Changing Classic League Schemes

[Free]

Lacoste has a point though.

When you force SD, most of the times it comes down to who hits the last plop shot which is almost a straight vertical shot at that point.

There are flaws that make Hysteria look like a gamble but I do totally understand that community needs this scheme. If you don't wanna gamble with SD, it can turn into a lamefest. Nevertheless, it could be tweaked into a competitive scheme, it just aint one just yet.

[HHC]

Instead of talking, why not create the scheme you desire?

I'm fairly sure that if you manage to make it 'better' (as subjective as it may be) and host some tourneys/cups in it it will get approved sooner or later.

It's easy to blah-blah-blah, but it's hard to overcome laziness 

[TheKomodo]

As far as I am concerned, ShyGuy is wrong and MI is right, I don't need to step in yet until I see something worthy enough.

Gj MI.

[darKz]

I like the out-of-the-box character which the scheme has but how is it not a flaw that in Hysteria, whatever you do until lategame, can be countered with a very basic and very easy to pull off move making 90% of the games end in 1vs1 situations where most of the times one team has a much better position than the other, forcing the other to teleport to the side and eventually wait for SD just so they have a chance at winning (only in case their opponent misses that one guaranteed shot from a good position the turn after you teleport up to mostly open space).

Is it really so hard to understand that there are no other viable options to this than teleport-after-teleport-until-someone's-bored or zook-your-ass-off-until-nothing's-left-of-the-map?

[lacoste]

@MI: Its not that simple. I for example (not being top hysteria player) had many turns that in any other scheme would be diseaster, but in case of hysteria i simply didnt give a f@#! coz "only" the very late game matters and that part of the game in hysteria is a joke. Tell me, whats the point of competition where you can stay relaxed until you have 1 worm left. For me league scheme is something where you have to pay for your mistakes and starting at 00:00:00 until the end of the round give your best and be awarded. This scheme, considering league play, is SILLY, nothing more.

@HHC: Ill happily think about something but it needs more people involved and lots of testing.

[ShyGuy]

As far as I am concerned, ShyGuy is wrong and MI is right

This is why your posts are never taken seriously, lmao.  You have no idea how to argue.

@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.

I agree and I've said this before in my first big post of this thread that hysteria is a luckyshotgg scheme... so why exactly is it league worthy?  

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here... are you validating hysteria as a worthy league scheme because of its lucky-shot uniqueness?

Like I said, 3 second turns would be a better portrayal of hysteria because you aren't forced to settle with walking .7 seconds and then shooting a random ass grenade.  You have 3 seconds, still a short time, to do a lot more things, which gets finger-demanding crazy at times

[Free]

As far as I am concerned, ShyGuy is wrong and MI is right, I don't need to step in yet until I see something worthy enough.

Gj MI.

What's your stake on my example when one forces SD and it becomes a gamble which one hits the one and only critical shot.

You really can win Hysteria with just 1 shot or even no shots at all.

[ShyGuy]

@MI: Its not that simple. I for example (not being top hysteria player) had many turns that in any other scheme would be diseaster, but in case of hysteria i simply didnt give a f@#! coz "only" the very late game matters and that part of the game in hysteria is a joke. Tell me, whats the point of competition where you can stay relaxed until you have 1 worm left. For me league scheme is something where you have to pay for your mistakes and starting at 00:00:00 until the end of the round give your best and be awarded. This scheme, considering league play, is SILLY, nothing more.

This is so true.  There have been a handful of times when I clanned with avi and he didn't have time to play hysteria, but I told him to plop both his worms at the start, and not once did him doing that hurt me.  All the games where we did that were close and I even won some of them.  That just shows how flawed the game is.  Even when Avi plopped both of his worms the first 2 turns and left, the games came down to 1v1 shots

[franz]

most schemes come down to 1v1 at the end. it's about how to get there that's the fun of competing and playing.

[ShyGuy]

hysteria is the only scheme where how you get there is absolutely irrelevant. If you play like gold it becomes 1v1, if you play like trash it becomes 1v1... You can't do that in other schemes, and I don't see that as being some special perk to hysteria... It's quite silly.  why not just reduce the amount of worms to 1 each team and save the time

[Rok]

most schemes come down to 1v1 at the end. it's about how to get there that's the fun of competing and playing.

Right. And the way hysteria comes down to 1v1 is neither fun nor particularly "competitive".

I don't need to step in yet until I see something worthy enough.

Rofl, don't bother, please.

[lacoste]

Lets change topic: does god really exist or not?

[ShyGuy]

Lets change topic: does god really exist or not?

impossible to determine - agnosticism all the way

[lacoste]

Then im out of here :K

[Rok]

As far as I'm concerned, Bible is right and Dawkins is wrong. I don't need to step in yet until I see someone explaining evolution and scientific way of proving things.