[2021] CDP Topic: CDP

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.

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

My main problem with this idea that it misses the point of influencing or just really, community... But also, you went from "people shouldn't be said to like something" to "all comment deemed out of merit shall be removed" which means, you pretty much don't want to have a community discussion about it, but an effectively barred discussion with the few "meritful". A person's influence (yours, mine, or anyone's else) should not be a factor in deciding the eligibility of an idea. People should not vote for ideas based on the person posting the idea, or because they were told to vote for it by a friend or streamer, that directly undermines the purpose of the CDP. Almost all voting systems are flawed and if you want me to, I can provide examples of the failures of the voting system of your choice. But, probably most importantly, when clicking an agree button meant anything other than just wasting a post articulating the exact same thing? Maybe Chris tells us that actually the rate of agree is the arbiter of right ideas, but probably is just a convenient option. Pressing "Agree" on a post does not add anything to the discussion. Neither does pressing "Disagree." You are already admitting, people posting "I agree" would simply clutter the thread and would probably be removed, so why are we entertaining a button which is essentially the same thing? So, while stating that underlying systematic changes shouldn't be affected by votes... yeah, duh... trying to remove a marginally meaningful feature or actively censor the community because you decided their opinions to be "unworthy" is... a pretty hostile idea for a company that actually lives on the concept of being popularly played. I would probably go for the opposite way on the agree button, anyone that just agrees to the idea just click that thing instead of flooding the pages, but if you disagree with a popular idea, cite your reasons so the developers can read it as well. Nobody is being stopped from participating. There is nothing here saying, "only people worthy of participating should participate." All that I am saying is that if people want to participate, they need to add something to the discussion. Post ratings Post ratings can be abused, but I feel that they are important. I use them myself for many reasons. In my opinion every post is insightful if it is on topic even if i don't personally agree with the content of the post. Marking a post as insightful lets the author know that it has been read and their point has been heard / considered. It also gives a small incentive for them to keep participating in the discussion especially if they get developer interaction via a rating. I think that this one rating can really help Cryptic / Chris let people know they have been heard without having to post a reply or commit to agree/disagree with the ideas presented. LOL should be removed as an option. LOL has become the default disagree button on this forum. Replace LOL with Disagree. There is nothing wrong with a dissent choice in a CDP or even on a forum like this in general. I can disagree with you without laughing at you or your ideas. Let me disagree if I disagree, don't make me laugh at someone because I don't have another choice short of posting a reply. Agree, Like and Awesome... Why do we need all three? I often use the AWESOME rating for people who obviously put a lot of effort into their post and response. I don't necessarily agree what they post all of the time, but that level of effort should be applauded IMO. Are both agree and like needed? I don't really know. We really need better options as far as ratings go. The CDP should not be about validating people's egos, it should be about the game. If the only purpose of post ratings it to act as some form of validation, then it is not helping to contribute to the discussion. re: Nobody is being stopped from participating. There is nothing here saying, "only people worthy of participating should participate." All that I am saying is that if people want to participate, they need to add something to the discussion. I got a pm from Chris saying exactly this. my opinion is not worthy to participate in these and he would not consider anything I said going forward because I'm a nasty troll. soo.. yeah. Here is the conversation so as to ensure that the discussion is not misrepresented. Just like with others in the group who I have contacted or contacted me I just want to get us bedded in sooner rather than later and address concerns on both sides, then grow and evolve: cwhitesidedev March 1 Hi Fireside, Just wanted to let you know that I can no longer tell if and when you are trolling in the CDP. If you aren't trolling then for some reason you seem to be growing with the working group at a much lover rate of value. I really appreciate the time you take to contribute but a lot of what you was is either heavily assumption based, lacking the ability to think outside of the box or myopic. I will try to spend the time to read what you post as we move forward but please underdstand that my time is limited and therefore will be spent the most on those that are adding value. I hope these thoughts can help in terms of bringing more value from you to the group. Best, Chris thefiresidecatthefiresidecat 10:56AM Chris I am not trolling. you see lesser value because it's not what you want to read. I honestly am concerned about the massive amounts of change here. you want a cheering yesman squad but that isn't what keeps the player base. people come up wiht all kinds of things but then in the implementation and what they really want or need it's another story. I do not believe I have been engaging in any kind of ad hom. I have not been picking at you or anyone else as an individual. but I do see a lot of scary things being pointed out that seem to have no regard for the in game economy or the holistic picture. If you see no value in a dissenting opinion that's something maybe you should evaluate in yourself. cwhitesidedev#9752cwhitesidedev 12:49PM Gosh fireside. You are so far from the reality with the CDP it is stunning. You say you are concerned how much we are working on and yet you have no idea of the best working practices, dev pipelines, team size to justify your concern. All assumptions. It is prove able that we and I have found tons of value in dissent, challenge, and discussion. Your comment about economy is also left field. Regardless my initial message to you still stands. I have limited time and the assumptions you continue to make are not adding value for me or the team. Hopefully in time we will get past this. Thanks Chris The intent here is not to cause drama but to show how serious the CDP endeavor is. Where possible we need to not work on assumptions. Any further posts about this specific topic will be removed so we can stay on topic. Chris

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? Hey Grom, We do this in the CDP. They are the proposals at the end. Is the issue that CDP members post after the proposal and so it gets hidden? Thanks Chris

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 :( 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

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. I live in South Africa. The popular vote in South Africa is the ANC and it will probably continue to be the ANC for the next 20 years, because there is an entire generation that feels that it owes its freedom to the ANC and will vote for them regardless of whether or not the party has their best interest in mind, because they feel they owe it to that party to vote for them. Does that make it the right decision to vote for them? Well, I can point to all the corruption scandals related to the party or their gross mismanagement of resources and say probably not. Sometimes, the popular decision is right, but the popular decision should be decided by the merits of the post itself and not on the reputation of the poster or because somebody else told people to go rate a post. Sadly, neither of those things are realistically possible in any voting system except for one where the posters are complete anonymous and posts are ordered randomly, forcing people to read every single post. That has other problems attached to it as well, where short posts will get more attention than long posts as well as problems in terms of readability and to be honest, this community is so small you could tell who anonymous posters are simply by their post length and writing style. These reasons and others are why I did not propose this. Ad populum is the logical fallacy that because something is popular, it must be right. The entire community for example may want all their gear for free handed to them tomorrow, but the developers would not do that because it would not be good for the game. If your suggestion is to exclude 99,9%+ part of the community from the decisions made, politics is the worst example you can make. But also, it has not really anything to do with this thread. NWO is an entertainment product, popularity keeps the company afloat and at least most of the decisions has no true moral consequence. Also, popular solutions finance the meritful to be developed, so excluding the popular kills the rest. But to sidenote to your specific example, the developers should not give free gear not because the players are wrong to want them, but because the players are right to need them. Making players need an item or something have no more merit than giving them for free, but it gives popularity metrics on the hours played and the money spent, so it's a longer term popularity. So even your "meritocratic" example is just make the game popular until the next mod rolls in. And sometimes they definitely should give free gear to help newer players to start and to streamline progress where it got clunky. Also, you think way too much of the top3 voting and a simple agree button. I'm pretty sure that @"cwhitesidedev#9752" will back me up on that not being a top3 idea does not equal to being cast aside instantaneously. Good ideas will always be considered regardless of agree clicks. Or at least I have to believe this because I will never get top3 suggestion ever, but still here posting. :D Also, you think way too much of the top3 voting and a simple agree button. I'm pretty sure that @cwhitesidedev#9752 will back me up on that not being a top3 idea does not equal to being cast aside instantaneously. Good ideas will always be considered regardless of agree clicks. Or at least I have to believe this because I will never get top3 suggestion ever, but still here posting. :D Absolutely. The purpose of the top3 in part is a razor with which to measure the impact of directional change in the CDP hive mind through earlier phase discussion and further drilling into any given idea. Therefore it is entirely possible to have an idea be in a proposal that was only listed in top 3's a few times (I think we have cases of this already). Chris

By the way this discussion is good. Think of it like a sorbet prior to the meal (-: Let's continue to discuss CDP philosophy and assumptions with equal verve as to putting specific ideas forward. Chris

On another subject: It will take a lot to convince me and the team that direction being something that is 'voted' on by players who are not part of the CDP is valuable (even though it would be much less time consuming). If anything it could be severely detrimental to the product. All player types are already represented in the CDP membership and I look forward to even more joining who will give perspective and ideas based on their assort flavors of player type. The most valuable part of the CDP is the discussion and design. You can't be results focused without understanding the detail and vice versa (at various levels) (My opinion here I believe goes against some common business golden principles but that's how I feel). With that said the whole point of the CDP is evolution so challenging each others opinions is key. Chris

If your suggestion is to exclude 99,9%+ part of the community from the decisions made, politics is the worst example you can make. You are the only one who keeps saying I am excluding 99.9% of the community in my suggestion, so stop putting words in my mouth. It is not difficult to comment on a thread and add to it, it only takes marginally more time than it does to rate a post. If someone cares so much about this game that they want to change the development on it, they should also be willing to devote more of their time than the 2 seconds it takes to press a button into saying why they think so. NWO is an entertainment product, popularity keeps the company afloat and at least most of the decisions has no true moral consequence. Also, popular solutions finance the meritful to be developed, so excluding the popular kills the rest. But to sidenote to your specific example, the developers should not give free gear not because the players are wrong to want them, but because the players are right to need them. Making players need an item or something have no more merit than giving them for free, but it gives popularity metrics on the hours played and the money spent, so it's a longer term popularity. So even your "meritocratic" example is just make the game popular until the next mod rolls in. And sometimes they definitely should give free gear to help newer players to start and to streamline progress where it got clunky. Also, you think way too much of the top3 voting and a simple agree button. I'm pretty sure that @"cwhitesidedev#9752" will back me up on that not being a top3 idea does not equal to being cast aside instantaneously. Good ideas will always be considered regardless of agree clicks. Or at least I have to believe this because I will never get top3 suggestion ever, but still here posting. :D If NW was a Battle Royale and not an MMO it might have more players than it does right now. Does that mean that no games should exist but Battle Royales? No, it doesn't! Different games appeal to different audiences and the right move is to design a game which is good for the audience you want to appeal to. The argumentation, "but this other decision is more popular," directly ignores the fact that even if another decision is more popular, it might not be the right decision for a game to make. Ratings systems are poor because they promote echo chambers. Go to reddit, easy example the politics subreddit is nothing but Bernie Sanders, despite the fact that other candidates exist and right now he is not even leading at the moment in the Democratic Party (its sad that I know anything about American politics tbh, but that is off topic). I can provide other examples as well if it makes you happy, but the point is, we should have a diverse array of opinions and discussion and ratings systems promote the exact opposite of that. Well, the subreddit is actually pretty representative of the majority of the specific democratic that uses it. But I really want to step aside politics. But also, your argument invalidates your own statement. As you said, the game should appeal to the audience, which means, the community's opinion. The metric you specifically want to remove. You can state that a less popular opinion might be better, but you want to remove any popularity measure, regardless how insignificant it is, which makes everyone blind to what the community needs. You can do "good" things and lose all your source of income if you cannot balance out with popularity. And you cannot balance it if your idea is to remove it altogether. Zero popularity presentation is just turning a blind eye to the community. As said with the battle royale, not making the better choice, but the most popular keeps the mediocre the most successful. Now, actually responsible companies do the popular things AND use the resources they got to increase the quality of the game. But you cannot try to make something "high quality" and letting the community feel cast aside. In short, you need popularity metric. I think the 'popularity' measure is key but there are various methods outside of the CDP that represent this. I love your focus on the business. It is my personal hope that we will be pioneering in the worlds/experiences we build together moving forward and this doesn't exclude the business at all (That is a lens through which everything passes). It is unfair for me to bring up Battle Royale outside of the context in which you mentioned it but it does help to give context to the next point which is: We intend to disrupt and break ice with the CDPs as they relate to the experiences and business we build. Battle Royale in its current form and in my opinion is fast follow and very business focused (There is nothing wrong with that). I think there needs to be a balance which is what I believe you are advocating. By pioneering we can build the waves rather than catch/ride them. Its a big risk but the path we have chosen. Chris

Feedback Overview CDP and other Neverwinter mediums exposure One of the challenges, as you allude to, is that all these systems are not fully centralized. There is one tool for FB and Twitter, another tool for the blogs/news page (including blog itself and rotating images at the top) and the NW launcher image, the forums are separate, in-game mail is done by another team, emails are done by the publisher, and in-game intro page is done by some folks on the NW team. For the CDP, the current method of amplifying its existence is via FB/Twitter posts, mentions during streams, and content creator collaborations. Now that we've had several great CDPs, the next step is to begin utilizing the website and the launcher rotators (which require specifically templated assets so there is extra work involved). I would love to move forward with using email, localization, and other communication options but since those require work outside of myself (and fall under different business areas), they are more up in the air. It's also really important to us to ensure that the CDP does not become a marketing initiative - that would go against the spirit of this program.

Such an interesting conversation. Is the product 'Popularity' metric part of a 'Confidence' psychology/metric? (I think it is. Twitch for example is a tool that can be used to boost confidence through popularity and vice versa) The confidence metric is tangible but hard to isolate and measure (Release quality impact short, medium and long term for example). Many factors play into confidence including User Experience. The CDP focuses on intent, evolution and execution (more to be done here in regard to how the CDP evolves) and therefore the 'Confidence' metric is necessary as part of the conversation in regard to how we evolve the User Experience/Business. I think we can probably try to measure this by looking at analytics at key periods of the game (recent) and then extrapolate how to utilize the data in the CDP as a lens/category and then apply that more broadly to larger pools of data like industry trends. But no mass voting (-: We are building (CDP) a star ship not a carnival ship. Chris

The only bad thing I can see, from the scope of the CDPs so far, is that the completely solo players' voices can not be properly heard, as the subject matters so far are not really stuff that concerns them. Yes rewards do impact them, but for the most part the rewards talked about were dungeon rewards, which excludes their playstyle. Now yes do a CDP on campaigns, questlines, lore etc then their voices can be properly heard. I agree Rick and we will. As per the road map our direction to exceed in the areas you mention are clear. As the episodes roll out, CDPs on campaigns, questlines, lore will be demanded (-: A few team members play solo or in my case did to get to Avernus etc. You can see the impact of our and CDP members experience in CDP 1 and our plans for M20. In the interim we are going to learn how to build really engaging narrative experiences in the Episodes and of course Mods as intersecting arcs that also evolve the world. It will be a journey! Chris

How I feel the CDP could be improved: 1) I do not like the current recommended format for posting. It just is worded in a very clunky and not particularly clear fashion. I do like the proposed format that @thefabricant suggested in his first post here. 2) Keep the topics narrower. The rewards and progression CDP - while coming up with many great idea - was also a confusing mess to read and try to keep track of what/who/when. It was rather sad that a player had to make a spreadsheet for us to help keep track of various topics within that one CDP. That spreadsheet was great btw, thank you :) So please, keep the topics narrower even though that means there will be more topics to cover. As an addendum, I think three weeks is plenty of time for a CDP topic. 3) It's time to spread the word more. One of my guildies has ensured that all guild members who read our guild forums is aware of the CPD, and encourages people to participate. I doubt every guild has someone like that, or that every guild even has someone aware of the whole CDP project. I do not think that a well-written one time in game mail to all players on all platforms would be considered too obnoxious. Have it come from Lord Neverwinter, he can be "requesting ideas on what improvements to next make in Protector's Enclave" or similar and have a link to the CDP subforum. Hey Tam, Thanks for posting. Regarding: 1: We absolutely need to rework this as a group. 2: Sometimes the needs of the business/mission require a more bombastic/wider approach, unfortunately the CDP group doesn't get to see the day to day of how we analyze and disseminate the conversation until the proposal phase (outside the flow of the conversation). Moving forward we will have more time to have a more focused discussion and pipeline. This said we should always be prepared to work under constraints as a CDP (time for example). 3: I disagree. We have a group of dedicated, smart and passionate CDP members. The wider we blow the group open the longer the cycles of bedding in are and so on. I have no issue with folks joining virally but not something that could be seen as marketing where the signal to noise ratio becomes unmanageable. I think we need to look at ways that we can consume the data/opinion without incurring the above issue including technology. Twitch is interesting in this regard. (Interestingly though and I don't know if it is the same for other team members but I tend to spend more time reading posts from a new member- Regardless you end up with an economies of scale problem if you open the floodgates). Great feedback. Chris

Twitch viewers, post agrees, reddit upvotes and so on will boost confidence, or in some cases shatter it, but the question remains does this popularity metric reflect an idea? Presentation? Good timing? There is a concept in voting (elections), voters tend to vote more against a candidate instead of for one. Twitch, in some cases, is a good example of this effect, a streamer who will have some "soap box preaching" mentality with, shouting, "rhetoric", and "fight" will get more viewers than someone who tries to create calm discussion of ideas. Pitchforks and torches create mobs - viewers. People like to unite in dislike / hate to something. Similarly, on a CDP posting an idea will gather some agrees or not, on the other hand opposing an idea, will yield to more agreement from all those who found something objectionable in the same idea. It is always easier to disagree, or agree with disagreement than to support an idea. So back to confidence, does it make my original idea better or worse, should I feel discouraged due to the fact that someone got more agrees. Public people will get more agrees, for worse ideas, charismatic people or people who write well in short clear way will get more, over good ideas that were written by someone who is not fluent with the language, but does that mean that the idea is better? No, it means the presentation is better, or they reach more audience. Like in statistics, we should be very careful what our measurement actually represents and what it not. Great commentary. For me the 'Confidence' metric is more psychological/experiential/long-term than clicks per se. The quality of every part of the overall experience. Chris

> @"theraxin#5169" said: > (Quote) > Now, while I have zero insight into Cryptic, balance is not really the good word for it. It has to be separated. I'm sorry, but developers should have zero or at least minimal say in monetization (except maybe the leading developer/designer who can inform how certain models can be fit in), but also, any development decision that does not relate to finance, should not be told to change by the finance part (PR can set red flags, but that's an other thing). In some companies, the lead designer is placed in a higher position than finance to make sure that monetization does not creeps into parts where it should be separate from to the detriment of the vision or the entire project. Because that's why you can find a ton of pretty buggy or outright broken game shipped. It's a vision corrupted by the push for finance, which ironically fail to justify it's costs as both part is necessary for success. > > But for a current example, that's why the VIP CDP was... pretty strange and that's why some people more coincidentally than they probably realized pointed it out that they feel it as more of a PR move. Because, it probably should have been just a PR thing. Collect player data what they would like to be in VIP, structure it financially and push it onto the developing/design team to do. In a sense, calling players to vote at Phase 3 probably was the most important part of the VIP CDP as it signals (probably pretty incorrectly) how well certain changes would lead to people buying it. > > And also that's where I can, sometimes, absolutely agree with sharpedge that in certain decisions, finance should have zero and PR should be marginalised in influence and that making a vote system on them distorts the project or the vision. But also, most of the decisions being integral to the vision and the game, probably don't reach CDP anyway. Every game I have worked on since around 2010 has had a core pillar of ensuring the team is evolving, maintaining and pioneering on the business side. Business isn’t a dirty word for developers anymore or a taboo. Like any hobby spending should be fun and feel like an investment and so of course team members are integral to that on top of ensuring that any work we do has a good chance of Return on Investment. It is a balance. The philosophy you describe above just isn’t part of the modern game industry anymore. I would go one step further as shown by the CDP VIP whereby I believe the community voice around the business is also integral to a healthy product, community and team. Chris P.S: for further clarity I also haven’t been on a team where a finance group drives decisions in terms of product experience (which includes monetization). In regard to budget we have agreed goals but outside of that we have everything we need in terms of the team and support groups to mange the business. Therefore I have always and will always promote teams to be thinking about every part of the user experience including monetization as each part of the user experience impacts the players compulsion to spend. I think we might be getting a little off topic now? Although I had thought that certain aspects of development that relate to the CDP were more well known. I will do a better job moving forward of being more sensitive to this.

> @"backpetal#6044" said: > As I read this and attempt to assimilate my thoughts (not easy, as I'm recovering from surgery and the mind is a bit murky) I am hit, once again, by the shear number of posts by several people defending/discussing their intial points of view. > > All CDP's have had phases. If we could eliminate banter during the first phase for ease-of-reading, that would be awesome. Just post your thoughts and be done with it until the next phase. I have spoken to several people who feel intimidated/time limited by the amount of back and forth between just a handful of individuals in the initial phase. Additionally, just having a gestation period for the amount of information that is provided by everyone can't be a bad thing. All CDP's have had a 'rushed' feeling to them so far. > > During Phase 2 let the banter roll on with a summarization of Phase 1. This could be done in a separate thread or a continuation of the current CDP thread (or you could open it up to a reddit-style continuation), but at least those coming into the CDP initially (even up to the day before phase 2 starts!) will know that the first 1 through X pages are JUST proposal/suggestion/thoughts and it would induce a far better read than sifting through – and trying to make sense of – the discussions. > > As the CDP rolls into Phase 3, it will become abundantly clear during Phase 2 what the final thoughts are that would then lead to the proposal. > > This is sounding super familiar isn't it? The key to making this work is actually moderating the forum , which, in my opinion, has been severely lacking in all the CDP's to date. > > And this, for me, was very disturbing:(Quote) > Chris, I get that you want a group of collaborators that are smart and dedicated, but this is super off-putting to me. You say you want the community to collaborate and yet you don't. Which is it? > > Enna Hi Backpetal, Quite a few topics to cover in your post. I will start with your direct question to me. My answer is in regard to CDP members advocating widely broadcasting the CDP. Currently we do not have the time to manage a huge influx of players into the CDP both in terms of actual time and in terms of time required to bed in and help teach large groups of new members (frankly it is hard enough to get the current CDP group to understand the goals and best working practices of the CDP (this is natural and getter better- bedding in or storming phase) and CDP members will note how often I focus on helping the group in these areas rather than focusing on the current discussion. Not sure how to better explain it. It is economies of scale and at the moment we have a good spectrum of player type and more players joining by word of mouth every day which is a manageable healthy flow. You yourself mention how energy can be better diverted in regard to off topic posts, small cases of bickering and so on. Imagine this but on a much grander scale. I have been there and would rather not go there again. What do you feel like you are currently missing by not having 1000’s of extra posts in each CDP? The days of ‘polling’ to build a product in many business sectors are gone. What player types do you think are missing from the current CDP or team member? Please also don’t forget we have massive amounts of legacy and real time data to go with the CDP and team skill set and experience. Regarding rushing CDPs: none have been rushed at all and when more time has been requested it has been granted. In each CDP thus far we have seen each phase naturally slow down leading to off topic discussion and so on. Also you say the CDPs haven’t been moderated. What do you mean by moderated? Each one has been guided, drilled into and phases called out at different times. Many of the questions you ask make me wonder how closely you have followed each CDP. No negativity here and no doubt the volume of discussion, pacing and format are a hinderance in that area however that is the whole point of this CDP. I feel like you answer some of your own questions or concerns in your post. I do like your specific format suggestions and will be thinking about them . Chris

> @"sobi#1980" said: > Most of the CDP is actually individuals pinpointing a single phrase of another individual and assembling a completely different topic based on that. I utterly despise such posts because they stray away from the heart of the discussion and often lead to the populous mess we have to skim read and waste our time on. Staying and sticking to the topic is an integral part of any discussion, especially an evolving one and the reason why the CDP topics feel like a thesaurus is because we branch out to specific topics not intended for that particular CDP, sometimes for the sake of the argument. > > I feel like Micky's Stack exchange forum would fit in well in this scenario. I agree that sometimes critiquing actually forms the basis of an evolved discussion but more often than not, it actually leads to heated debates. If you disagree with a particular mentioned suggestion, state the suggestion (without quoting), with your reasons and move on. But if the above is implemented, then basically the parent thread will contain replies, these replies can contain comments within them (more like youtube) and any critiquing could strictly take place there without disrupting the flow of CDP at the detriment of making people lose interest. > > In addition, it would be wise to see what Chris and his team consider as good suggestions. Sometimes we can see this in Chris' approval in his replies and for me personally, i tend to follow those topics closely. Once again, no matter how good you may consider your suggestion to be, it all boils down to the whim of the developer/s and why not, they have to consider their resources, business model, work ethics and the longevity of the suggestion, among many other things. I would love to see a tag introduced where developers could highlight impressive suggestions. > > Next, i also believe that there should be a search function whereby the forum can be changed from its chronological order to top voted comments at the first thread and so on. Other ways of making the CDP more flexible would be to allow players to search for approved suggestions (as mentioned above) and they would then take precedent and appear at the first thread. You may also consider introducing an honourable tag ( by the developers) for individuals that have been contributing to the CDP beyond the developer/s expectations and as above, these individual/s responses to be search-able. > > Moreover, if each comment could be numbered, i could simply refer to i agree with Person A's comment at 1. My top 3 choices are comments 1, 2,3. If you want to quote a specific part of someone's comment, then simply use the quote function. This simply avoids people quoting whole comments when only a proportion of it was required. It also makes navigating and even footnoting specific comments without having to quote the whole comment. > > I also was thinking if the developer's could give some insight to each new CDP topic i.e. their plans, what they in general think about that CDP topic so that it may act as the building blocks for the playerbase's suggestions. That is also why i mentioned that CDP is all about reading other suggestions and brainstorming it and then presenting with your own version of suggestion and something Sharp has greatly helped with. Some really cool ‘hard’ suggestions and comments here for the group to discuss and evolve. In terms of a good post what we look for is content where the CDP member is clearly thinking about different player types, has an understanding of the subject matter, and with a focus on evolving the game rather than trying to manage an agenda within the current framework of the game. It is really obvious to see when someone is thinking altruistically than myopically for example. We aren’t a work for hire organization so the CDP is essentially a consultancy group that is an extension of the team whose goal is to build worlds together and in this case the evolution of Neverwinter. A good post isn’t toxic, off topic or focused on anything but the overriding mission of the CDP. The CDP is a working group whereby no matter how hard anyone tries to be a star, garner attention or serve an agenda that isn’t in the best interest of the overall goal the challenges, diamonds in the rough and straight up best evolutions will always win out. Thanks for your post Sobi and I hope that my reply provides some better context. Chris

> @"backpetal#6044" said: > Hi Chris, > > Thanks for answering me directly. Firstly, if the format of the CDP were structured properly, there would be little 'teaching' involved, it would be pretty straightforward - which is the goal I assume? Wouldn't this then, allow for a broader promotion of the CDP to get more people involved? I get that it would have to be moderated a bit more, but this is a ship you're captaining and a hearty crew gets the job done better than a skeleton crew I would think (but then again, this is your area of expertise, not mine). Secondly, having a broader scope of ideas, suggetions and opinions might bring a new and welcomed perspective. Thirdly, I understand that you've given time when time was requested, but running two CDP's along side one another, when time is an issue for some who would like to contribute to both is a bit much and this is the rushed feeling of some. Lastly, the moderation I'm speaking of is allowing people to float off-topic and pollute the forums with unrelated posts or bickering amongst themselves. Perhaps this is what you want and what you meant by 'drilling down'? If so, then carry on by all means, but know it is off-putting for some. > > Enna Thanks for your clarifications and discussion. Better formatting and exposition of phases would certainly help. Shoring up this area would absolutely allow for the gates to be opened up further. That’s why I keep saying ‘at this current stage’. Like you say the ship structurally just isn’t ready for a bigger crew. And therefore it is a goal to absolutely make the CDP infrastructure more robust to allow for this. I am sorry. It didn’t really occur to Julia and I that folks would want to heavily participate in both CDPs. That is my mistake and I will ensure it doesn’t happen again. Chris

Hi Chris, Thanks for answering me directly. Firstly, if the format of the CDP were structured properly, there would be little 'teaching' involved, it would be pretty straightforward - which is the goal I assume? Wouldn't this then, allow for a broader promotion of the CDP to get more people involved? I get that it would have to be moderated a bit more, but this is a ship you're captaining and a hearty crew gets the job done better than a skeleton crew I would think (but then again, this is your area of expertise, not mine). Secondly, having a broader scope of ideas, suggetions and opinions might bring a new and welcomed perspective. Thirdly, I understand that you've given time when time was requested, but running two CDP's along side one another, when time is an issue for some who would like to contribute to both is a bit much and this is the rushed feeling of some. Lastly, the moderation I'm speaking of is allowing people to float off-topic and pollute the forums with unrelated posts or bickering amongst themselves. Perhaps this is what you want and what you meant by 'drilling down'? If so, then carry on by all means, but know it is off-putting for some. Enna 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

> @"backpetal#6044" said: > (Quote) > Then give more time. Treat it like a Michelin Star dining experience. Let people savour the flavorings and digest each course before moving on to the next one. :P (Sorry I mean more time between CDPs. For sure each CDP and each stage within it has ended later than it should have done. Some marginally and some by a wider factor.)x Section removed removed above. Yes I see what you mean. It is my hope we can come up with solutions that relieve the burden for all of us and sharpen what is already a valuable tool. Because I can say for sure the CDP has been extremely valuable so far but the time, and emotional sanity cost (-: has been high. Chris

> @"theraxin#5169" said: > (Quote) > Well, it is the part of the game industry, especially when a company grows after a size where administration costs start to skyrocket. But yes, it's the standard textbook example of how to go with things in a simple manner in a corporate environment. If you have 2 person or 2 different branch presenting the 2 viewpoint and they interact in a predetermined manner, it keeps the administrative costs in-check and keeps the company productive. > > But I also want to note that I admire and prefer the solution you are presenting. Mostly, because I agree, this is a more modern approach, more flexible and this and the digitalization and widespread ways of publishing and just copying other monetization models (or the rise of finance options as kickstarter and patreon) made the gaming community much richer. And also, thanks for letting us know! Your welcome Theraxin. I/we need to do a better job of giving more context where it is required and where possible. Sometimes I take CDP member knowledge of some of our inner workings for granted. This said we generally try to answer all questions so that is worth bearing in mind as well. Chris

For those struggling to understand why some of us are proposing character or word limits on original proposals, please allow me to attempt to explain. 1. This idea isn't for your benefit; it's for the benefit of those who do not have the time to read novelettes or are discouraged from participating in the CDP after seeing walls of unnecessarily verbose text. 2. The ability to state a point concisely promotes clear communication of an idea by using only substantive information. 3. Detailed explanations, pseudo-philosophical justifications or digressive self-validation should be left for a tree or thread structure for those who have the time or passion to engage about a very specific idea. The idea of minimizing posts just to ideas and info in phase 1 which has been raised a few times makes sense (That is the intent of P1 but we probably should have been clearer). It is ok to ask for clarification and build on someone elses idea using the format (whatever we agree for Phase 1 idea format) but in Phase 2 we can point to certain ideas and discuss them during phase 2. This is a proposal based on what i have read so far, not definitive.