Entertainer Archive
Thread: BuffBots, are they really the problem?
Drygo wrote:
The point I was trying to make was that vendors were made by the devs for the specific purposes of crafters putting their wares on them to be sold to the general public whether they were online or not.
On the other hand, I do not for one second believe that the developers instituted their afk macro system so that people could run dual dancer/musician free buffbots 23/7 in the public Cantinas. In fact, I do believe that the developers would like to see it ended, and I believe that the problem they're facing in ending it is a direct result of all of the players who do use them who would be angry because they could no longer get buffs on demand. Now you can argue with me to the end of the world on whether or not you personally believe that "choice" trumps "viability" in this game if you want. I will always say viability and making the professions work as intended is more important than the choice to have buffs on demand.
Then that's an assumption. As you're not a Developer, you cannot speak for them. You can, however, analyze the mechanics they have implemented. I doubt they made AFK Buffing so easily achievable entirely by accident. If that is your presumption -- that it was all a colossal, massive mistake -- then, by the same virtue, such massive incompetence would rather limit the relevance of any ensuing Developer commentary on the matter. So it's rather circular and self-defeating.
On the matter of semantics, "viability" is not equivalent to "ideal prosperity". There is nothing in-game preventing Entertainers from attracting customers, carrying on conversations, performing dances and flourishes, and otherwise contributing to the ambient atmosphere. Yes, BuffBots may degrade the aforementioned atmosphere -- concomitantly, so does any non-roleplayer who speaks excessively in spacial. The field of concern is economics and, specifically, competition. Economic success does not devote the viability of a class. Bounty Hunter missions are preposterously unprofitable. They are still common and viable as a class.
The issue is not "choice" versus "viability". It is "basic choice" versus "greater prosperity". And I'd be loath to entirely discard the fundamental to achieve the incremental.
Erawia_D wrote:
Not only that, but they are griefing ATK entertainers, by killing the entertainer style of play.
Your "play style" and their play style is different (if you can call what they do playing), you should not be able to force someone to play your way.
Making ATK slightly more desireable by a menu/% increase will NOT change the fact that their continued existence is 1. a nerf for the entertainer professions, and 2. greifing.
No it wont change it, but it will wean the combatants off the buffbots while the entertainer population grows. Then take out the bots when there are enough ATK to handle the population and we know the profession offers enough to keep them there.
We couldnt get buffs before, so buffbots came into play, if you take them away without providing a reason for entertainers to do what they werent doing before buffbotsit will turn into the same thing.
Whatever reason entertainers stopped buffing people in npc cantina'sneeds to be fixed before the removal of buffbots.
The buffbots showed up because there was no one to buff. How will taking them away make you all show up and stay again? To prove a point? There are many entertainers upset with not only how buffs work but how they intrude on their playstyle. Fix this, then take away what happened because it wasnt fixed.
Sorry for repeating myself so much, but I dont think people understand I dont want buffbots, I just want what caused the buffbots to be fixed.
Krupskaya wrote:
Drygo wrote:
The point I was trying to make was that vendors were made by the devs for the specific purposes of crafters putting their wares on them to be sold to the general public whether they were online or not.
On the other hand, I do not for one second believe that the developers instituted their afk macro system so that people could run dual dancer/musician free buffbots 23/7 in the public Cantinas. In fact, I do believe that the developers would like to see it ended, and I believe that the problem they're facing in ending it is a direct result of all of the players who do use them who would be angry because they could no longer get buffs on demand. Now you can argue with me to the end of the world on whether or not you personally believe that "choice" trumps "viability" in this game if you want. I will always say viability and making the professions work as intended is more important than the choice to have buffs on demand.
Then that's an assumption. As you're not a Developer, you cannot speak for them. You can, however, analyze the mechanics they have implemented. I doubt they made AFK Buffing so easily achievable entirely by accident. If that is your presumption -- that it was all a colossal, massive mistake -- then, by the same virtue, such massive incompetence would rather limit the relevance of any ensuing Developer commentary on the matter. So it's rather circular and self-defeating.
You're absolutely right! It was a colossal, massive mistake on their parts. And, they are having an extremely hard time getting around it. I also have more to analyze than the mere mechanics. I also have read many developer statements that say they pretty much hate afk. One recent statement was, they believe "afk was spat out of hell." But, now they're stuck, and they don't know how to fix it.
On the matter of semantics, "viability" is not equivalent to "ideal prosperity". There is nothing in-game preventing Entertainers from attracting customers, carrying on conversations, performing dances and flourishes, and otherwise contributing to the ambient atmosphere. Yes, BuffBots may degrade the aforementioned atmosphere -- concomitantly, so does any non-roleplayer who speaks excessively in spacial. The field of concern is economics and, specifically, competition. Economic success does not devote the viability of a class. Bounty Hunter missions are preposterously unprofitable. They are still common and viable as a class.
The issue is not "choice" versus "viability". It is "basic choice" versus "greater prosperity". And I'd be loath to entirely discard the fundamental to achieve the incremental.
Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. I believe that buffbots have decimated our professions and made us unviable. In my mind there is no "greater prosperity" here. Again, we can't agree on the premise. I believe that buffbots have made us completely unviable, without any market whatsoever for our services. Hence, I believe that in order to fix this, viability and making the profession work as intended is more important than someone's choice to get buffs on demand.
If nothing else, I believe we agree on this part. I made the assumption that by "content" I thought you meant things like props, more dances and flourishes, etc. That, I do not believe is going to do one bit to help us. On the other hand, if by content you mean that somehow the developers make ATK buffs more powerful and laster longing, then I will agree to that. That is content that I believe will make ATK players valuable to the community, and hopefully make buffbots worthless because people will choose us over them. I support that particular method of ending the buffbot problem.
PistolDance wrote:
No it wont change it, but it will wean the combatants off the buffbots while the entertainer population grows. Then take out the bots when there are enough ATK to handle the population and we know the profession offers enough to keep them there.
Padtai wrote:
I am also hesitant to support some push to give live entertainers new and stronger bonuses just to make them better than AFKing entertainers because I am concerned those may prove harmful to other professions. What will allowing entertainers to have 200% buffs that last 3 hours do to the demand and use of food, and what small need there is to group for combat now?
I hadnt thought about the effect giving stronger buffs for entertainers would have on other professionsGood point
Though I doubt chefs will suffer much, brandy is their biggest seller and it will continue to be their biggest seller. Because most of the people that use brandy, use it in PvP and use it because they cant find or dont want to bother with mind buffs. This wont change really.
But I would like to explore this objection more with you.
Sometimes you need someone who is outside your problem to help you see it more clearly. Its goodMilandra tried to think of other professions, but we are all of us limited in our perspective by our experiences. The more voices who can speak out on an issue, the clearer picture the developers will have of what they should do and I hope the clearer picture different posters will have to. So I post. You should too. As long as we aren't just flaming but explaining why we think what we do, I think its useful. Each time someone asks why buffbots are bad to run or patronize, if I've got the time, I know I"m going to feel like telling them, until I get really bored of explaining it or I get my community veteran status
YES!!This is exactly why I brought this discussion here, all discussions are just a chance for people to gain more knowledge (which I definately have by some of the people posting in this thread) and to solve problems in ways we couldnt think of on our own
Drygo wrote:
Krupskaya wrote:
Drygo wrote:
The point I was trying to make was that vendors were made by the devs for the specific purposes of crafters putting their wares on them to be sold to the general public whether they were online or not.
On the other hand, I do not for one second believe that the developers instituted their afk macro system so that people could run dual dancer/musician free buffbots 23/7 in the public Cantinas. In fact, I do believe that the developers would like to see it ended, and I believe that the problem they're facing in ending it is a direct result of all of the players who do use them who would be angry because they could no longer get buffs on demand. Now you can argue with me to the end of the world on whether or not you personally believe that "choice" trumps "viability" in this game if you want. I will always say viability and making the professions work as intended is more important than the choice to have buffs on demand.
Then that's an assumption. As you're not a Developer, you cannot speak for them. You can, however, analyze the mechanics they have implemented. I doubt they made AFK Buffing so easily achievable entirely by accident. If that is your presumption -- that it was all a colossal, massive mistake -- then, by the same virtue, such massive incompetence would rather limit the relevance of any ensuing Developer commentary on the matter. So it's rather circular and self-defeating.
You're absolutely right! It was a colossal, massive mistake on their parts. And, they are having an extremely hard time getting around it. I also have more to analyze than the mere mechanics. I also have read many developer statements that say they pretty much hate afk. One recent statement was, they believe "afk was spat out of hell." But, now they're stuck, and they don't know how to fix it.
If it was such a colossal, massive mistake, then you have no point in bringing up that the Developers "want to see it ended". Either they are too woefully incompetent to be trusted with system mechanics, or they deserve our respect and their wishes must be respected.
Moreover, there is a difference between the personal preference of "hating AFK" and a willingness to implement an institutional correction. I also "hate AFK" -- I do not use BuffBots, contrary to Til's inventions -- but I'm reluctant to curtail individual choice by eliminating them altogether.
On the matter of semantics, "viability" is not equivalent to "ideal prosperity". There is nothing in-game preventing Entertainers from attracting customers, carrying on conversations, performing dances and flourishes, and otherwise contributing to the ambient atmosphere. Yes, BuffBots may degrade the aforementioned atmosphere -- concomitantly, so does any non-roleplayer who speaks excessively in spacial. The field of concern is economics and, specifically, competition. Economic success does not devote the viability of a class. Bounty Hunter missions are preposterously unprofitable. They are still common and viable as a class.
The issue is not "choice" versus "viability". It is "basic choice" versus "greater prosperity". And I'd be loath to entirely discard the fundamental to achieve the incremental.
Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. I believe that buffbots have decimated our professions and made us unviable. In my mind there is no "greater prosperity" here. Again, we can't agree on the premise. I believe that buffbots have made us completely unviable, without any market whatsoever for our services. Hence, I believe that in order to fix this, viability and making the profession work as intended is more important than someone's choice to get buffs on demand.
There IS a market for your services. Players provide that market. I have tipped ATK Entertainers up to 80k. Many others do the same. That provides a market. Our tips don't disappear into a magical void. So the assertion that you are "without any market whatsoever for our services" is patently inaccurate. You may believe that the market is flagging or weak or inadequate -- but a market remains, and the point is relevant. That is the difference between the absolute ruin of a profession and the incremental strength of the market regarding the services a profession renders. Choice in this issue, however, is absolute, not incremental. Either consumers may choose between ATK and AFK Entertainers, or they may not. Either this choics is present, or it is removed. And I am hesitant, again, to "entirely discard the fundamental to achieve the incremental".
Krupskaya wrote:
I doubt they made AFK Buffing so easily achievable entirely by accident. If that is your presumption -- that it was all a colossal, massive mistake -- then, by the same virtue, such massive incompetence would rather limit the relevance of any ensuing Developer commentary on the matter. So it's rather circular and self-defeating.
Your stance is no more valid than his. By stating that you doubt the AFK Buffing system is something included by the developers with the noblest of intentions, you also state that its inclusion is "right." You fought for and end to Jedi perma-Death byclaiming that it was an excessive penalty for death. "By the same virtue," removing perma-Death from the game is simply another indication of the "massive incompetence" of developers. Perma-death was removed because it greatly inhibited not bythe playstyle of an entire profession, but only in response to a specific portion of that profession. A role-playermay very wellNOT have a problem with the concept of perma-death. Others, however, did, and were promptly appeased by the development staff. Yet you do not complain, nor did you.
The field of concern is economics and, specifically, competition. Economic success does not devote the viability of a class. Bounty Hunter missions are preposterously unprofitable. They are still common and viable as a class.
A profession is not economically viable when non-players make more money than those that play theprofession to which the abilities have been granted.
The issue is not "choice" versus "viability".
Exactly who are you to define the issue?
Krupskaya wrote:
If it was such a colossal, massive mistake, then you have no point in bringing up that the Developers "want to see it ended". Either they are too woefully incompetent to be trusted with system mechanics, or they deserve our respect and their wishes must be respected.
Moreover, there is a difference between the personal preference of "hating AFK" and a willingness to implement an institutional correction. I also "hate AFK" -- I do not use BuffBots, contrary to Til's inventions -- but I'm reluctant to curtail individual choice by eliminating them altogether.
You are incredibly proficient at twisting things around to suit your purposes. No...they aren't incompetent, I think they made a mistake. And, I also believe that the developers want to fix this problem. They just haven't figured out exactly how yet, that's all I'm saying.
There IS a market for your services. Players provide that market. I have tipped ATK Entertainers up to 80k. Many others do the same. That provides a market. Our tips don't disappear into a magical void. So the assertion that you are "without any market whatsoever for our services" is patently inaccurate. You may believe that the market is flagging or weak or inadequate -- but a market remains, and the point is relevant. That is the difference between the absolute ruin of a profession and the incremental strength of the market regarding the services a profession renders. Choice in this issue, however, is absolute, not incremental. Either consumers may choose between ATK and AFK Entertainers, or they may not. Either this choics is present, or it is removed. And I am hesitant, again, to "entirely discard the fundamental to achieve the incremental".
Well, again, that's your viewpoint I suppose. I disagree. I, without a doubt, strongly believe that making the profession work as intended (and yes, I do believe I know what was intended), is more important than allowing the choice of buffbots.
Krupskaya wrote:
I do not use BuffBots, contrary to Til's inventions
AnakinSWG wrote:
Krupskaya wrote:
I do not use BuffBots, contrary to Til's inventions
Once again, you are putting words in my mouth. This does not validate your points. You have a problem with comprehension.
Perhaps it's not comprehension. Perhaps it's a need to win any argument and the willingness to obviously twist the words of another to support your argument, no matter how twisted the truth becomes in your new statements.
AnakinSWG wrote:
Krupskaya wrote:
I doubt they made AFK Buffing so easily achievable entirely by accident. If that is your presumption -- that it was all a colossal, massive mistake -- then, by the same virtue, such massive incompetence would rather limit the relevance of any ensuing Developer commentary on the matter. So it's rather circular and self-defeating.
Your stance is no more valid than his. By stating that you doubt the AFK Buffing system is something included by the developers with the noblest of intentions, you also state that its inclusion is "right."--
That's enough, as, within your second sentence, you are already misrepresenting what I've stated. That hardly surprises me, Til. The statement was simple -- and short -- if the Developers were incompetent enough to inadvertedly create such a massive crisis, then their desires should not be affirmed as a reason to remove BuffBots from the game. In other words, if they warrant no trust in one department, we should not viscerally trust them in another. The poster I was responding to, however, cited what the Developers likely desired as a rationale for removing BuffBots. It was that point I criticized.
The field of concern is economics and, specifically, competition. Economic success does not devote the viability of a class. Bounty Hunter missions are preposterously unprofitable. They are still common and viable as a class.
A profession is not economically viable when non-players make more money than those that play theprofession to which the abilities have been granted.
The implications of this argument discredit it. A Master Weaponsmith with an excellent supply of premium resources who logs in only an hour a day can make far more than another Weaponsmith with shoddy connections and few resources who plays ten times as long. Again, this is the self-defeating argument that price should be based on effort rather than quality of services. And that claim hasalready been dealt with, pages ago.
The issue is not "choice" versus "viability".
Exactly who are you to define the issue?
Let's see. I'm a man making an argument. My opponent claims the issue is one thing, I claim it is another. That is my right, as a debater. Simple enough?
But, of course, this is coming from the poster who blithely lied about my "use" of BuffBots. So I'll just snicker at your arrogance in berating ME for unqualified assumptions.
Drygo wrote:
Krupskaya wrote:
If it was such a colossal, massive mistake, then you have no point in bringing up that the Developers "want to see it ended". Either they are too woefully incompetent to be trusted with system mechanics, or they deserve our respect and their wishes must be respected.
Moreover, there is a difference between the personal preference of "hating AFK" and a willingness to implement an institutional correction. I also "hate AFK" -- I do not use BuffBots, contrary to Til's inventions -- but I'm reluctant to curtail individual choice by eliminating them altogether.
You are incredibly proficient at twisting things around to suit your purposes. No...they aren't incompetent, I think they made a mistake. And, I also believe that the developers want to fix this problem. They just haven't figured out exactly how yet, that's all I'm saying.
I don't know what you think "incompetence" means, but I assure you, it has a very substantial connection to "making mistakes". You cited what you presumed was the Developer's opinion as a motivation to change things. My point was that, even if you knew this was their opinion -- and you don't -- then, by the very act of conceding they are capable of such massive mistakes, you limit the credibility we could place in their opinions.
There IS a market for your services. Players provide that market. I have tipped ATK Entertainers up to 80k. Many others do the same. That provides a market. Our tips don't disappear into a magical void. So the assertion that you are "without any market whatsoever for our services" is patently inaccurate. You may believe that the market is flagging or weak or inadequate -- but a market remains, and the point is relevant. That is the difference between the absolute ruin of a profession and the incremental strength of the market regarding the services a profession renders. Choice in this issue, however, is absolute, not incremental. Either consumers may choose between ATK and AFK Entertainers, or they may not. Either this choics is present, or it is removed. And I am hesitant, again, to "entirely discard the fundamental to achieve the incremental".
Well, again, that's your viewpoint I suppose. I disagree. I, without a doubt, strongly believe that making the profession work as intended (and yes, I do believe I know what was intended), is more important than allowing the choice of buffbots.
I respect your sincere desire to help your class. The fundamental difference between our viewpoints, then, is that I trust the playerbase to make responsible choices between AFK and ATK buffers, whereas you do not. I personally think this perennial outrage and victimhood has far more badly damaged the public's perception of Entertainers than the proliferation of BuffBots ever could. The availability of BuffBots has never deterred me from using ATK Entertainers, though this apparent assumption that players are tooinept to be vested with choice certainly may.
Til, Krups, I think you two shouldshare a brandyand then continue discussing
