The problem I have with his "Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades" article is that Bartle takes a stance of "action/interaction" to rate players. These two terms are not mutually exclusive of each other, however.
I also think that rather than world vs. player, it is "dev vs. player" for the social aspect of the game. Granted, world is a key component of that, but so are skills, abilities, and others.
Bartle's assumption comes down to the belief that every player cares what the others think, and actually respect the other players' desire to be a "God" as well.
Ok. Yeah. The reality is though, the only DT players that post on the forums fit the bill of "competitor" and thus didn't care what others on other forums thought of them. The reality was that I met some of the best *real* roleplayers on DT. You definitely had to get out of "n00bville" (for lack of a better word) to meet them, though.
Only the trash hung around newbie towns. Or the PKs.
But the definition of powergamer should probably be explained. Gamers expect to devote time in an MMORPG. It's a given. They are driven to game in one form to achieve whatever their goal is. I would say as far as goals go, crafters, competitors, and achievers all want to excel in what they do. They might not be after power itself, but their one-track mind constitutes them as a powergamer.
The term power I am defining as: "driven; especially to accomplish an objective".
There were those of us that petitioned Blizzard to make a "hardcore" server where anyone could be attacked at any time. Since they didn't implement one, I didn't buy the game. I intend to stick to that promise.
My statement clarified is this: Warcraft 3 players will begin to hit end game in droves sometime around February and March. They will be frustrated with the game and many will quit. Specifically, I predict that by this time next year, 25% of the current population will be gone, perhaps as much as 30%. Many more will follow.
Not for the first six months or so. Which is when the advocates reigned. I moved over around the time that everyone was complaining about how hard it was, actually calling it Quaketide. You must have been introduced to the game sometime after that period of time, because I never remember it being called Dorktide (though I can see why some might call it that after 3 years of AC). I absolutely loved it and the fact that I got to be a determining factor in the play of the world. At least, for a short while.
K, I catch *that* aspect of it. You're saying from the individual that wants to compete in PvP, but doesn't because there is too much time required to be "the best". Like when Trial of Atlantis came out and in order to be the best in Realm vs. Realm you had to be ML10, which required 40+ hours of work to do.
If that's what you're talking about, hell yeah, I understand it. But just the fact that someone died to some higher level I don't understand. If someone does not wish to compete in PvP, they certainly do not have to.
Yeah, I ended up playing again on Solclaim and did not stay on Thistledown for more than maybe six months. I actually sold my character at a paltry level 26, but that was enough to get like a hundred bucks. I went on to play on Solclaim where I made it to level 60 or so before selling that one for a hundred as well.
For me it was not about the money, but playing with friends. When they left, I did as well, and recooped some of the monthly fees I had paid in the process. I don't think I have ever actually played a game and ended up with MORE money than I put into it, but I've found that with Asheron's Call, it ended up getting to be about free.
I agree about Planetside in a BIG way. I did play it and pay for it, but unfortunately, it was too pricey for what amounted to a glorified version of Tribes 2. I would consider playing again, but they'd have to give me expansion items for free.
What I am talking about to make a character feel like someone is following a trichotomy where the three main "food groups" of MMORPGs rely on each other.
And no, contrary to public belief, the three are not: mage, ranged, melee. In fact, that's only the PvP way to look at it.
The three types of gamers that come to MMORPGs are the crafter, the competitor, and the achiever.
The crafter wants to simply be known for his crafts, and wants everyone to come to him or learn their crafting from him. These people can drive an economy.
The competitor wants to be feared. Or have everyone on the forums associated with such a game singing tales of their deeds. They want to be envied, reviled, and lauded on their might alone.
The achiever wants to accomplish something that gets the developers response, usually in some way of breaking or bugging the game. He or she doesn't care so much about the user's input as they do the developers.
There is also the griefer, who wants negative attention from the developers. They want to be a thorn in the side of the devs. Generally speaking, they are VERY few and far between. A *real* griefer will not talk to you in game, unless they are exploiting a chat bug.
Get a clue. Seriously. Read any of my other 4 replies to the others who have somehow arrived at this conclusion.
Powergamers can be anyone, not simply "PKs". Diablo 1 is a horrible example, that game was nothing compared to Diablo II. It was not meant to be played online with anyone other than friends or enemies. It was certainly not meant to "meet" people. And this is not a fault of Blizzard, this is a fault of all the other competitive games of the same era. They had little to no community appeal.
Final Fantasy Online simplified it even more. Asheron's Call 2 has it simplified still more. It won't work, it fails, and people leave because they see nothing that they like after three to four months of play. Essentially, they "win" the game.
Power gamers are not necessarily PKrs. They can be hardcore crafters or undaunted explorers. WHY IS EVERYONE MISSING THIS?!!? Of all the responses to my post, half of them are people whining about PKr's. It's a friggen game, people.
Instead of "keeping up with the Joneses" is it now, "bringing them Joneses back down to our level"?
You see a man driving a Lexus. Do you think, "God, I wanna be like him someday," or do you think, "God, I can't wait till our countries tax laws make him dirt poor someday."?
You're fooling yourself if you think the Meritocrat is someone that cannot adapt. They are exactly who we idolize and yet loathe. They are far more paces ahead in the game than you ever will be, and the hinderances you try to create for them only serve to trip you up.
Like how your new Tauren Warrior in WoW drops in front of a Paladin? Your damage does literally nothing? Guess what, the developers *want* it that way. It'd be too powerful if you could kill the opposing melee class.
Wrong. You miss the point, EVERY gamer is a powergamer, they just intend to exceed in different areas. If you have a game where anyone and everyone can exceed your ability, with little or no work involved, then you get frustrated, upset, and quit. It's a guarantee.
I predict World of Warcraft will drop 25% of its current playerbase by 2006. Quite possibly 30%.
UO is the *only* game to have PVP "required" other than Shadowbane and Planetside. It is ironic that 8 years later, we would have individuals still under the impression that PVP = griefing on weaklings.
Exactly how do you describe games like Counter-Strike? UT 2004, Tribes, Black and White, Starcraft, etc? They all have some form of attrition that get applied by one character to another.
The idea that you can have a fantasy world where everyone gains is what EQ2 and WoW are trying to embody. Yet there is no true reward. If everyone gets it, then no one truly wins. The idea that people actually walk away from a game like this happy, is ludicrous. You're paying 15 bucks a month for someone to blow kisses and brownnose you for a few hours a night while they do the same to the guy paying 15 bucks right next to you.
Turbine (maker of Asheron's Call) did a report to see how often their "GMs" and/or "Advocates" had to handle mitigation between two parties and help requests. The PvP and PK server, "Darktide" was in the order of three times less likely to have complaints or issues. An amazing feat since at the beginning of AC's inception, it had equal - if not %50 more - the number of players.
Fortunately for me, I happen to have played on Thistledown in AC and know exactly what happened: NOTHING in the long run. Despite your entire post, the plot and story continued, and not in Myth's favor. Which is why he left. I would know, I *KNEW* him, he cursed at me in my chat window. I was one of the first to kill him along with a guy named "DC" (you might recognize the name if you played on Thistledown) and some other guys, who were around his level when we hit Mayoi.
Everyone actually hated Mythrandia in their own way. Many also hated and respected him: like me, which was why it was such a victory for him to have won that. They (the devs) erected a statue in his favor, but that's it. And he left the game shortly after that event.
It's not the same as having a player craft a sword that is one day found again and requires his/her touch to be a great sword once again. I want to see the game where the adventurer (a PC) finds the sword that he takes to the original crafter(a PC) who makes it be the sword that takes down the great Bael'Zharon(a PC).
Disclaimer: I am a former Blizzard "fanboi". I quit that position with the ill-fated release of Diablo 2, where I had a scratched CD and Battle.net was down for the first month of gameplay.
What is so great about PvP in games other than WoW is that you have an impact and can make a name for yourself. You *are* the school bully, if even for only a few months. Everyone knows you, and some may even fear you. Others might have bested you, and gloat in their accomplishments.
In WoW PvP, you've got about 300 school bullies, none of them are unique, and no one really fears any of them. Since they are all pretty much nameless, you can't tell the one that turns tail and runs back to the guards from the one that stands up to fight. As time goes on, you realize that those that stay and fight become less and less active, simply because the game is *so* balanced and there is absolutely no reward for PvP, that it is ridiculously lame.
Blizzard is notorious for killing "powergamers". Unfortunately, these people are what make MMORPGs fun. You get rid of the powergamer, and you get rid of the idea that someone can make a name for themself in a virtual world. And, IMHO, making a name for yourself in a virtual world is what MMORPGs are all about.
You know, you just said what Libertarians and true Republican Capitalists have been trying to say for years. Yes, I'm a Libertarian, yes, I'm pro-capitalism, but no, I do not think it is right that any company gets to have government entities working as bodyguards during big events by claiming a "terrorist attack" might happen at the site they plan to have the event at.
In all seriousness, there's nothing wrong with a communial society, it's just really really hard to pull off because of human nature.
Oh great, one of *these* people.
Yes, it is so horrible that "human nature" includes such things as a mother wanting to care for her child and the idea of "owning" something.
A quote from the Communist Manifesto:
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
Damn me if I don't see my mother raising me as any more exploitation than the fact I was raised in a public school to champion the "government educational system". What a crock.
The problem with communism isn't just human nature, it's biggest problem is that it isn't scalable. As it gets bigger, and those on the fringes are more and more vehement, there is no alernative for communism other than to eliminate them.
I'd be on the fringes talking about how great it was when we had private property and didn't have to petition a government to simply eat.
... the only problem with having mod points for this article and comments is that I don't know enough to tell which ones are informative and which ones are trolls.
Ironically, like "ants" do. They use a technology a lot like pheremones with ants to track instances. It works kind of like a web, with each node being a computer.
Take the following: Computers A through G. Each has a corresponding instance 1 through 7 respectively. No one knows that A is 1, B is 2, though. They are unique identifiers.
B knows it is 2, so it sends to those it is connected with that "2 is looking for 6". C is one such computer. It get the message and relays it to the others, D and E, that it knows, and says, "2 is looking for 6". D and E both send out to who they know. When G finally gets it it says, "tell 2 that 6 is here". And then the message thus gets repeated back.
A message could take a large number of hops before it gets to its destination. But the neat thing is that it is anonymous in that every computer acts as if it is just relaying a message for someone else. Even if they are the intended receipient. That's what makes it unique. And truly anonymous.
Now, there are ways to kind of eliminate and pinpoint who is who, but it's very difficult to do. It's also very difficult for those sharing files to get good transfer speeds (or at least comparable to BitTorrent). But it doesn't matter if people care solely about anonymity, which more and more do.
/"We took a game that only had 100 or 200 players at one time and had over 200,000 people play over a 24 hour period," he said. "Watching thousands and thousands of people play the game and join the world was emotionally crippling."/
Having 200,000 people play wasn't just emotionally crippling. I imagine it would be "server" crippling too.
Slashdot Mirror
You now have 2.68 fewer microseconds each day to do whatever it is you do.
.0000804 frames/second to the human eye. A pretty useless BIOS tweak.
In gaming terms: This is a difference of about
The problem I have with his "Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades" article is that Bartle takes a stance of "action/interaction" to rate players. These two terms are not mutually exclusive of each other, however.
I also think that rather than world vs. player, it is "dev vs. player" for the social aspect of the game. Granted, world is a key component of that, but so are skills, abilities, and others.
Bartle's assumption comes down to the belief that every player cares what the others think, and actually respect the other players' desire to be a "God" as well.
Ok. Yeah. The reality is though, the only DT players that post on the forums fit the bill of "competitor" and thus didn't care what others on other forums thought of them. The reality was that I met some of the best *real* roleplayers on DT. You definitely had to get out of "n00bville" (for lack of a better word) to meet them, though.
Only the trash hung around newbie towns. Or the PKs.
I agree not everyone seeks power.
But the definition of powergamer should probably be explained. Gamers expect to devote time in an MMORPG. It's a given. They are driven to game in one form to achieve whatever their goal is. I would say as far as goals go, crafters, competitors, and achievers all want to excel in what they do. They might not be after power itself, but their one-track mind constitutes them as a powergamer.
The term power I am defining as: "driven; especially to accomplish an objective".
Neither, I'm Libertarian. Both Republicans and Democrats would say: "Spend, Spend, Spend!"
There were those of us that petitioned Blizzard to make a "hardcore" server where anyone could be attacked at any time. Since they didn't implement one, I didn't buy the game. I intend to stick to that promise.
My statement clarified is this: Warcraft 3 players will begin to hit end game in droves sometime around February and March. They will be frustrated with the game and many will quit. Specifically, I predict that by this time next year, 25% of the current population will be gone, perhaps as much as 30%. Many more will follow.
Not for the first six months or so. Which is when the advocates reigned. I moved over around the time that everyone was complaining about how hard it was, actually calling it Quaketide. You must have been introduced to the game sometime after that period of time, because I never remember it being called Dorktide (though I can see why some might call it that after 3 years of AC). I absolutely loved it and the fact that I got to be a determining factor in the play of the world. At least, for a short while.
K, I catch *that* aspect of it. You're saying from the individual that wants to compete in PvP, but doesn't because there is too much time required to be "the best". Like when Trial of Atlantis came out and in order to be the best in Realm vs. Realm you had to be ML10, which required 40+ hours of work to do.
If that's what you're talking about, hell yeah, I understand it. But just the fact that someone died to some higher level I don't understand. If someone does not wish to compete in PvP, they certainly do not have to.
Yeah, I ended up playing again on Solclaim and did not stay on Thistledown for more than maybe six months. I actually sold my character at a paltry level 26, but that was enough to get like a hundred bucks. I went on to play on Solclaim where I made it to level 60 or so before selling that one for a hundred as well.
For me it was not about the money, but playing with friends. When they left, I did as well, and recooped some of the monthly fees I had paid in the process. I don't think I have ever actually played a game and ended up with MORE money than I put into it, but I've found that with Asheron's Call, it ended up getting to be about free.
I agree about Planetside in a BIG way. I did play it and pay for it, but unfortunately, it was too pricey for what amounted to a glorified version of Tribes 2. I would consider playing again, but they'd have to give me expansion items for free.
What I am talking about to make a character feel like someone is following a trichotomy where the three main "food groups" of MMORPGs rely on each other.
And no, contrary to public belief, the three are not: mage, ranged, melee. In fact, that's only the PvP way to look at it.
The three types of gamers that come to MMORPGs are the crafter, the competitor, and the achiever.
The crafter wants to simply be known for his crafts, and wants everyone to come to him or learn their crafting from him. These people can drive an economy.
The competitor wants to be feared. Or have everyone on the forums associated with such a game singing tales of their deeds. They want to be envied, reviled, and lauded on their might alone.
The achiever wants to accomplish something that gets the developers response, usually in some way of breaking or bugging the game. He or she doesn't care so much about the user's input as they do the developers.
There is also the griefer, who wants negative attention from the developers. They want to be a thorn in the side of the devs. Generally speaking, they are VERY few and far between. A *real* griefer will not talk to you in game, unless they are exploiting a chat bug.
Powergaming != PKing.
Get a clue. Seriously. Read any of my other 4 replies to the others who have somehow arrived at this conclusion.
Powergamers can be anyone, not simply "PKs". Diablo 1 is a horrible example, that game was nothing compared to Diablo II. It was not meant to be played online with anyone other than friends or enemies. It was certainly not meant to "meet" people. And this is not a fault of Blizzard, this is a fault of all the other competitive games of the same era. They had little to no community appeal.
Final Fantasy Online simplified it even more. Asheron's Call 2 has it simplified still more. It won't work, it fails, and people leave because they see nothing that they like after three to four months of play. Essentially, they "win" the game.
Power gamers are not necessarily PKrs. They can be hardcore crafters or undaunted explorers. WHY IS EVERYONE MISSING THIS?!!? Of all the responses to my post, half of them are people whining about PKr's. It's a friggen game, people.
Instead of "keeping up with the Joneses" is it now, "bringing them Joneses back down to our level"?
You see a man driving a Lexus. Do you think, "God, I wanna be like him someday," or do you think, "God, I can't wait till our countries tax laws make him dirt poor someday."?
You're fooling yourself if you think the Meritocrat is someone that cannot adapt. They are exactly who we idolize and yet loathe. They are far more paces ahead in the game than you ever will be, and the hinderances you try to create for them only serve to trip you up.
Like how your new Tauren Warrior in WoW drops in front of a Paladin? Your damage does literally nothing? Guess what, the developers *want* it that way. It'd be too powerful if you could kill the opposing melee class.
Wrong. You miss the point, EVERY gamer is a powergamer, they just intend to exceed in different areas. If you have a game where anyone and everyone can exceed your ability, with little or no work involved, then you get frustrated, upset, and quit. It's a guarantee.
I predict World of Warcraft will drop 25% of its current playerbase by 2006. Quite possibly 30%.
Wake up. Seriously.
UO is the *only* game to have PVP "required" other than Shadowbane and Planetside. It is ironic that 8 years later, we would have individuals still under the impression that PVP = griefing on weaklings.
Exactly how do you describe games like Counter-Strike? UT 2004, Tribes, Black and White, Starcraft, etc? They all have some form of attrition that get applied by one character to another.
The idea that you can have a fantasy world where everyone gains is what EQ2 and WoW are trying to embody. Yet there is no true reward. If everyone gets it, then no one truly wins. The idea that people actually walk away from a game like this happy, is ludicrous. You're paying 15 bucks a month for someone to blow kisses and brownnose you for a few hours a night while they do the same to the guy paying 15 bucks right next to you.
Turbine (maker of Asheron's Call) did a report to see how often their "GMs" and/or "Advocates" had to handle mitigation between two parties and help requests. The PvP and PK server, "Darktide" was in the order of three times less likely to have complaints or issues. An amazing feat since at the beginning of AC's inception, it had equal - if not %50 more - the number of players.
Fortunately for me, I happen to have played on Thistledown in AC and know exactly what happened: NOTHING in the long run. Despite your entire post, the plot and story continued, and not in Myth's favor. Which is why he left. I would know, I *KNEW* him, he cursed at me in my chat window. I was one of the first to kill him along with a guy named "DC" (you might recognize the name if you played on Thistledown) and some other guys, who were around his level when we hit Mayoi.
Everyone actually hated Mythrandia in their own way. Many also hated and respected him: like me, which was why it was such a victory for him to have won that. They (the devs) erected a statue in his favor, but that's it. And he left the game shortly after that event.
It's not the same as having a player craft a sword that is one day found again and requires his/her touch to be a great sword once again. I want to see the game where the adventurer (a PC) finds the sword that he takes to the original crafter(a PC) who makes it be the sword that takes down the great Bael'Zharon(a PC).
That's the real ultimate game.
GOOG is a good example of things not changing. Just look at the money Brin is making off you suckers:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=GOOG
Disclaimer: I am a former Blizzard "fanboi". I quit that position with the ill-fated release of Diablo 2, where I had a scratched CD and Battle.net was down for the first month of gameplay.
What is so great about PvP in games other than WoW is that you have an impact and can make a name for yourself. You *are* the school bully, if even for only a few months. Everyone knows you, and some may even fear you. Others might have bested you, and gloat in their accomplishments.
In WoW PvP, you've got about 300 school bullies, none of them are unique, and no one really fears any of them. Since they are all pretty much nameless, you can't tell the one that turns tail and runs back to the guards from the one that stands up to fight. As time goes on, you realize that those that stay and fight become less and less active, simply because the game is *so* balanced and there is absolutely no reward for PvP, that it is ridiculously lame.
Blizzard is notorious for killing "powergamers". Unfortunately, these people are what make MMORPGs fun. You get rid of the powergamer, and you get rid of the idea that someone can make a name for themself in a virtual world. And, IMHO, making a name for yourself in a virtual world is what MMORPGs are all about.
You know, you just said what Libertarians and true Republican Capitalists have been trying to say for years. Yes, I'm a Libertarian, yes, I'm pro-capitalism, but no, I do not think it is right that any company gets to have government entities working as bodyguards during big events by claiming a "terrorist attack" might happen at the site they plan to have the event at.
Oh great, one of *these* people.
Yes, it is so horrible that "human nature" includes such things as a mother wanting to care for her child and the idea of "owning" something.
A quote from the Communist Manifesto: Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
Damn me if I don't see my mother raising me as any more exploitation than the fact I was raised in a public school to champion the "government educational system". What a crock.
The problem with communism isn't just human nature, it's biggest problem is that it isn't scalable. As it gets bigger, and those on the fringes are more and more vehement, there is no alernative for communism other than to eliminate them.
I'd be on the fringes talking about how great it was when we had private property and didn't have to petition a government to simply eat.
...a buddy of mine told me about this story and I was so excited to read it I came to slashdot.org and got:
503 Service Unavailable
The service is not available. Please try again later.
I guess that answers the age old question of Slashdot being able to Slashdot itself.
... the only problem with having mod points for this article and comments is that I don't know enough to tell which ones are informative and which ones are trolls.
The day we stop spammers is the day we stop file traders. I'd rather keep both. I can mitigate spam.
Ironically, like "ants" do. They use a technology a lot like pheremones with ants to track instances. It works kind of like a web, with each node being a computer.
Take the following: Computers A through G. Each has a corresponding instance 1 through 7 respectively. No one knows that A is 1, B is 2, though. They are unique identifiers.
B knows it is 2, so it sends to those it is connected with that "2 is looking for 6". C is one such computer. It get the message and relays it to the others, D and E, that it knows, and says, "2 is looking for 6". D and E both send out to who they know. When G finally gets it it says, "tell 2 that 6 is here". And then the message thus gets repeated back.
A message could take a large number of hops before it gets to its destination. But the neat thing is that it is anonymous in that every computer acts as if it is just relaying a message for someone else. Even if they are the intended receipient. That's what makes it unique. And truly anonymous.
Now, there are ways to kind of eliminate and pinpoint who is who, but it's very difficult to do. It's also very difficult for those sharing files to get good transfer speeds (or at least comparable to BitTorrent). But it doesn't matter if people care solely about anonymity, which more and more do.
While this is a great case, there are now P2P technologies that furthur complicate matters for the RIAA. Like the technology that powers MUTE
This method, however, does slow the rate at which files are obtained. But for a lot of users, the extra security is worth the extra couple of hours.
/"We took a game that only had 100 or 200 players at one time and had over 200,000 people play over a 24 hour period," he said. "Watching thousands and thousands of people play the game and join the world was emotionally crippling."/
Having 200,000 people play wasn't just emotionally crippling. I imagine it would be "server" crippling too.