Changes in T17 Scheme

[GreatProfe]

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.

[Aerox]

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.

[GreatProfe]

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

[Camper]

I dont see tele piling as advantage lol

[HHC]

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

[MonkeyIsland]

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.

[chakkman]

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]

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:
 Team17 (HHC 2.0).wsc (0.29 kB - downloaded 27 times.)

[GreatProfe]

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

[Aerox]

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?

[darKz]

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.

[Aerox]

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.

[HHC]

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.

[Aerox]

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.

[HHC]

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.