thread and tell me if the general population is not normalised to its original passionate populate? Nothing wrong with that if the whole purpose of CDP was to cherry pick these passionate people for constructive feedback. You may want to consider if that is what the masses desire. Just because a suggestion is more healthy for the game does not automatically make it the most desired , you are after all catering to your customers i.e. playerbase and not vice versa and there needs to be a balance between the both.
As for the roadmap, then does that not provide a confidence boost in itself, otherwise why was it released to the playerbase? You may want to highlight your implementations in the CDP, it should work in your favour.
Suggestions
I think the emphasis as of right now should be on the structure of CDP and not the layout of responses. We should not expect to educate the masses to format their responses, we should instead make following CDP easier for them, so that their suggestions can contribute to the ambiguities in the discussions rather than become a source of loophole.
Moreover, there is nothing dubious or unhealthy about a voting system. If anything they provide an indication of the general consensus and what really should be of concern is how Chris and the staff weight it as. If voting only forms a small part of their decision making, it is but, a helpful piece of side information.
Personally i find the CDP really hard to follow, all the post are in chronological order, so the only way to answer or argue on a post is by quote. The proposals, the questions, the arguments exchanges would be a lot easier to follow if they are in the same format as the youtube comments; a new comment is the proposal, and other can reply for argumentation, and one can hide the replay section of each post/comment to read only the proposals to see if someone shared the same idea. when cwhitesidedev call for phase 3, we can reply to that post with our top 3.
In my opinion this is the basic to make the cdp readable and understandable.
I was wondering if there could be a place/person or persons who could take random ideas from people who don't have time to get involved, collate them and add them in the proper format? I know that's more work but I suspect your missing good ideas.
Introduce limit of one post per person, devs can follow up with PM.
1
lordaeolosMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 167Arc User
Danger! Danger! Danger! I'm going to break the Typical posting format here... I know some of these topics have already been touched on
Problems: 1. Current Forum Setup Limits usability of CDP, causes feedback to be lost, and creates false impressions of subject popularity
2. Data mining CDP feedback requires Manual homogenization
3. Large part of the player community still doesn't know what the CDP initiative is about, or that it even exists.
Possible Solutions: 1. Forum Setup
- Implement Threading technology for the forum, then default each thread to be collapsed, then aggressively moderate so that only new ideas, or announcements are at the top of each thread. Responses/ arguments would all be contained under the Original Posters thread.
2. Enabling Data Mining
- The current forum is using a database back-end to store post data, Create a form template for CDP usage with drop down selection for certain sections to help categorize the post, and of course have a free text section on the form. This would create a more consistent feedback format that would then enable a database query to "dump out" the CDP feedback to a report for easier data consumption and better insights.
- How this would work: - The current forum software does support custom plugins, so it wouldn't be a stretch to create a CDP form web page. - The user goes to that page - User Selects items from predefined drop downs (topic, category, etc) - each form entry would be limited to 1 feedback option each (so if you have 10 topics, it would be 10 forms) - when completed the form submission would write the meta-data to a database, and submit the form as a new thread under the correct CDP - Vanilla has a full set of API hooks available, so doing this should be between 4 and 20 hours of web/ Database development time, and require minimal database entry time for each new CDP - When a CDP is finished, a summary post could be auto generated from the database, and posted before a proposal.
** This same type of process could be used for submitting bugs to the Forum, which would improve defect tracking! Imagine just being able to create a database report to see all new bug reports from the forum.
3. Lack of Community Knowledge of the CDP initiative
- Evangelize! Evangelize! Evangelize! - There should be daily posts to Social Media (twitter, facebook, etc) while a CDP is running - There should be a link that describes what the CDP process is about and what the goals of the process are that is easily seen at the front of the Games homepage - There should be a CDP advertisement on the game launcher... Something like "What to help steer the future of the game? then check out the CDP initiative, see x for details"
"Don't ever become a pessimist... a pessimist is correct oftener than an optimist, but an optimist has more fun, and neither can stop the march of events."
1. Simpler recommended formatting I like the proposal of @thefabricant: Problem, Solution (and optional: affected player groups, possible side-effects)
2. Simplify CDP phases (or make the transition from one phase to the next more obvious) Personally, I would like just two phases: - the "ideas" phase and - the "top 3" phase. Looking at the discussion in the previous CDPs, I never really saw any difference in the discussion, when Chris urged us to transit from the "ideas" phase to the "drilling in" phase. I think the problem is the following: The "drilling in" phase requires exceptional discipline by all participants (quite unrealistic). Furthermore, I find it good, in fact necessary, that the late-comers to the discussion can still post their ideas in the subsequent phase(s). This means, any attempt to enforce the necessary discipline for the "drilling in" phase would result in the (unwanted) outcome, that late-comers could not share their ideas.
Other thoughts:
I find the CDP takes up A LOT OF TIME. I applaud the devs, in particular Julia and Chris, for the huge amount of time they are investing. That is exceptional and merits an EXTRA THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
Having said this, due to personal time constraints (I have a full-time job) it becomes nearly impossible to participate in the CDP topics in the way I would like. It also takes me a rather long time (up to a week) until I fire off my first post in a new CDP. This is a personal limitation, and I am aware that this limitation need not apply to other CDP participants. However, from my personal point of view I am in favor of: - more focused topics - more time for every topic (there is a conflict of interest here: We would like quick results) - keep it simple (a minimum number of "rules") What I am not so much in favor of: - a tree structure (this will fracture the discussion even more into small pieces, that are difficult to follow) - polls or formalized voting (for reasons already explained by other posters. Note that the current rating system for individual posts is ok, except for "LOL" - no dire need to change it)
Generally I think the CDP is in a VERY GOOD SHAPE ALREADY. We should not overburden it with "improvements", in particular not with features or formalities that take time to implement and/or are difficult to enforce.
The most important features imo are: - we, the players, can share ideas freely - in a rather free and forgiving format. DON'T CHANGE THAT - the devs are making a huge effort to read everything. PLEASE CONTINUE (although I realize how exhausting this must be) Anything else is secondary for me.
Furthermore, how the devs use the ideas, how they weight them, how they allocate the internal resources (over the next two years) to gradually implement them, is entirely up to them. I trust, that they will do this in the most efficient way possible, with the limited resources they have.
Such an interesting conversation. Is the product 'Popularity' metric part of a 'Confidence' psychology/metric? (I think it is. Twitch for example is a tool that can be used to boost confidence through popularity and vice versa) The confidence metric is tangible but hard to isolate and measure (Release quality impact short, medium and long term for example). Many factors play into confidence including User Experience. The CDP focuses on intent, evolution and execution (more to be done here in regard to how the CDP evolves) and therefore the 'Confidence' metric is necessary as part of the conversation in regard to how we evolve the User Experience/Business. I think we can probably try to measure this by looking at analytics at key periods of the game (recent) and then extrapolate how to utilize the data in the CDP as a lens/category and then apply that more broadly to larger pools of data like industry trends.
But no mass voting (-: We are building (CDP) a star ship not a carnival ship.
Chris
I am not sure if I am offtopic responding to this, so if I am just remove it. This is also more of me brain storming then my usual posting style.
First off, I will reflect on the past twitch streams, in particular the recent one which I was a part of featuring chris and noworries discussing the previous CDP.
It had the following advantages (in my opinion):
It makes the community feel "engaged with."
It attracts some viewership, acts as a form of advertisement.
I think these are the disadvantages:
Its a poor format for doing a question and answers discussion. There is less time to formulate replies, which in some cases can lead to unsatisfactory or poor replies been given.
It is decentralized, making it hard to go back and find later if people are wanting to refer to it.
It is slower than other mediums, text is a much quicker way of answering questions.
And I think these were things that we as the panel could have done better:
Format needs reviewing, it could have been better. For example, we should have had some panel discussion. As it was in the stream the panel was completely useless, we could have just had rainer asking questions and it would have been no different.
I feel that we could have vetted questions better. (This is a personal opinion) Any question that I feel I could personally answer, rather than ask the dev team, I feel is a poor question not worth asking and is only wasting people's time.
Now, on the subject of twitch itself as an indicator. I think in some cases it can act as an indicator for success of a game. For example, pvp games usually live or die by how successful they are for spectating. In other cases however, I think it is a poor indicator of overall success of a game. Certainly, it is never a bad thing for a game to be popular on Twitch, but not being popular on Twitch does not mean a game is not selling well. For example, the civilization games sell exceptionally well and yet basically nobody watches them on Twitch. Twitch in no way indicates the market success of these games, they simply do not make good games to stream. I think the same argument can be extended to some degree towards PVE focused MMOs.
At best, a PVE MMO is popular on Twitch for short periods of time when there is some new challenging content and groups are trying to overcome it. People watch groups struggling with the challenge on Twitch because there is some excitement in seeing them progress. Once that initial excitement dies off however and groups have the new content on farm mode, the initial burst of viewership on Twitch dies down again. This makes Twitch as an indicator for PVE focused MMOs, at best in my opinion, cyclical. It can only be used to measure success during the peaks when new challenging content is released.
As far as advertising the CDP via Twitch, well, these are what I see as the advantages of it:
It forces people who want to be involved in the CDP to watch Twitch, which in theory boosts viewership.
It provides Twitch streamers with additional content.
It gives the community some sense of being engaged with.
These are, in my opinion the disadvantages of it:
Small Community currently - It does not engage the majority of the playerbase. Good if you want to engage a few people, poor if you want a more representative sample.
Current Streamer community is very much a bubble at the moment. They all fall outside that bubble in some ways, but they are a largely cohesive group that have some common themes and ideas. Pushing Twitch as the main platform of discussion, may discourage other player types who aren't a part of this group or are adverse to this medium from participating.
Danger! Danger! Danger! I'm going to break the Typical posting format here... I know some of these topics have already been touched on
Problems: 1. Current Forum Setup Limits usability of CDP, causes feedback to be lost, and creates false impressions of subject popularity
2. Data mining CDP feedback requires Manual homogenization
3. Large part of the player community still doesn't know what the CDP initiative is about, or that it even exists.
Possible Solutions: 1. Forum Setup
- Implement Threading technology for the forum, then default each thread to be collapsed, then aggressively moderate so that only new ideas, or announcements are at the top of each thread. Responses/ arguments would all be contained under the Original Posters thread.
2. Enabling Data Mining
- The current forum is using a database back-end to store post data, Create a form template for CDP usage with drop down selection for certain sections to help categorize the post, and of course have a free text section on the form. This would create a more consistent feedback format that would then enable a database query to "dump out" the CDP feedback to a report for easier data consumption and better insights.
- How this would work: - The current forum software does support custom plugins, so it wouldn't be a stretch to create a CDP form web page. - The user goes to that page - User Selects items from predefined drop downs (topic, category, etc) - each form entry would be limited to 1 feedback option each (so if you have 10 topics, it would be 10 forms) - when completed the form submission would write the meta-data to a database, and submit the form as a new thread under the correct CDP - Vanilla has a full set of API hooks available, so doing this should be between 4 and 20 hours of web/ Database development time, and require minimal database entry time for each new CDP - When a CDP is finished, a summary post could be auto generated from the database, and posted before a proposal.
** This same type of process could be used for submitting bugs to the Forum, which would improve defect tracking! Imagine just being able to create a database report to see all new bug reports from the forum.
3. Lack of Community Knowledge of the CDP initiative
- Evangelize! Evangelize! Evangelize! - There should be daily posts to Social Media (twitter, facebook, etc) while a CDP is running - There should be a link that describes what the CDP process is about and what the goals of the process are that is easily seen at the front of the Games homepage - There should be a CDP advertisement on the game launcher... Something like "What to help steer the future of the game? then check out the CDP initiative, see x for details"
Here is another thought based on #2 above. I have seen a lot of posts with solutions in search of a problems or opportunity in CDP threads, as well as a lot of "problems" that really didn't get to root cause. I see this all the time in the business world, where users come up with solutions, without really exploring the root of a problem to begin with.
To mitigate this the process itself could be broken into more phases, with some emphasis on spending time exploring the root problems and opportunities.
Phase: 1. Identify opportunities and problems. - Initial form allows for a short description of a problem or opportunity contributor sees in game - Dev team could contribute to this list, this should be interactive after all, and not just be problems or opportunities seen by the user community. - this phase would not allow for solutions to be tendered, as it would be about gathering issues seen, so that the roots can be found - sub thread these discussions, and allow the user to "adjust" or withdraw short description from consideration for the next phase - lock forum threads - phase closes, at which point each "problem" or "opportunity" is vetted/ homogenized and loaded to a data table
2. Offer Solutions - Solutions form loads for the contributor allowing them to select a problem or opportunity cited in phase #1 - Solution would have a short description, as well as long form text to go into details - lock forum threads - phase closes, at which point each solution short description is vetted/ homogenized and loaded to a data table
3. Pick your favorite x number of problems/ opportunities and solutions - load a form that allows you to choose up to x problem/ solution pairs. - phase closes generating a report showing counts for each pairing - Dev team creates a proposal and submits on forum
4. Discuss Proposal/ Summary - freely discuss the proposal for x time
Forum sub threading structure should look like this:
CDP Topic > Phase > Original Post > discussion
Example:
CDP on CDP ...> Define Opportunities or Problems ......> Sifting through forums for Original ideas difficult ............> you are wrong!!!.. ............> oh yeah this... totally dude ......> Large part of community unaware of CDP ...> Offer Solutions ......> Solution for "Sifting through forums..". Sub threading the forums... ............> yeah that could work ............> maybe we should just ditch forums ............> that just isn't technically feasible ............> Troll-a-lol-a-lol-lol-lol ...> Pick your Favorite Solutions
"Don't ever become a pessimist... a pessimist is correct oftener than an optimist, but an optimist has more fun, and neither can stop the march of events."
If your suggestion is to exclude 99,9%+ part of the community from the decisions made, politics is the worst example you can make.
You are the only one who keeps saying I am excluding 99.9% of the community in my suggestion, so stop putting words in my mouth. It is not difficult to comment on a thread and add to it, it only takes marginally more time than it does to rate a post. If someone cares so much about this game that they want to change the development on it, they should also be willing to devote more of their time than the 2 seconds it takes to press a button into saying why they think so.
NWO is an entertainment product, popularity keeps the company afloat and at least most of the decisions has no true moral consequence.
Also, popular solutions finance the meritful to be developed, so excluding the popular kills the rest.
But to sidenote to your specific example, the developers should not give free gear not because the players are wrong to want them, but because the players are right to need them. Making players need an item or something have no more merit than giving them for free, but it gives popularity metrics on the hours played and the money spent, so it's a longer term popularity.
So even your "meritocratic" example is just make the game popular until the next mod rolls in. And sometimes they definitely should give free gear to help newer players to start and to streamline progress where it got clunky.
Also, you think way too much of the top3 voting and a simple agree button. I'm pretty sure that @cwhitesidedev#9752 will back me up on that not being a top3 idea does not equal to being cast aside instantaneously. Good ideas will always be considered regardless of agree clicks. Or at least I have to believe this because I will never get top3 suggestion ever, but still here posting.
If NW was a Battle Royale and not an MMO it might have more players than it does right now. Does that mean that no games should exist but Battle Royales? No, it doesn't! Different games appeal to different audiences and the right move is to design a game which is good for the audience you want to appeal to. The argumentation, "but this other decision is more popular," directly ignores the fact that even if another decision is more popular, it might not be the right decision for a game to make.
Ratings systems are poor because they promote echo chambers. Go to reddit, easy example the politics subreddit is nothing but Bernie Sanders, despite the fact that other candidates exist and right now he is not even leading at the moment in the Democratic Party (its sad that I know anything about American politics tbh, but that is off topic). I can provide other examples as well if it makes you happy, but the point is, we should have a diverse array of opinions and discussion and ratings systems promote the exact opposite of that.
Well, the subreddit is actually pretty representative of the majority of the specific democratic that uses it. But I really want to step aside politics.
But also, your argument invalidates your own statement. As you said, the game should appeal to the audience, which means, the community's opinion. The metric you specifically want to remove. You can state that a less popular opinion might be better, but you want to remove any popularity measure, regardless how insignificant it is, which makes everyone blind to what the community needs. You can do "good" things and lose all your source of income if you cannot balance out with popularity. And you cannot balance it if your idea is to remove it altogether. Zero popularity presentation is just turning a blind eye to the community.
As said with the battle royale, not making the better choice, but the most popular keeps the mediocre the most successful. Now, actually responsible companies do the popular things AND use the resources they got to increase the quality of the game. But you cannot try to make something "high quality" and letting the community feel cast aside.
In short, you need popularity metric.
I think the 'popularity' measure is key but there are various methods outside of the CDP that represent this. I love your focus on the business. It is my personal hope that we will be pioneering in the worlds/experiences we build together moving forward and this doesn't exclude the business at all (That is a lens through which everything passes). It is unfair for me to bring up Battle Royale outside of the context in which you mentioned it but it does help to give context to the next point which is: We intend to disrupt and break ice with the CDP as they relate to the experiences and business we build. Battle Royale in its current form and in my opinion is fast follow and very business focused (There is nothing wrong with that). I beleive there needs to be a balance which is what I believe you are advocating.
By pioneering we can build the waves rather than catch/ride them. Its a big risk but the path we have chosen.
Chris
Now, while I have zero insight into Cryptic, balance is not really the good word for it. It has to be separated. I'm sorry, but developers should have zero or at least minimal say in monetization (except maybe the leading developer/designer who can inform how certain models can be fit in), but also, any development decision that does not relate to finance, should not be told to change by the finance part (PR can set red flags, but that's an other thing). In some companies, the lead designer is placed in a higher position than finance to make sure that monetization does not creeps into parts where it should be separate from to the detriment of the vision or the entire project. Because that's why you can find a ton of pretty buggy or outright broken game shipped. It's a vision corrupted by the push for finance, which ironically fail to justify it's costs as both part is necessary for success.
But for a current example, that's why the VIP CDP was... pretty strange and that's why some people more coincidentally than they probably realized pointed it out that they feel it as more of a PR move. Because, it probably should have been just a PR thing. Collect player data what they would like to be in VIP, structure it financially and push it onto the developing/design team to do. In a sense, calling players to vote at Phase 3 probably was the most important part of the VIP CDP as it signals (probably pretty incorrectly) how well certain changes would lead to people buying it.
And also that's where I can, sometimes, absolutely agree with sharpedge that in certain decisions, finance should have zero and PR should be marginalised in influence and that making a vote system on them distorts the project or the vision. But also, most of the decisions being integral to the vision and the game, probably don't reach CDP anyway.
> @theraxin#5169 said: > (Quote) > Now, while I have zero insight into Cryptic, balance is not really the good word for it. It has to be separated. I'm sorry, but developers should have zero or at least minimal say in monetization (except maybe the leading developer/designer who can inform how certain models can be fit in), but also, any development decision that does not relate to finance, should not be told to change by the finance part (PR can set red flags, but that's an other thing). In some companies, the lead designer is placed in a higher position than finance to make sure that monetization does not creeps into parts where it should be separate from to the detriment of the vision or the entire project. Because that's why you can find a ton of pretty buggy or outright broken game shipped. It's a vision corrupted by the push for finance, which ironically fail to justify it's costs as both part is necessary for success. > > But for a current example, that's why the VIP CDP was... pretty strange and that's why some people more coincidentally than they probably realized pointed it out that they feel it as more of a PR move. Because, it probably should have been just a PR thing. Collect player data what they would like to be in VIP, structure it financially and push it onto the developing/design team to do. In a sense, calling players to vote at Phase 3 probably was the most important part of the VIP CDP as it signals (probably pretty incorrectly) how well certain changes would lead to people buying it. > > And also that's where I can, sometimes, absolutely agree with sharpedge that in certain decisions, finance should have zero and PR should be marginalised in influence and that making a vote system on them distorts the project or the vision. But also, most of the decisions being integral to the vision and the game, probably don't reach CDP anyway.
Every game I have worked on since around 2010 has had a core pillar of ensuring the team is evolving, maintaining and pioneering on the business side. Business isn’t a dirty word for developers anymore or a taboo. Like any hobby spending should be fun and feel like an investment and so of course team members are integral to that on top of ensuring that any work we do has a good chance of Return on Investment. It is a balance.
The philosophy you describe above just isn’t part of the modern game industry anymore. I would go one step further as shown by the CDP VIP whereby I believe the community voice around the business is also integral to a healthy product, community and team.
Chris
P.S: for further clarity I also haven’t been on a team where a finance group drives decisions in terms of product experience (which includes monetization). In regard to budget we have agreed goals but outside of that we have everything we need in terms of the team and support groups to mange the business. Therefore I have always and will always promote teams to be thinking about every part of the user experience including monetization as each part of the user experience impacts the players compulsion to spend.
I think we might be getting a little off topic now? Although I had thought that certain aspects of development that relate to the CDP were more well known. I will do a better job moving forward of being more sensitive to this.
Post edited by cwhitesidedev#9752 on
5
kreatyveMember, Neverwinter Moderator, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 10,545Community Moderator
Introduce limit of one post per person, devs can follow up with PM.
I disagree with this. It doesn't foster discussion. If 1 person is dominating the conversation, maybe we can take steps at that time, but I don't think we should limit comments to 1 per person, and I don't think the forum has the tech to institute it in a fashion that would not mean a lot of extra work for us moderators.
My opinions are my own. I do not work for PWE or Cryptic. - Forum Rules - Protector's Enclave Discord - I play on Xbox Any of my comments not posted in orange are based on my own personal opinion and not official. Any messages written in orange are official moderation messages. Signature images are now fixed!
5
lordaeolosMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 167Arc User
Introduce limit of one post per person, devs can follow up with PM.
I disagree with this. It doesn't foster discussion. If 1 person is dominating the conversation, maybe we can take steps at that time, but I don't think we should limit comments to 1 per person, and I don't think the forum has the tech to institute it in a fashion that would not mean a lot of extra work for us moderators.
I agree with not limiting 1 person, 1 topic.
I would like to point out that "Vanilla" has a full set of API endpoints, the ability to create custom Restful API's / plugins, and the ability to get into and customize a lot of the behaviors in the forum functionality. Can we please forgo from the "Tech limitation" excuses, and instead let the dev team determine viability. I would hope we can have these CDP's and not use technical limitations as an excuse, in reality pretty much anything is possible; it's just a matter of the cost to benefit ratio to determine viability, and resource availability to determine timeliness. I just find that erecting barriers like "tech limitations" tends to artificially stifle creativity, and even if there are limitations, can prevent otherwise good ideas that inspire other changes from being brought forward. Thanks
"Don't ever become a pessimist... a pessimist is correct oftener than an optimist, but an optimist has more fun, and neither can stop the march of events."
2
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
Problem Ideas are not being captured. Some players, myself included, avoid or have begun avoiding the CDP in its current state leaving this project and its influence on Neverwinter's future in the hands of a few.
Solution New CDP posts are entered through a web form with clearly established sections with forced maximum character counts. All replies and discussions to that idea fall into a sub-tree structure (collapsed by default).
Discussion As with previous CDP attempts, this "discussion" is rapidly devolving into a literary cacophony with less grace and respect than a gunfight. However, silencing harsh, internal dissension is risky. Allowing such dissensions to occur in the vast depths of a tree structure, which is always collapsed by default, will create healthier discussions:
1. Allows the exercise of literary freedom without feeling oppressed. 2. Allows quick perusing of ideas in their original proposal. 3. Allows those interested in a proposal to expand that tree to join the detailed discussion, only if desired. 4. Allows more players to feel less intimidated from the pages upon pages of aggression and feel more inclined to share an idea not yet proposed.
Risks I do not know the true flexibility of the current or planned forum software; software limitations may make this idea infeasible.
Failure to check volatile outrage in some manner risks allowing the CDP project to devolve into Cryptic only hearing from a loud, vulgar few. Some will avoid or refuse to engage with what initially appears as a community of antagonistic suppression.
I do not see why people think limiting the length of posts to a maximum is a necessary or good idea. There are some very good, in depth, complex ideas which you cannot convey properly in a short post and shortening them is only to the detriment of the idea itself.
Ah CDP. I love the idea, I even love the practice..but it can surely be one heck of a bear-garden.
I mostly see issues with Method/Scoping and the Medium. Most of those issues have already been mentioned, so will try to be short and appologize for threading on grass that someone else already mowed.
Method/Scoping Right now the CDPs are large in scope, trying to tackle major areas of concern. I get that, because the issues in that area are often linked. However the large scope also invites proposals of a matching width. Leading to many-facetted proposals. These will contain a lot of good and some invitable dross. Minor points are singled out and picked apart, often to the detriment of the actual point someone is trying to get across. I feel the CDP could be improved by the implementation of a multi step process. Where we first use less detailed proposals to identify the important areas of concern within the scope and then have people further detail their ideas in a second step.. think "brown paper session" dot voting and/or bringing the top 3's to earlier in the process. I feel this would improve focus on the most worthwile areas.
Medium To me, the forums, in their current setup, as a medium for the CDF is a terrible choice. Having some experience in the field, I figure there is a reason development/design teams rarely if ever use plain chronological fora for this kind of work. Even when working with large groups of stakeholders (in our case, the Neverwinter Community at large). Others have already mentioned many reasons why a forum is problematic.
Combining the two, I would suggest that, while the forum would be ok-ish, for an initial round of idea gathering, a second phase for detailing out proposals would need better tooling. But not sure if there is room to explore that as an option. Also not suggestion we go to Userforge or something overblown, but some of the better threading options people have mentioned, or something more slack-like (still chaotic, but with more options to split of threads on their own), would be a boon.
Either way, I do realize that such changes would increase the required control/moderation level for the CDP process as a whole. With all the concequences that come with that (financial, resources, etc.). On top of additional investments. But I also obviously feel it would be worth it. The current levels of chaos in the big CDPs (even without the disturbing levels of off-topic and/or veiled ad-hom) are losing the CDP process people and ideas.
As I read this and attempt to assimilate my thoughts (not easy, as I'm recovering from surgery and the mind is a bit murky) I am hit, once again, by the shear number of posts by several people defending/discussing their intial points of view.
All CDP's have had phases. If we could eliminate banter during the first phase for ease-of-reading, that would be awesome. Just post your thoughts and be done with it until the next phase. I have spoken to several people who feel intimidated/time limited by the amount of back and forth between just a handful of individuals in the initial phase. Additionally, just having a gestation period for the amount of information that is provided by everyone can't be a bad thing. All CDP's have had a 'rushed' feeling to them so far.
During Phase 2 let the banter roll on with a summarization of Phase 1. This could be done in a separate thread or a continuation of the current CDP thread (or you could open it up to a reddit-style continuation), but at least those coming into the CDP initially (even up to the day before phase 2 starts!) will know that the first 1 through X pages are JUST proposal/suggestion/thoughts and it would induce a far better read than sifting through – and trying to make sense of – the discussions.
As the CDP rolls into Phase 3, it will become abundantly clear during Phase 2 what the final thoughts are that would then lead to the proposal.
This is sounding super familiar isn't it? The key to making this work is actually moderating the forum , which, in my opinion, has been severely lacking in all the CDP's to date.
3: I disagree. We have a group of dedicated, smart and passionate CDP members. The wider we blow the group open the longer the cycles of bedding in are and so on. I have no issue with folks joining virally but not something that could be seen as marketing where the signal to noise ratio becomes unmanageable. I think we need to look at ways that we can consume the data/opinion without incurring the above issue including technology. Twitch is interesting in this regard. (Interestingly though and I don't know if it is the same for other team members but I tend to spend more time reading posts from a new member- Regardless you end up with an economies of scale problem if you open the floodgates).
Chris
Chris, I get that you want a group of collaborators that are smart and dedicated, but this is super off-putting to me. You say you want the community to collaborate and yet you don't. Which is it?
Enna
Just call me Enna... Enna Backpetal Cleric Enna F Backpetal Fighter
Most of the CDP is actually individuals pinpointing a single phrase of another individual and assembling a completely different topic based on that. I utterly despise such posts because they stray away from the heart of the discussion and often lead to the populous mess we have to skim read and waste our time on. Staying and sticking to the topic is an integral part of any discussion, especially an evolving one and the reason why the CDP topics feel like a thesaurus is because we branch out to specific topics not intended for that particular CDP, sometimes for the sake of the argument.
I feel like Micky's Stack exchange forum would fit in well in this scenario. I agree that sometimes critiquing actually forms the basis of an evolved discussion but more often than not, it actually leads to heated debates. If you disagree with a particular mentioned suggestion, state the suggestion (without quoting), with your reasons and move on. But if the above is implemented, then basically the parent thread will contain replies, these replies can contain comments within them (more like youtube) and any critiquing could strictly take place there without disrupting the flow of CDP at the detriment of making people lose interest.
In addition, it would be wise to see what Chris and his team consider as good suggestions. Sometimes we can see this in Chris' approval in his replies and for me personally, i tend to follow those topics closely. Once again, no matter how good you may consider your suggestion to be, it all boils down to the whim of the developer/s and why not, they have to consider their resources, business model, work ethics and the longevity of the suggestion, among many other things. I would love to see a tag introduced where developers could highlight impressive suggestions.
Next, i also believe that there should be a search function whereby the forum can be changed from its chronological order to top voted comments at the first thread and so on. Other ways of making the CDP more flexible would be to allow players to search for approved suggestions (as mentioned above) and they would then take precedent and appear at the first thread. You may also consider introducing an honourable tag ( by the developers) for individuals that have been contributing to the CDP beyond the developer/s expectations and as above, these individual/s responses to be search-able.
Moreover, if each comment could be numbered, i could simply refer to i agree with Person A's comment at 1. My top 3 choices are comments 1, 2,3. If you want to quote a specific part of someone's comment, then simply use the quote function. This simply avoids people quoting whole comments when only a proportion of it was required. It also makes navigating and even footnoting specific comments without having to quote the whole comment.
I also was thinking if the developer's could give some insight to each new CDP topic i.e. their plans, what they in general think about that CDP topic so that it may act as the building blocks for the playerbase's suggestions. That is also why i mentioned that CDP is all about reading other suggestions and brainstorming it and then presenting with your own version of suggestion and something Sharp has greatly helped with.
> @backpetal#6044 said: > As I read this and attempt to assimilate my thoughts (not easy, as I'm recovering from surgery and the mind is a bit murky) I am hit, once again, by the shear number of posts by several people defending/discussing their intial points of view. > > All CDP's have had phases. If we could eliminate banter during the first phase for ease-of-reading, that would be awesome. Just post your thoughts and be done with it until the next phase. I have spoken to several people who feel intimidated/time limited by the amount of back and forth between just a handful of individuals in the initial phase. Additionally, just having a gestation period for the amount of information that is provided by everyone can't be a bad thing. All CDP's have had a 'rushed' feeling to them so far. > > During Phase 2 let the banter roll on with a summarization of Phase 1. This could be done in a separate thread or a continuation of the current CDP thread (or you could open it up to a reddit-style continuation), but at least those coming into the CDP initially (even up to the day before phase 2 starts!) will know that the first 1 through X pages are JUST proposal/suggestion/thoughts and it would induce a far better read than sifting through – and trying to make sense of – the discussions. > > As the CDP rolls into Phase 3, it will become abundantly clear during Phase 2 what the final thoughts are that would then lead to the proposal. > > This is sounding super familiar isn't it? The key to making this work is actually moderating the forum , which, in my opinion, has been severely lacking in all the CDP's to date. > > And this, for me, was very disturbing:(Quote) > Chris, I get that you want a group of collaborators that are smart and dedicated, but this is super off-putting to me. You say you want the community to collaborate and yet you don't. Which is it? > > Enna
Hi Backpetal,
Quite a few topics to cover in your post. I will start with your direct question to me. My answer is in regard to CDP members advocating widely broadcasting the CDP. Currently we do not have the time to manage a huge influx of players into the CDP both in terms of actual time and in terms of time required to bed in and help teach large groups of new members (frankly it is hard enough to get the current CDP group to understand the goals and best working practices of the CDP (this is natural and getter better- bedding in or storming phase) and CDP members will note how often I focus on helping the group in these areas rather than focusing on the current discussion.
Not sure how to better explain it. It is economies of scale and at the moment we have a good spectrum of player type and more players joining by word of mouth every day which is a manageable healthy flow. You yourself mention how energy can be better diverted in regard to off topic posts, small cases of bickering and so on. Imagine this but on a much grander scale. I have been there and would rather not go there again. What do you feel like you are currently missing by not having 1000’s of extra posts in each CDP? The days of ‘polling’ to build a product in many business sectors are gone. What player types do you think are missing from the current CDP or team member? Please also don’t forget we have massive amounts of legacy and real time data to go with the CDP and team skill set and experience.
Regarding rushing CDPs: none have been rushed at all and when more time has been requested it has been granted. In each CDP thus far we have seen each phase naturally slow down leading to off topic discussion and so on.
Also you say the CDPs haven’t been moderated. What do you mean by moderated? Each one has been guided, drilled into and phases called out at different times. Many of the questions you ask make me wonder how closely you have followed each CDP. No negativity here and no doubt the volume of discussion, pacing and format are a hinderance in that area however that is the whole point of this CDP.
I feel like you answer some of your own questions or concerns in your post.
I do like your specific format suggestions and will be thinking about them .
> @sobi#1980 said: > Most of the CDP is actually individuals pinpointing a single phrase of another individual and assembling a completely different topic based on that. I utterly despise such posts because they stray away from the heart of the discussion and often lead to the populous mess we have to skim read and waste our time on. Staying and sticking to the topic is an integral part of any discussion, especially an evolving one and the reason why the CDP topics feel like a thesaurus is because we branch out to specific topics not intended for that particular CDP, sometimes for the sake of the argument. > > I feel like Micky's Stack exchange forum would fit in well in this scenario. I agree that sometimes critiquing actually forms the basis of an evolved discussion but more often than not, it actually leads to heated debates. If you disagree with a particular mentioned suggestion, state the suggestion (without quoting), with your reasons and move on. But if the above is implemented, then basically the parent thread will contain replies, these replies can contain comments within them (more like youtube) and any critiquing could strictly take place there without disrupting the flow of CDP at the detriment of making people lose interest. > > In addition, it would be wise to see what Chris and his team consider as good suggestions. Sometimes we can see this in Chris' approval in his replies and for me personally, i tend to follow those topics closely. Once again, no matter how good you may consider your suggestion to be, it all boils down to the whim of the developer/s and why not, they have to consider their resources, business model, work ethics and the longevity of the suggestion, among many other things. I would love to see a tag introduced where developers could highlight impressive suggestions. > > Next, i also believe that there should be a search function whereby the forum can be changed from its chronological order to top voted comments at the first thread and so on. Other ways of making the CDP more flexible would be to allow players to search for approved suggestions (as mentioned above) and they would then take precedent and appear at the first thread. You may also consider introducing an honourable tag ( by the developers) for individuals that have been contributing to the CDP beyond the developer/s expectations and as above, these individual/s responses to be search-able. > > Moreover, if each comment could be numbered, i could simply refer to i agree with Person A's comment at 1. My top 3 choices are comments 1, 2,3. If you want to quote a specific part of someone's comment, then simply use the quote function. This simply avoids people quoting whole comments when only a proportion of it was required. It also makes navigating and even footnoting specific comments without having to quote the whole comment. > > I also was thinking if the developer's could give some insight to each new CDP topic i.e. their plans, what they in general think about that CDP topic so that it may act as the building blocks for the playerbase's suggestions. That is also why i mentioned that CDP is all about reading other suggestions and brainstorming it and then presenting with your own version of suggestion and something Sharp has greatly helped with.
Some really cool ‘hard’ suggestions and comments here for the group to discuss and evolve. In terms of a good post what we look for is content where the CDP member is clearly thinking about different player types, has an understanding of the subject matter, and with a focus on evolving the game rather than trying to manage an agenda within the current framework of the game. It is really obvious to see when someone is thinking altruistically than myopically for example. We aren’t a work for hire organization so the CDP is essentially a consultancy group that is an extension of the team whose goal is to build worlds together and in this case the evolution of Neverwinter.
A good post isn’t toxic, off topic or focused on anything but the overriding mission of the CDP. The CDP is a working group whereby no matter how hard anyone tries to be a star, garner attention or serve an agenda that isn’t in the best interest of the overall goal the challenges, diamonds in the rough and straight up best evolutions will always win out.
Thanks for your post Sobi and I hope that my reply provides some better context.
Thanks for answering me directly. Firstly, if the format of the CDP were structured properly, there would be little 'teaching' involved, it would be pretty straightforward - which is the goal I assume? Wouldn't this then, allow for a broader promotion of the CDP to get more people involved? I get that it would have to be moderated a bit more, but this is a ship you're captaining and a hearty crew gets the job done better than a skeleton crew I would think (but then again, this is your area of expertise, not mine). Secondly, having a broader scope of ideas, suggetions and opinions might bring a new and welcomed perspective. Thirdly, I understand that you've given time when time was requested, but running two CDP's along side one another, when time is an issue for some who would like to contribute to both is a bit much and this is the rushed feeling of some. Lastly, the moderation I'm speaking of is allowing people to float off-topic and pollute the forums with unrelated posts or bickering amongst themselves. Perhaps this is what you want and what you meant by 'drilling down'? If so, then carry on by all means, but know it is off-putting for some.
Enna
Just call me Enna... Enna Backpetal Cleric Enna F Backpetal Fighter
I get that it would have to be moderated a bit more, but this is a ship you're captaining and a hearty crew gets the job done better than a skeleton crew I would think (but then again, this is your area of expertise, not mine). Secondly, having a broader scope of ideas, suggestions and opinions might bring a new and welcomed perspective. Thirdly, I understand that you've given time when time was requested, but running two CDP's along side one another, when time is an issue for some who would like to contribute to both is a bit much and this is the rushed feeling of some. Lastly, the moderation I'm speaking of is allowing people to float off-topic and pollute the forums with unrelated posts or bickering amongst themselves. Perhaps this is what you want and what you meant by 'drilling down'? If so, then carry on by all means, but know it is off-putting for some.
Enna
I do agree with this because I try to read the CDPs and find it very overwhelming at times, to look and see pages and pages of so many quotes and arguments over nothing. I don't have any desire to shift through all this, to find the actual posts concerning the current CDP. I understand alot of people have alot to say but when one person has a post that takes 2 or more posts to say what they want to say..your going to lose my interest after the first post.
> @backpetal#6044 said: > Hi Chris, > > Thanks for answering me directly. Firstly, if the format of the CDP were structured properly, there would be little 'teaching' involved, it would be pretty straightforward - which is the goal I assume? Wouldn't this then, allow for a broader promotion of the CDP to get more people involved? I get that it would have to be moderated a bit more, but this is a ship you're captaining and a hearty crew gets the job done better than a skeleton crew I would think (but then again, this is your area of expertise, not mine). Secondly, having a broader scope of ideas, suggetions and opinions might bring a new and welcomed perspective. Thirdly, I understand that you've given time when time was requested, but running two CDP's along side one another, when time is an issue for some who would like to contribute to both is a bit much and this is the rushed feeling of some. Lastly, the moderation I'm speaking of is allowing people to float off-topic and pollute the forums with unrelated posts or bickering amongst themselves. Perhaps this is what you want and what you meant by 'drilling down'? If so, then carry on by all means, but know it is off-putting for some. > > Enna
Thanks for your clarifications and discussion. Better formatting and exposition of phases would certainly help. Shoring up this area would absolutely allow for the gates to be opened up further. That’s why I keep saying ‘at this current stage’. Like you say the ship structurally just isn’t ready for a bigger crew. And therefore it is a goal to absolutely make the CDP infrastructure more robust to allow for this.
I am sorry. It didn’t really occur to Julia and I that folks would want to heavily participate in both CDPs. That is my mistake and I will ensure it doesn’t happen again.
Thanks for answering me directly. Firstly, if the format of the CDP were structured properly, there would be little 'teaching' involved, it would be pretty straightforward - which is the goal I assume? Wouldn't this then, allow for a broader promotion of the CDP to get more people involved? I get that it would have to be moderated a bit more, but this is a ship you're captaining and a hearty crew gets the job done better than a skeleton crew I would think (but then again, this is your area of expertise, not mine). Secondly, having a broader scope of ideas, suggetions and opinions might bring a new and welcomed perspective. Thirdly, I understand that you've given time when time was requested, but running two CDP's along side one another, when time is an issue for some who would like to contribute to both is a bit much and this is the rushed feeling of some. Lastly, the moderation I'm speaking of is allowing people to float off-topic and pollute the forums with unrelated posts or bickering amongst themselves. Perhaps this is what you want and what you meant by 'drilling down'? If so, then carry on by all means, but know it is off-putting for some.
Enna
Regarding time. I personally would prefer more time between each CDP. They are exhausting for everyone involved, however that doesn't seem to be what people want.
Thanks for answering me directly. Firstly, if the format of the CDP were structured properly, there would be little 'teaching' involved, it would be pretty straightforward - which is the goal I assume? Wouldn't this then, allow for a broader promotion of the CDP to get more people involved? I get that it would have to be moderated a bit more, but this is a ship you're captaining and a hearty crew gets the job done better than a skeleton crew I would think (but then again, this is your area of expertise, not mine). Secondly, having a broader scope of ideas, suggetions and opinions might bring a new and welcomed perspective. Thirdly, I understand that you've given time when time was requested, but running two CDP's along side one another, when time is an issue for some who would like to contribute to both is a bit much and this is the rushed feeling of some. Lastly, the moderation I'm speaking of is allowing people to float off-topic and pollute the forums with unrelated posts or bickering amongst themselves. Perhaps this is what you want and what you meant by 'drilling down'? If so, then carry on by all means, but know it is off-putting for some.
Enna
Regarding time. I personally would prefer more time between each CDP. They are exhausting for everyone involved, however that doesn't seem to be what people want.
Chris
Then give more time. Treat it like a Michelin Star dining experience. Let people savour the flavorings and digest each course before moving on to the next one. :P
Just call me Enna... Enna Backpetal Cleric Enna F Backpetal Fighter
> @backpetal#6044 said: > (Quote) > Then give more time. Treat it like a Michelin Star dining experience. Let people savour the flavorings and digest each course before moving on to the next one. :P
(Sorry I mean more time between CDPs. For sure each CDP and each stage within it has ended later than it should have done. Some marginally and some by a wider factor.)x
Section removed removed above. Yes I see what you mean.
It is my hope we can come up with solutions that relieve the burden for all of us and sharpen what is already a valuable tool. Because I can say for sure the CDP has been extremely valuable so far but the time, and emotional sanity cost (-: has been high.
Every game I have worked on since around 2010 has had a core pillar of ensuring the team is evolving, maintaining and pioneering on the business side. Business isn’t a dirty word for developers anymore or a taboo. Like any hobby spending should be fun and feel like an investment and so of course team members are integral to that on top of ensuring that any work we do has a good chance of Return on Investment. It is a balance.
The philosophy you describe above just isn’t part of the modern game industry anymore. I would go one step further as shown by the CDP VIP whereby I believe the community voice around the business is also integral to a healthy product, community and team.
Chris
P.S: for further clarity I also haven’t been on a team where a finance group drives decisions in terms of product experience (which includes monetization). In regard to budget we have agreed goals but outside of that we have everything we need in terms of the team and support groups to mange the business. Therefore I have always and will always promote teams to be thinking about every part of the user experience including monetization as each part of the user experience impacts the players compulsion to spend.
I think we might be getting a little off topic now? Although I had thought that certain aspects of development that relate to the CDP were more well known. I will do a better job moving forward of being more sensitive to this.
Well, it is the part of the game industry, especially when a company grows after a size where administration costs start to skyrocket. But yes, it's the standard textbook example of how to go with things in a simple manner in a corporate environment. If you have 2 person or 2 different branch presenting the 2 viewpoint and they interact in a predetermined manner, it keeps the administrative costs in-check and keeps the company productive.
But I also want to note that I admire and prefer the solution you are presenting. Mostly, because I agree, this is a more modern approach, more flexible and this and the digitalization and widespread ways of publishing and just copying other monetization models (or the rise of finance options as kickstarter and patreon) made the gaming community much richer. And also, thanks for letting us know!
> @theraxin#5169 said: > (Quote) > Well, it is the part of the game industry, especially when a company grows after a size where administration costs start to skyrocket. But yes, it's the standard textbook example of how to go with things in a simple manner in a corporate environment. If you have 2 person or 2 different branch presenting the 2 viewpoint and they interact in a predetermined manner, it keeps the administrative costs in-check and keeps the company productive. > > But I also want to note that I admire and prefer the solution you are presenting. Mostly, because I agree, this is a more modern approach, more flexible and this and the digitalization and widespread ways of publishing and just copying other monetization models (or the rise of finance options as kickstarter and patreon) made the gaming community much richer. And also, thanks for letting us know!
Your welcome Theraxin. I/we need to do a better job of giving more context where it is required and where possible. Sometimes I take CDP member knowledge of some of our inner workings for granted. This said we generally try to answer all questions so that is worth bearing in mind as well.
1) Perhaps impose a word count maximum 2) Have one thread for posting ideas and a second or multiple threads for discussing them "Popular Voting and Influence - Discussion" One idea per post in the idea thread. Close the idea thread at same cadence, let the discussions continue. 3) Provide clearer guidance to posters such as:
no need to justify your idea, just state it and explain it
assume all ideas are viewed and evaluated fairly by a group of people with years of industry experience
no place for pessimism
make some effort to evaluate your proposed solution / suggestion in light of business and market realities
4) Please don't bring more people in until the catch up burden is addressed 5) The template should remain a little burdensome to ensure people put thought into their ideas and cut down on throw away 6) I agree with the earlier suggested template structure but find the audience types a little too far ranging - might be worth establishing a canonical set of these and providing a clear description of each. A counterpoint to this is I'm pretty sure you can establish which groups would be impacted by a suggestion at a glance so this may be unneeded filler.
Finally I have a question about the intent of the CDP, apologies if this has been answered elsewhere. Many suggestions I've seen are iterative or derivative - "Let's fix skill nodes to have meaning again by doing this". Is there any appetite for suggestions that go further - "Here's a new way to make skills matter and be fun"
For those struggling to understand why some of us are proposing character or word limits on original proposals, please allow me to attempt to explain.
1. This idea isn't for your benefit; it's for the benefit of those who do not have the time to read novelettes or are discouraged from participating in the CDP after seeing walls of unnecessarily verbose text. 2. The ability to state a point concisely promotes clear communication of an idea by using only substantive information. 3. Detailed explanations, pseudo-philosophical justifications or digressive self-validation should be left for a tree or thread structure for those who have the time or passion to engage about a very specific idea.
The idea of minimizing posts just to ideas and info in phase 1 which has been raised a few times makes sense (That is the intent of P1 but we probably should have been clearer). It is ok to ask for clarification and build on someone elses idea using the format (whatever we agree for Phase 1 idea format) but in Phase 2 we can point to certain ideas and discuss them during phase 2. This is a proposal based on what i have read so far, not definitive.
Comments
In regards to your above comment, is the purpose of CDP not about what the masses in general desire, especially ideas that are also healthy for the game in itself? Correct me if this wasn't how you decided on what factors were the most important by looking at the most popular ideas in the previous CDP threads? Why then would you want your current CDP participants to dwindle? Seems very counter intuitive. An interesting fact, scroll through this thread and tell me if the general population is not normalised to its original passionate populate? Nothing wrong with that if the whole purpose of CDP was to cherry pick these passionate people for constructive feedback. You may want to consider if that is what the masses desire. Just because a suggestion is more healthy for the game does not automatically make it the most desired , you are after all catering to your customers i.e. playerbase and not vice versa and there needs to be a balance between the both.
As for the roadmap, then does that not provide a confidence boost in itself, otherwise why was it released to the playerbase? You may want to highlight your implementations in the CDP, it should work in your favour.
Suggestions
I think the emphasis as of right now should be on the structure of CDP and not the layout of responses. We should not expect to educate the masses to format their responses, we should instead make following CDP easier for them, so that their suggestions can contribute to the ambiguities in the discussions rather than become a source of loophole.
Moreover, there is nothing dubious or unhealthy about a voting system. If anything they provide an indication of the general consensus and what really should be of concern is how Chris and the staff weight it as. If voting only forms a small part of their decision making, it is but, a helpful piece of side information.
The proposals, the questions, the arguments exchanges would be a lot easier to follow if they are in the same format as the youtube comments; a new comment is the proposal, and other can reply for argumentation, and one can hide the replay section of each post/comment to read only the proposals to see if someone shared the same idea.
when cwhitesidedev call for phase 3, we can reply to that post with our top 3.
In my opinion this is the basic to make the cdp readable and understandable.
Problems:
1. Current Forum Setup Limits usability of CDP, causes feedback to be lost, and creates false impressions of subject popularity
2. Data mining CDP feedback requires Manual homogenization
3. Large part of the player community still doesn't know what the CDP initiative is about, or that it even exists.
Possible Solutions:
1. Forum Setup
- Implement Threading technology for the forum, then default each thread to be collapsed, then aggressively moderate so that only new ideas, or announcements are at the top of each thread. Responses/ arguments would all be contained under the Original Posters thread.
2. Enabling Data Mining
- The current forum is using a database back-end to store post data, Create a form template for CDP usage with drop down selection for certain sections to help categorize the post, and of course have a free text section on the form.
This would create a more consistent feedback format that would then enable a database query to "dump out" the CDP feedback to a report for easier data consumption and better insights.
- How this would work:
- The current forum software does support custom plugins, so it wouldn't be a stretch to create a CDP form web page.
- The user goes to that page
- User Selects items from predefined drop downs (topic, category, etc)
- each form entry would be limited to 1 feedback option each (so if you have 10 topics, it would be 10 forms)
- when completed the form submission would write the meta-data to a database, and submit the form as a new thread under the correct CDP
- Vanilla has a full set of API hooks available, so doing this should be between 4 and 20 hours of web/ Database development time, and require minimal database entry time for each new CDP
- When a CDP is finished, a summary post could be auto generated from the database, and posted before a proposal.
** This same type of process could be used for submitting bugs to the Forum, which would improve defect tracking! Imagine just being able to create a database report to see all new bug reports from the forum.
3. Lack of Community Knowledge of the CDP initiative
- Evangelize! Evangelize! Evangelize!
- There should be daily posts to Social Media (twitter, facebook, etc) while a CDP is running
- There should be a link that describes what the CDP process is about and what the goals of the process are that is easily seen at the front of the Games homepage
- There should be a CDP advertisement on the game launcher... Something like "What to help steer the future of the game? then check out the CDP initiative, see x for details"
Guild Leader: Mistaken Identity (formerly Midnight Express)
My Twitch Stream
See my Youtube Channel for guides and more
"Don't ever become a pessimist... a pessimist is correct oftener than an optimist, but an optimist has more fun, and neither can stop the march of events."
1. Simpler recommended formatting
I like the proposal of @thefabricant: Problem, Solution (and optional: affected player groups, possible side-effects)
2. Simplify CDP phases (or make the transition from one phase to the next more obvious)
Personally, I would like just two phases:
- the "ideas" phase and
- the "top 3" phase.
Looking at the discussion in the previous CDPs, I never really saw any difference in the discussion, when Chris urged us to transit from the "ideas" phase to the "drilling in" phase. I think the problem is the following: The "drilling in" phase requires exceptional discipline by all participants (quite unrealistic). Furthermore, I find it good, in fact necessary, that the late-comers to the discussion can still post their ideas in the subsequent phase(s). This means, any attempt to enforce the necessary discipline for the "drilling in" phase would result in the (unwanted) outcome, that late-comers could not share their ideas.
Other thoughts:
I find the CDP takes up A LOT OF TIME. I applaud the devs, in particular Julia and Chris, for the huge amount of time they are investing. That is exceptional and merits an EXTRA THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
Having said this, due to personal time constraints (I have a full-time job) it becomes nearly impossible to participate in the CDP topics in the way I would like. It also takes me a rather long time (up to a week) until I fire off my first post in a new CDP. This is a personal limitation, and I am aware that this limitation need not apply to other CDP participants. However, from my personal point of view I am in favor of:
- more focused topics
- more time for every topic (there is a conflict of interest here: We would like quick results)
- keep it simple (a minimum number of "rules")
What I am not so much in favor of:
- a tree structure (this will fracture the discussion even more into small pieces, that are difficult to follow)
- polls or formalized voting (for reasons already explained by other posters. Note that the current rating system for individual posts is ok, except for "LOL" - no dire need to change it)
Generally I think the CDP is in a VERY GOOD SHAPE ALREADY.
We should not overburden it with "improvements", in particular not with features or formalities that take time to implement and/or are difficult to enforce.
The most important features imo are:
- we, the players, can share ideas freely - in a rather free and forgiving format. DON'T CHANGE THAT
- the devs are making a huge effort to read everything. PLEASE CONTINUE (although I realize how exhausting this must be)
Anything else is secondary for me.
Furthermore, how the devs use the ideas, how they weight them, how they allocate the internal resources (over the next two years) to gradually implement them, is entirely up to them. I trust, that they will do this in the most efficient way possible, with the limited resources they have.
First off, I will reflect on the past twitch streams, in particular the recent one which I was a part of featuring chris and noworries discussing the previous CDP.
It had the following advantages (in my opinion):
- It makes the community feel "engaged with."
- It attracts some viewership, acts as a form of advertisement.
I think these are the disadvantages:- Its a poor format for doing a question and answers discussion. There is less time to formulate replies, which in some cases can lead to unsatisfactory or poor replies been given.
- It is decentralized, making it hard to go back and find later if people are wanting to refer to it.
- It is slower than other mediums, text is a much quicker way of answering questions.
And I think these were things that we as the panel could have done better:Now, on the subject of twitch itself as an indicator. I think in some cases it can act as an indicator for success of a game. For example, pvp games usually live or die by how successful they are for spectating. In other cases however, I think it is a poor indicator of overall success of a game. Certainly, it is never a bad thing for a game to be popular on Twitch, but not being popular on Twitch does not mean a game is not selling well. For example, the civilization games sell exceptionally well and yet basically nobody watches them on Twitch. Twitch in no way indicates the market success of these games, they simply do not make good games to stream. I think the same argument can be extended to some degree towards PVE focused MMOs.
At best, a PVE MMO is popular on Twitch for short periods of time when there is some new challenging content and groups are trying to overcome it. People watch groups struggling with the challenge on Twitch because there is some excitement in seeing them progress. Once that initial excitement dies off however and groups have the new content on farm mode, the initial burst of viewership on Twitch dies down again. This makes Twitch as an indicator for PVE focused MMOs, at best in my opinion, cyclical. It can only be used to measure success during the peaks when new challenging content is released.
As far as advertising the CDP via Twitch, well, these are what I see as the advantages of it:
- It forces people who want to be involved in the CDP to watch Twitch, which in theory boosts viewership.
- It provides Twitch streamers with additional content.
- It gives the community some sense of being engaged with.
These are, in my opinion the disadvantages of it:To mitigate this the process itself could be broken into more phases, with some emphasis on spending time exploring the root problems and opportunities.
Phase:
1. Identify opportunities and problems.
- Initial form allows for a short description of a problem or opportunity contributor sees in game
- Dev team could contribute to this list, this should be interactive after all, and not just be problems or opportunities seen by the user community.
- this phase would not allow for solutions to be tendered, as it would be about gathering issues seen, so that the roots can be found
- sub thread these discussions, and allow the user to "adjust" or withdraw short description from consideration for the next phase
- lock forum threads
- phase closes, at which point each "problem" or "opportunity" is vetted/ homogenized and loaded to a data table
2. Offer Solutions
- Solutions form loads for the contributor allowing them to select a problem or opportunity cited in phase #1
- Solution would have a short description, as well as long form text to go into details
- lock forum threads
- phase closes, at which point each solution short description is vetted/ homogenized and loaded to a data table
3. Pick your favorite x number of problems/ opportunities and solutions
- load a form that allows you to choose up to x problem/ solution pairs.
- phase closes generating a report showing counts for each pairing
- Dev team creates a proposal and submits on forum
4. Discuss Proposal/ Summary
- freely discuss the proposal for x time
Forum sub threading structure should look like this:
CDP Topic > Phase > Original Post > discussion
Example:
CDP on CDP
...> Define Opportunities or Problems
......> Sifting through forums for Original ideas difficult
............> you are wrong!!!..
............> oh yeah this... totally dude
......> Large part of community unaware of CDP
...> Offer Solutions
......> Solution for "Sifting through forums..". Sub threading the forums...
............> yeah that could work
............> maybe we should just ditch forums
............> that just isn't technically feasible
............> Troll-a-lol-a-lol-lol-lol
...> Pick your Favorite Solutions
Guild Leader: Mistaken Identity (formerly Midnight Express)
My Twitch Stream
See my Youtube Channel for guides and more
"Don't ever become a pessimist... a pessimist is correct oftener than an optimist, but an optimist has more fun, and neither can stop the march of events."
But for a current example, that's why the VIP CDP was... pretty strange and that's why some people more coincidentally than they probably realized pointed it out that they feel it as more of a PR move. Because, it probably should have been just a PR thing. Collect player data what they would like to be in VIP, structure it financially and push it onto the developing/design team to do. In a sense, calling players to vote at Phase 3 probably was the most important part of the VIP CDP as it signals (probably pretty incorrectly) how well certain changes would lead to people buying it.
And also that's where I can, sometimes, absolutely agree with sharpedge that in certain decisions, finance should have zero and PR should be marginalised in influence and that making a vote system on them distorts the project or the vision. But also, most of the decisions being integral to the vision and the game, probably don't reach CDP anyway.
> (Quote)
> Now, while I have zero insight into Cryptic, balance is not really the good word for it. It has to be separated. I'm sorry, but developers should have zero or at least minimal say in monetization (except maybe the leading developer/designer who can inform how certain models can be fit in), but also, any development decision that does not relate to finance, should not be told to change by the finance part (PR can set red flags, but that's an other thing). In some companies, the lead designer is placed in a higher position than finance to make sure that monetization does not creeps into parts where it should be separate from to the detriment of the vision or the entire project. Because that's why you can find a ton of pretty buggy or outright broken game shipped. It's a vision corrupted by the push for finance, which ironically fail to justify it's costs as both part is necessary for success.
>
> But for a current example, that's why the VIP CDP was... pretty strange and that's why some people more coincidentally than they probably realized pointed it out that they feel it as more of a PR move. Because, it probably should have been just a PR thing. Collect player data what they would like to be in VIP, structure it financially and push it onto the developing/design team to do. In a sense, calling players to vote at Phase 3 probably was the most important part of the VIP CDP as it signals (probably pretty incorrectly) how well certain changes would lead to people buying it.
>
> And also that's where I can, sometimes, absolutely agree with sharpedge that in certain decisions, finance should have zero and PR should be marginalised in influence and that making a vote system on them distorts the project or the vision. But also, most of the decisions being integral to the vision and the game, probably don't reach CDP anyway.
Every game I have worked on since around 2010 has had a core pillar of ensuring the team is evolving, maintaining and pioneering on the business side. Business isn’t a dirty word for developers anymore or a taboo. Like any hobby spending should be fun and feel like an investment and so of course team members are integral to that on top of ensuring that any work we do has a good chance of Return on Investment. It is a balance.
The philosophy you describe above just isn’t part of the modern game industry anymore. I would go one step further as shown by the CDP VIP whereby I believe the community voice around the business is also integral to a healthy product, community and team.
Chris
P.S: for further clarity I also haven’t been on a team where a finance group drives decisions in terms of product experience (which includes monetization). In regard to budget we have agreed goals but outside of that we have everything we need in terms of the team and support groups to mange the business. Therefore I have always and will always promote teams to be thinking about every part of the user experience including monetization as each part of the user experience impacts the players compulsion to spend.
I think we might be getting a little off topic now? Although I had thought that certain aspects of development that relate to the CDP were more well known. I will do a better job moving forward of being more sensitive to this.
Any of my comments not posted in orange are based on my own personal opinion and not official.
Any messages written in orange are official moderation messages. Signature images are now fixed!
I would like to point out that "Vanilla" has a full set of API endpoints, the ability to create custom Restful API's / plugins, and the ability to get into and customize a lot of the behaviors in the forum functionality. Can we please forgo from the "Tech limitation" excuses, and instead let the dev team determine viability. I would hope we can have these CDP's and not use technical limitations as an excuse, in reality pretty much anything is possible; it's just a matter of the cost to benefit ratio to determine viability, and resource availability to determine timeliness. I just find that erecting barriers like "tech limitations" tends to artificially stifle creativity, and even if there are limitations, can prevent otherwise good ideas that inspire other changes from being brought forward. Thanks
Guild Leader: Mistaken Identity (formerly Midnight Express)
My Twitch Stream
See my Youtube Channel for guides and more
"Don't ever become a pessimist... a pessimist is correct oftener than an optimist, but an optimist has more fun, and neither can stop the march of events."
I mostly see issues with Method/Scoping and the Medium. Most of those issues have already been mentioned, so will try to be short and appologize for threading on grass that someone else already mowed.
Method/Scoping
Right now the CDPs are large in scope, trying to tackle major areas of concern. I get that, because the issues in that area are often linked. However the large scope also invites proposals of a matching width. Leading to many-facetted proposals. These will contain a lot of good and some invitable dross. Minor points are singled out and picked apart, often to the detriment of the actual point someone is trying to get across.
I feel the CDP could be improved by the implementation of a multi step process. Where we first use less detailed proposals to identify the important areas of concern within the scope and then have people further detail their ideas in a second step.. think "brown paper session" dot voting and/or bringing the top 3's to earlier in the process. I feel this would improve focus on the most worthwile areas.
Medium
To me, the forums, in their current setup, as a medium for the CDF is a terrible choice. Having some experience in the field, I figure there is a reason development/design teams rarely if ever use plain chronological fora for this kind of work. Even when working with large groups of stakeholders (in our case, the Neverwinter Community at large). Others have already mentioned many reasons why a forum is problematic.
Combining the two, I would suggest that, while the forum would be ok-ish, for an initial round of idea gathering, a second phase for detailing out proposals would need better tooling. But not sure if there is room to explore that as an option. Also not suggestion we go to Userforge or something overblown, but some of the better threading options people have mentioned, or something more slack-like (still chaotic, but with more options to split of threads on their own), would be a boon.
Either way, I do realize that such changes would increase the required control/moderation level for the CDP process as a whole. With all the concequences that come with that (financial, resources, etc.). On top of additional investments. But I also obviously feel it would be worth it. The current levels of chaos in the big CDPs (even without the disturbing levels of off-topic and/or veiled ad-hom) are losing the CDP process people and ideas.
All CDP's have had phases. If we could eliminate banter during the first phase for ease-of-reading, that would be awesome. Just post your thoughts and be done with it until the next phase. I have spoken to several people who feel intimidated/time limited by the amount of back and forth between just a handful of individuals in the initial phase. Additionally, just having a gestation period for the amount of information that is provided by everyone can't be a bad thing. All CDP's have had a 'rushed' feeling to them so far.
During Phase 2 let the banter roll on with a summarization of Phase 1. This could be done in a separate thread or a continuation of the current CDP thread (or you could open it up to a reddit-style continuation), but at least those coming into the CDP initially (even up to the day before phase 2 starts!) will know that the first 1 through X pages are JUST proposal/suggestion/thoughts and it would induce a far better read than sifting through – and trying to make sense of – the discussions.
As the CDP rolls into Phase 3, it will become abundantly clear during Phase 2 what the final thoughts are that would then lead to the proposal.
This is sounding super familiar isn't it? The key to making this work is actually moderating the forum , which, in my opinion, has been severely lacking in all the CDP's to date.
And this, for me, was very disturbing: Chris, I get that you want a group of collaborators that are smart and dedicated, but this is super off-putting to me. You say you want the community to collaborate and yet you don't. Which is it?
Enna
Enna Backpetal Cleric
Enna F Backpetal Fighter
Twitch Me Baby One More Time
I feel like Micky's Stack exchange forum would fit in well in this scenario. I agree that sometimes critiquing actually forms the basis of an evolved discussion but more often than not, it actually leads to heated debates. If you disagree with a particular mentioned suggestion, state the suggestion (without quoting), with your reasons and move on. But if the above is implemented, then basically the parent thread will contain replies, these replies can contain comments within them (more like youtube) and any critiquing could strictly take place there without disrupting the flow of CDP at the detriment of making people lose interest.
In addition, it would be wise to see what Chris and his team consider as good suggestions. Sometimes we can see this in Chris' approval in his replies and for me personally, i tend to follow those topics closely. Once again, no matter how good you may consider your suggestion to be, it all boils down to the whim of the developer/s and why not, they have to consider their resources, business model, work ethics and the longevity of the suggestion, among many other things. I would love to see a tag introduced where developers could highlight impressive suggestions.
Next, i also believe that there should be a search function whereby the forum can be changed from its chronological order to top voted comments at the first thread and so on. Other ways of making the CDP more flexible would be to allow players to search for approved suggestions (as mentioned above) and they would then take precedent and appear at the first thread. You may also consider introducing an honourable tag ( by the developers) for individuals that have been contributing to the CDP beyond the developer/s expectations and as above, these individual/s responses to be search-able.
Moreover, if each comment could be numbered, i could simply refer to i agree with Person A's comment at 1. My top 3 choices are comments 1, 2,3. If you want to quote a specific part of someone's comment, then simply use the quote function. This simply avoids people quoting whole comments when only a proportion of it was required. It also makes navigating and even footnoting specific comments without having to quote the whole comment.
I also was thinking if the developer's could give some insight to each new CDP topic i.e. their plans, what they in general think about that CDP topic so that it may act as the building blocks for the playerbase's suggestions. That is also why i mentioned that CDP is all about reading other suggestions and brainstorming it and then presenting with your own version of suggestion and something Sharp has greatly helped with.
> As I read this and attempt to assimilate my thoughts (not easy, as I'm recovering from surgery and the mind is a bit murky) I am hit, once again, by the shear number of posts by several people defending/discussing their intial points of view.
>
> All CDP's have had phases. If we could eliminate banter during the first phase for ease-of-reading, that would be awesome. Just post your thoughts and be done with it until the next phase. I have spoken to several people who feel intimidated/time limited by the amount of back and forth between just a handful of individuals in the initial phase. Additionally, just having a gestation period for the amount of information that is provided by everyone can't be a bad thing. All CDP's have had a 'rushed' feeling to them so far.
>
> During Phase 2 let the banter roll on with a summarization of Phase 1. This could be done in a separate thread or a continuation of the current CDP thread (or you could open it up to a reddit-style continuation), but at least those coming into the CDP initially (even up to the day before phase 2 starts!) will know that the first 1 through X pages are JUST proposal/suggestion/thoughts and it would induce a far better read than sifting through – and trying to make sense of – the discussions.
>
> As the CDP rolls into Phase 3, it will become abundantly clear during Phase 2 what the final thoughts are that would then lead to the proposal.
>
> This is sounding super familiar isn't it? The key to making this work is actually moderating the forum , which, in my opinion, has been severely lacking in all the CDP's to date.
>
> And this, for me, was very disturbing:(Quote)
> Chris, I get that you want a group of collaborators that are smart and dedicated, but this is super off-putting to me. You say you want the community to collaborate and yet you don't. Which is it?
>
> Enna
Hi Backpetal,
Quite a few topics to cover in your post. I will start with your direct question to me. My answer is in regard to CDP members advocating widely broadcasting the CDP. Currently we do not have the time to manage a huge influx of players into the CDP both in terms of actual time and in terms of time required to bed in and help teach large groups of new members (frankly it is hard enough to get the current CDP group to understand the goals and best working practices of the CDP (this is natural and getter better- bedding in or storming phase) and CDP members will note how often I focus on helping the group in these areas rather than focusing on the current discussion.
Not sure how to better explain it. It is economies of scale and at the moment we have a good spectrum of player type and more players joining by word of mouth every day which is a manageable healthy flow. You yourself mention how energy can be better diverted in regard to off topic posts, small cases of bickering and so on. Imagine this but on a much grander scale. I have been there and would rather not go there again. What do you feel like you are currently missing by not having 1000’s of extra posts in each CDP? The days of ‘polling’ to build a product in many business sectors are gone. What player types do you think are missing from the current CDP or team member? Please also don’t forget we have massive amounts of legacy and real time data to go with the CDP and team skill set and experience.
Regarding rushing CDPs: none have been rushed at all and when more time has been requested it has been granted. In each CDP thus far we have seen each phase naturally slow down leading to off topic discussion and so on.
Also you say the CDPs haven’t been moderated. What do you mean by moderated? Each one has been guided, drilled into and phases called out at different times. Many of the questions you ask make me wonder how closely you have followed each CDP. No negativity here and no doubt the volume of discussion, pacing and format are a hinderance in that area however that is the whole point of this CDP.
I feel like you answer some of your own questions or concerns in your post.
I do like your specific format suggestions and will be thinking about them .
Chris
> Most of the CDP is actually individuals pinpointing a single phrase of another individual and assembling a completely different topic based on that. I utterly despise such posts because they stray away from the heart of the discussion and often lead to the populous mess we have to skim read and waste our time on. Staying and sticking to the topic is an integral part of any discussion, especially an evolving one and the reason why the CDP topics feel like a thesaurus is because we branch out to specific topics not intended for that particular CDP, sometimes for the sake of the argument.
>
> I feel like Micky's Stack exchange forum would fit in well in this scenario. I agree that sometimes critiquing actually forms the basis of an evolved discussion but more often than not, it actually leads to heated debates. If you disagree with a particular mentioned suggestion, state the suggestion (without quoting), with your reasons and move on. But if the above is implemented, then basically the parent thread will contain replies, these replies can contain comments within them (more like youtube) and any critiquing could strictly take place there without disrupting the flow of CDP at the detriment of making people lose interest.
>
> In addition, it would be wise to see what Chris and his team consider as good suggestions. Sometimes we can see this in Chris' approval in his replies and for me personally, i tend to follow those topics closely. Once again, no matter how good you may consider your suggestion to be, it all boils down to the whim of the developer/s and why not, they have to consider their resources, business model, work ethics and the longevity of the suggestion, among many other things. I would love to see a tag introduced where developers could highlight impressive suggestions.
>
> Next, i also believe that there should be a search function whereby the forum can be changed from its chronological order to top voted comments at the first thread and so on. Other ways of making the CDP more flexible would be to allow players to search for approved suggestions (as mentioned above) and they would then take precedent and appear at the first thread. You may also consider introducing an honourable tag ( by the developers) for individuals that have been contributing to the CDP beyond the developer/s expectations and as above, these individual/s responses to be search-able.
>
> Moreover, if each comment could be numbered, i could simply refer to i agree with Person A's comment at 1. My top 3 choices are comments 1, 2,3. If you want to quote a specific part of someone's comment, then simply use the quote function. This simply avoids people quoting whole comments when only a proportion of it was required. It also makes navigating and even footnoting specific comments without having to quote the whole comment.
>
> I also was thinking if the developer's could give some insight to each new CDP topic i.e. their plans, what they in general think about that CDP topic so that it may act as the building blocks for the playerbase's suggestions. That is also why i mentioned that CDP is all about reading other suggestions and brainstorming it and then presenting with your own version of suggestion and something Sharp has greatly helped with.
Some really cool ‘hard’ suggestions and comments here for the group to discuss and evolve. In terms of a good post what we look for is content where the CDP member is clearly thinking about different player types, has an understanding of the subject matter, and with a focus on evolving the game rather than trying to manage an agenda within the current framework of the game. It is really obvious to see when someone is thinking altruistically than myopically for example. We aren’t a work for hire organization so the CDP is essentially a consultancy group that is an extension of the team whose goal is to build worlds together and in this case the evolution of Neverwinter.
A good post isn’t toxic, off topic or focused on anything but the overriding mission of the CDP. The CDP is a working group whereby no matter how hard anyone tries to be a star, garner attention or serve an agenda that isn’t in the best interest of the overall goal the challenges, diamonds in the rough and straight up best evolutions will always win out.
Thanks for your post Sobi and I hope that my reply provides some better context.
Chris
Thanks for answering me directly. Firstly, if the format of the CDP were structured properly, there would be little 'teaching' involved, it would be pretty straightforward - which is the goal I assume? Wouldn't this then, allow for a broader promotion of the CDP to get more people involved? I get that it would have to be moderated a bit more, but this is a ship you're captaining and a hearty crew gets the job done better than a skeleton crew I would think (but then again, this is your area of expertise, not mine). Secondly, having a broader scope of ideas, suggetions and opinions might bring a new and welcomed perspective. Thirdly, I understand that you've given time when time was requested, but running two CDP's along side one another, when time is an issue for some who would like to contribute to both is a bit much and this is the rushed feeling of some. Lastly, the moderation I'm speaking of is allowing people to float off-topic and pollute the forums with unrelated posts or bickering amongst themselves. Perhaps this is what you want and what you meant by 'drilling down'? If so, then carry on by all means, but know it is off-putting for some.
Enna
Enna Backpetal Cleric
Enna F Backpetal Fighter
Twitch Me Baby One More Time
SW:Mouse
OP:MisfitMouse
> Hi Chris,
>
> Thanks for answering me directly. Firstly, if the format of the CDP were structured properly, there would be little 'teaching' involved, it would be pretty straightforward - which is the goal I assume? Wouldn't this then, allow for a broader promotion of the CDP to get more people involved? I get that it would have to be moderated a bit more, but this is a ship you're captaining and a hearty crew gets the job done better than a skeleton crew I would think (but then again, this is your area of expertise, not mine). Secondly, having a broader scope of ideas, suggetions and opinions might bring a new and welcomed perspective. Thirdly, I understand that you've given time when time was requested, but running two CDP's along side one another, when time is an issue for some who would like to contribute to both is a bit much and this is the rushed feeling of some. Lastly, the moderation I'm speaking of is allowing people to float off-topic and pollute the forums with unrelated posts or bickering amongst themselves. Perhaps this is what you want and what you meant by 'drilling down'? If so, then carry on by all means, but know it is off-putting for some.
>
> Enna
Thanks for your clarifications and discussion. Better formatting and exposition of phases would certainly help. Shoring up this area would absolutely allow for the gates to be opened up further. That’s why I keep saying ‘at this current stage’. Like you say the ship structurally just isn’t ready for a bigger crew. And therefore it is a goal to absolutely make the CDP infrastructure more robust to allow for this.
I am sorry. It didn’t really occur to Julia and I that folks would want to heavily participate in both CDPs. That is my mistake and I will ensure it doesn’t happen again.
Chris
Chris
Enna Backpetal Cleric
Enna F Backpetal Fighter
Twitch Me Baby One More Time
> (Quote)
> Then give more time. Treat it like a Michelin Star dining experience. Let people savour the flavorings and digest each course before moving on to the next one. :P
(Sorry I mean more time between CDPs. For sure each CDP and each stage within it has ended later than it should have done. Some marginally and some by a wider factor.)x
Section removed removed above. Yes I see what you mean.
It is my hope we can come up with solutions that relieve the burden for all of us and sharpen what is already a valuable tool. Because I can say for sure the CDP has been extremely valuable so far but the time, and emotional sanity cost (-: has been high.
Chris
But I also want to note that I admire and prefer the solution you are presenting. Mostly, because I agree, this is a more modern approach, more flexible and this and the digitalization and widespread ways of publishing and just copying other monetization models (or the rise of finance options as kickstarter and patreon) made the gaming community much richer. And also, thanks for letting us know!
> (Quote)
> Well, it is the part of the game industry, especially when a company grows after a size where administration costs start to skyrocket. But yes, it's the standard textbook example of how to go with things in a simple manner in a corporate environment. If you have 2 person or 2 different branch presenting the 2 viewpoint and they interact in a predetermined manner, it keeps the administrative costs in-check and keeps the company productive.
>
> But I also want to note that I admire and prefer the solution you are presenting. Mostly, because I agree, this is a more modern approach, more flexible and this and the digitalization and widespread ways of publishing and just copying other monetization models (or the rise of finance options as kickstarter and patreon) made the gaming community much richer. And also, thanks for letting us know!
Your welcome Theraxin. I/we need to do a better job of giving more context where it is required and where possible. Sometimes I take CDP member knowledge of some of our inner workings for granted. This said we generally try to answer all questions so that is worth bearing in mind as well.
Chris
2) Have one thread for posting ideas and a second or multiple threads for discussing them "Popular Voting and Influence - Discussion" One idea per post in the idea thread. Close the idea thread at same cadence, let the discussions continue.
3) Provide clearer guidance to posters such as:
- no need to justify your idea, just state it and explain it
- assume all ideas are viewed and evaluated fairly by a group of people with years of industry experience
- no place for pessimism
- make some effort to evaluate your proposed solution / suggestion in light of business and market realities
4) Please don't bring more people in until the catch up burden is addressed5) The template should remain a little burdensome to ensure people put thought into their ideas and cut down on throw away
6) I agree with the earlier suggested template structure but find the audience types a little too far ranging - might be worth establishing a canonical set of these and providing a clear description of each. A counterpoint to this is I'm pretty sure you can establish which groups would be impacted by a suggestion at a glance so this may be unneeded filler.
Finally I have a question about the intent of the CDP, apologies if this has been answered elsewhere. Many suggestions I've seen are iterative or derivative - "Let's fix skill nodes to have meaning again by doing this". Is there any appetite for suggestions that go further - "Here's a new way to make skills matter and be fun"