Hysteria

Where is mole ? xDDDDDD

LoL lale$... ur in love with moles xDDDD        (jk)

Quote from: lales on June 12, 2010, 01:06 AM
Where is mole ? xDDDDDD

Quote from: lales on June 12, 2010, 01:06 AM
Where is mole ? xDDDDDD

Version for 3.8 with glitches disabled

I would like to post Kaleu's proposal to the Hysteria league scheme, using v3.8 features to avoid the "Telecow" (worm rotation abuse) without using a rule for that and also making Sudden Death arrival something more natural (now people don't need to skip turns for this).

Selecsteria: https://www.tus-wa.com/schemes/scheme-3398/

QuoteThe main purpose of this scheme is to eliminate the unfair practice of "Telecow", while maintaining the scheme's characteristics.

There is literally nothing unfair about it, by the very definition of the word unfair:

The purpose of this scheme is to kill all enemy worms, there are no rules, how can it possibly be unfair when there are no rules, it's anything goes, and both players must do whatever it takes to try and achieve victory?

Whether it's suicide, piling, keeping distance, BnG skills, Jetpack skills, being able to execute huge combos like low gravity jetpack and mine/zook,or any other technique and strategy you wish to employ, whether it's planned, executed perfectly, or totally improvised, adapting to every situation as it happens.

Nobody has an unfair advantage, regardless of starting positions and the shape of the map it's always possible to win if you are skilled and intelligent enough.

Saying something is unfair because of biased opinions is subjective and should not be used to change a classic scheme.

It's suitable to say "I don't like it" instead of saying "It's unfair".

Personally I think being able to pile worms, suicide on worms, by any means necessary is what made the scheme so much fun and competitive, personally, I think Hysteria is not as much fun when you select worm, it also defeats the purpose and balance of random starting placements.

It's entirely possible to achieve an extremely high win percentage if you accept the scheme for what it is, plan well and play well enough.

Also, if you really wish to change the scheme used for the League, why not try and positively influence the opinions of everyone? Why not host Tournaments, Cups, play the scheme and share it and spread it, instead of using political character attacking tactics, in this case the scheme is the person being attacked.

Instead of being negative and hostile towards a classic scheme which is loved by many, you could keep your subjective opinion of being "unfair" to yourself, and instead proceed with positivity and enthusiasm.

Hi TheKomodo, first of all I'm not sure if you are writing this to me or to Kaleu, the author of the scheme proposal. Your quote is not from my post, is from the scheme's description, written by Kaleu. I don't really play TUS leagues, at least until now, but I like competitive play and I am a really big fan of schemes. Hysteria is a scheme created by Run! in 2007 (after beta updates that allowed to play with only 1 second) and the league scheme is already a modified version of the original scheme which does not have Low Gravity in it.

Note that a rule or a new feature that appears in a game logic version can make a scheme more fun to play. When I say more "fun" sometimes this "fun" can be replaced by the word "pro" too, depending on the case. WxW is a very popular scheme that originated from a new rule in shopper that you should touch the two walls of the map before attacking. This rule and later some specialized maps turned the scheme different and often more challenging, still being a variation of the original shopper scheme (which is still played a lot). I believe that things evolve not only thinking in living beings, but society, humanity and, why not? Worms and schemes too. So, maybe hysteria will be played in different ways in the future or not. People had decided that Low Gravity makes hysteria more fun to play, increasing possibilities and beautiful shots. Also, a lot of people accepted and liked the rule "no telecow", Kaleu is not the only person defending this concept. Personaly I don't like when I join a game and the host does not talk about any rules of the scheme, then since you don't know if "telecow" is allowed or not, you teleport to use the worm rotation abuse tactic and then people get angry saying that "it was cow". However, I see Hysteria as an artillery game, like BnG, but different, exploring the hotkeys. It is a game about beautiful and hard shots, when you teleport behind someone that is winning by using complex technics of pressing hotkeys combinations very fast and then kills the worms of this person in a much easier way, for me is like playing WxW against someone who dominates the rope like no other, do not fell from the rope and did beautiful plays, then you use "Scales of Justice" and the health bars are the same again. I'm not against Scales of Justice, it is actually pretty good in some schemes, but not in others. I see Worm Rotation Abuse ("telecow") in a similar way, because making a pile of your worms to protect them from the worm rotation abuse can be a strategy, but I see it more as a (dangerous) workaround to deal with this frustrating situation that you cannot really do much about it. Telecow is already a reality by many hysteria players and now version 3.8 allowed some interesting features that can be very interesting in Hysteria (without adding any rules). I think Hysteria can be played the two ways, only the time will say how people will play this scheme.

About Kaleu, I know him and I can say that he is not really attacking Hysteria, because he really likes this scheme, not only that, he is a very good player of Hysteria and knows very well how TUS leagues work. Maybe the word "unfair" the way it is written on that description wasn't the best choice to express why he is proposing a new scheme to the actual version of Hysteria league one. He already played this scheme with me and with other players, and maybe this scheme will appear in tournaments, it is a very new scheme...

Just saying: I'm a big fan of Hysteria, even though I'm not very good playing it. For me Run! is a genius and was very inspired creating this scheme, because it could have flopped and did not receive much attention (another person could have used the new 1 second possibility more succesfully), but the set of weapons was very well thought and the scheme settings too (even the name is very good), balancing well the sudden death with the resources of the time without 3.8's actual "fractional round timer" feature that Kaleu is including in Selecsteria (the scheme proposal is not only about "telecow").

Great post, you are one of the few people who have ever discussed this as an opinion based on what you personally think is fun and competitive.

I am entirely happy to support a new scheme if it's presentation is positive, even if it's something that doesn't appeal to me as much as the existing scheme, if I can see it's something the majority wants and enjoys i'll adapt to it, however i'll still defend the scheme setup that I enjoy most.

But I cannot, in good faith support any presentation when it begins with a lie, which is what Kaleu(and others) have presented multiple times over the years.

Saying it's "unfair" is purely subjective, and is not the truth, and this immediate ignorance instantly makes me unsupportive, whether it's intentional or not, and to be honest if it's unintentional that makes it even worse because the person is not being aware of the entire situation and taking into account the feelings of others.

With that being said, if the scheme itself changes from Hysteria to Selecsteria, that won't bother me, because it changes the gameplay and strategy dramatically so it deserves a different name and will be considered an entirely different scheme, but if people try to change the actual settings of Hysteria itself to prevent piling and suicides by any means necessary, I'd have a major issue with that.

The only thing i'd like to challenge that you said:

QuoteI see Worm Rotation Abuse ("telecow") in a similar way, because making a pile of your worms to protect them from the worm rotation abuse can be a strategy, but I see it more as a (dangerous) workaround to deal with this frustrating situation that you cannot really do much about it.

I can accept that statement, as you began with "I see" which means it's entirely your personal opinion, and also I understand there are people who will agree with it.

To you it's frustrating and feels like a workaround, to me it's exciting and feels completely normal.

However, what really puts me off Selecsteria is random placement, I believe myself this scheme needs to have manual worm placement because you have effectively taken away the very things which both balances extremely good/bad starting positions with random placements and makes the scheme fun in the way it was for people who enjoy having the choice of suiciding worms or trying to save them, sacrificing several worms because you have confidence in your abilities with 1 worm.

Do you want a faster game? Instantly plop all your worms, do you want a longer game? Avoid piling and hide tactically. Your opponent plops 3 of their worms instantly, be prepared for it, accept it and adapt! Your opponent doesn't sacrifice worms and wants to drag the match out, this is also fun for me! Having the choice is something that made this scheme interesting, Selecsteria is more boring to me because it has less choice this way and Hysteria feels more versatile and more adaptive that way to me.

Besides piling, sacrifice and suicide have been valid and much loved tactic in Worms for all kinds of schemes since day 1, so it surprises me people have such an issue with it in Hysteria when they are fine with it in Elite/Intermediate/Roper/Aerial/WxW etc. In Hysteria the only objective is to kill the enemies worms before they kill yours, how you get there should not matter.

Taking away those things ruin the scheme for me, and with selecsteria in my opinion the 1st turn will always have that slight advantage.

Like you, Hysteria is an artillery scheme to me, which was for around 15 years my favourite type of scheme, if you know me you know how much I love BnG, so honestly i'd eventually be fine with Selecsteria because the most important aspects are still your skill with weapon accuracy and quickly adapting to situations, but I will always look at it as an inferior, less adaptive and less versatile scheme than Hysteria.

For example, i'd be more than happy to stream and commentate on Selecsteria Tournaments, possibly even donate a little cash to an already existing prizepool, to see multiple people get involved and really give it a good test.

I mean, if you want less strategy and unfair metrics, selectsteria sounds great.

You've made the scheme more unfair than it previously was, fractional round timer makes it even more unbalanced.

I think people can have fun with this new scheme and I hope they do, but you've introduced no new 'fairness' here.

More first turn worm plops and harder to make a comeback once at a deficit, not to mention if you get worm placements at bottom and your opponent on top, you are basically boned.

Quote from: TheKomodo on October 11, 2020, 02:54 PM
Great post, you are one of the few people who have ever discussed this as an opinion based on what you personally think is fun and competitive.

Thank you, I like to discuss this kind of thing. I'm enjoying this discussion.

Well, good points about adding manual worm placement to Selecsteria. I usually don't like too much the manual placement because sometimes it takes too much time before the match starts, however in hysteria league the pattern is 4 worms for each player so it is not so much time doing this (and it is competitive play). The scheme already has a workaround to deal with initicial bad positions which is delay in all weapons for one turn, this way, you can select the worm standing on the most dangerous place during hot-seat time and teleport it to a safer place. I think randomness is nice sometimes even though when the worms are too exposed this is not good.

Quote from: TheWalrus on October 11, 2020, 06:20 PM

You've made the scheme more unfair than it previously was, fractional round timer makes it even more unbalanced.

About fractional round timer I really don't understand Walrus' point of view because the Sudden Death of all normal schemes works this way, appearing normally. In hysteria if you want Sudden Death you necessarily have to skip one turn (this means you will not attack, being more vulnerable) to make it happen. In Selecsteria you can attack at the very end of the time and still make Sudden Death come sooner and even after the opponent's attack it will count on the timer, so it will help who is losing to have a chance to win with the flood (a different scenario). And just a reminder: who created Selecsteria was not me, was Kaleu. I just helped him with some 3.8 new features possibilities and with testings. But, yes, I liked the scheme and yes, I posted it here.

Quote from: TheKomodo on October 11, 2020, 02:54 PM

With that being said, if the scheme itself changes from Hysteria to Selecsteria, that won't bother me, because it changes the gameplay and strategy dramatically so it deserves a different name and will be considered an entirely different scheme

Yeah, I think maybe the same way there are a lot of Poker variants, Cue sports variants, Hysteria could have the tradicional Hysteria and Selecsteria or another proposal dealing with the polemical "telecow" or even the other existing variations of this scheme (like the ones that use alternative weapons, like low powered banana instead of grenade).

And I definitely agree with TheKomodo's point of view that attacking your own worms and pilling is a valid strategy, I just think that the "telecow" subject is already a tendency, and maybe TUS should open an alternative play to people who want to play Hysteria in a different way, more focusing on the hard shots than a "conventional gameplay-related strategy". I think BnG rules exist for a reason, someone thought that a sitting nade is not as fun or as pro as grenades that explode exactly at the right time, that direct shots are not so fun as well calculated indirect shots. I believe "no telecow" rule is something in this direction.

Quote from: TheKomodo on October 11, 2020, 02:54 PM

For example, i'd be more than happy to stream and commentate on Selecsteria Tournaments, possibly even donate a little cash to an already existing prizepool, to see multiple people get involved and really give it a good test.

Oh, I really apreciate people who have this type of iniciative.

Quote from: FoxHound on October 12, 2020, 02:49 AMAbout fractional round timer I really don't understand Walrus' point of view because the Sudden Death of all normal schemes works this way, appearing normally. In hysteria if you want Sudden Death you necessarily have to skip one turn (this means you will not attack, being more vulnerable) to make it happen. In Selecsteria you can attack at the very end of the time and still make Sudden Death come sooner and even after the opponent's attack it will count on the timer, so it will help who is losing to have a chance to win with the flood (a different scenario).

Your reach exceeds your grasp, fox.  I just think you don't understand the strategy or mechanics of hysteria, which is fine.  Initiating sudden death in 90% of scenarios is advantageous to the person in the lead, not the person losing.  I have never intentionally tried to force SD when I am behind in hysteria, nor would any good hyst player.  When you are behind, you usually take a safe hide and try to chip away at the opponent over time.  Time is your ally.  The most common endgame scenario is one player, in the lead, at the top of the map, with multiple worms, and an opponent that has fallen behind in the game taking a side hide shooting bazookas from a position difficult to hit.  Letting the opponent do this for a period of time when you have the lead is bad strategy, it is in your best interest to just force SD than wait.

With this scheme I can easily see the player with good worm positions at start continually dominate throughout the game, especially if one player has trapped worms.  Player 1 with good worm positions can spread their worms out and make sure they can attack any part of the map, and the instant player 2 tried to move their worms out from trapped or low worm positions to the top of the map, one at a time, they get beat back with ease.  I can easily see a scenario where you start with the lead, and steamroll the rest of the way by attrition based on nothing other than RNG worm positions.

For other good points, refer to komo's posts.

It's just not a competitive scheme by any means and fails to improve upon any of the key mechanics of hysteria.  Select worm had been suggested in the past many, many times; and it didn't work then and doesn't work now.  This is not a new idea besides the fractional timer, which I am not opposed to, and it should probably be implemented.  All of it as a package, however, just doesn't make for meaningful gameplay.  Might be decent for funners, but the winner in a FFA hysteria game is a crapshoot anyway so why even have select worm, anyhow.  Just my take.

If you want a demonstration as to how you can be held hostage by the mechanics of selectsteria, I'd be happy to get on for a few games to demonstrate.

Quote from: TheWalrus on October 12, 2020, 03:57 PM
Your reach exceeds your grasp

Oh, it seems this is a beautiful verse from a Robert Browning poem. English is not my native language and poetry is not a simple thing to understand, I'm more used with portuguese language poets. I think I got what you mean with this sentence by the context, though. Now your explanation makes a lot of sense, there is a good logic behind it. I'm really not used to play in WA competitions and Hysteria is not a scheme I dominate. So, you can be right, I would accept playing to see in practice your point. As it is written in Selecsteria description, the scheme can be changed. Kaleu is open for alterations. The "no telecow" rule issue is still valid, in my opinion.

Why can't every debate/conversation be like this? Different sides actually listening to each other, offering their time, opinions/experience and respect, even agreeing to work/play together...

Hi, sorry to revive this discussion. I just figured out something that can be interesting to hysteria, using 3.8 features. You know that glitch that happens when you are firing a bazooka against the wind from the Jet Pack (the bazooka instantly blows in the worm's face in mid air)? I had an insight today and discovered that this glitch can be 100% "fixed" now, but with a "cost", side effects that affect the gameplay. You just need to select the option "Phased Worms (Allied) --> Worms+Weapons" and the glitch will never happen anymore, so you can fire a zook against the wind from the jet pack with no fear to explode in your worm's face, the same goes for some grenade shots that bounces on the worm's back. I know this glitch can be used in purpose, but I believe it is much more a frustration than a benefit. About the side effects, yeah, the cow will pass through allied worms, you will be able to shot through allied worms, you will not be able to use an allied worm as a step to jump and reach another place and allied worms will not block you. These are considerable changes to the gameplay, some people may not like this idea, but I believe it would make Hysteria (or Selecsteria) even more interesting. The Jet Pack shots are so amazing, now they can be fully explored. What do you think?