I don't think it's the killing of other players that's " sociopathic" It's the need to take it farther than just the actual pvp. People who take part in large battles or who join a battle ground area generally are doing it to fight another thinking opponent. It's about skill and challenge etc that you can't get fighting a computer.
The bad ones are the ones who don't care about a fair fight, a challenging fight, or anything like that. They're there to ruin someones day. To make someone mad, or quit or whatever as long as they're spreading misery around to other humans, they're having fun.
They are the reason why so many of these pvp games fail. It's hard to have fun in a game when it just starts to fill up with people you don't want to be around.
I wouldn't call it sociopathic. I think it's fine to do that in an environment where it is permitted. I think the problem comes in when people demand open world PvP when some players oppose it (or vise versa with PvE players demanding NO open world PvP). That's why we have different server rulesets.
I stopped playing on PvP servers long ago because I found that you can't get fair and balanced PvP on such a server. I remember in WoW there were entire GROUPS on max level characters in full PvP arena gear roaming around Stranglethorn Vale (a level 35ish zone) unabated with no opposition from the other faction. Not exactly my idea of fun, but people should know what to expect playing on those servers and I'm not sure it's fair to label the people who do that sociopaths.
in the humble opinion of Da Skull, and eve player since 2007 it should be noted so take this with a grain of salt
there is a way way big difference between (1) killing players in order to further your goals or your group's goals in a game, (2) killing players in an arena setting to see who's the better player, and (3) killing players to make their game experience less fun (aka griefing).
I dont see anything sociopathic what so ever about (1) and (2) but to me (3) is the domain of (for the most part, there are always exceptions) some pretty seriously f'cked psyches.
in eve I have been PVP'd plenty of times and I have PVP'd people plenty of times but i have never, ever griefed anyone and never will. I have also only ever been griefed once, and the griefer wasnt successful and he or she got the concordokken that was coming to them
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
I think many people don't understand the actual meaning of sociopathy.
Killing others isn't inherently sociopathic, and never has been. The word you are looking for is sadistic.
And yes, killing other players is often a sadistic behavior. There are those who enjoy a challenge vs. another player, which isn't sadistic. And then there are those who like to grief, troll, corpse/spawn camp, 1 shot, pray on lowbies, etc. etc. And that is much more frequent, as well as much more sadistic in nature.
Is it any more sadistic than hunting down and murdering every last creature of a race or species for the 0.5% chance it will have that special item one needs to craft the particular hat they want to have?
Do you consider the players of WOW's battlegrounds to be sadistic? What about the players of Team Fortress 2? Are they there only to troll the other players?
You have drawn a personal line somewhere and I'm interested in where that line is. I'm willing to bet it is specifically at OW PVP, but then that begs the question why one would consider it sadistic if the players that are being "prayed" upon are there for the same exact reason as those that killed them.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by Mr_Wolfx The word sociopath just gets thrown around when a player kills someone who they know already has no chance of fighting back. I guess it could be compared to killing a helpless robot dog. Even if they are just "killing pixels", players should realize there's someone on the other side just trying to enjoy their game and not get constantly facerolled by someone 60 levels higher than them. And as for the ones that already think about that and continue to do it, maybe sociopath isn't the right word, but somethings wrong with em. Personally I just call them douchebags.
A player is not supposed to peacefully enjoy the game which allows ffa pvp. The design of the game offers a challenge to evade gankers; if you are constantly killed, you are not evading gankers and therefore not playing the game as it is designed. It'similar to jumping off the cliff and being annoyed that you die - you are not supposed to do it by game design.
For me, the singular pleasure of such games is to learn to avoid gank. I really don't see a reason for anyone not enjoying constant looking behind your shoulder to play them.
I'm not saying that there's no fun in having to look over your shoulder in a game, I actually prefer it. But the fun in an open pvp game should be the challenge of facing an even player and of having a fair fight. The point I was trying to make is that it's not fun to get one shot killed, and I know for a fact it's not fun or challenging to one-shot another player. It's nothing like jumping off a cliff and being mad that you're dead. It's more like your a child with a cliff next to you and than someone 30 years older than you picks you up and throws you off that cliff. You gain no satisfaction. And the guy who threw you off that cliff gains nothing but the satisfaction of knowing that he's stronger than a child. It shouldn't be fun for anyone. Once again, their just douchebags.
Says who? I think the fun in an open world pvp game is the fact that anything can happen. If I wanted a game where everything was fair and everybody was on equal footing, I'd play a game with battlegrounds. I want to have that opportunity to win while outnumber, or even the opportunity to be ganked by a roaming group of bandits. What's the point of having an ow pvp game if it's just even fights every time?
The only point to pvp is to ensure people remain in a "hardcore" state.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
I think many people don't understand the actual meaning of sociopathy.
Killing others isn't inherently sociopathic, and never has been. The word you are looking for is sadistic.
These two words often, as in this case, coincide at least if you're talking about the real word. Killing someone for no reason other than "fun" (in real life) is extremely sociopathic as a non-sociopath would have the empathy required to prevent him from wanting to do that. (it could also certainly be sadistic particularly if there's torture-type behavior involved.)
In a game, yes I agree with you, a griefer is being a bit sadistic when he kills a lowbie and camps their corpse and laughs at them when they try to respawn. Calling this behavior actually sociopathic is a huge stretch though.
I think many people don't understand the actual meaning of sociopathy.
Killing others isn't inherently sociopathic, and never has been. The word you are looking for is sadistic.
And yes, killing other players is often a sadistic behavior. There are those who enjoy a challenge vs. another player, which isn't sadistic. And then there are those who like to grief, troll, corpse/spawn camp, 1 shot, pray on lowbies, etc. etc. And that is much more frequent, as well as much more sadistic in nature.
Is it any more sadistic than hunting down and murdering every last creature of a race or species for the 0.5% chance it will have that special item one needs to craft the particular hat they want to have?
Do you consider the players of WOW's battlegrounds to be sadistic? What about the players of Team Fortress 2? Are they there only to troll the other players?
You have drawn a personal line somewhere and I'm interested in where that line is. I'm willing to bet it is specifically at OW PVP, but then that begs the question why one would consider it sadistic if the players that are being "prayed" upon are there for the same exact reason as those that killed them.
What if the prey wants to switch places? Just make content out of those that do it to others?
Oh hell no!!
The devs will create battlegrounds or remove pvp before that happens.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a little PvP. It's when you purposely target much lower level players that pose no threat to you and then get mad because the game doesn't have a "Tea Bag" emote that you may want to seek some specialized help.
Originally posted by aesperus Originally posted by lizardbones More precisely, why do some people see killing other players as the behavior of sociopaths and some people do not? **snip** Here's what I think. The people who refused to kill the robots weren't refusing to kill robots which aren't alive and cannot feel pain, they were refusing to kill the cute little pets in their heads, that did have feelings, would feel pain and because they were part of the people imagining them, alive. People who see killing other players in game as an act of a sociopath are seeing the other player's avatar, and then building the other player in their head. They are literally killing or hurting some aspect of themselves when they kill that avatar. People who do not see killing the other player in game as an act of a sociopath do not build that other player in their head. They are literally killing pixels. Of course, this all has to be adjusted somewhat for situational parameters. Most people are not averse to killing other players in PvP battlegrounds. It's the whole "killing a lowbie" thing. But, I think it might apply. Or not. :-) What do you think?
I think many people don't understand the actual meaning of sociopathy.
Killing others isn't inherently sociopathic, and never has been. The word you are looking for is sadistic.
And yes, killing other players is often a sadistic behavior. There are those who enjoy a challenge vs. another player, which isn't sadistic. And then there are those who like to grief, troll, corpse/spawn camp, 1 shot, pray on lowbies, etc. etc. And that is much more frequent, as well as much more sadistic in nature.
I will be the first to admit that I'm neither a Psychologist, nor have I studied abnormal psychology. If I ask the internet brain what a sociopath is, I get this:
a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.
I think this could apply the way people use it in the PvP discussions. At least, it could apply to how people perceive people in any event.
Anyway, it's not that important whether we talk about Sadistic Behavior or the behavior of a Sociopath. It's more interesting to see why people think killing another defenseless player is or is not sadistic (or whatever term we want to use). Does it depend totally on the scenario and the results or is killing another player sadistic, period? If so, why do people see it one way or the other?
I happen to think it's because people either build or do not build representations of living things in their heads to associate with the pixels. People who build representations of living things in their heads and associate them with pixels are going to be averse to "killing" pixels. People who don't build those representations in their heads aren't going to be bothered by killing pixels. I am making the assumption that the players are not actually full-on sadists, or sociopaths. I'm guessing a sadist would build the representation in their head and derive pleasure from killing it. The sociopath might build that representation, but not really care if it gets killed. Something like that anyway.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by lizardbones More precisely, why do some people see killing other players as the behavior of sociopaths and some people do not? **snip** Here's what I think. The people who refused to kill the robots weren't refusing to kill robots which aren't alive and cannot feel pain, they were refusing to kill the cute little pets in their heads, that did have feelings, would feel pain and because they were part of the people imagining them, alive. People who see killing other players in game as an act of a sociopath are seeing the other player's avatar, and then building the other player in their head. They are literally killing or hurting some aspect of themselves when they kill that avatar. People who do not see killing the other player in game as an act of a sociopath do not build that other player in their head. They are literally killing pixels. Of course, this all has to be adjusted somewhat for situational parameters. Most people are not averse to killing other players in PvP battlegrounds. It's the whole "killing a lowbie" thing. But, I think it might apply. Or not. :-) What do you think?
I think many people don't understand the actual meaning of sociopathy.
Killing others isn't inherently sociopathic, and never has been. The word you are looking for is sadistic.
And yes, killing other players is often a sadistic behavior. There are those who enjoy a challenge vs. another player, which isn't sadistic. And then there are those who like to grief, troll, corpse/spawn camp, 1 shot, pray on lowbies, etc. etc. And that is much more frequent, as well as much more sadistic in nature.
I will be the first to admit that I'm neither a Psychologist, nor have I studied abnormal psychology. If I ask the internet brain what a sociopath is, I get this:
a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.
I think this could apply the way people use it in the PvP discussions. At least, it could apply to how people perceive people in any event.
Anyway, it's not that important whether we talk about Sadistic Behavior or the behavior of a Sociopath. It's more interesting to see why people think killing another defenseless player is or is not sadistic (or whatever term we want to use). Does it depend totally on the scenario and the results or is killing another player sadistic, period? If so, why do people see it one way or the other?
I happen to think it's because people either build or do not build representations of living things in their heads to associate with the pixels. People who build representations of living things in their heads and associate them with pixels are going to be averse to "killing" pixels. People who don't build those representations in their heads aren't going to be bothered by killing pixels. I am making the assumption that the players are not actually full-on sadists, or sociopaths. I'm guessing a sadist would build the representation in their head and derive pleasure from killing it. The sociopath might build that representation, but not really care if it gets killed. Something like that anyway.
So people playing a role will have a different perception than people playing themselves?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Originally posted by FinalFikus Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by aesperusOriginally posted by lizardbones More precisely, why do some people see killing other players as the behavior of sociopaths and some people do not? **snip** Here's what I think. The people who refused to kill the robots weren't refusing to kill robots which aren't alive and cannot feel pain, they were refusing to kill the cute little pets in their heads, that did have feelings, would feel pain and because they were part of the people imagining them, alive. People who see killing other players in game as an act of a sociopath are seeing the other player's avatar, and then building the other player in their head. They are literally killing or hurting some aspect of themselves when they kill that avatar. People who do not see killing the other player in game as an act of a sociopath do not build that other player in their head. They are literally killing pixels. Of course, this all has to be adjusted somewhat for situational parameters. Most people are not averse to killing other players in PvP battlegrounds. It's the whole "killing a lowbie" thing. But, I think it might apply. Or not. :-) What do you think?I think many people don't understand the actual meaning of sociopathy.Killing others isn't inherently sociopathic, and never has been. The word you are looking for is sadistic.And yes, killing other players is often a sadistic behavior. There are those who enjoy a challenge vs. another player, which isn't sadistic. And then there are those who like to grief, troll, corpse/spawn camp, 1 shot, pray on lowbies, etc. etc. And that is much more frequent, as well as much more sadistic in nature.
I will be the first to admit that I'm neither a Psychologist, nor have I studied abnormal psychology. If I ask the internet brain what a sociopath is, I get this:a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience. I think this could apply the way people use it in the PvP discussions. At least, it could apply to how people perceive people in any event. Anyway, it's not that important whether we talk about Sadistic Behavior or the behavior of a Sociopath. It's more interesting to see why people think killing another defenseless player is or is not sadistic (or whatever term we want to use). Does it depend totally on the scenario and the results or is killing another player sadistic, period? If so, why do people see it one way or the other? I happen to think it's because people either build or do not build representations of living things in their heads to associate with the pixels. People who build representations of living things in their heads and associate them with pixels are going to be averse to "killing" pixels. People who don't build those representations in their heads aren't going to be bothered by killing pixels. I am making the assumption that the players are not actually full-on sadists, or sociopaths. I'm guessing a sadist would build the representation in their head and derive pleasure from killing it. The sociopath might build that representation, but not really care if it gets killed. Something like that anyway. So people playing a role will have a different perception than people playing themselves?
I don't know if it has anything to do with role playing or not. I would certainly think that role players have a different perception of other players than people who are not role playing, but I've never seen any clear divide between role players on "ganking" other players. There could be role players who are fine with it and role players who consider it sadistic. I wouldn't have any real idea.
We constantly build a world in our heads that represents the world we live in. We have to, or we'd never be able to conceptualize the television that's in the living room when we're in the kitchen. I think we do the same thing when we're playing video games, except we build a representation of the virtual world in our heads. Some people populate the virtual world in their heads with 'real' people. They feel guilty when they kill them, so they prefer to not kill them. Some people populate the virtual world in their heads with what amounts to puppets. They don't feel guilty about killing the puppets, so if it's fun, they enjoy it. The people who kill puppets are called sadists or sociopaths by the people who don't want to kill the 'real' people.
In the experiment (link in the OP), nothing was said about how the people who killed their robots were viewed by the people who refused, but I bet there were some dirty looks passed around.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by lizardbones More precisely, why do some people see killing other players as the behavior of sociopaths and some people do not? **snip** Here's what I think. The people who refused to kill the robots weren't refusing to kill robots which aren't alive and cannot feel pain, they were refusing to kill the cute little pets in their heads, that did have feelings, would feel pain and because they were part of the people imagining them, alive. People who see killing other players in game as an act of a sociopath are seeing the other player's avatar, and then building the other player in their head. They are literally killing or hurting some aspect of themselves when they kill that avatar. People who do not see killing the other player in game as an act of a sociopath do not build that other player in their head. They are literally killing pixels. Of course, this all has to be adjusted somewhat for situational parameters. Most people are not averse to killing other players in PvP battlegrounds. It's the whole "killing a lowbie" thing. But, I think it might apply. Or not. :-) What do you think?I think many people don't understand the actual meaning of sociopathy.Killing others isn't inherently sociopathic, and never has been. The word you are looking for is sadistic.And yes, killing other players is often a sadistic behavior. There are those who enjoy a challenge vs. another player, which isn't sadistic. And then there are those who like to grief, troll, corpse/spawn camp, 1 shot, pray on lowbies, etc. etc. And that is much more frequent, as well as much more sadistic in nature.
I will be the first to admit that I'm neither a Psychologist, nor have I studied abnormal psychology. If I ask the internet brain what a sociopath is, I get this:a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.
I think this could apply the way people use it in the PvP discussions. At least, it could apply to how people perceive people in any event. Anyway, it's not that important whether we talk about Sadistic Behavior or the behavior of a Sociopath. It's more interesting to see why people think killing another defenseless player is or is not sadistic (or whatever term we want to use). Does it depend totally on the scenario and the results or is killing another player sadistic, period? If so, why do people see it one way or the other? I happen to think it's because people either build or do not build representations of living things in their heads to associate with the pixels. People who build representations of living things in their heads and associate them with pixels are going to be averse to "killing" pixels. People who don't build those representations in their heads aren't going to be bothered by killing pixels. I am making the assumption that the players are not actually full-on sadists, or sociopaths. I'm guessing a sadist would build the representation in their head and derive pleasure from killing it. The sociopath might build that representation, but not really care if it gets killed. Something like that anyway.
So people playing a role will have a different perception than people playing themselves?
I don't know if it has anything to do with role playing or not. I would certainly think that role players have a different perception of other players than people who are not role playing, but I've never seen any clear divide between role players on "ganking" other players. There could be role players who are fine with it and role players who consider it sadistic. I wouldn't have any real idea.
We constantly build a world in our heads that represents the world we live in. We have to, or we'd never be able to conceptualize the television that's in the living room when we're in the kitchen. I think we do the same thing when we're playing video games, except we build a representation of the virtual world in our heads. Some people populate the virtual world in their heads with 'real' people. They feel guilty when they kill them, so they prefer to not kill them. Some people populate the virtual world in their heads with what amounts to puppets. They don't feel guilty about killing the puppets, so if it's fun, they enjoy it. The people who kill puppets are called sadists or sociopaths by the people who don't want to kill the 'real' people.
In the experiment (link in the OP), nothing was said about how the people who killed their robots were viewed by the people who refused, but I bet there were some dirty looks passed around.
People fill the virtual world with their imagination.
If you call a robot a pet, you are imagining it as a pet, to then imagine harm to them because someone told you to doesn't work. You have to imagine a reason to harm them.
Imposing on imagination is an easy way for those playing themselves to have power. Labeling them is just imagination trying to cope.
Role players want policing systems, but those are immediately axed to protect the hardcore.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Originally posted by Otakun Killing someone in a situation like Open World PVP with no loot, exp or record keeping like a lot of mordern MMOs are like is a sign to show that the person killing is ONLY doing it for the fun of stopping another from enjoying the game. That is pretty much a sociopath under the guise of "well, it's not real so it doesn't count". Same could be said for Cyber bullying but now that's becoming a big issue.
Many of the gankers in games aren't 18 yet, but otherwise meet the criteria.
People often display their "true natures" on the internet, where fear of reprisal is minimal. And often those true natures bear more than a little similarity to someone with antisocial personality disorder.
Originally posted by Otakun Killing someone in a situation like Open World PVP with no loot, exp or record keeping like a lot of mordern MMOs are like is a sign to show that the person killing is ONLY doing it for the fun of stopping another from enjoying the game. That is pretty much a sociopath under the guise of "well, it's not real so it doesn't count". Same could be said for Cyber bullying but now that's becoming a big issue.
Many of the gankers in games aren't 18 yet, but otherwise meet the criteria.
People often display their "true natures" on the internet, where fear of reprisal is minimal. And often those true natures bear more than a little similarity to someone with antisocial personality disorder.
I think they're just playing mmorpgs like they were FPS pvp.
The weirdos are a tiny tiny group.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Originally posted by FinalFikus Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by FinalFikusOriginally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by aesperusOriginally posted by lizardbones More precisely, why do some people see killing other players as the behavior of sociopaths and some people do not? **snip** Here's what I think. The people who refused to kill the robots weren't refusing to kill robots which aren't alive and cannot feel pain, they were refusing to kill the cute little pets in their heads, that did have feelings, would feel pain and because they were part of the people imagining them, alive. People who see killing other players in game as an act of a sociopath are seeing the other player's avatar, and then building the other player in their head. They are literally killing or hurting some aspect of themselves when they kill that avatar. People who do not see killing the other player in game as an act of a sociopath do not build that other player in their head. They are literally killing pixels. Of course, this all has to be adjusted somewhat for situational parameters. Most people are not averse to killing other players in PvP battlegrounds. It's the whole "killing a lowbie" thing. But, I think it might apply. Or not. :-) What do you think?I think many people don't understand the actual meaning of sociopathy.Killing others isn't inherently sociopathic, and never has been. The word you are looking for is sadistic.And yes, killing other players is often a sadistic behavior. There are those who enjoy a challenge vs. another player, which isn't sadistic. And then there are those who like to grief, troll, corpse/spawn camp, 1 shot, pray on lowbies, etc. etc. And that is much more frequent, as well as much more sadistic in nature.
I will be the first to admit that I'm neither a Psychologist, nor have I studied abnormal psychology. If I ask the internet brain what a sociopath is, I get this:a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.I think this could apply the way people use it in the PvP discussions. At least, it could apply to how people perceive people in any event. Anyway, it's not that important whether we talk about Sadistic Behavior or the behavior of a Sociopath. It's more interesting to see why people think killing another defenseless player is or is not sadistic (or whatever term we want to use). Does it depend totally on the scenario and the results or is killing another player sadistic, period? If so, why do people see it one way or the other? I happen to think it's because people either build or do not build representations of living things in their heads to associate with the pixels. People who build representations of living things in their heads and associate them with pixels are going to be averse to "killing" pixels. People who don't build those representations in their heads aren't going to be bothered by killing pixels. I am making the assumption that the players are not actually full-on sadists, or sociopaths. I'm guessing a sadist would build the representation in their head and derive pleasure from killing it. The sociopath might build that representation, but not really care if it gets killed. Something like that anyway. So people playing a role will have a different perception than people playing themselves? I don't know if it has anything to do with role playing or not. I would certainly think that role players have a different perception of other players than people who are not role playing, but I've never seen any clear divide between role players on "ganking" other players. There could be role players who are fine with it and role players who consider it sadistic. I wouldn't have any real idea. We constantly build a world in our heads that represents the world we live in. We have to, or we'd never be able to conceptualize the television that's in the living room when we're in the kitchen. I think we do the same thing when we're playing video games, except we build a representation of the virtual world in our heads. Some people populate the virtual world in their heads with 'real' people. They feel guilty when they kill them, so they prefer to not kill them. Some people populate the virtual world in their heads with what amounts to puppets. They don't feel guilty about killing the puppets, so if it's fun, they enjoy it. The people who kill puppets are called sadists or sociopaths by the people who don't want to kill the 'real' people. In the experiment (link in the OP), nothing was said about how the people who killed their robots were viewed by the people who refused, but I bet there were some dirty looks passed around. People fill the virtual world with their imagination.
If you call a robot a pet, you are imagining it as a pet, to then imagine harm to them because someone told you to doesn't work. You have to imagine a reason to harm them.
Imposing on imagination is an easy way for those playing themselves to have power. Labeling them is just imagination trying to cope.
Role players want policing systems, but those are immediately axed to protect the hardcore.
I was going at it from the opposite direction. More "we fill our imaginations with the virtual worlds". In so doing, some people populate the imaginary worlds with 'living' things, and some people populate the imaginary worlds with props. Killing living things, even in our imagination is unpleasant, but killing props is fun. The people who populate their imaginary worlds with 'living' things call the people who populate their imaginary worlds with props sadists or sociopaths. Both people are capable of telling the difference between real people and player avatars, but their imaginations just work differently.
I'm really not sure about the role playing thing. I've seen role players who felt like they must kill other players, regardless of how helpless though players were because they were members of the opposite faction. I've seen role players who just didn't want to engage in PvP at all.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by lizardbones More precisely, why do some people see killing other players as the behavior of sociopaths and some people do not? **snip** Here's what I think. The people who refused to kill the robots weren't refusing to kill robots which aren't alive and cannot feel pain, they were refusing to kill the cute little pets in their heads, that did have feelings, would feel pain and because they were part of the people imagining them, alive. People who see killing other players in game as an act of a sociopath are seeing the other player's avatar, and then building the other player in their head. They are literally killing or hurting some aspect of themselves when they kill that avatar. People who do not see killing the other player in game as an act of a sociopath do not build that other player in their head. They are literally killing pixels. Of course, this all has to be adjusted somewhat for situational parameters. Most people are not averse to killing other players in PvP battlegrounds. It's the whole "killing a lowbie" thing. But, I think it might apply. Or not. :-) What do you think?I think many people don't understand the actual meaning of sociopathy.Killing others isn't inherently sociopathic, and never has been. The word you are looking for is sadistic.And yes, killing other players is often a sadistic behavior. There are those who enjoy a challenge vs. another player, which isn't sadistic. And then there are those who like to grief, troll, corpse/spawn camp, 1 shot, pray on lowbies, etc. etc. And that is much more frequent, as well as much more sadistic in nature.
I will be the first to admit that I'm neither a Psychologist, nor have I studied abnormal psychology. If I ask the internet brain what a sociopath is, I get this:a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.
I think this could apply the way people use it in the PvP discussions. At least, it could apply to how people perceive people in any event. Anyway, it's not that important whether we talk about Sadistic Behavior or the behavior of a Sociopath. It's more interesting to see why people think killing another defenseless player is or is not sadistic (or whatever term we want to use). Does it depend totally on the scenario and the results or is killing another player sadistic, period? If so, why do people see it one way or the other? I happen to think it's because people either build or do not build representations of living things in their heads to associate with the pixels. People who build representations of living things in their heads and associate them with pixels are going to be averse to "killing" pixels. People who don't build those representations in their heads aren't going to be bothered by killing pixels. I am making the assumption that the players are not actually full-on sadists, or sociopaths. I'm guessing a sadist would build the representation in their head and derive pleasure from killing it. The sociopath might build that representation, but not really care if it gets killed. Something like that anyway.
So people playing a role will have a different perception than people playing themselves?
I don't know if it has anything to do with role playing or not. I would certainly think that role players have a different perception of other players than people who are not role playing, but I've never seen any clear divide between role players on "ganking" other players. There could be role players who are fine with it and role players who consider it sadistic. I wouldn't have any real idea. We constantly build a world in our heads that represents the world we live in. We have to, or we'd never be able to conceptualize the television that's in the living room when we're in the kitchen. I think we do the same thing when we're playing video games, except we build a representation of the virtual world in our heads. Some people populate the virtual world in their heads with 'real' people. They feel guilty when they kill them, so they prefer to not kill them. Some people populate the virtual world in their heads with what amounts to puppets. They don't feel guilty about killing the puppets, so if it's fun, they enjoy it. The people who kill puppets are called sadists or sociopaths by the people who don't want to kill the 'real' people. In the experiment (link in the OP), nothing was said about how the people who killed their robots were viewed by the people who refused, but I bet there were some dirty looks passed around.
People fill the virtual world with their imagination.
If you call a robot a pet, you are imagining it as a pet, to then imagine harm to them because someone told you to doesn't work. You have to imagine a reason to harm them.
Imposing on imagination is an easy way for those playing themselves to have power. Labeling them is just imagination trying to cope.
Role players want policing systems, but those are immediately axed to protect the hardcore.
I was going at it from the opposite direction. More "we fill our imaginations with the virtual worlds". In so doing, some people populate the imaginary worlds with 'living' things, and some people populate the imaginary worlds with props. Killing living things, even in our imagination is unpleasant, but killing props is fun. The people who populate their imaginary worlds with 'living' things call the people who populate their imaginary worlds with props sadists or sociopaths. Both people are capable of telling the difference between real people and player avatars, but their imaginations just work differently.
I'm really not sure about the role playing thing. I've seen role players who felt like they must kill other players, regardless of how helpless though players were because they were members of the opposite faction. I've seen role players who just didn't want to engage in PvP at all.
People who see others as props, don't see themselves as one. That's the problem.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Sociopathy is more complicated than most realize and trying to correlate how someone plays a video game to real life is really flawed millions of people play FPS games and rack up massive body counts and how many of these same people actually shoot someone in real life barely any. So to take something that takes place in a video game and try to draw a real life diagnosis from it is complete BS, most people online show less empathy for people than they do in real life. Calling someone a sociopath for how they play a game is histrionic behavior. Most people that are really into PvP do so because its more challenging than fighting AI, basically its about being competitive. We have all seen griefers before what they are trying to do is have a laugh at making you mad, that's their goal if they really wanted to emotionally hurt you a game is just not gonna be interesting enough to cause enjoyment for someone who likes to inflict emotional cruelty on others.
More precisely, why do some people see killing other players as the behavior of sociopaths and some people do not?
This article from the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2515400/The-rise-machines-It-okay-torture-robot.html) talks about an experiment where people were given robotic pets, and once they became attached to them were asked to torture or kill the robots. Most of the people in the experiment would not do it. Now, these are robots. They don't feel pain and they aren't alive. Of course, the Daily Mail tries to sensationalize this and make it out like robots will kill us, or we'll cede power to cute robots or something. But that's not the point.
Here's what I think.
The people who refused to kill the robots weren't refusing to kill robots which aren't alive and cannot feel pain, they were refusing to kill the cute little pets in their heads, that did have feelings, would feel pain and because they were part of the people imagining them, alive. People who see killing other players in game as an act of a sociopath are seeing the other player's avatar, and then building the other player in their head. They are literally killing or hurting some aspect of themselves when they kill that avatar. People who do not see killing the other player in game as an act of a sociopath do not build that other player in their head. They are literally killing pixels.
Of course, this all has to be adjusted somewhat for situational parameters. Most people are not averse to killing other players in PvP battlegrounds. It's the whole "killing a lowbie" thing. But, I think it might apply.
Or not. :-)
What do you think?
Its not after all its just a game. Only if your forced to play game where you must kill other players i understand the whines if not forced you should shut your mouth and don't play its simple as that.
Originally posted by Tuchaka Sociopathy is more complicated than most realize and trying to correlate how someone plays a video game to real life is really flawed millions of people play FPS games and rack up massive body counts and how many of these same people actually shoot someone in real life barely any. So to take something that takes place in a video game and try to draw a real life diagnosis from it is complete BS, most people online show less empathy for people than they do in real life. Calling someone a sociopath for how they play a game is histrionic behavior. Most people that are really into PvP do so because its more challenging than fighting AI, basically its about being competitive. We have all seen griefers before what they are trying to do is have a laugh at making you mad, that's their goal if they really wanted to emotionally hurt you a game is just not gonna be interesting enough to cause enjoyment for someone who likes to inflict emotional cruelty on others.
Playing in game with free for all pvp and full loot is just more exciting and more fun to me plus competitive yes. And when i play such a game its logic all other players think the same don't see any problem in this?
All who condem this are just jealous they don't have the nerve to play such games and becouse of this try shut them all down or plea for dumbdown action by developers.
Why buy or play a game with FFA if you hate it anyway, is beyond me.
More precisely, why do some people see killing other players as the behavior of sociopaths and some people do not?
This article from the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2515400/The-rise-machines-It-okay-torture-robot.html) talks about an experiment where people were given robotic pets, and once they became attached to them were asked to torture or kill the robots. Most of the people in the experiment would not do it. Now, these are robots. They don't feel pain and they aren't alive. Of course, the Daily Mail tries to sensationalize this and make it out like robots will kill us, or we'll cede power to cute robots or something. But that's not the point.
Here's what I think.
The people who refused to kill the robots weren't refusing to kill robots which aren't alive and cannot feel pain, they were refusing to kill the cute little pets in their heads, that did have feelings, would feel pain and because they were part of the people imagining them, alive. People who see killing other players in game as an act of a sociopath are seeing the other player's avatar, and then building the other player in their head. They are literally killing or hurting some aspect of themselves when they kill that avatar. People who do not see killing the other player in game as an act of a sociopath do not build that other player in their head. They are literally killing pixels.
Of course, this all has to be adjusted somewhat for situational parameters. Most people are not averse to killing other players in PvP battlegrounds. It's the whole "killing a lowbie" thing. But, I think it might apply.
Or not. :-)
What do you think?
A robot is similar that by destroying it, it ceases to exist. It might not be sentient, but its still destruction of property. A person's property has a lot of sentimental value, and destroying property of another person's and not even our own, is still not healthy behavior.
That is different than an avatar which will continue to exist no matter. The gap is not just in loss of property but being physically attached. So we already established that avatars are not physical. However, there is a value with time invested into the character and also time invested into a certain activity when that avatar dies. So there is an attachment which is with time invested but not lost completely due to death of avatar (this changes with perma death rules in MMOs or other games).
So if time invested becomes a factor, then griefing a person to prevent them from completing a task which has no real benefit to the person griefing, then that can also be unhealthy behavior. Since its not part of the game design. However, we are not talking about death of an avatar, but an extreme of multiple deaths in lets says a themepark MMO, so the deaths prevent the player from progressing in the game and does not even reward the griefer. I would say that is the only time killing an avatar can be close to losing physical property, but of course not the same.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
The argument holds zero weight when applied to the majority of players.
Prime example :
I'm neither immature, nor sociopathic. I have a large, close family and a large, close group of friends. I never intentionally hurt anyone, and do whatever I can to help people out.
Despite that, in the game Neocron, I played as a PKer & dictator (of a very large clan) on one of my characters. Why? because that's the role I'd chosen for him when creating the character.
Fast forward a few years, I created a new character that only fired his weapon in self defence.
Just because people choose to kill for no reason IN GAME, doesn't mean there's something wrong with them. It never has, and it never will.
I do not think that players who go around hunting low lvls to gank them are sociapathic but no one can tell me that players who get there enjoyment out of killing players who stand no chance over and over again are right in the head.
They have probelms or at the very least are nothing more than bullys.
Comments
I don't think it's the killing of other players that's " sociopathic" It's the need to take it farther than just the actual pvp. People who take part in large battles or who join a battle ground area generally are doing it to fight another thinking opponent. It's about skill and challenge etc that you can't get fighting a computer.
The bad ones are the ones who don't care about a fair fight, a challenging fight, or anything like that. They're there to ruin someones day. To make someone mad, or quit or whatever as long as they're spreading misery around to other humans, they're having fun.
They are the reason why so many of these pvp games fail. It's hard to have fun in a game when it just starts to fill up with people you don't want to be around.
I wouldn't call it sociopathic. I think it's fine to do that in an environment where it is permitted. I think the problem comes in when people demand open world PvP when some players oppose it (or vise versa with PvE players demanding NO open world PvP). That's why we have different server rulesets.
I stopped playing on PvP servers long ago because I found that you can't get fair and balanced PvP on such a server. I remember in WoW there were entire GROUPS on max level characters in full PvP arena gear roaming around Stranglethorn Vale (a level 35ish zone) unabated with no opposition from the other faction. Not exactly my idea of fun, but people should know what to expect playing on those servers and I'm not sure it's fair to label the people who do that sociopaths.
in the humble opinion of Da Skull, and eve player since 2007 it should be noted so take this with a grain of salt
there is a way way big difference between (1) killing players in order to further your goals or your group's goals in a game, (2) killing players in an arena setting to see who's the better player, and (3) killing players to make their game experience less fun (aka griefing).
I dont see anything sociopathic what so ever about (1) and (2) but to me (3) is the domain of (for the most part, there are always exceptions) some pretty seriously f'cked psyches.
in eve I have been PVP'd plenty of times and I have PVP'd people plenty of times but i have never, ever griefed anyone and never will. I have also only ever been griefed once, and the griefer wasnt successful and he or she got the concordokken that was coming to them
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
Dwight D Eisenhower
My optimism wears heavy boots and is loud.
Henry Rollins
Is it any more sadistic than hunting down and murdering every last creature of a race or species for the 0.5% chance it will have that special item one needs to craft the particular hat they want to have?
Do you consider the players of WOW's battlegrounds to be sadistic? What about the players of Team Fortress 2? Are they there only to troll the other players?
You have drawn a personal line somewhere and I'm interested in where that line is. I'm willing to bet it is specifically at OW PVP, but then that begs the question why one would consider it sadistic if the players that are being "prayed" upon are there for the same exact reason as those that killed them.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
The only point to pvp is to ensure people remain in a "hardcore" state.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
These two words often, as in this case, coincide at least if you're talking about the real word. Killing someone for no reason other than "fun" (in real life) is extremely sociopathic as a non-sociopath would have the empathy required to prevent him from wanting to do that. (it could also certainly be sadistic particularly if there's torture-type behavior involved.)
In a game, yes I agree with you, a griefer is being a bit sadistic when he kills a lowbie and camps their corpse and laughs at them when they try to respawn. Calling this behavior actually sociopathic is a huge stretch though.
What if the prey wants to switch places? Just make content out of those that do it to others?
Oh hell no!!
The devs will create battlegrounds or remove pvp before that happens.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a little PvP. It's when you purposely target much lower level players that pose no threat to you and then get mad because the game doesn't have a "Tea Bag" emote that you may want to seek some specialized help.
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
EQ2 fan sites
Killing others isn't inherently sociopathic, and never has been. The word you are looking for is sadistic.
And yes, killing other players is often a sadistic behavior. There are those who enjoy a challenge vs. another player, which isn't sadistic. And then there are those who like to grief, troll, corpse/spawn camp, 1 shot, pray on lowbies, etc. etc. And that is much more frequent, as well as much more sadistic in nature.
I will be the first to admit that I'm neither a Psychologist, nor have I studied abnormal psychology. If I ask the internet brain what a sociopath is, I get this:
I think this could apply the way people use it in the PvP discussions. At least, it could apply to how people perceive people in any event.
Anyway, it's not that important whether we talk about Sadistic Behavior or the behavior of a Sociopath. It's more interesting to see why people think killing another defenseless player is or is not sadistic (or whatever term we want to use). Does it depend totally on the scenario and the results or is killing another player sadistic, period? If so, why do people see it one way or the other?
I happen to think it's because people either build or do not build representations of living things in their heads to associate with the pixels. People who build representations of living things in their heads and associate them with pixels are going to be averse to "killing" pixels. People who don't build those representations in their heads aren't going to be bothered by killing pixels. I am making the assumption that the players are not actually full-on sadists, or sociopaths. I'm guessing a sadist would build the representation in their head and derive pleasure from killing it. The sociopath might build that representation, but not really care if it gets killed. Something like that anyway.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
So people playing a role will have a different perception than people playing themselves?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
i don't follow
when I play the boardgame RISK -- the goal is world domination of all countries
but i havent met any megalomaniacs that i know of
EQ2 fan sites
I think this could apply the way people use it in the PvP discussions. At least, it could apply to how people perceive people in any event. Anyway, it's not that important whether we talk about Sadistic Behavior or the behavior of a Sociopath. It's more interesting to see why people think killing another defenseless player is or is not sadistic (or whatever term we want to use). Does it depend totally on the scenario and the results or is killing another player sadistic, period? If so, why do people see it one way or the other? I happen to think it's because people either build or do not build representations of living things in their heads to associate with the pixels. People who build representations of living things in their heads and associate them with pixels are going to be averse to "killing" pixels. People who don't build those representations in their heads aren't going to be bothered by killing pixels. I am making the assumption that the players are not actually full-on sadists, or sociopaths. I'm guessing a sadist would build the representation in their head and derive pleasure from killing it. The sociopath might build that representation, but not really care if it gets killed. Something like that anyway.
So people playing a role will have a different perception than people playing themselves?
I don't know if it has anything to do with role playing or not. I would certainly think that role players have a different perception of other players than people who are not role playing, but I've never seen any clear divide between role players on "ganking" other players. There could be role players who are fine with it and role players who consider it sadistic. I wouldn't have any real idea.
We constantly build a world in our heads that represents the world we live in. We have to, or we'd never be able to conceptualize the television that's in the living room when we're in the kitchen. I think we do the same thing when we're playing video games, except we build a representation of the virtual world in our heads. Some people populate the virtual world in their heads with 'real' people. They feel guilty when they kill them, so they prefer to not kill them. Some people populate the virtual world in their heads with what amounts to puppets. They don't feel guilty about killing the puppets, so if it's fun, they enjoy it. The people who kill puppets are called sadists or sociopaths by the people who don't want to kill the 'real' people.
In the experiment (link in the OP), nothing was said about how the people who killed their robots were viewed by the people who refused, but I bet there were some dirty looks passed around.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
People fill the virtual world with their imagination.
If you call a robot a pet, you are imagining it as a pet, to then imagine harm to them because someone told you to doesn't work. You have to imagine a reason to harm them.
Imposing on imagination is an easy way for those playing themselves to have power. Labeling them is just imagination trying to cope.
Role players want policing systems, but those are immediately axed to protect the hardcore.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
QFT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder
Many of the gankers in games aren't 18 yet, but otherwise meet the criteria.
People often display their "true natures" on the internet, where fear of reprisal is minimal. And often those true natures bear more than a little similarity to someone with antisocial personality disorder.
I think they're just playing mmorpgs like they were FPS pvp.
The weirdos are a tiny tiny group.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
I think this could apply the way people use it in the PvP discussions. At least, it could apply to how people perceive people in any event. Anyway, it's not that important whether we talk about Sadistic Behavior or the behavior of a Sociopath. It's more interesting to see why people think killing another defenseless player is or is not sadistic (or whatever term we want to use). Does it depend totally on the scenario and the results or is killing another player sadistic, period? If so, why do people see it one way or the other? I happen to think it's because people either build or do not build representations of living things in their heads to associate with the pixels. People who build representations of living things in their heads and associate them with pixels are going to be averse to "killing" pixels. People who don't build those representations in their heads aren't going to be bothered by killing pixels. I am making the assumption that the players are not actually full-on sadists, or sociopaths. I'm guessing a sadist would build the representation in their head and derive pleasure from killing it. The sociopath might build that representation, but not really care if it gets killed. Something like that anyway.
So people playing a role will have a different perception than people playing themselves?
I don't know if it has anything to do with role playing or not. I would certainly think that role players have a different perception of other players than people who are not role playing, but I've never seen any clear divide between role players on "ganking" other players. There could be role players who are fine with it and role players who consider it sadistic. I wouldn't have any real idea. We constantly build a world in our heads that represents the world we live in. We have to, or we'd never be able to conceptualize the television that's in the living room when we're in the kitchen. I think we do the same thing when we're playing video games, except we build a representation of the virtual world in our heads. Some people populate the virtual world in their heads with 'real' people. They feel guilty when they kill them, so they prefer to not kill them. Some people populate the virtual world in their heads with what amounts to puppets. They don't feel guilty about killing the puppets, so if it's fun, they enjoy it. The people who kill puppets are called sadists or sociopaths by the people who don't want to kill the 'real' people. In the experiment (link in the OP), nothing was said about how the people who killed their robots were viewed by the people who refused, but I bet there were some dirty looks passed around.
People fill the virtual world with their imagination.
If you call a robot a pet, you are imagining it as a pet, to then imagine harm to them because someone told you to doesn't work. You have to imagine a reason to harm them.
Imposing on imagination is an easy way for those playing themselves to have power. Labeling them is just imagination trying to cope.
Role players want policing systems, but those are immediately axed to protect the hardcore.
I was going at it from the opposite direction. More "we fill our imaginations with the virtual worlds". In so doing, some people populate the imaginary worlds with 'living' things, and some people populate the imaginary worlds with props. Killing living things, even in our imagination is unpleasant, but killing props is fun. The people who populate their imaginary worlds with 'living' things call the people who populate their imaginary worlds with props sadists or sociopaths. Both people are capable of telling the difference between real people and player avatars, but their imaginations just work differently.
I'm really not sure about the role playing thing. I've seen role players who felt like they must kill other players, regardless of how helpless though players were because they were members of the opposite faction. I've seen role players who just didn't want to engage in PvP at all.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
People who see others as props, don't see themselves as one. That's the problem.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Its not after all its just a game. Only if your forced to play game where you must kill other players i understand the whines if not forced you should shut your mouth and don't play its simple as that.
Playing in game with free for all pvp and full loot is just more exciting and more fun to me plus competitive yes. And when i play such a game its logic all other players think the same don't see any problem in this?
All who condem this are just jealous they don't have the nerve to play such games and becouse of this try shut them all down or plea for dumbdown action by developers.
Why buy or play a game with FFA if you hate it anyway, is beyond me.
A robot is similar that by destroying it, it ceases to exist. It might not be sentient, but its still destruction of property. A person's property has a lot of sentimental value, and destroying property of another person's and not even our own, is still not healthy behavior.
That is different than an avatar which will continue to exist no matter. The gap is not just in loss of property but being physically attached. So we already established that avatars are not physical. However, there is a value with time invested into the character and also time invested into a certain activity when that avatar dies. So there is an attachment which is with time invested but not lost completely due to death of avatar (this changes with perma death rules in MMOs or other games).
So if time invested becomes a factor, then griefing a person to prevent them from completing a task which has no real benefit to the person griefing, then that can also be unhealthy behavior. Since its not part of the game design. However, we are not talking about death of an avatar, but an extreme of multiple deaths in lets says a themepark MMO, so the deaths prevent the player from progressing in the game and does not even reward the griefer. I would say that is the only time killing an avatar can be close to losing physical property, but of course not the same.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
The argument holds zero weight when applied to the majority of players.
Prime example :
I'm neither immature, nor sociopathic. I have a large, close family and a large, close group of friends. I never intentionally hurt anyone, and do whatever I can to help people out.
Despite that, in the game Neocron, I played as a PKer & dictator (of a very large clan) on one of my characters. Why? because that's the role I'd chosen for him when creating the character.
Fast forward a few years, I created a new character that only fired his weapon in self defence.
Just because people choose to kill for no reason IN GAME, doesn't mean there's something wrong with them. It never has, and it never will.
I do not think that players who go around hunting low lvls to gank them are sociapathic but no one can tell me that players who get there enjoyment out of killing players who stand no chance over and over again are right in the head.
They have probelms or at the very least are nothing more than bullys.