In regards to your comment above, i still think there should be no strict requirements regarding the format and the general emphasis should be on
Suggestion/Idea Advantages and disadvantages
The reason is that and as you shall see, it won't be followed and in the event it isn't, what are the consequences?
I also think that late comers should be allowed to make suggestions in phase 2 but the emphasis however will be on critiquing older suggestions. This way the CDP will continue through its normal process and at the same time, we are not limiting new suggestions to phase 1 only. It would be useful if there was a way to identify posts with your proposals because we are still in phase 1 and you have already made a proposal. I am wondering how and if someone who just joined the CDP, will not miss your proposal/s? Any way for you to highlight your comments that are of high importance?
I agree with off-topic and heated debates to be strictly monitored.
I would like to make one single post with multiple suggestions, instead of making a new post for each suggestion. I think that would encourage me to write an extra bit more if my comment looks a little empty and is a tedious process. I recommend encouraging people to add headings for each new suggestion within the same post instead.
Moving forward, i don't think we should be adding more rules for the CDP members to adhere to. That way, we will be left with a very small CDP community and that may or may not represent the majority of the playerbase. Adding more rules also concerns me regarding how the staff may react when those rules are not adhered to. If your general purpose was to encourage people to adhere with the rules then I personally see no problem and thumbs up for me.
A bit late to the party - was busy making summaries - but in my opinion the phases could be enforced very easily via the ideas/proposals from others previously.
1) Create a subforum for each CDP 2) In phase 1, allow people to create threads in that subforum. The thread title has to be a one-liner of the idea (1 idea per thread!). When a thread is created - auto close it immediately to prevent discussion. In case people have very much the same idea or extremely related, think of merging the threads so discussions on the same idea are not in multiple places. 3) When phase 2 starts, open all threads, now people can dig into ideas. Optionally: leave certain topics closed, but make sure to leave a reply why it stayed closed (not feasible idea / offtopic / completely against when cryptic can do etc. - say why) 4) Voting can be done in a seperate voting thread created by the devs. This thread should ONLY have voting without an explanation why you vote for something. Your reasoning if any should be in the thread with the idea or nowhere.
This will result in a more structured CDP with a better overview for everyone.
I mean, things like reddit/stackexchange could also work and maybe even better - but this way you're using existing technology.
A bit late to the party - was busy making summaries - but in my opinion the phases could be enforced very easily via the ideas/proposals from others previously.
1) Create a subforum for each CDP 2) In phase 1, allow people to create threads in that subforum. The thread title has to be a one-liner of the idea (1 idea per thread!). When a thread is created - auto close it immediately to prevent discussion. In case people have very much the same idea or extremely related, think of merging the threads so discussions on the same idea are not in multiple places. 3) When phase 2 starts, open all threads, now people can dig into ideas. Optionally: leave certain topics closed, but make sure to leave a reply why it stayed closed (not feasible idea / offtopic / completely against when cryptic can do etc. - say why) 4) Voting can be done in a seperate voting thread created by the devs. This thread should ONLY have voting without an explanation why you vote for something. Your reasoning if any should be in the thread with the idea or nowhere.
This will result in a more structured CDP with a better overview for everyone.
I mean, things like reddit/stackexchange could also work and maybe even better - but this way you're using existing technology.
Hey Rainer,
Thanks for posting. Isn't this going to mean lots of jumping around for everyone and clicks?
In regards to your comment above, i still think there should be no strict requirements regarding the format and the general emphasis should be on
Suggestion/Idea Advantages and disadvantages
The reason is that and as you shall see, it won't be followed and in the event it isn't, what are the consequences?
I also think that late comers should be allowed to make suggestions in phase 2 but the emphasis however will be on critiquing older suggestions. This way the CDP will continue through its normal process and at the same time, we are not limiting new suggestions to phase 1 only. It would be useful if there was a way to identify posts with your proposals because we are still in phase 1 and you have already made a proposal. I am wondering how and if someone who just joined the CDP, will not miss your proposal/s? Any way for you to highlight your comments that are of high importance?
I agree with off-topic and heated debates to be strictly monitored.
I would like to make one single post with multiple suggestions, instead of making a new post for each suggestion. I think that would encourage me to write an extra bit more if my comment looks a little empty and is a tedious process. I recommend encouraging people to add headings for each new suggestion within the same post instead.
Moving forward, i don't think we should be adding more rules for the CDP members to adhere to. That way, we will be left with a very small CDP community and that may or may not represent the majority of the playerbase. Adding more rules also concerns me regarding how the staff may react when those rules are not adhered to. If your general purpose was to encourage people to adhere with the rules then I personally see no problem and thumbs up for me.
I think we should put forward most things from this CDP as rules but of course if someone wants to post an idea in Phase 2 then they can.
Regarding multiple ideas in one post. Aren't you going to end up with posts that are well formatted walls of text?
> @cwhitesidedev#9752 said: > (Quote) > Hey Rainer, > > Thanks for posting. Isn't this going to mean lots of jumping around for everyone and clicks? > > I will discuss it with Julia tomorrow. > > Chris
Not really. You have a solid base overview with the ideas, if you want to dive into an idea you open it in a seperate tab. Its easier than clicking through the pages of a thread to find an argument imo.
But yea a stack exchange like format would be better exactly in this department, where you can collapse/expand text.
1: Phase 1: Posting of Ideas and related questions (not discussion).
....
Regarding Phase 1 Format: Heading (Idea number)>Goal>Player Value Proposition>High Level Functionality/Description>Concerns and Considerations (Try to limit to 400 words) (Spoiler functionality is welcome should a member want to provide more detail in any of the above headings)
Suggestions: 1. need a clear direction to define what is considered as "related questions" and what is considered as "discussion". 2. need to enforce phase 1. Not sure how though. 3. As suggested, 1 idea per post. 4. "Idea number" should be "author + idea number" such as idea plasticbat#1 instead of just idea #1. When people are editing, you could have (say) 3 idea #22.
Format could be like:
My short title of the idea (plasticbat #1) - Objective wwwww - Why xxxxxxx - How yyyyyyyyyy - Risk zzzzzzz
e.g.
Redo Feature ABC (Platicbat #1) - Objective The feature ABC should be ...... - Why Feature ABC is ..... - How In order to ....... - Risk The downside of .......
*** The game can read your mind. If you want it, you won't get it. If you don't expect to get it, you will. ***
I think we should put forward most things from this CDP as rules but of course if someone wants to post an idea in Phase 2 then they can.
Regarding multiple ideas in one post. Aren't you going to end up with posts that are well formatted walls of text?
Thanks for post Sobi.
Chris
If i have 2 suggestions lets say, i don't want to make two posts for it personally. I sometimes will merge few suggestions together and making each post for them seems... difficult? Wouldn't that also flood the CDP ? My earlier posts had like 5-10 suggestions, would you prefer to see like 10 posts?
My personal approach would be to encourage players to make separate posts where they have too many suggestions per post, instead of advising them to strictly post 1 idea per post. The result would still be more concise, well formatted and easier to follow posts BUT without expecting the CDP member to adhere to dozens of rules. Not only that, if we have summaries like rainer's that already separate each suggestion in excel, that should already make it easy to see the different kind of suggestions already mentioned in the CDP.
In regards to Rainer's recent posts above, I think Rainer is asking about a tree like forum where the CDP thread can contain other threads within it. Stack exchange is boundaries above for the scope of this CDP (in my personal opinion) and would be much less complex and would require much less resources. Just educate players how to collapse their in-depth suggestions (where needbe) and allow any comments to that suggestion to be collapsible. Its going to work wonders when everything is nicely compact within a single thread.
I think we should put forward most things from this CDP as rules but of course if someone wants to post an idea in Phase 2 then they can.
Regarding multiple ideas in one post. Aren't you going to end up with posts that are well formatted walls of text?
Thanks for post Sobi.
Chris
If i have 2 suggestions lets say, i don't want to make two posts for it personally. I sometimes will merge few suggestions together and making each post for them seems... difficult? Wouldn't that also flood the CDP ? My earlier posts had like 5-10 suggestions, would you prefer to see like 10 posts?
My personal approach would be to encourage players to make separate posts where they have too many suggestions per post, instead of advising them to strictly post 1 idea per post. The result would still be more concise, well formatted and easier to follow posts BUT without expecting the CDP member to adhere to dozens of rules. Not only that, if we have summaries like rainer's that already separate each suggestion in excel, that should already make it easy to see the different kind of suggestions already mentioned in the CDP.
In regards to Rainer's recent posts above, I think Rainer is asking about a tree like forum where the CDP thread can contain other threads within it. Stack exchange is boundaries above for the scope of this CDP (in my personal opinion) and would be much less complex and would require much less resources. Just educate players how to collapse their in-depth suggestions (where needbe) and allow any comments to that suggestion to be collapsible. Its going to work wonders when everything is nicely compact within a single thread.
I can see the merits both ways. One 'idea' or 'change' per post keeps everything well organized, but what if there was a CDP on Encounter skills? Do we want each person making 25 posts to adress 25 different encounter skill suggestions or comments?
2
arcticblitzMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 126Arc User
> Question: > > Many of you want a clearer delineation between phases but I don't think it is a good idea to create new threads for each phase simply because of the amount of clicks required to reference data. On the other side the formatting options aren't great here so what other ideas do we have to show clearly where one phase ends and one begins. > > Note this isn't a summary it is a proposal. So with that in mind what am I missing, what do folks disagree with in the proposal etc. > > Thanks > > Chris
Perhaps an updated permanent sticky post that mentions what phase we are currently in (preferably in a large bright font) , I'm not sure of the capability of the forum but having it appear at the top of every comment page in the thread could be good.
Blitzy : PVE only Barbarian
Martin ConDion PVE only Ranger Guild Founder: -HunterS-
Duration of topics and the different phases of each topic (For example, some topics have been 2 weeks while others have been 3-4)
Topics should be 4 weeks. Also, if a topic is going to be open for posting till a certain date have that date up, not till the lock date. Let us know when the posting period is and when the lock date will be. I attempted to post in the last one a day or two before the end date and found the topic was locked despite the discussion still being open.
Choice of discussion topics
*End game viability of companions/adjustments to make companions viable for endgame play vs leveling.
*Ways to KEEP existing players in addition to drawing in and catering to new players.
*Revamping of the current mainhands/offhands (We have had the same set up forever. Need new options, not just stats/set bonuses/skins)
*Ways to align Neverwinter with tabletop D&D (Because the game could use an overhaul in that respect. With the new Baldur's Gate promising to capture the feel of the game and with much better graphics Neverwinter needs to step up its game IMO)
*Revamping of cut-scenes & NPC actions.
*Enhancing Soloplay and Soloplay/smaller group options (It is getting harder and harder to find good groups, allow solo/small group play for some content or create options for such groups).
*Revamping and expanding existing zones. (Where does this door lead? Guess we will never know...)
*Revamping story-lines to form more coherent stories with better flow (No more time gating/repetitive play!)
*Free vs VIP vs Premium (Premium/paid content for those who want it with enhanced game play early, content release, exclusive quests and items, etc. This would generate more funds and give players an option for an even better experience as well as allowing Devs to stretch their wings by allowing them to explore content that didn't quite make it into certain mods?)
*Balancing of items (Some items/powers/companions seem to be so over balanced it is to the point where players call them junk and wonder why they are in the game. In the end most players end up playing the same character as everyone else for end game. I feel this is definitely a topic to be addressed!)
*Ways to keep classes fresh and interesting. (Take a look at the player's handbook. Look at all the options there vs the game we have. We don't necessarily need new classes, just new options be it powers, feats, or paragon paths. Especially for spell casting classes.)
*Upgrade Tokens (Discuss them and whether there should be an option to expand what they can upgrade. For example: mounts. This would allow devs to move away from constantly needing to produce new mounts/powers for lock boxes. Simply put a choice pack and enough upgrade tokens to increase companion/mount/gear to the highest level. It would allow players to focus on the mounts/gear they have already and create a value to otherwise discarded mounts and items (such as the 'toy' items from events).
*The value of novelty/toy items from events. (Discuss whether these items are wanted, used, or in need of a scaling upgrade. Especially if the item is one that has a grind to get it!)
*Refining (Discuss the value of diminishing returns.)
*Character growth beyond/outside stats (This is a role-playing game that has almost no role-playing attached to it. Most players don't grow their character in any way beyond stats and that limits story telling. What could be done to improve this?)
Example: During character creation we are forced to choose a background, deity, ect. Bring these elements into play with chances to play out scenarios or even campaign elements that can be unlocked by character choices. It could be as simple as different rewards for invocation, news in one of the taverns about something happening in the character's homeland (Can be used as foreshadowing), small missions, etc.
Example 2: Give players a place to call home. Give characters something to fight for. A place to put their trophies (these could be hunt trophies, special boss item drops, even an entire dragon or giant skeleton). The structure already exists for improvement if you use something similar the Strongholds progression. Also, this would allow players to exert some creativity of their own by building rooms or structures, etc.
You could tie this into the Promissory Note given to players in the Cloaked Ascendancy mod.
Additionally you could make it where idle companions are put to work in the player's 'lair'. This would create more of a demand for companions and upgrading companions as well. The downside of this is that long term players with lots of companions will have an advantage.
Structure of the thread (For example, a thread is left open during the full duration of the discussion phase vs. closing it periodically to do “thread so far” summaries) Summary threads would be great, but posted separately from the main thread so that it doesn't get buried. Maybe pinned under the initial post?
Also, suggest how the problem might be solved with elements already present in the game. (Example: Change dungeon scaling to the number of players running it the way Demonic Heroic encounter are scaled.) Feedback format (How can the feedback be presented in an organized and structured manner while not being constraining?)
An open suggestion format would be better than a more formal format. Expectations of the CDP I personally would like to see some sort of dev note that tells those involved what suggestions are being looked into from the discussion. There is a lot of distrust about this project and this would show that this is being taken seriously.
About the 1 idea / post, I have a personal issue about that (not that I can't overcome it :P).
Sometimes, ideas/suggestions are built upon a more large vision (sometimes even global), or are intricated in each others, or are derivated from one to another. Severing the link or compartmentalizing can loose the logic between each others, and maybe one of the ideas doesn't make many sense (or less) without the other.
For PvP my ideas it could be (not yet posted, still in the process of writing it and unsure if i can do it on time), if i want to make them short : - "more wild PvP zones in the open world." - "PvP as an alternate way to make the campaign weekly amount (campaign model chult/barovia/avernus) " - "PvP factions to choose for a toon as a longterm choice with asymetrical objectives (RP/gameplay) and very different rewards/shops between one faction to another"
Even though i can considerate each one separately, these 3 are completely linked in my mind and it wouldn't make as many sense separately.
So i'm unsure about a strict format. Maybe more a "recommanded format" and let the unbridled brain a bit more free to go with their own way :P
Sometimes, ideas/suggestions are built upon a more large vision (sometimes even global), or are intricated in each others, or are derivated from one to another. Severing the link or compartmentalizing can loose the logic between each others, and maybe one of the ideas doesn't make many sense (or less) without the other.
So i'm unsure about a strict format. Maybe more a "recommanded format" and let the unbridled brain a bit more free to go with their own way :P
I agree, my view is that the emphasis should be on the number of words per post, instead of strictly 1 idea per post. So if your posts gets too big, try separating some of your suggestions in to two posts, headings used where possible.
Proposal: Add “manual metadata” to posts for ease of reference. Value proposition: Require each post in the CDP to have a header that includes pre-defined and user-defined tags. These can be edited in by mods if contributors fail to enter them sufficiently/correctly, but it should be very easy for authors to maintain on their own. I would propose to include a submission number consisting of a CDP-ID (CDP’s should include their number in the title — they currently do not), the UserName, and User’s own topic number (increment +1 per proposal posted). This will result in a uniquely identifiable numbered proposal. General discussion will have other metadata tags, such as OffTopic, Feedback on , Request for info from Dev...
I strongly recommend not deleting anything but rude/inflammatory posts and just tagging everything appropriately. The reasons for this are numerous: Deleting posts breaks conversation flow. What might seem off topic might in fact breathe new ideas into the conversation and lead to breakthrough innovation. Discussion, even if heated (but respectful) is good! When something seems off topic but clearly the author has put time and effort into it, there is probably a very relevant sentiment somewhere in there. If you remove this information, no one can ask WHY or build on it. I have often seen posts that were lost on me until someone came along and explained them in a clearer manner. For that to happen, the post needs to be there. Deleting posts and handling the aftermath takes time and effort from the CM and moderators. Mental energy too. This is a precious resource that should not be wasted on arguing the validity of a post that is inoffensive. Tagging it as OffTopic should suffice. People can choose to ignore it or read it. Deleting someone’s post automatically demotivates them. If a person is willing to share and expose their thinking, spend time and effort, then at the very least let it stay visible. If you absolutely cannot abide such “interruptions” in the CDP threads, create a “dumping grounds” related to each new CDP where the offending inoffensive posts get moved to. This will help users find out what happened and keep all “irrelevants” in one place in case they are of interest or further discussion needs to take place.
Using such metadata tagging has the additional benefit of making posts easily fall into categories and these can be prescribed at the start of a CDP, allowing better clarity on aspects of a specific topic. For example, when calling for feedback on VIP, prescribed categories could have been: General, feature list, perks, UI, platform-specific, monetization. It would have made it easier to respond and also easier to track feedback. Doing this also helps writers narrow down what they are responding to and helps give clarity on the focus of a post.
Example: This very post would have this header: —————- CDP4Spelldazer2 #Format #General Proposal: Add “manual metadata” to posts for ease of reference blablablabla —————-
Then others could simply refer to CDP4Spelldazer2 in discussion, or in Rainer’s excel or if using separate forum threads for different phases.
Proposal: Hold a mini pre-CDP phase for identifying common themes and top topics Prior to a CDP, for no more than two-three days, open up the problem space for input. Posts shall be no more than 2 sentences long, no discussion to follow, just high level thoughts--one per post, text must be clear and should fit on a post-it.
Goal: Identify top categories in advance of a CDP and then build the CDP call for info around these highlights. It will make it easy to see what community members have on their minds, help set the stage for the CDP and get people thinking about what others have raised. This sort of “pre-planning” has the added benefit of letting devs know what to expect and how best to frame the call for information. The no discussion permitted rule forces the community to respond only after thoughts are then expanded on in the CDP and should therefore prevent some inflammatory off-the-cuff reactions. People will have time to cool off and digest (also prepare ammo and responses, but informed discussion is the point of the CDP, right?).
Example: Let's assume a PvP pre-CDP phase call to action saying: Please post your top ideas on how we might change PvP. Looking at page 1 of the current PvP CDP, responses in the pre-CDP phase would be: Add a way to schedule PvP events in game, just like going to a football game | A whole different set of mounts, companions and gear meant only for PvP | Better rewards for time spent gearing up | Make PvP a standalone game decoupled from PVE | Remove Solo queue | overhaul epic mounts/insignia, to give 70-80% of what legendary one's give | Better rewards | Minimal GS requirement | No kicking from PvP | PvP should have a new mode similar to MOBAs where characters are "normalized" so they start with the same power and stats. | Add observer role to queue to enable spectating |
You don’t need the walls of text that follow these items to already get a sense of what these topics/requests are and just from doing this, I could see duplicate proposals that could have been prevented. People could just “like” an existing post rather than re-post the same topic with different wording.
Risk: It is easy to be tempted to then look at the bucket list that forms in this phase as a substitute for the actual CDP. It’s not the purpose of the pre-CDP phase but it will help focus the CDP discussions and allow devs to ask for specific input on things raised in the pre-CDP list.
Title: Formatting and Multiple forum threads for Phases (@oremonger#9999 #2)
Objective: Explore ways to use the existing toolbar and forum infrastructure to facilitate CDP discussion.
Proposal: Introduce CDP members to the existing formatting options available on the toolbar. Use the formatting thread already in the CDP forum to provide examples for each of the desired format options and provide a template for each phase in that thread that members can copy and paste from. The template should be simple and not include descriptions to promote ease of use.
Example:
( <> formatting altered to show in this example) >b class="Bold">Title / CDP-ID or User name and topic #>/b> >b class="Bold">Objective:>/b>
>b class="Bold">Risks:>/b> >b class="Bold">Player groups affected:>/b>
Would look like: Title / CDP-ID or User name and topic # Objective:
Why:
Placeholder text
How:
Placeholder text
Risks: Player groups affected:
Reorganize the CDP forum to group related information together.
Example:
Welcome to the Collaborative Development Program
CDP Subforum Conduct and Expectations
CDP Format
Neverwinter 2020 High Level Road Map
CDP Topic: Game Content Accessibility (Phase 1)
CDP Topic: Game Content Accessibility (Phase 2)
CDP Topic: Game Content Accessibility (Phase 3)
CDP Topic: Game Content Accessibility (Conclusion / Summary)
CDP Topic: VIP (Phase 1)
CDP Topic: VIP (Phase 2)
CDP Topic: VIP (Phase 3)
CDP Topic: VIP (Conclusion / Summary)
This will allow each section to be locked if needed. For example Phase 1 can be kept open until Phase 3 starts but then it can be locked. By having a thread for each phase the members can open multiple tabs in their respective web browser for reference to the earlier phases or posts. If quotes are needed members can use the quote function from the drop down in the toolbar to make a quote and type in the @handle and post # or CDP-ID of the user quoted. (not perfect but it is comparable to what we are using now minus the quote box and imbedded user information.)
Add a drop down in the toolbar for members to select Meta tags for their post like @spelldazer suggested above.
I realize that several members do not like "rules" and strict formatting. I argue that both rules and formatting are integral to effective communication. I for one have to force myself to read an unformatted wall of text, and to be honest the act of doing that prejudices my opinion of the idea no matter how good it is.
Risks: There is a risk of alienating group members by requiring a more regulated form of feedback. This may result in missing valuable feedback.
There is a risk that members will not seek out the formatting template or even use formatting at all so this would be wasted effort.
There is a risk that members will not open multiple tabs to access the different phases all at once requiring multiple clicks and unnecessary confusion and hassle.
Some members do not use a computer to respond to the CDP so it may be more difficult for them to follow the formatting rules and use multiple tabs.
Groups affected: CDP members, Developers, Moderators, First time visitors
@oremonger#9999 Ireally like your suggestions and I'd love to have dropdowns and templates but honestly, sometimes less is more. The form should not be such a huge issue, in my view. Also, I do most of my forum reading and posting on a phone. The editor options are very limited.
@spelldazer I forgot that some members use their phones. IMO that is a good way to read the forums but I would find it difficult to post that way. I wonder how many other CDP members post from their phones. That would be interesting to find out. Android or Apple? Is this forum presented the same way on both OS?
I've actually started going to my laptop for the sake of the CDP but it's an inconvenience. I play on an xbox. A PC is just not part of my life, really.
If the metadata approach is adopted then each CDP would start out with maybe 5 top level categories. Easy and intuitive to adhere to and also easy to correct after posting. Users can still add new tags/categories and the end result will be (I hope) clearer and easier to follow threads.
I'm not sure how much time @rainer#8575 is having to spend on summarizing the CDPs, but I would hate if that was taking away from the time he is able to spend on his other (IMO very valuable) projects. I think we should make it one of our goals in this CDP to make this process so intuitive and readable that Rainer (or other members) do not need to spend hours combing through pages of feedback to make a summary.
Quite a lot, and it is - you might not expect it but I also have a private life
Objective: Consider asking for a volunteer moderator from the CDP active members to moderate only the CDP section of the forums. (No I'm not volunteering. )
Why: I'm not sure how much time @rainer#8575 is having to spend on summarizing the CDPs, but I would hate if that was taking away from the time he is able to spend on his other (IMO very valuable) projects. I think we should make it one of our goals in this CDP to make this process so intuitive and readable that Rainer (or other members) do not need to spend hours combing through pages of feedback to make a summary. Some off topic posts from earlier CDPs are often valid in later CDPs but the posts are often still in "the depths" so that feedback is lost. Having one dedicated moderator who knows where and why posts were moved would help in getting those post put back into the appropriate CDP.
How: Ask for a volunteer from the active CDP members and give them a well defined set of rules / guidelines to operate from. A volunteer moderator could as part of their duty make summaries every few pages and also move or tag posts as appropriate. This would free up @nitocris83, @kreatyve and other moderators to handle the rest of the forums while insuring someone who is involved / invested in the CDP is moving and moderating posts so that the spirit and flow of the discussion remains intact.
Risks: The normal X does not like Y so Y should not be a moderator The moderation becomes too time consuming Failure to supply well defined guidance and rules could result in chaos The volunteer is not up to the challenge
Groups affected: Current Moderators, Developers and CDP members
@rainer#8575 Thanks again for all of your contributions to the community. I know what you do takes a lot of time. I'm sitting here waiting on a city building inspector so I have a bit of extra time today.
@Spelldazer In reference to CDP3Spelldazer3 #Format #Scoping. I like this idea, but I think this is sorta how Phase 1 was supposed to work anyway. I have a feeling that when we started the CDP people didn't realize how many phases there were so they tried to fit everything into their first post. Chris / Julia often gives us some direction via sub topics and areas to focus on but I have a feeling that many members skip over them in a rush to post their idea, or are confused by the wording of some of the sub topics / focus items.
For example in this CDP:
Duration of topics and the different phases of each topic (For example, some topics have been 2 weeks while others have been 3-4)
Choice of discussion topics
Structure of the thread (For example, a thread is left open during the full duration of the discussion phase vs. closing it periodically to do “thread so far” summaries)
Feedback format (How can the feedback be presented in an organized and structured manner while not being constraining?)
Expectations of the CDP
I have yet to read a discussion about "Expectations of the CDP" or "Choice of discussion topics". But if you also notice both of those sub topics are more open ended and not defined whereas the others provide examples of what they are looking for.
If the CDP is a tool for the Developers then I think they need to set the pace and provide the topics. I was once on the other side of this argument thinking that we the community should provide the topics and the order for CDPs but I see now how that could and would be counterproductive.
And since it looks like I'll be waiting for this inspector all day I'll ask Chris about these two topics in my next post.
I was going to write about CDP expectations and purpose, but I've yet to do that and I'm not sure I want to because I don't think we can get the level of insight we'd like due to lack of NDA etc. and we might be highly disappointed to learn the reality of what this "discussion group" can ultimately expect to achieve. As things stand now, I don't expect the CDP's purpose to be anything more than a way to guage community sentiment, get a feel for what topics need to be considered in any given focus area and maybe pick up some low hanging fruit that can be plugged into the dev cycle. We can call it customer engagement, or collaborative development/discussion/design or whatever. It's semantics. Having gone back to re-read what was posted about the purpose of the CDP, I think many of us simply misunderstood and expected design level collaboration when that is simply not the case. At least not at this stage of the program.
Specifically: "The CDP discussion will help inform the work moving forward and no doubt we will be reaching out for further info, questions and/or thoughts regarding certain topics. We will do this on streams, through mini CDP topics, in some cases calls, emails and of course re-reading and discussing specific posts from this CDP. And we will keep everyone up to date on the progress in these areas both through communication and the preview server."
Once things reach the preview server, it is usually too late to effect change. I hope that what will transpire between now and then will be more iterative collaboration than general discussion. I'm a hopeless optimist.
@rainer#8575 Thanks again for all of your contributions to the community. I know what you do takes a lot of time. I'm sitting here waiting on a city building inspector so I have a bit of extra time today.
@Spelldazer In reference to CDP3Spelldazer3 #Format #Scoping. I like this idea, but I think this is sorta how Phase 1 was supposed to work anyway. I have a feeling that when we started the CDP people didn't realize how many phases there were so they tried to fit everything into their first post. Chris / Julia often gives us some direction via sub topics and areas to focus on but I have a feeling that many members skip over them in a rush to post their idea, or are confused by the wording of some of the sub topics / focus items.
For example in this CDP:
Duration of topics and the different phases of each topic (For example, some topics have been 2 weeks while others have been 3-4)
Choice of discussion topics
Structure of the thread (For example, a thread is left open during the full duration of the discussion phase vs. closing it periodically to do “thread so far” summaries)
Feedback format (How can the feedback be presented in an organized and structured manner while not being constraining?)
Expectations of the CDP
I have yet to read a discussion about "Expectations of the CDP" or "Choice of discussion topics". But if you also notice both of those sub topics are more open ended and not defined whereas the others provide examples of what they are looking for.
If the CDP is a tool for the Developers then I think they need to set the pace and provide the topics. I was once on the other side of this argument thinking that we the community should provide the topics and the order for CDPs but I see now how that could and would be counterproductive.
And since it looks like I'll be waiting for this inspector all day I'll ask Chris about these two topics in my next post.
Hey Ore,
Thanks for your posts as always.
I posted a few pages back and quite a few times prior about what the CDP is. Its pillars, goals, future and so on. To recap:
- It is a dev tool for the whole CDP. - It's purpose is to be part of an engine that builds worlds. - It represents the third part of a triumvirate impacts how we develop in terms of guidance, direction and evolution (Team Experience/skill. Analytics and Metrics. CDP) - It is not a marketing or community initiative in any way shape or form regardless of the fact it can have impact here. - We ask questions that pertain to areas of the game we want to evolve and the CDP directly impacts our direction and execution and this is visible in the proposal at the end of each CDP and soon in terms of execution of the intent. Although if you have been following the CDP closely you will see some intent in execution already. - The team tends to read the areas that concern them the most as well as all the proposals. - The CDP where possible is in lock step with execution as shown in the NW 2020 Roadmap.
Objective: Explore options and boundaries for choosing topics for discussion.
Why: I was not quite sure exactly what you were looking for in this subtopic / focus item so I apologize if I am off base. I know that when I first asked for Polls or a CDP to define topics I did so to try and get topics I felt were urgent into the discussion more quickly. I have since come to understand more of how the CDP works and now I'm not sure if my original "urgent" topics are all that urgent anymore. But for the sake of discussion and to get more guidance on this topic...
How: Hold a short CDP (1-2 week?) asking for topics from the community that we feel are urgent. Use the new CDP format (the one decided upon after this CDP) with all of the phases. From these topics have the developers suggest future CDPs based on this feedback and on their needs and plans for the game.
All of this would come with the understanding that CDPs may pop up that are solely based on developer needs and would take precedence over the ones on list. Once a list is established post a locked thread outlining the future CDPs so that the community can start preparing ideas and feedback in advance. IMO doing it this way will allow for CDPs to progress at a faster pace and the feedback will be more valuable because members will have more time to consider their responses. Members would also get more of a sense of ownership in the process.
My top five topics:
Bug reporting (format, ingame and forums)
Guilds and Strongholds
Professions
Auction House
User interface
Risks: Legacy problems and old discussions will be rehashed Disagreement about what is urgent and what is not will happen Topics that the developers are already working on the the background may come up causing disclosure problems Anger if someone's pet peeve / topic is not on the list Rush of new CDP members when their topic comes up, lack of CDP members when less popular topics come up Probably many many more...
Groups affected: Developers, CDP members, Community as a whole
*EDIT* I was probably working on this post at the same time Chris posted his reply above. I had not read His post yet.
I'm a huge fan of color-coding. When typing something into the forum, we have drop-downs for paragraph styles and emojis, but not for colors. Are there any plugins for the forum software that allow for easy color-coding of text so that we don't have to type in HTML tags? I think that if we also color-coded our idea sections (Objective, Why, How, Risks, etc.) it would go a long way toward differentiating between idea proposals and idea discussion.
Harper Chronicles: Cap Snatchers (RELEASED) - NW-DPUTABC6X Blood Magic (RELEASED) - NW-DUU2P7HCO Children of the Fey (RELEASED) - NW-DKSSAPFPF Buried Under Blacklake (WIP) - NW-DEDV2PAEP The Redcap Rebels (WIP) - NW-DO23AFHFH
My Foundry playthrough channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/Ruskaga/featured
For me, well I was in work but you could say I was away from Neverwinter forum, so I could clear mind and try look to all from other view point..
Now after rest I come with slightly diffferent approach for CDP format..
CDP have 3 phases yes.
So I come to idea why not go like.
Phase 1 (feedback gathering).
Community members write feedbacks based on 2 questions.
What? - Item/object/mechanic/curency ( nore less name of feedback which specify what this feedback is about). Why? - CDP members write simple/quick feedback and reasoning behind.
As example.
CDP Topic: Stronghold. 1) Name: - Dragon flight and marauders events. 2) Reason: - Dragon flight fight is irrelevant due rewards being way outdated, also marauders cause lot of lag spikes.
No suggestions, simple and no wall of text.
Then when CDP topic get near phase 2, topic is closed for certain time( depend on staff preferences).
The time may be spend for staff to read feedbacks again, reiview and picking them.
Also while topic closed, players may have small rest from it, cool down their thoughts. CDP members also can spend time to read own and other members feedbacks and who knows maybe some of feedbacks and view points are very similar.
-------------------------- In phase 2,
Thread is opened once again. Then staff simply use quotes mechanic to call out picked player feedback for more detailed feedback and perhaps asked how he/she would fix(your suggestion). Since some CDP members may wrote feedback about same thing, it may be called out multiple CDP members for their suggestions about that part.
With this allow staff to keep more controlled feedback flow and prevent from offtopic realated comments/posts and over all no blickering between members. That will keep CDP more focused, rather being like ship in middle of exreme sea storm.
When staff decide it's enough of feedbacks then topic is closed for staffs summaries and maybe some thoughts.
----------------------------------------- Now obviously you would ask, where would be debates between CDP members. For that, my friend I think there should be seprated thread in other forum part.
The reasoning why I think we should go in this way is that, one member write one feedback and suggestion, then other disagree about it, and starts useless offtopic comments or become bechmarking who can make largest wall of text.
CDP members want debate, there is other forum part for it. I prefer keep this CDP for feedback gathering. And if staff want, they will call out members by themself. Over all is simple controll CDP topics and preventing them from becoming place for bechmarking who can make largest wall of text.
Now how I come with this idea? I remembered my conversation with few members from my previous guilds.
Some said that it would be nice if Chult/omu and barovia hunts would become big thing once again.. I agree on that,, however main reason why he wanted that is > He have tons of posters (barovia) and lures/trophy(Chult) in his alt account and their Stronghold banks( alts Strongholds).
So we agree that hunts should be back to business, however we had different view points for why it they should back. They wanted make profit by selling hunt things, I want to add more content.. -------------------------
@oremonger#9999 I like that we need extra moderator here. However I think it would be wiser that this CDP forum part would be taken care by experienced moderator. It's very sensitive part of forum, and it's not a place for new moderator to start careers in this place. No offense.
By the way nice formart you proposed, I like it
best regards: Hades
p.s If there are any questions or need clarification, feel free to ask. And yes my english still terrible, perhaps after extra 5 stacks of ghoulish concoction it will improve.
======================================================================== “The masses have never thirsted after truth. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim. Gustave Le Bon. ==================================================
@cwhitesidedev#9752 Thanks for the clarification and recap Chris. Sorry if I got off track. I have a question about two of the subtopics / focus items listed. What kind of feedback are you looking for as it pertains to "Expectations of the CDP" and "Choice of Discussion Topics" ?
I gave "Choice of Discussion topics" a shot above, but I'm not sure that is what you were looking for.
As far as expectations go I think the recap in your last post helped me refine my expectations. The open exchange of ideas and access to you and your staff via this CDP have met and exceeded all of my expectations. Anything more that comes from this exchange is icing on the cake IMO. Just knowing that we are being heard and that our input is being considered is more than I could have hoped for. Thank you for this CDP initiative and your efforts, they are appreciated.
We can only educate CDP participants of the best working practice but these rules should not be obligatory in my opinion. The risk with that approach is that you will be alienating a large number of gamers.
Encourage use of
Headings Smaller comments that are split into two or more if they contain multiple "long" suggestions. Provide templates for different formats i.e. how to use collapsible spoilers etc. To avoid arguments and critiquing in phase 1 where possible (possibly not to quote specific players and just critique their suggestion without calling out to them). Lock CDP after proposal so it is always at the end
@cwhitesidedev#9752 Thanks for the clarification and recap Chris. Sorry if I got off track. I have a question about two of the subtopics / focus items listed. What kind of feedback are you looking for as it pertains to "Expectations of the CDP" and "Choice of Discussion Topics" ?
I gave "Choice of Discussion topics" a shot above, but I'm not sure that is what you were looking for.
As far as expectations go I think the recap in your last post helped me refine my expectations. The open exchange of ideas and access to you and your staff via this CDP have met and exceeded all of my expectations. Anything more that comes from this exchange is icing on the cake IMO. Just knowing that we are being heard and that our input is being considered is more than I could have hoped for. Thank you for this CDP initiative and your efforts, they are appreciated.
You didn't get off track at all. I just posted quoting you because others had asked again for a recap of the high level goal, mission and pillar of the CDP.
And yes we will for sure have a choice of different discussion topics soon. Julia wanted us to do that originally but I wanted the info, discussion and ideas for those CDP topics earlier rather than later and you can see why in the Roadmap.
As always Ore thanks for your contribution, guidance and patience.
Comments
@cwhitesidedev#9752
In regards to your comment above, i still think there should be no strict requirements regarding the format and the general emphasis should be on
Suggestion/Idea
Advantages and disadvantages
The reason is that and as you shall see, it won't be followed and in the event it isn't, what are the consequences?
I also think that late comers should be allowed to make suggestions in phase 2 but the emphasis however will be on critiquing older suggestions. This way the CDP will continue through its normal process and at the same time, we are not limiting new suggestions to phase 1 only. It would be useful if there was a way to identify posts with your proposals because we are still in phase 1 and you have already made a proposal. I am wondering how and if someone who just joined the CDP, will not miss your proposal/s? Any way for you to highlight your comments that are of high importance?
I agree with off-topic and heated debates to be strictly monitored.
I would like to make one single post with multiple suggestions, instead of making a new post for each suggestion. I think that would encourage me to write an extra bit more if my comment looks a little empty and is a tedious process. I recommend encouraging people to add headings for each new suggestion within the same post instead.
Moving forward, i don't think we should be adding more rules for the CDP members to adhere to. That way, we will be left with a very small CDP community and that may or may not represent the majority of the playerbase. Adding more rules also concerns me regarding how the staff may react when those rules are not adhered to. If your general purpose was to encourage people to adhere with the rules then I personally see no problem and thumbs up for me.
1) Create a subforum for each CDP
2) In phase 1, allow people to create threads in that subforum. The thread title has to be a one-liner of the idea (1 idea per thread!). When a thread is created - auto close it immediately to prevent discussion. In case people have very much the same idea or extremely related, think of merging the threads so discussions on the same idea are not in multiple places.
3) When phase 2 starts, open all threads, now people can dig into ideas. Optionally: leave certain topics closed, but make sure to leave a reply why it stayed closed (not feasible idea / offtopic / completely against when cryptic can do etc. - say why)
4) Voting can be done in a seperate voting thread created by the devs. This thread should ONLY have voting without an explanation why you vote for something. Your reasoning if any should be in the thread with the idea or nowhere.
This will result in a more structured CDP with a better overview for everyone.
I mean, things like reddit/stackexchange could also work and maybe even better - but this way you're using existing technology.
Twitch
Patreon
Thanks for posting. Isn't this going to mean lots of jumping around for everyone and clicks?
I will discuss it with Julia tomorrow.
Chris
Regarding multiple ideas in one post. Aren't you going to end up with posts that are well formatted walls of text?
Thanks for post Sobi.
Chris
> (Quote)
> Hey Rainer,
>
> Thanks for posting. Isn't this going to mean lots of jumping around for everyone and clicks?
>
> I will discuss it with Julia tomorrow.
>
> Chris
Not really. You have a solid base overview with the ideas, if you want to dive into an idea you open it in a seperate tab. Its easier than clicking through the pages of a thread to find an argument imo.
But yea a stack exchange like format would be better exactly in this department, where you can collapse/expand text.
Twitch
Patreon
1. need a clear direction to define what is considered as "related questions" and what is considered as "discussion".
2. need to enforce phase 1. Not sure how though.
3. As suggested, 1 idea per post.
4. "Idea number" should be "author + idea number" such as idea plasticbat#1 instead of just idea #1. When people are editing, you could have (say) 3 idea #22.
Format could be like:
My short title of the idea (plasticbat #1)
- Objective
wwwww
- Why
xxxxxxx
- How
yyyyyyyyyy
- Risk
zzzzzzz
e.g.
Redo Feature ABC (Platicbat #1)
- Objective
The feature ABC should be ......
- Why
Feature ABC is .....
- How
In order to .......
- Risk
The downside of .......
My personal approach would be to encourage players to make separate posts where they have too many suggestions per post, instead of advising them to strictly post 1 idea per post. The result would still be more concise, well formatted and easier to follow posts BUT without expecting the CDP member to adhere to dozens of rules. Not only that, if we have summaries like rainer's that already separate each suggestion in excel, that should already make it easy to see the different kind of suggestions already mentioned in the CDP.
In regards to Rainer's recent posts above, I think Rainer is asking about a tree like forum where the CDP thread can contain other threads within it. Stack exchange is boundaries above for the scope of this CDP (in my personal opinion) and would be much less complex and would require much less resources. Just educate players how to collapse their in-depth suggestions (where needbe) and allow any comments to that suggestion to be collapsible. Its going to work wonders when everything is nicely compact within a single thread.
> Question:
>
> Many of you want a clearer delineation between phases but I don't think it is a good idea to create new threads for each phase simply because of the amount of clicks required to reference data. On the other side the formatting options aren't great here so what other ideas do we have to show clearly where one phase ends and one begins.
>
> Note this isn't a summary it is a proposal. So with that in mind what am I missing, what do folks disagree with in the proposal etc.
>
> Thanks
>
> Chris
Perhaps an updated permanent sticky post that mentions what phase we are currently in (preferably in a large bright font) , I'm not sure of the capability of the forum but having it appear at the top of every comment page in the thread could be good.
Martin ConDion PVE only Ranger
Guild Founder: -HunterS-
Topics should be 4 weeks. Also, if a topic is going to be open for posting till a certain date have that date up, not till the lock date. Let us know when the posting period is and when the lock date will be. I attempted to post in the last one a day or two before the end date and found the topic was locked despite the discussion still being open.
Choice of discussion topics
*End game viability of companions/adjustments to make companions viable for endgame play vs leveling.
*Ways to KEEP existing players in addition to drawing in and catering to new players.
*Revamping of the current mainhands/offhands (We have had the same set up forever. Need new options, not just stats/set bonuses/skins)
*Ways to align Neverwinter with tabletop D&D (Because the game could use an overhaul in that respect. With the new Baldur's Gate promising to capture the feel of the game and with much better graphics Neverwinter needs to step up its game IMO)
*Revamping of cut-scenes & NPC actions.
*Enhancing Soloplay and Soloplay/smaller group options (It is getting harder and harder to find good groups, allow solo/small group play for some content or create options for such groups).
*Revamping and expanding existing zones. (Where does this door lead? Guess we will never know...)
*Revamping story-lines to form more coherent stories with better flow (No more time gating/repetitive play!)
*Free vs VIP vs Premium (Premium/paid content for those who want it with enhanced game play early, content release, exclusive quests and items, etc. This would generate more funds and give players an option for an even better experience as well as allowing Devs to stretch their wings by allowing them to explore content that didn't quite make it into certain mods?)
*Balancing of items (Some items/powers/companions seem to be so over balanced it is to the point where players call them junk and wonder why they are in the game. In the end most players end up playing the same character as everyone else for end game. I feel this is definitely a topic to be addressed!)
*Ways to keep classes fresh and interesting. (Take a look at the player's handbook. Look at all the options there vs the game we have. We don't necessarily need new classes, just new options be it powers, feats, or paragon paths. Especially for spell casting classes.)
*Upgrade Tokens (Discuss them and whether there should be an option to expand what they can upgrade. For example: mounts. This would allow devs to move away from constantly needing to produce new mounts/powers for lock boxes. Simply put a choice pack and enough upgrade tokens to increase companion/mount/gear to the highest level. It would allow players to focus on the mounts/gear they have already and create a value to otherwise discarded mounts and items (such as the 'toy' items from events).
*The value of novelty/toy items from events. (Discuss whether these items are wanted, used, or in need of a scaling upgrade. Especially if the item is one that has a grind to get it!)
*Refining (Discuss the value of diminishing returns.)
*Character growth beyond/outside stats (This is a role-playing game that has almost no role-playing attached to it. Most players don't grow their character in any way beyond stats and that limits story telling. What could be done to improve this?)
Example: During character creation we are forced to choose a background, deity, ect. Bring these elements into play with chances to play out scenarios or even campaign elements that can be unlocked by character choices. It could be as simple as different rewards for invocation, news in one of the taverns about something happening in the character's homeland (Can be used as foreshadowing), small missions, etc.
Example 2: Give players a place to call home. Give characters something to fight for. A place to put their trophies (these could be hunt trophies, special boss item drops, even an entire dragon or giant skeleton). The structure already exists for improvement if you use something similar the Strongholds progression. Also, this would allow players to exert some creativity of their own by building rooms or structures, etc.
You could tie this into the Promissory Note given to players in the Cloaked Ascendancy mod.
Additionally you could make it where idle companions are put to work in the player's 'lair'. This would create more of a demand for companions and upgrading companions as well. The downside of this is that long term players with lots of companions will have an advantage.
Structure of the thread (For example, a thread is left open during the full duration of the discussion phase vs. closing it periodically to do “thread so far” summaries)
Summary threads would be great, but posted separately from the main thread so that it doesn't get buried. Maybe pinned under the initial post?
Also, suggest how the problem might be solved with elements already present in the game. (Example: Change dungeon scaling to the number of players running it the way Demonic Heroic encounter are scaled.)
Feedback format (How can the feedback be presented in an organized and structured manner while not being constraining?)
An open suggestion format would be better than a more formal format.
Expectations of the CDP
I personally would like to see some sort of dev note that tells those involved what suggestions are being looked into from the discussion. There is a lot of distrust about this project and this would show that this is being taken seriously.
Sometimes, ideas/suggestions are built upon a more large vision (sometimes even global), or are intricated in each others, or are derivated from one to another. Severing the link or compartmentalizing can loose the logic between each others, and maybe one of the ideas doesn't make many sense (or less) without the other.
For PvP my ideas it could be (not yet posted, still in the process of writing it and unsure if i can do it on time), if i want to make them short :
- "more wild PvP zones in the open world."
- "PvP as an alternate way to make the campaign weekly amount (campaign model chult/barovia/avernus) "
- "PvP factions to choose for a toon as a longterm choice with asymetrical objectives (RP/gameplay) and very different rewards/shops between one faction to another"
Even though i can considerate each one separately, these 3 are completely linked in my mind and it wouldn't make as many sense separately.
So i'm unsure about a strict format. Maybe more a "recommanded format" and let the unbridled brain a bit more free to go with their own way :P
Value proposition:
Require each post in the CDP to have a header that includes pre-defined and user-defined tags. These can be edited in by mods if contributors fail to enter them sufficiently/correctly, but it should be very easy for authors to maintain on their own.
I would propose to include a submission number consisting of a CDP-ID (CDP’s should include their number in the title — they currently do not), the UserName, and User’s own topic number (increment +1 per proposal posted). This will result in a uniquely identifiable numbered proposal. General discussion will have other metadata tags, such as OffTopic, Feedback on , Request for info from Dev...
I strongly recommend not deleting anything but rude/inflammatory posts and just tagging everything appropriately. The reasons for this are numerous:
Deleting posts breaks conversation flow.
What might seem off topic might in fact breathe new ideas into the conversation and lead to breakthrough innovation. Discussion, even if heated (but respectful) is good!
When something seems off topic but clearly the author has put time and effort into it, there is probably a very relevant sentiment somewhere in there. If you remove this information, no one can ask WHY or build on it. I have often seen posts that were lost on me until someone came along and explained them in a clearer manner. For that to happen, the post needs to be there.
Deleting posts and handling the aftermath takes time and effort from the CM and moderators. Mental energy too. This is a precious resource that should not be wasted on arguing the validity of a post that is inoffensive. Tagging it as OffTopic should suffice. People can choose to ignore it or read it.
Deleting someone’s post automatically demotivates them. If a person is willing to share and expose their thinking, spend time and effort, then at the very least let it stay visible. If you absolutely cannot abide such “interruptions” in the CDP threads, create a “dumping grounds” related to each new CDP where the offending inoffensive posts get moved to. This will help users find out what happened and keep all “irrelevants” in one place in case they are of interest or further discussion needs to take place.
Using such metadata tagging has the additional benefit of making posts easily fall into categories and these can be prescribed at the start of a CDP, allowing better clarity on aspects of a specific topic. For example, when calling for feedback on VIP, prescribed categories could have been: General, feature list, perks, UI, platform-specific, monetization. It would have made it easier to respond and also easier to track feedback. Doing this also helps writers narrow down what they are responding to and helps give clarity on the focus of a post.
Example: This very post would have this header:
—————-
CDP4Spelldazer2 #Format #General
Proposal: Add “manual metadata” to posts for ease of reference
blablablabla
—————-
Then others could simply refer to CDP4Spelldazer2 in discussion, or in Rainer’s excel or if using separate forum threads for different phases.
Proposal: Hold a mini pre-CDP phase for identifying common themes and top topics
Prior to a CDP, for no more than two-three days, open up the problem space for input. Posts shall be no more than 2 sentences long, no discussion to follow, just high level thoughts--one per post, text must be clear and should fit on a post-it.
Goal: Identify top categories in advance of a CDP and then build the CDP call for info around these highlights. It will make it easy to see what community members have on their minds, help set the stage for the CDP and get people thinking about what others have raised. This sort of “pre-planning” has the added benefit of letting devs know what to expect and how best to frame the call for information. The no discussion permitted rule forces the community to respond only after thoughts are then expanded on in the CDP and should therefore prevent some inflammatory off-the-cuff reactions. People will have time to cool off and digest (also prepare ammo and responses, but informed discussion is the point of the CDP, right?).
Example:
Let's assume a PvP pre-CDP phase call to action saying: Please post your top ideas on how we might change PvP. Looking at page 1 of the current PvP CDP, responses in the pre-CDP phase would be: Add a way to schedule PvP events in game, just like going to a football game | A whole different set of mounts, companions and gear meant only for PvP | Better rewards for time spent gearing up | Make PvP a standalone game decoupled from PVE | Remove Solo queue | overhaul epic mounts/insignia, to give 70-80% of what legendary one's give | Better rewards | Minimal GS requirement | No kicking from PvP | PvP should have a new mode similar to MOBAs where characters are "normalized" so they start with the same power and stats. | Add observer role to queue to enable spectating |
You don’t need the walls of text that follow these items to already get a sense of what these topics/requests are and just from doing this, I could see duplicate proposals that could have been prevented. People could just “like” an existing post rather than re-post the same topic with different wording.
Risk: It is easy to be tempted to then look at the bucket list that forms in this phase as a substitute for the actual CDP. It’s not the purpose of the pre-CDP phase but it will help focus the CDP discussions and allow devs to ask for specific input on things raised in the pre-CDP list.
Objective:
Explore ways to use the existing toolbar and forum infrastructure to facilitate CDP discussion.
Proposal:
Introduce CDP members to the existing formatting options available on the toolbar. Use the formatting thread already in the CDP forum to provide examples for each of the desired format options and provide a template for each phase in that thread that members can copy and paste from. The template should be simple and not include descriptions to promote ease of use.
Example:
( <> formatting altered to show in this example)
>b class="Bold">Title / CDP-ID or User name and topic #>/b>
>b class="Bold">Objective:>/b>
>b class="Bold">Why:>/b>
>div class="Spoiler">Placeholder text>/div>
>b class="Bold">How:
>div class="Spoiler">Placeholder text>/div>
>b class="Bold">Risks:>/b>
>b class="Bold">Player groups affected:>/b>
Would look like:
Title / CDP-ID or User name and topic #
Objective:
Why:
How:
Risks:
Player groups affected:
Reorganize the CDP forum to group related information together.
Example:
This will allow each section to be locked if needed. For example Phase 1 can be kept open until Phase 3 starts but then it can be locked. By having a thread for each phase the members can open multiple tabs in their respective web browser for reference to the earlier phases or posts. If quotes are needed members can use the quote function from the drop down in the toolbar to make a quote and type in the @handle and post # or CDP-ID of the user quoted. (not perfect but it is comparable to what we are using now minus the quote box and imbedded user information.)
Add a drop down in the toolbar for members to select Meta tags for their post like @spelldazer suggested above.
I realize that several members do not like "rules" and strict formatting. I argue that both rules and formatting are integral to effective communication. I for one have to force myself to read an unformatted wall of text, and to be honest the act of doing that prejudices my opinion of the idea no matter how good it is.
Risks:
There is a risk of alienating group members by requiring a more regulated form of feedback. This may result in missing valuable feedback.
There is a risk that members will not seek out the formatting template or even use formatting at all so this would be wasted effort.
There is a risk that members will not open multiple tabs to access the different phases all at once requiring multiple clicks and unnecessary confusion and hassle.
Some members do not use a computer to respond to the CDP so it may be more difficult for them to follow the formatting rules and use multiple tabs.
Groups affected: CDP members, Developers, Moderators, First time visitors
**edited to reflect @plasticbat's idea and add @spelldazer's concerns to risks.
If the metadata approach is adopted then each CDP would start out with maybe 5 top level categories. Easy and intuitive to adhere to and also easy to correct after posting. Users can still add new tags/categories and the end result will be (I hope) clearer and easier to follow threads.
Twitch
Patreon
Objective:
Consider asking for a volunteer moderator from the CDP active members to moderate only the CDP section of the forums. (No I'm not volunteering.
Why:
I'm not sure how much time @rainer#8575 is having to spend on summarizing the CDPs, but I would hate if that was taking away from the time he is able to spend on his other (IMO very valuable) projects. I think we should make it one of our goals in this CDP to make this process so intuitive and readable that Rainer (or other members) do not need to spend hours combing through pages of feedback to make a summary. Some off topic posts from earlier CDPs are often valid in later CDPs but the posts are often still in "the depths" so that feedback is lost. Having one dedicated moderator who knows where and why posts were moved would help in getting those post put back into the appropriate CDP.
How:
Ask for a volunteer from the active CDP members and give them a well defined set of rules / guidelines to operate from.
A volunteer moderator could as part of their duty make summaries every few pages and also move or tag posts as appropriate. This would free up @nitocris83, @kreatyve and other moderators to handle the rest of the forums while insuring someone who is involved / invested in the CDP is moving and moderating posts so that the spirit and flow of the discussion remains intact.
Risks:
The normal X does not like Y so Y should not be a moderator
The moderation becomes too time consuming
Failure to supply well defined guidance and rules could result in chaos
The volunteer is not up to the challenge
Groups affected:
Current Moderators, Developers and CDP members
I'm sitting here waiting on a city building inspector so I have a bit of extra time today.
@Spelldazer
In reference to CDP3Spelldazer3 #Format #Scoping. I like this idea, but I think this is sorta how Phase 1 was supposed to work anyway. I have a feeling that when we started the CDP people didn't realize how many phases there were so they tried to fit everything into their first post. Chris / Julia often gives us some direction via sub topics and areas to focus on but I have a feeling that many members skip over them in a rush to post their idea, or are confused by the wording of some of the sub topics / focus items.
For example in this CDP:
- Duration of topics and the different phases of each topic (For example, some topics have been 2 weeks while others have been 3-4)
- Choice of discussion topics
- Structure of the thread (For example, a thread is left open during the full duration of the discussion phase vs. closing it periodically to do “thread so far” summaries)
- Feedback format (How can the feedback be presented in an organized and structured manner while not being constraining?)
- Expectations of the CDP
I have yet to read a discussion about "Expectations of the CDP" or "Choice of discussion topics". But if you also notice both of those sub topics are more open ended and not defined whereas the others provide examples of what they are looking for.If the CDP is a tool for the Developers then I think they need to set the pace and provide the topics. I was once on the other side of this argument thinking that we the community should provide the topics and the order for CDPs but I see now how that could and would be counterproductive.
And since it looks like I'll be waiting for this inspector all day I'll ask Chris about these two topics in my next post.
[EDIT added the following]
@oremonger#9999 I found the response from Chris here very insightful regarding the CDP and what to expect. https://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/neverwinter/#/discussion/1253338/cdp-topic-game-content-accessibility/p15
Specifically:
"The CDP discussion will help inform the work moving forward and no doubt we will be reaching out for further info, questions and/or thoughts regarding certain topics. We will do this on streams, through mini CDP topics, in some cases calls, emails and of course re-reading and discussing specific posts from this CDP. And we will keep everyone up to date on the progress in these areas both through communication and the preview server."
Once things reach the preview server, it is usually too late to effect change. I hope that what will transpire between now and then will be more iterative collaboration than general discussion. I'm a hopeless optimist.
Thanks for your posts as always.
I posted a few pages back and quite a few times prior about what the CDP is. Its pillars, goals, future and so on. To recap:
- It is a dev tool for the whole CDP.
- It's purpose is to be part of an engine that builds worlds.
- It represents the third part of a triumvirate impacts how we develop in terms of guidance, direction and evolution (Team Experience/skill. Analytics and Metrics. CDP)
- It is not a marketing or community initiative in any way shape or form regardless of the fact it can have impact here.
- We ask questions that pertain to areas of the game we want to evolve and the CDP directly impacts our direction and execution and this is visible in the proposal at the end of each CDP and soon in terms of execution of the intent. Although if you have been following the CDP closely you will see some intent in execution already.
- The team tends to read the areas that concern them the most as well as all the proposals.
- The CDP where possible is in lock step with execution as shown in the NW 2020 Roadmap.
Hope this helps.
Chris
Objective:
Explore options and boundaries for choosing topics for discussion.
Why:
I was not quite sure exactly what you were looking for in this subtopic / focus item so I apologize if I am off base. I know that when I first asked for Polls or a CDP to define topics I did so to try and get topics I felt were urgent into the discussion more quickly. I have since come to understand more of how the CDP works and now I'm not sure if my original "urgent" topics are all that urgent anymore. But for the sake of discussion and to get more guidance on this topic...
How:
Hold a short CDP (1-2 week?) asking for topics from the community that we feel are urgent. Use the new CDP format (the one decided upon after this CDP) with all of the phases. From these topics have the developers suggest future CDPs based on this feedback and on their needs and plans for the game.
All of this would come with the understanding that CDPs may pop up that are solely based on developer needs and would take precedence over the ones on list. Once a list is established post a locked thread outlining the future CDPs so that the community can start preparing ideas and feedback in advance. IMO doing it this way will allow for CDPs to progress at a faster pace and the feedback will be more valuable because members will have more time to consider their responses. Members would also get more of a sense of ownership in the process.
My top five topics:
Risks:
Legacy problems and old discussions will be rehashed
Disagreement about what is urgent and what is not will happen
Topics that the developers are already working on the the background may come up causing disclosure problems
Anger if someone's pet peeve / topic is not on the list
Rush of new CDP members when their topic comes up, lack of CDP members when less popular topics come up
Probably many many more...
Groups affected:
Developers, CDP members, Community as a whole
*EDIT* I was probably working on this post at the same time Chris posted his reply above. I had not read His post yet.
Blood Magic (RELEASED) - NW-DUU2P7HCO
Children of the Fey (RELEASED) - NW-DKSSAPFPF
Buried Under Blacklake (WIP) - NW-DEDV2PAEP
The Redcap Rebels (WIP) - NW-DO23AFHFH
My Foundry playthrough channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/Ruskaga/featured
@cwhitesidedev#9752
How's your rest time? I hope it where good.
For me, well I was in work but you could say I was away from Neverwinter forum, so I could clear mind and try look to all from other view point..
Now after rest I come with slightly diffferent approach for CDP format..
CDP have 3 phases yes.
So I come to idea why not go like.
Phase 1 (feedback gathering).
Community members write feedbacks based on 2 questions.
What? - Item/object/mechanic/curency ( nore less name of feedback which specify what this feedback is about).
Why? - CDP members write simple/quick feedback and reasoning behind.
As example.
CDP Topic: Stronghold.
1) Name: - Dragon flight and marauders events.
2) Reason: - Dragon flight fight is irrelevant due rewards being way outdated, also marauders cause lot of lag spikes.
No suggestions, simple and no wall of text.
Then when CDP topic get near phase 2, topic is closed for certain time( depend on staff preferences).
The time may be spend for staff to read feedbacks again, reiview and picking them.
Also while topic closed, players may have small rest from it, cool down their thoughts. CDP members also can spend time to read own and other members feedbacks and who knows maybe some of feedbacks and view points are very similar.
--------------------------
In phase 2,
Thread is opened once again. Then staff simply use quotes mechanic to call out picked player feedback for more detailed feedback and perhaps asked how he/she would fix(your suggestion). Since some CDP members may wrote feedback about same thing, it may be called out multiple CDP members for their suggestions about that part.
With this allow staff to keep more controlled feedback flow and prevent from offtopic realated comments/posts and over all no blickering between members.
That will keep CDP more focused, rather being like ship in middle of exreme sea storm.
When staff decide it's enough of feedbacks then topic is closed for staffs summaries and maybe some thoughts.
-----------------------------------------
Now obviously you would ask, where would be debates between CDP members. For that, my friend I think there should be seprated thread in other forum part.
The reasoning why I think we should go in this way is that, one member write one feedback and suggestion, then other disagree about it, and starts useless offtopic comments or become bechmarking who can make largest wall of text.
CDP members want debate, there is other forum part for it. I prefer keep this CDP for feedback gathering. And if staff want, they will call out members by themself. Over all is simple controll CDP topics and preventing them from becoming place for bechmarking who can make largest wall of text.
Now how I come with this idea?
I remembered my conversation with few members from my previous guilds.
Some said that it would be nice if Chult/omu and barovia hunts would become big thing once again..
I agree on that,, however main reason why he wanted that is > He have tons of posters (barovia) and lures/trophy(Chult) in his alt account and their Stronghold banks( alts Strongholds).
So we agree that hunts should be back to business, however we had different view points for why it they should back.
They wanted make profit by selling hunt things, I want to add more content..
-------------------------
@oremonger#9999 I like that we need extra moderator here. However I think it would be wiser that this CDP forum part would be taken care by experienced moderator. It's very sensitive part of forum, and it's not a place for new moderator to start careers in this place. No offense.
By the way nice formart you proposed, I like it
best regards: Hades
p.s If there are any questions or need clarification, feel free to ask.
And yes my english still terrible, perhaps after extra 5 stacks of ghoulish concoction it will improve.
“The masses have never thirsted after truth. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim.
Gustave Le Bon.
==================================================
I gave "Choice of Discussion topics" a shot above, but I'm not sure that is what you were looking for.
As far as expectations go I think the recap in your last post helped me refine my expectations. The open exchange of ideas and access to you and your staff via this CDP have met and exceeded all of my expectations. Anything more that comes from this exchange is icing on the cake IMO. Just knowing that we are being heard and that our input is being considered is more than I could have hoped for. Thank you for this CDP initiative and your efforts, they are appreciated.
Encourage use of
Headings
Smaller comments that are split into two or more if they contain multiple "long" suggestions.
Provide templates for different formats i.e. how to use collapsible spoilers etc.
To avoid arguments and critiquing in phase 1 where possible (possibly not to quote specific players and just critique their suggestion without calling out to them).
Lock CDP after proposal so it is always at the end
As spelldazer said, "sometimes less is more".
And yes we will for sure have a choice of different discussion topics soon. Julia wanted us to do that originally but I wanted the info, discussion and ideas for those CDP topics earlier rather than later and you can see why in the Roadmap.
As always Ore thanks for your contribution, guidance and patience.
Chris