Great players, wtf is that?

[RyanT]

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.

[Kherec]

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

[Carrion]

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.

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...)

[Yberiel]

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

[Qwer]

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.

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?

[poogie]

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.

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

[Carrion]

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

[Kherec]

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

[Kherec]

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

[Qwer]

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?    )

[Yberiel]

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

[Maggs]

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

[Carrion]

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.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.

[Maggs]

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.

[Carrion]

Then do it then.

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

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.

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'.