Spamfunet Nanny Forum

I've been seeing some discussions on Nanny about how good or even great some players are. This actually bothers me, as I feel that just about anyone equipped with an intelligence not too much below average, a lot of free time, stamina and possibly a reliable connection could become the No. 1 guy/gal/thingy in any guild. Or, for that matter, solve every quest (not always possible to solve alone, though). There's just not much 'greatness' required! (Even though beeing a brilliant strategic master-mind would of course help.)

Comments?

(And no, except for a short while in Masters, I've never been No.1 in any guild...)

There are/were many players with lots of free time, but I do think that there were some people who did something that noone could equal yet.

Connection, well I guess almost anyone has a decently reliable connection now.
Stamina, oh well, that's a bit harder I guess. :)
In my oppinion, the keyword is time. There was a time when I was mudding the whole day; well not really but a lot. So I know what time means. I'd like to go back to those days.

But these all are not enough.
I always admired the current Leper Messiah but I don't think they were great players for being the LM. Same goes with the Oracle... those just mean playing endlessly.

For example, what Rhuarc did, was a bit more than that. It is also a question of time but not only, it is not as simple as becoming a LM.
Also I wonder when a vampire will come that will equal Michel. Banned years ago, still leading some lists. Also a matter of stamina, but the truth is noone got even close to him. I do admire him.
Of course, something that I thought of these days, Nanny changed a lot too over the years. There are new things added once in a while but nothing will ever equal hard-pk system and quest requirements for me. It's just an exponential increase of the number of characters now. Under these conditions, of course everything changes. Very few players stick to a character and build it to the end, most have 10-20 characters and play each of them a bit, so they get nowhere (just like me). So I think the average 'weight' of a player decreased drastically, as the time invested in them too. That is probably a reason why some remember great players or characters with nostalgy.

my $ 0.02

Ok, could you give examples of WHAT exactly it takes? Apart from a lot of time... What did Rhuarc do/have that my highest khorne don't/haven't (apart from almost 50 ranks)? What did Michel do, except playing A LOT? If you play a lot, and play actively, I still think almost everyone would be able to top Rhuarc in khorne, Michel in vampires, Bombadill in cultists etc... Ok, if guild points would be calculated extremely differently, then it could become impossible, but I don't think that's what you mean...

I don't know, you tell me?
I am not exactly sure these players had more free time than anyone else in
this game. If this is the case, then I'm totally wrong. But unless they are aliens or so, I can't believe they had let's say, MUCH more time than I had, or many others had/have.

Btw, I have a vague feeling this isn't a Nanny-related question anymore :)
I had some free time in the past but still, I am no president of my country
or any famous person. Wonder why ...

Now I know it isn't the same thing but still, I do find something similar
about these. I don't have a rank 100 khorne but I probably could have, if I
count my online days. I just don't have one ... if I would go back to the days I started mudding, I am still not sure I would build such characters in a few years.
Unless this means my intelligence is below average, I can't find any logical explanation.

Exactly my point, you COULD have a rank 102 khorne, as could I. But in our cases, we chose not to put in all our Nanny-time towards such a goal.

I guess we'll just have to wait for someone else to pin-point something that might be a sign of greatness...

Also, this is not a try to belittle anyone, I'm just curious if anyone can give examples of what greatness would be in Nanny (not including the greatness of people's chatting/brilliance of conversation etc).

For me, greatness in Nanny is not to be on the top in whatever guild I choose to play. Greatness for me is not how well you speak or chat/spam either.
Greatness for me is (this is probably included in you etc, Carrion) the way you meet the others. Just take Yoshy, always helpful in every way posible. Yoshy is the hero for me in Nanny. Of course I do admire players like Polar, Nemesis and Rhuarc for reaching so high. But I personally admire players like Yoshy. They inspire me and make me want to be better and to grow in every posible way.


Ybbie..

I don't think I can be much help to you here, Carrion, as I agree with your point completely.

Any player can master the basics of the Mud and any guild they put their mind to.  The players that are mentioned as having been so "Great" happened to really enjoy the guilds they played and devoted a lot of time to them.  Certainly there are some little tricks and tips that apply to any guild - but these fall more towards the strategist type of mind (Which Michel definately had).  I can think of a few current vampires that would be as formidable if Michel if they put more time into those characters.

Still, I do admire people who can actually dedicate themselves so much to their character that they can just keep advancing within the game and the guild.  It doesn't neccesarily make them "great players" though, just tenacious ones.

Good point, Ybbie, and a good example. But this is for me more of a RL greatness, that extends into Nanny, not a greatness as a player in Nanny. (Not by my definition in THIS thread, anyway...)

You have a point, Carrion, although not everyone do the roleplayingthingy so I go for the personality. That is what means something.. to me anyway :)

I just read what I wrote in my first note.. I do think I have to clear something up.. I did not mean that players like Polar and Nemesis are rude and not helpful, because they are. Very much so..

Was just trying to explain the differens between reaching high goals in guilds/levels and not to reach so high but put their energy in other stuff..

God, I do ramble.. If I keep this up I will not understand myself...

Ybbie

Good point, but this is something I could never do. It's easy to say that 'I can do that or that if I want to', but I just didn't... always get bored after a while, too quickly actually. There are some guild you do need to play a LOT to be high. And if I don't enjoy advancing I just don't do it. I avoid the making of xp for example if it's like going to work. :P Which means I never get to have enough experience points, way far away from what I would want to have. I mean the idea of Plevel 20 is nice but if I get bored after 200k then it's pretty hard to reach it. :)

I'm the same way, Qwer, which probably explains why I've been around so long and not approaching some incredible Paragon Levels.  It's not as if I don't know how to do it, but sheesh, talk about a lot of time!

I guess I enjoy the social aspects of the game much more than experince earning a lot of the time

Hmm, I maxed my viking (btw i wonder how long she will be legend) and i didnt feel great at all, maybe a bit idiot for spending so much time on such a trivial task (*shrug* last summer i had a lot of time anyway).

No, I dont see any greatness in powerplaying to top of guild or PL 20, just dedication... and ofc if you dedicate your time to that, your social life will suffer (both RL and nanny). I agree, "great" players for me are not top of list, just "great" ppl that probably are great iRL as well.

Apart from social skills however i admire ppl that have demonstrated they can use their brain. Some puzzles/quests require a lot of time, other need luck, in many cases you are stuck because you cant find right sintax, but some really require you put your "grey cells" to work... and these are the ones i love more, and ppl solving them are my Nanny heroes.  :)

Oh and in case you wonder what I mean, go solve my riddle and my maze using the given hints ;)

Great players, to me, are of two groups:

- Players skilled in one or two guilds.

This player is exceptionally skilled in a guild, meaning they know the guild inside out and can do things, not only tenatiously (as with khornes ranking) but exceptionally fast, faster than others. Ie, they are very efficient as well, not just putting in a lot of time. That means I can consider a mere rank 25 Khorne to be a 'great player', much better than others who have a much higher rank, because he or she plays a lot better but haven't had the time to reach a higher rank. Well, to use Khornes as an example.

- Players with knowledge of all guilds.

The really great players, in my book, are those who know how to play all guilds, how to play Nanny, plain and simple. They know how to party with different guilds effectively, how to utilize each guild etc.

In short, it's about how you play, how efficient you can be with the guild, not how much time you can put into a character, although I do admire the tenacity of people like Rhuarc in Khornes, Michel/Karzak/Allyene in Vampires, Kemmerich and other Chefs, the top Masters etc.

And about Michel, what made him a great player (in my opinion), is just that, he learned how to play the game, it wasn't just a matter of putting in insane hours, it was insane effort as well to explore, learn the tricks and find a way to utilize the mud with any given guild, completely.

I don't really agree... You can of course be impressed, but what do these players really know? A lot of monsters of specific alignment, perhaps some HP/strength/value/dexterity/loot/whatnot ratio... Good routes, speedy fingers (client?)... They have learnt a lot of tricks, but let's face it, it's not like it's nuclear science is it! I still say just about anyone, with the time and interest would be able to 'know a guild inside and out' and advance really fast.



This is not more skill, just more, I'd say... Of course, at some point, a below-average person may have trouble to remember everything...

MUD knowledge means a lot more than level...

Im a level 2 Paragon, and i barely know the MUD.  If i so chose (and had the time) i could reach level 10+ and still not know the MUD.  

Then you have people like Mr Yavathol who might only be level 3 paragon, but he is pretty close to having visited and knowing every area/room on the MUD, and knowing how to get there.  To me, that is greatness, since it means you have devoted a lot of time to playing the MUD to get as much as you can from it, and experience other peoples hard work that they have put into their area's.  

Not to mention he's a good friend to have for someone like me who gets lost on a minute by minute basis ;)

Other than that, people that have solved ALL the quests unaided impress me, since some of the quests are far from logical and rather buggy.  Solving them all speaks highly of the effort and dedication the players have shown.

By your standards Carrion, no player would ever be a great 'player' then, if 'playing' the game well doesn't make you great at it.

There's little more to the game than knowing how it works, sure, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to do it, if you put your mind to it, but that doesn't mean that once you do, you should be considered a 'great' player.

If you mean 'person' then it's a completely different story, but I was under the impression that when it was said 'player' in this thread, it was just that, someone who plays.

Anyways, early in the morning, tired ... not making sense ;)

Quite right, that was my initial thought, that playing Nanny well, is too simple to make anyone a great player... My assumption was 'take just about anyone, with enough time and motivation (obviously), he or she will be able to become top dog in a guild, and probably be mentioned as a great player'... I still think my assumption is correct, but I understand a lot of people wants 'great Nanny player' to mean 'good/best at playing Nanny'... But then you can also be 'great at looking at the wall' 'cause you stare at the wall more than others.

(Most of you understand it, but perhaps I have to clarify my point here, in this thread I'm trying to be a bit of devil's advocate, even though I mostly agree with nearly all posts...)

The same question for you, Carrion. You have agreed and disagreed on some notes and opinion, but you did not give a clear answer yourself..

What do you think make a Great player? If you do believe one can be a great player that is..

Ybbie

Does that mean that you can't be great in something unless you do it with a well-defined purpose that means like general welfare (RL!) for anyone, or something like that? Perhaps the contrast is too wild a bit, but just for the sake of the discussion... is this questioning also many many people who did something great in some's oppinion but in others', nothing important?

I totally agree with Ybbie even if I am quite late in posting this. Yoshy knows the mud inside and out and is always always always willing to help out. Yoshy takes time to answer my questions and help me find things and even help lots and lots of newbie players....all this and still finds time to explore every inch of Nanny. Yoshy is my Nanny hero too. =)
/P

Thank you all for some good and some less good replies ;) I thought it could be an interesting topic and I think most of you can agree on that!

I'll conclude (?) with some MORE thoughts of mine.

- Players to like:
  Those that are helpful and generally nice to have a chat with, sharing
  their knowledge
- Players to be impressed by:
  Those that are so devoted they can play a lot, and play good, to reach a  
  high-set goal.
- Players that are really good, and might even be 'great':
  Those that INVENTS new ways of playing to suit their current situation
 (guild   etc), coming up with solutions never seen on Nanny before...

Sad to say, I never chat with people, never party, idle a lot, have no real devotion and I do the same damn thing again and again ;)

Partying really should be given an incentive by the admins ... right now there's no incentive, game-wise to party, as the benefits in the game is usually less by partying for most people.

Especially the change in the experience system, that 'passive' (yet usually critical party members) players get very little, even after adjusting the shares of the total experience gained when playing.

Then I have trouble myself, when partying, as I'm often a little pressed on time and so I want to be a little efficient ... so I need people who can heal fast and know how to party (it's actually a rare skill, to know how to 'party' well, to read your party members needs, to anticipate situations, time your own needs ... a skill lost naturally because partying is less and less rewarding).

I think it's a matter of better clients, faster speedwalks ... I mean, it's ridicilous when I turn down a monk when I play my khorne, because he slows me down! *chuckles*.

Perhaps it's also a matter of the monetary inflation, people simply have enough cash to heal as fast as they can burn the cash on their hands, thus never in a need to play conservatively.

Anyways, just thinking out loud ;)

On the great players issue ... I just have to say this:

We're talking about great PEOPLE and great PLAYERS here, and that's two very different things. Sure, to take Yoshy (mentioned above), who seems to be a nice person too, he'd be both a great person and a great player, but that doesn't make others who aren't social less of a great player, in that aspect.

So if you want to continue this discussion I think it's best to separate those two things, and clearly state if you mean player or person :)

Nod, I guess being a great person or player is not really the same thing. At least when being great doesn't really mean (imho) to chat well or be nice to people but to master something in Nanny... being nice to people or chatting skills are more like RL-related so reading the first note I didn't even think of it. As we was talking of great players, I was thinking of greatness in Nanny, not generally.
I couldn't say I know great people from Nanny, as I don't chat almost at all. I just find it usually boring, chatted a lot on IRC before playing Nanny and just got sick of it so many lil' kidos were there. I just don't do it at all anymore. I do get to talk to people sometimes but very rarely, and usually not long conversations./.. so I might say that 'x is great' or 'y sux' but I'd be prolly wrong, or have a great chance for that. There are people I don't like in Nanny but I might like them RL, I think. It might be a difference between a player's attitude and a persons' one I think. Or at least sometimes it's just easy to put a stamp on someone you can't really know after a few 2-3 minutes long discussion. I don't think that we can really express ourselves in Nanny, at least I don't feel I can, or perhaps that I should. There is too little that links me to the actual persons behind the characters. (Or this is just an excuse for my bad english?  :twisted:  )

That is just the thing with Yoshy.. She does not spam. She does not chat. She does not bother you if she truly does not have to. And yet, she knows Nanny more than anyone I know. It is just as Poogs said, she takes the time to answer questions or what ever the tells might be. She helps you out in whatever way she can. And she explores Nanny to find things out. If she roleplay or not, I do not know. I do not know her in RL, so I can not say this is her personality IRL or not. All I know is that she do whatever she can to find ways around Nanny. And that is what makes her Great in my book.

But as one pointed out above.. the ones that is not so nice, does not mean they are not just as great.. I personally just do not talk to them.. so I would not know myself..


Ybbie

To me at least, the assertion that anyone could reach the top of a guild/club is totally flawed. Anyone can't. To achieve that distinction, you need patience, dedication and, more importantly still, the correct mental approach.

Use khornes as an example if you wish. There are many that just haven't got the attitude to raise them. They get killed through impatience/trying to advance too quick etc etc. (Note that when Rhaurc played each GD level took 150 kills rather than 200, KIP lasted longer and he had Demon Lord powers).

If you consider, say, Bombadill as a Nanny player, then he has to be 'great' because he achieved something that, in a Nanny context, is very hard to do. You may not think that spending such time indicates a rounded individual but, hey - which mudders are?

Maggs

Not just ANYONE, but anyone with, how did I put it, 'intelligence not too much below average, a lot of free time, stamina and possibly a reliable connection'. Ok, if you have the mental approach of 'hey, I'll leave if I get below HP 10' playing a high level khorne, then you will have trouble reaching rank 102, but I'd say you had WAY below average intelligence...  Nope, I still think my original assumption is correct, it's mostly about TIME.

Is it?

Then do it then.

If you can't/can't be bothered, then you are not cut out for it. The high ranked player are/were and thus are great players.

Presumably, if you spent the next 5 years doing nothing but playing golf you would end up being better then Tiger Woods, given that there is little intelligence required and its all just a matter of time.

I would say, however, that one would also need a natural ability, coupled with the correct mental attitude and no lack of determination to use the time available to achieve ones aims.

Personally, I lack the motivation to spend THAT much time on it.

Golf is way more complex than playing Nanny, that's why I started the thread in the first place (not the golf part, but the 'non-complexity' part). Because of the simplicity of Nanny (which I enjoy myself!) there's not much more to it then having time and motivation. But as I wrote in another note, I can of course be impressed by what people do in Nanny, even though I don't see them as 'great players'.

Many sports don't require much intelligence, still the best are/were often called great one/s.

Definitely true, but it is still much harder to run 100 m under 10 seconds, than it is to top a guild in Nanny... Intelligence is just one property out of many, and you don't even need much of that either to 'master' Nanny!

In my most humble opinion, Intelligence is not necessarily larger brain capacity, greater amounts of knowledge, A person can have an immense amout of knowledge and no idea how to apply it.

So I looked up intelligence at Dictionary.com

in·tel·li·gence    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (n-tl-jns)
n.

1 The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
2 The faculty of thought and reason.
3 Superior powers of mind.

Personally the first one hits home. Intelligence is the ability to pursue and apply things you do not know.  Take for instance the medical field. (easiest for me to do association with) A cardiologist is an extremely intelligent doctor, knows a great many things about the heart and is usually expanding their knowledge on a daily basis. An opthamalogist is parallel in knowledge but knows a minute amount about the heart as the cardiologist most likely knows a minute amound about eyes. Both of these medical doctors may have no clue how to put a new altenator belt in their BMWs, but their very intelligent Auto Mechanic does.

So where does that bring us on a MUDs level? Some people are excellent questors, me personally I seem to miss the details, whether due to impatience or attention deficit I do not know, I seem to be better at the Hack and Slash side of RPG. Some people know in more detail about equipment, or spells, Some are more all around. Does it make one player better than the next? Depends on your definition of great. I think this is being reiiterated from great already posted points. But may I state it again? just because one isnt #1 in the mud, doesnt mean they are not a great player. Just because one chooses to not go on to wizzard levels, doesnt mean they are not a great player. and ofc That newbie sitting in the green wide eyed in wonderment may be the most intelligent person on the mud. Not because they know more, but because they have the perserverance to chase and obtain knowledge and then utilize it in the best possible way.

Personally I like to think that all the people I have met on Nanny have intelligence. I cant offhand recall ever having met someone I was completely put out with on a knowledgeable level. Maturity of players sometimes lack, but then again this is a game, so immaturity would be a part of it right?  :twisted:  I enjoy myself immensely and absolutely love reading these posts, because I see an immense amount of intelligence here. And that ofc Keeps me Intrigued. Someone said Intellilgence was or was not needed to become great in Nanny. In a way the ability to log on seek out a game for fun that provides the entertainment and fellowship  that nanny does IMO is a great start on Intelligence. A player choses to hack and slash their way to the top, WOO HOO. Its fun lets out aggression, a repetitive motion to help lift the worries and eccentricities of real life, One chooses the questors path, has my most admiration, That is a path I cannot follow as well. Does it make me less in intelligent less of a good player, I hope not. I like to explore I like to play with weapons and armours learning new spells, Tweaking my characters to see the best combinations.

Thats just my humble opinion that probably strayed so far from the point most would have a hard time following it. So I hope someone got what I was trying to say....

but then again Im forever the Optimist

-Ahriah :)

Good post there, A! And I wholeheartedly (spell?) agree about the enjoyment of reading a lot of posts here on spamfunet.

There are many ways to progress and enjoy yourself in the game, and I hope you do just that.

Kyron, Bombadill, Kurgan, Rhaurc, Nemesis, Baran, Polar, Dtk and probably at few more, are great players as far as I'm concerned.

I respect people that achieve things.

Maggs

Polar, to me, is the embodiment of what removing quests had done to Nanny ... an 'energizer bunny'-like druid becoming paragon level 12 (or is he higher now?) with next to no quests solved (in comparison).

While I don't consider him a great player, I do admire the persistancy of playing a druid up to paragon level 12 ... although I wouldn't dream of wasting that effort on a druid, personally ;)

To me the greatest players were the ones who learned the mud, solved quests, and pushed the limits of their guild abilities. But the truly great did one more thing. They were fun to group with, fun to be online with.

Working in parties with people like Gilthoniel, The Three Amigos (in any form, those Danes were the best), Eddy and a few others were like being a part of a precision highwire act with pie throwing, and a touch of swash-buckling.

Tenacity, innovation, creativity, humor and a dash of role-playing is what makes the truly great players.

Rhuarc and Michel, from my vantage point, appeared to be simply people with great clients, excellent connections and a lot of time. I have to admit tho, Michel knew how to push the limits.

I must admit I read that as 'simple people' ;)

I don't think that a player needs to party or chat to become great. That is pretty much optional. For me, it's not about socialising skills, but playing the game.
Btw, I suppose those 'great clients' are not publicly available but were just regular mudclients, customized by these players. Something that we all do (or, does Oriole still use raw telnet?). Okay then, at least the shell. :twisted:

I might not be a great player, but in my opinion, I had the greatest character ever in Nanny, or at least during the time that I've played (since 97) - Khadgar the World Largest Kitten, a top 5 quester, that character was a power-player like no other, and this during a time when vampires were the most bs ever. If this wasn't the greatest character of all time, it would at least be a top 5 (since I don't know how the players were prior of 97).

I don't hardly know any players born after '95.

It's funny how 'ancient' depends on who you talk to. To some people who have only been on Nanny a few years, they are ancient...but when compared to others of us such as Carrion and me, totally different views on ancient. As for how that ties to Great players...maybe Great Players are also those who have perservered through the years and are ancient as well as great ;)

/Snafu :D

No kidding!  I still feel new to the game and yet many of the current players who are highly active refer to me as an old character all the time.  It's actually been a little disorienting.  8)

For me, a great PLAYER is the player tha manages to do anything better and faster than most others. Not the typical powerplayer that kills like obsessed same monsters for years, the great players r not necesarily the highest players in one guild. For me a great PLAYER is the one person that manages to make a rakn 10 khorne in less than 2h (RL), the one that makes it to PLM (potential leper messiah) in less than 2,5day logintime, the one that solves all the quests in just under a lifetime.
Most of the players that I saw mentioned before r the leading chars in some guilds, I dont say they r not good players but it takes more than beeing good for greatness. I dont realy think that Michele was a great player cause it was the top vamp donor for years, or the first to be kissed by Lilith, or for still beeng the top pk in the game, he's a great player for the way he did it.
Kurgan is a good player no doubt but let's see... it took him like a few years to be what he is, Nono in the other hand done it in under 1 year that, for me, makes him great. Take Rowen, he was oracle for a while does that make him a great player??? lol I guess we know Rowen better than that.
And for Carrion's next comment (that will shure be earthshatering and smart and to the point of the topic that he opened) it's just a game ofc u dont have to be Einstein to manage to be great at it, but leaving the other facts of life, there are a few great NANNY PLAYERS.


It's not the potint of getting higher in any guild or in Plevels, it's just how they'we done it.

Another mark of being a great player may be finding new things to do after playing the game for so long ;) Call it a professional player if there ever were such a thing. I know a few who will not become a paragon but continue to play as regular mortal (among them being Oriole). Being a great player has a lot to do with attitude too, and I'm not talking about bad attitude but how you view things (frame of mind). Another thing is not letting it get to your head.

/Snafu :D

Given time to practice on this I'd say that just about everyone playing Nanny would pull those off. Having that kind of devotion, obviuously. Perhaps that's the mark of a player others think is great, he/she/it is _devoted_ to the game.
True, and that's a bit why I started this thread in the first place, after listening in on some druids thinking how great Polar was getting all those P-levels... He 'just' was and is devoted enough to spend the time it takes to get that amount of NP. Simple. Or?

I am one of those who think not everybody could get everything: I for instance played a lot at a time and only got to be paragon 2 and then died :?

For one reason or another, I wouldnt be able to be a very strong character. BUT I had a lot of fun at a time, which was the most important for me :wink:

I admire all those who achieved something, but like others -I guess- my greatest players are those I got to know a bit and had fun with :D

Paragon 2 is not 'only'. For me it indicates that you could have been paragon 10 or something if you really had wanted it. It just takes time and motivation.

I think all that about "could" is hypothetical. My point is I played the game for real (my real) at a time and wanted to succeed, and that's what I got :D

Ok, you  might very well be the exception to my 'rule' :) But remember it's a huge step from 'playing 2-3 hours most days' to 'playing obsessively 8-10 hours every day for months'. When you have the proper amount of motivation, and the chance to do so, most of us can play a LOT (not many of us are even close to that motivation though).

Of the people I met who said to be new like me, there was one who would get many things. He played for many hours and was intelligent and stubborn. But as you say, not everybody can have that type of motivation.

So you still didnt make me think that a new player can get those things you say that are so easy :roll:

This is obviously a huge mistake on my account, I never really meant that a total newbie could get to paragon level 10 or get 10k+ quest points or top dark guild. Hmm, that WOULD indeed be strange, 'cause you will not be a newbie when you have accomplished those tasks! But remember, everyone IS a newbie in the beginning, even those that have reached the questers toplist.

To stop being a newbie one needs to put a lot of interest and stamina into it, I think I put some of that :D

Good players of NannyMUD to me are those that can master all (or many of) the measurable aspects of the game: questing, exploring, partying, xping, playing up in guilds, pking etc. The great ones can also help newbies, be friendly towards other players, roleplay, discuss topics without throwing age/qp/xp/plvl around like validation for their opinion etc ;)

Some of these attributes comes natural to some players, others have to put in work to get there, but most can get there if they want.

But when considering games, you'd have to take into account that they are much easier than RL, working, cleaning appartment, shopping, cooking food, training, remove weeds, cut the lawn, socialize, mend clothes, fix bikes/cars, do the laundry, iron the laundry, befriend the parents in law, raise kids, and being good at it, takes a lot more skill and dedication than a game ever will. Which is why games are so gratifying, since you get fast rewards for comparable little effort.

Amen, brother, amen!

As opposed to throwing in ex-admin status I suppose.

As a rule I don't use it to help my argumentation. If I have done it to undermine someones reasoning, I am very sorry and ashamed.

I remember mentioning it once on these boards when jumping head first into a fiery debate in one of my first posts, in hindsight perhaps I shouldn't have.

My statement in this thread was a bit ambigious perhaps, I ment people who listens to others arguments regardless of qp/xp/plvl/age status.

So Carrion, which players have impressed you - and were they
great?

M

Good question M... Not really sure I have ever really been impressed by what players have done in Nanny... I can be baffled by the sheer endurance and stamina some players show, playing a lot striving for some crazy goal. But not impressed. I've been kind of impressed by some plots I've heard of, the reasoning behind them (hearing about them in RL mostly). But, no, not really impressed by any mortal in Nanny. With wizards it's another story, I've definitely been impressed by the work some wizards have done, partly code-wise, but mostly theme-wise and/or imaginatively.
My limitless nostalgia, on the other hand, have given me some feeling of awe for a couple of players... Just to put some names on print here, I'll mention Gelbart, the first Head Hunter (with some more elderly seconds), Wrath with whom I tried to compete for top Khorne years back  ('96, then all of a sudden Rhuarc showed up), and finally (this time) Underdogg who was a truely excellent opponent. Please give us some of YOUR 'heroes', to keep this thread from dying!

hehe Wrath, remember him setting up a client that ran all night that went to middle-earth to kill that infinite spawn kill there, recall, heal, sell, raise stats and such, and repeat  :wink:


One of the players that has impressed me (if anyone is interested) is Oriole, the way he dominated the quest scene and the playerkilling scene for so long, also a friendly player if you read between the lines (while squinting ;) ) and I think I consider him a great player, though his some of his choices of character names could be debated hehe

Heh, I try to imagine player NOT cheating, makes me feel better :) But these small stories are very interesting, perhaps we should create a new thread, where we write about some well-known players, and some stuff they did that isn't as well-known!

Aye, sorry bout that

I agree with you, Carrion, that achievements of Wizards far outweigh
those of mortals (in my mind).

The prime example for me is Michel. His Finger plans (which contributed
to getting him banshed), were, to me, an exercise in self indulgence -
numerous michel1....michelnn plans saying how great he was. To me,
however, his greatest impact was Parity's area - which was really good.

M

Historically, I have respect for what Gerritt achieved. He was the first
(I think), to solve all the quests.

More recently, I was really fond of Kytten. She was a player that
achieved lots, and was always helpful and respectful. She persuaded
Barb to make me the last monk GM, and encouraged me all the way there.

As of for now it would have to be Bombadill. He worked ever so hard to
get to where he is, and has always made the cult a pleasure to play,
regardless of your level or experience of playing.

Note that the players that I respect are those that share (to some extent)
my own play style - funny that :)

Maggs

Let's do some defining. What is it we are measuring? Not greatness; ability.

A great player is a player of exceptional (great) ability.

Therefore, for the concept "great player" to have any meaning, there has to be a diversity in what players can and cannot do, so that there can be exceptions to the regular player in order to make great players. This requires the MUD to have enough depth to accomodate the diversity. To assume that there are such things as "great players", then, you have to go on the premise that the MUD has sufficient depth to it.

A player who doesn't know the true depth of the MUD, cannot comprehend the existence of great players. If certain things do not exist for him then they do not exist for others, he thinks, and so they don't have any means to better him.

A great player is someone who knows what a great player is, because he shares the same level understanding of the game and can appreciate the neccessary existence of such understanding. No player shares his level of understanding better than with himself. Consequently, a player can gauge his own ability better than anyone elses. A great player doesn't need to be told he is a great player, because he knows it.

Gauging someone elses ability is much harder. If they are better than you, you won't necessarily know it. For them to be better than you, they have to know things you don't and can do things you can't. For them to know things you don't and do things you can't, they have to have the means to do that, which means, there has to exist depth and dimensions to the game that you have not discovered, and perhaps cannot conceive of. Which means, should these players exist which know things you don't and can do things you can't, there exists depth to the game which you do not necessarily know exists. Which means, you cannot appreciate the existence of players better than yourself, and to you, great players will not and can not exist.

For great players, the same is true, but substitute "great" for greater, where they will substitute "me" for "better than me".

Doing things you can not, does not include, for example, achieveing Paragon level 20, because any fool can do it if they play long enough. However, it does include killing killer-monster-X without healing, weapons or armour, or achieveing Paragon level 20 in 10 seconds. You get the idea.

What i'm really trying to say is great players are enigma's. :)

Well said.

/Snafu :D

I hate to bump an "old" thread, but I always hated people that used speedwalks and other macro programs, they are the reason a lot of things got changed that made it harder for people who liked to rely on their own skill, rather than on their ability to program a macro. Rharc, and a couple others who used speedwalks and macro's are the reason that Khornes got changed, because it was too easy for people to remain KiP. (yes, I had a discussion about this a long time ago with certain people in charge of the guild).

To me, a macro/speedwalk is a cheat, a hack, a crutch for people who can't figure out how to play the game on their own skill. Another good example of how this affected the game is Knights, Vampires, PK'ing, Lepers with their stench clouds. If you have played these guilds, if you have played those types of encounters, you know what I mean.

I was legendary when it was deemed impossible for a non-Lysator knight to get there (without speedwalks). I typed my way through everything, I never used macro's. My Darkie took heads average 96% of the time, using just usual hotkeys and typing (i.e. in game aliases) I managed to maintain KiP about 90% of the time before they changed Khornes to be dynamic, and then it was impossible. I type at an average of 100wpm atm, and its still impossible for me to maintain KiP with my Khorne.

I could go on, but to me, the challenge lies in my abilites vs other players, or my abilites vs the wizards. Truely "great" players are those that master those challenges, and are good at them, without requiring crutches. If you don't understand what I mean, disable your macro's, disable your speedwalks, disable any 2nd party programs, and try the game with just your skill vs others and the envirment around you. You will see how much of a crutch they are.

No excuses needed, on the contrary, I _thank_ you!

Excellent, this is really a sight for my old eyes... As one of the elderly players, I definitely understand your point... When I started playing NannyMUD I didn't have a client, not even telnet... I played by mailing (you know, envelope and stamp and all that...) my moves to a friend that had that crutch (the telnet one)...  Harry was very annoying then, I can tell you!

Ahem... Well, somewhat ironic, but most, if not all, of us elderly players played our first years using telnet. Padrone's MUD frontend was an option, but I don't think I ever used it seriously... And I could also type a whole bunch of 'w' and 's' pretty quickly :) Plus 'k' and 'od' and stuff... Didn't see that as skill though, not in the sense of a 'great player' anyway...

I actually don't see that using a client with speedwalks would make you less a 'great' player, if you made those speedwalks yourself... If you're using some configuration someone else has created, and just push the keys 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 to get a lot of XP cash and solve 3 quests without knowing what you were doing, THAT would indeed make you look like a pretty crappy player :P

One of the greatest (sic!) advantages for me with speedwalks, is that I take a lot of strain off my shoulder, and it obviously makes it somewhat less boring (perhaps, not sure really) when you're trying to achieve a relatively high position in most guilds (yes, having a greater demon keeping KiP all the time definitely is easier using speedwalks...).

Ooops, perhaps I went astray here, but I agree that the 'good' players are those that are good at playing NannyMUD... But 'great'... I'm not sure... Give me some hard facts about one or two great players (perhaps you're one of them?) and I'll digest that...

what player knows Nanny?: Oriole

that I know from the TAG club

I think perhaps when clients first became available, it would be appropriate to consider speedwalking a form of cheating. But nowadays it is so commonplace that it would be better to consider NOT speedwalking a selective handicap. The MUD has been designed in a way that takes speedwalking into account, and you can no longer get very far in certain guilds, or solve certain problems, without taking advantage of what your client has to offer.

Plus typing burns calories. I used to not use speedwalks at all for the first year of playing, but that was merely because I was too lazy and too eager to play to make the necessary preperations. Now I have, I could never stand going back.

I remember the old days of pasting a series of commands into a telnet window. I never really used clients and I never wanted to ;) :D

/Spamfu :D

Hey!

Let's get this thread back on line, shall we?
I think great players can be defined very simply and it's what makes the admins "lousy players".
It's the ability to atract newbies or fairly new players into trying to discover the inner secrets
of Nanny. This could be making them explore or quest or player killing or being better knights,
or vampires or whatever ( by this I mean role playing ). By giving them the incentive to try
and be a lot better in those activities I have mentioned above.
I think that's what makes a great player. Of course, take Polar for example, he is considered
a great player in druids. Take Selindor for example, a great example of chivalry and the list can
go on.
If you want to find a great player overall, I think that might be a bit hard. Because, as Esca said,
the truly great ones are not known to people. They are there, in almost everything, with
great characters in almost every guild, with superior mud knowledge and quest points, with
good pk abilities, but we don't KNOW it!

So, I would define truly great players as the ones that make the great players still go on!

Ah, nice twist there draculea!

Regarding speedwalks. I'm one of those who started off playing nanny in telnet, the kind who had his fingers bleed from all the damn typing in those knight-attacks ... so I know where Terin is coming from. I don't, however, see it as a 'mud skill' to be able to rock the mud playing through telnet.

Speedwalking doesn't make a person a better or worse player, per se. Speedwalking may result in the player becoming lazy, forgetting where things are. But that's not a rule (some forget, some remember, has more to do with the player than it has to do with the client). Taking the car to work doesn't mean you forget how to walk, it just means taking the car is faster :)

If we're going back to what defines a 'great' player, I still think it is someone who knows all guilds, how they interact and how to make them work (not just max out, but know how to play the guild efficiently, well as much as possible anyway). As for game-achievements, I think exploring the mud, questing and solving puzzles is a direct measure. Xp on the other hand ... not quite. While it takes a lot of endurance and dedication to grind to the point where you reach the higher paragon levels, does it require skill? No. It could be skill, mind, not saying those with high paragon levels are lousy players, but their high levels in themselves, are not a measure of skill.

Few people have the time to become great players though. Some may master a few guilds, but hardly all of them, it's just too time-consuming a task to pull off.

Then there's the fact that we have no idea what other people know, and unless they brag about it or show off in various way ... we'd be none the wiser *grins*.

  You know ... we wouldn't have all those high paragon levels if it weren't for you truly great ones to entertain us while doing it  :P