Entertainer Archive
Thread: BuffBots, are they really the problem?
AnakinSWG wrote:
And exactly what points have you established as fact?
Oh right, I'm a liar. Anything else?
AnakinSWG wrote:
Krupskaya wrote:
you can't possess something without owning it.
On that note, somethingdoes not have to be tangible to be "possessed." Buffbots were referred to as a concept. Your support of the concept belongs to you. You support buffbot presence. You OWN this personal belief about buffbots. I've stated several times that you are twisting words in an attempt to discredit somebody that you do not agree with. You can continue to do so, but it makes you appear bothshallow and indifferent in your choice of arguments.
Krupskaya wrote:
This is a non-point, insofar as you have never established that BuffBots have anything to do with the survivability rather than the profitability of your profession.
AnakinSWG wrote:
And you called ME a hypocrite!?!?!?!
JohnMarble wrote:
DarkY0da wrote:
You should check out the thread here on this
Dammit, I hate it when they do that! I can't reply to a thread without checking three forums first. Guess I could crosspost my response, but why bother.
Yes, I apologize for that. But I wasnt sure where the main discussions for the entire entertainer community were taking place in the forums.
PistolDance wrote:
Krupskaya wrote:
This is a non-point, insofar as you have never established that BuffBots have anything to do with the survivability rather than the profitability of your profession.
Can we address this? I have a feeling you will both actually agree on something here
No, his statements lead one to believe that the BuffBot is the ultimate entertainer, or the endgame, if you will. The pinnacle of efficiency and effectiveness. Profitability, in his mind, is moot, since BH's are economically viable, even though their missions are hardly profitable. I doubt we'll find a single point of agreement in this line of discussion either.
So YOU know better than ALL of them. Being too young, stupid or indolent to direct their finances, it is only just that the Developers allow YOU to do it for them. Perhaps we should register players for basic, select, premium and elite accounts based on, say, intelligence tests or the dimensions of their skulls IRL? After all, it only makes SENSE that people play a game to be controlled by their self-appointed betters. Right?
Wrong. I do not know better than all of "them" anymore than you do. I believe the developers have the job of making some choices for us, they develop the game as is their job, that in turn gives us the player driven economy but they choose what vehicles we get to drive.They may not know better what to do but it is their job to do it.
What is your point? You keep trying to argue with me by making sweeping generalizations about what I believe but its pointless because your generalizations do not at all respond to the points that I made. Its as if I said the sky is blue and you saidgrass is green. Yes, but what does that have to do with anything? You did not address the point I made that there are children playing the game who are not mature adults. You did not address the points that I made that some players will make choices that make the game less fun to play if given the chance. Please read and really respond to what I say. I do not want the developers to give me the authority to decide how others should play the game unless they also pay me each month to be a developer myself. I'm free to give them opinions on what to do as are you. What is wrong with that?
There will always be deviants. However, many in the Entertainer Community are using such extreme examples to degrade the vast majority of players and argue that they should no longer be entitled to direct their finances independently. Effectively, your point is that people are stupid and should not be trusted, whereas the state of your finances demands that their assets be confiscated and redistributed as necessary via the abolition of BuffBots. Those who consider themselves so very elite would do well to themselves patronize a single-player game, where the much-dreaded, malevolent community of children, miscreants and n00blets is finally "muted".
Yes there are entertainers who are quite bitter and not very rational in their posts, just as there are nonentertainers who are bitter and not ratinal. Doesn't bother me any more than the flames about greedy doctors bother me. I haven't felt alienated or belittled that some people cannot discuss and generate some solutions while elucidating all of the problems. Here I am, trying quite hard to understand the issue and also present my view from the perspective of someone outside their community. You keep saying I'm trying to demean the playerbase. I do not think I am nor do I see areason why I would want to do that.
No my finances do not require or demand that anyone elses's assets be confiscated or redistrubted. I do not benefit or suffer directly from the use of buffbots. My concern on this matter is motivated primarily by my concern on the effects to the game environment by those who do suffer or benefit because of the practice. It is the same reason I told people not to use the shuttle repair bug. I started on that because someone accused me of being a exploiter for using my best carbine area attack in the geocaves. Long story short, in discussing the concept of what is or is not an exploit, or what should or should not be allowed in game, I realized that the ability to use the shuttle to repair a bike was a really bad thing for the game over all even though it benefited many players directly while harming a few players. The developers agreed with me. I also discussed the change that happened to pets. I was a CH at the time and was quite dissapointed at first with the change to pets, but have since come to realize that the developers made the game better by making the changes they did. I do believe we as players can add a lot to this game and that we are not all children who must have things decided for us. At the same time, I recognize that sometimes we don't individually have the best perspective on what is best for the game. And some of us ARE children.
Anyway, I digress, I used to have an alt that I could have turned into a buffbot (i intended it as a private buffing station). I chose not to do that. Someone else may have made the choice to do it. The question I believe, is whether the developers should design a game in which we have that choice in the first place? You seem to feel that we should have the choice, I think that is a choice we should not have, the same way I would think we should not have the option to type /godmode. I've explained at length elsewhere the reasons for my view. You may feel differently and that is fine. Some people like thehershey's with thealmonds, some people don't.
If the developers come up with a solution that makes the game fun for entertainers while preserving buffbots, then more power to them. I'm just not sure they can do that. I'd be happy to read your suggestions on how they could do that, unless your only suggestion is that entertainers should quit this game and play something else.
By the way, in every paragraph you type, you use a lot of pejorative words to classify various players as well as the views you attribute to them and to me. Why do you do this? Do you feel by characterizing my statements as "demeaning" you somehow have a better, more logical argument or does it just sound more complex and intriguing to you?
ctually, I appreciate your points. You are distilling it into a very simple, easily digestable conflict: those who trust the players, and those who do not. I don't mean that facetiously: it constitutes the same struggle between optimist and pessimist that has raged throughout history, especially the 20th century. And either side has ample evidence to support it. Really, I'd be glad were the discussion elevated to this level, rather than mired in lies about whether or not I patronize BuffBots.
Gee thanks.I do not think this is just a debate about player "trust" so much as it is about a principle of how a game should be designed. Trust is a funnyword to use, because what we are really talking about is what do we expect people to do and what dowe want to hold them responsible for doing.As a game designer, you can trust players not to scam each other, but you should not leave open ways for them to do it either. This is why the developers changed how banktips worked because a certain set of the player base were abusing how that worked. You can say I"m elitist, a snob, or characterize these players as miscreants or whatever invectives you care to use, but ultimately that is the story of why banktips were modified. One player was trusted with a system that they found a way to abuse, so the system was changed to prevent the abuse. We were trusted with the ability to play afk and use macros, and now the use of those two things has had a profoundnegative impact on an entire class of players. We can discuss various ways to ameliorate the situation that do not necessarily require the removal of bots, but you should think more carefully about whether we need to retain the ability to have bots at all. I have thought carefully about this. If you have, then that is fine and you are entiteld to your opinion.
That isn't what I argued at all. Remember, I am a non-entertainer.Again, another generalization about my argument. Do you believe that is helpful to the discussion? I do not. I wish you would respond to the points I"m making rather than making up points that you then attribute to me, as straw arguments for you to then knock down.
I have argued that a certain segment of the player base is not able to make a rational choice, not necessarily because of lack of intellect, but perhaps because of lack of information or immaturity. This playerbase is not "non-entertainer" or is not necessarily any proffesion or type of player (other than quite obviously, likely to be young players). So I fail to see how rounding up myself and my friends most of whom do not play entertainers, to siberia would solve anything. If that was an attempt at humor on your part, then all I can say is I hope you don't play an entertainer cause you're not really very funny in my opinion. Doesn't matter if I am or not, I play a doctor and read my forum's boards to see just how greedy, rude, selfish and mean we're supposed to be. I hope I live up to the reputation because reading what you think I'm arguing, apparently I am. Now if I read what I'm actually arguing, then I'm not.
To be clear, what I am arguing is that the solution to the present problem, and I do believe there is one, be determined by the developers because we have reached a point where player choices can no longer solve the issue. I do not think that any amount of optimisim, amusement, or anything else live entertainers could do will bring them back to being seen as a viable profession choice in the game as opposed to something that one would use for a secondary account. I also do not see that any amount of player snactions to "use the auction channel" is going to prevent buffbots and others from spamming if there is no penalty to their doing so. Player choice can only go so far before the player choice is to play a different game because this one is too messed up to be any fun. That is why I want the developers to look into the issue.I do not think the only solution is the removal of bots, but I think that is one option.
If you have a better solution, then please propose it. If you are convinced that the current system works fine, then I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this, because I've read a few explanations of why buffbots are not a problem and I can't sayI agree.
AnakinSWG wrote:
No, his statements lead one to believe that the BuffBot is the ultimate entertainer, or the endgame, if you will. The pinnacle of efficiency and effectiveness. Profitability, in his mind, is moot, since BH's are economically viable, even though their missions are hardly profitable. I doubt we'll find a single point of agreement in this line of discussion either.
PistolDance wrote:
Krupskaya wrote:
This is a non-point, insofar as you have never established that BuffBots have anything to do with the survivability rather than the profitability of your profession.
Can we address this? I have a feeling you will both actually agree on something here
Padtai wrote:
BuffBots are among a variety of problems for ATK Entertainers. While the latter congregate in two or three major cantinas -- Coronet, Theed, etc -- while neglecting the rest of the galaxy, and then complain when BuffBots start springing up, I'm inclined to think the latter are symptomatic of a problem, not the problem itself.
Me in yellow that other guy in red
In other words, you think the playerbase is composed of cheap, self-obsessed simpletons who play a MMORPG only for it's single-player aspects. Counterintuitive? Yes. Insulting as hell? Yes. But, apparently, you also believe that demeaning the playerbase constantly does NOT make them more reluctant to patronize ATK Entertainers. Which is, again, sublimely counterintuitive. They can be slandered incessantly, but their choices are out of self-interest, not indignation at being so maligned! A blank check for you to bitterly attack the community without being held accountable for the results of your actions.
I do not believeeveryone or even most are thepejorative words you used. I do believe there are players who are cheap and self-obseessed, just as there are those who are generous and kind hearted. I also realize that a person may exhibit any of these traits depending on the situation. Why is this insulting if it is the truth? How am I demeaning the player base to point out the fact that some players some of the time are rude? They are! You and Til just gave all of us a good example of how people can get a little less than polite and nice and generous in your assumptions of what others mean. It happens. There is nothing malicious about the fact that I say that it does.
I have not slandered anyone. I have said that people make choices based on their own self interest and that sometimes, that self interest causes them to act in a way that is harmful to other players. I do not see how I have bitterly attacked the community, nor how I am somehowescapingaccountability for my statements. You just aren't making sense to me here with this line of thought.
By the same virtue, you argue out of self-interest (as an Entertainer) and cannot be trusted with the greater good. If players are guided -exclusively- by self-interest -- and this is a very pessimistic appraisal that has yet to be substantiated -- then you are certainly no exception. And by sheer plurality, then -- after all, it has been pointed out so often that players "prefer" AFK to ATK Entertainers -- their opinion wins. Meaning the argument is circular.
Your assertion is that the playerbase cannot be trusted with a choice. That's rather self-evident. If you felt they could be trusted with a choice, you would not be so anxious to rescind it.
So YOU know better than ALL of them. Being too young, stupid or indolent to direct their finances, it is only just that the Developers allow YOU to do it for them. Perhaps we should register players for basic, select, premium and elite accounts based on, say, intelligence tests or the dimensions of their skulls IRL? After all, it only makes SENSE that people play a game to be controlled by their self-appointed betters. Right?
Wrong. I do not know better than all of "them" anymore than you do. I believe the developers have the job of making some choices for us, they develop the game as is their job, that in turn gives us the player driven economy but they choose what vehicles we get to drive.They may not know better what to do but it is their job to do it.
What is your point? You keep trying to argue with me by making sweeping generalizations about what I believe but its pointless because your generalizations do not at all respond to the points that I made. Its as if I said the sky is blue and you saidgrass is green. Yes, but what does that have to do with anything? You did not address the point I made that there are children playing the game who are not mature adults. You did not address the points that I made that some players will make choices that make the game less fun to play if given the chance. Please read and really respond to what I say. I do not want the developers to give me the authority to decide how others should play the game unless they also pay me each month to be a developer myself. I'm free to give them opinions on what to do as are you. What is wrong with that?
You rather openly asserted that the players cannot be trusted with a choice. You then offered gratuitous examples of how they cannot be trusted with a choice. Therefore, I am not extrapolating or laying out "generalizations". Your claim was that the benighted masses did not deserve a choice on thisissue, because you knew better where their finances should be directed.Naturally, you've deleted all the paragraphs to which I was responding, neatly cleansing all evidence of the very elitism I described.
There will always be deviants. However, many in the Entertainer Community are using such extreme examples to degrade the vast majority of players and argue that they should no longer be entitled to direct their finances independently. Effectively, your point is that people are stupid and should not be trusted, whereas the state of your finances demands that their assets be confiscated and redistributed as necessary via the abolition of BuffBots. Those who consider themselves so very elite would do well to themselves patronize a single-player game, where the much-dreaded, malevolent community of children, miscreants and n00blets is finally "muted".
Yes there are entertainers who are quite bitter and not very rational in their posts, just as there are nonentertainers who are bitter and not ratinal. Doesn't bother me any more than the flames about greedy doctors bother me. I haven't felt alienated or belittled that some people cannot discuss and generate some solutions while elucidating all of the problems. Here I am, trying quite hard to understand the issue and also present my view from the perspective of someone outside their community. You keep saying I'm trying to demean the playerbase. I do not think I am nor do I see areason why I would want to do that.
No my finances do not require or demand that anyone elses's assets be confiscated or redistrubted. I do not benefit or suffer directly from the use of buffbots. My concern on this matter is motivated primarily by my concern on the effects to the game environment by those who do suffer or benefit because of the practice. It is the same reason I told people not to use the shuttle repair bug. I started on that because someone accused me of being a exploiter for using my best carbine area attack in the geocaves. Long story short, in discussing the concept of what is or is not an exploit, or what should or should not be allowed in game, I realized that the ability to use the shuttle to repair a bike was a really bad thing for the game over all even though it benefited many players directly while harming a few players. The developers agreed with me. I also discussed the change that happened to pets. I was a CH at the time and was quite dissapointed at first with the change to pets, but have since come to realize that the developers made the game better by making the changes they did. I do believe we as players can add a lot to this game and that we are not all children who must have things decided for us. At the same time, I recognize that sometimes we don't individually have the best perspective on what is best for the game. And some of us ARE children.
Then you are arguing for real choices based on vague euphemisms. "Game environment"? I'm not bothered by some random individual standing in the corner of a Cantina and spamming "AFK Buffer PLZ Invite + Tip 10k 4 Buffz" any more than I'm annoyed by, say, Doctors resurrecting fallen combatants using kits assembled of water and fruits. If you are not making an economic argument, then you have no argument whatsoever insofar as there is no uniform "game environment" nor universal player preference. I can think of any number of things that impair my gaming enjoyment more than BuffBots, such as various ATK Entertainers screaming profanities and spamming rude emotes on the aforementioned BuffBots out of impotent rage. And for every player who finds BuffBots intolerable, you will find one who loves them and several who don't particularly care. Consequently, you cannot monopolize what is a vague, intensely personal and decidely not uniform concept such as the gaming environment.
Anyway, I digress, I used to have an alt that I could have turned into a buffbot (i intended it as a private buffing station). I chose not to do that. Someone else may have made the choice to do it. The question I believe, is whether the developers should design a game in which we have that choice in the first place? You seem to feel that we should have the choice, I think that is a choice we should not have, the same way I would think we should not have the option to type /godmode. I've explained at length elsewhere the reasons for my view. You may feel differently and that is fine. Some people like thehershey's with thealmonds, some people don't.
Providing a service while AFK is not analogous to GodMode. It is far more analogous to Merchants who themselves provide services AFK.
If the developers come up with a solution that makes the game fun for entertainers while preserving buffbots, then more power to them. I'm just not sure they can do that. I'd be happy to read your suggestions on how they could do that, unless your only suggestion is that entertainers should quit this game and play something else.
And now we have another unsubstantiated assumption that I may simply despise Entertainers and want them to "quit this game and play something else". Frankly, I'm certain those who define the "survivability" of the social Entertainer professions on the ability to sell buffs with the utmost efficiency will ultimately leave anyway, as their concerns will be better satisfied by a single-player game. It's amatter of temperament.
By the way, in every paragraph you type, you use a lot of pejorative words to classify various players as well as the views you attribute to them and to me. Why do you do this? Do you feel by characterizing my statements as "demeaning" you somehow have a better, more logical argument or does it just sound more complex and intriguing to you?
If you argue that players are too incompetent to be vested with a choice, the perjorative is yours, not mine. If you did not consider them incompetent, you would not argue for the removal of their free agency and seek to regiment their economic and social lives. The problem may be, rather, that you don't understand the implications of your argument.
ctually, I appreciate your points. You are distilling it into a very simple, easily digestable conflict: those who trust the players, and those who do not. I don't mean that facetiously: it constitutes the same struggle between optimist and pessimist that has raged throughout history, especially the 20th century. And either side has ample evidence to support it. Really, I'd be glad were the discussion elevated to this level, rather than mired in lies about whether or not I patronize BuffBots.
Gee thanks.I do not think this is just a debate about player "trust" so much as it is about a principle of how a game should be designed. Trust is a funnyword to use, because what we are really talking about is what do we expect people to do and what dowe want to hold them responsible for doing.As a game designer, you can trust players not to scam each other, but you should not leave open ways for them to do it either. This is why the developers changed how banktips worked because a certain set of the player base were abusing how that worked. You can say I"m elitist, a snob, or characterize these players as miscreants or whatever invectives you care to use, but ultimately that is the story of why banktips were modified. One player was trusted with a system that they found a way to abuse, so the system was changed to prevent the abuse. We were trusted with the ability to play afk and use macros, and now the use of those two things has had a profoundnegative impact on an entire class of players. We can discuss various ways to ameliorate the situation that do not necessarily require the removal of bots, but you should think more carefully about whether we need to retain the ability to have bots at all. I have thought carefully about this. If you have, then that is fine and you are entiteld to your opinion.
BuffBotting is not equivalent to scamming. Otherwise, yes, I'm open to suggestions to ameliorate the situation, provided consumer choice remains. I don't patronize BuffBots -- ever -- but I'm offended to no end that many Entertainers would think me too stupid and irresponsible to make this choice, and thus delete BuffBots altogether to divest me of my autonomy.
You've essentially argued that non-Entertainers are too stupid to make a rational choice. Consequently, I propose we should round them up, confiscate their assets, delete their accounts and deport them to Siberia.
That isn't what I argued at all. Remember, I am a non-entertainer.Again, another generalization about my argument. Do you believe that is helpful to the discussion? I do not. I wish you would respond to the points I"m making rather than making up points that you then attribute to me, as straw arguments for you to then knock down.
If you argue for the removal of choice, that presumes choice is undesirable. And if choise is undesirable, that presumes those making the choice are irresponsible. Again, it is impossible to see things in context, given that you have removed all the statements to which I was responding .....
I have argued that a certain segment of the player base is not able to make a rational choice, not necessarily because of lack of intellect, but perhaps because of lack of information or immaturity. This playerbase is not "non-entertainer" or is not necessarily any proffesion or type of player (other than quite obviously, likely to be young players). So I fail to see how rounding up myself and my friends most of whom do not play entertainers, to siberia would solve anything. If that was an attempt at humor on your part, then all I can say is I hope you don't play an entertainer cause you're not really very funny in my opinion. Doesn't matter if I am or not, I play a doctor and read my forum's boards to see just how greedy, rude, selfish and mean we're supposed to be. I hope I live up to the reputation because reading what you think I'm arguing, apparently I am. Now if I read what I'm actually arguing, then I'm not.
So the consumers aren't just stupid -- they might be ignorant, or extremely young, too. Thanks for the clarification.
To be clear, what I am arguing is that the solution to the present problem, and I do believe there is one, be determined by the developers because we have reached a point where player choices can no longer solve the issue. I do not think that any amount of optimisim, amusement, or anything else live entertainers could do will bring them back to being seen as a viable profession choice in the game as opposed to something that one would use for a secondary account. I also do not see that any amount of player snactions to "use the auction channel" is going to prevent buffbots and others from spamming if there is no penalty to their doing so. Player choice can only go so far before the player choice is to play a different game because this one is too messed up to be any fun. That is why I want the developers to look into the issue.I do not think the only solution is the removal of bots, but I think that is one option.
The mere presence of competition does not compel an Entertainer to leave the game for greener pastures. The ability to socialize, dance and, yes, buff, remains. A 25-30%, incremental reduction in profit is not game-breaking. The difference between the profitability of an ATK and an AFK Entertainer is much less than the difference between the profitability of, say, running missions for a profit with a Pistoleer versus a Rifleman. The latter can manage 2,000,000 credits in a buff session by running Enraged Rancor missions. No Pistoleer could accomplish the same. Does that mean Pistoleers are essentially a "dead class", and Riflemen must be immediately eliminated as a dire threat to their livlihood? Hardly. The counterpoint is that neither Pistoleers nor Riflemen are AFK; however, it is already amply established that one pays for services based on the quality provided, not the effort therein.
If you have a better solution, then please propose it. If you are convinced that the current system works fine, then I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this, because I've read a few explanations of why buffbots are not a problem and I can't sayI agree.
I'm happy to debate with Padtai. Unlike you, Til, he has not lied about me. But please continue the whining, melodramatic commentary so we can all hear how you were terribly victimized after lying about my practices and then stumbling through any number of incomprehensible "explanations" for your peculiar choice of words.
AnakinSWG wrote:
Well Krupskaya, I would appreciate it if you responded to Padtai. He's making statements that I have echoed in various other locations, and (as far as I can tell, I'm not sure about what your eyes see) is not slandering you. His points are absolutely valid, as many I have made are. If you care to compare, go right ahead. I trust you'll heed our warnings about twisting statements and making base assumptions about the intentions behind our words.
No, I don't.
I look forward to the attacks you make on his character (again).
Time for me to walk away from this thread before I actually attack your character and intelligence in response.