The Ultimate Site of Worms Armageddon
One-Boards => Schemes => Topic started by: HHC on November 30, 2011, 02:19 PM
-
Like I said in the shoutbox MI, you were right :-[
(http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/8655/finaltablejpg.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/408/finaltablejpg.jpg/)
I opened our schemes in BTP's scheme editor, as to get a good visual of the crate distribution in the official TUS scheme. '30' in the above graphic corresponds to 3 crates(-probability) in WA. I added up all the 'crates' of each scheme and then calculated the percentages. They are not precise as I left both the air attacks and the superweaps out of the equation (I'm not entirely sure, but it may be so that in the official TUS scheme there are more superweaps as the total number of crates awarded to the regular weapons is smaller (805 compared to 950); in that case the %'s of TUS should be decreased by some 0.1%..). I still can't rule out any errors though, it's really hard to get an exact insight as to how the crates are distributed, but I think the table gives a pretty good indication.
To make things easier I added colours:
Dark-yellow: difference with other scheme is ca. 1% (0.5-1.5%)
Green: ca. 2%
Darkred: ca. 3%
Bright-red: ca. 4%
As you can see, the official TUS scheme is more heavy on the standard 'big' weaps like holies, cows, nana's & flamethrowers (as well, but to a smaller degree on semi-big weaps like dyna's, sheeps and ladies). HHC's scheme has quite a chunck more SD-weaps (you were right about that MI).. nearly twice as much to be precise. And there's also a small increase in smaller weapons (the guns & nades-line).
Yap.
It would be a good things to maybe point out to your opponent which scheme you are playing.
Or maybe we can work towards an official variant that takes the best out of both schemes ? (although I guess it's a matter of opinion).
-
As I saw it, u defined a "standard" % for the basic weapons (4.21 %).
Its nice, but i believe that u ll need up the crate probab in some weapons.
Whyy Profee? Coz some weapons have more gameplay than of others.
Example: Bat. Bat is a weapon useless, except when ur opponent noobs and put his worm close the sidemaps.
Another Example: Mole. Pfff this weapon no words xD
1 more to finish: Sheep, Woman, Axe: It's fundamentals weapons in Team17. Each Worm starts with 150 HP, if u dont give this weapons for the players, this forces a cow game, coz no one will be safe to attack without this weapons. So, i believe in these kinda weapons must to have a high ratio in cr8 %
-
Every wep is useful. No exception.
-
Every wep is useful. No exception.
I don't see how kamikazee is useful.
-
Every wep is useful. No exception.
I don't see how kamikazee is useful.
He wanted to say "all weapons inside team17".
Anyway, sucide bomb, mole, bat and 2 or 3 weapons that i dont remember are useless in team17.
-
Every wep is useful. No exception.
I don't see how kamikazee is useful.
He wanted to say "all weapons inside team17".
Anyway, sucide bomb, mole, bat and 2 or 3 weapons that i dont remember are useless in team17.
Suicide bomb (kamikazee) is the only one that is useless in my mind. With mole you can get your way up to the roof just in time for SD or blow a barrel/plop a worm that is down by example. Bat can definatly kill on sides
-
when you have an worm with few health, you can use it for sui+poison the stronger opponent's worm.
-
Except the poison in a suicide bomber does rarely work (from own experiences). In most cases you do like 20 damage with no poison. That's why it's useless, totally agreed.
-
Example: Bat. Bat is a weapon useless, except when ur opponent noobs and put his worm close the sidemaps.
Example: Earthquake. Earthquake is a weapon useless, except when ur opponent noobs and put his worms near water.
::)
-
Example: Bat. Bat is a weapon useless, except when ur opponent noobs and put his worm close the sidemaps.
Example: Earthquake. Earthquake is a weapon useless, except when ur opponent noobs and put his worms near water.
::)
Nah earthquack cant be analysed in this case. All team17 maps have climbs in his sides, it isnt easy to plop using a bat. For this happens, the opponent rly has to fail in his place.
-
Every wep is useful. No exception.
I don't see how kamikazee is useful.
He wanted to say "all weapons inside team17".
Anyway, sucide bomb, mole, bat and 2 or 3 weapons that i dont remember are useless in team17.
mole being useless?
watch this game end :) https://www.tus-wa.com/leagues/game-91068/ 27.20
-
You against Banca in team17? huihuhu i dunno :x
-
HHC a.k.a. Mr.4.21%. :)
-
Bleh. Just set all weps to the same probability and let the game engine deal with distribution. ::)
-
Why not giving both team a Super Sheep ?
So the luck to get a sd weapon is gone, since both have 1.
Or maybe remove them all. So both have 1 and only sd weapon, and they have to melee fight anyway.
-
Hmm, I'd like to have SS at start also. Great idea imo. Anyone?
-
I would prefer a non bordered map with inf donkey
-
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"
-
perfect Shy.
-
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. :)
-
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).
-
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
-
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).
-
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 (https://www.tus-wa.com/leagues/game-90744/) 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.
-
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 (https://www.tus-wa.com/leagues/game-90744/) 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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. ;)
-
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
-
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).
-
I don't have a problem with that. It's you guys who have a problem. You want to "control" every event in the game as much as you can. Less surprises would mean less luck involved. I'm proposing to look at Team17 from another point of skill-views. It's the improvising moves. You don't know what your next move would be? you play in the moment. You're simply making a list of good and bad weapons and you don't care how these crates are collected in the game.
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 ?
You can't control the very next crate which is dropped after your turn.
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 ?
Please do. I'd love to see my "anger". Also it gives me another review where I went wrong in that game, not to mention that I like the angry part, it means that I care for my game result.
As it can happen that your opponent collect good super weapons (like albino did in that game), it also can happen in a balancing way. Your opponent can collect 2 bows while you get a uzi and suicide bomber. Your opponent attacks and gets 200hp from you. Now a ming for you could even things out. Although lowering super weapons seems reducing luck, but it although can result in an opposite way. This (https://www.tus-wa.com/leagues/game-93133/) game salvation army helps me even things out.
When there are scheme changing debates, it's always good to point us to a game which you think things go wrong there.
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 !).
We created free league to give other schemes a chance to raise their skill-level and get more active/popular. Are you calling Intermediate a lucky scheme? :o
Since when bungee race and battle race are lucky schemes? Or did I got you all wrong?
@ShyGuy,
I do agree with "no attack" or "no explosion" rule in the first turn of Team17.
@HHC,
You're misusing the word "fun". Fun is when nanas fly in the sky and does random explosions and worms fly in the sky like fireworks. When you say Team17 is fun, you make people confuse.
@Abnaxus,
If your PSSS was pointing at me, I didn't get it mate.
-
I
@ShyGuy,
I do agree with "no attack" or "no explosion" rule in the first turn of Team17.
just a scenario: you got 2 worms down, surrounded by 2 opponent worms, they collect their explosion crate.
a no atatck rule in first turn dont solve those plops
-
As it can happen that your opponent collect good super weapons (like albino did in that game), it also can happen in a balancing way. Your opponent can collect 2 bows while you get a uzi and suicide bomber. Your opponent attacks and gets 200hp from you. Now a ming for you could even things out. Although lowering super weapons seems reducing luck, but it although can result in an opposite way. This (https://www.tus-wa.com/leagues/game-93133/) game salvation army helps me even things out.
Or your opponent could get a Ming and make things worse. These anecdotal situations can work both ways.
-
I
@ShyGuy,
I do agree with "no attack" or "no explosion" rule in the first turn of Team17.
just a scenario: you got 2 worms down, surrounded by 2 opponent worms, they collect their explosion crate.
a no atatck rule in first turn dont solve those plops
Yes it does. They can't attack first turn and next turn you move one of them and girder protect the other.
-
I
@ShyGuy,
I do agree with "no attack" or "no explosion" rule in the first turn of Team17.
just a scenario: you got 2 worms down, surrounded by 2 opponent worms, they collect their explosion crate.
a no atatck rule in first turn dont solve those plops
Yes it does. They can't attack first turn and next turn you move one of them and girder protect the other.
lol not possible, if your second to start, you can only save 1.
dont get wrong thats no statement about a possible "no atatck in first turn" rule. just wanted to point out you can still have an unlucky start.
btw is there any t17 game, where someone killed a whole team in first round with a nana or something like that? i would love to see a repaly of that.
-
I
@ShyGuy,
I do agree with "no attack" or "no explosion" rule in the first turn of Team17.
just a scenario: you got 2 worms down, surrounded by 2 opponent worms, they collect their explosion crate.
a no atatck rule in first turn dont solve those plops
Yes it does. They can't attack first turn and next turn you move one of them and girder protect the other.
lol not possible, if your second to start, you can only save 1.
dont get wrong thats no statement about a possible "no atatck in first turn" rule. just wanted to point out you can still have an unlucky start.
btw is there any t17 game, where someone killed a whole team in first round with a nana or something like that? i would love to see a repaly of that.
? You move one of your worms, as in walk somewhere, and girder protect the other. I don't mean waste a turn by teleporting away and girdering.
-
I neither have a problem with it, I don't even play anymore ftm.
And I used to play this T17 scheme and will in the future.
It's just that Shy is right, and if you want a non luck-based T17, there are many changes which can be done in this direction.
Please do. I'd love to see my "anger". Also it gives me another review where I went wrong in that game, not to mention that I like the angry part, it means that I care for my game result.
Rofl, I really expected that you remembered it. -.-
It's so much work to find it replays...
You didn't get "angry", but pissed of the situation (is the same on this context).
As it can happen that your opponent collect good super weapons (like albino did in that game), it also can happen in a balancing way. Your opponent can collect 2 bows while you get a uzi and suicide bomber. Your opponent attacks and gets 200hp from you. Now a ming for you could even things out. Although lowering super weapons seems reducing luck, but it although can result in an opposite way. This (https://www.tus-wa.com/leagues/game-93133/) game salvation army helps me even things out.
We can balance it everytime, why don't we do ? You're letting the balance to the luck.
We created free league to give other schemes a chance to raise their skill-level and get more active/popular. Are you calling Intermediate a lucky scheme? :o
Since when bungee race and battle race are lucky schemes? Or did I got you all wrong?
You really mean this ? -.-
Putting some schemes in this free league is like putting them in the garbage.
If you really want them to be more active, then put them in classic league, so everybody will have to play them if their opponent pick it.
Free league isn't as well seen as Classic one.
About intermediate, yeah it's a bit lucky since there is auto placement.
But except in really rare cases, you can take the game back if you play well (but there are handicaps !).
Bungee and Battle Race aren't luck scheme, that's why I love them.
And if I said "Bungee & Battle Race ftw !", it's just cause I love them and I'd like to get them in classic league.
Nothing with the luck based argumentation.
About the expression, yeah it was for you, but I really don't know how to express it more than I did. <.<
It's an expression easy to say, but impossible to apply.
A says: I didn't do it on purpose ! (ex: I didn't broke the ming on purpose.)
B answers: So/then, deliberately don't do it. (ex: Then, deliberatly don't break the ming.)
It's impossible to not do it deliberatly, since it wasn't on purpose. Get the thing ?
-
Or maybe we can work towards an official variant that takes the best out of both schemes ? (although I guess it's a matter of opinion).
The best thing said in this thread sofar.
I think decreasing the amount of SD weapons in HHC's and reducing the amount of 'BIG' super weapons in TUS (holys,cows, etc) as HHC said in his first post is the prefect solution.
Oh, and having unlimited griders.... :o
-
HHC has modified his scheme recently. Gotta play it to see how balanced it is.
-
Yeah I have MI. It's more of a compromise now :)
I haven't tested it myself really, maybe only played it in 1 game ??? I wonder what you think of it.
-
Oh, and having unlimited griders.... :o
infinite girder sux, its more hard when u have to not wasting them on every turn to just block ur opponent
-
Oh, and having unlimited griders.... :o
Infinite FTW
-
I still stand by my suggestions, but if we can't agree on those, please, PLEASE, remove magic bullet from the scheme... If a fancy scheme editor can't disable them, then if someone gets one there should be a rule that you are not allowed to use it.
When your opponent gets a bullet, there is absolutely little point to trying to position your worm safely... you just can't hide from a bullet the same way you can from a supersheep, EQ, nuke, etc. It's like a 90 damage, near perfect homing missile with the explosion radius of a HHG (i think). There is very little skill in clicking on a worm and shooting the bullet (unless you count not hitting yourself at launch skill) and there is no amount of skill you can use to avoid being f@#!ed by one at sudden death. The weapon just breaks the scheme completely.
I can understand when you say you want to keep the scheme fun, fine. I can compromise and handle having bananas and vases in the scheme, but for the love of god, do something against the magic bullet please
-
Reminds me of the semi-final I played against Csongi in worm olympics Shyguy.
[attachment=1] @29.08
It's a miracle I survived that one haha. :D
-
yeah, there is always going to be a fluke sometimes. You don't see bullets f@#!ing up as bad as that one for no apparent reason. up top was a sure kill i think tho
-
1. not attack first turn .
2. all have one gun water (ss or homing )
3. deleted nuclear and earthquake ( These 2 weapons often surprise )
4. meaby deleted freeze and scaled
5. One change in the worm from the beginning of the game available
my sugestion
-
1. not attack first turn .
2. all have one gun water (ss or homing )
3. deleted nuclear and earthquake ( These 2 weapons often surprise )
4. meaby deleted freeze and scaled
5. One change in the worm from the beginning of the game available
my sugestion
i prefer........
1. not attack first turn . (ye its suck when u have 3 worms at begin near water)
2. all have one gun water (ss or homing )
3. deleted nuclear and earthquake ( These 2 weapons often surprise )
4. meaby deleted freeze and scaled
5. One change in the worm from the beginning of the game available
+
..and more ballanced power of wepons like in HHC sheme.
-
1. not attack first turn .
2. all have one gun water (ss or homing )
3. deleted nuclear and earthquake ( These 2 weapons often surprise )
4. meaby deleted freeze and scaled
5. One change in the worm from the beginning of the game available
my sugestion
>>> And afr maybe?
-
no change scheme....
he is good as well
-
1. not attack first turn . (ye its suck when u have 3 worms at begin near water)
2. all have one gun water (ss or homing )
As it's what I proposed, I totally agree with that. :)
-
no change scheme....
he is good as well
>>> SIgned Dougi
-
why not delete4d nuclear and earthquake . I only hear when i use this f@#! off or f@#!ing lucky scheme etc.
-
simply because these weapons are quite easy to defend
-
why not delete4d nuclear and earthquake . I only hear when i use this f@#! off or f@#!ing lucky scheme etc.
this yes
-
Nuclear & Earthquake are very strategic weapons.
One you need to set yourself as high as possible.
The other you have to protect your worm with girders/"land holes".
If you remove those, you remove a big part of T17 strategy.
It's easy to void those weapons, whereas it's impossible with Patxy.