New Roper !!!!!!!

[Hussar]

Ok . . . Your not getting it.

Why add rules to a scheme when you can remove all rules and acomplish the same thing.

more likely is adding one detail to the sheme than removing all rules, this is discussion about concrete thing.

Its funny how many times I've seen someone get a hard crate at the end of the game and then blame crates for his loss. Even though he failed many other turns. It was still the crates fault.

yeah u right, i seen many times ppl who wanted to explained his lose in this way then they have unlucky crates but they just sucks, and they should lose for sure !!!!!, yes i Agreeee.

but i also seen problems when two ppls playing roper and not everything depends on them (wtf?)......... why i losing when i didnt make any fail where is fair cempetition??

I've seen many many times people will think a crate is impossible, yet someone gets the crate and attacks. So although impossible for some does it not show skill for the people that get them?

Am agree too,
but i talking about other situations.........
Its clear then guy who is trying to get hard crate and he will atack its better then guy who just take safety crate and go back.
But with w2w rule u can do the same, u can chose harder way :           go for crate and try to atack  so u wininng then after it u can hide ur worm.
                                                                                               
  or chose touching walls, u go atack, and u risking then u ll not collect ur cratte, if u dont do it then ur opponent have opportunity to stole it, and if u do,  u have no time to hide ur worm near of ur oponent, so he will have more chances to attack u easy in centre of map in next run.

All this wxw rule does is help noobs and non effecient ropers.

am not noob in roper, and trust me

i dont want to make game easier,
i just want to eliminate luck and i want then only better players will be wining roper.

[avirex]

It's funny you mention that crazy, because thats how this topic was formed, we think ALL schemes should be changed.. Save the suspense of luck for fun games, and hysteria matches, lol...

There should be a separate league with schemes based purely on skill, or at least as close as we can create it...

And your acting like we are saying roper scheme is like a flip of the coin.. None has ever said that, of course the more skilled player can beat the odds and won in high percentage... That does not make it right, crates should not determine a game never mind a single turn....

Just admit the damn scheme is flawed

[ShyGuy]

Crazy, I do not even disagree that the more consistent player should win.  The fact is, playing more consistent does not magically make the crates fall fairly, and that is what I'm talking about.  Like avi said, no one said the game is a coin flip, I am just pointing out luck factors that can be easily removed... but with crates and zook first turn roper, random oil and mines elite, magic bullets t17, and firepunch/dragonball crate shoppa, the competitive gamer CONSTANTLY gets slapped in the face with the scheme decisions around here

[Crazy]

Okay Shy, I understand. I just can`t see why you so desperatly want to remove all luck-based factors from every scheme though. There are many different aspects to consider when we start changing vital parts of the game. Remember how you once were a noob yourself Shy, and the thrill you had when you finally managed to beat one of the "pro" players? It gives you motivation to continue improving. I`m concerned about the recruitment of new players to the league if we make all schemes purely based on skill.

[Peja]

Crazy, I do not even disagree that the more consistent player should win.  The fact is, playing more consistent does not magically make the crates fall fairly, and that is what I'm talking about.  Like avi said, no one said the game is a coin flip, I am just pointing out luck factors that can be easily removed... but with crates and zook first turn roper, random oil and mines elite, magic bullets t17, and firepunch/dragonball crate shoppa, the competitive gamer CONSTANTLY gets slapped in the face with the scheme decisions around here

sidekick: u seriously complain about mines and barrels in elite? i guess u really wanna make schemes boring  

btw dont forget the chute in ttrr and in general, really annyoing luck factor with this winds, pls add it to your list.


damm im such a fool, hi shy 
           

[ShyGuy]

Okay Shy, I understand. I just can`t see why you so desperatly want to remove all luck-based factors from every scheme though. There are many different aspects to consider when we start changing vital parts of the game. Remember how you once were a noob yourself Shy, and the thrill you had when you finally managed to beat one of the "pro" players? It gives you motivation to continue improving. I`m concerned about the recruitment of new players to the league if we make all schemes purely based on skill.

It's just frustrating when you get impossible wind for an attack first turn roper, frustrating when you collect a dragonball in shoppa, frustrating when you get popped by the OP magic bullet despite how well you play, etc.  I guess we just view the same issue differently.  you think it is fun, i think it is frustrating

EDIT: There are still many inherent luck factors that we can't change, im concerned with the ones that are easily fixed without monumentally changing the face of the scheme.

You're cheating on your argument, crazy.  Saying luck motivates the noob to continue improving can work with the opposite effect; the luck is against them that they get brutally defeated without even having a chance... to me, being defeated like that would make me say "f@#! this game, there's not even skill involved".  If I were beat by straight skill, to me, that means that I need to improve... I shouldn't be going into games feeling optimistic because luck COULD be on my side.  Also, I would guess people prefer skilled against luck, because schemes like ttrr and elite are more popular than mine madness, t17, and russian roulette.

I'm glad you care about the recruitment of new players, but unless a valid study was conducted that proves changing schemes to be more skilled decreases the amount of new league players, that argument doesn't stand.  You need evidence.   I'm not trying to be a dick, i'm just trying to argue from a completely rational standpoint

[Dub-c]

I'm not going to debate whether roper is lucky or not, we've already had this debate.

However, I am for changing the scheme to make it more tactical and for the right reasons.

I appreciate the thought put into trying to make the scheme better, but, I do not like adding a rule as senseless as roping wxw instead of getting a crate. I absolutely hate that there is sd and a wxw rule at sd.

Why change to an unproven scheme when there has been another scheme that had been in use for years and been thoroughly tested and proven.

Roper use to be as strategic as it was about roping. I would love it go back to that.

What I would propose would be:

No rules Except zook first turn and attack from rope

Cr8 argument is over. Added is a great amount more strategy. When to leave cr8s when to get cr8s. When its more beneficial to go for fd then to get cr8s. Attacking a worm so it lands where you can block it. Skill of getting unblocked. Etc.

Increased FD

Exact number to be increased to is debatable. Adds to the skill of roping by being rewarded for not falling. Adds to the strategy of being able to attack a worm for fd. Makes it possible to catch up to the person your playing if you miss a turn, you can gain a turn back by continuously being able to fd effeiciently. Etc.

Two worms per player

Adds strategy. Exact health is debatable.

Less retreat time

Exact time is debatable. But 10 is definitely to much. With less retreat time it makes it harder to be able to attack the worm and retreat to get the cr8. You may have to throw a well timer'd nade or zook in order to get the crate. This would also make it harder for someone to attack someone that is on the floor or in a cavern and take a well placed top hide.

Less turn time

Debatable, but, I think 13 or 14 seconds would go be better with the other modifications that I suggested.

Destructible Land

Adds both strategy and skill. More fd is possible and a greater amount of places where you can get fd is acquired by having destructible land. It also accounts for a great amount of varying in the terrain itself, making one have to adapt his roping to the changing terrain.

No SD

This is a roper and will be won by playing a roper. Not by stopping the roper because a certain amount of time has gone by and starting to rope wxw before attacking.

Zook first turn

I believe this rule should stay as whoever has first turn can hide on top and easily attack first. A zook at least takes a little more skill then easily getting a cr8 and dropping a mine on a worms head.

Attack from rope

For the simple reason that it takes more skill to zook or attack a worm from the rope then ground zooking.

As per Avirex's request

[Hussar]

imagine situation when u are in down left and crate is landing down right, map is hard atack is very hard too.

- u can try to get crate, go back and try to atack
- u can go for crate, go back and hide better,
- u can touch walls, go back and try to atack, hide then but miss ur crate (ur opponent cantake it in next run)
- u can touch walls, go back and try to atack, and then try to get crate


...game could be more skilled, tactical, more funniest and interesting.




edit: i also like ur idea dub-c, i just dont like current engine of roper.

[avirex]

Well dub... Thats almost exactly me and shys scheme we named w2 roper, with some exceptions.. We were not only trying to resemble the old w2 scheme but also we tried to take into consideration of wa not liking drastic change...

If people would only give it a chance they would see how much strategy is involved...

My personal favorite was 2v2 with different colors for all 4 players.. So some games you had a turn after the other team, and some games you had a turn after your partner.. I loved having turn after partners.. Leaving crates for him... Or attacking a worm to blast him closer trio a spot he could be fd'd or when the worm you want to attack has piled your teammate. Place a mine for him to get a combo.. Lots of strategy and skill involved....

The entire scheme should be changed!!  Dammit

[ShyGuy]

that sounds so fun

[Dub-c]

Well dub... Thats almost exactly me and shys scheme we named w2 roper, with some exceptions.. We were not only trying to resemble the old w2 scheme but also we tried to take into consideration of wa not liking drastic change...

If people would only give it a chance they would see how much strategy is involved...

My personal favorite was 2v2 with different colors for all 4 players.. So some games you had a turn after the other team, and some games you had a turn after your partner.. I loved having turn after partners.. Leaving crates for him... Or attacking a worm to blast him closer trio a spot he could be fd'd or when the worm you want to attack has piled your teammate. Place a mine for him to get a combo.. Lots of strategy and skill involved....

The entire scheme should be changed!!  Dammit

Yes, but I hated the strategy of killing 1 worm as soon as possible.

[Anubis]

How about asking the top 5 of each scheme about their opinion and how they would want to improve the scheme? I mean they are probably the most qualified to raise concerns if the scheme is fine or not and if the scheme needs adjustments. If the top5 think it is fair and good as it is then it probably is and they are top5 for a reason.

[avirex]

You want us to take an opinion, on who to take am opinion from a guy whos opinion is to no longer play thisgame? :p

I don't think 5 guys should determine the out come of rfd entire community because they are top rated... Thats my opinion

[ShyGuy]

How about asking the top 5 of each scheme about their opinion and how they would want to improve the scheme? I mean they are probably the most qualified to raise concerns if the scheme is fine or not and if the scheme needs adjustments. If the top5 think it is fair and good as it is then it probably is and they are top5 for a reason.

That's highly irrelevant and illogical... it doesn't matter who is presenting the argument, as long as it is logically sound.  It kind of works like the logical fallacy of guilt by association, except you'd be favoring a position instead of condemning it due to who is presenting it... I don't care if Mablak comes here and says the scheme shouldn't be changed and there is no crate luck, because that doesn't change the FACT that the game engine can prevent you from making an attack, the basic function of the scheme.  You need facts and empiricism when dealing with an argument, it doesn't matter who the presenter is

[TheKomodo]

If TuS don't make schemes better, just make another League, i'll support it, I know lalo would too, and I bet at least 100 other players would.

If not, then just play people you want, make your own rules up, and pretend you played by TuS rules, they can't REALLY do anything about it.