You are viewing the MafiaScum.net Wiki. To play the game, visit the forum.

Mastin's Player Type Theory

From MafiaWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Type:
Author:

History

Original Publication: December 11, 2010 by Mastin
Revised: January 6, 2011 by Mastin

Article

This is something I’ve been thinking about for a few months now, about a basic idea: every single player can be categorized into a type of playstyle. What would I use as a model, though? Well, I found something, and then I went, “There’s no way this works that well. There’s no way I just found something like that working flawlessly.” It turns out that I did: I found a way to categorize players, and found they fall into one of four types, divided into two categories, for eight total—they are…


Type One—

  • Players who have no true reason to be playing.

They aren’t playing to win. They aren’t playing for fun. What are they playing for, then? Well, it depends, really. It can vary significantly. This kind of player might not sound good, but they’re not necessarily bad. An IC who doesn’t actively try to fulfill their “Play to Win” half of their role can be an example: their reason for playing is to teach. It’s also to win, but not all ICs play that way. Another example is a player who is retired, accepting an invitation into a game run by an old friend—chances are, they retired for a reason: perhaps they weren’t having fun, or lost the thrill of victory. If they are like that, and still play, their reason for playing isn’t to win, it isn’t to have fun, it’s to help an old friend moderate their game.


1 a:

  • No reason to play themselves.

This is the mentioned examples, pretty much. Many players who get sick and tired of elements of mafia will end up like this, yet keep on going for whatever other reason. Look around for people who’ve said they’ve retired. I know quite a number. Now look at how many of them actually have. Not as many, eh?


1 b:

  • For Everyone.

There’s another word for this type: troll. Anyone who wants to ruin the game for everyone is of this type. If they don’t want to have fun and have no desire to win themselves, that’s fine. (See 1 a.) If they’re intentionally trying to make others not have fun as well (that is, they want everyone as miserable as they themselves are), then they are trolling. I sincerely hope I never see one of these players. (I haven’t seen one, and I hope I never do.) This player is the kind who you want to ban from your games, eternally blacklist until they stop intentionally trying to make your life a living netherworld.

Note, however, that they are only this type if it is intentional. If they do it accidentally, they genuinely tend to not want to cause any harm, and will try to improve.


Type Two—

  • Players Who Play for Fun:

We all know the type. They enjoy what they are doing. These are the kinds of players who will replace into a role publicly outed as a Serial Killer, for the lulz. They tend to enjoy third party roles, but it is not a guarantee. They are the kind who just wants a good time in a game, and are people who tend to be party animals. Like with all the player types listed, there is a huge variety in this field. A lot of them, however, will be in multiple games at the same time, to get the adrenaline rush associated with playing, no matter their role. (They also run the risk of replacing out or--worse--being a living corpse if they get bored.)


2 a:

  • Play Personally for Fun.

This player doesn’t really care how another person plays. They’re a bit carefree, you could say, and tend to heavily be on the reckless side of things. These people tend to just ignore play-to-win players, because they’re nothing more than distractions to the true goal of a game: enjoy oneself! These people love every moment, and tend to have highly erratic styles of playing. These players love challenges. They like things exciting for themselves. Even if a setup is unbalanced, they don’t care, so long as they can have a good time. On the positive end of this scale, you get players who are very active, who are flexible, will accept any role you give them, and are likely to liven up a game with their presence. On the negative side of the scale, you get people who disregard everyone else for themselves, who post too much, and might harm the game if they lose interest. I, for example, was this type of a player. Self-voting and claiming scum can really tick some people off, but they are things not intended with malice: they’re intended to be fun (and are...for the player doing it. For others? Not so much). It’s a good idea to have one or two players of this type, but you have to both –try to limit how extreme they are, and –not have too many of them; things can get a bit…disorganized…if there are too many of them.


2 b:

  • Players Who Want Everyone to have Fun.

This kind of a player tends to really dislike players who play to win (to say the least), seeing them as killjoys. The point of the game is to enjoy oneself, not whether they win or lose. These people tend to like playing a bit more traditionally than 2a’s: they dislike extremely outlandish behavior. This also applies to gamebreaking strategies: as they are not how the game should be played, they’re not welcomed by this type of a player. This kind of player will try to make everyone participate, because anyone not participating obviously isn’t having a good time. They want to have a good game, a fun game, and want everyone to share the experience. They are the kind of person who as mafia would kill a lurker and leave the more active players alive, instead of killing a good player and letting the lurkers slow the game down. This means they’re a great asset to have in most games, though it’s best to not have too many of them. The thread will become cluttered and the game might ironically end up being less fun and harder to read. I’d recommend at least one or two, but they can make up to 40% of the players in a game. Beyond that, and you’re getting a bit risky.


Type Three—

  • Play To Win.

These people don’t really care about the beginning or the middle. For them, the thing most important is the end: Them winning, victorious. Playing to win is the point of any game; fun is a simple byproduct. Like Players Playing for Fun, they have variety: some of them enjoy the thrill of the hunt, the chase, but only because they want to win. Others don’t feel a shred of positive emotion until the game is over, and—obviously—only if they have won. Like all the types of players, these people aren’t bad or good: they just are. People playing to win tend to be really good scum hunters, for instance. They also make good backup/co-mods: if you make a game to be fun, they’ll make it balanced for you. While they do contrast Fun-Players, this ends up augmenting the overall experience if done right, instead of detracting from it.


3 a:

  • Play To Personally Win.

These people tend not to object to being handed a third-party role, if they think it’s possible to win. They’ll see it as an interesting challenge. People playing personally to win tend to not mind people playing for fun that much, because they’re nothing but a mere distraction—they aren’t actively hindering the goal of trying to win. This kind of player tends to devote a lot of attention to a game, knowing that if they stray into too many games at once, their chances of winning in each will decrease significantly. They also tend to be quite moderated in their behaviors: everything has a reason. These folks are good for games you feel are a bit cluttered: they tend to be annoyed enough to make things less so, but not angry enough to replace out. Too many of this type of player can make things ugly; debates will soon become personal. In general, they can make things boring if overused. You definitely want at least one of this type in a game, and you can get up to 40% of this type with no problem.


3 b:

  • Everyone Must Play to Win, or Get Out!

This kind of player tends to be a bit on the arrogant side. Most gamebreakers are of this type. Screw playing for fun! Everyone should be playing to win; it’s one of the universal rules on the site, after all. To give an example, I’ve seen what happened in Stars Aligned II: Adel and Phate had a gamebreaking strategy; they were trying to bully others into following it, and when they thought the mod was shooting it down, Adel replaced out and Phate almost did. This kind of player tends to be quick to anger: things have to go their way, and any who object are eliminated. That’s their mindset; they are right. They obviously hate people playing for fun; games should be taken seriously, not laughed off as a joke!


Obviously, these things aren’t always true for this type of player. Some can be calm, cool-headed people. However, even the best of them will still dislike those playing for fun, because they feel they’re ruining the game. These players tend to be highly analytical. Either they are extremely open to suggestions (the more they get, the more likely their plan will work, therefore, the more likely they are to win), or be extremely closed off to suggestions. (“No, you’re WRONG! We’re doing it this way, END OF DISCUSSION!”)

Similarly, this kind of player is not a bad thing. Obviously, you don’t want more than one or two in a game, or you’ll find yourself overwhelmed with replacement requests. They tend to make the game overall less fun, but at the same time, they can make it more interesting. It’s always nice to have a Chessmaster or two in the game, planning every move of the game, how everything will go. If they’re the flexible half of the scale, they might end up being one of the most praised players in the game.


(A Note From Mastin: How come I know so much about this group? Well, my playstyle was definitely the Play for Fun type, but my personality seemed to be heavily on the Play to Win end of things—the negative half, of course. However, the difference between playstyle and personality isn’t concrete. If this proves to be two separate ideas, that could potentially double the number of possibilities from eight to sixteen, and add the possibility of combinations. Further research is required in this matter, though.)


Type Four—

  • Play To Win, Play for Fun:

These people remember that the site rule is play to win and play to have fun. This means they are always open to suggestions, and are generally a very flexible player. You want to be this kind of a player, you want to play with this kind of a player, and you want this kind of a player in your game, because they can do anything that the other types can do. However, they’re not perfect: most of them tend to be JOATs, of sorts: The above player types tend to be masters of what they do. These players tend to be really good, but not as good as a player specializing in their field would be. These players tend to have a lot of distinct personality, and it’s almost always in a good way.


4 a:

  • Play for Fun, Play to Win.

These people want to have a good time…but they also really want to win. They’re good for flexibility, but also tend to be limited. They like to choose a lot more. So—ironically—in their flexibility, they tend to not be very flexible at all. They are open to compromises, and often are valuable players to have, but can sometimes be hard to actually get in the game. They enjoy every element of the game, and appreciate every little thing, tending to have no objection to any other player type. They have a good balance between goofing off and scum hunting, tending to balance instinct and intuition. They recognize others have different opinions, but will almost always still think that theirs is the correct one. (Most, however, are too polite to say so.)


4 b:

  • Everyone Should Have Fun, Everyone Try Their Best To Win.

These people are the greatest gift one can get in a game. They tend to be very good at making everyone get a good game. They recognize gamebreakers—for example—and see both sides of the argument. These players can do anything, and be anything. They want to help people out in any way they can. They’re excellent.


However, they are somewhat on the rare side. Some are a bit too selfish, falling into 4 a. If they favor one side too heavily (like 2b or 3b), they tend to be that side, instead of a 4 b. Being the most balanced also means they’re extremely skilled, and unfortunately, extreme skill is something you can’t always get. They’re always going to be a good asset, so it’s pretty much what most players will strive to be.


However, they have their limitations—they might be very good at being leaders in a town, but personally, they might not be very good at, say, defending themselves from attack, meaning, they are often vulnerable. They tend to not make good followers, because they want to ensure a good time, something not guaranteed if they’re not in control. They also might be good in all fields, but—as mentioned—they will never perfect any of them as well as a specialist would.

Basically, you can have quite a number of these, again, up to 40% in a game. However, you’ll almost never get that many, because they’re not only rare, but also incredibly busy. These players tend to be extremely skilled, and therefore, in high demand, similarly, not being able to devote as much time to it as other player types can.

(I know a lot about this player type because it’s what I, personally, hope to eventually become. I don’t think I’ve gotten there, yet, but who knows? With enough practice, I might end up achieving it.)