Losing AT won’t exactly affect most people, very few enter it and even fewer get to experience the rewards, i watched it when it first happened and then never bothered with it again, i am aware they do more than sit on the forums, but with the traffic we generate its not exactly a job they need dozens of people for even on the subreddit where you will actually just have mods to deal with stuff with a CCP PR guy coming in to post the same response to things they have probably posted for years
I don’t see what’s wrong with the current system. The candidates themselves could provide better information about their intentions though. Half of them care more about getting elected than to say what it is they want to be elected for.
Only when the choices become too difficult, because you end up wanting to elect half of them simply for their ideas and how they present themselves, can one talk about improving the election process. Until then is there not much to vote for, or requires fixing or needs to be given more attention by CCP.
The AT lives, but the anger games got canceled as the devs supporting it were let go. That spawned a whole bunch of rumors about the AT and it’s status going into the future though. They aren’t credible enough that I’m worried about it yet, but it’s easy to see things getting worse.
I’ll at least say I definitely wish they kept a few people around.
I don’t know who’s doing what and what the workloads are it’s hard to fully say either way. And it’s not like Guard and Falcon are the only CCPers that interact with the community, there’s a bunch of other devs that post on the forums/reddit/twitter, and probably a few more on a few other platforms that I’m not on.
I understand, I’m just saying that some people might be dissatisfied with the CSM because they went too far in one direction, and another person might think they didn’t go far enough. It’s impossible to mark every possibility in a simple forum poll, but I would love to hear what exactly people would like to see changed.
I dont know, maybe CSM is not enough for people. Maybe players want to vote for features, not players. And I see that more community developers are needed. Maybe people want o7 show back in some form or similar thing where someone presents a weekly or monthly newsletter?
I like that idea, but that brings up a lot of questions. How do you ensure that there is only one vote per player? What to do with close votes? How to deal with the issue that many players are not well enough informed about many aspects of the game, which makes such feature-votes subject to propaganda wars? Doesn’t that take away possible market advantages of CCP, when they completely open up about innovation before its launch?
Thanks for putting me onto this magazine. I didn’t know it existed.
I think it could be rather simple like survey. CCP could publish a simple direction of future development, sort of bunch of vectors for next expansion, people would vote for vectors, these vectors would be exhausted one ofter the other, and maybe return in future. People could just tell what to do first from these vectors. Maybe add it to CSM reponsibilities to work on the vectors in details before they will be proposed. One vector for each person in CSM.
These are all completely genuine and challenging concerns, if we’re talking about examples of implementation the only truly meaningful version I can think of is the system in Old School Runescape, which was created after the developer Jagex made a series of changes so extreme and unpopular that resurrecting a years-old version of the game was necessary. In order to prevent such a disaster from happening again, they promised that almost every single update would have to be approved by a significant majority of players before being added to the game.
In order to prevent spamming, only paying members of a certain (very low) level could submit a vote. Each vote on a ballot was optional so you didn’t have to commit to anything. When I played it a year or two ago it seemed to be working very well, and people were still willing to approve new content even though MMO players, especially those in Old School Runescape, would typically rather die by their own hand than try something new in their beloved game.
That being said, EVE Online is a very different game, and has a very different set of developers and players. Not to say it couldn’t work, just that I can’t say for sure it would work as well as it does in Old School Runescape. It was certainly very nice to get a really open and consistent window into the development process, as Jagex had to essentially pitch any development ideas to its players early enough that a bunch of resources wouldn’t be completely wasted if the proposal failed.
I had no idea either of these things existed, but they seem really cool. I hope CCP invests time and resources into doing more of this kind of thing again.
The thing is that players remember for years when CCP fked something up, but they easily forget if the Devs were right about introducing changes. If we had CCP Devs were paid to spend one hour per day on a Dev Forum to disect player input, I’m sure they’d have a hilarious collection of players being wrong about past future developments by now.
For a player democracy to work we’d need more than just a setup which allows for more influence by the masses, but also a more well informed playerbase. Like in real life this goes hand in hand, one determines the other. Players who are mostly driven by their own petty interest and easily influenced by propaganda, will rage when they’re convinced something bad is about to happen, but they are not going to put in the footwork to make things better, let alone the work needed to become a more informed and person.
Giving each and any player more responsibility while asking for more commitment might be a way to tackle that issue. How to measure commitment though?
We live in times where everyone thinks an opinion is a super precious thing to have, while actually everyone has thousands of them and there is nothing easier to acquire than some opinion. Unless that opinion the actual outcome of a process of critically reflecting former opinions, it’s not worth anything. Shallow opinions have been a topseller for decades, centuries even.
In other words: if you ask for peoples opinion, you’ll always get something, but unless you look behind each and any single curtain, you have no idea wether that opinon is worth its salt.
To do that you’d need to measure the commitment of the player in-game and regarding the analysis and discussion of game mechanics. Maybe you have a good idea how to do that, because all my models for this become pretty work intensive and rather complicated for “just a game”.
Sounds good in theory, but in practise there is no way to tell them apart. You never know if your “new” player is really new.
Make me king of EVE and rest assured, that my directives will be great and full of glory and every change to mechanics will bring unlimited joy.
(Side effects may include critics being silenced and general loss of democratic achievements)