About the NDA and the functionality of the class rep system.

MJallday

Use the old non NDA system and expand the transparency for all players further.

just a slight addendum to this. if this was my party, this is how i would do it,

Developers Meeting with Community Managers once per week to let them know of upcoming changes and to receive feedback from Community Managers

Community Managers meet with 2 groups of people
1. Platform representitives. A representitive from PC NA, PC EU, XB EU, XB NA, PS4 EU, PS4 NA. . The remit is to discuss platform specific issues

2. Class representatives. A representative from each class (different from the above). The remit is to discuss class specific issues.

feedback is collated by the CM's and passed back to devs as a series of bullet points/questions. the following week, the devs pass it back to the CM's as a vetted series of answers. this is then relayed to the community.

There would be a single forum for the userbase to engage the class / platform reps - which is advertised widely on here.

Its pretty simple to be honest. No NDA's required as you are vetting the questions goign back/forth. Open, honest transparency and comms - and also a proactive approach.

jcm2606

Use the old non NDA system and expand the transparency for all players further.

@MJallday What you're talking about is a non-issue, though, as it is as you describe even now. Neither the community or the community know what Zenimax is going to do, all we know is what they're planning on addressing. The only difference between the current system and this new one is the fact that the reps will know what they're going to do long before they actually do anything, and so can shoot down moronic ideas early.

I agree with the sentiment that stuff like this should, at the least, be semi-public, but only good can come of this. It's not like we're losing anything with the reps, as what they in theory would lose, they don't have currently.

usmguy1234

starkerealm wrote: »

usmguy1234 wrote: »

So what keeps both sides of the coin honest? What keeps bias out of the process? It's all about accountability for me and the new system has none. It's not like we the community can vote the reps out if we feel that they aren't representing our class properly. If there was proper checks and balances in the system, I'd be all for it.

Dude, it's a ****ing video game. This isn't about a system of governance. Checks and balances? Voting reps out? Seriously?

No, it's a product I paid for. This isn't about taking a video game too seriously, this is about holding a company accountable for their product. What if a car company had a mandatory recall on a part on your car and when it was replaced made your car worse or even caused irreparable damage? Would you not be upset? Would you not seek to hold them accountable? You are so naive to think that people are upset over this because "they are taking a video game a little to seriously."

zParallaxz

Keep the old non NDA system as is.

BuddyAces wrote: »

Wow. I don't understand how anyone, unless it's your first time here, on these forums does not understand what the class reps are here to do. 99.9 percent of the time I'm just baffled and feel like I'm one of maybe 2 people that understands what's going on. So much wrong info out there on what this system is. Almost like there should be a sticky post about this or something................

Personally I think you reps are doing a good job so far and mad props to ZOS for even having this in place. Never would have expected it from this company.

You realize sloads, enchants over tuned, shield changes, and everything pertaining has been through class reps and pts and yet still made it to live. The fact that they added a cost to powerlash to make it in line with asassins will and crystal frags even though both skills are ranged and are unanimously easier to proc shows class reps aren’t an improvement. What’s the point of class reps if major issues still make it to live, why do they sign an NDA for something they are helping payed Zos employees do that’s part of their own job, simply put as akpvp was saying. Zos wants to share blame around their own good/ bad ideas. If a bad patch comes out, it’s easier just to say the correct info wasn’t relayed to the class reps or better yet, there wasn’t enough people testing the changes and communicating in the forums. People think Zos is trying their best, but guys these are the same people who took a cc from mag warden and though it was okay for a couple of patches.
ALSO I VOTED WRONG OPTION

susmitds

Keep the new NDA system.

usmguy1234 wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

usmguy1234 wrote: »

So what keeps both sides of the coin honest? What keeps bias out of the process? It's all about accountability for me and the new system has none. It's not like we the community can vote the reps out if we feel that they aren't representing our class properly. If there was proper checks and balances in the system, I'd be all for it.

Dude, it's a ****ing video game. This isn't about a system of governance. Checks and balances? Voting reps out? Seriously?

No, it's a product I paid for. This isn't about taking a video game too seriously, this is about holding a company accountable for their product. What if a car company had a mandatory recall on a part on your car and when it was replaced made your car worse or even caused irreparable damage? Would you not be upset? Would you not seek to hold them accountable? You are so naive to think that people are upset over this because "they are taking a video game a little to seriously."

Read the ToS. It is not a product you bought, so your car analogy is meaningless. According to the ToS, you simply agreed to hire their product and that product can be modified anytime at their own discretion.

More like you hired a car and next time you hire the same car again, the parts have replaced with different parts you may or may not agree with and in case you don't, move on.

Elwendryll

Keep the new NDA system.

Now they just have access to things they didn't before, so their feedback will be even more valuable. How is it bad?

Marcus684

Every time I think I’ve seen the pinnacle of self-entitlement from the player base, a post like this shows up and someone shows me my error. All of us are customers using a product. None of us have any right to anything other than use of the product we paid for. If you don’t like the product or how it’s developing, feel free to move on. SMMFH.

pieratsos

ak_pvp wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

BuddyAces wrote: »

Wow. I don't understand how anyone, unless it's your first time here, on these forums does not understand what the class reps are here to do. 99.9 percent of the time I'm just baffled and feel like I'm one of maybe 2 people that understands what's going on. So much wrong info out there on what this system is. Almost like there should be a sticky post about this or something................

Personally I think you reps are doing a good job so far and mad props to ZOS for even having this in place. Never would have expected it from this company.

Because this thread, and the others like it aren't about the class reps. It's about the Annulment and Conjured Ward nerfs.

You know I am not a sorc, and think that the changes that went live were for the better yeah? (Of course not how I'd do it but w/e) But of course you don't, you'd instead strawman so hard its silly.

The thread is about the fact that hiding things from players is a bad thing.

pieratsos wrote: »

ak_pvp wrote: »

Checkmath wrote: »

I do not agree with the point that we can not represent you as good as before.

Compared to before, we still can gather feedback about current pts changes as before. We still will have those meetings to hand in pages of feedback. It is the same as before, when we talk about the way you can provide feedback through the reps.

Additionally we get insight into the coming changes earlier and therefore can already identify upcoming problems and bring them up to the devs very fast. I am sure we do not lack the experience to at least identify the biggest issues right away and therefore can communicate them. Which results in more time to think over changes and in the end, the results coming with the pts then will still go through the whole process with you guys giving feedback.

I see that as a chance to recognize problems even earlier, therefore a second chance to inhibit bringing bad changes on the life server.

As I said, maybe its all fine and dandy. But you were chosen as representatives, you might be given leniency to act as normal + a bit extra. However the fact that sloads and torugs wasn't stopped with both reps and players knowing about it through PTS gives me absolutely 0 faith that it will be an improvement. And I'd prefer all changes be ran with the majority of the community first as what happened during murkmire.

Even if you are good players, you aren't all players. Look I am no fan of them listening to the loudest cries only. But I would also prefer at the very least the current cycle completely open. So all of us can find these problems.
It completely misses the point of representative. Either directly in the worst case, or relatively where certain things might be shot down/missed that the community would have liked to know.

The whole point of the NDA is to avoid crap like murkmire in the first place. To avoid crap like sloads, shield cast times and procs left right and center even making it to the PTS. To actually make the PTS a testing environment of balance changes instead of a big waste of time trying to revert their horrible changes because they don't have a single clue about their own game.

Of course that's assuming that this is what this NDA is all about. To involve the reps in the actual balance change process. I mean how worse can it get. But then again we always say that and it always gets worse so whatever I guess.

In my main post I said that may be true, what is said at face value, ZOS might be trying to run some changes before we see them to good players. Though they may also be trying to prevent internal discussions from leaking like before and gagging the reps dissatisfaction. You know one of the ideas for fixing shield cast time was to increase the cast time and the size of the shield?

Even if they do as said and run only some additional changes past the reps and not hide anything that would potentially make them look bad like the murkmire PTS situation, (X for doubt) it still brings the issue of many players not being able to know or comment on certain things. Which is unfair and goes against the point of a class rep. EDIT: Not just for the community but also for the reps who now do nearly a full employee job, and will be held accountable by people cause "well you know more than we do under the NDA, why didn't you stop it" all without being payed.

I am looking at this quite abrasively and skeptically, but I simply don't trust ZOS.

Yeah you don't trust Zos, I don't trust Zos, I don't think anyone trusts them at this point. They may as well want to make the reps the new punching bag for anything bad. Who knows. And why do you even care. They are grown adults, whatever they signed its their responsibility.

As far as what changes for you as a player, it really doesn't change much. You were not seeing changes before PTS and you won't see them now either. But you can now at least hope that a bunch of people who actually know what they are talking can potentially influence upcoming changes for the better and that they are not just being handled by a few people who proved over and over again that they have no clue about the game.

Or you can just join the line with everyone else who will start crucifying the reps.

MJallday

Use the old non NDA system and expand the transparency for all players further.

susmitds wrote: »

usmguy1234 wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

usmguy1234 wrote: »

So what keeps both sides of the coin honest? What keeps bias out of the process? It's all about accountability for me and the new system has none. It's not like we the community can vote the reps out if we feel that they aren't representing our class properly. If there was proper checks and balances in the system, I'd be all for it.

Dude, it's a ****ing video game. This isn't about a system of governance. Checks and balances? Voting reps out? Seriously?

No, it's a product I paid for. This isn't about taking a video game too seriously, this is about holding a company accountable for their product. What if a car company had a mandatory recall on a part on your car and when it was replaced made your car worse or even caused irreparable damage? Would you not be upset? Would you not seek to hold them accountable? You are so naive to think that people are upset over this because "they are taking a video game a little to seriously."

Read the ToS. It is not a product you bought, so your car analogy is meaningless. According to the ToS, you simply agreed to hire their product and that product can be modified anytime at their own discretion.

More like you hired a car and next time you hire the same car again, the parts have replaced with different parts you may or may not agree with and in case you don't, move on.

ZOS have never been challenged, but actually in EU law, that isnt quite correct. It would certainly fail the officious man test.

jcm2606 wrote: »

@MJallday What you're talking about is a non-issue, though, as it is as you describe even now. Neither the community or the community know what Zenimax is going to do, all we know is what they're planning on addressing. The only difference between the current system and this new one is the fact that the reps will know what they're going to do long before they actually do anything, and so can shoot down moronic ideas early.

I agree with the sentiment that stuff like this should, at the least, be semi-public, but only good can come of this. It's not like we're losing anything with the reps, as what they in theory would lose, they don't have currently.

I wouldn't say its a non issue at all.

The issue has arisen because a system which was designed to improve communications between a company and its paying customer base by giving their customers a voice (Whether that was the original intention, it has now become the expectation) has now seemingly been limited in doing so.

im afraid ZOS have made their own bed here. Now they must lay in it.

xxthir13enxx

Keep the new NDA system.

xxthir13enxx wrote: »

Heh the only thing the Class Reps were representing us for prior to this NDA was our shared ignorance...all they could discuss was the Current state of the game...which we Already do in these forums...we need the Reps acting on our behalf for Ideas the Devs have of the Future...and to get them Back on track for what we as a community desire

Turelus

Keep the new NDA system.

MJallday wrote: »

I wouldn't say its a non issue at all.

The issue has arisen because a system which was designed to improve communications between a company and its paying customer base by giving their customers a voice (Whether that was the original intention, it has now become the expectation) has now seemingly been limited in doing so.

im afraid ZOS have made their own bed here. Now they must lay in it.

None of the old communication has changed due to the NDA. They're still free to talk about everything we know, to take our feedback and give it to ZOS and when it's time we will still get the meeting notes.

The only difference is that now ZOS can also say "hey, how do you feel about one second cast times on shields?" months before it's public knowledge and the reps can go "that's terrible, don't do that" before it hits PTS.

MJallday

Use the old non NDA system and expand the transparency for all players further.

Turelus wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

I wouldn't say its a non issue at all.

The issue has arisen because a system which was designed to improve communications between a company and its paying customer base by giving their customers a voice (Whether that was the original intention, it has now become the expectation) has now seemingly been limited in doing so.

im afraid ZOS have made their own bed here. Now they must lay in it.

None of the old communication has changed due to the NDA. They're still free to talk about everything we know, to take our feedback and give it to ZOS and when it's time we will still get the meeting notes.

The only difference is that now ZOS can also say "hey, how do you feel about one second cast times on shields?" months before it's public knowledge and the reps can go "that's terrible, don't do that" before it hits PTS.

And i would argue that you dont need an NDA to enable that conversation to happen.

Id furthermore argue that anything which occurs before it hits the PTS server, is pure ideas and conjecture anyway.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Use the old non NDA system and expand the transparency for all players further.

Elwendryll wrote: »

Now they just have access to things they didn't before, so their feedback will be even more valuable. How is it bad?

How can they present a balanced view of the communities thoughts on a topic which the community is unaware of due to NDA

I'm all for having "experienced players" advising zos early, I'm sure the people involved will will make some good and sensible suggestions. but for me don't call them community representatives if they aren't representing the communities feedback and instead are just giving their own.


Heres how it should function:
Zos to reps&community: "we want to do X"
Community to reps: "here's all our thoughts"
Rep's to ZoS(back and forth discussion): "here's the view from the community"

Now the middle is part is being removed.

Personally I find the idea of giving specific class feedback a bad idea anyway. For me the focus should be on gameplay types ahead of classes specifically.

P.s. If you want to be transparent you could also list the rewards you have given out and will give in the future. For example the free house. @ZOS_GinaBruno

ZOS_Ragnar

We have removed a few comments that were disruptive. Please keep this thread civil and constructive.

starkerealm

Keep the new NDA system.

usmguy1234 wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

usmguy1234 wrote: »

So what keeps both sides of the coin honest? What keeps bias out of the process? It's all about accountability for me and the new system has none. It's not like we the community can vote the reps out if we feel that they aren't representing our class properly. If there was proper checks and balances in the system, I'd be all for it.

Dude, it's a ****ing video game. This isn't about a system of governance. Checks and balances? Voting reps out? Seriously?

No, it's a product I paid for. This isn't about taking a video game too seriously, this is about holding a company accountable for their product. What if a car company had a mandatory recall on a part on your car and when it was replaced made your car worse or even caused irreparable damage? Would you not be upset? Would you not seek to hold them accountable? You are so naive to think that people are upset over this because "they are taking a video game a little to seriously."

So, here's the funny thing about my car. It cost way more than ESO. It's also far more critical to my ability to keep a roof over my head. It is not something I use strictly for entertainment. I haven't had the option of just driving for fun on a regular basis since I was a teenager living at home. Now, if you're honestly, financially, at a state where your car is just a bauble used for entertainment, great. But, this is one tortured analogy.

You're assuming the changes are negative. That the game has been downgraded, which isn't really the case. I know, this is about the shield changes, that the community has been hyperbolic about for months. Those nerfs were coming, because shields were overperforming by a massive margin. That writing had been on the walls for ages.

The irony here is, the shield balance changes made my life easier. When we get around to discussing shields, I don't need to explain all the weird idiosyncrasies that go with them.

As for the caps? Yeah, Conjured Ward and Annulment were stupidly powerful for their cost. That's been an issue for ages. It allowed mag DPS, particularly sorcs, to stack damage, and then also gain significant survivability without giving up anything in their builds. The guys crying because Annulment is now a 5.5k shield for them on their vet dungeon/trials DPS characters should say volumes.

Unless this is about the bugs, in which case, welcome to commercial software development. If you can find a single bug-free MMO deployment pushed live, let me know, because I've never seen one.

usmguy1234

starkerealm wrote: »

usmguy1234 wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

usmguy1234 wrote: »

So what keeps both sides of the coin honest? What keeps bias out of the process? It's all about accountability for me and the new system has none. It's not like we the community can vote the reps out if we feel that they aren't representing our class properly. If there was proper checks and balances in the system, I'd be all for it.

Dude, it's a ****ing video game. This isn't about a system of governance. Checks and balances? Voting reps out? Seriously?

No, it's a product I paid for. This isn't about taking a video game too seriously, this is about holding a company accountable for their product. What if a car company had a mandatory recall on a part on your car and when it was replaced made your car worse or even caused irreparable damage? Would you not be upset? Would you not seek to hold them accountable? You are so naive to think that people are upset over this because "they are taking a video game a little to seriously."

So, here's the funny thing about my car. It cost way more than ESO. It's also far more critical to my ability to keep a roof over my head. It is not something I use strictly for entertainment. I haven't had the option of just driving for fun on a regular basis since I was a teenager living at home. Now, if you're honestly, financially, at a state where your car is just a bauble used for entertainment, great. But, this is one tortured analogy.

You're assuming the changes are negative. That the game has been downgraded, which isn't really the case. I know, this is about the shield changes, that the community has been hyperbolic about for months. Those nerfs were coming, because shields were overperforming by a massive margin. That writing had been on the walls for ages.

The irony here is, the shield balance changes made my life easier. When we get around to discussing shields, I don't need to explain all the weird idiosyncrasies that go with them.

As for the caps? Yeah, Conjured Ward and Annulment were stupidly powerful for their cost. That's been an issue for ages. It allowed mag DPS, particularly sorcs, to stack damage, and then also gain significant survivability without giving up anything in their builds. The guys crying because Annulment is now a 5.5k shield for them on their vet dungeon/trials DPS characters should say volumes.

Unless this is about the bugs, in which case, welcome to commercial software development. If you can find a single bug-free MMO deployment pushed live, let me know, because I've never seen one.

It's about server performance-or rather the lack thereof and balance issues. Not all mmos are bug free. True, but none of the ones that I've ever played have degraded almost every patch. You may be jaded however if you're on pc. I can accept that. Balance is self explanatory.... just look at the current meta vs what actually got nerfed in murkmire.

killahsin

I am starting to notice there are a few people on these forums that stir a lot of sh** on them.

jcm2606

Use the old non NDA system and expand the transparency for all players further.

MJallday wrote: »

susmitds wrote: »

usmguy1234 wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

usmguy1234 wrote: »

So what keeps both sides of the coin honest? What keeps bias out of the process? It's all about accountability for me and the new system has none. It's not like we the community can vote the reps out if we feel that they aren't representing our class properly. If there was proper checks and balances in the system, I'd be all for it.

Dude, it's a ****ing video game. This isn't about a system of governance. Checks and balances? Voting reps out? Seriously?

No, it's a product I paid for. This isn't about taking a video game too seriously, this is about holding a company accountable for their product. What if a car company had a mandatory recall on a part on your car and when it was replaced made your car worse or even caused irreparable damage? Would you not be upset? Would you not seek to hold them accountable? You are so naive to think that people are upset over this because "they are taking a video game a little to seriously."

Read the ToS. It is not a product you bought, so your car analogy is meaningless. According to the ToS, you simply agreed to hire their product and that product can be modified anytime at their own discretion.

More like you hired a car and next time you hire the same car again, the parts have replaced with different parts you may or may not agree with and in case you don't, move on.

ZOS have never been challenged, but actually in EU law, that isnt quite correct. It would certainly fail the officious man test.

jcm2606 wrote: »

@MJallday What you're talking about is a non-issue, though, as it is as you describe even now. Neither the community or the community know what Zenimax is going to do, all we know is what they're planning on addressing. The only difference between the current system and this new one is the fact that the reps will know what they're going to do long before they actually do anything, and so can shoot down moronic ideas early.

I agree with the sentiment that stuff like this should, at the least, be semi-public, but only good can come of this. It's not like we're losing anything with the reps, as what they in theory would lose, they don't have currently.

I wouldn't say its a non issue at all.

The issue has arisen because a system which was designed to improve communications between a company and its paying customer base by giving their customers a voice (Whether that was the original intention, it has now become the expectation) has now seemingly been limited in doing so.

im afraid ZOS have made their own bed here. Now they must lay in it.

If you consider this new system being limited, we are limited in communication with the old system just the same. Again, at the moment, nobody knows what exactly Zenimax is planning in advance. Not even the reps. With the NDA, the reps will gain that information, shooting down moronic ideas way before they hit the PTS.

We're not losing anything, but the reps are gaining something. How is that worse than the current system?

DMuehlhausen

ZOS_RyanM wrote: »

We have removed a few comments that were disruptive. Please keep this thread civil and constructive.

Can we get an answer though?

Why put Class Reps under and NDA? They are suppose to answer concerns and questions we have and be a voice for us. Not letting them talk, even on a high level about things is pretty shady.

Minno

Keep the new NDA system.

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

We’d also like to take this time to talk about some changes we’re making to the program. Effective immediately, all Class Reps have signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) to help facilitate more transparency between them and the development team, and allow us to have a more open dialogue more regularly. This means that they will need to be very selective about what questions of yours they can answer.

Just as a reminder, the job of the Class Reps is to act as advisors [...] While we greatly value their input, decisions regarding the direction of the game still fall squarely on the development team.

Checkmath wrote: »

We will not get paid.

Turelus wrote: »

Anyone who's signed a real NDA for a game company knows they're not little things, they're pretty scary if you read them.

To get this straight: the class reps now do the real employees work in gathering informations, filtering them, coming up with solutions but aren't getting paid, don't have an actual influence on the outcome, all while putting their hands in the fire, risking lawsuits for answering the wrong questions? + the transparency between them and the community decreases?

Sounds good, but why ZOS don't just hire these guys for real if they already slap all the "bad" on them?

That is my only criticism for the rep program. At least 1099 them and compensate them for consultancy time! Though 1099 is a *** move because the recipient has to file the taxes on the total amount on their own lol.

Dymence

Keep the new NDA system.

Tin foil hattery with people here is completely insane.

Quoting myself from other thread:

Dymence wrote: »

I'm afraid that you and many others in this thread are completely missing the point.

Currently devs will not share info about big changes regarding combat balance with the reps in early stages. The reps learn everything at the same time we do.

With the signing of the NDA, the devs will have more freedom in the info they disclose to the reps, so that reps may quench concerns at a much earlier stage, allowing the dev team to consider appropriate changes over a longer timespan than they are currently where it mostly just ends up with "we're sticking with it".

So what does this NDA mean for the rest of us? Effectively nothing. Things will stay the same as is for the rest of us. We will learn about combat changes and balancing when the patches hit PTS. The important difference is that by the time they hit PTS, the reps will already have had a chance to give their input on said changes. They just won't be allowed to tell us anything before the PTS stage.

jypcy

Keep the new NDA system.

@Dymence ‘s post on the official thread proved to be effective at racking up agrees so they’re bringing it here to farm some more

But here, let me be the first, because I do think it’s spot on.

usmguy1234

Dymence wrote: »

Tin foil hattery with people here is completely insane.

Quoting myself from other thread:

Dymence wrote: »

I'm afraid that you and many others in this thread are completely missing the point.

Currently devs will not share info about big changes regarding combat balance with the reps in early stages. The reps learn everything at the same time we do.

With the signing of the NDA, the devs will have more freedom in the info they disclose to the reps, so that reps may quench concerns at a much earlier stage, allowing the dev team to consider appropriate changes over a longer timespan than they are currently where it mostly just ends up with "we're sticking with it".

So what does this NDA mean for the rest of us? Effectively nothing. Things will stay the same as is for the rest of us. We will learn about combat changes and balancing when the patches hit PTS. The important difference is that by the time they hit PTS, the reps will already have had a chance to give their input on said changes. They just won't be allowed to tell us anything before the PTS stage.

Why do the devs fear sharing their ideas openly? It's not like they are discussing the cure for cancer or some uber important intellectual property. I agree that new mechanics ie spell crafting or the likes should stay under wraps but stuff that is currently in the game doesn't need that.

magictucktuck

usmguy1234 wrote: »

Dymence wrote: »

Tin foil hattery with people here is completely insane.

Quoting myself from other thread:

Dymence wrote: »

I'm afraid that you and many others in this thread are completely missing the point.

Currently devs will not share info about big changes regarding combat balance with the reps in early stages. The reps learn everything at the same time we do.

With the signing of the NDA, the devs will have more freedom in the info they disclose to the reps, so that reps may quench concerns at a much earlier stage, allowing the dev team to consider appropriate changes over a longer timespan than they are currently where it mostly just ends up with "we're sticking with it".

So what does this NDA mean for the rest of us? Effectively nothing. Things will stay the same as is for the rest of us. We will learn about combat changes and balancing when the patches hit PTS. The important difference is that by the time they hit PTS, the reps will already have had a chance to give their input on said changes. They just won't be allowed to tell us anything before the PTS stage.

Why do the devs fear sharing their ideas openly? It's not like they are discussing the cure for cancer or some uber important intellectual property. I agree that new mechanics ie spell crafting or the likes should stay under wraps but stuff that is currently in the game doesn't need that.

Because they are part of a company, and have to stick to strict marketing plans...

smacx250

Keep the new NDA system.

I've worked under NDAs, going both ways, many times. Usually the whole purpose is to enable the sharing of information that otherwise couldn't be shared. Sharing more information usually results in better communication and better outcomes. Since I expect that the NDA is in place to allow ZOS to detail game direction they otherwise wouldn't be able to talk to the reps about (and therefore, on which the reps couldn't offer any comment), I expect that moving to an NDA will result in better and more forward reaching feedback from the reps to ZOS, and better a better outcome for ESO, than if it were left as was.

Androconium

Turelus wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

I wouldn't say its a non issue at all.

The issue has arisen because a system which was designed to improve communications between a company and its paying customer base by giving their customers a voice (Whether that was the original intention, it has now become the expectation) has now seemingly been limited in doing so.

im afraid ZOS have made their own bed here. Now they must lay in it.

None of the old communication has changed due to the NDA. They're still free to talk about everything we know, to take our feedback and give it to ZOS and when it's time we will still get the meeting notes.

The only difference is that now ZOS can also say "hey, how do you feel about one second cast times on shields?" months before it's public knowledge and the reps can go "that's terrible, don't do that" before it hits PTS.

PTS? I don't use that. Nor, I suspect, do millions of other players.

I thought that the purpose of the PTS was to provide an area for players to 'Acceptance test' changes that are already committed to production release. To identify minor errors that had slipped through previous development testing and/or technical release problems (missing files etc).

If you're saying that the PTS environment is actually being used to trial new development ideas, than that's a completely different issue. The main problem with that is that players using PTS would firstly be a minority; and secondly, more likely to represent a narrow band of the game's activity.

So what we might have now is a narrow section of the player community providing feedback on potential game play changes; with a second smaller group of players filtering this feedback back and forward to the development team. As this game is being delivered by Agile development, I'd really like to see some of the Epics and User stories that are being developed, on display somewhere.

The NDA is a risk mitigation strategy. It's being deployed as someone, somewhere, has identified a risk.
It will be used whenever that potential risk becomes a real one.

Caligamy_ESO

Use the old non NDA system and expand the transparency for all players further.

And not a single peep from a Class rep, I'd say it's working as intended. Still kinda surprised the mod didn't erase this thread from existence too.

ccmedaddy

Keep the new NDA system.

Dymence wrote: »

Tin foil hattery with people here is completely insane.

Quoting myself from other thread:

Dymence wrote: »

I'm afraid that you and many others in this thread are completely missing the point.

Currently devs will not share info about big changes regarding combat balance with the reps in early stages. The reps learn everything at the same time we do.

With the signing of the NDA, the devs will have more freedom in the info they disclose to the reps, so that reps may quench concerns at a much earlier stage, allowing the dev team to consider appropriate changes over a longer timespan than they are currently where it mostly just ends up with "we're sticking with it".

So what does this NDA mean for the rest of us? Effectively nothing. Things will stay the same as is for the rest of us. We will learn about combat changes and balancing when the patches hit PTS. The important difference is that by the time they hit PTS, the reps will already have had a chance to give their input on said changes. They just won't be allowed to tell us anything before the PTS stage.

Well said. It's hilarious how people here think they're entitled to be privy to everything that ZOS is working on. Some people just don't understand the concept of boundaries.

Dymence

Keep the new NDA system.

Caligamy_ESO wrote: »

And not a single peep from a Class rep, I'd say it's working as intended. Still kinda surprised the mod didn't erase this thread from existence too.

Here's what Joy has said about it in the official thread:

Joy_Division wrote: »

Some people live in their own deluded world.

I don't know what else to say, but those people who think that ZOS is somehow controlling us, muzzling us, or in anyway making it so we represent them rather than the community are misinformed.

Before NDA, ZOS could not tell us anything beyond the immediate next patch, so you didn't hear anything from them and we were incapable of saying anything because we weren't told anything. You weren't getting that sort of info and you couldn't give any feedback on that info because none of us had it. It's not like the NDA is changing anything in that regard.

What is changing is now we will have the ability to preempt questionable changes before they hit the PTS.

Nerf tin foil hats

DanteYoda

Keep the new NDA system.

The whole structure is a mess... No other mmos have these issues Zos does.. They run fine and the mechanics work as designed, here not so much..

Some where along the line the corporate monster took over and destroyed whatever the direction and "fun" this game ever had..

Personally scrap the reps they can't do the job they were designed for, and get some seriously unbias balance devs.. Also get better network engineers as they are doing nothing..


If its tinfoil hat... why is the game running so bad, classes being literally destroyed while others get nothing ruined... The whole forums in an uproar over it and nothing being said or done to fix it.. Yeah no nothing tinfoil hat about this mess.