Thanks for the article Mayson.

I must say though, I'm one of your readers that finds the categories artificially narrow and simplistic. I think there are a lot of dimensions involved in determining individual motives and drives to compete as well as a multitude of ways in which these drives will be expressed in action.

The titles seem a bit much like self-satisfied back-patting and don't really do a lot beyond labelling some gamers "good" and some gamers "bad".

I've played with a lot of good pvpers. Some are intuitive, some have excellent reactions, some communicate and coordinate well, some are stubborn and just try harder, some do a lot of research, some crunch numbers, some just play non-stop, some intimidate opponents, some inspire team mates.

There are a lot of these traits that contribute to overall success, but no definitive list that would qualify someone as a "Contemplator".

Anyway, I appreciate your sharing the article and found it an interesting read, but respectfully disagree with many of your initial assumptions as well as many of your conclusions.

Thanks Josue,

I will continue to post more as I write. Thanks for your support and feedback

Very well written and I like where you went with it - as well as where you could go with it in the future. I certainly feel that there are a huge variety of player types in MMOs and I believe that you ought to expand this to cover the broader scope of playstyles, rather than just two.

Nice read, thanks for the link.

Hey Xiphus,

Yes it was 100% about PvP. The I play MMOs the more I feel as though the mindset of the noob and comptemplator breach PvP and PvE and really embody what you play games for. There are some who pick up a game and say this might be fun I will try it and there are some people who pick up a game and say I like this and I will be the best. There is no right and wrong attitude at all, there are just styles.

If we are talking about the PVP aspect of an MMO, I have to say that this article is very accurate. I had seen quite alot of these going on. Of course, there are subcategories, but that is no matter since the subcategories of 'nOOb' and 'Contemplator' differ from each other very slightly.

For example, Contemplators like the 'theory-crafter' who uses mathematics to determine what is good and what is bad, and the 'field-tester' who personally uses said methods of playing without the mathematics and relies more on first hand experience to determine what works and what doesn't work. Their methods differ in that one prefers to calculate to learn while another learns by doing, but the aim is still the same: To learn what works and what doesn't.

This is indeed a good article, which happens to be quite accurate as well.

Superb!

Yah, a lot of people have said it is not so black and white but throughout the article I tell people that your right its not black and white these are 2 major categories in a thousands shades of Grey.

Though the article is good, you depict gamers as only 2 kinds. But the reality is not all that "B&W", not by a long shot. But surely we all understand that. There are noobs, willing to learn to a cetain degree... there are more. But, anyway, it is a big and informative article. GJ.

Very good article and right on spot on noobs/strategists. Also I like how you have put out "hardcore time-grinders" out of the necessary good players pool; that indeed is not an requirement to being a proactive player, as I call it.

However, I might argue there is lot's "shades of gray" in between. I.e. what I call "Pack Dogs", people who stick to the "contemplator's" skirts, copy their tactics mindlessly and have somewhat higher standards than lowly noobs. What they share with them is arrogance and reluctance to strategise beyond what they've heard "pro's" do. They all yap what they've heard from someone else - they do scour the Interweb for "knowledge of uberness" but never add to it in any sense and oft do not understand it's finer points as well. There are many more but these are amongst my chief annoyances (or primary targets if you will :D)...

What you've depicted is Black & White, two major opposites. These can mix to various degrees, as we all can surely attest.

You hit on some of it, and did a good job but I don't think your 2 groups come close to covering the majority of players. Its definitely something you can build on.

Thanks very much for the kind words. We are lucky we have a great writing staff at Rev G, might like it check it out

c00l. that explains the depth that the article reached.

edit: sry my pc accidently reposted that first post

c00l. that explains the depth that the article reached.

c00l. that explains the depth that the article reached.

Well the article was four years of PvP games. I am studying Psych in school and so it kind of blended

Really glad you like it! Thanks for checking it out!

good article Mayson! how long did it take you to come up with that?