Guild summit should have 16 reps, voted on

Lfehova

ZoS, like everything you do in this game, this was a great idea, in the right direction, but not well thought out.

Do you think your hand picked group of guild leaders represents what the community wants? Also, if this is a pr stunt to make us feel like you're listening, you should've at least pretended, to let us vote. Then just pull a north Korea and hand pick who you want to go and say those candidates won. At least then the community would feel like we had a say.

We need 16 reps. And the breakdown is, hardcore PvP, and PvE. Casual PvP and PvE. One from each alliance for each of those 4 categories. (That's 12 to help our friends keep count). And then 4 EU reps for those 4 categories. (Cause let's be real, can ZoS really afford to fly 12 overseas flights to Baltimore?)

The little conference should have a split 4 different group discussion, for the 4 major types of play. They can decide in each category, what issues they find the most pressing, and decide what they want to see first. Then join back together in a larger group, and the 4 different groups would debate the values of each other's ideas and agendas, and compromise on a few that ZoS should focus on.

Then, ZoS, should publish the results of guild summit, so that they can be held accountable. The community will see the top (arbitrarily) 3 things the summit decided on to fix or implement. And then we can judge as a community when ZoS either succeeds or fails to follow through.

But this would give us, the community, a metric to determine the competence of this company running a game we love. If they succeed, at least we know they're trying, even if three items is only the tip of the iceberg. If they fail, then we know they can't even progress 3 items on a to-do list.

That's my suggestion for this event. It's clearly a bit late, since no one in this community was informed about this hush hush summit, except the ones going.

It appears to me, since I know a few of the people going, that they invited only "nice" people who won't stir the water. I think they may fear sea sickness from the choppy waters caused by the more edgy members of the community that we would have inevitably voted for going. There's a handful of people I know I would love to vote for to go, that I think would represent my stance well and only one of them is going.

Edit: because typos detract from my validity in getting my point across

AbraXuSeXile

Well said!

Lfehova

AbraXuSeXile wrote: »

Well said!

It's likely too little too late for this summit. This post was more in hopes they might implement this kind of set up for the current summit. And maybe take this into consideration for the next one (if they choose to have a second)

Braidas

I agree but ZOS, like all companies, runs on money. Whatever they feel most profitable is the direction they will take. Clearly there are more PvE players than PvP, cuz we've been getting the shaft since day 1. So, to be fair, there would have to be more casual PvE reps (or have the 4 reps decisions weighed proportionally greater) to accurately display the thoughts of the community and thus ZOS's most auspicious path for profit.

I think we got lucky that at least 4-5 of 20 attendees are PvP focused players. Your way would be even better, but like you said, this is probably just a PR stunt anyway

Ezareth

I'm fine with whatever ways ZoS has selected their players. Their game, their choices on who they want to represent the playerbase. I think any organized selection process would turn into a big epeen rage fest and cause more problems than they solve. Better that they have someone from our playerbase than no one.

Armitas

I don't have enough information to properly infer what criteria they require but to the best of the information I have atm it looks like some of their criteria is guild size and performance. That seems like a reasonable set, as they represent a large portion of the community based on their guild. However, among other things, this overlooks an important aspect, that being "are they mostly respected by the community?". Some are certainly respected but it's possible that some may not be. We have some really good representation, and I'm happy with most of those that I know, but if there are representatives who do not represent themselves well in the community now, then I would question why they would be good candidates to actually represent the community. Among other things that is one of my concerns but over all I'm happy that they are starting to make this step and I'm really pleased with some of our representatives. Maybe this will lead to a more structured representation.

Lfehova

ezareth_ESO wrote: »

I'm fine with whatever ways ZoS has selected their players. Their game, their choices on who they want to represent the playerbase. I think any organized selection process would turn into a big epeen rage fest and cause more problems than they solve. Better that they have someone from our playerbase than no one.

What kind of thought is this? Their game their choice? That's like saying it's the government's country, they should do whatever they want. That's horribly misguided.

They CAN do whatever they want, but they shouldn't.

Like braidas said, this is a company that runs on money. This company provided us a service, that we pay for. If they want to be successful, they have to listen to us, and take our opinions into consideration.

Believing we have no right to influence the direction of this game is exactly the kind of standoffish lemming behavior that permeates through a game destined for mediocrity. The playerbase needs to care and needs the power to influence, if a game wants to be truly successful.

Look at a wildly successful game like league of legends. I know it's a different genre, but they empower their playerbase. Their pros are interviewed and they give little tutorials on their favorite champion and why. Riot constantly nerfs and buffs based on the competitive scene and feedback from their players. They have active staff playing at all levels of competition seeing what's good and bad for the game, and while not all steps are the right ones, they are constantly moving and trying. They provide their players with a goal and aspiration to achieve, so their players continue to play.

Also, I don't believe PvP is a smaller playerbase. There were a lot of pvpers earlier in the game. But the amount of game breaking bugs, and crashes, and frustrations related to PvP have crushed the PvP population. Lots have unsubbed and many are taking a break until stuff gets fixed. If they care about money, they'd fix half of their game's selling point to bring back a large population of players.

Here's the Magic btwn pvp and PvE. PvE you have to keep making new content. When people master dragon star and Serpent trials, they'll need to create the next one. With pvp, all they need to do is fix and balance. The players will continually create new strategies and challenges to keep things interesting. New pvp content would be awesome, but we should stick to fixing the foundation before building a skyscraper.

Davadin

Lfehova wrote: »

Also, if this is a pr stunt to make us feel like you're listening, you should've at least pretended, to let us vote. Then just pull a north Korea and hand pick who you want to go and say those candidates won. At least then the community would feel like we had a say.

truth. should be able to do at least this much.

Lfehova wrote: »

That's my suggestion for this event. It's clearly a bit late, since no one in this community was informed about this hush hush summit, except the ones going.

yes this is also a big problem.

why?

to confirm that it really is a marketing stunt?

Lfehova

dsoegiartob16_ESO wrote: »

Lfehova wrote: »

Also, if this is a pr stunt to make us feel like you're listening, you should've at least pretended, to let us vote. Then just pull a north Korea and hand pick who you want to go and say those candidates won. At least then the community would feel like we had a say.

truth. should be able to do at least this much.

Lfehova wrote: »

That's my suggestion for this event. It's clearly a bit late, since no one in this community was informed about this hush hush summit, except the ones going.

yes this is also a big problem.

why?

to confirm that it really is a marketing stunt?

My response to ezareth is my reason for making this post. It might go unheard by ZoS, but I'm still holding out hope.

Ezareth

Lfehova wrote: »

ezareth_ESO wrote: »

I'm fine with whatever ways ZoS has selected their players. Their game, their choices on who they want to represent the playerbase. I think any organized selection process would turn into a big epeen rage fest and cause more problems than they solve. Better that they have someone from our playerbase than no one.

What kind of thought is this? Their game their choice? That's like saying it's the government's country, they should do whatever they want. That's horribly misguided.

They CAN do whatever they want, but they shouldn't.

Like braidas said, this is a company that runs on money. This company provided us a service, that we pay for. If they want to be successful, they have to listen to us, and take our opinions into consideration.

Believing we have no right to influence the direction of this game is exactly the kind of standoffish lemming behavior that permeates through a game destined for mediocrity. The playerbase needs to care and needs the power to influence, if a game wants to be truly successful.

Look at a wildly successful game like league of legends. I know it's a different genre, but they empower their playerbase. Their pros are interviewed and they give little tutorials on their favorite champion and why. Riot constantly nerfs and buffs based on the competitive scene and feedback from their players. They have active staff playing at all levels of competition seeing what's good and bad for the game, and while not all steps are the right ones, they are constantly moving and trying. They provide their players with a goal and aspiration to achieve, so their players continue to play.

Also, I don't believe PvP is a smaller playerbase. There were a lot of pvpers earlier in the game. But the amount of game breaking bugs, and crashes, and frustrations related to PvP have crushed the PvP population. Lots have unsubbed and many are taking a break until stuff gets fixed. If they care about money, they'd fix half of their game's selling point to bring back a large population of players.

Here's the Magic btwn pvp and PvE. PvE you have to keep making new content. When people master dragon star and Serpent trials, they'll need to create the next one. With pvp, all they need to do is fix and balance. The players will continually create new strategies and challenges to keep things interesting. New pvp content would be awesome, but we should stick to fixing the foundation before building a skyscraper.

That's a terrible analogy but I'll let it slide.

My take on everything I've read from you concerning this is that ZoS is somehow unaware of things that only you can let them know. You come off as very confrontational and opinionated and even cite your programming background as if that is somehow relevant or gives you a unique perspective others don't have. There are no small number of programmers and IT professionals in this community and the experience they have professionally offers no unique solutions into what can fix this game. I say this as someone who has programmed and designed games for many years of my life. I've been in the position they're facing. The truth is we can't begin to imagine the issues facing ZoS right now and as professionals they're not going to share those issues with us.

Now since they are obviously aware of their capabilities and they know what they want to do in the future, what ZoS desires is feedback. They've chosen based upon their own methods who they best feel will provide them feedback. This is most likely part gratitude for the existing contributions of many of the people invited and partly a PR effort to help sooth the concerns of as large of a portion of the playerbase as possible.

I'd love to be able to fly out and be a part of this round table discussion myself. I have every qualification you have and then some. I also recognize however that there are easily many people out there with a very broad view of the game that hardcore PvPers like you and I do not have. PvP is unfortunately (or fortunately depending how you view the issues we're facing) a small fraction of the ESO playerbase and so our concerns are secondary. This doesn't mean that we should support failure. I unsubscribed after the Caltrops exploit went on for a month without it being fixed and nothing I've seen out of ZoS since then has made me regret that decision. The reality is, you, I and every PvPer out there could disappear from the game and they would barely notice.

I'm happy as you should be that someone who has contributed to the game is being rewarded for their efforts and that people with much experience with the issues facing Cyrodiil and PvP in general are part of the group.

Lfehova

ezareth_ESO wrote: »

Lfehova wrote: »

ezareth_ESO wrote: »

I'm fine with whatever ways ZoS has selected their players. Their game, their choices on who they want to represent the playerbase. I think any organized selection process would turn into a big epeen rage fest and cause more problems than they solve. Better that they have someone from our playerbase than no one.

What kind of thought is this? Their game their choice? That's like saying it's the government's country, they should do whatever they want. That's horribly misguided.

They CAN do whatever they want, but they shouldn't.

Like braidas said, this is a company that runs on money. This company provided us a service, that we pay for. If they want to be successful, they have to listen to us, and take our opinions into consideration.

Believing we have no right to influence the direction of this game is exactly the kind of standoffish lemming behavior that permeates through a game destined for mediocrity. The playerbase needs to care and needs the power to influence, if a game wants to be truly successful.

Look at a wildly successful game like league of legends. I know it's a different genre, but they empower their playerbase. Their pros are interviewed and they give little tutorials on their favorite champion and why. Riot constantly nerfs and buffs based on the competitive scene and feedback from their players. They have active staff playing at all levels of competition seeing what's good and bad for the game, and while not all steps are the right ones, they are constantly moving and trying. They provide their players with a goal and aspiration to achieve, so their players continue to play.

Also, I don't believe PvP is a smaller playerbase. There were a lot of pvpers earlier in the game. But the amount of game breaking bugs, and crashes, and frustrations related to PvP have crushed the PvP population. Lots have unsubbed and many are taking a break until stuff gets fixed. If they care about money, they'd fix half of their game's selling point to bring back a large population of players.

Here's the Magic btwn pvp and PvE. PvE you have to keep making new content. When people master dragon star and Serpent trials, they'll need to create the next one. With pvp, all they need to do is fix and balance. The players will continually create new strategies and challenges to keep things interesting. New pvp content would be awesome, but we should stick to fixing the foundation before building a skyscraper.

That's a terrible analogy but I'll let it slide.

My take on everything I've read from you concerning this is that ZoS is somehow unaware of things that only you can let them know. You come off as very confrontational and opinionated and even cite your programming background as if that is somehow relevant or gives you a unique perspective others don't have. There are no small number of programmers and IT professionals in this community and the experience they have professionally offers no unique solutions into what can fix this game. I say this as someone who has programmed and designed games for many years of my life. I've been in the position they're facing. The truth is we can't begin to imagine the issues facing ZoS right now and as professionals they're not going to share those issues with us.

Now since they are obviously aware of their capabilities and they know what they want to do in the future, what ZoS desires is feedback. They've chosen based upon their own methods who they best feel will provide them feedback. This is most likely part gratitude for the existing contributions of many of the people invited and partly a PR effort to help sooth the concerns of as large of a portion of the playerbase as possible.

I'd love to be able to fly out and be a part of this round table discussion myself. I have every qualification you have and then some. I also recognize however that there are easily many people out there with a very broad view of the game that hardcore PvPers like you and I do not have. PvP is unfortunately (or fortunately depending how you view the issues we're facing) a small fraction of the ESO playerbase and so our concerns are secondary. This doesn't mean that we should support failure. I unsubscribed after the Caltrops exploit went on for a month without it being fixed and nothing I've seen out of ZoS since then has made me regret that decision. The reality is, you, I and every PvPer out there could disappear from the game and they would barely notice.

I'm happy as you should be that someone who has contributed to the game is being rewarded for their efforts and that people with much experience with the issues facing Cyrodiil and PvP in general are part of the group.

I cited my professional experience as a side note that I'm not a total tech ditz. They're clearly incapable of correcting the lag/crashes from a hardware fix perspective, which is why they should push game meta solutions, and discourage zergballs or attempt to reduce the number of calculations in a given area.

No, I do not think I'm the only one who can offer insight and feedback, but I am an extremely influential in person speaker, and I have done well in all my leadership positions, professional and social. Yes I am confrontational, and yes I am opinionated. Anybody who knows me, knows that. But that is the reason why I am able to push objectives and discussions and get stuff done.

I'm not another sit behind my desk quietly and code kind of programmer, I lead my team with change and innovation.

That's the difference between me and you. I'm a leader, but seeing as how you've never grouped with me, you wouldn't know.

I've only ever seen you roaming around solo or in a group of 2-4 friends. So I don't think you can claim you lead a lot of players in this game. But I do lead, arguably, the strongest dc pvp guild on the NA server.

Braidas

***'s gettin real

Braidas

Lfehova wrote: »

ezareth_ESO wrote: »

Lfehova wrote: »

ezareth_ESO wrote: »

I'm fine with whatever ways ZoS has selected their players. Their game, their choices on who they want to represent the playerbase. I think any organized selection process would turn into a big epeen rage fest and cause more problems than they solve. Better that they have someone from our playerbase than no one.

What kind of thought is this? Their game their choice? That's like saying it's the government's country, they should do whatever they want. That's horribly misguided.

They CAN do whatever they want, but they shouldn't.

Like braidas said, this is a company that runs on money. This company provided us a service, that we pay for. If they want to be successful, they have to listen to us, and take our opinions into consideration.

Believing we have no right to influence the direction of this game is exactly the kind of standoffish lemming behavior that permeates through a game destined for mediocrity. The playerbase needs to care and needs the power to influence, if a game wants to be truly successful.

Look at a wildly successful game like league of legends. I know it's a different genre, but they empower their playerbase. Their pros are interviewed and they give little tutorials on their favorite champion and why. Riot constantly nerfs and buffs based on the competitive scene and feedback from their players. They have active staff playing at all levels of competition seeing what's good and bad for the game, and while not all steps are the right ones, they are constantly moving and trying. They provide their players with a goal and aspiration to achieve, so their players continue to play.

Also, I don't believe PvP is a smaller playerbase. There were a lot of pvpers earlier in the game. But the amount of game breaking bugs, and crashes, and frustrations related to PvP have crushed the PvP population. Lots have unsubbed and many are taking a break until stuff gets fixed. If they care about money, they'd fix half of their game's selling point to bring back a large population of players.

Here's the Magic btwn pvp and PvE. PvE you have to keep making new content. When people master dragon star and Serpent trials, they'll need to create the next one. With pvp, all they need to do is fix and balance. The players will continually create new strategies and challenges to keep things interesting. New pvp content would be awesome, but we should stick to fixing the foundation before building a skyscraper.

That's a terrible analogy but I'll let it slide.

My take on everything I've read from you concerning this is that ZoS is somehow unaware of things that only you can let them know. You come off as very confrontational and opinionated and even cite your programming background as if that is somehow relevant or gives you a unique perspective others don't have. There are no small number of programmers and IT professionals in this community and the experience they have professionally offers no unique solutions into what can fix this game. I say this as someone who has programmed and designed games for many years of my life. I've been in the position they're facing. The truth is we can't begin to imagine the issues facing ZoS right now and as professionals they're not going to share those issues with us.

Now since they are obviously aware of their capabilities and they know what they want to do in the future, what ZoS desires is feedback. They've chosen based upon their own methods who they best feel will provide them feedback. This is most likely part gratitude for the existing contributions of many of the people invited and partly a PR effort to help sooth the concerns of as large of a portion of the playerbase as possible.

I'd love to be able to fly out and be a part of this round table discussion myself. I have every qualification you have and then some. I also recognize however that there are easily many people out there with a very broad view of the game that hardcore PvPers like you and I do not have. PvP is unfortunately (or fortunately depending how you view the issues we're facing) a small fraction of the ESO playerbase and so our concerns are secondary. This doesn't mean that we should support failure. I unsubscribed after the Caltrops exploit went on for a month without it being fixed and nothing I've seen out of ZoS since then has made me regret that decision. The reality is, you, I and every PvPer out there could disappear from the game and they would barely notice.

I'm happy as you should be that someone who has contributed to the game is being rewarded for their efforts and that people with much experience with the issues facing Cyrodiil and PvP in general are part of the group.

But I do lead, arguably, the strongest dc pvp guild on the NA server.

Come now don't be modest

c0rp

Im clueless as to why they need to sit down at a table with people when you can just read the internet to find out what is wrong with the game and how to fix it. A waste of time and money.

Huntler

Braidas wrote: »

Lfehova wrote: »

ezareth_ESO wrote: »

Lfehova wrote: »

ezareth_ESO wrote: »

I'm fine with whatever ways ZoS has selected their players. Their game, their choices on who they want to represent the playerbase. I think any organized selection process would turn into a big epeen rage fest and cause more problems than they solve. Better that they have someone from our playerbase than no one.

What kind of thought is this? Their game their choice? That's like saying it's the government's country, they should do whatever they want. That's horribly misguided.

They CAN do whatever they want, but they shouldn't.

Like braidas said, this is a company that runs on money. This company provided us a service, that we pay for. If they want to be successful, they have to listen to us, and take our opinions into consideration.

Believing we have no right to influence the direction of this game is exactly the kind of standoffish lemming behavior that permeates through a game destined for mediocrity. The playerbase needs to care and needs the power to influence, if a game wants to be truly successful.

Look at a wildly successful game like league of legends. I know it's a different genre, but they empower their playerbase. Their pros are interviewed and they give little tutorials on their favorite champion and why. Riot constantly nerfs and buffs based on the competitive scene and feedback from their players. They have active staff playing at all levels of competition seeing what's good and bad for the game, and while not all steps are the right ones, they are constantly moving and trying. They provide their players with a goal and aspiration to achieve, so their players continue to play.

Also, I don't believe PvP is a smaller playerbase. There were a lot of pvpers earlier in the game. But the amount of game breaking bugs, and crashes, and frustrations related to PvP have crushed the PvP population. Lots have unsubbed and many are taking a break until stuff gets fixed. If they care about money, they'd fix half of their game's selling point to bring back a large population of players.

Here's the Magic btwn pvp and PvE. PvE you have to keep making new content. When people master dragon star and Serpent trials, they'll need to create the next one. With pvp, all they need to do is fix and balance. The players will continually create new strategies and challenges to keep things interesting. New pvp content would be awesome, but we should stick to fixing the foundation before building a skyscraper.

That's a terrible analogy but I'll let it slide.

My take on everything I've read from you concerning this is that ZoS is somehow unaware of things that only you can let them know. You come off as very confrontational and opinionated and even cite your programming background as if that is somehow relevant or gives you a unique perspective others don't have. There are no small number of programmers and IT professionals in this community and the experience they have professionally offers no unique solutions into what can fix this game. I say this as someone who has programmed and designed games for many years of my life. I've been in the position they're facing. The truth is we can't begin to imagine the issues facing ZoS right now and as professionals they're not going to share those issues with us.

Now since they are obviously aware of their capabilities and they know what they want to do in the future, what ZoS desires is feedback. They've chosen based upon their own methods who they best feel will provide them feedback. This is most likely part gratitude for the existing contributions of many of the people invited and partly a PR effort to help sooth the concerns of as large of a portion of the playerbase as possible.

I'd love to be able to fly out and be a part of this round table discussion myself. I have every qualification you have and then some. I also recognize however that there are easily many people out there with a very broad view of the game that hardcore PvPers like you and I do not have. PvP is unfortunately (or fortunately depending how you view the issues we're facing) a small fraction of the ESO playerbase and so our concerns are secondary. This doesn't mean that we should support failure. I unsubscribed after the Caltrops exploit went on for a month without it being fixed and nothing I've seen out of ZoS since then has made me regret that decision. The reality is, you, I and every PvPer out there could disappear from the game and they would barely notice.

I'm happy as you should be that someone who has contributed to the game is being rewarded for their efforts and that people with much experience with the issues facing Cyrodiil and PvP in general are part of the group.

But I do lead, arguably, the strongest dc pvp guild on the NA server.

Come now don't be modest

I think we can all agree... EG holds that title

Lfehova

c0rp wrote: »

Im clueless as to why they need to sit down at a table with people when you can just read the internet to find out what is wrong with the game and how to fix it. A waste of time and money.

Pr. Stunt.

Huntler wrote: »

Braidas wrote: »

Lfehova wrote: »

ezareth_ESO wrote: »

Lfehova wrote: »

ezareth_ESO wrote: »

I'm fine with whatever ways ZoS has selected their players. Their game, their choices on who they want to represent the playerbase. I think any organized selection process would turn into a big epeen rage fest and cause more problems than they solve. Better that they have someone from our playerbase than no one.

What kind of thought is this? Their game their choice? That's like saying it's the government's country, they should do whatever they want. That's horribly misguided.

They CAN do whatever they want, but they shouldn't.

Like braidas said, this is a company that runs on money. This company provided us a service, that we pay for. If they want to be successful, they have to listen to us, and take our opinions into consideration.

Believing we have no right to influence the direction of this game is exactly the kind of standoffish lemming behavior that permeates through a game destined for mediocrity. The playerbase needs to care and needs the power to influence, if a game wants to be truly successful.

Look at a wildly successful game like league of legends. I know it's a different genre, but they empower their playerbase. Their pros are interviewed and they give little tutorials on their favorite champion and why. Riot constantly nerfs and buffs based on the competitive scene and feedback from their players. They have active staff playing at all levels of competition seeing what's good and bad for the game, and while not all steps are the right ones, they are constantly moving and trying. They provide their players with a goal and aspiration to achieve, so their players continue to play.

Also, I don't believe PvP is a smaller playerbase. There were a lot of pvpers earlier in the game. But the amount of game breaking bugs, and crashes, and frustrations related to PvP have crushed the PvP population. Lots have unsubbed and many are taking a break until stuff gets fixed. If they care about money, they'd fix half of their game's selling point to bring back a large population of players.

Here's the Magic btwn pvp and PvE. PvE you have to keep making new content. When people master dragon star and Serpent trials, they'll need to create the next one. With pvp, all they need to do is fix and balance. The players will continually create new strategies and challenges to keep things interesting. New pvp content would be awesome, but we should stick to fixing the foundation before building a skyscraper.

That's a terrible analogy but I'll let it slide.

My take on everything I've read from you concerning this is that ZoS is somehow unaware of things that only you can let them know. You come off as very confrontational and opinionated and even cite your programming background as if that is somehow relevant or gives you a unique perspective others don't have. There are no small number of programmers and IT professionals in this community and the experience they have professionally offers no unique solutions into what can fix this game. I say this as someone who has programmed and designed games for many years of my life. I've been in the position they're facing. The truth is we can't begin to imagine the issues facing ZoS right now and as professionals they're not going to share those issues with us.

Now since they are obviously aware of their capabilities and they know what they want to do in the future, what ZoS desires is feedback. They've chosen based upon their own methods who they best feel will provide them feedback. This is most likely part gratitude for the existing contributions of many of the people invited and partly a PR effort to help sooth the concerns of as large of a portion of the playerbase as possible.

I'd love to be able to fly out and be a part of this round table discussion myself. I have every qualification you have and then some. I also recognize however that there are easily many people out there with a very broad view of the game that hardcore PvPers like you and I do not have. PvP is unfortunately (or fortunately depending how you view the issues we're facing) a small fraction of the ESO playerbase and so our concerns are secondary. This doesn't mean that we should support failure. I unsubscribed after the Caltrops exploit went on for a month without it being fixed and nothing I've seen out of ZoS since then has made me regret that decision. The reality is, you, I and every PvPer out there could disappear from the game and they would barely notice.

I'm happy as you should be that someone who has contributed to the game is being rewarded for their efforts and that people with much experience with the issues facing Cyrodiil and PvP in general are part of the group.

But I do lead, arguably, the strongest dc pvp guild on the NA server.

Come now don't be modest

I think we can all agree... EG holds that title

Haha damn. You finally made me chuckle out loud with one of your gifs. Well played sir. Well player.

Ezareth

Lfehova wrote: »

ezareth_ESO wrote: »

Lfehova wrote: »

ezareth_ESO wrote: »

I'm fine with whatever ways ZoS has selected their players. Their game, their choices on who they want to represent the playerbase. I think any organized selection process would turn into a big epeen rage fest and cause more problems than they solve. Better that they have someone from our playerbase than no one.

What kind of thought is this? Their game their choice? That's like saying it's the government's country, they should do whatever they want. That's horribly misguided.

They CAN do whatever they want, but they shouldn't.

Like braidas said, this is a company that runs on money. This company provided us a service, that we pay for. If they want to be successful, they have to listen to us, and take our opinions into consideration.

Believing we have no right to influence the direction of this game is exactly the kind of standoffish lemming behavior that permeates through a game destined for mediocrity. The playerbase needs to care and needs the power to influence, if a game wants to be truly successful.

Look at a wildly successful game like league of legends. I know it's a different genre, but they empower their playerbase. Their pros are interviewed and they give little tutorials on their favorite champion and why. Riot constantly nerfs and buffs based on the competitive scene and feedback from their players. They have active staff playing at all levels of competition seeing what's good and bad for the game, and while not all steps are the right ones, they are constantly moving and trying. They provide their players with a goal and aspiration to achieve, so their players continue to play.

Also, I don't believe PvP is a smaller playerbase. There were a lot of pvpers earlier in the game. But the amount of game breaking bugs, and crashes, and frustrations related to PvP have crushed the PvP population. Lots have unsubbed and many are taking a break until stuff gets fixed. If they care about money, they'd fix half of their game's selling point to bring back a large population of players.

Here's the Magic btwn pvp and PvE. PvE you have to keep making new content. When people master dragon star and Serpent trials, they'll need to create the next one. With pvp, all they need to do is fix and balance. The players will continually create new strategies and challenges to keep things interesting. New pvp content would be awesome, but we should stick to fixing the foundation before building a skyscraper.

That's a terrible analogy but I'll let it slide.

My take on everything I've read from you concerning this is that ZoS is somehow unaware of things that only you can let them know. You come off as very confrontational and opinionated and even cite your programming background as if that is somehow relevant or gives you a unique perspective others don't have. There are no small number of programmers and IT professionals in this community and the experience they have professionally offers no unique solutions into what can fix this game. I say this as someone who has programmed and designed games for many years of my life. I've been in the position they're facing. The truth is we can't begin to imagine the issues facing ZoS right now and as professionals they're not going to share those issues with us.

Now since they are obviously aware of their capabilities and they know what they want to do in the future, what ZoS desires is feedback. They've chosen based upon their own methods who they best feel will provide them feedback. This is most likely part gratitude for the existing contributions of many of the people invited and partly a PR effort to help sooth the concerns of as large of a portion of the playerbase as possible.

I'd love to be able to fly out and be a part of this round table discussion myself. I have every qualification you have and then some. I also recognize however that there are easily many people out there with a very broad view of the game that hardcore PvPers like you and I do not have. PvP is unfortunately (or fortunately depending how you view the issues we're facing) a small fraction of the ESO playerbase and so our concerns are secondary. This doesn't mean that we should support failure. I unsubscribed after the Caltrops exploit went on for a month without it being fixed and nothing I've seen out of ZoS since then has made me regret that decision. The reality is, you, I and every PvPer out there could disappear from the game and they would barely notice.

I'm happy as you should be that someone who has contributed to the game is being rewarded for their efforts and that people with much experience with the issues facing Cyrodiil and PvP in general are part of the group.

I cited my professional experience as a side note that I'm not a total tech ditz. They're clearly incapable of correcting the lag/crashes from a hardware fix perspective, which is why they should push game meta solutions, and discourage zergballs or attempt to reduce the number of calculations in a given area.

No, I do not think I'm the only one who can offer insight and feedback, but I am an extremely influential in person speaker, and I have done well in all my leadership positions, professional and social. Yes I am confrontational, and yes I am opinionated. Anybody who knows me, knows that. But that is the reason why I am able to push objectives and discussions and get stuff done.

I'm not another sit behind my desk quietly and code kind of programmer, I lead my team with change and innovation.

That's the difference between me and you. I'm a leader, but seeing as how you've never grouped with me, you wouldn't know.

I've only ever seen you roaming around solo or in a group of 2-4 friends. So I don't think you can claim you lead a lot of players in this game. But I do lead, arguably, the strongest dc pvp guild on the NA server.

The difference between me and you is I don't presume to know anything about you other than what I see. I'd say my guild in it's prime was easily just as good as NM if not as large. You have members in your guild who would attest to that. Leading a guild is no great thing and no leader does it alone. The biggest difference is I've never desired or sought a leadership role, it was forced on me and I bore the mantle grudgingly. When exploits and constant bugs caused half of the guild to leave the game I had no desire to recruit or dilute the skill level I'd grown accustomed to so I let my guild become absorbed into another PvP guild and have continued doing what I *enjoy* most which is solo PvP.

Back to the subject at hand, you're far too judgemental. The very first line in your post invalidates the entire thing. You're calling an idea of ZoS that you know next to nothing about "not well thought out". Then you go on telling them what they should do.

I only know you from the messages you've sent me in game, some of the posts your written on Sypher's video and your posts regarding this topic and from what I've seen you're not the great leader you make yourself out to be. That may be a tough pill to swallow man but you really have to cut back the ego some...and that's coming from me haha.

Lava_Croft

It's amazing how even the most positive thing ZOS has done a long time is being defecated upon by people who are just never, ever satisfied.

Huntler

Lava_Croft wrote: »

It's amazing how even the most positive thing ZOS has done a long time is being defecated upon by people who are just never, ever satisfied.

perfecto mi amor,



ESTOY AQUI

Minnesinger

I am waiting for the results of the summit before I can make my opinion. Having read some of the comments made in the Forums by Dleatherus (for example) I find the idea very promising. The bottom line, should be to choose such persons who can give constructive critic. It will be fun to see what they come up with.

The persons arranging the meeting must have deeper knowledge on the reasons who were chosen. Those lucky ones not necessary are the ones who are the best players or no need think they couldn´t be. What is important that they know what they talk about.

Lfehova

Minnesinger wrote: »

I am waiting for the results of the summit before I can make my opinion. Having read some of the comments made in the Forums by Dleatherus (for example) I find the idea very promising. The bottom line, should be to choose such persons who can give constructive critic. It will be fun to see what they come up with.

The persons arranging the meeting must have deeper knowledge on the reasons who were chosen. Those lucky ones not necessary are the ones who are the best players or no need think they couldn´t be. What is important that they know what they talk about.

I would agree, except I've been told by a few who are attending the fallacies behind the scenes. We shall see. I don't know why I care enough to even do anything about it, but since it's a weekday, I'll investigate.

Muizer

Why would all factions be represented for PvP? I mean, in PvP, the content for all factions is pretty much exactly the same. No reason why there would be a particular AD, DC or EP view on it.

Lfehova

Huntler wrote: »

Lava_Croft wrote: »

It's amazing how even the most positive thing ZOS has done a long time is being defecated upon by people who are just never, ever satisfied.

perfecto mi amor,



ESTOY AQUI

The failure here, lies once again, in the communication with the community.

Tell everyone hey, there's going to be a guild summit.
Btw, we chose these guilds and their leaders because.
Now voice your opinions and concerns to them so they can represent you.
Then we would all be happier, and maybe complain and argue why so and so should go.

Instead, we had a lot of, hush hush. Shhhh. Oh bee tee dubs, there's a guild summit. No response from ZoS whatsoever.

Even trip mentioned, "well since the cat's out of the bag, I'm going as well"

Why was it ever a secret in the first place?

Lfehova

Muizer wrote: »

Why would all factions be represented for PvP? I mean, in PvP, the content for all factions is pretty much exactly the same. No reason why there would be a particular AD, DC or EP view on it.

Population imbalances.

Terrain imbalances.

Particular trolling that happens between alliances that may not affect the third.

Bugs that only affect a particular alliance.

Etc.

Fixing for example, the disappearing alliance indicator, would be high on the dc side. Because it used to happen all the time against ad. Now it happens rarely. But from speaking with ad friends, it has only happened once to them, ever. And they pvp a lot.

So yes, each faction should have their own.

Huntler

Lfehova wrote: »

Why was it ever a secret in the first place?

For good or bad I imagine the reason being this thread for one.

Lfehova

Huntler wrote: »

Lfehova wrote: »

Why was it ever a secret in the first place?

For good or bad I imagine the reason being this thread for one.

I've never seen discussion about issues to be a bad thing. I don't know how the summit is set up, but my suggestion is from years of leading organizations and this was one of the best ways to include and prioritize all issues to focus in on a few feasible solutions.

So, a thread like this, could only possibly help.

Plus, we're all human. People talk. We would've found out at some point regardless. Trying to keep it a secret would only upset people.

I was taught to always be open and truthful from a very young age.

Tintinabula

Half those people already act as if their ______ don't stink and now they'll have another fake feather to put in their cap as they brag about their connection to ZoS..gimme a break.

Ezareth

Lfehova wrote: »

Muizer wrote: »

Why would all factions be represented for PvP? I mean, in PvP, the content for all factions is pretty much exactly the same. No reason why there would be a particular AD, DC or EP view on it.

Population imbalances.

Terrain imbalances.

Particular trolling that happens between alliances that may not affect the third.

Bugs that only affect a particular alliance.

Etc.

Fixing for example, the disappearing alliance indicator, would be high on the dc side. Because it used to happen all the time against ad. Now it happens rarely. But from speaking with ad friends, it has only happened once to them, ever. And they pvp a lot.

So yes, each faction should have their own.

I've had it happen to me a half dozen times. It is locational (go to the other side of the map for example and it will go away) and only appears to affect a single faction at a time during periods of condensed activity. It used to happen to my guild when several EP zerg guilds would roll through Volendrung. There are no bugs I've ever heard of that affect only one alliance with the exception of the missing bag vendor on EP which wasn't really a bug but a missing NPC.

The few merits of selecting individuals from each alliance are outweighed by the fact you've divided your pool of potential candidates by 3. You have only room for 20, yet what if there are 8 or 10 exemplary individuals who all play for one side? You wouldn't want to sacrifice quality for the sake of "Fairness" in this case.

Huntler

Lfehova wrote: »

Huntler wrote: »

Lfehova wrote: »

Why was it ever a secret in the first place?

For good or bad I imagine the reason being this thread for one.

I've never seen discussion about issues to be a bad thing. I don't know how the summit is set up, but my suggestion is from years of leading organizations and this was one of the best ways to include and prioritize all issues to focus in on a few feasible solutions.

So, a thread like this, could only possibly help.

Plus, we're all human. People talk. We would've found out at some point regardless. Trying to keep it a secret would only upset people.

I was taught to always be open and truthful from a very young age.

I more meant by my post wasn't that discussion about it was a bad thing, I'm more meaning that I believe they wanted to avoid people feeling left out. This was inevitable really. Some guilds or people will feel their contributions are trivialized, not as important, etc. The point is they can't fly everyone out and I am sure they had their reasons for picking certain individuals. It was likely a combination of many factors, not only based on specific merits, but a combination.

I feel they didn't want to cause a storm of angry nerds that this could inevitably lead to, at least in my opinion on my basic grasp on nerd gamer psychology, if not human psychology.

Sypher

They've already chosen the people and I'm pretty sure they're flying there as we speak.

How about we just watch and see how this summit turns out instead of trying to improve something we don't really know everything about.

I know you wanted to be there Hova, and so did I. But, as of right now all we really can do is try to communicate our concerns to the people who will be attending and hope for some positive to come out of this summit.

Once we see the results, we can then start to suggest changes for future summits.

Rooty

Hova4Pres.