Knockouts started. Gl!

I'm willing to donate 10-20$ every season if we get enough people to donate. Something like

Winner 70$
Runner-up 30$
Semi-finalists 10$
= 120$ needed

Quote from: TheKomodo on January 29, 2017, 10:05 AM
Even if Elite doesn't go your way you can get a few lucky roller nades and do a lot of damage and make a huge comeback.

Yeah but the chance of a comeback after a shitty early + mid game is much higher in Hysteria than in any other Classic scheme (except TTRR which is not comparable cos it's time trial) and that's why many hate it. That's also why many like it (you can make funny turns and stay in the match).

Quote from: HHC on January 28, 2017, 10:31 PM
Even if the scheme is a lil 'broken', which IMO it isn't, it's still the most popular scheme.. among pro and newbs alike.

It can be popular for different reasons.. for example daiNa has said she picks Hysteria cos it's faster and she is rusty. That doesn't mean she thinks it's a great scheme with much depth.

Quote from: Random00 on July 08, 2012, 11:10 AM
The early game doesnt matter at all most of the times, but the midgame is the time where you can gain an advantage for the endgame. I think in ~75% (thats just a random guess out of my memory) of the games I have an HP lead when it's down to 1vs1 in Hysteria.

Quote from: Random00 on July 08, 2012, 11:10 AM
But imo, there are easy-to-execute tactics that can give you a gamble situation at the end. I never saw anyone actually doing it against me yet, but I think this is the main flaw of hysteria. It kinda leads to the situation that Free described, where its down to one nearly horizontal shot with zook at the end of sd.
Depending on the map and the bng skill of the player that uses this tactic you can win at least 1 out of 3 games against ANY player. I can't prove it, cause like I said, I've never seen anyone tyring to play like this, cause your winning chances are <50% like this, imo, because your opponent has to miss one important shot for you to win.

Quote from: darKz on July 08, 2012, 12:00 PM
Even if the game doesn't go your way you can still save it late game by hiding on the edge of the map, forcing SD, hope for your opponent to miss once you teleport up (of course it's a gamble, nobody has 100% accuracy, not even you Komo), and then have a big chance to gg him. The success rate of this is, as has already been said, less than 50%, but even if it were only 10% it's still ridiculously high for not doing anything productive during the entire game.

Final

TheWalrus (1) vs Sensei (2) 3:2

Gj Wally!

Quote from: TheWalrus on January 26, 2017, 11:12 PM
I thought that point was quite obviously demonstrative but apparently you missed out.  I don't actually want mole shopper, can't believe I had to write that, didn't think I would need to spell it out for you.

My point was that you first used popularity as an argument for Hysteria (to attract new players) but then one of the most popular schemes on WormNet would be first on your removal list.

Quote from: TheWalrus on January 26, 2017, 11:12 PM
Your causation makes no sense senator, t17 and shopper are getting less play simply because people do not like these schemes as much at the other options.  Just because hysteria isn't available, it wouldn't make these unpopular options popular by osmosis.

Surely you wouldn't pick Shopper/T17 instead of Hysteria. I was talking about new players and underdogs. Shopper and T17 are the other options for someone who is underdog in every scheme and wants to have the best shot at winning. If winning is irrelevant, they would pick whatever they enjoy (if there's another scheme they enjoy). The point was that some of the Hysteria games would be replaced with other schemes (for example Aladdin wouldn't stop playing Classic league because he wants to get in playoffs. He would be just picking something else besides Roper and TTRR, or more of Roper/TTRR).

Quote from: Gabriel on January 26, 2017, 11:29 PM
Well it was asked by Senator

This is not an official poll. I asked Kory in shoutbox to open a poll as I saw he opened a poll about Elite maps. It was kinda joke but anyway it's nice to see if anything has changed after a couple of years

Quote from: TheWalrus on January 26, 2017, 05:51 PM
The only schemes this league should ever consider removing is unpopular ones (Shopper, BnG, Team17), not one of the most actively played schemes (Hysteria)

This season, (games played):

Hysteria   193

BnG   70
Shopper   62
Team17   52

More hysteria games played than the bottom 3 schemes combined.  But yeah, lets remove the scheme from classic.

You would consider removing one of the most popular schemes on WormNet (Shopper)? A moment ago you were bringing in Mole Shoppa cos it's popular on WormNet

Hysteria is popular here on TUS but it has gone out of fashion on WormNet (if I'm right). If Hysteria was moved to Free league, I bet Shopper/T17 would become more popular in Classic league. It's not like the league suddenly loses 193 games.

Quote from: TheWalrus on January 26, 2017, 04:10 PM
if you hadnt noticed, there isnt really any new players, but yeah, lets make the league more inaccessible to those players.

Were the previous leagues before TUS inaccessible to new players?

Quote from: TheWalrus on January 26, 2017, 04:10 PM
if anything, this league needs to adapt to what is popular on wormnet, not go the opposite direction.  mole shopper should be added to classic league before hysteria is removed.  and i dont like mole shopper one f@#!ing bit.

Afaik, Shopper and Intermediate are the most popular schemes on WormNet. I rarely see Hysteria games being hosted (correct me if I'm wrong).

The league should be made satisfying for those players who play the league seriously because they are the ones who keep the league alive. It's a weird approach to think only about casual players / newcomers and force competitors to adapt. Competitors care more about the league and they will vote with their feet if needed. I think most of the top players would prefer a league without Hysteria so let's ask them and if the majority wants, we can start a new league without Hysteria (here or somewhere else). Newcomers are not pushed away, they are pushed to pick Shopper

Various things could be differently
- The rating system rewards for noob bashing (new players have 1000 points although their real level can be 700)
- There's no break between seasons. Some players want to have a break and when they come back, they struggle to get the required 80 games done. Even one week break between seasons would help.
- The playoff system supports only 8 players (could be up to 12 players to encourage more players to compete). At the moment we don't have even 8 players, though And the system doesn't support playoffs with 6 players or 3 clans, for example.
- Some schemes could be updated (Shopper & T17 have stupid crate probabilities, Roper has a significant first turn advantage)
- Roper and WxW could have shared points like in the disabled allround league. Currently you get 2 x points for playing basically the same scheme.
- Prize money to bring some extra (if 10 people donate just 10$ per season, we would already have 100$ pot)

I just cut some text from the quotes to make my post shorter. KRD was talking about Kamikaze in crates.

Quote from: KoreanRedDragon on September 05, 2014, 08:09 PM
Team17

Pointers for discussion

1. Should Team17 have any hot seat time? Some old schemes used to have 10 seconds of it, Lex for example feels that it's a good idea to have it, but I think that at least since the times of the CL2K league, competitive variants of the scheme have had no hot seat time. I personally like it this way because it gives players who are quick to think (or are able to do the thinking during their opponent's turn) and quick to make their moves (in so doing preventing their opponent from getting a lot of thinking time during them) a deserved advantage. But there's also an argument to be made that T17 is a naturally slow, tactical scheme and that having enough time to think about what to do during your turns, so that you can utilise all 45 seconds of them optimally, may be preferable.

The less downtime, the better. T17 games are quite long and slow paced so we shouldn't make them any longer unless it's really necessary.

Quote from: KoreanRedDragon on September 05, 2014, 08:09 PM
2. Should the starting hazard objects be half oil barrels and half mines instead of all oil barrels like most players are used to today? Half mines and half barrels used to be the case a very long time ago in some people's Team17 schemes, but seems to have fallen out of favour for no particularly good reason. It was supposedly changed to all barrels so that initial placement couldn't screw you over as badly, but I feel that's counterbalanced by the additional skill and decision making when you're faced with the opportunity of going for a Firepunch/Dragonball-onto-mine move early on, sometimes favouring that even over picking up a crate. It makes early games more diverse and cooler to watch; van and I certainly prefer things this way, with half mines and half barrels!

No because that increases the chance of plop/kill on the first turn of the game (which you can do nothing about).

Quote from: KoreanRedDragon on September 05, 2014, 08:09 PM
4. Would making the round time (the time before sudden death hits) slightly longer make Team17 early game more relevant and the endgame more fair and interesting? Would making the round time 12 instead of the current 10 minutes act as a replacement for making the water rise more slowly once sudden death does hit (so that we might keep that at the current setting)? By extending the time before sudden death this way, we would make it more likely for high damage weapons to be picked up in early and mid game, and those are the best motivation for players to attack rather than turtle and hoard homing weapons for sudden death. In the long run, player habits could change to take this into account, and we could be left with cavern Team17 that's more interesting on the whole.

In dual layer cavern maps the problem is that you can darkside quite easily to the point you need homing weapons. In TUS scheme homing weapons have a low probability (1,2%) and there are games where neither player gets any homing weapon. This results in many draws. Longer round time would make darksiding more difficult and players would be less dependent on homing weapons. Better have some minutes longer game than a draw? This is not a problem in open island maps, though, but nobody plays in island maps these days. Some guys (including me) have been playing in dual layer cavern maps without the indestructible border as Free mentioned. Longer round time isn't needed there either.

Quote from: KoreanRedDragon on September 05, 2014, 08:09 PM
5. For the longest time, crate probability in Team17 was left to the players to deal with as best they could, with every available weapon having equal probability to show up in a crate (super weapon quirks notwithstanding). I think it was in the First Blood league that Mad Cows had their probability lowered from 3 to 2, simply because getting them in batches of 3 made them too destructive. But this was totally fine by me. It's when people started trying to "balance" individual weapons according to their "usefulness" that things went to hell and now nobody knows what sort of distribution of weapons can be expected from crates anymore. Can we just go back to giving all weapons, including things like air strikes, a probability of 3 (and maybe keep 2 for Mad Cows) again? Please?

Banana Bomb is like a super weapon and it should be as rare. If homing weapons are given a high probability, we will see both players camping at the sides of the map and shooting their 3 or 4 homings. Do we want to see games like that? I would increase the chance of homing weapons slightly from TUS scheme, though, to prevent draws.

5 - all other weapons (4,1%)
4 - Mad Cow (3,3%)
2 - Homing Missile, Homing Pigeon, Aqua Sheep, Air Strike, Napalm Strike (1,7%)
1 - Banana Bomb (0,8%)

Or 4 (4,1%), 3 (3,0%), 2 (2,0%) and 1 (1,0%).

With TUS scheme you know it gives lots of Dynas, Holys, Bows, Miniguns etc. With equal probabilities it's random. You see people taking stupid gambles like teleporting with a 75 HP worm next to the opponent and getting rewarded. With TUS scheme it's probable that the opponent has the weapon to kill you. Still, I prefer equal probabilities (for most weapons) because it makes games more interesting as you see more different weapons being used and also defensive moves when you get shit from crates. TUS scheme makes games too "boom boom".

btw, is T17 really supposed to be played in island maps with super weapons (Armageddon etc) enabled?

Quote from: KoreanRedDragon on September 05, 2014, 08:09 PM
7. Longbow power is a hot point of contention. Most Team17 players these days are extremely used to each Longbow arrow doing 50 damage, but to those (newer players included) who see Longbow as more of a utility weapon rather than a high damage one, this is very confusing. Apart from the 5 star Ninja Rope, Longbow is the only thing in the scheme that's grossly overpowered compared to what a reasonable person might naturally expect, so should it be brought in line with everything else and reduced to the standard 15 damage per arrow? Deadcode thinks that would make it too weak and has therefore had it set to 5 stars of power in his Team17 scheme, making each arrow do 30 damage. Now what do we do? I think I'd probably prefer 15 damage (because then every weapon in the scheme could be made the standard 3 stars of power), but I can live with 30 damage as well. Arrows doing 50 damage each definitely feels a bit insane, but it is how it's always been...

In Shopper it's 15 damage but there's no infinite Fire Punch / Dragon Ball. T17 has still worse weapons than 15 damage Longbow (Handgun for example). I suppose they just wanted to add some unique things to the scheme.. like aqua upgrade. I'd say change it to 15 for the sake of standardization or leave it as it is (a unique thing of T17). Making it 5 stars sounds like a weird compromise. Just put Longbow upgrade on or off.

Quote from: KoreanRedDragon on September 05, 2014, 08:09 PM
10. Why is Kamikaze not part of the Team17 scheme as a weapon that you can collect from crates? Should it be? What's the worst that could happen? Again, adding it would mostly only satisfy the requirement that every weapon should be available from crates in this scheme, but I guess Kamikaze would also be a really powerful finisher during sudden death. We definitely lack those in cavern map Team17...

I guess the worst that could happen is a draw. Other than that, I don't see why it shouldn't be included since the scheme already has Suicide Bomber. You should just give it a low probability. I mean what are you supposed to do with 3-4 kamikazes?

Quote from: KoreanRedDragon on September 05, 2014, 08:09 PM
11. Should stockpiling perhaps be set so that you keep your weapons (and get a set of new ones, including the 5 star Ninja Rope and 7 fresh Girders) between rounds and in case of a draw? Team17 is a single round scheme, sure, but in competition where draws are handled by playing a new round instead of reporting the draw, this positive stockpiling could change things a great deal and certainly speed the potential second round after draws up a lot, plus perhaps be more fair because your good crate collecting habits from the previous round would carry over and give you an edge in the rematch. On the other hand, some players might feel that if the first round was a draw, the rematch should reset everything and be played as a completely new game, no advantage to either player.

Stockpiling might encourage playing for a draw and saving weapons for the next round - not a good thing. At least you should put 1 turn delay to every weapon so that you can't plop a worm on the first turn of the rematch.

Quote from: KoreanRedDragon on September 05, 2014, 08:09 PM
12. Does anyone still want to argue in favour of reintroducing Worm Select into the Team17 scheme as a utility that you start with? The old variant of the scheme (called 1Percent) gave each player two Worm Selects, which obviously made sudden death very different. But apart from Ropa, I don't think I've seen anyone else show genuine signs of interest in going back to this in recent years...

Worm Select makes darksiding more difficult but at the same time it encourages darksiding because it prevents you from utilizing turn order. It makes also comebacks harder, which is not necessarily a good thing. Sometimes you are behind because the opponent killed your full HP worm with a Super Banana Bomb, for example. Having turn order advantage in SD balances this. I have never played T17 with Worm Selects included, though. *waiting for ropa's response*

Quote from: KoreanRedDragon on September 05, 2014, 08:09 PM
15. There are probably at least a few players out there who perhaps feel that rope and/or bungee knocking wouldn't be such a bad idea in Team17. While I personally feel that it's unlikely that this change would get wide enough acceptance now to make it into a standard variation of the scheme, it's a good idea to keep our options open, so I'm adding this bullet point here anyway.

The less rules, the better. We need to ask if "no rope knocking" is really necessary. Players who are not aware of the rules can break this rule easily. I'd say either remove "no rope knocking" from both Team17 and Elite for the sake of simplification or leave it in both.

btw, are you going to open similar thread for rope schemes anytime soon?

Deadline moved to this Sunday because we got a new player. After this Sunday I may make some moves to get the knockouts going, we'll see.

Is this project still alive?

Quote from: avirex on January 21, 2017, 10:01 AM
but if you cant win at least one style of rope... or at least one style of default... doesnt that mean your not an all arounder???

Possibly. It's also possible that you are the better all arounder but get beaten by a rope/default specialist.. or the opponent beats you in bottom tier schemes. The fact your opponent was ahead of you in season standings doesn't mean anything. He might have simply played way more games, bashed noobs, avoided certain players etc. It would be more fair to play Bo7 and see who can play more schemes. Or force 2 ropes, 2 defaults and bng. Or remove a couple of schemes from the league.

Quote from: avirex on January 21, 2017, 10:01 AM
"some people cant just pick all rope schemes, and not everyone is a good roper... so lets force 2 rope, 2 default, and then the scheme everyone hates (bng) to tie break"

I think many hate BnG just because they haven't put the time and effort needed to master it. Many hate TTRR for the same reason. I hated Elite when I started playing tus league.. now I love it. I still hate BnG but I've realized that I don't even need to learn it.

Quote from: avirex on January 21, 2017, 01:20 AM
i just dont see what the problem is...

imo these pick combinations are a problem

1. TTRR+WxW+Roper (you can win by pure rope skills alone)
2. Team17+Shopper+Hysteria (a "Chelsea combo" or whatever you wanna call it)
3. Elite+Team17+Hysteria (only defaults that you can win with tactics and without much bng skills)

Bo7 would be better. A roper would need to show off something else (unless he picks cave Shoppa where roping is in a main role), a Chelsea would need to take at least one respectable win (I know Chelsea can, that's not the point) and someone who goes with defaults would at least need to show off bng skills besides tactics (if he can't rope at all). In this league you are supposed to master 8 schemes and Bo5 doesn't reflect that. Once playoffs start, you can suddenly forget about some of the schemes.