The Ultimate Site of Worms Armageddon

Leagues => Leagues General => Topic started by: Senator on June 29, 2017, 07:45 PM

Title: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: Senator on June 29, 2017, 07:45 PM
Many scheme change requests lately so I'll list everything here and soon we will publish the changes.

Big RR
- remove banana bomb
- add a rule to prevent draws: if you finish on the same turn, the remaining time on the clock decides

BnG
- replace the minimum distance rule with "Stay on your half of the map"
- are the rules regarding 5s and 1s nades and straight bazooka shots necessary?

Aerial
- replace the current scheme with Sensei's scheme (https://www.tus-wa.com/schemes/scheme-2175/) (3s mines etc)
- should crates be removed?

Intermediate
- add a rule: "You can request Bo1 but in that case the opponent gets to start."

Team17
- lots of draws with the current scheme. See Mablak's old post:
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.
- replace the current scheme with a scheme that has higher SD weap probability? Perhaps use FB league's scheme (https://www.tus-wa.com/schemes/scheme-159/) (equal crate probabilities except for Mad Cow) just with lower probability for Banana Bombs.
- should 1 or 2 Select Worms be reintroduced to the scheme? Select Worms help against darksiding.
- should 1 x Homing Missile be added to the starting inventory as Free suggested (https://www.tus-wa.com/forums/leagues-general/team-17-scheme-needs-fixing-add-homing-perhaps-31068/)? This way your ability to finish the opponent doesn't depend on crate luck.

Shopper & WxW
- In FB league's Shopper scheme the probability of Select Worm is lowered to 0.2% so that it would never occur. TUS scheme has much less weapons and as a result Select Worm probability is 1.2%. Whenever Select Worm occurs, it can be game changing. For example the 2nd player may have utilized turn order advantage and piled all the worms. Then the 1st player uses his Select Worm and gets to attack a worm without hitting his own worm.
- lower the probability to 0.5% with scheme editor OR add infinite Select Worm and infinite delay?
Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: Free on June 29, 2017, 08:11 PM
Funny how my suggestion didn't make the list.
Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: Senator on June 29, 2017, 08:12 PM
Funny how my suggestion didn't make the list.

Oh I can add it.
Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: Free on June 29, 2017, 08:17 PM
Yeah, a lot of thought must have been put into it I can tell.

Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: Senator on June 29, 2017, 08:32 PM
Happy now? :D
Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: Free on June 29, 2017, 08:53 PM
Yeah, I'm over the top.

Who are the people behind making these scheme and rule decisions by the way?

---------------------

Intermediate - bo1 rule is good but in bo3/bo5 why not score every round? I don't see any reason why not, works in ONL.

Also, I can't believe there's nothing done with hysteria. Just watch top hysteria players games, just watch them, the proof is in the pudding. You don't see nothing but plop and side zooka tactics from the start nowadays. It's probably the most broken scheme and it doesn't even get into discussion?


Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: Senator on June 29, 2017, 09:20 PM
Who are the people behind making these scheme and rule decisions by the way?

These proposals are picked up from recent threads. I've talked with MI and he gave a green light at least to Big RR, BnG, Aerial, Intermediate. As for T17 and Shopper I've also consulted KRD. If people don't agree on some change, it won't happen.
Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: TheKaren on June 29, 2017, 11:12 PM
Free, for the last time, seriously.

HYSTERIA IS NOT BROKEN - YOU JUST DON'T LIKE IT - THIS IS A FACT BASED ON WHAT THE WORD "BROKEN" MEANS!!!!

I find it weird how every Hysteria you watch, that happens, but it doesn't happen too often in the games I play/watch... And i'm sure I've watched/played more Hysteria than you, i'm not saying that to be a dick btw, please don't reply in anger, I just know you are wrong...

It does happen, but it's a tactic/strategy, who cares if you think it's lame or not, it's not broken, it never has been and never will be, just learn to tolerate it just like people tolerate gay people(I say that because there is nothing wrong with gay people even though millions think there is.)

Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: WTF-8 on June 29, 2017, 11:24 PM
Quote
Free, for the last time, seriously.

YOUR WORDS HURT MY EGO SO MUCH THAT I NEED TO TYPE RANDOM BULLSHIT IN CAPS TO PROVE MYSELF I'M RIGHT



btw good job comparing Hysteria tactics to gay people, that speaks of the scheme very well
Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: TheKaren on June 29, 2017, 11:25 PM
I'm not interested in your lack of understanding.

My ego has nothing to do with him saying things that are literally wrong.

Say it sucks, say it's the worst thing to ever happen to humanity I don't care, but don't f**king lie about it.
Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: Ytrojan on June 29, 2017, 11:58 PM
I'm not interested in your lack of understanding.

My ego has nothing to do with him saying things that are literally wrong.

Say it sucks, say it's the worst thing to ever happen to humanity I don't care, but don't f**king lie about it.
And remember: the TRUE worst scheme is Awful. Yes, that's what it's called.
Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: Sensei on June 30, 2017, 01:01 AM
Thanks for the post Senator.
Yes, Big RR sounds pretty reasonable without nana and with the time counting rule. Cause lots of games ends with "draw" even if 99% of them actually don't.

For BnG would be probably best to use a2b set of rules. But many ppl here dislike mentioned scheme, would dislike it even more in that case.

As a big Aerial fan, don't think crates should be removed. They make it more fun to play. After all, it's just a Free league.. No need to get so strict about it!? Maybe bo3 mandatory should be applied, because SD games don't go above 15 mins. Bo1 can get pretty unfair if positions are f@#!ed for one player.

Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: TheWalrus on June 30, 2017, 04:34 AM
Team17
- lots of draws with the current scheme. See Mablak's old post:
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.
- replace the current scheme with a scheme that has higher SD weap probability? Perhaps use FB league's scheme (https://www.tus-wa.com/schemes/scheme-159/) (equal crate probabilities except for Mad Cow) just with lower probability for Banana Bombs.
- should 1 or 2 Select Worms be reintroduced to the scheme? Select Worms help against darksiding.
- should 1 x Homing Missile be added to the starting inventory as Free suggested (https://www.tus-wa.com/forums/leagues-general/team-17-scheme-needs-fixing-add-homing-perhaps-31068/)? This way your ability to finish the opponent doesn't depend on crate luck.
I'd like to speak a few words about t17, most people know i really don't like the scheme, probably one of shopper and t17 being the most hated.  I used to be a really big fan of t17, the first 3 years i played worms i mostly rope, battlerace, and t17.  The scheme was a lot faster then, people played a more freewheeling style, the biggest difference being more people played open roof maps and not these tight maps that people play on now with 10 separated chambers in a dual cave map.  These kind of maps, along with the ''turtle and hope to get sd weap" mentality leads me to side with free on the rules.  Too often clever early game play is thwarted by it being unrewarded when not gifted with SD weapons while your opponent picks up an aqua sheep and a bird.  gg.  This kind of ''drag it out'' strategy has made the mid to late game a boring mess of digging to the top and girdering and regirdering.  It's unlikely that this will change all that much, but at least poor crateluck doesn't need to be a large determinant of the result.  T17 doesn't need a 1x homing, it needed it 10 years ago.  I had it in a scheme of mine for many years (before i stopped playing except in tus games).  I say throw the select worm in there as well, shake it up, this scheme needs a kick in the ass.

Big RR
- remove banana bomb
- add a rule to prevent draws: if you finish on the same turn, the remaining time on the clock decides
Banana bomb is pretty useless, unsure why it was ever included.  Remaining time is a great idea to prevent draws, which happen quite a bit.  Not many want to play many big rr's to get a decision.

BnG
- replace the minimum distance rule with "Stay on your half of the map"
- are the rules regarding 5s and 1s nades and straight bazooka shots necessary?
5 sec nades would be a bad idea, they can be easily abused, this detracts from the essence of bng being a shotmaker's game.  I really don't have a feeling one way or another on the ''ýour side of map'' rule, I do see merit in not allowing people to hide middle and force the opponent back to a quarter of the map, though.  I'm on the fence on this one.  As for 1 sec nades and straight bazooka shots, I wouldn't mind them being legal, if you are hiding where you can be 1 sec naded or straight zooked you deserve to lose anyways.  A rule that never really gets broken because there is no opportunity to do so, is just an extra useless rule to feed the 'bng has too many rules' narrative.  People are right, there are too many silly rules like 1 sec & straight zook, better to remove them entirely

\
Aerial
- replace the current scheme with Sensei's scheme (https://www.tus-wa.com/schemes/scheme-2175/) (3s mines etc)
- should crates be removed?
Sensei's scheme is the best scheme out there, aerial needed sudden death
Crates to me serve no purpose but add novelty.  If it is to be considered as a genuine competitive scheme, the crates have to go.  I like the fun randomness of it, but the scheme would probably be better served to take it out.

Intermediate
- add a rule: "You can request Bo1 but in that case the opponent gets to start."
Seems much more than fair. 

Also, I can't believe there's nothing done with hysteria. Just watch top hysteria players games, just watch them, the proof is in the pudding. You don't see nothing but plop and side zooka tactics from the start nowadays. It's probably the most broken scheme and it doesn't even get into discussion?
I think it is bad strategy tbh, I've beat better players more often using 2 worm strategies against side hides.  Side zooka strategies can be defeated by a response that almost no players use.  You can take a good hide on the top that is unhittable by bazooka and simply force SD by running out turn time.  This forces the opponent to move, and take an upper hide, most of the time allowing the SD forcing worm or worms to have the first shot once the side zooker moves up.

Much of the time this is better strategy than throwing petrol from a hittable position and hoping for good wind to take out the side zooker.  The side zooker will always be limited to what they are offered by the opposing player.

Hysteria isn't broken, it just requires strict adherence to its strange metagame principles.  It will always be a turnwhoring plopfest, but some people like the schemeas it is, warts and all. 
Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: WTF-8 on June 30, 2017, 08:17 AM
You can take a good hide on the top that is unhittable by bazooka
... is that even possible?  leaving a blind/unhittable spot sounds like a huge fault on sidezooker's side, which is difficult to imagine for me
Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: Free on June 30, 2017, 09:08 AM
Yeah breaking down deep Hysteria tactics, yay! All I'm saying is that with a bit of tweaking the scheme would be BETTER but yeah lets not do it because the scheme is currently stands as a tactical masterpiece.

And Komo, seriously, if your best arguments come from a dictionary then just... dont start man. You do understand that even though a prodrace could be competitive also, it doesn't make it a f@#!ing masterpiece of a scheme now does it?

Talking about how easy it is to prevent side zookas with petrols? Umm no it isn't easy and it depends on the map also. One of the easiest ways to counter petrols is to make a blowtorch hole to the side hide you are using so if a petrol hits, you only get hit for few hp's and get pushed to safety.

IF you get a top position on map and force SD it really ain't over yet. One could miss on a critical spot because there are always some hides left on the map. One could teleport to top with +50hp worm with a good timing so even if you hit, you are still in danger yourself.

In a nutshell, I'm not saying that scrap the scheme but make it better because it's totally possible! Why the f@#! would we drive some shitty car when we could drive a Ferrari?

Team17 can be improved by HUGE leaps if we give it a good try. I'm all for roofless, which seems to be what Wally means with open roof map also. It solves so many problems while still making sure that the player who has deeper tactical eye actually gets a reward for all the hard work he has put into developing it, instead getting handicapped by unnecessary scheme rule/mechanic.

Anywho it seems like too big of a chance for the community so my 2nd suggestion was to make current T17 scheme better, add the homing so you are not on mercy of cr8luck alone, it makes the scheme more skilled because you have more options to attack/defense. Select worm might work, but just 1, definately not two. Also +1 from here to limit girders, 7 is usually too much to push through.

I'm not angry, I'm passionate.
Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: HHC on June 30, 2017, 07:29 PM
Dunno about any schemes, except for T17 and Aerial. And all fixes there seem unnecessary or even damaging.

3 sec mines in Aerial are completely useless, because you can use your JP to fly by all mines that are anywhere close to your position and set them off. Likewise 0 sec is meh cause it'd be überfrustrating.
Removing crates.. *sigh* If you wanna destroy an important element of the game, sure.
SD? Also not needed. What's bad about a 40 min game every now and then? The longer the game takes the less land there is to fight on. I personally prefer these battles over the 'elite'-like setup with SD... that often end with the lucky player plopping the other guy first.

Why not remove all mines, remove crates and play on übercomplicated maps. You got yourself another lame ass bng-scheme that ends in a 'draw' every damn time.

T17-scheme works fine as is IMO, the only thing that could be discussed is limiting girders to 5 (although I dunno.. as you can read in my guide placings of girders is one of the most important strategic elements of the game. You don't want to limit them too much. Players will surely want to save at least 2 for SD, that leaves them only 3 for regular game. Too little to really get by with a strategy that is girder-intensive.
A free homing missile goes against the scheme's intentions. The idea is to collect random weaps in crates and fight the enemy with it. Add a homing missile and it will only encourage no-brain pro's to sit the entire game out on their side of the map. Without the missile players with no SD-crates will be forced to go on attack. No incentive anymore to do so if it's there.
How about decreasing HP's of worm, to say 80?
Or just play a little less... 'safe'.

Playing on open maps is meh too. What with the air attacks, or none available? What with ropes, how can you possible defend against it with a girder on an open map? How can you make 'zones'?

If it's not broken, don't fix it.

If taking every bit of non-predictable, 'random' elements from the game suits you.. play that shit-scheme called BnG.

The fun in worms is adapting to situations that you do not control. That's the challenge that makes it interesting.

Furthermore, why must EVERY league scheme only use ONE option in worms? We can alter pretty much every aspect of the game, yet ppl seem to only want to play 1 particular option in every damn scheme?? If you've got such a great element as crates or mines with different fuse times, why not make use of them, at least in 1 scheme?

Aerial without crates... I mean, seriously.. how uninteresting do you want a scheme to be?
Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: TheKaren on June 30, 2017, 08:08 PM
All I'm saying is that with a bit of tweaking the scheme would be BETTER but yeah lets not do it because the scheme is currently stands as a tactical masterpiece.

Better for who? Better for you maybe, but not for everyone else, this is what you fail to see.

The scheme as it stands is a masterpiece, but not a tactical masterpiece.



And Komo, seriously, if your best arguments come from a dictionary then just... dont start man. You do understand that even though a prodrace could be competitive also, it doesn't make it a f@#!ing masterpiece of a scheme now does it?

I wasn't arguing anything, you said Hysteria is broken and I was telling you that you were wrong, don't call it broken when it's not, it's LITERALLY NOT BROKEN, you can complain all you want about what you don't like about it.

Why the f@#! would we drive some shitty car when we could drive a Ferrari?

I'd never drive a Ferarri lol, total waste of money imo, I could use that money to do things that actually matter in the world.


Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: Sensei on June 30, 2017, 11:11 PM
HHC - you should play some games with TUS aerial scheme and the one that was developed throughout last 1-2 years of playing it constantly. You would felt the difference and I'm pretty sure you'd like it. Just talking theoretically should not be taken for granted.


Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: Hurz on July 01, 2017, 12:49 AM
aerial is broken, itself :)
Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: TheKaren on July 01, 2017, 02:28 AM
How is Aerial broken? I don't play so don't know :/
Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: TheWalrus on July 01, 2017, 03:06 AM
How is Aerial broken? I don't play so don't know :/
Hurz is just expressing that he doesnt like playing the scheme
Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: Senator on July 01, 2017, 09:15 AM
T17-scheme works fine as is IMO, the only thing that could be discussed is limiting girders to 5 (although I dunno.. as you can read in my guide placings of girders is one of the most important strategic elements of the game. You don't want to limit them too much. Players will surely want to save at least 2 for SD, that leaves them only 3 for regular game. Too little to really get by with a strategy that is girder-intensive.
A free homing missile goes against the scheme's intentions. The idea is to collect random weaps in crates and fight the enemy with it. Add a homing missile and it will only encourage no-brain pro's to sit the entire game out on their side of the map. Without the missile players with no SD-crates will be forced to go on attack. No incentive anymore to do so if it's there.
How about decreasing HP's of worm, to say 80?
Or just play a little less... 'safe'.

Playing on open maps is meh too. What with the air attacks, or none available? What with ropes, how can you possible defend against it with a girder on an open map? How can you make 'zones'?

If it's not broken, don't fix it.

If taking every bit of non-predictable, 'random' elements from the game suits you.. play that shit-scheme called BnG.

The fun in worms is adapting to situations that you do not control. That's the challenge that makes it interesting.

Your message seems to be directed more at the ideas of 1 x Missile, 5 x girder and open maps. Missile is listed there just as an option that was suggested recently and the other two I didn't even put on the list. Anyway Free was talking about dual layer cavern map without the border. The scheme plays almost like regular T17. You just don't need SD weaps to finish the game cos you can use the roof. Watch a replay if you haven't.

You should like equal crate probabilities more than tus scheme's probabilities because that way it's less predictable and more challenging. TUS scheme repeats a bunch of big bombs so you need less weapon knowledge and you don't need to deal with bad cards at any point. Isn't that boring?

You said these big bombs are needed because otherwise it's hard to make enough kills before SD. I don't think they make a difference. Having big bombs doesn't help if the opponent doesn't let you attack. You know the tus scheme gives a lot of bows and miniguns so you won't leave your 100HP worms in danger. You won't get more than 2 kills against a defensive player before SD, no matter how many holys you have. Worms may have less HP left but they are still alive. You still need 2 SD weaps or break through the defence.

With tus scheme you may not get any SD weap although you get most of the crates. Please show me replays where someone broke through the girders against a good player and won without SD weaps. "Play less safe" is your solution for draws? You can blame it on the players but draws happen and they are annoying. I've played 2 draws several times. SD weap probability should be higher unless we change some other variables such as round time, the number of girders or the number of select worms.

Besides, I think you should tell what was wrong with the scheme earlier. Why was the scheme fixed (by Ray?) if it wasn't broken? You could have just reduced the number of Bananas if they were too annoying and that's it.
Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: Free on July 01, 2017, 09:16 AM
A free homing missile goes against the scheme's intentions. The idea is to collect random weaps in crates and fight the enemy with it. Add a homing missile and it will only encourage no-brain pro's to sit the entire game out on their side of the map. Without the missile players with no SD-crates will be forced to go on attack. No incentive anymore to do so if it's there.

The fun in worms is adapting to situations that you do not control. That's the challenge that makes it interesting.

So lets say I play "better" start and middle-game than you and I collect more crates and control more dropzones and we have even amount of worms/hp, ok? So I collect more crates than you overall but I can't beat you because you lucked out and got couple of SD weps meanwhile I got 0, even though I've played better than you. Get it? It's RIDICILOUS and most importantly it is totally UNNECESSARY.

Also, how would missile go against scheme's intentions? Saying things like this are cringy assumptions and acting like no scheme has evolved over the times. Roping for example was developed by the community. Best things in WA have been developed by community. It's a normal step to evolve the schemes.

Also, how adding a homing missile would encourage sitting in the corner? It depends totally on the situation what one is smart to do. The point of adding homing missile is to make the scheme more balanced, less luck-based. See the example above. I do agree with you that the spice of T17 is the unpredictability of crates and working with what you got but can you give me a solid reason why adding a homing would destroy the scheme? No, sitting on the corner example wont work because it totally depends on the situation.

Also, I would also like to add into discussion "Intermediate" - score every round? I don't see why not (we dont support Double or Nothing anyways)  and it's kinda meh in worst case scenario to play 3 rounds just to get score of 1 game.
Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: Free on July 01, 2017, 09:37 AM
one that was developed throughout last 1-2 years of playing it constantly

This. This is what evolves things.
Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: HHC on July 01, 2017, 10:00 AM
Are the changes justified?

To me, none of the schemes mentioned are really broken.

And the suggestions made are up for discussion, I personally don't agree with them as is obvious  ;)

Is it worth going through the trouble of changing the basic schemes (it will be hard to change back after) + everyone would need to update their league schemes - for changes that only have a 'mild' effect on the game and that supposedly fix a scheme that IMO isn't broken, at all.

And are we settled then? To me, what Senator's post seem to indicate is a work-in-progress. If we enable those changes now (about which he himself is still in doubt) I'm sure we'll be facing a new thread like this in 2 weeks time with yet even more suggested changes.
It's good as it is. :x
Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: Free on July 01, 2017, 10:59 AM
Im not a huge fan of IMO style of without providing any arguments.. It's kinda Komo :P




Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: HHC on July 01, 2017, 11:25 AM
I don't need no arguments, I am the POTUS!
Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: Free on July 01, 2017, 12:00 PM
I don't need no arguments, I am the POTUS!

I know U dont play leagues but some of us actually take it somewhat serious.
Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: HHC on July 01, 2017, 01:16 PM
Just a joke, once in a while?  :-[

How could I prove that a scheme is not broken? It's a matter of personal perception.
If you want arguments: T17 has been like this since the birth of TUS, thousands of games have been played in the scheme, not big trouble so far, other than a few too many drawn games in Senator's opinion (if thats the worst..)
Same with Aerial, popular free league scheme, popular cup scheme, never had any problems with rulebreaking or even lame/cheap play like in hyst.

Now you can give me arguments why these schemes are fundamentally broken.
Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: Senator on July 01, 2017, 01:40 PM
HHC, you act like tus scheme was the original scheme and it shouldn't be touched. It's not even the standard T17 since HB scheme is different and some people have been using different variants in tus games.

You still haven't told how T17 was broken before the tus scheme and how tus scheme fixed said problems. Too many bananas? Ok, that's easily fixed. Look at the crate probabilities of tus scheme:
(http://i.uppaa.fi/2015/10/07/comparison81891.png)
How do you justify 5.3% chance for bow and 6.2% for holy? How do you justify 0.6% for bat and 3.1% for cluster? These numbers are arbitrary.

IMO these changes made in the tus scheme didn't really fix anything but damaged the scheme (takes less skill) and caused new problems (more draws). We would have much less draws if we just moved back to equal numbers (except for cow and maybe banana). Other changes are arguable and need testing.
Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: Free on July 01, 2017, 01:41 PM
Now you can give me arguments why these schemes are fundamentally broken.

I already gave a perfect example, but you didn't bother to answer.
Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: Korydex on July 01, 2017, 04:26 PM
- replace the current scheme with a scheme that has higher SD weap probability? Perhaps use FB league's scheme (https://www.tus-wa.com/schemes/scheme-159/) (equal crate probabilities except for Mad Cow) just with lower probability for Banana Bombs.
- should 1 or 2 Select Worms be reintroduced to the scheme? Select Worms help against darksiding.
- should 1 x Homing Missile be added to the starting inventory as Free suggested (https://www.tus-wa.com/forums/leagues-general/team-17-scheme-needs-fixing-add-homing-perhaps-31068/)? This way your ability to finish the opponent doesn't depend on crate luck.
I would allow every option upon agreement. Like it's still allowed to pick a different scheme for WxW upon agreement. Those who care will all be happy =)
Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: WTF-8 on July 01, 2017, 05:05 PM
hey HHC, did Komo bite you and you're now becoming a Komo yourself? You're not making sense, at all.
It takes a single game of the opponent having a SD weapon and you having no SD weapons to realize how awful the current roofed scheme is and how utterly impossible it is to counter cornering when you have no SD weapons - and since whether a SD weapon is acquired is decided solely by RNG, the scheme becomes full time luckering. Unnecessarily long and boring luckering, at that. And that's what we're trying to avoid. In a league, skill should be valued above luck.

Korydex, it's been said a number of times, even a minor change can have a big impact. And adding/removing a very important weapon to the starter inventory isn't even close to a minor change. What'd you say, should this big variety be allowed, if it can be easily abused by less skilled players picking certain settings to make the game more luck-based in order to increase their win chances out of nowhere?
Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: Korydex on July 01, 2017, 05:13 PM
Korydex, it's been said a number of times, even a minor change can have a big impact. And adding/removing a very important weapon to the starter inventory isn't even close to a minor change. What'd you say, should this big variety be allowed, if it can be easily abused by less skilled players picking certain settings to make the game more luck-based in order to increase their win chances out of nowhere?
I said it should only be allowed under agreement. In your case the other player could disagree or complain
Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: WTF-8 on July 01, 2017, 05:49 PM
I said it should only be allowed under agreement. In your case the other player could disagree or complain
And in that case noone would ever agree to play a shittier version of the scheme, so the option picking rule wouldn't get to take an effect, raising the question of necessity of the rule.
Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: Korydex on July 01, 2017, 06:23 PM
I said it should only be allowed under agreement. In your case the other player could disagree or complain
And in that case noone would ever agree to play a shittier version of the scheme, so the option picking rule wouldn't get to take an effect, raising the question of necessity of the rule.
Are you sure that you know what you're talking about? For example I already played roofless and other versions of t17 for tus. Some other people did too. Unofficially, it's already allowed.
Now it's time to make it official like there for WxW: https://www.tus-wa.com/forums/announcements/experimental-season-result-21097/msg171072/#msg171072
Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: WTF-8 on July 01, 2017, 07:00 PM
For example I already played roofless and other versions of t17 for tus. Some other people did too. Unofficially, it's already allowed.
Now it's time to make it official like there for WxW: https://www.tus-wa.com/forums/announcements/experimental-season-result-21097/msg171072/#msg171072
My point at Team17 was that you sounded like you suggested not Roofless scheme as an option, but exactly those small changes you quoted - and those ones were very debatable. If you wanted just Roofless Team17 as an option, that's alright, though I'm not sure if such big variance in scheme versions is welcome in a serious league.

BTW I don't see alternate WxW version being mentioned https://www.tus-wa.com/leagues/ here, nor in default WxW's description. Is that even allowed anymore?
(Edit) speaking of the link above, it doesn't even mention the new leagues...
Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: Sensei on July 05, 2017, 11:13 AM
Just remembered one change that's quite needed. But not lots of ppl play that scheme (for some unknown reason).

Boom race should be played with rubber commands: /sdet & /ldet.
Lot faster, more fun, more interesting.. and what's most important - much more demanding in skillwise.

Hit me up in #ag if anyone wanna try. I have 1 more hour of free time.
Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: Hurz on July 05, 2017, 11:28 AM
Just remembered one change that's quite needed. But not lots of ppl play that scheme (for some unknown reason).

Boom race should be played with rubber commands: /sdet & /ldet.
Lot faster, more fun, more interesting.. and what's most important - much more demanding in skillwise.

Supporting this. Should be at least added as option/optional scheme.

Btw battlerace tfl scheme should be changed to wallies (https://www.tus-wa.com/schemes/scheme-1806/) imo.
Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: TheKaren on July 05, 2017, 11:35 AM
None of the schemes are broken, it's just the most popular/well known players trying to mould their own perfect version of each scheme.

I like the BnG changes proposed, but i'm happy with whatever in BnG tbh...
Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: Korydex on July 05, 2017, 12:39 PM
Just remembered one change that's quite needed. But not lots of ppl play that scheme (for some unknown reason).

Boom race should be played with rubber commands: /sdet & /ldet.
Lot faster, more fun, more interesting.. and what's most important - much more demanding in skillwise.

Supporting this. Should be at least added as option/optional scheme.

Btw battlerace tfl scheme should be changed to wallies (https://www.tus-wa.com/schemes/scheme-1806/) imo.
+1
Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: zippeurfou on July 05, 2017, 02:44 PM
Bng:
Define a stroke size (8 maybe) to break the map in two parts. And only play on such maps. Make game voidable if not played on such map. So it become the new norm and it is easy to know which side is yours.
Suggestions:
- Allow more time to place your worms
- Add petrol (I know it goes against the name bng but petrol add a whole new layer of game play/strategy and is good against people that darkside. It also make games quicker and with proper power could be a fine weapon that do not get abused).
Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: Senator on July 12, 2017, 09:16 AM
5 sec nades would be a bad idea, they can be easily abused, this detracts from the essence of bng being a shotmaker's game.

Are 5s nades that bad if they are not sitters (compared to 4s)?
Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: Sensei on July 12, 2017, 10:03 AM
Actually, 5s roller would be lot harder to throw than 4s :)
Lot of lamers would lose their hp due to sitter nades.

Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: TheWalrus on July 12, 2017, 01:44 PM
My argument against 5s revolves around the idea of throwing angle.  Currently 4 sec must be thrown at a low angle to allow it to settle, making it impossible or nearly impossible to roller a good hide.  5 sec would allow nades to be thrown at the same angle that you would throw a 3 sec, making it easier to hit the same hide.  5 sec nades would make contact nades to open hides mostly redundant, and I regard opening hides an important part of the bng meta game.

On first review, this might seem like it favors the lamers, but I think the top players would benefit more from 5 secs, and I don't think the scheme needs more division between the top players and the newer players, bng has a very steep learning curve, one of the hardest outside of ttrr.  Then again, 5 sec could make the scheme more fair in that a map with one side with better hides than the other would be more or less negated because more hides would be reachable with 5sec nades.

It would be advisable to test before changing the rules here, I feel allowing 5secs would be more drastic than some of the other changes suggested here.
Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: TheKaren on July 12, 2017, 02:01 PM
On first review, this might seem like it favors the lamers, but I think the top players would benefit more from 5 secs, and I don't think the scheme needs more division between the top players and the newer players, bng has a very steep learning curve, one of the hardest outside of ttrr.  Then again, 5 sec could make the scheme more fair in that a map with one side with better hides than the other would be more or less negated because more hides would be reachable with 5sec nades.

That's what i'm thinking, Classic League schemes are easy to learn the basics and get the job done, but takes a long time to really master everything.

This would definitely benefit top players more, it gives us an extra shot that can reach places other shots couldn't(and it's very easy), i'd be worried newer players would just risk sitting too often because of the extra fuse.

This is me being honest, can't think of anything else though:

Pros:

Gives good players a few extra shots(but they don't really need it)
Makes the rules shorter/simpler


Cons:

Higher risk of sitters
Gives players another reason not to learn advanced BnG shots
Title: Re: Updating schemes/rules
Post by: Senator on July 17, 2017, 01:30 PM
I so agree with Chicken! At least on the tus t 17 scheme part. It reapeats weapons, its v v annoying. Dyno, old woman, and pidgeons, sometmes holys also. Its so boring! Pls change it! FOr now, i've used fb sccheme quite alot, its better.
Play with the FB Team17 scheme.

Problem solved.

I've argued for the changes to TuS T17 scheme too many times to do it again, see if you can search some old threads on this. I also have the HHC luckless scheme and feel this isn't broken, FB schemes sometimes u get a few more nana's but sometimes you go a whole game without.. Theres only a handful of default guys that enjoy a more powerful T17 scheme these days because i believe the majoirty of players have never tried it.. SPW, Uber and Albino would all back me up and they are proven pro's at T17.
tus t17 is the worst t17 scheme in the history of wa.
I'd just prefer the FB scheme with 7 girders
Anyway, the T17 scheme we chose for was my own. In our opinion it's a lot better than the official one, and since it's widely acknowledged to be a good league scheme (used in t17 cups), we figured it wouldn't be a problem. And well.. I think you can trust TdC-clan to pick a fair and balanced scheme.

Btw MI, my t17 scheme is perfect for league games. The weapon balance is IMO perfect and I haven't had any complaints about it yet. It should be the new league scheme. Only thing that is debatable is the girder count, my scheme (but with 7 girders) would be a good choice as official setting.  :)
Can this scheme be fixed?

Were leading with 4 worms, of which 2 healthy (frozen) vs 2 worms of which one was skunked as well. And still lost  :(

In singles T17 works fairly ok, although you still need luck with the SD weaps. But in clanners it's a different matter.
f@#!ing piegeons lol -_________- (31:45...)

+ TUS scheme suck.... Scheme by Senator is so much better.
I'm also yet to figure out why crate probability is apparently all over the place in the T17 schemes used on TUS today. Has anyone ever explained why the old way of doing it, with the same probability for every weapon (except cows) was flawed?
TUS's can be a bitch. It seems like the scheme sometimes turn into a third opponent against both players and no matter how many crates you collect or how hard you squeeze the scheme, not one SD weapon would slip out!
- Proposal 2: up the SD probability. It sucks to have SD weaps fight, but it's more fair than 1 player getting it all and the other getting absolutely zero. Even if you totally pwn the regular time, you can still get owned in the end just because you didn't get a single SD crate. (which happens a lot).