Why PvP?

(Warning, double text wall ahead.)

Cool, I should have taken that test before.

My results for the Bartle Test are basically almost 100% Explorer, with Achiever and Socialiser tied below that with close to 50% each, and Killer close to 0%. At the same time my Gamer DNA profile has my exploration trait at +100%, while my competitive drive is 90% negative.

At the same time my play style matches Wikipedia's description of the explorer almost completely. Even the part about aiming at unusual objectives just to see if I can beat them - for example, playing through a whole Zelda game without using potions, faeries, or dying. Also, my tendency to abandon games, including very popular ones, the moment I feel bored with them, while I might spend a really long time delving into lesser known (or older) games.

The original Bartle paper is also interesting, though clearly dated (it deals with MUDs and pre-dates UO's launch). "Sometimes, particularly annoying explorers will simply ignore a killer's attack, and make no attempt whatsoever to defend against it; this is the ultimate in cruelty to killers." - he seems to be describing me a whole decade before I started using that strategy

(I laughed out loudly when I was reading about the influence of each kind of player on the other kinds and came upon the following sentence: "Occasionally, flame wars between different cliques of socialisers and achievers may break out, and these can be among the worst to stop: the achievers don't want to lose the argument, and the socialisers don't want to stop talking! " )

@PrimeRib

Actually, if you go by the "official" definition, being a "killer" isn't really about engaging in PvP for the sake of PvP, but rather about imposing one's will over other players. PvP - specially non-consensual PvP - is merely the most common way to do that, even more enticing if killing other players brings enough rewards for the killer to not have to worry about the rest of the game. But both PvP is not the only outlet of killers, nor everyone interested in PvP is a Killer.

Enjoying PvP for the sake of PvP is not tied to the Killer archetype. Heck, I scored close to 0% killer, and I do love (fully consensual) PvP for the sake of PvP, PvP just for the fun of it. As long as I'm in the mood to engage in PvP, and the game somehow assures me that everyone else participating also wants to engage in PvP, I tend to love PvP.

To be honest, I actually find PvP to be more fun when there are no rewards for winning and no penalties for losing. Offering too many rewards for participating, or winning, in PvP actually drives me away from the PvP element, due to attracting to PvP players that are more interested in getting the rewards than in having fun playing PvP (and, if the rewards make me feel like a second class citizen when not participating in PvP, also drive me away from the game as a whole).

BTW, I have little interest in a game where earning the rewards I want involves defeating other players; or, in other words, a game where I have to exclude some other player from the reward in order to get the reward myself. My motivation for playing is to share the experience, never to deprive other players from it. When you ask "What kind of game does interest you?", my answer is a game where one player's success don't prevent other players from getting rewards. I'm interested in playing together with other players, not in competing against them.

This, plus the fact I'm more interested in being able to access all PvE content than in actual social interaction in game, is why I'm prone to just give up on playing online, and instead play exclusively offline, if actual PvE game content is used as exclusive rewards for winning in PvP.

I don't call content those things usually associated with rewards, though. I don't care about exclusive titles, skins, items that are not necessary to access part of the content, etc; they are just futile arrangements of bits for those that require bragging rights to have fun, and as long as not having them don't impair my access to content, I see no need to go after them.

(Also, are you a Achiever/Killer in the Bartle Test? Your proposal seems custom tailored for that kind of player, with little regard for Explorers.)

@Ultima Aficionado

<blockquote>The best analogy I guess is playing poker. No other game adds that amount of excitement since the original days of Ultima Online. The only problem with that game was the lack of safe zones for the players who were unskilled/uninterested in PvP.</blockquote>

- Not everyone is a gambler. I myself flat out refuse to gamble, since I see no fun or excitement that; I don't think I've spent a single cent in betting, gambling, etc, in my adult life. I do like a friendly card game without gambling, though.

- I'm not interested, at all, in safe zones in the sense most people talk about. I want the most challenging PvE content the game can throw at me, I want the NPCs trying to kill me at every corner, with enough intensity and drive to actually succeed if I ever blink at the wrong time. I just don't want PvP getting in the way.

@Caledor

<blockquote>If someone has killer as the lowest attribute on that test, there might not be a way to get them to do PvP. If they want to join a faction it shouldn?t make them do PvP.</blockquote>

Actually, Killer is about forcing one's will over other players, not actually about participating in PvP.

Someone with "Killer" as the lowest attribute is unlikely to ever willingly subject himself to non-consensual PvP or to attack another player he isn't sure wants to engage in PvP, but there's nothing preventing that kind of player from engaging in fully consensual PvP.

 

@lordrex

I suggest you read the original paper (at http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm ). You got a lot of things wrong.

<blockquote>Killers: ?want PvP because it?s fun?</blockquote>
More like "want to beat other players, and want those other players to care about the fact they were beaten".
<blockquote>- pk player: yes, most challenge possible.</blockquote>
Actually, this is the achiever. The pure Killer wants to kill, with as little risk of defeat as possible.
<blockquote>- pvp player: yes, but with some rules that allow you to opt in
- pve player: ok, willing to tolerate pk/pvp as part of the game but mostly avoids it and sometimes enjoys it here and there. probably when in a large comfortable group
- pve-only player: does not enjoy player competition, is often bothered by it, avoids it religiously</blockquote>
Those don't make much sense for pure Killers in the original sense; being a Killer is about being able to influence other players against their wishes. A player that is uninterested in PK is not really a killer. Activities that don't involve PK are likely to only be done to the extent they are needed to support PK, or else in a way that fits the Killer's secondary archetype, if any.


<blockquote>Achievers: ?want it based on Risk vs Reward, or if it offers either a unique or faster path to some end?</blockquote>
Achievers actually care about whatever they are doing being a challenge, about being the best at what they do and being recognized for it. They don't want the path to the end to be easy because, otherwise, any "scrub" could achieve the same as them, reducing their "glory". They will also engage in PvP, even if they don't actually like it, for bonuses or as a shortcut to power.
<blockquote>- pk player: yes. all win or all loose. high risk high reward. all the time. everywhere. please please.</blockquote>
Achievers are about high risk high reward, all right. Achievers with a Killer influence are also prone to go kill the competition in order to have an edge in other aspects of the game; it's all about getting to the top and staying there.
<blockquote>- pvp player: yes, but with some rules and mechanics to ensure that people have some consistency in their behaviour, ? will not take ultimate risk of pk penalties</blockquote>
Actually, here it's likely to also be high risk, high reward, just with more control over when PvP combat happens.
<blockquote>- pve player: would like it available in some areas but mostly focuses on low risk low reward</blockquote>
Actually, still high risk, high reward, just in a PvE environment. This is the stereotypical Achiever, someone that is more interested in beating the game than in interacting with other players, but tolerates some measure of PvP because it weeds out "lesser" achievers.
<blockquote>- pve-only player: as long as there is no human intelligence involved, ok. monsters, AI, quests, but no pk/pvp</blockquote>
About right. According to Bartle's paper, Achievers are typically driven away by killers, and this would simply be an achiever with a very low tolerance for killers.


<blockquote>Explorers: ?want it to unlock some end game content that cannot be achieved through other means?</blockquote>
The stereotypical Explorers are about experiencing the game to the fullest possible extent, both the game world and the rules. Locking parts of the game behind gates is a way to appease Achievers, not Explorers. Also, Explorers are typically anathema to Killers, so much that, according to Bartle, increasing the number of Explorers tend to decrease the number of Killers.
BTW, pure Explorers don't care about being defeated or killed. They might care about losing access to things they had before, but that's it.
<blockquote>- pk player: yeah, but so far this just doesn?t happen in any games properly. (please, Richard, please.)</blockquote>
Pure Explorers might engage in PK for the experience, but it's not common and shouldn't last when it happens, otherwise the player is a Killer and not an Explorer. PKing others is counterproductive to the typical Explorer, and being PKed is typically an unwanted distraction.
<blockquote>- pvp player: happy in this area, most games cater to them with special pvp gear, pvp currency, pvp rewards, etc.</blockquote>
PvP rewards are there to engage achievers, not explorers; it's the reward part of "high risk, high reward". Explorers want PvP for the experience of engaging in PvP. Which, incidentally, is how I engage in PvP.
<blockquote>- pve player: happy with this? they can always switch to pvp for a challenge between expansion packs and stuff</blockquote>
Again, caring about Challenge is more an Achiever trait than an Explorer one. But Explorers are typically fine with a bit of PvP in their PvE; explorers don't typically care about being defeated, sometimes going to the extreme of not even fighting back when attacked. This is how I behave when the penalty for PvP death is light and non-consensual PvP is rare enough to not be more than a nuisance.
<blockquote>- pve-only player: what u mean i cant have my cake and eat it too? bah humbug!
</blockquote>
Explorers are about experiencing the game. If PvP gets in the way of explorers experiencing a different part of the game, it's just natural for them to want to completely avoid PvP. This is how I play games where the penalty for being defeated in PvP gets in the way of playing other parts of the game, and if I can't opt out of all PvP, then I leave the game instead.



<blockquote>Socializers: ?want it to play with their friends, make new friends, and to have stories to tell about their enemies.?</blockquote>
Very much this, though for a pure Socialiser "play with friends" is more like "chat with friends".
<blockquote>- pk player: pks are the most social players in the game in general. they thrive on social interaction and ignore NPCs as background noise. with UO in particular this was the case, because the game mechanics pretty much disabled interaction with NPCs and forced you into interacting with players for everything, or simply denied game features to PKs as a penalty. once you got used to interacting with humans for everything you wouldn?t miss it.</blockquote>
PK is actually anathema to Socialisers. A Socialiser wants to engage other players in constructive, and mutually pleasing, ways; a PK wants to beat his opponents into submission. If someone PKs to any meaningful extent, it's a safe bet he is not a Socialiser.
<blockquote>- pvp player: just like the pks without the negatives/penalties. mostly avoid any AI
- pve player: most are social, some are not, generally keep to the pve crowds and sometimes interact with the pk/pvp crowd for some spice and variety
</blockquote>
The Socialiser's PvP interactions are likely to be those of whichever other affinity the Socialiser has. They are likely to be consensual ones, though, given how Socialisers want mutually pleasing experiences.
<blockquote>- pve-only player: likes to socialize in a sandbox similar to a single player game with multi player chat and some shared target collaboration against AI. enjoys non combat socialization for the most part.</blockquote>
A socialiser is more interested in consensual interaction with other players than in progressing in (Achiever drive), or exploring (Explorer drive), the game. They might even dispense the game altogether and keep only the chat. This is actually the stereotypical Socialiser.

 

Yes. I've read the original. While I don't love any of these breakdowns, I use it as a way to generate empathy for players with very different points of view.

Myself, I'm basically an achiever and balanced on everything else. In a zero sum game, I will become a killer. In a prisoner's dilemma scenario, I'm looking for that cooperative equilibrium. I'm an explorer in the sense that I'm an altaholic.

 

http://www.gamerdna.com/quizzes/bartle-test-of-gamer-psychology

Killer: 73%, Achiever: 60%, Socializer: 40%, Explorer: 27%

 

Why PVP for me is not about seeing who is the better fighter.
To me it is to find out who is good and evil in the game.
If that means Red vs Blue like in UO, so be it.

What I don't like is blues (like in UO) doing the pking.
Meaning I want to know if a player is a pker if I run into him.

 

@jondavis, being attacked by blues was pretty rare from my experience in UO. About the only time I remember it happening is if you were careless, and got flagged unintentionally, such as casting a firewall or a blade spirit around people you didn't know. They'd run through your firewall, you'd get flagged, and then you'd get ganked.

Hopefully, the SotA dev team will keep this in mind, and minimize unintended side effects like this. Even so, if you are flagged for PvP, you should be like the United States Marines. Be polite. Be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet.

 

@PrimeRib

Yeah, the Bartle archetypes are awfully vague. Take a Killer, for example, and his main selection of targets; a Killer that prefers to kill Achievers is very different from a Killer who targets Socialisers, who in turn is very different from a Killer that targets other Killers.

My take on those archetypes is that every one of them has multiple motivations, things that draw the player towards that archetype, and how much a player fits a specific archetype depends on how many of those motivations drive him, and to which intensity. A 100% Killer, for example, would be someone with the motivation to target every kind of player.

Take the Achiever archetype as a further example. I can see at least three motivations for Achievers: facing, and beating, challenges; getting the rewards from beating said challenges; and bragging about what he has achieved. In my own case, I have the first drive - beating challenges - but I mostly don't care about the rewards themselves (except where they are required for me to face further challenges), and I don't care at all about the bragging rights, making me somewhat of an achiever, but not completely.

Regarding your idea, it uses as one of the main drives to get players into the content the desire of exclusivity, the desire of excluding other players from "your" content. That is basically a Killer motivation, with a bit of Achiever (the competition to see who is the best) thrown in for good measure. The problem is that, as far as I can tell, this motivation not only don't entice Explorers or Socialisers, it might effectively drive them away from that content - as far as I can tell, both Socialisers and Explorers want, as a matter of fact, to share their experiences with others, so preventing other players from experiencing something should not be pleasant to them.

It's how I see your idea, anyway. And why I divide the rewards in your typical proposals into content - in other words, things that the player experiences - and rewards in a more strict sense - the things that mainly confer bragging rights. Having content as an exclusive reward, only accessible to the group of players that is currently "winning", makes me feel like I'm hurting other players merely by taking part, so it would prevent me from actually engaging in your proposed system; but if the rewards for winning were mainly bragging rights then I would have no reservations about taking part, and while I likely wouldn't stay for long - bragging rights and competition just don't drive me - I might participate, for a time, just for the experience, for the fun of it.

It's also why I would rather play offline than play online if exclusive content, content that for a player to enjoy he has to prevent everyone else from enjoying, is present in the game to any meaningful amount. Not only that would get in my way when I'm trying to experience everything the game has to offer, getting a hold on that content would require intentionally preventing other players from experiencing it, something that is really unpleasant for me. Given the existence of the offline game, where I can experience everything, without other players getting in the way and without depriving other players of the experience, in that situation playing offline would become clearly more pleasant for me.

 

@Owain, yea getting attacked by a blue never happened at first but somewhere in there (maybe after a matter of time) the pkers were able to go blue again.

Once that happened I got killed by more blues then reds.
Maybe cause of trusting blues to much.

Or maybe it was the?exceptional armor I had on all the time. ? Easily replaced.

 

@jondavis, Every red could go blue whenever they wanted, right from the very start. Each murder count took eight hours of game time to evaporate (if I remember correctly). Once you got below 5 'counts', you went blue, but if your count ever went over 5, you were red again.

Most PKs couldn't wait 8 hours of game time between kills, so if you were killed by more blues than reds, maybe it's because you just have that kind of face, or something. It certainly wasn't typical on UO:Siege Perilous.