No reason of restrict reps with nda, they will break nda anyway and share info with their friends. Already happened before with Morrowind beta, will happen again coz it impossible to track such deed.
No reason of restrict reps with nda, they will break nda anyway and share info with their friends. Already happened before with Morrowind beta, will happen again coz it impossible to track such deed.
Sandman929 wrote: »It's all very cloak-and-dual-wield-dagger, but I guess if the reps were happy to sign it, it can't be that bad. Should we establish a safe word for reps in case we're all complaining about something that is part of a grander scheme to which we're not privy, they could just say "marmalade", and we'll know that something hush-hush is planned to resolve the complaint?
So as it's written, it seems like the NDA will allow ZOS to be a little more open with intended changes/ideas when talking to the class reps, so that the reps may say "stop, that's a terrible idea" or "sounds good". It's just that the reps are now more restricted in what info they may pass along to us. Definitely a trade-off, though I think it's acceptable unless the NDA is far more extreme than I'm assuming. But the class reps are competent people, so if they all signed off on it then it surely isn't that bad.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.
Sorry I fail to see how this helps the community in any way what so ever
If you sign an NDA it means YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DISCUSS ANYTHING TO DO WITH DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO THE CONEXT OF THE NDA
In that respect it’s more like a gagging order than any way to aid communications. If fact they are explicitly designed to inhibit them!
So I’m afraid this is just utter nonsense
Androconium wrote: »Sorry I fail to see how this helps the community in any way what so ever
If you sign an NDA it means YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DISCUSS ANYTHING TO DO WITH DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO THE CONEXT OF THE NDA
In that respect it’s more like a gagging order than any way to aid communications. If fact they are explicitly designed to inhibit them!
So I’m afraid this is just utter nonsense
I'm afraid that you're right.
NDA means ZOS can actually talk about updates long before they're due.
Reps will be able to know what skill lines or classes are in the works months before ZOS announce them, know what is in the works for any upcoming combat changes being conceptualised but not ready to be announced etc.
It's a good thing if people want the reps to have more input in things, otherwise they have to wait for everything to be public knowledge. We saw how well that worked with the shield changes coming out of nowhere for them.
Kingslayer513 wrote: »I think people are misunderstanding or jumping to conclusions.So as it's written, it seems like the NDA will allow ZOS to be a little more open with intended changes/ideas when talking to the class reps, so that the reps may say "stop, that's a terrible idea" or "sounds good". It's just that the reps are now more restricted in what info they may pass along to us. Definitely a trade-off, though I think it's acceptable unless the NDA is far more extreme than I'm assuming. But the class reps are competent people, so if they all signed off on it then it surely isn't that bad.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.
Kingslayer513 wrote: »I think people are misunderstanding or jumping to conclusions.So as it's written, it seems like the NDA will allow ZOS to be a little more open with intended changes/ideas when talking to the class reps, so that the reps may say "stop, that's a terrible idea" or "sounds good". It's just that the reps are now more restricted in what info they may pass along to us. Definitely a trade-off, though I think it's acceptable unless the NDA is far more extreme than I'm assuming. But the class reps are competent people, so if they all signed off on it then it surely isn't that bad.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.
You guys remember the cast time on shields idea? Now we will be able to say "dude stop" before something similar happens before it actually happens. That's pretty much all this NDA will may or may not provide for class reps.
PouletRico wrote: »Mojomonkeyman wrote: »I am against anything that gives a subsection of gamers an edge above the rest. Class reps are first and foremost players, playing the game with their friends. They will absolutely 100% share any relevant heads up info with their buddies on discord et al, NDA or not.
Since we have a known PvP exploiter amongst the EU Reps (just check the initial Class Rep thread for plenty of comments of very well known community members in regards to that), I come to think this is the worst decision ever made.
I more of a optimistic person, I tend to trust such programs, and so far, the reps have done a pretty good job, but I have to agree with Mojo on this one. Reps are players, some of them are already very good players (Hodor and stuff), this is giving them an unfair advantage on the rest of community. And I'm not even talking about exploits or PvP.
Are you suggesting I am leaking stuff?
Chicharron wrote: »I do not understand very well the NDA in video games, what is it for? Are you afraid of the Chinese? the Russians? but afraid of what? It's a stupid video game.
Kingslayer513 wrote: »I think people are misunderstanding or jumping to conclusions.So as it's written, it seems like the NDA will allow ZOS to be a little more open with intended changes/ideas when talking to the class reps, so that the reps may say "stop, that's a terrible idea" or "sounds good". It's just that the reps are now more restricted in what info they may pass along to us. Definitely a trade-off, though I think it's acceptable unless the NDA is far more extreme than I'm assuming. But the class reps are competent people, so if they all signed off on it then it surely isn't that bad.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.
yeah, because we saw how well ZOS listened to the reps during Nerfmire PTS 🙄.
spartaxoxo wrote: »Kingslayer513 wrote: »I think people are misunderstanding or jumping to conclusions.So as it's written, it seems like the NDA will allow ZOS to be a little more open with intended changes/ideas when talking to the class reps, so that the reps may say "stop, that's a terrible idea" or "sounds good". It's just that the reps are now more restricted in what info they may pass along to us. Definitely a trade-off, though I think it's acceptable unless the NDA is far more extreme than I'm assuming. But the class reps are competent people, so if they all signed off on it then it surely isn't that bad.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.
No. All you need for that is am agreement not to discuss open changes. I did this same thing for years for a different gaming company, never signed a blanket NDA, and there was never an issue.
This is just corporate double speak designed to distract that they want to be even less communicative going forward.
Androconium wrote: »Sorry I fail to see how this helps the community in any way what so ever
If you sign an NDA it means YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DISCUSS ANYTHING TO DO WITH DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO THE CONEXT OF THE NDA
In that respect it’s more like a gagging order than any way to aid communications. If fact they are explicitly designed to inhibit them!
So I’m afraid this is just utter nonsense
I'm afraid that you're right.
I'm afraid that you and many others in this thread are completely missing the point.
Currently devs will not share info about big changes regarding combat balance with the reps in early stages. The reps learn everything at the same time we do.
With the signing of the NDA, the devs will have more freedom in the info they disclose to the reps, so that reps may quench concerns at a much earlier stage, allowing the dev team to consider appropriate changes over a longer timespan than they are currently where it mostly just ends up with "we're sticking with it".
So what does this NDA mean for the rest of us? Effectively nothing. Things will stay the same as is for the rest of us. We will learn about combat changes and balancing when the patches hit PTS. The important difference is that by the time they hit PTS, the reps will already have had a chance to give their input on said changes. They just won't be allowed to tell us anything before the PTS stage.
Chicharron wrote: »I do not understand very well the NDA in video games, what is it for? Are you afraid of the Chinese? the Russians? but afraid of what? It's a stupid video game.
Basically, an NDA is an agreement that you are going to receive non-public information but cannot talk about that information publicly until the information holder is ready to take that information public.
It allows the class reps to view work under development that should not be publicly interpreted as a final product.
Because, in weeks past, we've seen the *** storm that brews when public test material is discussed outside of the public test forum. Internal, in-development material would not only brew the same type of storm but generate strong, lasting opinions over content that may not even reach the public test stage.
Regardless of the industry, NDAs create controlled environments and protect both branding and intellectual property.
You guys remember the cast time on shields idea? Now we will be able to say "dude stop" before something similar happens before it actually happens. That's pretty much all this NDA will may or may not provide for class reps.
Terrible decision, class reps were the only voice of communication we had. Since you can’t reply back to forum threads for whatever reason. The only reason we knew that the Single Target Cast time ability bug was being looked into was because a class rep mentioned so, not because any of you devs cared to say you “were looking into it” despite at least 4 forum threads on the topic. You need to outline what is covered by the NDA and what’s not. Is it all communication, or just future changes info? If we have another bug and a player wants to know if it is being addressed, can a class rep disclose that? If not then this is stupid, and another nail in your coffin. Congrats on finding more ways to isolate your player base from needed communication.