Musician Archive
Thread: Musicians and money
Steve_12_08 wrote:
It seems like this would be a simplish fix for the devs to make, and give a little boost to the professions at the same time. Wonder if we can get a dev comment on this one!
Petronela wrote:
Steve_12_08 wrote:
Think of this. If you have a group of 8 performers, each with two concurrent missions, that's 16 missions every 10 minutes, for 19,200 credits. For an hour, that's 115,200 credits an hour. If that's the case, then theoretically, entertainers can earn MORE than a BH on a good day, outside of Jedi missions.
Yes, that would be awesome if it would work this way, but unfortunately it doesn’t It’s how missions now work for everyone but us, aren’t we just so special ….
Message Edited by Steve_12_08 on 06-28-200511:52 AM
Subtract at least 20minutes time from your "hour" due to scanning for missions, travelling if you dont take the time to find one in a cantina right next to you, and getting everyone started and stopped at the near same time. It's a nice theory, but there needs to be a few more additions. I'm not against the credit split, if the payouts increased based on skill. I think that's a key feature.
Basically it's one of many issues busted when it comes to any sort of mission from a non basic mission terminal. The CU beta was so short, those are the only ones that truly got fixed, and now they need to go and handle all the others. Entertainer, Artisan, Explorer, Bounty Hunter, Factional, they all have serious issues. Oh yeah, lets throw in the Crafting Foreman missions too.
Petronela wrote:
I agree if they would remove the split and each entertainer in group would get the full amount, that alone would make a huge difference. Adjusting the terminal with more options/filters to make finding missions easier would probably make me swoon from happiness.
I wonder if a mission interface revamp could be in the works... because it seems like it would be a very valuable change to everyone, all across the board. (But then again, these are the same folks that thought sorting looted ship parts by name was a good scheme, instead of including an option to filter by component level. *shrug*)
I have never been found of the “do this or that flourish” idea, way too much like playing Simon Says, which seems to be fun to play only when in very intoxicated state. Also there is a list of flourishes I just don’t do and wouldn’t do for any reason.
Sounds like most musicians on stage anyway 
Isn't that why rehab centers make so much money? 
While it's understandable that some flourishes aren't optimal (or songs or dances) for some people, it seems awfully restrictive to dismiss any ideas because a handful of them aren't liked by some players. Especially since the flourishes are part of our system completely, and would be part of any performance we'd have to do. And if you're getting paid a fee (with the game concept that you're being hired for a specific purpose) then you should do what the "customer" wants you to do, or opt not to be paid by rejecting the gig.
But if a larger variety of mission types are added (some flourish dependent, some not), it's not as if you would be forced to do the missions types that are mission dependent. The idea is to have a variety so that everyone has something that they can enjoy doing and have a game-mechanic to pay them for it. There's no written rule stating that there can only be one type of entertainer mission, and I think everyone should entertain the thought of being able to have a variety of types of missions to choose from.
What if instead they added a perk for ATK entertainers similar to EQ2 Crafting process? There, while you crafting an item, random events pop up to which you have to correctly respond by pressing appropriate reaction keys, failure usually results in loss of quality of item. Let’s say randomly (anywhere from 5 to 10 min) a small unobtrusive box would pop up informing you of event about to take place. Example: “Irate customer has thrown an object in your direction, would you like to duck?” or “You are about to slip on spilled ale, would you like to sidestep the puddle?” They could really get funny and creative with the messages, but the whole point would be for entertainer to press “yes” in the pop-up box where “no” would be a system default. If you press “no” nothing happens, but if you select “yes” you get paid. This way ATK performers would have an income and the promised edge over zombies, while zombies themselves wouldn’t really be affected.
The problem with this is that they implementedpop-ups with surveying, but it is easily circumvented by someone willing to AFK. (I won't post how, but it can be done.) I imagine that the same concept would be implemented for entertainers, and just as easily circumvented (kinda rendering the point of the pop-up useless). While it would add a little bit to the gameplay (and to be honest, my gameplay is such that I don't care about making money via a game-mechanic as a musician, I ratherscript and practice and do performances, soa pop-up, no matter how unobtrusivevisually, would still be perceived as an annoyance to mytype of playstyle.) Perhaps instead of random pop-ups anytime, a player can initiate these by registering at the cantina they're playing at in order to begin receiving these payout opportunites?
Even so,my personal opinions on game design would mean rejecting this idea because I feel that if the pop-up box described something (i.e. the puddle of ale), it would actually appear in the game on the floor, and sucessfully avoiding it would display the character doing so, and slipping in it would also be rendered via the character, but I don't believe the SWG devs would go through so much trouble for this level of immersion. It adds a little bit... but it seems like we should expect more out of a graphical MMORPG.
All money-making game mechanics should really ignore the AFK aspect for certain, and it should be a player-initiated undertaking. Ideally you'd want a variety of mission types available that are entertaining to both player and patrons, and can cater to the major playstyles players have with their entertainers.
Steve_12_08 wrote:
Also consider that Entertainers do not have any overhead outside of clothing, which won't decay over the course of their missions and eventually need replaced. Crafters and Combat both have overhead... maintenance on harvesters, armor and weapon decay... if I wanted to do a full audit of the numbers I could, but I really don't have the time or inclination to get that detailed when the point is pretty much known--- Entertainer's can't make money based on game mechanics alone.
I just want to throw in a bit of a correction here because I spend way more, and I do mean way more, as an entertainer than I do as a combatant. Now yes it's because I choose to have a well decorated cantina, a huge selection of costumes, including BE enhanced items, an effects droid, a vehicle that needs repair etc... But I've always wanted to hit people with a big brick when they've declared "it doesn't cost you anything". That was when we still had mind buffs and I had to drink accarragm like crazy in order to provide the fast buff and had to plunk down quite a bit of money for SEA's and the ugly leotard. I think it's important to stress this because I have to wonder if part of the reason our mission payouts are still "broken" is because the devs don't take into consideration how much it can actually cost to be an entertainer.
For my combat times I have an ADK on my best rifle so that never needs repair or replacement. I'm rifles so my armor lasts quite a while and since the CU I don't have to rely on foods and drinks like I did before. Yet I can pull in nearly 100K per hour just blasting things. It's some how just insane that I have to hunt and kill in order to support my life as an entertainer. It's definitely time to start pushing the devs to fix those mission payouts. Even if they don't want to take the time to add in more interesting missions (I personally enjoyed the Newbie Quest), would it really take that much time to fix the mission payout splits and amounts?
Message Edited by Steve_12_08 on 06-29-2005 04:49 PM
Simply put, every time that time itself is added to a tangible item, the item is marked up, because the time expended merits a profit. To give a concrete example, buffs pre-cu were more expensive when applied by a doctor than if you bought those same buffs off a vendor: you were paying the doctor for his or her time sitting in front of the starport buffing you.
Time is worth something, whether or not it is appended to a tangible item. Granted, entertainers who do not use resources should not be paid as much for the "service" as a person who uses resources for a service, but the time component should still be compensated. For example, a doctor who heals your wounds with an enhancement pack incurs expense for the pack, but you would pay for more than the raw cost of the enhancement pack because you are paying the doctor for his or her time. The doctor who heals your wounds without a pack should be compensated for that time, but compensated less than the doctor who also uses materials.
As for needing money - it's not a matter of having no overhead. It's a matter of being able to do what you want in the game, and entertainers are just as entitled to having a pleasant game experience as others. Any other player easily makes enough cash for interplanetary travel, nice outfits for RP events, house decorations, and any other so-called frivolous things that make the game enjoyable. Entertainers may not "need" money for overhead, but they certainly need income sufficient to enjoy the perks of the game that combatants and others with an easy steady stream of income take for granted.
Steve_12_08 wrote:
Please don't assume that my original statements were incorrect, see below:
Combat Profession (Dual-Elite)requirements to complete a mission:
* Weapon (except TKA, although hard pressed not to use one)
* Armor (except TKA)
Crafter requirements to complete a sale:
* Harvester or Resource Purchase
* Factory (for most elite items) or Factory Crated Subcomponents
* Vendor maintenence
Entertainer requirements to complete a mission:
* Instrument (musician only)
Anything spend above and beyond that is simply not required for these.
It should also be noted that the artisan missions payout is paltry, but I consider the crafting and free market function as a game-mechanic that supports the profit potential of the crafting player. I also consider musician performances for a fee to be outside of the current game mechanics, because it relies solely on /tip or /covercharge (which is a jacked up way to require payment).
Message Edited by Steve_12_08 on 06-29-2005 04:52 PM
Well if I may...
Combatants don't need armor in order to complete a mission (as you noted they can't even equip armor until the novice level of their elite profession). Having armor makes it much easier but it's not a requirement - I've completed missions after having my armor reach condition 0, it just takes more planning. Also they are given a weapon when they first load in to the game but buying a better one later makes life easier. By the way my Teras Kasi/Novice Medic character rarely uses a VK now.
Crafters don't have to have factories unless they want to make crates of items. They don't need harvestors because they can sample by hand but having a harvestor makes life much easier. Also they don't have to have a vendor but doing so means they can charge a reasonable price for high end items and sell them much easier.
Soit seems like you arecomparing apples and oranges here. You compare completing an entertainer mission to a destroy mission but only those done by combat elites. You compare completing an entertainer mission to a crafter's sale rather than to an artisan mission. So I'll argue thatthe combatant and the crafter don't actually have any over head simply to complete a mission or a sale. But they do have over head if they wish to participate more fully in the game, just as entertainers do. A master level entertainer trying to "sell" their talent over that of a competing entertainer, for example,is going to need to spend money and quite possible a significant amount of time developing performances and advertising their services.
Since the artisan likely isn'tgrouped with anyone when doing a mission from the terminal their payout is actually better than that of an average entertainer. But I agree that all non-combat missions need a serious revamp. Any new crafter will need to do one of those other activities (combat or piloting)in order to make a "living wage". My new crafter had to complete piloting missions to pay for training for example. {can any one tell me why it costs $41,000 credits to get training from an NPC for a non-combat profession? Shouldn't I be able to offer them that melon or CDEF pistolin exchange for training?}
Message Edited by Ikewe on 06-29-2005 04:01 PM
NJ62 wrote:
The argument that entertainers don't need money because they have no tangible overhead is flawed. The fact is that everything in this game is a product of the time necessary to acquire it.
In this instance, the time element can't be applied. Consider that this argument is surrounding the supported, hard-coded game mechanics used for profit potential. In this instance we are using dual-elite combat missions, master crafter harvesting/crafting/vendor sales, and entertainer missions. With the application of any overhead, the combatant can minimize the time needed to complete a mission and maximize his or her profit potential. Crafters add overhead to have ample supply to run a successful business and maximize their profit potential. Entertainers cannot apply overhead to complete a mission any faster, or any better, and with current payouts cannot meet or exceed those requirements based on game mechanics alone, therefore entertainers have no need for tangible overhead because it does not affect the completion of their missions.
That is not to say that with the application of any type of overhead the entertainer cannot earn money. The band I am in, we can earn more than a BH's hourly NPC mission rate, but it's nota game-mechanic function, rather it is a social function. This would be the same as if the combat character were hired to escort someone on a harvester run, or to clear out a nest from near your home.
Entertainers need more types of missions and/or quests that are entertainer-specific and worthy of the same types and amounts of overhead that other classes can spend, and the amount of overhead needs to have some effect on the completion of the mission itself, in order to be comparable to the other classes.
Ikewe wrote:
Well if I may...
Combatants don't need armor in order to complete a mission (as you noted they can't even equip armor until the novice level of their elite profession). Having armor makes it much easier but it's not a requirement - I've completed missions after having my armor reach condition 0, it just takes more planning. Also they are given a weapon when they first load in to the game but buying a better one later makes life easier. By the way my Teras Kasi/Novice Medic character rarely uses a VK now.
When related to the profit potential of completing missions faster, better weapon + better armor = better profit over time.
Crafters don't have to have factories unless they want to make crates of items. They don't need harvestors because they can sample by hand but having a harvestor makes life much easier. Also they don't have to have a vendor but doing so means they can charge a reasonable price for high end items and sell them much easier.
Regardless of whether they have factories, they will still need to have to purchase or make factory-crated items for most higher-end items. Again, the overhead relates to the profit potential of completing the sales.
Soit seems like you arecomparing apples and oranges here. You compare completing an entertainer mission to a destroy mission but only those done by combat elites.
Entertainer level has no bearing on the missions accepted, or the length of time needed to complete, or the payout. Thus across all levels, entertainer will remain the same, whereas the profit potential of combat characters goes up, and is affected by the application of the overhead they gain as a result of higher levels. Consider that the payout for a low CL character is about 300 credits. Group with a CL80 character and complete a mission and you receive near 8000. That's not possible with the entertainer. So no, you can't get a direct one-on-one comparison between the mission types, but by comparing the credits per hour of each profession's profit potential(which is what was done in the first example) you are creating a comparison of apples to apples.
You compare completing an entertainer mission to a crafter's sale rather than to an artisan mission. So I'll argue thatthe combatant and the crafter don't actually have any over head simply to complete a mission or a sale.
How many crafters actually do artisan missions? How many crafters become crafters to do artisan missions for profit? How many don't use harvesters, factories, or vendors? How many (excepting TK's, who still have a weapon to use in order to maximize profit potential) combats don't use armor or weapons? Regardless, this is irrelevent to the original statement, because even with the overhead that these classes have, they still maintain a profit, whereas entertainers overhead will notsupport a profitby the game mechanic of entertainer missions. We're talking about profit potential here, based on mechanics used in-game in order to generate that profit. And if you'll note in a previous post in this thread, I do say that entertainers CAN make a lot of money by putting forth the effort to create a performance and do marketing, however, no other profession is forced to do that (combat classes especially) and artisans have the benefit of being able to earn money offline through vendor sales, can register vendors, etc.yet any entertainer who attempts to earn money while not on the computer is lambasted by the entertainer community. You'll note that I did not include AFK entertaining into the comparison, even though it is a valid comparison, and AFK entertainers can make money based on game mechanics (/covercharge, and performing in needed areas). But since entertainers at large do not support the AFK entertaining style of play, I'm excluding it as a method of profit potential for the typical entertainer.
But they do have over head if they wish to participate more fully in the game, just as entertainers do. A master level entertainer trying to "sell" their talent over that of a competing entertainer, for example,is going to need to spend money and quite possible a significant amount of time developing performances and advertising their services.
The main function of the entertainer (was/is) battle fatigue healing, wound healing, and mind buffs/inspirations. There was no game-mechanic to support the payment of these functions, and the entertainer has no other game-function to fulfill other than occupying space in a cantina, which is the only game-mechanic used to generate a consistent flow of money for the entertainer. With wound healing gone, battle fatigue going away, and inspirations being somewhat nerfed (in many people's eyes) and is a passive ability. The flow of that money which overhead could affect is going away or gone(which was supported by /tip only, not even via an interface such as the image designer... and /covercharge is an unsatisfactory way to support the profession, since it's all patrons or no patrons, and not specific patrons). More and more a entertainer-only profession needs the support of other professions in order to make a profit, which should not be necessary, given that the skill-point investment in the entertainer professions should provide equal opportunity for the entertainer to earn credits via game-provided mechanisms, not socially-provided mechanisms (since they are very volatile and unpredictable). Just because the entertainer is a social class and can perform social functions doesn't mean there is no need for overhead, simply that given the current state of the entertainer profession, the application of such overhead does not affect their ability to generate revenue based on what the game provides.
Steve_12_08 wrote:
NJ62 wrote:
The argument that entertainers don't need money because they have no tangible overhead is flawed. The fact is that everything in this game is a product of the time necessary to acquire it.
In this instance, the time element can't be applied. Consider that this argument is surrounding the supported, hard-coded game mechanics used for profit potential. In this instance we are using dual-elite combat missions, master crafter harvesting/crafting/vendor sales, and entertainer missions. With the application of any overhead, the combatant can minimize the time needed to complete a mission and maximize his or her profit potential. Crafters add overhead to have ample supply to run a successful business and maximize their profit potential. Entertainers cannot apply overhead to complete a mission any faster, or any better, and with current payouts cannot meet or exceed those requirements based on game mechanics alone, therefore entertainers have no need for tangible overhead because it does not affect the completion of their missions.
That is not to say that with the application of any type of overhead the entertainer cannot earn money. The band I am in, we can earn more than a BH's hourly NPC mission rate, but it's nota game-mechanic function, rather it is a social function. This would be the same as if the combat character were hired to escort someone on a harvester run, or to clear out a nest from near your home.
Entertainers need more types of missions and/or quests that are entertainer-specific and worthy of the same types and amounts of overhead that other classes can spend, and the amount of overhead needs to have some effect on the completion of the mission itself, in order to be comparable to the other classes.
Okay, so entertainers are supposed to earn money from missions, even though they provide a service to the community at large? That adds another "faucet" to the player-economy, while effectively removing entertainers from that community altogether.
The game is created with faucets and drains. Faucets are missions. Drains are how the game recollects the money. That's not money you spend that goes into another player's account. That is money that goes away forever, such as money that goes to a harvester, house, or bank fees. With the already-staggering surplus of wealth in the game, adding a "faucet" for entertainers, rather than getting entertainers a share of the existing wealth, creates economic problems. Are you willing to have combat mission payouts lowered to accomodate the needs of entertainers, while still maintaining the economy?
Second, interdependence and a player-run economy means that players exchange money among themselves in order to set the market. An artisan, for example, makes money from providing a service to combatants. Artisans do not have missions to make money for this service. Why are entertainers treated differently? Through the player-run economy a successful businessperson has no limitation on his or her income, if he or she is enterprising. But by restricting entertainers to missions and taking them out of the loop, they are limited as to income.
In short, I think it's a mistake to take entertainers out of the player-run economy to effectively put them on an independent money-source, both for the economic reasons of faucets and drains and for the reason that being paid from a separate source destroys psychological interdependency.
I think people should stop talking in absolutes. Adding a method for entertainers to make decent creds via a game mechanic will not remove the potential for entertainers to make creds via social elements and gigs. If anything, it will increse the value of an entertaier for these events. Many professions look down on entertainers because they only see us as a profession that has no essential function in the overall game, is a profession that is 100% AFKable and has no potential for interesting content or even mission rewards. An incresed potential for income without relying only on tips or gigs will increse the value to the overall profession and also to our 'perceived' value by other professions. The removal of BF just removes more content from Entertainers and even lowers our perceived value.
NJ, you speak of faucets and drains. While I do agree that these are important factors in an overall view of this virtual economy (if you can call it that), the economy is so borked already that (using the water metaphor) giving an entertainer "faucet" that is more than the drip we are currently getting will have no effect on the 'Niagra Falls' that is the 'faucet' for combat characters or on the 'ocean' that is the current assets of player savings.
I think that what we really need is not just a "faucet" that we can go to and take water from when we need some, but rather...and I know I'm saying a weird word when it comes to talking about entertainers....content. With each expansion, content release, and update, there have been added items, loot, weapons and stuff that is available to combat professions and artisans to acquire, sell, trade, hoarde, whatever....while as entertainers we are at such a disadvantage that even the medium level content is very difficult for us to accomplish because we are not CLVL 80. Lets just forget about high end content like the Vette or the DWB. The only way to ever experience these places is to sacrifice the loot to the high end players while they babysit your butt.
The only 'quest' we have gotten provides us a couple thousand credits (over 7 missions) and a new song....which we then have to spend XP to learn (lets consider for a brief IMPORTANT second that this is a "drain" on XP that we and WE alone have and our "faucet" on XP is also a lot smaller than the combat professions). How bout some loot that can only be gotten doing an entertainer mission...of a specific level. You know....something we can sell? Maybe a series of items? Maybe a series of VIP performances for creds....faction? Entertainer ways into Jabba's so we can at least get existing rewards that are no-brainers for a CLVL 80?
Credit balances are just a symptom of the greater imbalances against entertainers in general. Imbalances in access to content, access to loot, ability to survive in the post CU world, ability to participate in the GCW, and over access to 'love' from the developers.
Fragpuppie Uber
Master Musician/Master Entertainer
NJ62 wrote:
Okay, so entertainers are supposed to earn money from missions, even though they provide a service to the community at large? That adds another "faucet" to the player-economy, while effectively removing entertainers from that community altogether.
I fail to see how it removes entertainers from the community at large by providing comparable game-mechanics for the purpose of generating money. (And note, that I'm not speaking in terms of the overall faucet/drain concept of the game economy, I'm speaking in terms of personal character profit. The overall economy is an entirely seperate issue from this one, which is how entertainers need to make a comparable "living wage".
The game is created with faucets and drains. Faucets are missions. Drains are how the game recollects the money. That's not money you spend that goes into another player's account. That is money that goes away forever, such as money that goes to a harvester, house, or bank fees. With the already-staggering surplus of wealth in the game, adding a "faucet" for entertainers, rather than getting entertainers a share of the existing wealth, creates economic problems. Are you willing to have combat mission payouts lowered to accomodate the needs of entertainers, while still maintaining the economy?
Again, this discussion is not about the entire economy as a whole and is focused specifically on personal character profit potential. There is no reason why one set of professions should be restricted by nature of the game design in terms of personal profit. Not everyone wants to be that performance band entertainer, and would rather be a cantina socializer. With at least two beneficial profit generators (of "shifting wealth") are removed, and no replacement for those profit generators, pure entertainers will require missions for support, which do not provide comparable payouts compared to skillpoint investment and do not adequately compensate for the opportunity cost of not playing combat professions.
Second, interdependence and a player-run economy means that players exchange money among themselves in order to set the market. An artisan, for example, makes money from providing a service to combatants. Artisans do not have missions to make money for this service. Why are entertainers treated differently? Through the player-run economy a successful businessperson has no limitation on his or her income, if he or she is enterprising. But by restricting entertainers to missions and taking them out of the loop, they are limited as to income.
In no way is an entertainer restricted to missions, however, the missions and their payouts are currently inadequate compared to the other profit potentials of the other classes. Crafters have a game mechanic in order to run their businesses effectively 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and by virtue of location and a map-registered vendor, as well as the new vendor bazaar search features, have adequate game mechanics with which to support that profit potential. Entertainers do not have access to anything comparable to that, except AFK entertaining, which is frowned upon by the entertainer society overall, thus limiting their profit potential as a "money exchanger".
In short, I think it's a mistake to take entertainers out of the player-run economy to effectively put them on an independent money-source, both for the economic reasons of faucets and drains and for the reason that being paid from a separate source destroys psychological interdependency.
In no way am I taking entertainers out of the player-run economy.In fact, in another thread I advocate for a process by which entertainers can program song/dance routines onto droid chips (similar to the way pilots can do with flight computer/astromechs). I'm an advocate of the special event performances (since it is my favored entertainer playstyle) and exchanging money for time and services rendered.
I want to see more entertainer-specific content, and I am not against the introduction of additional money sinks for the economy overall. However, with the current state of affairs, entertainers are exiting the game or changing professions, which is ultimately more detrimental to the professions. Increasing the payout of the entertainer missions will keep the playstyle alive until the devs can complete (if they do) additional content for the entertainer professions. More often they probably change to combat professions, which compounds the effects of more faucets than drains. Balancing the entire system, however, is not what this thread is about. What this thread is about is the balancing of this class, its skill point expenditures, the game-supported profit potential, and the overall success and enjoyment of the entertainer professions compared to the other available professions. Opportunity costs should be relatively equal, and they simply are not.
lol okay let me just saySteve thatyou and I are in complete agreement on the issue of entertainer mission payout levels. My "correction" was thatin one of your posts you statedentertainers had no overhead while combatants and artisans did. That's where we are parting ways in this discussion. Your rebuttal is still comparing apples to oranges in my opinion. Your giving examples of costs that combatants and artisans have when they are "maximizing their income potential" but you're giving examples of an entertainer simply completing a mission from the terminal. Butthat'snot the maximum income potential for entertainers, shows and special events are. In order to reach that income potential an entertainer is going to have overhead just like the artisan and the combatant. But again we are in complete agreement on the pay inequity andwith that the inability for entertainers tofully participate. I just think it's important that we be prepared to educate players and devs about the overhead costs that entertainers do have. It's one thing to show that there's a "pay inequity" but if they don't think we need to be paid then it won't matter.
I hope as our correspondents continue to push for our professions they'll continue to push forchanges in the mission payout.Even simply not splitting the mission payout but rather each person in the group getting the amount displayed would be a big boost I think - and one that could happen very quickly. Not only would it help during timeswhen the cantinas areempty of patrons but if ATKers taking the missions were suddenly getting a decentincome it might encourage a few more people to stay ATK.
Panthu wrote:
Back at the Corr Summit last year, I asked about cost for Ents (I used to talk about it a lot, so it wasn't like they hadn't already heard it from me, lol)... and at that time Keld agreed that we needed clearer costs. That was a long time ago though, so I have no idea what these new changes that are coming down for us will mean for that. Also, I don't know what's been discussed with the current Ent Corrs. This may not be any Devs' opinion atm.
Anyway, one of the main benefits to this would be letting others see something they could understand as a "cost" even if they had never played an Ent char. Some of the things talked about in the past were: Instrument Decay for Musicians, Clothes Decay for Dancers (like dance slippers), and Style Products with limited use for IDs. If these were items needed for completion of missions, it would mimic the relationship in between weap/armor costs and combat missions... and maybe we could finally make some decent money from the game and not just our charms with other nice players.
I think this would be a cool thing. I hope it gets looked into again at some point.
Clothes decay definitely should be a part of the "cost" for entertainers in the course of their game function, although instrument decaywould only suffice to exchange credits among musicians (from those wishing to create instruments to those wishing not to),unless artisans could create "tuning kits" to fix "damaged" instruments. Hopefully if it ever is introduced, it's exactly as you describe it (as armor/weapon decay functions).
Or.. thinking WAY outside the box here, another interesting concept could be to "create" songs/dance routinesmuch like a crafter creates items (i.e. with a schematic/factory production), and these items would be useable by other entertainers in order to apply inspirations. The "resources" to create the inspiration could be gathered by performing in different cantinas, and the materials "gathered", say in the form of "musician's notes" or "dancer's notes" could then be used to create various types of inspirations, which could be used much like doctors use enhancers to apply buffs or heal (or pre-cu buffpaks). If people were aware that the creation of these inspirations was a function of the amount of time entertainers spent traveling the world and playing/dancing in particular locations, it would increase the value of the inspirations (provided they were compelling enough for players to want the inspirations). But the function would help spread entertainers out into lesser-used places and maybe help generate a community of players that can now have convenient access to an entertainer in cities across the galaxies.
Of course that is a completely OUT there concept, but entertainers are such a unique profession to have in games such as SWG that they deserve equally as unique methods of providing services to the other players, something that other players find enough value in to be worthwhile to the entertainer.