Online EVE and Stardock's development process emulating each other-- or not?

No.

They are implementing alot from the beta yes but they are NOT copying anyone else.

Stardock has been using this same or a similar beta process for several years now.

As an Eve player, well, in general they don't implement any player ideas. They do their own and seem to listen to us, end of the story in general. The most vocal section of Eve Online are the 0.0 PvP players, which are the minority of CCP income, so it's more or less expected they don't listen to us nearly at all, not even when doing changes related to 0.0 (capitals and supercapitals, sovereign warfare,...).

I never played EVE, because it's not my kind of game. However I really respect the devs. They are releasing free expansions on a yearly? basis. Hats off.

Well, not really. That process is a more formal one. The Stardock one is to put things out early and get a lot of feedback on it, then go back and make changes.

They both result in a lot of feedback getting to the developers, though they do it in different ways. If that feedback gets used or not is another story, but in the end it's the devs call.

Er.

That's way more involved than I would ever want to be in something over a game. I have a life and if I wanted to do something like that, I'd join the local city council.

In fact that seems like a downright miserable way to manage a community, encouraging the highly elite players to dominate the discussion and bleeding "game" politics into real life. With Elemental I'm reasonably confident that I can bring something up for discussion and have as good of a chance at having my response actually read as say, someone like RavenX, take that as you will.

In EVE, I'd have to petition some random person who may not actually care about anything I have to say to maybe mention something I'm concerned about instead of something he (and if you see that picture, it's all men) thought was important to him and his guild/thing? That's the vibe I get and I don't like it. 

Let my arguments stand on their own merit.

There's a lot of people that put a lot of hours into Eve (the same with many other MMORPG, like high level raiding guilds in WoW or things like that). That's their choice, they are free to do it. I'm sure there's people in these boards that would love to go to Stardock to chat with the Elemental team and try to give them solutions to the game issues.

I don't think you understand the CSM at all, and comparing it to Elemental is a mistake. Eve Online has forums where you can post your ideas and so on, exactly like here. The main forum for that is the "Features and Ideas Discussion" one.

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=channel&channelID=3523

You can check also the "Eve Gameplay Center" subforum is full of discussions about gameplay too. And that's not counting other forums like Scrapheap-Challenge and so on.

This doesn't make any sense. CSM players are 0.0 players or Empire players. These players in general have different needs, and the CSM has always some of those. But when a 0.0 player asks for something, is something that most 0.0 players agree is useful, not only his 0.0 corporation.

Also, take into account that Eve is massive, your suggestions may be great for you, but you may very well be ignorant of some parts of the game and don't realize your suggestion is a total failure because of other things, or don't see there are more important things to change or fix. Either way, feel free to argue in the forums new ideas, as there is a forum specially for bringing ideas to the CSM:

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=channel&channelID=752166

But as I posted earlier, the main problem is that the CSM is taken just as suggestions by CCP, nothing more, nothing less. It's a pitty, but I suppose that's all they can do.

I should hope that you had understood I was expressing a personal preference before leading into my main point. I also found it absurd that anyone would ever buy magical horseblankets for a game like Oblivion, but all the power to those who do it.

Discussion does not imply those in positions of authority are actually listening, but I wasn't the one comparing it to Elemental, the OP was. You may want to direct your attention there, since you'll find we're in agreement that comparing Elemental community management to EVE CM is impractical at best.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. In one paragraph you say that CSM players are 0.0 players and Empire players. In the next, you say that "your suggestions might be great for you, but you may well be ignorant of..." which is a statement I would think would be true of 0.0 players in regards to understanding the needs of other players. Otherwise why would you say that? For all you know I play in 0.0, but I don't see how that would make my views more valid on the parts of the game that non-0.0 players encounter. Disingenuous to say the least.

What are you trying to say here? That this player-elected comittee should have the power to ask for changes to the game and force the developers to make those changes? It sounds like you are saying that, but of course that would be absurd.

Why?   For me it's obvious that the elite must rule. And if somebody doesn't like it then stop playing....

Let me restate my primary interest here because it is clear I didn't do it properly the first time:

 In sum, do people feel that the feedback provided by Brad&Co. on Elemental has been sufficient with respect to WHAT they are implementing from the beta team?  Is there evidence of this? 

The purpose of comparing Stardock to the EVE developers was that it appears that EVE goes to great lengths to incorporate some player ideas and, if you read the article, demonstrate that they have done so.  Clearly EVE/Stardock have different approaches.  I'm more interested in the outcome.  Do Beta Testers (and far less importantly just general posters throwing ideas such as myself) believe their DESIGN feedback is being heard and potentially implemented?  I can't seem to locate any threads from Brad&Co. in a Developer's Journal, etc. that says, "We have taken this idea and are doing..."  Frogboy says in some posts he is following them closely.

In sum, I was concerned based on various posts that folks were providing input but not sure they were being "heard."

I don't think any beta tester can answer this until we see Beta 2 - what we're playing with now is such a small fraction of the full game, we haven't seen implementations of many features, and most player suggestions apply to those as-of-yet-unseen features. Maybe they're using all our great ideas in regards to tactical combat, magic, AI, etc, maybe not - until we see the more complete versions of those systems in Beta 2+ we really won't know. Good question, but wait to ask it again when we're playing the full game (or a more complete version of it, at least).

Edit: Of course, there is the economy/resource system, the one thing we have seen a (presumably) fairly complete version of. This system has changed drastically through the course of Beta 1, and they say largely due to our feedback. Of course different beta testers supported every possible resource system and then some, so pretty much any resource system they came up with would have been influenced by someone's feedback, hah. We don't know for sure how much or little our feedback affected the decision to go with the current system, but I'm certain we were listened to and had some influence on the final resource system.

This point means that your "In EVE, I'd have to petition some random person who may not actually care about anything I have to say to maybe mention something I'm concerned about instead of something he (and if you see that picture, it's all men) thought was important to him and his guild/thing?" doesn't make any sense.

Well, those players are paying clients, it's not so absurd to listen seriously to the people that pay your bills. Specially when some of those players know the game better than the devs (as it has happened in the past).

The crux of my point is the intermediation of the channel of feedback resulting in an additional "filter" of what comments the developers will have the potential to hear. Actually, my point is made a lot stronger.

There's a big difference between listening to your customers and being told what to do. What exactly are you asking for?

No it's not, you continue to have the normal channel for giving feedback (the new ideas forum), plus another channel that is the CSM. The CSM has the advantage for CCP that in theory comments will be filtered so only "good/interesting/prioritary/..." will reach them, which I think it's pretty good when you have up to 300.000 people giving comments. But it's not as if the CSM is the only channel now. And it's a pity the CSM stops been only that, a filter in one part of the process.

More the second than the first. For the reason that in general top players know the game better than the devs (gameplay wise, not technical wise).

Take into account that we have to see first if CCP employees should be allowed to play Eve Online at all. They can right now, but it is not clear that's really good for the game as devs have access to privileged information and resources (and we have a precedence of misbehavior of devs with the T20 scandal).

After T20 happened, I'm in the opinion that devs have restrained themselves from high power places and important roles in general (just to avoid something like that happening again), so that means that even if they play their own game, they are not able to experience it fully. Also, Eve is a sandbox, players have done tons of things the devs where not expecting at all, some legal (but pretty wicked) and some illegal (exploiting bugs that have affected the economy of the whole server).

For example, sovereign warfare. 0.0 pvp at alliance scale has been plagued with lots of problems: boring POS grinding, massive blobs, advantage to the defender, the role of super capital ships,... There were a lot of proposals on how to try and fix it, but in the end CCP nearly went their own way (they did listen to some things), and the general agreement is that 0.0 warfare is now worse than it was. Maybe they should have listened more to the suggestions they got?

That's why, I think the CSM in general should be more of the second than the first.

That's not the impression I've gotten. I think the time and effort could be better spent in the traditional way: hire another nonbiased community manager to go through common complaints and forums, collate the data in a nonbiased fashion, and present the data directly on to those in charge of development. It's a process that works, and works well.

That doesn't have to be true. No one knows dwarf fortress better than Tarn Adams, and the complexity of that game puts EVE to bed. A manager who doesn't know the ins and outs of what he is managing is at a disadvantage.

And that's a nightmarish situation. I can agree that shouldn't happen.

I have played both games a lot and Eve Online is far more complex than Dwarf Fortress by a long mile. And while the devs of Dwarf Fortress can play their own game and reproduce any situation given enough time, that's not the case with the devs of Eve Online, where there are things they can't experience or test in any good way (although they should try to do some simulations better).

Either way, this is pretty far off-topic. Just wanted to say that the CSM while good in paper, sadly does not work so much like it sounds in reality.

I'm not sure how you can contend it's even a good idea on paper to have 9 players who spend the majority of their time in the elite sections of a game dictate the direction of the game for the majority of paying customers who aren't part of that elite. The level of social metagame the members of the CSM are at is leagues beyond what most players experience.

This has been a little bit of an offtrack. Are EVE and Stardock's developmental processes emulating each other? Not even close. Should they? I've certainly expressed the view that they shouldn't.

I suppose I think it's good because I think they truly represent the Eve community and know the needs of it.

Maybe I'm biased as one of our members has been part of the CSM, but I think he has done a pretty good work representing the Eve community (and not his or our interests) in the CSM meetings (even if it was a futile effort). Who knows...

I agree completely, and that's exactly what's wrong with Democracy.

//pushes the thread further off the tracks.

But seriously, the CSM system isn't a bad idea - the game developers still have the final word, those players certainly are not "dictating the course of the game," so it's really just one more way for the developers to get feedback from their players. Possibly a better way than having a suggestion forum, possibly worse, but they're not exclusive - players still have the same ways to give feedback for EVE that they have for Elemental or any other game, this is just one more way. Giving the game developers more ways to get feedback and inspiration is never a bad thing, the key is that they are still making the decisions, not people posting on suggestion forums or the elected CSM or anyone else.

I believe that they listen.  I know I have made a few suggestions over the years, and even though I didn't get a direct response, I have seen them implement a few of them. 

One in particular was to hire a writer for the story line, since the Grammatical errors in the main story hurt the immersion of the campaign.  That isn't to say that the suggestion wasn't made by others as well, or that they didn't just happen to come up with the same conclusion, but it is obvious that Stardock at least tries to correct any flaws their products have.