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

maouw

Thinking about it more, after the new content is released and NDA is lifted, if you publicly disclose the points of discussion over which the oouncil convened - this would provide great transparency to the council and breeds trust with the community.

Strangeape

I love the idea of the CSM, the way ccp did it was fantastic. BUT, maybe i missed it but no one seems to have mentionned that all of eve lives on a single shard as opposed to Ashes having multiple.

I think the one thing that makes eve's CSM so successful is that a lot of the reptesentative represent a facet of life in Eve. 1 candidate that represents traders, 1 for manufacturing, a few on corp warfare and big block politics, etc.

In a sense, Ashes would have to listen to the suggestion of every server's CSM, then put it all together and decide which to use.

I'm all for the CSM as i think that a lot of what makes eve's best and most loved stories (spying, grand theft, etc) will make its way into ashes, but we'd need to find a way to overcome the fragmented aspects of servers as opposed to a single shard to find a way to make everyone happy and heard.

Hope i made this clear as i have no clue how to rephrase it properly lol

Haemosu

Too much Bureaucracy leads to corruption and exploit.
There should be no mediator between the Community and the Devs other than Goodwill imo.

Noaani

Haemosu wrote: »

Too much Bureaucracy leads to corruption and exploit.

True, but too little bureacracy leads to nothing happening.

If you are a developer, and there is no filter between yourself and players, that means you then have to filter through those actual millions of voices and opinions on your own.

Clearly, if you are a developer, you would nope right out of that and just make the game, meaning there is no communication at all between developers and the players.

In order for that communication to happen at all, there 100% needs to be at least one step in the middle. Your quote here would apply to a situation where there are three or four stages of bureacracy between community and developers, not when there is one or two.

At my work (the nature of which is undisclosed), there are two stages that any information must travel through to get from the general public (not even necessarily paying clients) to myself, as a team leader. There are the people that take the calls from the public, gather as much information as they can, and then they pass it off to someone on my team that assesses that information to see if anything at all is worth my attention.

Generally it isn't, but that isn't really a part of this discussion.

Point is, that process involves 15 full time people in total. There is no way in hell that the process would work at all if people were able to talk to me directly, nor even if they were talking directly to the people on my team (who are exceptionally good at assessing information, but not nearly as good at extracting information from people, which is the role of the first people in the chain).

You are saying too much bureaucracy is bad, which is absolutely true, but you are setting that bar far too low by saying there should be nothing between the community and the developers.

3Snap

Noaani wrote: »

Haemosu wrote: »

Too much Bureaucracy leads to corruption and exploit.

True, but too little bureacracy leads to nothing happening.

If you are a developer, and there is no filter between yourself and players, that means you then have to filter through those actual millions of voices and opinions on your own.

Clearly, if you are a developer, you would nope right out of that and just make the game, meaning there is no communication at all between developers and the players.

In order for that communication to happen at all, there 100% needs to be at least one step in the middle. Your quote here would apply to a situation where there are three or four stages of bureacracy between community and developers, not when there is one or two.

At my work (the nature of which is undisclosed), there are two stages that any information must travel through to get from the general public (not even necessarily paying clients) to myself, as a team leader. There are the people that take the calls from the public, gather as much information as they can, and then they pass it off to someone on my team that assesses that information to see if anything at all is worth my attention.

Generally it isn't, but that isn't really a part of this discussion.

Point is, that process involves 15 full time people in total. There is no way in hell that the process would work at all if people were able to talk to me directly, nor even if they were talking directly to the people on my team (who are exceptionally good at assessing information, but not nearly as good at extracting information from people, which is the role of the first people in the chain).

You are saying too much bureaucracy is bad, which is absolutely true, but you are setting that bar far too low by saying there should be nothing between the community and the developers.

Pretty well said. I know this idea is way too early to implement. But I just wanted to put it out there so maybe it inspires them to do something similar.

Haemosu

Noaani wrote: »

Haemosu wrote: »

Too much Bureaucracy leads to corruption and exploit.

True, but too little bureacracy leads to nothing happening...

....You are saying too much bureaucracy is bad, which is absolutely true, but you are setting that bar far too low by saying there should be nothing between the community and the developers.

I said the only thing should be Goodwill.

I get the OP's point but adding persons as mediators is a no-go imo.
I think that the AoC Devs are very personable and will hear but at the same time I have found they they are quite set on their direction.

Child Item