Dancer Archive
Thread: An idea to nix bots (not mine I might add but spreading the word)
Jett, I have tried to explain myself, and I have tried to take the time to explain in detail the reason for my concern. I am doing this, not because I hate you, but because this solution is a big, big change.
It seems small, and inconsequential. But I would argue that the one, small click on the radial menu that we are to do in this proposed plan to let someone /watch us changes the intent of the profession entirely.
And I do not think I am overestimating this.
I ask that we don't just dismiss my questions out of hand. They are important questions. If we all are so confident that this solution is a good thing for us, then they should be simple questions to answer:
1) If the patron cannot get what we have to give unless we actively give it to them, then why should the patron even have to be required to /watch for a given time?
2) If my simple act of dancing doesn't do anything for a /watching patron, and buffing requires me to do something else besides simply dance, then why shouldn't I just be able to do the "something else" even when I am not dancing?
::EDITED FOR BREVITY::
Message Edited by PoetDancer on 07-29-2005 09:39 PM
Esharra wrote:
While pithy, long-winded posts might be a favorite passtime of many; concisely written, factually representedand consistent opinion will carry a point better.
I would also argue that random whims, and cliche buzzwords are rather popular here. But they are not very valuable. What we need to understand is that this profession is designed the way it is for a reason. We would do well to try and understand why things are the way that they are before we attempt to change them.
We have a history of "active mechanics" in this profession. We have evidence that it undermined our play. So its not a matter of representing my facts. I can drag up a legion of posts that proves that "active mechanics" will backfire on us. But nobody here seems the slightest bit concerned with any of that, and that is a big problem.
And I have always been an advocate of passivity. I have always been an advocate of transparency. But ifwe are to demand that I play the game you want me to play, then I demand that the process be simple, elegant, and unencumbered.
Am I tired of writing these posts? You are correct, Esharra. But I don't see the developers here explaining why we do not have a way to actively authorize who we dance for. So someone has to.
Then that's it. The entertainer never needs to know which buff is being requested, doesn't need to perform any special flourishes or dances or music or modify their performance in any way that they don't want to, and there are no popup boxes to deal with. As long as there are no slash (/) commands to control the buff window, then I don't think there's any real way to automate it using in-game macros. The ATK entertainer would have to actively click on the names in the buff window, but it wouldn't be as distracting as having windows pop up with every request.
Now to make it really work you'd need a few more things. You'd probably want to color code the names in the buff list to indicate which ones are requests, which ones are being buffed, and which ones have finished. You would probably also want to be able to click on a name and have the option to remove it at any time. Anyone out of range should be automatically removed from the list. The window would also need to be persistent so that when an entertainer stops performing to pause for a bit or change between music and dance, and then continues performing again, it won't affect the buff progress. The entertainer would have to manually close the buff window when done (or perhaps it could have a timeout to autoclose as well). Any buffs in progress would simply be terminated at their current level when the window is closed. You could also implement the /offduty option to automatically reject buff requests and prevent the buff window from appearing. In addition, you could add a buff cover charge that alerts the customer of the cost of a buff, and then automatically transfers the money once it is accepted. Another possible feature might be the ability to multiselect names in the list perhaps by control-clicking. Then you could do the same action on all of the selected names at once to facilitate buffing a group for example.
I know this is similar to other ideas that have been proposed, but I'm not sure I've seen it in quite this form before. I wonder if something like this would be reasonable to ask for.
. And I don't hate you either, we're just voicing opinions here.We could create an entertainer system that "books venues." We could go to an NPC, or a terminal, and book a venue for 30 minutes. When we go there for our set time, and start performing, we could generate double the effect of what we usually give to patrons. When we start our show in the venue, all other entertainers performing there will stop performing, and will be able to resume their performance after the time is over, or we end the mission early. And upon completion of the "gig," we get paid by the system, and paid a good wage.
Now, one has to be at the keys to play this game effectively, because one has to constantly be in a position to move, set up at a new locale, and stay for a given time. And that is something that no buffbot can do, no autoclicker can do, and no "ad spammer" can do. Because the cantina is now a dynamic environment, and a place that gives playing entertainers the power to create their own draw.
This is a great idea, I would love to see it. A couple problems:
a) Once someone book's a venue and starts performing, couldn't they just go afk for the thirty minutes until their booking is done?
b) I think the part that all other entertainers will stop performing is a bit flawed, first because it has mass griefing potential and 2, there are only so many venues in the galaxy and alot more dancers then that. While this could stumble afk dancers and bots, wouldn't it do harm by also causing any dedicated atk social dancers to have to cease performing.
Its a good idea, the problem is even worse then the horrors you described about the interface causing this has the potential to be the stake through the heart of entertaining. If a bot gets the venue booking, once they get in the cantina for 30 minutes they have full and unadulterated control of that venue, with no real dancers to compete with. While I do want to see some sort of booking system for the game (after all ent missions are supposed to include going to perform for specific NPC's), this is not the way to go about it and could do deadly harm to the profession.
Now we are getting somewhere. Thank you.
While it is true that a player can, at best, go 30 minutes at a gig unattended, I don't think this is as problematic to the game. What is gamebreaking to us is the ability to unattend for hours and days at a time. This corrects that. And moreover, it does it in a way that makes sense.
We feel strongly about AFK. But in truth, I really, really don't think that we want to hamstring short-term AFK. And what I mean by short term AFK, is the ability to get up, handle something imminent, with every intention of coming back.
The notion of "griefing" came into play. But you see, the problem I see as far as the venues are concerned is that there is no real motivation to get up and leave. And in fact, we are perhaps the only profession in the game that has no reason to get up and move in order to do our jobs.
And there are so many hotels, cantinas, and theatres that go unused every day, it seems to me that we need more of a reason to go to those. But that will never happen if every entertainer on the server can park in the MO. And besides, with travel being as fast as it is, I see no reason why patrons--and ourselves--can travel to where the show is.
This plan gives active, playing entertainers the power to book the MO for a nice chunk of time. What doesn't it give? The power to camp the MO at all hours.
We keep asking for an active control over who we dance for. My question though is, what was so bad about the active control we always had?
/stopdance.
It is the only real control that makes sense. Because all the other controls over who can /watch us only denies the patron the things that any boring layabout can provide. And it does absolutely nothing to deny the patrons the stunning visuals, the sounds, and the only real things we do better than the bots.
To me, we need more reasons to /stopdance. And the way to do that, is to make it so a performer cannot "camp" a venue without risk, while at the same time, encourage players to distribute themselves.
Here's some potential alterations to your idea that I think could make it work a little better, cause it is a neat idea it just needs some polishing:
JettVega wrote:
1) The cap for venues needs to be higher then 1 other wise we're capping the number of performers who can be playing at a given time. Maybe have different venues have different caps.
What about entertainment groups?
2) Perhaps this booking system should be optional so as not to infringe on social entertainers who want to get together at a certain venue, bands and such. They won't get the benefits and payouts of performing at that specific venue but they do at least have the right to perform there, like a club setting. Maybe cantinas could be converted into a bookable venue (for a set number of performers) and hotels could be the social venue. Also perhaps give NPC cantina owners the ability to 'register' their cantina for booking terminals/agents or have them remain social cantinas.
Buildings of all sorts (houses, city halls, etc.) are able to become venues. But real venues, now those should be more than simply "glorified houses." I believe theydeserve tointeract with the system in a unique way. Of course, a dancer or musician would only be able to enhance at their base rate, but at least its something.
Or better yet, take your entertainer friends on tour with you, and form a band of your own! Turn the SoroSuub into a tour vessel, and do a "system generated Cantina Crawl," everyday!
3) A kind of unusual idea to keep afk dancers from taking over venues... In the theater quests one of the key features is dance/flourish requests from the audience. If you fail to meet one of these requests your audience satisfaction goes down. Perhaps when entertaining at a venue at some point you get a system message or a random NPC watching will shout out a request for a flourish or a dance(a system message might be better to reduce spam and the annoyance this could cause other patrons). Within the next minute, if the entertainer doesn't hit that flourish or do that dance, their rating at that venue goes down decreasing potency of buffs and payouts... The npc (or another) will another request if the first was not met. If it is met, no more annoyance from the npc during the show, but if they don't they will get one final request (3 strikes basically). If the dancer/entertainer fails to hit that flourish or dance after the 3rd request, their payout is cancelled and their venue registration ends. A flourish request is probably better then a dance request so as not to impose on dance creativity but this would help prevent afk takeover of bookable venues.
Excellent idea. But it should be a rare occurance (maybe once or twice a gig at the most. And certainly not like the stormtroopers). Enough to keep us on our toes, and add some variety, but not so much that we have to ignore the patrons.
4) Have different 'mission' levels with the option for advanced missions with mulitple requests from NPC's. The would be optional, just an alternative type of booking for entertainers looking for a challenge. More casual dancers/musicians could stick with the standard missions where they'd only be interrupted like once or twice for requests (at a random time interval during the dance so it couldn't be a case of coming back to the keyboard 15 minutes in then leaving again).
Perhaps more difficult missions for more advanced entertainers?
A pop-up or radial menu like the CHs have would definately stop the Buff bots entirely. Perhaps there could be a small buff that players could get from passive watching (like there is now) but the powerful stuff has to be done manually.
great ideas all. perhaps the devs will like this information and implement it.
Here is the problem though:
If we have our entire game based around "selling /watches," then that will be it. I don't see how the developers would think we would really need a system based distribution mechanism of any worth, or system derrived forms of income. Why even use the system to subsidize our efforts if we can earn just as much--if not more--by withholding the "active click" we do in the MO?
The more power we have to control who can and cannot /watch us, the less we would need any other system-generated forms of income, or other such things.
And I would be fine with that. But, I really don't think there is any point in requiring the patrons to /watch us for a given time. After all, they really won't be tipping us because we are amusing. We could be the most amusing ones there in the cantina, but if we don't click on the radial menu, then we are indeed a "waste of bandwith" to players.
So why not just, for the sake of our own shows, and for the sake of the patrons who really only want the "radial click," to give them the radial click, take their credits, and be done with it? Why not just make it instant, and require no /watch for any length of time, and have it be quick, and certain like what doctors do?
Because I can think of several scenarios that can arise that can turn the cantinas into hostile places to be, if we require that a patron /watch us, and a patron sustain the /watch for a given time, and we do the "active click" on the radial menu. Things like the following:
1) A patron walks into a cantina. He tips the dancer 100 credits, and begins /watching. Why? Nobody knows. Perhaps because the dancer is amusing, and he doesn't want anything more. But then, ten minutes later, he requests a buff, and the dancer refuses, because the tip was too low. The patron is angry, and wants his /tip back. But is he entitled to the tip refund? Or no?
2) A patron walks into a cantina, pays the dancer X amount of credits to get a buff. The dancer complies, but the patron runs away before the process can be completed. The patron calls the dancer a bad buffer, and demands a refund.
3) A patron walks into a cantina, tips a dancer X amount of credits for an unspecified reason, and then requests a buff some time later. The dancer comples, but then the dancer has to leave early, before the buff is completed. Does this make the dancer a griefer?
4) A dancer starts to buff, and gets a tip, but the server disconnects, and the patron and/or performer cannot complete the process. Should the tip be returned? Or is the tip the dancer's?
5) A patron walks into a cantina and requests a buff. The dancer complies, and at the end, the dancer requests a tip, and does not get one. Is the dancer asking for something he or she is not entitled to get? Or is the patron a cheapskate?
6) A patron walks into a cantina and requests a buff. He says that since he tipped the dancer 10,000 credits the last time for no buff, he deserves to get the buff for free. The dancer says no, and requests more money. Who is right, and who is wrong?
All of these problems become very important when the responsibility for doing what we do is divided between the patron and performer. And there are multiple permutations to the above scenarios. Its the sort of thing that absolutely destroys the atmosphere in the cantina, and has everyone too worried about "being screwed" to relax and take it easy.
Its the sort of thing that made this profession most disgusting in the mind-buffing time, and frankly, is not a game that I think we really want for ourselves. Neither we, nor our patrons, love that game, or appreciate it. And we have it only because this sort of system is a bad combination of activity and passivity, filled with too many opportunities for grief--on both sides of the stage.
So let's put theresponsibility of theenhancement on the patron, or the performer. Not divided between the two. Because I am not in the mood for having my motives questioned, or handling the above dilemas. I do not feel like creating "quality control" measures. I do not feel like creating a "pricing strategy" for my radial click. Ido not want to bea cash register that issues refunds, nor do I want to talk of my successful days in terms of "successful radial clicks sold." That would destroy what I would like to be, but it cannot be avoided under the above scenario.
I want to be paid to perform. Not paid to sequence an industrial process.
... the way for a patron to choose what type of buff to receive is to ... (wait for it) ... drink a specific type of drink?
So maybe if you want an armorsmith experimentation buff, you have grab a sunburn and then ask that dancer for a buff. To get a harvesting buff you drink some Jawa beer before you go listen to the musician. I'm not saying it has to be existing drinks; they could come up with new ones. The NPC bartenders could sell these drinks, but chefs could make them too. Maybe chefs could craft versions that might give a better effect, or if nothing else they could sell them in crates and it might be more convenient for the players that way so they could have a crate of their favorite buffing drink.It would probably be best if the way to get a buff is to consume the drink and get the entertainer to direct a little extra attention your way (i.e. approve your buff request) - in either order. So if you get the buff request first, but forget to consume your drink, you can still drink it after the buffing starts and still get the buff. Probably these buff drinks shouldn't contribute to stomach filling, but they may need to have a timer on them so that the effect will wear off after some point. There's also the possibility of adding a visual drinking animation that might just really make this look cool. Maybe even instead of drinking it, you equip the drink in either hand so that it shows you carrying a glass or bottle or something. Then as you get buffed, the item gets used up and either disappears on its own or converts to a 'used' item that you just destroy.
I really liked this idea when I thought about it. Is this something we might want to ask for or be able to get?
Message Edited by DanceRulez on 08-06-2005 03:56 AM
With today's hotfix, xp is available only to those who are grouped.
I won't be grouping with AFK ents, one way to go to discourage them. Yes, I know it doesn't remove the mechanics of being able to AFK grind, but it is one action we can choose to take.
Caerwynn wrote:
With today's hotfix, xp is available only to those who are grouped.
I won't be grouping with AFK ents, one way to go to discourage them. Yes, I know it doesn't remove the mechanics of being able to AFK grind, but it is one action we can choose to take.
(Which is good, because you're right, that would suck!)