Mablak this is my deep point of view about schemes from what I've experienced in these years. I have never had a favorite scheme and as chakkman says, the variation of schemes always keep me excited and I've played a fair amount of each whenever I had a chance.
When someone play a specific scheme over and over, he'll get more familiar with it, gain experience, get to know the not-to-do list and so on. (captain obvious)
All these years, almost all the whining about a certain scheme came from the people who were new to that scheme. I can't stress that line enough. Also you are a very good case/player to know this because you're pretty good in Intermediate. I've had enough debates about how noobish Intermediate is. You know how many times people pointed out that Intermediate is a lucky scheme because it has random placements. Many people never bothered to look one step ahead of random placements to see that actually one of the skills is to manage random placements.
That being said, these arguments happen time to time about specific scheme and always starting from people who are new to the scheme and get confused about the events in the game and before they start gaining a little experience they start suggesting tweaks to the scheme which is way too soon.
One of the majors flaw people see in schemes is losing while having more worms or leading the entire game. When they lose a game they were leading, most of the times they think it is a scheme flaw rather than their own flawed tactics.
An example for that is when people lead in Intermediate with more worms and health point thinking their opponent is darksiding because he is doomed and has no choice, then SD comes and all worms become 1hp, now they lose because their opponent was actually wasting time for this moment. At this point, they get mad and try to tweak intermediate to have no hp reduction at SD. It is reasonable though, they were leading the game and in 1 turn they lost. But what they don't see is that the reason they lost was "not considering SD timing". More a tactic flaw rather than a scheme flaw.
The more we play a scheme, the more we gain experience, the more we see these tactic flaws and ultimately, we categorize that as less lucky, more skilled. (Generally speaking, not obvious cases like TTRR)
Now when you categorize the schemes like this:
Quote from: Mablak on April 13, 2012, 09:44 AM
Roper/WxW
Elite/Intermediate
Team17/Shopper
BnG/Hysteria
RR
The schemes are getting sacrificed for many people according to your point of view of schemes.
For example, you are truly an expert in TTRR and you have dedicated a category for TTRR because you know it damn pretty well. (I do believe that TTRR needs its own category) On the other hand, I've heard the phrase "TTRR is just a small version of WxW" several times. I'm sure it makes sense to many people here. So why not make it RR/WxW then? The reason is that you know TTRR deep to your bone and you are sure it has nothing to do with WxW.
I wonder how much Dario would accept the Elite/Intermediate category.
Team17/Shopper is the worst combination you made but clearly drawing your point of view. You are putting WxW and TTRR together there because you think "Team17 is just some version of Shopper". The post has gotten long enough, I won't go into details why.
So my question is this:
If we gather all "experts" in every scheme to make categories, wouldn't our final conclusion be like dedicating one category for each scheme?
I'll reply to other posts later. This post is long enough :/
@Anubis,
Are you planning to come back at all?