Announcements

Join the ongoing conversation on Discord: https://discord.gg/w6Tpkp2

Please read the current update for instructions on downloading the latest update. Players with Mac versions of the game will not be affected, but you will have a slightly longer wait for your version of the new maps. Please make a copy of your character folder before running the new update, just to make sure you don't lose any of your custom work.

It looks like we can give everyone a list of minimum specs for running City of Titans. Please keep in mind that this is 'for now' until we are able to add more graphics and other system refinements. Currently you will need :
Windows 10 or later required; no Intel integrated graphics like UHD, must have AMD or NVIDIA card or discrete chipset with 4Gb or more of VRAM
At least 16GB of main DRAM.
These stats may change as we continue to test.

To purchase your copy of the City of Titans Launcher, visit our store at https://store.missingworldsmedia.com/ A purchase of $50 or more will give you a link to download the Launcher for Windows or Mac based machines.

Bartle's Taxonomy (Extra Credits)

76 posts / 0 new
Last post
Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
Bartle's Taxonomy (Extra Credits)

A recent pair of Extra Credits episodes, links below, had me thinking. The two episodes dealt with Bartle's Taxonomy of gamers. Not to give spoilers, but there are 4 archetypal gamer mindsets (not everyone falls squarely into one or the other, but most players are mostly one thing, based on their motivation for why they play). The 4 types are Achievers, Explorers, Socializers, and Killers.

In CoX, I was very clearly a Socializer, the badge hunting crowd was mostly Achievers, I think the explorers were the first people to leave when they felt they had been everywhere and done everything and only came back when there was a new expansion, and the Killers were people who hung around in PVP zones and griefed people.

Can we make MWM work in such a way as to deal with the Killers? I'm not saying "get rid of the Killers.", though I personally would like to, just something more like "Can we satiate them with arena PVP instead of allowing them to gank unsuspecting people in public for kicks?" or is that a deal-breaker that causes them to just go away? And if it is, do we care?

As a designer of MMORPG games, do we try to rid ourselves of the Killers, or keep them playing and hopefully in a way that doesn't scare off other types of players?

First one:

Second one:

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 13 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Killers are a NECESSARY part

Killers are a NECESSARY part of a functioning player ecosystem. If you don't have Killers then other things can get out of whack. If the other types are "clean air, rain and fertile soil" (ie. air, water and earth) then the Killers are the element of FIRE in the system. The thing is, FIRE is a necessary part of the life cycle, and systems that aren't designed to handle fire (or haven't handled it enough lately) are prone to all kinds of other failures as a result.

Which is a way of saying that Killers serve a vital function in the long term health of any game. This is a sadly underappreciated fact.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
The two videos demonstrated

The two videos demonstrated how letting any one type of player dominate the landscape would lead to the ultimate downfall of a game. It did not demonstrate the absolute need for Killers, to me. The videos mostly assumed there would always be some Killers, no matter what, and that their relative numbers might be affected by the other groups in various ways.

But that's the videos.

Are you saying that MWM should have open world PVP areas or zones or servers or shards or whatever just to allow for the Killers to have a proper place and time to gank unsuspecting victims so that we don't lose the Killers, which we appear to want to keep around, for some reason?

CoX didn't SEEM to have a lot of Killers by the end, to me. On my server (Triumph, admittedly one of the smaller ones) people mostly avoided PVP and you could go to places like Bloody Bay or Recluse's Victory and you'd be about the only person there. People who were there spent their time happily reloading their Shivans or trying to solo firebases or trying to get Warburg nukes, etc and they mostly had the entire zone to themselves when they did. This would suggest, to me, that Killers are not 100% required in all cases.

That said, they might be a large segment of the population, relatively speaking, and their money is just as good as anyone else's, as such giving them something satisfying to do would be good. Assuming it's not "gank Radiac repeatedly" I'm not against it, whatever it is. I just don't know of Arena PVP would work. These people want to victimize the weak, not compete in more or less fair fights against each other, after all. Or maybe they would like that, I don't know, I guess I'd have to ask one of them.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Doctor Tyche
Doctor Tyche's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 11:29
This balancing act is

This balancing act is partially why we have such a heavy Lore focus. Lore, if crafted into the fabric of the game, helps develop the very things which drive these groups. Lore helps develop a common framework for socializers, giving them an "ice breaker" as it were. Lore goes into developing various achievements within the game, so that they make sense within the game world itself. Lore gives Explorers things to find as well, due to being an underlying story going on within the game world. As for Killers, let's be honest, having more out there means more targets for them to lord over.

Technical Director

Read enough Facebook and you have to make Sanity Checks. I guess FB is the Great Old One of the interent these days... - Beamrider

warcabbit
warcabbit's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 10 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/06/2012 - 17:39
More than that. http://mud.co

More than that.
http://mud.co.uk/richard/selfware.htm
I prefer to use the expanded Bartle types, with three dimensions - it illustrates that these things are progressions. Killers aren't bad - it's just a stage of who we are.

The trick is to encourage the churn from type to type to happen - and we've got some plans on how to make it so.

Project Lead

WarBird
WarBird's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 9 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/17/2013 - 19:11
Disclaimer: I haven't watched

Disclaimer: I haven't watched all of both videos above, but I recognize the general validity of Radiac's characterizations. First, I don't see Killers (if indeed they make up the majority of 'griefers') as necessary. At all. I can see how they might bleed into the Achiever category, and thereby partially drive the economy by constantly being on the grind for top gear. However, I don't see their presence within the game landscape as 'necessary.' Dependent, of course, on how the economy is designed. I might go as far as 'inherent,' based on my exposure to average gamer mentality. But 'necessary', or even 'integral,' is based on how the economy and game progression is organized and presented.

Red, if what you're really saying is: "You have to design with these people in mind or they will go around breaking things." Then, I agree. But whether the presence of any particular type of player, especially a population segment that tends to be as disruptive as it is supportive, is 'necessary,'( as in 'vital') to the success or general enjoyment of a given game, you'll have to demonstrate that to me.

Izzy
Izzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 11:09
Guestimates for CoH: ...do

Guestimates for CoH: ...do chime in...
- Achievers: 35%
- Explorers: 25%
- Socializers: 25%
- Killers/Griefers: 15%

Guestimates for CoV: ...do chime in...
- Achievers: 30%
- Explorers: 25%
- Socializers: 20%
- Killers/Griefers: 25%

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 13 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

CoX didn't SEEM to have a lot of Killers by the end, to me.

If you narrow your definition of Killers to only include direct PvP ... then no, the PvP community in City of Heroes was essentially crippled, especially by the end.

If you broaden your definition of Killers to include Player to Player TRANSACTIONS ... look no farther than the Auction House (either Wentworths or Black Market, take your pick, they both got merged eventually). Price gouging in the market, and the presence of Ebil Marketeers™ was effectively a game constant (and common complaint on the forums, but then people complain on forums about everything). Heck, there was the Crazy 88s Supergroup that essentially dedicated themselves to the goal of hoarding INF. I even got to tour their base one time and they literally had "bags of cash" being dropped into a fire pit inside their base (which was a delightfully humorous touch, I will admit).

And as much as we all like to think that "bottom feeders" like Ebil Marketeers are a blight upon the entire game world, and that everything would be better if they just folded their tents and moved to another game ... the simple fact of the matter is that what Ebil Marketeers actually DO when playing the game is pretty much what the entire notion of Capitalism is all about. Buy low, sell high, make so much IGC that you need to hire people to do the raking for you. The whole idea is to "get stinkin' rich" off being clever (at the expense of everyone else, naturally) ... which is about as PURE a Capitalist notion as you can get.

Or if you want to think of it a different way ... remember the Pirate Code. Take what you can, give nothing back!

Which all sounds very ... negative ... but remember, it can be a very strong MOTIVATION for people to play the game (at all) and keep playing it. And what you want, as a game designer, is DEDICATED Players! And furthermore, you want Players who are both Heroes AND Villains!

Now, granted, some things go beyond the pale, such as Griefing and various forms of harassment (up to and including Offline PK), but not everything does. Heck, even just competing for the MVP Award in a chosen activity can involve elements of the Killer mentality, because it involves competition between the Players for a coveted prize. Indeed, almost anything that involves competition between Players will be tinged with the scent of the Killer mentality, because it's all about "being better than other Players" really, with the whole "rubbing their noses in it" often being the extra shizzle that makes it all worthwhile.

The point being that anytime you have a game that allows Players to compete with each other ... even indirectly through a marketplace or through DPS meters or Ironman Challenges or whatever ... anything that allows Players to compete will result in a ranking and heirarchy that lends itself towards the Killer mentality. Excise ALL of these things at your own peril.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 weeks ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

Are you saying that MWM should have open world PVP areas or zones or servers or shards or whatever just to allow for the Killers to have a proper place and time to gank unsuspecting victims so that we don't lose the Killers, which we appear to want to keep around, for some reason?

As long as they have non-PvP version of those then I don't see the problem, regardless if they do it to satisfy killer type players or not.

Redlynne wrote:

The point being that anytime you have a game that allows Players to compete with each other ... even indirectly through a marketplace or through DPS meters or Ironman Challenges or whatever ... anything that allows Players to compete will result in a ranking and heirarchy that lends itself towards the Killer mentality. Excise ALL of these things at your own peril.

Exactly. I would say that the killer type is unfairly characterized as the ganker in those videos, when ganking is probably the extreme end of the killer type.

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
I personally have no grudge

I personally have no grudge against anyone who played the market in CoX better than I did and made INF on it. Not at all. There's maybe a tragedy of the commons there, but it didn't affect me an any huge negative way, as far as I cared.

So if we want to broaden the scope of the discussion from "Killers" which I take to mean those who would like the game to provide them a steady supply of naive victims ripe for ganking in no holds barred, every person for themself, forced PVP to "competitive gamer" which would include anyone who wants to compete against other people in some way so as to achieve some kind of meaningful victory and glory for themselves, bragging rights, etc, then I think the problem is solved. You just have optional PVP and no looting of corpses, etc and you're good to go. A combination of PVP tournaments, markets to try to corner, and records to hold and break (fastest run through the BlahBlah Task Force, etc) would, I think do the job there.

On the other hand, if we feel we need to actually service the desires of the gankers and give them an environment in which they will have people to gank, I'm personally against that. I mean, if PVP zones had no particular bait to try to get the non-PVPers to go there, fine, but no Killer wants to hang around waiting for a victim to arrive in that game, because they never do. I think if that's the intention, to provide for the gankers, then you necessarily have to put something in the PVP danger zones for the Achievers, Socializers, and Explorers to draw them there to get ganked by the Killers, and I personally would not want that, being a non-Killer myself.

For what it's worth, I don't think CoX's solution to the desire for PVP worked all that well, in any if the incarnations they tried. Hero on hero SG base raids were a fiasco, Arena was in my opinion the only thing they really needed but the PVPers seemed unsatisfied by that, and the the PVP zones went unused by those same PVPers who supposedly wanted them, because the people getting ganked quickly stopped going there to get ganked, largely. Go figure, the hapless victims got wise and stopped getting into the unmarked gank-van after a while. And then the Killers left the game, complaining that nobody wanted to volunteer to have their fun forcibly removed from them by a Killer anymore. So ultimately the Killers kill the game itself, or at leas tthat part of it they liked, and thus their own enjoyment of it in the process. Good going, Killers, just destroy everything you love because what you love is destruction, until the only thing left to destroy is yourself, then move on to the next game you're going to drain of players like a parasite. I see no reason to attract or attempt to satisfy that particular gamer type, personally, and I liked CoX better after most of them had, for the most part, moved on to other games. Whether or not their money is a thing we need to attract is another question. Business in business.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 12 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
You have to realize that the

You have to realize that the CoX PvP community, those who were dedicated to it, actually played on the test server. They used the character transfer tool to transfer characters from Live (including multiple copies to snag the enhancements they neded for their perfected builds). There were player run ladder matches plenty of communication among them onnthe forums (at least at the game's healthiest).

In between set dates / times for dedicated pvp they would have prederred pvp zones and such, but when you have a small segment of the player population split amongst multiple servers, the segment ends up even smaller. I know that A few servers had 'fairly steady' pvp on live though.

Base raids were a problem on the technical side. When it worked, it worked great (and a huge pita when you were the intruding team into a well designed pvp base).

But enough looking back. Moving forward here, if you refer to our KS update about server design, you will recall that we can spin up copies of any map and designate it for PvE or PvP (and other stuff too). So we will have a PvP version of the fame world. We have plans to reduce the issue of curb stomping lowbies and have to resolve some technical aspects related to those ideas. We also have a different take on base raiding we want to explore when we get to rhat point in development.

As to the types of players, we have often said that this is your (as in the player's game), and we want to support a wide range of play thus providing something for a wide range of tyoes of players. Dr Tyche has already said how we will use well written Lore as the back bone. And warcabbit has broached some of his ideas for getting players to teansition from one tyoe of play to another.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Empyrean
Empyrean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/16/2014 - 07:51
The more I hear about the

The more I hear about the thought processes and careful consideration underlying the design of the game, the more impressed I am.

Thanks Tyche, War, and Tannim for chiming in!

FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)

Izzy
Izzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 11:09
Hmm.. so are we taking a page

Hmm.. so are we taking a page from Quest Design covered here:

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 weeks ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

I personally have no grudge against anyone who played the market in CoX better than I did and made INF on it. Not at all. There's maybe a tragedy of the commons there, but it didn't affect me an any huge negative way, as far as I cared.
So if we want to broaden the scope of the discussion from "Killers" which I take to mean those who would like the game to provide them a steady supply of naive victims ripe for ganking in no holds barred, every person for themself, forced PVP to "competitive gamer" which would include anyone who wants to compete against other people in some way so as to achieve some kind of meaningful victory and glory for themselves, bragging rights, etc, then I think the problem is solved. You just have optional PVP and no looting of corpses, etc and you're good to go. A combination of PVP tournaments, markets to try to corner, and records to hold and break (fastest run through the BlahBlah Task Force, etc) would, I think do the job there.
On the other hand, if we feel we need to actually service the desires of the gankers and give them an environment in which they will have people to gank, I'm personally against that. I mean, if PVP zones had no particular bait to try to get the non-PVPers to go there, fine, but no Killer wants to hang around waiting for a victim to arrive in that game, because they never do. I think if that's the intention, to provide for the gankers, then you necessarily have to put something in the PVP danger zones for the Achievers, Socializers, and Explorers to draw them there to get ganked by the Killers, and I personally would not want that, being a non-Killer myself.
For what it's worth, I don't think CoX's solution to the desire for PVP worked all that well, in any if the incarnations they tried. Hero on hero SG base raids were a fiasco, Arena was in my opinion the only thing they really needed but the PVPers seemed unsatisfied by that, and the the PVP zones went unused by those same PVPers who supposedly wanted them, because the people getting ganked quickly stopped going there to get ganked, largely. Go figure, the hapless victims got wise and stopped getting into the unmarked gank-van after a while. And then the Killers left the game, complaining that nobody wanted to volunteer to have their fun forcibly removed from them by a Killer anymore. So ultimately the Killers kill the game itself, or at leas tthat part of it they liked, and thus their own enjoyment of it in the process. Good going, Killers, just destroy everything you love because what you love is destruction, until the only thing left to destroy is yourself, then move on to the next game you're going to drain of players like a parasite. I see no reason to attract or attempt to satisfy that particular gamer type, personally, and I liked CoX better after most of them had, for the most part, moved on to other games. Whether or not their money is a thing we need to attract is another question. Business in business.

If you are talking about designing an environment specifically for gankers then yes, that isn't something worthwhile but having the OPTION to choose between PvE and PvP openworld maps is fully worthwhile. There are more players then just the "relentless gankers" that will choose openworld PvP. You also don't need to force PvP on anyone since if they don't like it then they just choose the "PvE ruleset".

dawnofcrow
dawnofcrow's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/31/2013 - 08:56
Izzy wrote:
Izzy wrote:

Hmm.. so are we taking a page from Quest Design covered here:

i hope so

whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster and when you look into the abyss, the abyss also look into you, -Friedrich

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
I've played games with open

I've played games with open-world PvP. It's why I FLED WoW. I'm PvE. I'm Cooperative. And when I couldn't go to the freaking Store to sell my junk-loot, because a gang of Relentless, ganking PvPers decided to set up shop in the town square and spam Duels on anyone that came by, Blocking doorways and paths, and no GMs would do a thing about it, because it wasn't against the rules... I left.

Do not try to pretend that PvP and PvE can coexist in the same space.

Fireheart

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 3 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

You have to realize that the CoX PvP community, those who were dedicated to it, actually played on the test server. They used the character transfer tool to transfer characters from Live (including multiple copies to snag the enhancements they neded for their perfected builds). There were player run ladder matches plenty of communication among them onnthe forums (at least at the game's healthiest).

Well I can think of one reason why they chose the Test server, and that was so that *all* the PvPers could do it together.

Ironically, if the Arena was cross server when the game was live... I could see the test server NOT being used.

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

Izzy
Izzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 11:09
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

I've played games with open-world PvP. It's why I FLED WoW. I'm PvE. I'm Cooperative. And when I couldn't go to the freaking Store to sell my junk-loot, because a gang of Relentless, ganking PvPers decided to set up shop in the town square and spam Duels on anyone that came by, Blocking doorways and paths, and no GMs would do a thing about it, because it wasn't against the rules... I left.
Do not try to pretend that PvP and PvE can coexist in the same space.
Fireheart

From what i can tell, MWM wants to allow An Alternate Earth approach where another Earth instance is PvP.

So...Earth 1 is PvE
Earth 2 is PvP.

just My interpretation. :<

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 weeks ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

I've played games with open-world PvP. It's why I FLED WoW. I'm PvE. I'm Cooperative. And when I couldn't go to the freaking Store to sell my junk-loot, because a gang of Relentless, ganking PvPers decided to set up shop in the town square and spam Duels on anyone that came by, Blocking doorways and paths, and no GMs would do a thing about it, because it wasn't against the rules... I left.

Option to auto-decline duel requests.
Explicitly having to flag yourself for PvP before you can even accidentally engage another person with PvP enabled when playing under a PvE rule set.

I think those two would solve almost every of your issues of open world PvP in a PvE setting.

Personally I think it would detract more overall if one couldn't flag them self for PvP and possibly engage in open world PvP when under PvE rules.

Quote:

Do not try to pretend that PvP and PvE can coexist in the same space.
Fireheart

That depends on how you define coexist, with the proper player tools and "conduct rules" I think they can.

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 weeks ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Izzy wrote:
Izzy wrote:

From what i can tell, MWM wants to allow An Alternate Earth approach where another Earth instance is PvP.
So...Earth 1 is PvE
Earth 2 is PvP.
just My interpretation. :<

Considering that they have said that they'll do instancing of the open world so as to not "overload" the environment with players I think (and hope) that it's more like how DCUO has it set up. In that the effective difference between a PvE and a PvP instance is if you can attack other players by default, and that you can "jump" between them at will (well, you need to use a station in your sides major base).

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
Being primarily a Socializer

Being primarily a Socializer myself, I personally don't care what sort of things the PVP instances might have to get Achievers and Explorers to try to go there despite the PVP element, but if there is something like that (badges you can only get in PVP, etc) then I think those groups might complain about it.

I like that the PVP won't be forced upon anyone per se, and that the "one server" approach should create a united community, thus avoiding some problems CoX had with fractionation.

All of that is fine, but as always, it brings to mind another problem CoX had which was the re-working of how powers worked on other players in PVP as opposed to the PVE versions. We've been over this before, I'm not trying to beat a dead horse (I PWNED that horse tho, just sayin'....*kidding*) but the problem seems to remain about how powers might have to be tweaked between PVE and PVP versions, and thus people would have to decide in the build phase what they're making their toon for, one or the other. Having the possibility of two or more builds you could switch between for a toon has come up, but I think a well optimized for PVP toon probably starts at the beginning, primary and secondary sets etc. Not all classes will be equal, nor would I want them to be, and some powers might have to be adjusted in terms of effects for PVP, I would expect. I personally have no problem with any of this, but others had voiced concerns, especially the fear of "what, no hard mez in PVE just because it makes PVP broken?!?!".

In any event, I like what I've heard from the devs on this, but I would like to see the solutions to the various technical problems before we pop the champagne on the PVP resolution.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 13 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

if we want to broaden the scope of the discussion from "Killers" which I take to mean those who would like the game to provide them a steady supply of naive victims ripe for ganking in no holds barred, every person for themself, forced PVP

Analyze that thought. Look to the motivations behind WHY people would want to engage in that sort of behavior. It is functionally Griefing, for starters, especially if there is no way to stop it. But what is the REAL motivation for this becoming a "common" behavior pattern?

Simple.
Path of Least Resistance.

Ganking of lowbies is about as close as you can get to the Path of Least Resistance when it comes to "getting off" on making other people miserable. It allows a higher level character to exploit an "unfair" matchup and ALWAYS WIN ... with the bonus of "ruining someone else's day" in the process.

But the DESIRE to do it in the first place rests on a foundation of it being both "cheap" as well as easy, combined with RELIABLE. It's a power trip to curbstomp anyone, but in order to "put a thumb on the scales" it is simplest to just go after those who don't (yet) have the power to protect themselves or fight back effectively.

So ... how to combat this?

First of all ... segregate the PvE and PvP environments. Sounds like that's already happening.

Second ... make Dueling (and the mutual acceptance thereof) a requirement even in the PvP Zones if the Level Differential between two (or more) PC combatants is too great.

Ganking (lowbies) often relies on the asymmetric advantage of making a Surprise Attack (preferably of the All To Nothing variety that allows no retaliation or reaction). Take that away and ... ganking gets reduced (not eliminated, just reduced). The bottom line however is that ganking (lowbies) is HARDER TO DO in a Fair Fight™ ... so almost all ganking strategies require bypassing consent and "fairness" in order to engage in excessively asymmetric behaviors designed to favor one side over the other, to the point of making it "impossible" to Lose against the lowbie ... the definition of an UNfair Fight™.

So it's not the Killer mentality/motivation you're really against, since that's just a Competitive Spirit. Instead, it's the Path Of Least Resistance expression of that spirit which is both sociopathic and unwanted.

Or to put it another way, if you have to WORK for your curbstomping, that's okay ... but when the battle is decided even before it has begun, that is not.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
I agree that the more you try

I agree that the more you try to design a good PVP play area, the more "prison rules" it has to be. Safeguards against all sorts of "this is too easy, heehee" kind of stuff need to be in there. Designing rules of engagement that actually work to create a decent environment like that is not easy though, and is, to me, the first thing people get lazy about and say "ahh, you don't need that, nobody will ever take advantage of that loophole...." and then like 2 hours later your getting complaints about it, because the playerbase as a whole will explore the ENTIRE rules space, even the part you thought you swept under the rug.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
It might be an idea, as a way

It might be an idea, as a way of trying to enforce some form of parity on the PVP server/shard/instance to only allow level-capped toons onto that map. That way there are no lowbies to get ganked.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 3 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

It might be an idea, as a way of trying to enforce some form of parity on the PVP server/shard/instance to only allow level-capped toons onto that map. That way there are no lowbies to get ganked.

Or you can boost the players up to the level cap... or if above the cap for the level zone, you get exemped down for it.

Whilst WoW uses level brackets, Guild Wars 2 does the "boost to levle cap for World Vs World" (and Guild Wars 1 is *everyone* is level cap for PvP).

CoX had the auto exemping *down* to the level cap for the zone if you were above it.

So there are equal methods of balancing it out.

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
Exemping people up in level

Exemping people up in level seems tricky, to me, since you have to actually give them powers that they'd have at the higher levels and slots and then Augments and stuff to put in those slots.

Also, I see no great point to trying to level a toon up in a "PVP is always on" environment in the first place. I would rather the PVP map be accessable only by capped toons and then the different zones exemp everyone to the same lower level for the zone.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 weeks ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

Also, I see no great point to trying to level a toon up in a "PVP is always on" environment in the first place. I would rather the PVP map be accessable only by capped toons and then the different zones exemp everyone to the same lower level for the zone.

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean that no one else does either.

Considering the numbers who do play, completely voluntarily, on PvP realms/shards/servers strongly suggests that there are enough players out there who do enjoy such an environment that supporting it from level 1 is worthwhile. Taking server tech into account and any "overhead" for supporting it could effectively be zero. I'd wager that limiting PvP to only max level (unless they go the GW1 route) would be more detrimental than having PvP shards.

Lastly, you won't be forced to play on these PvP shards. You won't be forced into turning on the PvP flag when on a PvE shard. This is not about Your personal likes and dislikes but rather the collective one of the player base as a whole, taking in necessary adjustments and concession, so why are you so against others playing in a way they find fun interesting and/or challenging just because you can't see those qualities yourself?

Personally I'm a PvE player. I have tried PvP shards in some other MMO's a little but couldn't stand it and I don't see the appeal of it myself, but I certainly won't deny those who do see that appeal the opportunity to play in such a way. As long as I'm not forced into it myself.

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 13 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Rather than an "arena" to

Rather than an "arena" to fight in, you give the PvPers a "copy of the city" and let them play Hide & Go Gank.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 3 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

Exemping people up in level seems tricky, to me, since you have to actually give them powers that they'd have at the higher levels and slots and then Augments and stuff to put in those slots.

Seeing as CoX had sidekicking, I cannot see why it *cannot* be done. But what you are saying only applies if you are going for a level playing field.

And if that is the case, then should *not* all "uber builds" be banned from going into PvP, where people have PvP IO's, Purple IO's or whatever, and instead just let them go at it with base stats according to the level; all because the newbie level 50 only had SO's.

Hell, CoX made it even worse by making IO's a "Cash only" perk. If you were a F2P player good luck doing it. You were already potentially "out geared" by a subscriber/someone who spent money because they could slot IO's and you couldn't.

So if a person who has *Just* hit the level cap and goes into PvP will have a disadvantage to those who have been at level cap since day 1 (as an example). It happens. But what you are at least inferring is that any form of imbalance should NOT be happening.

Christ, even exemping DOWN to the zones cap can produce issues... because I might have more powers/slots in powers than someone of that own level might have.

Quote:

Also, I see no great point to trying to level a toon up in a "PVP is always on" environment in the first place. I would rather the PVP map be accessable only by capped toons and then the different zones exemp everyone to the same lower level for the zone.

See previous poster...

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
I'm not trying to forcibly

I'm not trying to forcibly deny anyone anything I think people might actually want for themselves, I'm really just trying to make the PVP rules a little simpler and the game as a whole less frustrating and fraught with easy ganker exploits. It has been stated that there need to be rules to these PVP zones to prevent too many annoying exploits, so this is my thinking.

When I hear your argument, it sounds, to me, like you're arguing "NO! Don't put a safety railing on that dangerous catwalk! Some people WANT to voluntarily go up there and risk almost assuredly falling to their death. Who are YOU to tell them they shouldn't be allowed to do that?" I'm really just trying to put in safeguards to avoid the sorts of problems people have seen in the past.

If you allow level 10 toons on the PVP instance/shard/server/map, they'll likely get owned hard to the point of frustration, I feel. So then the next step is to just increase their combat effectiveness level to be more on par with the predatory gankers, who we can assume will be level capped, via some kind of sidekick thing where you just get inherent buffs to put you on par with everyone else.

But then that requires you, the dev, to make some calculations and decisions in terms of exactly how much "help" the lowbies get. I mean there are multiple quantifiable variables to doing that. If you get it wrong, the lowbies are either still dead meat or else they have the advantage, which seems unfair to the higher level toons who worked hard to get there and get kitted up. And still, just raising the combat effectiveness does not actually give the level 10 toon any actual powers they'd have at the level cap, it just ups their defense, resist, damage, etc for the powers they DO have at level 10. So then you have to deal with the problems caused by asymetrical powers and slotting.

All of that is a big pain in the axe as compared to just saying "You know what, for the sake of not having poor unsuspecting idiots getting ganked and rage quitting left and right, we're making it level-cappers only in the PVP maps. The map will exemp everyone DOWN to the level appropriate for the suburb you're in or whatever, and powers and slotting is on the player to figure out."

I personally see no great payoff in terms of money or player enjoyment to be had by doing all the required work to figure out how to exemp people upwards to the precise amounts needed in each case AND solve the issues of powers and slotting in a way that most people can agree is at least close to fair when we could MUCH more easily just gate the PVP map as level-capped only, then exemp people down from there. Everyone is then responsible for their own slotting, power builds, etc instead of the devs trying to figure out how much buffage to give every level and class combination for PVP purposes.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 3 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
So, let me get this correct,

So, let me get this correct, are you trying to say that *all* forms of PvP should be "level capped characters" only?

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 13 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

Also, I see no great point to trying to level a toon up in a "PVP is always on" environment in the first place.

In your case, that may very well be true. But it is not true for all people who want to play the game.

There's a reason why World of Warcraft had PvP Only servers ... and why there were a LOT OF THEM.

So that sort of thing isn't your cup of tea. It isn't mine either. But that's not the same as saying it is NO ONE'S cup of tea. Some people enjoy that sort of thing ... just like some people enjoy the "challenge" of playing Hardcore mode in Diablo II and III. It's not something that *I* want to do, but I do not begrudge other people who *DO* want to do that.

Different strokes for different folks, and all that.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 3 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

Radiac wrote:
Also, I see no great point to trying to level a toon up in a "PVP is always on" environment in the first place.
In your case, that may very well be true. But it is not true for all people who want to play the game.
There's a reason why World of Warcraft had PvP Only servers ... and why there were a LOT OF THEM.
So that sort of thing isn't your cup of tea. It isn't mine either. But that's not the same as saying it is NO ONE'S cup of tea. Some people enjoy that sort of thing ... just like some people enjoy the "challenge" of playing Hardcore mode in Diablo II and III. It's not something that *I* want to do, but I do not begrudge other people who *DO* want to do that.
Different strokes for different folks, and all that.

Just like how some people *love* trying to complete games as fast as possible (and spend hundreds/thousands of hours and attempts trying to get the fastest time possible), whilst others will take their time, complete it just the once and (practically) ignore all the intricacies that a game might have (so you don't have to be "max level" to complete it, you can complete some Final Fantasy games as low as level 10-15 in under 9 hours)

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
Gangrel wrote:
Gangrel wrote:

So, let me get this correct, are you trying to say that *all* forms of PvP should be "level capped characters" only?

No, I'm only applying this to open world, "always on, enter at your own risk" PVP as I envision it in a dedicated PVP instance/shard/server or whatever we're calling it. And even within that you'd get auto-exemped down to whatever effective level is on par with the neighborhood you're in.

As for Arena matches, either teams or 1 on 1, the rules of engagement can be tailored by the combatants themselves. Those could be 4 on 4, or 4 on 3, same level, different levels, etc. Whatever the players want to agree to that can be easily done in the Arena software.

If you're not going to make the PVP shard or whatever level-capped only, then you probably have to segregate players by level somehow and/or auto exemp like they did in CoX's PVP zones. That is, you would have to get to a certain minimum level to be allowed into the next PVP zone, and once there you'd be auto-exemped to the same effective combat level as everyone else. You might even go as far as not allowing relatively high level people in the lowbie (lvl 1-10) zones to prevent the exemped-to-level-10 toons from ganging up on and harassing the newly-created level 1 toons.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Grimfox
Grimfox's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 3 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/05/2014 - 10:17
Why I pvp'ed? Mostly this was

Why I pvp'ed? Mostly this was for the achievements/rewards in PVP zones. But I was also introduced to Arena pvp through my guild mates. I tested my character against theirs and tweaked my build to be stronger, not just in PVP but in PVE as well. And sometimes I enjoyed going at it against a foe that was smarter and tougher than an AV, but lacked the hitting power of a GM. Am I a Killer, no, Did I enjoy getting an upper hand on someone who had taken me out a few minutes prior and taking them down? Yes.

I best thing in my opinion is to create a fun and flexible environment for PVP. I'd love to see a very flexible arena system with varied maps that have a great deal of variation in design, rules and effects. For instance a room with low gravity that enhances "knock" effects and also has a fragile environment so you can knock each other through walls and generally have a "titanic clash" Another case would be a room with a waterbed or rubber floor. And other physics driven environments. As for rule sets capture the flag is obvious but using a physics based environments could yield a great soccer style game. Even simple single player competitions like the Ski Chalet obstacle course or target hitting competition could make for an excellent competitive atmosphere, that doesn't require a "kill." I forsee a lot more participants in that case than standard PVP flagging/zones/server/duels. But the trade off is coding. It takes a lot more work to create a unique play atmosphere than snipping a out a map and dropping a couple players inside and flagging them to be able to hit each other.

My two IGC.

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 weeks ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

I'm not trying to forcibly deny anyone anything I think people might actually want for themselves, I'm really just trying to make the PVP rules a little simpler and the game as a whole less frustrating and fraught with easy ganker exploits. It has been stated that there need to be rules to these PVP zones to prevent too many annoying exploits, so this is my thinking.
When I hear your argument, it sounds, to me, like you're arguing "NO! Don't put a safety railing on that dangerous catwalk! Some people WANT to voluntarily go up there and risk almost assuredly falling to their death. Who are YOU to tell them they shouldn't be allowed to do that?" I'm really just trying to put in safeguards to avoid the sorts of problems people have seen in the past.
If you allow level 10 toons on the PVP instance/shard/server/map, they'll likely get owned hard to the point of frustration, I feel. So then the next step is to just increase their combat effectiveness level to be more on par with the predatory gankers, who we can assume will be level capped, via some kind of sidekick thing where you just get inherent buffs to put you on par with everyone else.
But then that requires you, the dev, to make some calculations and decisions in terms of exactly how much "help" the lowbies get. I mean there are multiple quantifiable variables to doing that. If you get it wrong, the lowbies are either still dead meat or else they have the advantage, which seems unfair to the higher level toons who worked hard to get there and get kitted up. And still, just raising the combat effectiveness does not actually give the level 10 toon any actual powers they'd have at the level cap, it just ups their defense, resist, damage, etc for the powers they DO have at level 10. So then you have to deal with the problems caused by asymetrical powers and slotting.
All of that is a big pain in the axe as compared to just saying "You know what, for the sake of not having poor unsuspecting idiots getting ganked and rage quitting left and right, we're making it level-cappers only in the PVP maps. The map will exemp everyone DOWN to the level appropriate for the suburb you're in or whatever, and powers and slotting is on the player to figure out."
I personally see no great payoff in terms of money or player enjoyment to be had by doing all the required work to figure out how to exemp people upwards to the precise amounts needed in each case AND solve the issues of powers and slotting in a way that most people can agree is at least close to fair when we could MUCH more easily just gate the PVP map as level-capped only, then exemp people down from there. Everyone is then responsible for their own slotting, power builds, etc instead of the devs trying to figure out how much buffage to give every level and class combination for PVP purposes.

Yes, you are actually trying to deny some people (pretty significant amount iirc) a certain play experience by limiting open world PvP to only max level toons. It seems to me that you are trying to fix something that most who do choose this setting doesn't think is an issue.

There are people out there who do like the extra challenge and uncertainty element it brings while still leveling up. They accept that the occasional gank is part of the experience (griefing is something different) and adjust accordingly. Making open world PvP "fair" in all situations, outside of player numbers on each side, is a fool's errand imo.

You are also disregarding the most powerful tool we "already" have against gankers and such, the community itself. If it become anywhere near the one I experienced in CoH then I can guaranty that there will be some high level players who will go out of their way to protect the lower level ones.

Now, there usually are some protections. Most of the "PvP worlds" I have been in has had the starter zone and maybe next one and main hubs not enforce PvP for that side so as to let the players get some experience before being attackable, and to be able to conduct many task that distract from the surrounding in peace.

TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
OK hears the thing. I'm not

OK here's the thing. I'm not one of the 4 types at all.
I have no interest at all in socializing in the game. If I can, I'll just close my chat window.
Exploring is cool but I like seeing stuff and looking for places where I can do the kind of things I want to do.
Lore is a usually a bore. Because it's not MY lore.
Lore based missions usually take me places I don't want to go and hinge on info I would never discover because I'm not looking closely enough at anything.
I certainly can't call myself an achiever because I'm too much of a slacker and I hate levels and badges. I want a casual game not a sweat fest, or a marathon.
I hate killers and if the game didn't need their money to keep going I'd want to do everything we could to discourage them from paying at all.

So what am I?
I'm a Creator.
I play for the thrill of making my characters and seeing them in action.
I spend hours exploring the options on the character creator (costumes and abilities)
I have my own fantasies and I want to see my character do the kind of things that I imagine that character doing.
I like to make a bunch of different characters, and I like to make stuff for my characters to interact with.
That's why I loved making my own base and my own missions
That's why I don't like it when I have to play content that's not suited to the character I'm playing because he hasn't leveled up to the point where HIS story really starts
That's why I want to turn off XP when I get to the right place so I'll never out level the content that fits him.
That's also why I seldom play games where you play a premade character instead of making the character you want. (Zelda is a notable exception because I really like most versions of Link).

By the way some of those quest design suggestions would never work for me.
I'd never make the connections they required. If I see an analog clock I don't see the time as 10:10 I see it as 10 minutes after 10. I might make the connection if it were a digital clock but I can't be sure. As for the ring, I'd get rid of it and forget about it before it mattered, and I'd never think to talk to anyone about it if I had to be the one to bring it up. There are just too many junk items in most games for to care about any of them.

I do like environmental quests but if you limit how many I can have, then please make it easy to drop quests I don't want to do. In some game it's a real pain to drop a quest.

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 3 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
blacke4dawn wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:

Now, there usually are some protections. Most of the "PvP worlds" I have been in has had the starter zone and maybe next one and main hubs not enforce PvP for that side so as to let the players get some experience before being attackable, and to be able to conduct many task that distract from the surrounding in peace.

Its also worth noting that for the games that have 2 "faction" setup (ie heros and villains, dominion vs exiles, alliance vs horde), your "open PvP" on a PvP server is *only* against those of the opposing faction, and not up against those of your OWN faction.

Other games might have different rule sets, some of which can include friendly fire options (eve online for example), but with the 2 (or more) faction setup and open PvP, it *generally* doesn't happen for in an MMO (once again, general terms, not every "open PvP MMO" is like this).

I should note: that is also *in addition* to the above protections that I quoted.

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
TheMightyPaladin wrote:
TheMightyPaladin wrote:

So what am I?
I'm a Creator.
I play for the thrill of making my characters and seeing them in action.
I spend hours exploring the options on the character creator (costumes and abilities)
I have my own fantasies and I want to see my character do the kind of things that I imagine that character doing.
I like to make a bunch of different characters, and I like to make stuff for my characters to interact with.
That's why I loved making my own base and my own missions
That's why I don't like it when I have to play content that's not suited to the character I'm playing because he hasn't leveled up to the point where HIS story really starts
That's why I want to turn off XP when I get to the right place so I'll never out level the content that fits him.

Right, but denying Taxonomy does not mean it doesn't apply to you. You name yourself a 'Creator' and I can understand that.

You like to work On the world through your characters. You want to work your will on the world and make the story come out right. You are willing to ignore some of the world's offerings, in order to emphasize that parts that fit your expectations. You don't mind exploring a bit, so that you can find more things to use in the service of your objectives.

That places you smack in the middle of the group that is labeled "Achievers", sir. The label may not fit your individuality, but that is the label given to the box of nuts that share your way of relating to games. "Killers" that prefer to operate on the world's 'monsters', instead of fellow Players, also fit into the same box. It's a simplistic model, but effectively reflects the basic reality, sorry if you don't like the Labels, but we have to call them Something.

Be Well!
Fireheart

TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
Ah but the problem with that

Ah but the problem with that answer is that if you force me into the same group as the achievers, you'll totally be building content that you would expect to appeal to me but it won't. That's why the system doesn't apply to me. That's not to say it's a bad system. It probably does describe the overwhelming majority of players and folks like me are such a small group we just didn't get noticed.

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
I think you only presume that

I think you only presume that, my friend. Let's let the game get finished, before we give up on it.

Like any conceptual model of human behavior, Bartle's Taxonomy is just a tool, not a definition. _I_ cannot 'force' you into any group or mold. Nor can any other. You described your preferences and I noticed how they were analogous to one group in the model. That doesn't guarantee that you'll like everything that the 'Achievers' like, however, if content is planned that would please an 'Acheiver', well, you might find it's not so bad. You might even like it.

I suggest you keep posting about things you like. The Devs might be inspired by it.

Be Well!
Fireheart

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 weeks ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Paladin, I would say that you

Paladin, I would say that you are dancing on the line between achiever and explorer. You seem to like to explore the capabilities of the character creator together with the environment in the game so as to "achieve" specific self-selected goals. If I understand it correctly, explorers are not limited to just exploring the geography of the game but it also includes the mechanics and capabilities of other systems in the game.

The thing with Bartle's Taxonomy is that we aren't just one thing of those, we are all of them to certain degrees but most often one is very pronounced. Here is a test for it if you want to see where you are within it. Not sure how good it is since I haven't run it myself (yet). The GamerDNA website, which seems to hold the "official" test suite, is not working for me atm.

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 13 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Interesting test. Here's my

Interesting test. Here's my results.

Your gaming style is.
Achiever: 47%
Explorer: 80%
Griefer: 7% (read: Killer, for purposes of this discussion)
Socializer: 67%

Point being that people are mixtures of things, rather than being totally one thing at the expense of all other things. Add up the totals from the test and you get something that is approximately 200% in aggregate (allowing for rounding errors).

Key takeaway from the test link offered is that I'm mainly an Explorer, followed by being a Socializer, then an Achiever, with a tiny smidge of Killer mentality mixed in. For anyone who has been following my posting history here in the forums, this should come as NO SURPRISE.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
I don't know but the video

I don't know but the video did say that this info is kind of dated and was originally based on a type of game called MUDS (I don't know what made those games different from MMOs. That was before I had a computer) And as I said It's likely that I'm just not a very common type so I can't blame him for missing me.
But as I said I don't like the stuff that achievers like. Levels, badges and crafting all chap my hide.
And when I explore I'm looking for the right kind of scenery for my character.
Look at what I do in Dungeons and Dragons.
I have one toon who Crafts stuff. Once he reached the level where he got the maximum class bonus for crafting he retired to the crafting hall and hasn't gone an a mission since. That's where he belongs. I still use him to make stuff for my adventuring toons.
My highest level toon has explored almost every part of the game, but he discovered that Forgotten Realms is where I want to be, and doesn't explore outside that area any more.
For a lot of my toons the lower levels are just grinding till I'm finally ready to get to Forgotten Realms and start playing the game.
If I make a character who enjoys the lower level stuff I'll probably delete him by the time he reaches 10th level because he doesn't belong in the higher level stuff. (A big part of the problem is that I seriously hate most of the content that's made for 12th-15th level, and a lot of my characters don't make it over that hump.
My favorite classes are Paladins and Monks. I also have a high level Ranger and a Sorcerer but there are some classes I either just can't get into or seriously hate.
I'm qualified to make the iconic characters. These start at level 15 and have instant access to Forgotten realms but I never make those because they all suck.
I hate thieves but most of my characters have one or 2 levels of thief because you can't survive solo without it.
Thieves and Artificers are the only classes that can disarm traps and some traps will kill you with one shot.
I don't give my toons one level of artificer instead because that just seems weird.
I could really get into a Barbarian, but the game doesn't let you customize your appearance enough to make a Barbarian Look like a barbarian unless he's a half orc and I will NOT play a half orc.
I'm also particular about the character's race. Nearly all of my characters are human except my one elf who is of course a Ranger, because I can't play an elf who isn't a ranger.
I could picture a female elf being a Druid or Sorcerer but the only time I ever played a female character was in COH. I did it because I wanted the Knights of Saint George to include all of the characters I made for them, in MY game.
I also hate the fact that you'r costume changes when you change armor. I always end up buying appearance kits so my characters look as close as I can get them to the way I want them to. I really miss the COH character creator.
And I hate the fact that you can't use a name that's already taken unless you give it a goofy spelling.
Sometimes the name is the thing that inspires a character and if I can't use the one I want I just don't make the character.
I delete a lot of toons after a short time because they were only made to experiment or because they out leveled the only content that seemed right for them. Or maybe because I just couldn't get into the character or see him fitting into the world he was in.
All of my characters are in the same guild. I didn't make it myself because there's not really any customizing of guild ships there's just leveling up your guild to get the next thing the game lets you get. Guilds in DDO are not very rewarding but some of the best merchants wont sell anything to you unless you're in a guild, and when I first started the other guys showed me some stuff. Right now, I haven't seen any other guild members in months. It's cool they all know I prefer to solo. And just about anything I do earns some of whatever they call he guild money (renown I think, Can't remember because I don't care)

Notice how most of my comments are about the character creation options.
That's because that's the biggest thing for me.
I want to make a toon that inspires me.

By the way
I tried to take the test and got stumped on the first question.
Do you tend to:
Know things no one else does?
Have things no one else has?

The correct answer for me is NO.
Neither of the allowed answers describes any character I've ever played.
My characters can do things no one else can, and that's never based on knowledge or equipment but special abilities. (I picked Knowing just so I could proceed)

When I got to the second question I'm stumped gain.
I don't brag about either of those things.
If I'm inclined to brag it's going to be about stuff my character has done.
(I picked Equipment so I could proceed)

Third question
Stumped again. I'd rather not join a group and if I have to I want it to be a group of heroes dedicated to fighting against evil. (I picked warriors so I could proceed)

4th question I could answer easily, Obviously I'm hunting monster but the goal isn't XP its fun. Hunting monsters IS the game for me.

5th Question I have never been chased by a monster. I beat it or die.
neither option appealed to me but I picked ask friends for help because I can include hirelings as friends.

6th question. AAAAGHHH! XP I guess.

7th question Explore obviously

8th question I seriously don't care about either of these achievements. I've never looked at any list to know what my score was so I picked beat another player just so I could proceed

9th quetion Item is better than gossip that's for sure.

10th question Look I'm NOT competing with anyone! this question simply doesn't apply to me!
I picked become a hero so I could proceed.

11th question. I Don't care. I picked solve a riddle because it was first

12th question I picked explore but I don't care about the history. I just want to look around and see what kind of bad guys there are to fight and what the place looks like.

13th question I'm dying here I picked story

14th question. 2 options that would both totally take me out of the game. I picked map. You know why by now.

15th question My hirelings are always healers. A bard is more likely to have some minor healing so I picked him. The reasons they gave are nothing to me.

16th powers of course.

18th areas

19th does the damage bonus also apply to NPC opponents or only PCs because if it works on the people I'm actually going to fight, I'll take it if not I'll take the levels.
I picked levels

20th Loved

21st Story but you know what I mean by that I think

22nd I'd wait till I was high enough level o beat it. I picked friends. but that is Totally NOT what I'd really do.

23rd I dont care about either of these things!! I picked guild. But this test is starting to make me want to pick beating people up.

24th I don't even know what the difference is between the choices. I picked whichever my courser was closest to.

25th I've never explored any area in any game without defeating enemies so what's the difference?
I picked explore because there's probably more than one enemy in the area. It would be pretty disappointing if there weren't

26th Tough choice at this point but I restrained myself

27th You know this situation has never come up in any game I've ever played. I'd probably just log off and switch toons for a while or report him for griefing. I picked go to another area, but I'm not waiting for him, I don't care about him.

28th OOO!! OOO!! THE HOUSE!! GIMME HE HOUSE! CAN i CUSTOMIZE IT?!

29th the sword but with notably less enthusiasm than the house.

30th DEFEAT the Villain That's what I love to do.

31st I don't care about these things. I want to do stuff I picked something

My Results:
Achiever: 47%
Explorer: 73%
Griefer: 27%
Socializer: 53%

But as you can see, the majority of the questions simply didn't apply to the way I play so it doesn't matter, but it was still funny.

Izzy
Izzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 11:09
Took the test:

Took the test:

Bahhh..
Well, its not so wrong, but not all the questions were clean enough. Some questions should have had 3 options for an answer, i feel. :/

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 3 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
Achiever: 33%

Achiever: 33%
Explorer: 93%
Griefer: 20%
Socializer: 53%

Sounds about right for me.

Sure, it might not be perfect, seeing as there were questions where I could go for both options or no options, but the bartle test is just meant to be quick and simple. The important thing to remember is that the test isn't about the *character* that you play, but YOU the player.

If it was taken about my existing *character* (ie answering questions as your character) then your results could be *wildly* different from yourself.

It is also worth looking to GNS theory as well (it deals with tabletop RPG systems, splitting them into Gamism, Narrativism and Simulationism) styles

Side note: Worth noting that there is a variation of the Bartle Test, where there are 2 sub categories for each main classification:

Achievers: Planner, Opportunist
Explorers: Scientist, Hacker
Socialiser: Networker, Friend
Killers: Politician/Den Mother, Griefer

Of course, not every survey is perfect... but the bartle test is a nice "quick and simple" test to at least get a *general* view of the style of play that you yourself could like.

Strangely enough, it also matches *exactly* with the 2 paths I like in Wildstar, the Scientist/Explorer paths (i view these as "explorer" with the bartle test, although an argument could be made that Scientist is an achiever style), with Soldier/Settler being in the correct order as well)

But then again, I am also a completionist for games, so if there is the option available for my character to get something, I will try to get it. But only once I have completed exploring the map (In Wildstar, I actually go for Map being explored BEFORE I try to complete all the sub challenges/achievements)

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
I got:

I got:

Achiever: 53%
Explorer: 53%
Griefer: 16%
Socializer: 67%

But to get back to the question I posed in the OP: Should we actively try to attract Killers and if so, how?

Would Arena combat alone do that, if it were fun and more or less fair? Or do we need to have a PVP instance ( think they said they're having this anyway, so this question is academic at best)? What kid of rules should the PVP instance have?

If the PVP instance map is just a copy of the regular PVE map, then you don't necessarily have faction-specific safe zones (for lowbies) built-in, do you? If you do then what are they even there for in the non-PVP instance? Are they the post-tutorial "you start here" areas like Atlas Park and Mercy Island? Does that mean they have to be on opposite ends of the world map? Do they need to be gated by faction via some doorway or portal that only Heroes/Villains can pass through?

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
Yeah sure attract them.

Yeah sure attract them.
They have money.
They'll do something blah blah blah.
PVP and a good character creator will be good
Give them varied terrain for strategic use.
Let'em kill each other.

But a system that says I'm
Griefer: 27%
Socializer: 53%
Sounds messed up to me since I don't do pvp or socialize.

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
Ah, but what do you call THIS

Ah, but what do you call THIS, if not giving us grief in a social environment? *grin*

Clearly, you have some aggressive tendencies and you like, at least a little, to share your experiences with other people. It doesn't mean you have to join some crusading army.

Consider it an opportunity for exploration and development.

Be Well!
Fireheart

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 weeks ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Paladin, the thing with the

Paladin, the thing with the Bartle test is that it is about you as a person not your characters. And it's mainly measuring your mindset, not your specific play style preferences. Sure, that one can probably be improved by a significant margin. Also take the numbers as rough estimates, and unless you never ever group up or never ever talk in any chat then you are socializing on some level.

For me that test came out:
Achiever: 53%
Explorer: 67%
Griefer: 20%
Socializer: 60%

Aaaaannyyyway, as for PvP players I don't see any reason to not accommodate their play style by having PvP shards and other PvP "systems". I think it is one of those system that can have a really high ROI.

TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
But the test clearly didn't

But I'm doing this because the game isn't ready.
I don't do forums for games I'm actually playing.
Unless I have a question.
and the test clearly didn't apply to me for the most part and ....
Awe forget it. It doesn't matter because from what I can tell, This game is going to have plenty of what I like.

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 3 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
blacke4dawn wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:

Paladin, the thing with the Bartle test is that it is about you as a person not your characters. And it's mainly measuring your mindset, not your specific play style preferences. Sure, that one can probably be improved by a significant margin. Also take the numbers as rough estimates, and unless you never ever group up or never ever talk in any chat then you are socializing on some level.
For me that test came out:
Achiever: 53%
Explorer: 67%
Griefer: 20%
Socializer: 60%
Aaaaannyyyway, as for PvP players I don't see any reason to not accommodate their play style by having PvP shards and other PvP "systems". I think it is one of those system that can have a really high ROI.

Killer/Griefer is not just "open world" or Arena styled PvP, although that is a facet, it can also cover market manipulators as well.

If it was a single player game, then they would be the ones who would try to blow everything up (if it is possible)... quite possibly *not* actually playing the game (open world/sandbox style games for example).

But the thing is, they are typically *not* lone wolf/anti social players... they can be of the style that *love* the structured form of PvP (ie team based style) and totally shy away from anything where it isn't necessarily "on the level" form of PvP (open world PvP for example).

But the thing is, *everyone* is a mismash of the 4 types... so trying to *appeal* directly to a "Killer" style player could just be as easy as saying "Yep, we have some structured PvP formats available from the get go. Here is what you can get for doing it well" or it can be the whole hog "Open world, no rules barred" style of PvP.

Both of those types appeal to different *subsets* of PvP.

But no matter what, I think that having *some* method of duelling/structured PvP would be useful. And not just for PvPers, but also potentially for RP'ers (for those who do it ingame and not just forum RP).

It is just one of those additional tools that can be more useful for a wide range of people.

Edit: The Bartle test is also applicable to single player/offline games as well. It is not an "exclusive" thing for MMO's.

Although I tend to post a lot here.... this is pretty much one of 3 forums I ever post on. One is for my Wildstar guild, the other is linked to Elite Dangerous (which I play solo/private party only)

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

Izzy
Izzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 11:09
Note: video is a tiny bit

Note: video is a tiny bit lude. :/

dawnofcrow
dawnofcrow's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/31/2013 - 08:56
Achiever: 33%

Achiever: 33%
Explorer: 80%
Griefer: 27%
Socializer: 60%

whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster and when you look into the abyss, the abyss also look into you, -Friedrich

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 13 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Griefer scores so far:

Griefer scores so far:

Redlynne: 7%
TheMightyPaladin: 27%
Izzy: 47%
Gangrel: 20%
Radiac: 16%
blacke4dawn: 20%
dawnofcrow: 27%

Should I be worried that pretty much everyone else so far leans more towards the Killer mentality than I do ... yet I'm the one defending the accommodation and proper "place" of the Killer mentality within the game's design? No, City of Titans does not need to orient itself (exclusively?) towards catering to the Killer mindset, but it *IS* an important component in keeping a game interesting.

And if everyone will forgive me for bringing up the example of 60s Star Trek ... just because something is "negative" doesn't mean that the Whole is stronger for its (wholesale?) removal.

Quote:

"And what is it that makes one man an exceptional leader? We see here indications that it's his negative side which makes him strong, that his evil side, if you will, properly controlled and disciplined, is vital to his strength."
- Spock, to McCoy

"We all have our darker side. We need it! It's half of what we are. It's not really ugly. It's human."
- McCoy, to Kirk's good duplicate


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
Thanks Izzy.

Thanks Izzy.
You've pointed out that there are many different types of gamers and many different ways to divide them into groups.
The validity of each method can be measured in how it makes your point or fulfills the need you had in mind.
By the standards of that video, I'd be the casual gamer who would like to be a nerd but just doesn't have the time or money.
Which means I'm not at all weird.
He said I was the majority.
So thanks to your exploring
this time I WIN!!- Achievement!
Everyone else can suck it- Killer!
But we're all still friends- Socializer

Nadira
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 12 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/01/2014 - 13:25
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

Killers are a NECESSARY part of a functioning player ecosystem. If you don't have Killers then other things can get out of whack. If the other types are "clean air, rain and fertile soil" (ie. air, water and earth) then the Killers are the element of FIRE in the system. The thing is, FIRE is a necessary part of the life cycle, and systems that aren't designed to handle fire (or haven't handled it enough lately) are prone to all kinds of other failures as a result.
Which is a way of saying that Killers serve a vital function in the long term health of any game. This is a sadly underappreciated fact.

It's not quite so simple.
The videos explain it more clearly (and Bartle himself does it even better) about the engagement axis of 'interect with' versus 'act on' and the target axis of 'world' versus 'player'.
It is also important to realise that these are indeed an axis, not a binary system. They present degrees of interest, and they are not necessarily fixed either. Players are likely to have different interests at different times. Also, depending on the activity there may be profound differences where on each axis a player falls. E.g. a player may have no interest in PvP combat (typically associated with acting on players), but at the same time be highly motivated in manipulating the in game trade (also acting on players). We have to think of it as a player having a point in each of the four quadrants showing how much they are engaged by that particular style of gameplay, for each of the main engagements the game offers.

If we go by the Mechanics, Dynamics, Aesthetics theory (explained in brief in this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uepAJ-rqJKA extra credits video) there would be a different shape for each of the core aesthetics (or engagement). The more aesthetics a game delivers on the more room there is for different playstyles in a game that will not disrupt the enjoyment of others, and will allow players to find something to do at any given time.

The problem with killers (or dominance motivations) is that they are inherently about reducing the enjoyment of other players. It has a negative effect on the other reasons to play a game. Bartle calls it essential in his earlier papers because there he knew of no other way to put a brake on the other three groups that would otherwise drive off the rest. Nowadays game designeres created things like gating mechanism and energy system that also put a brake on runaway player composition. (e.g. the original Star Wars Galaxies had two classes that were essentially created just for socialisers. Other players were forced by the game system to occasionally interact with these socialisers, and the socialisers themselves needed to obtain gear for which they needed to spend some time with other of the core engagements of the game. That's both a gating mechanism (players can't progress until they interact with another playstyle), and an energy system (players can focus on one particular engagement only so long before they need to switch focus for a short while).

That said, there /is/ a desire in players to establish some form of pecking order. Not offering some way to do so will make the game less entertaining for a significant number of players. The problem is that this also draws in the kind of players you almost never want in your game (unless it is entirely focussed on PvP, and even then), the players who are primarily interested in ruining the experience for others. These players drive off other players (because they are an unenjoyable experience that players can't avoid or plan around, and nobody continues playing a game they do not enjoy). What is needed is less toxic outlets for competitve players that offer minimal avenues for griefing. Otherwise even a small number can very quickly drive a burgeoning MMO into the ground.
The exception here of course are game specifically designed around being PvP, but those are entirely different beasts and barely fit into the MMO category anymore (and that only by the most generous definition).

Nadira
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 12 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/01/2014 - 13:25
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

Interesting test. Here's my results.
Your gaming style is.
Achiever: 47%
Explorer: 80%
Griefer: 7% (read: Killer, for purposes of this discussion)
Socializer: 67%
Point being that people are mixtures of things, rather than being totally one thing at the expense of all other things. Add up the totals from the test and you get something that is approximately 200% in aggregate (allowing for rounding errors).
Key takeaway from the test link offered is that I'm mainly an Explorer, followed by being a Socializer, then an Achiever, with a tiny smidge of Killer mentality mixed in. For anyone who has been following my posting history here in the forums, this should come as NO SURPRISE.

hmm. I got
Achiever: 40%
Explorer: 67%
Killer: 7% (I agree, the word Griefer is inherently the wrong one for this category.. All griefers are killers but only some killers are griefers)
Socialiser: 87%

I think there is one question that pretty much always gives you a 'Killer' point if you also score high on the Explorer scale, so that 7 percent may well be the lowest possible number for this category). It is also interesting that the questions lump ingame trade market dominiation and duelling as the same category, when they really aren't)

Nadira
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 12 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/01/2014 - 13:25
TheMightyPaladin wrote:
TheMightyPaladin wrote:

Yeah sure attract them.
They have money.
They'll do something blah blah blah.
PVP and a good character creator will be good
Give them varied terrain for strategic use.
Let'em kill each other.
But a system that says I'm
Griefer: 27%
Socializer: 53%
Sounds messed up to me since I don't do pvp or socialize.

Do not think of it in terms of those specific activities within the game but as in how much you enjoy Acting on the Game World, Interacting with the Game World, Acting on Other players and Intereacting With Other players. If you replied to a question that you enjoyed grouping with others you scored a point on the 'socialiser' scale. If you mentioned you would like to control another player, or dominate the marker, you scored a point on the killer scale. Neither makes you a social butterfly or a PvPer, but just that there are situations where you would engage in the type of gameplay that fits into the broad classifications Bartle painted.

TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
Nadira wrote:
Nadira wrote:

Do not think of it in terms of those specific activities within the game but as in how much you enjoy Acting on the Game World, Interacting with the Game World, Acting on Other players and Intereacting With Other players. If you replied to a question that you enjoyed grouping with others you scored a point on the 'socialiser' scale. If you mentioned you would like to control another player, or dominate the marker, you scored a point on the killer scale. Neither makes you a social butterfly or a PvPer, but just that there are situations where you would engage in the type of gameplay that fits into the broad classifications Bartle painted.

But remember that More Than Half of my responses were Random selections that I made just so I could continue the test because most of the questions simply Didn't Apply to me.

They gave me a choices where Neither Option was in the least appealing and they were choices that, because of my play style, I would never have to make in any game.
In many cases the choices were SO unappealing that, if those were truly my only options, I would simply log off and never play again. No Exaggeration. I've quit games for less before. (I quit Terra after 2 hours of play because the User Interface sucked so bad).

I know you keep "reminding" me that this is about my overall play style not how I play any particular character but I KNOW THAT.

Lin Chiao Feng
Lin Chiao Feng's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 11 hours ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/02/2013 - 09:27
Redlynne, you leave your

Redlynne, you leave your griefing to the forums. Ach, mein kopf... :P

Paladin, I'd hesitate to label you a "Creator" because that label would best apply to someone who spends most of their time creating user-generated content (which I doubt the taxonomy covers well).

I'd label you a "player", because after reading your explanations, you're just playing the game as if it were a single-player game. The MMO aspect is ancillary and more or less wasted on you. It is in no way what you're around for. Which is fine, but as you and I have noted it breaks the taxonomy because the taxonomy takes "I play an MMORPG because of its massively multiplayer aspect" as a given.

Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...

dawnofcrow
dawnofcrow's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/31/2013 - 08:56
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

Griefer scores so far:
Redlynne: 7%
TheMightyPaladin: 27%
Izzy: 47%
Gangrel: 20%
Radiac: 16%
blacke4dawn: 20%
dawnofcrow: 27%
Should I be worried that pretty much everyone else so far leans more towards the Killer mentality than I do ... yet I'm the one defending the accommodation and proper "place" of the Killer mentality within the game's design? No, City of Titans does not need to orient itself (exclusively?) towards catering to the Killer mindset, but it *IS* an important component in keeping a game interesting.
And if everyone will forgive me for bringing up the example of 60s Star Trek ... just because something is "negative" doesn't mean that the Whole is stronger for its (wholesale?) removal.
Quote:
"And what is it that makes one man an exceptional leader? We see here indications that it's his negative side which makes him strong, that his evil side, if you will, properly controlled and disciplined, is vital to his strength."
- Spock, to McCoy
"We all have our darker side. We need it! It's half of what we are. It's not really ugly. It's human."
- McCoy, to Kirk's good duplicate

why i be a Killer is the i play game like dark soul 1 and 2 demon soul and bloodborne it games have pvpve and lot fun

whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster and when you look into the abyss, the abyss also look into you, -Friedrich

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
dawnofcrow wrote:
dawnofcrow wrote:

why i be a Killer is the i play game like dark soul 1 and 2 demon soul and bloodborne it games have pvpve and lot fun

Eh, good for you, but of no interest to me. I never played a FP or console game that I liked.

Be Well!
Fireheart

TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
Lin Chiao Feng wrote:
Lin Chiao Feng wrote:

Redlynne, you leave your griefing to the forums. Ach, mein kopf... :P
Paladin, I'd hesitate to label you a "Creator" because that label would best apply to someone who spends most of their time creating user-generated content (which I doubt the taxonomy covers well).

But it is a lot of what I do. As I said I love playing around with the character creator. Customizing my own space and playing this the Mission Architect. That's my favorite part of the game. I'd probably like minecraft if it wasn't so ugly. And second life if it wasn't so boring. Cause when I do get into the game....

Lin Chiao Feng wrote:

I'd label you a "player", because after reading your explanations, you're just playing the game as if it were a single-player game. The MMO aspect is ancillary and more or less wasted on you. It is in no way what you're around for. Which is fine, but as you and I have noted it breaks the taxonomy because the taxonomy takes "I play an MMORPG because of its massively multiplayer aspect" as a given.

Yes, quite right, you've grasped both of my personalities.

Greyhawk
Greyhawk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/03/2015 - 19:17
blacke4dawn wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:

The thing with Bartle's Taxonomy is that we aren't just one thing of those, we are all of them to certain degrees but most often one is very pronounced. Here is a test for it if you want to see where you are within it.

This is third or fourth version of this test I've taken. This was also the most challenging. For many of the questions I found myself thinking, "neither of the above!"

It tallied me:

80% Explorer
53% Achiever
53% Socializer
13% Griefer

I find myself in complete agreement with the results. Very unusual for a personality test.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My author page at Amazon: https://amzn.to/2MPvkRX
My novelty shirts: https://amzn.to/31Sld32

Greyhawk
Greyhawk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/03/2015 - 19:17
TheMightyPaladin wrote:
TheMightyPaladin wrote:

Thanks Izzy.
You've pointed out that there are many different types of gamers and many different ways to divide them into groups.
The validity of each method can be measured in how it makes your point or fulfills the need you had in mind.
By the standards of that video, I'd be the casual gamer who would like to be a nerd but just doesn't have the time or money.
Which means I'm not at all weird.
He said I was the majority.
So thanks to your exploring
this time I WIN!!- Achievement!
Everyone else can suck it- Killer!
But we're all still friends- Socializer

Now you're getting into the spirit of things, Paladin!

Great post. Made me smile.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My author page at Amazon: https://amzn.to/2MPvkRX
My novelty shirts: https://amzn.to/31Sld32

Empyrean
Empyrean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/16/2014 - 07:51
Greyhawk wrote:
Greyhawk wrote:

blacke4dawn wrote:
The thing with Bartle's Taxonomy is that we aren't just one thing of those, we are all of them to certain degrees but most often one is very pronounced. Here is a test for it if you want to see where you are within it.

This is third or fourth version of this test I've taken. This was also the most challenging. For many of the questions I found myself thinking, "neither of the above!"
It tallied me:
80% Explorer
53% Achiever
53% Socializer
13% Griefer
I find myself in complete agreement with the results. Very unusual for a personality test.

I have a feeling I'd turn out very much like you, Grey. Gonna take the test :).

FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)

Darth Fez
Darth Fez's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/20/2013 - 07:53
Quantic Foundry has a gaming

Quantic Foundry has a gaming motivations thing that might be of interest to folks who're interested in the Bartle thing.

- - - - -
Hail Beard!

Support trap clowns for CoT!

TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
This is a much better tool.

This is a much better tool.
It totally nailed my personality.
Here are my results:
Action 15%
Destruction 15%
Excitement 21%

Mastery 3%
Challenge 6%
Strategy 3%

Achievement 2%
Completion 12%
Power 1%

Social 3%
Competition 8%
Community 3%

Immersion 37%
Fantasy 89%
Story 5%

Creativity 58%
Discovery 7%
Design 91%

Izzy
Izzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 11:09
took it:

took it:

I guess I'm a Right Hemisphere guy? :P

edit:
Action (72%):

Mastery (38%):

Achievement (53%):

Social (38%):

Immersion (14%):

Creativity (43%):

Empyrean
Empyrean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/16/2014 - 07:51
Action(26%)

Action(26%)
Social(58%)
Mastery(45%)
Achievement(14%)
Creativity(81%)
Immersion(47%)

Yep, nailed me. Creativity first, achievement last. It was horizontal rectangle right in the center of the graph with a big spike towards creativity and a dent in the achievement side.

FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 weeks ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Hmm, mine gave me:

Mine gave me:

Hmm, I didn't think achievement would be that low, but thinking more in-depth it's just a means for other ends for me.

dawnofcrow
dawnofcrow's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/31/2013 - 08:56
Action(19%)

Action(19%)
Social(58%)
Mastery(77%)
Achievement(26%)
Creativity(73%)
Immersion(32%)

Destruction (35%)
Excitement (12%)
Challenge (76%)
Strategy (69%)
Completion (75%)
Power (6%)
Competition (56%)
Community (57%)
Fantasy (11%)
Story (64%)
Discovery (93%)
Design (40%)

whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster and when you look into the abyss, the abyss also look into you, -Friedrich

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 3 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
Action: 54%

Action: 54%
Destruction: 60%
Excitement: 46%

Social: 52%
Competition: 23%
Community: 82%

Mastery: 37%
Challenge: 24%
Strategy: 52%

Achievement: 21%
Completion: 85%
Power: 2%

Creativity: 47%
Discovery: 58%
Design: 39%

Immersion: 38%
Fantasy: 29%
Story: 39%

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

Nadira
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 12 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/01/2014 - 13:25
I got

I got
Action 2% (destruction 4%, excitement 3%)
Social 40% (Competition 8%, Community 87%)
Mastery 2% (Challenge 0%, Strategy 13%)
Achievement 0% (Completion 4%, Power 0%)
Creativity 43% (Discovery 4%, Design 85%)
Immersion 90% (Fantasy 94%, Story 77%))

Recommendations matched a lot of the games I play or played, so I'd say this is pretty decent tool both to find games you would like to play
And more importantly it can help game designers find which aspects they want to focus on for their game systems. Especially relatively small indy studios like MWM who can not possibly begin to hope create a game that has something to offer in most of the 12 axis this survey identifies.

Problematic about the survey itself is that it is basically a list of self-assessment questions. Those tend towards either too high or too low scores as people aren't necessarily very good at them. We tend to answer questions like that towards the middle (because we think of ourselves as essentially average).

A series of questions where you're asked to rank scenarios from least to most attractive, where each scenario represents a combination of positions along two axis (e.g. a scenario that is high on destructive compared with some other aspect on each of the five other axis, either very low or very high) would provide more reliable information. It also would be much harder to create such a test and it would take more than 5 minutes to complete.

TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
Didn't care for the

Didn't care for the recommendations it made for me because they were a genre I'd never consider playing.
Perhaps it should have asked about that.