Jita Park Speakers Corner

o/ CSM9,

If I recall; the last CSM was a stakeholder for Team Five-O.

That dev team was responsible for stuff like the new Crime-watch under the Retribution expansion, the Discovery system scanner under the Odyssey expansion and the Deployables under the Rubicon expansion.

Now that CCPgames is set in it's five year plan, with the last year being about stream lining the Company and it's development process,
plus the Rubicon expansion showing more signs towards CCP Seagull's vision of the Player Gate Building side of the plan.

Is CSM9 still a stakeholder in the proper dev team that is responsible for the next phase of this plan ?

- Industry, Science and Teams
- Corps & Alliances
- Stations, outposts and starbases
- Sovereignty & Warfare

source: http://i.imgur.com/L28pvZ4.jpg

If I recall, Team Super Friends was responsible for the War Declaration system in the Inferno Expansion, the Bounties, Kill Rights in the Retribution expansion, Probe scanning improvements in the Odyssey expansion and, player owned Customs Offices in hi-sec in the Rubicon expansion.

Should the CSM9 also be a Stakeholder for that dev team, that has high-profile devs on it like CCP Greyscale and CCP SoniClover and CCP Punkturis.

Regards, a Freelancer

PS: please ask a(ny) dev team if they can iterate further on the Mercenary Marketplace it's a bit lack luster,
I don't feel a lot of "revenge" after placing a bounty on someone and when was the last time any of you sold a kill right ?

If not better

m

To be perfectly honest, I've never truly understood the ideas behind the stakeholder status, it's always seemed a fairly abstract concept with regards to a game and the way the CSM interacts with CCP.

From above "So, CSM8 was the stakeholder to Team Five-O as you correctly noted. The majority of the industry work, though, was actually done by Game of Drones and Superfriends." that just seems "odd" to me - I know what a stakeholder is considered in a corporate structure here in Australia, but I'm just not entirely sure how this is meant.

Perhaps the entire idea of "stakeholder" is completely different in Iceland ? :)

Going by the above comment here's PART of the wikipedia entry for stakeholder that seems to apply:
"Project stakeholder, a person, group or organization with an interest in a project"

Seems a bunch of hoo-ha over nothing ?

In Australia a stakeholder is often someone who owns a share of the company, (not shares or at least not voting shares - and most often referring to not-for-profit companies).

Perhaps my understanding of this was wrong at the outset, idk. ;)

Seems the CSM would be a stakeholder regardless of whether they were even CSM candidates - as we all have interest in the project ?

I'd just like to ask at the outset, if we can not have the CSM spend a whole lot of "time" wringing their hands about this as it seems like a bunch of marketing bullshit ? Thanks.

There's 2 types of marketing.

1) Marketing to people who don't own your product.
2) Marketing to people who already own your product.

The CSM in general fits into category number 2.

GIGANTIC SPACE BATTLE HAPPENED TODAY appearing on the front of "The Financial Times" is Category #1.

Just sayin... CCP should be proud to be in front of the curve for MMO marketing in both categories ;)

Now... if only we could get corporate mining taxes instituted into the game... who do I talk to about that ? (this should shut them up - however, never underestimate CSM delegates need to talk on matters unimportant to actually getting stuff done!).

Stakeholder (in CSM terms) is a marker of where we get involved and how often. We have biweekly meetings with 5-0 and are updated on what they are working on, where they are on various projects. Our input is more continuous through the entire process.

Other teams may bounce ideas off of us or not, as they wish, and sometimes it is just when they are at a near finished project . . . giving us less chance to advise or give input.

Stakeholder is a seat at the table as opposed to being a sworn to secrecy playtester/idea editor

It means we are PART of the process itself.

IF we keep up the performance of the past few CSM's we can hope/push for us being signed up as stakeholders on other teams and have a deeper effect on the game development.

m

Elaborate? Do you mean our opinion, or what?


We could*, either collaboratively or individually, write a retrospective/review of sorts upon each release, though how much detail can be given with regards to "this is how (feature) started & evolved internally"... I can't really say offhand but I'd guess it'd be less than you might hope for. "The CSM (or these members) had concerns and so it changed a couple times and released as what you saw", probably okay, "It looked like this at first and we had concerns with these specific parts, CCP changed these ones, and released as what you saw", maybe not.


*Should not necessarily be taken as a "will"

that sounds pretty cool if you're up to it

I would like to add, that the current CSM will not only meet all Game and Content Design Teams, some of them regularly, but also will be introduced to various teams in the company, like Marketing, Community, PR, Web, Team Security, Localization, and other, again, with some of these teams, CSM will be meeting regularly.

We are completely changing the way of communication between CCP and CSM, hopefully, it will make it clear and easy for both sides.

CSM8 would like to congratulate CSM9 on winning the change to do a full time unpaid job

We worked really hard to get this opportunity for you.

Requirement, yes

But I prefer to think of it as a goal that we are moving towards.

m