The Ultimate Site of Worms Armageddon
Leagues => Leagues General => Topic started by: DarkOne on March 15, 2011, 07:34 PM
-
Let's do it here, since I'm guessing other schemes have their own variations as well :)
-
7 girders seems fine to me. That's enough for most games, just keeps players from spamming girders from the start.. and it makes sure you've got a way to attack if you're outnumbering the enemy in the end. It's not easy, as you still gotta fight your way through 7 girders, but it's at least possible. More options = more fun & challenging.
-
T17 HAS to be played with 7 girders, it requires more skills and more strategy.
It forces you not to waste them, (Example: find a way to double block with 1 gird at sd)
Also, infinite often finnish in draws and don't relfect the real potential of players. (+boring)
-
7 girders make the game limitated... with inf girders, the loser have a chance to win, but if he wasted all his girders(in a 7 girds scheme..) was very improbably...
Other point is the luck in this T17 scheme.
I think the tus scheme could be same of the FB scheme...
The chance to get weapons in the tus scheme get more advantage to luckers.If i hav 1/1000 chances do get a super sheep and my opponent got 1st than me, i have 1/1000 chances to match the opponent...
Is correct assing diferent chances to get a gr8 or a bad weapon, but no more then 1/10 rate more than this make the luckers more powerful
-
7 girders seems fine to me. That's enough for most games, just keeps players from spamming girders from the start.. and it makes sure you've got a way to attack if you're outnumbering the enemy in the end. It's not easy, as you still gotta fight your way through 7 girders, but it's at least possible. More options = more fun & challenging.
+1
I wouldn't mind to play with inf girders also though. Still i think limiting girders adds something to the scheme. You gotta be economic with your girder usage and can't just "destroy" the game with massive blocking even though the terrain on most maps makes it almost impossible to simply "girder your opponent to sd" anyway.
-
I allways considered t17 as a second category default scheme which never will be ballanced, and its all about sd and how prepared you are. 7 girders surely makes it better, but even if first part of the match is focused more on lightside, SD part (which is the key part in like 95% of games) wont change. You will allways be SD weapon dependend, and if you didnt play dumb earlier few girders is more than enought to keep you unreachable for opponent. Its also map dependend and if you overplayed opponent in the first part. Still, even if you did, theres for example Scales of Justice, and in theory 4v1 advantage will make it impossible for you to win unless you have some serious weaponry. Also i never liked super weapons in t17 scheme. Its just too much, and you cant predict what can be done.
-
I like it though. It's pretty easy in SD if you can only come up against missile, pidge or sheep. With Superweaps you also need to defend against quake and nuke. Which is a lot more challenging.
Freeze, patsy and switch are pretty damn nasty, but IMO they are a nice addition to the mix.
Same for regular superweaps like ming vases and sally. They are like nana's, they are good to thin down the number of worms. Without superweaps and without nana's and the like it's almost impossible to decide the game before SD, which would be a shame IMO.
-
Its also almost impossible to finish before SD with super weapons. I dont see much of positive aspects of killing 150 hp, well hiden worm with 1 weapon, without deeper thinking, and having few types of those weapons in crates. Well launched cows, holys and other explosives makes deadly damage aswell if you know when and how to use it, and its not as harmfull as nana's, coz you can actually hide from those.
-
nvm
-
T17 needs its luck and its skill. That is what makes it fun and unpredictable and why we all fell in love with the scheme. To me T17 is the texas holden of worms. Your using your skill to control luck at times, and if luck goes against you can still have an option of coming back.
Taking out superweapons like HHC said would ruin the scheme. Its enjoyable to still have those unpredictabilities in the game, and also its good having to worry about your opponent having those superweapons. Using a turn to prepare for a quake or nuke may end up costing you the game or losing you the game in SD. Which is great, you can never be sure and it makes T17 SD situations really exiciting and everyturn count. What would be the fun of knowing your opponent may only have bird, homing or aqua? I think you could end up in alot more draws without the extra superweapons.
Also like HHC said you want sally's, vases, supernana's and others to help thin out worms before SD. In heavely lightsided T17s ive seen the game finish before SD. Plus these superweapons take skill and experience to use, judging the falling unexploding banana's and their bounce, knowing how far up the sally and vase piecies rise and predicting their fall.
The tactics of being in 1 vs 4 but maybe not risking things if your opponent has selectworm, by judging from his teleport moves, or his bluffing teleport moves. I think HHC's scheme is balance in terms of cr8 probabilities, i also am a fan of FB's scheme but i do find it to be a little more nanafestival in comparison to HHC's. The tus scheme is the worse. You see trends and repeating cr8s occur alot.
Now for 7 griders or unlimited. The fact that you are deciding on having one universial scheme to decide on the amount of griders in my opinion is an insult. Firstly you are taking away the options of choice. I know you can play variations of a scheme if both sides agree, but what if both sides don't agree, you have to play with 7? Or if i host with unlimited, my opponent can quit and void the game? What about in the playoffs? I can't pick unlimited?
If its not broke, then don't fix it. T17 is working fine how it is in terms of the number of griders. Players discuss the amount of griders before the game starts and the majority are happy using both. Although the trend is changing to be more in favour of a 7 grider over unlimited, but why discriminate against those that enjoy unlimited and think it promotes more tactics and skill. I feel that me and Uber really like T17 with unlimited griders, but i also feel me and Uber are quite established players at the scheme, there must be a reason im so passionate against arguing against 7 griders!? (I have done for over 5 years now when FB first started the poll on 7 griders).
I say keep both 7 and unlimited as valid options, its the hosts pick. Check the scheme and if its not 7 griders, refuse to play it. If its not unlimited, refuse to play. Check before you light up and accept the scheme. Say you pick t17 with unlimited griders, or you pick t17 with 7 griders. This is what i do. Now you may realise how you should both pick your schemes before the first game, have you noticed how we have all these free wins being reported, maybe because now a days players think its fine to play 1 pick, then the second player decides on their pick after the first game. If they actually decided their pick before the first game like we used to a couple of years ago we probably would not have all these free wins being reported when someone disagrees. Instead you'd not like your opponents choice and find another tus. (If you are that lame and unsporting i might add)
The advantages of unlimited griders- Creativity in your weapons:People argue about unlimiting griders being used all the time and how it stops them from killing a worm in a sudden death situation. The chances are in most cases you have the advantage and more worms than your enemy when he is blocking you over and over. This is reducing the access of the map because of the worm blocking you after you keep digging to him. As the turns go, this worm is losing more health, and a weapon cr8 is falling. Lets say the enemy who is blocking you has a small control of the map. A new cr8 will be landing in your zone, this weapon could be anything. It could be a sudden death weapon, no problem. You don't have to keep opening him, you can just attack with an sd weapon and gain control of a side. Lets say its a powerful weapon, you can get closer and try to attack to cause 1 hp with a large blast radius if its a HHG or nana, shotgun; u can fire through a grider. Minigun; you can blast through mulitple sections of land to cause damage, flame thrower is the same. A Mole can dig and cause damage. Do you get my point? At this point of the match you have most likely already dominated and have a large arsenal of weapons to still win the game. Be more creative with these weapons when someone is blocking you.
If you don't win i think it could be down to a mistake at this point of sudden death. Or maybe you made a mistake previous to this. For example you did not kill when you were getting medium weapons, sheeps, dynos, bats, mines, using the barrels. Using weapons and with barrels or having the sight for a plop combination allows you to make calculated kills with medium/weak strength weapons. I think if you have failed on these and your opponent is just hiding and you were not creative enough to kill them earlier because you are used to having 7 griders and strong weapons it is your fault as a players that you did not win the game. Knowing that you enemy is going to run out of griders is like knowing you are going to win if you keep getting amazing cr8s. Having unlimited griders you have to be more clinical with every turn because your enemy can avoid you if they are getting crap weapons. Now you may argue that you deserve to win the game because you dominated the match while being aggressive but as mentioned this leads on to my next point. - A tool against luck: So you have been getting lots of shit weapons, handguns, moles, clusters, your opponent has already killed 2 of your worms with a nana and HHG. It happens, this is t17. There are possiblities of this. You need to defend because the cr8 gods have gone against you. Being able to block you enemy worms, being able to close of the map to protect yourself. This will help you buy time to collect some stronger weapons when the going gets tough. Only having 7 griders lets the weapon inside the cr8 carry a larger impact on the game.
I think its not unfair to allow the option of giving yourself a break when someone is dominating you. Why is it fair to limit the amount we can defend? Should we create rules to limit the amount we attack? No, Defending has always been apart of worms. Theres a reason darksiding exists. It even has its own scheme made by T17.
The game can be over when you've taken a massive blow from some super powerful weapons early on in the game its hard to get back on your feet when it may not of been your fault. You may of lost a worm or two before you even had your first turn. Ive seen it happen, Nukes on first turn. Nana's, piles, HHGs and possible plops. Allowing yourself to have unlimited griders in this situation can let you get back into a game when luck has been against you. Disallowing it means the earlier cr8s in the game have a massive impact and carry alot of weight, it makes the scheme more lucky when you can't defend against this luck. Yes you are going to be on the backfoot which is fine, but only having 7 gives someone who is getting super powerful weapons a big advantage. Also when you start defending with blocks the player who has the lead should consider the first block and become more creative with their weapons and find another way to kill you. Or be content on most likely gaining a nice cr8 zone as mentioned in my first point. - Map control and access:Griders are not just for blocking the enemy mindlessly, you can build your base with them, you can build bridges and make the map jumpable so your worms have a large area to travel in the 45seconds and increase the chance of collecting cr8s. Say you had to do some blocks at the start of the game, now you can't think about building your base if the game is a darkside battle because your griders are limited.
Now i am not saying every 7 game players use more than 7 griders, sometimes i don't use all my griders when i play with 7. But my point is taking away that option sucks because it allows for the problems and situations that i have just described to not be delt with.
Personally without sounding cocky i can't remember losing a t17 game because someone kept blocking me every turn. If i did lose a t17 game due to someone blocking me every turn it was because i made a mistake earlier in the game to let them already be alive, or because i missed and made mistakes during SD.
-
About girders, there are cons aswell. Depends also how you look at t17 and about your taste. Its just i will be allways on the side where action is, and blocking all the time forces for 2 things - block in exchange or unblock. Rarely you can do something creative when being well blocked (ofcourse when theres no SW). People do that a lot when unlimited and every turn is about to block mostly, not about thinking of something fancy. Then wait like that till water raise to be able to use SD weapon. I never had big problems with both unlimited and 7 girders on the other hand, and game was definitely more entertaining with 7.
I also like the possibilities of your backpack, but imo some of super weapons are too powerfull for such sensitive scheme, even if it serves some fun.
-
I only understand T17 to a fair extent, now, I have always been against girders for everything, I hate blocking altogether, but I feel it's like having a job, it's got to be done to survive lol, I prefer games that get straight to the point that's aggresive every single turn, hence why I like BnG so much because it's attack after attack, but I gotta say to Chicken, god damn! What a great post!
I totally agree with Tom there, everything he said makes sense and I honestly can't think of anyway 7 girders could even compare to Unlimited after reading that, if anyone took the time to learn the scheme with unlimited girders and learned all the possibilities and be as passionate with T17 as C23 then I for one would be on his side 100%.
+1 Tom :)
-
Take HHC & Chicken posts: you'll have both great/bad things about unlimited/"7 girders" T17 scheme.
Good job to you both.
PS: Lacoste has the good word too saying it can't be balanced.
-
The advantages of unlimited griders
Creativity in your weapons:
Lets say the enemy who is blocking you has a small control of the map. A new cr8 will be landing in your zone, this weapon could be anything. It could be a sudden death weapon, no problem. You don't have to keep opening him, you can just attack with an sd weapon and gain control of a side.
A lot of times though a single worm against multiple enemy worms can hold a significant part of the map. What's more, with all the defensive girders he places (generally inbetween enemy worms), the space the dominant player can move in is increasingly limited. This also means there will be less places for crates to drop.. at least in the leading player's area. (cause the defending player keeps his zone clean of girders).
Lets say its a powerful weapon, you can get closer and try to attack to cause 1 hp with a large blast radius if its a HHG or nana, shotgun; u can fire through a grider. Minigun; you can blast through mulitple sections of land to cause damage, flame thrower is the same. A Mole can dig and cause damage. Do you get my point? At this point of the match you have most likely already dominated and have a large arsenal of weapons to still win the game. Be more creative with these weapons when someone is blocking you.
This is pretty hard to do though. If you want to take out the last worm of the defending enemy with weapons you gotta keep advancing at a continuous rate. You know, keep on digging through girders to get a few steps closer to him. Usually this means neglecting your 'back door'.. if you focus on attacking there's a big chance that by the time you realize how futile your attempt has been, there's not enough time left to prepare an SD-hide. Most of the time it's gonna be really hard to even reach the side of the map again cause the water has blocked the pathway. Not to mention the fact that you need to torch through the map to even be able to make a launch.
This would not be a big problem if good players could really force an attack on the last defending worm like you suggest. But I've found that in 99% of the cases you can only put a holy near enough, or gun your way through girders if your enemy has made a major blocking error. Any good player will never allow you to come this close.
A tool against luck:
Only having 7 griders lets the weapon inside the cr8 carry a larger impact on the game.
I'm not so sure about that. Attacking in SD the conventional way is a LOT harder than just sitting at the sides launching a missile or aqua when the water is high enough to give your enemy zero chance of survival. With unlimited girders you can collect all the crates you want, but when you don't have a 'finisher' in the end (like aqua), it's gonna be one hell of a challenge.
I think its not unfair to allow the option of giving yourself a break when someone is dominating you. Why is it fair to limit the amount we can defend? Should we create rules to limit the amount we attack? No, Defending has always been apart of worms. Theres a reason darksiding exists. It even has its own scheme made by T17.
There should be a limit though. Imagine Elite or Forts with unlimited girders.. 7 girders in T17 is plenty to make a decent stand, it just encourages players to use them only when the need is high and allows for a decent choice between attacking or keeping a distance and finish it with an SD-weap in SD.
The game can be over when you've taken a massive blow from some super powerful weapons early on in the game its hard to get back on your feet when it may not of been your fault. You may of lost a worm or two before you even had your first turn. Ive seen it happen, Nukes on first turn. Nana's, piles, HHGs and possible plops. Allowing yourself to have unlimited griders in this situation can let you get back into a game when luck has been against you.
After the first two turns your worms should be save. If you lose two worms after that cause of a nana, it's almost always your own fault for placing them so close together. 2 superweaps can take out two worms, but you've still got 2 left. Sure, it will be a hell of a fight to come back, but not impossible.
There should definitely be an advantage in killing worms early on in the game. Otherwise it will just become foreplay for SD.
Map control and access:Griders are not just for blocking the enemy mindlessly, you can build your base with them, you can build bridges and make the map jumpable so your worms have a large area to travel in the 45seconds and increase the chance of collecting cr8s. Say you had to do some blocks at the start of the game, now you can't think about building your base if the game is a darkside battle because your griders are limited.
The terrain usually (if you pick a more complicated cave) provides a decent ammount of zones by itself. I like how 7 girders forces you to make a choice: every block you make before SD, every girder you use to increase movability or to seal of a particular zone cannot be used later on, so you gotta think twice about resorting to using one. With an endless amount you can just keep on spamming them on every occassion you seem fit. Most of the times girderblocks are made cause there are no other options, like attack or torching.. dunno what to do? put a girder to annoy.
It tends to ruin the game that way cause you force your opponent to free himself the next turn or get completely bogged down. Someone who keeps on blocking leads the game: he decides how the game develops (block -> free -> block -> free, etc.). It's hard for players, who are willing to try for a more open game to break out of this cycle. The consequence of such a tactic is even more dull: 4 worms of 150 when SD starts. :-X
Personally without sounding cocky i can't remember losing a t17 game because someone kept blocking me every turn. If i did lose a t17 game due to someone blocking me every turn it was because i made a mistake earlier in the game to let them already be alive, or because i missed and made mistakes during SD.
Any decent player will prevent you from killing his last remaining worm by the use of girders. If you don't have SD weaps you're forced into a very dangerous game of trying to open up to him step by step, which is near impossible to do against a good player with unlimited blocking ability.
Furthermore, even if you suppose you could win a game like that, would it be fun?
-
This is pretty hard to do though. If you want to take out the last worm of the defending enemy with weapons you gotta keep advancing at a continuous rate. You know, keep on digging through girders to get a few steps closer to him. Usually this means neglecting your 'back door'.. if you focus on attacking there's a big chance that by the time you realize how futile your attempt has been, there's not enough time left to prepare an SD-hide. Most of the time it's gonna be really hard to even reach the side of the map again cause the water has blocked the pathway. Not to mention the fact that you need to torch through the map to even be able to make a launch.
Well I think the obvious answer to this is, you would only do this if you were sure you had an almost failproof plan and the weapons to back it up, and to be even more sure, a flexible plan would be even better.
I don't think anyone would try and reach the other side half-assed and without a thoroughly thought through plan...
Any decent player will prevent you from killing his last remaining worm by the use of girders. If you don't have SD weaps you're forced into a very dangerous game of trying to open up to him step by step, which is near impossible to do against a good player with unlimited blocking ability.
Furthermore, even if you suppose you could win a game like that, would it be fun?
Well part of the enjoyment of worms is a challenge, if you think you have a masterplan to reach a worm but know everything you do must be perfect and try not to give your plan away, and you pull it off and win, imagine the feeling?
In my opinion a hard win is always more satisfying than an easy win, and this doesn't sound easy at all lol.
-
Good post HHC, i had exactly the same thoughts in mind writing my post, you just detailed it nicely.
-
My apologies if I say something you already have said, but his post was too long XD.
I think t17 with 7 girders is fine, that does not pass blocking each other throughout the game, because that makes it very boring. One idea that occurred to me, is ... What would you like to remove the Super Sheep :o!, that eliminate the boring end, as players would not be trying to create spacereach the side of the map just to launch the SS and the other player is not trying not to be atacked by the ss . Without SS players would be forced to try to kill themselves in moments of sd and fight their way to do it, at least in my opinion would make it more interesting, but ... should make the water of sudden death rose more slowly.
-
What would you like to remove the Super Sheep :o!, that eliminate the boring end, as players would not be trying to create spacereach the side of the map just to launch the SS and the other player is not trying not to be atacked by the ss . Without SS players would be forced to try to kill themselves in moments of sd and fight their way to do it, at least in my opinion would make it more interesting, but ... should make the water of sudden death rose more slowly.
Better solution for this would be a rule to prevent shooting outside the map. But then theres still water and homing.
-
I have an even better solution: Don't change anything about this scheme at all. There are many people who love it how it is. There had also been discussions about changing the random placement at start on the inter scheme. Mostly from people who simply don't like the scheme. I think a change of attitude would be more important than a scheme change. People have to face that luck is a part of the game and accept it. Apart from that i doubt that anyone plays so smart, perfectly or whatever that luck makes a difference. Even if 2 players with the skill play against each other it's a matter of who has the better ideas, is in better day form and such.
-
I said in other words that ingering into SD weapons and how they behave wouldnt change anything unless you change whole scheme.
Don't change anything about this scheme at all.
I would agree on that if i knew whats the official one. All those T17 schemes that people play are more or less changed. Intermediate is still Intermediate, same weaponry, same gameplay, just ballance change made for league purposes - no crates and less power on cluster, which no doubt is better for this scheme. I dont know what was the first idea of T17, but i saw that it was played with 3sec mines and barrels on the map, which i liked. But noone of today's schemes has mines. I also wonder if there were super weapons at crates.
-
My apologies if I say something you already have said, but his post was too long XD.
I ain't trying to start a war here just wanna make a point so don't go all crazy on me lol.
But, have you never read a book? You never read any articles about anything online? You never read a newspaper on the bus to work or something? Why was his post "too long"? I somehow get the feeling you just don't care enough about T17, so you can't be bothered to read because it's boring to you, which is cool, but no need to say too long lol, when everyone was making posts about updating the League System, I didn't see anyone whinge about those posts being too long and some of them were ridiculously longer than C23s post here lol.
HHC makes some great points too, but I still think Chick nailed it like :)
-
look my native lenguage isn't english so for me is hard read and understand quickly a text, when I posted that I had to go to the college faster.
So that is the reason that I not read the text previously to my message.
That is all xd
-
Ah, I understand mate :)
-
I said in other words that ingering into SD weapons and how they behave wouldnt change anything unless you change whole scheme.
Don't change anything about this scheme at all.
I would agree on that if i knew whats the official one. All those T17 schemes that people play are more or less changed. Intermediate is still Intermediate, same weaponry, same gameplay, just ballance change made for league purposes - no crates and less power on cluster, which no doubt is better for this scheme. I dont know what was the first idea of T17, but i saw that it was played with 3sec mines and barrels on the map, which i liked. But noone of today's schemes has mines. I also wonder if there were super weapons at crates.
The offical t17 scheme is the one used in the worment channels, on wwp and wa. It used to have 2 select worms. This made unlimited grider blocking be no where near as problematic as it is now!
People didn't like how it stopped turn advantage tactics during SD and it was eventually fadeded out.
-
Also, i will replied and expand to HHC's points.
But my main argument is that im not arguing to force unlimited griders, im happy with both options being available, what i think i would be unfair is banning the use of unlimited. Why can't we use both like we are today and have evidence of the players agreeing on 7 / unlimited before game is any complaints arise. The point why this came into to discussion was to handle to complaints easier, not change schemes.
edit:lol fixed the typo from now to not ::)
-
Maybe a T17 with every teams using the same colour would be cool xD, maybe a new scheme. This way people would share the weapons and who knows what kind of new tactics it could generate?
Btw, i know, this post is totally out of place. :(
-
Vultox, that ideas actually cool, I wouldn't say to play League game but, I will try that as a funner, get 4 players for a 2v2 T17, and everyone go same colour xD
-
Dear Chicken23,
watch these games and tell me with a straight face that unlimited girders make games more enjoyable, more pro, more whatever.
Feel free to point out any mistakes I made, things I could have done better in dealing with the situation, afaik I played two of the best games I've ever played. In both cases I was winning by a whole lot, in the first case I had to settle for a draw (and even a loss if he hadn't made a mistake in the end), in the second I won, though the fag-bagging he did all game got me seriously pissed off. In the end I again won because I got lucky he made some pretty bad errors.
Anyway, after these games you seriously can't clain unlimited girders is what we should go for.
-
What's fag-bagging? :o
-
I also prefer unlimited. I dont mind using 7, but I do prefer unlimited.
I dont have anything to add on the points that have already been made, but ill say some words still.
Generally, the only time you use all 7 of your girders is when you NEED to. When you run out your f@#!ed.
Yeh.. cant really think right now... I support unlimited.
-
I prefer 7 girders and I also prefer self teleporting at start. But it seems my opinion is something different to others. ^^
I also prefer the scheme included superweaps (eq, nuke, patsy etc).
In the end: T17 needs more luck than almost any other classic scheme. We can do smth against that by enable teleports at start. But against the crates we still have to live with.
-
7 girders is a big improvement in pretty much every way, and I'd actually like to see how the scheme would work with fewer. Because with 7, you still never see a game where someone runs out, I don't think I've seen a single match where this has happened. And this is partly because people are forced to conserve their girders, but it would be nice to try say, 5 girders, because at that point you actually will see people breaking through their opponent's defenses.
And it would definitely make more games less likely to reach SD. The TUS scheme as it is suffers due to its crate probabilities, almost every Team17 I've played with it results in a tie due to lack of aqua sheep. If you wanted to keep these crate probabilities the same, lowering the number of girders would probably be the only way to even out games. Because people are definitely still having to rely on the (even scarcer than before) SD weaps, simply waiting it out on each side, and often tying.
I'm assuming the rationale for the TUS scheme's lower SD weap probability is to force players to fight each other head on, but it simply hasn't worked. The moment one team is at a noticeable disadvantage and faces defeat by regular weaps, they will take to one side as usual, and SD weaps will mostly determine the game, 7 girders is still just enough to defend. But unlike the FB scheme, games rarely come to a close this way, and there are tons of ties since often times no one has anything. Games that are 30-45 minutes long should rarely, rarely be ties, we should simply eliminate that possibility as much as possible.
Pretty much all the weaps collected in a T17 go unused since people are mostly trying to get SD weaps, and that strikes me as silly. If we tried 5 girders, I imagine people would actually have a reason to destroy girders and break through, knowing they can't be held off all game, and those excess weapons would get some use. I'd just prefer the FB scheme with 7 girders, or the newer one with fewer.
-
7 girders is a big improvement in pretty much every way, and I'd actually like to see how the scheme would work with fewer. Because with 7, you still never see a game where someone runs out, I don't think I've seen a single match where this has happened.
Actually some1 should show me a game where someone used more than 7 girders even if there are infinite girders in the scheme. Most overrated stuff ever imo... what would it lead to if you non stop block your opponent anyway? You gotta be lucky to pick up the amount of sudden death weapons to kill 4 worms later in the game. And hoping for luck is never a good idea. I don't mind playing with 7 girders though, it just doesn't change anything about the scheme dynamics though.
-
The point is: When you know having just 7 girders you think every turn is it worth to take one or not. So this counts at least for me. So this is imo the main reason why almost none game needing all girders.