| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (33)

Posted: Jun 30th 2010 6:30PM EdmundDante said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Not really. Kent Beck wrote and published "Extreme Programming" in the mid-1990s, and many of the software development ideas were present even before then.

Kent took iterative development and ratched it up to an "extreme" level, he also de-emphasized top-down design, and favored bottom-up development.

By doing this, you produced flexible code based based on change and extremely small iteration cycles. It made it far easier to prioritize what gets developed next, and reduced substantially the risk of spending a long time (and money) on code (i.e. top down design) then realizing far down the development cycle - it isn't what is needed and requires much more coding to alter.

From what I saw of SCRUM - it immediately reminded me of the XP Extreme Programming design paradigm - and I was happy to see CCP was progressive enough to adopt it.

But it also makes me more suspect in their claim that they do not have sufficient "flexibility" to reprioritize some of their development goals.



Posted: Jun 30th 2010 7:59PM EdmundDante said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I am inclined take an opposite view when developing software. Based on my own years of experience - the more involved the client was in both the requirements, testing and even prioritizing of the feature set of whatever I was building - the more often it turned out a success and the client was more than happy with the end result.

I also saw how feature-creep and developer assumptions on what the client wants can lead to a disastrous end product. Much better to get the feedback early and often!

I think the CSM serves this purpose for CCP admirably.

Posted: Jun 30th 2010 10:53PM Streamweaver said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think there was a missed opportunity on CCPs part this year.

The CSM is a good idea overall but I don't thing CCP has ever said that anything the CSM expresses automatically gets priority over other ongoing development. It's reasonable for them to use the CSM as a source of potential development goals but in the end all the goals have to be examined and prioritized with the overall vision of the game in mind.

That said though I think the missed opportunity was in communicating back to the CSM to focus on suggestions and fixes that don't take a lot of development. Knowing ahead of time there were limited resources available I think it would have been more productive if CCP had expressed to the CSM that serious development was off the table and to focus on suggestions that didn't take a lot of additional coding.

Had they done this it may have been possible for CSM to concentrate on config or other changes not related to serious development. Now I can't really say what those are but anything from tweaking spawn rates or drop rates, addition to HUD details, WH communication issues that only require config, EveGate issues. Having some context of scopes for requests could have really helped the whole affair be more productive for everyone and I think they may have missed an opportunity here.

Posted: Jul 1st 2010 2:23AM EdmundDante said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That is unfortunate if the CSM had unrealistic expectations. I know they put much effort into what to present to CCP, and are pretty strict what they include and leave out.
Reply

Posted: Jun 30th 2010 11:47PM Bartlebe said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This game is about Internet Spaceships right?

Posted: Jul 1st 2010 8:27AM Psychotic Storm said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Probably and because that alone doesn't walk that much CCP decided to make it a game about starship and their pilots walking in stations while conducting business with mercs that fight to the ground.

he,y they have to think their growth.
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2010 3:11AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Do the CSM have what it takes to make the game better, I wonder. Not merely better for their little-huge corp. or some group of players (at others' expense).

Posted: Jul 1st 2010 8:40AM Damn Dirty Ape said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It would be nice to see Eve release an expansion or two that was solely based on improving performance, fixing existing bugs, revamping antiquated components of the user interface, and balancing existing ship and weapons systems (like making rockets useful).

Posted: Jul 1st 2010 12:20PM SgtBaker said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think they should drop the "two expansions every year" strategy and go for one expansion and one bugfix/iteration/general improvements cycle instead.

But since they do scrum - I don't think that's going to happen, like someone else said above, it's going to be hard to get the teams to commit to "boring stuff" - and I don't think the stakeholders are actually going to prioritize such things in the backlog.

I'm quite sure someone said the CSM would become one of the stakeholders of the development process during fanfest (or some other announcement - I forget) - this would actually mean they should be able to tell the Product Owner what to put in/prioritize in the Product Backlog - but I guess this isn't so (or maybe the CSM's don't know they are in this position?).

In any case, it's rather toothless organization if the backlog has already been decided and prioritized when they come into the process.

I've always had the feeling they're just glorified forum filters - their only function is to filter the noise signal radio so the Devs don't have to spend (paid) time doing the same thing.

Of course the CSM take themselves very seriously (just see Ankh* putting it as a part of her CV)....
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2010 12:36PM SgtBaker said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
And just to clarify - even if the CSM is a stakeholder, they still have to compete with all the other stakeholders - and I think it's unrealistic for them to think that they would be able to prioritize the backlog in that scale - if they got stuff added to the backlog - then fine, I say job well done.
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2010 12:47PM Brendan Drain said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@SgtBaker
As mentioned in the article and the blog posts in it, the CSM are aware that they're stakeholders in the development process. They have been able to compile lists of their suggestions that CCP have accepted and do have an ability to prioritise resources between them. The issue seems to be that there simply aren't any resources to dedicate to any of the CSM issues this year. The list can be compiled and, maintained and prioritised, but nothing will come of it until more development resources are freed up. As they're being taken up by DUST 514 and Incarna, it's anyone's guess as to when that will be.
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2010 1:01PM EdmundDante said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
And if CSM believes DUST 514 and Incarna should not take up all of CCPs development resources what has been the reply?
Reply

Posted: Jul 1st 2010 1:00PM EdmundDante said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I do want to applaud CCP for having the courage to enter into a hopefully serious dialogue with the "client", and even consider the "client" a stakeholder in the development process. IMO, probably the most important stakeholder of all.


Featured Stories

WRUP: Kingdoms of Amalur was pretty cool edition

Posted on May 26th 2012 10:00AM

Betawatch: May 19 - 25, 2012

Posted on May 25th 2012 8:00PM

Coming soon
Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW