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

ak_pvp · October 2018

The decision to create an NDA is the exact opposite of what the program should be. Where the players would give insight, and have it filtered and then sent to the devs. The first issue was that they only accepted pain points, and this would be changed in their own traditionally ZOS style way. (Which I have already made a thread on)

As stated we cannot directly suggest the changes to remedy the pain points, however currently been given insight from the reps to what potential solutions there would be in real time along with the quarterly meeting notes that they can then refer to the devs. This however won't exist with a stricter NDA and the players would lose even more say directly.

It would mean that the reps are first point of call for any changes. Though I think the reps I have spoke too are solid, there is always a chance that some changes that the overall player-base might/mightn't want could not be addressed correctly if limited to them only. Or a potential issue where the NDA is circumvented in secret as raised in the other thread and "more transparent" information is leaked to a small portion of the playerbase.

Another possibility is that this is just an effective gag. Class reps have been dissatisfied this is no surprise or secret after the murkmire , and by placing an NDA it is a lot easier to stop ZOS looking bad by preventing the majority of the playerbase from knowing and critiquing certain changes and the overall thought processes of the dev team.

The entire goal of this was to be more transparent with the reps, however ZOS is forgetting that they are players first, the point is in the title. Representatives. This is even mentioned in Gina's post: Just as a reminder, the job of the Class Reps is to act as advisers, helping to surface issues important to you all and representing the community’s perspective during discussions with the development team. [...] This change to the program is intended to allow the Class Reps to more effectively fulfill their role as advisers. However an NDA at its core is means that they do the representation and ability to surface issues part worse, (best case scenario the same) not better and doesn't factor in the other negatives.
TL;DR: You have to consider the players that are being represented.

If they do want to improve the system, how about by recording and publishing the voice calls, or opening the ZOS/Rep communication discord as a read only for the public. Then we can see how well they represent us in action and the thoughts of the devs, i.e. changes and justifications. You can't fit all the topics and what-ifs into a single quarterly rep note post, as useful as it is. And since we lost the monthly... quarterly... neverly dev updates by ZOS themselves, it would be nice to hear the discourse from the first party and can know that it is purely conceptual as opposed to when we have it wrote up in patch note form we know that it is intended directly and not much can sway that.

Poll below. What do you think about this. Of course the reasons above are based entirely on skepticism and may be completely wrong, however they do have potential to happen and is worth a proper discussion about.

This thread was created to consolidate opinions and in a poll format as opposed to a basic announcement post so please don't insta close it.
@ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom @ZOS_Wrobel Probably worth monitoring

Turelus · October 2018

Keep the new NDA system.

Keep the NDA, we'll get better results from it.

ZOS isn't going to just listen to everything they say without considering their own data and the wider community.

The reps have a broad range of play styles and areas of focus, they won't all have the same drive to push the game in a single direction if ZOS did do everything they wanted.

If someone does break NDA or exploit privileged information for personal gains (not that there is much one could do in ESO with that info) then ZOS is going to find out eventually and either ban them or slap them with lawsuit. Anyone who's signed a real NDA for a game company knows they're not little things, they're pretty scary if you read them.

Hamish999 · October 2018

Keep the new NDA system.

I think it has potential to be a very good thing going forward. The class reps will hopefully have knowledge of and input to future changes a lot earlier.
Which could mean they actually have a more meaningful voice in the whole process and can help gain more balance, rather than just pointing out what is wrong with things once it hits the PTS.

VaranisArano · October 2018

I think ZOS wanted to make sure we all understood the Class Reps are advisors and we shouldn't expect the Devs to design the game according to their feedback.

I strongly suspect this is ZOS reacting to the community's feedback on Murkmire, where some of the community had greater expectations for what the Class Reps should be accomplishing than the Devs did.

usmguy1234 · October 2018

Other: There should no reason for a NDA on the terms of balancing something that is already currently in the game. By doing so removes all transparency and ultimately gives Zos an out for not listening to feedback. (Ie there's no accountability there) I wish all of the dialog between the reps and the devs could be captured in a non- biased dialog that could be viewed by the community. The best we get at this point is hearsay.

ak_pvp · October 2018

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

VaranisArano wrote: »

I think ZOS wanted to make sure we all understood the Class Reps are advisors and we shouldn't expect the Devs to design the game according to their feedback.

I strongly suspect this is ZOS reacting to the community's feedback on Murkmire, where some of the community had greater expectations for what the Class Reps should be accomplishing than the Devs did.

I mean, fair enough on that statement alone, some idiots have been complaining at the reps. But having them sign an NDA puts relatively more power and thus pressure onto them. You'll get *** like "well I can't read what wrobel wrote, you fix the game" as opposed to now where it from reps own comments obvious that they are just pain point guys who tell us what the devs said and vice versa.

usmguy1234 wrote: »

Other: There should no reason for a NDA on the terms of balancing something that is already currently in the game. By doing so removes all transparency and ultimately gives Zos an out for not listening to feedback. (Ie there's no accountability there) I wish all of the dialog between the reps and the devs could be captured in a non- biased dialog that could be viewed by the community. The best we get at this point is hearsay.

That is option 3. Its what I was saying through this paragraph:

If they do want to improve the system, how about by recording and publishing the voice calls, or opening the ZOS/Rep communication discord as a read only for the public. Then we can see how well they represent us in action and the thoughts of the devs, i.e. changes and justifications. You can't fit all the topics and what-ifs into a single quarterly rep note post, as useful as it is. And since we lost the monthly... quarterly... neverly dev updates by ZOS themselves, it would be nice to hear the discourse from the first party and can know that it is purely conceptual as opposed to when we have it wrote up in patch note form we know that it is intended directly and not much can sway that.

usmguy1234 · October 2018

ak_pvp wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

I think ZOS wanted to make sure we all understood the Class Reps are advisors and we shouldn't expect the Devs to design the game according to their feedback.

I strongly suspect this is ZOS reacting to the community's feedback on Murkmire, where some of the community had greater expectations for what the Class Reps should be accomplishing than the Devs did.

I mean, fair enough on that statement alone, some idiots have been complaining at the reps. But having them sign an NDA puts relatively more power and thus pressure onto them. You'll get *** like "well I can't read what wrobel wrote, you fix the game" as opposed to now where it from reps own comments obvious that they are just pain point guys who tell us what the devs said and vice versa.

usmguy1234 wrote: »

Other: There should no reason for a NDA on the terms of balancing something that is already currently in the game. By doing so removes all transparency and ultimately gives Zos an out for not listening to feedback. (Ie there's no accountability there) I wish all of the dialog between the reps and the devs could be captured in a non- biased dialog that could be viewed by the community. The best we get at this point is hearsay.

That is option 3. Its what I was saying through this paragraph:
If they do want to improve the system, how about by recording and publishing the voice calls, or opening the ZOS/Rep communication discord as a read only for the public. Then we can see how well they represent us in action and the thoughts of the devs, i.e. changes and justifications. You can't fit all the topics and what-ifs into a single quarterly rep note post, as useful as it is. And since we lost the monthly... quarterly... neverly dev updates by ZOS themselves, it would be nice to hear the discourse from the first party and can know that it is purely conceptual as opposed to when we have it wrote up in patch note form we know that it is intended directly and not much can sway that.

Very well put me down for option 3. This is absolutely what it should be like.

Checkmath · October 2018

Keep the new NDA system.

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

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

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

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

ccmedaddy · October 2018

Keep the new NDA system.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like the point of having them sign an NDA is that this will allow ZOS to provide the class reps with more information on the game's future direction than before, and as a result the class reps will be able to give them more long-term advice rather than just reporting to ZOS what's currently wrong with the game.

In this regard, I think it's a good change. After Murkmire I have zero faith in the devs to make correct decisions on combat balance so anything that increases the class reps' input into the game is good news to me.

NyassaV · October 2018

So, as someone who just spent their weekend with two of the class reps in person let me weigh in here. As I understand it the NDA allows the class reps to do their jobs for ZOS more effectively and provide them with better insight and information due to the fact they have knowledge of the future "Vision" ZOS often talks about. It does however impede their ability to communicate with us what is going on. This is not an issue with the program or the reps, it's an issue with ZOS's overall transparency.

DeadlyRecluse · October 2018

Anyone expecting slightly-elevated forum dwellers to have an actual impact on the game was/is deluded.

The class rep system was a nice piece of community engagement, but it's not like ZOS is going to turn over the creative and philosophical reins to some volunteers on a whim.

ak_pvp · October 2018

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

Checkmath wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

usmguy1234 · October 2018

Checkmath wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Communication is a two way street and zos is effectively trying to bulldoze one of those streets. None of us want to wait until the pts to see what changes are coming down the pipeline.... because as we've seen before very little gets changed as the result of the pts despite feedback and some of the broken stuff even makes it to live despite that feedback.

starkerealm · October 2018

Keep the new NDA system.

usmguy1234 wrote: »

Other: There should no reason for a NDA on the terms of balancing something that is already currently in the game. By doing so removes all transparency and ultimately gives Zos an out for not listening to feedback. (Ie there's no accountability there) I wish all of the dialog between the reps and the devs could be captured in a non- biased dialog that could be viewed by the community. The best we get at this point is hearsay.

No, that's not what it does at all.

The NDAs allow ZOS to provide information back to the ClassReps and get a dialog going, so that the reps can offer meaningful feedback when presented with ZOS's rationale on changes.

In the absence of an NDA, there would be no transparency to the reps. They could go in with, "this is how we feel about something," but if the dev team had made their decisions with those considerations already taken into account, then the reps would be left, "feeling around in the dark," trying to argue their position.

The NDAs open up a lot of freedom to the dev team to discuss issues openly with the reps.

Now, that's not transparent for you. But, in the larger scope of making sure the ClassRep system works as intended, that is a critical point of communication. Their job is to relay information to the devs. The devs need to be able to ask them questions freely. If the dev team needs to worry about every question going through community management that makes Gina's job harder, and it makes the ClassRep system less efficient.

So, no, I understand you want in, you want to know all the little secrets, but in this case, the NDA is legit.

RedRook · October 2018

"Transparency" was probably a poor word choice. They want to be able to talk to the reps earlier in the process, without reveals showing up in magazine articles or YT vids or something, right? That seems reasonable enough.

If, on the other hand, this is meant to stop reps from noting they aren't any happier with a change than we are, and advocated against it, or that what the devs thought they said was not in fact what they said - I object to that. Not cool.

I guess since they chose to sign it, they must be ok with it. Looks incendiary af from where I'm sitting, but I could be wrong.

Acrolas · October 2018

Keep the new NDA system.

NDA is fine, so long as ZOS specifically outlines what representatives cannot directly or indirectly reference when interacting with the community.

It's usually not the knowledge itself that's an issue. It's the accidental slip-up when forgetting what is common versus internal knowledge. We'll have to see how tricky it is to navigate Update 21 while the reps have some of the framework of Update 22 in mind.

starkerealm · October 2018

Keep the new NDA system.

usmguy1234 wrote: »

Checkmath wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Communication is a two way street and zos is effectively trying to bulldoze one of those streets. None of us want to wait until the pts to see what changes are coming down the pipeline.... because as we've seen before very little gets changed as the result of the pts despite feedback and some of the broken stuff even makes it to live despite that feedback.

Sometimes the answer is, "no." The purpose of the ClassRep system is to get information to the dev team from the community. There is a divide there.

It is not for the community to dictate design terms to the dev team. That's not what the Rep system does. And if it was, there are some incredibly terrible ideas kicking around the boards that would severely damage the game. And these threads get championed by people who are like, "yeah, that'd be awesome."

So, the Reps feed information back to the Devs to make sure concerns are looked at and dealt with promptly. That the DW enchant thing, and the bow reticle behavior got managed this fast, is probably at least in part, thanks to the reps.

Jakx · October 2018

Its more obvious that ZOS needs to change their content production pipeline more than arguing about silly class rep feedback. As somebody said above. The PTS cycle often seems to not account and fix glaring issues that are widely reported. Those issues time and time again go live. Its clear that the way ZOS patches in content is very fixed and cannot accept deviation for bug fixes and/or feedback. If nothing else this could be a realization from ZOS that they need feedback much further in advance to make quality changes.

In the end it would be great to know what it is in their production pipeline that prevents them from making changes on the fly to adjust to bugs and feedback without the need to wait months for the next incremental to fix points that needed immediate adjusting. Broken abilities that go live despite PTS reports, unbalanced metas, just very obvious things that need to be tackled get pushed live regularly. Class reps havent changed this detrimental cycle.

starkerealm · October 2018

Keep the new NDA system.

Acrolas wrote: »

NDA is fine, so long as ZOS specifically outlines what representatives cannot directly or indirectly reference when interacting with the community.

It's usually not the knowledge itself that's an issue. It's the accidental slip-up when forgetting what is common versus internal knowledge. We'll have to see how tricky it is to navigate Update 21 while the reps have some of the framework of Update 22 in mind.

Yes, it's awkward. It's also awkward when you've got friends who are making decisions based on information that you know is a bad idea, when you're under NDA.

I can give this example now. Right before the Summerset Press Embargo was up, I had a guildie who was golding out weapons, including NMG and Sunderflame for trial builds. Now, keep in mind, this was literally 48 hours before the press embargo was up, and we could talk about, "hey, these sets are getting changed, and are going to be way less attractive after the fact." So, I sat there, said nothing about those sets, and continued to BS about whatever the topic was at the time. (I want to say a catastrophic nHoF run, but I'm not sure.)

Now, I'm kinda lucky because, the friend in question used to carry an SCI clearance in the Navy, so, he fully understood, "you know something, but you can't say anything."

So, yeah, it can be awkward.

If you're providing feedback, at the level where there's an NDA, you need to be careful.

I've also been slightly paranoid that I'd accidentally say something I shouldn't, for months. Because, you know, stuff was, and is, still under NDA.

However, from that perspective, this is not malicious. A developer being too open can result in the community getting really pissy, when things don't come exactly as planned. Hell, we're still referencing that Road Ahead video from 2014, and it's got stuff we haven't seen yet. (Not, just Spellcrafting, there's a few enemy types in there that still haven't made it to live.)

ZOS is trying to be as open as possible, while depriving people who just want to sit at the sidelines, and throw salt of more ammunition.

Put another way, you want to help? Or you want to burn this place to the ground? Because, if it's the former, then you can absolutely contribute. If it's the latter? Congrats, you're why the NDAs exist.

Kanar · October 2018

Class reps shouldn't be able to control game direction (ie propose solutions), that would be terrible. Even their role of voicing player pain points is a lot of power because they get to control what the devs hear. If all the reps get together and agree to push one message, then that is what the devs will hear and act on, regardless if the player base said it at all. And on the devs side they have washed their hands of the responsibility of investigating what the players want because of the rep system, so if a rep doesn't want to report on an item then you are muted and the devs won't hear it.

Get rid of the class rep system.

idk · October 2018

Turelus wrote: »

Keep the NDA, we'll get better results from it.

ZOS isn't going to just listen to everything they say without considering their own data and the wider community.

The reps have a broad range of play styles and areas of focus, they won't all have the same drive to push the game in a single direction if ZOS did do everything they wanted.

If someone does break NDA or exploit privileged information for personal gains (not that there is much one could do in ESO with that info) then ZOS is going to find out eventually and either ban them or slap them with lawsuit. Anyone who's signed a real NDA for a game company knows they're not little things, they're pretty scary if you read them.

Yes, NDA are very long and very inclusive.

I agree the NDA is beneficial for an open conversation between Zos and the class reps.

I would add that Zos would consider it's own vision for the game when considering any changes as well. I hate using that term since Zos has not had a consistent vision, but it is what it is.

ak_pvp · October 2018

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

starkerealm wrote: »

Acrolas wrote: »

NDA is fine, so long as ZOS specifically outlines what representatives cannot directly or indirectly reference when interacting with the community.

It's usually not the knowledge itself that's an issue. It's the accidental slip-up when forgetting what is common versus internal knowledge. We'll have to see how tricky it is to navigate Update 21 while the reps have some of the framework of Update 22 in mind.

Yes, it's awkward. It's also awkward when you've got friends who are making decisions based on information that you know is a bad idea, when you're under NDA.

I can give this example now. Right before the Summerset Press Embargo was up, I had a guildie who was golding out weapons, including NMG and Sunderflame for trial builds. Now, keep in mind, this was literally 48 hours before the press embargo was up, and we could talk about, "hey, these sets are getting changed, and are going to be way less attractive after the fact." So, I sat there, said nothing about those sets, and continued to BS about whatever the topic was at the time. (I want to say a catastrophic nHoF run, but I'm not sure.)

Now, I'm kinda lucky because, the friend in question used to carry an SCI clearance in the Navy, so, he fully understood, "you know something, but you can't say anything."

So, yeah, it can be awkward.

If you're providing feedback, at the level where there's an NDA, you need to be careful.

I've also been slightly paranoid that I'd accidentally say something I shouldn't, for months. Because, you know, stuff was, and is, still under NDA.

However, from that perspective, this is not malicious. A developer being too open can result in the community getting really pissy, when things don't come exactly as planned. Hell, we're still referencing that Road Ahead video from 2014, and it's got stuff we haven't seen yet. (Not, just Spellcrafting, there's a few enemy types in there that still haven't made it to live.)

ZOS is trying to be as open as possible, while depriving people who just want to sit at the sidelines, and throw salt of more ammunition.

Put another way, you want to help? Or you want to burn this place to the ground? Because, if it's the former, then you can absolutely contribute. If it's the latter? Congrats, you're why the NDAs exist.

You are defending this for the exact same reason I am not defending it.
"A developer being too open can result in the community getting really pissy, when things don't come exactly as planned."

Correct. This is a PR move to hide potential messes like the one in murkmire PTS if you saw the discords. It is not representative at all. And whilst it might have potential to help its sure as hell less useful than if we all saw what the devs intended and could tell the reps ourselves.

This will also have a chance of backfiring. The stuff we hear will be post rep intervention. Before we could say, OK we told the reps and they told zos and zos was like nah. Now we don't know what to tell the reps if we don't know ourselves. Any problematic changes that ZOS doesn't listen to will be like "well we didn't know, it was under NDA why didn't you fix this before?"

This entire change didn't improve anything over all. Its like putting one leg forwards and the other back. Could they catch things better early? Yeah, but we all could too and the system would be more representative. It just saves ZOS's ass in this occasion.

usmguy1234 · October 2018

starkerealm wrote: »

usmguy1234 wrote: »

Checkmath wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Communication is a two way street and zos is effectively trying to bulldoze one of those streets. None of us want to wait until the pts to see what changes are coming down the pipeline.... because as we've seen before very little gets changed as the result of the pts despite feedback and some of the broken stuff even makes it to live despite that feedback.

Sometimes the answer is, "no." The purpose of the ClassRep system is to get information to the dev team from the community. There is a divide there.

It is not for the community to dictate design terms to the dev team. That's not what the Rep system does. And if it was, there are some incredibly terrible ideas kicking around the boards that would severely damage the game. And these threads get championed by people who are like, "yeah, that'd be awesome."

So, the Reps feed information back to the Devs to make sure concerns are looked at and dealt with promptly. That the DW enchant thing, and the bow reticle behavior got managed this fast, is probably at least in part, thanks to the reps.

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

BuddyAces · October 2018

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

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

max_only · October 2018

It’s not my amusement park. I paid admission and if there is a problem I’ll tell them but in the end if they want to restrict the rides to 6ft or taller and not give me a say in how that affects me, what can I do. I take what I can get until I’m no longer having fun and then I go somewhere else.

Class Representatives are a marketing ploy. The fans are passionate and giving them the illusion of input or control is good for business. Do they listen? Sometimes. Just like when movie productions listen to fans and do thing like change titles based on hype or change casting based on bad press. Not every production does however and I’m sure they’ve got all the statisticians in their pockets making the risk/reward call. When they do change, I’m not sure it’s us who are convincing them.

NDA or not, until I actually own a piece I’m not entitled to anything.

starkerealm · October 2018

Keep the new NDA system.

usmguy1234 wrote: »

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

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

SDraconis · October 2018

starkerealm wrote: »

usmguy1234 wrote: »

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

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

And here we both are complaining about other ppl who complain about a fake video game. How silly is that right?

pieratsos · October 2018

ak_pvp wrote: »

Checkmath wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ak_pvp · October 2018

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

starkerealm wrote: »

BuddyAces wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

pieratsos wrote: »

ak_pvp wrote: »

Checkmath wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chilly-McFreeze · October 2018

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

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

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

Checkmath wrote: »

We will not get paid.

Turelus wrote: »

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

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

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

MJallday · October 2018

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

Having an NDA is completely pointless. Heres why.

The class reps were put in place to put forward the views of the community right?
That can be done without an NDA.

So ZOS would like to discuss things back to the class reps without them being common knowledge.
SO thats why an NDA is needed in their view. Its So they can say "hey we see the problem, and in update 2x then we're doing y" -

ok thats lovely, but if youve got an NDA - that information ISNT GOING ANY FURTHER than the class reps!

In the meantime, your player base is still annoyed about the original problem, will still continue to post on the forums (not just here, but others) and now the reps cant even say "yeah we know and we're doing something about it, because actually that would be acknowledgement under an NDA - and therefore a breach.

in short, you are just pushing your client base further away from the community in general and now making the class reps be all mysterious/non responsive!

ZOS would be much better off at this stage just getting rid of the class reps. they are now pointless - and doing all comms centrally, outwards. As it stands now, all the class reps can say is "your views are heard" - with no indication positive, negative or otherwise - which to be fair, could be done by community managers.

Sorry if this sounds negative, but i think this situation has been mishandled and the actual desires of the user base have been misinterpreted

The Elder Scrolls Online

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

About the NDA and the functionality of the class rep system. 123 votes