|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Heinrich Jagerblitzen
D3LTA FORC3
1006
   |
Posted - 2013.11.06 19:40:00 -
[1] - Quote
Vrain Matari wrote:I'm with NanoCleric on the spirit of what he's proposing.
Me too, actually. The CPM itself has no problems at all with polling or other forms of crowdsourced feedback - its quite a powerful tool for leveraging positive change with CCP as well as making sure that our own feedback is supported by data, rather than purely anecdotal evidence.
Now Jenza was the first amongst us to recommend we start polling players, but I was the one that quashed the idea initially for a few very good reasons. The first was that during the very early days of the CPM's existence, its dangerous and counterproductive to give off the idea that players can somehow vote changes into the game - and this is something I still want to warn the community will never happen. CCP always retains final say in the matter, no matter how strong the CPM fights for a measure or how much they are backed by the community. The last thing we want is more confusion about how the CPM operates (we're an advisory board with no real authority).
That being said, I still think crowdsourcing is important in the long run, but under fairly specific circumstances. As a day-to-day measure, its useless. The CPM exists so that CCP can obtain ninja-fast feedback on works in progress, and polls can be quite labor intensive. Likewise, using dozens of focus groups as some have suggested is likewise too slow and ponderous to be of use to CCP, though i absolutely love using them myself to be sure that I am prepared to give the ninja fast feedback CCP needs on various topics.
What I would like to do on the not-too-distant future is run perhaps two crowdsourced polls - one for major features, and one for small fixes, to create a data-reinforced prioritization recommendation directly to CCP, for the new EP to use when directing his teams and creating his own long-term roadmap. I've been in talks with Trebor Daehdoow of the CSM since the beginning of our term, and already know that the toolset he created to run the "Reasonable things" crowdsourcing project for EVE online is available for the CPM to use as well.
Literally the only thing stopping me from having engaged in this effort already is the fact that up until now, we've seen little enough effort on CCP's part to make use of our feedback to justify such a massive labor-intensive project like a crowdsourcing initiative. Its a lot of work (albeit for a huge payout) and so I only want to engage in it if I know the CPM's time will be respected and put to good use by individuals in management that will take action as a result of the crowdsourcing data. Up until now that commitment from CCP has been in question - though their efforts the last several weeks have been commendable and I'm much more optimistic that such an effort will be put to use if we did it today.
All that to say, I applaud NanoCleric's data-oriented and casual-orientated approach, its a type of feedback that has a lot of merit and he has our support on the CPM side. There's still more to investigate and setup before we can run this, but its something I'd very much like to do in the future.
o7
|
Heinrich Jagerblitzen
D3LTA FORC3
1047
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 01:04:00 -
[2] - Quote
CEOPyrex CloneA wrote:developers talking directly to the community and providing excellent comms all round
I hope everyone takes this sentence as a pretty clear indicator of how close you've been following recent events.
Quote:I still see many people supporting the CPM as an opportunity to become part of some 'Illuminati' club and spoon with CCP.
Than you are not only deaf, but blind. The people advocating for the CPM here are not doing so because they want to be part of the illuminati spoon club, they are doing so because they know from experience that this cute story about the CPM being an illuminati spoon club is itself a steaming pile of horseshit.
Many posters have already demonstrated and articulated as much through pages and pages detailing precisely why the council does not operate in the way you think that it does, and your response has been several vague sentences that repeat yourself without providing a shred of evidence to back up your outrageous claims.
To say that players are doing this because they want to be the "puppetmasters" themselves is completely ignorant at best, and openly deceptive at worst. |
Heinrich Jagerblitzen
D3LTA FORC3
1047
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 02:42:00 -
[3] - Quote
DJINN Marauder wrote:While you guys are here, I know it's incredibly off topic but, what happened to rollover sp?
We don't know yet, if there's any updates they'll be shared in an appropriate thread. |
Heinrich Jagerblitzen
D3LTA FORC3
1048
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 19:40:00 -
[4] - Quote
DJINN Marauder wrote:While you guys are here, I know it's incredibly off topic but, what happened to rollover sp?
Posted an update here. |
Heinrich Jagerblitzen
D3LTA FORC3
1048
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 19:45:00 -
[5] - Quote
Buster Friently wrote:No offense to any particular member of the CPM, but I don't believe that they can really represent the players, having not been elected.
None taken. Though this isn't something anyone has to wonder about, all you have to do is ask us what we're pushing for or read our posts and you can see whether or not we're pushing for features and ideas you care about.
Quote:When can we see elections so we can get a representative CPM, rather than a selected one?
Once we actually get a standard operating procedure established and the devs participating regularly. There has to BE a functioning CPM before you can elect people to it.  Dolan's almost done with the Charter, which will than pave the way for an eventual white paper and election system. Having an election now though would be pointless, it would only dump a batch of fresh noobs into the same rocky situation and overall would be a net setback, not progress.
Like I said, whether we represent you or not in the meantime is something you can find out easily - just ask us how we feel about an issue that's important to you, or ask us to forward feedback to CCP on your behalf. I think you'll find that the fact we were appointed is a bit of a red herring, we're quite easy to contact and work with. |
Heinrich Jagerblitzen
D3LTA FORC3
1058
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 23:17:00 -
[6] - Quote
Ryme Intrinseca wrote:In this thread a CPM decided to wade in, telling the plebs that their estimates were 'bad' as they hadn't taken into account dispersion (because we're just plebs and haven't seen the weapons in action). Then another CPM came in and told us that the numbers we were using were out of date anyway. Textbook example of the antagonistic and hierarchical relationship between the CPM and the general playerbase. I don't even blame the current CPMs; it's just the nature of a role that places a select few above us mere immortals.
I like that providing you guys with additional information is somehow "antagonistic".  Look, I get it, you expect us to be saccharine-sweet all the time but this is not about "mere mortals" or "plebs" - absolutely nothing about our position makes us better than you. We're just not going to refrain from commenting on an issue where we have a different perspective, nor are we going to pretend we don't have exclusive access to information that we have, because its the truth. It is our responsibility to jump in sometimes and put a stop to a train of thought if its misplaced based on pieces of the picture that the public doesn't have - assuming its a case (like this one) where we've been authorized to comment on what we've seen internally.
These are simple facts surrounding the existence of a player council, our exclusive access is what allows us to give feedback to CCP about what they're working on, and sometimes it means we're not going to be alarmed about things that the general public is alarmed about because we know more than they do. If stating that "We know more than you" is something you find crazy offensive, its time to either HTFU or avoid the forums because it certainly won't be the last time one of us has to point that out. You're certainly welcome to not believe us when we say it, and call us liars, but the CPM is nether interested in playing pretend nor in self-censoring if it interferes with our fundamental ability to engage the public using the information we have access to and can share. |
|
|
| |
|