ArenaNet talk:Skill feedback/Archive 1

Filler

This is filler text so breadcrumbs work properly on the skill pages. -- Armond Warblade 21:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Navigation

I've made a variation of the skill lists navigation here: User:CoRrRan/Sandbox5, feel free to implement it in anyway you like. I would suggest putting it in User:Isaiah Cartwright/User feedback nav. Then on all profession pages, there can be a link included like this: {{User:Isaiah Cartwright/User feedback nav|profession}}. See my sandbox for an example. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 00:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I took your idea and merged it with the existing creation header :) The links to the specific attributes are a bit redundant as you will have a TOC. poke | talk 13:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me poke. :-) I used the attribute links because the skill lists in my user namespace are much larger than this feedback page stuff. Didn't bother to remove them for this, since it could've been used. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 16:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What if I were to suggest a change for a game mechanic or an attribute? Where would I put that? ~ ZamaneeJinn 02:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Soul Reaping on the Necromancer page for an example of feedback on an attribute. For feedback on PvP mechanics take a look at Andrew Patrick's talk page he collects more general PvP feedback/suggestions. There have been discussions on Izzy's main talk page recently about ViO or VoD, but I'm not sure that's the best place for those topics but it doesn't seem to stop people. :) --Aspectacle 02:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that last sentence - the ViO conversation was moved to the monster skills feedback section. That kind of counts has GvG game mechanics. --Aspectacle 02:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Settled(?) Skills

What happens to certain skills that have been recently addressed? My example would be Mind Blast. Discussion is dead ever since the last nerf/buffs that came in, with the 3 second recharge, drop in energy gain as well as the nerf on rodgort's invocation. Is there anyway to know that the issue is over since I still see it as an "issue" even though its threat has been diminished? Renin 09:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, you should reset discution for recently modified skills or archive it, or add a line to show there was an update since then.88.169.112.155 21:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We should "archive" all skills where either Izzy has left a comment directly on the issue page or the skill was changed in an update since the issue page was set up by moving the link from the profession page to an archive page and doing the same with the issue pages. --Xeeron 21:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should inlude some kind of "last update" line on the skill pages to make potentially outdated suggestions obvious. I've added one to Elemental Flame. -- Gordon Ecker 00:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a section called "All issues addressed by isaiah", so we can move skills there were the issues are no longer valid (either because of izzy responding on the page or because of a later balance). I checked for responses on the page, but not for all balancing, so there bound to be some skills that need to be moved down still. --Xeeron 13:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that old issues (those which predate the latest update affecting the skill) and otherwise addressed issues should be moved down into subsections of a "settled issues", "old issues", "resolved and obsolete issues" section. Perhaps current issues could become subsections of a "current issues" section as well. -- Gordon Ecker 07:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The above comment refers to issues within a specific skill's feedback page. By the way, if a skill has some addressed issues and some unaddressed issues, should we include a second link to it in the settled section of the index, or should we only list it once? -- Gordon Ecker 05:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the archive suggestion is best. Its what we did in the old days and it worked rather well in my opinion. Done25 15:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think archiving is necessary unless a page gets large, like the one for Ursan Blessing, otherwise, I think that timestamps and a last update note are sufficient and there is no reason to needlessly break up a page. -- Gordon Ecker 00:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ratings?

This wiki is (almost always) about facts - opinions don't matter, as either a skill exists or not, either a NPC has a specific dialogue or not. But here, in the skill feedback section, we're dealing with opinions - possibly hundreds, maybe thousands of opinions. As far as I have understood it, the purpose of this section is for the players to give feedback to Arena Net. However, if we have countless skill suggestions...Do we have the right to expect Arena Net to read and consider all of them?

Skill feedback is not about facts. Some suggestions will inevitably be better than the others, and some will be worse. In order to help Arena Net and reduce a bit the number of issues we're expecting them to read, I suggest creating some kind of rating system to the feedback, so it would be easy to find out what is considered a "good" skill feedback, and what isn't.

This is something complex and drama-inducing, not to mention it would require a lot of work by people who are not me (as I don't have enough knowledge to give those ratings myself), but I think it is something that would likely help this section a bit (hopefully before it growths explosively like the GW2 Suggestions page). Erasculio 23:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Scope

Recently, there has been some disagreement about what to do with feedback pages which are not about individual skills. I can think of several possibilities.

1. Keep them where they are.
2. Move ArenaNet:Skill feedback to ArenaNet:Skill and balance feedback.
3. Merge them into ArenaNet:Guild Wars Suggestions
4. Move them to subpages of ArenaNet:Guild Wars suggestions or ArenaNet:Guild Wars suggestions/Balance.

I would prefer option 1 or 2 so that all balance feedback can be kept together. My third preference would be option 4, which wouldn't keep balance feedback together, but would still allow organization. -- Gordon Ecker 09:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Skill and balances issues can, at times, not be separated. So I would argue for option No2. However, if the pages are called "skill feedback" or "skill and balance feedback", I dont care at all. --Xeeron 11:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Reformat

When you open a skill feedback page you get [insert name]'S ISSUE in BIG TYPE and, on something controversial, you scroll down and the names are all you see. It is impossible for a user to skim read. The names are NOT what is important. The format should be [PROBLEM -> solutions -> sign] not [SIGN -> problem -> solutions] Users should be allowed to add their own solutions/agree/disagree under the same header to highlight which aspects are controversial without cluttering up the page with undescriptive headers.

At the moment, the discussion is seperate from the ideas. If one idea is shot down with valid arguments or recieves high praise from fellow users, it may all be overlooked. This area is designed for Izzy to efficiently evaluate opinions on the skill's design afterall. Right now, however, it is confusing, even for an experienced user (which Izzy admits he is not.)

I propose you merge the discussion for suggestions with the article and allow a more broad discussion on the feedback talk page. This would allow readers to gain an understanding for oppinions relating to the skill which aren't specifically related to its design. For example, the power of Ursan users with consumables and the degradation of pride from achievments due to Ursanway are two subjects that have no place on the talk page of that skill and the current format would have users believe they do not belong in the feedback discussion either. Regardless of bias, they are important things to consider and discuss with fellow users and are important for Izzy to be able to locate when evaluating the overall quality of a skill. I think we should do everything we can to help Izzy and Regina understand the community and this suggestion makes that task far easier and efficient.

Reasons for:

• Good/Bad ideas can be identified.
• Easier to navigate.
• Format less foreign to inexperienced users.
• Moves skill feedback discussion away from that of the skill's article.
• The area will be more attractive to use for both the community and ArenaNet Developers.

Reasons against:

• More trolling.
• Content under feedback headers will be far longer.
• The wiki is not a forum.
• Lots of archiving to do before implementation.

Like to hear what people think about the current format.. especially if you're a dev. If Izzy wants this place to stay as is, consider the proposal revoked. -- Spawnlegacy 14:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the proposal itself, but I wanted to comment on "If Izzy wants this place to stay as is, consider the proposal revoked" -- we have to think of the wiki and its users as well; we can't rely solely on ArenaNet, but find a solution which pleases both wiki and Izzy's team. -- Brains12 \ talk 15:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem isn't if it is easier to skim at a glance or not, the problem is its bloated across a shit ton of sections imo. Mind you, I like the idea, but until there is a way to easily see what is new or updated at a glance, it won't matter much. 15:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC) --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:DarkNecrid (talk).

Also it might be better to first resolve the discussion on the community portal before thinking about this.. poke | talk 16:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

eh. It won't get resolved until people get bored of arguing. Regardless of the outcome of that discussion an improved feedback system has been proposed and that proposal should be dealt with seperately. Consensus anyone? Spawnlegacy 17:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this proposal relies on the outcome of the linked discussion (e.g. how things are enforced, whether ArenaNet should have more input, etc). -- Brains12 \ talk 17:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the discussion to be included on the main page, some people already do so and it adds needless clutter. As for removing the name from the section title, IMO each section title needs some form of unique identifier in order to clearly mark its' discussion section on the talk page. General discussions already occur on talk pages under the current system. As for dealing with bad ideas, IMO we should be able to archive bad suggestions with concensus on the talk page. I think we should make a skill feedback formatting page. -- Gordon Ecker 01:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've written up a formatting proposal at Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Skill feedback pages. The current version is based on the current formatting, it also incorporates a vetting system (archiving suggestions early with talk page concensus), splits old and new suggestions and shifts emphasis from user names to suggestion overviews (although it still includes names in the heading). -- Gordon Ecker 07:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Not posting on Izzy's page

I have nothing against noet posting skill suggestions on Izzy's page, if he'd actually read these pages. Is there a way to mark skills as Urgent or something? 145.94.74.23 11:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the sysops would agree with this advice. Type your issue into the title for a section on his page, link to the appropriate page in the feedback section and ask him to read it and to bring all related discussion to that location. That's in complete accordance with the current rules just so long as any discussion other users might have is brought to the linked page and not to Izzy's.

If it isn't an issue with the skill's design, as such, and you just want to let him know about a specific suggestion, I'd have to say keep it on feedback. If he knows what the issue is, deems it important and you make it easy for him to find discussion and suggestions for it, he will read it. It should only be really important issues though. What those important issues are, I'll have to leave to you and admin. -- Spawn ‎ Legacy 21:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I foresee much "hey Izzy, look at Skill Page B" "hi Izzy, take a look at this, it's on Skill Page E", "hey Izzy, skill F is overpowered, look at skill page F". Bad idea, imo. If there's something urgent, the devs will notice it on the forums (as Regina said on her talk page, everyone reads them). -- Brains12 \ talk 22:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Brains. On the other hand, if you were to move the content to the feedback section in accordance with the proposed rules it would look like this:

This Skill Is Overpowered

This discussion has been moved to 'random page on ArenaNet:Skill_feedback' balance suggestions belong here

and you would be moving the content of: Izzy, [insert skill] is overpowered, plz look here.

Letting it be takes out the middle man.. but, whether you're making it easy on the sysops or not, Mr IP, I still agree with Brains. Requests for skill balance will still be frowned upon on Izzy's page and your content should be moved or deleted to set an example for people planning to do the same in the future. Spawn ‎ Legacy 05:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC) too tired for humour today. On another serious note; I'd rather see the moderation allow all content to exist in a more organised way than to go ahead and delete these things, however favorable to a forum-free, wiki-attitude that would be.