Dancer Archive
Thread: Pro/Anti AFK/Bot/Macro All Purpose Sticky
Hvzeda wrote:
Nacoa, I personally don't care for buffbots and afk entertainers, but they do pay to play this game within the rules established in the EULA. Just because they don't play to my standards doesn't mean that they are wrong, thus not my standards. I don't KS, but there are a good amount of people that do because they want the loot or the experience. Again, KSing is not in violation of the EULA.
If you had read my entire post and digested it without using any biased views, you would have seen I had addressed the issue of afk performers and buffbots in npc cities, and basically that is what almost all the live entertainers are complaining about. If a player cities wants to have to afk entertainers and buffbots, shouldn't they be allowed? After all they paid to play the game and worked to establishing their city. They should have that right.
We don't live in a perfect world which means games aren't perfect.
The thing in question here is not that is "our" standards, but that the devs have stated that they no longer want long term unatended play in THEIR game. It is still their game, their intellectual property and their vision. I doubt very much that they created the entertainer class with the intent that it would be a profession noone plays. They have agreed by saying as much through Thunderhearts announcement.
In order for a game to suceed it has to have rules, and standards. It cannot go with the whim of a certain demographic of players, a demographic in this case that thinks the game should be more quickly acessible to them at the expense of an entire other demographic. and at the expense of the imersiveness of the game. I disagree completely that a player city should have separate rules. Its a part of the game world and it doesn't matter if you have a buffbot in a main city or a player city its effect is the same. And as someone pointed out paying your 15 bucks does NOT entitle you to play however you want it entitles you to play within the constraints put upon us by the developers, see paragraph 1.
NO buffbots are not a violation NOW, and you have been alowed to use them under that technicality that they are not against any rule as of yet, you can go on today and do so. If the changes go in, and i damn sure hope they go in, it will be against the rules. Isandel you say your of the "dont take my features away view". Well you know what, thats the way the Devs do things here. I doubt very much that combat medics wanted their 90m range taken away, but it was for the good of the game. Because the devs had not intended that. They are now saying that they do not intend for this to be a game that people have automated macros play for them. You may think its for the good of the game because it benefits you, as im sure many combat medics thought it was for the good of the game to have a 90m range and insane poisons because it allowed them a chance to get past that insane armor and buffs.
It is gamebreaking to the entertainer class, as well as a bad image for the game to have unatended players on for hours and hours. That is the bottom line, the devs have agreed. So instead of coming up with solutions that still revolve around having a buffbot in game for 23 hours a day (which is not acceptable), why not put forth the same ideas that alot of you have slammed us for suposedly not coming up with. Come up with some ways to adress this ABSOLUTE NEED for buffs that you claim exists, that do NOT involve having a buffbot macoing unatended for 23 hours straight.
....
Message Edited by Taewyn on 09-12-2004 01:56 PM
Aleyo wrote:
Having something in the game doesn't make it allowed, or right. If this were the case, there would be absolutely no need for Terms of Use, or EULAs, as you would not be able to do anything in the game that wasn't allowed. However, the Terms of Use are there, because the game is such an open-ended system, and not every rule that SOE wishes to impose on those using its game and servers can be enforced by game mechanics.
If it can't be enforce, then arguing the legality of this is moot.
I would like to see recursing macros removed but I honestly don't think the devs can get it right. Too many bugs exists already and some have caused people to leave the game. I still live with the bug that my droids have a tendency to take off and run or self-store themselvs. It is funny to watch my entertainer R3 droid just go running out the door to never return. I still get scooted back incombat when I'min cover using conceal shot on critters that moves me out of range. I still have targets that will jump anywhere from 40m to 120m away me when I'm in combat in conceal shot.These bugs have existed for me for over a month or longer(and for many others) and if the devs can't fix something like that, do youhonestly think that they can effectively removed the recursing macro from the game without it causing problems in game play.
So I am approaching this issue that the recursing macro won't be removed.
Hvzeda wrote:
And FYI, I am currently logged in and afk dancing in the cantina I'm part owner. And for someone to argue that it should be removed from a city that I created, in a community I helped to build because I hurt the game, get real. In two hours, only 5 people stopped in. One was a visitor that was checking out the spice vendor and the other 4 were residents. I gained a total of 21 ent healing exp. Who have I hurt? Would you rather me afk dance with a shouting macro and buffbot macro in a cantina or have me enjoy the game in my little way? I proposed a possible middle-ground and I am a bit shocked that we haven't even discuss the pros and cons, but instead it is defend the reason for buffs! If there is no defense for buffs, then eliminate all buffs. Easy solution. How many people would like that solution?
Again, here was what I proposed as a way to get something started:
- Buffbots and afk performers can only perfom in cantinas in which they are placed on the admin access to the cantina (this allows player cities to decide if they want buffbots for their residents or not - I afk dance to anyone that happens to wander in or for the residents of our city but I only buff when I'm ATK - too lazy to write a buffing macro).
- Mind buffing can only be done in cantinas (this makes player city cantinas a bit more popular).
- AFK performers do not gain experience.
- Buffs by live entertainers get a bonus to applying buff.
- Buffs by afk entertainers are capped at 2 hours and at 100% of attribute.
Ok, so you migrate the buffbots to a player city. The only diference here is that has people flocking to a player city for buffs instead. On the bria server there's a buffbot called briha, she has a staggering client base who all know exactly where she is and come there because of her. All moving her to a player city does is take that population out to the player city instead, because she WILL make it known to her customers that she's still available at a new location.
And no,I do not think you should have a right to play unatended in your player city regardless of how much time you put into creating it, your still in the same game world as us and should be subject to the same restrictions as every other player in the game. As long as that possibility to be a buffbot exists they are a problem no matter where they are.
Another problem, how do you determine that a buffbot is AFK?? if were to not alow afk players in a public place then how do we determine they are AFK. There is absolutely no way to do this, they can use real world devices to make themselves avoid having the afk tag pop up even if you were to remove the ability to disable auto afk. The old vibrator in a shoebox if you will. The only possible way would be for a csr to walk up to them and try to talk to them and measure weather they are unresponsive over a long period of time and then remove them. This is logisticaly impossible.
Message Edited by Dreamland on 09-12-2004 02:12 PM
Dreamland wrote:
Hvzeda wrote:
And FYI, I am currently logged in and afk dancing in the cantina I'm part owner. And for someone to argue that it should be removed from a city that I created, in a community I helped to build because I hurt the game, get real. In two hours, only 5 people stopped in. One was a visitor that was checking out the spice vendor and the other 4 were residents. I gained a total of 21 ent healing exp. Who have I hurt? Would you rather me afk dance with a shouting macro and buffbot macro in a cantina or have me enjoy the game in my little way? I proposed a possible middle-ground and I am a bit shocked that we haven't even discuss the pros and cons, but instead it is defend the reason for buffs! If there is no defense for buffs, then eliminate all buffs. Easy solution. How many people would like that solution?
Again, here was what I proposed as a way to get something started:
- Buffbots and afk performers can only perfom in cantinas in which they are placed on the admin access to the cantina (this allows player cities to decide if they want buffbots for their residents or not - I afk dance to anyone that happens to wander in or for the residents of our city but I only buff when I'm ATK - too lazy to write a buffing macro).
- Mind buffing can only be done in cantinas (this makes player city cantinas a bit more popular).
- AFK performers do not gain experience.
- Buffs by live entertainers get a bonus to applying buff.
- Buffs by afk entertainers are capped at 2 hours and at 100% of attribute.
Ok, so you migrate the buffbots to a player city. The only diference here is that has people flocking to a player city for buffs instead. On the bria server there's a buffbot called briha, she has a staggering client base who all know exactly where she is and come there because of her. All moving her to a player city does is take that population out to the player city instead, because she WILL make it known to her customers that she's still available at a new location.
I never said it would solve the problem of buffbots because I can't see them being removed in the first place. By placing restrictions of where buffbots can perform (again a technical issue to how the game is going to determine this) it would reduce some of the animosity that exists in the games towards buffbots. I honestly think you will never be able to eliminate it. And there are plenty of people that migrate to npc cities for buffs (doc and ent).
And no,I do not think you should have a right to play unatended in your player city regardless of how much time you put into creating it, your still in the same game world as us and should be subject to the same restrictions as every other player in the game. As long as that possibility to be a buffbot exists they are a problem no matter where they are.
So, I see you are trying to force your game playon others. So your $15 per month is worth more than others. So much for allow players to design their own city.
Another problem, how do you determine that a buffbot is AFK?? if were to not alow afk players in a public place then how do we determine they are AFK. There is absolutely no way to do this, they can use real world devices to make themselves avoid having the afk tag pop up even if you were to remove the ability to disable auto afk. The old vibrator in a shoebox if you will. The only possible way would be for a csr to walk up to them and try to talk to them and measure weather they are unresponsive over a long period of time and then remove them. This is logisticaly impossible.
If it is impossible (which seems like it will be), guess what, we won't be able to remove a buffbot and they are here to stay. So now arguing about it is moot.
Message Edited by Dreamland on 09-12-2004 02:12 PM
http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=Developers&message.id=48478&view=by_date_ascending&page=1
For your perusal...
Message Edited by Taewyn on 09-12-2004 07:23 PM
Hvzeda wrote:
And no,I do not think you should have a right to play unatended in your player city regardless of how much time you put into creating it, your still in the same game world as us and should be subject to the same restrictions as every other player in the game. As long as that possibility to be a buffbot exists they are a problem no matter where they are.
So, I see you are trying to force your game playon others. So your $15 per month is worth more than others. So much for allow players to design their own city.
Long term AFK play is NOT a playstyle. It is not something that anyone should be able to do in this game period. The developers agree. It is flat out wrong and bad for the game wherever it is happening because even if there is noone there to even set eyes on you you are still wasting server bandwith being connected when you should not be able to.
If i dont have a right to afk in theed, you dont have a right to afk in your city. If i dont have a right to grief players in theed. You don't have a right to grief players in your city. You can not have separate rules for a player city than you do for the rest of the server, not when the rest of the server can come visit your player city whenever they like.
Message Edited by Dreamland on 09-12-2004 07:08 PM
Message Edited by Dreamland on 09-12-2004 07:09 PM
Message Edited by Dreamland on 09-12-2004 07:14 PM
Hvzeda wrote:Nacoa wrote:
Just wondering: Why find a middle ground?
First because it hasn't been decided that buffbots are in violation of the EULA and since it isn't, we are going have to live with.
The point of this thread is for anti- and pro-buffbot players to make their case, which may possibly affect the devs decisions on what to do about them. So your premise that we just have to live with buffbots is false. One possible outcome is the devs modify the code to make buffbots stop working, and/or change the EULA to ban them.
By at least trying to find a middle ground we are at least trying to solve this problem as adults.
Not all problems should be solved by compromise. Again, this example is far worse than a buffbot, but we shouldn't compormise with a serial killer because he agrees to only kill 10 people, even if we're all adults.
Should we find a middle ground between the credit dupers and the non-dupers? I'm not saying buffbots are as bad, but why should there be a middle ground between "players" that damage the game and ones that don't? Why should SOE should say "Ok, you can damage the game some"?Credit duping is violation of EULA.
You're assuming the EULA can't and won't ever change. The point of this discussion is to evaluate if it should change, if game code should change, and so on.
The pro-buffbot argument seems to always be about availability. I'm well aware of this, because I used to run a buffbot, due to the same availability problems. Then the entertainers on all of the servers stepped up to try and address that problem by creating an entertainer channel on each server so that people looking for a buff can find it.Nice idea about an entertainer channel. We've have had one on Sunrunner for about 5, maybe 6 weeks. It has failed. When I ask patrons, the common response "I don't have time to look." If that is the mentality of the patrons, then we as live entertainers are in trouble.
They don't take the time because buffbots exist. In a game without buffbots, the players will need an easy and fast way to find entertainers, which the entertainer channel will do. My argument is not that it works perfectly today, but that the entertainer channel can and often does solve the availibility issue.
If you had read my entire post and digested it without using any biased views, you would have seen I had addressed the issue of afk performers and buffbots in npc cities, and basically that is what almost all the live entertainers are complaining about.
I did read your post. Entertainers are complaining about buffbots, period. Place them on the far NW corner of Yavin, and I'll still complain about them. Parking your buffbot in an NPC cantina is a worse abouse.
And you're ignoring the main question of my post: Why should there be a compromise? What is the reason to not modify the game/EULA to remove buffbots?
If a player cities wants to have to afk entertainers and buffbots, shouldn't they be allowed?
No. Even though the buffbot is now in the player city, they're still taking the game away from live entertainers. If you're worried about 23/7 entertainer coverage in your city, you need to recruit more entertainers. Besides, all you're really doing is making another attempt to solve the availability problem, which I feel will not really be an issue. After all, your city probably doesn't have doc buffs available 23/7.
After all they paid to play the game and worked to establishing their city.
Rehash of the "I pay $15/mo for this game!" argument. You're still ignoring that buffbots are destroying the play of many other players. People who have paid to play the game, and worked to get to where they are in the game.
So, again we have worries about availability, and the "I pay to play" arguement. Can any pro-buffbot players give any other arguments for keeping buffbots?
Isendel wrote:Nacoa your mixing the issues.. The credit dupe is a blatent cheat, that hurts the entire economy. The buff bots have very little effect on the economy as a whole, and are as yet NOT a cheat.
Credit duping is an example, in an attempt to get people like you to actually think about and consider my point. Credit duping is a behavior that damages the game. Buffboting is a behavior that damages the game. Just because the game currently allows buffboting does not mean it should always allow it.
Why should there be any compromise about behavior that damages the game?
Btw, buffboting has a large effect throughout the game's economy. Mind buffs are essentially free now. So, combat players aren't spending money to get them. This increases the ammount of money in their bank accounts, and drives up the costs of goods in the game. Entertainers can't get money from the combat types to buy in-game items and pay maintenence. Since prices continue to rise because of the combat players, entertainers find they are left with the scraps of the game.
Dreamland wrote:
The thing in question here is not that is "our" standards, but that the devs have stated that they no longer want long term unatended play in THEIR game. It is still their game, their intellectual property and their vision. I doubt very much that they created the entertainer class with the intent that it would be a profession noone plays. They have agreed by saying as much through Thunderhearts announcement.
Agree, they probably never envisioned this and many other things, but people are creative and players can find a way to take advantage of any game.
In order for a game to suceed it has to have rules, and standards. It cannot go with the whim of a certain demographic of players, a demographic in this case that thinks the game should be more quickly acessible to them at the expense of an entire other demographic. and at the expense of the imersiveness of the game. I disagree completely that a player city should have separate rules. Its a part of the game world and it doesn't matter if you have a buffbot in a main city or a player city its effect is the same. And as someone pointed out paying your 15 bucks does NOT entitle you to play however you want it entitles you to play within the constraints put upon us by the developers, see paragraph 1.
As a mayor of player city, and I understand you don't like buffbots and afk performers, but to enforce acertain play in player cities does effect a certain demographics.So again SOE is damned either way. I was looking for a"compromise" that Oqua had stated that would appease both sides andthe majority of the demographics.
NO buffbots are not a violation NOW, and you have been alowed to use them under that technicality that they are not against any rule as of yet, you can go on today and do so. If the changes go in, and i damn sure hope they go in, it will be against the rules. Isandel you say your of the "dont take my features away view". Well you know what, thats the way the Devs do things here. I doubt very much that combat medics wanted their 90m range taken away, but it was for the good of the game. Because the devs had not intended that. They are now saying that they do not intend for this to be a game that people have automated macros play for them. You may think its for the good of the game because it benefits you, as im sure many combat medics thought it was for the good of the game to have a 90m range and insane poisons because it allowed them a chance to get past that insane armor and buffs.
I actually know many CMs that like the proposed change because it help balanced them. I know a very were upset because it took away their major combat advantage.
It is gamebreaking to the entertainer class, as well as a bad image for the game to have unatended players on for hours and hours. That is the bottom line, the devs have agreed. So instead of coming up with solutions that still revolve around having a buffbot in game for 23 hours a day (which is not acceptable), why not put forth the same ideas that alot of you have slammed us for suposedly not coming up with. Come up with some ways to adress this ABSOLUTE NEED for buffs that you claim exists, that do NOT involve having a buffbot macoing unatended for 23 hours straight.
Gamebreaking - I think the consist bugs that still exists are still more of a gamebreaking that buffbots but they do give entertainers a bad image. There are many things I find unacceptable in this game, but I am willing to search for a possible "compromise" if it makes the game much more entertaining for both sides. If you alienate one side, you don't solve anything but aggrevate it.
Thanks Oqua and Drygo for recognizing that I'm notdefending buffbots but trying to find something in the middle that is suitable. If we can find a middle ground to discuss this issue, we can get more accomplish.
Remember if they remove recursing macros, entertainers will be cheering for the most part but I guarantee we will see some grumbling on the crafter side. And this decision will be based on a business decision by the suits, not the devs. If removing recursing macros reduces profits, I don't think we will see it. Suits bottom line is profits.
And FYI, I am currently logged in and afk dancing in the cantina I'm part owner. And for someone to argue that it should be removed from a city that I created, in a community I helped to build because I hurt the game, get real. In two hours, only 5 people stopped in. One was a visitor that was checking out the spice vendor and the other 4 were residents. I gained a total of 21 ent healing exp. Who have I hurt? Would you rather me afk dance with a shouting macro and buffbot macro in a cantina or have me enjoy the game in my little way? I proposed a possible middle-ground and I am a bit shocked that we haven't even discuss the pros and cons, but instead it is defend the reason for buffs! If there is no defense for buffs, then eliminate all buffs. Easy solution. How many people would like that solution?
Again, here was what I proposed as a way to get something started:
- Buffbots and afk performers can only perfom in cantinas in which they are placed on the admin access to the cantina (this allows player cities to decide if they want buffbots for their residents or not - I afk dance to anyone that happens to wander in or for the residents of our city but I only buff when I'm ATK - too lazy to write a buffing macro).
- Mind buffing can only be done in cantinas (this makes player city cantinas a bit more popular).
- AFK performers do not gain experience.
- Buffs by live entertainers get a bonus to applying buff.
- Buffs by afk entertainers are capped at 2 hours and at 100% of attribute.
I honestly didn't see a problem but it did allow the existence of buffbots and afk entertainers, but I did find a way to place them hidden. Again, I don't care for buffbots or afk entertainers and when I dance in a npc cantina that has 15 or 17 entertainers wearing the AFK tage, I tell patrons to watch me because I ATK, a master and I will buff and talk to you, plus I could use the XP to convert to force XP. Needless to say, the afk entertainers have begun to place me on ignore.
Gotta go. Received a tell in a game. Got to see if I have to run and do a mind buff or put out another fire in the Commune. Love ya all!