Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Bartle Test and how todays MMORPG dont satisfy Explorer, Socializers, Killers and Achievers

2»

Comments

  • protorocprotoroc Member Posts: 1,042
    Originally posted by Ginkeq


    WoW pretty much has done a good job in failing all of those categories:
    Achievers - Have everything in WoW, content is dumbed down so much.  Game used to have MC40,AQ40,Naxx40, BWL40. Players couldn't handle it.  Now everyone gets welfare epics.  What do you achieve, even if you were #1 in WoW? Nothing.  You'll have the same gear as anyone else, have done the same things, etc.  Game has been too dumbed down.  World firsts don't mean anything anymore in MMORPGs, because the content is that easy.
    Explorers - Good luck exploring, when things show up on your map showing you where to go.  And where you actually start out with a map of every zone and magically your character remembers everything.  What happened to making players remember where things are?  WoW players not smart enough to have long-term memory?  Characters should not have copies of maps when they start a game out.  And quest NPCs shouldnt tell them where to go.  And zones shouldn't be so linear.  How many zones in WoW actually have more than 1 path from A to B? Almost None..
    Naxx40 - 4 Wings, only 1 path through each wing though.  All zones are like that too.  There is no chance of going the wrong way.  So you'll always explore in the right direction, because there's only one.  So there is no exploration in WoW.
    Socializers -  Good luck socializing in WoW.  Most people solo in trivial games like WoW.  Just solo 1-80, do a 10 minute instance every so often with 4  other people you don't know or care to know, because you're just there for 10 minutes, and you don't need them after that.  You don't socialize or get to know people in WoW.  It's all instanced, how could you get to know anyone in WoW?  You could level from 1-80 in WoW and you wouldn't know even 1 person that well.  
    Killers - Yeah, 2v2 arenas are really competitive.  Did I pick the right class, the right build?  Am I partnered with the right class?  That is the depth to WoWS PvP system.  Instead of farming scripted NPCs, they are farming scripted instances vs the same players over and over.  It's just a player farm instead of NPCs, no different.  And the limited PvP battles means you'll rapidly learn how to deal with the class combos that you have to fight against.  
    So basically WoW is a complete failure of an MMORPG.  Not even 1 category is satisfied.  Why do people play it? They never played anything better, WoW is their first MMORPG.  It's hard to realize garbage if that's all you've played.  And with all the useless welfare epics these lousy players have, they'll cling to their worthless character and boring game for some reason.  Really guys, I had a character more geared out than anyone in WoW when I quit the game.  I mean, isn't watching a wall a little better than playing such a lousy MMORPG?  You'll only perpetuate bad MMORPGs if you continue to play bad MMORPGs.
    WoW more like Instances of Warcraft, not even an MMORPG.
     

     

    inb4 Zorndorf Rage

    expect graphs and pie charts showing how WOW dominates on Xfire to prove you wrong.

  • pojungpojung Member Posts: 810

    ;Plasuma

    I've not seen your other works, but that chart really did put things into perspective. While the placement of certain things still irks me, I'd tag it as a 95% agree. I still get irked by achiever/power gamer being externally motivated. Goals are what are chased, but goals are set by individuals on their own merits as well.

    For argument's sake, it's a great resource tool. By laying out the spread, with corresponding borders, really gives a nice visual. Now, I'm reminded of MTG, and its white, blue, black, red, green... and how you stated the bull fighter puts on a show. I think there's a lot to be said now, about how via one extreme we achieve the other: liquid nitrogen, because it's so cold, actually burns the skin where it's applied. The 'watcher' is more than likely most drawn to the top right or left rather than to their immediate left or right, like MTG's color system vulnerability inversed. This really is food for thought. Especially considering your theory on games being produced for the demographic that lies to the top of your representation, and how you stated games play out like 'active movies'. Albeit, as you produced the graphic, this could equally be seen as circular reasoning for external purposes.

    The other thing your representation brings to mind is the Wii Brain Academy. The representation they use is distance from the origin denotes how 'powerful' in a given sector your mind is. So you could potentially fill the entire chart with how active your brain is with regards to each of the criteria. Rather than a % based system that excludes the degree at which you can or do apply yourself in a given area, as it retains relativity within itself.

     

    I can't agree with everyone being both a consumer and a creator. Opposites and orientations. Some people are born leaders (I don't subscribe to the teachings that leaders aren't 'born' but 'created'. Some people have a knack, others don't.), others have no skill and no desire and go running back to their comfort zone. I do think a conceptual representation could be a single axis with one extreme being 'hot' and the other 'cold' or whatever opposing terms one can conceive, and that we find ourselves operating along this axis at varying points. But, this tangent is rather useless apon reflection, as it doesn't further the discussion.

    Linux and Wikipedia. Hrmm. Trying to retain the objective thinking I've been ninja-trained to do, there are issues with these systems as well. Linux primarily, as its market requires a certain degree of compatibility due to its market being very much an 'investment market' (computers are investments). I don't know where I'm going with this.

    If nothing else, this is a good thread, and your latest post complete with graphs leaves quite the impression!

    That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
    We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
    So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
    - MMO_Doubter

  • EbonyflyEbonyfly Member Posts: 255

    Funny, I was thinking on the same lines as the OP just the other day. However the conclusion I came to was that newer MMOs are totally focused on Achievers rather than the other three Bartle archetypes. For many the goal is simply the acquisition of new gear, for others it might be raid progression, completing a quest or gaining a high Arena ranking.

    Today's MMOs do a much better job of allowing players to focus on specific achievements: You can teleport directly to dungeons or battlefields, there is less waiting for creatures to spawn, less downtime, more quest content and fewer tedious grinds. All of this however affects the other Bartle archetypes, both directly (eg less downtime means less time for socializing) and indirectly in that it is easier for players to focus on specific goals rather than enjoy other aspects of the game.

    I guess other old school players will say that Achievements in modern MMOs are really meaningless because the games are so much easier. However, lack of challenge is really an entirely seperate issue. The Bartle Achiever archetype simply refers to a style of gameplay that is goal-orientated, a level of difficulty is not implied.

     

     

     

  • TatumTatum Member Posts: 1,153

    With those types, you'd have to say that these games cater to the power gamers and observers.  The 1 - Level Cap game is mostly an observer (or ultra-casual) game.  It's easy, relatively fast, and pretty much laid out for you:  quest here, then here, then over there.

    The level cap game is achiever land, i.e. grinding your way through scripted instances for gear so you can grind your way through more scripted instances for slightly better gear...

    Any suggestions that either the leveling game or the end game need to be changed will be met with massive amounts of bitching from these two groups.  Observers don't want their leveling game changed because they really don't want to put much effort into their gaming.  The power gamers don't want their end game changed because they rewarded more than the rest of the player base because they spend hour after hour running boring raids.

  • Plasuma!!!Plasuma!!! Member Posts: 1,872
    Originally posted by pojung


    ;Plasuma
    I've not seen your other works, but that chart really did put things into perspective. While the placement of certain things still irks me, I'd tag it as a 95% agree. I still get irked by achiever/power gamer being externally motivated. Goals are what are chased, but goals are set by individuals on their own merits as well.
    ...

    I labeled them as "extrinsic" and "intrinsic" to define the kinds of goals that are generated by those personality types.

    An explorer, for example, is driven by a vague external goal and a specific internal one: "What's over the horizon? I must discover it!" A slayer, on the other hand, would have a very specific external goal and only a vague internal one "This person must die for the glory of my empire."

    An explorer can change their goals on a whim, they're not conditioned to operate in a linear manner. Their specific extrinsic goals may be pointed out, but unless the goal has not already been achieved, they might not find much interest in it.

    A slayer won't alter their goals on a whim, they're conditioned to operate linearly. Their specific extrinsic goals are made very obvious, and the methods to achieving them are as well.

    Needless to say, the explorer and slayer can be the same person at two different times. Your environment shapes the way you behave. You can be an explorer if you must, and you can be a slayer if you must. It really depends on the conditions in which the environment allows or forces you to behave.





    Now, those are the key words: "allow" and "force." One implies freedom, the other implies slavery.

    In games, you are allowed to play them - you don't have to. In the environment provided by the game (in this case, an MMORPG), you are more or less forced to play in a few ways. While you CAN behave in a way that the game does not recognize, you will not be rewarded for it in any way - and you may, in fact, be punished if you do.

    If you don't choose to be a warrior, paladin, mage, or whatever other classes there are available, you simply don't fit within the game architecture. If you don't choose to level up linearly and complete quests or raids to get new and better equipment, then you don't fit within the game's purpose. If you choose to defy boundaries and capacities, you will be punished.

    If you choose not to follow the rules, you must change the way you think or quit the game. I think this is a sad thing. While we are creatures of adaptation, we also like to exercise our ability to change our environment to fit our needs. This can't happen in MMORPGs that have such strict laws.





    The leader / follower problem is a massive cause of strife throughout our entire history. The ideal that "there can only be one" is a selfish one, built upon a desire for power and control over limited resources.

    I use the examples of Linux and Wikipedia because they have no leaders, only initial creators who have since faded into obscurity. There is no president of pages in Wikipedia, there is no programming lead or producer for Linux.

    Everyone leads and follows each other freely. One person suggests a course of action and begins acting upon it, whether others follow is not often important. When that course of action is found to lead to a dead end or more problems, it is ignored or deleted. Examples in both of the afore mentioned settings:

    Wikipedia::

    • Someone finds an article that is incomplete, and when tested on Google, nothing turns up. He posts on the forums about the possibility of an article that should not exist and all members can begin voting about it. Those who are uninterested in it usually vote against it, as failing the "Google test" means it most likely does not exist.

    • However, if even one dedicated or "lucky" individual should find and show proof that the article should exist, all votes will be discounted and the article will be updated and continue to exist on Wikipedia.

    • When there is vandalism, one only needs to look at the cache of past changes to find where it has occured. Anyone can do this and request a restoration to the document - and, if needed, the article can be locked to prevent further vandalism. A lock which can also be voted for or against by the Wikipedian community, but the vote must also be with valid reason and is discussed in a forum.

    • People do this for themselves. The target is nobody and everybody.

    Linux::

    • Someone adopts the Linux platform and begins working on it to suit their needs. They make plans for security systems, UI updates, and they get to work on testing drivers with their pet project. Eventually, they may decide that what they've made is pretty useful... here's the big question: do they sell their hard work? Or do they give it to the community and let others work on it as they please?

    • In the open source community, the case is usually: once it is open source, it stays open source. So the person decides to give it back to the community. After a while, more users may notice the project and begin using and experimenting with it. They make their own modifications, and may begin to collaborate with each other to mutually benefit their similar projects.

    • When someone goes on some tangent and makes a huge mistake, they can back up, regroup, and continue - the only thing lost being whatever effort and time they put into that mistake.

    • People do this for themselves. The target is nobody and everybody.

    Why does this work for free?

    In Wikipedia, everyone works together to keep it an accurate and reliable source of information. Their intrinsic desire is very specific. They're doing it more for themselves and the rest of us than for want or fear of any physical reward or punishment.

    In Linux, people work on their versions of it for themselves because they need something that works and is usable for a wide variety of things. They want a personal space that not only belongs to them, but can be shared with other people - and that intrinsic desire is also very specific.





    People can work and be leaders of their own projects if they are motivated intrinsically. Leaders often work together to perfect their projects. These are creators. They work together in peace because, so long as they have the same goal, there is no reason to fight. Everything is free.

    When people are motivated extrinsically, they must be led by a leader who is motivated intrinsically. These are consumers. In the digital realm, a world with no rules, they are not a drain on leaders and can freely take what people have worked on. This might even inspire them to become creators themselves.

    Unless there are artificial limits on resources, which is unfortunately the case in many digital realms, people will become leaders of their own destinies and work together with others of similar goals. Because there are no limits, leaders of different goals will not seek to destroy each other (and cannot destroy each other even if they tried, because any resource that anybody makes and works with is unlimited and totally independently controllable).





    The difference between extrinsic and intrinsic?

    Intrinsic implies that a majority of value is in one's self. Not in a fear, not in an idea - only one's self.

    • I want to do this because I'm curious about it.

    • This is not interesting to me, I don't care about it.

    Extrinsic implies that a majority of value is in things other than one's self, be it a fear, idea, or other people.

    • I don't want to do this because it could hurt.

    • This is my only chance, I have to do this.





    What can hurt in a digital realm? Nothing, unless you are tricked into believing that it can (death penalty, loot scarcity, etc.).

    Open Source works because there are many people who are willing to be curious about something and have no fear from their experiments. In MMORPGs, there is little room to be curious and experiment without penalties, so naturally, you're going to have more extrinsically motivated people interested in the game than any who are intrinsically motivated.

    I hope this somewhat explains my reasoning.

  • NaryysysNaryysys Member Posts: 117
    Originally posted by Ginkeq


    WoW pretty much has done a good job in failing all of those categories:
    Achievers - Have everything in WoW, content is dumbed down so much.  Game used to have MC40,AQ40,Naxx40, BWL40. Players couldn't handle it.  Now everyone gets welfare epics.  What do you achieve, even if you were #1 in WoW? Nothing.  You'll have the same gear as anyone else, have done the same things, etc.  Game has been too dumbed down.  World firsts don't mean anything anymore in MMORPGs, because the content is that easy.
     

     

    Unfortunately, though this may not be a popular stance, erasing gear advantage is an integral step to making a good, level PvP playing field.  You cannot hope to balance a PvPsystem where gear can play any more than a miniscule factor in encounters.  So, at least in this aspect and in regards to PvP, Blizzard is taking the right path.  Again, this may not be the most popular, but it IS the best path towards a balanced, and subsequently fun, PvP system.  In regards to your other assertions about WoW, you may or may not be correct, but I haven't given them enough thought to decide whether or not I would agree (too tired!).

    As an aside, a good compromise to just erasing gear advantage may be to mandate "battle attire" that each character automatically equips when PvPing.  All these would be identical, or nearly (with sidegrades to play to different builds within a class), but would not be any more advantageous for one class than another's attire is for its respective class.  That way, achievers get their shiny epics to slaughter NPCs and be first, all while maintaining a level playing field for the PvP side of the MMO.

    image

  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504

    Personally I still can't figure out why anyone would claim Killers aren't satisfied.  Especially with instanced PVP being such a superior arena for competitive play.  WOW's Arenas and Guild Wars PVP are basically the best PVP MMORPGs have seen.

    The only argument against Killers being satisfied is how few good competitive-PVP MMORPGs have released after WOW and GW.  MMORPGs aren't the optimal genre for competitive play, but there's really no excuse for games which try  to be PVP-focused like WAR to fail on account of combat being shallow (and on account of the game wasting a lot of manhours developing half-hearted PVE content.)

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • pojungpojung Member Posts: 810
    Originally posted by Naryysys


    Unfortunately, though this may not be a popular stance, erasing gear advantage is an integral step to making a good, level PvP playing field.  You cannot hope to balance a PvPsystem where gear can play any more than a miniscule factor in encounters.  So, at least in this aspect and in regards to PvP, Blizzard is taking the right path.  Again, this may not be the most popular, but it IS the best path towards a balanced, and subsequently fun, PvP system.  In regards to your other assertions about WoW, you may or may not be correct, but I haven't given them enough thought to decide whether or not I would agree (too tired!).
    As an aside, a good compromise to just erasing gear advantage may be to mandate "battle attire" that each character automatically equips when PvPing.  All these would be identical, or nearly (with sidegrades to play to different builds within a class), but would not be any more advantageous for one class than another's attire is for its respective class.  That way, achievers get their shiny epics to slaughter NPCs and be first, all while maintaining a level playing field for the PvP side of the MMO.



     

    I can agree with gear needing to be a marginal factor where player versus player is concerned. Personally, I think there should be game mechanics that encourage 'preperation' of character as a part of combat, meaning, that a gamer can achieve a better 'advantage' through gear, but that advantage should be very much a minor factor. You want to reward those with skill or who have invested themselves and their time, but you can't install a system where 'the rich get richer'.

    Short of going off on a tangent (that never ends well), I do not agree in the slightest that WoW's is a gear:PvP system to model. When I still played (1 content patch ago as of today), the compounded effectiveness of someone who was an 'established PvPer' was ~1/5th better (considering kill power: survival) than someone with 'last season's garb'. This is hardly a 'minor' factor. Additionally, because each patch releases a new threshold that can be obtained, and the previous is made available to the masses, I am now forced to keep pace with others, just to 'stay in it' at the lower of the 2 tiers. For a 'casual-friendly' product, their gear:PvP system is anything but.

    That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
    We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
    So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
    - MMO_Doubter

  • pojungpojung Member Posts: 810
    Originally posted by Plasuma!!!


    The difference between extrinsic and intrinsic?


    Intrinsic implies that a majority of value is in one's self. Not in a fear, not in an idea - only one's self.



    I want to do this because I'm curious about it.


    This is not interesting to me, I don't care about it.



    Extrinsic implies that a majority of value is in things other than one's self, be it a fear, idea, or other people.



    I don't want to do this because it could hurt.


    This is my only chance, I have to do this.



     

    When you first started talking about the differences in intrinsic and extrinsic ideologies, there were too many caveats for me to subscribe to your terms. With the isolated above quotation, I think you've pinned what I believe to be your best shot at defining terms to a most universal base. You did state, after all, that new ideas require time to formulate the corresponding language to support them. I believe you have done just that. The case of an 'goal setter and seeker' is now labelled as extrinsic, external to instrinsic motivation, because he chases what is, in essence, not 'of' himself. To this, I say 'Bravo, Plasuma'!

    More food for thought, as your postings are quite the mental appetiters:

    - Bodies always work with central systems. Science and technology, through the ages, has mimiced things that are already found in nature. Computer coding exists in DNA patterns. Airplane fuselages exist already in the breathing systems of falcons etc etc. The idea that a system could function as simply a 'mass' doesn't check out. There needs to be common orientation, and at a brave minimum, there needs to be at least 1 'brain' to sustain everyone's orientation alignment. Are these 2 examples (Linux/Wiki) that run counter to this rule, are they 'for limited time only' freaks of nature, or are we not seeing a fullness of picture in terms of where the 'brain' is? I say again that Wiki is a model that works because of its service base (information is free flowing), but that Linux, at least 'still hasn't cought on', doesn't because of the environment of its service base (needing structure and compatability which is 'imposed').

    - One could then suggest there are methods to reverse the law of entropy?

    - 'Allow' and 'force' do not necessarily directly apply to 'freedom' and 'slavery'. 1984 immediately comes to mind. JP Sartre immediately comes to mind. Some people need to be 'forced into' something in order to be 'free'. Others mind complain of having 'too many choices' and thus are 'forced' into indecisiveness.

     

    Good reads, Plasuma. I'm subscribed to your newsletter after your latest posting.

    That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
    We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
    So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
    - MMO_Doubter

  • RobsolfRobsolf Member RarePosts: 4,606
    Originally posted by Archemorous


    Im having a blast playing lotro, so there.

     

    Here, here!  Satisfies all those 4 elements in me...

  • TatumTatum Member Posts: 1,153
    Originally posted by Axehilt


    Personally I still can't figure out why anyone would claim Killers aren't satisfied.  Especially with instanced PVP being such a superior arena for competitive play.  WOW's Arenas and Guild Wars PVP are basically the best PVP MMORPGs have seen.
    The only argument against Killers being satisfied is how few good competitive-PVP MMORPGs have released after WOW and GW.  MMORPGs aren't the optimal genre for competitive play, but there's really no excuse for games which try  to be PVP-focused like WAR to fail on account of combat being shallow (and on account of the game wasting a lot of manhours developing half-hearted PVE content.)



     

    I'm not a "killer", but I'm going to say that most of them are looking for some type of open world PvP with consequences and rewards.  With arenas, battle grounds, instances, what ever, you might as well just play FPS. 

  • NaryysysNaryysys Member Posts: 117
    Originally posted by pojung



     

    I can agree with gear needing to be a marginal factor where player versus player is concerned. Personally, I think there should be game mechanics that encourage 'preperation' of character as a part of combat, meaning, that a gamer can achieve a better 'advantage' through gear, but that advantage should be very much a minor factor. You want to reward those with skill or who have invested themselves and their time, but you can't install a system where 'the rich get richer'.

    Short of going off on a tangent (that never ends well), I do not agree in the slightest that WoW's is a gear:PvP system to model. When I still played (1 content patch ago as of today), the compounded effectiveness of someone who was an 'established PvPer' was ~1/5th better (considering kill power: survival) than someone with 'last season's garb'. This is hardly a 'minor' factor. Additionally, because each patch releases a new threshold that can be obtained, and the previous is made available to the masses, I am now forced to keep pace with others, just to 'stay in it' at the lower of the 2 tiers. For a 'casual-friendly' product, their gear:PvP system is anything but.

     

    I can't speak to the state of WoW personally, as I haven't played it in a long while.  I didn't mean to assume that Blizzard was establishing the best PvP system, I was simply going on what Ginkeq had said.  However, considering your recent experience and subsequent opinions, it seems I had gotten the wrong idea from the previous poster I had quoted.

    I would be very interested in playtesting a system in which PvP gear was monotonized in an attempt to alleviate gear advantage.  The closest I've seen to this is my experiences on DAoC classic servers, in which templates essentially maximized your effectiveness, and as such diminished any advantage a player would get over another through gear.  I must say, I was pleased with the results.  Smaller battles came down to reaction times, who got the jump, and experience.  The group I ran with wasn't incredibly experienced, but we could still take down the most experienced of opponents provided we got the jump and first advantage through CC.  Larger battles, in many cases, became battles of fluctuating advantage: the line shifted back and forth between the two realms at war until either, one realm made the final push that broke the other, or the third realm got involved on one side or another.

    Yet somehow Mythic managed to ignore almost all of this PvP experience when creating Warhammer Online.  It was quite disheartening, to say the least.

    image

  • BrianshoBriansho Member UncommonPosts: 3,586

    Interesting test. I would say the majority of MMO are migrating towards:

    80% Achiever - achievements, item collecting, stat tweaking - have fun/introvert attitude

    10% Social - group, chat, spam chat window with bad/leet words - optional grouping

    9% Explorer - unlock areas as you reach new levels

    1% Killer - ganking but no real death penalty, you just lose a few minutes and continue on

    introvert + option grouping + unlock new areas only when leveled enough + die, ress, repair = console rpg with online elements

    Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!

  • TorikTorik Member UncommonPosts: 2,342
    Originally posted by Tatum

    Originally posted by Axehilt


    Personally I still can't figure out why anyone would claim Killers aren't satisfied.  Especially with instanced PVP being such a superior arena for competitive play.  WOW's Arenas and Guild Wars PVP are basically the best PVP MMORPGs have seen.
    The only argument against Killers being satisfied is how few good competitive-PVP MMORPGs have released after WOW and GW.  MMORPGs aren't the optimal genre for competitive play, but there's really no excuse for games which try  to be PVP-focused like WAR to fail on account of combat being shallow (and on account of the game wasting a lot of manhours developing half-hearted PVE content.)



     

    I'm not a "killer", but I'm going to say that most of them are looking for some type of open world PvP with consequences and rewards.  With arenas, battle grounds, instances, what ever, you might as well just play FPS. 

    Actually, the category of Killer includes both subgroups:  those looking for 'consequences and rewards' and those looking for 'competive, challenging play'.   So WoW is perfect for a subset of the Killers and Darkfall for another subset.    Whichever is the 'correct' way to play is an entirely different debate.

     

  • altairzqaltairzq Member Posts: 3,811

    A thread worth of your name. Wonder when... or if.. developers will realize this. Well probably they do, but they are too busy counting money.

Sign In or Register to comment.