Jump to content

Bartle Types and the Predictability of Ilum Rage


ArdoNorrin

Recommended Posts

Warning: This is a VERY long post, which really can't be summarized with a TL;DR

 

For those of you not familiar with the Bartle Test, it's based on a character theory based on the observations of Richard Bartle, the father of online multiplayer gaming (co-creator of the first MUD in the late 70s). In a paper he wrote in the mid-90s, right as the first "modern" MMORPGs were launching, Bartle observed that there were four types of players in MUDs (which has played out in MMOs), based on two axes ("players/World" & "Interacting with/acting on"):

  • Achievers -- these players have set goals to achieve (sometimes set by the game, sometimes not)
  • Explorers -- these players enjoy both experiencing the game world, the lore, and so on, as well as unraveling the mechanics of the game
  • Socializers -- these players really could care less about the game itself so much as they care about chatting with the people in it
  • Killers -- these players enjoy conflict with other players, whether in combat, business, or conversation

 

Each type has a "positive" behavior set and a "negative" behavior set. Postive Explorers seek to unravel the game's secrets and share with others (Dulfy is probably SWTOR's most famous Explorer); Negative Explorers figure out all the exploits and hacks. Positive Achievers help push the envelope and keep everyone else motivated, whether in PVE or PVP (Ranked PVP is built for the person with high affinities towards Killer and Achiever); Negative Achievers utilize the expolits and hacks to get there first at all costs. Postive Socializers form guilds and communities, and work to bring people together; Negative Socializers are cliquish "mean girl" types who like to decide who is worth socializing with. Positive Killers ("White Hats") tend to have an achiever bent, seeking out worthy opponents and challenges, or a socializer bent, focusing on protecting others; Negative Killers ("Black Hats") want to kill but don't want a challenge, prefering weak or outnumbered opponents.

 

Bartle later noted a few problems -- one is that these player types don't always stay the same and the other is that there was an additional element of behavior that the original two-dimensional model didn't take into account. You can read about it here.

 

For the record, I'm a heavy Explorer, and have never really delved into the Killer area. On the sequences in the later article, I'm squarely in the "Explorer Track".

 

So... what does this have to do with Ilum Rage?

 

Well...

 

In the 1996 article, Bartle talks about the only 4 possible player populations that can assure stability/sustainability absent outside factors, one of which is the "null" scenario where no one plays. The other three populations are:

 

  1. A balance of Achievers & Killers -- the meat of a PVP server
  2. A four-type equilibrium, where a heavy population of Explorers -- the meat of a PVE server
  3. A Socializer-dominated population -- the meat of an RP server (this, in practice, has a secondary type that keeps it a "game" and not a "chat room", requiring either a type 1 or type 2 population underneath the Socializers; hence having "RP-PVE" and "RP-PVP" servers)

 

This happens because certain player types attract or repel others:

  • Explorers attract other Explorers and some Achievers and repel Killers
  • Achievers and Killers exist in some semblance of balance -- with too many or too few of one driving the others away
  • Socializers attract Killers (because they can spread their "reputation") and are attracted to Achievers (for juicy gossip); Additionally, Socializers like their own
  • Killers tend to drive others away, in varying degrees. In my observations, this tends to be more an effect of the Black Hats than the White Hats.

 

So, The Ebon Hawk is an RP-PVE server, meaining that it's a PVE server (Explorer-Acheiver-Killer balance) underneath a layer of Socializers. Because of the heavy mass of Socializers, you get an decent helping of Black Hats who come to either Grief or Troll the Socializers.

 

Now... we take an event (Socializer bait) rich with lore (Explorer bait) and drop a quest (Achiever bait) in the middle of a PVP zone (Killer bait). Explorers and Achievers MUST complete it, and the Socializers don't want to be left out. Your Black Hat killers see an opportunity and start attacking the Socializers and Achievers (in sufficient numbers to survive the Explorers and White Hat Killers, who tend to be the most skilled players), and the following things happen:

  1. Socializers QQ
  2. Achievers soldier on to at least complete the quest if they can, and will try to repeat it to build up the maximum number of rewards. If they can't, QQ.
  3. Explorers will put up with it a little while longer, but really only care about figuring out the particulars. They won't stress themselves out to repeat something they've already been through. If they can't complete it at all, QQ.
  4. White Hat Killers form armies of like-minded individuals and go on search-and-destroy missions for Black Hat Killers, because **** them.
  5. Black Hat Killers, killed by the White Hat Killers so that the Socializers, Achievers, and Explorers can complete their quests, QQ because someone other than them is having fun.

 

If you watch the forums, this is exactly what has happened. And the flame war that has resulted is a result of the clash of the Killer mindset and the other mindsets. And it's not just the Black Hats; the White Hats, Achievers, Explorers, and Socializers have trouble understanding the other mindsets, too. For the Black Hats, the opportunity for fun is to lay waste to everyone else. For the White Hats, the opportunity for fun is to lay waste to the Black Hats and get good fights from the other White Hats, Achievers, & Explorers who can fend for themselves. The Achiever has some fun in overcoming long odds to succeed, but can get frustrated when they can't succeed at all. The Explorer doesn't have much fun with this sort of activity unless they've also got a strong Killer side. The Socializer's fun is ruined the moment someone interrupts time with their friends (although Socializers with a strong Killer side can have fun banding together with the White Hats to "take back mid!").

 

Looking back on my guild's Bartle test thread, I noticed my comments on my Bartle type, including the line "I'm competitive, but I want other people to have fun, too." Combined with my almost negligible Killer score and prior MMO history, my reaction (overreaction, TBH) to the events on Ilum the last few days makes absolutely perfect sense. And considering a larger, server-wide perspective, everything else that has transpired is exactly what everyone should have expected.

 

So what has this event taught us?

 

Well, it's taught us who the Black Hats and White Hats on this server are, as well as (to a lesser extent) who the Socializers, Explorers, and Achievers are.

 

And I guess that's something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoyed the read.

 

And it also explains the types and why they do what they do.

 

I'm white killer kind of guy tbh, and thats prolly why I've been hateing all the black-hat premades out there.

I dont mind the premades from most guilds, but its those few "leet" who would actually fit imo more into a black hat killer type.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Outstanding thread, Ystrid! As someone who is almost exclusively an Achiever (and marginally a Socializer and Killer), the Ilum hubbub has been interesting to see, for sure, but unfortunately not enough to draw me out there. I'm really tempted to dive in if only to encourage Open World PvP (i.e. my Socializer streak), and getting some decent PvP on my fully PvE decked shadow would be an interesting challenge (Achiever + weak Killer). However, none of that is enough to really draw me in compared to the other things I do in the game.

 

So, I think the draw for Achievers really isn't high enough, which is a bit of a shame. I think I'll probably motor through and do the quests when the challenge is more about out-dueling roaming Guerillas and less about waiting for orb respawns. We'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loved the post and I agree with the analysis. I am a bit of a Black Hat, mixed with achiever. I have not participated on full out node "lock-down", but I usually will not wait in line to turn in an orb. I am quite willing to fight for the right to turning my orb in first. Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose (and my orb goes bye bye) but that is all part of the fun for me.

 

Good post and well explained.

Pravus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an Achiever my mission is to min/max my way to the best gear/reward outcome from the event. I honestly don't see much for Achievers to complain about in that regard. Veteran Achievers will have plenty of alts to grind rep and Helixes, which means our only reason to venture into PVP territory is to experience the PVP event dailies (Killer streak) or for completionist reasons (Explorer streak). Newbie Achievers are reassured the event will reoccur regularly, which should ease their anxiety about failing to reach their goals this time around.

 

Social types should be happy the important content (from an Achiever perspective) requires a large group. We need Helixes to acquire the BOL weapons, and Helixes are overwhelmingly acquired via Ops groups of 8 to 16 (or even 24). This gets Socializers and Achievers in the same place, constructively working toward goals that Explorers can get behind too. Meanwhile Killers amuse themselves in mid.

 

Since Achievers can't simply pool Helixes between alts, we're forced to grind out the group content over and over again. Hence there are plenty of people around for Socializers, and the most desirable rewards (BOL weapons) are equally obtainable for new/old/Achievers/non-Achievers alike.

 

Overall I think this event has been a great success, much better than the Scavenger Hunt, and I think people complaining about the PVP just like to complain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One can predict rage to occur as long as the internet exists and people still have differing opinions about anything.

 

P.S. predictions are supposed to be done before the event :p

 

Actually, behavioral theories are usually applied after the fact. Much of International Relations theory revolves around applying theories of realism to past events to determine or deny validity. Realism is sound theory that is capable of explaining most behavior, but it is not a useful tool for predicting how states will behave. This is because we have imperfect information before hand.

 

All that being said, I thought this post was an excellent examination of applying the tenets of a behavioral theory to the in game event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Outstanding thread. I think Bioware should note that a mix of the four archetypes tends to produce spectacular and controversial results - which despite the constant complaints about the event, is a recipe for success in my opinion.

 

I think this thread might be interesting enough that a repost in General Discussion might be worthwhile.

Edited by -Yui-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite common belief, people don't fit in little boxes with little labels.

 

Except in MMOs, people are playing the game for a reason. There are reasons people are the type of player they are.

 

Explorer's might be timid people who don't get out much so explore other things. Black Hat Killers might be people with violent outbursts or a tendency to be loud and alpha-male like. Socializers might be the ones who don't have many IRL friends so rely on people they meet in game to fill that void.

 

So on and so forth, you get the idea.

 

Generally speaking, people fit into boxes but it wholesomely or partially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Warning: This is a VERY long post, which really can't be summarized with a TL;DR

...................

So what has this event taught us?

 

People are divided in two categories:

1. People who think that people divided in two categories.

2. People who dont think that.

 

PS.

I think that Event is a success.

Maybe it should not last more than a week though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You imply that the white hats always win. So what happens if the black hats always win :rak_02:

 

Well, I suppose there are two slightly different answers to that question, depending on if you mean always win during the event, or always win as in all the time.

 

During the Event

If the Black Hats are perpetually winning, that likely means that the White Hats can't mount a sufficiently large force to dislodge them. Despite being the "positive" aspect of their type, the White Hats identify more strongly with the Black Hats than the Explorers, Achievers, and Socializers. Eventually, as they get frustrated, they, too, will turn to the QQ, most likely decrying the lack of people willing to participate in good open-world PVP.

 

With the Black Hats having locked down the Contested Area, everyone else pretty much takes their ball and goes home, either working solely on the PVE portions of the event (unless on a PVP server or the Black Hats are roaming & grief-flagging people), or going back to their regularly scheduled gameplay.

 

In General

A server population dominated by any of the negative types, be it Black Hats, Hackers (negative Explorers), Exploiters (negative Achievers), or Trolls (negative Socializers), is going to be highly toxic and will eventually drive off everyone else. The Black Hats are just more lightsaber-in-your-face about it.

 

Suppose that the Black Hats always win (we've got to be on a PVP server for this to be the case, since the Trolls will likely defeat the Black Hats on a PVE server by following them around for 8 hours, unflagged, /saying "I'm not touching you!"). This means that no open area is safe for anyone else. Thus, everyone else eventually retreats to instances, and then from the server/game entirely. When that happens, the Black Hats eventually leave, too (no one left to grief), leaving you with an empty server. This is why PVP servers must have a high population: You need to have sufficient White Hats & Achievers to keep the Black Hats in check.

 

If Hackers and Exploiters are dominant (most likely a problem on PVE servers -- and usually requiring a good mix of the two to become a problem), it becomes frustrating to the postive-aspected Achievers, who feel that their accomplishments are worthless because someone else can do what they're working tirelessly towards with little or no effort. In the worst case scenario, they decide the game isn't worth their time and leave.

 

If the Trolls (or other negative manifestations of Socializer types) take over, it makes everyone's life miserable. General chat, forums, /say, PUGs, and any situation where any player has to deal with someone that isn't their close friend becomes utterly toxic. Eventually, everyone else leaves and the server officially goes to the Trolls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see two problems here with your definitions of "black hat killer" and "griefing". For your negative definition of exploring or achieving, it's very cut-and-dry. Either you exploit, or you don't. However, for killing, you are changing the line to be doing activities you disagree with rather than whether or not they use exploits. The only fair thing to be done here would be to restrict the definition of "black hat killers" to those who are using exploits to do their killing (such as flagging players in the PvE zone against their will).

 

I further argue that there can be no such thing as "griefing" within the PvP zone because by entering, you are essentially signing a consent to be attacked. Whether or not you are attacked once or many times, or whether or not you are unable to complete your orb-turn, or whether or not you are attacked by "stronger" or "weaker" players in is irrelevant because those are outcomes you agreed to upon entering the zone.

 

I've seen your wall posts on enjin and while this post is very intelligently written, it still seems to me like you are just trying to find some way (perhaps a more "scientific" way) to label people as bullies and griefers. As I have argued above (and on enjin), I believe neither label is valid so long as the PvP area is concerned because of the consent given by each player who enters the area.

 

---

 

I took the Bartle test and scored: "SOCIALIZER: 60% socializer, 53% achiever, 47% explorer, 47% killer". I answered each question truthfully without trying to game the system or "guess" what result it would give me.

 

The test is trying too hard to group people into neat little boxes (and yes I read the follow up about "moving targets" as well). It also had only one question that even remotely concerned roleplaying.

 

So, who am I? I'm Dashto. I'm an OCD completionist. I spend most of my in-game time at the character creation screen, levelling, and deleting characters. It took me 6 months before I could finally stop deleting characters and get to level 50. I'm first and foremost a roleplayer, which is why I'm on this server. But I also have a very competitive side to me. I was formerly a hardcore raider in previous MMOs, but after discovering PvP here, PvE and A.I.-controlled enemies no longer interest me.

 

When I go to the PvP area on Ilum, my sole goal is to have fun. You'll see me do things like ignore the carebears because they present no challenge, nor is fighting someone who won't fight back fun at all. Unless I'm just trying to get the daily done fast I'll attack on sight anyone who is in a PvP guild, even if there's only one of me and 10 of them. If there's a line-up formed, I will budge in line, essentially daring anyone to attack me if they disagree. However, I will attack PvEers if I believe it will cause chaos - there is no more beautiful sight than a line of people with Gree orbs exploding into a dazzling flash of light. As a healer, it takes me a hell of a long time to kill anything so I will try to group with whoever is nearby whether it's to take out a Game Genie kill squad or to fight the droids needed for the heroic quest.

 

There are many others like me, and many more who are different than me. Those 4 little categories in the Bartle test are not sufficient to describe anything. It describes achieving only in terms of rewards (acquiring items), not in terms of story or trying to get the "perfect" play-through or all codex entries and datacrons. It describes socializing but not roleplaying. It describes killing as ganking, but not organized PvP, and in general does not apply to how a PvP healer would play (requiring a social aspect to do their killing). It barely asks anything at all regarding crafting and running a business, which is one of the biggest points for many people in MMOs.

 

---

 

(TL;DR: For the record I am not saying that you should defend the validity of the test, I am just disagreeing with the way you are trying to label people as black hat killers or griefers when you are using a double standard to define those terms)

Edited by Jenzali
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting post! I haven't been able to participate in the event yet, but reading about it on the forums has been fascinating. I'm sorry that tempers have been running so high, though. I think Ebon Hawk has a pretty good community overall, and it would be a shame to lose that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see two problems here with your definitions of "black hat killer" and "griefing". For your negative definition of exploring or achieving, it's very cut-and-dry. Either you exploit, or you don't. However, for killing, you are changing the line to be doing activities you disagree with rather than whether or not they use exploits. The only fair thing to be done here would be to restrict the definition of "black hat killers" to those who are using exploits to do their killing (such as flagging players in the PvE zone against their will).

 

For what it's worth, I agree with you that "black hat" is too pejorative to describe most of what seems to be going on in the PVP zone. I think total carebears like me who don't want to PVP at all should just stay out of the zone. Though I must say that I love the image of Darth Panopticus and his Silent Council army sweeping in to enforce the Treaty of Coruscant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I further argue that there can be no such thing as "griefing" within the PvP zone.

 

Griefing in a social context refers to people who are perceived as harassing other players to prevent them from achieving objectives. The game-enforced rules are irrelevant; even if certain behavior is permitted by the game, some people will classify it as griefing and react accordingly. It seems to me like you personally want a free for all with zero social repercussions. That's just not the way human interaction works.

 

Those 4 little categories in the Bartle test are not sufficient to describe anything.

 

The Bartlet model is a tool for developers. It helps them consider how gameplay objectives will be received by the playing population. If you think it misses some gameplay aspects, you can certainly expand the model to include the things you think it lacks. Crafters and marketeers however are certainly Achievers and/or Killers. Objecting to a model's simplicity when it is just that -- a model -- makes it sound more like you simply don't want to be categorized in any way. Just because something is perfect doesn't make it useless. The test doesn't cram people into a single box, it just indicates by percentage how much of a category might apply to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see two problems here with your definitions of "black hat killer" and "griefing". For your negative definition of exploring or achieving, it's very cut-and-dry. Either you exploit, or you don't. However, for killing, you are changing the line to be doing activities you disagree with rather than whether or not they use exploits. The only fair thing to be done here would be to restrict the definition of "black hat killers" to those who are using exploits to do their killing (such as flagging players in the PvE zone against their will).

 

I further argue that there can be no such thing as "griefing" within the PvP zone because by entering, you are essentially signing a consent to be attacked. Whether or not you are attacked once or many times, or whether or not you are unable to complete your orb-turn, or whether or not you are attacked by "stronger" or "weaker" players in is irrelevant because those are outcomes you agreed to upon entering the zone.

 

I keep going back and forth on this.

 

It is definitely not as cut-and-dry, but I don't think making use of exploits should be the only determining factor of whether someone is a "black hat".

 

A "white hat" killer seeks to defeat worthy competitors, push themselves to their limits to keep improving, or attacks others for the benefit of weaker players. There is some sort of positive intrinsic motivation, whether viewed from within or viewed from without.

 

I think it's fair to label anyone a "black hat" who actively ignores the opportunity to attack worthy competitors or push their own limits, and instead focuses almost exclusively on killing those weaker than themselves, people who will provide no challenge at all, and whose death brings no tangible benefit to the hatter (other than whatever childish thrill they obtain from bullying those who didn't stand a chance).

 

Most of the people being labeled as "griefers" wouldn't really qualify as "black hats" because they're not being sufficiently discriminatory (more like "gray hats", which encompass maybe 75% of everyone). They're attacking basically anyone, and are willing to accept any outcome (easy win, crushing loss, epic battle, etc.). I do think there are at least a few individuals, however, who are overwhelmingly targeting those weaker than themselves (gear, skill, or numbers-wise) and not making any effort to engage in battles that would provide any challenge or serve any purpose except trolling.

Edited by Omophorus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...