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

Cryptical

The 'class rep' may not be the best way to handle gameplay balance. Such a group based on classes inherently places the advocates into adversarial positions with each other. Example - as the nightblade representative pushes for buffs that the sorc representative seeks to 'match' in order to 'keep up', with the templar class representative making points about mobility (stuck in their 'house') as compared to the NB, as the DK representative watches their class get the shaft.

That leads to a litany of Nerf This / Buff That threads and anger.

This. Is. Not. Ideal. At. All.

I propose that instead of people to represent the various classes, that there be a council of people who represent a ROLE. Tank, DPS, Healer. The dungeons are balanced based upon roles, not classes. The trials are balanced based upon roles, not classes.

The group finder does not discriminate between a sorc tank and a nb tank and a dk tank - they are all tanks. And a person who prefers the tanking style of gaming will be a better representative for that role in ANY class than a person who prefers DPS and thus has a list of DPS characters. Go with the flow.

Furthermore, the goal of all the balance shifting has always been that any character can fulfill any ROLE... that any character can meet the minimum level of capability needed to heal in a dungeon, to tank in a dungeon, etc. That is a system based on the role of the character, not the class, yet we have class balance updates.

I feel that the entire shifting of the game into the situation of dodge-the-one-shot / burn-past-mechanics / 3Dps-1Tank / 4Dps-that-dodge-alot that we have is a result of the combination of neglecting attention to the roles and the natural enjoyment of seeing that enemy health bar drop like a rock.

The game demands people choose a role for their character. The stated intent of the balancing is for all characters to be able to fill that role. Let's actually staff the player representatives with people to represent a role, not a class. At least two people per role, to account for mag versus stam. Better would be three per role, to allow each person some personal flex space in their character roster.

Comments? Improvements? Flames?

Checkmath

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.

Urvoth

Wouldn’t make sense for PvP.

VaranisArano

I think the issue may be as simple as:

Some people play a ROLE.
Some people play a CLASS.
Some people play a mixture.
PVP has totally different roles that PVE that don't fit neatly into the tank/healer/DD trinity and ZOS still balances PVP and PVE together.

So Class is probably the best way to look at a variety of different roles. If you look at nightblade, for example, you can get a feel for how it performs (or doesn't) as a PVE healer, tank, and DD while also looking at how their skills and variety of playstyles fit in to Cyrodiil and Battlegrounds. Obviously, you need reps with a firm grasp on the different playstyles and how their class performs in different roles.

therift

I thought the primary purpose of Class Representatives is to gather input from players and channel that to ZoS.

If there is any 'competitiveness' between classes, and if there is a belief that nerfs/buffs is a zero-sum proposition between classes, then those issues arise from players, not Class Representatives.

My understanding is that Class Reps work to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

Tzayad

I'm 100% sure they already have role reps.

They also have chosen people smart enough not to do what you're describing. No changes are needed.

Gilvoth

all day long in zone chat every day i have seen over and over again class representatives claiming their opinion and belittlement of other peoples opinion and how their opinion is stronger and they know better.
we hear their opinions here on the forum and many other places how they think and many of us disagree with their opinions and i have heard from my guild mates in trading guilds that they do the same on redit and many other places on the internet.
they represent us, yet they disagree with our opinions.
they ask for nerfs where we do not agree with the need for nerfs.
they ask for buffs where we do not think needs buffs.

the ability for a person to inject their own opinion to developers, and claim it is the wishes of the community, encourages me to believe that the program shouldn't exist.

we need a different way for each of us "@account name entire eso database" all of us, not just forum users, no, all of us.
all of the accounts on eso community for our voices to be heard on what we think and want rather than the current situation.
it's bias.
they claim we "must come to them" when that is not only impractical, but it is also impossible as MANY people do not even know about the program.
Many people have never even come to the forum, their certainly not going to go to a rep.
and i don't blame them.

Cryptical

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.

Ogou

Gilvoth wrote: »

all day long in zone chat every day i have seen over and over again class representatives claiming their opinion and belittlement of other peoples opinion and how their opinion is stronger and they know better.
we hear their opinions here on the forum and many other places how they think and many of us disagree with their opinions and i have heard from my guild mates in trading guilds that they do the same on redit and many other places on the internet.
they represent us, yet they disagree with our opinions.
they ask for nerfs where we do not agree with the need for nerfs.
they ask for buffs where we do not think needs buffs.

the ability for a person to inject their own opinion to developers, and claim it is the wishes of the community, encourages me to believe that the program shouldn't exist.

we need a different way for each of us "@account name entire eso database" all of us, not just forum users, no, all of us.
all of the accounts on eso community for our voices to be heard on what we think and want rather than the current situation.
it's bias.
they claim we "must come to them" when that is not only impractical, but it is also impossible as MANY people do not even know about the program.
Many people have never even come to the forum, their certainly not going to go to a rep.
and i don't blame them.

It's weird, because I've never seen any of these, not in game, not here, not on Reddit. Mind giving us an example of when such a thing happened?

theyancey

A complete separation of PvE and PvP solves many woes. Let the PvP reps go on and on and on about balance and nerf this and buff that. Let the PvE ones deal with quests and such. The wants, needs, and desires of these two disparate and antagonistic groups are just not compatible.

ccmedaddy

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

therift

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.

Gilvoth

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.

therift

Gilvoth wrote: »

the ability for a person to inject their own opinion to developers, and claim it is the wishes of the community, encourages me to believe that the program shouldn't exist.

Kind of like what you're doing here.

Tandor

Personally I'd rather have a lead developer for each class who would coordinate discussions on the appropriate class forum. In the past whenever developers have paid preferential attention to a small handful of players it has tended not to work out very well, and it's much the same with favoured guilds. Communication between the players and developers needs to be much more open and transparent.

Gilvoth

therift wrote: »

Gilvoth wrote: »

the ability for a person to inject their own opinion to developers, and claim it is the wishes of the community, encourages me to believe that the program shouldn't exist.

Kind of like what you're doing here.

im not a class representative.
i dont speak to the devs.
i do not represent the the community.

so "no"
what you just said "is not true"

Checkmath

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.

Checkmath

Gilvoth wrote: »

therift wrote: »

Gilvoth wrote: »

the ability for a person to inject their own opinion to developers, and claim it is the wishes of the community, encourages me to believe that the program shouldn't exist.

Kind of like what you're doing here.

im not a class representative.
i dont speak to the devs.
i do not represent the the community.

so "no"
what you just said "is not true"

Erm the class rep program is not even one year old yet. Are you sure you are informed about what the reps are actually doing?
Btw I have not seen any rep talking in zone chat as you described ever....

casparian

Such a group based on classes inherently places the advocates into adversarial positions with each other. Example - as the nightblade representative pushes for buffs that the sorc representative seeks to 'match' in order to 'keep up', with the templar class representative making points about mobility (stuck in their 'house') as compared to the NB, as the DK representative watches their class get the shaft.

As Check has already pointed out, that is not how the program works at all.

idk

What Checkmath stated above is what I figured most already understood about the group. It seemed clear there was role knowledge involved in the group. At least it did for me.

Cryptical wrote: »

The game demands people choose a role for their character. The stated intent of the balancing is for all characters to be able to fill that role.

The game does not demand such a thing. The need for a role depends on what you are doing. Case in point, Cyrodiil often has magicka users running resto/destroy so whey can do damage and support. Being tanky in PvP does not mean you are a tank.

Further, Zos billed this game as having blurred the lines with the trinity and with all the changes in the game that is still very much part of the game.

It is only when dealing with group content, does one really need to be specialized. The more challenging the content the more that specialization is important.

therift

Gilvoth wrote: »

therift wrote: »

Gilvoth wrote: »

the ability for a person to inject their own opinion to developers, and claim it is the wishes of the community, encourages me to believe that the program shouldn't exist.

Kind of like what you're doing here.

im not a class representative.
i dont speak to the devs.
i do not represent the the community.

so "no"
what you just said "is not true"

But you stated you want to do away with Class Representatives and replace it with a way for you to speak directly to the developers, because, in your opinion, your preferences are not implemented and, in your opinion, your preferences are shared by 'the community'.

In other words, you believe you know 'the community' best, and that your view of 'the community opinion' should prevail uber alles.

Gilvoth

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"

VaranisArano

theyancey wrote: »

A complete separation of PvE and PvP solves many woes. Let the PvP reps go on and on and on about balance and nerf this and buff that. Let the PvE ones deal with quests and such. The wants, needs, and desires of these two disparate and antagonistic groups are just not compatible.

And yet the Devs remain committed to that idea, continuing to balance PVE and PVP together, including many reasons for PVE players to try out PVP and for PVP players to play PVE content.

Unless ZOS throws out their committment to balancing them together, any Class Rep program - and especially if the focus is leaning more towards a combat rep program - has to work for both PVE and PVP.

As a player who does both PVE and PVP, I've been fairly pleased with the Class Rep program so far.

Minno

VaranisArano wrote: »

theyancey wrote: »

A complete separation of PvE and PvP solves many woes. Let the PvP reps go on and on and on about balance and nerf this and buff that. Let the PvE ones deal with quests and such. The wants, needs, and desires of these two disparate and antagonistic groups are just not compatible.

And yet the Devs remain committed to that idea, continuing to balance PVE and PVP together, including many reasons for PVE players to try out PVP and for PVP players to play PVE content.

Unless ZOS throws out their committment to balancing them together, any Class Rep program - and especially if the focus is leaning more towards a combat rep program - has to work for both PVE and PVP.

As a player who does both PVE and PVP, I've been fairly pleased with the Class Rep program so far.

PVE/PVP under the same system would work if PVE had similar mechanics to PVP (major defiles, bleeds, high mobility targets, random unknown encounters requiring more balanced burst builds.)

But sadly it doesnt, not sure why people are trying to thrown PVP under the bus when PVE changes nerfed PVP more than the reverse lol.

idk

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.

therift

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"

Hmm. And who would program the "bot" to sort through millions of potential inputs, all worded differently, to determine which opinions should prevail? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Gilvoth

send questionnaires to ALL the@names asking questions and letting us ALL have a voice the same exact way they did for us in the closed beta.
it harms nothing and does not open doors for biased opinions.
the only problem with it would be if someone has more than one account but even in that case it is not as much of a problem because at most the person would be limited on how many they actually bought. so his voice would not be big compared to the entire population.

mairwen85

Sounds like a fundamental misunderstanding of the programme.

therift

theyancey wrote: »

A complete separation of PvE and PvP solves many woes. Let the PvP reps go on and on and on about balance and nerf this and buff that. Let the PvE ones deal with quests and such. The wants, needs, and desires of these two disparate and antagonistic groups are just not compatible.

Nonsense.

The correct solution for the problem you believe exists would be to balance the game around PvP, which is Build vs Build, and scale the PvE content, which is Build vs Software, appropriately.

It would be far easier to adjust the health of a Dungeon boss or the effects of a Trial mechanic than the amount of work required to chop the game in two.

Once upon a time, 30k dps was sufficient to clear all PvE content. It still is.

therift

Gilvoth wrote: »

send questionnaires to ALL the@names asking questions and letting us ALL have a voice the same exact way they did for us in the closed beta.
it harms nothing and does not open doors for biased opinions.
the only problem with it would be if someone has more than one account but even in that case it is not as much of a problem because at most the person would be limited on how many they actually bought. so his voice would not be big compared to the entire population.

So... you want the game developers to spend all their time reading and evaluating player input, leaving no time at all to work on the game.

Let's put your idea to a real world test:

1) Please read every thread title ever posted in the Forum. Not just the General Discussion subforum, but the others on combat, mechanics, group content, and PvP as well.

2) Based on your perusal of player input, provide us a list, in order of importance, of what players say should be done with the game.

3) Read all posts from players in each Forum thread. Summarize the opinions expressed in concrete, actionable steps that need to be implemented in the base game code.

I'm completely serious. I expect you to prove your idea is practical.

If you feel the challenge is unreasonably difficult, then you will understand why the Class Representative program exists.

Better start reading ASAP. I'm waiting

DoonerSeraph

I think they should rename the program to "Combat Reps", that makes more sense since those people play the games in a large array of roles and specs.

I also think that having different biases over a certain topic is positive, since by analyzing something by many perspectives, if you are intelligent enough to not flip out and be disrespectful, enables a very healthy degree of discussion. And even if behind closed doors, the Rep program allows people from the community to discuss with Devs.