The Ultimate Site of Worms Armageddon
One-Boards => Schemes => Topic started by: GreatProfe on October 27, 2011, 01:24 PM
-
Hi Guys and Girls and half guys / half girls and unknown.
I am working in a better team17 scheme.
Better = Luckless
Any sugestion?
Tonight i ll post here the schemeeddy that i am doing.
-
It's impossible to make it 100% luckless.
-
100% mb not but reduce at 20, 30% :D
-
I'm interested in your definition of luck probability...
-
I have an idea: Don't touch our beloved scheme. :)
-
I'm interested in your definition of luck probability...
Luck in T17 = crates
Sometimes one team17 game is decided for 1 lucky crate, as earthquack, super banana... mainly while suddendeath.
You can to be a proooooooo at xtreme level but if u dont take nices cr8, fu ftw xD
I have an idea: Don't touch our beloved scheme. :)
xDDDD it's just an idea
-
I found my way out of bad crate Team17s, winning them in the end, plenty of times already. If you wanna enhance your winning percentage, make better use of your brain. ;) The scheme is good as it is imo.
-
yes, let's rape t17
-
T17 is like card game, you cannot win by pure skill, instead you use skill to improve your probability of winning by making good choices: whether to collect a crate, attack or block your opponent, secure a drop zone etc. It's good the way it is imo.
Still, I'm curious about your proposed changes.
-
I found my way out of bad crate Team17s, winning them in the end, plenty of times already. If you wanna enhance your winning percentage, make better use of your brain. ;) The scheme is good as it is imo.
That. :)
-
I found my way out of bad crate Team17s, winning them in the end, plenty of times already. If you wanna enhance your winning percentage, make better use of your brain. ;) The scheme is good as it is imo.
That. :)
I like to change the things if the changes will make better for all. All knows what team17 is. Like Barman said :) Sometimes is more skillz and othertimes, more luck. I want to balance the probabilities.
Btw i like the team17 scheme, I believe that if WA should be more balanced in cr8 its distribution, we wont discuss about changes in the scheme.
Soon, i ll post the changes, currently i am testing the scheme :-*
-
Maybe delete sudden weapons^?
-
Start with 250 HP, I think would balance the super weapons.
-
when ur opponent gets 2 nuclear tests, 1 earthquack and 1 aqua sheep maybe 250 HP doesnt solve the problem :)
Btw Solido, i also thoguht in up the HP, and in my tests this worked nice, i increased to 200 :)
-
Let's start with 950HP, 8 worms, huh? Any better ideas?!?
Leave it as it is, for the love of god...I'm interested in your definition of luck probability...
I have an idea: Don't touch our beloved scheme. :)
I found my way out of bad crate Team17s, winning them in the end, plenty of times already. If you wanna enhance your winning percentage, make better use of your brain. ;) The scheme is good as it is imo.
T17 is like card game, you cannot win by pure skill, instead you use skill to improve your probability of winning by making good choices: whether to collect a crate, attack or block your opponent, secure a drop zone etc. It's good the way it is imo.
Still, I'm curious about your proposed changes.
I found my way out of bad crate Team17s, winning them in the end, plenty of times already. If you wanna enhance your winning percentage, make better use of your brain. ;) The scheme is good as it is imo.
That. :)
Just please, listen to the smart people.
-
I am a smart ppl also rofl!
And everybody complaints about team17 scheme, that's fact :)
-
Professor, the only people moaning are those who can't play it. It's f@#!ing awesome, especially FB scheme, leave it as it is.
-
what is f@#!ing awesome? You take 9 Cluster bombs and ur opponent takes 2 aquas and 1 Nuclear test?
I know to play t17 absolutelly. So, that's my oppinion, but leave it as it is also is valid :)
-
You know, nuke and eq can be easly prevented if you leave you worms high enough and stay in a crater.
Being shitlessly scared to death and not even trying to collect the crates, even if your oponnent might attack you, is like giving up on something because it may not work. And eventually, with my experience, if you collected enough crates, you will be well prepared for sd. So stop blocking the worms (well, now, with 7 girders, it's kinda reduced, I remember me and Uber while being into deep shit blocked like mad and the other guys always went crazy :D ) and use the power of F8. ;) One more thing, sure there's luck involved in t17, but top t17 players magically can reduce it. ; O Damn, there must be something in it!
-
what is f@#!ing awesome? You take 9 Cluster bombs and ur opponent takes 2 aquas and 1 Nuclear test?
I know to play t17 absolutelly. So, that's my oppinion, but leave it as it is also is valid :)
With 8 clusters you can wipe a whole team out if they're in the right position. Sure, i would also rather pick up the aquas and the nuke, but if i get killed before sd even those won't really help. :)
What i'd rather want to see is people coming off their big "reduce luck" horse... noone is so perfect that he can claim he has lost or won by pure luck, that is just impossible. That's why even the top guys playing chess win and lose. Human nature is to be imperfect. Plus the most important thing is that people enjoy playing the different schemes without thinking this or that is based on luck. Coz we are running out of league schemes if this continues, see the discussion about roper also.
Also see this for t17 overall stats to see this is not a luck based scheme: https://www.tus-wa.com/leagues/classic-stats/Team17-stats/?s=overall (https://www.tus-wa.com/leagues/classic-stats/Team17-stats/?s=overall)
-
i rly dont believe that team17 is a luck based scheme.
But i believe that the luck in team17 scheme has much more influence than others like wxw, hysteria... (excepting rare exceptions like Spazzi xD)
What i think is that we can to make the scheme a little bit fair, in my eyepoint, putting off banana, superbanana, aquasheep n' pasty bullet magic from scheme.
Grow up the HP for 200 (for estimulate the players to attack and not hiding) and give 1 homing missile at start (this way no one ll complaint about dont have sd weapon).
As I said, i am testing this changes, I am not convicted if this could be better the scheme but bleeee i am trying to help :D
-
The luck that turns schemes enjoyable, dont f@#!ing touch on it.
-
Okay let's stop going in circles.
A) Team17 scheme is affected by crate luck
B) Crate luck can be countered with better use of brain
both are true and now we can stop this argument.
About the topic: I would never pick team17 in a league game because I don't like schemes in were I'm not in full control of hte outcome. However, changing the scheme so luck is less might change the scheme to the point of no return, ergo making it worse than it is.
I'm not sure I'd want it changed, what I'm sure about, whatsoever, is that I wouldn't trust you, amogst all people, to make the right decisions.
-
eliminate broken weapons (magic bullet, banana bomb, super banana bomb, vase, and army) and eliminate fodder items like the mortar and prod. That's one of the easiest ways to make it more skill based without changing the scheme monumentally. And for the record, earthquake and nuke are not broken, so you'd keep those
-
I'm not sure I'd want it changed, what I'm sure about, whatsoever, is that I wouldn't trust you, amogst all people, to make the right decisions.
1º TUS is a comunitty. Team17 scheme will be changed if all members agree on do it. BTW, try to know me b4 to make wrongs n' bad judgements about me.
2º ShyGuy dont be so radical xD I love the luck factor sometimes. But what i see is that we cant control this factor in Team17. BL Crates, BL places, BL weapons. Neutralizing some factor we ll have a team17 a little better without lose this beloved factor.
-
eliminate broken weapons (magic bullet, banana bomb, super banana bomb, vase, and army) and eliminate fodder items like the mortar and prod. That's one of the easiest ways to make it more skill based without changing the scheme monumentally. And for the record, earthquake and nuke are not broken, so you'd keep those
alternatively, just give the user a few basic weapons on start. 3 grenades, 3 bazookas perhaps?
something along those lines.
it gives more choices at the start, and grenades and zooks are not that useful against high HP worms unless you either do clever use of them (skill) or your opponent lack of skill (placing his worms in bad places were a clever zook/nade can kill him)
this is just a premature thought, it would require tweaking, but out of all the solutions, for me, it's the best overall, even if it seems as it changes the scheme too much, in practice, it really plays like a normal team17 that removes the most critical luck phase of a team17: the begining.
-
THATS THE BEAUTY OF IT, U NEVER KNOW WHAT WILL UR OPPONENT DO!!!
-
calm down loira burra xD
-
eliminate broken weapons (magic bullet, banana bomb, super banana bomb, vase, and army) and eliminate fodder items like the mortar and prod. That's one of the easiest ways to make it more skill based without changing the scheme monumentally. And for the record, earthquake and nuke are not broken, so you'd keep those
alternatively, just give the user a few basic weapons on start. 3 grenades, 3 bazookas perhaps?
something along those lines.
it gives more choices at the start, and grenades and zooks are not that useful against high HP worms unless you either do clever use of them (skill) or your opponent lack of skill (placing his worms in bad places were a clever zook/nade can kill him)
this is just a premature thought, it would require tweaking, but out of all the solutions, for me, it's the best overall, even if it seems as it changes the scheme too much, in practice, it really plays like a normal team17 that removes the most critical luck phase of a team17: the begining.
50% chance the person who starts the game can plop a worm on the bottom.
fp's and db's do a nice 30. Doesn't seem like much, but it's definitely something.
Scheme is fine as it is.
-
Scheme is fine as it is.
-
50% chance the person who starts the game can plop a worm on the bottom.
fp's and db's do a nice 30. Doesn't seem like much, but it's definitely something.
I agree it. In my eyepoint, could be add just 1 homing missile as sd weapon at start.
-
50% chance the person who starts the game can plop a worm on the bottom
What? You're saying every two games you can throw a nade / zook to kill an opponent worm from a safe spot (you know, just so it's not trivial). You're highlighting a problem that already exists with the current scheme. I'll get a number out of my hat and say as it stands, you can kill an enemy worm in your first turn if you wanted to every two or three games. But then you're ignoring the variable of choice, unless that 50% implies the crate fell on your worm's reach and that he can grab it, make a hole in the water to plop a worm, and retreat to a safe spot were he ain't gonna be equally plopped by his opponent, then surely the percentage is even lower because some people prefer a first crate above anything else?
Scheme is fine as it is.
And sex with Natalie Portman is also fine as it is, but she needs a boobjob.
-
50% chance the person who starts the game can plop a worm on the bottom
What? You're saying every two games you can throw a nade / zook to kill an opponent worm from a safe spot (you know, just so it's not trivial). You're highlighting a problem that already exists with the current scheme. I'll get a number out of my hat and say as it stands, you can kill an enemy worm in your first turn if you wanted to every two or three games. But then you're ignoring the variable of choice, unless that 50% implies the crate fell on your worm's reach and that he can grab it, make a hole in the water to plop a worm, and retreat to a safe spot were he ain't gonna be equally plopped by his opponent, then surely the percentage is even lower because some people prefer a first crate above anything else?
Scheme is fine as it is.
And sex with Natalie Portman is also fine as it is, but she needs a boobjob.
btw, lose a worm in start it doesnt too bad... coz this gives for u an "advantage" in SD :)
-
I dont see tele piling as advantage lol
-
What? You're saying every two games you can throw a nade / zook to kill an opponent worm from a safe spot (you know, just so it's not trivial). You're highlighting a problem that already exists with the current scheme. I'll get a number out of my hat and say as it stands, you can kill an enemy worm in your first turn if you wanted to every two or three games. But then you're ignoring the variable of choice, unless that 50% implies the crate fell on your worm's reach and that he can grab it, make a hole in the water to plop a worm, and retreat to a safe spot were he ain't gonna be equally plopped by his opponent, then surely the percentage is even lower because some people prefer a first crate above anything else?
I'm not quite following you. It doesn't happen too often right now cause as you say, you need a bunch of variables:
1) first to go
2) enemy worm on bottom
3) within reach of your own worm
4) crate within reach of your own worm
5) plop-weapon in crate
6) a safe retreat
7) more skill than doubletime
If you already start out with nades/zooks you can skip variable 4&5, making the odds quite a bit worse.
And sex with Natalie Portman is also fine as it is, but she needs a boobjob.
Disagree.
T17 needed 7 girders, but that's it IMO.
Dmitry's cup scheme had no superweaps for a bit, but I dunno. It was kinda easier when you don't need to be afraid of nukes or quakes.
TUS scheme is good too, although it has too many damn cows.
My scheme = sex with Natalie Portman
-
HHC, you were wrong about 50% chance of plop. It is much lower. You listed the requirements yourself.
I've tried FB's, TuT's, TUS's, HHC's ...
FB's and TuT seem to be designed for starving monkeys. All the games I tried, we had at least 2 nanas flying around.
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!
Dmitry's scheme is out of super weapons. It has make the game kinda dull to me. Those Team17's could get so boring. That's just my opinion of course.
HHC's, more balanced but full of pigeons. Did you own a pigeon cage up on your roof before HHC? If you collect one pigeon, don't get too excited! your opponent got at least two of them. In overall your scheme is like FB's, but the chance of nanas has been divided into SD weapons.
I think if you lower your SD weapon's chance just a tad, it will be the best one between those others.
-
HHC, you were wrong about 50% chance of plop. It is much lower. You listed the requirements yourself.
I've tried FB's, TuT's, TUS's, HHC's ...
FB's and TuT seem to be designed for starving monkeys. All the games I tried, we had at least 2 nanas flying around.
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!
Dmitry's scheme is out of super weapons. It has make the game kinda dull to me. Those Team17's could get so boring. That's just my opinion of course.
HHC's, more balanced but full of pigeons. Did you own a pigeon cage up on your roof before HHC? If you collect one pigeon, don't get too excited! your opponent got at least two of them. In overall your scheme is like FB's, but the chance of nanas has divided into SD weapons.
I think if you lower your SD weapon's chance just a tad, it will be the best one between those others.
W:A's randomize algorithm seems a bit weird to me... kinda every scheme has its flaw in terms of one specific weapon popping up too frequently. Not sure why that is so.
-
HHC, you were wrong about 50% chance of plop. It is much lower. You listed the requirements yourself.
I've tried FB's, TuT's, TUS's, HHC's ...
FB's and TuT seem to be designed for starving monkeys. All the games I tried, we had at least 2 nanas flying around.
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!
Dmitry's scheme is out of super weapons. It has make the game kinda dull to me. Those Team17's could get so boring. That's just my opinion of course.
HHC's, more balanced but full of pigeons. Did you own a pigeon cage up on your roof before HHC? If you collect one pigeon, don't get too excited! your opponent got at least two of them. In overall your scheme is like FB's, but the chance of nanas has divided into SD weapons.
I think if you lower your SD weapon's chance just a tad, it will be the best one between those others.
I mentioned 50% as the chance you could drown a worm on first turn WHEN you start out with nades & zooks in your weapon panel.
In normal T17 it's about 15% ?
I made changes to my scheme a while back MI. The SD weap prob was lowered from 4 to 3 for missiles, pidges & supersheep alike (making them less common than the normal weaps (nade, clusters, holy, etc.). There are no more pidges than other SD weaps, never have been either.
My cows are set to 2 crates prob. In TUS it's set to the full 5 crates prob. That's a little overdone IMO. 2 or 3 is quite alright.
You should check the crate probabilities in my scheme: I think it's well balanced.
https://www.tus-wa.com/schemes/scheme-223/
For MI:
[attachment=1]
-
1º What means TuT?
2º Interessant argument MI. Instead to delete the super weapons, could be much better gives many usefull weapons in the crates, like birds and missiles.
Very interessant :)
-
I'm not quite following you. It doesn't happen too often right now cause as you say, you need a bunch of variables:
1) first to go
2) enemy worm on bottom
3) within reach of your own worm
4) crate within reach of your own worm
5) plop-weapon in crate
6) a safe retreat
7) more skill than doubletime
If you already start out with nades/zooks you can skip variable 4&5, making the odds quite a bit worse.
skipping 4 is not so much of a bad thing as it is a choice for the player. Choices are a good thing. You can ignore a crate to get a kill, but if that crate had a SD weapon and you ropponent gets it then maybe he's the one getting the best of it.
that's 1/6 of what you consider a total of 50% meaning regular team17 has a 42% chance of plopping on first turn.
All I'm saying is that a difference of 8% is not really the problem.
The only fix t17 needs is brining back worm select, which were only removed from the scheme by MISTAKE. It wasn't intentional and had no reasoning behind. It still shocks me how even to this day, people just live with it and dare defend the current t17 scheme as it was balanced. Heard the news? It's not balanced, it's random set of rules. What happened is you managed to craft a gamestyle and a set of strategies that became quickly universal and a habit by all players.
This allowed bad team17 players to abuse certain gimmicks that required no thought nor skill and that were effective most of the time. Girder abuse. Why were worm selects there? For that exactly, amongst adding a thousand more situation and strategies for SD other than climb up, wait, use SS.
Seriously, the history with the scheme and its group of players never ceases to amuse me, it's as if a bunch of otherwise intelligent people decided to take something for granted, without questioning one bit of it, and now defend it as if it was theirs.
But hey, it's not like dictionaries don't allow consideration of additions based ona bunch of people using the language wrong - it's called being practical (or lazy), if you have one worm vs 2 in SD, I guess it's much simpler to follow a patern that keeps your winning chances somewhat safe. Obviously, that one SD loving worm with turn advantage is happy following somewhat a constant set of strategies, as opposed as having to defend to select worm which coupled with things like shotguns, petrols, moles or whatever can make it a twice as complicate for the guy who has half the worms.
You see how that makes complete sense right?
-
The difference isn't 8%, the gap is a little higher imo. Since you not only need a crate within reach but also a weapon with a decent explosion radius in it.
I don't think adding zooks and/or nades is going to help the scheme in any way.
-
but also a weapon with a decent explosion radius in it.
why? I rather get a skunk or an earthquake and firepunching a worm, than getting a dyno and using it to kill one.
you gotta consider all variables.
-
skipping 4 is not so much of a bad thing as it is a choice for the player. Choices are a good thing. You can ignore a crate to get a kill, but if that crate had a SD weapon and you ropponent gets it then maybe he's the one getting the best of it.
It's a choice, but a very poor choice. A player ignoring an easy kill in favour of a 10% chance of a SD weap or super nanabomb or some shit is quite a dumbass ???
that's 1/6 of what you consider a total of 50% meaning regular team17 has a 42% chance of plopping on first turn.
All I'm saying is that a difference of 8% is not really the problem.
Hmm.. it doesnt work that way.
First of all, you do not require 4 AND 5 anymore. Secondly, the %'s are different for each variable.
1) first to go (50%) (if we take the game as a whole into the equation, 100%)
2) enemy worm on bottom (40%)
3) within reach of your worm (60%)
4) crate within reach of your worm (20%)
5) plop weap in crate (30%)
6) safe retreat (70-80% chance)
As you can see, the odds of meeting the variable are worst for exactly step 4 and 5. Take them out and the odds of succeeding are much much greater.
This allowed bad team17 players to abuse certain gimmicks that required no thought nor skill and that were effective most of the time. Girder abuse. Why were worm selects there? For that exactly, amongst adding a thousand more situation and strategies for SD other than climb up, wait, use SS.
It's the reason why the girder limit was set to 7 instead of unlimited. It fixes everything.
Even if you put in worm switches the opponent can still block you from getting access to his side (with unlimited girders that is). And let's not forget.. you can get a switch in a crate now. It's not disappeared entirely.
Seriously, the history with the scheme and its group of players never ceases to amuse me, it's as if a bunch of otherwise intelligent people decided to take something for granted, without questioning one bit of it, and now defend it as if it was theirs.
T17 is the scheme that was altered the most in recent years. The girder limit greatly improved things, so did a more balanced set of weapons. It's all well tought-through.
-
Hmm.. it doesnt work that way.
First of all, you do not require 4 AND 5 anymore. Secondly, the %'s are different for each variable.
1) first to go (50%) (if we take the game as a whole into the equation, 100%)
2) enemy worm on bottom (40%)
3) within reach of your worm (60%)
4) crate within reach of your worm (20%)
5) plop weap in crate (30%)
6) safe retreat (70-80% chance)
As you can see, the odds of meeting the variable are worst for exactly step 4 and 5. Take them out and the odds of succeeding are much much greater.
Success is relative, and you can't calculate the overall worth of said choice in the first turn of the game. Maybe it's at this point were you might want to consider the benefits said change could bring and then build a conclusion - you know, as opposed to trying to focus on proving how it's bad because it could potentially increase the number of casualties in the first turn of every team17. Good math, but useless math unless you can argue how adding basic weapons to prevent scenarios in which you're crate f@#!ed is actually adding more luck factor as opposed to less luck factor.
The only argument team17ers have is that a good team17er can minimize crate luck with skill. No shit. So I'm going to adopt said flawed logic and claim that a good team17er should have no problems losing a worm in the first turn.
It's the reason why the girder limit was set to 7 instead of unlimited. It fixes everything.
Even if you put in worm switches the opponent can still block you from getting access to his side (with unlimited girders that is). And let's not forget.. you can get a switch in a crate now. It's not disappeared entirely.
Seriously, the history with the scheme and its group of players never ceases to amuse me, it's as if a bunch of otherwise intelligent people decided to take something for granted, without questioning one bit of it, and now defend it as if it was theirs.
T17 is the scheme that was altered the most in recent years. The girder limit greatly improved things, so did a more balanced set of weapons. It's all well tought-through.
see, this is what I find silly. You guys have put effort to improve the scheme but you never gave any serious consieration to worm select, quite frankly, you are all too comfortable with the current gimmicks.
Team17 was never about trying to gather better resources than your opponent for SD. It was about making the most pain out of whatever you managed to grab.
You turned an awesome Zerg Rush into a boring Age of Empires game between two noobs who build walls around their little city to keep their tasty 2000 berries whilst still on second age.
-
Good math, but useless math unless you can argue how adding basic weapons to prevent scenarios in which you're crate f@#!ed is actually adding more luck factor as opposed to less luck factor. The only argument team17ers have is that a good team17er can minimize crate luck with skill. No shit. So I'm going to adopt said flawed logic and claim that a good team17er should have no problems losing a worm in the first turn.
All that adding nades and zooks really does is increase the basic damage you can do from 30 to 45. That's not much of a difference. Nades and zooks have certain pro's that the close combat weaps do not. Mostly blast range. With worms in drowning position on turn 1, or standing close to barrels, this is quite an advantage.
Losing a worm in T17 is always a bad thing. You're not just behind in HP, you're also limited in the options that you have. 4 worms spread out through the map can do a whole lot, 3 worms a fair bit less. Once you've lost that 3rd worm as well, you're in even more trouble. The only thing you can do then is go on defence (meaning you gotta leave a bunch of crates to your opponent).. or hold your ground and (greatly) risk going into SD with just 1 worm (which is almost certain death).
see, this is what I find silly. You guys have put effort to improve the scheme but you never gave any serious consieration to worm select, quite frankly, you are all too comfortable with the current gimmicks.
I've played T17 with worm selects as well, never was any good.
Team17 was never about trying to gather better resources than your opponent for SD. It was about making the most pain out of whatever you managed to grab.
You turned an awesome Zerg Rush into a boring Age of Empires game between two noobs who build walls around their little city to keep their tasty 2000 berries whilst still on second age.
Hmm ropa. You haven't played a T17 in the last few years have you? You talk about all these old issues that have been discussed and solved long ago already.
And p.s., whilst in my second age I Zerg Rushed your mom.. just cause I love her tasty berries.
-
I've played T17 with worm selects as well, never was any good.
Why, because it didn't feel like home? Because those are empty words without an explanation.
And I'm aware there's been discussions and decisions, but I have my own intel, so allow me to ignore anything that's been decided by popular vote regarding schemes.
-
I forgot to mention in my post, along with deleting broken weapons and useless weapons, make it so you can't attack on your first turn. It only makes sense since it is a scheme with random placing. Even if the chances to kill a worm on the first turn are low, why ignore the small chance? Does someone deserve to lose a worm in any circumstance before he even has a turn? Why should someone be forced to play the 3v4 without even pressing a key? You have no power in that situation, it is luck, get rid of the luck factor, even if it is low. Team17 is already a scheme with random placement, random crate drops, random weapons in the crates, why not remove all the luck we can in the luck abundant scheme?
Now I'm not saying t17 is 100% luck, i'm not saying it at all. If there was a scheme that was 99% skill and 1% luck and the luck was fixable, I feel like it would be logical to fix it.
edit: oh, and if you think the absence of broken weapons makes the game dull, keep them in, but for god's sake, lower the power on them!
2edit: also, inb4 "what about not attacking first turn in hysteria? there are random placings there" Hysteria is completely different, you don't have worm select like in t17... even if you start with a worm in danger, it could be 4 turns before you could move it. Also, hysteria has HUGE rotation advantage elements, unlike t17, which has some, but not as much as hysteria
-
just remove Patsy, put an HHC sheme and add 1 homing misille to adventage...... and all will be fine.
-
@Shyguy
I disagree with the whole "dont attack on the first turn cause you might lose a worm"business. I got one word for an argument: Intermediate.
Obviously different schemes but I would sum up all the changes I'd suggest as follows:
1)increase by1 the probability of homing or pidgeon (which needs more skill to control than homing)
2)have finite girders
3)remove patsy cause its essentially a game breaker like EQ, OR increase chance of all weapons by +1 apart from patsy and EQ so that they have even lower chance of ever appearing
4) play the freakin scheme and accept its randomness inherent factor cause that's mostly what sets it apart from other classic league schemes -just like the beginning of the hysteria game is essentially pointless in 90% of games since you'll always end up in a 1VS1 situation, or a moreVS1 in which all worms beyond the 1rst one are just holding you back :P (yes I know that thats not always the case but its almost always the case :)
-
Nice argument about Intermediate, Desetroyah, i agree with You. Team17 allows You play the game with 2 or 3 worms np, You just need to get good hides and weapons that keep the enemy far away from ur worms.
But, why infinite girders?
-
@Shyguy
I disagree with the whole "dont attack on the first turn cause you might lose a worm"business. I got one word for an argument: Intermediate.
...no... In intermediate, you have 8 worms each, you already start out with a shit load of weapons, and it is likely both players can kill on the first turns. In t17, that is not the case at all... in the case of t17, several factors play in: you need to start at a plopable location, your opponent needs to be in the same zone, a crate needs to fall in that zone, and the crate and to be something that can plop you. In intermediate, you have 8 worms... the only factor is being randomly placed by the water, which is likely to happen for both teams...
-
also: intermediate is played bo3 dont forget....
its pretty silly to compare 2 separate schemes when trying to make a point... it reminds me of someone a while back constantly comparing the league to a football league... does not work, lets just stick with apples to apples :D
its like saying there are weapon crates in shoppa, why not in roper? :p
ps: i did not read this entire topic, and not even the entire thread of each post... i just skimmed through the last 3 posts and figured i would add my 2cents :P