State of Armageddon from a Player's Perspective

[Kryos]

Preface

Why am I writing this?  Nyr has challenged us as players to support Armageddon, the game we all play and I hope enjoy, by voting to attract new players to the game.  The closer the game gets to a critical mass of a player base, the more enjoyable the world should be for everyone.  No argument there.  However, the turnover of these new players is immensely high.  We are bleeding out a vast number of people who do get their foot in the door, which is normally the hardest thing to achieve.

I believe we as players need to challenge staff to start attacking gaps in support for players of various styles and interests, because I believe this is the reason there is a high rate of loss in the first weeks or months of play.

I will discuss what these styles are, show examples of other games that succeeded, or failed, in support of various styles, show examples of how the remaining types are or are not supported in Armageddon, and some examples of how to better support them in the context of the world, and lastly put my challenge to staff on behalf of myself(and I hope others) as a player.  

Introduction

Hi, I'm Kryos, a player for a bit more than seven years now, and like many people, I really enjoy the RPI, harsh environment that Armageddon presents for players to participate in.  However, after this long stint of playing, I feel like it is about time for me to hash out some of my thoughts about identifying areas where the game could improve, and more importantly, offering example solutions to these problems.

Why does my opinion matter?  Since about 1996, I've been deeply involved with MUD games, game design theory, and the academic research of gamers and gaming.  This started with a passionate play of AOL era Gemstone III as it transitioned into the www service model.  As a youth, my style of play was far more focused, and I broke Gemstone III.  Badly.  If you're familiar with the game, I was that guy who was level 70 and one shotting level 90 mobs as a wizard.  Why?  Because I enjoyed the experience of having my in game avatar accomplish great feats and indeed,  being involved with the somewhat loosely constructed plot of that particular game.  Neither of these enjoyments have changed over time too much, but my understanding of how other people enjoy online gaming has, especially transitioning through the next generation of games:  EverQuest, into WoW, and prolific reading on the research that fueled WoWs (immensely successful) design.

I wasn't just playing the games, I was growing in them and in how I played them.  By the time I stopped playing WoW, the casual guild on a crappy server I led had defeated pre nerf Vashj, Kel'Thas, and Illidan.  Again, if you understand the situation I'm describing you know I played hard, as it were, and got big rewards in both achieving and socializing while doing so.  The thrill of leading the 'casual' normal players to such a feat was intense not only for myself, but for them as well, so much so my phone blew right the hell up when we took down the big names with calls from people I played with and led.

I believe the style of gamer Armageddon least supports at this time is actually the my strongest factor in enjoying gaming.  Seems odd, I bet, that I'm still here and writing if anything I said above is accurate.  However, the secondary style of game enjoyment I have is the one that Armageddon best supports, so bear with me.  

Styles of Game Players

For those not familiar with what these styles are, and generally mean, I'll explain on a swift summation here.  Socializers, the most supported, are the kinds of players who come in to find social gratification and bonds in the games they play.  This means either in the outward, and inward community, or both.  They enjoy the forming of bonds and elaboration of relationships both for character and as a player.  You might poorly identify these as 'those guys who sit in the bar a lot.'  It's a lot more complicated than that, but it is a resulting behavior for some who enjoy S style play.

Next, is Griefer style players.  These types of players enjoy elements of competitive play, or PvP.  The connotations of PvP are broad here, it doesn't just mean killing your PC and feeling great about it.  It could be the style of player who enjoys the adversary, even if that adversary is just taking your things, killing your friends, or spying on you to get dirt on you.  Some Griefers do in fact enjoy making the efforts of other players(not just their characters) fail, and that type of behavior can be very destructive.  You could poorly identify Griefer style players as 'those guys who always play raiders.'

Next up, Explorers.  Again, this is not literal.  Explorers enjoy finding out things about the environment they play in, ranging from say, how magick works, what all the crafting recipes are, the branching for various classes, and how mixing odd things together might result, and indeed discovering the world(topography) and its secrets(lore).  You could poorly call explorers 'those guys who always play rangers in the middle of nowhere.'

Now, on to Creators, who I claim are poorly supported. Creators find enjoyment in things like constructing systems, making unique items, npc breeding systems, or the like. This could be 'building' staff side, or players trying to drive plot to create new areas, buildings, and items to add to the game they play. You could poorly call them, 'those guys who always submit mastercrafts on merchants/esgs.'

Lastly, and the one I claim is least supported, is the Achiever player.  Achiever players find their enjoyment by accomplishing goals in the game environment they participate in.  This can be the accumulation of coded ability in order to interact with the world, but usually that is a symptom of wanting to do greater feats, such as being that guy who punched out a mekillot, or led the group of Byn through some harrowing and dangerous contract.  You could poorly call them, 'those guys who always play tough guy bynners.'

It is important to note that works by Dr. Bartle, Dr. Yee, and some other contemporaries do vary in their works such as Gamasutra and Mud-Dev II.  I'm trying to be a bit more abstract in the explanation in this work in order to allow the broader understanding of behaviors without delving into the difference in nuances.  Further, of importance is the understanding that people are not simply purely of one style of play.  Typically they blend several behaviors together to create complex models of engagement.  As an example, I am most likely an A/S/E style player.

Lastly, regarding styles, I think it is a massive flaw of any serious game administrator, designer, or player to consider other styles of play and enjoyment greater, or lesser than any other style of play and will ultimately significantly cost the game they work for and with.  The exception that proves the rule, perhaps being the Griefer style players who target other player's enjoyment directly, rather than containing the behavior to character against character.

Examples of Support in Other Games

As an example to attention to these ideas, you have the development process of World of Warcraft.  If you subscribed to the developer logs, such as I did back when they were creating the game, you know the designers were specifically aware of these factors, and designed the game around giving rewards to as many styles of play as they possibly could, thus enticing and satisfying the broadest scope of players they were able.  If you didn't know, they succeeded.  WoW is the monolith by which all other MMO games have been measured for years and years.  Their desire to encapsulate all play styles was wildly successful and the proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

This isn't different than what the MUD community could benefit from, an RPI could benefit from, and specifically what Armageddon could benefit from.  This should be taken with a grain of salt however.  As one increases support for varying styles, there is an innate tension between styles that develops.  

As an example, in its infancy, WoW Fostered a tension between G style players against S and A style players.  That guy who was level 60 camping you in your level 8 zone?  He was a G, crushing A and S play.  And they wasn't doing this to stop a character in a story from achieving their objectives, they were attacking players and their enjoyment.  That's something a game can't allow, and WoW didn't.  They took strict measures as they developed to eliminate this possibility.

Their reasoning, however, was a business model.  People quitting in frustration at experiencing a toxic(to borrow from RIOT) G player was money they weren't making.  For Arm, those with malevolence towards players just aren't of any value to any of the style of players we'll try to recruit, save themselves.  I myself believe that some of this G style behavior originates from frustrated styles of other behaviors, that can't find the satisfaction in the games they want to enjoy.

This also leads to examples of other games which had innate support for various kinds of styles, while lacking or handicapping others.  Inferno, a pay to play game I subscribed to for some time before coming to Armageddon, highly catered to S, and I think unintentionally A and E players by nature of the implemented mechanics(I broke that game too, if you played it, as Senger).  Due to being a game with resurrections and continued play after death, G had a hard time existing there, and C has about as much support as it does in Armageddon.  

Gemstone had a basic support of A style play, and some of the early players in the game cultivated a S style community that eventually migrated to Armageddon itself, as well as other RPI style games.  These games were likely even created by former players of the old classics.

Gemstone began a slow counter push against A style play, and if you remember players like Greentide(an example of extreme A behavior), they were driven from the game while some sketchy, in my evaluation, measures were taken to enforce more S and C support, and incidentally less G support.  

Again, bolstering one style at the cost of others, which caused a very large migration of players away from Gemstone and to other places.  Even worse for them, was this was happening as EverQuest, Ultima Online, and other similar games were born or gaining fame.  Now, on to the meat of Armageddon itself.

[Kryos]

Evaluating Armageddon's Support

In descending order, the support as I see it is S>G>E>C>A.  So, Socializer gamers are the most supported, Griefer style players, second most, Explorer right in the middle, and Creators and Achievers hanging at the very distant bottom.  While I think there's room for debate how much E or G are supported or might belong in that ordering, for the most part, I evaluate the ends are very far apart, and more important than the close clumping of G/E.  Namely, because Creators and Achievers are so very much not supported, they are likely to abandon the game swiftly.  That means 40% of the people you attract to Armageddon are immediately going to disengage.  And 20% are very likely to after some time spent in the game.

Now, why is it I claim the Socializer style player is so strongly supported?  Namely, because most RPI games make the mistake of attempting to attract and cultivate this player over all others, sometimes even to the exclusion of.  To an extent, I believe Armageddon has fallen into this behavior.  The basis of an RPI is portraying a real person in a simulated world you try to make as 'real' to other players as you can.  Which, basically, includes the scope of behaviors that S type players enjoy, building realistic relationships, interacting with the world in a social manner, and working with other players to react to the world.

Further, games that 'promote from within' like RPI's tend to harvest up new staff members that cater to this predominantly S style behavior, creating a self-reinforcing style of gaming preference and a rubric for evaluating more staff,  evaluating new players, and creating content to reinforce this style of play.  Some times to the exclusion, or detriment of other play styles.

As a measure of proof to this claim, surveys have been conducted on hundreds of players, and showed clearly that the style of play the administrators of a MUD possess is the type of player most attracted to the game itself.  One has been conducted by Bartle, and another more recently by one of the sites that gather metrics on MUD games and gamers.

The Styles and the Support, Lack Thereof, and Remedies

Natural Antagonism of Styles

In order to explain about the support and lack thereof of styles, I believe it is important to make the distinction of tension between styles clear.  One example would be that of the griefer and the creator.  Griefers seek to destroy the accomplishments of others in the game, to further their own or their group's goals.  Creators move to add and grow the game and their assets for themselves and their groups.  Another such example is Achievers and Socializers:  achievers inherently seek the ability accomplish exploits and feats in the game while Socializer players typically do not engage in the behaviors associated with Achiever play, and vice versa. Explorers and Creators are another example;  most Creators need the assets, knowledge, and resources of Explorer style players in order to fulfill their ambitions.

Its also important to note that these tensions do not preclude, as in the example I gave in myself, of blended interests such as S/A, E/C, and so on.  But it means when both exist strongly without the presence of the other, there's a natural tension between the two.

One might encapsulate this in example by gaming in the way the colors in Magic:  The Gathering are purposed.  Red and Blue and Black and White are opposed, but by no means is it impossible to successfully blend them into a potent deck combination or even theme.

Socializer

One of the main reasons I believe the Socializer style of play is most supported by Armageddon, is the natural tendency of RPI environments to attract this style of player, of game's tendency to promote from within, and thus create a self reinforcing cycle.  This is also shown in the Karma system, by which players are evaluated mostly by standards of Socializer behavior in order to access more powerful, rarer, and more plot capable roles to play in the world as.

Incidentally, there is yet more that could be done to empower Socializer style of play.  By affording opportunities for players to set new policies(laws) in their regions, order or administer VNPCs and NPCs, and control the flow of political capital, even more enjoyment could be garnered by Socializer dominant players as they gain in social standing to do so.  Incidentally, by expanding in this way, the Socializer is more empowered to make plots for other players, and thus creates more inherent game play for the various other types.

Griefer

As noted earlier, I believe this to be the second most supported style of play.  The tagline Murder, Corruption, Betrayal should clearly demonstrate the support of this style of play.  The new inclusion of Shadow Artists in Tuluk is an example of a change made that distinctly supports this behavior as well:  you now have a pre staff approved venue for griefing behavior in the context of the world.  This is a well designed and executed G empowerment example.  

Allanak, and 'the wilds' could use a reinforcement for G style behavior.  The removal of the Red Fangs from the modern game has removed a lot of the G behavior outlets for the uncivilized and traveled portions of the world, as the currently open tribes rarely venture out of their territories, especially to engage in G behavior.  

These could be achieved by pushing, as an example, a new Allanak celf clan that acts as the killing hand of the empowered but not Templar, and institution of a delf clan that ranges in wider areas with explicit,G style behavior in their documentation and goals.  I say this specifically as a authorized and documented behavior because while you can indeed create a PC magicker, ranger, or so on that goes about bringing down theft and murder, that pc is one woman or man against the world, and is destined to fail and requires a high amount of turnover with little real G satisfaction of storied involvement.

Explorer

Explorer support in Armageddon is in an interesting state.  Namely, this fascinating amount of support rises from the agreement of players to not share OOC information about the nature of the world or onging plotlines with one another.  A true stroke of genius in the context of E play, this allows E players to fully flesh out a variety of research and reach for a diversity of lore in Armageddon.  Another recent addition that facilitates E behavior is the stowing of items in outdoor locations by means of burying them.  It gives both E and A style players something to salivate over.

The drawback to this is players with a very low interest in E activities can become frustrated by the lack of resources available to them to facilitate their style of play, and are reliant on E oriented players to convey information to them.  Since the world itself does not cater to the free exchange of information, this means they must consign themselves to environments with natural allies, in other words, Clans.  On which there has been discussion in all previous style discussions and are in all following.

However, the main point of contest for E players is that very, very much of the lore of the game is utterly locked away and sealed from them unless they take very specific, very rarely offered roles that are evaluated mostly by S standards as described in that entry.

Creating new avenues of E lore and tactile behavior such as opening more 'dangerous' areas they can explore, alternative means of accessing guarded lore, and expanding on the processes so that they don't eventually become dry (spell casting and item creation) will all help continue to please the E style players.  Just as importantly, keeping open roles that allow E players to share their knowledge in the context of the world will empower their enjoyment of the game and let them increase the enjoyment of others.

Creator

The state of creator support is a very poor one.  Creator seek to add to the world, and Armageddon's policy of few new additions is inherently opposed to this style of satisfaction.  Creators need change as the metric by which they evaluate enjoyment, and change doesn't come often or quickly to Armageddon.  They do have processes of creating NPCs, Items, and areas open to them when called for by staff, but this is infrequent enough to be frustrating to this style of player.  They do have the ability to create new items for the game, and this is I feel is close to being spot on as a means of support for a C player.

In order to further support C players, one example would be allowing the C players in appropriate clans to commandeer space in those clan's store fronts.  They can put their creations on display, to be sold automatically by the NPCs who maintain the space.  This allows them to bring their changes to the world directly.  Others would be to assign construction to Creater style players for things that degrade or are destroyed with time, and to facilitate that destruction by means of G or A support behaviors (wagons, weapons and armor, and buildings come to mind).

Achiever

Achievers may be the least supported style of play in Armageddon.  

In a harsh world with great dangers and challenges, the natural response is to want power either in physical, monetary, or social capital to combat these vast challenges.  Both players and characters alike would seek these ends as a means to better their lot in life if possible.  And as PCs, we are playing the people in a position to.

Further, those who role up 'combat' characters with the intention of seeking combat often find there isn't much to be had.  Even with the open aggression in recent storylines, full on combat between factions is rare, and combat between factions in the same areas of the game is even rarer.  These players don't want to run around and simply act like combatants without ever having the chance to engage in combat, as an example of a frustrated Achiever.  They don't want to be a Byn sergeant because they were around for a few RL months, they want to be the Sergeant because they murdered the last one, ginsu'd a rampaging threat that killed some other people, or were total bosses on amazing contracts.

However, this style of play receives strict scrutiny in an almost judicial sense, and is harshly monitored.

In order to satisfy this type of player, tangible and challengeable threats need to be a real presence in the game.  Be it mantis(or X) hordes with assets(water cache, mineral cache, they captured an asset belonging to someone else) to be contested against, open combat between factions, or other means of engaging in accomplishing feats need to be opened up and endorsed by the game's administration.

The Challenge Itself

The challenge itself is simple:  I challenge the staff to hire on at least one new member from each of the varying types of players not of the dominantly represented style of gamer, the Socializer.  A Griefer, an Explorer, a Creator, and an Achiever.

With these divergent viewpoints empowered, attack the problem illustrated in this article:  that the lack of support and representation for the varying styles of play, of which there is no better or worse, is preventing Armageddon from creating a stable and distinct player base.  Either by means of the suggested points of lack of representation and remedies described in previous the previous section, or through newly cultivated ideas.  In otherwords, build a diverse think tank.

It should be understood that I  believe the game's staff and administration are actively working to better the game, but based on the various pools of psychology research invested into the theory of games just like Armageddon, I believe there is room to meaningfully impact the scale and potency of this effort.

Conclusion

I have spent a few hours of my time to write up this analysis of the state of the game because I care to see it improved.  There are no attacks here, but there are criticisms.  I am not a disgruntled player, but rather one who enjoys his time and yet sees room for improvement in his hobby.

It is not only the players who must take up the torch to improve the game in meaningful ways, but also the burden of staff to recognize where the weaknesses in our shared world lie, and work to address them in order to improve that shared world.

Opening reinforcement to a variety of play styles, both by expanding the intellectual resources of varying styles into staff, and implementing changes to the game in order to invite and retain these variety of valuable players is the torch game administration must take up while the players take up the torch of working to invite, and entice, new people to enjoy the world of Zalanthas.  Its not going to let us catch them all, but it is going to let us catch a lot more.

[Kryos]

P.S.

Silly way to spend my Saturday night, but this is an itch I wanted to scratch.

[BleakOne]

A very interesting set of posts. It'll take some time to fully digest before I'd be able to give my full opinion, but I commend you for your effort to improve the game.

[ale six]

Hey, Kryos, this is a thoughtful post and I appreciate the time it took you to write it. I think it's important to recognize there are different play styles for different people. Armageddon is big enough to support most of them! You say the game seems to to slant kind of heavily toward Social players as you put it, but aren't most of us really a blend of several? I could cite past characters of mine that were primarily any of your categories, it just depends on the role I've been playing and the story I've been trying to tell.

I disagree with some of your assertions, especially that Social players don't engage in the same thing Achiever players do - I consider myself both, at the same time. I've seen primarily social characters achieve pretty amazing things. For the same reason, I don't agree that Achiever characters aren't well supported in the game. There's a long list of "legendary characters" that existed in game who by the very fact that we still remember them years later must have done pretty incredible stuff. Take Lieutenant Paryl, for instance (I only mention him because of the log of his on the other forum, so I hope he's kosher to bring up.) The guy started off as a nobody warrior and ended up just about as close to mini-templar as I've ever seen any commoner get ever. He had the combat skill to crush a mek and was still politically adept enough to navigate around other PCs - even highborn ones - that tried to squish him. Isn't that a good example of an Achiever?

Anyway, if they're hiring new Explorer staff, I demand that person take on the name Dora.

[Kryos]

Hey, Kryos, this is a thoughtful post and I appreciate the time it took you to write it. I think it's important to recognize there are different play styles for different people. Armageddon is big enough to support most of them! You say the game seems to to slant kind of heavily toward Social players as you put it, but aren't most of us really a blend of several? I could cite past characters of mine that were primarily any of your categories, it just depends on the role I've been playing and the story I've been trying to tell.

I disagree with some of your assertions, especially that Social players don't engage in the same thing Achiever players do - I consider myself both, at the same time. I've seen primarily social characters achieve pretty amazing things. For the same reason, I don't agree that Achiever characters aren't well supported in the game. There's a long list of "legendary characters" that existed in game who by the very fact that we still remember them years later must have done pretty incredible stuff. Take Lieutenant Paryl, for instance (I only mention him because of the log of his on the other forum, so I hope he's kosher to bring up.) The guy started off as a nobody warrior and ended up just about as close to mini-templar as I've ever seen any commoner get ever. He had the combat skill to crush a mek and was still politically adept enough to navigate around other PCs - even highborn ones - that tried to squish him. Isn't that a good example of an Achiever?

Anyway, if they're hiring new Explorer staff, I demand that person take on the name Dora.

I might not have been clear enough in the original post, but I myself say I am an Achiever/Socializer/Explorer.   I used the end of the explanation of styles section to try and drive home the point that people are not exclusive, and often are complex blends of these types.  Additionally in the Antagonism of Styles near the end.

However, I do firmly believe Arm's most supported style is Socializer, for the reasons mentioned in the original layout, and that Achievers are poorly supported as one who is strongly A oriented, I often feel great amounts of frustrations at the lack of Achiever play options available to me in the game.

In the context of the modern game, what would someone like Paryl have to Achieve against?  What goals and ambitions can he go out and challenge to satisfy his A desires (if he was an strong A player)?  Achievers are goal oriented.  A players are those who do enjoy seeing coded skill improvements, but more importantly, having a goal to leverage their abilities gained through leveraging against goals, if that makes sense.  They want to fight over things, and through having power in the world they earned by fighting over things(not just combat code, either).

Socializer inclined players might indeed be the ones pulling strings to start scraps between factions or people of import, but the Achievers want to go out and be the ones to coded smack down the problem or die trying.

I'm not saying there's 0 support, but I'm saying its likely the least supported, or in contest for such a slot with Creators.

[Nyr]

Thanks for writing that up.

I have a few short points to reply with.

• I think we have a good mix of all of those categories on staff right now.
• I do not think the Bartle list would be a good way to analyze new player accounts at this juncture, as I would think that we have very few resources to determine what kind of player someone is.  Even if we flat-out asked the player, it may be that their style had plenty to do here and they would have been a poor player.  I would rather search for more generic reasons for why someone is playing or why someone is not playing.  (This survey stuff will actually be starting next week on a trial basis.)
• The style that you believe is most/least supported is likely influenced by your own experiences and may not necessarily be objectively true for all.  In fact, one good or one bad experience (regardless of the experience, because each player has their own definition of good and bad, which is also different from staff's) can enshrine or taint an aspect of anything for you.  As you say, you feel achievers are unsupported, yet there is evidence from at least one other player here that this is not the case, so it does seem to be more subjective than objective.
• I'm not sure how much Bartle stuff could or should apply to an RPI, but it's probably worth considering from time to time in very specific cases.  I am sure that we do think about the balance of the game itself as well as the focus for the roles that are available, and we have our own goals for building or plotting or what-not.

I can't personally put too much emphasis on Bartle types.  What matters most is the story and the roleplaying that backs it all up and makes it a rich experience.

[Eyeball]

He had the combat skill to crush a mek

This is the basic form of achievement that the game offers... skilling up. It's fun for a while but after you've done it, then what?

and was still politically adept enough to navigate around other PCs - even highborn ones - that tried to squish him. Isn't that a good example of an Achiever?

This latter part sounds like something that would please a Socializer rather than an Achiever.

There's no doubt Paryl was an illustrious character. Here's a question, however; what lasting mark did he leave on the world? I'm sure he participated in HRPTs and the like in which the whole world changed, but that's not really the same thing. It's just so very difficult to impact the world in small ways, like building a tower, or starting a quarry, or clearing out a section of the 'rinth to become a crop field, or starting a mushroom farm in a cavern below, or even scratching your X in a wall in a way that won't disappear the next reboot. What's more, you'll meet resistance and disapprobation (on the GDB for example) for even suggesting it.

Did Paryl leave one thing behind to show that he personally existed?

I realize very many people here don't care about the things described in the previous paragraphs. Some of them are in the throes of doing their initial exploring of the guilds and subguilds, or of the world, and are currently happy. They'll eventually will want to do something more lasting in game terms though. Others just will never care; the constant fur ball (fighter pilot's term for a multi-plane dogfight) of plotting murder or theft or status changes, which is full of drama but in the end leaves everything exactly as it was when it all started, is just peachy. But the poor "long term" Achiever who wants to build something is going to be frustrated here.

[LauraMars]

I've taken the various Bartle (and Bartle-esque) quizzes in the past, and usually lean towards an S/A/E/K (or G, in your parlance) profile, depending on the type of character I am playing at the time.  It's interesting to see these "standardized" gamer psychologies broken down and and looked at through Armageddon-colored glasses, which is something I always think about whenever I take those tests, but I've obviously never dissected my thoughts into such a detailed and lengthy post.  This was an interesting read, even if I don't necessarily agree with you on all points.

I agree with your assessment that the game isn't "friendly" towards Achievers, but that's probably because the game isn't really friendly at all.  It is a harsh, permadeath, gritty world, and that's what I love about it.  I completely think that you can Achieve things on Armageddon.  I have seen many players achieve things in this game, but it usually takes a really long time and is quite a lot of work, and I kinda think that's a good thing.

I'm also not sure how to take your assertion that hostile takeovers and "combat" achiever roles are so heavily discouraged when you posit that the game is also such a friendly environment for a K or G profile.  I guess I don't agree with that at all.  I mean, the city states are at war right now - this is an excellent time for an Achiever/Killer to get out there and cause a stir.  It's extremely easy to kill players and npcs for WHATEVER reason you want in this game, especially given that it's an RPI.  Other RPIs I have played are not nearly so lenient/flexible in that regard. 

It's also extremely easy to die when you're out there taking chances, making mistakes and getting messy, but it's Armageddon.  Isn't that what makes Achievement taste so sweet?

[ale six]

5 years later it's hard to tell almost any character existed. Could you tell with Paryl? Probably not I guess, unless they still tell stories about him in the AoD. But that's what happens when you have a mostly illiterate world populated by PCs who are mostly transient in the setting. The characters, largely, fade away from memory after a while.

But still... in both cities there are taverns, murals, statues, crafted items, etc. - all created by PCs. Isn't that all an achievement of some sort? What sort of achievements are there that aren't possible to accomplish in game - and is that the fault of staff, or are they just really hard to do anyway?

[FreeRangeVestric]

That brings up a thought I've had before...

My happiness would know no bounds if literacy was gradually introduced into some of the higher levels of commoner society in an IC way that didn't feel like a total retcon. It would solve one facet of the (perceived, since it is something I feel, though this thread shows that it is not a black and white thing) problem of there being no character legacy and no way to 'leave a mark,' and thus the original post's point that 'achiever' types are not catered to here, even if it is not a silver bullet for the issue.

That said, I'm not entirely sure how well these classifications fit into a game like Armageddon. Aren't all of my characters basically all of these, whenever they are able to/it suits them/it's convenient?

A very well thought out post, though, and it's certainly a conversation worth having.

[Kryos]

Thanks for writing that up.

I have a few short points to reply with.

• I think we have a good mix of all of those categories on staff right now.
• I do not think the Bartle list would be a good way to analyze new player accounts at this juncture, as I would think that we have very few resources to determine what kind of player someone is.  Even if we flat-out asked the player, it may be that their style had plenty to do here and they would have been a poor player.  I would rather search for more generic reasons for why someone is playing or why someone is not playing.  (This survey stuff will actually be starting next week on a trial basis.)
• The style that you believe is most/least supported is likely influenced by your own experiences and may not necessarily be objectively true for all.  In fact, one good or one bad experience (regardless of the experience, because each player has their own definition of good and bad, which is also different from staff's) can enshrine or taint an aspect of anything for you.  As you say, you feel achievers are unsupported, yet there is evidence from at least one other player here that this is not the case, so it does seem to be more subjective than objective.
• I'm not sure how much Bartle stuff could or should apply to an RPI, but it's probably worth considering from time to time in very specific cases.  I am sure that we do think about the balance of the game itself as well as the focus for the roles that are available, and we have our own goals for building or plotting or what-not.

I can't personally put too much emphasis on Bartle types.  What matters most is the story and the roleplaying that backs it all up and makes it a rich experience.

Appreciation for your response too, first and foremost.  I'll try to give a coherent response even if its past my bedtime.

I think we have a good mix of all of those categories on staff right now.

This is probably pretty damned true.  That self reinforcing model , or the like attracts like theory, is something that's been researched both 20 years ago, and in the modern era of games like Armageddon and still holds its validity.  While I'm 100% certain staff has varied styles and enjoyment of play, I suspect a majority of them would strongly affiliate with Socializer behavior.  I say strongly suspect because I'm in no position to know or confirm that speculation.

However, I would challenge to acquire those who are very weak in S behaviors, and strong in other forms, as they will give the most divergent an 'self understanding' view points.

I do not think the Bartle list would be a good way to analyze new player accounts at this juncture, as I would think that we have very few resources to determine what kind of player someone is.  Even if we flat-out asked the player, it may be that their style had plenty to do here and they would have been a poor player.  I would rather search for more generic reasons for why someone is playing or why someone is not playing.  (This survey stuff will actually be starting next week on a trial basis.)

Indeed, and often enough, the players themselves really haven't taken the time to understand or grasp what style of engagement they themselves enjoy.  If I were to take Bartle's test, or any derivative of it, I could easily game it to produce any result I wanted.  I don't think its at all simple to identify the style of player someone is, which is why I suggested the broader strokes of moving towards a universal and cross support.  A general survey is more or less the best one can hope for in terms of identifying new players, while veterans(to gaming at large) are likely to be far more aware of their own tendencies.

The style that you believe is most/least supported is likely influenced by your own experiences and may not necessarily be objectively true for all.  In fact, one good or one bad experience (regardless of the experience, because each player has their own definition of good and bad, which is also different from staff's) can enshrine or taint an aspect of anything for you.  As you say, you feel achievers are unsupported, yet there is evidence from at least one other player here that this is not the case, so it does seem to be more subjective than objective.

Certainly, and as noted under my explanation of the Explorer type, the agreement between staff and players not to distribute in game information limits my frame of perception.  I well understood that before making my post.  But I've been around a while and I'm not, generally speaking, a stupid person, especially when it comes to the hobby I've chosen to engage in.  I've taken the time to read a lot of work by various psychologists on this topic, evaluate the behaviors of games produced on a massive and meager scale,  and to give an honest and open rendition based on the facts I have, or observations I could make.

In other words, its as objective as I can humanly make it, regarding not just my experiences, but the behaviors, experiences, and representation I've seen from other players and staff action as well.  

I'm not sure how much Bartle stuff could or should apply to an RPI, but it's probably worth considering from time to time in very specific cases.  I am sure that we do think about the balance of the game itself as well as the focus for the roles that are available, and we have our own goals for building or plotting or what-not.

While an RPI game is a specific style of MUD, it is a MUD.  This line of research is honed right in on MUD gaming.  And while I use Bartle, I did so because he's an easily recognizable name and the 'grandfather' of this line of psychological research, and I know a good deal of the more modern ones, up to and including a contemporary who is researching a topic right along these lines in regards to testing S/G behavior in a controlled gaming environment.

And as a MUD, if these ideas are at all valid, they very much apply to the behaviors seen in Armageddon, or other RPI style games, as they are attracting MUD players.  And as mentioned, applications of this kind of modeling was also successful on non-standard MO games such as WoW.

I suppose another way to look at what I'm saying is:  if you take time to distinctly support the various styles of player out there, you systemically empower your players to create more story and less staff dependent plots because of the interdependency of various styles to make a complete game experience.

With that, I'm going to pass out.  But I'll be about tomorrow to engage in this thread, if its still ongoing.

[Norcal]

Thanks for writing this up Kyros.  It was informative.  However based on my experience as an employer, I don't think that such classification systems work all that well, except in a very general way. I find that most people end up with traits that blend a number of categories. People operate in one way some times, and in another way at other times, often depending on the situation. 

On the other hand, I would agree with you that enhancing various styles of play, especially for new players could improve retention.  The current Karma system is well designed, but advancing in it takes much time, and much is dependent on the staffers  judgments, which like most human judgment's, are often subjective.

At the heart of the matter is the question of the identity of Arm.  If Arm is to be what it is billed to be now, a roleplay intensive, player driven plot style of game,  without mobs and bosses, it will always have a lot of turnover.  That is because this type of play, in a text based game, is just not everyones cup of tea. The number of people who are possibly suited to Arm is most likely a small subset of those who try it out and role up a PC.  Efforts at initial retention should be aimed at them.

As you have illustrated with the various styles you mentioned, people play games because they need something. Understanding the needs of the player base and trying to facilitate them, will improve satisfaction and thereby retention.  Perhaps the different playing styles you mention need to be revaluated in terms of Arm and it's rather unique identity.  It would be an interesting project.

Retention in both the short term and the medium to long term needs to be addressed. I believe that staff are taking steps to improving short term retention. I don't know if any of the other recent changes are directly aimed at medium or long term retention or not. You have some good suggestions and I wonder how they can be framed in terms of Arm and its player base.

[Fathi]

I have always found it difficult to use the Bartle gamer types to describe Armageddon players, because as a player my goals change depending on my character's goals. I don't consider myself primarily one sort of player or the other, but I've definitely had characters whose goals were more oriented along the lines of exploring, socialising, achieving, MURDERING, or just keeping alive and keeping out of everybody's way.

I try to roleplay my characters faithfully enough that I the player will go along with their goals even if it isn't what I'd OOCly want to do the most. Because in the end, it's their story I'm trying to tell, not mine.

So to that end, I can't really say whether or not it seems to me like the game is supporting one type of player over another. If anything, as far as roles I have played, I would say that social-only roles have been the most difficult and slowest to get into.

[BleakOne]

I'd be against adding anything like mobs with important resources to fight over or automated locations to battle over (with the sole exception of border locations for city states to fight over) since that feels a bit too hack-and-slash. I'd hate to see a bunch of indies deciding to go fight Salarr and take over the Obsidian Mine they may have.

Zalanthas isn't really a great place to gain personal glory. Great deeds are generally forgotten or turned into propaganda for one of the City States, and I sort of like it that way. It makes those few times I've managed to overcome the odds and make a lasting mark on the Known feel extremely satisfying. It doesn't feel quite as empty as merely having a maxed out WoW character or getting all of the skillcapes in Runescape.

[Scarecrow]

I don't agree with some of the Greifer stuff. Sometimes people kill for reasons that aren't just 'lolzor pwned you got your loot' but because of very real threats, or things that have happened you never see. I know it sounds trite, but honestly, you never know what has come before, so judging everyone who has adversarial characters as Greifers is harsh and unfair.

I don't really like bringing WoW into a debate in regards to playstyle or quality. WoW is kind of the bottom rung in the ladder of online games, especially RPG games. Armageddon is infinitely better, and more satisfying.

It's interesting you list your own playstyle as the least supported by staff. My experience has not been similar to yours at all, so I have to disagree with that portion almost entirely.

Also, I don't see for a second a 'bleeding of players' at the moment. The numbers are going epic good, average 50 to 60 people, sometimes even 70. Other MUDS and ARPI's I have played would sacrifice their first born son for half that number.

[Narf]

I don't agree with some of the Greifer stuff. Sometimes people kill for reasons that aren't just 'lolzor pwned you got your loot' but because of very real threats, or things that have happened you never see. I know it sounds trite, but honestly, you never know what has come before, so judging everyone who has adversarial characters as Greifers is harsh and unfair.

It's a playstyle being discussed that may or may not apply to any given player or character. The original poster neither meant it as harsh, or targeted. If a player plays in that style sometimes, then discussing how to improve the world for them (the OP's actual intent) will benefit them. If a player was actually just thrust into an adversarial position and isn't prone to that sort of play, then they're not being discussed in that section of his post.

It is admittedly a very long post, and I think you should reread it as you appear to be under some misassumptions as to what he was trying to accomplish with it. He's not attacking any of these playstyles as best I can tell. In fact, the post seems dedicated to improving play for people of /all/ of the listed playstyles.

[Scarecrow]

I don't agree with some of the Greifer stuff. Sometimes people kill for reasons that aren't just 'lolzor pwned you got your loot' but because of very real threats, or things that have happened you never see. I know it sounds trite, but honestly, you never know what has come before, so judging everyone who has adversarial characters as Greifers is harsh and unfair.

It's a playstyle being discussed that may or may not apply to any given player or character. The original poster neither meant it as harsh, or targeted. If a player plays in that style sometimes, then discussing how to improve the world for them (the OP's actual intent) will benefit them. If a player was actually just thrust into an adversarial position and isn't prone to that sort of play, then they're not being discussed in that section of his post.

It is admittedly a very long post, and I think you should reread it as you appear to be under some misassumptions as to what he was trying to accomplish with it. He's not attacking any of these playstyles as best I can tell. In fact, the post seems dedicated to improving play for people of /all/ of the listed playstyles.

Using the word 'Greifer' to describe some people's playstyle does seem hostile, to me. Could have easily used the word "Adversary." On the internet, and internet games on a whole, greifers are people who play only to destroy and damage, without IC intent, just to serve an OOC need to be a nasty person.

[James de Monet]

First off, <3 Kryos. That was an incredibly long, incredibly well-reasoned, and incredibly fair post, IMO. Not an easy trifecta.

There are a few things that jump out to me. First, I think we might get more mileage, especially for Arm, by talking about play styles rather than player styles. As others have pointed out, these are prone to change from character to character. I don't think that invalidates the types, however. We still have an opportunity to meet all those needs.

Second, I'm not sure I agree about griefers. I'm pretty certain this is actually my least felt desire, but I have a friend who was entangled (and entangled others) in some pretty incredible plots in Arm, even though he was a griefer, because he wasn't a solo griefer. He used social play to make himself more able to put the smack down.  I mention it because I have a feeling this person might even be best categorized as a toxic griefer, due to something he told me once, which was something like: "The best thing about permadeath games, like Armageddon, is that if you kill another character, you know that somewhere, on the other side of the world, someone is screaming and putting their fist through their monitor. You can't put a price on that."

Lastly, I see what you mean about A types. Most promotions in the game are handled by staff, and most roles hit a glass ceiling sooner or later.   Permanent changes to the game are rare, which makes being immortalized hard.  That being said, I am pretty sure I have some strong A tendencies, and yet I keep coming back to this game. I am certain a large part of that goes to my clan staff for when I have been in clans, though. I have always felt they they did a good job doling out enough A to keep me going.  But I agree that if it didn't have to be incumbent on them so often, we might have a stronger draw for that play style.

[Cutthroat]

You mentioned the various styles and the focus on them, and conceded that players can be a blend of these styles. I will preface the rest of this post by saying that I think the Bartle Test is suited mostly for single-player games, H&S MUDs and games like WoW. While it CAN apply to RPIs, it doesn't apply cleanly enough for the outright complexity of the game. Most (if not all) players of permadeath RPIs are going to be a somewhat even blend of all the types, because ultimately, they are playing people and people have a natural interest in these activities as well, in their daily lives. To roleplay a different person requires taking all the ways to interact with the world and combine them into your character, likely with different amounts and priorities. A crafter might be A/S/E/K, a noble might be S/A/K/E, a raider might be K/E/A/S, a grebber might be E/S/K/A... but never 100% in any of those areas (unless they're a dwarf  ).

So that leads to players figuring out what they prefer to play, likely through trial & error, and players playing characters who have their preferred archetype first on their list of priorities.

I think support for each of the archetypes is generally pretty high. It could be improved of course, and I think (especially lately) we're seeing roles and situations added to the game that make the game more appealing for different types, which you noted (and there is likely to be more to come that has only been hinted at thus far). I think the nature of the game means that sponsored roles in particular are going to have the highest chance at "achievement" style of play, with clanned people being a close second. But then they are going to be the least likely to be prolific Killers (because of the need for sponsored roles to be accountable), so it sort of balances out.

[Kryos]

I don't agree with some of the Greifer stuff. Sometimes people kill for reasons that aren't just 'lolzor pwned you got your loot' but because of very real threats, or things that have happened you never see. I know it sounds trite, but honestly, you never know what has come before, so judging everyone who has adversarial characters as Greifers is harsh and unfair.

It's a playstyle being discussed that may or may not apply to any given player or character. The original poster neither meant it as harsh, or targeted. If a player plays in that style sometimes, then discussing how to improve the world for them (the OP's actual intent) will benefit them. If a player was actually just thrust into an adversarial position and isn't prone to that sort of play, then they're not being discussed in that section of his post.

It is admittedly a very long post, and I think you should reread it as you appear to be under some misassumptions as to what he was trying to accomplish with it. He's not attacking any of these playstyles as best I can tell. In fact, the post seems dedicated to improving play for people of /all/ of the listed playstyles.

Using the word 'Greifer' to describe some people's playstyle does seem hostile, to me. Could have easily used the word "Adversary." On the internet, and internet games on a whole, greifers are people who play only to destroy and damage, without IC intent, just to serve an OOC need to be a nasty person.

These aren't my terms, my assumptions, or my thoughts about how people behave when playing games.  They belong to PhD people in psychology, I just happen to think some of what they say, and have proven through study, is very very astute, accurate, and a tool to be wielded.  They started with MUDs, ramped up to making WoW on these assumptions, and still validate them today on MUDs alike.  Its about multiplayer interaction between *people*.  And it's proven effective.

I have always found it difficult to use the Bartle gamer types to describe Armageddon players, because as a player my goals change depending on my character's goals. I don't consider myself primarily one sort of player or the other, but I've definitely had characters whose goals were more oriented along the lines of exploring, socialising, achieving, MURDERING, or just keeping alive and keeping out of everybody's way.

I try to roleplay my characters faithfully enough that I the player will go along with their goals even if it isn't what I'd OOCly want to do the most. Because in the end, it's their story I'm trying to tell, not mine.

So to that end, I can't really say whether or not it seems to me like the game is supporting one type of player over another. If anything, as far as roles I have played, I would say that social-only roles have been the most difficult and slowest to get into.

No offense intended here, but in personal experience, I've found it frightfully easy to use the types to identify people's style of game play.  Some by observing how people behave in the game when I'm playing with them, but even more so based on how people present themselves here, on the GDB.  I'll get into this more below.

You mentioned the various styles and the focus on them, and conceded that players can be a blend of these styles. I will preface the rest of this post by saying that I think the Bartle Test is suited mostly for single-player games, H&S MUDs and games like WoW. While it CAN apply to RPIs, it doesn't apply cleanly enough for the outright complexity of the game. Most (if not all) players of permadeath RPIs are going to be a somewhat even blend of all the types, because ultimately, they are playing people and people have a natural interest in these activities as well, in their daily lives. To roleplay a different person requires taking all the ways to interact with the world and combine them into your character, likely with different amounts and priorities. A crafter might be A/S/E/K, a noble might be S/A/K/E, a raider might be K/E/A/S, a grebber might be E/S/K/A... but never 100% in any of those areas (unless they're a dwarf  ).

So that leads to players figuring out what they prefer to play, likely through trial & error, and players playing characters who have their preferred archetype first on their list of priorities.

I think support for each of the archetypes is generally pretty high. It could be improved of course, and I think (especially lately) we're seeing roles and situations added to the game that make the game more appealing for different types, which you noted (and there is likely to be more to come that has only been hinted at thus far). I think the nature of the game means that sponsored roles in particular are going to have the highest chance at "achievement" style of play, with clanned people being a close second. But then they are going to be the least likely to be prolific Killers (because of the need for sponsored roles to be accountable), so it sort of balances out.

As it turns out, blending happens, its recognized(has been for decades), hotly discussed yet today, and yet when you stand back and evaluate someone's behavior of the course of a long term engagement over multiple games, its usually not hard to determine what their primary means of engagement is.  Myself as an example, I know I'm a hard A.  A lot of my enjoyment comes from A behavior across multiple games (as described in the original post, trying to make that clear).  I do have some S and E tendencies as well.  I'm very good at gathering data, I enjoy it and observation of systems, I enjoy discovering lore and secrets, and so on, describing my E behavior.  I tend to spend time engaging with those I play with in games, the fact I do post time to time on the GDB is a hint at this, but more so, especially when controlling a PC, that PC tends to spend time engaging with other PCs for no stake other than the engaging.  That's the S in me coming out.  But above all:  I'm goal oriented and want to Achieve, that's my driving force.

If people take the time to honestly evaluate their behavior, I think they will find the classifications to encapsulate their gaming behaviors very well.  Further, its important to note I gave a summary in context of each of the styles, while pages and pages should be devoted to truly understanding what they are.  You need to have your Bartle, Yee, Ted talks on Psychology in Gaming, your modern dissertations from UC Berkly and so on to have a hand on the pulse of what I'm speaking on truly.  Yet I see the symptoms here, on the GDB.

A recent example is that thread on public sparring.  I think there was some a bit of misunderstanding on why people were speaking as they were in that thread:  namely, you're dealing with some frustrated A types.  They want to improve their skills, yes, but because they don't have ready options to go out and take risks against goals, or means to try and accomplish impressive things with an impact on the gaming populace, they are pushing for measured improvements for their style of engagement.

People that bemoan the death of the Red Fangs and the lack of threats in the game work, etc, are probably frustrated Griefers, now left with far fewer outlets to finding satisfying engagement.  Start looking over threads, and you'll see a lot of suggestions about frustrated styles of play cropping up.  They are, by and large, what made me post this in the first place.

He had the combat skill to crush a mek

This is the basic form of achievement that the game offers... skilling up. It's fun for a while but after you've done it, then what?

and was still politically adept enough to navigate around other PCs - even highborn ones - that tried to squish him. Isn't that a good example of an Achiever?

This latter part sounds like something that would please a Socializer rather than an Achiever.

There's no doubt Paryl was an illustrious character. Here's a question, however; what lasting mark did he leave on the world? I'm sure he participated in HRPTs and the like in which the whole world changed, but that's not really the same thing. It's just so very difficult to impact the world in small ways, like building a tower, or starting a quarry, or clearing out a section of the 'rinth to become a crop field, or starting a mushroom farm in a cavern below, or even scratching your X in a wall in a way that won't disappear the next reboot. What's more, you'll meet resistance and disapprobation (on the GDB for example) for even suggesting it.

Did Paryl leave one thing behind to show that he personally existed?

I realize very many people here don't care about the things described in the previous paragraphs. Some of them are in the throes of doing their initial exploring of the guilds and subguilds, or of the world, and are currently happy. They'll eventually will want to do something more lasting in game terms though. Others just will never care; the constant fur ball (fighter pilot's term for a multi-plane dogfight) of plotting murder or theft or status changes, which is full of drama but in the end leaves everything exactly as it was when it all started, is just peachy. But the poor "long term" Achiever who wants to build something is going to be frustrated here.

Eeeeeeeh, someone who gets it.  Though I think you're tossing in some C into the A mix, point is, there's symptoms of S in the description of Paryl's awesome, while recognizing an A player wouldn't really care about that kind of social capital.  There's some natural synergy in supporting A and C play in that both demand the ability for change in the environment, but for differing reasons.

[Kryos]

Thanks for writing this up Kyros.  It was informative.  However based on my experience as an employer, I don't think that such classification systems work all that well, except in a very general way. I find that most people end up with traits that blend a number of categories. People operate in one way some times, and in another way at other times, often depending on the situation.  

On the other hand, I would agree with you that enhancing various styles of play, especially for new players could improve retention.  The current Karma system is well designed, but advancing in it takes much time, and much is dependent on the staffers  judgments, which like most human judgment's, are often subjective.

At the heart of the matter is the question of the identity of Arm.  If Arm is to be what it is billed to be now, a roleplay intensive, player driven plot style of game,  without mobs and bosses, it will always have a lot of turnover.  That is because this type of play, in a text based game, is just not everyones cup of tea. The number of people who are possibly suited to Arm is most likely a small subset of those who try it out and role up a PC.  Efforts at initial retention should be aimed at them.

As you have illustrated with the various styles you mentioned, people play games because they need something. Understanding the needs of the player base and trying to facilitate them, will improve satisfaction and thereby retention.  Perhaps the different playing styles you mention need to be revaluated in terms of Arm and it's rather unique identity.  It would be an interesting project.

Retention in both the short term and the medium to long term needs to be addressed. I believe that staff are taking steps to improving short term retention. I don't know if any of the other recent changes are directly aimed at medium or long term retention or not. You have some good suggestions and I wonder how they can be framed in terms of Arm and its player base.

I mentioned the Karma system briefly, but I only hinted at the disparity in it regarding diverse play styles.  Namely, because RPI like Armageddon attract people with S enjoyment in gaming, and retain them based on the the limited metrics I have available to me(but by golly, I'm pretty damn confident of this):  Karma is evaluated mostly on a S style system.  And yet, many karma'd roles offer sweeping amounts of appeasement to play styles that are not primarily S driven.

A mul, for instance, screams A behavior.  Its a powered up class that enables A style play on a sweeping scale.  The same for a Half Giant.  While yes, it has to do with the fact they are codedly powerful options, that's a reasoning, not the reason.  A more nuanced understanding is required to recognize that its because they are strong platforms, it allows for a player to make A oriented goals while using these characters and attempt them with greater probability of success.

I do not often play magickers, and have limited experience only in terms of proximity to them and snippets from this very forum, but from what I've seen, there are very clear distinctions of satisfying various types by nature of the powers given to these kinds of magick users.  I've played a few, and I could flop down immediately who they satisfy by virtue of their granted abilities that I've seen, but that's not something to do here.

A psion, though, is for my very limited understanding, a powerful S and G style draw.

The point is, the karma system is evaluated mostly by S behavior, but contains options of enjoyment very much non S style play would find satisfying.  Would it be easy to tweak?  Crap no, it wouldn't.  Does it have some imperfections, yes it does.  But I do *not* want to turn this thread into a 'change the Karma system' thread.  I want to keep it honed in on the fact there's gap in support for the various play styles, we see the symptoms of these gaps in player communication here and in their behaviors in game, and that while we grind on bringing in new bodies, I hope the staff should grind on acknowledging these gaps and working to shore them up instead into strengths.  And that in so doing, we take the lack of new player retention and smash it to the ground, ending up with a vast and diverse player base.

[Nyr]

I've had more time to review this.

While I'm 100% certain staff has varied styles and enjoyment of play, I suspect a majority of them would strongly affiliate with Socializer behavior.  I say strongly suspect because I'm in no position to know or confirm that speculation.

However, I would challenge to acquire those who are very weak in S behaviors, and strong in other forms, as they will give the most divergent an 'self understanding' view points.

I appreciate you taking the time to write this up and express your thoughts on this, as it promotes discussion about the game and how others might view it.  However, fair warning:  we are not going to change our staffing model to acquire new staff members based on their Bartle type--not the 4-piece older Bartle type and not the 8-piece newer Bartle type.  There are many things that make up the job of a staffer.  If anything, a personality test might be more useful than a gamer-mentality test.

While an RPI game is a specific style of MUD, it is a MUD.  This line of research is honed right in on MUD gaming.  And while I use Bartle, I did so because he's an easily recognizable name and the 'grandfather' of this line of psychological research, and I know a good deal of the more modern ones, up to and including a contemporary who is researching a topic right along these lines in regards to testing S/G behavior in a controlled gaming environment.

I took some time to read up on Bartle stuff and then also on Yee stuff.  Yes, an RPI game is a specific style of MUD but the majority--and I mean the vast majority, probably upwards of 90%--of MUDs have quest systems and other automated activities like the other games you have mentioned (WoW, Gemstone, etc).  There are other players there.  I recently tried out the Elder Scrolls Online Beta and spent a mediocre portion of time working with a group of people I played with.  These kinds of games truly do not require interaction with other people in order for the game to be rewarding.  Now, it can be more rewarding with other people, but that's beside the point.  Bartle focuses on that, those kinds of games.  In 1996 there were (arguably) only a handful of RPIs.  In 1996 I believe even Armageddon was a place where halflings and elves sat down at the same bar to talk to each other, so it's not like there's a long and rich history of high-quality RPI goodness.  RPIs continue to be the minority in MUD gaming.  I doubt very strongly that Bartle was analyzing the finer points of games with intensive roleplay as a focus.

As a counterpoint to this quest-style setup and level-based system that Bartle more than likely was analyzing, Armageddon thrives on the interaction between players.  Based on what we've seen so far with new players, the interaction that new players have with existing players seems to be the thing that retains a new player...not appealing to Bartle types.  We'll continue to explore that if it is needed, but the research you're drawing on here is related to non RPIs and "roleplaying" games in a broad sense (in that "you, the player, act as another character, and we call that roleplaying").  I wouldn't hold Bartle types up like they are the end-all, be-all for game development.  It is an interesting theory laid out, but it is a theory, and after reading more on this, I think it barely applies to an RPI. 

There is more to gaming and game development than one person's theories.  While you have mentioned other works, you have focused almost entirely on Bartle here, whose work focuses on MUDs.  Not RPIs, but MUDs as a whole.  That is such a broad brush to paint with!  Even then, you are focused on 5 player types, which is not the original Bartle stuff nor the new Bartle stuff.  Bartle had 4 types originally (Killer, Achiever, Socializer, Explorer) and eventually expanded this to 8 types (Griefer, Networker, Politician, Friend, Opportunist, Scientist, Planner, Hacker).  Your chosen five are a mix of those and one of those chosen is not even a Bartle type (Creator). Additionally, the way that you promote "Socializing" here implies or outright states that you feel that Arm and Arm's staff heavily rewards or favors Socializing behavior over other areas.  In actuality, we don't care how well someone interacts with other people, we care how they engage in roleplay with the gameworld in mind.  This might look like a semantic issue on the surface, but look at it this way:  if you're killing someone with roleplay and attention to the gameworld and its culture and background in mind, we value that far more than you just deciding to be a buddy with another person in-game for whatever reason. Even the karma system does not reward players for talking to each other and being IC buds.  We simply don't care how good you are at making friends or socializing in-game; we care about your ability to grasp roleplay.

I reviewed Dr. Yee's stuff, which has other ideas on it, though again, his focus is on MMORPGs.  Not text-based RPIs, but MMORPGs. Even so, he finds issues with Bartle types and finds many limitations there.  I actually sort of prefer Yee's layout here as it applies more easily to a game like Armageddon.  He's got things broken out into 3 main categories (Achievement, Social, and Immersion).  In "Immersion" there is a subcategory for Roleplay, which describes precisely the kind of player we hope to see:

Role-Playing: Players who score high on Role-Playing enjoy being immersed in a story through
the eyes of a character that they designed. These players typically take time to read or understand
the back-story of the world as well as taking time to create a history and story for their
characters. Also, they enjoy role-playing their characters as a way of integrating their character
into the larger ongoing story of the world.

Honestly, I think Yee's work provokes more of an intriguing read related to Armageddon than Bartle tests (which Bartle didn't develop) that place people into specific categories (that Bartle did develop).  His main takeaways are exactly what has been pointed out a few times here:

People don't fit in boxes.
Motivations do not suppress each other.

If our game is an RPI--focused on roleplaying and an overall story and the stories of our characters--it stands to reason that no, we are not going to fit into a box.  If our goal is to be an RPI, I think we should enrich the whole game with that focus--the focus on roleplay--not with undue attention to a system that may not necessarily apply to this kind of game.

[Fujikoma]

I've taken some tests and I'm a Killer type, or, I guess you could say Griefer. In order to pursue my goals, however, it is important to adopt the traits of the other playstyles, considering I tend to be forced to be solo on non RP enforced muds. If you were able to observe my actions, you might think killer/griefer my least likely preference, but there's a flipside to every coin, I don't enjoy killing or griefing the first thing I come across... I enjoy killing the killers. I'm still new to the game, so being part of a large mob still appeals to me, but when I get my shit together, well, expect a change.

I'm a fan of finding an optimal build, but I am not so much a fan of winning with it. I like knowing secrets because they give me an advantage when the shit goes down. I socialize because being able to gather others when there is a need for a real smackdown is invaluable. I venture into all possible aspects because they suit my drive to be self-reliant. I like to win by any means necessary. I lose often, but my end goal is always to win. I like to win in less expected ways, in street fighter games I always pick Dan, if he's available. I'm the worst type of griefer. I don't just want to beat you, I want to beat you so badly you cry. This is who I am and what I play.

And who do I want to beat? Not just anyone, but the guy who thinks he has everything under control, the rest I'd rather make friends with. Fight the power, what I do, who I am. My prey are those who play the same game I do, I like a fair fight, or one balanced in the favor of my opponent, so I can beat them under circumstances which validate my own sense of worth through unconventional means.

[Patuk]

For the purpose of being constructive and in being unwilling to debate semantics and details, I'm going to list examples and suggestions of ideas, many of which have been suggested before, if only because it'll illustrate the state the game is in and the way it could be improved for certain kinds of players.

Note: I'm going to substitute the term griefer with killer, as it's a slightly less offensive term. Griefer carries connotations of actively wanting to ruin people's enjoyment, whereas I feel the archetype in general is more one of competition between people. An even better term would be sportsman or competitor, but that'd mess up the one-letter acronyms.

1) Ways to improve the game for Killers:

- Mdesc-concealing items have both been praised and reviled, but their removal is very much an example of favoring a S playstyle over that of the killers. It is more difficult to make life hard on those despite superiority in terms of code or skill when your identity and your target's social contacts can render your advantages moot.

- Active engagement by militias: despite Allanak and Tuluk being in a state of war, there is very little actual fighting going on. I realise Armageddon is no fps, that is, if one side manages to get a crew of powerful soldiers up and running the other side cannot go and respawn with equally skilled folk, but the ability to go out and do battle with the other side in any way is still something in support of the K playstyle.

- Loosening the crimcode: to quote Quirk, our current crimcode is a bug, not a feature, and yet again favors S players, and to a lesser extent the more pacifist C, over people with a K/A playstyle. You could make it so that certain crimes committed in seedier areas go unpunished, implement a system where every crime is not met by extreme force, or make it possible to bribe NPC's.

- As has been stated in this thread already, the current clans able to raid people are rather restricted in what they do. The ability to be more free in picking your battles would be right up a K playstyle's alley.

- On a less coded and more cultural level, I think it'd be good if Zalanthas being a bad place were portrayed a bit better. Part of the reason why rape got banned was the ridiculous shitstorm an accusation can whip up ICly, I've seen people act in enormously indignified manners over getting jostled about in seedy bars, and issues like theft and outdoors murder seem to be treated with real-world hands more often than not, too. Playing the K way would be a tad easier if it didn't get met with extreme responses so often.

2) Ways to improve the game for Explorers

- In the most basic manner, adding hidden things to the game is what pleases people looking to uncover secrets. More content = more ability to find content.

- Going on from that, facilitating the coded ways to go about this could be improved. One of my characters died because he fell of a cliff, when looking in the direction I was headed would not make clear he'd fall. Physical exploration is discouraged when characters are lost so easily. I'm not saying it needs to be made easier, I'm saying that factors such as chance and knowledge of game mechanics should be less important in doing so.

- Literacy needs some serious love. I played the one GMH family member, and even then I needed to explicitly ask staff if there was anything at all for me to read because the estate had nothing at all in there. The first response was that it did, only it still didn't, and then they'd look into it, because apparently this was confusing to staff as well. I can only speak for this one example, but if this happens to even a character whose literacy is legal, which goes for about 2-3% of our playerbase, I really think some expansion isn't a bad thing.

- Though this affects more than simply E players, the adding of easy to get to information in the gameworld and simple clues would add more to the E playstyle than detract from it. For all anyone knows, there are a dozen artifacts, secrets, ruins, villages, peoples and horrors lurking out in the world, but due to the combination of permadeath and OOC silence, many of these are effectively invisible. Adding pointers, clues, and little pieces of the puzzle to get plots started rather than give the conclusion away would be a very good thing.

3) Manners to improve the game for creators

- Our crafting system is esoteric to a ridiculous degree. Mastercrafts can go lost to eternity because people would need to combine highly unintuitive items to create their final products. Adding ways to increase the manner in which recipes can be rooted out by people with craft skills, clan access and/or proper tools should be increased to a much greater level.

- To add to that, ease up mastercrafting. I played an IRE mud a while ago, and though I think they're collectively awful, their crafting systems, money sinks or not, are a godsend. People can send in designs, a specially-appointed crafting admin reviews the designs, they are approved or rejected accordingly. I realise that their items will have less of an effect on the world than they will in Armageddon, but this is largely the case with anything in there, and the delay on mastercrafts is so blatantly OOCly enormous that I can imagine that C players are turned off by the thought of it immensely.

- Counterintuitive as it might seem, making things less permanent would be good for a Creator. I have not once, not on me or other characters, seen a weapon break, which is a ridiculous achievement when you consider that real-life metal weapons break so frequently it's not even funny. This carries over to more aspects of the game: things such as tents, buildings, statues, clothes, or in other words anything at all are so durable that there is no real need to create, as everything is eternal. To create a demand for creation by not letting the gameworld be so static would in turn allow those so inclined to supply the game with creation.

- To go on with the above statement, allow people to make more things, seeing as they'll not be permanent anyway. We've all read the archetypical exampled of people wanting to build huts and lairs and shit, and all of this being bad for various reasons. Be that as it may, removing permanence from certain aspects of the game will make such ideas less destructive. If you could build, say, a hole in a cliff to hide in, with the added drawback that you'd need to repair it every X amount of days with Y resourced at the cost of it falling apart, being a creator player would be easier.

- This has been mentioned often, but there is very little leeway for those people wanting to start their own tribes, families, or even clans in general. You can tell me that all our clans were player-started all you want, but fact remains that I cannot start up my own desert elf tribe no matter how hard I try, nor can I create a family of painters that won't die out the moment a spider shows up. Yes, this allows for people who are acquaintances to buddy up and break the game and yes, this might open up a possibility to grief, but the fact remains that there is going to be a ton of concepts that are completely unplayable because nobody can unleash their creative potential outside the constraints of the current constructs we have.

4) Manners to improve the game for Achievers

- This one has been mentioned before, but a lot of goals just depend on dumb luck and the passing of time. Becoming a Sergeant scarcely if ever involves holding off the gith horde for your unit to escape, or racking up ten large for clearing out that spider nest, the process instead boiling down to 'if sarge dies and you've been around you're sarge nao.' I'd elaborate, but this is going to be a long post already, so for now let it suffice to say that 'sticking around' is something no A player is going to feel good about.

- Even in achieving things, people can stay obscure. This lieutenant Paryl is an example, as I have not once heard of him before, despite him being a possibly very succesful man, and a good character to boot. Change that shit up. Literacy being restricted makes this difficult, but that doesn't mean it needs to stay this way. Allanak and Tuluk alike have a great wealth of statues depicting people who I'm sure have stories attached to them. I, meanwhile, am unable to name any of these figures, nor their achievements. The same goes for say street names. The discuss command with NPC's is sorely underused in this regard, as it is all you need to record someone's legacy: add NPC's in non-obscure places who are clearly meant to be discussed with in order to find out about such things, and you'll have a much livelier world with people remembering their history much better.

- In a similar vein, boards are underused. Tuluk has musea and an entire goddamn city quarter devoted to culture, but there is not a board detailing history and the exploits of the famous, and this is a missed opportunity indeed. All you'd need is a place called a museum, or a vnpc templar lecturing the masses on the deeds of the great, and you could have a board detailing things that are now only to be found somewhere amongst original submissions that are far too verbose, wordy, and scattered for anyone to reasonably wade through.

- Make it less frustrating for people to work towards things. Yes, Armageddon is multiplayer, and no, things needn't be easy. But if I want to train my combat skills, armorcrafting, or even backstab by myself, I'm gonna be SOL. The same goes for anyone unable/unwilling to find a complete PC crew for their operation, someone who can't find a tutor to become a great magicker, or learn how to properly polish gems. This is a clear way of an S way to have fun (heavy interaction) infringing on A fun (having the tools to accomplish goals.) You could add sparring NPC's to clans, increase the frequency of skill bumps through RP, and generally just allow people to accomplish more through themselves. Time not spent with others is not necessarily time wasted.

Also, before this devolves into a wild, tangential argument over why I'm wrong because example X and Y might be wrong, please look at the bigger picture I'm illustrating rather than trying to refute my entire point based on minor examples: there are ways we could improve the game, and they needn't all be focused on socialising and constant interaction.