CSM for Ashes of Creation?

What would people think about implementing something like the CSM (council of Stellar Management) from eve online. Its a group of players elected within the game yearly that work with the development team closely and are the direct voice of players ingame.

This isn't just talking to developers. In eve they have to sign a real NDA and have access to balance changes/statistics/new game play mechanics from inception and actively work with the devs to balance the game. Eve`s CCP actually fly CSM members out to iceland for in person meetings as well.

This idea is different than the founder/kickstarter talk to the devs bonus. The idea is to have yearly elections to have a elected government of people that speak directly for the entire games population working directly with the devs.

I feel like having the CSM working so closely with eve's devs has been what has kept the game going strong for years.

Thoughts?

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Noaani

I'm all for an idea like this.

It is, in my opinion, the single reason EVE is still relevent.

Vhaeyne

I think it is on the DEVs to invite that into their life if they feel it would be helpful. DDO has a similar system of elected players to represent the community (The Players Council). I think in both EVE and DDO it works well for those DEV teams.

I would like to point out, that Intrepid so far has been relatively transparent, and open with the community. I am not sure that such a thing is really needed at this time. The DEVs seem eager to pop in on popular threads, and clarify things. If there are mixed emotions about implementing a feature such as the login rewards. They put up a vote to better understand the situation. I don't feel like the Intrepid DEVs live in a magical black box where patches come from like I do with WOW or FFXIV, only poking their heads out occasionally to answer easy questions. I actually like Yoshi-P and Ion Hazzikostas, but I don't feel like their companies let them out of their cage that often.

If you have a question it does seem to get answered. They may not respond to every suggestion on the forums, but they seem to be looking at them.

So while it is a cool Idea that has worked well for two games I can think of. I am not sure it is needed at this time. I am always hopeful that the play base is massive. In which case such a system might be desirable to the DEVs.

Noaani

Vhaeyne wrote: »

I think it is on the DEVs to invite that into their life if they feel it would be helpful.

I totally agree with you here.

While Intrepid are somewhat more transparent now than most other developers, that is likely to change drastically as the game gets more popular - influxes from open beta testing, let alone actually going live, is likely to bring in a while lot of players.

I'm sure you remember a while back when Intrepid were called out for not meeting targets they had set themselves, with people inaccurately saying they missed deadlines (targets are not deadlines). Intrepids response to that was to not give any more targets.

When there are more eyes on this game, and thus more scrutiny, it seems almost inevitable to me that a good portion of the transparancy that Intrepid have now will disappear, for that exact same reason.

This is when I can see something like this being useful - though again, only if Intrepid/Steven saw value in it. It isn't something I would ever argue for if they came out and said they didn't see a point.

BigPapa1

I don't think this is necessary to have in an official capacity, but it really depends on the game. As long as members of the Intrepid team are engaged with the community on a daily basis, they will know what the main issues are. You have to keep in mind that even though CSM is essentially players, their goals do not ALWAYS align with the entire playerbase's. Usually they are people that are more committed to the game, and as such they will gravitate towards demands from the hardcore community and neglect issues of casual players, who are extremely important for the prosperity of any MMORPG.

BobzUrUncle

And here I thought that you wanted a Customer Service Management system...

Nerror

Yeah sure, I wouldn't mind seeing something like that.

McMackMuck

At the moment Intrepid doing a great job at keeping in touch with their player base (and they don't even have any players yet, just testers!) with their existing social interfaces. If that becomes unmanageable then they might look towards other systems to collect their feedback

_IF_ they need to scale up the feedback mechanism due to millions of players making the current arrangement unmanageable then I'm in favor of giving the official content creators that feedback position. If people like what the content creators are doing then they get subscriptions. If they ask their subscribers questions then they can collate that feedback. It's in their best financial interest to appeal to as many subscribers as they can. If you don't think your voice is being heard, find another content creator with similar opinions to your own. It seems like a self balancing mechanism where the opinions of the many are heard.

But only if Intrepid feel they need it.

Stretch

I wouldn't be against it but I don't think this game has a need for it right now. The Dev's and CM are active on the forums, discord and have the monthly streams with the ability to ask questions you want answered in that stream.

It seems like there are more than enough ways for them to listen to the player base and they have done so so far in past with the development updates they release.

maouw

BobzUrUncle wrote: »

And here I thought that you wanted a Customer Service Management system...

literally my thoughts when I saw CSM - hahahahaha

I have mixed feelings about this idea.
Maplestory tried to do this, but they used content creators as their "council" and it's resulted in a really toxic cultish group (making poor decisions, in my opinion).

If it becomes a thing in AoC - the council's egos need to be removed from the equation, and no money under the table/other benefits. I guess a voting system would help fight against fishy activity.

Noaani

maouw wrote: »

BobzUrUncle wrote: »

And here I thought that you wanted a Customer Service Management system...

literally my thoughts when I saw CSM - hahahahaha

I have mixed feelings about this idea.
Maplestory tried to do this, but they used content creators as their "council" and it's resulted in a really toxic cultish group (making poor decisions, in my opinion).

If it becomes a thing in AoC - the council's egos need to be removed from the equation, and no money under the table/other benefits. I guess a voting system would help fight against fishy activity.

Any game that does this should automatically exclude content creators (other than those making purely informative content) from it.

Game streamers and such will always look at the game as a revenue stream, which is not the view you want for this.

Jamation

I've never personally experienced a game with this implemented so I have no past experience.
My only worry would be that groups would become sounding boards for each other and the overall community wouldn't actually be taken into consideration.
Not to mention there'd need to be rep's from each server as the culture could vastly differ depending on which server a person plays on.

Nerror

Jamation wrote: »

My only worry would be that groups would become sounding boards for each other and the overall community wouldn't actually be taken into consideration.
Not to mention there'd need to be rep's from each server as the culture could vastly differ depending on which server a person plays on.

The members of the CSM are elected by the players, and they have to be reelected next term to continue. So I think the community will be ok represented. This might give the big streamers some advantage, should they want the job, but then again, if they actually represent the wishes of a lot of players... I dunno.. pros and cons there.

As for a rep from each server, that's a good point I think. Well, there is going to be too many servers for that, but limiting the CSM members to 1 per server, and also spreading them out so they come from the various regions would be useful.

LieutenantToast

Vhaeyne wrote: »

They may not respond to every suggestion on the forums, but they seem to be looking at them.

Oooooh you better bet we're looking at them 👀

I think a system like OP mentioned could certainly have some interesting potential depending on how it was implemented, and for certain games it does seem to have impacted community and developer relations in a positive manner. Would love to hear more examples from folks on how similar concepts have been implemented in other games you've played, and what worked well/didn't work well

Talents

LieutenantToast wrote: »

Vhaeyne wrote: »

They may not respond to every suggestion on the forums, but they seem to be looking at them.

Oooooh you better bet we're looking at them 👀

I think a system like OP mentioned could certainly have some interesting potential depending on how it was implemented, and for certain games it does seem to have impacted community and developer relations in a positive manner. Would love to hear more examples from folks on how similar concepts have been implemented in other games you've played, and what worked well/didn't work well

Not entirely the same, but Old School RuneScape lets the players vote via in-game polls on what updates make it into the game and what updates don't. Updates need to pass with a 75% or higher "Yes" vote in order to be implemented.

It generally works pretty well, but I'm not entirely sure how well it would work in other games. The reason it was implemented in OSRS was so the players could basically keep the developers in check with changes that may not have been true to the original vision of Old School RuneScape since drastic changes were what killed original RuneScape. RuneScape basically has a "Skill" system where you can level each Skill up to 99. In the 7 years that OSRS has been online, there hasn't been a single new Skill added because every time they're proposed via the polls, they get voted No on.

Elo

I don't really like the idea. I was heavily playing Lord of the Rings Online when they implemented a player council in 2013 and over the next few years I believe it was generally a negative experience for the community. Here's a link to an article called "Player Representation and Video Games" that makes a few points about it: containsmoderateperil.com/blog/2019/8/22/player-representation-and-video-games
Edit:
Here's the heart of the article:
"From my own perspective, I’m not aware of the LOTRO player council ever having achieved anything of any note. If they did it certainly wasn’t overtly publicised. Having checked though archived blog posts I wrote at the time; it seems that the whole enterprise was nothing but a source of problems. All of which can be distilled into one simple point. Gamers are not a uniform group. They are motivated for a multitude of different reasons and unlike Belinda Carlisle, don’t dream the same dream, nor want the same thing. Hence player councils of these type are seldom truly representative. And just like forums and subreddits, it’s the most vocal that seek to be elected so they can lobby for what they want. Furthermore, for such an enterprise to work, it also requires goodwill and genuine intent from the developer or publisher side."

Nerror

Elo wrote: »

I don't really like the idea. I was heavily playing Lord of the Rings Online when they implemented a player council in 2013 and over the next few years I believe it was generally a negative experience for the community. Here's a link to an article called "Player Representation and Video Games" that makes a few points about it: containsmoderateperil.com/blog/2019/8/22/player-representation-and-video-games
Edit:
Here's the heart of the article:
"From my own perspective, I’m not aware of the LOTRO player council ever having achieved anything of any note. If they did it certainly wasn’t overtly publicised. Having checked though archived blog posts I wrote at the time; it seems that the whole enterprise was nothing but a source of problems. All of which can be distilled into one simple point. Gamers are not a uniform group. They are motivated for a multitude of different reasons and unlike Belinda Carlisle, don’t dream the same dream, nor want the same thing. Hence player councils of these type are seldom truly representative. And just like forums and subreddits, it’s the most vocal that seek to be elected so they can lobby for what they want. Furthermore, for such an enterprise to work, it also requires goodwill and genuine intent from the developer or publisher side."

That last sentence is really at the heart of it. Unless the devs are actually willing to listen and change direction, instead of just sticking to "their vision", a council of players will accomplish nothing.

As for them not being truly representative, that is certainly true. That's just like RL politics. But still more representative than not having anyone except one entity at the top deciding it all (senior devs). Besides, if they all agreed it would kinda defeat the purpose.

Elo

One thing they could do is to send a private survey to all the new mayors of all the metropolis on all the servers each month. Because of the different node types, these mayors would have different play styles and priorities. It would not need to be anything formal, just a survey for feedback from an interesting group. There might be some good ideas, or there might not. There would be no expectations, so it wouldn't hurt anything. It would be like fishing from an interesting-looking pond.

PlagueMonk

From my perspective this could be a positive or negative thing. I only have 2 examples to work from.

DAoC had TLs (Team Leads) for each class and it seemed to work afaik but conversely RoR (Return of Reckoning) has appointed Class Leads but I know for a fact the Devs have neither listened to or taken the recommendations of those CLs. The Devs are of course not required to implement anything suggested but I know those CLs feel completely ignored.

Based on those two examples I would say it could be a good idea as long as the appointed people feel they are being listened to and not dismissed out of hand. Nothing pisses people off more than to invest your time and effort into something only to have it just dumped directly into the trash.

3Snap

Noaani wrote: »

maouw wrote: »

BobzUrUncle wrote: »

And here I thought that you wanted a Customer Service Management system...

literally my thoughts when I saw CSM - hahahahaha

I have mixed feelings about this idea.
Maplestory tried to do this, but they used content creators as their "council" and it's resulted in a really toxic cultish group (making poor decisions, in my opinion).

If it becomes a thing in AoC - the council's egos need to be removed from the equation, and no money under the table/other benefits. I guess a voting system would help fight against fishy activity.

Any game that does this should automatically exclude content creators (other than those making purely informative content) from it.

Game streamers and such will always look at the game as a revenue stream, which is not the view you want for this.

Having streamers on a council isn’t a problem. The council is decided by the server population. In the case of eve since the CSM gets access to features/balance changes they’re bound by NDAs ect. They’re prohibited from discussing or manipulating the in game economy.

I remember 1 eves CSM was permanently banned for doing just that. But was later proved innocent.

3Snap

Elo wrote: »

I don't really like the idea. I was heavily playing Lord of the Rings Online when they implemented a player council in 2013 and over the next few years I believe it was generally a negative experience for the community. Here's a link to an article called "Player Representation and Video Games" that makes a few points about it: containsmoderateperil.com/blog/2019/8/22/player-representation-and-video-games
Edit:
Here's the heart of the article:
"From my own perspective, I’m not aware of the LOTRO player council ever having achieved anything of any note. If they did it certainly wasn’t overtly publicised. Having checked though archived blog posts I wrote at the time; it seems that the whole enterprise was nothing but a source of problems. All of which can be distilled into one simple point. Gamers are not a uniform group. They are motivated for a multitude of different reasons and unlike Belinda Carlisle, don’t dream the same dream, nor want the same thing. Hence player councils of these type are seldom truly representative. And just like forums and subreddits, it’s the most vocal that seek to be elected so they can lobby for what they want. Furthermore, for such an enterprise to work, it also requires goodwill and genuine intent from the developer or publisher side."

Yea I can’t really comment on LotR. But the only reason why it works so well in eve is because they’re not just throwing around ideas. It is a pure partnership where they work closely with devs very hands on with balance changes, implementation of new features ect.

Most people wouldn’t even get elected but it does require the devs being on board. As another said earlier I too think it’s why eve has survived for so long. Having elected people passionate about the game with a direct link to the devs, working together to make it better.

Child Item