I am sick of tus schemes!

[HHC]

When you want to compete, reducing luck is just the smart thing to do. For me competing with skilled players is most enjoyable.

Is it? Like I said, reducing randomness kills competition. And besides, are competition and fun two opposites?

What would F1 be like if cars could not blow up their engine, engage in crashes, f@#! up pit stops and stuff like that? Would be even more boring to watch (or experience) as it is now (is that possible? yes it is..).
Or a game of yathzee where everyone gets the same scores and it's only up to them to decide where the score counts towards?

That's just stupid imo. Reducing luck does not benefit competition and it certainly doesn't make it more interesting in this case.

[TheKomodo]

What is with you people that every single, tiny aspect of the game needs to be 'corrected' to take out the random/ "bad luck" factor?? Ask yourself this, would Worms, on a competitive level, still be fun if it came down to pure skill all the time? Wouldn't it be just as easy then to get rid of TUS and just hand out the Elite trophies to the CF squad, the RR to Ryan, the BnG to Komodo and the T17 to me (lolz)?
Heck, would Worms still be 'fun'?

I agree with you, but yes, I am guessing the reason why people think it's fun in leagues if it came down to pure skill, is because it is a league, it is there as a test to your capability of using a set scheme and rules to beat your opponent in certain games, I personally think if you play the game for fun, there are still hundreds of players out there that like to play random funners, so don't play leagues if this is what you enjoy, although you do have a valid point...

I dont know about you but I feel that many schemes have already degenerated into some kind of chess, in which each and every game has the same set-up and an almost equal way the games develop towards SD. We have altered the maps, added manual placements, basically we've done everything to make this game more predictable under the pretense that it accurately reflects who has more skillzzz, but what we've actually done is taken the fun out of all of it.
Not just Roper and Shopper use custom maps nowadays, but Elite and BnG maps are also tweaked to meet our demands.. to get rid of any possible 'luck'-factors that might take us to a situation that is new to us, to which we are not prepared, to a game that is beyond our personal control. Oh horror!

I can't disagree with you here, because I have noticed the exact same thing, they have more or less the same set-up and an almost equal way that they develop towards SD, but then again, we haven't taken the fun out of it, this is a league remember and it's supposed to be played seriously and competitive, people who don't like that shouldn't play leagues, everyone who knows me can vouch for me here, the way I BnG in leagues, and in funners, are completely different, unless i'm drunk lol, I do think it's fun with extra luck factor, but not in leagues, luck is so much fun, it can give you the biggest laugh even when it happens to you, but if it happens in a serious league game and costs a match you want to win, look at it from this perspective? Some people don't care about losing, some people do, alot of people in this league play with a different style from funners-league matches, and not only that, alot have a completely different attitude also...

In the meantime we push newbies away with our intricate and abundant houserules and our pro-schemes which have little to nothing to do with what Worms was originally meant to be.
You guys may whine all you want when 'boons' on the T17 forum, as well as Team17 themselves, fail to recognize the superiority of WA and its gametypes, but in all honesty.. it's the WA community itself that is blinded by its own incompetence to keep the game interesting for new and old players alike.

Some people push noobs away yes, we can't make them do any different, I kick noobs if I already have a game setup specifically, but it doesn't bother me because I know whenever I host a random game, and a noob joins (99% of the time it's BnG) not only do I have the patience to teach them the rules, thanks to my skills I can actually attract noobs to BnG, because when people like me, and everyone else in b2b plays BnG, it looks a HELL of a lot more exciting than the TuS/FB/WL style "keep throwing 3s/4s" besides, being a noob nowadays isn't that big a deal anymore, most gamers know that when they play a game for the 1st time, they are a noob, they refer to themself as a noob, so they expect to be kicked a few times, it's the noobs that act like idiots and be disrespectful that get treated like crap, and I don't blame anyone for this... Show me a 1st time player with a nice attitude and alot of time on their hands not only will I teach them the game we are playing, I will give them as much advice tips and tricks about being a WA player, I've told probably over 100 noobs since I started b2b with wormf00d, "yeah gg man, and remember if you see anyone with "b2b" in their name, just tell them I said you could BnG with them " now with this being said, I do see how all the arguing n stuff on these forums could turn some people away...

What people want is not some kind of inate chess-game in which the winner is pretty much predetermined (You can tell almost exactly who is going to be in the final of a RR cup or Elite tourney), instead, they want a game that is fun, easily accessible and competitive. In your drive to make this game more skill-based you have also made it dull, predictable and elitist.

Actually in a league like this, the person with the most skill should deserve to win, and I don't blame them for wanting to, and while I really really do respect your opinion, I think you are assuming quite alot here vouching for "people" in order to make something competitive, you have to rule out options that make it less competitive, "luck" in this case is a big big part, too much luck that is usually 1-sided in most games, and you have most people complaining, it's nice to have a little luck, that creates some unexpected moments that doesn't affect the outcome of the game due to players talents, is cool, but having 1, or 2 turns, of bad luck due to a scheme setting, can ruin anywhere between 15 minutes to an hour of someones day, who wouldn't have even bothered losing if it had came down to their own fault...

Team17 has been the only scheme that kept me playing WA for longer than 2 months. It is the only scheme left that is not totally predictable. It's the fun of being faced with situations that are beyond your control and in which you must try to think of ways to gain benefit, to gain the upper hand. No T17 game is ever the same.. it's like playing chess, but instead the pieces are scattered randomly across the board. This makes for an entirely different game and no matter how you twist it: there's plenty of opportunity for good players to turn the game in their advantage.

This is correct, but I must also point out, even in competitive T17 games, you still don't really get 2 games exactly the same...

Take out the 'overpowered' weapons, the barrels, the random placements, etcetera etcetera and what you are left with is the same inate, dull chess-shit Elite got turned into in the days of ESL.

I agree, I much prefer T17 with superweapons, it's what makes it more fun

[Anubis]

Komo pretty much sums it up. I personally don't think that adding randomness to league schemes makes it more interesting, it would just make it more frustrating for people that value skill over luck. In competitive play most people think that luck shouldn't be involved. For example the referee calls that are sometimes wrong in soccer (football) are often reason for a whole flame of both, players and fans to get rid off. Some goals that are called off-side or goals that shouldn't be given (see Germany vs. England in WC) There are people like you HHC that think it should be kept this way, and there are people like me that think luck isn't supposed to be win/loss determining.

P.S.: Are you getting Civilization 5 HHC? Coming out soon.

[HHC]

Not planning to Kai.  

Btw, the example that you give in football is a little different.. it's more like a bug in Worms Reloaded, like when a worm suddenly gains 100 health or so.

You gotta realize that by pushing for increasingly 'skill'-based schemes you are turning a fun game into.. well.. a napoleonic pitched battle where both armies meet at a prearranged place, under prearranged conditions and in a strict prearranged order (every compagny in neatly organized blocks of men). Then the armies march towards eachother and the army with the last man standing wins the match.
What I'm saying is that by adding random circumstances you free the battle from these strict rules and allow for much more improvisation and a totally different order of battle every time you play. You know, instead of these organized pitched battles you get a much more dynamic warfare in which it is far less important how good your riffles are or how good your plan is, but instead the focus is on adapting to the circumstances and making the best use of the opportunities you are offered.. and on the basis of these factors decide which plan you are going to push through.

Hmm.. let's stick with Civilization. By your logic, to make the game more skill based, each player must have equal access to the same resources. Therefore, the game must be played on a mirror-map in which each side starts on exactly the same terrain as his opponent and with the resources located at exactly the same spots. Furthermore each player must start with the same technology tree, there may be no random treasures on the map giving any benefits (if there are any in civ i dunno  ), etcetera.
Sure it's fair, but is it cool to play it that way? Wouldn't it be much cooler to start on a random map with different circumstances for each player? One by the sea, one further inland and so forth?

A good player will still win 90% of the matches. Same in Worms. I win about 90% in Worms: Reloaded, despite the fact that everything is random. On the long run, when you play 1000 games each season, the luck-factor becomes negligent as the percentage of 'outlucked' games will be similar to that of the opponent. In a tournament it is slightly different, but still, does the most skilled person have to win every single tournament?

[Free]

When you want to compete, reducing luck is just the smart thing to do. For me competing with skilled players is most enjoyable.

Is it? Like I said, reducing randomness kills competition. And besides, are competition and fun two opposites?

What would F1 be like if cars could not blow up their engine, engage in crashes, f@#! up pit stops and stuff like that? Would be even more boring to watch (or experience) as it is now (is that possible? yes it is..).
Or a game of yathzee where everyone gets the same scores and it's only up to them to decide where the score counts towards?

That's just stupid imo. Reducing luck does not benefit competition and it certainly doesn't make it more interesting in this case.

I know I'd enjoy more of F1 cars being totally same for everyone and the winnings coming mostly from the skill of the driver and mechanics. There's still plenty of random f@#!-ups in competitive games also, like f@#!ing up a jump which may totally cause you to lose the game or such.

But yea I guess it depends on the person, I find more value on mastering the art and the skill that comes with it.

To come think of it, I get my fair share of fun from challenges that happen from random situations (like T17) but most of the time it's not my superior underdog gameplay that brings me the victory but more the lack of skill of the opponent to take advantage of the situation. But I do agree it makes you a better player to come up with nasty situations like this, but in league games I'd rather not have luck decide who gets the advantage.

[chakkman]

I remember Wyvern had a Team17 winning streak (the scheme you so complain about having a huge luck factor) in some league (i think cbc-wwp) of like 200-7 or so. I think that speaks for itself. Anyway, i think HHC said it all. Not much more to add to that.

[Anubis]

Not planning to Kai.  

Btw, the example that you give in football is a little different.. it's more like a bug in Worms Reloaded, like when a worm suddenly gains 100 health or so.

You gotta realize that by pushing for increasingly 'skill'-based schemes you are turning a fun game into.. well.. a napoleonic pitched battle where both armies meet at a prearranged place, under prearranged conditions and in a strict prearranged order (every compagny in neatly organized blocks of men). Then the armies march towards eachother and the army with the last man standing wins the match.
What I'm saying is that by adding random circumstances you free the battle from these strict rules and allow for much more improvisation and a totally different order of battle every time you play. You know, instead of these organized pitched battles you get a much more dynamic warfare in which it is far less important how good your riffles are or how good your plan is, but instead the focus is on adapting to the circumstances and making the best use of the opportunities you are offered.. and on the basis of these factors decide which plan you are going to push through.

Hmm.. let's stick with Civilization. By your logic, to make the game more skill based, each player must have equal access to the same resources. Therefore, the game must be played on a mirror-map in which each side starts on exactly the same terrain as his opponent and with the resources located at exactly the same spots. Furthermore each player must start with the same technology tree, there may be no random treasures on the map giving any benefits (if there are any in civ i dunno  ), etcetera.
Sure it's fair, but is it cool to play it that way? Wouldn't it be much cooler to start on a random map with different circumstances for each player? One by the sea, one further inland and so forth?

A good player will still win 90% of the matches. Same in Worms. I win about 90% in Worms: Reloaded, despite the fact that everything is random. On the long run, when you play 1000 games each season, the luck-factor becomes negligent as the percentage of 'outlucked' games will be similar to that of the opponent. In a tournament it is slightly different, but still, does the most skilled person have to win every single tournament?

Your Civ example is quite good, I did play Civ4 competitive and 1v1 and 2v2 were mostly played on Mirrow maps. But these maps didn't contain just the same resources, one had cupper the other had Iron. But both Improvements allowed the played to build axemen, eventhough Iron is better cause it could be used to build swordsmen. The developers of such games take a lot of time to balance the randomness, we don't have a pack of people that spent time balancing every Percentage of the drop-rates in our schemes. The Civs in Civ4 all had different 'speccs', that means if you picked Romanian Empire you had better swordsmen in the early game. So basically you had to rush for an early confrontation while a Civ like, I think it was India had Worker Units that could build things on the landscape twice as fast, hence gathering resources faster. In Civ4 there was no ultimate Civ, though the Civs that were strong in later game phases weren't usually picked in these mirrow maps  because they are small to start off with. You had to decide yourself if you wanted to rush the enemy or just dig in an try to defend.

About the Tech-Tree. Yes Civ4 had for every Civilization the same Tech-Tree, it's the freedom of choice and you got other benefits from your Civ 'speccs' that made you different to other Civs. But the starting Tech's for every Civ were different. Also you had to do so many decisions that you can't say every Civ has the same Tech-Tree at all. Some Civs need to focus on Religion/warfare etc. It even depended on the situation, which resources you have on your pile of land etc.

Well Civ is a big topic and in my opinion by far the best turn-based Stretegy game. (After Worms of course ) So lets stop the Civ example.

I am just saying that most randomness is very balanced in other games/things. We need randomness in T17, it's built around that but it needs to be balanced like any other game. Think of all the RTS games like Starcraft. It's also necessary to be able to always counter a specific weapon, in my opinion at least.

[TheKomodo]

Basically I don't really think it matters what we do, people who know how to control crates and use good opportunities when they arise will win most of the time...

Most people know to avoid SD weapons now, if they don't, they should practise more, the thing that gets me is extremely bad random placement, for example, 3 worms at the bottom, and they have 2, with 1st turn, they get the 1st crate teleport up top, so they have 1 worm, you have 3 still down there, next turn you can only move 1, so you have a possible chance of 2 worms dying in the 2nd shot, but I know, this rarely happens, but even something like your opponent getting like 3 massive weapons in a row, cows, nana, hhg, while you get, uzi, zook, nade, is a bit frustrating, but that is when you got to play defensive and do everything you can to try and take control of crates and try and bluff your way, it's kind of like Poker in a way lol.

I think the occasional unbalanced game is fun, but when it happens 90% of the time to you, it sucks lol.

[Anubis]

What I have noticed too is that even if we could mathematically prove that scheme 1 is superior to scheme 2 people won't just suddenly stop playing scheme 2. It has never worked like that in a game that is so old. Sure when a game is new everyone is trying things, make suggestions and they are considered. But after I don't know, 10 years of W:A we didn't really have many drastic changes. The Major thing was in my opinion the RR evolution to TTRR and the deletion of cr8s in elite. And if you think of it, it was not a crucial change. The schemes just got minor changes. Even if we nail the problems down, everyone will talk about it but noone does anything in the end. That's a bit lazy.

But you can't enforce people to magically drop scheme 1 to play scheme 2. If the majority agrees with changes but still like it the old way nothing will ever change. Except leagues enforce people to play other schemes.

[Abnaxus]

The thing is about overpowered weapons in T17, to prevent this you need to girder everytime to not let your opponent come too close to you.
But with the 7 girders, you can't.

So, do you prefer prevent blockers by putting 7 girders, or let a chance to unlucky players to win by putting infinite ones ?

[Husk]

im happy with these schemes lol x;

[Uber]

I dont know, but i think this topic is going in a different path than chicken23 meant it 2 be. I dont think he meant 2 change the t 17 scheme much, just find another one, since the tus t17 scheme somehow got bugged and have a nasty habit of repeating weaps (trust me I know).  I dont wanna touch anything in the t17 scheme actually, its the scheme i love the most, which gimme most pleasure. Tons of ppl told me t 17 is all luck, those who know the scheme knows thats not the truth, but i can gladly admit that its one of the schemes with the biggest luck factor.I find that luck factor a good challenge!

[Chicken23]

I agree with everything HHC said. We have schemes which are less lucky than others. RR. But what makes worms fun and exiciting is the luck. T17 will always have this luck and trying to take away those big weapons just sucks!!!

Thats why the previous shopper schemes are fun aswell because you have a bigger range of weapons! Thats why i editted tus's and added minigun, axe and longbow (you need a shit weapon every now and then. plus it gives u a chance to make two nice pushes) id be interested to use the WMDB shopper scheme darkone mentioned as ive yet to play this one. I only know of FB and that had cows, hhg and aqua but were not powered down.


Almog tried to get me to play a t17 clanner on a map which was not 2 level cave and i refused. Now i am looking at myself in the mirror and im ashamed! haha. Elite used to be played on any kind of map, caves and opens. You'd change your special weapon to make it fit. Now its always the open 2 island editted with majority of people using ss. What happened to cows and pigeons and hhgs. All good weapons to choice from... but the way we have made elite so 'chess' like as HHC says has taken some fun out of it.

I think we need a powerful t17 scheme, like the FB one, like the one ive got before that and like the one HHC made. (i still need to trail this and see how it is)

[darKz]

To be honest I'd like a balanced Shopper scheme, but what I'd like even more is crates in Elite. I used to love that, skunks weren't as overpowered, when a crate landed you had to destroy/collect/ignore it, gave the whole thing more action imo.

Edit: I think I remember that I was all for removing crates when it was up for discussion at FB, but now that they've been gone for so long.. Chicken, you know what I mean right?

[Chicken23]

The thing is about overpowered weapons in T17, to prevent this you need to girder everytime to not let your opponent come too close to you.
But with the 7 girders, you can't.

So, do you prefer prevent blockers by putting 7 girders, or let a chance to unlucky players to win by putting infinite ones ?

And finally someone gets the point!!!

See, allowing unlimited griders allows you to influence the luck. You want unlimited griders so you can defend when your not getting the fair share of bigger weapons. Also it allows you to control the cr8 zones.

With 7 griders the luck of cr8s in t17 is way more influencial.