hysteria in the classic league

[Aerox]

So a Spaniard has to tell you that the most competed doesn't mean the most competitive? Hysteria is the most competed (played), yes, that's totally not the topic.

Seriously Komo, have you been smoking obscene amounts of weed? You need to stop making up shit, I don't hate hysteria, I don't want it out because I suck, I understand every bit of it, I know some players have mastered it, I know some players can avoid telepile, I know some players can telepile with brutal skills, I know drowning your own worms can be seen as a skill for some, or even a proper risk reward situation. But fact remains that if I'm playing a hysteria and I make three mistakes, I expect to be in a worse situation than my opponent who has made none, this is competitive common sense, and this doesn't happen in hysteria, or it can not happen, whatever grammar makes it easier for you to get your head around it.

[TheKomodo]

ropa, you may be smart enough for the people unfortunate enough to not look past the way you keep trying to change your arguement, but it doesn't work with me, why can't you just admit you are wrong for once?

Let's get back to what the original debate was, your 1st point, and the only point I care about, the only reason I got involved in this arguement, anything else doesn't interest me in the slightest.

You said Hysteria doesn't deserve to be in TuS Classic League because it isn't competitive.

Will you admit you are wrong?

But for the record, then you said it isn't competitive enough, then you started an intellectual debate over one word, now you are completely trying to change the subject and the whole debate, when you could easily just admit you are wrong on the original point, and we can all progress with this.

I am not interested in your opinions on the scheme, I am interested in facts that benefit this community.

[Aerox]

ropa, you may be smart enough for the people unfortunate enough to not look past the way you keep trying to change your arguement, but it doesn't work with me, why can't you just admit you are wrong for once?

Let's get back to what the original debate was, your 1st point, and the only point I care about, the only reason I got involved in this arguement, anything else doesn't interest me in the slightest.

You said Hysteria doesn't deserve to be in TuS Classic League because it isn't competitive.

Will you admit you are wrong?

But for the record, then you said it isn't competitive enough, then you started an intellectual debate over one word, when you could easily just admit you are wrong on the original point, and we can all progress with this.

What? I've changed my arguments? I'm sorry Komodo, we can't have a two page debate on your misunderstanding of competed and competitive. Yes hysteria is the most popular scheme (we knew that), now please go back to my posts and try to understand what I mean with competitive, and if you really can't I suggest you stop quoting me because there's no point, and you're letting me down big time.

[TheKomodo]

ropa:

More people playing = more competition which makes it more competitive because the progressive result is more and more players becoming top players which makes it harder to win for any and all individuals, especially with this scheme as i've already said being cheat-free etc, and when they have finished the Season, not only was it the most competitive, but also the most competed.

You couldn't be any more wrong, well, unless you post again with the same attitude and a different approach ending in a vicious circle involving me trying to get you to admit you are wrong and you won't.

[Aerox]

ropa:

More people playing = more competition which makes it more competitive because the progressive result is more and more players becoming top players which makes it harder to win for any and all individuals, especially with this scheme as i've already said being cheat-free etc, and when they have finished the Season, not only was it the most competitive, but also the most competed.

Yes, it's more competitive if more players are good at it and more players play it.

That's super awesome and super unrelated. Good to know I've had to explain myself multiple times because I was debating with someone who wasn't reading my posts while arguing with me and was talking about something else.

[TheKomodo]

What's with your mental gymnastics ropa?

[Aerox]

What's with your mental gymnastics ropa?

What's with you picking up one phrase out of context, applying (to your discretion) one of the multiple definitions of the word, ignoring all the rest of the body text (for multiple posts) and debating about it for pages?

I don't know what fun you can get out of it, but arguing with a cement wall is not one of my hobbies.

[TheKomodo]

ropa, you are the one who kept changing the subject because you lacked evidence and facts.

So basically the original thing you said that bothered me was:

I just don't think it's competitive because there's no risk and reward. You can make 3 amazing turns, in which you risk a lot but succeed, manage to kill 3 worms and lose only one but all the scheme does is punish you for it to the point were your opponent doesn't need to risk anything to make the game even again with a bit of cautious play (piling, darksiding). Surely you understand this and you don't need me to elaborate further into how competition assumes equal grounds to reach an equal goal, and that clearly one player deserves more for risking more (and in this example, succeeding) than the other? I mean, you might want to change the meaning of competition but in my book (and most dictionaries) this examples proves there's a flaw in the intrinsic competitiveness of said scheme.

And now you just said:

Yes, it's more competitive if more players are good at it and more players play it.

Thats all I needed to know, because your opinion of what is good competition is irrelevant to overall competiveness being a sucess, and Hysteria is a success, the most sucessful competitive scheme on TuS, fact.

Thanks.

[Aerox]

ropa, you are the one who kept changing the subject because you lacked evidence and facts.

So basically the original thing you said that bothered me was:

I just don't think it's competitive because there's no risk and reward. You can make 3 amazing turns, in which you risk a lot but succeed, manage to kill 3 worms and lose only one but all the scheme does is punish you for it to the point were your opponent doesn't need to risk anything to make the game even again with a bit of cautious play (piling, darksiding). Surely you understand this and you don't need me to elaborate further into how competition assumes equal grounds to reach an equal goal, and that clearly one player deserves more for risking more (and in this example, succeeding) than the other? I mean, you might want to change the meaning of competition but in my book (and most dictionaries) this examples proves there's a flaw in the intrinsic competitiveness of said scheme.

And now you just said:

Yes, it's more competitive if more players are good at it and more players play it.

Thats all I needed to know, because your opinion of what is good competition is irrelevant to overall competiveness being a sucess, and Hysteria is a success, the most sucessful competitive scheme on TuS, fact.

Thanks.

I never changed my arguments, try reading my posts again now that you know that "competitive" has multiple definitions, because that's the lesson you're thanking me for, right?

[HHC]

Can you use pm's guys, nobody cares

[Aerox]

I do. He clearly does. And you don't.

And here we are, in this thread.

[chakkman]

Can you use pm's guys, nobody cares

I think you clearly missed the point of internet forums arguments.

[avirex]

i think komo has the bigger balls of this internet fight...

but roper will be back, oooooo roper will be back!

[KoreanRedDragon]

More people playing = more competition which makes it more competitive because the progressive result is more and more players becoming top players which makes it harder to win for any and all individuals, especially with this scheme as i've already said being cheat-free etc, and when they have finished the Season, not only was it the most competitive, but also the most competed.

While that may be true, it has to be assessed in relation to other established league schemes for it to constitute an actual argument.

If the skill cap in Hysteria is actually lower than it is in other schemes (as a lot of people in this thread claim), that means that sure, for the time being, a lot of players may still be improving at it, but a number of them have already reached the top plateau and in matches between them, it's not the difference in skill that determines the outcome of the game anymore. If you compare that to schemes like BnG, Elite and RR, which have been played competitively for a lot longer than Hysteria, but have their top players still improving to be able to beat one another, it's not a huge stretch to say that Hysteria isn't on par with them in this sense.

But as I said in my previous post (which seems to have gone unnoticed), the above needs to be proven conclusively, otherwise it's just not going to be good enough to warrant taking the scheme out of competitive play.

[DarkOne]

Hysteria still needs more time to evolve before you can compare it to elite. Elite took more than 10 years to grow into what it has become now. Hysteria was made up in 2008 as a scheme for funners and it took some time before it became a league scheme - without perhaps the necessary adjustments.

I'm not so sure if hysteria is done for already in terms of coming up with new tactics. But perhaps a bit of tweaking in the scheme is necessary for that.

Whether a scheme is competitive or not is not determined by the way it is played, but rather by the fierceness of its competition. Hysteria does have a fierce competition, can't argue with that, and I say that while I don't like the turn hysteria took competitively.
That said, there are still people out there (even among the good players) that don't revert to the tactics (or lack thereof) mentioned before and I think that should be encouraged rather than making hysteria just another source of drama.