League scheme change (Aerial)

[TheWalrus]

For what it's worth, people that are saying the scheme is best when it is bo3 are correct, I just like shorter and more games played/logged.  I think inter should be bo1 too, ofc there is variance involved, but tus elo based system and more games played will selfcorrect over time.  Sometimes everyone (myself included) gets so hung up on little amounts of variance that may swing games/series when elo exists to fix this on a longitudinal scale.

Inter bo3 just seems weird to me, if any scheme in all-round should be bo3 because of luck/turn variance it should be t17.

[TheKomodo]

For what it's worth, people that are saying the scheme is best when it is bo3 are correct

Ok, maybe I'm NOT with James then!

Well, what are we talking about when saying "best"?

In what way is it the best? In this case, I assume we're talking about Bo3 balances out the luck of positions etc.

Though, if it's the "best" because it eliminates luck and "balances the scheme", then that just tells me personally that proper thought hasn't been put into the scheme in the first place!

Why not change the scheme settings to make it Bo1 to begin with? Rather than make it more luck based THEN added Bo3 to eliminate that luck... It seems pointless and a waste of time.

So, I'd possibly agree that THIS specific variation of Aerial is "best" when played Bo3 with the sole purpose in mind of making it more balanced in the context of "luck".

In terms of being a straight up better choice of what is better Aerial scheme overall though... I'd strongly disagree, and would rather make it more balanced initially without having to resort to Bo3.

I strongly believe any scheme that even needs Bo3 or more specifically for the purpose of balancing "luck" is an automatic nope in my opinion to begin with.

That's why I don't play Intermediate, ever.

I just like shorter and more games played/logged.  I think inter should be bo1 too, ofc there is variance involved, but tus elo based system and more games played will selfcorrect over time.  Sometimes everyone (myself included) gets so hung up on little amounts of variance that may swing games/series when elo exists to fix this on a longitudinal scale.

Inter bo3 just seems weird to me, if any scheme in all-round should be bo3 because of luck/turn variance it should be t17.

Yeah, I'd prefer Intermediate to be Bo1 as well, though would have to change the scheme... Though the problem with Intermediate being it is the most traditional scheme we know of, probably!

People aren't willing to change tradition because it can change the entire feeling of the game, to be honest Aerial is old enough now it kind of could suffer from the same thing. I really like Aerial but in my opinion it isn't a properly balanced scheme yet and never has been.

The biggest reasons why Intermediate is Bo3 - Automatic placements and barrels/mines.

We could make manual placement, but some people feel that's what makes the scheme so good.


Anyway, what's the issue with changing Aerial to be more balanced in Bo1? What's the problem? Wouldn't editing the scheme to be more suitable for Bo1 be better no?

[Sensei]

FoxHound thought this scheme needs to be BO1.
I invited him in the game that night. We played two BO3's, 4 games altogether.. With bunch of failing, those two BO3 games were still done under 20 minutes. So, 5 minutes per game! He changed his opinion after that.

If a person decides on playing TUS and wants to have his/hers hard earned points potentially lost in next 5 minutes, that's okay. But I think everyone that goes into a league match, don't mind the game to take 10+ minutes.. Am I imaginating this?


Even Walrus agreeing this is best played in BO3, even though he's vouching for BO1.
I think we should stick with what MI already said. Make it default BO3 and leave it to players to agree if they want to shorten it out. Cause, even with BO3, these games are usually shorter than most of the other BO1 league schemes. That's a fact. Everything else is just a personal preference. I'd love if MI stopped further speculations about it and just decides on his own, since we're running in circles now.

[TheKomodo]

FoxHound thought this scheme needs to be BO1.
I invited him in the game that night. We played two BO3's, 4 games altogether.. With bunch of failing, those two BO3 games were still done under 20 minutes.
He changed his opinion after that.

Even Walrus agreeing this is best played in BO3, even though he's vouching for BO1.
I think we should stick with what MI already said. Make it default BO3 and leave it to players to agree if they want to shorten it out. Cause, even with BO3, these games are usually shorter than most of the other BO1 league schemes. That's a fact. Everything else is just a personal preference. I'd love if MI stopped further speculations about it and just decides on his own, since we're running in circles now.

Why is there a problem with making the scheme suitable for Best of 1 anyway? So that the game doesn't NEED more rounds to balance out "luck"?

Have you even tried to make it suitable for Bo1 yet? If yes, what did you try and why didn't it succeed?

If the scheme is so unbalanced that a player can get "robbed" then surely it's possible to get robbed twice in a row anyway? No? So what's the point?

How long it takes to play isn't even the issue here! If you enjoy something you would likely play it multiple times in a row.

I want to specifically question this:

Cause, even with BO3, these games are usually shorter than most of the other BO1 league schemes. That's a fact. Everything else is just a personal preference.

Are you trying to make a good scheme, or a quick scheme? I get the impression it's more focused on making it faster, than actually optimally balanced for Best of 1 matches. What's the rush anyway?

You would need to play lots of matches with lots of players and do proper statistical analysis. Not 4 random games, especially funners with nothing to lose!

I want to see 2 players who are good and both absolutely HATE losing go up against each other. I want to see players like Zwitter, guys who don't give up easily, people who will play darkside and play darkside very well.

I could be wrong though with this assumption, though do assume Sensei beat FoxHound. No offence to FoxHound but Sensei is pretty highly skilled at artillery schemes, especially Aerial, FoxHound not so much, he's not bad, but the difference is substantial. Even when Sensei is pretty inactive and rusty, he still wins 4 rounds to 0.

Sorry but Sensei Vs FoxHound is not a good enough example.

I will keep an eye on future matches though to see how other people play and how it impacts the scheme.

[Sensei]

You would need to play lots of matches with lots of players and do proper statistical analysis. Not 4 random games, especially funners with nothing to lose!

[TheKomodo]

Since when was a picture showing you've played 236 games proper statistical analysis?

All that tells me is you've played 236 games, nothing else!

Did you calculate the average round time from every single one of those matches?

Did you compare how each of your opponents play against you, and each other?

Etc...


Also, I'll ask these questions again:

Why is there a problem with making the scheme suitable for Best of 1 anyway?

Have you even tried to make it suitable for Bo1 yet? If yes, what did you try and why didn't it succeed?

Are you trying to make a good scheme, or a quick scheme?

[MonkeyIsland]

@TheKomodo,

The BO3 is not an issue here. Being default BO3 and BO1 on agreement is not a big deal. There are lots of Intermediate matches that was played BO1 on TUS even though its default is BO3. This thread focus is about the crates drop role.

That image is Sensei's Aerial games count. He has played the most games.
https://www.tus-wa.com/leagues/free-standings/Aerial/

[TheKomodo]

The BO3 is not an issue here.

Yes it is, or nobody would be talking about it.

Even a few on Discord have mentioned they don't like Aerial being Bo3, though I wish they would post here as well... That happens a lot, people avoid threads even though their input would be valued.

Being default BO3 and BO1 on agreement is not a big deal. There are lots of Intermediate matches that was played BO1 on TUS even though its default is BO3.

It IS a big deal for people who DO NOT want to play Bo3 Aerial!

Or...

If it isn't a big deal, why not make it Bo1 default and Bo3 for those who feel the same way as Sensei?

This thread focus is about the crates drop role.

Should we open a new thread to debate the rest of the scheme then?

That image is Sensei's Aerial games count. He has played the most games.
https://www.tus-wa.com/leagues/free-standings/Aerial/

Yeah... That's obvious. *Facepalm*

The point is that there's no statistical analysis behind those 236 games in the manner we were speaking of, which is why "236" games is useless information to everyone else.

He needs to elaborate properly in detail.

How long it takes isn't even an issue, though for proper analysis you would need to study all of those games, and games of OTHER players as well, THEN do some proper kind of analysis with seriously considered pros and cons.

We need quality, not quantity here.

[pavlepavle]

Keep crates but remove some op stuff like air strikes, those felt cheap, hated winning by it. Bo3 ofc

[Lupastic]

I agree with keeping crates (weapon + health), this scheme needs to be totally different than hysteria. Bo3 format, usual roundtime (not too long, cuz of the bo3) around 90 seconds. Maybe weaponcrates should contain dynamites, sheep, petrols, teleport only, disable everything else. So that we know and can expect what the enemy might have in store (no aerial weapons like airstrike, as pavle just said). It should be useful weapons so that it worth taking the risk going for it, not sth like blowtorch or skunk.

Smaller weapons like mortar, uzi, petrol (2-4 ammo of these) should remain as well to make it different once again from hyst

[TheKomodo]

Why do you want to play shopper in a scheme that is NOT a shopper?

If you want to play Shopper, if you want to play schemes with that kind of luck and random stuff, you have Team17, Shopper, WxW and Kaos etc...

If you want a truly skill based scheme, then schemes like Aerial, Intermediate, Elite should never have had crates in the first place!

Here's an idea, instead of adding crates, why don't you just add more weapons lol! Or you really need luck to make the game fun?

[Lupastic]

Why do you want to play shopper in a scheme that is NOT a shopper?

If you want to play Shopper, if you want to play schemes with that kind of luck and random stuff, you have Team17, Shopper, WxW and Kaos etc...

If you want a truly skill based scheme, then schemes like Aerial, Intermediate, Elite should never have had crates in the first place!

Here's an idea, instead of adding crates, why don't you just add more weapons lol! Or you really need luck to make the game fun?

cratedrop is rare in aerial, it has 10% chance by default. shopper has 100% cratedrop chance, not sure if you can see the diff now? ;o there is unnecessary luck element in aerial from the start, like worm spawns. (it will never be like Elite where you spawn them manually) in hysteria you can tele anywhere anytime, but in aerial you have 1 teleport. having 10% cratedrop chance added to the scheme doesn't really turn it into a shopper right? it rather means: balancing the luck factors into something more fair/equal

[TheKomodo]

cratedrop is rare in aerial, it has 10% chance by default. shopper has 100% cratedrop chance, not sure if you can see the diff now?

Of course not, I assumed there were 5x crates dropping every Aerial turn!

;o there is unnecessary luck element in aerial from the start, like worm spawns. (it will never be like Elite where you spawn them manually) in hysteria you can tele anywhere anytime, but in aerial you have 1 teleport. having 10% cratedrop chance added to the scheme doesn't really turn it into a shopper right? it rather means: balancing the luck factors into something more fair/equal

Having any crates drop at all is introducing luck though, and this kind of luck can be OP in a scheme like this.

At least in Team17/Shopper both players start with almost nothing and the whole point of the game is to adapt to whatever you get in the crates as weapons.

Aerial is about skill and winning with the weapons/utilities already supplied! Why do you even need more weapons? If you need more weapons then give it to BOTH players at the start of the game.

I honestly sometimes think this is a website for gambling addicts... Just admit it, you want crates because you like the buzz of excitement you get! You're hooked to the "what if!".

[FoxHound]

cratedrop is rare in aerial, it has 10% chance by default. shopper has 100% cratedrop chance, not sure if you can see the diff now? ;o there is unnecessary luck element in aerial from the start, like worm spawns. (it will never be like Elite where you spawn them manually) in hysteria you can tele anywhere anytime, but in aerial you have 1 teleport. having 10% cratedrop chance added to the scheme doesn't really turn it into a shopper right? it rather means: balancing the luck factors into something more fair/equal

I agree with Lupastic. It's far from a Shopper. It is not Quickdraw that doesn't have crates. I think that if the original Aerial from PS1 and HHC's scheme have crates in the scheme, then I think crates are part of the concept. Crates with Jet Pack are a good combination. I played with Sensei and I realized that the crates add a lot of fun to the game. It changes things. You cannot simply wait on the edge of the map for the eternity, using the wind like in Hysteria. If you do this, The oponent has more time to catch you, and if it is risky to catch you, a crate can be really scary. Crates pressure the game a lot more, because if you darkside, the opponent will control the map and collect crates. Crates make you think a lot more than a scheme without crates. They add a lot more possibilities in the game, this is something that a pro should master.

I am completely against utility crates, though. A simple Crate Shower spawn can Fu#k the whole game. In aerial, more specifically, if you collect Crate Shower is a huge disadvantage, because it will bring a lot of random crates on the map, and not for you, because you don't have time for this, the crates will benefit the enemy in the next turn. Although, Crate Shower will most likely pop few crates, because the turn is so short in Aerial... So, it's a stupid utility in Aerial. Double Turn Time is almost useless, you will double from 2 seconds to 4 seconds, and until you realize that you have 2 extra seconds, your turn already passed. Double Damage can make a huge impact, but it is more likely that a player would have a surprise to attack and see that the explosion is huge, because, you have only few seconds to play, until you think on a good use of damage x2, your turn will end, or you will attack and damage yourself. So, it's another stupid utility, since only a very in shape player would react to damage x2 so fast. Invisibility only creates darksiding, and is pointless in aerial. People don't have time to walk over the land to find hidden worms. Jet Pack is already infinite. Low gravity is the only useful utility in this scheme. Even so, we don't have much control to make crates spawn it, only the kaosmod features that are very limited.

Health crates are fine. The value is ok too, but can be discussed.

Weapon crates: Only skillful weapons, not OP ones. No air strike-like weapons. In my opinion, shitty weapons should start in arsenal and only good reliable weapon should be in crates. This way, players will make sure that if they collect a crate they will be rewarded and crates will be way more scary. Players will have to fight for a crate.

The crate rate seems good. It is nice to play the game with crates being rare. They are more a complement to the scheme this way, not a core element like in Kaos.

[TheKomodo]

FoxHound, that's a lot of words to say "Crates introduce luck".

Honestly, it sounds to me like you guys simply get bored and crack to the pressure of hide n seek situations in Hysteria/Aerial.

The whole point of hiding is because you're behind, think of it as a tactical retreat.

You want to take away a legitimate and well earned tactic and replace it with... Well... Luck and chaos lol.

And all for a bit of "fun".

Isn't the game itself fun enough for you?

This though:

Crates make you think a lot more than a scheme without crates. They add a lot more possibilities in the game, this is something that a pro should master.

That's got to be the wildest thing I've ever heard about crates in WA.

Anyway... What is the point in adding "only skillful weapons" in crates when you could just add them to the scheme!

I have to actually apologize here because there's no other way to say this... I've got to be blunt. I cannot think of an easy or polite way to say this.

Getting excited over crates in a game like Aerial sounds incredibly... Simple minded. Like you're so easily amused and excited with the introduction of a bit of luck that it's not the actual weapons that get you excited, it's not the scheme Aerial that gets you excited, it's getting something in a game your opponent doesn't get.

THAT is why I said, why not just play Shopper if that's what gives you a buzz?

The whole logic behind this makes me question why you even want to associate with a game like Aerial?

Is this what has become of Worms Armageddon, to get rid of all the pure skill games and slowly turn into slot machines... Clearly crates gives you a dopamine rush. You're addicted to gambling, not healthy competition.

It's so ironic I'm not sure whether to be shocked or to laugh, but hell, I'm guilty of both anyway lol.