Author Topic: Cup #1109, Camelot Team17 cup (Read 7807 times)

Deadcode · « **Reply #30 on:** April 17, 2021, 11:36 PM »

Quote from: Lancelot on April 17, 2021, 11:03 PM

I can't delete you, but I can find a replacement, don't worry.

Are you saying you have a way to upload somebody else's replays to the cup under my name?

Sycotropic · « **Reply #31 on:** April 18, 2021, 12:00 AM »

Can't you just have SIBASA and Mega`Adnan go through to the next round?

XanKriegor · « **Reply #32 on:** April 18, 2021, 04:44 AM »

Quote from: Deadcode on April 17, 2021, 11:36 PM

Quote from: Lancelot on April 17, 2021, 11:03 PM
I can't delete you, but I can find a replacement, don't worry.

Are you saying you have a way to upload somebody else's replays to the cup under my name?

A cup player have to be replaced with someone else. No way to just remove him.

Lancelot · « **Reply #33 on:** April 18, 2021, 08:32 AM »

I have no personal conflicts with anyone, and will not be in the future. But enough time has passed from the start of registration to the start of the draw to make any adjustments to the scheme or rules. To be honest, I listened to each of the players without any problems regarding the scheme or any other suggestions for improving the gameplay. For me, as a cup moderator and one of the T17 community admins, it is interesting to see new variations of the scheme that could be more balanced. And I will definitely play the version of Deadcode with my guys from the T17 community. But the cup has already started, games have been played, and I have no right to delete these games. I am acting within the rules. And I find it rather stupid and incompetent to create very controversial and emotionally acute situations after the gameplay draw.

Like little children you behave together with Syc. Agree with everything, and when the time comes to play, you openly sabotage the game, in addition, connect your credibility as a developer. I don’t know how to act as dirty as possible in this situation.

Even more surprise arose when, when asked to play by the rules, I began to listen to protests and accusations against me. I have no words

Deadcode · « **Reply #34 on:** April 18, 2021, 12:58 PM »

I signed up to this cup to have fun. I thought, "Wow, a tournament-type thing focused on the scheme I most love. I'd be a fool to miss this." I didn't sign up right after finding out about it, because I didn't know what a cup was, but after a few days figured, well, it can't be that bad, can it? There was no explanation of what a cup was, but I signed up anyway, because how could I miss an event like this.

As explained earlier, it didn't even occur to me that the cup would have a prescribed scheme, let alone to check that scheme and make sure I'm okay with it. So yeah, I made a mistake. But the only other time I ever took part in events on TUS were the recent Island T17 tournaments hosted by Senator. And those had a prescribed scheme too, but it was a scheme almost exactly the same as the WormsLeague T17 scheme. Since then, I've played hundreds of T17 matches with that scheme, and grown to love it and consider it the definitive version of the scheme. So maybe I became so used to it that I forgot about even the possibility of T17 being played any other way.

So then when I found out, just before I was about to play my cup match against Syc, that the cup had a prescribed scheme, and it had some major things wrong with it in my eyes, including the absence of v3.8+ settings which felt like a spit in the face to me, I had to either make a quick decision or delay playing my games with Syc (and probably not play them at all, because I'd most likely have to leave the cup, as I didn't expect Lancelot to agree to change the scheme at my request after the cup had already started). It seemed like a really silly reason to delay/cancel playing our match for, so I made the decision to play with the scheme I love, not the (barbaric, in my eyes) scheme that the cup prescribed.

So yeah, I joined the cup for fun, what a novel idea? Playing with its prescribed scheme would not be fun for me. Had I known before signing up, I wouldn't have signed up. Given that I was already signed up, what choice did I have? Lancelot, you expect me to stay and play on this scheme that I not only hate, but feels like a spit in the face to me, just for some misguided sense of honor? No, the most graceful thing to do here is leave the cup, which I have done as best I can.

Also, Lancelot, if you had stuck to your guns, and kept the exact scheme you originally attached to the cup without change, at least I could respect your integrity in some way for that. But your credibility as a mod dropped through the floor when you changed the scheme... for no reason. It still had all the things wrong with it that I had explained, so why did you do it?

Deadcode · « **Reply #35 on:** April 18, 2021, 01:40 PM »

Quote from: XanKriegor on April 18, 2021, 04:44 AM

A cup player have to be replaced with someone else. No way to just remove him.

Thanks for the information, that does sound reasonable enough.

Lancelot · « **Reply #36 on:** April 18, 2021, 01:42 PM »

Quote from: Deadcode on April 18, 2021, 12:58 PM

I signed up to this cup to have fun. I thought, "Wow, a tournament-type thing focused on the scheme I most love. I'd be a fool to miss this." I didn't sign up right after finding out about it, because I didn't know what a cup was, but after a few days figured, well, it can't be that bad, can it? There was no explanation of what a cup was, but I signed up anyway, because how could I miss an event like this.

As explained earlier, it didn't even occur to me that the cup would have a prescribed scheme, let alone to check that scheme and make sure I'm okay with it. So yeah, I made a mistake. But the only other time I ever took part in events on TUS were the recent Island T17 tournaments hosted by Senator. And those had a prescribed scheme too, but it was a scheme almost exactly the same as the WormsLeague T17 scheme. Since then, I've played hundreds of T17 matches with that scheme, and grown to love it and consider it the definitive version of the scheme. So maybe I became so used to it that I forgot about even the possibility of T17 being played any other way.

So then when I found out, just before I was about to play my cup match against Syc, that the cup had a prescribed scheme, and it had some major things wrong with it in my eyes, including the absence of v3.8+ settings which felt like a spit in the face to me, I had to either make a quick decision or delay playing my games with Syc (and probably not play them at all, because I'd most likely have to leave the cup, as I didn't expect Lancelot to agree to change the scheme at my request after the cup had already started). It seemed like a really silly reason to delay/cancel playing our match for, so I made the decision to play with the scheme I love, not the (barbaric, in my eyes) scheme that the cup prescribed.

So yeah, I joined the cup for fun, what a novel idea? Playing with its prescribed scheme would not be fun for me. Had I known before signing up, I wouldn't have signed up. Given that I was already signed up, what choice did I have? Lancelot, you expect me to stay and play on this scheme that I not only hate, but feels like a spit in the face to me, just for some misguided sense of honor? No, the most graceful thing to do here is leave the cup, which I have done as best I can.

Also, Lancelot, if you had stuck to your guns, and kept the exact scheme you originally attached to the cup without change, at least I could respect your integrity in some way for that. But your credibility as a mod dropped through the floor when you changed the scheme... for no reason. It still had all the things wrong with it that I had explained, so why did you do it?

From all your words, I did not see any arguments in your version of the scheme. Glitch bans and improved damage for digging tools are not a good reason to change the scheme. All the rest can be done by agreement orally.

Deadcode · « **Reply #37 on:** April 18, 2021, 02:29 PM »

Quote from: Lancelot on April 18, 2021, 01:42 PM

From all your words, I did not see any arguments in your version of the scheme. Glitch bans and improved damage for digging tools are not a good reason to change the scheme. All the rest can be done by agreement orally.

LOL, I feel you are digging your own grave with that comment. I didn't think this was either the time or the place to discuss the merits of the scheme in detail, but I absolutely did discuss it a little. What do you call this:

Quote from: Deadcode on April 16, 2021, 11:57 PM

but it also has the old-style 50+50 hp damage Longbows, which are absolutely terrible. They give anybody an easy, free 100 points of damage, which is totally unfair and unbalanced, and strongly discourages using the Longbow in creative ways.

Quote from: Deadcode on April 17, 2021, 07:22 PM

Your cup scheme doesn't have glitches disabled, as is possible in the WA v3.8+ scheme format. I have no interest in manually enforcing these as "rules" (no rope knocking, no roofing, no skipwalking) just to adhere to a rigid doctrine about using the precise scheme attached to the cup, especially after it was my own hard work along with CyberShadow's that made it possible to have them enforced automatically by the game.

Quote from: Deadcode on April 17, 2021, 07:22 PM

Note that manually enforcing no-rope-knocking, as a rule instead of a scheme setting, is actually really terrible, because rope knucking, where you swing your worm to fall through a worm that's blocking a passageway, into the other side, is a very legitimate move, and without rope knocking being disabled by the game itself, can't be done without risking breaking the no-rope-knocking rule. (Unless you play the game in #PartyTime or via wa:// URL.)

So again I ask, have you read anything that I have written?

But sure, if you want me to go into more detail, okay.

It's very important to have clearly defined rules. If the rules must be enforced manually by the players, they'd better be very clear, so that there is no room for argument or disagreement. So to begin with, the fact that all you said was "- standart team17 rules (no knocking, no roofing)", implying there are more rules than that, but there's no need to bother to state them because "everyone knows" what they are? That's a recipe for ambiguity and disagreements. (For example, is skipwalking allowed? Unclear.) But the game can now enforce all of the "standard" Team17 rules automatically, making them no longer rules, just scheme settings. The Team17 scheme can basically be played with "no rules" now. And that is always better. With no need to focus on hoping that the other player will have the same interpretation of the rules as you do, the focus can instead be on playing the best you can, using the best strategy, best hand-eye coordination, etc., freeing up brain cells from the task of second-guessing your own moves due to worry about what the other player will think. And I have personally found that I play much better when I don't have to worry about player-enforced rules.

As for the blowtorch, the 5 star version of it is absolutely terrible. It throws a worm it hits far away on the first shot, destroying the delicate and wonderful physics of how it works at 3 stars of power, where you can precisely control how much damage you do and how far you push the worm. As for the drill, there's a lot of luck with it, but with experience, you can have an idea of what it's likely to do, and plan accordingly. Changing the power of it throws away all of that practice and experience. I've hardly ever used it at 5 stars of power, but I'm guessing it'd be overpowered and either make it too easy to plop a worm, or throw off a planned plop by throwing the worm too hard against a wall, causing it to bounce back.

As for the longbow, I already explained that in enough detail; see above.

Lancelot · « **Reply #38 on:** April 18, 2021, 02:40 PM »

Everyone who plays here knows the usual rules. Of course, there are exceptions in the form of newbies, but that's a different matter.

It makes no sense to discuss the merits of the versions of the schemes for one simple reason - the draw took place. Your mistake is that you did not offer your option in advance. That's all. And the fact that the schemes are signed the same is not only mine. More than 10 types of schemes are signed in the same way.

In your case, it is worth proposing the scheme as a substitute in the league. I did not support your option for one good reason - because I studied the probability of weapon dropping and found it out of balance. In the league scheme, the bow also has 50 damage per shot. Glitches can be conditionally prohibited, as they did before.
The increased damage from digging tools only confuses players who are used to the old damage indicators.

If I am not convinced in my words, you can simply say that it is necessary to innovate in the league or cup games in a timely manner, and not create a mess by provoking conflicts

Deadcode · « **Reply #39 on:** April 18, 2021, 03:02 PM »

Your words do not make much sense. There is a significant language barrier here; perhaps that's why you've failed to understand so much that I have said, and perhaps there are some things you've tried to say which I've failed to understand. It might be better if you replied in your native language, and I ran it through Google Translator to try to figure out what you really meant, further using a dictionary and manual translation if there's ambiguity. (I mean that in full seriousness.)

Quote from: Lancelot on April 18, 2021, 02:40 PM

Everyone who plays here knows the usual rules. Of course, there are exceptions in the form of newbies, but that's a different matter.

I just explained why that's a terrible system. It's much better to eliminate all the ambiguity. And the game makes that possible now. There's no excuse not to use this feature.

Quote

It makes no sense to discuss the merits of the versions of the schemes for one simple reason - the draw took place.

The... "draw"? What do you mean?

Quote

Your mistake is that you did not offer your option in advance. That's all.

I gave SIBASA the choice of whether to agree with the scheme or not. And I honestly didn't expect him to be so opposed to the idea. Nevertheless he was free to choose, and he chose to agree to it.

Quote

And the fact that the schemes are signed the same is not only mine. More than 10 types of schemes are signed in the same way.

"Signed"? What are you talking about here? I'm not sure I understand. But if you mean a scheme attached to a cup or tournament, I already explained I did not know about it when I signed up, and only found out when my match with Syc was about to start. So how does this have any relevance to the issue at hand?

Quote

In your case, it is worth proposing the scheme as a substitute in the league. I did not support your option for one good reason - because I studied the probability of weapon dropping and found it out of balance. In the league scheme, the bow also has 50 damage per shot.

Truly I wouldn't mind much if you took my scheme, and changed its weapon probabilities to suit your liking. That is the thing I care least about. Have you read anything I've written? I've made it clear again and again what I most dislike in your scheme, and it's not the crate probabilities.

Heck, if I'd have known you cared so much about crate probabilities, I would have copied your crate probabilities into my scheme myself before playing the cup games with Syc and SIBASA.

Quote

Glitches can be conditionally prohibited, as they did before.

"Conditionally prohibited"? Huh? As "they" did? Who's they? I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. Language barrier...

Quote

The increased damage from digging tools only confuses players who are used to the old damage indicators.

You're... making my own point for me. The increased damage of digging tools in your scheme is completely different from what I've been accustomed to for 20 years.

I never should have posted the WormNET #Team17League scheme translated from WormNET protocol into a .WSC file. Back when I did it, I meant it to be only for historical interest and academic reasons. I didn't mean for people to use that scheme. Before I posted that, everybody played T17 with blowtorch and drill set to 3 stars of power. Ever since then, it seems people have treated the #Team17League scheme as being sacred and have stuck with its bad settings. Which makes no sense whatsoever, because as far as I've heard, the Team17 scheme underwent many changes while the WormNET leagues were still up. The one posted is only the final form it was in before the leagues were taken offline in 2000. (And I can only know about that secondhand, as I started playing Worms Armageddon in October 2000, and started playing on WormNET about a month later, so by the time I came on the scene, the leagues were already down.)

Quote

If I am not convinced in my words,

You're not sure if you're convinced by your own words? Language barrier.

Quote

you can simply say that it is necessary to innovate in the league or cup games in a timely manner, and not create a mess by provoking conflicts

"Provoking conflicts"? I tried as hard as I possibly could (short of playing with your scheme, which was never an option) to not provoke anything. SIBASA was not on the same page, and chose to turn this into a fully provoked conflict.

Lancelot · « **Reply #40 on:** April 18, 2021, 03:32 PM »

Quote

The... "draw"? What do you mean?

I meant that the cup has started. The translator fails to keep the whole meaning of my words

Quote

I gave SIBASA the choice of whether to agree with the scheme or not. He was free to choose, and he chose to agree to it.

He told me on discord that he had to agree. And it sounded not voluntary, but under pressure

Quote

"Signed"? What are you talking about here? I honestly have no idea.

I meant the same names of schemes in the list

Quote

Truly I wouldn't mind much if you took my scheme, and changed its weapon probabilities to suit your liking. That is the thing I care least about. Have you read anything I've written? I've made it clear again and again what I most dislike in your scheme, and it's not the crate probabilities.

I'm more worried about this than increased damage from digging tools or glitch bans
Because the balance of the main weapon list is the same, with rare exceptions. If you look at the fact, for example, the mole and dynamite weapons are weapons of different strength.

Quote

"Conditionally prohibited"? Huh? As "they" did? Who's they? I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. Language barrier...

I meant that the fact that glitches and walking on the ceiling can not be used without applying the latest innovations

Quote

You're... making my own point for me. The increased damage of digging tools in your scheme is completely different from what I've been accustomed to for 20 years.

I never should have posted the WormNET #Team17League scheme translated from WormNET protocol into a .WSC file. Back when I did it, I meant it to be only for historical interest and academic reasons. I didn't mean for people to use that scheme. Before I posted that, everybody played T17 with blowtorch and drill set to 3 stars of power. Ever since then, it seems people have treated the #Team17League scheme as being sacred and have stuck with its bad settings. Which makes no sense whatsoever, because as far as I've heard, the Team17 scheme underwent many changes while the WormNET leagues were still up. The one posted is only the final form it was in before the leagues were taken offline in 2000. (And I can only know about that secondhand, as I started playing Worms Armageddon in October 2000, and started playing on WormNET about a month later, so by the time I came on the scene, the leagues were already down.)

To be honest, I don't know which version of the scheme was used in the past. I repeat my words - you need to seriously talk about this using the forum. I don't mind anything that could be better. I just do everything within the rules

Quote

You're not sure if you're convinced by your own words? Language barrier.

If my words were not enough, I will add that ...

Quote

"Provoking conflicts"? I tried as hard as I possibly could (short of playing with your scheme, which was never an option) to not provoke anything. SIBASA was not on the same page, and chose to turn this into a fully provoked conflict.

A belated attempt to fix everything. You had a week and a half before the draw to check the scheme and submit your suggestions. I see no point in this dispute now. The Cup is already in the group stage and some games have already been played

Deadcode · « **Reply #41 on:** April 18, 2021, 03:53 PM »

Quote from: Lancelot on April 18, 2021, 03:32 PM

Quote
I gave SIBASA the choice of whether to agree with the scheme or not. He was free to choose, and he chose to agree to it.

He told me on discord that he had to agree. And it sounded not voluntary, but under pressure

Well yes, obviously it was under pressure, but it's not like I was holding a gun to his head or anything. And I had already played 9 Team17 games with SIBASA before using that exact scheme, and he spectated an additional 2 that I played with Chicken23, so it's not like he was unfamiliar with the scheme itself. He was free to choose to disagree with the scheme choice, agree with the scheme choice, or delay our match until having a chance to make the decision with a clearer mind. He chose to agree with it immediately. It's all there in the log file he quoted.

Furthermore, his protest was not about the scheme itself, but about the rules. He believed that it was against the rules to play using any scheme other than the cup-attached prescribed scheme. But given that you were willing to let me re-upload my games with Syc, that's apparently not the case; if the players agree, using a different scheme is apparently allowed. So SIBASA's entire reasoning behind protesting the scheme change in the first place is apparently not based on fact?

Quote

Quote
Truly I wouldn't mind much if you took my scheme, and changed its weapon probabilities to suit your liking. That is the thing I care least about. Have you read anything I've written? I've made it clear again and again what I most dislike in your scheme, and it's not the crate probabilities.

I'm more worried about this than increased damage from digging tools or glitch bans
Because the balance of the main weapon list is the same, with rare exceptions. If you look at the fact, for example, the mole and dynamite weapons are weapons of different strength.

You haven't even replied to my proposal. About copying your crate probabilities into my scheme.

Quote

Quote
"Conditionally prohibited"? Huh? As "they" did? Who's they? I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. Language barrier...

I meant that the fact that glitches and walking on the ceiling can not be used without applying the latest innovations

What do you mean by "applying the latest innovations"? Do you mean upgrading the game to v3.8.1? There's no excuse not to do that. The patch is easily available to anyone using the CD-ROM, Steam, or GOG version. Are you using a pirated copy of the game?

Apparently not, I just checked one of your replays and you're using WA v3.8.1. So I have no idea what you mean by "can not be used without applying the latest innovations".

Lancelot · « **Reply #42 on:** April 18, 2021, 04:15 PM »

I already have a headache from this discussion.

If you don’t want to play by the rules of the cup, don’t play. It is your choice.

In this dialogue, I will finish, and then I go to drink tablets

Deadcode · « **Reply #43 on:** April 18, 2021, 04:40 PM »

In closing, I'd just like to highlight this:

Quote from: Deadcode on April 18, 2021, 12:58 PM

Also, Lancelot, if you had stuck to your guns, and kept the exact scheme you originally attached to the cup without change, at least I could respect your integrity in some way for that. But your credibility as a mod dropped through the floor when you changed the scheme... for no reason. It still had all the things wrong with it that I had explained, so why did you do it?

You had every opportunity to make a reasonable change to the scheme. Instead you chose to make a nonsensical one, why? Out of spite?

I have tried my best to turn this disaster of a cup around back into something fun, and you have refused at every step to communicate clearly. You've flat-out ignored the most important points out of what I've said, repeatedly.

And also now, because of this, I don't particularly want to play with SIBASA ever again, and I expect he might feel the same way. Which is a shame, because he's a good player and I had fun playing T17s with him.

Do you refuse to use the latest scheme options so as to support pirates of the game who are still using WA v3.7.2.1?

Goodbye.

MonkeyIsland · « **Reply #44 on:** April 18, 2021, 05:21 PM »

@Lancelot,
This is your cup and as the cup moderator, you can specify any rules you want. That being said, it's a good practice to take the recent game changes into account. With the newest update of the game, there is absolutely no reason to have rules such as "no rope knocking". Furthermore, regarding SIBASA and deadcode, I see a conflict. SIBASA said he was not happy with deadcode's scheme but plays anyway. So I see 2 outcomes:

1. SIBASA wins, the games stand. (except you as the cup moderator check every replay file and void the games regardless of the outcome)
2. SIBASA loses, he can complaint and the games will be void.

Either way it's in SIBASA's favor. SIBASA's right move should have been to avoid playing and complain and he would get the free win because deadcode refused to play the official cup scheme.

@deadcode,
The default rules are to play with the cup scheme, unless the moderator says in the cup comments how much he/she is flexible about picking the scheme. Maybe a moderator wants to experiment with a custom scheme and he/she can't have players play with their own. You know you can start your own cup right? There are no restrictions:
User panel => Cups => Start a new cup

Camelot Team17 cup

Cup #1109, Viewed 7688 Time(s)

Knockout

Final

Bronze Match

Gold

Silver

Bronze

Groups

Author Topic: Cup #1109, Camelot Team17 cup (Read 7807 times)

Deadcode

Re: Cup #1109, Camelot Team17 cup

Sycotropic

Re: Cup #1109, Camelot Team17 cup

XanKriegor

Re: Cup #1109, Camelot Team17 cup

Lancelot

Re: Cup #1109, Camelot Team17 cup

Deadcode

Re: Cup #1109, Camelot Team17 cup

Deadcode

Re: Cup #1109, Camelot Team17 cup

Lancelot

Re: Cup #1109, Camelot Team17 cup

Deadcode

Re: Cup #1109, Camelot Team17 cup

Lancelot

Re: Cup #1109, Camelot Team17 cup

Deadcode

Re: Cup #1109, Camelot Team17 cup

Lancelot

Re: Cup #1109, Camelot Team17 cup

Deadcode

Re: Cup #1109, Camelot Team17 cup

Lancelot

Re: Cup #1109, Camelot Team17 cup

Deadcode

Re: Cup #1109, Camelot Team17 cup

MonkeyIsland

Re: Cup #1109, Camelot Team17 cup