Scheme discussion - T17

[SPW]

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.

[Mablak]

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.

[chakkman]

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.

[SPW]

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.