Judging by their eso live "guests" choices this one will be humorous.

How about, at the very least, they don't consider people with marks on their accounts or people on 2nd or 3rd accounts?

That and let's not have any "talks about themselves in the 3rd person" egomaniacs?

Nelson_Rebel wrote: »

Dredlord wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

Dredlord wrote: »

Astrid_V wrote: »

Malamar1229 wrote: »

clv wrote: »

Malamar1229 wrote: »

Voxicity wrote: »

Malamar1229 wrote: »

Set an age limit.

Oh and obviously about half the names listed already I'm pretty sure have been banned at some point.

Quite honestly not keen about this community representation being in the hands of a bunch of 19 year olds.

Lord of the Flies online IMO.

#SorcLivesMatter is exactly the kind of thing I'd expect from a 19 year old's signature

Not really. I've got at least 17 years on that assumption. That is an old Sig from the dark brotherhood era when sorc was arguably at it's lowest point. Not at all indicative of maturity or age...don't be bitter. Millennials are well known for their "what are you going to do for me" attitude and the kids in this game have as much integrity as a Ford. No thank you,

attacking a playerbase for their assumed age is pretty indicative of maturity. literally zero reason to insert your anti-millenial agenda in here when it has nothing to do with the topic at hand?

Well it does. Don't miss the carpet next time. Quite clearly stated we don't want a bunch of 19 yr old representatives. It's also quite clear you don't PvP because there's an age group that brings toxicity to a new level...and I'll give you a guess at that age group.

Nope, YOU don't want them.
I have no problem with 19 year old representative if he knows the game and class he plays.

Not many 19 year olds that have the maturity and experience to relay community feedback without bias and not take offence at the way some community members give feedback. The one that do likely don’t play MMOs

I know plenty of 30 and 40 year old people who also lack those qualities.

Maturity is something each person can be different at, just because someone is older or younger doesn't mean they know how to act like a mature adult and work without bias.

Cool story bro, now that you have mastered the straw man argument and proved there are immature older ppl.

Perhaps we can agree that fact doesnt change in any way shape or form, how few mature 19 years olds exist, also play eso and are itching to be a community rep.

Give your head a shake...

Sorry gotta agee with Tureles.


The majority of immature people are actually adults who are trying to be young, or bashing the younger generation in a kind of twisted crusade because cultural norms have dramatically shifted over the past two decades.


Just what I see.

The majority of immature people are adults that want to be young, and according to that it follows that the majority of mature people are teens and pre-teens? Are you serious?

@Murador178 & @Ragnaroek93 thanks for nominating me for the sorcs, appreciated. I'll do my best if I get on the team.

Are you mooks still trying to vote on the forums ? Read it again, you dont vote on the forums you send an email.

You can debate who will be a good representative. But ultimately it will come down to who paid attention to detail. Keep voting on the forums though this is too funny.

Voxicity wrote: »

I wonder if it would be possible to give our 'non-support' for players who have been nominated in this thread

I guess it would be considered bashing, but I'm not sure I'd like someone who has wished cancer upon me to be in such a position

(Not that those words bother me, I would just prefer professionalism from people potentially working more closely with the development team, not just some popular players with a bad attitude)

I think ZoS has more tact than that to promote players who participate in that sort of behavior for these roles. Plus this position is more about discussing bugs and major flaws with the classes, not necessarily if they're the greatest players of their respective class. Many people seem to be missing that major part about this whole discussion. I mainly mention that since people who are more prone to toxicity come from a position where their ego (skill usually being related) is involved.

Elsterchen wrote: »

Gilliamtherogue wrote: »

Voxicity wrote: »

I wonder if it would be possible to give our 'non-support' for players who have been nominated in this thread

I guess it would be considered bashing, but I'm not sure I'd like someone who has wished cancer upon me to be in such a position

(Not that those words bother me, I would just prefer professionalism from people potentially working more closely with the development team, not just some popular players with a bad attitude)

I think ZoS has more tact than that to promote players who participate in that sort of behavior for these roles. Plus this position is more about discussing bugs and major flaws with the classes, not necessarily if they're the greatest players of their respective class. Many people seem to be missing that major part about this whole discussion. I mainly mention that since people who are more prone to toxicity come from a position where their ego (skill usually being related) is involved.

@Gilliamtherogue as it stands now, I don't know and I am not able to envision how this is supposed to work. Maybe anyone can clarify what exactly is expected of the representatives and how they are going to achieve this goal? ( @ZOS_GinaBruno; @ZOS_JessicaFolsom )

"Pain points" are pretty obvious from just reading the forum, I assume this is done by moderators. At least we are assured it is done, now and then.

Validation of such "pain points" as well as working ways to solve pressure involves a look and analysis of hard data - something not available and not easily obtainable by players, beeing representaives or not.

So, please: What exactly are the representatives for?

I’ll give you an example.

Right now, for wardens, one of the pain points is putting down our trees. We usually use the trees as an “oh crap” heal, but because of the weird interaction of the ground target heals with the GCD system in laggy PvP situations, we often end up spamming the buttons and STILL no trees. (Placing trees is most similar to breaking free from eclipse IMO). If we’re running forward and cast the trees straight at our feet, by the time the trees start growing the ground target we selected is technically behind us... therefore we don’t have LOS on it and therefore the cast fails. It’s a pain point. A fix would be making sure you can’t even place the ground target until the GCD is ready, and giving the tree placement 360 degree LOS... neither of which would change the “balance” of the trees, but both would lead to far less cursing into headsets

Elsterchen wrote: »

Thogard wrote: »

Elsterchen wrote: »

Gilliamtherogue wrote: »

Voxicity wrote: »

I wonder if it would be possible to give our 'non-support' for players who have been nominated in this thread

I guess it would be considered bashing, but I'm not sure I'd like someone who has wished cancer upon me to be in such a position

(Not that those words bother me, I would just prefer professionalism from people potentially working more closely with the development team, not just some popular players with a bad attitude)

I think ZoS has more tact than that to promote players who participate in that sort of behavior for these roles. Plus this position is more about discussing bugs and major flaws with the classes, not necessarily if they're the greatest players of their respective class. Many people seem to be missing that major part about this whole discussion. I mainly mention that since people who are more prone to toxicity come from a position where their ego (skill usually being related) is involved.

@Gilliamtherogue as it stands now, I don't know and I am not able to envision how this is supposed to work. Maybe anyone can clarify what exactly is expected of the representatives and how they are going to achieve this goal? ( @ZOS_GinaBruno; @ZOS_JessicaFolsom )

"Pain points" are pretty obvious from just reading the forum, I assume this is done by moderators. At least we are assured it is done, now and then.

Validation of such "pain points" as well as working ways to solve pressure involves a look and analysis of hard data - something not available and not easily obtainable by players, beeing representaives or not.

So, please: What exactly are the representatives for?

I’ll give you an example.

Right now, for wardens, one of the pain points is putting down our trees. We usually use the trees as an “oh crap” heal, but because of the weird interaction of the ground target heals with the GCD system in laggy PvP situations, we often end up spamming the buttons and STILL no trees. (Placing trees is most similar to breaking free from eclipse IMO). If we’re running forward and cast the trees straight at our feet, by the time the trees start growing the ground target we selected is technically behind us... therefore we don’t have LOS on it and therefore the cast fails. It’s a pain point. A fix would be making sure you can’t even place the ground target until the GCD is ready, and giving the tree placement 360 degree LOS... neither of which would change the “balance” of the trees, but both would lead to far less cursing into headsets

ty @Thogard, your example is crystal clear laying out a "pain point" ... I somewhat still fail to see a job for a representative here. This "pain point" is explained in the forum, right? So appart from relaying the already written down information moderators read in the forum already ... I don't see any use for a representative, yet a group of representatives, here.

Its just making information flow slower (adding one more step), more repetative (information is already available to and presumably known by mods) and doesn't provide any means to actually solve the problem stated (there is no validation nor evaluation). In sum there is no gain from putting a player to work in his/her freetime to simply identify this "pain point", hence no reason to ask for someone to spend his/her free time doing so.

Please correct me if I am wrong, i just like to understand.

Other games that have used similar systems will often focus on having the flow of information be two ways.. not just one. On one hand, with how melodramatic some players can be over minor issues, it might be hard for the devs to prioritize the issues they see posted here.. they could ask the class rep which ones are really important and which ones aren’t that serious.

But if they were thinking of making a change they could also ask the class rep and get an honest and reliable answer. If, for instance, they were thinking about making the warden trees easier to use by making it a circle around the warden instead of a placeable ground target, they could ask the rep now that might impact the class. (It would fix the bug but it would hurt their group utility and their ability to use the trees to heal teammates that are farther away).

The forums are a lot of raw information but it has not been ordered or classified. The class reps are a way for the devs to prioritize, classify, and focus on important information (assuming it’s a good class rep) as well as a source of reliable feedback for hypothetical changes the devs might be considering.

Edit: usually the class reps would sign an NDA saying that they’re not allowed to discuss potential balance or mechanics changes before the patch notes drop, but they would probably be asked for feedback prior to the notes being posted on the boards.

So you can't balance this game, you want the community to do it? is this a troll?

Elsterchen wrote: »

Ok, I admit I have no idea how this worked out for other games. I do recollect a seemingly similar approach on eso (the guild summit) ... and i just don't like that sort of thing repeated.

How does the setup of representatives differ from what we already did experience in the guild summit and thereafter? How can the representives be protected from player hatred as well as interlectual neglegt by ZOS?

The main thing I still deem missing is any tool for the representatives to enable them taking a stance (in both ways: against trolls from the community as well as non-wanted and non-needed "balance" from ZOS). In my opion the only way to solve this is hard data. I may be wrong, maybe there is some other way to ensure this goal, yet, its the only option i see.

From my understanding of what Gina has said here it's very different and people are getting very confused about how this works.

My understanding is. 10 players will be grouped to work together to write a quarterly report which will be sent to Wrobel and the combat team highlighting current pain points and issues with classes. The combat team will then use this information and make their own choices on how to solve the problems.
Whilst there will likely be some back and forth and maybe even some player ideas taken into consideration or used, the people being taken on as reps are feedback givers, not class designers.
It's worth noting even with the Morrowind testing at ZOS many of those who went raged because ZOS didn't do what they suggested and did their own thing. ZOS have yet to show they're a company which make changes based on whispers of select players, mostly because the select players you think would have that pull are always annoyed at ZOS for every change made.

Additionally everything is going to be published, meaning whatever is being said isn't snuck away under some NDA.

The reason other games have NDA's (and I am thinking EVE Online here) is because the elected player reps were being shown future game content which CCP didn't want the general community to know about. It's unlikely ZOS are going to be telling these reps about new expansion content past skill changes, meaning an NDS won't be required.

Turelus wrote: »

Elsterchen wrote: »

Ok, I admit I have no idea how this worked out for other games. I do recollect a seemingly similar approach on eso (the guild summit) ... and i just don't like that sort of thing repeated.

How does the setup of representatives differ from what we already did experience in the guild summit and thereafter? How can the representives be protected from player hatred as well as interlectual neglegt by ZOS?

The main thing I still deem missing is any tool for the representatives to enable them taking a stance (in both ways: against trolls from the community as well as non-wanted and non-needed "balance" from ZOS). In my opion the only way to solve this is hard data. I may be wrong, maybe there is some other way to ensure this goal, yet, its the only option i see.

From my understanding of what Gina has said here it's very different and people are getting very confused about how this works.

My understanding is. 10 players will be grouped to work together to write a quarterly report which will be sent to Wrobel and the combat team highlighting current pain points and issues with classes. The combat team will then use this information and make their own choices on how to solve the problems.
Whilst there will likely be some back and forth and maybe even some player ideas taken into consideration or used, the people being taken on as reps are feedback givers, not class designers.
It's worth noting even with the Morrowind testing at ZOS many of those who went raged because ZOS didn't do what they suggested and did their own thing. ZOS have yet to show they're a company which make changes based on whispers of select players, mostly because the select players you think would have that pull are always annoyed at ZOS for every change made.

Additionally everything is going to be published, meaning whatever is being said isn't snuck away under some NDA.

The reason other games have NDA's (and I am thinking EVE Online here) is because the elected player reps were being shown future game content which CCP didn't want the general community to know about. It's unlikely ZOS are going to be telling these reps about new expansion content past skill changes, meaning an NDS won't be required.

Well exept its thought to be quarterly (opposed to guild summit beeing supposed to be yearly) I fail to see the difference. I searched for the original announcement of guild summit, but could not find it. Yet a comment from gina explaining might be sufficient:
(source: #44 ; thread: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/133893/guild-summit/p2

text: "Hey everyone! Just to clear up any confusion, we have invited 20 guild representatives from all over North America and Europe. We wish we could have invited everyone, but space was limited. The purpose of the Guild Summit is to show them some of the things we're working on, discuss some concerns about current issues, and get their feedback and suggestions. This is not meant to be a secret; the entire summit is not under NDA, so everyone in attendance will be able to talk publicly about everything that was shown and discussed. In addition, we will be publishing a round-up next week on our website. "

I leave this standing as it is, maybe i am to narrow minded to understand and I don't want to spoil something, that might be working and good.

However, I really would love to see the original announcement of guild summit (published 2014 August/September), if anyone stumbles over it please link me.

Elsterchen wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

Elsterchen wrote: »

Ok, I admit I have no idea how this worked out for other games. I do recollect a seemingly similar approach on eso (the guild summit) ... and i just don't like that sort of thing repeated.

How does the setup of representatives differ from what we already did experience in the guild summit and thereafter? How can the representives be protected from player hatred as well as interlectual neglegt by ZOS?

The main thing I still deem missing is any tool for the representatives to enable them taking a stance (in both ways: against trolls from the community as well as non-wanted and non-needed "balance" from ZOS). In my opion the only way to solve this is hard data. I may be wrong, maybe there is some other way to ensure this goal, yet, its the only option i see.

From my understanding of what Gina has said here it's very different and people are getting very confused about how this works.

My understanding is. 10 players will be grouped to work together to write a quarterly report which will be sent to Wrobel and the combat team highlighting current pain points and issues with classes. The combat team will then use this information and make their own choices on how to solve the problems.
Whilst there will likely be some back and forth and maybe even some player ideas taken into consideration or used, the people being taken on as reps are feedback givers, not class designers.
It's worth noting even with the Morrowind testing at ZOS many of those who went raged because ZOS didn't do what they suggested and did their own thing. ZOS have yet to show they're a company which make changes based on whispers of select players, mostly because the select players you think would have that pull are always annoyed at ZOS for every change made.

Additionally everything is going to be published, meaning whatever is being said isn't snuck away under some NDA.

The reason other games have NDA's (and I am thinking EVE Online here) is because the elected player reps were being shown future game content which CCP didn't want the general community to know about. It's unlikely ZOS are going to be telling these reps about new expansion content past skill changes, meaning an NDS won't be required.

Well exept its thought to be quarterly (opposed to guild summit beeing supposed to be yearly) I fail to see the difference. I searched for the original announcement of guild summit, but could not find it. Yet a comment from gina explaining might be sufficient:
(source: #44 ; thread: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/133893/guild-summit/p2

text: "Hey everyone! Just to clear up any confusion, we have invited 20 guild representatives from all over North America and Europe. We wish we could have invited everyone, but space was limited. The purpose of the Guild Summit is to show them some of the things we're working on, discuss some concerns about current issues, and get their feedback and suggestions. This is not meant to be a secret; the entire summit is not under NDA, so everyone in attendance will be able to talk publicly about everything that was shown and discussed. In addition, we will be publishing a round-up next week on our website. "

I leave this standing as it is, maybe i am to narrow minded to understand and I don't want to spoil something, that might be working and good.

However, I really would love to see the original announcement of guild summit (published 2014 August/September), if anyone stumbles over it please link me.

The guild summit happened once and wasn't NDA, you can listen to the entire thing on YouTube as @Dominoid uploaded it (I'm assuming this is the same Dominoid).
The summit was clearly set out as ZOS giving out pre-release information and gathering feedback as this is set out as players giving pinpointed feedback to ZOS on a specific area (class issues).

How this will go is yet to be seen, but from the way Gina has explained it here it doesn't seem like it's going to be any kind of special deal for these people with getting information nor being able to directly change the game. Just providing feedback on an area they've proved they're well knowledgable in.

A good rep will also be someone who reads the forums and connects with their classes community to gather additional information to sort through, digest and pass on.

Dominoid wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

Elsterchen wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

Elsterchen wrote: »

Ok, I admit I have no idea how this worked out for other games. I do recollect a seemingly similar approach on eso (the guild summit) ... and i just don't like that sort of thing repeated.

How does the setup of representatives differ from what we already did experience in the guild summit and thereafter? How can the representives be protected from player hatred as well as interlectual neglegt by ZOS?

The main thing I still deem missing is any tool for the representatives to enable them taking a stance (in both ways: against trolls from the community as well as non-wanted and non-needed "balance" from ZOS). In my opion the only way to solve this is hard data. I may be wrong, maybe there is some other way to ensure this goal, yet, its the only option i see.

From my understanding of what Gina has said here it's very different and people are getting very confused about how this works.

My understanding is. 10 players will be grouped to work together to write a quarterly report which will be sent to Wrobel and the combat team highlighting current pain points and issues with classes. The combat team will then use this information and make their own choices on how to solve the problems.
Whilst there will likely be some back and forth and maybe even some player ideas taken into consideration or used, the people being taken on as reps are feedback givers, not class designers.
It's worth noting even with the Morrowind testing at ZOS many of those who went raged because ZOS didn't do what they suggested and did their own thing. ZOS have yet to show they're a company which make changes based on whispers of select players, mostly because the select players you think would have that pull are always annoyed at ZOS for every change made.

Additionally everything is going to be published, meaning whatever is being said isn't snuck away under some NDA.

The reason other games have NDA's (and I am thinking EVE Online here) is because the elected player reps were being shown future game content which CCP didn't want the general community to know about. It's unlikely ZOS are going to be telling these reps about new expansion content past skill changes, meaning an NDS won't be required.

Well exept its thought to be quarterly (opposed to guild summit beeing supposed to be yearly) I fail to see the difference. I searched for the original announcement of guild summit, but could not find it. Yet a comment from gina explaining might be sufficient:
(source: #44 ; thread: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/133893/guild-summit/p2

text: "Hey everyone! Just to clear up any confusion, we have invited 20 guild representatives from all over North America and Europe. We wish we could have invited everyone, but space was limited. The purpose of the Guild Summit is to show them some of the things we're working on, discuss some concerns about current issues, and get their feedback and suggestions. This is not meant to be a secret; the entire summit is not under NDA, so everyone in attendance will be able to talk publicly about everything that was shown and discussed. In addition, we will be publishing a round-up next week on our website. "

I leave this standing as it is, maybe i am to narrow minded to understand and I don't want to spoil something, that might be working and good.

However, I really would love to see the original announcement of guild summit (published 2014 August/September), if anyone stumbles over it please link me.

The guild summit happened once and wasn't NDA, you can listen to the entire thing on YouTube as Dominoid uploaded it (I'm assuming this is the same Dominoid).
The summit was clearly set out as ZOS giving out pre-release information and gathering feedback as this is set out as players giving pinpointed feedback to ZOS on a specific area (class issues).

How this will go is yet to be seen, but from the way Gina has explained it here it doesn't seem like it's going to be any kind of special deal for these people with getting information nor being able to directly change the game. Just providing feedback on an area they've proved they're well knowledgable in.

A good rep will also be someone who reads the forums and connects with their classes community to gather additional information to sort through, digest and pass on.

Same Dominoid. The audio was provided to me from a participant, I'd have to check old emails to give proper credit. I did not attend myself. There was an NDA involved as they couldn't disclose anything they might have seen walking around ZOS HQ (someone's computer screen, whiteboards with story layout, etc) but the actual meeting itself wasn't and at least a few articles were written on the meeting itself.

Article 1 - Article 2 - Article 3 - Article 4

It's interesting to read through those old stories to see what was implemented and what might still be to come.

Thanks for clarifications.