The Daedalus Project

Assessment: Motivation Factors (Facets)

Download PDF's

Click to download PDF's:

Vol. 1-1
Vol. 1-2
Vol. 1-3
Vol. 1-4
Vol. 1-5
Vol. 1-6
Vol. 1-7

Vol. 2-1
Vol. 2-2
Vol. 2-3
Vol. 2-4

Vol. 3-1
Vol. 3-2 (Motivations Issue)
Vol. 3-3
Vol. 3-4 (WoW Issue)
Vol. 3-5

Vol. 4-1
Vol. 4-2 (Guild Leadership Issue)
Vol. 4-3 (Role-Playing Issue)

Identity Projection

Players think of and relate to their avatars in very different ways. Some choose to identify and personify their avatar with their own personality, while others objectify their avatar and see it as a pawn in an abstracted playing field. As the following graph shows, female players are more likely to see their characters as idealized version of themselves, and age has a greater effect on male than on female players.

Players who see their characters as idealized versions of themselves do not spend more time playing the game, but they do indicate a greater willingness to stay with the game indefinitely than players who disagreed with that statement, probably due to personal and emotional investment in their characters.

====

There was also a very clear positive correlation with indicated willingness to stay with the game indefinitely.

====

In full complement with the two data sets presented above, there was a negative correlation with both hours played per week and projected willingness to stay with the game indefinitely.

Together, these three data sets show how identification with the avatar affects game play per week and projected willingness to stay with the game, probably as a function of personal and emotional investment. Perhaps agreement with identity projection statements could be thought of a measure for emotional and personal investment into the game.

Gaming with Romantic Partners and Family Members

On average, about 60% of female players (N = 312) and 16% of male players (N = 1592) play the game with a real-life romantic partner. The gender difference is expected and is a function of the ratio of men and women playing the game (about 5:1), although a small proportion may be attributed to same-sex romantic partners. Even so, knowing that up to 2/3’s of female players are not playing the game alone is important, because this probably influences their game-play patterns, and this has to be kept in mind when trying to explain gender differences in in-game data. The following graph plots the percentage of players who play with a RL romantic partner across gender and age groups.

And the following graph shows how frequently the respondents grouped with their romantic partner.

Respondents who played with a romantic partner were not more likely to spend more time playing the game, but they were more likely to indicate a greater willingness to stay with the game when compared with players who do not play the game with a romantic partner. When asked how long they projected themselves to continue playing the game, about 50% of players who play with romantic partners (N = 447) indicated they would continue playing the game indefinitely, while only 32% of players who do not play with a romantic partner (N = 1464) chose that option.

====

And the following graph shows how frequently the respondents grouped with their family members.

Respondents who play the game with a family member were not more likely to spend more time playing the game, and they were also not more likely to indicate a greater willingness to stay with the game when compared with respondents who do not play the game with a family member.

Engineering Relationships

Introduction

The effects of game mechanics can be explored on many different levels. On the lower tiers, we can look at how the rewards system enhances or diminishes the appeal of the game. On the higher tiers, we can look at how game mechanics influence community-wide behaviors or phenomena. For example, it is probably fairly obvious that the game mechanics of an MMORPG affect the economy that develops within the game. If there are limited ways for the currency to leave the player market (through NPC vendors, death penalty, etc.), then inflation will eventually overtake the economy and be difficult to control. But it may be less obvious how the game mechanics of an MMORPG affect how relationships form and develop within the game. By comparing the game mechanics of EverQuest (EQ) and Dark Age of Camelot (DAOC), this essay explores how these game mechanics can shape the relationships that form in MMORPGs. While more theoretical than empirical, the ideas presented are all testable hypotheses. An understanding of the effect of game mechanics on social phenomena has an impact on the design of future virtual environments, as well as helping us understand how social context affects us in the real world.

Encouraging meaningful relationships is much more than just enhancing the communication interface. While clearly a necessary part of building relationships, having a communication channel doesn’t do any good if players aren’t encouraged to interact with each other. It also doesn’t do any good if players only interact for superficial reasons. To foster strong relationships, a game needs to provide players a large potential to interact and increase the likelihood that each interaction creates a relationship between the players involved.

Downtime During Fights

Forcing players to group to fight a tough mob is a typical way to get players to interact, and most MMORPGs make it very difficult to solo as the player’s level increases. But perhaps the amount of downtime between fights is also a crucial element in player interaction. DAOC streamlines combat and minimizes downtime during grouped combat. Mythic does this by making most buffs consume no mana, and by having fast HP and mana regen among other design elements. Typical grouped combats in EQ, on the other hand, are separated by pronounced intervals of downtime. Among other design elements, HP and mana regen are slow, and buffing a group consumes most of a cleric’s or druid’s mana, after which the group has to wait until the cleric or druid has regained that mana. Also, typical battles with a mob are shorter in DAOC when compared with EQ, and the rate of mob encounters is higher in DAOC than in EQ. In effect, what typically happens in EQ is that a group fights for 5-10 minutes and then has to rest for 3-5 minutes, while in DAOC, a group can fight continuously for long periods with relatively short rest periods. Even though players are together in a group and might be inclined to talk to each other, they can’t really develop meaningful relationships easily if there’s not enough time to talk. By streamlining the group combat experience, Mythic may be shortchanging themselves in terms of potential relationship formation in DAOC.

Interdependencies

Apart from situations where players are already grouped, game design elements can encourage players to interact with each other on a one-on-one basis to differing degrees. EQ, when compared with DAOC, has a system where players are more dependent on each other. For example, a lot of crucial or useful abilities in EverQuest are utility spells that only certain classes can cast on others. Among these are Bind (safespot creation), Resurrection, Clarity (mana regen), Spirit of Wolf (movement enhancement), Teleports, or Invisibility. In DAOC however, Bind is an ability all classes can perform by themselves, cheap public horses take the place of Teleports, Resurrection is a low-level spell that several classes have, and most utility spells can only be cast on the character or on group members.

====

Random Acts of Kindness

A variation of this theme is the random acts of kindness that many players experience. By increasing the number of ways that players can help each other, it increases the chances that altruistic individuals help lower-level players. Individual altruistic events promote trust at the community level which is crucial for trust at the individual level when two strangers encounter each other and could potentially form a relationship.

Some EQ players were vocal about the annoyances of the player dependencies in EQ, and DAOC was consciously designed to make players more independent of each other than in EQ. However, these minor annoyances may actually help encourage and sustain strong social relationships in the long-run.

====

Beyond specific game mechanics, the world of EQ is also more dangerous than the world of DAOC. In EQ, when you die, your items stay on your corpse and you must travel to your corpse to retrieve your items. There is the chance you may not find your corpse, and also a chance that you may lose all your items if your corpse decays, apart from the frustration of having to retrieve your corpse instead of gaining XP. Both teleports and resurrection can only be cast by one or two classes, so dying is a very “expensive” event in EQ. DAOC is much safer in comparison. Your items stay with you instead of the corpse when you die; everything is a horse-ride away; you can’t de-level because of experience loss; and resurrection is a low-level spell that several classes have. Trust is forged through dangerous and high-risk situations. You don’t ever need to trust anyone except when the situation is dangerous, and EQ does this much better than DAOC. The game design decision to make death easy in DAOC also makes players more nonchalant about dying. Dying is a trivial event in DAOC. But because trusting friendships are forged from dangerous encounters, the mechanics of death actually have a huge influence on how relationships develop.

Conclusion

Of course in listing all these differences between EQ and DAOC, one has to keep in mind that game design is about compromising among multiple objectives, and Mythic purposely chose to streamline certain game features while Verant streamlined others. One might get the sense from the above contrasts that Mythic made poor decisions. This is not meant to be the case at all, and it must be pointed out again that game balancing oftentimes leads to compromises such as the ones mentioned.

In single player and limited multiplayer games, system rules and game mechanics mainly have an impact on how fun and engaging the game is. In MMORPGs, game mechanics have more far-reaching effects. Differences in game mechanics influence how an economy develops as well as how social relationships form. As upcoming MMORPGs provide integrated real-estate and player-elected governments, one could imagine using these worlds as social or political simulations in an attempt to understand large-scale human behavior without the fear of inflicting real world consequences. Or perhaps, we might come to realize that the rules of social interaction in online environments are so different from those in the real world that we need new theories to understand these phenomena.

Questions for Readers: Are there other game mechanics that influence the formation and development of social relationships or social networks? What other interesting large-scale behaviors or phenomena do game mechanics affect? (comment below)

Player Personality Profiles

Most of the data that I have presented has been big-picture quantitative differences between age or gender groups. In the most recent survey I collected a large set of personality data from respondents in an attempt to validate and restructure existing models to describe and understand player behavior and preferences. In doing so, I was able to gather fairly in-depth personality profiles of individual players. As I explored these profiles, I realized that they were just as interesting as the large-scale data. Here, I will present several profiles to highlight the different reasons why people play MMORPGs.

The individual profiles consist of 3 sets of data. The first is a Dynamics model developed by Edward Murray that assesses the motivations that drive an individual. This model bears a similarity to the Enneagram, but the major difference is that this model has been empirically validated. The second set of data is taken from the Big-5 factor model of traits widely accepted among personality psychologists. Traits are overt behaviors, as opposed to the dynamics that motivate these behaviors. And finally, the third set are the 5 motivation factors for why players play MMORPGs, taken from the Facets study. Each factor will be discussed as they appear below, but you may choose to read brief descriptions of each factor before proceeding.

With the Big-5 and the Facets scales, the percentages shown in the graph are the percentile-ranks of the individual's scores within the sample of about 2000 respondents. In other words, a 75% means 25% of the sample scored higher, and 75% scored lower than this individual on this scale. With the Dynamics factors, the percentages shown are the ratios of each factor after the percentile was calculated. In other words, the Performer percentage = (Performer percentile) / (Sum of all percentiles). This is done in accordance with Edward Murray's assessment calculations.

====

Let's begin with a profile of a 14 year-old male EQ player.

This individual has the attributes of a stereotypical young teenage male MMORPG player. Looking at the Dynamics factors, the high Performer and Leader scores imply that he derives most of his satisfaction from high-energy activities and asserting control over other people. Maturity changes how people channel their motivations. So immature Leaders may be bullies or tyrants, while mature Leaders provide guiding leadership and inspiration. This player's low Trait scores in Trust, Compliance and Modesty reveal that he is competitive, perhaps confrontational, self-confident and has a general mistrust for others. His high scores in Extraversion and Assertiveness go hand in hand with his high Performer and Leader scores - again a desire to assert himself in social situations. The high Leader score along with low scores in Compliance, Modesty and Trust imply that this player's social assertion is more malevolent and destructive than constructive, and this is reflected in the high Grief score in the Motivation factors. In other words, this individual enjoys tormenting and bullying other players in MMORPGs.

====

Here is the profile of a 57 year-old male UO player who plays for very different reasons.

In the Dynamics graph, the high Aesthete score implies a desire to connect with larger cultural or existential issues. Aesthetes may be artists or musicians, or they could be part of a not-for-profit or religious organization. Individuals who have high Manager scores derive satisfaction from order, rules and control. Immature managers oftentimes appear obsessive and stubborn, even fanatical. Mature managers are able to use their organizational and planning abilities constructively. The high Trait score in Duty matches the high Manager score, and we get a sense that this individual has a strong sense of moral obligation and this is the focus of the Manager dynamic - duty arising from a need for order and control is very central to this man's personality. Within the game, it seems to be the Aesthete dynamic that drives the dominant motivation to be immersed in the fantasy world - to be part of a collaborative story, a mutual suspension of disbelief that arises from role-playing heavy crowds.

====

Here is the profile of a 25 year-old male EQ player whose Dynamic data looks very similar to the first profile shown, but we'll see how important differences in the Traits differentiate these two individuals.

Again, we see high scores in Leader and Performer. The high Performer score implies an active lifestyle, and the high Extraversion score implies this is a very socially active individual. Compared with the first profile, this individual is less assertive and is more cooperative and easier to work with. While having a low sense of duty and obligation, this individual has a high need for organization and planning and is moderately driven to achieve. The high Leader score implies a desire to influence other people and this translates into a desire to lead groups within MMORPGs. Notice that while the teenage male chose to exert his control over other people destructively, this individual is exerting his control constructively. The high Manager score and the high Need for Order score hint at a joy of understanding the rules and mechanics of the game and deriving satisfaction from achievements within the bounds of those rules, and this is probably why this individual is achievement-driven within the game. This is a good profile for a guild leader or officer.

====

And finally we end with a profile of a 21 year-old female DAOC player.

Individuals who score high in Relating derive satisfaction from intimate relationships. Immature Relating individuals may be manipulative and self-serving (instilling guilt in others) to get more affection from others. Mature Relating individuals are truly unselfish and empathetic, and have a more giving kind of affection. Loyalists seek security from group allegiance or relationship loyalty. Immature Loyalists are self-effacing, and cling to powerful figures for security, while mature Loyalists are loyal to others and are trustworthy and dependable. This individual scores high on both Loyalist and Relating and enjoys using the MMORPG world as a way to form intimate and supportive relationships. The high Modesty and Compliance scores, together with the high Loyalist score, hints at a more immature Loyalist whose sense of security is so weak that they are self-effacing and that she gives in easily to more powerful figures. This is supported by the very low Assertiveness score. She seeks out authority figures to control her fears and insecurities (also supported by the high Duty score) - a self-deprecating form of loyalty. The high Role/Immersion score is probably a function of the moderate Aesthete score.

Welcome to The Third Issue

I finally found out what was causing the erratic page cut-off that some of you may have experienced here. It apparently is caused by an IE6 bug (go figure), and has a very straight-forward quick fix. Another one of life greatest dilemma's has been solved :)

I also integrated the MT-Paginate plug-in, which allows pagination of a long entry over multiple pages. This makes the longer entries look less daunting to read. I think the page-flipping metaphor makes the experience more pleasant by simulating progress, while one long webpage just feels daunting.

I'm also picking up some PHP and MySQL skills (which I think will come in handy) and it'll let me create interactive components here as well as in the surveys themselves.

Description of Personality Factors

The Dynamics model is part of an elaborate and empirically validated model developed by Edward Murray. It combines the complexity and depth of psychoanalytic theories with the robustness of a modern, empirically-validated personality assessment tool. The Dynamics are underlying motivations that drive an individual. The model does not shoe-horn people in "types". Instead, an individual has a score/loading on each factor to find out what the dominant dynamics are.

Performer: Derives satisfaction from high-energy and thrill-seeking activities. Because Performers derive pleasure from activity, their greatest fear is a sense of emptiness from stagnation or inactivity.

Egoist: Derives satisfaction from self-achievements and improving one's abilities/status. The greatest fear of an Egoist is being worthless and being unable to help himself.

Leader: Derives satisfaction from asserting control over other people. The greatest fear of a Leader is to be subjugated and being in a subservient position.

Manager: Derives satisfaction from order, control and rules. The greatest fear of a Manager is intense shame and guilt from disobeying a rule or losing control.

Theoretician: Derives satisfaction from understanding and mastering a body of knowledge. The greatest fear of a Theoretician is ignorance or irrationality.

Relating: Derives satisfaction from intimate relationships with others. The greatest fear of a Relating individual is not being loved.

Loyalist: Derives satisfaction from allegiance with a group or authority figure. The greatest fear of a Loyalist is autonomy because they get security from being part of a group.

Mediator: Derives satisfaction from keeping peace and maintaining harmony in their relationships and in their surroundings. The greatest fear of a Mediator is an unprincipled or corrupt environment where peace can never be maintained.

Aesthete: Derives satisfaction from connecting with larger cultural or existential issues. The greatest fear of an Aesthere is apathy or emptiness.

====

Factor: Extraversion

Friendliness. Friendly people genuinely like other people and openly demonstrate positive feelings toward others. They make friends quickly and it is easy for them to form close, intimate relationships. Low scorers on Friendliness are not necessarily cold and hostile, but they do not reach out to others and are perceived as distant and reserved.

Gregariousness. Gregarious people find the company of others pleasantly stimulating and rewarding. They enjoy the excitement of crowds. Low scorers tend to feel overwhelmed by, and therefore actively avoid, large crowds. They do not necessarily dislike being with people sometimes, but their need for privacy and time to themselves is much greater than for individuals who score high on this scale.

Assertiveness. High scorers Assertiveness like to speak out, take charge, and direct the activities of others. They tend to be leaders in groups. Low scorers tend not to talk much and let others control the activities of groups.

Factor: Agreeableness

Trust. A person with high trust assumes that most people are fair, honest, and have good intentions. Persons low in trust see others as selfish, devious, and potentially dangerous.

Compliance / Cooperation. Individuals who score high on this scale dislike confrontations. They are perfectly willing to compromise or to deny their own needs in order to get along with others. Those who score low on this scale are more likely to intimidate others to get their way.

Modesty. High scorers on this scale do not like to claim that they are better than other people. In some cases this attitude may derive from low self-confidence or self-esteem. Nonetheless, some people with high self-esteem find immodesty unseemly. Those who are willing to describe themselves as superior tend to be seen as disagreeably arrogant by other people.

Factor: Conscientiousness

Orderliness. Persons with high scores on orderliness are well-organized. They like to live according to routines and schedules. They keep lists and make plans. Low scorers tend to be disorganized and scattered.

Dutifulness. This scale reflects the strength of a person's sense of duty and obligation. Those who score high on this scale have a strong sense of moral obligation. Low scorers find contracts, rules, and regulations overly confining. They are likely to be seen as unreliable or even irresponsible.

Achievement-Striving. Individuals who score high on this scale strive hard to achieve excellence. Their drive to be recognized as successful keeps them on track toward their lofty goals. They often have a strong sense of direction in life, but extremely high scores may be too single-minded and obsessed with their work. Low scorers are content to get by with a minimal amount of work, and might be seen by others as lazy.

- these descriptors were taken from John A. Johnson's page. Dr. Johnson is a Professor of Psychology at Penn State University.

Brief Intro for Big-5 Factors: Bad design decisions, but good content.
International Personality Item Pool: The main site for the IPIP.
Take the IPIP: Take a more extensive assessment.
Critique of the Big-5: Well-written critique of the Big-5 model.

====

Relationship: This factor measures the desire to develop meaningful relationships with other players in the game - usually in the form of a supportive friendship.

Immersion: This factor measures the desire to become immersed in a make-believe construct and to role-play different characters.

Grief: This factor measures the desire to objectify and use other players for one's own gains.

Achievement: This factor measures the desire to become powerful within the construct of a game and correlates with a desire to accumulate weapons or symbols of power.

Group / Lead: This factor measures the gregariousness of a player, and correlates with a desire to achieve group success as well as a desire to lead these groups.