Changing Classic League Schemes

[ShyGuy]

it's not an opinion when you legitimately use the scientific method to come to a conclusion about something

[TheKomodo]

it's not an opinion when you legitimately use the scientific method to come to a conclusion about something

There is NOTHING any of you have said that scientifically defines anything to do with Hysteria, as a flaw.

I haven't heard a single arguement that actually makes me believe there are any flaws in Hysteria, maybe it's bothersome to people who don't have the skill, but IF you are good enough, getting a huge lead at the start isn't a flaw.

For me, it speeds things up, that isn't a flaw for me...

I am sure many battles and wars throughout history, have been won in similar ways.

[lacoste]

I am sure many battles and wars throughout history, have been won in similar ways.

Im more sure those battles werent 1s turn based.

[TheKomodo]

I am sure many battles and wars throughout history, have been won in similar ways.

Im more sure those battles werent 1s turn based.

What's that got to do with the price of cheese?!

[lacoste]

Dunno about price, but cheese stinks, just like league hysteria.

[TheKomodo]

Ok lol, well i'll tell you what.

I'll give you guys a couple hours, to make up as big a list as you can imagine, about all your "flaws" in Hysteria.

And I will reply with a counter for every single one, then I won't post again.

[ShyGuy]

Like I said, we've had this debate before in another thread, and all you did was argue that hysteria was competitive based off your definition of competitive, and your definition of competitive had nothing to do with the discussion at hand

[TheKomodo]

and your definition of competitive had nothing to do with the discussion at hand

It did actually, you just didn't see it.

[ShyGuy]

I haven't heard a single arguement that actually makes me believe there are any flaws in Hysteria, maybe it's bothersome to people who don't have the skill, but IF you are good enough, getting a huge lead at the start isn't a flaw.

Here is a situation: turn one of hysteria, the worms are spread out fairly well, with no 2 worms from the same team being very close to each other.  Player 1 plops an enemy worm near the water.  Player 2 uses his next 3 turns to pile your appropriate worms and then the next 3 turns to attack your worms.  He got taken out for 80 dmg, but he can so easily put back 120+ damage to you ONLY because he got killed in the beginning.  Player 2 should not be given that award when Player 1 killed his worm, which is what you're supposed to do in hysteria.  That situation does not reward the proper player, hence it does not match a criteria for being competitive (having risks and rewards).  This is a simplified version of what happens in the majority of hysteria games.  When the majority of hysteria games abuses the flawed risks and rewards system of hysteria, that's a problem for a scheme that's supposed to be in the competitive league.

Here is another situation: Same layout as the last one, except Player 1 intentionally plops his first worm with a teleport.  Now even if Player 2 starts piling his worms together to try to avoid rotation rape, Player 1 still gets the better reward for intentionally killing himself.  Even if you piled properly to insure you could cover all your worms, it is still worth it for Player 1 to come pile and rotate your worms.  Player 1s worm may get hit once during this process, but it is still worth it to go around the horn, cos if you hit his worm, you hit yours, too, so the damage taken from turn 1 to turn 6 for both teams would be something like 120-130 HP for Player 1 and 160-180 HP for Player 2.  Keep in mind you can keep this cycle going as long as you make sure you have less worms than your opponent. 

Two valid examples that are very very very common in hysteria that show getting a lead in hysteria can be both not advantageous and also disadvantageous.  If you follow this mindset, then early game and mid game are completely pointless, cos the scales never tip in favor of someone.  Once it gets to 1v1, it becomes a very stale game of darkside and hope for a lucky shot, which is a weak concept for a scheme that is supposed to be "competitive".

[darKz]

Great post Shy. That's exactly what's wrong with the scheme.

[MonkeyIsland]

Nice post shy

The only problem is your point of view though. You painted a good picture of Hysteria's brilliance but you tagged it as a flaw.
Hysteria is an out-of-the-box scheme. You plop your own worm to gain advantage. How great is that? In ALL of the other schemes that's bad, but in Hysteria it can be good.
In your first example, when player A plops one worm of players B, he is actually risking telepile. Why do you think player A must be rewarded for plopping? He must be punished for that stupid move. Also if at the start of the game player B have worms with plopping potential, why do you wanna reward player A for having an easy plop?

Why is it so hard to understand an out-of-the-box scheme? Why so many people are obsessed with "nice shot" must be rewarded? Hysteria wants to reward "nice management" not nice shots. We have a scheme that a nice shot can be a very bad move. Why is it so hard to accept? Play BnG and enjoy nice shots. Play Elite and enjoy nice shot. Play Team17 and enjoy nice shots. We have a total different scheme where managing number of worms to the end counts. Where you gotta think twice is it worth killing an opponent worm or not?

It is Hysteria's brilliance, not a flaw.
The flaw I see is that many times the best response to suicide 80hp worm, is to do it yourself. In some games players plop 3 worms at the start of the game and start cat and mouse at the beginning of the game. These games are not a lot in number though.

[lacoste]

Play BnG and enjoy nice shots. Play Elite and enjoy nice shot. Play Team17 and enjoy nice shots.

Play hysteria and no matter how terrible you are, finish your opponent with last shot of the game.

[ShyGuy]

Even if you have nice management, even if you have nice shots or not, even if you plop yourself or not, there's still little to no advantage to gain.  Turn times of 1 second make this flaw possible because you are so limited to countering anything.  Rotation risk in elite is acceptable because you have an appropriate amount of time to try to counter.  In hysteria, the 1 second turn is abused.

I understand your point about me labeling a nice shot as a flaw, but I'm actually saying much more than that.  I'm saying the fact that you can do very little to actually gain an advantage in hysteria, unless you start with perfect placements, perfect land formations for perfect situational shots, is the flaw of the scheme.  I wouldn't call an artillery,  combat-based scheme brilliant when the large majority of the games turn into a 1v1 rat race because early and mid game are completely negligible

[franz]

Nice post shy, detailing the common Hysteria scenarios, and MonkeyIsland beat me to it, posting why you need to approach Hysteria different from all other schemes.

[MonkeyIsland]

@lacoste,

Play hysteria and no matter how terrible you are, finish your opponent with last shot of the game.

If you are so terrible how did you manage to make your opponent down to one weak worm that a last shot finishes him?
Did you teleraped your opponent? How did your opponent allow you to do it?

Let's say your statement is true, then good hysteria players must have a low winning ratio right? Because no matter how great they play, a terrible noob can finish them with one lucky last shot?

@ShyGuy,
The famous argument of hysteria is "nice shots" vs "telepile". People wonder why when they do a nice "skilled" shot, their opponent reply with "unskilled" telepile. The point is, as you said, there's so little you can do with one second. You can't think much about your aim or power, the whole turn is hysteric. I want to point out that our so called "nice shots" in hysteria are very close to "lucky shots" and in many many cases, if you ask the player to repeat that shot, he can't. IMO we have overrated nice shots in Hysteria and bashed telepiling.