Let's not have any class representatives at all. HERE is my replacement proposal.

Cryptical

Checkmath wrote: »

therift wrote: »

Cryptical wrote: »

Checkmath wrote: »

Erm I would like to clarify, that there is no actual representative for each class and what you demand is already part of the program. Many of the reps are more specialized towards a role than one class, also do we all play several classes and roles. For PvE such a distribution into roles makes sense, but in the end comes down to the differents between classes again. Why is this class better at tanking than another one? Why is class B the only class accepted in end content as dd, etc....
Your idea is already implemented in the current program. We talk about classes and roles (which btw is very difficult, when we start talking about PvP tough) all the time, also specific issues with some classes are discussed among the reps too. Maybe it seems like one rep is more responsible for one class and another rep for another class, but in the end every rep talks about every class and role.

I didn't expect to have to prove that the class rep program is, in fact, focused on classes.

First, there's the name. "Class Rep". Seems sorta obvi that's class-based.

Second, there's Gina's post about accepting class rep applications. Also seems sorta based on character classes.

Third, there's the application itself. The first requirement is stated "Knowledge of all classes and roles, with a focus on one or two classes" Emphasis mine.

Of course many of the existing CLASS reps are more specialized toward a role than one class, as you say. It's human nature to do more of what is enjoyed, so a CLASS rep that enjoys tanking will be more specialized toward the role even though the program expects them to focus more on a CLASS.

And a person who is more specialized at their enjoyed role of tanking will be more capable of diagnosing why one class is having more trouble tanking than another class. But under the current program where the dividing lines are between classes, and thus there being a dividing line between the representatives of the classes, that tanking expert has to coordinate the answer to that diagnosis through the other representative. Adding a layer of complications.

I really didn't expect to have to show that the eso class representative program was primarily based on class. But, there you go.

Seems to me you are hung up on the job title and ignoring the function.

1) Class Rep name: The game is built around classes -class skills, class passives, class advantages, class disadvantages. 'Class Representative' is a name that everyone can understand. It's the best semantic choice.

2) Gina is accepting 'Class Representative applications' because that is the name of the job for which applicants are applying. Semantics again.

3) I'm correcting your boldface: " The first requirement is stated "Knowledge of all classes and roles, with a focus on one or two classes". Once the actual first requirement is boldfaced, rather than the second requirement, then the true meaning is revealed.

I'll throw one more thing to consider: The game is bigger than Group Finder. Outside of Dungeons and Trials, role is irrelevant, and Class is king.

I would like to add here, that many devs actually call us combat reps and not class reps anymore, which makes actually sense. You got a bit hung up there with the name of the program I guess.
Half of the reps actually should be called role reps after your definition, because they represent rather a role than a class. For examples fearturbo, alscast, masel and liofa all do not play only one class and rather enjoy a whole role (like liofa is mostly tanking and talking about tanking stuff meanwhile the others are focussed on feedback about damage dealers). Meanwhile the other half or more PvP focussed, where that role system does not really apply....

I just can repeat, what I already stated. The reps not only discuss classes, but also roles. There is not one rep solely responsible for one class, everything is discussed by all reps, that is why knowledge of all classes and roles is required for the application.

So now you basically are saying that the "Class Representative Program" and the requirement to focus on one or two classes.... does not actually follow it's own name or requirement.

Do you not see a fundamental problem with the program not following it's own basic structure?

So quit calling it a CLASS REPRESENTATIVE program and reform it fully into the ROLE based program that it has apparently been trying to mutate into.

Instead of Liofa being a CLASS representative that veers over into the territory of other class reps regarding tanking (and possibly ignores dps/healing in the class that is supposed to be their territory) (I said *possibly*, don't get your underwear in an uproar)... How about doing a re-structure of the program and naming Liofa into the TANKING representative. Eh? Make the program into the shape that you all have been creeping toward? Maybe stop fighting the natural way that Liofa focuses on a ROLE in a CLASS based program and do a reboot of the thing?

You are giving me the best argument there is for ending the class based program as it is currently formed - EVEN THE REPRESENTATIVES TREAT IT AS A ROLE BASED GAME.

Shantu

I would suggest the concept of "Class Representative" has lost it's credibility, at least in regards as a liaison to player opinion (if it ever really was). I know whoever represented Sorcs in the infamous Nerfmire massacre, despite the outcry of players, had little input in our regard toward the outcome.

Additionally, the idea of global balance is a myth. ZOS is trying to take a system that has little issue (PVE), hard press it into another (PVP) where numerous issues arise, and then try to balance both systems at once. As we have witnessed repeatedly, it's a recipe for failure.

Regardless, I doubt any of this matters. While I regret the cynicism, it's been made very clear ZOS developers are primarily concerned with their own "Interesting" ideas over the desires of the player community. When universally objectionable changes are implemented, player input feels meaningless, and we are regrettably left with the decision to either adapt or leave.

Minno

Shantu wrote: »

I would suggest the concept of "Class Representative" has lost it's credibility, at least in regards as a liaison to player opinion (if it ever really was). I know whoever represented Sorcs in the infamous Nerfmire massacre, despite the outcry of players, had little input in our regard toward the outcome.

Additionally, the idea of global balance is a myth. ZOS is trying to take a system that has little issue (PVE), hard press it into another (PVP) where numerous issues arise, and then try to balance both systems at once. As we have witnessed repeatedly, it's a recipe for failure.

Regardless, I doubt any of this matters. While I regret the cynicism, it's been made very clear ZOS developers are primarily concerned with their own "Interesting" ideas over the desires of the player community. When universally objectionable changes are implemented, player input feels meaningless, and we are regrettably left with the decision to either adapt or leave.

lol but sorcs are overtuned due to matriarch buffs and huge dmg potential with mobility outside of major expedition though lol.

Monsieur

This really is a thread about nerfing Nb’s isn’t it.

therift

Cryptical wrote: »

Checkmath wrote: »

therift wrote: »

Cryptical wrote: »

Checkmath wrote: »

Erm I would like to clarify, that there is no actual representative for each class and what you demand is already part of the program. Many of the reps are more specialized towards a role than one class, also do we all play several classes and roles. For PvE such a distribution into roles makes sense, but in the end comes down to the differents between classes again. Why is this class better at tanking than another one? Why is class B the only class accepted in end content as dd, etc....
Your idea is already implemented in the current program. We talk about classes and roles (which btw is very difficult, when we start talking about PvP tough) all the time, also specific issues with some classes are discussed among the reps too. Maybe it seems like one rep is more responsible for one class and another rep for another class, but in the end every rep talks about every class and role.

I didn't expect to have to prove that the class rep program is, in fact, focused on classes.

First, there's the name. "Class Rep". Seems sorta obvi that's class-based.

Second, there's Gina's post about accepting class rep applications. Also seems sorta based on character classes.

Third, there's the application itself. The first requirement is stated "Knowledge of all classes and roles, with a focus on one or two classes" Emphasis mine.

Of course many of the existing CLASS reps are more specialized toward a role than one class, as you say. It's human nature to do more of what is enjoyed, so a CLASS rep that enjoys tanking will be more specialized toward the role even though the program expects them to focus more on a CLASS.

And a person who is more specialized at their enjoyed role of tanking will be more capable of diagnosing why one class is having more trouble tanking than another class. But under the current program where the dividing lines are between classes, and thus there being a dividing line between the representatives of the classes, that tanking expert has to coordinate the answer to that diagnosis through the other representative. Adding a layer of complications.

I really didn't expect to have to show that the eso class representative program was primarily based on class. But, there you go.

Seems to me you are hung up on the job title and ignoring the function.

1) Class Rep name: The game is built around classes -class skills, class passives, class advantages, class disadvantages. 'Class Representative' is a name that everyone can understand. It's the best semantic choice.

2) Gina is accepting 'Class Representative applications' because that is the name of the job for which applicants are applying. Semantics again.

3) I'm correcting your boldface: " The first requirement is stated "Knowledge of all classes and roles, with a focus on one or two classes". Once the actual first requirement is boldfaced, rather than the second requirement, then the true meaning is revealed.

I'll throw one more thing to consider: The game is bigger than Group Finder. Outside of Dungeons and Trials, role is irrelevant, and Class is king.

I would like to add here, that many devs actually call us combat reps and not class reps anymore, which makes actually sense. You got a bit hung up there with the name of the program I guess.
Half of the reps actually should be called role reps after your definition, because they represent rather a role than a class. For examples fearturbo, alscast, masel and liofa all do not play only one class and rather enjoy a whole role (like liofa is mostly tanking and talking about tanking stuff meanwhile the others are focussed on feedback about damage dealers). Meanwhile the other half or more PvP focussed, where that role system does not really apply....

I just can repeat, what I already stated. The reps not only discuss classes, but also roles. There is not one rep solely responsible for one class, everything is discussed by all reps, that is why knowledge of all classes and roles is required for the application.

So now you basically are saying that the "Class Representative Program" and the requirement to focus on one or two classes.... does not actually follow it's own name or requirement.

Do you not see a fundamental problem with the program not following it's own basic structure?

So quit calling it a CLASS REPRESENTATIVE program and reform it fully into the ROLE based program that it has apparently been trying to mutate into.

Instead of Liofa being a CLASS representative that veers over into the territory of other class reps regarding tanking (and possibly ignores dps/healing in the class that is supposed to be their territory) (I said *possibly*, don't get your underwear in an uproar)... How about doing a re-structure of the program and naming Liofa into the TANKING representative. Eh? Make the program into the shape that you all have been creeping toward? Maybe stop fighting the natural way that Liofa focuses on a ROLE in a CLASS based program and do a reboot of the thing?

You are giving me the best argument there is for ending the class based program as it is currently formed - EVEN THE REPRESENTATIVES TREAT IT AS A ROLE BASED GAME.

Once again your are misstating the Class Representative requirements and overstating the role of roles in the game.

To correct you once again...

1) The stated requirements are knowledge of all classes and roles

2) Role is completely unimportant outside of Dungeons and Trials.

It's difficult to take your argument seriously when your basic premises are dishonest.

ccmedaddy

Shantu wrote: »

I would suggest the concept of "Class Representative" has lost it's credibility, at least in regards as a liaison to player opinion (if it ever really was). I know whoever represented Sorcs in the infamous Nerfmire massacre, despite the outcry of players, had little input in our regard toward the outcome.

Eh... I'm pretty sure ZOS came up with the genius idea of nerfing shields and adding a cast time to it all on their own and the class reps had to talk them out of it. In fact, most of the disastrous changes that sorcs have gone through (rune cage, crystal frags) were all Wrobel's doing, so you're putting the blame on the wrong party here.

Checkmath

Cryptical wrote: »

Checkmath wrote: »

therift wrote: »

Cryptical wrote: »

Checkmath wrote: »

Erm I would like to clarify, that there is no actual representative for each class and what you demand is already part of the program. Many of the reps are more specialized towards a role than one class, also do we all play several classes and roles. For PvE such a distribution into roles makes sense, but in the end comes down to the differents between classes again. Why is this class better at tanking than another one? Why is class B the only class accepted in end content as dd, etc....
Your idea is already implemented in the current program. We talk about classes and roles (which btw is very difficult, when we start talking about PvP tough) all the time, also specific issues with some classes are discussed among the reps too. Maybe it seems like one rep is more responsible for one class and another rep for another class, but in the end every rep talks about every class and role.

I didn't expect to have to prove that the class rep program is, in fact, focused on classes.

First, there's the name. "Class Rep". Seems sorta obvi that's class-based.

Second, there's Gina's post about accepting class rep applications. Also seems sorta based on character classes.

Third, there's the application itself. The first requirement is stated "Knowledge of all classes and roles, with a focus on one or two classes" Emphasis mine.

Of course many of the existing CLASS reps are more specialized toward a role than one class, as you say. It's human nature to do more of what is enjoyed, so a CLASS rep that enjoys tanking will be more specialized toward the role even though the program expects them to focus more on a CLASS.

And a person who is more specialized at their enjoyed role of tanking will be more capable of diagnosing why one class is having more trouble tanking than another class. But under the current program where the dividing lines are between classes, and thus there being a dividing line between the representatives of the classes, that tanking expert has to coordinate the answer to that diagnosis through the other representative. Adding a layer of complications.

I really didn't expect to have to show that the eso class representative program was primarily based on class. But, there you go.

Seems to me you are hung up on the job title and ignoring the function.

1) Class Rep name: The game is built around classes -class skills, class passives, class advantages, class disadvantages. 'Class Representative' is a name that everyone can understand. It's the best semantic choice.

2) Gina is accepting 'Class Representative applications' because that is the name of the job for which applicants are applying. Semantics again.

3) I'm correcting your boldface: " The first requirement is stated "Knowledge of all classes and roles, with a focus on one or two classes". Once the actual first requirement is boldfaced, rather than the second requirement, then the true meaning is revealed.

I'll throw one more thing to consider: The game is bigger than Group Finder. Outside of Dungeons and Trials, role is irrelevant, and Class is king.

I would like to add here, that many devs actually call us combat reps and not class reps anymore, which makes actually sense. You got a bit hung up there with the name of the program I guess.
Half of the reps actually should be called role reps after your definition, because they represent rather a role than a class. For examples fearturbo, alscast, masel and liofa all do not play only one class and rather enjoy a whole role (like liofa is mostly tanking and talking about tanking stuff meanwhile the others are focussed on feedback about damage dealers). Meanwhile the other half or more PvP focussed, where that role system does not really apply....

I just can repeat, what I already stated. The reps not only discuss classes, but also roles. There is not one rep solely responsible for one class, everything is discussed by all reps, that is why knowledge of all classes and roles is required for the application.

So now you basically are saying that the "Class Representative Program" and the requirement to focus on one or two classes.... does not actually follow it's own name or requirement.

Do you not see a fundamental problem with the program not following it's own basic structure?

So quit calling it a CLASS REPRESENTATIVE program and reform it fully into the ROLE based program that it has apparently been trying to mutate into.

Instead of Liofa being a CLASS representative that veers over into the territory of other class reps regarding tanking (and possibly ignores dps/healing in the class that is supposed to be their territory) (I said *possibly*, don't get your underwear in an uproar)... How about doing a re-structure of the program and naming Liofa into the TANKING representative. Eh? Make the program into the shape that you all have been creeping toward? Maybe stop fighting the natural way that Liofa focuses on a ROLE in a CLASS based program and do a reboot of the thing?

You are giving me the best argument there is for ending the class based program as it is currently formed - EVEN THE REPRESENTATIVES TREAT IT AS A ROLE BASED GAME.

You misunderstood, what I said.
Nowhere did I say, that the reps treat the game as a role based game, just because in several contents of the game roles do not really exist (PvP, quests, overland, fishing, housing, whatever you want). Roles come in when you do dungeons and trials. What I said, is that some reps enjoy playing a role and are more dedicated to focus on role based feedback. Still you can not really base that on the roles, because of you look at a role closer, classes again matter.

Your problem just lies in the name I guess. Call it how you want, nobody will care and it also does not matter. The program focusses on classes and how they perform (and how they perfrom in the different roles in dungeons/trials).

The program does not mutate in into your role rep program, because the roles of healer/dps/tank in this sense only exist in specific content.

frostz417

Separate PvP and pve

therift

frostz417 wrote: »

Separate PvP and pve

Wrong.

Balance game around PvP. Adjust PvE content to fit.

Minyassa

I like this, and would suggest additional that "PvP" and "Role-playing" also be considered roles for the purpose of representing player types and interests. And they should be represented *equally*, none should be kicked to the curb.

Joy_Division

When we were at ZOS, I was told our roles were getting changed to "combat reps" because we're not tied to a class.

Cryptical

Checkmath wrote: »

Cryptical wrote: »

Checkmath wrote: »

therift wrote: »

Cryptical wrote: »

Checkmath wrote: »

Erm I would like to clarify, that there is no actual representative for each class and what you demand is already part of the program. Many of the reps are more specialized towards a role than one class, also do we all play several classes and roles. For PvE such a distribution into roles makes sense, but in the end comes down to the differents between classes again. Why is this class better at tanking than another one? Why is class B the only class accepted in end content as dd, etc....
Your idea is already implemented in the current program. We talk about classes and roles (which btw is very difficult, when we start talking about PvP tough) all the time, also specific issues with some classes are discussed among the reps too. Maybe it seems like one rep is more responsible for one class and another rep for another class, but in the end every rep talks about every class and role.

I didn't expect to have to prove that the class rep program is, in fact, focused on classes.

First, there's the name. "Class Rep". Seems sorta obvi that's class-based.

Second, there's Gina's post about accepting class rep applications. Also seems sorta based on character classes.

Third, there's the application itself. The first requirement is stated "Knowledge of all classes and roles, with a focus on one or two classes" Emphasis mine.

Of course many of the existing CLASS reps are more specialized toward a role than one class, as you say. It's human nature to do more of what is enjoyed, so a CLASS rep that enjoys tanking will be more specialized toward the role even though the program expects them to focus more on a CLASS.

And a person who is more specialized at their enjoyed role of tanking will be more capable of diagnosing why one class is having more trouble tanking than another class. But under the current program where the dividing lines are between classes, and thus there being a dividing line between the representatives of the classes, that tanking expert has to coordinate the answer to that diagnosis through the other representative. Adding a layer of complications.

I really didn't expect to have to show that the eso class representative program was primarily based on class. But, there you go.

Seems to me you are hung up on the job title and ignoring the function.

1) Class Rep name: The game is built around classes -class skills, class passives, class advantages, class disadvantages. 'Class Representative' is a name that everyone can understand. It's the best semantic choice.

2) Gina is accepting 'Class Representative applications' because that is the name of the job for which applicants are applying. Semantics again.

3) I'm correcting your boldface: " The first requirement is stated "Knowledge of all classes and roles, with a focus on one or two classes". Once the actual first requirement is boldfaced, rather than the second requirement, then the true meaning is revealed.

I'll throw one more thing to consider: The game is bigger than Group Finder. Outside of Dungeons and Trials, role is irrelevant, and Class is king.

I would like to add here, that many devs actually call us combat reps and not class reps anymore, which makes actually sense. You got a bit hung up there with the name of the program I guess.
Half of the reps actually should be called role reps after your definition, because they represent rather a role than a class. For examples fearturbo, alscast, masel and liofa all do not play only one class and rather enjoy a whole role (like liofa is mostly tanking and talking about tanking stuff meanwhile the others are focussed on feedback about damage dealers). Meanwhile the other half or more PvP focussed, where that role system does not really apply....

I just can repeat, what I already stated. The reps not only discuss classes, but also roles. There is not one rep solely responsible for one class, everything is discussed by all reps, that is why knowledge of all classes and roles is required for the application.

So now you basically are saying that the "Class Representative Program" and the requirement to focus on one or two classes.... does not actually follow it's own name or requirement.

Do you not see a fundamental problem with the program not following it's own basic structure?

So quit calling it a CLASS REPRESENTATIVE program and reform it fully into the ROLE based program that it has apparently been trying to mutate into.

Instead of Liofa being a CLASS representative that veers over into the territory of other class reps regarding tanking (and possibly ignores dps/healing in the class that is supposed to be their territory) (I said *possibly*, don't get your underwear in an uproar)... How about doing a re-structure of the program and naming Liofa into the TANKING representative. Eh? Make the program into the shape that you all have been creeping toward? Maybe stop fighting the natural way that Liofa focuses on a ROLE in a CLASS based program and do a reboot of the thing?

You are giving me the best argument there is for ending the class based program as it is currently formed - EVEN THE REPRESENTATIVES TREAT IT AS A ROLE BASED GAME.

You misunderstood, what I said.
Nowhere did I say, that the reps treat the game as a role based game, just because in several contents of the game roles do not really exist (PvP, quests, overland, fishing, housing, whatever you want). Roles come in when you do dungeons and trials. What I said, is that some reps enjoy playing a role and are more dedicated to focus on role based feedback. Still you can not really base that on the roles, because of you look at a role closer, classes again matter.

Your problem just lies in the name I guess. Call it how you want, nobody will care and it also does not matter. The program focusses on classes and how they perform (and how they perfrom in the different roles in dungeons/trials).

The program does not mutate in into your role rep program, because the roles of healer/dps/tank in this sense only exist in specific content.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, flies like a duck, swims like a duck....

First, I am presuming you know the difference between knowledge of classes and focus on a single class. Much like I presume any vehicle mechanic knows the difference between knowledge of all cars and focus on a single manufacturer - such as a mechanic that knows about all cars but focuses on the single make of Subaru. So... you've been treating them as if they were one thing, when knowledge and focus are separate. Please stop muddying them together.

You said there'e no actual rep for each class. You said they are more specialized toward roles. You said "reps actually should be called role reps after your definition, because they represent rather a role than a class."

The program, by your description, appears to be having mission creep. By name and by stated requirement, it is focused on class without any mention of role whatsoever. However, according to the description you have given, the people in the program are not focused on class at all - rather their misson has slowly crept toward being focused on roles.

You didn't come out and say the reps treat it as a role based game... but the description you have given of how things have become over time distinctly shows that they are approaching the game in terms of the role they like to play. Example: Liofa is the class rep for which class? I don't know, it was never mentioned in this thread, but you can bet I know that Liofa is the person to ask about tanking regardless of which class.

So let's just peel that "Class Rep" name off, toss those "Focus on class" requirements in the dumpster, and restructure the program so that it matches the role-focus that the reps have been using to approach it. Who knows, the clearer mission that more closely matches how people actually play the game just might make the issues you reps deal with a little bit more easily dealt with.

therift

"So let's just peel that "Class Rep" name off, toss those "Focus on class" requirements in the dumpster, and restructure the program so that it matches the role-focus that the reps have been using to approach it. Who knows, the clearer mission that more closely matches how people actually play the game just might make the issues you reps deal with a little bit more easily dealt with."

Whew! All those words and posts, and the only thing you claim bothers you is the job title?

What about your accusations that Class Representatives compete for buffs to the detriment of other classes? What about your implied statement that nerf/buff is a zero-sum game among classes, such that if one class is buffed, another receives an effective nerf? What about your insinuation that focusing on class means that role is ignored?

Have you abandoned these positions?

And why do you refuse to address the issue that role has no importance outside of Dungeons and Trials? Why do you desire to hijack a program that must serve all content and all players, not just the niche content where 'role' is relevant?

In addition to being elusive in response, dishonest in facts, it now appears this whole thread serves a hidden agenda to sap a valuable resource to exusively serve the content you like to play, and screw everyone else.

Class Representation is needed for Overland. It is needed for Battlegrounds. It is needed for Cyrodiil. It is needed for Role-Playing.

And last, but not least, the game is built around Classes. Role is a secondary consideration, and is relevant solely in a small portion of the game content.

idk

Cryptical wrote: »

Checkmath wrote: »

therift wrote: »

Cryptical wrote: »

Checkmath wrote: »

Erm I would like to clarify, that there is no actual representative for each class and what you demand is already part of the program. Many of the reps are more specialized towards a role than one class, also do we all play several classes and roles. For PvE such a distribution into roles makes sense, but in the end comes down to the differents between classes again. Why is this class better at tanking than another one? Why is class B the only class accepted in end content as dd, etc....
Your idea is already implemented in the current program. We talk about classes and roles (which btw is very difficult, when we start talking about PvP tough) all the time, also specific issues with some classes are discussed among the reps too. Maybe it seems like one rep is more responsible for one class and another rep for another class, but in the end every rep talks about every class and role.

I didn't expect to have to prove that the class rep program is, in fact, focused on classes.

First, there's the name. "Class Rep". Seems sorta obvi that's class-based.

Second, there's Gina's post about accepting class rep applications. Also seems sorta based on character classes.

Third, there's the application itself. The first requirement is stated "Knowledge of all classes and roles, with a focus on one or two classes" Emphasis mine.

Of course many of the existing CLASS reps are more specialized toward a role than one class, as you say. It's human nature to do more of what is enjoyed, so a CLASS rep that enjoys tanking will be more specialized toward the role even though the program expects them to focus more on a CLASS.

And a person who is more specialized at their enjoyed role of tanking will be more capable of diagnosing why one class is having more trouble tanking than another class. But under the current program where the dividing lines are between classes, and thus there being a dividing line between the representatives of the classes, that tanking expert has to coordinate the answer to that diagnosis through the other representative. Adding a layer of complications.

I really didn't expect to have to show that the eso class representative program was primarily based on class. But, there you go.

Seems to me you are hung up on the job title and ignoring the function.

1) Class Rep name: The game is built around classes -class skills, class passives, class advantages, class disadvantages. 'Class Representative' is a name that everyone can understand. It's the best semantic choice.

2) Gina is accepting 'Class Representative applications' because that is the name of the job for which applicants are applying. Semantics again.

3) I'm correcting your boldface: " The first requirement is stated "Knowledge of all classes and roles, with a focus on one or two classes". Once the actual first requirement is boldfaced, rather than the second requirement, then the true meaning is revealed.

I'll throw one more thing to consider: The game is bigger than Group Finder. Outside of Dungeons and Trials, role is irrelevant, and Class is king.

I would like to add here, that many devs actually call us combat reps and not class reps anymore, which makes actually sense. You got a bit hung up there with the name of the program I guess.
Half of the reps actually should be called role reps after your definition, because they represent rather a role than a class. For examples fearturbo, alscast, masel and liofa all do not play only one class and rather enjoy a whole role (like liofa is mostly tanking and talking about tanking stuff meanwhile the others are focussed on feedback about damage dealers). Meanwhile the other half or more PvP focussed, where that role system does not really apply....

I just can repeat, what I already stated. The reps not only discuss classes, but also roles. There is not one rep solely responsible for one class, everything is discussed by all reps, that is why knowledge of all classes and roles is required for the application.

So now you basically are saying that the "Class Representative Program" and the requirement to focus on one or two classes.... does not actually follow it's own name or requirement.

Do you not see a fundamental problem with the program not following it's own basic structure?

So quit calling it a CLASS REPRESENTATIVE program and reform it fully into the ROLE based program that it has apparently been trying to mutate into.

Instead of Liofa being a CLASS representative that veers over into the territory of other class reps regarding tanking (and possibly ignores dps/healing in the class that is supposed to be their territory) (I said *possibly*, don't get your underwear in an uproar)... How about doing a re-structure of the program and naming Liofa into the TANKING representative. Eh? Make the program into the shape that you all have been creeping toward? Maybe stop fighting the natural way that Liofa focuses on a ROLE in a CLASS based program and do a reboot of the thing?

You are giving me the best argument there is for ending the class based program as it is currently formed - EVEN THE REPRESENTATIVES TREAT IT AS A ROLE BASED GAME.

I do not think you understand.

They are well versed in roles but they are obviously well versed in classes.

It should be obvious that they have vast experience with one or more classes but it also should be equally obvious various ones speak more to specific roles. Anything else would be moronic. Even with the previous programs, that started the first year of this game, Zos focused on diversity. That seem to be what you are speaking to but seem to not understand the current group has diversity of knowledge.

Further, to split hairs about what you think the program should be called. It seems more like just wanting to argue for the sake of it. In fact, most of this post I quoted seems more like someone just wants to argue.

geonsocal

Cryptical wrote: »

The 'class rep' may not be the best way to handle gameplay balance.

I propose that instead of people to represent the various classes, that there be a council of people...

Hereafter,

so that we remember our bonds...

...we shall always come together

in a circle...

...to hear and tell of deeds good and brave.

I will build a round table...

...where this fellowship shall meet.

And a hall about the table.

And a castle about the hall.

And I will marry.

And the land will have an heir

to wield Excalibur.

Knights of the Round Table.

i'm there with you man, can i play percival...

Jeremy

idk wrote: »

Gilvoth wrote: »

ccmedaddy wrote: »

lol @ people thinking ZOS would have ANY idea how to balance this game without class rep input

the class rep program only started around 2 years ago, eso was created many years long before that.
the devs know what they are doing with class balance, the current class rep program is not working, myself and others, believe it never has.

The class rep program is less than a year old so I am not sure you understand what you are actually talking about.

Further, Zos does not know class performance very well. They are far from experts in the game. Until Gil was hired by Zos there were players who know significantly more than Zos about classes and how the game actually played, though Gil no longer plays the game as he used to.

This is normally the case with MMORPGs where Devs learn from the players. Since ESO launched Zos has utilized feedback from players in various forms. They have to if they actually want to have a clue about how this game plays.

That sounds like a serious problem if the developers do not know their own game better than their players do....

If that is the case: then they need to invest significant resources immediately into hiring developers who actually play the game and understand how it works.

I just want to know who was responsible for the change in the way Templar heals target other players. That was one of the.... I'll be kind and say nonsensical changes ever to the class and they need to revert that bs. That was also a change I could see being done by a developer who did not actually play the class. So you may have a point.

DoonerSeraph

Jeremy wrote: »

idk wrote: »

Gilvoth wrote: »

ccmedaddy wrote: »

lol @ people thinking ZOS would have ANY idea how to balance this game without class rep input

the class rep program only started around 2 years ago, eso was created many years long before that.
the devs know what they are doing with class balance, the current class rep program is not working, myself and others, believe it never has.

The class rep program is less than a year old so I am not sure you understand what you are actually talking about.

Further, Zos does not know class performance very well. They are far from experts in the game. Until Gil was hired by Zos there were players who know significantly more than Zos about classes and how the game actually played, though Gil no longer plays the game as he used to.

This is normally the case with MMORPGs where Devs learn from the players. Since ESO launched Zos has utilized feedback from players in various forms. They have to if they actually want to have a clue about how this game plays.

That sounds like a serious problem if the developers do not know their own game better than their players do....

If that is the case: then they need to invest significant resources immediately into hiring developers who actually play the game and understand how it works.

I just want to know who was responsible for the change in the way Templar heals target other players. That was one of the.... I'll be kind and say nonsensical changes ever to the class and they need to revert that bs. That was a change I could see being done by a developer who did not actually play the game. So you may have a point.

Being a software developer myself, I don't believe you can ever find one that can play and code for the same game. The best way to ruin a hobby is to turn it into a job.

Although I may be wrong and I hope so.

Jeremy

DoonerSeraph wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

idk wrote: »

Gilvoth wrote: »

ccmedaddy wrote: »

lol @ people thinking ZOS would have ANY idea how to balance this game without class rep input

the class rep program only started around 2 years ago, eso was created many years long before that.
the devs know what they are doing with class balance, the current class rep program is not working, myself and others, believe it never has.

The class rep program is less than a year old so I am not sure you understand what you are actually talking about.

Further, Zos does not know class performance very well. They are far from experts in the game. Until Gil was hired by Zos there were players who know significantly more than Zos about classes and how the game actually played, though Gil no longer plays the game as he used to.

This is normally the case with MMORPGs where Devs learn from the players. Since ESO launched Zos has utilized feedback from players in various forms. They have to if they actually want to have a clue about how this game plays.

That sounds like a serious problem if the developers do not know their own game better than their players do....

If that is the case: then they need to invest significant resources immediately into hiring developers who actually play the game and understand how it works.

I just want to know who was responsible for the change in the way Templar heals target other players. That was one of the.... I'll be kind and say nonsensical changes ever to the class and they need to revert that bs. That was a change I could see being done by a developer who did not actually play the game. So you may have a point.

Being a software developer myself, I don't believe you can ever find one that can play and code for the same game. The best way to ruin a hobby is to turn it into a job.

Although I may be wrong and I hope so.

I"m not talking about coding really. I'm talking about the combat design team and those who are responsible for coming up with the way abilities and spells actually function. These people need to have an intimate understanding of how the game actually plays. Otherwise they are going to make very poor decisions that may negatively affect the game play.

Player input can be useful, but it can't be used as the sole foundation for development. There are just way too many opinions and conflicting motives out there for that to be a reliable source to build a game from. You have to have a team of developers who are actually familiar with the game systems and how they operate and who also have a vision for how the game's combat should work.

therift

I think, Jeremy, that the people who write the game play it as well. I know you're not saying they don't, but Class Representatives were established to help gather relevant feedback and ideas from the player base. Someone has to sift through the communication from millions of players (potentially) to separate the wheat from the chaff.

The Forums is one mechanism. The chat channels managed by Class Reps is another. The system as it is works pretty well, as opposed to the previous system, which was no system.

I'm sure that over time it will improve.

Two things players must do if they really want to impact game development:

1) Participate. Join the Discord discussions, follow the Class Rep Forum threads

2) Compromise. Just because a player thinks an idea should be implemented, or that a current implementation is wrong, doesn't mean that failure to heed is a failure to 'listen to the community'

Regarding Templar heal targeting, if you're referring to changing the AoE of Breath of Life from circle to cone, that change was implemented to force healers to be tactical rather than stand in the middle of the group and spam. It's a change I agree with.

Incidentally, the Twilight Matriarch heal is a circular AoE. Try that skill. Very handy.

Jeremy

therift wrote: »

I think, Jeremy, that the people who write the game play it as well. I know you're not saying they don't, but Class Representatives were established to help gather relevant feedback and ideas from the player base. Someone has to sift through the communication from millions of players (potentially) to separate the wheat from the chaff.

The Forums is one mechanism. The chat channels managed by Class Reps is another. The system as it is works pretty well, as opposed to the previous system, which was no system.

I'm sure that over time it will improve.

Two things players must do if they really want to impact game development:

1) Participate. Join the Discord discussions, follow the Class Rep Forum threads

2) Compromise. Just because a player thinks an idea should be implemented, or that a current implementation is wrong, doesn't mean that failure to heed is a failure to 'listen to the community'

Regarding Templar heal targeting, if you're referring to changing the AoE of Breath of Life from circle to cone, that change was implemented to force healers to be tactical rather than stand in the middle of the group and spam. It's a change I agree with.

Incidentally, the Twilight Matriarch heal is a circular AoE. Try that skill. Very handy.

Standing behind people and spamming is no more tactical than standing in the middle of the group and spamming. So I fail to see what is so "tactical" about that ridiculous change.

The only noticeable change it has is to conflict with the Templar's other abilities (such as ritual of retribution) which require the Templar to position in the center of the group. Class abilities and spells need to work with in sync with one another - not conflict with another. The spell as it was originally designed was far superior to the annoying mess they have turned it into. And Templars cannot use a Twilight Matriarch - though if I could I certainly would as it targets the way a direct heal should target. So bringing that spell up just makes the point for me. That's how heals should work. Because your'e right, not having to stare at the ranged DPS standing behind you to heal them is very handy.

ezio45

buff magic, non pet msorc, mnb and magden. tyz

D0PAMINE

Im happy with the reps so far. It is quite a lot to balance everything based on feedback from everyone of us, whether it's on the forums, in game or on discord and Youtube. There are also unique playstyles to keep in mind, and top tier and low tier performance and fine tuning as well. It's understandable why some are frustrated, but once again, I think the reps do it well.

therift

The only noticeable change it has is to conflict with the Templar's other abilities (such as ritual of retribution) which require the Templar to position in the center of the group. Class abilities and spells need to work with in sync with one another - not conflict with another. The spell as it was originally designed was far superior to the annoying mess they have turned it into. And Templars cannot use a Twilight Matriarch - though if I could I certainly would as it targets the way a direct heal should target. So bringing that spell up just makes the point for me. That's how heals should work. Because your'e right, not having to stare at the ranged DPS standing behind you to heal them is very handy.
Edited by Jeremy on March 27, 2019 7:23PM

With this I agree.

Btw, the Twilight reference was intended to support your point, although I stated I supported the idea that healing should be tactical. While we're on the subject of Templar nerfs adjustments... ahem.... Major Mending.

Jeremy

Taking away our major mending was needlessly hostile as well. Classes are suppose to improve over time - not worsen - and I can honestly say my Templar Healer was a lot more enjoyable to play earlier on in ESO's career. I haven't really approved of any of the healing changes. They've all been (and let me try to self-moderate here because this forum is sensitive to harsh language) less than satisfactory.

So I don't know if it was a class representative who was responsible for these changes or a certain developer. But who ever has been in charge of healing lately - and in particular Templar healing - does not get high marks from me and I wish they would put someone else in charge of that aspect of the game. Because in my opinion they don't seem like they even play the class. If their vision for healing is begging for people to stack into their area of effects or spinning the camera around to try and heal people behind them and/or chasing DD around the room to try and heal them with directional heals then they can keep it. That's just annoying and not the kind of game play I'm interested in.

Universe

Shantu wrote: »

Additionally, the idea of global balance is a myth. ZOS is trying to take a system that has little issue (PVE), hard press it into another (PVP) where numerous issues arise, and then try to balance both systems at once. As we have witnessed repeatedly, it's a recipe for failure.

Indeed.
The chance for the developers to actually balance PVP and PVE together(same system) & properly is similar to the chance for me to discover the true meaning of life, how the Universe and all life were created in the first place and what was before our known Universe
Also, Is the Universe truly infinite ? How many realities are in existence ?
Simple theories like the Big Bang won't suffice, I'm looking for the real & absolute answers.

When I will have the answers to all of the above questions, ESO will be balanced, PVP and PVE, same system
I hope you all have some patience when I try to do my best
Probably just 5 million years left until my research will be completed!

The OP made valid claims though it won't matter until PVP and PVE are balanced separately, i.e 2 combat systems, 1 system for each gameplay.
If PVP & PVE will remain on a single combat system, ESO will never truly achieve balance.
Players, Class Reps and the developers themselves, each have their own opinion about the systems and when there is no harmony between decision makers, there is chaos.
If PVP combat balance improves, PVE overall enjoyment and combat balance decreases and vice versa.
You may want to believe it is possible to balance properly PVP and PVE on the same combat system, I do too, but there is 0.0000000000000000000000000000...1% for this to happen(optimistic with my 0's btw).

TL;DR post - PVP and PVE shouldn't be balanced together(same system) and if the the developers insist that this is the only way they are going to balance the game, there will never be true combat balance.
There may be some improvements, but not an actual balance.

russelmmendoza

Representatives think they know better.
They dont know what all of us wants.
Devs only gets the opinion the supposedly representative.
Representatives dont listen to all the players.

Just make an ingame voting mechanics, that you can send to all the players actually playing the game.

Those representatives that you want, dont carry the actual wants and needs of all the players in this game.

I, for one, did not like any of the decissions made by the reps and devs that was actually put in this game.

Nerouyn

Cryptical wrote: »

The 'class rep' may not be the best way to handle gameplay balance.

You make some valid criticims but I'll add another.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/416595/class-reps-who-does-what

Sparr0w wrote: »

Yep, each person chosen does play a main role, but with 1000's of days played they all have indepth knowledge of each class and playstyle.

This appears to be same kind of insular thinking which has sunk other games. Their selection process isn't representative. They choose people who LOVE what's already there, so we would expect them to defend the status quo. Never mind what most players would like or what's best for the game.

Cryptical

I gave up on this thread yesterday.

The topic was the program of class representatives, specifically that there are fundamental discrepancies between the program’s structure and the way the personnel perform.

If it were an employment listing, the job title “class representative” and the essential function listed “focus on one class” would obviously be at deep differences with the way the employees perform according to role.

Checkmath and a few others seem to keep thinking I am nitpicking on the label. I’m not, the label is just a symptom. I see the disease as the discrepancy between the program’s stated focus on one class and the people’s natural focus on roles.

I tried several ways to make the nuance clear. I can only conclude that checkmath is intentionally misunderstanding me.

xxthir13enxx

Gilvoth wrote: »

it should be performed by a "bot"
someone that is not involved and not have the opportunity to be bias.

a bot program in this situation would be perfect, because he would "not have an opinion that could be used to thwart outcomes"

Yes....Let the bots decide....

What could go wrong.......lol

I guess the problem with changing history is...if no on knows it happened...how do they know to avoid it in the future.....

WuffyCerulei

Many of the class reps play different roles and classes. Only a couple seem to stick to 1 or maybe 2 specific roles. And the class reps are how our feedback is drilled into the devs’ heads. If it weren’t for the reps, we’d have cast times on our shields.