Updating rules on scheme sites

[TheKomodo]

In my honest opinion, if there is a crate lurking about in SD mode, I will automatically apply myself to W2W because it seems more logical to me.

Ok, but can you explain why it seems more logical to you please? I am curious to know why each person who chooses w2w over CBA would do so.

I think it's important to know why from as many people as possible, on both sides, it could help us decide which version of the rule to make final.

[Senator]

leroy, we are talking about one or two turn delay to w2w. it's not like SD becomes meaningless And SD is there only to end a prolonged game, the purpose is to finish the game well before SD.

1) When SD begins, w2w should be followed regardless.

2) When SD begins, if crates are available you must follow CBA.

3) When SD begins, If crates are available the player has the choice to CBA or w2w.

Imo it has to be 1 or 3. Number 2 can be unfair as avirex pointed out (opponent leaves a hard crate for you and SD begins)

Edit: Good thing about option 3 is that then you don't have to know the rule. You can make a guess at w2w/cba and it's always right

[avirex]

Leroy, why do you insist on saying "its been this way for ever" you have been proven wrong with real evidence, such as w2dinfo links, and more... stop saying things that are simply not true, just to support your opinion. Also, you can quit it with your imaginary spanish worms friends, that all agree with you, but you wont mention their name out of respect to their decision to vanish from worms. lol

SD was introduced to roper games, so certain games do no drag on forever... the problem was, when the crates stop, you had no obligations before attack, so we came up with wall2wall before attack. but in my opinion, that does not mean wall 2 wall takes priority over crate before attack. after all, crate before attack is the standard rule of roping.

Kradie said: "I have questioned myself in some roper games ''Why do the player get crate and then attack the opposing player in SD?'' The conclusion to this is... Time. I think, there has never been a clear rule in regards to this.  So time and its generation has decided what is and what is not."

this goes to show its not as rare as some people think, and in the cases he has seen the people have chosen to grab crate, rather then w2w. It's also what i have seen people do, and did myself (as we all seen recently)

but Kradie, then you said going w2w even when a crate is on the map is the logical thing to do?? can you explain why?? anyone who has followed this debate read all the logical reasons why CBA should take priority, but nobody has given any logical reason why w2w should take priority, apart from it being how they always thought it should be.

opinions are not logical reasons guys, they are just opinions.

i think option 3 is the best, because it seems like we will not come to a definitive answer, some people think it should be one way, some people think it should be the other way... so why not offer both options??  like senator said too, it makes the rules less complicated. 

[Kradie]

When Sudden Death is on then it is ON, it should overrule CBA because SD requires both players to carry out the wall to wall rule. SD should not permit a player to acquire a nearby crate. It can be considered unfair and handicap depending on the game's circumstances.

Of course I am not here to argue. I simply shared what I thought seemed correct. This has never been a relevant problem for me because I play none league games. Such a trifle is no need to argue if it happens in-game.

If the majority seems that their opinions are more adequate in contrast to what I have shared to this date, I will gladly accept.

[avirex]

i dont think anyone is here to argue, kradie.. but thank you making that clear

When Sudden Death is on then it is ON, it should overrule CBA because SD requires both players to carry out the wall to wall rule. SD should not permit a player to acquire a nearby crate. It can be considered unfair and handicap depending on the game's circumstances.

the problem with this is, the only possible way for a crate to be on a map, and sudden death to have been officially announced is if your opponent failed to collect a crate right before sudden death.

any time your opponent fails, you then get options/benefits.. for example, if your opponent fails a very easy crate, and then your crate spawns on the opposite side of the map, of course you will collect the easy one and attack, correct?  so if your opponent fails a crate right before attack, i believe it should be you choice to collect or, or go w2w... but one thing is obvious, these are all just opinions, everyone has their own opinion on this situation, and we all made our points pretty clear... at this stage of the game, we should have a vote and move on.. i will open a poll in a separate thread

[TheKomodo]

When Sudden Death is on then it is ON, it should overrule CBA because SD requires both players to carry out the wall to wall rule. SD should not permit a player to acquire a nearby crate. It can be considered unfair and handicap depending on the game's circumstances.

I feel compelled to ask the following question and hope you answer honestly:

If you understand, agree or even realize that CBA is the most sacred rule of Roper and has been since WA began, and also understand, agree or even realize that w2w is purely a replacement for when there are no crates left to collect, what is there then left for you or anyone else to assume w2w would take priority, except for personal preference?

[Kradie]

In my understanding, SD by default is to end the game quickly. Hence no crate drops to further a Worm's health. It is not there to prolong the game hence again no crates.  So w2w is necessary to carry out in order to stay faithful to what Sudden Death stands for. Time will decide who will become victorious or not, based on player's failure rate and fortune.

[TheKomodo]

In my understanding, SD by default is to end the game quickly. Hence no crate drops to further a Worm's health. It is not there to prolong the game hence again no crates.  So w2w is necessary to carry out in order to stay faithful to what Sudden Death stands for. Time will decide who will become victorious or not, based on player's failure rate and fortune.

Interesting.

I don't believe SD is there purely to end the game quicker, how long SD lasts depends on how skilled players are and what type of maps they play on, there was a clanner recently where lalo and his opponent continued in SD for over 10 minutes, it would ended quicker if SD didn't occur in that situation, it also depends on the HP values when SD begins.

SD could have been introduced as a method to end a game quicker, or it could have been introduced as a fun alternative so players didn't get bored, for me I always believed the latter.

I won't deny the possibility of the former, however if the purpose of SD was to end the game quickly wouldn't it be better to use one of the other forms of Sudden Death? For example "When the round time exprires a nuke is dropped and energy is gradually lost".

Either way I will always believe that there should be no crates left before w2w can truly be enforced, perhaps that's why there is 1 turn without a crate falling before SD is officially declared, give players another turn to collect or destroy any remaining crates before whatever style of SD begins.

[Senator]

heres a start: feel free to proof read, edit, discuss:

Blocks: when your worm blocks another worm, and he can not get out from walking, shooting rope, or extending rope: if you block a worm and your opponent manages to attack, you must take a penalty coinciding with how much time he lost, if your opponent does not attack, you must skip your next attack as well.

Glitches: most all glitches are not allowed in roper, if you exploit any glitches that result in an advantage in the game, you must skip your next attack.. However the following glitches have been accepted as legal in roper schemes: "ghost nades"

WL: "A block is a situation where a worm can't walk or rope out of his spot without knocking the blocking worm away."
XTC: "It is not a block if a worm can escape via walking or by shooting a rope out correctly to escape a narrow spot."

Your/XTC's definition seems legit. I too was in belief that you have to wait the same time as your opponent lost while blocked but TUS rules say it's always 5 seconds. I think it's ok either way.

So the glitch rule could be like this "No glitches are allowed in the game. The only exception to this rule are ghost nades."

[Senator]

- Should the definition of darksiding in BnG be changed?

Current definition: A darkside is considered a place where you can't hit OR be hit with a nade.
KRD's definition: Darksiding is hiding your worm in a position where it's impossible for your opponent(s) to hit you with a grenade and at the same time impossible for you to hit your opponent(s) with a grenade.

So far Komo has said that KRD's definition should be used. Other opinions?
MI's cba/w2w rule for Roper:

Crate Before Attack (CBA)
*You have to collect a health crate before attacking your opponent. If a crate is not available, you have to touch both walls instead (w2w). During Sudden Death you have to collect a crate OR touch both walls before attacking (your choice).

Blocking definition in Roper: "Your opponent is blocked if he can't get out of his spot by walking or by shooting a rope out correctly."

Regarding WxW, Shopper and Roper, should the rule about skipping be changed? Currently you are allowed to make piles, cause fall damage etc during the skip turn.

Would this be a good skip rule? "If you break this rule, you are not allowed to attack or knock the next turn but you are still allowed take your crate and change your hide."

The problem with that is what if when trying to collecting your crate you fall or accidentally knock? The result would be the same.

"If you break this rule, you are not allowed to attack or knock (any worm) the next turn. If you do knock by accident, you are not allowed to attack or knock for another turn. You are however allowed to knock to get out of your spot."

where "by accident" = if u knock clearly on purpose (like several knocks to pile worms), mods can void the game or give the win to the victim. Good or bad now ??

[avirex]

KRD's definition: Darksiding is hiding your worm in a position where it's impossible for your opponent(s) to hit you with a grenade and at the same time impossible for you to hit your opponent(s) with a grenade.

i have a serious problem with this.... 

example: avirex vs. senator: i teleport to a spot that i can toss nades at senator...  but he does not have a single shot to hit me with a nade, by KRD's rule it is not a darkside, because i am able to toss nades... in order for it to be a DS, BOTH players have to have no nade shots.

this means, that i just forced senator to teleport, and now i get the first shot at him...

when 1 person teleports, its kind of like skipping their turn in order to achieve a better hide, but with KRD's rules, i would be forcing senator to skip his turn to achieve a better hide... its not really fair...  the person who teleported, should not get the first attack, and thats what KRD rule is allowing...

i know it would be a rate situation to find a spot that i can shoot senator in, but he can not shoot me.... but if i did find such situation, it does not protect senator, it protects me (the initial teleporter) thats not fair IMO.

the rule should be: if you teleport, your opponent MUST have atleast 2 nade attack options.

its that simple, because if someone wants to be stupid, and teleport in a spot that limits their nade attacks, and they have to wait for wind to even have any chance to shoot, they should be allowed to do that.... it would be very stupid, but they should be allowed (as long as their opponent has atleast 2 nade options)

the reason i say at least 2 nade options, is because there was a complaint recently stylez vs. johnny, EVERYONE initially thought his hide was a darkside, but turns out there was 1 possible nade attempt, it was a 5sec LG difficult shot.... stylez should not have been FORCED to repeat nades for the entire rest of the game, because johnny chose to hide lame.... so i believe its fair to say "at least 2 nade attack options"

but the current rules are kind of protecting the teleporter....   i can teleport to a difficult spot that senator has no aim @ me, and he would be pissed, and want to make a complaint... but i can just say "its not a darkside unless he cant hit me... AAAAANNNDDDD i cant hit him, thats the rules, and i was able to hit him"

to me, that just does not seem fair.

[Peja]

KRD's definition: Darksiding is hiding your worm in a position where it's impossible for your opponent(s) to hit you with a grenade and at the same time impossible for you to hit your opponent(s) with a grenade.

i have a serious problem with this.... 

example: avirex vs. senator: i teleport to a spot that i can toss nades at senator...  but he does not have a single shot to hit me with a nade, by KRD's rule it is not a darkside, because i am able to toss nades... in order for it to be a DS, BOTH players have to have no nade shots.

this means, that i just forced senator to teleport, and now i get the first shot at him...

when 1 person teleports, its kind of like skipping their turn in order to achieve a better hide, but with KRD's rules, i would be forcing senator to skip his turn to achieve a better hide... its not really fair...  the person who teleported, should not get the first attack, and thats what KRD rule is allowing...

i know it would be a rate situation to find a spot that i can shoot senator in, but he can not shoot me.... but if i did find such situation, it does not protect senator, it protects me (the initial teleporter) thats not fair IMO.

the rule should be: if you teleport, your opponent MUST have atleast 2 nade attack options.

its that simple, because if someone wants to be stupid, and teleport in a spot that limits their nade attacks, and they have to wait for wind to even have any chance to shoot, they should be allowed to do that.... it would be very stupid, but they should be allowed (as long as their opponent has atleast 2 nade options)

the reason i say at least 2 nade options, is because there was a complaint recently stylez vs. johnny, EVERYONE initially thought his hide was a darkside, but turns out there was 1 possible nade attempt, it was a 5sec LG difficult shot.... stylez should not have been FORCED to repeat nades for the entire rest of the game, because johnny chose to hide lame.... so i believe its fair to say "at least 2 nade attack options"

but the current rules are kind of protecting the teleporter....   i can teleport to a difficult spot that senator has no aim @ me, and he would be pissed, and want to make a complaint... but i can just say "its not a darkside unless he cant hit me... AAAAANNNDDDD i cant hit him, thats the rules, and i was able to hit him"

to me, that just does not seem fair.

can you give me an example for the situation you described? i cant imagine any hide like this lol. just draw on paint 

btw it would be smart creating several topics for the schemes, its really no pleasure to follow this discussion. 

[avirex]

uhhmm... i dont think i need to draw on paint for you peja, just use your imagination... your familiar with both worms, and bng right??

this could happen quite a lot, and even more so when you take bank nades into consideration... i think if you think about it for a second, you will be able to think of plenty of situations, without me drawing you an illustration.

my point is: (and maybe i did not word it ideally) the darkside rule should protect the worm who is not teleporting, it should not protect the worm that is teleporting.

right now the rule is worded in such a way that it gives the worm teleporting a bit of an edge.. "i am able to nade him, its not a darkside regardless if he cant nade me" and this would force the opponent to have to teleport... its not fair.


edit: i agree with the several topics thing, i had mentioned to senator he should possibly make a community (just for the sake of getting forums) it would be much easier if we can have a subforum for this entire situation, then subforums in the subforum broken up into the different schemes, and then different threads for each unique debate with in each scheme.... would be easier to follow, easier to organize, easier, easier, easier...

but senator thinks we are ok here..  his choice i spose, he is the boss man of the rule changes

[Peja]

i prolly played a lot more bngs than you during the past 5 years and i never had a single game where my opponent was able to hit me with nades while it was impossible for me to hit him in theory 

[TheKomodo]

I completely disagree with you avi, the darkside isn't there to protect anyone, it's there to stop people taking ridiculous hides that make the game last much longer than it should, besides if someone does use this rule the way you suggest what's to stop the other player from doing the same thing as a counter move?

If you can teleport to a position that gives you an advantage, this is fine, in BnG everyone wants the best hide don't they? It doesn't stop the other player from attacking you, they can still blow up your land or zook at you, it would also prevent people from hiding like vesuvio did in the game vs stylez which is perfectly fine and people have been doing it since I can remember.

And as for this:

the rule should be: if you teleport, your opponent MUST have atleast 2 nade attack options.

So you want to make the game as easy as possible? Why not make using girders for blocking in Elite/T17 illegal? And you must hide only on top of a map in Hysteria/Roper, etc...

Not only is it a bad idea because it reduces the tactical side of BnG, but there are few people on WA who have knowledge of all possible shots in BnG, there could be 2 nade options that someone doesn't know how to do and they start complaining.

I think KRDs definition of the rule is the best.

And Peja, using the reasoning that this situation rarely happens is irrelevant, it still happens.

Edit: Well I actually think the a2b darkside rule is the best but that's a different kind of BnG from TuS/FB etc.