Community

BuckFever wrote:

So they've tried to assimilate Dave as a Timmy? Dave's just about the polar opposite of the social gamer (which does feels more timmy). Social Timmy plays plankton cards Howling Mine and the like.

Dave plays Jester's Scepter .

I voted 145, because they might want to put in fixing but really, if they put in lands or colorless artifacts, it'd just Mistform Ultimus -ify the set (IT'S ALL MULTICOLOR... except for a, b, c and d). If they do the idea, they'll execute it proper (at least I think they would).

I think the deck I alluded to before, the mono black control variants that are the variant to my normal style of play (aggro) betray the aspect of me as a Johnny, that I enjoy interactive cards, which also point at my aspect as a Timmy/Spike: I want to win big, and by big, by hurting my opponent's ability to stop me. I played Orzhov, I played MBC, and I play Parasite/Visions now. These decks appeal to me, to this side, not to annoy, not to derive from sadistic pleasure from the game, but to win in a particular way. I want to win with these cards, in order to express a sense of ability in deck construction and appeal in the synergies to the card. Nonetheless, I enjoy a good fight, and enjoy it when my opponent wins despite this, which is a very Timmy feeling. Note that Timmy can arrive at enjoyment when losing because the opponent was very fun about it, and this sets us away from this "Dave" profile. As such, Dave has more to do with the non-psychographic Vorthos--Melvin axis than it does to the Timmy/Johnny/Spike set. I speak this way not to defend myself, but because I know myself enough that while Griefer Timmy appeals to a way I play, I know I am not there to annoy my opponent. Dave =/= Griefer.

However, aside from this, Griefer is not so easy to shoehorn into Timmy, either. It's distinct, in a way, in that it crosses psychographics into Johnny, as well as Spike.

Griefer plays cards that are hard to solve, but are cruelly destructive, leading to tunnel games, previously alluded to by la Pille. Griefer plays the all-countermagic decks, the bleeder decks, the Stasis decks, the decks that lead to game locks where the player WILL win, he just needs to get there. It seems like a long, slogging road through nothing, but these decks need to devote so much space to the combo lock and means to preserve it that their win con has to take up little space, requiring time (and turns) to get there. Griefer plays the stall-counterspell decks that crop up, and while they seem vicious and "unfun", they get where they need to go, and they win. People hate these decks so much, that they apply this antipathy towards the player. Thus, these cards are made for a group of players, they appeal to this subset, and are designed, developed, and printed not to hide a "hidden" psychographic, but to appeal to a group of players.

Now, little of this works as just a Timmy subset. It is an unfun experience for Timmy, if the opponent does nothing. Yes, some may find this enjoyable, but that's not the psychographic's fault. It is expressive of a creation, even if that creation is a Bond in Agony deck. It wins, and it wins brutally and finally. But the win is very visceral because it's so ... unexpected to suddenly find your opponent at 0 life and you at a full bar ... this is an experience and the road there is hardly clearly trod or easy to walk.

quitequieter wrote:

this has spoilers.

Spoiler: Show

i haven't seen the movie so this is regarding the comic.

to some readers, yes this is the case. my personal opinion on rorschach is much more positive than either of these ideas, and i guess i am in the minority. when he was younger he praised bombing of hiroshima. he believed that order and law should be achieved by any means necessary. but the transformation that he goes through leads him to change his mind. the weird psychic explosion in new york is essentially identical to hiroshima in its justification and effect, but by the time he gets to the evil arctic lair, rorschach understands that it's wrong to murder people "for the greater good," especially if the murderer benefits from it. it's still black and white, "this man did wrong and i will not condone it," but it's a different kind of black and white. in the course of the book he has more of a connection to other people than ever before, he feels camaraderie with his fellow super heroes, and i think he learns to value human life more than he did before. but since moore leaves everything pretty ambiguous, this is really just opinion.

i'm interested to know though, since i've never spoken to another person who read watchmen: how do people feel at the end? do they feel like it's the right thing to do? do they feel like the world has been saved? are you supposed to say to yourself, it was a hard choice, but the right one.

for me, when rorschach walked out in the snow i walked out with him. for me, his letter, which may undo everything Ozymandias worked to bring about, was a triumph.

Spoiler: Show

Hacimen wrote:

There is nothing particularly positive about the article itself.

i disagree. i think you're personally bringing a lot of the negativity to the table.

This article is going to resonate for a lot longer than today or the near future. There are players who still don't like being called Timmies because of the way Mark Rosewater descrived the profile in 2002. It is easy for us to reason that "well he didn't mean YOUR Mill deck or YOUR Prison deck or YOUR LD deck" just in the same way we could say "well no, you aren't a scrub because you think Verdant Force is great and don't use countermagic" seven years ago. But the damage may have already been done.

i find this attitude to be utterly ridiculous. the only damage being done is being done inside your mind. who cares what other players call you? who cares if you're a timmy or a spike or a johnny? who cares if someone doesn't like your play style? if they don't like it, don't play with them. play online, play at tournaments, play with like-minded people, etc. you're utterly misunderstanding the point of the entire exercise...rosewater wasn't saying "here's timmy, he's a big loser who stinks at magic!" he was explaining a type of player. this article is merely explaining a subset of that type. no one should be ashamed of being a timmy, and i don't think any writer on the site has ever suggested anyone should. there's some humor to this article i think you're missing.

unspeakable wrote:

I don't see any reason why WOTC should cater specifically to this type of player.

then you don't understand capitalism. you cater to your audience. if wotc avoided griefer cards out of some kind of stupid ethics, they would be denying players the reason they buy the product, which would be like throwing money away. throwing money away isn't what businesses exist to do.

Qilong wrote:

Griefer plays the stall-counterspell decks that crop up, and while they seem vicious and "unfun", they get where they need to go, and they win. People hate these decks so much, that they apply this antipathy towards the player. Thus, these cards are made for a group of players, they appeal to this subset, and are designed, developed, and printed not to hide a "hidden" psychographic, but to appeal to a group of players.

Now, little of this works as just a Timmy subset. It is an unfun experience for Timmy, if the opponent does nothing. Yes, some may find this enjoyable, but that's not the psychographic's fault. It is expressive of a creation, even if that creation is a Bond in Agony deck. It wins, and it wins brutally and finally. But the win is very visceral because it's so ... unexpected to suddenly find your opponent at 0 life and you at a full bar ... this is an experience and the road there is hardly clearly trod or easy to walk.

all around agreed. i said earlier that it was a timmy subset, but the more i think about it and the more i read people's responses the more i think it can show up in any psychographic. the timmy part is the easiest to explain, since it's obviously the experience that drives these people. but the way they orchestrate it is what makes them a johnny or spike.

Qilong wrote:

Spoiler: Show

Rorschach for me is my favorite character because he was the most human. I could identify with him, which was hard with the others (especially Manhattan, even though there was a sense of austerity that appeals him to me). As such, his evolution and end make an impact to me. It tells me that he was willing to lose his life for the cause, knowing what it would end like, but he knew the events would lead to peace as Adrian showed. Rorschach still fought with what I feel is correct: Killing a man to save a man invalidates the life you saved. If it takes a death to gain life, you render that life meaningless (it's enough, then, to say that one life means MORE than another's, and you've made a judgment that is no longer black and white). If anything, Rorschach knew that 15 million lives to save 6 billion was not the same, and would have stepped back and said nothing, done nothing ... but it was still 15 million lives murdered. Would this not grate on you? He therefore felt he had to find justice for the murdered, and if he couldn't kill Adrian to stop it, he needed to expose Adrian -- and the other Watchmen for their inaction -- to give some justice to those killed ... just like the kidnapped girl.

So, to me, Rorschach's struggle is never black and white ... it's an ideal he strives for, but never reaches, because somewhere, he's realized that life is not black and white ... all humans are capable of good and evil, at all times, and certainly he must know that he's done some evil things while calling it good. Just like Adrian.

it's incredibly good to hear this, since i'd never heard anyone say they shared my view on the character.

6_Qubed wrote:

One of the biggest stereotypes about Timmy is that he's simple. No. He chooses to be simple. There's a difference.

i'm not sure how this is relevant to what you quoted. i wasn't saying timmy was simple. timmy CAN be simple, but being one track doesn't make someone untimmy.

I didn't say Dave was Spike. I didn't say that Dave was any other player profile. What I said was that Daves shares certain characteristics with the other player profiles. Characteristics that the other profiles don't share between themselves. Read moar.

i didn't say you said dave was spike. what i was saying, poorly, was that i thought going to any length necessary was part of any profile, and therefore didn't denote a different profile, while also point out that i believed "dave" to fall under johnny/timmy territory most of the time. read moar of my mind.

I resent that, because I'm both Timmy and Johnny myself. And I couldn't care less how my opponent feels about my rediculously large combos, I'm gonna play 'em anyway. If he doesn't like it, he can scoop. I goldfish most of the time any-damn-way

i didn't say "timmy johnnies are daves." i said "dave is a timmy johnny." all badonkadonks are streuselwingers, but not all streuselwingers are badonkadonks (quoting kyrna here).

Nobody wants Dave to exist. That's why he exists. If people wanted him to exist, he wouldn't, just to be contrary. Dave's an ***hole like that.

yes, they do. people want the person they hate to fall under another catagory so it doesn't dirty up their precious timmy or their precious johnny. and people always want *******s to exist. people always want to hate on someone. it's human nature.

I'd just like to note the poll at the end of the article, a note on how Reborn will be laid out:

[Posted elsewhere, but here for relevance.]

Limited would make 100% multicolor (nonhybrid meaning all at least two colors) very problematic. In the interests of limited play, there must be lands that permit the game to run smoothly despite this, especially in triple Reborn draft. There are some solutions:

Lands -- more multicolor-enabling cards will be neccessary, and the absence of one-costing multicolor cards will require an open first turn to be useful to fill. Lands that cipt will fill this void.

Artifacts -- there will likely be a lot of one mana artifacts, which will permit mana fixing.

{C} Cycling -- Cycling cards for one mana, or landtype-cycling for one mana oncolor-wise as in Onslaught, or a filtering mechanic playable from the hand that can replace cards, for one mana.

I'm thinking artifacts and cyclers will be the big ideas for the set. We may even see dual cycling (two one-mana cycling costs on a single card), which may be innovative enough to allow variable kickercycling effects.

For the record, I picked 101-144, as I suspect anything less would make Mirrodin level artifacts, and anything more would be nonfunctional for the above reasons.