Who Are You?

[khelben 0]

PLAYER INTERACTIONS

 

What follows is a brief explanation of how players predominantly of one type view those other players whom they perceive to be predominantly of one type. Warning: these notes concern stereotypical players, and are not to be assumed to be true of any individual player who might otherwise exhibit the common traits of one or more of the player classes.

 

The effects of increasing and decreasing the various populations is also discussed, but this does not take into account physical limitations on the amount of players involved. Thus, for example, if the number of socialisers is stated to have "no effect" on the number of achievers, that disregards the fact that there may be an absolute maximum number of players that the MUD can comfortably hold, and the socialisers may be taking up slots which achievers could otherwise have filled. Also, the knock-on effects of other interactions are not discussed at this stage: a game with fewer socialisers means the killers will seek out more achievers, for example, so there is a secondary effect of having fewer achievers even though there is no primary effect. This propogation of influences is, however, examined in detail afterwards, when the first-level dynamics have been laid bare.

 

ACHIEVERS V. ACHIEVERS

 

Achievers regard other achievers as competition to be beaten (although this is typically friendly in nature, rather than cut-throat). Respect is given to those other achievers who obviously are extraordinarily good, but typically achievers will cite bad luck or lack of time as reasons for not being as far advanced in the game as their contemporaries.

 

That said, achievers do often co-operate with one another, usually to perform some difficult collective goal, and from these shared experiences can grow deep, enduring friendships which may surpass in intensity those commonly found among individuals other groups. This is perhaps *spam*agous to the difference between the bond that soldiers under fire share and the bond that friends in a bar share.

 

Achievers do not need the presence of any other type of player in order to be encouraged to join a MUD: they would be quite happy if the game were empty but for them, assuming it remained a challenge (although some do feel a need to describe their exploits to anyone who will listen). Because of this, a MUD can't have too many achievers, physical limitations excepted.

 

ACHIEVERS V. EXPLORERS

 

Achievers tend to regard explorers as losers: people who have had to resort to tinkering with the game mechanics because they can't cut it as a player. Exceptionally good explorers may be elevated to the level of eccentric, in much the same way that certain individuals come to be regarded as gurus by users of large computer installations: what they do is pointless, but they're useful to have around when you need to know something obscure, fast. They can be irritating, and they rarely tell the whole truth (perhaps because they don't know it?), but they do have a place in the world.

 

The overall number of explorers has only a marginal effect on the population of achievers. In essence, more explorers will mean that fewer of the really powerful objects will be around around for the achievers to use, the explorers having used their arcane skills to obtain them first so as to use them in their diabolical experiments... This can cause achievers to become frustrated, and leave. More importantly, perhaps, the number of explorers affects the rate of advancement of achievers, because it determines whether or not they have to work out all those tiresome puzzles themselves. Thus, more explorers will lead to a quicker rise through the ranks for achievers, which will tend to encourage them (if not overdone).

 

ACHIEVERS V. SOCIALISERS

 

Achievers merely tolerate socialisers. Although they are good sources of general hearsay on the comings and goings of competitors, they're nevertheless pretty much a waste of space as far as achievers are concerned. Typically, achievers will regard socialisers with a mixture of contempt, disdain, irritation and pity, and will speak to them in either a sharp or patronising manner. 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!

 

Changing the number of socialisers in a MUD has no effect on the number of achievers.

 

ACHIEVERS V. KILLERS

 

Achievers don't particularly like killers. They realise that killers as a concept are necessary in order to make achievement meaningful and worthwhile (there being no way to "lose" the game if any fool can "win" just by plodding slowly unchallenged), however they don't pesonally like being attacked unless it's obvious from the outset that they'll win. They also object to being interrupted in the middle of some grand scheme to accumulate points, and they don't like having to arm themselves against surprise attacks every time they start to play. Achievers will, occasionally, resort to killing tactics themselves, in order to cause trouble for a rival or to reap whatever rewards the game itself offers for success, however the risks are usually too high for them to pursue such options very often.

 

Increasing the number of killers will reduce the number of achievers; reducing the killer population will increase the achiever population. Note, however, that those general MUDs which nevertheless allow player-killing tend to do so in the belief that in small measure it is good for the game: it promotes cameraderie, excitement and intensity of experience (and it's the only method that players will accept to ensure that complete idiots don't plod inexorably through the ranks to acquire a degree of power which they aren't really qualified to wield). As a consequence, reducing the number of killers too much will be perceived as cheapening the game, making high achievement commonplace, and it will put off those achievers who are alarmed at the way any fool can "do well" just by playing poorly for long enough.

 

EXPLORERS V. ACHIEVERS

 

Explorers look on achievers as nascent explorers, who haven't yet figured out that there's more to life than pursuing meaningless goals. They are therefore willing to furnish them with information, although, like all experts, they will rarely tell the full story when they can legitimately give cryptic clues instead. Apart from the fact that they sometimes get in the way, and won't usually hand over objects that are needed for experiments, achievers can live alongside explorers without much friction.

 

Explorers' numbers aren't affected by the presence of achievers.

 

EXPLORERS V. EXPLORERS

 

Explorers hold good explorers in great respect, but are merciless to bad ones. One of the worst things a fellow explorer can do is to give out incorrect information, believing it to be true. Other than that, explorers thrive on telling one another their latest discoveries, and generally get along very well. Outwardly, they will usually claim to have the skill necessary to follow the achievement path to glory, but have other reasons for not doing so (eg. time, tedium, or having proven themselves already with a different persona). There are often superson who isn't popularions, though, that explorers are too theoretical in most cases, and wouldn't be able to put their ideas into practice on a day-to-day basis if they were to recast themselves in the achiever or killer mould.

 

Explorers enjoy the company of other explorers, and they will play more often if they have people around them to whom they can relate. Unfortunately, not many people have the type of personality which finds single-minded exploring a riveting subject, so numbers are notoriously difficult to increase. If you have explorers in a game, hold on to them!

 

EXPLORERS V. SOCIALISERS

 

Explorers consider socialisers to be people whom they can impress, but who are otherwise pretty well unimportant. Unless they can appreciate the explorer's talents, they're not really worth spending time with. There are some explorers who treat conversation as their specialist explorer subject, but these are very rare indeed; most will be polite and attentive, but they'll find some diversion if the conversation isn't MUD-related or if their fellow interlocutor is clearly way below them in the game-understanding stakes.

 

The explorer population is not directly affected by the size of the socialiser population.

 

EXPLORERS V. KILLERS

 

Explorers often have a grudging respect for killers, but they do find their behaviour wearisome. It's just so annoying to be close to finishing setting up something when a killer comes along and attacks you. On the other hand, many killers do know their trade well, and are quite prepared to discuss the finer details of it with explorers. Sometimes, an explorer may try attacking other players as an exercise, and they can be extremely effective at it. Explorers who are particularly riled by a killer may even decide to "do something about it" themselves. If they make such a decision, then it can be seriously bad news for the killer concerned: being jumped and trashed by a low-level (in terms of game rank) explorer can have a devastating effect on a killer's reputation, and turn them into a laughing stock overnight. Explorers do not, however, tend to have the venom or malice that true killers possess, nor will they continue the practice to the extent that they acquire a reputation of their own for killing.

 

The affect of killers on the explorer population is fairly muted, because most explorers don't particularly care if they get killed (or at least they profess not not). However, if it happens too often then they will become disgruntled, and play less frequently.

 

SOCIALISERS V. ACHIEVERS

 

Socialisers like achievers, because they provide the running soap opera about which the socialisers can converse. Without such a framework, there is no uniting cause to bring socialisers together (at least not initially). Note that socialisers don't particularly enjoy talking to achievers (not unless they can get them to open up, which is very difficult); they do, however, enjoy talking about them. A cynic might suggest that the relationship between socialisers and achievers is similar to that between women and men...

 

Increasing the achiever/socialiser ratio has only a subtle effect: socialisers may come to feel that the MUD is "all about" scoring points and killing mobiles, and some of them may therefore leave before matters "get worse". Decreasing it has little effect unless the number of active achievers drops to near zero, in which case new socialisers might find it difficult to break into established conversational groups, and thus decide to take their play elsewhere.

 

Note: although earlier it was stated that this paper does not address people who play MUDs for meta-reasons, eg. to learn how to program, I believe that their empirical behaviour with regard to the actions of other players is sufficiently similar to that of socialisers for the two groups to be safely bundled together when considering population dynamics.

 

SOCIALISERS V. EXPLORERS

 

Socialisers generally consider explorers to be sad characters who are desperately in need of a life. Both groups like to talk, but rarely about the same things, and if they do get together it's usually because the explorer wants to sound erudite and the socialiser has nothing better to do at the time.

 

The number of explorers in a MUD has no effect on the number of socialisers.

 

SOCIALISERS V. SOCIALISERS

 

A case of positive feedback: socialisers can talk to one another on any subject for hours on end, and come back later for more. The key factor is whether there is an open topic of conversation: in a game-like environment, the MUD itself provides the context for discussion, whether it be the goings-on of other players or the feeble attempts of a socialiser to try playing it; in a non-game environment, some other subject is usually required to structure conversations, either within the software of the MUD itself (eg. building) or without it (eg. "This is a support MUD for the victims of cancer"). Note that this kind of subject-setting is only required as a form of ice-breaker: once socialisers have acquired friends, they'll invariably find other things that they can talk about.

 

The more socialisers there are in a game, the more new ones will be attracted to it.

 

SOCIALISERS V. KILLERS

 

This is perhaps the most fractious relationship between player group types. The hatred that some socialisers bear for killers admits no bounds. Partly, this is the killers' own fault: they go out of their way to rid MUDs of namby-pamby socialisers who wouldn't know a weapon if one came up and hit them (an activity that killers are only too happy to demonstrate), and they will generally hassle socialisers at every opportunity simply because it's so easy to get them annoyed. However, the main reason that socialisers tend to despise killers is that they have completely antisocial motives, whereas socialisers have (or like to think they have) a much more friendly and helpful attitude to life. The fact that many socialisers take attacks on their personae personally only compounds their distaste for killers.

 

It could be argued that killers do have a positive role to play from the point of view of socialisers. There are generally two defences made for their existence: 1) without killers, socialisers would have little to talk about; 2) without evil as a contrast, there is no good. The former is patently untrue, as socialisers will happily talk about anything and everything; it may be that it helps provide a catalyst for long conversations, but only if it isn't an everyday occurrence. The second argument is more difficult to defend against (being roughly equivalent to the reason why God allows the devil to exist), however it presupposes that those who attack other players are the only example of nasty people in a MUD. In fact, there is plenty of opportunity for players of all persuasions to behave obnoxiously to one another; killers merely do it more openly, and (if allowed) in the context of the game world.

 

Increasing the number of killers will decrease the number of socialisers by a much greater degree. Decreasing the number of killers will likewise greatly encourage (or, rather, fail to discourage) socialisers to play the MUD.

 

KILLERS V. ACHIEVERS

 

Killers regard achievers as their natural prey. Achievers are good fighters (because they've learned the necessary skills against mobiles), but they're not quite as good as killers, who are more specialised. This gives the "thrill of the chase" which many killers enjoy - an achiever may actually be able to escape, but will usually succumb at some stage, assuming they don't see sense and quit first. Achievers also dislike being attacked, which makes the experience of attacking them all the more fun; furthermore, it is unlikely that they will stop playing after being set back by a killer, and thus they can be "fed upon" again, later. The main disadvantage of pursuing achievers, however, is that an achiever can get so incensed at being attacked that they decide to take revenge. A killer may thus innocently enter a game only to find a heavily-armed achiever lying in wait, which rather puts the boot on the other foot...

 

Note that there is a certain sub-class of killers, generally run by wiz-level players, who have a more ethical point to their actions. In particular, their aim is to "test" players for their "suitability" to advance to the higher levels themselves. In general, such personae should not be regarded as falling into the killer category, although in some instances the ethical aspect is merely an excuse to indulge in killing sprees without fear of sanction. Rather, these killers tend to be run by people in either the achievement category (protecting their own investment) or the explorer category (trying to teach their victims how to defend themselves against real killers).

 

Increasing the number of achievers will, over time, increase the number of killers in a typically Malthusian fashion.

 

KILLERS V. EXPLORERS

 

Killers tend to leave explorers alone. Not only can explorers be formidable fighters (with many obscure, unexpected tactics at their disposal), but they often don't fret about being attacked - a fact which is very frustrating for killers. 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. For more long-term effects, though, a killer's being beaten by an explorer has more impact on the game: the killer will feel shame, their reputation will suffer, and the explorer will pass on survival tactics to everyone else. In general, then, killers will steer well clear of even half-decent explorers, except when they have emptied a game of everyone else and are so desperate for a fix that even an explorer looks tempting...

 

Increasing the number of explorers will slightly decrease the number of killers.

 

KILLERS V. SOCIALISERS

 

Killers regard socialisers with undisguised glee. It's not that socialisers are in any way a challenge, as usually they will be pushovers in combat; rather, socialisers feel a dreadful hurt when attacked (especially if it results in the loss of their persona), and it is this which killers enjoy about it. Besides, killers tend to like to have a bad reputation, and if there's one way to get people to talk about you, it's to attack a prominent socialiser...

 

Increasing the number of socialisers will increase the number of killers, although of course the number of socialisers wouldn't remain increased for very long if that happened.

 

KILLERS V. KILLERS

 

Killers try not to cross the paths of other killers, except in pre-organised challenge matches. Part of the psychology of killers seems to be that they wish to be viewed as somehow superior to other players; being killed by a killer in open play would undermine their reputation, and therefore they avoid risking it (compare Killers v Explorers). This means that nascent or wannabe killers are often put off their chosen particular career path because they themselves are attacked by more experienced killers and soundly thrashed. For this reason, it can take a very long time to increase the killer population in a MUD, even if all the conditions are right for them to thrive; killer numbers rise grindingly slowly, unless competent killers are imported from another MUD to swell the numbers artificially.

 

Killers will occasionally work in teams, but only as a short-term exercise; they will usually revert to stalking their victims solo in the next session they play.

 

There are two cases where killers might be attacked by players who, superficially, look like other killers. One of these is the "killer killer", usually run by wiz-level players, which has been discussed earlier. The other is in the true hack-and-slash type of MUD, where the whole aim of the game is to kill other personae, and no-one particularly minds being killed because they weren't expecting to last very long anyway. This type of play does not appeal to "real" killers, because it doesn't cause people emotional distress when their personae are deleted (indeed, socialisers prefer it more than killers do). However, it's better than nothing.

 

The only effect that killers have on other killers is in reducing the number of potential victims available. This, in theory, should keep the number of killers down, however in practice killers will simply attack less attractive victims instead. It takes a very drastic reduction in the number of players before established killers will decide to stop playing a MUD and move elsewhere, by which time it is usually too late to save the MUD concerned.

[Guest kay0]

oh my, there's so much to read!

[khelben 0]

that was a small except from a paper on muds by richard battle, his whole paper can be found here.

 

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm

 

this defently applies to hb because everyone does fit in one of those four.

[Dimora 0]

wow dude u use as much time on forums as i use time in lvling my char <3

[khelben 0]

lol I am one of the big explorers in the game so I go around and find stuff like this to understand the player base better.

 

;)

[Garch 0]

I just want a definition of each. I dont want to read the comparisons if i dont know what each is.

[StarX 0]

i voted achiever... but i believe every players would have a bit of everything.. an explorer can eventually learnt new tactics and start being an achiever or killer..

 

besides to kill u need to get sufficient experience which i believe comes from exploring and socialising..

 

therefore those 4 personality should all relate to each other

 

different server i play i show different personality in game.. but it doesnt mean i am like this in real life..

 

 

 

and yea i have exam tmr and i wonder why i read everything

[khelben 0]

Note that although this MUD was one in which player-killing was allowed, the taxonomy which is about to be described does (as will be explained later) apply equally to "social" MUDs. The advice concerning changes which can be made to affect the player make-up of a MUD is, however, less useful to social MUDs, or to ones with a heavy role-playing component. Also, the original discussion concerned only non-administrative aspects of MUDding; people who might play MUDs to learn object-oriented programming, for example, are therefore not addressed by this paper.

 

The four things that people typically enjoyed personally about MUDs were:

 

i) Achievement within the game context.

 

Players give themselves game-related goals, and vigorously set out to achieve them. This usually means accumulating and disposing of large quantities of high-value treasure, or cutting a swathe through hordes of mobiles (ie. monsters built in to the virtual world).

 

ii) Exploration of the game.

 

Players try to find out as much as they can about the virtual world. Although initially this means mapping its topology (ie. exploring the MUD's breadth), later it advances to experimentation with its physics (ie. exploring the MUD's depth).

 

iii) Socialising with others.

 

Players use the game's communicative facilities, and apply the role-playing that these engender, as a context in which to converse (and otherwise interact) with their fellow players.

 

iv) Imposition upon others.

 

Players use the tools provided by the game to cause distress to (or, in rare circumstances, to help) other players. Where permitted, this usually involves acquiring some weapon and applying it enthusiastically to the persona of another player in the game world.

 

So, labelling the four player types abstracted, we get: achievers, explorers, socialisers and killers. An easy way to remember these is to consider suits in a conventional pack of cards: achievers are Diamonds (they're always seeking treasure); explorers are Spades (they dig around for information); socialisers are Hearts (they empathise with other players); killers are Clubs (they hit people with them).

 

Naturally, these areas cross over, and players will often drift between all four, depending on their mood or current playing style. However, my experience having observed players in the light of this research suggests that many (if not most) players do have a primary style, and will only switch to other styles as a (deliberate or subconscious) means to advance their main interest.

 

Looking at each player type in more detail, then:

 

i) Achievers regard points-gathering and rising in levels as their main goal, and all is ultimately subserviant to this. Exploration is necessary only to find new sources of treasure, or improved ways of wringing points from it. Socialising is a relaxing method of discovering what other players know about the business of accumulating points, that their knowledge can be applied to the task of gaining riches. Killing is only necessary to eliminate rivals or people who get in the way, or to gain vast amounts of points (if points are awarded for killing other players).

 

Achievers say things like:

 

"I'm busy."

"Sure, I'll help you. What do I get?"

"So how do YOU kill the dragon, then?"

"Only 4211 points to go!"

 

ii) Explorers delight in having the game expose its internal machinations to them. They try progressively esoteric actions in wild, out-of-the-way places, looking for interesting features (ie. bugs) and figuring out how things work. Scoring points may be necessary to enter some next phase of exploration, but it's tedious, and anyone with half a brain can do it. Killing is quicker, and might be a constructive exercise in its own right, but it causes too much hassle in the long run if the deceased return to seek retribution. Socialising can be informative as a source of new ideas to try out, but most of what people say is irrelevant or old hat. The real fun comes only from discovery, and making the most complete set of maps in existence.

 

Explorers say things like:

 

"Hmm..."

"You mean you don't know the shortest route from <obscure

room 1> to <obscure room 2>?"

"I haven't tried that one, what's it do?"

"Why is it that if you carry the uranium you get radiation

sickness, and if you put it in a bag you still get it, but if

you put it in a bag and drop it then wait 20 seconds and pick it

up again, you don't?"

 

iii) Socialisers are interested in people, and what they have to say. The game is merely a backdrop, a common ground where things happen to players. Inter-player relationships are important: empathising with people, sympathising, joking, entertaining, listening; even merely observing people play can be rewarding - seeing them grow as individuals, maturing over time. Some exploration may be necessary so as to understand what everyone else is talking about, and points-scoring could be required to gain access to neat communicative spells available only to higher levels (as well as to obtain a certain status in the community). Killing, however, is something only ever to be excused if it's a futile, impulsive act of revenge, perpetrated upon someone who has caused intolerable pain to a dear friend. The only ultimately fulfilling thing is not how to rise levels or kill hapless drips; it's getting to know people, to undertand them, and to form beautiful, lasting relationships.

 

Socialisers say things like:

 

"Hi!"

"Yeah, well, I'm having trouble with my boyfriend."

"What happened? I missed it, I was talking."

"Really? Oh no! Gee, that's terrible! Are you sure? Awful, just

awful!"

 

iv) Killers get their kicks from imposing themselves on others. This may be "nice", ie. busybody do-gooding, but few people practice such an approach because the rewards (a warm, cosy inner glow, apparently) aren't very substantial. Much more commonly, people attack other players with a view to killing off their personae (hence the name for this style of play). The more massive the distress caused, the greater the killer's joy at having caused it. Normal points-scoring is usually required so as to become powerful enough to begin causing havoc in earnest, and exploration of a kind is necessary to discover new and ingenious ways to kill people. Even socialising is sometimes worthwhile beyond taunting a recent victim, for example in finding out someone's playing habits, or discussing tactics with fellow killers. They're all just means to an end, though; only in the knowledge that a real person, somewhere, is very upset by what you've just done, yet can themselves do nothing about it, is there any true adrenalin-shooting, juicy fun.

 

Killers says things like:

 

"Ha!"

"Coward!"

"Die!"

"Die! Die! Die!"

 

(Killers are people of few words).

 

How many players typically fall within each area depends on the MUD. If, however, too many gravitate to one particular style, the effect can be to cause players of other persuasions to leave, which in turn may feed back and reduce the numbers in the first category. For example, too many killers will drive away the achievers who form their main prey; this in turn will mean that killers will stop playing, as they'll have no worthwhile victims (players considered by killers to be explorers generally don't care about death, and players considered to be socialisers are too easy to pose much of a challenge). These direct relationships are discussed in more detail towards the end of this paper.

 

For the most part, though, the inter-relationships between the various playing styles are more subtle: a sharp reduction in the number of explorers for whatever reason could mean a gradual reduction in achievers, who get bored if they're not occasionally told of different hoops they can jump through for points; this could affect the number of socialisers (the fewer players there are, the less there is to talk about), and it would certainly lower the killer population (due to a general lack of suitable victims).

 

Making sure that a game doesn't veer off in the wrong direction and lose players can be difficult; administrators need to maintain a balanced relationship between the different types of player, so as to guarantee their MUD's "feel". Note that I am not advocating any particular form of equalibrium: it is up to the game administrators themseles to decide what atmosphere they want their MUD to have, and thus define the point at which it is "balanced" (although the effort required to maintain this desired state could be substantial). Later, this paper considers means by which a MUD can be pushed in different directions, either to restore an earlier balance between the player types, to define a new target set of relationships between the player types, or to cause the interplay between the player types to break down entirely

[TDot 0]

without even reading it , i clicked Killer. Then i read it, and yea, i'd consider myself "Killer".

[Garch 0]

Achiever/Socialiser

 

More socialiser than achiever these days tho...

[Dimora 0]

hmmmmmm 60% achiever/30% killer, the rest is unknown

[~elguason 0]

im 100% noob

[Kefka 0]

all and none

[Giggles 0]

I love exploring the game and lvling not really into the killing people part of the game but when I do get an EK im amazed and thrilled.

[Sid 0]

i voted achiever because i like to go on hunts and complete goals, and meet people who wont screw up a raid. but i am also a killer, however my hardcore killer days are over because i don't have the time. raiding in groups allows for dps to a victim faster than they can chug pots (in HB). gank squad2win. i also socialize when i dont have the time (or theres no raid time).

 

i think you forgot a few categories:

 

MERCHANTS. those people that spend their time trading and gathering personal wealth in the game, feeding off noobs who dont know the price or worth of items.

 

NOOBS should also be a category. These kind of people could play a game their whole life and still not know what the hell is going on. They are clueless in every game they play but they still insist on playing them.

 

STRATEGISTS. These are the elite of the achievers. They spend their time planning elaborate methods to defeat bosses and other difficult tasks. They usually complete their goals in the game and move on to another game if no new bosses or goals are created (such as the people who first figured out how to down a TW with a tank and bows, wyn's with all mages, etc).

 

PARASITE: They are like the noob only in the sense that they are greedy and lazy. They will talk to everyone and find the people most likely to give them items, power level them, and basically do all the work. They are sometimes stupid but when they aren't they rely on social skills and opportunity to get ahead. Some activities of the parasite also include ninja looting boss drops, manipulating people into giving them items, and sometimes more maliciously destroying items or giving them to an enemy. I label these that give items to the enemy SPIES, altho spies are few and far between.

 

GUIDES: senior members of the EXPLORERS. They play to help others learn the game, acquire items, and can tell you almost anything about the game.

 

stupid: People like my friend Billy who play games like Maple Story and run around all day looking for the "coolest looking person" so they can fame them -_-

[StarX 0]

im more strategist :P

 

i like pvp but not a big fan of it..

 

lvling im alright if i have time i know where to lvl

 

but i am a big big fan of hunting huge monster:)..

 

was a guildmaster for 4 years atleast and hunted 64 hc in 1 day :).. in a 140 max lvl 250 max stat server

 

omgosh im bragging

 

anyway exam in 1 hour :(

 

anyway hunting big monster is not about u downing them :)..

 

is when a team work tgr.. and listen to the guildmaster to fight in the most effective ways with the most effective strategies that brings the fun out of it :)..

 

cheers

[khelben 0]

Sid I love those subcatagoies of players but that is what they are is Sub catagoies of the 4 types of players.

 

your merchents are Achivers

 

your Noobs are Achivers and or socialites

 

your STRATEGISTS are as you stated achivers

 

The PARASITE would fall under killers considering they would latch onto a killer as their mentor hence the spy thing.

 

the GUIDES: members of the EXPLORERS.

 

and the stupid: this is the ultimate example of a socialite.

 

They all fall into the subcatories, I again state I love those choices but they do fall under the main choices.

 

i voted achiever because i like to go on hunts and complete goals, and meet people who wont screw up a raid. but i am also a killer, however my hardcore killer days are over because i don't have the time. raiding in groups allows for dps to a victim faster than they can chug pots (in HB). gank squad2win. i also socialize when i dont have the time (or theres no raid time).

 

i think you forgot a few categories:

 

MERCHANTS. those people that spend their time trading and gathering personal wealth in the game, feeding off noobs who dont know the price or worth of items.

 

NOOBS should also be a category. These kind of people could play a game their whole life and still not know what the hell is going on. They are clueless in every game they play but they still insist on playing them.

 

STRATEGISTS. These are the elite of the achievers. They spend their time planning elaborate methods to defeat bosses and other difficult tasks. They usually complete their goals in the game and move on to another game if no new bosses or goals are created (such as the people who first figured out how to down a TW with a tank and bows, wyn's with all mages, etc).

 

PARASITE: They are like the noob only in the sense that they are greedy and lazy. They will talk to everyone and find the people most likely to give them items, power level them, and basically do all the work. They are sometimes stupid but when they aren't they rely on social skills and opportunity to get ahead. Some activities of the parasite also include ninja looting boss drops, manipulating people into giving them items, and sometimes more maliciously destroying items or giving them to an enemy. I label these that give items to the enemy SPIES, altho spies are few and far between.

 

GUIDES: senior members of the EXPLORERS. They play to help others learn the game, acquire items, and can tell you almost anything about the game.

 

stupid: People like my friend Billy who play games like Maple Story and run around all day looking for the "coolest looking person" so they can fame them -_-

[Sid 0]

lol maybe your right. well i had fun writing em out. there like...more specific examples of the people you see in games around you. and by the way StarX, killing a lot of boss monsters in one day isnt what im talking about when i say strategists. strategists by now have long since figured out HB bosses, their strategies are what we use every time we go out and hunt. in WOW, every time a new instance is open, a strategists, or group of strategists are the people who struggle to figure out all the complex crap, like "oh if the monster starts blinking shes gonna do a AOE spell that takes you down to 1 hp, we need all healers to...blah blah blah". they are only around for the beginning of the game, or if they stumble upon a game that already has a strategy, they figure it out for themselves.

[StarX 0]

lol maybe your right. well i had fun writing em out. there like...more specific examples of the people you see in games around you. and by the way StarX, killing a lot of boss monsters in one day isnt what im talking about when i say strategists. strategists by now have long since figured out HB bosses, their strategies are what we use every time we go out and hunt. in WOW, every time a new instance is open, a strategists, or group of strategists are the people who struggle to figure out all the complex crap, like "oh if the monster starts blinking shes gonna do a AOE spell that takes you down to 1 hp, we need all healers to...blah blah blah". they are only around for the beginning of the game, or if they stumble upon a game that already has a strategy, they figure it out for themselves.

 

i begin my helbreath with lil exp in the other server.. and started my guild which small hunt.. then big monster came along.. and we did lots of planning.. even putting potion on floor and check out the hit poitns and dmg and etc..

 

finally in 3 months we came out with the msot appropriate way:) thats why 64 hc down:)

 

is that strategis?

[Sid 0]

lol maybe your right. well i had fun writing em out. there like...more specific examples of the people you see in games around you. and by the way StarX, killing a lot of boss monsters in one day isnt what im talking about when i say strategists. strategists by now have long since figured out HB bosses, their strategies are what we use every time we go out and hunt. in WOW, every time a new instance is open, a strategists, or group of strategists are the people who struggle to figure out all the complex crap, like "oh if the monster starts blinking shes gonna do a AOE spell that takes you down to 1 hp, we need all healers to...blah blah blah". they are only around for the beginning of the game, or if they stumble upon a game that already has a strategy, they figure it out for themselves.

 

i begin my helbreath with lil exp in the other server.. and started my guild which small hunt.. then big monster came along.. and we did lots of planning.. even putting potion on floor and check out the hit poitns and dmg and etc..

 

finally in 3 months we came out with the msot appropriate way:) thats why 64 hc down:)

 

is that strategis?

 

hey im not the official judge, as long as your havin fun. i think every player is a little bit of everything from time to time. i tried downing a wyn with 3 mages on nemesis 1. we stocked up with pots, it took forever, and in the end, 4 people is the minimum you need for a relatively quick kill, which we also did. 3 would have taken all day if it had worked.

[Guest bateador]

means that increasing the number of killers will decrease the number of achievers.

 

+ <------------ +

- <------------ -

killers + ------------> - achievers

- + + - - ------------> +

^ ^ | | - + ++ ++ --

| | | | ^ ^ \ / /

| | | | | \ \ / /

| | | | \ \ X /

| | | | \ \/ X

| | | | \ / \/ \

| | | | / \ / \ \

| | | | / / \ \ \

| | | | / / \ \ \

| | | | | / \ \ |

| | v v v v \ | v

- + --++ - - ++ -- -

socialisers explorers

+ - - + + +

^ ^ | | ^ |

| | | | | |

\ \___/ / \___/

\___/

 

A graphical version of the figure appears at the end of the paper.

 

nice pic

[khelben 0]

yes that is what is used to determine how to tweak a game

 

the more people who vote the better a snapshot of nemesis Sexybitch will have to know which way she needs to tweek next update.

 

and dont think for one minute she is ignoreing the forum she is watching.

[Garch 0]

So are killers just douchebags that try to ruin the game for other people, or have i just made a wild assumption?

[khelben 0]

for the most part they are all the douche bags as you called them are, but the killers are also those that are EK crazy those who try to get to the top of the EK list, the scorpian pit champions, the shop campers, those whose whole life in the game is just the pvp aspect, the only reason they hunt at all is for the weapons and armor to pvp with.

[TDot 0]

hmmm but i'd say, im just a *meanie* :). I dont camp, I just play hb just for the sole purpose of EKing and for the PVP. I dont care about hunting much, nor do i care about anything else. All i really care about is making people eat grass :).

 

And yeah, i do talk (to talk ****) but thats mainly it.

 

So hmmm, yeah i think i AM a killer, but i always thought what i was was realy considered "killer" and not the scorp heroes, and noobs. =\ because they are the ones that usually 'get killed'.

 

Honestly, i think eking is the FUNNEST part of the game , but maybe thats just me =\