MY RESULTS 

Surprisingly interesting read at the Bartle test and underlying site.  Myers-Briggs for MMORPG.

Players Who Suit MUDs

The Bartle Test of Gamer Psychology

You are 80% Explorer

What Bartle says:

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

You are also:

60% Achiever

53% Socialiser

7% Killer

The Bartle Test of Gamer Psychology

You are 80% Explorer

What Bartle says:

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

You are also:

60% Achiever

53% Socialiser

7% Killer

Hi!

Nice test - I made the the test myself and here are the results - surprising results:

Best regards!

It is very accurate. 

Red said:

Oracle said:

It is very accurate. 

Yes; its also why I tend to get bored with pay to win games when they hit the wallet wars stage.  Buying advantage is fun at the start since it gives you access to more content faster, but once you hit a certain level, cash is really needed only to compete with other players.  The more skewed towards wallet power a game gets, the less knowledge of game mechanics matters.  

I do not mind so much coining in games when the actual coining doesn't buy you power. Resources, faster xp, faster research and so on. I'm sure Plarium would made good money on such a model too and retained more players. 

Buying troops for cash, and revive for cash is just awfull. You can have smaller leagues band together to try take down a bigger one, but if the bigger one have major coiners and the smaller ones doesn't their unified effort doesn't mean anything. Of course end of the day they do damage in the pockets of the coiners but there is no victory to be had, its like fight an ever lasting zerg.

These are my results...It basically confirms what I already knew as I'm usually a loner in these games...not bad Oracle

The Bartle Test of Gamer Psychology

You are 93% Explorer

What Bartle says:

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

You are also:

73% Achiever

27% Killer

7% Socialiser

This result may be abbreviated as EAKS

You are 93% Killer

What Bartle says:

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

You are also:

67% Achiever

40% Explorer

0% Socialiser

Just an observation:  The questions give you only two possible answer and each answer is clearly biased towards one of the 4 traits.  It is pretty easy to make the test say whatever I want about me.  Fear me, for I am the most terrifying killer in all of this thread!

What is also interesting is analyzing the way these gaming traits correlate to your real life personality. Some of these 'killers' are tough in the gaming community but quite docile in the real world and vice versa. 

Sometimes you hear someone say 'oh he or she is such a sweet and decent person to talk to in TS or facebook' etc...but then all they play are fighting games and it's all about offense, espionage and dominating less accomplished players

GALLIS said:

What is also interesting is analyzing the way these gaming traits correlate to your real life personality. Some of these 'killers' are tough in the gaming community but quite docile in the real world and vice versa. 

Sometimes you hear someone say 'oh he or she is such a sweet and decent person to talk to in TS or facebook' etc...but then all they play are fighting games and it's all about offense, espionage and dominating less accomplished players

Alternate reality. Just because you are a nice person in rl, doesn't mean your online persona in a pvp game have to be nice. If I can jump you, take all your stuff and leave you naked in the woods. I would be prone to do so in a game that allow such. But I could as well be prone to help you if I saw the same happened to you by a 3rd party (and they had better stuff to be had! :p).

Gadheras said:

Alternate reality. Just because you are a nice person in rl, doesn't mean your online persona in a pvp game have to be nice. If I can jump you, take all your stuff and leave you naked in the woods. I would be prone to do so in a game that allow such. But I could as well be prone to help you if I saw the same happened to you by a 3rd party (and they had better stuff to be had! :p).

Its a form of escapism.  With the anonymity of the internet and an avatar to wear as a mask, you can pretty much act however you want with little fear it'll follow you back into real life.  

There are some times when it can turn into a bad thing.  I like a good fight, but also remember that I'm playing with fellow humans.  Don't take the game too seriously.  Have fun.  

One final thought:  When you know what motivates someone, you have a little power over them.  For instance, if you're being "bullied" in game, changing your behavior can help.  If its a killer who is doing the "bullying", then the more you cry and complain, the more satisfaction they get from it.  If its an achiever doing the "bullying", you're probably leaving something out that's easy points for them.  

ThatGuy said:

Gadheras said:

Alternate reality. Just because you are a nice person in rl, doesn't mean your online persona in a pvp game have to be nice. If I can jump you, take all your stuff and leave you naked in the woods. I would be prone to do so in a game that allow such. But I could as well be prone to help you if I saw the same happened to you by a 3rd party (and they had better stuff to be had! :p).

Its a form of escapism.  With the anonymity of the internet and an avatar to wear as a mask, you can pretty much act however you want with little fear it'll follow you back into real life.  

There are some times when it can turn into a bad thing.  I like a good fight, but also remember that I'm playing with fellow humans.  Don't take the game too seriously.  Have fun.  

One final thought:  When you know what motivates someone, you have a little power over them.  For instance, if you're being "bullied" in game, changing your behavior can help.  If its a killer who is doing the "bullying", then the more you cry and complain, the more satisfaction they get from it.  If its an achiever doing the "bullying", you're probably leaving something out that's easy points for them.  

Well, imho in games, and particular pvp games. It's important to remember its actual people on the other side. It's important to have grace in victor as well. Kicking someone that is down, or make fun of, ridicule etc, is very bad. In some games people use "gf" (good fight), but I find that can be a insult as well. If you a superior player and then gank someone that is much weaker and say "gf"... that is just being a dick. I would only use it if its a close call and the other player put up an actual good fight. Else I would just do a "gg" (good game), doesn't necessary mean it was good game for the other player. But he/she put him/herself at risk in the game for situation allowing itself to unfold.

Its important if you are on the loosing end of the stick, you know how to behave and act though. Start to curse at the other player, threating and so forth, not very good. It will make things much worse. An expression says "eat humble pie", learn from your mistakes and gain experience.

Stormfall is a bit disturbing, so much hate and dislike and people take things way to personal. Leagues get demonized and portrayed as villains by just play the game. I believe this is related to how much MONEY driven this game is. People feel it in their wallets when they take damage where in most other games, you just spend soem time, grind by playing and you retored to where you was. 

Interesting test. Quite enjoyed it tbh and I was curious to know what would happen if I answered best I could. That being said with only 2 answers I found sometimes you could maybe read the question differently and then answer differently but anyhow here's mine.

The Bartle Test of Gamer Psychology

You are 87% Killer

What Bartle says:

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

53% Explorer

33% Socialiser

27% Achiever

This result may be abbreviated as KESA


Background & Acknowledgements

The Bartle Test is based on the player types identified by the legendary Richard Bartle in his paper, Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players Who Suit MUDs. It is strongly recommended that you read this paper if you wish to find out more about your player type, and what it all means. Bartle revisits and expands upon these ideas in his book, Designing Virtual Worlds, which is also recommended if you wish to delve a little deeper.

The original Bartle Test was created by Erwin S. Andreasen and Brandon Downey and this implementation is based on the question data which Andreasen has made available at http://www.andreasen.org/bartle/.

The impetus behind creating this version was the demise of the version hosted at GamerDNA, which I previously used when teaching the HATII Game Studies course.

Gadheras said:

Well, imho in games, and particular pvp games. It's important to remember its actual people on the other side. It's important to have grace in victor as well. Kicking someone that is down, or make fun of, ridicule etc, is very bad. In some games people use "gf" (good fight), but I find that can be a insult as well. If you a superior player and then gank someone that is much weaker and say "gf"... that is just being a dick. I would only use it if its a close call and the other player put up an actual good fight. Else I would just do a "gg" (good game), doesn't necessary mean it was good game for the other player. But he/she put him/herself at risk in the game for situation allowing itself to unfold.

Its important if you are on the loosing end of the stick, you know how to behave and act though. Start to curse at the other player, threating and so forth, not very good. It will make things much worse. An expression says "eat humble pie", learn from your mistakes and gain experience.

Stormfall is a bit disturbing, so much hate and dislike and people take things way to personal. Leagues get demonized and portrayed as villains by just play the game. I believe this is related to how much MONEY driven this game is. People feel it in their wallets when they take damage where in most other games, you just spend soem time, grind by playing and you retored to where you was. 

I see that in a lot of pay to win games that allow you to take things away from other players or destroy their troops/items/etc.  I think there are 2 major factors at play.  The first, as you mention, is for those who buy their huge armies, they feel those losses right in the wallet.  The other major factor is to encourage spending, the devs make it take a very, very long time to get strong for free.  Fireballs fall into this category since it is perceived as a cash only way to get easy points without your victim getting anything other than dead troops (or a laugh that you spent money and got nothing for it).

Another possible factor is just the "anything goes" mentality.  Because the devs/hosts impose very few rules, and often don't enforce many of  the rules they do impose, you end up with lots of players creating their own rules and getting very upset when others do not abide by these rules.  You also have players testing the boundaries of acceptable conduct, resulting in some very nasty gameplay and meta game.  That sort of nasty conduct is almost guaranteed to result in lasting resentments and possibly flat out hatred.  

One other possibility is that the very design of pay to win games is to blame.  We already know they design them to be addictive and to push us to spend.  Many pay to win games sell power directly and then set up content that pushes players into conflict whether they want it or not.  It is entirely possible that the devs are intentionally bringing out the worst in players just to shake us all down for money.  

Red said:

One other possibility is that the very design of pay to win games is to blame.  We already know they design them to be addictive and to push us to spend.  Many pay to win games sell power directly and then set up content that pushes players into conflict whether they want it or not.  It is entirely possible that the devs are intentionally bringing out the worst in players just to shake us all down for money.  

a bit like throw a bag of crack on the floor along with two knifes and send in two junkies :p

Red said:

One other possibility is that the very design of pay to win games is to blame.  We already know they design them to be addictive and to push us to spend.  Many pay to win games sell power directly and then set up content that pushes players into conflict whether they want it or not.  It is entirely possible that the devs are intentionally bringing out the worst in players just to shake us all down for money.  

a bit like throw a bag of crack on the floor along with two knifes and send in two junkies :p

Oracle said:

Red said:

The Bartle Test of Gamer Psychology

You are 80% Explorer

What Bartle says:

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

You are also:

60% Achiever

53% Socialiser

7% Killer

It is very accurate. 

uts accurate to some extent but not that complete ! a complete test should also enable ticking two options at the same time

this is mine which is accurate to some good extent but not a complete one

http://prntscr.com/mej7nq