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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
usmguy1234 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.
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.
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.
starkerealm 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.
starkerealm wrote: »usmguy1234 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.
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.
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?
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.
starkerealm 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.
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.
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.
We will not get paid.
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.