Competitive Player Archetypes and the implication.

IdleMind

IdleMind

BANNED FOREVER
This thread examines the 3 archetypes used to classify competitive game players. These are terms used by game designers themselves, and as far as I know, originated in the Magic: The Gathering Community. There are 3 player archetypes: The Timmy, the Johnny, and the Spike.

Timmy

"What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others." -Confucius

Timmy's drive is to have some fun. Fun being defined as getting big rewards immediately for little effort.

A Timmy usually views gaming competition as a way to be social. Timmy does not play to prove he is better or showoff how amazing he is, nor does he envy other players that appear better than him. A Timmy just plays the game for his own fun, and wants to have fun with other players.

A Timmy believes he needs to set his limits; makes rules or follows a code, in order to make the game more fun. The rules can make a game easy, make things more interesting, or be followed to prevent Timmy from doing something foolish while playing. Depending on the group of players the rules can range from disallowing a cheap move to wanting to do: No Items. Fox ONLY. Final Destination.

When a Timmy is one of the best players he is usually seen as having a natural talent for the game. A Timmy does not get better analyzing the game; he gets better playing it, gaining experience which can translate to an apparent talent others cannot understand or overcome. A Timmy is a player noted for playing for the love of the game. Love is a rare motivation, but when love is great enough it can beat the motivations that drive most other players.

Johnny

"There are many ways to lose the oldest game. Failure of nerve, hesitation... Being unable to shift into a defensive shape. Lack of imagination." -Sandman

Johnny's drive is to express his brilliance. He seeks to be original and figure out his own way of playing the game.

A Johnny usually views gaming competition as a shape shifter showdown. Playing a game is all about making choices of what path a player takes, and since the opponent is also making choices to divert your path, the goal is to lead both players to victory you seek. However as a Johnny expresses his brilliance most when victory seems impossible, so Johnny players enjoy being put into impossible situations or using only the tools everyone claims to be useless, and still managing to pull out a victory.

A Johnny believes he needs to know his limits. Nothing is an advantage or a detriment, but merely an attribute. If you understand the attributes you have, attributes your opponent has, and attributes found in the game, you will never fear losing.

When a Johnny is one of the best players, he is the player who discovered, through his own relentless obsession to analyze the mechanisms of the game, the gambit that proves to demolish the competition. These are the magnificent bastards, whose book will be read carefully by Spikes before the next competition.

Spike

"My God, he plays so simply!" -Alexei Suetin (speaking of Bobby Fischer)

Spike's drive is to prove he is the best. He seeks every advantage he can find to gain the winning edge.

A Spike usually views gaming competition as an argument between players to determine who perform the better series of moves. The player who wins is the player who makes the better argument, and the player who wins the most is the better player. Nothing else matters.

A Spike believes there are no limits. People who believe in limits will limit themselves, and a Spike seeks to break the limits others see. Trying to play fair and not play cheap is a limit. Trying to learn things the hard way and avoid copying other players is a limit. Remove the limits and you will find it easier to grow as a player.

When a Spike is one of the best players he does not have flashy or surprising victories, he wins by the numbers. The efficiency of his moves, the small advantages he can find, and the advantages he never gives away, all add up to give the Spike a higher probability of winning against the actions he predicts his opponents are most likely to make. And when a Spike is the best, he is a master competitor who knows exactly what the competition is going to bring.

Personal Opinion

It is my contention that a well balanced competitive game has a mix of top players who are both Johnnys and Spikes, with the occasional brilliant Timmy. It is also my contention that certain games incline top players to gravitate o one of these archetypes moreso than others. My opinion is that a game with mostly Spikes at high level play is a bad game.

Some Games and my classification of it's top players

Super Turbo: Johnny's and Spikes in equal measure, but never Timmys.
3s: Spikes with a signifigant slice of Johnnys, also never Timmys.
SSF4: Too early to tell; but I believe its a mixture of Spikes and Johnnys at the moment.
Tekken (all of them): Spikes, it seems like the game is the purest purview of Spikes I've ever seen.

So what do you think SC4 is?

-Idle
 
I think I'm a mix of Timmy and Johnny. SC4? I'm leaning towards Johnny and Spikes. Spikes could be those high and mighty scrubs online. Johnny for those who seem to go by the online etiquette code and/or play offline. There might be a few Timmys around. But, they're kinda rare as stated.
 
Though I don't really govern me or my opponents by any unwritten rules, I'd say I'm mostly a Timmy, though also a Johnny in the sense that I can never bring myself to do something I feel is 'cookie-cut' and like like to feel as if something I'm doing is 'my own work'(this is heavily influenced the two CCGs I played most, YGO and Vs. System, the first of which, when I played, you pretty much had to run cookie-cut decks in order to compete...though, the year I stopped playing, the top Japanese deck mirrored mine except for ONE card. And the second I fell in love with because of my ability to be both competitive and completely original, letting my imagination guide me towards making all types of decks and beating cookie-cutters with ease).
 
If I look at the history of SC4 I will say Johnny's. In the USA a good number of Spikes, but a good number of notable Johnny's as well.
 
Instead of classifying what the average competitive players' archetype is I'll point out individuals and categorize their archetype with a supporting description:

Something_Unique (Spike): He uses numbers to prove how much of a good player he is. I recall a time when he posted about how places at the top in a number of tournies as well as the number Money Matches he won. Not to mention that he's a self proclaimed sociologist with an average GPA of 3.

OOFMATIC (Timmy and Johnny): He's a Timmy because he plays characters whom he deems as fun. He plays characters and learns from game play experience though he did eventually studied the mechanics of his chosen "fun" characters.

In addition, he's also a Johnny cuz he discovers stuff that effectively make his characters more dangerous like Vader's Doom combo and Apprentice's infinite.

Kowtow (Timmy): From what I hear he only hangs where his friends hang (in most competitions that is).

Vincent (Timmy): Vincent is sum1 who loves to travel and meet new faces; more of a reason for him to be a Timmy.
 
i'd say its all around balanced. u have your johnny's who originate from timmy's and pave the way for spikes who also originate from timmy's. and in there a few timmy's get dragged along and dont change simply cause they wanna get out there and have fun, even if they dont make it past the 1st round. of course i'd also say that once a johnny or a spike hits their peak they eventually drift either back to being a timmy or to a different game all together, because once all is said and done, they'll either still play the game because they love it, and they'll compete because they love it(FSAK), or they'll move along because perhaps theres something out there that suits them better. (like how some people on 8wr here moved to SSF4).

or thats my opinion anyways...take it how u will.

im a spike and a timmy :)
 
Yeah, with the classifying of other players, I was going to do that myself, but then I figured that just leads to disagreements with other players or the players in question themselves. Either way, if that's the way Idle envisioned this topic, so be it.

Other than that, I also think that most, if not all games allows for those archetypes to exist, but, to me, the difference is the ability of some players to flourish. It would seem, in certain types of games, the more the knowledge base is built up, the more or less certain types of players have the ability to flourish (in this case, remain competitive).

I was going to post my next Callibus thing on on options and I think this somewhat relates to it. While there will always be some type of stronger strategies, what, in my opinion, makes a good game is a player's different ways of approaching the said situation (in other words, both players ability to act and counteract in such a way that things aren't so black and white). I think, because, as I said, I don't like having to play a certain way in order to win, this is the reason I love SC and GG so much.
 
My intention wasn't so much a classification of players as much as I was looking for what type of players populate the higher end realms of the game. This discussion came up with my concept-editor for the game I'm designing, when we were talking about ways to appeal to wider audiences in games. He sent me this in an email, so I thought I would share. I was told while this is using terms associated with MTG, the terms themselves were coherent to design in general.

PS: I think SC4 rewards Spikes by far at a high level of play. I also think if we were to examine the top players in SC4, They would overwhelmingly be Spikes, with a RARE couple of Johnny's. As I stated before, I think that is a symptom of bad design. To my mind, the last true high-level Johnny we had playing SC4 was KDZ. Imo, there is not as much room to be competitive and be creative in SC at a high level of play as much as mid level play would imply. That's my opinion and observation. Your mileage may vary.

PPS: I'm a Spike because the game requires it of me, but I'd rather be a Johnny.

-Idle
 
I would classify the vast majority of the competitive SC4 players as Spikes. This game is fairly simple, the frame data is mostly known, and there isn't generally a huge number of viable options at any time, making it fairly easy to analyze and play by the numbers. Though anybody still playing the game after this long has a bit of a Timmy in them.

Coming to a website like this is generally a very Spike-like thing to do. You probably come here (or other similar websites) to find frame data, combos, videos, tech traps, general strategies of other players, or to answer questions about the game mechanics theirselves. Sure there is are some speculatative Johnny exploration discussions.

And I would classify the vast majority of the online SC4 players as Timmys. You can tell the majority of them have never glanced at the frame data, or even understand the basic game mechanics properly. And they like to restrict theirselves to a various honor codes (no lows, no throws, no ring outs, no character X, etc. which while online does skew things, I'm going to throw you or hit you with a low if you stand there guarding high) that don't reflect how the game is actually played offline. But they still play the game and have fun at it, and some of them even stick with it and become good at it.

I don't think there is a ton of room to be a Johnny in this game. If you start going too far off the standard path, the Spikes will destroy you for your mistakes and openings. Sure there are a ton of moves and options at any point, but, how many of them are actually safe to do, and how many of the unsafe ones are going to work consistently enough to win a match without being punished to death? You might catch them off guard for a while, but, once they figure out the counter to your unique tactics you'd better have another trick ready.


Ultimately, in any game, eventually, the Spikes will be the ones winning, once the optimal strategy is figured out (by the Johnnys, but the Spikes will eventually copy them). You cannot be a Johnny in say Tic-Tac-Toe and expect to win against someone playing as a Spike, the optimal strategy will never lose. Course in a game that has reaction times and recognition times factored in like SC4, there is some lee-way for leaving openings and doing unsafe stuff and winning regardless. Technically, the optimal unbeatable strategy in SC4 is to just impact everything and never retalliate (you won't take damage, you'll eventually critical finish the other guy or force a draw, and never leave yourself open to being re-just impacted back again), but, nobody can do that (except maybe Warble!).
I disagree that this is necessarily an indication of bad game design. In any deterministic game (like SC4), there are only so many options possible, and eventually you can solve it. Something like Checkers has an enormous state space, but, it has been exhaustively proven to result in a draw game when played perfectly, trying to deviate from that will always lead to a loss or a draw at best.
 
andur said:
Ultimately, in any game, eventually, the Spikes will be the ones winning, once the optimal strategy is figured out (by the Johnnys, but the Spikes will eventually copy them). You cannot be a Johnny in say Tic-Tac-Toe and expect to win against someone playing as a Spike, the optimal strategy will never lose. Course in a game that has reaction times and recognition times factored in like SC4, there is some lee-way for leaving openings and doing unsafe stuff and winning regardless. Technically, the optimal unbeatable strategy in SC4 is to just impact everything and never retalliate (you won't take damage, you'll eventually critical finish the other guy or force a draw, and never leave yourself open to being re-just impacted back again), but, nobody can do that (except maybe Warble!).
Click to expand...

Though I think I'm at odds with you and Idle on opinions of SC4's overall design, this is one of the things I was trying to say. ultimately in most fighting games, thing are going to come down to numbers. While there may be some way to alter these numbers (such as roman cancels, assists, soul charge, and what have you) the fact that those options are ultimately deemed to powerful and thus not of an infinite resource will make things boil down to the next 'cheapest' thing, whether it be longest range, fastest attack, unavoidable, 50/50's, nonpunishable, or even a combination of the forementioned (and thus, like I said in one of my Callibus writings, you see some of the makings of top tier characters).

Still, too much of too many things causes chaos for most people and too little limits creativity causes dullness. Looking at, subjectively, two different ends of the spectrum, it's funny, the type of complaints you hear about games like SF4 and GG, for example (and, at the same time, the types of praise they get).
 
I think any wise player has some Spike within them. I mean even people who use low tier characters search for every possible advantage they can get. If someone else discovers some amazing mixup with your character, chances are you will use it to try and improve your game. To simply not use something that is fair out of principle isn't wise in competition. Although I do think originality is good and leads to amazing gameplay. Even when players pick up things from other player they should not revolutionize their entire style to match someone else.

For myself I relate to all three I would think. Although others disagree I think almost anyone playing SC4 has some Timmy within them. I mean so many players have moved on to other things so there's nothing else to keep us here but genuine love for the game.

I think Kura was a true Johnny when he was around.
 
Well in my opinion, if we drop names for examples.
Spikes

Thugish Pond
Dreamkiller
Ceirnian
RTD
OOFMATIC
KDZ

I believe all these guys play to win, OOFMATIC might seem iffy for some of you because he plays SW chars. But that's also part of the spike mentality, he uses ignorance as a weapon. He has played Algol and hilde as well.

Same thing with KDZ, I remember when he picked Hilde against SU, after a bunch of shit talk leading up to that grudge match.

Johnny's
SU
Woahhzz
Omega
Kura
France
Belial
Docvizzo
Hajime
Ramon
 
With the exception of Cedric (whom I don't know enough about to comment on), I actually agree with your list, KingAce. Still, like DMAN said, I think, for the most part, anyone who plays any game could claim various attributes from each of these classifications.

Still for some reason, I like this sort of topic. I think it's because it shows not only the people's attitude about themselves but the attitude they see themselves and others taking into the game.
 
IdleMind said:
My intention wasn't so much a classification of players as much as I was looking for what type of players populate the higher end realms of the game.
Click to expand...
There only seems to be a yes/no attitude about competition. Either you want to prove a point on some level or you don't. That should be impossible for a Timmy to do since he's essentially just dicking around. You can't compete and be a Timmy at the same time. It might seem confusing when a person who is known to play casually enters a tournament and then wins. But that doesn't mean he was a Timmy in that moment. He played with the intent on winning because of a defined purpose.
 
this thread is awesome.

2csgqc5.jpg
 
Vints: Maybe Timmy thinks winning makes the game more fun? XD


Anyway I think everyone has aspects of all 3 like others have said. I think I'm mostly a Johnny.

To answer Idlemind's question, I would say almost all of them are spikes now. I think the Johnny's have gradually dwindled down for one reason or another.
 
Tiamat said:
Vints: Maybe Timmy thinks winning makes the game more fun? XD


Anyway I think everyone has aspects of all 3 like others have said. I think I'm mostly a Johnny.

To answer Idlemind's question, I would say almost all of them are spikes now. I think the Johnny's have gradually dwindled down for one reason or another.
Click to expand...

As Idle explained, the reason behind Johnny's are no where to be found, or at least be found as a consistent placing high level player is because to win in SCIV, being a spike is required. Looking at the bigger picture, he's right, and I'm still trying to prove him wrong by finding a high level johnny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom