Feedback talk:FAQ

Feedback based on other games

I think the FAQ could use a question about whether suggestions based on other games are acceptable. Suggestions based on Guild Wars are obviously okay, but what about suggestions based on third-party games such as World of Warcraft, D&D or Final Fantasy XI? Also, if suggestions based on third-party games aren't okay, then we could probably use a list of which NCsoft-published games are and aren't okay to base suggestions on. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Feedback Space Question

this has come up so many times it is now officially an unanswered FAQ ...I'd move it to a normal talk page but since the OP made the mistake of putting an overbearing SUGGESTION in the first post, the Devs would be prevented from answering it
--ilr 05:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
ORIGINAL POST COMMENCES:

---

→ moved from Feedback_talk:Linsey_Murdock
I noticed, Linsey, that you did say that you and Robert do read the suggestions in the feedback space, and I'm sure you do. The problem is, there's no way for someone to know if a particular suggestion in the space has been read by you guys or not. There's only your overly generic answer that many of them have been looked at, an answer that isn't really an answer at all. I think you guys have forgotten what it's like to be on our end, always in the dark and not knowing whether or not we're really being heard or just placated. If you could just implement some kind of checkbox system in the feedback space, as has been suggested before, where you can check off the suggestions you've looked at so we know which ones have been looked at and which ones haven't, it would be a step in the right direction. Be more open with us. I understand you can't comment on them all and I don't expect you to. But at least that little checkbox indicator would let us know - and would definitively show - that the suggestions are being looked at. --Nathe 18:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The feedback space was made with the features it has so Anet staff wouldn't have to check off all the ones they've read. Why do you need to know which suggestions Anet has read? What if an anet staffer read a suggestion they know nothing about (like if Linsey read a coding suggestion)? Would she mark it as read without knowing whether or not she can even use it? ~Shard 18:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

We've so been through this. You have to just Assume Good Faith that stuff is getting read. To have some marked read and others not will only cause more drama when people come here crying "Why haven't you read mine, but you've read theirs?" We purposefully did not add any sort of "checkbox system" and you know that, because you were part of the discussion. I don't see the decision changing any time soon. -- Wyn talk 18:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Not good enough, Wyn. Anet's word doesn't carry any weight at all of late, what with how many things have been screwed up - as many veteran players will attest - and their continual silence and overall lack of communication. We need them to do something to prove that the feedback space isn't just a means to placate us. Prove they've been read - words are not enough. Only action will convey the appropriate message now. And when I say a checklist system, I mean that the suggestions would be read by the appropriate person, not someone unsuited for the role. And only to indicate that it had been looked at, not that it was going to be used or not. Nothing more. Why do you automatically think otherwise? If the feedback space truly is being read by staff, then leave comments on some of the suggestions to indicate as such. Don't just leave us in the dark. That is no way to treat your playerbase. Show us respect, not disdain. And do it through your actions, not pretty words. No more responses that say nothing. No more blanket assurances. Only actions are acceptable now. --Nathe 20:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, we could give them some credit (menagerie, stylist, storage, ...) :p. And on the leaving comments thing: they are quite bussy I think (designing new stuff: Dhuum for example, and reading the walls of text on their talkpages). By the way, This wasn't meant as an attack on you ;). Just saying, it all adds up in the end --Ellisia 21:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to burst your bubble kiddo, but feedback namespace is all about placating us. Anet has better things to do than to listen to half-asses suggestions from people who don't give a crap anyway. NuVII 21:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Saw one, at least, that had been commented on recently. -- pling 23:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I should've mentioned "balance" in there somewhere, I think. NuVII 00:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"To have some marked read and others not will only cause more drama when people come here crying" Let the record show that this is a completely unfounded assumption that has even less "proof" behind it than your assumption that the feedback space is seriously being read (and not just scanned low hanging fruit). Until a method of consistently tracking developer involvement is actually attempted, You and I and everyone else has nothing to say about how effective or ineffective it might be. --ilr 23:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line is that there's absolutely no reason anet needs to (or should) mark suggestions as read. That information doesn't make your suggestion any better or any worse. ~Shard 01:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That's the whole point. IoW: Neutral indication that gauges Activity and nothing else. As for "reason", this wiki is brimming with Logs (and Codex skill pages) that have even less reasons to exist --ilr 02:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Nathe and Ilr. --MushaTalk 02:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear got it right. There's no reason Anet should have to read or care about every dumbshit suggestion that gets posted and then mark it as read. Aevar talk contribs 04:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

to me it looks like people dont care if anet cares about there suggestion just that it gets read.- Zesbeer 04:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

And Linsey has said they read it, so, it's getting read. Of course, we could say, Linsey, go put a on every suggestion you read, and she could just go put one on everything, and not read anything at all, it would amount to the same thing since "Anet's word doesn't carry any weight at all of late". Give it a rest. There is no way we can require them to do anything. We simply have to apply the principle of good faith. -- Wyn talk 06:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind the members of Anet who post on wiki do so on their free time - they aren't required to by their contract. Suggestion what they do with their free time is kind of rude. ~Shard 06:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

0.o ... umm, no comment --ilr 10:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wyn, again you miss the point. As I said before, good faith isn't good enough. An incidentally, if Anet had cared enough about us in the first place, they would have gotten the Dhuum stuff done on time instead of having to scramble around and finish it up after the fact. They would have made sure to get it done right at the right time. If they had more than just the one and only one new designer they hired, they might be able to do more and not have such crazy schedules. You say she's reading them. Prove it. Now. With actions, not words. And a check mark is not the same as a blanket assurance, which you damn well know. As people see that a few more are checked off every day, they'll be able to see the progression as staff goes down the line and they'll know that Anet will get to theirs eventually. People can be patient when you give them a clear signal that you're listening, and not just a meaningless blanket assurance that says nothing. --Nathe 13:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

@Nathe: Look. We know that sometimes assuming good faith is hard. Especially in the case of arenanet if we look at some skill updates, monster skills or area designs. But we can do it even after many disastrous events. --Boro 14:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This is such a waste of time. "good faith isn't good enough" - so if Arena Net added a check mark to anything they have read, you could just say they are lying and randomly marking stuff as read so people would stop complaining. Coming to Linsey's page claiming she's lying isn't going to change her mind, or change the wiki's consensus, about anything; this idea has already been presented by other users (coincidentally, also users who do little to nothing to improve the wiki, spending their time pestering Linset instead) and shot down. Erasculio 14:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Like Erasculio said, if the space does exist just to placate us, pretty sure it would be easy to create a bot to go through and mark suggestions as read. You have to trust them either way. Don't be silly. Misery 14:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

So tempted... BlazeRick 14:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

i think a more valid point and something i have pushed for in the past is; a system of user approval for ideas and suggestions so anet can see and we can see what suggestions the community likes and anet likes. also lol wiki- Zesbeer 15:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Again Zesbeer, this has been discussed until it's a totally dead horse. There is not an adequate way to do this with any validity. Discuss the ideas, the discussion will indicate whether it has community approval or not. -- Wyn talk 18:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with that. Generally speaking, a lot more stale/BAD ideas come from Popularity contests than do "original" ideas. That said... this isn't over with, infact it's Soooo not over with yet that I have to /RI right here to get the whole case stated. --ilr 01:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) ...until Linsey actually comes out and tells us all where "they" stand on their big-talk Accountability, this will rage on. It's YOU GUYS who are beating the dead horse here by constantly asserting that the devs only do this crap on their spare time.... Yeah I get that bit, you don't have to keep repeating it. And I personally wouldn't think much less of them if they quit cold turkey, since it's their prerogative. But all the while you're ignoring the fact that they've made a number of personal assurances to us as honest upstanding human beings. ...A matter of reestablishing Trust. And one I remind you that Izzy failed to uphold when things started going to pot.
Over the years this industry has become so fake and superficial and well... "hollywood". Just look at Infinity Ward if you need anymore proof. We should know by now that Anet's different... or atleast they're trying to be different. Elite guildies and other folks who know them personally, already know this b/c they're privy to things that we aren't. But for the rest of us, Linsey has been trying to balance a lead exec's duties with putting the proof in the pudding just for Us. Hence the statement about "we want our players to feel connected". Gaining some kind of trust or atleast respect between your toughest critics is the ultimate demonstration of that and it doesn't come free. There's a few hoops that have to be jumped through first. They've already jumped through a couple by expanding storage when it was previously thought improbable... and added Codex even though it's already less populated than Ascalon arena. Point is: Effort was made on those fronts and they get credit for it. Where effort isn't yet visible, is still on this "feeling connected" front. However they decide to do that... is O/C up to them.
But the case Nathe is so desperately trying to make here is: that one of the easiest ways to do that, was to simply show us how many of the feedback pages their own mouse pointers clicked on. It doesn't need to tell us if they agree or not. All it ever needed to tell us is that they still have that curiosity about their own community. Because when that curiosity is gone, it all just turns back into a completely Antagonistic relationship between player and creator ...it's been that way ever since the first GM got fed up with their D&D players whining and it will continue on that way until the end of humanity itself.
If you want to move this topic elsewhere... plz do (just DON'T move it to MY page). And don't pretend that every participant has already been polarized. --ilr 01:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hah, Isaiah didn't "failed to uphold" anything; what happened then was the same that happens today: people insisted on making stupid, pointless contributions and when told so by the very people they were trying to talk to, chose to pretend they weren't doing anything wrong (in other words, close their ears and sing "lalala"). Isaiah has no obligation to contribute here, neither does Linsey, especially not when someone goes hipocritally asking to know if "they still have that curiosity" again ignoring what the person involved has said on the subject. Really, if those who are whining are going to pretend they don't read anything Linsey says, there's no point in she trying to reply, is there? Erasculio 01:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"I have read a good deal of the feedback" is a statement I have already taken at face-value, hence: "or atleast they're trying to be different". And I'm not trying to escalate this argument, I'm only continuing to respond because you appear to be demanding an answer from me to make your case that I should just shut up from now on. And if it pleases Linsey, I would do exactly that. But I don't think she'd appreciate what will happen if my creative efforts are displaced that drastically (and no that's not a threat). =) --ilr 02:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The point of this went out the window a long time ago. A question was asked, the answer was no. End discussion. -- Tha Reckoning File:User Tha Reckoning Sig2.jpg 03:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"the answer was no" -- Reference please. --ilr 03:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

K, you asked for it. Here goes; Bwaaaaaaaaaaah! Seriously though, so much fail. Reason Anet wouldn;t mark things read would be that they should avoid making promises. Because of Bwaaah-ers. The main reason would be that they don;t have to. Really, what does a checkmark add? Nothing imo. Nothing but "Yo, my feedback got read yo! By Linsey!". Soye, Bwaaah! BlazeRick 05:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The entire point of the feedback space's creation was so that Anet could actually respond and comment on player suggestions. That purpose has not been met. Thusly, Anet has not held up its end of the bargain. And you fail, Wyn, to provide the proof I asked for above. Which means it doesn't exist. Stop being an Anet puppet and actually think for yourself for once. You can - gasp - be wrong. --Nathe 13:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

...Ignoring all the other arguments people have mentioned against your idea, and the point about how useless it is to assume that Linsey is just lying to you when asking for more information. I agree this section needs more thinking, but not exactly from Wynthyst. Erasculio 14:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

And you ignoring everything that's been said isn't smart either. Are you one of Wyn's puppets? Get this into your head:

The whole point of the feedback space was so the LT could comment on our suggestions.

The whole point of the feedback space was so the LT could comment on our suggestions.

The whole point of the feedback space was so the LT could comment on our suggestions.

The whole point of the feedback space was so the LT could comment on our suggestions.

That hasn't been done, at least not to any significant degree. Thusly, Anet has not been true to their word. What part of that don't you understand? --Nathe 16:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of the feedback space was so that ANet could use suggestions without worrying about legal whiplash. ftfy –Jette 16:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You can avoid looking like a complete moron by knowing what you're talking about before you use the bold text. -Cursed Angel 16:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Nathe, what exactly gives us the rigth to demand this? They actually don't even have to answer questions on their talkpage. So maybe we should be glad we get any respons at all. P.S. Linsey isn't a community manager, so this shouldn't even be on her talk page ;) (and no I'm not one of Wyn's puppets, I think for myself)

==> The whole point of the feedback space was so the LT could comment on our suggestions. --Ellisia 16:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You know someone fails in an argument when that person's only reply to a multitude of counter-arguments is to repeat the same (old) thing over and over in bold. You still haven't answered any of the points raised above, Nathe. Erasculio 17:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have, you've just been too blind to see it. And you keep refusing to answer mine. So do me the same favor you demand of me. --Nathe 18:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see, so you're just ignoring everything in this discussion that does not agree with you (as you have ignored everything above between your previous reply and mine, in which three different people refute your so-called argument - which is more like a baby whining to himself than a real argument, but anyway) and pretend you have done anything other than show us you actually know how to write in bold.

Really, congrats. We get a lot of whining on Linsey's talk page, but I have had yet to see it done so obtusely. It's not a small accomplishment. Erasculio 18:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, didn't you already bother Linsey about the same thing before? Wasn't the reply you got last time enough, so you had to pretty much state the same thing again? Erasculio 18:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Guys, why are still taking him seriously? His argument has deteriorated into repeating the same fiction over and over again and ordering the other party to "get it in their head". Obviously he's not going to accept his mistake and his idiocy, so just leave him festering in his bile. NuVII 18:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

And what fiction would that be? I've yet to see any direct response to any argument I've made. Only bland assurances of "trust them" which are themselves meaningless. How hard is it, really, for them to just comment on a couple suggestions a day? You seem to think that the only way they can comment on them is to do them all at once and nothing but them, but that's not what I'm talking about. A company's first duty is to its customers, and if a customer is disgruntled or unhappy with the product or service, the company - if it's a good company, that is - does anything and everything they can to rectify the situation. Anet has not. They could have hired 3 or 4 new people which would have allowed Linsey and the rest to have more normal work schedules and actual lives, but instead they hired only one which seems to have had little effect. Point is, when people put suggestions in the feedback space, they expect to be answered at some point, not just left hanging indefinitely. That's just rude and inconsiderate. As is continual silence and lack of true communication with one's playerbase. Minimalism doesn't work.

You don't know a checklist system or some other indication system wouldn't work, because it hasn't been attempted yet. Prejudgement is never right, and is always short-sighted. What a checkmark says, in response to an above raised point, is an indication that the given suggestion has been looked at, nothing more. And it's the progression of them, the sight of them showing up down the list as time goes by and not so much the checkmarks themselves, that shows that Anet's willing to listen. Because when people see a few more getting checked off every day, they'll know for certain that they're being read. As I said before, people can be patient when you do that. To be fair, Anet should start from the top and go down in order, that way there's no question of why one was read or not read or when one will be read. If they're done in the order listed, it's something people can easily see and understand.

Or as I said, Anet can just comment on a couple suggestions a day. Two, maybe three at the most. I know they've got other work to do, but I think they can manage that. Just a short little blip per suggestion shouldn't take long, I wouldn't think. And as I said, only a couple such blips a day. That's all I'm saying. Is it really that bad to have some real communication with your playerbase and actually be in touch with them? --Nathe 20:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"The whole point of the feedback space was so the LT could comment on our suggestions" is wrong, as many people have told you. That is your fiction. Your walls of text are all meaningless, because the very foundation of what you are defending is flawed. If you bothered to look at what people said (obviously you haven't), you'd have noticed that.

But you haven't. So, I'll give you the benefit of doubt and tell you why the feedback namespace exists.

The feedback namespace exists to silence the whining community of GWW. Now, people may argue that it is a place for Anet to get feedback, learn what the community is thinking, but really, it doesn't serve that function. It just can't - the people that matter, the credible, serious GW players and PvP'er do not bother posting comments here, because we are all shitters when it comes to anything remotely related to game balance. In other words, yes, the feedback namespace does exist to placate us. If you can't accept that reality, tough.

Commenting on useless suggestions (and FYI, that's all the feedback namespace contains) doesn't help anyone, least of all us terrible shitters. They need to focus on the game itself to get anywhere, and while commenting on feedback pages may inflate a large amount of Epeen, it won't help solve anything.

That's why I called your argument fiction. It is fiction. Now, either you choose to deny this (in which case gogogotrollan!) or you accept it and walk away.

On a final note, I just noticed your ignorance. "You don't know a checklist system or some other indication system wouldn't work, because it hasn't been attempted yet. " This isn't true. Izzy had a gigantic balance subsection, and it actually drew some good people in. The whole thing was scrapped when people realized just how dumb the general community tends to act like when it comes to balance. NuVII 21:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Y'know, if it's lookin' like there's no end in sight to this, then it's probably more to do with the fact that you guys keep egging him on and committing NPA's instead of looking for ways to kill the argument with compromise. ...chill out, go fight with your relatives for a few days instead... --ilr 22:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(editing conflict) Nathe, the thing is, if some people's suggestion stays unmarked for a while, you can be sure there will be posts about it (read walls). I can understand your reasoning, and it might work when it stops at things being marked. But as seen on other places on this wiki, it never stops there, people are always going to give critique. Like: Why din't my suggestion get looked at?, Why are there only 5 marks so far?, Why are there more marks on the game-mechanic suggestions than on the lore suggestions? And a given thing is a hard thing to take back ;). --Ellisia 22:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The lore exists to support the game. Not the other way around. Mediggo 00:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) ITT; we post huge, poorly constructed walls with the impression Anet owes us something when they actually don't. Aevar talk contribs 04:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, why are we discussing this on Linsey's page again? Aevar talk contribs 04:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

L2R B4 QQ'ing...I already said Anet doesn't owe us anything, AND I opted for moving it somewhere else. --ilr 05:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

There, you can thank me later when it disappears entirely from sight b/c people like YOU stopped making unnecessary comments, thus allowing it to be archived. And Nathe, feel free to blame me, I wouldn't want ya getting anymore jaded at the wiki sycophants than ya need to be. I believe in your cause but I think there's other ways we could go about it... --ilr 05:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

How would you suggest we go about it, then, ilr? Just asking. Cause I'm open to suggestions. And I was hoping I'd actually get a response from Linsey about this, because that's the whole entire point of the thread. --Nathe 17:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm no expert, but I got a feeling that anything longer than 1 really focused Question is gonna keep getting ignored. We wanna get to the heart of what they intended the feedback space for, right? And the primary #1 reason was so that they could acknowledge our suggestions right? (b/c there was ALWAYS ways or methods for them to adopt our suggestions BEFORE this... there just wasn't ever any commercially-viable Legal routes for accepting them verbally under previous licensing). So I guess a question about how far they'll go to show how they're actually acknowledging us; would be in line with the purpose of the Feedback space, right?? (and at this point Era and the rest come flying in trying to force the same old tired bullshit on us about how the Feedback space was ONLY for use as a 1-way street to give ideas to the Devs -- which is wrong b/c there was never a time when they couldn't simply adapt our old suggestions. And in many cases they were already doing so...one of which is archived on my own talkspace and Auron was the chief architect).
...to put it simply: If they're unwilling to sacrifice a tiny little bit of privacy required to anonymously allow a wiki bot to Check-Mark the suggestions that atleast one of them has navigated to... then I'd say we got a clear enough idea of where they stand and this whole issue can finally be put to bed. Now I tried a few times to get that information out of Emily back when the feedback space was going up, but I apparently fudged the focus of the question to too many things at once so it never got addressed. *shrug* ...But don't worry, I'm betting that once this new skill update comes out, a few more people will be willing to ask that same question. --ilr 22:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"And the primary #1 reason was so that they could acknowledge our suggestions right?" - No, that's not exactly correct. Before the new licensing, ANet could not legally use our feedback for making changes to the game. The risk they had under the old licensing was that someone like Auron could point to their discussion on this wiki and claim that ANet used his idea in the game without his permission, and could therefore potentially demand some sort of payment for use of that idea. The fact that ANet may have actually used our feedback under the old licensing does not change the fact that they would have done so while exposed to this risk.

The new licensing employed in the feedback area was designed with the sole purpose of mitigating this risk. The simple fact is that ANet either didn't know or didn't care that they were exposed to this risk before this past spring. But once they became aware of this risk (or decided they should care), they moved to protect themselves against it by bringing the new licensing to the wiki community. Originally, there was some thought of applying the new licensing to the entire wiki, but the community rejected this idea, and a compromise was made by creating a seperate area within the wiki, dedicated to feedback, that would carry the new licensing.

Therefore, if the questions is, "why was the feedback space created?", the answer would be "So ANet could eliminate the risk of being sued by using community feedback, while still allowing the rest of the wiki to keep the GFDL licensing." (Satanael | talk) 06:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I already addressed that Strawman, they were never at risk so long as they adapted the suggestions instead of using them Verbatim... Besides which, they never would have had reason to use any suggestions verbatim in the first place since they've always had their own (often wrong) ideas about what constitutes perfect balance.... --ilr 07:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(Strawman?) That is your own interpretation of the law, obviously ANet's lawyers came to a different conclusion. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that that was their motivation and that is an accurate portrayal of the history of the feedback space. (Satanael | talk) 22:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Catch-22 since admitting they were ever reading suggestions posted on the Wiki clashed legally with the original licensing. But go ahead and shove words in their Lawyers(& Mike's) mouths anyway since they'll never be able to admit themselves just how many loop-holes they had around said licensing. The real crime here is that now that they can ACTUALLY TALK TO US... they're instead talking to us LESS despite the big claims they made earlier this year. Aren't you atleast a little curious over why that might be, Sata? --ilr 01:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"If they're unwilling to sacrifice a tiny little bit of privacy required to anonymously allow a wiki bot to Check-Mark the suggestions that atleast one of them has navigated to..." I'm not sure I understand what you mean. For any wikibot to mark anything, there has to be a recorded edit, as far as I know there is no automatic tracker of who views a page. The only way for any sort of tracker to be put in place is for the devs to edit manually, which, we have already gone over, and it has been refused by the community (as well as the devs). I don't understand why you can't just accept Linsey's word that the suggestions are being read. You may have noticed as well that since Linsey stopped spending so much of her time answering things on her wiki page, we have actually gotten MORE content, and changes. Oh WOW! Could this possibly correlate to the time she has available? -- Wyn talk 02:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, during the whole creation process of the feedback area, I never cared whether or not they would comment on our ideas. I mean, did any of us really believe that they were going to get on and say "wow that's a great idea! I'll put that in the game right away!" Of course not, the only response they could ever give to an idea would be, at best, "that's interesting" followed by "we'll consider it" or "we can't do that/don't have the time/resources to do that." At the end of the day, we gain nothing from those comments. To me, the feedback space was only about the possibility that feedback we leave would be more likely to actually find its way into the game. Whether or not Lindsey actually goes onto my feedback pages and says "hey great idea" or not makes no difference to me at all.

I am not putting words in ANet's mouths, I'm just looking at what they have told us, which is that the only way they could legally take feedback from us would be under the new licensing. If they had not been concerned about their exposure under the old licensing, then they would not have spent the time, money, and effort to create a new license, and nor would they have pushed us to create the new space. I know this is true because I have spent several years working for big law firms advising online clients on issues pretty similar to this, so I know how big multinational companies approach these kinds of problems. (Satanael | talk) 04:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yet you refuse to answer ilr's question: now that Anet can actually legally talk to us, they're instead talking less despite their claims to do the opposite. Don't you want to know why? Does that not bother you that they're going back on their word? --Nathe 13:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I did answer that question, in my first paragraph. No it does not bother me, I don't care if they comment on our feedback, they're not going to be able to make any comments other than the canned responses we have and do get, so what difference does it make? And besides, Wyn is right, they may be talking less, but they are doing more. We have seen more and bigger updates in the past few months than we saw in nearly all of 2008. Given the choice, I'll take action over words every time. (Satanael | talk) 14:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You're quite blind, Sat. A company can never go wrong being more communicative with their customers. But they can go wrong being less so. Especially when they clearly stated they intended to be more communicative. They have not lived up to that statement, that promise. Yet it wouldn't take much to do so. How hard, really, do you think it is to write no more than a half dozen sentences a day? Just because you don't care about hearing from them doesn't mean everyone else doesn't. Think beyond your own viewpoint for once. Some people do want to hear more from them, and it's Anet's job to listen to all their customers, at least as many as possible, not just the ones you think they should listen to.

And when I said that bit about a half dozen sentences a day, here's what I meant. Instead of a checklist system, the LT would just comment on a few suggestions in the feedback space a day, no more than three given their heavy workload. Just a blip is all most people who do want a response really need, something to show that Anet actually is reading the suggestions and that they're not just saying they are. And by blip, I mean a short response of no more than a couple sentences. And depending on the nature of the suggestion, it wouldn't always be the same person writing all three of a given day's responses. As for the order in which to do them, they ought to just go straight down the list as they show up on the page, that way people can see that there's no random dart-throwing in determining which ones get answered and thus, no grounds for complaint. Simply answering them in the order they're listed, just a few a day and not pages of them at once like you seem to think is the only way they can do it. I think they can manage to give a short answer to three suggestions a day, it's not that hard, really. You talk about liking action, this IS action, showing us that they care about what we think and about our ideas and feedback. --Nathe 16:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You say "How hard, really, do you think it is to write no more than a half dozen sentences a day?" Well, given that each suggestion poses issues that need to be taken into consideration beyond the surface, including coding, whether it would mesh with the existing mechanics, in the case of skill changes, how it would affect the mobs, etc., those few sentences could actually take a long time. And once again, we are back to the issue of what will happen if they were to just comment on a few suggestions. Given the temperament of this community, it would not be long before those posters who's suggestions do not get commented on are crying on Linsey's page about it. Just take Linsey's word that she and the Live Team read them, and let this go. -- Wyn talk 16:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, if they did comment on a few, then those people would expect continued responses. So now, they are posting on the few each day, and then having to go back and continue discussions that spawned from previous comments. And again, if they didn't continue those discussions, how long would it be before the posters were on their pages, saying, why haven't you come back? So pretty soon, your few sentences become many many sentences, and suddenly, Linsey and the Live Team have no time for a life. -- Wyn talk 16:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, Wyn, they wouldn't expect any more than a single response if Anet makes it clear in the first place that that's all they're going to get. Also, you missed where I said they should answer suggestions in the order they're listed, not in a random order, to avoid people complaining about that. That way, there's no bias in terms of choosing which suggestions to answer. It's just whatever's shown next on the list, which Anet would clearly state that as being the policy, and no one would have any problem with that. All suggestions would eventually be answered, but only a few a day, in order, since the LT has such a workload - though as I've said before, had they hired 3-5 more designers instead of just one, it wouldn't be so bad as it still is. --Nathe 18:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"Think beyond your own viewpoint for once." Don't act like I've been some biligerent troll telling people how to feel. Look at my 3 comments above, they have done two things, answer questions posed to me (e.g. "Does that not bother you that they're going back on their word?") and describe the process and thinking behind the creation of the feedback space, as there seemed to be some confusion on that point in the preceeeding discussion. I'm not arguing in favor of ANet being less communicative, I am just saying I don't really care if there are or not. If you feel strongly that they should be more communicative, that's fine.

Also: "It's just whatever's shown next on the list, which Anet would clearly state that as being the policy, and no one would have any problem with that." I cry bullshit, given the hairtrigger for drama on the internet (and this community in particular), I would bet money that plenty of people would chime in against a random system like that. (Satanael | talk) 18:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

And just what "order" are you talking about? The most recently created? Well, that list only goes back 7 days, so what about all those people who created suggestions earlier? Or the most recently updated? That only lists 500 suggestions, what about all those suggestions that haven't been updated since they were created? I mean, seriously, if the team is working on a particular area of the game, the most logical (and the way the system was set up) is for them to go to the specific category of suggestions to look at. If you start trying to force them into some random order of reading/commenting on suggestions, it's only going to make the entire thing less efficient. There was never any guarantee that they would have time to comment on suggestions, it only became a possibility with this namespace. You are totally fooling yourself if you think this community would be satisfied with some random comments by the devs on their suggestions. Look at the shitstorm that arises from EVERY comment they make on the wiki, and on other fansites.

Read the FAQ article that this discussion is associated with "Will ArenaNet read and comment on every suggestion?: No, ArenaNet staff will not be able to read and comment on every suggestion (in this namespace or elsewhere). ArenaNet staff will only be able to participate on the wiki during their own private time. However, despite their intensive workload, they continue to be active on this wiki. We expect that they will read many of the suggestions provided in this space, as they have expressed interest in doing so.". This was clearly stated from the very beginning of this namespace, no one has ever claimed otherwise. Now, unless you have something new to add to the discussion, I think this whole subject should just be dropped. -- Wyn talk 03:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Blah blah blah, same old excuses and blind faith in this team... I guess I overestimated y'all. Doesn't matter though, things are already past the point of being able to spin/doctor it. They got one or 2 weeks left then all y'all gonna be facing the music --ilr 04:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Threats ilr? Just what do you suggest? We tell them they HAVE to comment on suggestions? What's going to happen if they don't? The very worst that could happen is people would stop suggesting, or leave the wiki or the game. Why don't you base your arguments in reality? -- Wyn talk 04:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I clearly said the suggestions would be addressed in order. Not at random. So I don't know why you guys are saying it's random. When you go into the feedback space, all the suggestions are listed by category. I just meant having them addressed in that order, NOT just by jumping around randomly from one place to another with no reason. Buff up on your reading comprehension skills. --Nathe 13:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, every suggestion that has ever been made, that hasn't been taken down by its poster, is still there. I still have suggestions up there from the time the space first opened, so don't go talking about suggestions going away when they clearly haven't. --Nathe 13:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Several suggestions have been tagged by their posters and deleted when the issue has been addressed by an update. The fact that none of yours has been, only indicates that the issues you are bringing up do not have the priority of the developers to address in a current update. Adding a new post EotN quest, changing the Gwen/Thackeray storyline (probably a Wintersday item, since that's where it started in the first place), and reclaiming Ascalon is a GW2 idea, which WILL not be commented on regardless due to the NDA all Anet staff are under regarding GW2. I never said others have been removed, I was simply pointing out the listing tools (other than the categories) that are available and their limitations. As I pointed out, the categories were set up so that the developers could easily access the suggestion pertaining to the areas they are currently working on. They really do not represent any "order" other than alphabetical so I guess I did not consider them anything other than "random" in how the developers would choose the few to comment on each week. They would also not provide a very consistent listing since new suggestions being added would simply be added within the alphabet "order". -- Wyn talk 14:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the best order to go in, then, would be reverse chronological, ie oldest first. That makes sure that suggestions added after the answering process begins will be gotten to eventually, as opposed to doing it in any other order which would make it harder to be sure which way to go next. What listing tools did you point out? I didn't see you mention them. Just asking. And a minor correction - actually, the G/T suggestion was for there NOT to be any change to it, ie nothing further added to it. Not to do something different. Aside from swapping a couple lines, but I even said there that I didn't mind if that part wasn't done. --Nathe 20:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The essential problem is not the order in which suggestions would be viewed in such a system, it is that the rate at which suggestions will be posted will always outpace the rate at which ANet can/will read them. What happens when ANet gets a month behind the suggestions? Two months? A year? Pretty soon they'll be reading suggestions that, because of subsequent updates, no longer apply to the game (like reading today why they should nerf Ursan, or how IWAY is ruining the game, for example). Simple fact is, if the community can monitor ANet's reading progress in any way, then that puts ANet in the awkward position of having to explain why they are unable to read faster, or why they chose to read this suggestion but not that one. If the community can not, then ANet can go at their own pace, and read whichever ones they want, whenever they want, without offending anyone. To be perfectly honest, I can't imagine ANet ever agreeing to any other way of doing it. (Satanael | talk) 14:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The only way to hold a company truly accountable to its word is to have radical transparency. Can you prove, at all, that the LT is in fact reading the suggestions and not just saying they are? By proof I mean things like page logs or cache or something that shows they viewed those pages. If Linsey can provide this, then fine. If not, then Anet's not being forthcoming enough with us. By your logic, for example, it's okay that the ACTA treaty is being made in complete secrecy with no input from consumer advocates or anybody from the perspective of ordinary people. --74.118.5.254 16:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Here we have a policy called Assume Good Faith. Part of that is taking people's word for things, whether it is that they have seen/found something in game, or done something here on the wiki if they say so. The fact that Linsey has repeatedly told the community that the teams are reading the feedback that's been posted should be enough. Personally, I don't believe Arena Net owes the community anything at all, many game companies simply sell you their game and that's what you get, period, end of discussion. (I can feel the flames coming already, but I don't care) Whether some of the changes that we've already seen in the game are a result of specific suggestions that have been made, or things that the Live Team has had on their agenda for awhile is anyone's guess, but to continue this kind of conversation is just a waste of energy, since, as I have pointed out previously, there is NO WAY we can force them to DO anything. If what they have given us already isn't enough, then you should find another game, where the company gives in to the unrealistic demands of a pubescent community. -- Wyn talk 16:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so expecting accountability and honesty are unrealistic, now? Or are you so obsessed with being right all the time that you can't bear to ever admit being wrong? Anet has gone back on quite a few of their promises over the last year, as many on the wiki will tell you. Their word carries little weight now. Generic blanket statements with no detail are not good enough. And just because YOU can't think of a way for their hand to be forced, doesn't mean it can't be. There are some creative people here, after all, and you never know what they'll come up with. This thread WILL go on until Linsey answers, in specific detail, the issues the OP has brought up. What you personally believe doesn't matter. In any company, the customer must come first. Always. --74.118.5.254 18:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"the customer must come first." Actually, that age old saying is and has always been wrong. Talk to anybody with a business degree and they'll say so. If you need proof, walk into a starbucks and demand they give you all their coffee for free. Does the customer come first? If you walk into a best buy and try to return a dvd that's been opened, do you come first? When you get hit be a car and the insurance company you've been paying says that you don't get coverage because of a pre-existing condition, do you come first? Just because you gave them $50 4 years ago does not mean they are your slave, nor does it mean they are at all held accountable to you. Your transaction with ANet has been completed already, they owe you nothing.

ANet engages with this community solely so that they can get a better feel for what people liked and disliked (i.e., read our feedback). But how they receive that feedback, and what they do with it, is going to be completely on their terms. We have no right to make demands to them about our feedback on their game. (Satanael | talk) 18:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"just leave him festering in his bile." Well said. Aevar talk contribs 19:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"just because YOU can't think of a way for their hand to be forced, doesn't mean it can't be. There are some creative people here" OMG, thank you for a great morning laugh! -- Wyn talk 14:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Aever: When I brought up that saying, what I meant was that it's always wise for a company to treat its customers with respect, not silence and disdain. Connect with them, truly connect with them, and you'll give them a reason to keep on buying your product and recommending it to others. Fail to do that, and you run the risk of doing the opposite. It's your choice.

Wyn: Ah, the classic response of the ignorant and unaware. Anyway, I'm still waiting for Linsey's response to all this. That's why I put it on her page in the first place. --Nathe 16:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Linsey has already given her response.... "I have read a good deal of the feedback and I know Robert has as least read pretty much every single bit of skill and balance feedback recently because he and James are heading up the next skill balance. - Linsey talk 23:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wynthyst (talk • contribs) at 18:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC).

End of discussion, thanks. I've seen enough personal attacks, and this discussion won't go anywhere considering it's got nowhere further to go - I don't think any more back-and-forth arguments and attention-pleading will be constructive to anything right now. If Linsey wants to respond, she's of course able to. -- pling 18:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Wyn, the quote you gave says nothing. It gives no evidence that anyone actually LOOKED at the pages. It only SAYS they did. What I'm asking for is a response that gives details and actually has something of substance within it, as opposed to just claiming "we're working on it." Stop talking for her and let her talk for herself. I'm tired of you being her mouthpiece, Wyn. When somebody posts an issue on her page, they want HER to answer, not you. --Nathe 20:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Official Response

Hi everyone,

I just want to thank you all for posting your thoughts and opinions on this page. I’ve read the issues being debated and have discussed these issues at length with my co-workers. I would like to try and address the concerns raised here.

First, let me state categorically that our developers do read the feedback space.

While some individuals may not believe it, I can only tell you that they do, and hope you take my words at face value. Just to give you some examples, Robert has a browser tab open to the feedback space practically all the time on his computer. He reads it every day. Linsey reads the Feedback Portal regularly. I check the feedback space on a regular basis so that I can forward suggestions to developers. I plug/promote the feedback portal in every community report I write, and this report gets distributed widely through ArenaNet. Because of this promotion of the feedback space internally, there is a growing interest in it and I regularly field questions from developers about the feedback portal.

Some players would like confirmation that their suggestions are being read. The problem with this is that commenting on every suggestion takes a huge amount of time, given the sheer number of suggestions involved. While it would be great for developers to respond to all feedback they read, it's not possible for them to do so – they simply have too many competing demands on their time. Reading feedback and discussion doesn't take nearly as much time as actually forming a response to feedback and discussion.

For instance, let's say one of our developers reads and comments on 25 suggestions in a day (and a few of our developers do read a large amount of suggestions). Let's say that, on average, it takes 10 minutes to compose an appropriate response to these 25 suggestions—that amounts to about half a workday. That’s a significant amount of time spent not doing their primary job—game development.

The time spent composing and replying to a comment does not include the time for actually reading suggestions, and carefully considering those suggestions, nor does it include consulting with other people in the studio on how best to reply to something, if they feel they need assistance. As you all know, public messaging is frequently reviewed by multiple people before being published. Members of the QA team frequently ask for advice from the community department on how best to respond on the wiki. Asking for and edit pass would add to the time spent replying to feedback. Furthermore, if developers commented on some suggestions, and not others, it would cause no small amount of tension within the community.

You also have to keep in mind that many developers also read fan site forums as well. The wiki is not the only GW community out there, and it would be a mistake for us to think so. For GW1 developers, there are also the responsibilities to the Test Krewe involved. The wiki is not the only place where we get an idea of how the community feels about issues (such as the recent GW2 trailer), even if we aren't legally allowed to take suggestions from forums.

A check mark system ("Mark as read") would raise issues of favoritism ("Why is so-and-so's feedback checked off and not mine?”), mistrust in more cynical fans ("We don't believe you're reading; you're probably just leaving check marks to give the impression that you're reading."), and would lead to growing demands for developer participation ("Check marks are not enough! We want you to actually comment!"), which are already present in this current issue.

The Feedback Portal does not come with a guarantee of developer responses. The Feedback Portal primarily serves as a place for fans to put suggestions that developers can consider so they can potentially incorporate suggestions legally. If a developer responds to a piece of feedback, please take it as a bonus. Why? Because that developer took time away from developing the game, gave careful thought to a piece of feedback, and responded.

I am sorry that this is not an ideal situation for many of you who take a lot of time to compose your feedback and would like a response. Unfortunately, the reality is that although the developers read the Feedback Portal regularly, they just don't have the time to comment. We're extremely grateful to the wiki community for agreeing to have a space like the Feedback Portal. Most importantly, we sincerely appreciate and value all of your feedback, so please keep it coming.

Thanks,

--Regina Buenaobra 23:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"I check the feedback space on a regular basis so that I can forward suggestions to developers. I plug/promote the feedback portal in every community report I write, and this report gets distributed widely through ArenaNet." _+_ "we aren't legally allowed to take suggestions from forums" -- First and foremost, could someone plz combine or add/Paraphrase these 2 quote into this FAQ now?
Secondly: "A check mark system ("Mark as read") would raise issues of favoritism, mistrust in more cynical fans,<&snip>, which are already present in this current issue." I'm assuming this means that an Automated system is still completely unacceptable to Anet Devs as well (assuming the wiki had the tech/bots to do it)...even though 90% of the case Regina presented here is about the Devs simply not having enough time to respond/"check-off" anything they view... that's rather disappointing. -- In any case... thank you very much for finally ending the debate on this. (and it Is ended, right Nathe?) --ilr 00:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me cite a passage from the Current article to give an example of what I mean by Added (possibly as in replacing or refining the wording of the article)-->: "We expect that they will read many of the suggestions provided in this space, as they have expressed interest in doing so. We also know that many changes in Guild Wars have been inspired by user feedback." -- This reads as speculation and I'm not really sure how it got there in the first place. It should Definitely be altered now that we have more explicit details on the process. Thanks...(future editors) --ilr 00:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

ilr, the FAQ was developed as part of setting up the feedback namespace. The responses to the questions there could only BE speculative at that time, since we could only go on what the Dev teams (including Regina) were telling us in our communications with them while we were setting it up. Feel free to adjust the answer as you feel it would best reflect Regina's comments, there is no protection on the page disallowing you to do so. -- Wyn talk 01:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed response, Regina. Cleared up some things for me, and I appreciate it. ^_^ --Nathe 13:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought, and if it's not feasible that's okay, but perhaps another solution could be to hire somebody whose job it is to provide such feedback as has been requested, to comment on the suggestions in the feedback space (which would involve conferring with the relevant team member or members if needed) and in general provide the more involved communication between Anet and the community that the Live Team understandably can't always give. Something like an assistant CR person, perhaps. It always puzzled me why you guys only hired one new designer instead of several, also, since the Team could do more with more people. Anyway, it's just an idea I thought I'd share, that's all. Thanks again for the response, Regina! --Nathe 17:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Because hiring people costs money, and a lot of it over time. Think about it, if ANet employees are only supposed to participate in this wiki on their own free time, what do you think the likelihood is that they will hire someone who's sole job is to participate in the wiki? In a perfect world, they could hire someone to take care of every little issue they have, but if they did that they would go out of business.

Also, I have updated this question to reflect what we know from Regina's above statements and our experience thus far. I hope people are satisfied with the wording, but please feel free to amend as necessary. (Satanael | talk) 18:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Regina's response pretty much covers the fact that comments are not and will not be made mandatory but that there IS a significant interest in this space on the part of the development teams. As to why they only hired one new designer for a 4+ yr old game should be pretty much a no brainer, there just are not resources or really a need for more. It's not like GW is going to be getting massive new content (a new expansion or campaign), or generating hundreds of thousands of new dollar income at this point. Also, I am pretty sure that Regina and Martin make up the entire Community Relations team, they don't have assistants and they provide the Community Relations for both GW and GW2. When you consider the cost of any employee to a company (salary+benefits+workspace, etc) it's not likely they are going to go out an hire a bunch of people if they don't have the $$ in the profit margin to cover it all. -- Wyn talk 18:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. But it just seems that every time they give an answer about why they're not able to do something in the game or whatnot, part of the answer usually entails the lack of enough time/man (or woman) power to do so. And that even with the addition of the new designer, the team members' individual workloads still seem insanely large. I just thought that another 1 or 2 people added to the team besides the one they already added would help alleviate that somewhat, that's all. --Nathe 20:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, again, for a 4+ yr old game, especially when they have GW2 in the pipeline, they are not going to be pushing more $$ into GW than what their profit margin allows. When the game was new and selling out everywhere, they could afford a full team, now the dollars that are coming in not only have to pay for the maintenance costs of servers, etc, but also ALL of the staff for both games. Do the math and then /facepalm. -- Wyn talk 20:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright. The /facepalm comment was unnecessary, though. No need to be rude. --Nathe 22:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Memorandum:

To: All Wiki writers

Subject: Beatings

Please stop beating me.

Yours Truly,

Dead Horse

Drakora 22:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You're a little late, Drak, it's already over. --Nathe 13:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)