Dancer Archive
Thread: Dev post regarding inspiration buffs
Drygo wrote:
But, as I said earlier, I'm not complaining right now. I tend to have a more hopeful outlook than I have for quite some time. And, if the devs can actually pull off giving the atk'ers a distinct advantage that always means that if we're competing against a bot, people will always want our services instead, then I think the problem would be solved. So, that's what I'm hoping for right now, and that's what seems to be a more realistic expectation at this point.
Message Edited by Akaara on 04-08-2005 01:01 PM
Esharra wrote:
Panthu wrote:
I was surprised when I saw Eshie say that too, mostly just because I've never seen any Dev comment saying that the Ent posting community approved of or wanted any kind of AFK option.
Nor have I and perhaps my wording should have been "(I believe feedback from this forum *may have*somewhat encouraged this)", rather than "(I believe feedback from this forum somewhat encouraged this)". All weasel words aside though..this still isn't something that I've had the opportunity to discuss exclusivelywith them. And while I've seen posts in this forum suggesting that leaving the keyboard for periods of time is not only acceptable but the norm and spoken with many in game that have expressed that those who choose not to leave their avatar animating while unattended either have some serious obsession problems or absolutely no life to speak of, it is definitely time for a poll (one will go up shortly).
Drygo wrote:
And, I know you and I had a little...ahem..."argument" once about this.
It was a "passionate discussion".In that thread, if I recall,someone (not Drygo) referred to me as an ATK Nazi..it wasn't the first time I've been called similar names for my position on this topic.
I've talked to players who identify as ATK andclaim to always be ATK, yet feel it no contradiction to leave their avatar for a few hours even, while they go shopping, pick up the kids, &c. It seems that the week before every crawl I run into at least a couple of players who identify as ATK and understand manyaspects of the impact unattended play has had on dancersbut feel that it will be ok to leave their avatar animating overnight in preparation for the event as they have "earned their dues" on another server. So, again, it all comes down to..where do we draw the line? So far, I can see, from an outside perspective, how somemight interpret our collective attitude to be that we are against unattended play as long as anything done to prevent it does not restrict *our* unattended play. It would sure help matters if we could come up with a consensus but I honestly don't believe we can.
(For the record, I did go "afk" a couple of months ago. I was on the phone with Scip..having a "passionate discussion", the context of which we won't go into. I wasat my other computer which sits next to the refrigerator. I stood up to open the fridge door and get a coke. Scip said, "Aha! You just went afk!" I feel no remorse.)
Message Edited by Esharra on 04-08-2005 01:25 PM
whenever i go afk i stop dancing and sit down but sometimes when i come bac i forget to turn the afk tag off so ill be sitting there chatting with people when one of my smarta$$ friends walks and and wil lstart OOOOO your afk entertaining i got ss's!!111!!! at which poin i threaten bodily harm if they ever release said ss's out of context
Eaca wrote:
Answers at least two questions:
Who are these buffs for? Combatants
What is being done about buff bots? Nothing
The Devs think they can save the game by concentrating on combat, however that won't save the game. The game dynamics are being greatly affected by the CU and it is likely that when it goes live many crafters and entertainers may well be left with a sour taste in their mouth. The truth is most combat dedicated folks have 1 account ( because you don't need more ). Most crafters have more than one account. And I know many guild leaders who have an entertainer/dancer/musician alt. If the game mechanics that made such items expedient are gone, then there will be little need for multiple accounts, and believe me if everyone who has a mutliple account shed all accounts but 1 heads would roll ( the majority of folks I know have more than one account.....)
Esharra wrote:The information we are receiving is that they want to encourage attended play and discourage unattended play through game dynamics. I think this will result in an increased quality of game for dancers while still allowing players to leave the game running.
I think unattended play is bad for games. I believe it hurts balance and skews demographics.
So. I've been thinking.
Now's the time to run, yes.
Anyway.. I've been contemplating need versus want. How do we define if something is a need or a want?
Now, I've always felt that mind/BF heals were a need. If you don't have them, you are eventually unable to function. But I've also always felt that mind buffs were a want. A lot of people obviously disagree with me on this point.
So with our systems being reworked, and the focus being on us giving services that are wanted but not needed, how do we really define that? And at what point does a service that started as a want turn into a need?
I think this is important, because as I thought about it I realized... Doesn't a want turn into a need when it's overabundant? Once you have it all the time, you forget how to function without it, and it turns into something you need. I experienced this with WoW -- "I can't log off, I'm not in an inn!!" -- that exp bonus became a need for me, until I realized that I was wasting more stress and time finding an inn than if I just killed things in the space of that time. But, I had no other option to get that bonus other than go to an inn. I was not able to create my own mock-inn and go there.
Therefore.. isn't it better overall for a want based system to sometimes be unavailable or too much work to find? Doesn't there.. well.. need..to be down time, to keep the want from turning into a need?
Just a thought, for if we are moving into an era of wanting but not needing entertainers.
Mystyrys wrote:Things that make you go Hmmm.
The problem is that the macro system on this game makes it possible so its impossible to police. To stop it they HAVE to make it impossible from in game tools. I know its difficult to police 3rd party programs but there is a major difference here. Most people will use any and all in game functions, even mild exploits, because being an ingame function tends to make it "all right". Most people won't use 3rd party programs or flagrantly break the TOS when a company is showing attempts to enforce it. So I truly believe that making long term AFK an impossibility with in game tools will cut down on it tremendously, day one.
They also worry about taking away functionality to accomplish it but that is either an inability to think outside the box or just plain double speak. There is no need to remove one bit of macro functionality, the client already knows the difference between computer driven input and application driven input (i.e. user input and macro input). If you have auto-afk on it won't accept all the emotes and macro activities as something that keeps you active, only real keyboard input will accomplish it. So the real question is why does it act so differently when the auto-AFK setting is turned off? They could fix the problem immediately by either not allowing the auto-AFK to be disabled or by making the system behave the same for the inactivity timeout as it does for auto-AFK detection. This one simple piece of easily testable information makes me question all their statements about how difficult it is to accomplish. Will they ever get rid of AFK, no not completely, there will always be cheaters and 3rd party programs. Making it an unsupported in game function and enforcing the rules when cheaters are discovered will cut down on it by several magnitudes.
LyteFoot wrote:
Mystyrys wrote:
Things that make you go Hmmm.
No macrobots allowed
The problem is that the macro system on this game makes it possible so its impossible to police.
DarkY0da wrote:
Yeah /report would do it... and then people would just start abusing it and reporting anyone and everyone, and of course every time a CSR shows up at a report and sends them a pop up only to have it answered would be huge time waste. (I haven't had to deal with CS in about 6 months are they still as bad as they used to be ?)
I think they've gottena lot better but most of my play is on a server where the lead CSR is very active in the game, maintains good relationships with the playerbase and the followup on ticketshas becomepretty remarkablethere(CSR-ShalomenB..you are da bomb!).
I've only seen one game where players policing player behavior has worked and that is A Tale in the Desert. But that is a very different game and there isn't a griefer mentality to worry about.
Esharra wrote:
I've only seen one game where players policing player behavior has worked and that is A Tale in the Desert. But that is a very different game and there isn't a griefer mentality to worry about.
And it wasn't based on combat, but on building?
Panthu wrote:A) They don't think they can win. To keep the true social nature of Ent and performance flowing, any guards they tried to put in would be easily by passed with 3rd party macro tools. They try to avoid encouraging 3rd party software at all costs because it opens up the game to many areas of exploitation and is basically a CS nightmare.
But.. my problem is most of the people who set out to bot already use 3rd party programs, either as a double backup to stay connected, or as a program to reconnect and restart if they get disconnected. You just can't tell the difference now until they 'fess up to it.
If the devs think people don't use 3rd party macros prolifically now, they're blind. That's why it's such a joke. 3rd party ent bots, doc bots, crafters, lots and lots of FS craft grinders.. and as it's been accepted for ent, it became accepted for doc, crafting and combat.. pretty soon it will be accepted for every aspect of the game to use a 3rd party program but just pretend like you're using the in game system.
So faced with the majority of people using them because they know no one will give a damn and no one will be able to tell, versus it being against policy and against public opinion so that only a few will do it and then only when they feel in a "safe" zone... I would choose having the majority not able to use them.
Also I think the AFK poll is giving some good information and shows us that even among people who AFK, the real reason they do it is because they can. I think people way overestimate the number of people who go out of their way to specifically AFK. Most levellers only do it because they can, and if the system logged them out after a half hour of them leaving to go to sleep, would they notice the difference?
Even now how many people do we really think there on a server that go out of their way to specifically AFK and who would even be that attached to it to risk getting banned? I'd say 50 or less, if I include private house bots. Maybe 15 or less if I just count public cantina bots.
Would they win completely if they tried? Of course not. But would a system where only a few succeeded and people unequivocally knew that those people succeeded by cheating be better than a system where we're all "cheaters?" Absolutely.
I know it seems like a moot point to argue right now. But with all the changes and our reinvention my biggest fear is that we're just going to replay this scenario again and again until the underlying problems are addressed. I don't want that. I want it to be fixed so we can all be happy...and now's the perfect time to do that.