This is stealing my game time..
January 19, 2013 § 5 Comments
It can be a bit of a rollercoaster reading the December CSM / CCP Meeting notes, with bits that you cheer for, and bits that make you want to unsubscribe. Various thoughts from my reading so far (be warned I am selective quoting):
. A common theme in my blogging is that you don’t specifically need to be in a Player Corporation vying for SOV space to actually be a part of this game. It is my belief that solo players have their place. More commonly however it is a game style which is complained about. I noted this little exchange:
Two step cautioned that some of these lurkers never truly engage the community, playing exclusively solo.
Unifex replied: Yes, but does that player that is completely on their own, do they buy anything off of the market? Because that is a form of community participation as well. When we talk about a social game, it’s not always about having lots of conversations with people. We have to broaden what we consider social participation in a game like EVE.”
Seagull – make sure we’re addressing a cross section of player types (within themes)
That gives me some comfort.
. I noted a comment on a MMO article today which indicated it was difficult to get into meaningful Corporations in EVE as a new player. It would seem CCP is thinking of ways to help address that:
Unifex – the barrier can be high to accessing player organizations.. he wants to turn this around by creating more things that corporations would want players to help them with
. A question which doesn’t inspire confidence!
Unifex: Once we have a theme, we can begin to thread the issues you’ve identified as needing to be prioritized into that theme. … Am I crazy here guys? Am I out of my skull, or what?
Yes, you would be a little crazy to rigidly stick to a theme for the sake of the theme. I understand the cohesiveness, but an expansion doesn’t have to be 100% about the theme. It could be as little as 51% of it.
. A lot of discussions about what the CSM and CCP should be able to do to members who are not pulling their weight. There were some worrying undertones in the conversations.
Trebor: Let me be absolutely blunt. I have now served on 3 CSMs. In each of them, 95% of the work was done by 6 or less people. Okay?
Two step: I think if we look at the current CSM and who might get removed, I think most of us would agree on two people who have not participated at all, Meissa and Darius, and I’m perfectly happy to say that. It bothered me no end yesterday when Meissa dialed in and talked, because he hasn’t earned the right to talk”
Hans: Until there are some changes to the institution, I don’t think we have the power to exclude him.
UAxDEATH: It’s always politics, it was never fair and it never will be. People will vote for the same guy over and over again, doesn’t matter how it was achieved. If people voted for Darius, they voted for him, not for you or you or you.
Alek wanted to be able to vote to recommend CCP take action against a member who is not pulling their weight, and Two Step wanted criteria up front that indicates what a person must do, else they can get kicked off.
Now I understand the annoyance in business of people who are not pulling their weight or getting a free ride – but do you know, the CSM is not a business, it is a political mechanism. It is meant to be a representation of the people who vote for it – with all its nuances and weaknesses. If someone doesn’t pull their weight, let the players decide on the consequence during the next vote.
. In a similar vein, there were lots of discussions about who should be able to go to Iceland and who shouldn’t.
Trebor: I will point out that a big factor here is that until now, the CSM has been the haves who get to Iceland, and the have-nots who don’t. It was not so bad when it was 9 and 5, but now its 7 and 7, so there’s a huge premium in getting on the top 7. But if we change it so that it’s mostly determined by how much work you do, then there’s [less incentive for election gaming].
Trebor: The compromise would be, “CCP picks 5, CSM picks 2”.
Alek: That’s a question for the voters to decide, not CCP.
I couldn’t’ believe this conversation was serious. You might well end up with a more focused, harder working and appropriately experienced group in Iceland – but it won’t have the buy in of the players. That is because the CSM will have gone from a player council, to a bunch of handpicked CCP lackeys. (Even if it is out of a pool of player selections.)
While I can certainly understand the merit in various arguments and comments, I think what it comes down to is that I don’t really like the direction some of the CSM are trying to head in. They want to turn a quirky and aspirational player mechanism into a semi professional lobbyist group which is not contrained as much by the democratic vote. And when you put it like that, it isn’t something I support at all.