[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.

My take on the "word count issue": I think it's more with people having a wall-of-text disease by feeling compelled to provide a thorough examination of the entire structure and conception of their argumentation and trying to already dump out answers to every possible argument that can be raised against it. I'm 100% guilty and I'm trying to change :D . Now, what I suggest about it is to not try and just make people chop off their argument, but to make them restructure their post by only explaining the point and the basic framework of thought as argument, then placing the big long analysis in a spoiler or in a different section. So only people who disagree with the original points will (maybe) read them or who are interested on how, but it's also helpful for those who are just want to see the ideas already made :D Yes. I think this is the best solution the group has put forward. Chris

While studying Design Thinking, I complained to an instructor that the devs I was working with were limiting their customer engagements to online forums and refusing to do any proper research because they "don't have time". The instructor agreed with me but pointed out that ANY engagement with actual customers is better than the devs sitting in their office and pulling ideas out of their bottoms. In my view and experience, the CDP is exactly that same old song and dance...a poor, limited substitute for proper design process, be it Design Thinking, User Centered Design or any other UX methodology that is known to work effectively. I feel the CDP is a time-suck for everyone involved and time that you, Chris, and the devs could and should spend on more effective means of customer engagement. My feedback on CDP is: stop and work differently, preferably with an experienced expert/coach advising you. (Not angling for a job here, I am retired and have no contacts to give you. It's just me standing on the sidelines cringing at what I see and going *Noooo...Why are they doing this?!?!?!?*) I understand that CDP is something that you feel has worked before, and I respectfully point out that it doesn't mean it is an ideal means of getting useful input from the community. On a personal note, once my CDP VIP feedback was one sidedly ommitted from the CDP thread for being off-topic, when clearly it was not, I left the program. That was, in my view, highly unprofessional. Rule #1 of engaging with customers is listen and do not argue or defend. Even if you think the customer is wrong. Ask WHY and try to understand. Otherwise, you are simply limiting yourselves to the info you want and expect and that is just a waste of time. Sorry you feel this way. No idea why your post was removed nothing to do with me. Note this isn't customer engagement, this is collaborative development. Thanks for your advice but I will stick with this proven methodology that I and others have and continue to practice to great effect. Chris

I am going to take a break from CDP I think for today and tomorrow. Sorry folks. Chris

Quote Hey Chriss Why you not give sample, one of staff in house messages. Why we even bother to make new format, if we can simply use staffs format. Aslo we would know how much we should go with our comments. This current CDP topic is about finding best format which would work best for staff and community.. So I would like to hear/see some of staffs sample here too. Staff are part of CDP too. TIme to them say something. After all you guys will have to read all these messages.. So we should know what format is better for you too. :) Best regards: Hades Will do Hades. Probably Monday. Chris

I have posted about having alternate ways to give feedback ideas before, but at the time it was a bit off topic so got moved. Now its seems like a more appropriate time :) I am an extremely shy person. Its very hard for me to come to the forums to post. When admitting this previously, I was told that it "was the internet" and game forums were some of the least friendly places. I do not accept that I should have to don the "garb of the troll" in order to participate in constructive feedback in a game I loved and played for years. (you have my permission to create this item in-game :P) You had mentioned that it would take a lot of convincing that people that didnt participate in the CDP could offer useful feedback. I would like to say, that I am confident that my knowledge of the game would rival any other player in the game. I run a guild and pride myself on being able to answer any question someone puts out to me. We have/had (mod 16 almost killed us off) a website where we posted regularly as well and an extremely active discord. I am also a long time gamer, playing MMOs since they were just MOs, in the times of MUDs. Point of me saying all that? Shy people are knowledgeable, passionate, and spend money too but find it more difficult to participate. Chris, I realize you were mostly talking about voting when making this statement, and I would agree it's not the best way to get feedback but, to this point, there should be other avenues of feedback available. Ideas relating to improving feedback: 1. CDP could have two "versions" in the forum. -The first thread could be the more formal thread. People follow the dictated format to the best of their ability. I would propose turning off comments, if possible. Posts could be broken off as needed and new threads started. -A second thread could be for people to debate and discuss their ideas until their little hearts are content. This would be an area that could be scanned by the devs but would be sort of a secondary level feedback. 2. I would like to see an in-game feedback system. Currently, there is an in-game feedback but its mostly used for reporting bugs. I would like to see it expanded so that you could submit ideas. Not all ideas a player has necessarily needs to be a whole forum post. Example: im riding through summer festival and see an npc wearing a blouse i think is cute. I would submit ingame that i was interested in a way to purchase said blouse. This could also be used for people to submit ideas for those shy players that find it hard to throw themselves at the mercy of the forums. This would still involve some effort on the players part so would potentially provide more useful feedback than a voting system. If an idea is liked and further feedback is needed, then the dev team could put it to the community. Side-note to this feedback. In other games you can actually submit compliments this way too. I think we have fostered a lot of negativity and it would be nice to have a way to give the devs a pat on the back when we run across something we like. That also helps them know what people are noticing/thinking/liking as they roam through the world. Hi Myrinx, I totally understand where you are coming from. I would like to point out that I was specifically talking about polls here: You had mentioned that it would take a lot of convincing that people that didnt participate in the CDP could offer useful feedback. We employ a three pronged approach in terms of Strategy, Tactics and Execution. Specifically the team (experience, skill set, problem solving capability), analytics (all kinds from micro to macro) and then the CDP (discussion, ideation, and seeing the game through your eyes). I totally beleive that over time and through working sessions like this current CDP the membership will become more diverse in personality and communication type. Yesterday I feel was a really good discussion and I thank all of those involved and especially Sharp, and Theraxin for us all being able to have a mature conversation on the CDP as it applies to a broader audience. Many members have mentioned an in game system, mainly for advertising the CDP. I would recommend we talk about it from your standpoint too. Thanks Chris

I would like us to strive toward a word limit (be concise) at the very least in Phase 1. Chris @"cwhitesidedev#9752" Hey Chris, i was wondering if it could be possible that someone could summarise the different ideas/suggestions in phase 1 before phase 2 starts? Part of me and i hope many others, learns immensely from other suggestions and then expanding on those suggestions. I believe in an evolving discussion but i am against CDP participants to be arguing over their suggestions. Disagreeing and agreeing doesn't necessarily result into evolving of a discussion. What does is the constructive feedback, and whilst such heated discussions have some feedback, the rest of the 90% is actually argument for the sake of argument. If you don't like a suggestion, I believe you should tell your reasons (don't even need to quote most of the time) and move on and whilst being guilty of the same, i do believe i should strive to limit the number of my posts and word limit when necessary but i hope i have touched upon several suggestions in my posts. The current problems i see with the CDP are of course the volume of replies which most comments have focused on but also what about the below situation: Sometimes i just don't have the time to read the CDP and by the time i do, the CDP has progressed to few dozens of pages and that's where i think to myself "do i have the energy"? I am sure many others are in the same shoes, and whilst i can only speak for myself, what i need in this situation is a summary of different kind of ideas to expand on or to get the general gist of the CDP's progression. In the same way, any insight from you or the staff would be great, because i can see which suggestions meet your viability criteria. I will state again, not all good suggestions are healthy for the game, most of these suggestions cannot possibly consider the resources, the expense and the availability of expertise required to perform such feat. In short, can we have a search function to search for specific person's comments only? In previous initiatives I have been part of like our CDP members of the community would do summaries every 3 pages. in fact if you look around you can see topics of previous initiatives that are the same as this one (-: On one of the games the group put forward more proposals for self organisation. I don't expect team members to spend to much time on the CDP outside of focus on their areas prior to implementation and I do most of my work on it at lunch, night and weekends. I don't know that I can commit to a summary every three pages even though I know it works really well from seeing it in practice. Nor would I expect any other CDP member to do this. If we reduce the amount of argument for the sake of it and Focus on no discussion during Phase 1 I think that will help a lot. Regarding the parsing of suggestions you can see what we as a collaborative group consider worthwhile moving forward with in the Proposal section. The problem with the proposal section (ironically) is that discussion carries on afterwards and the proposal gets lost. I will lock the forum once the proposal goes up moving forward so you can see it is the very last post. Also we need better book marking for phase switches. By the way you can also cross reference the proposals with the roadmap here (I am sure you are aware of it https://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/neverwinter/#/discussion/1254143/neverwinter-2020-high-level-road-map ) . Please just bear in mind that everything is intent and subject to change. We have a team paradigm now that unless we are happy with the execution of content, experience, systems and mechanics we will hold it back until we are happy with it. Thanks for taking the time to post Sobi. Chris P.S: I have now moved all proposals to the end of each CDP topic for ease of reading.

In previous initiatives I have been part of like our CDP members of the community would do summaries every 3 pages. If we reduce the amount of argument for the sake of it and Focus on no discussion during Phase 1 I think that will help a lot. I agree with the above and i hope over time the CDP members can work as a team and help each other. @"cwhitesidedev#9752" I hope the below is of some help. While we are it, here is the Summary below of the most common suggestions discussed. To introduce a Stack exchange like forum where replies within the CDP thread can have comments within them, and those comments are to be collapsible. Some have pointed out that in-depth replies should have a summary and the in-depth body to be collapsible. The reasoning is that long, complicated and in-depth suggestion can more often confuse players rather than help them to understand the objective of the suggestion. So if for example, we can encourage players to collapse 80% of their in-depth comment, leaving 20% of summary outside; whilst any any critiquing on that specific comment to also be collapsible, then this would kill two birds with one stone. Other simpler suggestion discussed is to introduce a twin forum, where one is used for critiquing like the current CDP threads are used as and the other basically contains summaries of all the different suggestions. Personally, the Stack exchange is superior in my eyes. One suggestion advised to Split the CDPs more aggressively into subtopics once those emerge but this can make following a single CDP (that has been broken into subtopics) difficult to follow as a whole. Another interesting idea was to separate phases 1, 2 and 3 into separate threads. Phase 1 will be all about gathering as many suggestions as possible (as above, to limit critiquing at this stage) and phase 2 will be critiquing the suggestion and then phase 3 for popular suggestions. One person has pointed out that this could mean that late participants would miss out on their suggestions during phase 2. There has been some discussion about introducing a word limit or limit number of posts per day for each member, but the above two suggestions tackle this issue sufficiently. Even so, striving to reduce your word limit and the number of posts is more healthier for the CDP than vice versa. There has been some dissent regarding voting posts to be completely abolished and others suggesting that it helps CDP members to agree without having to comment. No one will argue that bad suggestions, regardless of how many upvotes they have received (due to outside influence) will be filtered. In regards to good suggestions, my personal intake is that the dev team would have discussed each suggestion internally and thus regardless of how popular a suggestion is, it must have met their viability checklist. As long as the developers consider each suggestion regardless of its number of votes, the outside influence should be but very limited. Some dissent also in regards to having an established format for all replies and people disagreeing that this limits freedom and confuses people. Personally, the more stringent the rules, the less diverse the population. Some comments have suggested for there to be a CDP advertisement on the game launcher or to email all players about the CDP or to encourage guild leaders to spread awareness and some have advised to move the CDP to non-Neverwinter controlled medium. No one disagrees that this would not be beneficial for the CDP but Chris has hinted that a small influx of players is more healthy and approachable for him, due to the volume of the replies that a big CDP community would bring. Diversity isn't necessarily the most number of participants, so there does stand a point. As long as the CDP members represent the different categories of gamers, then that should suffice for the scope of the CDP in general. Thefabricant has some a useful brief outline of different types of players on his first comment at page 1 (expand the first spoiler). Another suggestion is to close the thread during phases so a summary can be made for the next phase. Locking the CDP during the proposal section so they do not end up being lost. Lastly, some help with referencing and i propose numbering of comments to be more visible. I definitely must have missed some suggestions, so i hope others can add on to this list every so often. Thank you Sobi. This has made my day. Chris

Hi All, Happy Sunday! Lets get back no on topic please. As clearly defined in the proposal for CDP 1 and 3 and in the road map we will be investing in large narrative driven experiential arcs, episodic delivery where the world/experience evolves, multi tiered content in terms of challenge so more players have access to narrative/experience, and more of a focus on horizontal content outside of mods. All intent and we will work together on the execution as we move forward (I expect high demand for CDPs on these areas once we start deploying episodes- I don't think we will get them to a point whereby we are all happy with them this year. We will see) So in regard to what I have read so far regarding formatting and best working practices I would propose the following: 1: Phase 1: Posting of Ideas and related questions (not discussion). 2: Phase 2: Discussion but not argument for the sake of it with more management of conversational direction and topics by me. 3: Phase 3: Top 3 with a single sentence of why for each line item. Conclusion: Proposal Regarding Phase 1 Format: Heading (Idea number)>Goal>Player Value Proposition>High Level Functionality/Description>Concerns and Considerations (Try to limit to 400 words) (Spoiler functionality is welcome should a member want to provide more detail in any of the above headings) Overall Best Working Practices Chris, Julia and Kreatyve to be more aggressive on off-topic posts and disrespectful posts. More focused topics (but please note CDP 3 was intentionally broad due to the fact it is a child of CDP 1 and we have begun work on CDP 1 in relation to Mod 20 and prior and therefore timing is key). Question: Many of you want a clearer delineation between phases but I don't think it is a good idea to create new threads for each phase simply because of the amount of clicks required to reference data. On the other side the formatting options aren't great here so what other ideas do we have to show clearly where one phase ends and one begins. Note this isn't a summary it is a proposal. So with that in mind what am I missing, what do folks disagree with in the proposal etc. Thanks Chris

Hi All, Regarding Phase 1 Format: Heading (Idea number)>Goal>Player Value Proposition>High Level Functionality/Description>Concerns and Considerations (Try to limit to 400 words) (Spoiler functionality is welcome should a member want to provide more detail in any of the above headings) Can I recommend if you are going with that format, rewording that format to: Objective Why How Risks It is the same format, but it is easier to read so from a "language accessibility" point of view, there is less confusion about what is meant by it. Hi All, Question: Many of you want a clearer delineation between phases but I don't think it is a good idea to create new threads for each phase simply because of the amount of clicks required to reference data. On the other side the formatting options aren't great here so what other ideas do we have to show clearly where one phase ends and one begins. Note this isn't a summary it is a proposal. So with that in mind what am I missing, what do folks disagree with in the proposal etc. Thanks Chris I do recommend adding in the 1 idea per post rule, so if players have multiple ideas they split them into multiple posts, just to make the delineation between ideas easier during phase 1. If I have some idea of how to more clearly show the split between phases that does not involve splitting the thread, I will comment on it later. Agreed Sharp Chris

A bit late to the party - was busy making summaries :tongue: - but in my opinion the phases could be enforced very easily via the ideas/proposals from others previously. 1) Create a subforum for each CDP 2) In phase 1, allow people to create threads in that subforum. The thread title has to be a one-liner of the idea (1 idea per thread!). When a thread is created - auto close it immediately to prevent discussion. In case people have very much the same idea or extremely related, think of merging the threads so discussions on the same idea are not in multiple places. 3) When phase 2 starts, open all threads, now people can dig into ideas. Optionally: leave certain topics closed, but make sure to leave a reply why it stayed closed (not feasible idea / offtopic / completely against when cryptic can do etc. - say why) 4) Voting can be done in a seperate voting thread created by the devs. This thread should ONLY have voting without an explanation why you vote for something. Your reasoning if any should be in the thread with the idea or nowhere. This will result in a more structured CDP with a better overview for everyone. I mean, things like reddit/stackexchange could also work and maybe even better - but this way you're using existing technology. Hey Rainer, Thanks for posting. Isn't this going to mean lots of jumping around for everyone and clicks? I will discuss it with Julia tomorrow. Chris

@"cwhitesidedev#9752" In regards to your comment above, i still think there should be no strict requirements regarding the format and the general emphasis should be on Suggestion/Idea Advantages and disadvantages The reason is that and as you shall see, it won't be followed and in the event it isn't, what are the consequences? I also think that late comers should be allowed to make suggestions in phase 2 but the emphasis however will be on critiquing older suggestions. This way the CDP will continue through its normal process and at the same time, we are not limiting new suggestions to phase 1 only. It would be useful if there was a way to identify posts with your proposals because we are still in phase 1 and you have already made a proposal. I am wondering how and if someone who just joined the CDP, will not miss your proposal/s? Any way for you to highlight your comments that are of high importance? I agree with off-topic and heated debates to be strictly monitored. I would like to make one single post with multiple suggestions, instead of making a new post for each suggestion. I think that would encourage me to write an extra bit more if my comment looks a little empty and is a tedious process. I recommend encouraging people to add headings for each new suggestion within the same post instead. Moving forward, i don't think we should be adding more rules for the CDP members to adhere to. That way, we will be left with a very small CDP community and that may or may not represent the majority of the playerbase. Adding more rules also concerns me regarding how the staff may react when those rules are not adhered to. If your general purpose was to encourage people to adhere with the rules then I personally see no problem and thumbs up for me. I think we should put forward most things from this CDP as rules but of course if someone wants to post an idea in Phase 2 then they can. Regarding multiple ideas in one post. Aren't you going to end up with posts that are well formatted walls of text? Thanks for post Sobi. Chris

@"rainer#8575" Thanks again for all of your contributions to the community. I know what you do takes a lot of time. I'm sitting here waiting on a city building inspector so I have a bit of extra time today. @Spelldazer In reference to CDP3Spelldazer3 #Format #Scoping. I like this idea, but I think this is sorta how Phase 1 was supposed to work anyway. I have a feeling that when we started the CDP people didn't realize how many phases there were so they tried to fit everything into their first post. Chris / Julia often gives us some direction via sub topics and areas to focus on but I have a feeling that many members skip over them in a rush to post their idea, or are confused by the wording of some of the sub topics / focus items. For example in this CDP: Duration of topics and the different phases of each topic (For example, some topics have been 2 weeks while others have been 3-4) Choice of discussion topics Structure of the thread (For example, a thread is left open during the full duration of the discussion phase vs. closing it periodically to do “thread so far” summaries) Feedback format (How can the feedback be presented in an organized and structured manner while not being constraining?) Expectations of the CDP I have yet to read a discussion about "Expectations of the CDP" or "Choice of discussion topics". But if you also notice both of those sub topics are more open ended and not defined whereas the others provide examples of what they are looking for. If the CDP is a tool for the Developers then I think they need to set the pace and provide the topics. I was once on the other side of this argument thinking that we the community should provide the topics and the order for CDPs but I see now how that could and would be counterproductive. And since it looks like I'll be waiting for this inspector all day I'll ask Chris about these two topics in my next post. Hey Ore, Thanks for your posts as always. I posted a few pages back and quite a few times prior about what the CDP is. Its pillars, goals, future and so on. To recap: - It is a dev tool for the whole CDP. - It's purpose is to be part of an engine that builds worlds. - It represents the third part of a triumvirate impacts how we develop in terms of guidance, direction and evolution (Team Experience/skill. Analytics and Metrics. CDP) - It is not a marketing or community initiative in any way shape or form regardless of the fact it can have impact here. - We ask questions that pertain to areas of the game we want to evolve and the CDP directly impacts our direction and execution and this is visible in the proposal at the end of each CDP and soon in terms of execution of the intent. Although if you have been following the CDP closely you will see some intent in execution already. - The team tends to read the areas that concern them the most as well as all the proposals. - The CDP where possible is in lock step with execution as shown in the NW 2020 Roadmap. Hope this helps. Chris

@"cwhitesidedev#9752" Thanks for the clarification and recap Chris. Sorry if I got off track. I have a question about two of the subtopics / focus items listed. What kind of feedback are you looking for as it pertains to "Expectations of the CDP" and "Choice of Discussion Topics" ? I gave "Choice of Discussion topics" a shot above, but I'm not sure that is what you were looking for. As far as expectations go I think the recap in your last post helped me refine my expectations. The open exchange of ideas and access to you and your staff via this CDP have met and exceeded all of my expectations. Anything more that comes from this exchange is icing on the cake IMO. Just knowing that we are being heard and that our input is being considered is more than I could have hoped for. Thank you for this CDP initiative and your efforts, they are appreciated. You didn't get off track at all. I just posted quoting you because others had asked again for a recap of the high level goal, mission and pillar of the CDP. And yes we will for sure have a choice of different discussion topics soon. Julia wanted us to do that originally but I wanted the info, discussion and ideas for those CDP topics earlier rather than later and you can see why in the Roadmap. As always Ore thanks for your contribution, guidance and patience. Chris

Morning All, We have one more day left before this CDP closes so I wanted to update the proposal I put forward following reading this CDP and see if we can get agreement and any further polish to the proposal as required: Phases 1: Phase 1: Posting of Ideas and related questions (not discussion) (Tag Ideas with simple naming conventions such as Idea 1, Idea 2 and so on. If someone posts before you do and the number order is wrong just go and edit the latest Idea with the correct number). 2: Phase 2: Discussion but not argument for the sake of it with more management of conversational direction and topics by me (CDP members can pick ideas for discussion as well). 3: Phase 3: Top 3 with a single sentence of why for each line item. Conclusion: Proposal Regarding Phase 1 Format: Heading (Idea number)>Goal>Why>What>Concerns and Considerations (Try to limit to 400 words) (Spoiler functionality is welcome should a member want to provide more detail in any of the above headings). Overall Best Working Practices - Every Phase change will see thread closure for a day or 2 in order to allow everyone to catch up. - Phase change will be better presented in the CDP making the current goal for the CDP clearer. - CDP intro will provide more guidance as well as success criteria for the CDP. - Chris, Julia and Kreatyve to be more aggressive on off-topic posts and disrespectful posts (Offtopic posts will be removed as will toxic ones. Repeated toxicity will lead to a CDP ban) - More focused topics (but please note CDP 3 was intentionally broad due to the fact it is a child of CDP 1 and we have begun work on CDP 1 in relation to Mod 20 and prior and therefore timing is key). - Moving forward we will give options for upcoming CDPs and gather info as to CDP priority level. - I would really appreciate it if CDP members could help newer CDP members with what they have learnt about the project best working practices as well as repeating information in regard to the CDP that has already been shared such as CDP Goals, Mission, Purpose etc (I will update this in the kick off post with Julia as well). For the time being I would like us to try these changes and see the impact. For the time being I don't want us to try turning one thread into many. I feel like this is going to end up being like a spiders web both in terms of search and new CDP member accessibility. Note following the end of the current CDPs there is going to be a 2 week break before a new one is started (This will allow everyone to have a break). Thanks Chris

I am not sure if its possible to change the thread title to Phase 1 -> Phase 2 -> Phase 3 during a phase but that might more clearly delineate the phases. Also, if someone wants me to draft up examples of how the different forum formatting tools can be used to help make posts more readable, with some template examples of an unformatted post vs a formatted post, I do not mind to do so. Yes good idea. We will do that. Chris

Hi All, Thanks for all your time and effort in this CDP it has been a really interesting and tumultuous discussion but i think we got there in the end. Here is the proposal (And as per @"gromovnipljesak#8234" post above it will be stickied along with a high level description of the CDP Goal, Mission and Pillars: Phases (Topic Name Will be updated to reflect each stage of the CDP) 1: Phase 1: Posting of Ideas and related questions (not discussion) (Tag Ideas with simple naming conventions such as Idea 1, Idea 2 and so on. If someone posts before you do and the number order is wrong just go and edit the latest Idea with the correct number). 2: Phase 2: Discussion but not argument for the sake of it with more management of conversational direction and topics by me (CDP members can pick ideas for discussion as well). 3: Phase 3: Top 3 with a single sentence of why for each line item. Conclusion: Proposal Regarding Phase 1 Format: Heading (Idea number)>Goal>Why>What>Concerns and Considerations (Try to limit to 400 words) (Spoiler functionality is welcome should a member want to provide more detail in any of the above headings). Overall Best Working Practices - Every Phase change will see thread closure for a day or 2 in order to allow everyone to catch up. - Phase change will be better presented in the CDP making the current goal for the CDP clearer. - CDP intro will provide more guidance as well as success criteria for the CDP. - Chris, Julia and Kreatyve to be more aggressive on off-topic posts and disrespectful posts (Offtopic posts will be removed as will toxic ones. Repeated toxicity will lead to a CDP ban) - More focused topics (but please note CDP 3 was intentionally broad due to the fact it is a child of CDP 1 and we have begun work on CDP 1 in relation to Mod 20 and prior and therefore timing is key). - Moving forward we will give options for upcoming CDPs and gather info as to CDP priority level. - I would really appreciate it if CDP members could help newer CDP members with what they have learnt about the project best working practices as well as repeating information in regard to the CDP that has already been shared such as CDP Goals, Mission, Purpose etc (I will update this in the kick off post with Julia as well). I am locking the thread now. We may well offer options for the next CDP but we will be taking a 2 week break in the interim. Meanwhile feel free to message me if you want to chat and once again thanks for all of your time, ideas and passion. Chris

I know its a bit late with regards for adding to this thread, but I have the following questions about the CDP, which I think clarifying would help us moving forward to provide better feedback if we knew the answer to. What phase of development do you want us to focus our feedback on? Do you want feedback on planning, feedback on design, or just small modifications to the final product to be our main focus. Right now you are responding to near enough every post (which is great) and are often saying you agree, or disagree with the idea of a post. Often though (and this is particularly evident when you agree with something), you do not comment on the implementation. This leads to a lot of hopes being built up, when you may just be agreeing with the problem that needs to be solved, and not with the proposed solution. The benefit of programs like this is, if they work then they are a great way to build trust in a community. However, the downside is, they remove the "customer - corporation" barrier, or at least, they reduce it a huge amount, which means that if players do feel their trust is betrayed, they will take it a lot more personally than if the initiative had not been there in the first place. Players need to be very clear on what they can expect to see out of each initiative, otherwise in a years time you can expect to see hot water about it. Thanks for the feedback Sharp. Even though the thread is closed I wanted to respond. Regarding type of feedback it is generally ideation, discussion, problem solving and evolution around the parent topic and its children. Implementation feedback can be included in spoilers as an example and in some cases we will ask for it. This said I also want to work out how to use the CDP as development starts on an a proposal line item at certain gates of development progress. We have been thinking about this and have some ideas already so stay tuned. Finally and this is very important building trust in the community is not a CDP goal or pillar. If that happens then great but in order to achieve that we need to execute on intent. Therefore it is not a pillar of the program. The main pillar being We build worlds together. Chris