Pardon je devie du sujet podcast et je sors un peu le lance flamme mais c'est plus fort que moi.
...
Le fait même de raler sur les casters pété/ le spam dans le même paragraphe que le mot WTC est ridicule. On va en tournois pour gagner donc on prend les trucs les plus pété qu'on veut bien jouer et point barre. La on parle de la compet pas du tournois fluff et poétique du coin.
Mais si on commence à soutenir des trucs du genre "je suis bon qu'avec wurmwood ou qu'avec ossrum, je devrai pouvoir être aussi éligible que les autres au WTC" là ça me fait plus du tout rire.
Si un mec est le meilleur joueur français avec Ossrum WW ou peu importe, deja ya de grande chance que ça soit pas une pipe avec le reste, ensuite si ce mec défonce tout le monde je vois pas le soucis au fait qu'il joue que cette liste...
Je suis désolé mais pour moi ossrum s’apparente à un glitch dans un jeu vidéo.
Ca c'est ton avis (t'as joué combien de fois contre ossrum ?). Je pense que c'est un top caster comme il y en a toujours eu et comme il y en aura toujours dans tous les jeux.
Dans les moba par exemple tu as toujours ~10 heros / 100+ qui dominent la scène à chaque patch. Dans les TCG tu as toujours des decks qui dominent la scène à un instant T aussi..... Et malheureusement, il y aura aussi toujours des moralisateurs pour dire qu il est injuste de jouer tel ou tel truc et donc de gagner avec les trucs forts.
Ossrum sera peut être erraté, peut être pas (et si il l'es, ça sera comme dans tous les jeux ou des decks, héros, classes, sont patchés. C'est de l'ordre de l'équilibre pas du glitch et un nouveau truc pété émergera)
Un équilibre parfait n'existe pas, les joueurs trouveront TOUJOURS des synergies pétés, il y aura TOUJOURS des tiers de puissance dans un pool de casters. Et il en NORMAL en compétion de jouer ce qu'il y a de plus fort.
Je me permet de citer quelques passages de l'auteur du livre "Playing to win" (merci nono) qui démontre ce que je pense avec bien plus d'éloquence. Et pourquoi ce genre de limitation est contre productive pour former de très bons joueurs.
Ce passage parle des scrubs (terme qui peut être perçu comme péjoratif et je m'en excuse, je site juste), des personnes qui veulent limiter les autres et eux même à ce qui pour eux doit être ou non autorisé.
Je précise aussi que ces propos visent simplement les environnements compétitifs. Il est tout à fait respectable de jouer pour s'amuser et de jouer fluff / fun. Mais on parle du WTC là.The scrub has lost the game even before it starts. He’s lost the game even before deciding which game to play. His problem? He does not play to win.
The scrub would take great issue with this statement for he usually believes that he is playing to win, but he is bound up by an intricate construct of fictitious rules that prevents him from ever truly competing. These made-up rules vary from game to game, of course, but their character remains constant. Let’s take a fighting game off of which I’ve made my gaming career: Street Fighter.
In Street Fighter, the scrub labels a wide variety of tactics and situations “cheap.” This “cheapness” is truly the mantra of the scrub. Performing a throw on someone is often called cheap. A throw is a special kind of move that grabs an opponent and damages him, even when the opponent is defending against all other kinds of attacks. The entire purpose of the throw is to be able to damage an opponent who sits and blocks and doesn’t attack. As far as the game is concerned, throwing is an integral part of the design—it’s meant to be there—yet the scrub has constructed his own set of principles in his mind that state he should be totally impervious to all attacks while blocking. The scrub thinks of blocking as a kind of magic shield that will protect him indefinitely. Why? Exploring the reasoning is futile since the notion is ridiculous from the start.
(...)
Street Fighter was just one example; I could have picked any competitive game at all.
(...)
The first step in becoming a top player is the realization that playing to win means doing whatever most increases your chances of winning. That is true by definition of playing to win. The game knows no rules of “honor” or of “cheapness.” The game only knows winning and losing.
A common call of the scrub is to cry that the kind of play in which one tries to win at all costs is “boring” or “not fun.” Who knows what objective the scrub has, but we know his objective is not truly to win. Yours is. Your objective is good and right and true, and let no one tell you otherwise. You have the power to dispatch those who would tell you otherwise, anyway. Simply beat them.
Let’s consider two groups of players: a group of good players and a group of scrubs. The scrubs will play “for fun” and not explore the extremities of the game. They won’t find the most effective tactics and abuse them mercilessly. The good players will. The good players will find incredibly overpowering tactics and patterns. As they play the game more, they’ll be forced to find counters to those tactics. The vast majority of tactics that at first appear unbeatable end up having counters, though they are often quite subtle and difficult to discover. Knowing the counter tactic prevents the other player from using his tactic, but he can then use a counter to your counter. You are now afraid to use your counter and the opponent can go back to sneaking in the original overpowering tactic.
The good players are reaching higher and higher levels of play. They found the “cheap stuff” and abused it. They know how to stop the cheap stuff. They know how to stop the other guy from stopping it so they can keep doing it. And as is quite common in competitive games, many new tactics will later be discovered that make the original cheap tactic look wholesome and fair.
(...)
Let’s return to the group of scrubs. They don’t know the first thing about all the depth I’ve been talking about. Their argument is basically that ignorantly mashing buttons with little regard to actual strategy is more “fun.”
(...)
Can you imagine what will happen when the two groups of players meet? The experts will absolutely destroy the scrubs with any number of tactics they’ve either never seen or never been truly forced to counter. This is because the scrubs have not been playing the same game. The experts were playing the actual game while the scrubs were playing their own homemade variant with restricting, unwritten rules.
The scrub has still more crutches. He talks a great deal about “skill” and how he has skill whereas other players—very much including the ones who beat him flat out—do not have skill. The confusion here is what “skill” actually is.
(...)
You can gain some standing in a gaming community by playing in an innovative way, but that should not be the ultimate goal. Innovation is merely one of many tools that may or may not help you reach victory. The goal is to play as excellently as possible. The goal is to win.
source:
http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrubJe conseille à toute personne aimant la compétition d'aller sur son site et de lire ses refflexions.