CSM thoughts and 3rd party development development

Now ive seen a couple of posts berating the CSM model of development interaction and honestly i have always had doubts that an democratic election in a game where the most succseful groups are the largest groups in the game is really a fair assessment of players average opinion at best a somewhat elitist system that might not harvest the results CCP had hopefore and obviously require . The feedback of all its players however ’ susscesful.

My honest advice to CCP regarding this is a system of a somewhat meritocratic nature . Rather than follow the advice and counsel of those with the most friends respect more those who have done the most to help and empower the common player . Who , the 3rd party developers and the wiki and website developers . Those i think represent more the ’ will ’ of the people playing the game . There the experts and have sacrificed time , effort and tesources into being a better game . The tools people rely on should define your development direction not the biggest groups chosen representatives . Let me site the fitting window / EFT incident . What is now considered an essential , useful , practical tool in the game was once not available functionality except in 3rd party software .

Im not saying the CSM is all bad in my mind , the richest most powerful should be represented and have there opportunity to shape the game .

But i think the developers should study and acknowledge the work of those who truely dedicated hours of there life creating a better New Eden for all . Not just out of respect but people have voted with there feet and browser tabs to say … this works .

If id like to see anyone enshrined as a statue for prosperity , what about the founders of Eve University or the creators and maintainers of zkill , there people who have truely helped to make new eden more fun .

The diamonds in the rough are as important as those with the ’ gold ’ .

The best answer - as it often is - is somewhere in the middle and slightly to the side. The CSM in its current model does tend to have the largest share of the player base’s more immediate interests in mind, assuming for the sake of this conversation we’re ignoring the handful of CSM peeps that have used and abused their privileged information for personal gain. But, as you’ve said and many others besides, it tends toward a popularity contest, not necessarily a most qualified contest. That’s really not any different than IRL politics, so it shouldn’t be too much of a surprise here.

That being said, and yes the 3rd party devs have in some cases reshaped the game as we know it on their own, in spite of CCP’s failings, the 3PD’s aren’t necessarily the most knowledgeable either. They’re good at developing tools, but they’re not necessarily the most well informed or capable in any given part of the game. As an example, way back when I was still a ‘leet low sec PVP’er’ our FC and alliance leader was very good at FC’ing. He was not good at managing the corporation because the traits that made him a great FC also made him not the greatest guy when it came to handling internal issues. We also had a guy in alliance that built a 3PD tool - I think osmium but I don’t rightly remember - but he was not a great FC. Too quiet, not forceful enough, etc. Then we also had peeps who were good at logistics but crap at FC’ing(me, for one), and a whole bunch of other roles. All these roles are required to make alliances and corporations work.

A way CCP could go about doing that - and incorporating your thoughts here - might be to section out the CSM. 3 chairs for null(because they are the largest group of players), 2 for WH, 2 for Lowsec, 2 for high sec, 2 for FW, 1 for this, 1 for that, one for that… IDK, I’m not gonna get hung up on numbers at the moment, but have the CSM be partitioned out, so to speak, and people run for specific chairs within that. And depending on where CCP wanted to put their development focus for the year, they could also weight the CSM to reflect it.

I wouldn’t expect much. The game is clearly in maintenance mode at this point. Maintenance and farming mode. It’s not that hard to come up with/trial new ships, ideas, concepts, etc, but CCP isn’t doing any of that anymore, just redoing the NPE over and over and over again, leaving things unfinished for years. A WHOLE lot like the summer of rage, actually, the thing that made them commit to tiericide. A few new modules here and there these days and that’s it.

I see your point , how do you get a fair representation, is it by area , or corporate role ot both , where do you stop , who should be included and not .

But i think your missing the point slightly its not the person , its the tool , the product that we all , no matter of name rank and number , use. The tool that interacts or the article that describes how best to learn certain subjects of the game . Its the product that CCP should focus on producing professionally that is described by these interactions with the server and the evolving data in it that we call the game EVE .

Why not have have zkill a thing in game . A CCP sanctioned leaderboard as it where and a data gathering tool , and a whatever ever functions zkill provides . More adnvanced market interaction tools , industry planners , wormhole mappers , corp tools these are all things we as a playerbase use daily . These are the things im suggesting be developed by the company because these are the things people do to play the game EVE .

I disagree with you though on your last paragraph odd to say though , i find development over fiddly on CCP ’ s part , industry changes , mining changes , this nerf , this buff , always tampering with the balance of the input and output they expect from tranquility rather than developing a game that is a more comfortable and profitable interaction with the game database which 3rd party tools obviously provide . As i say ’ fitting window ’ good plan or bad plan ?

I think the biggest fallacy in your argument here is that the CSM members are automatically from megablocs (Mike Azariah, Suitonia, Arisa Elkin, iBeast), and that those that are from megablocs only represent their members interests (Brisc Rubal). The other CSM members I don’t hear from or see their activities, so could fairly be criticised for that - though Innominate and Merkelchen are fairly prolific streamers, so they would likely object to my backhanded characterisation of them being “unavailable”! Certainly anyone with concern about the views they hold can and should watch some of their output to familiarise themselves with their positions to see where they agree and/or differ.

Looking at the above list though, we see at minimum 50% of the current CSM not fitting your assumption to start with. So that’s not a great start. Going deeper though, we see that these are all vastly experienced players who operate in a range of space, doing a range of things. Two reps from Karmafleet who are a huge (and hugely successful) new player corp with activities - particularly if you include the University - all over the map. More importantly these are prominent players with a sincere wish to improve the overall quality of the game, giving up their time for free to take grief from both CCP and the playerbase. It’s a thankless task at the best of times, seems to me.

So, while it’s never going to be perfect (what democracy is?), I fundamentally disagree with the assertion that the CSM is unfair either in its election or its application.

Now let’s look at the other part of the suggestion - working more with 3rd party tool developers than with the CSM. Some problems here (and I promise I’m not slandering any of these current Devs, just illustrating a point!). First, how do you know these Devs aren’t also part of megablocs? Second, how can you know whether someone building an excellent industry tool has relevant things to say about game balance, or sov changes, or whatever? Most importantly, what makes you think that someone making out of game tools has any more “pure” motivation than a CSM member, given that access to the data from these tools will provide these players with an INSANE amount of in-game intel benefit for them and their groups?

Think about that last point. If you’re the guy behind, say, Ravworks (great job by the way buddy!), you coukd aggregate the data on what people are searching for to determine industry trends before they’re visible and gain a leg up on the market. If you have access to the backend of Pathfinder (thanks for your work!), you have real-time data on where a significant proportion of wormholes are in the game at any given moment. Etc etc.

Like I say, I mean no disrespect to the people making these tools in what I’m saying - you are true heroes of Eve for (another!) thankless task of making these things that help Eve work for everyone. I fully hope and desire for CCP devs to look at, and work closely with, the stuff you do to learn and make improvements to the game.

However, player representation is a different, and difficult, job to do in its own right. Muddying the waters with unelected people drafted in to that specific role would be unhelpful and confusing - never mind leading to the sake criticisms as currently levelled at the CSM, just without the annual election (and now term limit) to soften the blows. I can well imagine what uproar would occur if something like the DBS got forced in with an un elected CSM!

As to how to address the issue of lower representation from non-null groups on the CSM, the solution is simple in theory. Get yourself a profile, build a campaign and work really bloody hard to get elected. Then keep working really hard to be as effective as you can.

The one criticism that is fully fair of the last couple of CSMs has been a total lack of minutes of meetings, schedules, etc. Obviously the change to how things work because of C-19 caused some of that disruption, but that’s no real excuse. I’d like to see CCP take up the slack on this, and commit to publishing at least quarterly updates on meetings held with the CSM, with minutes or notes of those where appropriate. CCP should take this on, as frankly lumbering the CSM with the leg work is not cool. There’s a community team for a reason, and it’s clear the community wants / needs some better reporting on CSM activities. It also allows the playerbase to hold accountable, publicly, those on the CSM who aren’t attending meetings or whatever. That is one thing I’d hope we can all get behind!


I don’t think there is a problem with the CSM.

I think there is maybe a problem with how CCP communicates. There’s been a lot of unclear messaging. One example is that the bounty system was “temporarily” removed for an estimated month, back in October 2021. Since then, we haven’t heard anything. Will it ever be restored, does CCP even remember this, who knows?

Obviously, another example is the recent scandal over selling a Retriever pack. It became pretty clear that CCP wasn’t communicating with the CSM. Similar examples include the Dr Who event (I still don’t know what exactly it was) and Black Out (which I supported, but CCP never made an effort to justify).

There’s a lot of issues, and we can’t get answers from the CSM because of the NDA agreement, and at the same time CCP just doesn’t communicate.


CCP needs to communicate direct with the players, surveys and proper public bug ticketing databases, see Public facing Issue tracking database

Look at the last communication we got when they added a claim to the JWT, see ESI problem - jwk validation - Invalid audience

Look at the other things we want/need that are unanswered, see ESI authorization for apps and services with no browser access or UI

Tickets for ESI or SSO sit open for years, not a pip of response.

Being a third party developer is like being in 3rd class (steerage) on the Titanic, and they have the nerve to require a payment on record to get a dev key for it (essentially a paywall).

Sometimes I wonder that Microsoft treats Linux developers better than CCP treats developers.

Disband and dissolve the CSM. They don’t represent nor speak on my behalf nor do I want a despot group acting as middlegoons. The only feedback I will offer is direct to CCP’s ticketing / feedback system, not CSM, I won’t legitimise them at all. This game has too much e-politics going on with this model. Get out of the way.


Someone else who seems to miss the point im not arguing for 3rd party devs to join a new type CSM , nor there personal qualifications compared to CSM , im suggesting that there tools are what CCP should be following , the tools that everyone uses to play the game .

You can give examples how my assumption aboit CSM is wrong overall based on one session of it but thats not my arguement , my arguement is EVE devs should adopt these tool ideas as they did the fitting window and intergrate them into the game . Your arguement that some of these developers may be using there power for selfish gains is only an arguement in favour of CCP doing that as far as im concerned.

I’d recommend being more clear in your meaning and structure next time you make a thread. Most of us seemed to get the idea that you were suggesting incorporate the 3PD’s into the CSM more actively. Your OP touches on representation and the CSM and will of the players, and so forth, with, what, a line about development direction?

1 Like

My apologies if i was somewhat unclear .

To clarify i think the devs should take there lead from the tools people have developed for the game as they did with the fitting window . Why shouldnt players spend there time fiddling with indiustry tools or scouring market data or mapping wormholes , or research player/corp activities with regards known kills ingame .

Why should people have to rely on 3rd party support to access the tools players so obviously want to use to play the game .

It would seem people have defined a development direction that players are happy with and they are the tools we all rely on .

The game is 20 years old, the API is there so naturally people will have different ideas on things they want to add around the game, and naturally people will rely on those external features more and more.

That’s the nature of third party API tools otherwise why bother with an API?

If anything, CCP has reintegrated some of those tool features, such as the fitting management / simulation window (PyFa, EFT etc) and the skill planner (EveMon etc).

Exactly and personally i think its a better use of there time than discussing the ins and outs of rorqual drone bonuses with a group of players , however they are chosen , however fairly they represent player opinion , though i do see the need for both paths .

Third parties would have more freedom (hopefully) to do things they want, their way (except bound to the API itself) and on their own time. A work environment, is a different beast and a much larger audience and feature surface.

Im not saying to scrap the api or stop 3rd party development happening , there will always be new features to be approached and old ones perhaps seen in a new light .

We also want lightweight tools/apps/pages and remoteability of such and not have to load up a heavyweight game client to do non space things. Character/Ship janitorial things.

Third party “community” labour is cheap (this is how Microsoft pays “lip service” to supporting (lol) Linux) and also serves (in the case of web sites) as cheap advertising (partner programs).

Ccp has allowed the 3PD simply because they always believed a lot of stuff the devs do, shouldnt be apart of the game. Hell they admitted some of the tools created were better than they could have done.

They even explained why they improved on the fitting window, even though to see better numbers you need to use pyfa.

And regarding zoiies comments about dev keys, its been explained multiple times, they require younto be omega at the time of application. Nothing wrong with requiring that

Sure sounds like it to me buddy.

Then why all the stuff about the CSM representing the elite / powerful, etc?

Feels to me like you’re rolling your position back my friend. I doubt anyone would argue that CCP devs should take inspiration from the great third party tools in existence. But that’s not the same as player representatives negotiating with CCP on strategic-level stuff.

Fair enough you maybe realise this a bit now and are clarifying your position. Fundamentally I don’t disagree with CCP working closely with 3rd party devs on tool development, just like the fitting window. Just not as player representatives.

My point was in the comparison that the opinions of those who hundreds of people have voted for , the CSM , should be weighed against the value of tools that thousands of people have and do use , the functinality people want from there game .

Sorry if you find my points were not clear in this . Perhaps i let my personal opinion of the CSM model muddy that .

I disagree. Except for @Steve_Ronuken im not sure if any other 3pds have been csm, but i dont think having access to dev tools equates to having inside knowledge from ccp that normal players dont have access to.

Again the suggestion is regarding CCP changing there yard stick for player input from a small cross section of the playerbase to most of the playerbase by emulating the success of 3rd party tool development, intergrating the tools people actually use to play the game into the actual client not replacing elected CSM with the developers themselves .

Why no killboard ingame , better mapping tools like dotlan and pathfinder , corporation tool functionality , better market and industry tools etc etc etc

These are the things people have ’ voted ’ as useful because these are the tools people use , so i think CCP should listen and develop with these goals , the community itself has set , in mind .

The problem with putting it all in game, is we would need to carry around the game and a machine to play it on, to use those features. Using them remotely would be difficult, using them on lighter devices would be difficult. I pointed this out here CSM thoughts and 3rd party development development - #14 by Emotional_Support_Clown

Some of these features are also supplementary and used on external devices such as surfaced devices or other screens.

For market stuff, how would we do advanced querying on the data set to discover or track market spreads, under or overpriced or unusual volume events, we can use better tools than what CCP can whip up.

We don’t want or have to be in the actual game to do planning / monitoring / discovery / janitorial game stuff.