Dancer Archive
Thread: No forced interaction??
What the heck is an I-message?
C
Chessack wrote:
OK Umi, I just have to ask, since you said my post could have used a couple.
What the heck is an I-message?
C
Statements that start with "I think" or "I feel" or "it looks to me like" come across as less confrontational than ones starting with "you should" or "you don't" or etc. Old conflict resolution trick.
Umi
The cute Rodian speaks the truth. Had we had mind buffs yet no AFK-ability then we would have traded one misery (buff bots) for another. That 'another' would be the constant rude badgering of angry combat wombats enraged beyond belief that their mighty egos must be stowed for a few moments to visit an entertainer so they could, as they saw it, function. It would cause their e-peen to go flacid with anguish.
Sunjammer wrote:
Drygo wrote:
And, one other thing...I've seen shades of "buffs didn't work, BF did." For the love of all that is holy. That is so so WRONG it's not even funny. Buffs didn't work because of AFK! It all stems from AFK, the resentment, the bots, the flamewars, the fights. All because of AFK! If AFK had never existed and if time was spent tweaking some things and making mind pool not the be all and end all, I have no doubt in my mind that mindbuffs would have been a success! But, everything that is killed in this game, the vast majority of things that are ruined, from entertainment to spawn campers to underpricing, it was ALL because of AFK. And, I DO take MAJOR issue with the devs taking active measures to stop afk in other professions except entertaining. That sucks and I am still bitter about that, and I have no problem at all flaming the devs up and down these forums and dragging them out by the hair and spraying their eyes with lysol until they get rid of the damn AFK.
I'm right with you on AFKing being our #1 problem and the root of all evil. Heck, it IS the top five all by itself. All other problems are minor by comparison.
But I definately disagree that mind buffs could have worked if AFK was gotten rid of. I just can't believe that it would have ever not been a source of friction, no matter how they tweaked it.
Umi
I am not an entertainer. Never have been, except for a few brief moments as a n00bie.
It's not my style of play.
But I'll tell you this...
Battle Fatigue serves several VITAL functions in this game that no one has proposed an alternative to.
It creates an interdependency role for entertainers. It gives them a reason to be in the game, a role, a need to be there.It gives their entertainement a concrete meaning for other players. Some say this is "negative" but I say that "negatives" can be more powerful than "positives" in fostering behaviors. For many combat players, the negative is far more compelling than the positive.
It also, if properly expanded upon, could play a valuable role in enhancing the combat experience of combat only template players, but many of them are frankly not intelligent or insightful enough to realize it.
BF could be a way of killing zerging in GCW combat, if that ever comes back. Of making it possible for one side or the other to WIN and have the victory have some meaning, because one of the problems with SWG that is imposed by the nature of an MMORPG is that war cannot ever end in victory for one side or the other, but battles can. In SWG, with instacloning after you've been killed, even that is denied, much like in multiplayer sessions of Jedi Knight II, in which you die and you lose your position but only for a moment.
And the basic premise of the thread is ABSOLUTELY ON TARGET. The developers have been working very hard to compel interaction on the combat side, very hard indeed, to make leveling (alas, still the only real content this game has) be a group thing.
For them to claim that the removal of BF is about not wanting to "force interaction" is a very poor transparent joke. Their Jedi mind trick powers are amazingly weak and transparent, actually laughable. They wonder why the player base picks up on their contempt and reflects it back in spades.
A lot of us have been burned at the stake over this. And indeed, we have all had our share of stake burning. Today it is Panthu and Drygo. A week ago, it was Sal'tee and I. I even remember a time when Sultrina and FlawedDiamond were burned.
Many have accused me of not having faith in the developers. I do, but not these developers. I have faith in the developers we had at launch. They knew what they were doing, and I see much hubris from our current developers, who from what I understand are relative novices, compared with the experienced and brilliant designers we had at launch.
I also agree that BF was never, ever the issue for as long back as I could remember. And I believe the reason for it is nobody really saw BF as "forcing" anyone into any playstyle.
We keep on talking about "interaction," but what do we specifically mean when we say, "interaction?" Is the "bad interaction" we refer to a radial command between two characters? Or is the "bad interaction" a meeting between live players?
When our profession's detractors and the developers talk of "negative interactions," or "forced interactions," I really do not know what seems "forced" in terms of what we do in terms of BF. Because the extent of any real "interaction" is a mere /watch or /listen from the radial menu. Nobody has to do anything more. And because nobody really has to do much besides /watch or /listen, any additional conversation, roleplay, or interaction between the two characters is strictly optional, wanted, desired, and non-detrimental to thefundamental workingsof the cantina system.
The BF healing system is such an elegant system because the roles and expectations are crystal clear on both ends. The performer's only concern is to dance or play. He or she does not have to be responsible for anything other than dancing or playing. The expectations of the classes in the minimal sense are so few, that the performer is at great liberty to augment their performance in a myriad of ways. They can choose what song they want, choose what dance they want, and choose their dialouge, emotes, and other options. And it is because performers are given a great liberty in terms of what they can do to serve the audience, that they can custom tailor their performance to suit what they, and the audience, may enjoy.
The audience's only concern is to make sure their BF is healed. They can do this in a myriad of different ways. They can /watch a dancer doing Exotic4, or a dancer doing Basic2. They can /listen to Star Wars 1, or they can /listen to Virtuoso. They can choose to do neither. And it is because the patron has so many options that they have the liberty to sit back and enjoy what they want, and reward those things they want to see, so they can see them again.
BF healing makes perfect sense, and indeed, does not "force" anyone to do anything. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Both healing BF and having BF healed gives players on both sides of the stage freedom, and options. Many here say that I do not have faith in the developers. I have TOTAL faith in the developers who made the BF system. What needs to happen is to have these new, ambitious, and frankly, naiive developers we have now to have faith in the original developers. They knew what they were doing.
Because buffs force interactions, force playstyles, and force players on both sides of the stage to do things they would rather not do. And all that does is cause resentment, animosity, and hostility between players. In a buffing system, a performer's options are limited.
They can still choose the dance and the song they want, for sure, but if the patricular song or dance they want to perform cannot generate the sort of buff the patron desires, then they can no longer both do what they want to do, and serve the patron. Many here do not like Footloose, and would rather dance Lyrical. But what if all the patrons want the buff that is generated by dancing Footloose, and the buff that is generated by Lyrical is something nobody really wants? Many here like to dance in formation. But what if the buff a patron desires requires a dance the other group members cannot do? Many here like to chat, but we'd rather talk about interesting things, rather than "start watching now," or "I'll dance that stupid dance for 2000 credits," or "two minutes to go before the buff is done."Buffing by its very natureforces performers to make choices that they are ultimately unhappy with, simply to serve an audience. Unlike BF healing, buffing limits freedom, and forces behaviours.
Let us look at it from a paton's perspective. Perhaps they do not like dancing, but enjoy music. However, the buff they require is given by dancers, and moreover, requires that the dancer does Footloose, a dance the patron hates to see. Now, the patron has to ask the dancer they'd rather not see, todo the dance they'd rather not see danced, from the dancer that hates doing the dance just as much as the patron hates to see it. Buffing by its very nature forces patrons to seek out entertainers they'd rather not seek, ask them things they'd rather not ask, reward them for doing things they'd rather not see done, and waste time in the pursuit of the specific entertainer that will do the charrade.
So what is all that really worth? The performer feels like they want compensation for "jumping through the hoop" they'd rather not jump through, and would much rather have a game that allowed them to dance the dance they want, and get compensated for that instead.
And the patron? The patron would rather not pay for the sort of entertainment they require, but are compelled to do so, because the performer--however unsuitable to the patron's specific tastes and disposition--broke with what they were doing to perform the request.
And all that does is cause resentment, animosity, and disgust--on both ends of the stage. Players seem like they are forced to jump through hoops, play a charrade, and go through the motions just play the game, get mechanics, and get paid.
PoetDancer wrote:A lot of us have been burned at the stake over this. And indeed, we have all had our share of stake burning. Today it is Panthu and Drygo. A week ago, it was Sal'tee and I. I even remember a time when Sultrina and FlawedDiamond were burned.
Many have accused me of not having faith in the developers. I do, but not these developers. I have faith in the developers we had at launch. They knew what they were doing, and I see much hubris from our current developers, who from what I understand are relative novices, compared with the experienced and brilliant designers we had at launch.
I also agree that BF was never, ever the issue for as long back as I could remember. And I believe the reason for it is nobody really saw BF as "forcing" anyone into any playstyle.
We keep on talking about "interaction," but what do we specifically mean when we say, "interaction?" Is the "bad interaction" we refer to a radial command between two characters? Or is the "bad interaction" a meeting between live players?
When our profession's detractors and the developers talk of "negative interactions," or "forced interactions," I really do not know what seems "forced" in terms of what we do in terms of BF. Because the extent of any real "interaction" is a mere /watch or /listen from the radial menu. Nobody has to do anything more. And because nobody really has to do much besides /watch or /listen, any additional conversation, roleplay, or interaction between the two characters is strictly optional, wanted, desired, and non-detrimental to the fundamental workings of the cantina system.
The BF healing system is such an elegant system because the roles and expectations are crystal clear on both ends. The performer's only concern is to dance or play. He or she does not have to be responsible for anything other than dancing or playing. The expectations of the classes in the minimal sense are so few, that the performer is at great liberty to augment their performance in a myriad of ways. They can choose what song they want, choose what dance they want, and choose their dialouge, emotes, and other options. And it is because performers are given a great liberty in terms of what they can do to serve the audience, that they can custom tailor their performance to suit what they, and the audience, may enjoy.
The audience's only concern is to make sure their BF is healed. They can do this in a myriad of different ways. They can /watch a dancer doing Exotic4, or a dancer doing Basic2. They can /listen to Star Wars 1, or they can /listen to Virtuoso. They can choose to do neither. And it is because the patron has so many options that they have the liberty to sit back and enjoy what they want, and reward those things they want to see, so they can see them again.
BF healing makes perfect sense, and indeed, does not "force" anyone to do anything. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Both healing BF and having BF healed gives players on both sides of the stage freedom, and options. Many here say that I do not have faith in the developers. I have TOTAL faith in the developers who made the BF system. What needs to happen is to have these new, ambitious, and frankly, naiive developers we have now to have faith in the original developers. They knew what they were doing.
Because buffs force interactions, force playstyles, and force players on both sides of the stage to do things they would rather not do. And all that does is cause resentment, animosity, and hostility between players. In a buffing system, a performer's options are limited.
They can still choose the dance and the song they want, for sure, but if the patricular song or dance they want to perform cannot generate the sort of buff the patron desires, then they can no longer both do what they want to do, and serve the patron. Many here do not like Footloose, and would rather dance Lyrical. But what if all the patrons want the buff that is generated by dancing Footloose, and the buff that is generated by Lyrical is something nobody really wants? Many here like to dance in formation. But what if the buff a patron desires requires a dance the other group members cannot do? Many here like to chat, but we'd rather talk about interesting things, rather than "start watching now," or "I'll dance that stupid dance for 2000 credits," or "two minutes to go before the buff is done." Buffing by its very nature forces performers to make choices that they are ultimately unhappy with, simply to serve an audience. Unlike BF healing, buffing limits freedom, and forces behaviours.
Let us look at it from a paton's perspective. Perhaps they do not like dancing, but enjoy music. However, the buff they require is given by dancers, and moreover, requires that the dancer does Footloose, a dance the patron hates to see. Now, the patron has to ask the dancer they'd rather not see, to do the dance they'd rather not see danced, from the dancer that hates doing the dance just as much as the patron hates to see it. Buffing by its very nature forces patrons to seek out entertainers they'd rather not seek, ask them things they'd rather not ask, reward them for doing things they'd rather not see done, and waste time in the pursuit of the specific entertainer that will do the charrade.
So what is all that really worth? The performer feels like they want compensation for "jumping through the hoop" they'd rather not jump through, and would much rather have a game that allowed them to dance the dance they want, and get compensated for that instead.
And the patron? The patron would rather not pay for the sort of entertainment they require, but are compelled to do so, because the performer--however unsuitable to the patron's specific tastes and disposition--broke with what they were doing to perform the request.
And all that does is cause resentment, animosity, and disgust--on both ends of the stage. Players seem like they are forced to jump through hoops, play a charrade, and go through the motions just play the game, get mechanics, and get paid.
So that is why I, and the patrons as well, never really saw the BF healing system as "forcing interactions." And that is because the interactions that were required were a matter of choice, and not a matter of systemic determination. And that is also why we never heard loud cries from either side of the stage that the cantina system forced interactions until some time after November 3rd. Because buffing before the CU, and I daresay, buffing in general forced and forces both we performers, and our patrons to make choices we shouldn't have to make, just to serve and be served in the cantina.
I am sooooo not getting into this thread for real, but to prevent any misinformation spreading, I wanted to comment here with two points.
One point being that the concept of buffing, and the method by which a buff is applied, are two completely separate issues. Arguing that the concept of buffing is a bad concept for entertainers because some specific buff application method works badly is not a fair argument to make. And in this post the method by which BF is applied is cheered, while the other methods are derided (and then the concept of buffing is derided), yet a counterexample for the derision already exists in the game, that of inspirations, which are applied the exact same way as BF. They are a buff, and their application method is that of the praised application method of BF removal.
The other point being that we have absolutely no details about the application method for any upcoming buffs that we will apply. There is absolutely no evidence to support that it will involve doing specific songs, dances, flourishes, or anything of the like. I'm not saying they won't (yet it has been expressed to the devs several times that performers cherish their freedom to pick their own performance) - but it's not fair to assume that we will, given that we have no information to support that theory. If you wish to state "please don't make them be applied this way, I wouldn't like that for these reasons," that's fine, but it's not fair to imply that it's already decided that they will be applied like that.
*runs away from this thread as quickly as possible*
PoetDancer wrote:
The BF healing system is such an elegant system because the roles and expectations are crystal clear on both ends. The performer's only concern is to dance or play. He or she does not have to be responsible for anything other than dancing or playing. The expectations of the classes in the minimal sense are so few, that the performer is at great liberty to augment their performance in a myriad of ways. They can choose what song they want, choose what dance they want, and choose their dialouge, emotes, and other options. And it is because performers are given a great liberty in terms of what they can do to serve the audience, that they can custom tailor their performance to suit what they, and the audience, may enjoy.
The audience's only concern is to make sure their BF is healed. They can do this in a myriad of different ways. They can /watch a dancer doing Exotic4, or a dancer doing Basic2. They can /listen to Star Wars 1, or they can /listen to Virtuoso. They can choose to do neither. And it is because the patron has so many options that they have the liberty to sit back and enjoy what they want, and reward those things they want to see, so they can see them again.
BF healing makes perfect sense, and indeed, does not "force" anyone to do anything. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Both healing BF and having BF healed gives players on both sides of the stage freedom, and options. Many here say that I do not have faith in the developers. I have TOTAL faith in the developers who made the BF system. What needs to happen is to have these new, ambitious, and frankly, naiive developers we have now to have faith in the original developers. They knew what they were doing.
Sounds just like our current Inspirations to me....
[Edit: Scip beat me to the point while I was reading the friggin' essay. )
Message Edited by Schardour on 07-09-2005 12:15 AM
Aleyo wrote:
If you wish to state "please don't make them be applied this way, I wouldn't like that for these reasons," that's fine, but it's not fair to imply that it's already decided that they will be applied like that.
Then again, it is not very fair of the Developers, and the ones who hate BF on the grounds that it is a "negative interaction," or a "forced interaction." It gives both patrons and performers freedom, liberation, and fun.
No. BF is not being removed becauseit creates"negative interactions," or a "forced interactions." BF is being removed, I would suspect, because these new developers do not really understand that these professions operate under a much different set of assumptions than the ones they are used to.
Message Edited by PoetDancer on 07-08-2005 11:34 PM
Umi
The original devs of this game, who as near as I can tell to a man (or woman) are all completely gone from the design team now, had a particular vision. Whether you agreed with it or not, doesn't matter... they had a vision and designed the game around it. They were trying to appeal to a particular audience -- roleplaying gamers. This is NOT the same audience as the twitch-obsessed PS-2 style "arcade" gamers that SWG and almost all the current and in-development MMOs (COH, DDO, etc) appeal to. It's a fundamentally different audience and the developers have to work under fundamentally different assumptions.
Wherever he is, whatever he is doing, I would bet you serious money that Holocron is crying over what has happened to this game he helped design. But it's not just SWG, it's the industry in general. These games started out as MMORPGs. What they have mostly become is MMOGs... and the difference may seem subtle to some but if you understand it, it's rather a sad transition. And no, I am not talking about whether people "roleplay" but a difference in fundamental game design philosophy.... Ah well... it's getting off topic.
I still agree 100% with the O.P. -- interaction is being pushed harder now than ever before in all other elements of this game except the social element, the entertainers. It's ironic and rather strange, and it shows, I think, that this new batch of devs does not know what they are doing. Umi's right, I think -- they're certainly not evil or malicious, but they strike me as more than a little clueless, and utterly without real leadership or direction.
C
Ok people, really....I think your beef is with Unattended Gameplay, not passive Inspirations or passive BF healing. Whether you're providing a service before or after combat, or before or after a crafting session, it's still wellwithin the ability of a live performer to ENTERTAIN their "patron" or "guest" or "friend," making the process quick and painless. I don't give a sh!t if you think more people would visit you to heal BF than to get an Inspiration buff....the devs don't want the Fatigue in the game anyway!!!! Did you not pay attention to the freakin' CU notes? UNLEARN WHAT YOU HAVE LEARNED! BF is a combat component, NOT AN ENTERTAINER COMPONENT. We're not healers! They don't want us to be healers! (I don't think they ever really planned for us to be healers.) BF was a draw to the cantina, not an interdependency. Buffs were our skill, but those proved to be ill-conceived. (Maybe well-conceived at launch, with their limited effect.
)
Unattended performers reduce us to service machines. There's no personality. Nothing. The profession becomes a number-based supporter for the troops when the essence of "Entertaining" is lost in the cantinas.
Quit holding on to an out-dated vision and start looking toward the future, already. Damn...
Chessack wrote:
PoetD you make a good point.
The original devs of this game, who as near as I can tell to a man (or woman) are all completely gone from the design team now, had a particular vision. Whether you agreed with it or not, doesn't matter... they had a vision and designed the game around it. They were trying to appeal to a particular audience -- roleplaying gamers. This is NOT the same audience as the twitch-obsessed PS-2 style "arcade" gamers that SWG and almost all the current and in-development MMOs (COH, DDO, etc) appeal to.
But there are a myriad of professions that those players can play, and a myriad of different spaces to do those things.
The "Shoot'em'ups" have space. They have everything on the planets. Only the venues are different.
And despite whatthese "young turk" developersmay think, the "Shoot'em'ups" have plenty of options to suit their needs in the cantina with BF. They can sit quietly, craft traps, or even catch a break at the washroom, or have a cigarette.
Or maybe, maybe, they will want to see what goes on in the cantina, and they will discover a new sort of fun they were never in a position to think about before.
But I'll tell you this, Chessak. If the "Shoot'em'ups" feel like they have to "jump through hoops," or convince one of us to "jump through hoops" to give them goodies, they'll find a way to undermine the whole system just to not have to bother. And it will end up hurting us, most of all, because entertaining will no longer be the essence of these professions. It will be "jumping through hoops" that we'd rather not jump through.