Competitive Player Archetypes and the implication.

Oofmatic seems like more of a Johnny to me. I think everyone (unless they are like a turbo Timmy) is playing to win and I don't think that automatically makes you predominantly a Spike. If we look at a Johnny as someone who does a lot of research, tries to come up with their own original stuff, and doesn't just cling to the top tier character of the week I think you'll find a lot of them in SC4. It's just that not many of them are high placing players these days.
 
You'd be suprised how many high level johnnys there are... Some of them just dont have the time or money to travel to tourneys for a video game ;) This game doesnt really force you to be a spike, you choose to be one because winning is more important to you than being innovative or original ( and winning ) Which I think a high level johnny would in turn be a better player than all of them, exactly for that reason.

Safeness and precise calculation every time you play the game are very hard to do, specially while you have another high level player forcing you to play they way they want you to, not the way you want to play. Which sometimes is the case, you dont always get to choose who or how your going to be, sometimes the player makes you play like a johnny or a spike...
 
Tiamat said:
Vints: Maybe Timmy thinks winning makes the game more fun? XD
Click to expand...
Timmy's means of gratification isn't dependent on winning the match. They care more about pulling off certain moves and seeing it work, or whatever else excitement that doesn't (necessarily) require victory.
 
SSF is a game of Timmys.

That aside. Arguement is pointless. I do not believe this classification is true.
Also, people play for various reasons, same one person can (and will) have all 3 of the named categories. Wheather 1 of them prevails over the other is a pure speculation.
 
Belial said:
Arguement is pointless. I do not believe this classification is true.
Also, people play for various reasons, same one person can (and will) have all 3 of the named categories. Wheather 1 of them prevails over the other is a pure speculation.
Click to expand...
Belial agrees which means I'm right.

Redirect your attention here please:
 
This infact, didn't go anywhere near the intended point and devolved into specific player classification rather than group classification to which group SC4 pushes high level players towards by the way the game is played.

If we were to look at two fighting games at opposite ends of the spectrum for a second and their high level play:

Guilty Gear: Supports a large number of Johnny's and Spikes in equal measure. I defy any of you to tell me watching KAQN or FAB play Guilty that their routines are rehearsed to the point of mechanical. Alot of that shit is made up on the fly; and it takes brilliance to do that. On the other hand, guys like Marn can win in Guilty too, on sheer grinding the good stuff.

Tekken: The entire game is for Spikes, hands down. Execute right, or lose to someone who does. No room for creativity, the variance in a given match for player "style" with a given character hovers near zero.

There is also a hinge here on which category, and category blur. The categories imply PRIMARY motivation. Not aspects. Of course players will mix aspects of each one. That's a given.

Xephukai hit on the point- the game herds you in one direction. The fact remains; not all games do this. Not all competitive games do this either.

-Idle
 
KingAce said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't use them because of people's ignorance towards them. I use them because they're fun. So my mentality isn't "choose the character in order to win through ignorance.". But if I find that you are ignorant to anything that I may have in my arsenal, rest assured I will use it against you, that's the spike part of me.

IMO I have some qualities of all 3. The Timmy part of me is mainly how I started the game. Just for the love of the game and to have fun playing the game with others. Which is still a main reason why I play. I mainly choose my characters based on how fun they are to use for me and how much I like their design. Most of my talent in this game is natural, just from playing it so much for so many years. I still rarely care for studying frame data because I can just 'feel' the frames.

The Johnny part of me is the part that enjoys being original. I like using characters that others hardly use, primarily because it gives me a larger sense of individuality when I play. I don't particularly choose my characters this reason, but it's something that seems to come with the characters that I find fun, and I enjoy that. I also enjoy situations that are against my favor such as fighting a top tier character (Hilde) or fighting strategies that people consider cheap (Algol Bubble shield). And lastly I enjoy learning all the complexities of my character and utilizing them.

And more so than the others categories, I exhibit the qualities of a spike with everything that is described about it.

So I'd say I'm 70% Spike, 20% Johnny, 10% Timmy. Something like that.
 
Well the community is mostly High level Spikes - Tho not many people in high level Johnnys i can still think of some that are! But what ends up happening to Johnny is that the Spikes see him comming to high level and transform him to a different creature!

I feel that when you hit a certain plateu in your gameplay you become a Spike...to arrive in the top tier player catagory your mindset almost always has to change!
 
Okay let me try and clear my head here.

A johnny plays the game for the challenge, he doesn't care about winning enough to betray that premise. So he might use low tier char, play flashy while emphasizing his own skill.

A spike plays to win. So he doesn't have any moral codes or beliefs about how to play the game as long as the end result is winning.

For a johnny, it's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game. If you play it how you want and win that's a plus.

For a spike; focus every move and gain every advantage to win. Take less risks, make precise movements to secure that win.


Now everyone at the top wants to win, but some aren't willing to sacrifice everything they stand for to do so. I think in general sc4 has the potential for Johnny's and spikes at the top, if more people played the game. To be a spike you have to have an obsession with winning, while for a Johnny expressing your skill equals to winning.

I will make another distinction and say.
A spike believes winning=skill.
A johnny believes skill=winning.

A spike wants to make a name for himself by winning.
A johnny wants to make a name for himself by winning with style.
 
Yeah, I wrote up a huge post on why I feel differently about the game, but, at this point, I think the definitions are way too ambiguous and things can be interpreted in way too many different ways. For example, the biggest thing that caught about the Spikes was their tendency to dumb down the game to it's most fundamental levels, while I thought the Johnnies were moreso these guys who 'make shit work' rather than 'work the system'. I, for the most part, disregarded the notion of frames and whatnot because I don't know if it's only me, but you're going to pick up stuff and whatnot playing the game (and, actually, I tend to do better when I figure things out on my own, which I don't have a problem with at all. Like Oof said, you just sort of get a feel for what should or shouldn't work). In the end, though, my post started to be more of a "Turtles vs. Steamrollers" type of argument (with the Turtles taking few risks and the 'rollers trampling their opponent's through force), totally getting rid of the whole Tommy idea and possibly distorting some of the ideas behind the original post.

In summation, much clarification is needed...though I could still post this long ass thing if anyone's actually interested.
 
what is it exactly that causes players to be herded in SC? Is it that they're willing to Drop there belief in the video game just to win? Do they feel that after awhile having fun gets in the way of winning?
 
I should change my name to the Oracle or some shit!

IdleMind said:
Xephukai hit on the point- the game herds you in one direction. The fact remains; not all games do this. Not all competitive games do this either.

-Idle
Click to expand...

See, this is where I think our disagreement about SC comes from. I think, also, we'd have to first examine what we describe as high level players and then who fits the bill, though. I honestly feel that, especially after playing and watching some of the better players of the game at FSAK, I've only affirmed my beliefs about the game and those players.

In my honest opinion, I believe that getting damage based off playing 'the safe' game becomes harder but not impossible for certain characters at higher levels. Honestly, I feel the only poster child for this (playing the 'perfect' game) is Sophitia (the character), but certain players DO take Spike-esque qualities into the game and it makes them more effective because of it. On the other hand, we have characters like Amy and Mitsu who, in my opinion, benefit more (Especially Amy in this regard, though moreso because of her ability to keep her flow going and Mitsu having to rely on reading his opponent much much more in order to get the same effect) from their ability to disrepect things like frames and make the game seem much more chaotic. Of course, like I said earlier though, any game and every fighting game is going to come down to numbers, regardless of whatever surface gimmicks you have to mask them.

When choosing players, I'm going off of their ability to win and what I know of them as players. Examining who these players are and why I feel that they are the best representation of Spikes for the game., we have:

SU
RTD
HumanTyphoon
Honorable mention to DaGGoth.

Keep in mind, I don't believe in classifying THE PLAYERS, so much as I do their PLAYSTYLE in the game. I would also put Malek up for debate, but I honestly have to play him a bit more in order to examine one aspect of him as a player (Though I like to hear other people's analysis of a player's game and quite a few people have agreed with me on my thoughts of Malek's Ivy that would make him seem like more of a Spike-type player).

Now, first and foremost, I'd like you all to to note the characters of each respective player. We have SU (who mains Kilik but has used Ivy), RTD (who used Hilde but has used a number of character's since her death, though I'm basing my opinions mostly off of his Ivy and Kilik, HumanTyphoon (who plays Setsuka but has a secondary Sophie whom I think he plays much better), and DaGGoth (who players Sophie).

This is also great because, with FSAK being not too long ago, I have vids to help demonstrate my points! Still, also keep in mind, that, with this, I'm not saying the players lack the ability to adapt, I'm saying that, in general, in order to have a chance at beating these players, you must first first recognize and defeat the best qualities of the players and their characters.

Getting to the analysis, though! First we have SU. It should speak for itself when you are more surprised than anything when you have a Kilik player use something like Asura Dance. Basically, though, his whole game revolves around poking and being able to take advantage of Kilik's spacing to keep himself safe while also being able to to use the fear of Asura and wrB to keep his opponent's honest in the frame game. Honestly, his main offensive tools are wrB, 66B, 2A, 2K, and iFotD (coincidence that, when he felt his game was off at FSAK, he couldn't do iFotD and got stepped all over the place when he lost to Mick and myself). He also rarely uses Kilik's 6AA, probably self-consciously because it's a high with the reward of iFotD and he doesn't like coming that far out of his shell. So, all in all, he concentrates on poking his way through his opponent's defenses as a means to get them to create more holes in their defense, while using Asura as an enabler against opponents who let him.

Still, his biggest strengths are also his biggest weaknesses; since he is overly defensive, he has trouble dealing with people who pressure him or can space him out. How many times did we hear him complain about Ivy? Probably has something to do with faith in his character's offensive capabilities, but he suffers if he has to try to mount an offense. And, on top of that, to display both his strengths and his weaknesses, we have:

Strengths: SU vs. Oof -

I want to note the difference between match 1 and match 2. Notice how Oof was able to break through SU's defenses (after giving him no reason whatsoever to duck in the first match) with throws and actually get SU to attack in the second match...but then fail to switch his style up and let SU get right back into his comfort zone.

Weaknesses: SU vs. Mick -

I'd also like to mention how, several times, the way he and RTD plays Ivy was regarded as "very basic".

RTD - Honestly, like I said at FSAK, I feel that, in regards to spacing and sheer defense, he has the best of any Calibur player I've played. There's not really much to say in regards to his strength except that he has an iron defense, great character knowledge, and rarely presents an opprotunity for the opponent to capitalize on a mistake.

Weaknesses: Honestly, the reason why I feel he is one of the best players if because of his ability to adapt so well and then sit back on his own strengths. Though, right now, I can say that the flaws of his characters become his own.

Example vid: RTD vs. SU -

HumanTyphoon - Honestly, there's not much to be said about him except that I think that his knowledge of frame data and whatnot is not paralleled by many. His punishment is top-notch, in most cases.

His biggest weakness, though, to me, is his character and his inability to approach more unorthodox situations. I think he would make a phenomonal turtle as Sophie, but he suffers from part of the Sets Effect with Sets (I can attack from damn near anywhere and remain safe, I have umbrella, and 1A:A:A) and Sets puts herself at risk, in my opinion, much more than most characters when she doesn't read her opponents well.

Vid: HT vs. Malek

It was harder to search for vids for this because I don't believe too many people know Sets well enough to have to force people into their comfort zone or to adapt so yeah.

Other than that, I mentioned DaGGoth because, I remember when I still was able to play Sophie, I thought, "Damn...this guy is very effective but very, very boring."

Now, onto my more 'Johnny-esque' players.

ThugishPond - Of course the King had to go somewhere on this list. His strengths, I believe, lie in the way he approaches the game. He actually lacks some character knowledge and, while some may be more than willing to argue this is possible due to the character he plays, I'll note that, regardless, we still haven't seen any Amy player even near mirror his accomplishments. More than anything, I feel that his strength is his ability to read his opponents and get into their heads. I remember at FSAK, when we played, which was more lightheated than anything, him remarking after some attack that, "You're the first person to punish that all tournament." And, honestly, if you don't know when and where Amy can't be punished at this point, you really can't apply the Amy-Argument to him and the fact that he's able to get into his opponent's mind in such a way is testament to his strengths as a player.

As for weakness, I've told him before and I'll state again, he gives some opponents too much credit and, in response, often takes a more defensive/safe approach to the game. Honestly, I feel that he and Mick play in the most similar fashion of any players, though taking advantage of their characters' strengths and weaknesses in different ways.

As for vids, I don't have a link to his matches vs. NFK killer, but that was a great example of both his strengths and weaknesses.

Mick - Dunno where to start with this guy. I think he and TP have a similar approach to the game but he actually has more of the character knowledge to back things up. And, honestly, he adapts so fast that it's crazy. I honestly wonder how many people knew that Mick went into the battle vs. Oof with little to no Vader knowledge. Even though he lost, the fact that he can grasp on to things in game so fast that he's never seen before, basically ignore frames, and throw other top players off their game.

-----

THIS IS WHERE I STOPPED WRITING!!!

Woahhzz

And an honorary mentions to Xeph, Ramon (whom I REALLY wanted to comment on in further depth but figured leaving this at 3 of each would be better, especially considering he plays Sophie), KCD, and Belial.

So, all in all, though this seems to be more of a turtle or aggro argument, I think this game has room for quite a diverse group of players. I honestly think that the top players have that ability to make what should or shouldn't work work extremely well. While some matchups may favor one style of play over another, I honestly believe that, especially when you take into consideration mutiple approaches to any given situation in the game, meticulousness can only take you so far.

Like I said, went back in finished this up for Miko, so I stopped adding vids and didn't add some of my thoughts, but yeah. On top of that, I think I got more insight into what Idle meant and that has given reason to type of my writings on in-game options in my next little Callibus thing.

All in all, while I understand his frustrations, I think he's not looking at some of the reason as to why some things fail to work.

For anyone involved in this topic, though, I think, in general, Seth Killian's Domination 101, if you haven't read it, would be a great read. While they're from different games and manifest themselves in different ways, I've always thought every good fighting game has the same fundamentals so:

Dom 101 - http://shoryuken.com/f176/

And, remember, "You have to Sheng Long to stand a chance."
 
I think people are taking the whole being a Spike thing the wrong way. There's nothing wrong with being a Spike at all. I mean why should someone not play to win? You enter a tournament you don't want to go 0-2 you obviously want to win. Most people would not throw away a win in order to win with style. Sure Spikes want to be best but there really is nothing wrong with that. Why have tournaments at all and award 1st 2nd and 3rd if being the best doesn't matter? If your opponent will fall for the same thing over and over again you keep doing it even if that isn't really fun or if your using a strategy everyone uses.

The fact is as more and more knowledge on a game is discovered the less room there is for creativity. If a character cant screw around too much in a certain match there really is nothing that can be done about it. Everyone has there own style even if they play a character similarly to other people. A lot of players who use the same character might seem like they are playing with the same exact play style but that doesn't mean they are definitely unoriginal they could simply have the same perspective on how the character should be played.

Now this isn't to say that everyone is original, there are some people who will think purely mechanically and never think outside the realms of what is known but that within itself is a limitation which Spike's supposedly aren't supposed to believe in.
 
Yeah, I said I misinterpreted what Idle meant; I just posted that because Miko asked me too.
 
Well everyone wants a great Johnny, the majority don't give a shit about Spikes. And by that I mean the spectators. The people below the elites are the most idealistic about the game...they believe it has many avenues worth exploring and that you can take any direction to get to the top. A Spike at the top tells them the opposite, there's only one way to the top, and it's quite boring. However, being an elite Johnny isn't some thing easy to pull off, it demands a retarded skill cap, a Johnny at the top is pretty much unbeatable.

Just to get this out there, in my opinion Johnny's are usually more skilled than Spikes. Spikes adapt a style that is convenient to get the win, to do this they surrender a number of other skills to have a sharper and focused play style. The theory is by playing the same people every time eventually you figure out a standard with the highest percent for winning. The masses never consider a Spike the most skilled player despite his/her wins. Winning doesn't necessary require a high skill, at least in FGs. When a Johnny loses he can easily adapt and come back again because he's flexible. A spike has a tougher time back to the top when he meets a wall. Once people figure him out he has to go back to the drawing board, maybe pick a different char in the process.
 
Kinda similar to my definition of what drives any fighting game community.

You need the "Pros" aka the Spikes. These are the guys who you want to beat down at your neighborhood tournament but you'll travel with them to support them at majors. The Pros are the guys that remind everyone that the game needs skill, and when Spikes are in the building, you know there's going to be amazing shit that you just want to see. Spikes are the good looks/hot bods of any community. They are around to make other people want to do a double take at your game.

The Timmys are your "Audience". They are the ones that make everything work. They may not play the game but they love gaming and they love being spectators. They play the game on a very casual basis enough for them to feel like they understand what's going on when they watch a match... They are the ones you want to hype up, they are the ones who make the game look awesome to passerbys/other gamers. Timmys are the backbone of the community simply because their only task is to support whatever shit goes down.

The Johnnys are the dogs of the community. They do all the shit because passion is just fucking blind.
They run your bloody tourneys, they make your combo videos, they do all your research and anti-character, they drive you to your tournaments. Why? Because they love the game and they love seeing you love the game too. These people are what I would call "Hype Marshalls". They see what they love in the game, they find the Spikes, they find the Timmys and they plan out and shape together events to get all 3 groups of people together. The Johnnys are the Brains, the Heart, the SOUL of each community.
You'll also notice that a Johnny close to never wins a tournament, because he's more concerned about the community having fun than winning the top prize.

So far I've been able to categorize everyone I've seen in any local Fighting Game into one of these 3 categories (and it's bloody obvious who the Johnnys are in 8wayrun.... Jaxel, IdleMind etc.etc.) ... And true enough any community with too many spikes, too many Timmys, or far too few Johnnys have all had a hard time staying alive...

There's also the 4th and 5th Category. The Johnny who thinks he's a Spike...

And the Timmy who thinks he's a spike... aka the Scrub....

Am I making sense? I need sleep.. *doze off*
 
I guess i'm 40% Timmy, 60% Johnny.
Timmy:
- Aim to have fun
- Gaming Competition = Social

Johnny:
- Drive is to express own brilliance
- Aim to use unorthodox methods to attain victory
- Loves to analyse game/character mechanics

Regarding the Limit issue.
My belief is that we do have a limit to our physical abilities (i.e. Reaction Time) but that there is no limit to our mental abilities (i.e. Yomi, Analytic Skills)
 
This game doent force you to be a spike... You choose to be one because winning with safe boring moves is more important to you than winning like an artist...

Its like martial arts, you dont want just a victory , you want to win with a beautiful victory, thats why they call them artists...

I think this thread is all wrong anyways, even the safe players have qualities of all three at times, so I dont see where you were going anyway.... Few can be classified exactly how you say, but most cant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back