CDP Topic: CDP

nitocris83 · March 2020

For the latest CDP, we are running two topics concurrently in two separate threads. The topic for this specific thread is the Collaborative Development Program itself. For the other current CDP topic (PvP), please go here.

We have now run 3 separate CDPs and are looking for feedback on how to improve and evolve this program. Several suggestions have already been presented in past discussions and our goal is to better gather all input to develop an action plan. The different aspects of the CDP include:

Duration of topics and the different phases of each topic (For example, some topics have been 2 weeks while others have been 3-4)
Choice of discussion topics
Structure of the thread (For example, a thread is left open during the full duration of the discussion phase vs. closing it periodically to do “thread so far” summaries)
Feedback format (How can the feedback be presented in an organized and structured manner while not being constraining?)
Expectations of the CDP

For this CDP, we will remove the Feedback Format requirement to allow players to present their information in their preferred format. Please keep in mind that information should still be readable (punctuation and paragraphs are your friends!) and should adhere to the CDP Conduct and Expectations.

Topic Discussion End Date: March 11, 2020

Reminders

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

thefabricant · March 2020

I will take the hint from the topic and format it as I prefer.

Problem - CDP Post Format

The structure of posts is not intuitive and initially confusing. Someone who is trying to give feedback first presented with the format needs to work out what the format means and translate it into something that makes sense to them. Furthermore, it does not force players proposing ideas to consider them in detail even though it attempts to, which makes it less effective at idea distillation than it could be.

Solution

The solution to the problem is the structure I am using in my post here, which can roughly be broken down into 4 headings.

Problem - The problem you are identifying that you want to go about solving.
Solution - How you would go about Solving the problem.
Most affected groups - Who is affected by the change you are proposing and in what way.
Problems with the solution - What issues could arise as a result of the proposal being implemented.

I recommend that as additional rules, only 1 problem should be identified per post and if a user has multiple problems they are identifying, it is recommended they split each problem into its own post. This is for the purposes of readability, to make it easier for people to identify different problem - solution pairings. For the most affected groups, it is required that the developers draw up a table stipulating the different player types, I will provide a brief list here of what I think counts as the different player types, I am probably missing a few.

Role Player - People who play the game to try and fill a role. They care about being in character or out of character.
Lore Junkie - These are players who care about the story and how consistent it is. There may be some overlaps with the Role Player, but I think the 2 are different enough to warrant 2 different categories.
Explorer - These are people that like exploring the world and finding hidden areas. They do not necessarily care about the story, so much as the atmosphere of the world.
Achiever - These are goal driven players who like achieving difficult objectives. Chasing the best items or completing the collections are examples of the types of things which interest them.
Killer - These are players who don't care so much about achieving objectives, so much as they care about getting one over everyone else. PVP players are the prime example of this.
Socializer - These are players who primarily play the game in order to socialize with others.
Entrepreneur - These are players who are driven to manage the game's markets. They are not motivated by the game's content but by its economy and their ability to influence it.
Content Creator - These are players who enjoy creating and sharing content with others. Note, content is something that is of use to players. A guide explaining how a class or event works, or breaking down a mechanic is content. So is the development of tools to assist with gameplay. Simply streaming your gameplay is not.
Entertainer - These are players whose primary motivation in the game is to entertain other players. Most streamers would fall into this category, however if the content of their stream is educational or useful, streaming could also fall into content creation.
Theorycrafter - Players who are motivated to tear apart the game and find out how it works.

Note, that a single player can overlap into multiple different player types and it is unlikely that 1 player would be defined by only a single category. For example, I would say I am an achiever, socializer, entrepreneur, content creator and theorycrafter in varying degrees. For the purposes of feedback however, identifying which particular player aspects would be affected by a change helps to identify how much of an impact a change would make and forces players to better consider their ideas.

In addition to this, all of these different player types can be at varying stages of progress, for the purposes of this thread, here is a list of (in my opinion) what counts as the different player progress stages.

Beginner - Someone who has just started the game.
Veteran - Someone with a fair amount of experience, is able to run most, if not all content.
Elite - The players who are at the top of the top in terms of progress. They are usually the first to complete everything and do not simply consume content, they devour it.

A change may only affect Elite Achievers, for example, if module 19 added better weapons than the ToMM weapons which were easily obtainable by everyone, only the Elite and some (but not many) Veteran Achievers would be negatively affected by it.

Affected Player Groups

Veteran and End Game Socializers, since they are ultimately the people who participate in the various mediums of the games' social media.

Problems with the Solution

None that I can see.

thefabricant · March 2020

Problem - Post Ratings

This is not a major issue, yet. But it could become one even though it is only a minor problem right now. I have already heard various streamers telling their viewers to, "go vote for specific post," so the problem has already partially begun. These are an issue for 2 reasons, the first is because they promote vote brigading, where people "upvote" a post not because of its quality, but because their favorite influencer told them to. This directly undermines the purposes of the CDP. The second reason is because it decreases the amount of discussion. If someone agrees with something strongly enough to "rate" it, they should be forced to comment on it and say why. Likewise, if someone disagrees with something enough, they should be forced to respond to the post, explaining what problems they have with it. Ratings effectively eliminate a large amount of potentially good conversation, by allowing people a "lazy" way out.

Solution

Remove all forms of ratings and do not under any circumstances implement a voting system. An upvote and downvote system would only dramatically exaggerate this problem. Reddit is an excellent example of why this system does not work, where groups with a special interest can go and artificially inflate the popularity of something and make it unrepresentative of what the subreddit truly thinks. Likewise, I would suggest removing the current ratings, at least from the CDP section, for the same reason. The CDP is supposed to promote high quality discussion and ratings do the exact opposite of that.

Forcing people to respond to posts instead of to rate them, also compels them to consider why they are responding to it. It is easy to rate something without considering why you are applying that rating. If you are forced to state why you either like or dislike something, you need to read over it and come up with a compelling reason. If the reason is purely emotional, it is likely not from a good origin and may lead them to reconsider their position, which is already a huge improvement. Likewise, people who want to vote brigade cannot simply vote for a post without reading it, they would need to read it to reply.

If people simply made posts saying, "Agree" or "Disagree" they would be removed for being low effort posts that do not contribute anything, so why are ratings entertained when that is essentially all they are.

For anyone wondering by the way, this is why I never rate posts, I absolutely abhor the system.

Affected Player Groups

All Socializers - They would lose the ability to use ratings. Some may be upset by this because it makes it impossible to respond to a post without saying anything, to which I would say responding without saying anything defeats the entire purpose of a forum (which is discussion).
All Entertainers - Those who wish to exploit their influence to unduly influence discussion may be upset by this.
All Content Creators - Those who wish to exploit their influence to unduly influence discussion may be upset by this.

Problems with the Solution

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

thefabricant · March 2020

Problem - Forum Structure

The current forum structure makes it difficult to follow the flow of discussion in the various CDP threads. Often multiple very different ideas are being discussed at the same time, all intermingled with each other, making keeping track of what is going on a bothersome task.

Solution

Firstly, as mentioned before by @micky1p00, we need a tree structure with the ability to quickly split posts off into new discussions. After a post has been made, if you wish to reply to it, instead of having the option to rate it at the bottom you would see a reply button, which would reply to that specific post and cause it to branch off in a tree.

Optionally, you could also have 3 different types of reply which would each highlight posts differently. Expand Upon, which would highlight the border of the post in green and indicate that you are further developing the idea. Inquire, which would highlight the border of the post in blue and indicate that you want further clarification about something. Finally, Refute which would highlight the border of the post in red and indicate that you wish to provide argumentation against the post. This would allow people to tell at a glance, whether a response is a development of an idea, an argumentation against it or an inquiry before reading it. It is however, not entirely necessary.

Here are examples of such UI, with the 3 different borders showing the different response types.

Affected Player Groups

Socializers. It would be easier for them to follow the discussion.

Problem with the Solution

It would probably require using different forums for the purposes of the CDP.

josephskyrim · March 2020

I feel that thread structure wise, it would be better to do one of the following:

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

or

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

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

His idea for the CDP post formatting is good too, and should be an improvement if people actually bother to use it. : )

rjc9000 · March 2020

nitocris83 said:

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)

I would suggest temporarily locking a thread while doing the Thread Summary stuff. I recall the rewards one got a bit cluttered at times while Chris was trying to get a sense of the summary and that might have made getting feedback a bit hard.

There is the downside that people could have good ideas not make it into the summary, but that's a risk that comes with the closing date on CDPs.

nitocris83 said:

Choice of discussion topics

Suggested Topic: PvE Combat Design, PvE Character Building (Separate From Items), and PvE Content Design

This topic focuses on things such as:

In what ways did previous modules' combat/character building systems work/fail, and in what ways do current module combat/character building systems work/fail?
(Ex: The old feat system was great at giving a sense of growth and progression, but was also riddled with a decent many fake choices.)
How should/could character building be overhauled and why?
(Ex: Should we move back to the old feats system of the tree system? Should players unlock class features only when they unlock a paragon path so the class features can be more focused? So on and so forth.)
Are there redundant parts of the combat sandbox, or parts that need overhauling?
(Ex: How should Crowd Control effects be factored in fights?)
If a class/classes need reworking, how should the rework(s) be structured?
(Ex: Should playstyle be changed? Should mechanics only be changed? Should base damage only be touched?)
How should PvE content be designed relative to player tools?
(Ex: should PvE content only be based around combat, or also include social encounters, or include new strategies that reward players for going off the beaten path?)
What expansions to existing character development should be made?
(Ex: Should players be able to use different weapon types? Should players be able to pick up more powers as some sort of reward?)"

I realize this is a very loaded suggestion, but I wanted to address it because I've seen a bunch of posts, both in the CDP and outside of the CDP, on people (myself included) wanting to talk about redesigns to PvE combat, PvE character building, and PvE Content design.

One big assumption this makes is that PvE and PvP are separated from each other so developers aren't constantly having to think about PvP stuff when designing PvE stuff (people have already posted about separating PvP from PvE in the PvP CDP, so I hope that happens).

Otherwise, there are also a few other concerns that I thought about:

One very very big downside is that the feedback itself will quickly derail itself, since this topic closely relates to the divisive class balance subject. Threads on this suggested topic would need to be much more moderated and have a more structured feedback style so people aren't just popping in to beg for buffs/nerfs/etc.

Another very big problem with implementing this topic type is the costs involved. Mod 16's combat overhaul that was in the making for 2 or so years, if some comments from Mod 12/13 are enough hints. Having to redo that again will be very costly, especially when having to factor in player feedback.

Lastly, the CDP only involves the opinions of people still involved on the forums. A decent many people left Mod 16 due to dissatisfaction of some factors (from what I have gathered, most leaving due to dissatisfaction related to PvE design/character building) and those people are likely not using the forums anymore. Hearing those stories could provide great insight on what people could want on revamped PvE combat/content not heard on the forums.

gromovnipljesak · March 2020

A problem with CDP itself would be that we wouldn't know the impact of our feedback - it would be nice that in the last post, you add what changes are going to be considered in full, and so on.
Eg, Fabricant has suggested lotsa things, and I'm wondering how you're gonna address those concerns.

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

Furthermore, themes, as RJC suggested, should maybe be polled?

micky1p00 · March 2020

Feedback Overview

CDP infrastructure and forum format

Feedback Goal

Increase readability, increase participation, improve discussion, and decrease waste of time and cognitive load on everyone involved.

Currently it's almost impossible to keep track of the posts, have discussion, or follow various ideas. More so for people who are not native English speakers which are a large portion of the NW player-base.

Feedback Functionality

Adapt a tree based (or semi tree) discussion structure.
(https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/41752/tree-forum-vs-flat-vs-stack-exchange-style)

There are several options to do so, one option adding a new platform for the purpose of the CDP:

Many of these can be deployed locally, for free, and with the ARC site providing the authentication - meaning same account.

One of the stackexchange clones:
https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2267/are-there-any-clones-alternatives-for-running-a-stack-exchange-style-qa-site

Or for example
https://www.discourse.org/

All provide semi tree discussion structure, with various options and looks. - it will take some resources to maintain and adapt visually to the requirements, some do have premium options.

Different option is to contract Vanilla. With the main requirement is to have collapsible reply options to posts. The current very flat structure encourages large quotes to keep the context. Adding one level of post reply and the ability to collapse them will solve it all.

Also an option, is to open a subreddit, for example NeverwinterCDP, and use it as a platfrom, free, no hassle, but will require separate accounts, which may deter participation

Lastly, probably the least "solution" but the easiest. Split the CDPs more aggressively into subtopics once those emerge. For example as with the rewards which was huge, and subtopics that emerged where professions, mentoring, item structure, content, and more. This takes an hands-on approach, with constant actions, but on the other hand it is another indicator that things are read, which will increase participation.

Risks & Concerns

This is a form of Technical debt, the question is how many CDPs are planned, and for how long, if not many, then investing in a new system is a waste of resources. If it something that will go on, then an investment in a platform will save more time and resources in the long term over the initial investment.

tchefi · March 2020

thefabricant said:
Problem - Post Ratings
[wall of text]
Solution
[wall of text]
Affected Player Groups

All Socializers - They would lose the ability to use ratings. Some may be upset by this because it makes it impossible to respond to a post without saying anything, to which I would say responding without saying anything defeats the entire purpose of a forum (which is discussion).

I don't see that the same way as you.
It took me around 15 minutes to read and understand your 3 posts (not native englishspeaker ^^, and i'm also at work :P).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ahhh, influence and politic....

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

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

theraxin · March 2020

So, I basically just pile-on for the already mentioned issues:

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

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

sobi · March 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

thefabricant · March 2020

tchefi#6735 said:

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

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

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

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

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

tchefi#6735 said:

Ahhh, influence and politic....

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

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

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

Anyhow, not going to engage in a full debate about this since it isn't phase 2 yet, only reason I responded is because I like reading your posts.

kreatyve · March 2020

Going with Sharp's format.

Problem

There are still a lot of players that don't know about the CDP. I'm sure many of them would have valuable feedback.

Solution

Send an email or in-game mail to players to let them know about the CDP, with a brief explanation of the program, and a link to the forum. If the CDP becomes a permanent fixture, perhaps players can even get a mail upon reaching a certain level in the game?

Affected player groups

Any player who doesn't read the forums or follow the games social media on a regular basis.

Problems with solution

Many players don't bother to read things they are sent anyway, and others may complain about spam.

oremonger · March 2020

Manipulation of CDPs

I agree with almost everything posted so far in this thread. I was one of the people begging for this CDP because I know just how easily it can be manipulated by those who are in organized groups, have a following or are skilled in debate / written discourse. I think I failed to give Chris the credit he deserves. Chris and his team so far seem to be aware of these tactics. I hope that this does remain in the back of their minds in the future though.

Post ratings

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

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

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

We really need better options as far as ratings go.

Publicize the CDP

I was also one who asked for wider publicity for the CDP in order to get more people involved in the process. I understand that Chris did not feel the same way because he wanted to start slowly. I think we are far enough along now to "Get the word out".
I feel that more participation will help insure that all segments of the community are aware and are represented in this program.

I have done my best to "cheerlead" and get people over here to speak their peace. Many are jaded by the experiences that they have had in the past with Cryptic and are not willing to put in the effort required to participate in a CDP. IMO these players need to see results before they will participate, or in the case of those who left the game be invited to come back and participate in this process. A simple email about the program would go a long way to get some of those players back. Many still have the perception that Cryptic does not care about them or what they have to say. A mass email would accomplish all of these things on a more direct / personal level.

I applaud Cryptic for embracing the content creators in the community I know they (Cryptic) realize that this can be a two edged sword. I have personally witnessed a Twitch streamer (Not one of our community streamers) weaponize their audience in the past. It is a real thing that sometimes results in social media attacks, review bombing and website crashing. All of this being said, I hope Cryptic continues to engage with our community content creators.

CPD infrastructure and format

I did a little research on the capabilities of the Vanilla forum. There are many plugins that could be used to improve how we interact with the CDP threads. As far as I could see Cryptic could even develop a custom plugin for this purpose, but like @micky1p00 talked about above is it worth the "technical debt" involved.

I also agree with @thefabricant in that the format Cryptic has chosen for the CDP leads to the structure of posts not being intuitive and makes the process initially confusing. I agree with his solution because it is straightforward and simple to understand, which leads me to...

International audience for the CDP

Neverwinter has players from all over the world and from all walks of life. This fact brings with it certain problems when it comes to written / typed communication. We should go out of our way to use language and formatting that is easy to understand by the widest possible audience. This means that we should avoid using acronyms, tech speak and slang when posting so that everyone understands what we are talking about. We should also go out of our way to help those who are not native english speakers feel welcome. Everyone's feedback is important.

Narrowed scope and well defined topics

@zimxero#8085 and @mordekai#1901 discussed this on the main CDP thread. It is really important to have a more narrow scope with well defined topics. I realize that this is hard to do in some situations, but failure to do so leads to feedback overload and allows for topics to be derailed needlessly. Narrowing the scope will result in more CDPs in the long run but I argue that the feedback you get will be more useful and detailed. This IMO will allow for shorter duration CDPs and easier summaries of the topics discussed.

CDP Feedback from Developers

@gromovnipljesak#8234 touched on this above. This program is great! We are able to interact with Cryptic like never before, but we have little idea how our feedback is implemented in the development process. Chris could you possibly include something like what gromovnipljesak suggested as part of your summary? I realized this level of response has its drawbacks, but if we all agree that situations change and the development process is fluid then maybe you could be more open about how feedback is being used.

I also understand that it is far easier for you to discuss topics on Live streams, but the information you share there should also be posted here. There are many of us who can not get to the live streams or have difficulties hearing / understanding them. It is really important for everyone to be on the same page. The live stream that you did with the community Youtubers and Streamers was great, but I do not feel that it should have been where you revealed the Road map. IMO the road map stream should have been on the Cryptic channel with a summary posted here on the forums first. This would have lead to a more constructive stream with the community content creators.

Choice of CDP topics

I have always advocated for a poll or something to help choose CDP topics. I understand why Chris does not want to use polls, but I think some sort of community involvement needs to happen when CDP Topics are chosen. IMO this will give more of a sense of ownership to the community and help insure that topics we feel are important are discussed in a timely manner.

Several topics are still left to be discussed, just a few that I can think of are:

Guilds and Strongholds
Professions / Master Crafting
The Auction House
User Interface
Lock boxes
Class Balance
Boons
Feats
Bugs - In game bug reporting, PWE responses, forum bug reporting format

These are just a few topics but there are many more.

cdnbison · March 2020

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

cwhitesidedev · March 2020

sobi#1980 said:
The primary reason for my lack of interest in CDP over time has been because of two things:

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Sobi,

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

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

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Chris

theraxin · March 2020

thefabricant said:
Problem - Post Ratings
This is not a major issue, yet. But it could become one even though it is only a minor problem right now. I have already heard various streamers telling their viewers to, "go vote for specific post," so the problem has already partially begun. These are an issue for 2 reasons, the first is because they promote vote brigading, where people "upvote" a post not because of its quality, but because their favorite influencer told them to. This directly undermines the purposes of the CDP. The second reason is because it decreases the amount of discussion. If someone agrees with something strongly enough to "rate" it, they should be forced to comment on it and say why. Likewise, if someone disagrees with something enough, they should be forced to respond to the post, explaining what problems they have with it. Ratings effectively eliminate a large amount of potentially good conversation, by allowing people a "lazy" way out.
Solution
Remove all forms of ratings and do not under any circumstances implement a voting system. An upvote and downvote system would only dramatically exaggerate this problem. Reddit is an excellent example of why this system does not work, where groups with a special interest can go and artificially inflate the popularity of something and make it unrepresentative of what the subreddit truly thinks. Likewise, I would suggest removing the current ratings, at least from the CDP section, for the same reason. The CDP is supposed to promote high quality discussion and ratings do the exact opposite of that.

Forcing people to respond to posts instead of to rate them, also compels them to consider why they are responding to it. It is easy to rate something without considering why you are applying that rating. If you are forced to state why you either like or dislike something, you need to read over it and come up with a compelling reason. If the reason is purely emotional, it is likely not from a good origin and may lead them to reconsider their position, which is already a huge improvement. Likewise, people who want to vote brigade cannot simply vote for a post without reading it, they would need to read it to reply.

If people simply made posts saying, "Agree" or "Disagree" they would be removed for being low effort posts that do not contribute anything, so why are ratings entertained when that is essentially all they are.

For anyone wondering by the way, this is why I never rate posts, I absolutely abhor the system.
Affected Player Groups

All Socializers - They would lose the ability to use ratings. Some may be upset by this because it makes it impossible to respond to a post without saying anything, to which I would say responding without saying anything defeats the entire purpose of a forum (which is discussion).
All Entertainers - Those who wish to exploit their influence to unduly influence discussion may be upset by this.
All Content Creators - Those who wish to exploit their influence to unduly influence discussion may be upset by this.
Problems with the Solution

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

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

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

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

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

thefabricant · March 2020

theraxin#5169 said:

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

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

theraxin#5169 said:

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

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

theraxin#5169 said:

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

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

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

oremonger#9999 said:

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

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

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

We really need better options as far as ratings go.

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

jules · March 2020

thefabricant said:

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

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

E. for english being a difficult language.

thefiresidecat · March 2020

jules#6770 said:

thefabricant said:

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

E. for english being a difficult language.

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

jules · March 2020

thefiresidecat said:

jules#6770 said:

thefabricant said:

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

E. for english being a difficult language.

imo, just using one of the positive buttons is enough if you agree with someone. but if you disagree with what they say it's important to state why rather than just flat saying, I disagree. it's the only way to move forward and find a middle ground.

I can see the point, yes. But there is not always a point in arguing about certain viewpoints, as I think was in the last CDP ... it will turn into a mess of offense/defense action, and that was more about ego than any button could ever be.
Maybe those discussions/Offtopics/sometimes bashing are a moderation-issue, I don't know. I can go with ignoring something I disagree with, tho, if I try, so in the end, a disagree button might not be the best idea, but I do not think that it is a big issue. I thought it would save some pointless arguing with rising anger levels, where one states why they do not want point a) to be introduced, the other stating they are just saying that for personal benefit, the first one stating thats a lie because of outdated and wrong data x y z, whatever.

ron · March 2020

I think that the only problem is the usual required formats. I can't figure out how to write things with these requirements. It's really annoying

oremonger · March 2020

thefabricant said:

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

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

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

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

Validation, and recognition are important.

theraxin · March 2020

thefabricant said:

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

As already noted, you pretty much went from this reasonable point into an unreasonable idea. Thus, your starting argument is not part of the discussion.

thefabricant said:

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

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

thefabricant said:

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

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

thefiresidecat · March 2020

jules#6770 said:

thefiresidecat said:

jules#6770 said:

thefabricant said:

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

E. for english being a difficult language.

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

Personal attacks should be moderated. disagreeing with someone means disagreeing with their idea, not the person. if you bring the person into it you've lost. You are basically saying, I don't have a valid footing to argue with so I'm going to just attack you personally instead, so people focus on that. I actually think the cdp is undermoderated. I don't think things should necessarily all be sent to the bottom depths but personal attacks should be hamstered.

but in something like a cdp (in my *not* valuable opinion according to Chris) it is important to articulate why because it's a change that might occur in the game and if it's something with potential negative effects it is important to consider it even if it's not patting someone on the back. This game isn't in a good place. there is a real possibility of making it a less good place instead of a better place. Changes should be made with caution imo.

thefabricant · March 2020

Oremonger:

oremonger#9999 said:

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

Also Oremonger:

oremonger#9999 said:

Validation, and recognition are important.

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

oremonger#9999 said:

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

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

theraxin#5169 said:

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

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

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

theraxin#5169 said:

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

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

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

thefiresidecat · March 2020

thefabricant said:

theraxin#5169 said:

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

A person's influence (yours, mine, or anyone's else) should not be a factor in deciding the eligibility of an idea. People should not vote for ideas based on the person posting the idea, or because they were told to vote for it by a friend or streamer, that directly undermines the purpose of the CDP. Almost all voting systems are flawed and if you want me to, I can provide examples of the failures of the voting system of your choice.
theraxin#5169 said:

But, probably most importantly, when clicking an agree button meant anything other than just wasting a post articulating the exact same thing? Maybe Chris tells us that actually the rate of agree is the arbiter of right ideas, but probably is just a convenient option.
Pressing "Agree" on a post does not add anything to the discussion. Neither does pressing "Disagree." You are already admitting, people posting "I agree" would simply clutter the thread and would probably be removed, so why are we entertaining a button which is essentially the same thing?
theraxin#5169 said:

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

I would probably go for the opposite way on the agree button, anyone that just agrees to the idea just click that thing instead of flooding the pages, but if you disagree with a popular idea, cite your reasons so the developers can read it as well.
Nobody is being stopped from participating. There is nothing here saying, "only people worthy of participating should participate." All that I am saying is that if people want to participate, they need to add something to the discussion.
oremonger#9999 said:

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

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

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

We really need better options as far as ratings go.

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

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

I got a pm from Chris saying exactly this. my opinion is not worthy to participate in these and he would not consider anything I said going forward because I'm a nasty troll. soo.. yeah.

theraxin · March 2020

thefabricant said:

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

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

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

thefabricant said:

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

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

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

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

micky1p00 · March 2020

Feedback Overview

Automatic template and Phase 2 format.

Feedback Goal

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

Feedback Functionality

Three things:

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

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

Summery of the discussed idea:

What you found to preserve from the idea:

What you think to improve in the proposed idea:

How would you improve upon the idea/topic:

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

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

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

Risks & Concerns

Make technology work for you. Skynet may be a risk.

thefabricant · March 2020

theraxin#5169 said:

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

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

theraxin#5169 said:

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

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

Phase 3 of the CDP = Choose your top 3 ideas. It works just fine for that purpose. I actually dislike that as well for the same reasons.

theraxin · March 2020

But also, consider this, @thefabricant : Maybe, popular opinions are right.

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

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

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

CDP Topic: CDP

Comments

Problem - CDP Post Format

Solution

Affected Player Groups

Problems with the Solution

Problem - Post Ratings

Solution

Affected Player Groups

Problems with the Solution

Problem - Forum Structure

Solution

Affected Player Groups

Problem with the Solution

Feedback Overview

Feedback Goal

Feedback Functionality

Risks & Concerns

Problem - Post Ratings

Solution

Affected Player Groups

Problems with the Solution

Problem

Solution

Affected player groups

Problems with solution

Manipulation of CDPs

Post ratings

Publicize the CDP

CPD infrastructure and format

International audience for the CDP

Narrowed scope and well defined topics

CDP Feedback from Developers

Choice of CDP topics

Problem - Post Ratings

Solution

Affected Player Groups

Problems with the Solution

Post ratings

Post ratings

Feedback Overview

Feedback Goal

Feedback Functionality

Risks & Concerns