Shopper, default scheme or rope scheme?

[Aerox]

Ok

we had playoffs vs cfc and ran into a problem.

I know I'm in cfc and stuff but this has nothing to do with it.

I'm really unimpressed that whoever it was that decided it chose shopper to be a "rope" scheme.

Whoever it was I ask for him to argument why shopper is considered a rope scheme when it has much more to do with the usage of weapons than roping.

Because if we're going to put both WxW (which is basically a roper with an easier map and more fair crates) and shopper in the roper subgroup then that's a huge ass contradiction.

Seriously, why has this skipped past everyone? You seriously telling me that the better roper will win the shopper game as opposed to the better weapon user?

I'm afraid I need arguments...

[NAiL]

Roping and rope knocking play as much a part in shopper as weapon usage does. Not all weps are that reliant on how you use them in shopper anyway, its only in odd circumstances that there may be a way to cause more damage by doing something more creatively. Shopper is a roping scheme.

+ Shopper blows, very boring. Its a good introduction scheme for people learning how to rope and use different weapons, but theres so little strategy and it rarely requires any ingenuity or skill. Picking it as a playoff game? pffff

[Aerox]

Roping and rope knocking play as much a part in shopper as weapon usage does. Not all weps are that reliant on how you use them in shopper anyway, its only in odd circumstances that there may be a way to cause more damage by doing something more creatively. Shopper is a roping scheme.

+ Shopper blows, very boring. Its a good introduction scheme for people learning how to rope and use different weapons, but theres so little strategy and it rarely requires any ingenuity or skill. Picking it as a playoff game? pffff

sorry Nail but I'm afraid you've just not played shopper enough.
In a good map, with a good scheme it's probably the most creative scheme, and in the decisive actions, roping has little to do with anything.
imagine A and B, A has only played ropers in his life whilst B has only done elites in his life.
They're put face to face in a shopper.
The Elite will win. Trust me.

[DarkOne]

You could've countered his post with just one name, ropa: Guardian

[nino]

oh ye Guardian haha he was vg in elite, and shoppa and not that good in roper.

missed him good friend ae

[NAiL]

@Darkone, nah saying a nick wouldnt mean anything to me. Im also confident most players could beat "Guardian" in shopper considering shopper is won through consistency and luck as oppose to creativity and skill. Not that im downplaying consistency, but you can only be as creative in shopper as the crates and map allow you to be. Creativity is circumstantial in shopper whereas consistency is fundamental.

ropa: Nah I have played enough, ive probably played every scheme more than you have.

I see your point, yes selective weapon use is important but only when its an option. Creativity in shopper is circumstantial and dependant firstly on the map, and secondly on the situation. Creativity in shopper is MINIMAL. It goes like this, rope to crate, find worm to attack. Can you pile any worms? Hide.

As far as creativity with weapons goes, it stretches to this. Can I do any more damage with this grenade by placing it somewhere in particular as oppose to on his head? Can I dyna drop that worm into a plop? Can I knock that worm down and then drop a petrol just right so he cant move next turn? As far as creativity goes in shopper, thats it. To describe it as one of the most creative schemes (even on a good map) is ridiculous. Using weapons to their full potential is a basic skill. If you can find me any replays that show shopper to be the most creative scheme for worms ill change my mind. Shopper (on a high level) requires consistency far more than creativity. Consistency is the name of the game when it comes to shopper, not creativity.

The argument you raised is that shopper is not a roping scheme and I disagree. Yes roping is not that important (as long as you have basic rope skil), but roping IS required, Its a fundamental element of the scheme. Shopper NEEDS the rope in order to work, thats what makes it a roping scheme. Roping to crates and knocking worms is a huge part of the scheme, the scheme wouldnt work without the rope and that in my opinion makes it a roping scheme.

So my challenge to you: Find one replay where creativity won someone a shopper. Consistency and luck is what wins shopper on the top level, there is LITTLE room for creativity in comparison to other schemes.

[Aerox]

Nah I have played enough, ive probably played every scheme more than you have.

Lol, how do you come to this conclusion?

As far as the rest goes, you're stating that getting the most damage out of a weapon is a basic skill. I can guarantee you that you'll be lucky to achieve max damage in any given turn ONCE in any random shopper match. Finding ways in which to achieve more damage than it's obvious I consider it creativity, you might think drawing BR maps is more so like it, let's just agree to disagree then.

Roping scheme is a scheme were roping is the most important aspect of the scheme. You need good rope skill to be a top elite player, yet no one calls elite a roping skill. I don't want to get carried away because quite frankly I have very solid thoughts about this game and you're not possibly adding anything fresh to this conversation. So let me go back to my example, A vs B, you still think the rope only guy would win?

[NAiL]

No, I believe the better defaulter would win the game IF he was consistent. Your point about max damage is irrelevant. You could make the same point about any scheme where damaging worms is part of the gameplay, ANY scheme.

Now let me go back to my point, which is simple. REGARDLESS of how you use weapons and all that business, shopper doesnt work without the rope. Shopper is a roping scheme because without the rope the scheme is not playable. You also seem to not be considering the importance of rope knocks and the speed at which you can rope to a crate, pile and unpile worms, attack and then hide. Roping plays a HUGE part in shopper, rope knocking is vital, its a roping scheme!

Roper requires creativity with attacks, as does wxw, but that doesnt change the fact that they are roping schemes because the main emphasis of the gameplay is based on roping around the map!

+ I "get" this game better than you ever will, its in my blood.

[Aerox]

No, I believe the better defaulter would win the game IF he was consistent. Your point about max damage is irrelevant. You could make the same point about any scheme where damaging worms is part of the gameplay, ANY scheme.

Now let me go back to my point, which is simple. REGARDLESS of how you use weapons and all that business, shopper doesnt work without the rope. Shopper is a roping scheme because without the rope the scheme is not playable. You also seem to not be considering the importance of rope knocks and the speed at which you can rope to a crate, pile and unpile worms, attack and then hide. Roping plays a HUGE part in shopper, rope knocking is vital, its a roping scheme!

Roper requires creativity with attacks, as does wxw, but that doesnt change the fact that they are roping schemes because the main emphasis of the gameplay is based on roping around the map!

Shopper without rope is more playable than shopper with weapons. What's your point? To make random statements that do not defend your point but mine?
Wxw has no room for creativity since in a good map you have only 1-5 seconds to attack. It's a roper scheme because now that's all about roping as opposed to shopper were roping is only like 10 seconds of the 30 you have.

on a sidenote, still curious as to how you could possibly think you've played more games than I have at any given scheme.... since when you only started playing worms I had already won like 50 clan leagues. however I obviously cannot argue with worms being in your blood. D1 is the one who could possibly help you out.

hahahahaha

[quote Im also confident most players could beat "Guardian" in shopper [/quote]

confident how? elaborate please, because Nail, I actually like you, well, used to, when you didn't type has as much bullshit per second, but why wold you ever be confident about most shopper players beating guardian? The guy was dedicated, and whilst I and others considered him a lick ass newbie he had an impressive shopper rating and he is a great example to use.

[NAiL]

ropa you are ignoring my points and not responding to them. I responded to your points, so do me the same courtesy.

Shopper without the rope WOULD NOT WORK, FULL STOP. You wouldnt be able to reach crates that fell in certain places.

My point (very simple ye): shopper is a roping scheme as roping is a fundamental element of the scheme.

Your point: shopper is not a roping scheme cos u gotta be creative with weapons.

Seems we arent going to agree, so lets leave this argument here.

Also, ive been playing this game and only this game most days since 2005. You started before me, but you havent been active since I started playing. Its funny when oldschoolers like you come back and think that because they were active in 2002-2004 theyve played the game for 10 years.

I also beat you in every scheme.

[Aerox]

Shopper without the rope WOULD NOT WORK, FULL STOP. You wouldnt be able to reach crates that fell in certain places.

It doesn't work without weapons either, you wouldn't be able to kill anything. So it's not a valid point because it can be used both ways (in fact, it works better to defend my point)

My point (very simple ye): shopper is a roping scheme as roping is a fundamental element of the scheme.

Weapons are more fundamental

Your point: shopper is not a roping scheme cos u gotta be creative with weapons.

My point actually is that what you do with weapons is more important than what you do with rope. Thanks for coming along, now try to pay attention-.

as for the rest, I'm not going to get into a e-peen wars about worms with you nail you don't even have the facts right, 2002? try 1999. And yeah, you've been playing 24/7 for 5 years now, congratulations, do you know how many things I had achieved in WA in my first 5 years. No, of course you don't. edit: this last part, no, i'm not bragging about it, I am only rejoicing about proving nail wrong.

[chakkman]

Hm, so you consider a scheme in which you rope around a map which basically was made for roping around, collecting crates in places you basically can mostly only reach with a rope, knocking your opponent's worms from the rope to get them where you want them to be, ultimately attacking them from rope to rope to the place where you want to hide your worm a default scheme? Can't help but doubt your sense of logic. Of course weapons play a role, they do also in wxw scheme and loads of other schemes, but essentially shopper is a rope scheme.

[NAiL]

It doesn't work without weapons either, you wouldn't be able to kill anything. So it's not a valid point because it can be used both ways (in fact, it works better to defend my point)

No, you are missing the point.

Elite still works (although not as well) without ninja ropes, because its a default scheme. Intermediate works without ninja ropes, because its a default scheme.

Roping schemes DONT work, without the rope. You see my point now? Very simple as I said so dont twist it into a new context that bares absolutely no relevance to the argument as you pointed out.

My point actually is that what you do with weapons is more important than what you do with rope. Thanks for coming along, now try to pay attention-.

I already said, I AGREE the better defaulter would win. That has nothing to do with my argument that shopper IS a roping scheme, ya spastic.

as for the rest, I'm not going to get into a e-peen wars about worms with you nail you don't even have the facts right, 2002? try 1999. And yeah, you've been playing 24/7 for 5 years now, congratulations, do you know how many things I had achieved in WA in my first 5 years. No, of course you don't. edit: this last part, no, i'm not bragging about it, I am only rejoicing about proving nail wrong.

I was using "2002-2004" as an EXAMPLE for oldschoolers who think that theyve played longer than they have because they started at a certain date.

+ What did you "achieve" rofl. Were you always rude and arrogant (I dislike your attitude when u came back to these forums) or is that something that took you 5 years of playing worms to achieve?

Thats my last post here, ill be nice and let you have the last word.

(you love it)

+ f@#! you motherf@#!er

++ ropa everyone knows you talk to people like shit, you have no respect, so ill return the favour, cocksucker.

...about your post that comes after this one, YOU WERE THE ONE WHO TOLD ME I NEEDED TO PLAY MORE SHOPPER!

You were the first to bring experience into the context of this argument, not me, dopey mug.

GGd.

 

[Aerox]

You can call it an example or you can call it X. Fact remains you were using that statement to imply you have played more worms than me, which frankly, I find it hard to believe and I have no idea how it relates to the topic. But me being me I felt like proving you wrong nontheless since I had the chance.

You're the one who tried to use that as some sort of enhancement to your argument, as if you had more experience on what you're talking about, you then even claimed you beat me at all schemes, which I sincerly do not understand if you mean you have beaten me at least once in every scheme, that you would beat me now or that you're plain and simple better than me at all schemes.
I was only playing your game, and quite frankly, I was doing it better, because you have one weapon, your word, your claims of beating me at all schemes and therefore having more knowledge on the topic, your word has it's value, for you mostly, but I think actual records hold more weight when talking about experience, and whilst you have your word I have my records. I wouldn't be proud of having neither of them to be honest, but since you use one I counter you with the other.

edit: once more, I'll ask the mods here to show consistency, when I go about name calling at least I use it in context, this bro (that's the slang your people use right?) just throws random insults after a plus sign, come on now!

[Aerox]

back on topic:

some of you seem to be struggling with one key aspect in this whole thing. Frequency of use shouldn't affect what you call a scheme, or at least, it shouldn't affect the way of Playoffs or rating. Shotgun is used frequently in elite but you wouldn't call it an accuracy scheme would you?

It's contradictory and incosistant. Let me explain you why:

what you're trying to do with these limitations in PO picks is make it so all-aroundness is encouraged (correct me if I'm wrong) and so say, two players can't abuse the system by becoming very good at only a small part of what the league offers in terms of schemes.
So it's fine if you don't want to agree with me and my arguments, but you did admit the defaulter would win, and that's all you really need. Because I doubt anyone reading would like to disagree with that precise statement? I'll gladly hear.

If we take that into account then quite obviously something is wrong with the way things work, because if you put shoppers in the rope category when you agree default skills play a bigger role in winning then you're only giving a handicap to ropers, because there's no penalty for playing elite-shopper-whatever...

Historically, you'll also find out that dedicated ropers struggled with shoppers whilst the dudes that used to play team17 and elite had no issues with it.
anyone would pick chicken over volrin in a shopper. anyone.