And here is why I said we need a separate post for discussion of ideas that are good but can't get implemented - its just more clear when ya wanna know what is going on.
Anyways, I'm willing to go more in-depth regarding the system, but only if prompted to do so, as it would be a mighty long post.
1
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
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.
And why exactly, should people who do not have time to fully read or participate be given higher priority than those who do? I spend a lot of time writing about systemics. There is no good way to shorten a post about systemics, because if you do not describe the how the system functions, then you aren't describing the system. Go read my proposal about Itemization or my proposal about an infinite dungeon. Most of the words in either of those proposals, are simply there to state how the proposal works.
From my personal PoV, if I am told I am not allowed to describe my ideas properly, then I may as well not participate. I would rather say nothing, than not represent my view to my satisfaction. You do not like long posts, that is your problem, not mine. You do not have the time to read well thought out ideas? Well, I do not have the time to read ideas that aren't well thought out at all.
A well thought out idea almost necessitates being long, because you need to state what are the downsides, how it would be implemented as well as a number of other factors that if you actually put some serious thought into, would result in a post with a longer word count.
Right now, anyone can share their idea and they can put as much thought into it as they want. Limiting them is only saying that you only care about the ideas of people that do not want to put much thought into them in the first place.
I appreciate the time and details you put into your posts, I know there are many times I wish I had the time to read it all and many more times I could not follow because, well, "squirrel" So with that being said, a summary either in beginning or end of writings to assist many in similar situations.
Perhaps also that is what Ravenokami meant as well
> > 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
Hi Chris,
Just to further expand on your comment above. The purpose of "tags" is simple, as Hustin mentions (if comments were numbered i would have directed you to number so on), that the CDP participants need to know how well (or not) their proposals are being considered. In the event that my proposal had been considered but didn't go past as being feasible for implementation then it would be wise to let that player know to divert and focus his attention to other suggestions. This could seem awkward if you were to word it but a tag simply removes that difficulty and kills 2 birds with 1 stone.
Any honorable tag is there for me to read up "potentially" important suggestions. In that regards, can one blame me for reading developer's comments more than any other individual? The whole purpose of this is to make CDP flexible and give options to players with less time on their hand to follow through CDP without it being daunting on them. But i do understand that this could backfire where the CDP may take a turn to seeking attention/fame than providing constructive feedback.
Conclusion
What i am trying to get across is that if I got left behind in the CDP or start the CDP late and i return with having to read 10 pages or even more at times, how will you make it easy for me to catch up without having to strain my eyes? If you could tackle that question, you will see many less duplicate suggestions and many more suggestions tackling the ambiguities in the already mentioned suggestions. That is exactly what evolving is all about. That is why I hope the CDP can provide that flexibility to more people than it currently does because i still think that CDP is limited in its scope of diverse playerbase.
2
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
I am sorry am I reading this correctly? Someone states their thoughts on what something means and how to make something benefit the majority and you make the statements, "You do not like long posts, that is your problem, not mine. You do not have the time to read well thought out ideas? Well, I do not have the time to read ideas that aren't well thought out at all."
I know that you may not like doing cliff notes or to shorten things, but not everyone lives on the forums. Take no offense, but at this time you seem to spend very little time in game now and more time up here. The majority does not. Many have full time jobs, children and spouses that they spend time with and sitting and going through pages and pages of novels when simple cliff notes or bullet points can do is just ridiculous. I feel if something is asked for as in the CDPs the bullet points and simple explanations would be good enough. If further information is needed one would be asked for it. We do need to take into account everyone. Wouldn't you agree?
No, I don't agree, that is why I stated it the first time. Participation is a choice and nobody here is forced to read anyone else's ideas, well, excepting Chris. You are perfectly capable of proposing your own idea and then moving on, without reading anyone else's ideas if you do not have the time to. Limiting post length is only saying, "we do not care about people that put time and thought into their posts," and if anything, is discriminatory towards that type of poster.
No, I cannot describe to you how to build an itemization system, what are the benefits and pitfalls of it and why it works in under 500 words or in bullet point form and any attempt to do so would both fail to convey the idea properly and possibly mislead people about how the system would work. It would be like telling Andrew Wiles to prove Fermat's Last Theorem in under 1000 words, you simply cannot do that. And quite frankly, nor should I have to.
I agree with ravenokami#4514 s and gromovnipljesak above.
We should strive to limit our word limit in the CDP and just given an outlier/ draft of our suggestion. If more information was required, there needs to be another twin CDP forum (for each topic) whereby you can find the counterpart of the suggestion but which is in its complete form (this only applies if your suggestion is long and in depth). At this point, i believe even Chris doesn't have the time to read novelised suggestions. I will again stress that each suggestion depends on the whim of the developer/s. If they like the suggestion after going through their checklist then they have already considered many aspects of that suggestion already.
The CDP participants need to quickly state the advantages and disadvantages of their suggestion and let the Developer/s do the rest. The reason why i am in affirmative of less worded suggestions is that it makes it easier for the other participants to follow through CDP and reduces the burden on Chris and others. Again if a twin CDP thread is implemented, you can always use that thread for your well-thought, in-depth suggestions. This way, those of us who would wish to delve deeper into a particular suggestion, they could simply choose to go to the twin suggestion to read up further on that suggestion. Alas, i think numbering or providing us with the means of finding specific comments would be helpful in the long run.
4
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
I agree with ravenokami#4514 s and gromovnipljesak above.
The CDP participants need to quickly state the advantages and disadvantages of their suggestion and let the Developer/s do the rest.
Everyone here is making the assumption you can state your suggestion at all. Go and read my infinite dungeon suggestion, or the itemization suggestion and tell me, can I say the same thing with a word limitation of say 300 words. The answer is very clearly no. Sure I can say, "infinite dungeon," or, "rework itemization," but that does not tell the reader anything at all. Those are both very broad titles that could mean anything and they don't tell you:
Why it needs to be reworked.
How it should be reworked (implementation).
Advantages and Disadvantages of reworking it.
Who is affected by reworking it.
In most cases, we all agree on what the problems are, we do not agree on the implementation and it is exceptionally important that the implementation is discussed, because implementing something in a way that people are not happy with will only result in a mass exodus from the game, even if it solves the problem. Some solutions are worse than the problem after all.
A CDP with word limits is in my opinion a CDP that has already failed at its directive. You cannot tell someone how to build a car but do so within 300 words.
I appreciate the time and details you put into your posts, I know there are many times I wish I had the time to read it all and many more times I could not follow because, well, "squirrel" So with that being said, a summary either in beginning or end of writings to assist many in similar situations.
Perhaps also that is what Ravenokami meant as well
@thefabricant For crying out loud your quick! I took that down after like 1 min and re-worded it to the above.
I agree with ravenokami#4514 s and gromovnipljesak above.
We should strive to limit our word limit in the CDP and just given an outlier/ draft of our suggestion. If more information was required, there needs to be another twin CDP forum (for each topic) whereby you can find the counterpart of the suggestion but which is in its complete form (this only applies if your suggestion is long and in depth). At this point, i believe even Chris doesn't have the time to read novelised suggestions. I will again stress that each suggestion depends on the whim of the developer/s. If they like the suggestion after going through their checklist then they have already considered many aspects of that suggestion already.
The CDP participants need to quickly state the advantages and disadvantages of their suggestion and let the Developer/s do the rest. The reason why i am in affirmative of less worded suggestions is that it makes it easier for the other participants to follow through CDP and reduces the burden on Chris and others. Again if a twin CDP thread is implemented, you can always use that thread for your well-thought, in-depth suggestions. This way, those of us who would wish to delve deeper into a particular suggestion, they could simply choose to go to the twin suggestion to read up further on that suggestion. Alas, i think numbering or providing us with the means of finding specific comments would be helpful in the long run.
My point isn't to limit, but to clarify and work more in sync. Basically any ideas that the devs like but don't know how to implement to work without breaking something else, ask for input from the players, and they can pick and choose. If its good, great, if not, eff it.
1
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
I agree with ravenokami#4514 s and gromovnipljesak above. ...text here....
Two points, just for thought and something to consider:
1. Limit word count - I have 3 suggestions here in this CDP, and 2 on the PvP one, your posts (combined) word count already suppressed all of those combined (or close enough) with the discussion of two concepts, limit word count, and popular vote. Having said that, the current system needs a change, it is too straining to read and follow.
2. Popular vote - What happens when a streamer ask to go and support an idea they liked, what happens if a someone asks people to support / vote for them in exchange for goods, lets say a legendary mount pack, what will happen if someone with a NW site with more visitors than the entire streaming community put together, will ask for support on a vote? Will it represent the best way for NW forward, or someones ability to mobilize the mobs? This already happened to some extent, I assume with good intentions without considering the consequences, at the last CDP. What will happen when this is a requirement?
Post edited by micky1p00 on
3
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
... Basically any ideas that the devs like but don't know how to implement to work without breaking something else, ask for input from the players, and they can pick and choose. If its good, great, if not, eff it.
Feedback on the feedback: "This is unlikely, due to technical limitation" "or resources "or licensing". Can allow people to stop, not waste effort, and focus on how to adapt the idea with a solution. Yes, this can reduce creativity, but also create more practical suggestions.
Participating in CDP is cumbersome to a majority of players.
You formatting requirements are pretty step for a forum community. If you simply must see feedback provided in the manner that you constantly ask us for, then change the link of the reply button on CSP topics to take us to a pre-formatted submission form to fill out, with texts boxes set up for each category that you require us to fill out.
It certainly feels more like work, or trying to get a price match payment from a credit card company. It is not engaging and nor fun to fill out forms.
No. Brainstorming and feedback should be more organic, with ideas coming from everywhere.
And contrary to what several posters on this forum believe , when brainstorming, there are no bad ideas - everything should be shared.
Posting about why someone disagrees with an idea is counter-productive to the process in general.
Unless you are a Neverwinter Dev, you should not be shooting down anyones idea. That isn't your part in this. Your part is just to provide feedback to the Devs on the topic that they decided upon.
Providing negative feedback to other community member's CDP suggestions will only hamper the process and stifle what we are all trying to accomplish. Making this game awesome.
2
lordaeolosMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 167Arc User
Posting about why someone disagrees with an idea is counter-productive to the process in general.
Unless you are a Neverwinter Dev, you should not be shooting down anyones idea. That isn't your part in this. Your part is just to provide feedback to the Devs on the topic that they decided upon.
Providing negative feedback to other community member's CDP suggestions will only hamper the process and stifle what we are all trying to accomplish. Making this game awesome.
I strongly Disagree with this. This is a collaborative effort, not just between the community and Dev team, but between us in the community. A certain amount of respectful debate is essential to vetting out and refining ideas, I myself have reworded proposals, or shifted my own position after hearing dissenting views with well reasoned arguments from other perspectives than my own.
"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 agree with ravenokami#4514 s and gromovnipljesak above.
The CDP participants need to quickly state the advantages and disadvantages of their suggestion and let the Developer/s do the rest.
Everyone here is making the assumption you can state your suggestion at all. Go and read my infinite dungeon suggestion, or the itemization suggestion and tell me, can I say the same thing with a word limitation of say 300 words. The answer is very clearly no. Sure I can say, "infinite dungeon," or, "rework itemization," but that does not tell the reader anything at all. Those are both very broad titles that could mean anything and they don't tell you:
Why it needs to be reworked.
How it should be reworked (implementation).
Advantages and Disadvantages of reworking it.
Who is affected by reworking it.
In most cases, we all agree on what the problems are, we do not agree on the implementation and it is exceptionally important that the implementation is discussed, because implementing something in a way that people are not happy with will only result in a mass exodus from the game, even if it solves the problem. Some solutions are worse than the problem after all.
A CDP with word limits is in my opinion a CDP that has already failed at its directive. You cannot tell someone how to build a car but do so within 300 words.
I thought better off you. Did you actually trash the rest of my post and pick a single line to suite your argument. If so, i am not going to follow your strawman example just for the sake of the argument. First, please point out to me where did I say in the post that you are referring to:
For there to be a word limit, to be introduced by the developers? 300 words to be the limit?
Once you have read the whole of my post, i will discuss the rest with you. Just to help you, maybe you should critique if a twin thread is even required for detailed discussions and the disadvantages of it. Maybe at the same time, you can suggest how to make following CDP easier other than saying "tough luck" if you don't have the time to read.
I agree with ravenokami#4514 s and gromovnipljesak above. ...text here....
Two points, just for thought and something to consider:
1. Limit word count - I have 3 suggestions here in this CDP, and 2 on the PvP one, your posts (combined) word count already suppressed all of those combined (or close enough) with the discussion of two concepts, limit word count, and popular vote. Having said that, the current system needs a change, it is too straining to read and follow.
2. Popular vote - What happens when a streamer ask to go and support an idea they liked, what happens if a someone asks people to support / vote for them in exchange for goods, lets say a legendary mount pack, what will happen if someone with a NW site with more visitors than the entire streaming community put together, will ask for support on a vote? Will it represent the best way for NW forward, or someones ability to mobilize the mobs? This already happened to some extent, I assume with good intentions without considering the consequences, at the last CDP. What will happen when this is a requirement?
Congrats, you have bested me in word limit. Lets now count the characters too and whilst we are at it, maybe we can see the total number of characters we have used in the CDP? If you read my posts, each has different and multiple suggestions and some are replies to Chris, expanding on his replies. I do not stick with one suggestion and write an essay on it. if you want, i am fully capable of writing a 300 page dissertation on a single question, i have enough past experience on it.
If a streamer is using his influence to upvote his suggestions, do you think that little of Chris and the staff? I would personally be very annoyed if someone told me, "you do not know the difference between good and bad suggestions".
3
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
I thought better off you. Did you actually trash the rest of my post and pick a single line to suite your argument.
I didn't, I read all of it and although I only picked 2 sentences, I was responding to the part of it that concerned me, although looking back I think I accidentally selected the wrong sentences in the process.
It was an example of why limiting words is not good for effective communication. I did not say you, nor anyone else said that 300 words would be the limitation, but it shows why such a limitation is poor. I could have given an example without using the number 300, for example, "Say there is some arbitrary character limit where the limit is N, there will always be some piece of constructive feedback which can be given which is of length N+1," and then the statement becomes more general. Does that satisfy you?
Once you have read the whole of my post, i will discuss the rest with you. Just to help you, maybe you should critique if a twin thread is even required for detailed discussions and the disadvantages of it. Maybe at the same time, you can suggest how to make following CDP easier other than saying "tough luck" if you don't have the time to read.
Since you want me to comment on that, I will. No, it is not required and should not be implemented because it fragments discussion (which is one of the problems we are already discussing in this thread) and in order for people to comment on the idea, they need to read the detailed post anyhow.
And as for making the CDP easier to read, there are numerous proposals on how to do that already, which do not have the disadvantage of lowering the quality of proposals in the process. The tree proposal by janne for example, with the option for people to collapse all discussion about an idea would already cut down most of the reading, for people who do not want to see commentary on ideas. It does not result in people butchering their idea in order to make it fit under some arbitrary word limitation and it also does not turn the CDP into a popularity contest, which is exactly what a voting system or some approval system would do.
1. My points was, that you advocate something that is not 100% aligns with your own posting. Either multiple posts, or large word count, for whatever reason, is problematic to limit. As you yourself say, so cynically speak about char count, but limiting post is indeed char counting. BTW post sizes are already limited. Formatting should be encouraged, enforcing hard limits is easily subverted and has many negative aspects.
2. If we agree that a popular vote is not an indicator of a good idea, and Chris and the rest of us intelligent enough to discern a good idea from a bad one (and I never suggested otherwise), why we need the popular vote you advocate to begin with?
3. A question on the way - you mention offtopic posts and post type you hate, is this discussion is offtopic or should we continue?
Addon: My comparison was just to provide an example and a point to consider, not a competitive measurement, nor attack or a start of bickering, I apologize if it was not clear.
This idea about removing or keeping the Like/dislike buttons for many reasons is so big that i cant mark the right people, but anyway it is useless....
I'm not trolling anyone the point is there was a time when we didnt had the Like buttons and the only diference was that everyone that wanted to upvote or downvote some post would make a new post with someting like
"+1 i agree 100% here"
And i dont think anyone will be ablle to blame someons for a post like that that will flood this very CPD forum... So having or not is not a issue as it will stil exist in another (more annoying way) even after being removed...
4
plasticbatMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 12,404Arc User
Lets brainstorm better formats. Whilst doing so we currently work in 3 phases:
Phase 1: Ideas/Discussion Phase 2: Drilling and Design Phase 3: Top 3 Conclusion: Proposal
Thanks
Chris
For me, the most confusing part in the current format is there are too many conversations saturated in one thread. That makes it hard to read and follow.
I think the CDP forum needs to be restructured. Instead of making a CDP topic thread, make a CDP topic sub-forum. e.g. the CDP topic is ABC.
Make a sub-forum: CDP - ABC
Each contributor makes their proposal in the first post of his/her own thread. Others can comment/argue that particular idea in that thread instead of mixing everything in one huge thread right now.
The contributor can refine their original proposal, the first post, over time (add more detail, more explanation, etc). The contributors could even ask to close their own thread when they accept their idea is bad and no point to waste people's time to read/re-argue.
This can serve both phase 1 and phase 2.
When the time comes. create a thread for "top 3" and the list of the idea is the first post of each thread. We don't need Rainer to make a spreadsheet for us. Then, another thread for "Conclusion: Proposal".
When it is done, lock the forum (assuming you can do that).
*** 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. ***
4
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
This can work, I've tried to look up if Vanilla has an option to disable "bumping" before mentioning it. If not it will encourage high volume low quality posts in one such thread to keep it bumped, and it's self reinforcing cycle, more post attract more posts. Which will push new ideas down. On the other hand, threads without response can be discouraging to posters.
Though even with the downsides, IMO, still significantly better than how it is now.
Aaaaaand can you tell how we are already at a point where people close the CDP again? Somebody that writes essays doesn't want to be limited in writing essays and finds fitting arguments. Somebody that likes pressing buttons instead of commenting in a similar worded fashion to show how they support the same point doesn't want that to go away. Somebody who doesn't like / cannot afford reading hundred of posts that are answers, input, bickering, theories, storys, compilations due to limitations (time, effort, motivation, ability) wants the posts to be limited... And mostly everybody tries to point out that the other cannot see how their various points are the correct point of view.
What I really do not like about the CDP is (and I know who disagrees with it, but yeah, anyway) that it IS pretty much only up- and downvoting, only that it is a way of degrading somebodies ideas/wishes/theories with what we call "arguments" (while the practise by many people on here is dressing ridicule as an argument) and aligning it on several charts, instead of a real voting-structure.
I do not have a problem with the format structure, cause I do not have to follow it. If feedback would/will be/is going to be considered only if it is formatted correctly, then I simply will not care. Thats not the way to go about "collaboration", but maybe this is my nature of disliking authority-that-does-not-pay-me. (All in good fun, I just think before people do not comment at all they really should comment in whatever shape they deem fitting) My boss can tell me to use a format and I might consider it if it is good... Otherwise, I will only use it if it helps MY thinking process. For me, the Rewards CDP was overwhelming too, but that was completely unsurprising. I do not expect every CDP to be like that, especially if it was broken down more. I do not think that it will do any good restricting the posts further, all that is needed in my opinion, is moderation and clear guidelines on Off-Topic or not. What I think should be worth a second thought is the current practise of moving "unfitting" comments into the lower depths and thus devaluing it completely, and moderation on how to go about this. I know that most of the bickering, fighting, forum-pvping is completely useless especially in this program, and I know that it is a nuisance. I know this because I, personally, have a history of being a nuisance - there are psychological aspects to devaluing posters, to putting some posters above the others, even subconsciously, to introduce some hierachy of "useful" and "not so useful" people, that grows hatred, envy, aggression. That also involves how long you let person A go on a rant, when you would already close a thread or move the answers as soon as person B pressed Send. I can understand that there is more value in some comments, but this is in my opinion not allowed to be so clearly judged if you really want people to engage even further, otherwise it is a "Oh I can see those people answered already, now its pointless" or a "They won't listen to what I have to say anyway", so pretty much what we already had.
TL;DR: Maybe there should be, as pointed out by others before too, a clearer guidance on how the CDP will be moderated, and in my opinion there could be several threads to one CDP topic, and whatever is "off topic" to moderators, but still worth a read to others, could be moved from the main (split into phases, formatted, whatever thread) to the others (in the same forum, not the "lower depths" where it is right next to the forum-pvping). Example: https://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/neverwinter/#/discussion/1254166/comments-on-vip@spelldazer posts were moved around, clearly because they are not Lower-Depth-Worthy, but where else to put it? Thankfully, it didn't land in the Depths! There needs to be a guideline for those cases. This is of course a workload, but a CDP is probably a huge time investment anyway.
Oh and, I apologize for some wording that may seem off, my english teacher would laugh at me... It's been a while.
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
edited March 2020
I recommend that at the top of all CDPs this be pinned for people who are unfamiliar with what argumentation and debate is or how it works and why it is a good method for honing in on ideas and refining feedback.
If we lived in a world where nobody disagreed with each other for fear of upsetting people's egos, progress would not be made and society would come to a halt. Disagreement done properly is almost in my opinion a virtue which helps to better build society.
I thought 20 minutes about just ignoring it for the sake of ignoring it, but this is my last comment for it, I should have stopped reacting to anything you had to say the day we talked about this before: how your opinion has more value than others...
Argumentation needs cognitive empathy too. You are not building a better society - you are not bruising egos because of a disagreement, you are stepping on others to point at yourself. I think you do not understand argumentation with other humans any better than the rest of us, but as we already established: You think you do, so this is pointless. A society is based on a very basic level of empathy and value. Your point of view of "disagreement done properly" does not mean the same to everybody else. If you stepped over somebodies red border and they are already shouting at you "please do not cross": you stepped over it, it is not their fault that they did not recede their border. You do not get to say "but I just wanted to point out where you are an idiot, I will go back in a second". We might have severely different opinions and values, and I will try to respect that, but I am having a very hard time when you are pretending that you are the victim because you are just misunderstood (and that it is just disagreement, not disvalue) and all you want to do is improving OUR society. Since its not just yours... And you are not the only one concerned with having a valuable, progressive debate. Oh and: I go into the Lower Depths!
- bye bye -
3
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
edited March 2020
Nothing fits more a CDP about CPD, than arguing about arguing.
(I'll be running away from the stones and stick now)
7
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
I thought 20 minutes about just ignoring it for the sake of ignoring it, but this is my last comment for it, I should have stopped reacting to anything you had to say the day we talked about this before: how your opinion has more value than others...
Argumentation needs cognitive empathy too. You are not building a better society - you are not bruising egos because of a disagreement, you are stepping on others to point at yourself. I think you do not understand argumentation with other humans any better than the rest of us, but as we already established: You think you do, so this is pointless. A society is based on a very basic level of empathy and value. Your point of view of "disagreement done properly" does not mean the same to everybody else. If you stepped over somebodies red border and they are already shouting at you "please do not cross": you stepped over it, it is not their fault that they did not recede their border. You do not get to say "but I just wanted to point out where you are an idiot, I will go back in a second". We might have severely different opinions and values, and I will try to respect that, but I am having a very hard time when you are pretending that you are the victim because you are just misunderstood (and that it is just disagreement, not disvalue) and all you want to do is improving OUR society. Since its not just yours... And you are not the only one concerned with having a valuable, progressive debate. Oh and: I go into the Lower Depths!
Except I am not. I will try to give an example of something which is NOT an idea in any of the CDPs, even though I could, because then someone will feel I am picking on them.
A person comes in and they propose an idea, lets say for example, they propose that PVP should be removed from the game. They say that it is a waste of resources and that other areas of the game could be better developed if PVP was gone from Neverwinter. Here is their initial premise (PVP should be removed) and argumentation (better use of resources).
So I respond by saying, "Well, what about the people who like PVP?"
What I am trying to show here, is that in the initial idea, there is something that is an important aspect to the discussion which is not been considered. I am not doing it to point to myself. In fact, in none of my comments in response to other people's ideas do I point back to my own. I am showing where an idea might have better been considered and where it should be improved.
If I fundamentally disagree with an idea, I state why, for example, I would state:
"PVP players are also a part of the community and you are just completely dismissing their point of view, which is why I do not think removing PVP is good."
Now, I will bring it back to something that is being discussed in this thread, the word limits. The "positive" aspect of word limits are the following:
Makes posts shorter, so a higher volume of posts can be consumed.
Makes it easier for people with less time on their hands to read everything.
The downsides of word limitations however, are the following:
Stifles creativity, if an idea is particularly complex it cannot fit into the word limit and thus cannot be properly proposed.
Favours poorly thought out ideas over well thought out ideas. The more you think about an idea, the more you can probably write on the subject. Enforcing a strict word limit encourages low effort posting.
Many of the posters in favour of word limitations, are very much focusing on the positive aspects of it, without trying to address any of the negatives. @sobi#1980 actually tried to address them somewhat, by suggesting an alternative thread with the long post and then the main thread with the short post, but then that has the following problems:
Chris needs to read both threads, additional wasted time.
People who read only the short post and not the long post might misunderstand the topic and end up wasting time making arguments which they would otherwise not make if they had read the long post.
There needs to be some system in place to ensure the short post is an accurate summary of the long post.
I think @plasticbat's solution, for example (which is a slight modification of Sobi's), actually works well to address these problems. Each poster opens a thread, with the thread title being the problem they want to address. They then post into the main CDP thread for that topic, only the problem and why it is a problem, with a link to their thread which will address the solution. You could maybe put a word limitation on the problem itself, because it usually is easy to describe a problem in a few sentences. The thread with the solution, can then be as lengthy as they need it to be.
This allows people to:
See very easily a complete summary of all the identified problems in the main thread.
Chris can easily point out which ideas he wants to get more discussion and "bring them up" simply by replying to those threads.
It has its own problems, for example needing to constantly open threads and the wasted time, but it is an improvement over just limiting the length of people's posts. Furthermore, being able to directly link to an idea works well and acts as a, "band aid."
And nowhere in any of this feedback, or in any of my other arguments by the way, did I say, "the person who posted this is an idiot and you should not listen to them." I said, "these are the problems with the idea which need to be resolved." If people take the dissection of their idea as a personal attack, it is a them problem, not a me problem.
An idea does not have a red border. Every idea is open to being torn apart, in fact, it is best practice to do so. The best ideas are usually the hybrid abominations of a multitude of ideas all torn apart and reconstructed into some new Frankenstein's monster.
Now @thefabricant format seems Ok. However, through all my previous played games, my experience say that simpliest format is best. And the reason is that, simpliest formats is hardest to screw up.
Thats mean no need fancy looking fonts, neither specific quotation system. They may help, however, lot of time players may ignore them or mess up and outcome will be bad. Also, we here to provide/share our thoughts and feedbacks not desing space shuttle. So lets keep format as lean and simple we can.
So fancy looking fonts, if someone use it's Ok I don't see any problem in that. However it should not be requirement.
I think by applying colors or simply adding Bold Font to highlighting names/parts in feedbacks is more than enough..
Whats about format how feedback is presented? Well Sharp presented reasonable format, yet I slightly change it. ============================
1)Object(title) - Straitgh forward, what this feedback aim to. ( Either item or power or even multiple realated elements. )
2) Problem/reason(head)- explanation about problem and why you adressing it.
3) solution(body) - Providing suggestion how you think it should work, also highly reccomend to provide example, to let us know how you think change should work. This will clear suggestions from interpretations.
4) Outcome and risk. - What kind outcome you expect with your suggested changes/fixes, and also what kind risks may involve. =============================================
Updated: Cut some part of comment to make over all post shorter.
best regards: Hades
p,s I still think we should talk about communications and usage of social pages and marketing realated things.
Post edited by hadestemplar#9918 on
======================================================================== “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. ==================================================
My 2 cents: The format Sharp recommended works for me. Whatever format is chosen needs to be adhered to though and enforced.
I also understand the need to ignore a voting system on threads. I don't think right now it's a large issue because for the most part, the ideas being tossed around for each CDP are by and large pretty similar.
These are a few things I would consider moving forward.
• Moderate posts heavily. Some people tend to go off on tangents (i'm guilty too). Some people decide to get into forum battles about egos and take a topic way off course.
• I would consider breaking each phase out as its own post. At end of Phase 1, lock it, create summary, create new thread for Phase 2.
• When it comes time to vote for our top 3, I would lock the main thread and create another one for votes. Votes should be a simple list of your top 3. Too often I see people writing a dissertation on why they're voting. We've already had the 20 pages of discussion. Can we not at this point just give Chris the top 3 in a clean, concise format so he doesn't have to sift through paragraphs?
• The topics are too broad leading to a large subset of smaller topics within. This can work in a tree structure where you break off subsets. But using the forums just makes this a messy discussion that can be all over place.
At the end of the day, the largest problem with the CDPs to me isn't the topic, the content, or the formatting of feedback...
It's the medium. The forums aren't set up to handle a branching discussion with multiple ideas that break into in depth conversations.
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
I think they drag for too long but the reality is I don't have to sift through every post or respond to most of them. Each CDP should be given the length of time that topic deserves. If you feel it needs to be longer I would extend that.
The fact is that we have had a limited amount of CDPs so far. Rewards could have easily been extended another week or two, or it could have been branched off into multiple CDPs.
I think...PVP will not have the amount of traffic the other topics have to date. I could see that topic being given less time than a broader topic like Rewards.
Is it paradoxical that if this CDP's format works, then surely the best format is this one?
As long as what you write is clear, relevant, and at the very least rooted in reality, does it matter what headings you use? You could waffle for a few paragraphs, and put your actions in bullet points and not require 4 or 6 or 8 separate pro forma headings that might not even apply to your idea... but as long as it makes sense, does it matter?
Question for Chris, "Does having a standard form type structure make the job of collating the ideas easier?"
If so, can I suggest something simple, like 1. Idea. (write your idea) 2. Rationale/Justification (write why your idea is a good one) 3. Potential Pros and Cons (write who this may impact both positively and negatively)
Good ideas don't always have to be a solution to a problem... sometimes they can just be good ideas.
Duration of topics 2 weeks is almost too long. Four weeks is unbearable.
Week 1: Post suggestions, with no "in the moment" discussions taking place, just raw ideas. 1 week to discuss what parts people like and offer constructive criticism to each other - right now most of the CDP's are inundated by certain individuals debating everything to death and bashing anything they don't like. It's exhausting, and honestly a large part of why folks like me left the forums in the first place. In any creative meeting I have every seen, whether its a group of friends playing a game or a group of engineers collaboratively developing a circuit in the moment, there is always a brainstorming section free from ridicule. It's how you get the kind of industry changing ideas I think you're looking for.
Week 2: Guided discussion. You need to tell us what ideas you want to drill into, and we need to stop whipping out epeens for who has better quality ideas, understands how to debate, etc and just focus on refining suggestions. This is where we can figure out what will or will not work organically. This phase should happen a week after Phase 1 closes, to allow everyone time to not only read posts, but think about them and craft helpful, appropriate feedback, counterpoints, etc. Quality feedback is far more effective than quantity, for us, for you, for the game. Finish the week with a 2 day section where everyone only posts top 3's.
This program needs a bit more guidance to "bed in" as you call it.
Choice of discussion topics There is going to be a large push from a huge part of the community to focus on the things we have been ignored about. It's going to happen. However, if the feedback you need in your development cycle isn't the feedback we want to give then there is no point to this program. Open a thread for 2 weeks, ask for topic suggestions from the community, create a poll to quickly get an idea of what is important to the community and then consider what fits where with your resources. Let us know that you know what we're miffed on, and we'll get to it, but this is not a feedback forum, it is a collaborative development forum and needs to actively support the development and vice versa.
Structure of the thread Janne's covered it really well already. Get tree to link replies, etc. The only other suggestions I have are the stuff under Duration of topics.
Feedback format This is going to be influenced by the advanced tech writing courses I'm currently wrapping up, and whitepapers in general. I suggest the following format. Problem statement Executive Summary (For the vast majority of us who aren't going to read whatever Sharp wrote this time :P) Old Approach New Approach Feedback we're hoping for - With this last section I would want to see people posting the weak points of their suggestions, as they seem them, to encourage further feedback in phase 2.
Unrequested Feedback
Could you identify "drilling down" of value that has occurred in previous CDPs? I haven't been seeing it myself, and it is difficult to contribute in a meaningful way when it just seems like two to six people arguing the same points over and over.
I heavily use the Agree and Insightful buttons. I would like a disagree button in principle, but I don't know that I would use it enough to be worthwhile compared to how often it might be abused. There should be no definitive ranking based on these functions, so no one feels like it is a popularity contest, but it is helpful for us members to gauge response to our ideas with, since most of the time most of us will not get direct feedback.
This is mostly feedback for us members - This isn't a debate club. Make your suggestion, respond to others with constructive feedback, take that feedback on your idea and use it to refine your idea, especially when you don't think it is worthwhile. If you won't accept the feedback, hit the disagree button and stop retyping the same thing over and over, it isn't helping anyone to lobby for or against ideas on principle/ego/perceived merit. It's not about any one of us.
As a sidenote, I've been listening to a lot of talks by Richard Garfield (one of the creators of Magic: The Gathering and a pioneer in game design philosophy) talks lately. I highly recommend everyone give it a quick google and a listen, there are some interesting points that may help us layfolk, particularly his discussions about the role of luck and balancing games for different players. I find this one (terrible audio at the beginning but it cleans up after) particularly interesting is the "SpilBar 16: Richard Garfield talk about balance in games" video.
Comments
Anyways, I'm willing to go more in-depth regarding the system, but only if prompted to do so, as it would be a mighty long post.
From my personal PoV, if I am told I am not allowed to describe my ideas properly, then I may as well not participate. I would rather say nothing, than not represent my view to my satisfaction. You do not like long posts, that is your problem, not mine. You do not have the time to read well thought out ideas? Well, I do not have the time to read ideas that aren't well thought out at all.
A well thought out idea almost necessitates being long, because you need to state what are the downsides, how it would be implemented as well as a number of other factors that if you actually put some serious thought into, would result in a post with a longer word count.
Right now, anyone can share their idea and they can put as much thought into it as they want. Limiting them is only saying that you only care about the ideas of people that do not want to put much thought into them in the first place.
I appreciate the time and details you put into your posts, I know there are many times I wish I had the time to read it all and many more times I could not follow because, well, "squirrel" So with that being said, a summary either in beginning or end of writings to assist many in similar situations.
Perhaps also that is what Ravenokami meant as well
SW:Mouse
OP:MisfitMouse
Hi Chris,
Just to further expand on your comment above. The purpose of "tags" is simple, as Hustin mentions (if comments were numbered i would have directed you to number so on), that the CDP participants need to know how well (or not) their proposals are being considered. In the event that my proposal had been considered but didn't go past as being feasible for implementation then it would be wise to let that player know to divert and focus his attention to other suggestions. This could seem awkward if you were to word it but a tag simply removes that difficulty and kills 2 birds with 1 stone.
Any honorable tag is there for me to read up "potentially" important suggestions. In that regards, can one blame me for reading developer's comments more than any other individual? The whole purpose of this is to make CDP flexible and give options to players with less time on their hand to follow through CDP without it being daunting on them. But i do understand that this could backfire where the CDP may take a turn to seeking attention/fame than providing constructive feedback.
Conclusion
What i am trying to get across is that if I got left behind in the CDP or start the CDP late and i return with having to read 10 pages or even more at times, how will you make it easy for me to catch up without having to strain my eyes? If you could tackle that question, you will see many less duplicate suggestions and many more suggestions tackling the ambiguities in the already mentioned suggestions. That is exactly what evolving is all about. That is why I hope the CDP can provide that flexibility to more people than it currently does because i still think that CDP is limited in its scope of diverse playerbase.
No, I cannot describe to you how to build an itemization system, what are the benefits and pitfalls of it and why it works in under 500 words or in bullet point form and any attempt to do so would both fail to convey the idea properly and possibly mislead people about how the system would work. It would be like telling Andrew Wiles to prove Fermat's Last Theorem in under 1000 words, you simply cannot do that. And quite frankly, nor should I have to.
We should strive to limit our word limit in the CDP and just given an outlier/ draft of our suggestion. If more information was required, there needs to be another twin CDP forum (for each topic) whereby you can find the counterpart of the suggestion but which is in its complete form (this only applies if your suggestion is long and in depth). At this point, i believe even Chris doesn't have the time to read novelised suggestions. I will again stress that each suggestion depends on the whim of the developer/s. If they like the suggestion after going through their checklist then they have already considered many aspects of that suggestion already.
The CDP participants need to quickly state the advantages and disadvantages of their suggestion and let the Developer/s do the rest. The reason why i am in affirmative of less worded suggestions is that it makes it easier for the other participants to follow through CDP and reduces the burden on Chris and others. Again if a twin CDP thread is implemented, you can always use that thread for your well-thought, in-depth suggestions. This way, those of us who would wish to delve deeper into a particular suggestion, they could simply choose to go to the twin suggestion to read up further on that suggestion. Alas, i think numbering or providing us with the means of finding specific comments would be helpful in the long run.
- Why it needs to be reworked.
- How it should be reworked (implementation).
- Advantages and Disadvantages of reworking it.
- Who is affected by reworking it.
In most cases, we all agree on what the problems are, we do not agree on the implementation and it is exceptionally important that the implementation is discussed, because implementing something in a way that people are not happy with will only result in a mass exodus from the game, even if it solves the problem. Some solutions are worse than the problem after all.A CDP with word limits is in my opinion a CDP that has already failed at its directive. You cannot tell someone how to build a car but do so within 300 words.
For crying out loud your quick! I took that down after like 1 min and re-worded it to the above.
SW:Mouse
OP:MisfitMouse
Basically any ideas that the devs like but don't know how to implement to work without breaking something else, ask for input from the players, and they can pick and choose. If its good, great, if not, eff it.
1. Limit word count - I have 3 suggestions here in this CDP, and 2 on the PvP one, your posts (combined) word count already suppressed all of those combined (or close enough) with the discussion of two concepts, limit word count, and popular vote. Having said that, the current system needs a change, it is too straining to read and follow.
2. Popular vote - What happens when a streamer ask to go and support an idea they liked, what happens if a someone asks people to support / vote for them in exchange for goods, lets say a legendary mount pack, what will happen if someone with a NW site with more visitors than the entire streaming community put together, will ask for support on a vote? Will it represent the best way for NW forward, or someones ability to mobilize the mobs? This already happened to some extent, I assume with good intentions without considering the consequences, at the last CDP. What will happen when this is a requirement?
You formatting requirements are pretty step for a forum community. If you simply must see feedback provided in the manner that you constantly ask us for, then change the link of the reply button on CSP topics to take us to a pre-formatted submission form to fill out, with texts boxes set up for each category that you require us to fill out.
It certainly feels more like work, or trying to get a price match payment from a credit card company. It is not engaging and nor fun to fill out forms.
No. Brainstorming and feedback should be more organic, with ideas coming from everywhere.
And contrary to what several posters on this forum believe , when brainstorming, there are no bad ideas - everything should be shared.
Posting about why someone disagrees with an idea is counter-productive to the process in general.
Unless you are a Neverwinter Dev, you should not be shooting down anyones idea. That isn't your part in this. Your part is just to provide feedback to the Devs on the topic that they decided upon.
Providing negative feedback to other community member's CDP suggestions will only hamper the process and stifle what we are all trying to accomplish. Making this game awesome.
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."
For there to be a word limit, to be introduced by the developers?
300 words to be the limit?
Once you have read the whole of my post, i will discuss the rest with you. Just to help you, maybe you should critique if a twin thread is even required for detailed discussions and the disadvantages of it. Maybe at the same time, you can suggest how to make following CDP easier other than saying "tough luck" if you don't have the time to read.
If a streamer is using his influence to upvote his suggestions, do you think that little of Chris and the staff? I would personally be very annoyed if someone told me, "you do not know the difference between good and bad suggestions".
And as for this. It was an example of why limiting words is not good for effective communication. I did not say you, nor anyone else said that 300 words would be the limitation, but it shows why such a limitation is poor. I could have given an example without using the number 300, for example, "Say there is some arbitrary character limit where the limit is N, there will always be some piece of constructive feedback which can be given which is of length N+1," and then the statement becomes more general. Does that satisfy you? Since you want me to comment on that, I will. No, it is not required and should not be implemented because it fragments discussion (which is one of the problems we are already discussing in this thread) and in order for people to comment on the idea, they need to read the detailed post anyhow.
And as for making the CDP easier to read, there are numerous proposals on how to do that already, which do not have the disadvantage of lowering the quality of proposals in the process. The tree proposal by janne for example, with the option for people to collapse all discussion about an idea would already cut down most of the reading, for people who do not want to see commentary on ideas. It does not result in people butchering their idea in order to make it fit under some arbitrary word limitation and it also does not turn the CDP into a popularity contest, which is exactly what a voting system or some approval system would do.
2. If we agree that a popular vote is not an indicator of a good idea, and Chris and the rest of us intelligent enough to discern a good idea from a bad one (and I never suggested otherwise), why we need the popular vote you advocate to begin with?
3. A question on the way - you mention offtopic posts and post type you hate, is this discussion is offtopic or should we continue?
Addon: My comparison was just to provide an example and a point to consider, not a competitive measurement, nor attack or a start of bickering, I apologize if it was not clear.
I'm not trolling anyone the point is there was a time when we didnt had the Like buttons and the only diference was that everyone that wanted to upvote or downvote some post would make a new post with someting like
"+1 i agree 100% here"
And i dont think anyone will be ablle to blame someons for a post like that that will flood this very CPD forum...
So having or not is not a issue as it will stil exist in another (more annoying way) even after being removed...
I think the CDP forum needs to be restructured.
Instead of making a CDP topic thread, make a CDP topic sub-forum.
e.g. the CDP topic is ABC.
Make a sub-forum: CDP - ABC
Each contributor makes their proposal in the first post of his/her own thread. Others can comment/argue that particular idea in that thread instead of mixing everything in one huge thread right now.
The contributor can refine their original proposal, the first post, over time (add more detail, more explanation, etc). The contributors could even ask to close their own thread when they accept their idea is bad and no point to waste people's time to read/re-argue.
This can serve both phase 1 and phase 2.
When the time comes. create a thread for "top 3" and the list of the idea is the first post of each thread. We don't need Rainer to make a spreadsheet for us.
Then, another thread for "Conclusion: Proposal".
When it is done, lock the forum (assuming you can do that).
Though even with the downsides, IMO, still significantly better than how it is now.
Somebody that writes essays doesn't want to be limited in writing essays and finds fitting arguments.
Somebody that likes pressing buttons instead of commenting in a similar worded fashion to show how they support the same point doesn't want that to go away.
Somebody who doesn't like / cannot afford reading hundred of posts that are answers, input, bickering, theories, storys, compilations due to limitations (time, effort, motivation, ability) wants the posts to be limited...
And mostly everybody tries to point out that the other cannot see how their various points are the correct point of view.
What I really do not like about the CDP is (and I know who disagrees with it, but yeah, anyway) that it IS pretty much only up- and downvoting, only that it is a way of degrading somebodies ideas/wishes/theories with what we call "arguments" (while the practise by many people on here is dressing ridicule as an argument) and aligning it on several charts, instead of a real voting-structure.
I do not have a problem with the format structure, cause I do not have to follow it. If feedback would/will be/is going to be considered only if it is formatted correctly, then I simply will not care. Thats not the way to go about "collaboration", but maybe this is my nature of disliking authority-that-does-not-pay-me. (All in good fun, I just think before people do not comment at all they really should comment in whatever shape they deem fitting)
My boss can tell me to use a format and I might consider it if it is good... Otherwise, I will only use it if it helps MY thinking process.
For me, the Rewards CDP was overwhelming too, but that was completely unsurprising. I do not expect every CDP to be like that, especially if it was broken down more. I do not think that it will do any good restricting the posts further, all that is needed in my opinion, is moderation and clear guidelines on Off-Topic or not.
What I think should be worth a second thought is the current practise of moving "unfitting" comments into the lower depths and thus devaluing it completely, and moderation on how to go about this. I know that most of the bickering, fighting, forum-pvping is completely useless especially in this program, and I know that it is a nuisance. I know this because I, personally, have a history of being a nuisance - there are psychological aspects to devaluing posters, to putting some posters above the others, even subconsciously, to introduce some hierachy of "useful" and "not so useful" people, that grows hatred, envy, aggression. That also involves how long you let person A go on a rant, when you would already close a thread or move the answers as soon as person B pressed Send. I can understand that there is more value in some comments, but this is in my opinion not allowed to be so clearly judged if you really want people to engage even further, otherwise it is a "Oh I can see those people answered already, now its pointless" or a "They won't listen to what I have to say anyway", so pretty much what we already had.
TL;DR: Maybe there should be, as pointed out by others before too, a clearer guidance on how the CDP will be moderated, and in my opinion there could be several threads to one CDP topic, and whatever is "off topic" to moderators, but still worth a read to others, could be moved from the main (split into phases, formatted, whatever thread) to the others (in the same forum, not the "lower depths" where it is right next to the forum-pvping).
Example: https://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/neverwinter/#/discussion/1254166/comments-on-vip @spelldazer posts were moved around, clearly because they are not Lower-Depth-Worthy, but where else to put it? Thankfully, it didn't land in the Depths! There needs to be a guideline for those cases.
This is of course a workload, but a CDP is probably a huge time investment anyway.
Oh and, I apologize for some wording that may seem off, my english teacher would laugh at me... It's been a while.
If we lived in a world where nobody disagreed with each other for fear of upsetting people's egos, progress would not be made and society would come to a halt. Disagreement done properly is almost in my opinion a virtue which helps to better build society.
Argumentation needs cognitive empathy too. You are not building a better society - you are not bruising egos because of a disagreement, you are stepping on others to point at yourself. I think you do not understand argumentation with other humans any better than the rest of us, but as we already established: You think you do, so this is pointless.
A society is based on a very basic level of empathy and value. Your point of view of "disagreement done properly" does not mean the same to everybody else. If you stepped over somebodies red border and they are already shouting at you "please do not cross": you stepped over it, it is not their fault that they did not recede their border. You do not get to say "but I just wanted to point out where you are an idiot, I will go back in a second".
We might have severely different opinions and values, and I will try to respect that, but I am having a very hard time when you are pretending that you are the victim because you are just misunderstood (and that it is just disagreement, not disvalue) and all you want to do is improving OUR society. Since its not just yours... And you are not the only one concerned with having a valuable, progressive debate.
Oh and: I go into the Lower Depths!
(I'll be running away from the stones and stick now)
A person comes in and they propose an idea, lets say for example, they propose that PVP should be removed from the game. They say that it is a waste of resources and that other areas of the game could be better developed if PVP was gone from Neverwinter. Here is their initial premise (PVP should be removed) and argumentation (better use of resources).
So I respond by saying, "Well, what about the people who like PVP?"
What I am trying to show here, is that in the initial idea, there is something that is an important aspect to the discussion which is not been considered. I am not doing it to point to myself. In fact, in none of my comments in response to other people's ideas do I point back to my own. I am showing where an idea might have better been considered and where it should be improved.
If I fundamentally disagree with an idea, I state why, for example, I would state:
"PVP players are also a part of the community and you are just completely dismissing their point of view, which is why I do not think removing PVP is good."
Now, I will bring it back to something that is being discussed in this thread, the word limits. The "positive" aspect of word limits are the following:
- Makes posts shorter, so a higher volume of posts can be consumed.
- Makes it easier for people with less time on their hands to read everything.
The downsides of word limitations however, are the following:- Stifles creativity, if an idea is particularly complex it cannot fit into the word limit and thus cannot be properly proposed.
- Favours poorly thought out ideas over well thought out ideas. The more you think about an idea, the more you can probably write on the subject. Enforcing a strict word limit encourages low effort posting.
Many of the posters in favour of word limitations, are very much focusing on the positive aspects of it, without trying to address any of the negatives. @sobi#1980 actually tried to address them somewhat, by suggesting an alternative thread with the long post and then the main thread with the short post, but then that has the following problems:- Chris needs to read both threads, additional wasted time.
- People who read only the short post and not the long post might misunderstand the topic and end up wasting time making arguments which they would otherwise not make if they had read the long post.
- There needs to be some system in place to ensure the short post is an accurate summary of the long post.
I think @plasticbat's solution, for example (which is a slight modification of Sobi's), actually works well to address these problems. Each poster opens a thread, with the thread title being the problem they want to address. They then post into the main CDP thread for that topic, only the problem and why it is a problem, with a link to their thread which will address the solution. You could maybe put a word limitation on the problem itself, because it usually is easy to describe a problem in a few sentences. The thread with the solution, can then be as lengthy as they need it to be.This allows people to:
- See very easily a complete summary of all the identified problems in the main thread.
- Chris can easily point out which ideas he wants to get more discussion and "bring them up" simply by replying to those threads.
It has its own problems, for example needing to constantly open threads and the wasted time, but it is an improvement over just limiting the length of people's posts. Furthermore, being able to directly link to an idea works well and acts as a, "band aid."And nowhere in any of this feedback, or in any of my other arguments by the way, did I say, "the person who posted this is an idiot and you should not listen to them." I said, "these are the problems with the idea which need to be resolved." If people take the dissection of their idea as a personal attack, it is a them problem, not a me problem.
An idea does not have a red border. Every idea is open to being torn apart, in fact, it is best practice to do so. The best ideas are usually the hybrid abominations of a multitude of ideas all torn apart and reconstructed into some new Frankenstein's monster.
1)CDP style/format..
Now @thefabricant format seems Ok. However, through all my previous played games, my experience say that simpliest format is best. And the reason is that, simpliest formats is hardest to screw up.
Thats mean no need fancy looking fonts, neither specific quotation system. They may help, however, lot of time players may ignore them or mess up and outcome will be bad. Also, we here to provide/share our thoughts and feedbacks not desing space shuttle.
So fancy looking fonts, if someone use it's Ok I don't see any problem in that. However it should not be requirement.
I think by applying colors or simply adding Bold Font to highlighting names/parts in feedbacks is more than enough..
Whats about format how feedback is presented?
Well Sharp presented reasonable format, yet I slightly change it.
============================
1)Object(title) - Straitgh forward, what this feedback aim to. ( Either item or power or even multiple realated elements. )
2) Problem/reason(head)- explanation about problem and why you adressing it.
3) solution(body) - Providing suggestion how you think it should work, also highly reccomend to provide example, to let us know how you think change should work. This will clear suggestions from interpretations.
4) Outcome and risk. - What kind outcome you expect with your suggested changes/fixes, and also what kind risks may involve.
=============================================
Updated: Cut some part of comment to make over all post shorter.
best regards: Hades
p,s I still think we should talk about communications and usage of social pages and marketing realated things.
“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 also understand the need to ignore a voting system on threads. I don't think right now it's a large issue because for the most part, the ideas being tossed around for each CDP are by and large pretty similar.
These are a few things I would consider moving forward.
• Moderate posts heavily. Some people tend to go off on tangents (i'm guilty too). Some people decide to get into forum battles about egos and take a topic way off course.
• I would consider breaking each phase out as its own post. At end of Phase 1, lock it, create summary, create new thread for Phase 2.
• When it comes time to vote for our top 3, I would lock the main thread and create another one for votes. Votes should be a simple list of your top 3. Too often I see people writing a dissertation on why they're voting. We've already had the 20 pages of discussion. Can we not at this point just give Chris the top 3 in a clean, concise format so he doesn't have to sift through paragraphs?
• The topics are too broad leading to a large subset of smaller topics within. This can work in a tree structure where you break off subsets. But using the forums just makes this a messy discussion that can be all over place.
At the end of the day, the largest problem with the CDPs to me isn't the topic, the content, or the formatting of feedback...
It's the medium. The forums aren't set up to handle a branching discussion with multiple ideas that break into in depth conversations. I think they drag for too long but the reality is I don't have to sift through every post or respond to most of them. Each CDP should be given the length of time that topic deserves. If you feel it needs to be longer I would extend that.
The fact is that we have had a limited amount of CDPs so far. Rewards could have easily been extended another week or two, or it could have been branched off into multiple CDPs.
I think...PVP will not have the amount of traffic the other topics have to date. I could see that topic being given less time than a broader topic like Rewards.
As long as what you write is clear, relevant, and at the very least rooted in reality, does it matter what headings you use?
You could waffle for a few paragraphs, and put your actions in bullet points and not require 4 or 6 or 8 separate pro forma headings that might not even apply to your idea... but as long as it makes sense, does it matter?
Question for Chris, "Does having a standard form type structure make the job of collating the ideas easier?"
If so, can I suggest something simple, like
1. Idea. (write your idea)
2. Rationale/Justification (write why your idea is a good one)
3. Potential Pros and Cons (write who this may impact both positively and negatively)
Good ideas don't always have to be a solution to a problem... sometimes they can just be good ideas.
Duration of topics
2 weeks is almost too long. Four weeks is unbearable.
Week 1: Post suggestions, with no "in the moment" discussions taking place, just raw ideas. 1 week to discuss what parts people like and offer constructive criticism to each other - right now most of the CDP's are inundated by certain individuals debating everything to death and bashing anything they don't like. It's exhausting, and honestly a large part of why folks like me left the forums in the first place. In any creative meeting I have every seen, whether its a group of friends playing a game or a group of engineers collaboratively developing a circuit in the moment, there is always a brainstorming section free from ridicule. It's how you get the kind of industry changing ideas I think you're looking for.
Week 2: Guided discussion. You need to tell us what ideas you want to drill into, and we need to stop whipping out epeens for who has better quality ideas, understands how to debate, etc and just focus on refining suggestions. This is where we can figure out what will or will not work organically. This phase should happen a week after Phase 1 closes, to allow everyone time to not only read posts, but think about them and craft helpful, appropriate feedback, counterpoints, etc. Quality feedback is far more effective than quantity, for us, for you, for the game. Finish the week with a 2 day section where everyone only posts top 3's.
This program needs a bit more guidance to "bed in" as you call it.
Choice of discussion topics
There is going to be a large push from a huge part of the community to focus on the things we have been ignored about. It's going to happen. However, if the feedback you need in your development cycle isn't the feedback we want to give then there is no point to this program. Open a thread for 2 weeks, ask for topic suggestions from the community, create a poll to quickly get an idea of what is important to the community and then consider what fits where with your resources. Let us know that you know what we're miffed on, and we'll get to it, but this is not a feedback forum, it is a collaborative development forum and needs to actively support the development and vice versa.
Structure of the thread
Janne's covered it really well already. Get tree to link replies, etc. The only other suggestions I have are the stuff under Duration of topics.
Feedback format
This is going to be influenced by the advanced tech writing courses I'm currently wrapping up, and whitepapers in general. I suggest the following format.
Problem statement
Executive Summary (For the vast majority of us who aren't going to read whatever Sharp wrote this time :P)
Old Approach
New Approach
Feedback we're hoping for - With this last section I would want to see people posting the weak points of their suggestions, as they seem them, to encourage further feedback in phase 2.
Unrequested Feedback
Could you identify "drilling down" of value that has occurred in previous CDPs? I haven't been seeing it myself, and it is difficult to contribute in a meaningful way when it just seems like two to six people arguing the same points over and over.
I heavily use the Agree and Insightful buttons. I would like a disagree button in principle, but I don't know that I would use it enough to be worthwhile compared to how often it might be abused. There should be no definitive ranking based on these functions, so no one feels like it is a popularity contest, but it is helpful for us members to gauge response to our ideas with, since most of the time most of us will not get direct feedback.
This is mostly feedback for us members - This isn't a debate club. Make your suggestion, respond to others with constructive feedback, take that feedback on your idea and use it to refine your idea, especially when you don't think it is worthwhile. If you won't accept the feedback, hit the disagree button and stop retyping the same thing over and over, it isn't helping anyone to lobby for or against ideas on principle/ego/perceived merit. It's not about any one of us.
As a sidenote, I've been listening to a lot of talks by Richard Garfield (one of the creators of Magic: The Gathering and a pioneer in game design philosophy) talks lately. I highly recommend everyone give it a quick google and a listen, there are some interesting points that may help us layfolk, particularly his discussions about the role of luck and balancing games for different players. I find this one (terrible audio at the beginning but it cleans up after) particularly interesting is the "SpilBar 16: Richard Garfield talk about balance in games" video.