Musician Archive

Clicky to dev who wants to help us!
Now everyone go see what he has to say, be nice to him, and offer him your constructive feedback. Make sure to point out what you like, and when you don't like something, say why .

Message Edited by Aleyo on 04-07-2005 02:23 PM

BTW, please feel free to share feedback in here. As my excitement has shown, Phydeaux-K9 has been great in terms of openness to talking with us, so I'm confident he'll respond if I have something to bring to him.

Aleyo and Phideaux,

My concern is regarding this quote from Phideaux's post:

"We'd rather reward the ATK performer with better abilities that can only be achieved through active participation (resulting in an interesting performance, of course) rather than punishing or eradicating the AFK performer (who, in the end will provide inferior but useful services)"

This is very frustrating for me to hear, as it implies to me that SOE is taking a supportive stance towards AFK play of their game. I understand that another account is another source of revenue to them, and I know that they have stated increased support towards ATK entertainers.

I do not feel that ANY profession on SWG should be able to be done by AFK'ing. I can understand if that is a view that is not shared by the devs. I would prefer if we could hear what the current development team's position on AFK play is, if any. It seemed that positive moves were being made with the removal of combat while having an AFK tag on. Now, I am less certain than I was before.

I do greatly appreciate the increased level of public communication that has been given to us and continues to be given. I merely wonder if all of our top 5 lists have been for naught if the dev's do not wish to eradicate or even punish the AFK performer.

Thank you,
Leilani

P.S. I just realized this was my 1138 post. Maybe that will get a better response, hehe.

Message Edited by Bionic on 04-07-2005 04:33 PM

I hear you on the AFK thing, and it's certainly been our biggest issue for quite some time.

Here's how I'm looking at it.

This has been one of the most direct and straightforward responses to thinking on AFK play and their strategies that I can think of (if not *the* most direct and straightforward response). I see it as a pure opportunity to understand better what they are thinking so that we can better relate to them what we are thinking.

From the wording, it sounds like the devs truly believe that if they removed the ability to play AFK, there wouldn't be enough live entertainers to provide the services to the rest of the playerbase (particularly at late hours, etc.). Maybe this is true, maybe it isn't, and maybe it's irrelevant.

But the main point is, now we have a clue as to *why* we might not have seen AFK go away yet, not to mention that they *are* attempting to make things better for us in some way.

To me a good strategy sounds like this:

1. We keep the devs informed about *why* afk play is an issue for us. The steps described in Phydeaux-K9's post sound like they are trying to address the income/desirability issue, and somewhat the respect issue. We need to keep them informed about the other issues like cantina spam, the general zombie environment, and the respect issue as it pertains to things not affected by the strategy outlined.
2. >We give their strategy an honest attempt. If the devs believe they are helping us, we can surely tell them why we *fear* it won't work out, but it's only fair for us to actually try it out to see what benefits it *does* give us. Even if their strategy doesn't fix the problem for us completely, I think it certainly is a worthwhile thing to do for us, and right now they're willing to do it, so let's let them.
3. Finally, just because we accept their current strategy now, doesn't mean we are saying "yes, that will fix us, we will never need to address this issue again." If things don't get better, we will be able to go to them with "well hey, we tried that out, but it didn't work out for us, please try something else because this is our biggest issue." Plus, since we know more about the reasoning behind their hesistance to get rid of AFK, we can address that issue directly by getting some numbers and other evidence to support some other method if it becomes necessary.

So while yes, I would love for them to have come out and said "Hey, by the way, we put in magic code that eliminates the ability to play unattended (but don't tell the government we discovered a way to spy on you through your monitor)," I think it's a good thing that they realize it's an issue, are trying to do something about it, and most of all, that they are talking about it.

---

Aleyo wrote:
I hear you on the AFK thing, and it's certainly been our biggest issue for quite some time.

Here's how I'm looking at it.

This has been one of the most direct and straightforward responses to thinking on AFK play and their strategies that I can think of (if not *the* most direct and straightforward response). I see it as a pure opportunity to understand better what they are thinking so that we can better relate to them what we are thinking.

From the wording, it sounds like the devs truly believe that if they removed the ability to play AFK, there wouldn't be enough live entertainers to provide the services to the rest of the playerbase (particularly at late hours, etc.). Maybe this is true, maybe it isn't, and maybe it's irrelevant.

But the main point is, now we have a clue as to *why* we might not have seen AFK go away yet, not to mention that they *are* attempting to make things better for us in some way.

To me a good strategy sounds like this:

1. We keep the devs informed about *why* afk play is an issue for us. The steps described in Phydeaux-K9's post sound like they are trying to address the income/desirability issue, and somewhat the respect issue. We need to keep them informed about the other issues like cantina spam, the general zombie environment, and the respect issue as it pertains to things not affected by the strategy outlined.
2. >We give their strategy an honest attempt. If the devs believe they are helping us, we can surely tell them why we *fear* it won't work out, but it's only fair for us to actually try it out to see what benefits it *does* give us. Even if their strategy doesn't fix the problem for us completely, I think it certainly is a worthwhile thing to do for us, and right now they're willing to do it, so let's let them.
3. Finally, just because we accept their current strategy now, doesn't mean we are saying "yes, that will fix us, we will never need to address this issue again." If things don't get better, we will be able to go to them with "well hey, we tried that out, but it didn't work out for us, please try something else because this is our biggest issue." Plus, since we know more about the reasoning behind their hesistance to get rid of AFK, we can address that issue directly by getting some numbers and other evidence to support some other method if it becomes necessary.

So while yes, I would love for them to have come out and said "Hey, by the way, we put in magic code that eliminates the ability to play unattended (but don't tell the government we discovered a way to spy on you through your monitor)," I think it's a good thing that they realize it's an issue, are trying to do something about it, and most of all, that they are talking about it.

---

Thanks. That's what I have been trying to do is keep the issue on people's minds. I have praised the devs for their increased support for Entertainers in the past few patches especially, and for Phideaux's post here. I recognize his statement of position on AFK play. I think the solution I would choose is different, though.

If there are honestly not enough reasons to play a profession ATK, ensuring that AFK people can still be around is not the proper solution. Making changes that make being ATK compelling, combined with removing the capability to AFK it IS the solution.

I know that the CU is not our upgrade, and I still have faith that the "Entertainer Upgrade Coming in 2005!" will be a reality. I just would much rather see the AFK problem taken care of prior to an upgrade to our abilities. Communities such as SWG's are a loyal bunch: Just look at the outcry of those who wish nothing but the CU to be disbanded. People do not like change, especially when it means decreased capabilities for themselves.

I am worried that if it is still possible to AFK our profession effectively when the EUp comes out, we will be flooded with people proclaiming that they NEED AFK'ers, and the change will not be made in order to satisfy them.

CONCLUSION: I see where the devs are coming from. The answer is not to punish AFK'ers, in that we can agree. However, my point is that no player who is at the keyboard should have their playing opportunities restricted because there is an AFK "player" doing what they wish to do.

---

---

Aleyo wrote:
I hear you on the AFK thing, and it's certainly been our biggest issue for quite some time.

Here's how I'm looking at it.

This has been one of the most direct and straightforward responses to thinking on AFK play and their strategies that I can think of (if not *the* most direct and straightforward response). I see it as a pure opportunity to understand better what they are thinking so that we can better relate to them what we are thinking.

From the wording, it sounds like the devs truly believe that if they removed the ability to play AFK, there wouldn't be enough live entertainers to provide the services to the rest of the playerbase (particularly at late hours, etc.). Maybe this is true, maybe it isn't, and maybe it's irrelevant.

But the main point is, now we have a clue as to *why* we might not have seen AFK go away yet, not to mention that they *are* attempting to make things better for us in some way.

To me a good strategy sounds like this:

1. We keep the devs informed about *why* afk play is an issue for us. The steps described in Phydeaux-K9's post sound like they are trying to address the income/desirability issue, and somewhat the respect issue. We need to keep them informed about the other issues like cantina spam, the general zombie environment, and the respect issue as it pertains to things not affected by the strategy outlined.


2. >We give their strategy an honest attempt. If the devs believe they are helping us, we can surely tell them why we *fear* it won't work out, but it's only fair for us to actually try it out to see what benefits it *does* give us. Even if their strategy doesn't fix the problem for us completely, I think it certainly is a worthwhile thing to do for us, and right now they're willing to do it, so let's let them.


3. Finally, just because we accept their current strategy now, doesn't mean we are saying "yes, that will fix us, we will never need to address this issue again." If things don't get better, we will be able to go to them with "well hey, we tried that out, but it didn't work out for us, please try something else because this is our biggest issue." Plus, since we know more about the reasoning behind their hesistance to get rid of AFK, we can address that issue directly by getting some numbers and other evidence to support some other method if it becomes necessary.

So while yes, I would love for them to have come out and said "Hey, by the way, we put in magic code that eliminates the ability to play unattended (but don't tell the government we discovered a way to spy on you through your monitor)," I think it's a good thing that they realize it's an issue, are trying to do something about it, and most of all, that they are talking about it

I wouldn't get too hung up on semantics. Not just with entertainer changes, but with lots of other changes, things haven't followed what would seem to be the 'natural progression' of states regarding In Concept, In Development, etc. Maybe everything's completely accurately described according to some metric the devs have, or maybe they're a little jumbled (it wouldn't surprise me, as it seems obvious that they're under a big time crunch for the CU and ROTW).

Regarding communication, I actually believe it will keep up in a pretty good form. We may not see red name posts about us all the time here, but I'm in very good communication with Phydeaux-K9 right now, and I see no reason to believe that he doesn't want to keep the communication as open as we can. And this will only be helped as long as we keep up the constructive feedback, ideas, and excitement about what our profession can become.

I'm not sure what our timeline's going to be exactly. It is entirely possible that we won't see the advanced abilities until after the CU is published (I think I've explained my thoughts before that they're really really pressed for time for the CU and while they'd love to get all the details taken care of, I think they're being asked to get the crucial parts of combat taken care of primarily). However, from what I've been told, we shouldn't despair if this is the case. Without saying too much that I might not be able to say, I'll just say that I honestly believe and foresee good things coming to us; if we sacrifice a short period of time where we don't have those advanced abilities yet, that's fine by me, because I have reason to believe it will be worth the wait. (I'll see if I can say a little more, so I can be a little less vague ).

---

Nifty wrote:

I just miss the communication of pre-launch. They pretty much told us what was going on, and things changed constantly, and we didn't freak on them. I guess things get different after launch...

---

Well, one thing I do know changed (assuming you're accurate about the pre-launch days - I wasn't around then), is that people *did* freak a lot when things changed (specifically schedules - it's no accident that we rarely see what's going to happen more than one publish in advance nowadays).

That being said, I'm going to ask for whatever information we can get public, so that we'll be great resources for them while they design these things. And if nothing else, we correspondents do have a multitude, nay, a plethora, of ideas that have been presented on these boards over the course of their existence; even if they decide to go completely tight-lipped in public (though it would surprise me), we blue names are able to a darn decent job of mimicking the feedback they *would* get out here.

On the Entertainer forum LeBob said that the inspiration buffs are replacing wound healing. Will mind buffs be replaced with something else?

I would have no problem with this being a passive act if something else was in the works that replaced mind buffs and was controlled by the entertainer.

Yes some unknown something, some time in the future is supposed to be done BEYOND the base inspiration buff of +10% to XP,Faction, Crafting Success