Comparison of T17 schemes (for MI)

[Free]

Hmm, I'd like to have SS at start also. Great idea imo. Anyone?

[DENnis]

I would prefer a non bordered map with inf donkey

[ShyGuy]

HHC's scheme has me confused.  You can't have every weapon with the same probability and then pick a few of them and lower it... like he did with banana and cows... This just makes the game more luck filled.  look at the banana bomb, 1.05% chance to get it... ok, so that means when someone does get it, they were extremely lucky since its probability is so low.  This works vice versa, which addresses the tus scheme... the TUS scheme has some powerful weapons high probability, like cows, FT, and HHG.  This means whenever you get something of a much lower probability like mine or bazooka, it is bad luck that you didn't get something better.  TUS scheme seems to have no consistency with weapon probability and I don't understand why we are using that scheme.  Either make every weapon equal to get or REMOVE THE BROKEN WEAPONS FROM THE SCHEME!  

I mean, maybe putting a banana on a worm takes skill.

inb4 "well you have to think of your retreat when using banana"

[GreatProfe]

perfect Shy.

[Abnaxus]

Remove all weapons which can kill 1 worm straight ? (Banana, Ming, etc..)

I mean, it's better to get 30, 45 & 60 dmgs weapons which, well used, can make more damages.
So when you pick a crate, the only thing which will change between you and your opponent will be the way to use your weapon.
Ex: One pick zook, he'll have to aim and shoot with wind. The other one pick nades, he'll have to aim and use bounces/timer.
Both weap deal same dmgs. And if it doesn't (zook & sheep for example), it's not a really big difference (20hp).
In addition, with only 1 sd weapon, you'll have to use strategy to lower the number of your opponent's worms and use your sd weap greatly to kill the last one (there, your sd position is very important, and the previous fight will be for this).

But well, if you prefer a luck-based T17 scheme, you can keep the one we have.

[HHC]

I prefer a scheme that is fun to play. That first of all. With all weapons doing the same damage it's bound to end up a damn boring scheme.

It should be balanced. You need some big weaps to do major damage (otherwise both teams will likely go to SD with 3 worms left). That's why I keep in the nana's and cows and other big weaps. But you shouldn't overdo them or it's gonna be a nana-blast fest.
It's not really unfair Shy. One side may get a nana this way, but the other side is likely to get a superweap too, even if it's not nana (like Ming, cows, or some shit).

[ShyGuy]

It's not really unfair Shy. One side may get a nana this way, but the other side is likely to get a superweap too, even if it's not nana (like Ming, cows, or some shit).

The key to your statement is "may".  You're banking off of it being balanced, but if it isn't it is lucky.  If you believe the superweapons like bananas and ming will even out, why not just start with 3 worms and remove those weapons since the teams would be down one more anyway?  For the record, I don't think cows are a "super" weapon, they definitely take more skill to pull off successfully than a banana or ming vase.

I prefer a league scheme to be more skilled while still being fun with reduced luck.  There a plenty of fun schemes to play that aren't in the league.  Also, it is subjective whether getting owned by a magic bullet for 70 damage above the border is fun or not :p

[HHC]

The key to your statement is "may".  You're banking off of it being balanced, but if it isn't it is lucky.  If you believe the superweapons like bananas and ming will even out, why not just start with 3 worms and remove those weapons since the teams would be down one more anyway?

The more weapons you remove the less fun the game.

Nana isn't stronger than the superweapons in the game.
The superweapons cannot be manually excluded, unless you exclude them all. In that case, you don't have to fear nuke, freeze, quake or patsy anymore. It makes the SD game so much easier (and way less skilly) (and way less fun).

[MonkeyIsland]

I'm one of those who believe the game will even out. That aside, there's no way you can alter team17 scheme to remove the so called "luck". Team17 is defined through this "luck" and its skill is how well you can get the most from anything you collect. Any reduction to weapons will make the scheme closer to a simple ground combat.

I prefer a league scheme to be more skilled while still being fun with reduced luck.  There a plenty of fun schemes to play that aren't in the league.  Also, it is subjective whether getting owned by a magic bullet for 70 damage above the border is fun or not :p

Then Team17 is not your scheme. The thrill is "anything can happen". There were games I get so cocky owning my opponent, 3 vs 1 worm in sd, boxing him in the corner and yet he pulled out a weapon and surprised me.
What people almost never consider about Team17 is how they let their opponent collect the powerful weapon. They just see what crate their opponent collected and nag.
This game, Albino kills 2 of my 150hp worms in 2 turns in row using 2 nanas which he collected in 1 turn. (wasn't TUS scheme) The point is, it was totally my mistake to let him go around and collect 4 crates which I could so the same.

[ShyGuy]

I'm one of those who believe the game will even out. That aside, there's no way you can alter team17 scheme to remove the so called "luck".

I didn't say you could remove it, but reduce it.  

Team17 is defined through this "luck" and its skill is how well you can get the most from anything you collect. Any reduction to weapons will make the scheme closer to a simple ground combat.

Then it is kind of odd having this professional league with a scheme that is "defined through 'luck'".  Doesn't that set a precedent to add just about every scheme into the league?  Also, I don't know what you mean by ground combat.  The terrain of t17 are unique to every scheme, thus requiring you to use weapons a bit differently.

Then Team17 is not your scheme. The thrill is "anything can happen". There were games I get so cocky owning my opponent, 3 vs 1 worm in sd, boxing him in the corner and yet he pulled out a weapon and surprised me.
What people almost never consider about Team17 is how they let their opponent collect the powerful weapon. They just see what crate their opponent collected and nag.
This game, Albino kills 2 of my 150hp worms in 2 turns in row using 2 nanas which he collected in 1 turn. (wasn't TUS scheme) The point is, it was totally my mistake to let him go around and collect 4 crates which I could so the same.

T17 has been a highly controversial scheme and his been put under the spotlight of reform for years, yet I can't understand why anecdotal evidence such as that ^ wins out against those who point out the straight facts about that scheme every time.  I'm not saying getting a banana = instant win so I'm not going to combat your points about 3v1 situations and whatnot.  This reminds me of the roper debate, when people, instead of addressing the fact of the issue, addressed what you should do to work around it.  That's not curing the disease, you're inventing medicine to relieve the pain after it happens.  I'm saying when you have weapon like magic bullet that can hit you for 80 damage from above the border at SD, you have to step back and actually analyze if that is something that should be in a league scheme.  To me, it clearly isn't, and I provide decent points as to why not.  For bullet, as an example, it does too much damage for how incredibly easy it is to use.  It can win a game even if you had a shit game with many mistakes.  Get rid of the damn thing.  

Same thing with the first turn rule.  Right now, there is no rule against attacking on the first turn, which is ridiculous from a strictly skillwise standpoint.  I don't care if you can use rotation to your advantage in SD; that's not the point.  The point is, you shouldn't be down a worm because you solely went second (or for the crate weapon argument, because someone can click a bullet to destroy you).

The only real defense I've seen is the "schemes need some luck for fun" bit.  If that is what the community agrees on as a league scheme, then I guess I'll be forced to deal with it, but from any other serious gaming standpoint, I feel like that wouldn't be acceptable at all

[ShyGuy]

The key to your statement is "may".  You're banking off of it being balanced, but if it isn't it is lucky.  If you believe the superweapons like bananas and ming will even out, why not just start with 3 worms and remove those weapons since the teams would be down one more anyway?

The more weapons you remove the less fun the game.

Nana isn't stronger than the superweapons in the game.
The superweapons cannot be manually excluded, unless you exclude them all. In that case, you don't have to fear nuke, freeze, quake or patsy anymore. It makes the SD game so much easier (and way less skilly) (and way less fun).

If we are going more weapons = fun and fun = criteria for a league scheme, then you must immediately call for the removal of bng, hysteria, elite, roper, and roperace from the league.  All those schemes have less weapons than t17, even if super weapons were removed.  This is why we don't use fun as a criteria for league schemes, we use a skill value to determine which schemes are best for the league.  Naturally, if we are using a skill based criterion, we must reform schemes to remove petty luck and increase overall skill.

Also, T17 is the only scheme with crates in the league where players are not forced to grab them as a rule.  This in itself adds much more strategy when it comes to crates and the weapons in them.  Less weapons would not equal less skill at all since that entire freedom of choice is available.  You've got to use the weapons better than your opponent, which is what should determine the outcome of a t17 in the first place.

[ShyGuy]

One last post with an analogy I can think of.

A baseball team plays at a stadium that is invested with birds.  It is common that once or twice a game a bird will get in the way of the flightpath of the ball and messes up play, causing an advantage for a certain team.  A few players from the Major League Baseball Committee decide to use the scientific method towards the problem of the birds and comes to the conclusion that putting a roof over the stadium so birds can't interfere with the game would be the best solution to the problem. But the majority of Major League Baseball Committee decides that players should just play better so when the birds do get hit, no one gets f@#!ed over too bad.  So the baseball teams continue to hit birds that f@#! up a play, and some players complain to put a roof on the stadium, but the Committee just keeps telling them to play better and hitting the birds won't make a difference in the outcome of the game.

Just because getting a vase =/= a secured win doesn't mean it should be kept in the game, like the birds in the stadium.

professional sports has changed many policies in making sure that the right calls are made so the deserving teams win.  AFAIK, worms schemes have transformed throughout the years for this same reason.  I don't know why we have stopped trying to better schemes when there are apparent problems with them. I still can't understand why there is a universal zook first turn rule in roper.  When a scheme has obvious flaws that can be fixed, they should be fixed rather than keeping them in for tradition. 

[HHC]

This is why we don't use fun as a criteria for league schemes, we use a skill value to determine which schemes are best for the league.

You don't mean 'we', you mean 'I'.


I'm not gonna go into the fun-vs-skill discussion again, as everyone already knows my point of view on the matter. I'm just gonna say that the emphasis on skill and the removal of everything that could be considered luck has lead to BnG as it is today. A scheme the vast majority hates and doesn't play.

And yes, if it were up to me, we'd make schemes that are more diverse and fun than those simple skill-o-meters RR, WxW, BnG and all them other wank-schemes.  

[ShyGuy]

This is why we don't use fun as a criteria for league schemes, we use a skill value to determine which schemes are best for the league.

You don't mean 'we', you mean 'I'.


I'm not gonna go into the fun-vs-skill discussion again, as everyone already knows my point of view on the matter. I'm just gonna say that the emphasis on skill and the removal of everything that could be considered luck has lead to BnG as it is today. A scheme the vast majority hates and doesn't play.

And yes, if it were up to me, we'd make schemes that are more diverse and fun than those simple skill-o-meters RR, WxW, BnG and all them other wank-schemes.  

It's not the removal of everything that is considered luck, it is the removal of all easily removal-able things that are luck (zook first turn rule in roper, no rule against attacking first in t17).  You're right that games would be stripped down Bngfests if I were calling for the removal of all luck; all wind based items would need to be removed along with random placings, crates would need to be removed completely, and the map would consist of 3 straight lines - bottom line, middle line, and top line.  That's not what I'm calling for, though.  Those changes monumentally change the game; the ones I suggest, do not change the essence of the game.  There are inherent luck factors in many league schemes that cannot be removed, so they would not turn into a "bng" scheme.  BnG and RR are really the only two schemes in the league that test your ability with a couple of weapons.  I just have a problem with luck factors that can be removed but aren't for the sake of things like tradition

[Abnaxus]

I prefer a scheme that is fun to play. That first of all. With all weapons doing the same damage it's bound to end up a damn boring scheme.

I'm having fun using nades because they can bounces on the floor, even if they deal max 46 dmgs.
Plus there are plenty of weapons which deals between 27dmgs & 60dmgs.

The more dmg a weapon does, the more fun you have ? I find it kindda weird.
Especially if I give you 50 different zooks which all deals different dmgs, do you still find it funny ?
I mean, you have fun thanks to the varity of weapons (the way you throw it, the way it exploses, etc..), not because of the dmgs they deal.

As a solution of removing the poor 3 super high weapons (I see only Nanas, Mings & Patxy atm) you really want to keep, we can lower the dmg they deal ?

PS: I totally agree with Shy.
In addition, why did we put some schemes in the "free league" ? 'Cause they had luck involved (yep, just remember of inter).
So if it's fine for you to get a league with luck-based scheme, I ask for the other schemes to be add in the classic league (Bungee & Battle Race ftw !).

PSS: MI, you can't control every crates your opponent collect.
If it's his turn, a crate appears, he collects the crate containing a SS: then you can do nothing.
Except maybe blocking all of his worms everytime, but should I remind you how lame it is ?

Moreover, should I remind you a T17 where you got angry 'cause I picked only super weapons (while only revolvers for you), and you died in like ... 4 turns ?
All this without being able to do anything ?

PSSS: Your argument is like "- I didn't do it on purpose ! - Then deliberately don't do it" to me (translated a french expression in english, I maybe made a mistake).