|
The pace of learning, and the pace of the introduction of complexity, is an interesting question in games right now because we're reaching this point where people who don't accept the premise that it's either got to be casual or hardcore, that very reductive premise, are now wrestling with these kind of audiences.
NW: Yeah. That's the thing we've been wrestling with at work. A whole bunch of reading... Like, About Face is one of the really good books in this regard. It's about building things for the mainstream user and talking about what an expert user wants and how users move into being an intermediate user.
From the perspective of what industry was the book originally written?
NW: It's a usability book, and it's web and software applications, but they use examples from all different [places]... A lot of these web usability books -- the really well-regarded web usability books -- you can read the book and think of it, "If this was EVE instead of a website," and glean a lot of good info.
Yeah, just over the holidays and stuff, myself and some of the other UI designers were delving into these things deep, and just talking about how we need to clean up the stuff.
Another book that's really good called Simple and Usable... It's another web thing. It talks about ways of simplifying. Like, you can hide, you can organize, you can remove, and you can displace -- different ways of simplifying things. The example that book uses is a TV remote control, and talking about ways that you might simplify it.
It shows the TV remote control, like all these buttons, and talks about different ways -- like displacement, that's taking the things off the remote control and putting it on the TV so you would have a menu instead. Or hiding things in a little drawer, so the advanced stuff that you never really use is there, so you're not like "Ah, all these buttons!" Or organizing things better together, you know, like moving some stuff around. So, thinking about that stuff, and then you start looking at the EVE UI, and you go, "Oh my God. There's so much stuff we can improve with these techniques."
One of the positive influences of social games is the understanding of feeding back user data really effectively. Have you guys been getting that kind of data, aggregating it, and analyzing it yet?
NW: We are more and more. So our research and statistics team is on that, and I'm doing a lot of work to try and get the game designers -- research and statistics lives in publishing, and the game designers live on production, and we sit on a different floor, and it's almost like we're a different company. But at least we're the same company, and at least we're in the same building.
But you know how it might work at a publisher and a game producing thing somewhere else -- you wouldn't talk and you would have two separate key ways and everything. But I'm trying to get our designers to talk more with the researchers and to do that kind of stuff. The researchers have been looking into, the money flow and the sinks and faucets, and seeing how all that stuff is -- really delving into that stuff lately.
But we're starting to look at all of that, like how people are using the various UIs, and also where people are when they log on, and play, and log off. Are people starting their session in a secure space, and then moving to the unsecure, and then back again? We're looking at all that kind of stuff lately.
Sometimes when you just start looking at the data, you find things you didn't expect, and it sends you down paths to try to find out more, try to find out why things aren't that way.
We're looking at metrics, but we're also just polling. The polling is pretty interesting... the different polls are typically themed, and we ask the different Scrum teams, "Is there any specific thing about your feature that you added that you were really wondering what the players thoughts about it?" And then we'll poll them and get that info back. If it's pretty strong, we'll maybe tweak the game some.

You guys have the real challenge, which is keeping the plates spinning while also trying to improve. Either one or the other would be difficult, but both...
NW: And our increments aren't as rapid as the social games in Flash or whatever, I mean, sure, FarmVille changes stuff every week. You know, they add new stuff, and they're able to do...
Frequently, yeah. It's that rapid.
NW: And they just have a shitload of data. But, yeah, our sort of framework is a little bit harder to work, you know. It's not Flash.
Well, also, it's a more complicated... Ultimately, the changes you make are further-reaching because they tap directly into things like economy and real time social interactions, which are things the social games mostly so far have not had to butt their heads against. So, you're a more complicated, a more delicate environment.
NW: Yeah, so we tread a little lightly. But we're also not afraid to just make pretty big changes. I think it's necessary to do so.
|
It's been nearly 4 years now for Incarna, from the path of Walking in Stations to what it was presented to be, to the limited fallback implementation now presented. With the first delivery of one room. These statements of "Come March, when we've done the first part of this release, we're going to be able to have a lot clearer picture on what we'll be able to do" worry me to no end. Sure, no plan survives contact with company or customers, but considering the hyped expectations we should all be thankful that CCP had the vision to be challenged by their Council of Stellar Management.
The Planetary Interaction case was vastly different from what is presented here, but at least for the first time customers were provided with an iteration on the feature - fortunately, as both deployment as well as adoption was a well demonstrated and absolute failure. I'm unsure how OLAB fits in with the voluntary state of documenting or knowledge management that has been reported by staff?
"But, I mean, at least we're getting in a stage where EVE trailers are played before Tron. I mean, that's a step in the right direction." I apologise should this be misunderstood as a personal engagement, but in light of the impending struggle between the environments of EVE known as spaceships and incarna, the enormous divide between message, presentation and effective deliveries, I'm not sure that is where the attention should be in this year.
Also, I am unsure where the link to http://www.eve-csm.com/ comes from, as that is also incorrect. That is an old customer site, neither accurate nor up to date, as these weeks the elections are taking place for the 6th Term of the Council Of Stellar Management. If one were to provide a link, it would be more suitable to provide a few for insight that are relevant and part of the EVE website. The Jita Park section of the EVE forums are probably the best in that regard.
On another note, I am sorry to notice another possible disconnect. "It's important to Ward to make sure he balances out relations with EVE's player government, the Council of Stellar Management, with the need to attract new users." The CSM as well as most of its members have been instrumental in efforts towards attracting new users, so if it were to be implied or misunderstood that the CSM goes against interests of existing new players and attracting them that should probably be clarified. It should be noted for example that members of the CSM even outside of their interactions with CCP are driving members behind many in game organisations which specifically cater to attracting and guiding new players, like EVE University.
I could understand it in a light of sales versus retention, but considering the impact of the June Summit between CSM and CCP it is safe to say that both were instrumentally served by the CSM more than by CCP, which acquired a better grasp of retention focus in the lessons learned of that summit.
Since CSM was established by CCP as a stakeholder, it has evolved from an experiment, via marketing instrument to now an effective business instrument. Introducing previously unknown concepts such as workflow, accountability, integration in communication, and even examples of collaboration by means of CSM driven crowdsourcing ventures resulting in what is known as "Team Best Friends Forever", a CCP team tasked with building on the fruits of that labour to engage on issues, polishing, minor but deep impact fixes, and more.
It is an interesting use of business instrumentation to follow I must admit, it speaks for CCP that they took the risk, but it is already visible among customers and customer prospects that it is very much worth it. As CCP's CEO Hilmar said "we want the CSM to challenge CCP". That is courage, but also vision, and trust in what CCP built and the potential of that and its customers combined.
Surprised there isn't a more publicly accessible and obvious "official" web presence.
As regards the intro on the CSM vs. new user issue, that was inelegant phrasing. The point was more about balancing the needs of experienced users with new users. Of course, attracting new users is a need of experienced users.. so they're not mutually exclusive concepts.
Inelegant phrasing, can happen. Is understood. Not mutually exclusive concepts indeed, yet unfortunately it is a bit of a convoluted topic in the CSM / CCP interaction. Suffice to say there is a misunderstanding present, within CCP in regards to both CSM interaction and argumentation on the matter.
Unfortunately the transitional membership and voluntary nature of CSM makes it unfeasible for individual CSM members to develop and maintain such sites. It is really CCP's responsibility to do this.
For example, in a lengthy dialog with EVE Online’s senior producer, Arnar Hrafn Gylfason, the CSM advocated strongly that Incursions be released in stages, despite initial reluctance by CCP to take that approach. When it proved to be successful and resulted in praise from both the CSM and the players, it was adopted for Incarna.
CSM5’s key message at the June Summit was “Commit to Excellence”. We implored CCP to focus on fixing existing content rather than continue pursuing “new, shiny.” The fact that they are showing more and more commitment to doing so is a direct result of the extreme dissatisfaction with CCP demonstrated by their customers in response to the June Minutes.
Related to having perspective on new players’ needs, new players have a voice on the CSM if they choose to vote for people who are committed to representing them. Two members of CSM5 held leadership positions in arguably two of EVE’s biggest “new player training” corporations: EVE University and Agony Unleashed. The potential impact on new players has always been part of game change discussions with CCP. Unfortunately, being a productive CSM member requires a lot of game knowledge. You can’t have insightful discussions about the impact of prospective game changes without it. There is simply no getting around that fact, and no way to realistically coach less experienced players through such discussions. This may be frustrating for new players, but it does not have to be isolationist because most CSM delegates would welcome the assistance and support of new players, and that is a good way for new players to integrate themselves into the CSM process.
Mr. Ward confusingly lumps the roles of focus groups, stakeholders and product/feature pilot tests into his response on page two of this article. The CSM is a stakeholder group which represents the interests and voice of the community. That is very different from a focus group brought together to … well … FOCUS on a single topic. It is also different from pilot tests conducted to stress test or user test features for playability, stability, or other reasons.
The CSM has evolved markedly in both approach and scope, particular during CSM5’s term. The CSM is the only stakeholder that works on behalf of the players, and it is commendable that CCP has been willing to continue to support the CSM “experiment” despite some CSM asking and insisting on answers to some very tough questions. There is no doubt that players are beginning to realize that the CSM is their voice. Roughly 40K votes were cast for CSM5 candidates. Already, three days into a two week voting period for CSM6, 25K+ votes have been cast. Whether this election’s vote totals exceed that of CSM5 remains to be seen and is of interest related to observing whether EVE customers have moved further away from EVE as an immersive environment and emerging dynamic or not. However, it is going to be interesting to watch how CSM6 continues the work as tasked by Hilmar (CCP’s CEO) and whether they will have better success in engaging certain sides of CCP. After all, we are all part of the same emerging dynamic.
For some idea of what CSM5 accomplished and did during their 10-month term, click the following link: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Reference:_CSM5_Activities_Quick_Update_%28CSM
%29
I agree, CCP should smooth out some things. Jita markets, jump lag, huge fleet battles, they all cause issues. I've had ships lost in completely empty systems because I apparently chose the wrong millisecond to click 'Jump'. There is a robust petition/grievance system in place, and it has yet to let me down(though it's anything but speedy).
I've been playing since 2004 and I don't see myself stopping anytime soon. Can't wait for the DUST to settle!
In the case of EVE there is a requirement for the game to take action in giving the users a voice: commercial interests.
Not a goodwill gesture :P But smart business.
HTFU!
As long as CCP slows down and actually takes the time to listen to the people who pay their salaries Eve will continue to maintain it's steady hold on the "internet spaceship" market.
The main sticking point with CCP that I've run across in my 2 years in Eve is CCP's complete disregard for what the players are asking for. To show an example... the CSM and just everyday players have been asking for less lag in the large fleet battles (and they jump through hoops letting CCP know when the majority of these are going to happen) from my understanding CCP is working on it, but they haven't figured it out yet. In the meantime they persistently keep pushing this Incarna thing. I'm just one guy, just one player, and not a devoted 50 hour a week player, but before you continue to push the envelope with what you're game can be, why don't you make sure the existing seams of said envelope are still intact?
Which is a shame. Still, thanks to CSM5 CCP was able to understand that not only was their perception partially incorrect, it was also partially incomplete. Something which until that point was written off publicly as "doesn't matter, customers always whine, nobody quits anyway and if they do they are bitter anyway and we can replace them". It should be said that this was never stated by the company however, just by select devs "done" with EVE (and in some ways I can understand them, EVE does have a very tough customer crowd and you need to be pretty communicative and fearless to deal with that). The recent formation of a team specifically investigating lag issues from several angles was a direct consequence of that.
So that is good. It shows that not only is it helpful to engage with a CSM as customer and company, but also that CCP can listen. Yes, 4 years too late on the topic of Incarna, 3 years too late on the topic of abysmall performance perception, but they do listen. And that does say something about them. It takes something, to open yourself up as a company to outsiders looking in.
But, it's worth it.