Dancer Archive
Thread: Pro/Anti AFK/Bot/Macro All Purpose Sticky
Once the point of entertainer buffs has been properly addressed, and assuming that we still have a reason to buff that fits with our playstyle, then we can talk more about the process of buffing itself, and here's where I respectfully disgree with you. I don't agree that the current "/" system, as you call it, is either difficult or stressful - at least not in and of itself. First off, it's the same from the customer's point of view whether we have slash commands or not. Even if the devs did as you suggested, and made all buffing passive, the customer still has to /watch or /listen, and later /stopwatch or /stoplisten at the appropriate times to recieve the appropriate service, and assuming nothing else changes from current system, then there's still the problem of burning enough action to give a desired buff. While we may get some convenience from this, we've also lost a lot of our control over our services, and I think that is still worth something (there may still be /denyservice, but we can't disentangle a buff from healing if we want to charge for it). There's also the issue that it seems rather redundant to me, that just the process of playing music or dancing without doing anything else should provide three different functions at the same time - namely healing mind wounds, healing battle fatigue, and providing a mind buff. It seems to me that these functions should be differentiated otherwise what's the point of having them all. Again there is more that could be said here, but I just want to discuss these points briefly.
As far as I'm concerned, it's not the slash commands that lead to uncertainty, but the fact that we have no interface to rely on once the buffing process is initiated (compounded by what appear to be other bugs in the system that we may or may not have any control over). Your concern seems to be that the current system is unreliable in its current form, and to some extent I think that is true (though my own experience has been that for the most part it seems to work the way it's supposed to). But your argument seems to be that it doesn't work because somehow the slash commands are too hard. I'm not sure I get why you would think that is so, unless you believe that as a performer we shouldn't be actively bothered to dispense game mechanics as this takes away from your ability to perform. If that's the case perhaps you would rather be completely unencumbered by having to dispense any game mechanics at all so that your entire gameplay could be based on the pursuit and perfection of performing in and of itself. I'm not trying to be insulting by saying this, just trying to better understand where you're coming from. Perhaps, instead, you agree that it is useful for us to have a game mechanic, but would rather it be completely passive so that you never have to deal with it. That seems to be the core of your suggestion. Maybe that would appeal to some people, but I think in a game sense, it's not going to work well in the big picture. As I see it it also does nothing to discourage AFK play. Without some form of *interactive* gameplay, there's nothing to stop or discourage unattended play. The slash commands are a part of this interactivity, but I think there needs to be more to it, and to ensure reliability there needs to be something else - an interface perhaps. Increasing the interactivity, however, will mean increasing our role in the process which means it will come at the expense of the "performance" or at least our complete freedom in performing as we wish, but I think at least for the process of buffing this is worthwhile and kind of makes sense - it should have some kind of cost associated with it. Combine the interactivity with some way to gauge reliability such as in interface or some sort of indicator, and I think you fix a lot of the same problems you're trying to solve, but without giving up our control over it, and still discouraging or eliminating unattended play (yes I realize I haven't given a lot specifics here, but I don't have time to get into details at the moment).
If a system more like this still doesn't appeal to you, then perhaps you would prefer to play as a performance purist - and you could still do this. If you don't like to conform to whatever revised actions that buffing might require to complete, then choose not to offer buffs so that you may concentrate solely on your performance and any mechanics that are still completely passive like mind wound and BF healing are now. I just disagree that the current system is "complicated", and I don't think that making all our services completely passive will make our professions better.
Isleh wrote:
Baciacca wrote:
1) Just how available should bonuses like buffs and skills like healing be?
The developers must have had some idea about how much downtime and how valuable they wanted the skills of entertainers (and doctors) to be. There's a reason they didn't put up npc's to heal or heck, put in wounds at all. That reason, my guess, is to give value to the skills while creating challenges for the combat players to overcome. Now maybe the developers underestimated how many people would play each role, and how hard the challenge would be. If that is true, then perhaps they need to evaluate whetherthey remove wounds/fatigue, and add blue frogs or npcs to provide some alternative healing, or let players have mechanics to provide some off-line healing that results from online play (the way crafted goods work). What they decide to do doesn't matter that much, but ultimately, we all need to acknowledge the concept that games need balances to them. I know the developers did not expect the amount of AFK that we currently have in the game. I know they don't "like " it, and I know that part of that must be because we are pushing the limits of the balance they designed into the game. The same way we all had fun fixing disabled bikes with a shuttle hop. Doesn't make sense to disable the darn thing if you pay nothing to get it fixed, does it? Doesn't give value to artisan skills to make new ones, if no one really needs new bikes? Sure its less convenient to have to buy new ones, but convenience for the combat player is not the only goal of the game. So the question of just how available buffs and healing has to be answered carefully. The more available you make them, the less they operate as strategy pre and post battle, and more just as affecting it during battle. That's not necessarily bad, but it does make the game a lot less complex.
Ok, I'm not sure if you have one question or multiple questions in these huge paragraphs but I'll just try to stick with answering the questions at the beginning of each (although they don't seem to really move the flow of this discussion "forward" as you put it).
I think that buffs and healing should be readily available to players 24/7. I think that the market is such that any demand will be met. I also think that groups and guilds are functional enough to provide these needs to their members. If my guild's armorsmith can make armor and then place it in a house so that it is available to me 24/7, why is it wrong if my guild's dancer or musician leaves themselves running an AFK macro so that I can get buffs from them 24/7?
Your guilds armorsmiths is not AFK when they make the armor. Are they?
But that's not the point, the point is that I can utilize the benefits he has to offer at any point in time. Now you may say that the armor stock he makes will eventually run out, but then again, my entertainer bot is not always online so the supply of their benefits are equally available and unavailable. Whether a player performs their game function AFK or not doesn't really matter to me as a consumer. What does matter is the availability of their product or service when I need or want it.
Players who are in guilds should have an advantage of obtaining products or services from other players. That isone ofthe reasons that people form guilds, to share resources.
It is extremely simple for me topick up novice medic and purchase woundpacks which I can use to heal all of myhealth, action, andrelated substatwounds. I believe that it should be equally as easy for me to get my battle fatigue and mind stats healed.
It isextremely simple to heal battle fatique and mind wounds too Baciacca, pick up novice entertainer. Half your guild can pick up novice medic, the other half novice entertainer.
I can heal all my wounds on any health of action stat with at most 2 charges of a med use 5 woundpack. I can purchase woundpacks on the bazaar. I can learn novice medic from any of the plethora of trainers for 100 credits. I can /find trainer:medic to find a trainer. The means are readily available to me in any major city. I think that healing for mind stats and battle fatigueshould be just as readily available. We don't need half the guild to have medic, we only need one person to have medic with a supply of woundpacks. We don't need half the guild to have novice entertainer, we just need one person to be a master dancer or musician. We circumvent any of us having to give up skill points for this out of our templates by buying second accounts. If you think that me having a second account is the issue, then that is a completely different argument altogether.
That leads to my next question:
2) Do you feel it is necessary to get value out of an unattened character? Do you feel it is necessary for that character to be *online* while you get the benefits from it? Could you be satisifed with something like merchant if it were part of the balance of the supply or buffs/heals and gaining expeirence? Or is most of the appeal of owning a bot ( or using or playing AFK ) tied up in the fact that its like fixing a disabled bike, that you know it is a way to get around the limits of the game?
This is not about how available we want buffs to be, but about why you have an alt in the first place. This question is also not about the role of entertainers, which I will ask in the third set. Let's imagine we turned every ticket collector into a buffer that could heal and buff 200% of your mind and body for 3 hours. You would no longer need your bot, would you? Would you threaten SOE not to make this change because you would cancel your account? Or would you just cheer the change and cancel? Does anyone out there really bot because they enjoy it, and if so, are there so many of those players that SOE needs to be careful in addressing the "shortage" solutions that they preserve a role for the "bot owners"? Or can we say these people are just cheaters who shouldn't be accomodated in a working game? How valuable is the need to AFK one's way to getting experience and rewards, compared to some solution built around offline play (such as holo vids recorded by live players, displayed through terminals or merchant vendors...lots of ideas, that's just a general sketch)?
This isn't really a well-structured question. I don't think that anybody would see it as "necessary" to gain value from an unattended character. Now if you link this to the previous question where I said that I should easily be able to get healing and buffs from entertainers and if you believed that at some time periods, the only entertainers available are AFK, then in that situation I would say that it is necessary for me to be able to get value from those unattended entertainers. I believe it is necessary that I am able to acquire healing and buffs if I need them to participate in the kind of content that I want to particiapte in.
I guess when it comes down to it, it really doesn't matter to me if that player is online or not, I'm just looking to acquirethe end result. I don't go to cantinas to socialize. I use a ventrilo server where I am always in conversation about various subjects. I am probably not an example of the average player in this respect. Because I use ventrilo, I have almost no need or desire for socialization ingame. I go to a lot of different ventrilo servers where various guilds have made their home. There are many players that encompass many professions that come into my guild's ventrilo server to chat about varoius game mechanics. I actually probably use the forums more for communication than I use ingame chat.
If entertainer buffs were sold on a vendor, I think they would probably be easier to acquire so I would probably prefer using a vendor to acquire the product. In my experience, entertainers have been very inconvenient and inefficient in providing this service to me and vendors have always been the opposite. Hence I would trust a vendor over a person, but then you have to remember that behind any vendor is a person who stocks it. So I'm not really trusting the vendor as much as I am trusting the crafter.
As far as owning a bot goes, it's not a way of getting around the limits of the game and I have never seen it as such. I think that you are confusing the owning of a bot and the owning of a second account. I wanted to have a second account so I could do more than what I could with just one account. Having my second account allows me to give myself and my friends dancer and musician buffs, as well as having a crafter that I can use to experience another part of the game that interests me. I guess you could say that people purchase a second ccount so that they can provide themselves a service instead of having to acquire it from somebody else. Well so be it, but there is nothing against owning a second account. It's a choice that any player can make.
Unlike a Combat Medic, Medic or Doctors, Entertainers can only use their ability to their full capability in the cantina. We can't be out in a field and see that you have BF, pull out a droid, and heal that BF. While every other profession can be used to compliment another, Entertainer is at odds. You can either do one or another. but not both
No, Entertainers canalso use their ability to full capacity in any house, player city structure, or faction base. Entertainers can utilize all their fuctions except for healing battle fatigue in a camp. You can't be out in the field, but you can be in a convenient location like a campsite, house, or faction base. I can't tell you how valuable entertainers have been in the past that have come out to help with PvP efforts by being closeby in one of these facilities to heal mind wounds and give fresh buffs. Entertainer is not at odds. It complements every combat profession. It complements every healing profession. It compliments any profession that needs battle fatigue healed, mind wounds healed, and mind stat buffs, so that's pretty much everybody.
Dreamland wrote:
I do not defend it sirii. I would much rather see dancer buffs completely removed than continue seeing buffbots. What is the point of having players get unrestricted 24/7 access to buffs? There is none. It is more effective to just increase everyones mind stats by defaultthan it would be even to slap a blue frog in the cantina to hand out buffs.
The very concept of a buff revolves around not being available 100% of the time. If it is available 100% of the time for no cost whatsoever then it is a useless game mechanic that offers nothing. Doctor buffs are not available 24/7 either. They are on large servers because of sheer numbers. There were times on Sunrunner i waited an hour for another doctor to set up shop and start selling again. Doctor buffs also spur the economy it gets rangers out there selling meat to the docs, it gets the architects going creating harvesters to get the resources.
Doctor buffs albeit overpowered are an example of a game mechanic working properly by benefiting a vast group of players. With buffbots in existance the mind buff is pointless. It is nothing more than a waste ofspace for the lines of code it takes up in the servers memory.
Message Edited by Dreamland on 11-10-2004 04:39 PM
Well I don't know why you have much of an issue then, Dreamland. Because if you eliminate the protocols needed on the dancer's end to buff, you eliminate the whole concept of buffbots. Because the only thing that makes a buffbot a buffbot is the fact that it is designed specifically to distribute the protocol at all hours.
We'll have plenty of time to re-evaluate our role in terms of what we do, and perhaps it will be completely different from statistic healing and enhancement. But this one simple change can be done today, and will not make anything any worse for us.
You say that "The very concept of the buff revolves around not being available 100% of the time." But you would think that if this definition were valid and pertinant in our case, then the developers would take issue with buffbots, who violate this concept. I propose that our buff has a seperate criteria for limitation and distribution than a doctor buff, because our limitation is that we need a venue to give out buffs. Players must break with what they are doing to find us at a venue, or they must break with what they are doing to set a venue. And then it takes time from them as well. But these things have nothing to do with our active protocols to initiate the buff. It has everything to do with our patron's actions, not ours. We simply skill animate.
What is the point to having players get unrestricted access to buffs 24/7? Because entertainer buffs were never meantto notbe available when dancers are dancing. Players are getting unrestricted access to buffs from dancers all around the servers. They are getting them for free, and they are getting them from both attended and unattended characters. They are getting them from boring unattended characters, boring live characters, and lively played characters. And they are getting them because dancer buffs alone are not anything that deserves compensation. After all, why would something that requires absolutely no effort to give be worth anything? How much effort does it take to initiate "/" commands? And who does it hurt? The unattended character that has no need to make use of their unlimited online time, or the live player who wants to make best use of their limited online time?
Its no wonder whywe don't see any truth in what I am saying.We are thinking like our developers, economists, and statistitions think. Andwe areall suffering from the same myopia.When we talk aboutconditions of relative scarcity and supply and demand, it simply does not correcly model what this group of professions is about. We are thinking in terms of pure rational behavior in a perfectly rational system, where everybody behaves rationally.
Entertainer buffs are not available 100% of the time, but its not because of things like /setperform and the group buff. The thing that is the limitation on entertainer buffs stems from the fact that there are only certain areas that may grant them, the venues. Entertainer buffs are not things that can be administered in the field unless one spends the time to make camp. Time too is the limiting factor, but not from our end, from our audience's end. As the system message states: "You must be watch or listen to an entertainer for at least two minutes to receive an enhancement."
I wish itwas as true, simple, and intuitive as the system message says. But its a lie. Because merely /watching or /listening to an entertainer for two minutes does not give a player an enhancement. In order to get an enhancement, a player must somehow coax an entertainer to /invite or /setperform, and then pay homage to a tedious, routinized procedure that is not very condusive to live play. And then if the procedure is followed correctly, the player will get an enhancement.
So I say we should quit trying to find reasons to justify why mind buffs should be scarce, and start trying to find reasons how we can provide them more efficiently, intuitively, and as a reason to sit down and enjoy the ambiance we work hard at providing. Because the patrons have told us mind buffs are not as available as they'd like, and its really not an issue of whether mind buffs are truly not available. The fact that they believe it is true makes it true.
The problems of the buffing protocols are not problems of economics. Buffbots can buff pretty much anyone who wants it pretty much when they want it anyways. And if a buffbot is full at a particular time, they'll just buy another account and put down another buffbot. The problems of the buffing protocols is that they create psychological barriers and social barriers that cause stress, resentment, and facilitate computerized distribution. And this hurts live players the most, because the very fact that they are live becomes a disadvantage in buff distribution in a system that values mastering a procedure.
You claim that not everyone deserves a mind buff when they go to the cantina. How can you hate your audience so much? I personally believe that everyone deserves a mind buff when they come to my cantina, because they took the time to go there to see me. And I personally wish it wasn't such a contrived hassle to give it to them, and also wish that they wouldn't see it as a contrived hassle to ask it of me. I want to serve them. I want the tools available to me to serve them better than a buffbot. I feel I have a right to havethe potential to buff over 7000 players a day, just like the buffbot has, but I want to be able to do it in a day's active play, and not resort to botting my character. Ifeel I have a right to expectpatrons to tip me because I entertain them, not because I give them a "/" command. I feel I have a right to expectthis game to be based on things I can control that take creativity, compassion, skill, rehearsal, and effort to give. Not a game that is simply an excercise in giving out more "/" commands by hook or crook. And I know that with one simple change, I can have a game that is once again something I can relate to and appeciate; where live dancers who put effort into their performances are recognized as such, andbuffbots are seen again as simply unattended characters doing nothing all that special. Ihave a right as the one who gives out game mechanics to wantless complexity to do the things I want to do, my patrons want me to do, and the server wants me to do. I want this for us most of all.
And I feel that nobody has a right to say I can't want it.
Message Edited by PoetDancer on 11-11-2004 02:51 AM
Baciacca wrote:I'm asking for a compromise because a compromise is the only option available. The ATK entertainer population is a small minority compared to the combat player population that wants buffs. Is it not obvious to you that a compromise has to be made? If it was feasible for SOE to remove AFK play by taking away recursive macros like you want, why haven't they done it already? The obvious answer is that they realized that is not the solution to the problem, and that taking away recursive macros would have too many negative effects on too large a portion of the player base's gameplay styles.
Baciacca, while I do appreciate your effort to at least try to engage in some kind of meaningful dialog, I still find that many of your arguments add nothing new to the subject than we have heard many times before. I have only a couple of things to say to your above comments. One, you can make no accurate assessment of the ATK entertainer population in the current AFK/buffbot environment nor can you make any real guess what it could be if AFK macros were not available, because it has never had a chance to fully develop in a healthy environment. And second, you completely ignore the fact that this game is constantly changing, and in fact the entire combat process is being revamped. The nature and use of mind buffs can, and in all probability will, change at any time and likely with the combat revamp, and therefore the combat players' relative "need" for mind buffs is also subject to chage. What may be a "necessity" now may become more of a convenience or even just an option later. I don't believe the devs have any intention of allowing the current situation to continue, and we as entertainers are very tired of the situation as it exists and will do everything we can to see that it does get changed. I would also like to point out this recent quote to you by a member of the dev team here in our own Dancer forum:
SOETyrant wrote on 11/05/04: I think we made the initial announcement on our intent to remove unattended macroing within 60 days of my joining the project. Not everyone on the team (or in the game) is going to be happy about this change. In fact, your current irritation is just going to be moved to another group of people who are just fine with AFK play when we make this change. [snip] Removing unattended macroing is a priority item. But it's not simple to do, so it needs both a fair amount of resources and time.. I will push to get it in progress soonest is what I can promise.
So perhaps this is a both an admission that the change away from AFK will be hard (no one said it wouldn't be, but I and others and apparently some of the devs feel it's an important step toward making the overall game better in the long run), and an explanation of why it hasn't been done yet, though it is still on the to-do list.
DanceRulez wrote:
Baciacca wrote:I'm asking for a compromise because a compromise is the only option available. The ATK entertainer population is a small minority compared to the combat player population that wants buffs. Is it not obvious to you that a compromise has to be made? If it was feasible for SOE to remove AFK play by taking away recursive macros like you want, why haven't they done it already? The obvious answer is that they realized that is not the solution to the problem, and that taking away recursive macros would have too many negative effects on too large a portion of the player base's gameplay styles.
Baciacca, while I do appreciate your effort to at least try to engage in some kind of meaningful dialog, I still find that many of your arguments add nothing new to the subject than we have heard many times before. I have only a couple of things to say to your above comments. One, you can make no accurate assessment of the ATK entertainer population in the current AFK/buffbot environment nor can you make any real guess what it could be if AFK macros were not available, because it has never had a chance to fully develop in a healthy environment. And second, you completely ignore the fact that this game is constantly changing, and in fact the entire combat process is being revamped. The nature and use of mind buffs can, and in all probability will, change at any time and likely with the combat revamp, and therefore the combat players' relative "need" for mind buffs is also subject to chage. What may be a "necessity" now may become more of a convenience or even just an option later. I don't believe the devs have any intention of allowing the current situation to continue, and we as entertainers are very tired of the situation as it exists and will do everything we can to see that it does get changed. I would also like to point out this recent quote to you by a member of the dev team here in our own Dancer forum:
SOETyrant wrote on 11/05/04: I think we made the initial announcement on our intent to remove unattended macroing within 60 days of my joining the project. Not everyone on the team (or in the game) is going to be happy about this change. In fact, your current irritation is just going to be moved to another group of people who are just fine with AFK play when we make this change. [snip] Removing unattended macroing is a priority item. But it's not simple to do, so it needs both a fair amount of resources and time.. I will push to get it in progress soonest is what I can promise.
So perhaps this is a both an admission that the change away from AFK will be hard (no one said it wouldn't be, but I and others and apparently some of the devs feel it's an important step toward making the overall game better in the long run), and an explanation of why it hasn't been done yet, though it is still on the to-do list.
GCW
- Overt players no longer switch to covert without asking a recruiter to do so (when traveling, dying, etc).
-Tiggs, 11/9/04
- Overt players are now only forced covert when cloning. Players are now invulnerable while loading from travel or logging in from being safely logged out
Thank you to everyone that tested and provided feedback on this issue. It was very valuable in helping us find a better solution.
-Tiggs, 11/10/04
Truth is, when they post their decision totake AFK macros out, expect the same result from the community. To many people do it and feel they pay their $15 a month to be able to do it.
Right now all we can do is sit and wait.
DanceRulez wrote:
Your concern seems to be that the current system is unreliable in its current form, and to some extent I think that is true (though my own experience has been that for the most part it seems to work the way it's supposed to). But your argument seems to be that it doesn't work because somehow the slash commands are too hard. I'm not sure I get why you would think that is so, unless you believe that as a performer we shouldn't be actively bothered to dispense game mechanics as this takes away from your ability to perform. If that's the case perhaps you would rather be completely unencumbered by having to dispense any game mechanics at all so that your entire gameplay could be based on the pursuit and perfection of performing in and of itself. I'm not trying to be insulting by saying this, just trying to better understand where you're coming from. Perhaps, instead, you agree that it is useful for us to have a game mechanic, but would rather it be completely passive so that you never have to deal with it. That seems to be the core of your suggestion.
The core of my argument is that the buffing process as it stands creates an aura of mistrust, confusion, unclear roles and expectations, and general tedium when done between two live players. And its because both of them must coordinate their attendent roles in a precise manner, or there will be no buff. For example. If someone is holding a rifle and wants a buff from me, I have to ask if they are /watching before I /setperform. If I /setperform before they are /watching, we will both go through the entire procedure and have NO resulting buff. All I have is their word to go on, and if they misinform me as to when they are /watching, they'll get NO buffbecause ofsomething that is not my fault, yet I have to suffer for. Because I cannot /setperform on another until the first one /stopwatches, or risk wonking the buff. So what if the player I am buffing goes AFK and says they'll be right back, and in the meantime players give me tells saying "can u buff me?" I either have to say I have to wait until the fellow I am buffing currently comes back, or I have to drop what I'm doing, give the player an incomplete buff, or give a 2 hour buff that he cannot fully enjoy because I ran out of the cantina to break his /watch before he got back. And no matter what the circumstances were behind a patron's dissatisfaction, they naturally blame me because they feel I am the provider that is responsible for their satisfaction. Now let's say I am in a group. If two patrons come in and say "can u buff me?" I'll have to break with my group to facilitate the buffing of two patrons to service them. But even if I go through the procedure flawlessly, if they are /listening to a musician, they'll get no buff, yet I will inevitably be the one to blame. Because they are under the impression that I am the giver and it is my fault by default if they aren't happy. And this also takes me out of the group, who may benefit from the healing XP we all provide together. Its not that the procedure is difficult. Its just that it depends entirely on mastering a procedure. But the very fact that it depends on mastering a coordination between two parties that have to take eachother at their word means that it is a procedure that naturally generates mistrust and bad feelings between the two parties. However, buffbots don't have to worry about the mistrust and coordination between two players, because only one player is really doing anything:the patron. You can't blame a buffbot if something goes wrong, and you don't have to say "I'm sorry" if you waste a buffbot's time. You also don't have to wonder what the buffbot expects of you. But with live players, there is always the question of what the other player wants: conversation, or a tip, or how much even to tip. These are all questions that generate undue stress that our patrons simply don't have to worry about with a buffbot. And it exists because the current buffing system creates the tedium.
Maybe that would appeal to some people, but I think in a game sense, it's not going to work well in the big picture. As I see it it also does nothing to discourage AFK play. Without some form of *interactive* gameplay, there's nothing to stop or discourage unattended play. The slash commands are a part of this interactivity, but I think there needs to be more to it, and to ensure reliability there needs to be something else - an interface perhaps. Increasing the interactivity, however, will mean increasing our role in the process which means it will come at the expense of the "performance" or at least our complete freedom in performing as we wish, but I think at least for the process of buffing this is worthwhile and kind of makes sense - it should have some kind of cost associated with it. Combine the interactivity with some way to gauge reliability such as in interface or some sort of indicator, and I think you fix a lot of the same problems you're trying to solve, but without giving up our control over it, and still discouraging or eliminating unattended play (yes I realize I haven't given a lot specifics here, but I don't have time to get into details at the moment).
There is plenty of interactive gameplay to be had in the cantina even now from live players. True interactive gameplay through the dialouge and aesthetic elements. But nobody cares about it now because nobody has the state of mind to appreciate it. The "/" commands of /invite and /setperform are not interactive elements, they distract us from interaction. Because all this system really rewards is the boring dancer/musician with the +25% clothes who can rake in credits by issuing system commands. Don't take this the wrong way, but do you want to encourge boring entertainers? Its exactly what these contrived interactive elements promote. It rewards the ability to give out system functions, and the problem with that is one doesn't have to be engaging or creative to administer them. Who do we want the patrons to reward? The enthusiastic and hard working novice entertainer who has faith in herself to entertain the patrons? Or the boring master musician/master dancer who only plays Star Wars 1, dances basic 1, and does flo 1 for both and rakes in serious credits because of their +25% clothes? And yes, getting rid of our side of the buffing authorizations does not do much to mitigate unattendedness. But what it does do is make running an unattended character something that is not all that special. They don't do a special "service" anymore by distributing the "/" commands far in excess of any live player, because there will be no more active authorization to give away. And it will simply be exposed for what it is: boring.
If a system more like this still doesn't appeal to you, then perhaps you would prefer to play as a performance purist - and you could still do this. If you don't like to conform to whatever revised actions that buffing might require to complete, then choose not to offer buffs so that you may concentrate solely on your performance and any mechanics that are still completely passive like mind wound and BF healing are now. I just disagree that the current system is "complicated", and I don't think that making all our services completely passive will make our professions better.
I appreciate the politeness of your criticism, Shi'ann. Its hard to even consider taking away the few aspects of our functionality that we can control. But I believe we paid a price that was too high to have that control. And the price we paid was our image to the playerbase. No longer are we considered to be the beneficent and cheerful bunch who perform out of the goodness of our hearts. We are now seen as mercenaries who are stingy with providing the things that cost us nothing to give. And that doesn't work to make players adore us and want to provide for us. It only makes buffbots look like the things that need to be adored and looked after. Because they have no problem giving away the things they have to give, and do not demand recompense. People tip them not because they have to, but because they want to. But the mere fact that we are actual players makes other players uncomfortable due to the fact that they never know how to actually please us, and have difficulty tipping us in a manner that is fair. What is a buff from Sirii Ajaan worth? Is it worth more or less than one from Shi'ann? Does it matter if one asks for money up front before the "/", or after? That's the problem with the habbit of thinking of what we do as "selling the buff." It simply does not correspond well to what we do.
We do not sell products. We do not sell services. Actors, musicians, artists, and dancers in the real world don't either. They sell a subjective experience, not an objective one. And its because its subjective that it becomes rather difficult to commoditize it and "sell it." And just as the performing artists in the real world depend on the "angels" and "performing arts grants" to carry on their work, so too do we depend on them. And I have to believe that if we would just open up and become the community service again like we used to be, the guilds, towns, and players who had the means and the desire to facilitate the liveliness and flavor of their recreation areas will be there for us, but ONLY if we are not seen as opportunists and bussinessmen and businesswomen. The passive application of our mechanics creates this image.
And these problems won't go away if buffbotting is eliminated. It will only take a new form. And it will take the form of dancers who could care less about being creative and engaging in the cantina, and only sit back, start their macro, and collect their tips. Yes, I see my role as a performance purist. And the only reason I do is because I am humble enough to know that I have no business selling my mechanics. They are simply not mine to sell. I sell myself, and I give the mechanics for free. Because then and only then will I or any dancer truly know if the tip was because they felt they had to do it, or because they wanted to do it.
Thats great sirii but theres only one problem. You must not have read my post very well if at all because I am not Beery. In the future when you are planning to go on another long winded and nedlessly elaborate rant about one of my posts, in which you put words in my mouth and accuse me of hating my customers. Please at least have the courtesy of having enough situational awareness to know who you are adressing. It is quite obvious you gave that very little regard while youwere pontificating and coming up with a short essay of yet again why your way is the way to entertain.
PoetDancer wrote:
Dreamland wrote:
I do not defend it sirii. I would much rather see dancer buffs completely removed than continue seeing buffbots. What is the point of having players get unrestricted 24/7 access to buffs? There is none. It is more effective to just increase everyones mind stats by defaultthan it would be even to slap a blue frog in the cantina to hand out buffs.
The very concept of a buff revolves around not being available 100% of the time. If it is available 100% of the time for no cost whatsoever then it is a useless game mechanic that offers nothing. Doctor buffs are not available 24/7 either. They are on large servers because of sheer numbers. There were times on Sunrunner i waited an hour for another doctor to set up shop and start selling again. Doctor buffs also spur the economy it gets rangers out there selling meat to the docs, it gets the architects going creating harvesters to get the resources.
Doctor buffs albeit overpowered are an example of a game mechanic working properly by benefiting a vast group of players. With buffbots in existance the mind buff is pointless. It is nothing more than a waste ofspace for the lines of code it takes up in the servers memory.
Message Edited by Dreamland on 11-10-2004 04:39 PM
Well I don't know why you have much of an issue then, Beery. Because if you eliminate the protocols needed on the dancer's end to buff, you eliminate the whole concept of buffbots. Because the only thing that makes a buffbot a buffbot is the fact that it is designed specifically to distribute the protocol at all hours.
Message Edited by Dreamland on 11-11-2004 12:17 AM
Message Edited by Dreamland on 11-11-2004 12:22 AM
Message Edited by Dreamland on 11-11-2004 01:05 AM
akothas wrote:I would like to use the current situation on TC as an example:GCW
- Overt players no longer switch to covert without asking a recruiter to do so (when traveling, dying, etc).
-Tiggs, 11/9/04
.....And after the community screamed in outrage.......Based upon your feedback (all 12 pages of it) we are going to change the GCW patch note to the following:GCW
- Overt players are now only forced covert when cloning. Players are now invulnerable while loading from travel or logging in from being safely logged out
Thank you to everyone that tested and provided feedback on this issue. It was very valuable in helping us find a better solution.
-Tiggs, 11/10/04
Truth is, when they post their decision to take AFK macros out, expect the same result from the community. To many people do it and feel they pay their $15 a month to be able to do it.
Right now all we can do is sit and wait.
They already posted the announcement, got the community feedback (many, many pages of it), and the decision still stands. If you really want, I can try to dig up the link. It may take them some time to get to it, but I doubt they're going to back out at this point. Granhted you never now for sure til it goes live, but it still seems to be a firm commitment even after all this time. You are right, though, at this point all we can do is sit and wait
DanceRulez wrote:
Baciacca wrote:I'm asking for a compromise because a compromise is the only option available. The ATK entertainer population is a small minority compared to the combat player population that wants buffs. Is it not obvious to you that a compromise has to be made? If it was feasible for SOE to remove AFK play by taking away recursive macros like you want, why haven't they done it already? The obvious answer is that they realized that is not the solution to the problem, and that taking away recursive macros would have too many negative effects on too large a portion of the player base's gameplay styles.
Baciacca, while I do appreciate your effort to at least try to engage in some kind of meaningful dialog, I still find that many of your arguments add nothing new to the subject than we have heard many times before. I have only a couple of things to say to your above comments. One, you can make no accurate assessment of the ATK entertainer population in the current AFK/buffbot environment nor can you make any real guess what it could be if AFK macros were not available, because it has never had a chance to fully develop in a healthy environment. And second, you completely ignore the fact that this game is constantly changing, and in fact the entire combat process is being revamped. The nature and use of mind buffs can, and in all probability will, change at any time and likely with the combat revamp, and therefore the combat players' relative "need" for mind buffs is also subject to chage. What may be a "necessity" now may become more of a convenience or even just an option later. I don't believe the devs have any intention of allowing the current situation to continue, and we as entertainers are very tired of the situation as it exists and will do everything we can to see that it does get changed. I would also like to point out this recent quote to you by a member of the dev team here in our own Dancer forum:
While I can't pinpoint an exact number,I think I can accurately say that the ATK entertainer population is a small minority compared to the Combat Player population. If you don't realize that then you need to get out more. The fact that bots have pushed some away from the profession is not enough of a factor. The ATK entertainer population has not been decreased that much by this event. Most people who play this game are not the type who would want to play an entertainer in the first place. It's mostly males who want to go out and kill stuff, not dance and play music. Even if the combat is revamped, it's still not going to change the fact that most people buy this game to go kill stuff. I believe the devs want to remedy the situation, but I do not believe that they are going to change the system 100% in the ATK entertainer's favor. If they wanted to do that, the change to make is obvious and they would have already done it. The fact is that they have to formulate a compromise to keep everybody happy. That is why it's taking them so long. If you want to get it changed faster, help develop a compromise that everybody can be happy with. I'm sure that the devs have had a brain fart as always on stuff like this. They've probably got no idea how they are going to make a balanced compromise.
SOETyrant wrote on 11/05/04: I think we made the initial announcement on our intent to remove unattended macroing within 60 days of my joining the project. Not everyone on the team (or in the game) is going to be happy about this change. In fact, your current irritation is just going to be moved to another group of people who are just fine with AFK play when we make this change. [snip] Removing unattended macroing is a priority item. But it's not simple to do, so it needs both a fair amount of resources and time.. I will push to get it in progress soonest is what I can promise.
So perhaps this is a both an admission that the change away from AFK will be hard (no one said it wouldn't be, but I and others and apparently some of the devs feel it's an important step toward making the overall game better in the long run), and an explanation of why it hasn't been done yet, though it is still on the to-do list.
DanceRulez wrote:
akothas wrote:
I would like to use the current situation on TC as an example:
GCW
- Overt players no longer switch to covert without asking a recruiter to do so (when traveling, dying, etc).
-Tiggs, 11/9/04
.....And after the community screamed in outrage.......
Based upon your feedback (all 12 pages of it) we are going to change the GCW patch note to the following:
GCW
- Overt players are now only forced covert when cloning. Players are now invulnerable while loading from travel or logging in from being safely logged out
Thank you to everyone that tested and provided feedback on this issue. It was very valuable in helping us find a better solution.
-Tiggs, 11/10/04
Truth is, when they post their decision to take AFK macros out, expect the same result from the community. To many people do it and feel they pay their $15 a month to be able to do it.
Right now all we can do is sit and wait.
They already posted the announcement, got the community feedback (many, many pages of it), and the decision still stands. If you really want, I can try to dig up the link. It may take them some time to get to it, but I doubt they're going to back out at this point. Granhted you never now for sure til it goes live, but it still seems to be a firm commitment even after all this time. You are right, though, at this point all we can do is sit and wait
Baciacca wrote:
Ah, they changed their original decision. The Overt after dying etc. change was removed because of the community outcry. The same thing will happen everytime they try to remove AFK macros or recursive macros because too many players are dependent on them for too many parts of their gameplay. Whether it's using a CoB macro or using a stay online macro, it's too vital of a tool for too many players for it to be taken away. That's why another alternative needs to be developed.
The irony is that the COB macro is about a 50x bigger influence on the descision to take recurring macros out than buffbots. Buffbots were a very small consideration among the many other unatended abuses that they want to eliminate. Combat macros are number one on the list. This is something we have been told many times by our corospondant. Oh and a STAY ONLINE MACRO? So someone being able to stand and nod thier head every 30 seconds so they can continue to take up space in the gameworld is far too vital to be taken out? What plane of reality do you live on?
If you take the time to educate yourself on the situation you would know that they posted the idea several months ago to take in feedback in order to find workarounds for the legitimate uses of recuring macros such as smugglers buying faction and crafters.
On that note the comunity is squealing like stuck pigs on the decision to make solo money missions go away and i have yet to see any change to that.For that matter as far as i know the part aboutpeoplestaying overt when dying was never changed in the first place. In any case even if it wasn't it is a case of a change that would have caused massive griefing, and there was simply noone that supported it, it would not have benefited anyone. Yes they are taking things into account for the people with legitimate concerns. You as a buffbot user are not a legitimate concern, or use of the recuring macro system.
The mind buffs and doctor buffs for that matter will be undoubtedly being adressed in the combat upgrade process. This much has not been said yet, but the reason they haven't said anything about the CU is so the won't have to put up with 700 threads from reactionary and short sighted people throwing temper tantrums like little children because something may change. Rest asured your buffbot isgoing, and the game will be better for everyone the day it goes.
Message Edited by Dreamland on 11-11-2004 10:36 AM