|
4 years ago ::
Mar 10, 2009 - 8:15AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2006
|
I don't like to win!
Well, that's not entirely true. I do like to win. But only from a non-winning position. Winning isn't fun. I could build a powerful deck, go for the throat at every turn, but then what's the point? Winning again? Or feeling bad because my super great deck lost, or it wasn't super great after all. Or making my friends feel bad because their deck isn't as good, or because they aren't as good. Or because they really are better than me and I'm just extremely lucky (which is usually the case).
To me, the game is about fun. It's about getting together with friends, showing them what you made, running it out there, and seeing what happens.
It's a social networking puzzle.
PS: I've been known to hold "answer" cards in my hand at least a turn longer than necessary just to see what might happen.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 10, 2009 - 9:06AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
Yes, trying to play all the cards in your hand is wrong! We're treating winning like sex during the Victorian era. Sorry guys, winning isn't everything but losing isn't a virtue, either. Making a decision to play what works is as valid as playing what catches your eye: it is, afterall, just an arbitrary decision. "Spikes" don't have to be single-minded jerks. Perhaps people legitimately enjoy testing and improving themselves? Perhaps curving-out is as fun to some as dropping a big green monster is to others? Perhaps taking something seriously is a sign of enjoyment to some? Perhaps people of all these dumb psychographics love/hate to be beaten by that insane topdeck?
Play competitively? You might still be a Timmy. Pick decks you like. Treat your opponents like friends instead of enemies. Be the player everybody enjoys playing against, win or lose.[/quote]
Everyone always picks a deck they'd like to play, though their criteria for choosing it may fall outside the scope of this theme week. And the last two sentences aren't something exclusive to a "Timmy", that's just not being a douche-bag.
I saw a lot of myself described in this article so I took the "official" test again. Turns out I'm a Johnny/Spike! It just goes to show, once again, that these psychographics are meaningless to us as players.
Kelly, I always enjoy your articles, but this week was just a bad topic they forced on you.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 10, 2009 - 9:13AM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Jun 14, 2006
|
I came up as Spike/Timmy (or maybe the other way around) the last time I took MaRo's test, and as such I've found that when you're trying to win the "good" cards take on the level of "awesomeness" usually associated with giant spells and creatures. "It gets any rid of any creature for just one mana? Who cares if it gives my opponent another land? That's sooo good!"
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 10, 2009 - 11:44AM
#24
|
- Aww it's a cute OH MY GOD
- the bear goes RAWR!
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2003
|
Well, another way to put it is that a new player is unlikely to be able to satisfy his or her Spike or Johnny tendencies with Magic. Winning is hard when you don't know what you're doing, and building clever decks and making clever plays is difficult before you know the rules well and have a good collection. So a new player really has to be playing for Timmy reasons, because the other two aren't viable options at that point.
I don't think that is true, at least for certain Spikes. I'm the type of Spike that plays to test myself. I remember that the first time my cousin introduced me to the game, I was immediately asking the kinds of questions that I always ask when learning a new game (i.e. the kind that help me get better).
"What's the advantage of playing this instead of this? Why would you play it that way? Is what I'm doing right now not as efficient?" Of course I was pretty weak when I first started out, but getting smashed didn't (and still doesn't) deter me as long as I felt like I was improving. So even since the very beginning I was clearly a Spike.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 10, 2009 - 11:53AM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2006
|
Me, I'm a Chuck.
Eww, Chuck was the name of the guy my friend played in the first round of the first FNM that either of us played in. It was Ravnica/Ravnica/Guildpact draft and Chuck had a deck with Souls of the Faultless  and Vertigo Spawn  . After playing slowly all match, Chuck tried to play to pressure my friend to play fast at the end. The game ended in a draw. It was excruciating.
Kelly, I always enjoy your articles, but this week was just a bad topic they forced on you.
Is that a joke or did you miss the part where Kelly wrote that this theme week was his idea and that he had had the idea for this column even before the idea for the theme week?
I came up as Spike/Timmy (or maybe the other way around) the last time I took MaRo's test, and as such I've found that when you're trying to win the "good" cards take on the level of "awesomeness" usually associated with giant spells and creatures. "It gets any rid of any creature for just one mana? Who cares if it gives my opponent another land? That's sooo good!"
I can definitely agree with this. The first time I took the test I came up Johnny/Timmy/Spike. Today, I retook both tests and got straight Spike in one and straight Johnny in the other. Because Magic is a game where the objective is to win, things start to get a bit pointless for me when people stray too far from optimal play/deckbuilding (so I'm partly Spike). However, I do like to have fun and encounter unusual play decisions that I haven't seen before (which I believe is my diversity gaming Timmy part). I find that alternative formats or putting extra restrictions on myself (like "make a Standard deck without any rares that can at least finish FNM with a winning record") are good ways to create these situations (I think deckbuilding with an additional challenge is a Johnny trait). For me all three psychographics are usually involved whenever I play. I'd think that's true for most people.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 10, 2009 - 12:27PM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Jun 14, 2006
|
I have enjoyed the articles this week so far (Can't wait for "From the Lab" and BOAB").
I have been playing Magic since the mid 90's and am often the person my friends rush to with rules questions and yes, I am a Timmy (and proud of it). Sometimes I find it even hard to understand Spikes and Johnnies. I can't tell you what I hate worse, dominating a game just so my friend pulls a 3 card combo that ends the game, or my other friend who has to play with a Senei Divining Top in every deck.
This doesn't mean I dislike Johnny/ Spike types, and I certainly know how and when to throw a counter spell, I just choose not to. No fun for me to counter and control everything (unless I can fling it at someone with Stoutarm of course). The only counter deck I have is faires, and that because it's kewl to have a deck of all things fae. I win my fair share of games at the casual table and love my Giant themed deck as well as my Angels and Demons.
It is sometimes hard being a Timmy, because no one takes you seriously at times. If you were to type that you were looking to build a fun Conflux deck as a Timmy, people will either steer you to outragiously priced cards, or tell you to replace that Child of Alara with more crappy removal spells. Sure I don't WANT to lose, but I would rather lose with my Child of Alara sporting 4 enchantments on it (Fists of the Demigod, Steel of the Godhead, Edge of Difinity, Favor of the Overbeing) than to win with Kitchen Finks.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 10, 2009 - 12:27PM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Jun 14, 2006
|
I really enjoyed this article, because it made me realize a lot of things about myself and the people I play with. I read everything MaRo wrote about the three psychographics, yet Kelly expanded on the topic of Timmy in ways I’ve never seen before. I’m a Spike / Timmy, more the former than the latter. As such, I’m the kind of Spike who, in casual games, will constantly give advice to the other players to try and make their decks and their play skill better, and some of them get annoyed by that. Reading the article made me understand better why they do, and now I realize I’m often exaggerating with my advice. I’ll keep giving them some, but only when I think that what I’m suggesting may really improve their fun. For example, if one of my friends seems to have no fun with one of his decks because it constantly is mana screwed, then I’ll suggest him to add lands. But on the other hand, I have to learn to leave alone the adrenaline gamer who also has mana problems but doesn’t care and even thrills on the risk.
As a tournament player, the article strengthened my view of myself as a semi-Timmy. As much as I value winning, for tournaments I’ll always build a deck that fits my style, rather than netdeck the consensus best deck. When I happen to play the consensus best deck, it’s because it’s aggro or aggro-control, which is what fits my tastes better. Also, I enjoy the social aspect of tournaments, I try to be a pleasant opponent, and I always hope to play against the most enjoyable people rather that the easiest to beat. I generally have a good time even if I lose, as long as my opponent is fun to play with. Luckily, most people in our community are sympathetic, and there are only a few jerks I pray to not have to face, because their attitude ruins my fun.
 Magic The Gathering DCI Rules Advisor Don't hesitate to post rules question in the Rules Q&A forum for me and other competent advisors to answer : http://community.wizards.com/go/forum/view/75842/134778/Rules_Q38A
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 10, 2009 - 1:01PM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Jun 14, 2006
|
And, as much as I liked the article in general, I was hoping to catch a glimpse of a fun Timmy Multiplayer deck this week. Or at the very least some Timmy Multiplayer interaction stories.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 10, 2009 - 1:35PM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Oct 15, 2007
|
"Applaud a great play, even if it's the one that crushes you."
Amen, brother.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 10, 2009 - 2:55PM
#30
|
|
|
First let me preface this with, I am more or less a Spike/Johnny. First and foremost a deck must win, secondly I prefer a uniquely designed deck that combos and has a wow factor to it rather than a boring agro or net deck or having a fun deck.
That said, the game the last two blocks has become too timmified... I think there are a lack of COMPETITIVE comboloicious cards that were likewise available during say the Time Spiral Era (best block of all time), sure I like to have fun but generally if I am not winning I am not having fun so I am not going to build combo decks that dont win > 50% period (with the exception of multiplayer, this is the casual players format). Big slow creatures are boring and make games take longer than they need.
My advice to wizards make some good competitive combolicious cards that Spike and Johnny type players will like next block.
|
|
|
