Winning matches isn’t necessarily the reason people take up card games like Magic: The Gathering.
It’s not that difficult to imagine someone holding a purpose for playing that’s at cross-purposes to building a more ‘effective’ deck. As a sort of trivial example, consider a person who has the resources available to exploit an infinite-power-loop that was unintentionally created when cards from the latest edition are combined with old cards from several editions back… and refuses to use that combination on the grounds that it makes the game less fun to play.
As a sort of trivial example, consider a person who has the resources available to exploit an infinite-power-loop that was unintentionally created when cards from the latest edition are combined with old cards from several editions back
MtG includes many infinite-power-loops, and by design. It also includes highly general defenses to prevent your opponents from setting them up. In fact, MtG theorists often treat decks as falling into a rock-paper-scissors structure, with combo decks being paper, control decks being scissors, and aggressive decks being rock.
I agree, but I think the article was talking primarily about competitive play. It made references to past celebrities in the world tournaments and pro tour.
Certainly, but I can think of lots of reasons why people would participate in such play without necessarily trying as hard as they can to win.
Needing to lose, and lose big, is probably why some people lose big, but I am skeptical that there’s an actual need for major failure in most people for most actions.
Winning matches isn’t necessarily the reason people take up card games like Magic: The Gathering.
It’s not that difficult to imagine someone holding a purpose for playing that’s at cross-purposes to building a more ‘effective’ deck. As a sort of trivial example, consider a person who has the resources available to exploit an infinite-power-loop that was unintentionally created when cards from the latest edition are combined with old cards from several editions back… and refuses to use that combination on the grounds that it makes the game less fun to play.
MtG includes many infinite-power-loops, and by design. It also includes highly general defenses to prevent your opponents from setting them up. In fact, MtG theorists often treat decks as falling into a rock-paper-scissors structure, with combo decks being paper, control decks being scissors, and aggressive decks being rock.
I agree, but I think the article was talking primarily about competitive play. It made references to past celebrities in the world tournaments and pro tour.
To possibly clarify, you cannot do what Annoyance suggests in most competitive play and, if you can, people do.
Certainly, but I can think of lots of reasons why people would participate in such play without necessarily trying as hard as they can to win.
Needing to lose, and lose big, is probably why some people lose big, but I am skeptical that there’s an actual need for major failure in most people for most actions.