User talk:HH LEADER/Archive 2009-04-26
Option No. 5: in game feedback collection
- → moved from User_talk:Mike_O'Brien
Summary of suggestion can be found here - > In Game Feedback Collection
It is argued that in game collection of feedback/ideas is superior to any other method because said feedback is allowed only to registered in game users in given intervals of time and does not allow creating of discussions like in forums or Wikis that lead to waste of time on reading said discussions by ArenaNet creative personel. Also because only small number of users visit forums or Wikis many opportunities will be lost if no in game feedback is implemented. In addition in game feedback can be provided in localization language of the game where the forums/Wikis would require setting of separate entities in each language. Of course, this approach will require the development but can be re-used in any other game.
If ArenaNet considers this approach as feasible, the release/waiver form can be inserted on this page along with the fax number where signed release can be sent or suggest another legal way of transfering full ownership of this idea and its possible implementations to ArenaNet.
All discussions can continue here
HH LEADER 
talk 23:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Option No. 5: in game feedback collection
- → moved from User_talk:Mike_O'Brien
Mike, if this option or its specific implementation was of any interest I wish to sign a release form for it to be used outside of this Wiki discussion. (release no longer may be needed as per below message, but if so, the offer stands).
Such release can also be used for asking any of the registered users who may be contacted via their email adresses stored in their Wiki profiles if they wish to donate. Thank you. HH LEADER talk 14:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Update on Option No. 5: My complements to Fighterdoken who looked at this option positively and creatively and returned it to the discussion table.
Here is how:
- Fighterdoken has identified that nothing needs to be developed in additionally to what has been already developed in the game to allow in game feedback collection. His solutions is to use existing 'Private' message channel and change some back end processes that is not something that can be feared of creating any legal concern. Indeed, one outside the company cannot patent the process of how the company needs to change their back end processes to handle the information they already collect, just in a different manner. This, by the way, also works for 'adding new chat channel approach', because it refers to a chat channel that is already developed and in place. And its reuse by the company is company's own business. It cannot be 'patented' outside, which will be silly.
- The wording 'in game feedback collection' cannot be even considered as any legal threat, because it was Mike's decision to start gathering feedback officially and it is their game were thay may choose doing so reusing the software that they already have developed.
- This will not require 'massive' development. It may require no or very little development, which addresses Misery and others concern about the cost and resources usage, which they would rather see used on something that they perceive as more important for players.
- It does not require company to even comment on it as per above
If someone wants to discuss this option again keeping in mind that there is no more any legal concern for the company with no/minor cost to implement it, they can use User_talk:HH_LEADER/Guild_Wars_2_suggestions/in_game_feedback_collection page.
He's saying you're full of shit. Just in case you missed it. -Auron 14:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
( copied from User_talk:Mike_O'Brien )
- Community moderation leads to bias moderation. The decision about suggestion fate cannot be delegated to community because no community has enough knowledge about game mechanics or what is in current development and how the suggestion can fit in company development/creative plans. Any community moderation is useless waste of time. Also it has to be done in all supported languages. Besides not everyone wants to go to forums for fear of being mocked and lack of time and many good ideas will never be posted. So, if suggestions are ever accepted they have to be submitted directly and never discussed. Good suggestions from company prospective can be rewarded and bad ones dismissed without negative comments that will discourage further posting. If company opens a direct channel it can control its usage and either issue a warning or increase the time between posts or simply trash all input from 'unproductive' users e.g.: "\set filter: Redirect All Input from HH Leader -> trash." He won't even know and will keep happily posting ;-) HH LEADER
talk 14:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- You're funny. I would delete "community moderation is [a] useless waste of time" as soon as possible considering where you are. --Ravious 15:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I can see that you are not a programmer. 'As soon as possible' does not define a step in the process. Do you want to delete said sentence before the whole post goes to trash? If so, were you put the deleted part: in the same trash or another one, or some place else for archiving? And if you want to delete it after it has been put to trash, do you mean to say that you want 'undelete' it, and if so, where you going to put it afterwards? In short: what is you definition of the filter: "trash everything, but... and put the 'but' somewhere else" or "double trash everything he has to say"? ;-) Thanks. HH LEADER talk 17:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I can see that you are not a programmer. 'As soon as possible' does not define a step in the process. Do you want to delete said sentence before the whole post goes to trash? If so, were you put the deleted part: in the same trash or another one, or some place else for archiving? And if you want to delete it after it has been put to trash, do you mean to say that you want 'undelete' it, and if so, where you going to put it afterwards? In short: what is you definition of the filter: "trash everything, but... and put the 'but' somewhere else" or "double trash everything he has to say"? ;-) Thanks. HH LEADER
- You're funny. I would delete "community moderation is [a] useless waste of time" as soon as possible considering where you are. --Ravious 15:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- → moved from User_talk:Mike_O'Brien
- He's saying you're full of shit. Just in case you missed it. -Auron 14:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Ravious was fun and Auron was not.
Please vote below for Auron's quote.
It is more fun than a Bureaucrat vote!
So, Come on! Give me a vote! Give it a shot!
I solemnly promise, you will not be shot!
No complaints or grudges!
You will be the judges!
Votes for me being full of shit
Votes for me not being completely full of shit and arguing that I still could take in some more shit
Counter offers (new definitions of me being something else or being full of something else or half-full or half-empty of something else)
Any other opinions of me are appreciated as well and can be posted here
(quote from User_talk:HH_LEADER/Archive_2009-04-21) Highlights are mine HH LEADER talk 19:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
"I guess you're new to wikis, or at least this wikis culture, so I think an explanation of our culture is in order. The way things work is that we discuss everything until we have worked out the issues. It doesn't work by Anet deciding everything, instead they let us run the wiki.
Not is it realistic to expect that telling people to shut up about the failure points of your suggestion and only focus on any good part will happen. There is no reason for them to do so, nor would they gain anything by doing so. Backsword 11:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)"
