Standard Scheme Variants (Part 1: Competitive Ground Schemes)

[Casso]

Random turn order isn't completely random - if you have 4 worms, then the next 4 turns will be randomized, but all your worms get their turn. After that is completed, a new batch of turns is decided in exactly the right way - all worms get their turns, but the order in which this happens is randomized.

I didn't know about it, I thought that worms were chosen at random each turn with the risk that some of them couldn't never attack, this is why I talked about luck. At this point I have nothing against this variant and I guess that we can try to play with this scheme if it helps to reduce the abuse of turn order.

[Xrayez]

1. Should worm health be set to 250 in 1v1 matches? Between highly skilled players, on slightly more open maps, I feel games can be over very quickly with only 200 health; the additional 50 health makes it take roughly two solid hits more before a worm loses all health, which feels about right to me. For 2v2 matches, 200 health per worm is fine.

4. Should TestStuff's circular aiming be part of the scheme? Why did TUS start enforcing it for BnG? I find it breaks my normal way of aiming completely so that I have to rely on notching more because of it, not less. Without going into the details of notching, isn't that the opposite of the desired effect? Not to mention that with the current implementation of it, fall damage is actually easier to achieve, making it very hard for players with 10+ years of BnG experience to estimate shot damage, while adding no positive effects that I can think of. TestStuff really has no place in BnG, I feel.

1. Well, I would make two BnG schemes. The first one is the classic one. The second one would be oriented for more skillful players (bazooka and grenade power would have 1-2 stars each, 200-250hp, or let it be 200hp). Either scheme is picked on agreement of both sides

4. I don't understand how TS makes you want to notch  with /ts on, it is surely harder to achieve full power shot

making it very hard for players with 10+ years of BnG experience to estimate shot damage

But as we can see, those players hardly ever play any leagues nowadays, ehehe. It is matter of habit and familiarity with the scheme, newbies wouldn't even understand all your arguements about /ts "problem" (Hmm, so I'm newbie then)

[LeTotalKiller]

TS is already a problem because of fall damage being all the time (meaning it's soooo easy to get perfect hits to deal near 50 points of damage instead of 44-45). I wonder why this even stayed in TUS's BnG for so long.

[AnGsT]

4. Should TestStuff's circular aiming be part of the scheme? Why did TUS start enforcing it for BnG? I find it breaks my normal way of aiming completely so that I have to rely on notching more because of it, not less. Without going into the details of notching, isn't that the opposite of the desired effect? Not to mention that with the current implementation of it, fall damage is actually easier to achieve, making it very hard for players with 10+ years of BnG experience to estimate shot damage, while adding no positive effects that I can think of. TestStuff really has no place in BnG, I feel

with /ts on, it is surely harder to achieve full power shot

Talking about the full power shot and the 90° zook shot, TS is fine for me.... But what the hell, when a player inexperienced on BnG makes you a grenade shot bouncing everywhere and hit you -53 hp damage because the FD, It's just disgusting...

[Ray]

Due to lack of time I'm going to answer each main post separately, for now, let's start with BnG.

2. Should there be rules preventing straight Bazooka shots and the use of Shotgun to damage enemy worms? I feel it's cleaner not to have them because these things can very easily be countered by hiding intelligently and only agreeing to play on at least somewhat complex (not completely flat) maps. It's also somewhat optimistic to hope that everyone's personal definition of what a straight Bazooka shot is would be the same, and I'm not sure an objective definition is even possible to put forward. Can it be and what would it sound like, in terms that the game could enforce on its own, objectively?

I think the usage of Shotgun to damage your opponent sounds very weird. At least to me. The name is Bazooka and Grenades. I see very little situations where that could be used, but still, that shouldn't be allowed.

In case straight Bazooka shots rise to be a problem - although I think that rule was only included for so long due to tradition - then the aim of the Bazooka could be limited the same way Ninja Rope is in Elite, if that's even possible. Otherwise I don't think that should be an issue.

3. Should Blow Torch, Girder and Pneumatic Drill be part of the scheme? Having infinite Fire Punch, Shotgun and Teleport seems to replace these in most real life situations almost completely, while keeping scheme rules simpler (no grey area Girder rules, fewer darksiding situations). Currently, only infinite Blow Torch remains in the scheme, largely for reasons of tradition, but I guess it doesn't break anything if the darksiding rule is kept simple and easy to agree on. Torch tunnels are kind of fun to try and aim into (and out of) as well, so I'm inclined to keep Blow Torch in there.

I find Blow Torch useable often, even with infinite amount of Teleports. Girders should be removed for the above mentioned reasons.

4. Should TestStuff's circular aiming be part of the scheme? Why did TUS start enforcing it for BnG? I find it breaks my normal way of aiming completely so that I have to rely on notching more because of it, not less. Without going into the details of notching, isn't that the opposite of the desired effect? Not to mention that with the current implementation of it, fall damage is actually easier to achieve, making it very hard for players with 10+ years of BnG experience to estimate shot damage, while adding no positive effects that I can think of. TestStuff really has no place in BnG, I feel.

Hell no! I believe that was included to prevent players from notching. I think you should much rather learn how to notch and then use that skill wisely to predict other, non full power shots. Full power shots are not suitable for everything, although with a windless turn, you can inflict quite a lot of damage with the Bazooka easily. Still, I personally vote no TestStuff.

BnG

1. Should worm health be set to 250 in 1v1 matches? Between highly skilled players, on slightly more open maps, I feel games can be over very quickly with only 200 health; the additional 50 health makes it take roughly two solid hits more before a worm loses all health, which feels about right to me. For 2v2 matches, 200 health per worm is fine.

This one is simple. There is a number of players who are able to finish a round of BnG very quickly, but how many of them? The standard scheme variant should be satysfying for both sides, veterans and mediocre/newbie players, especialy considering the fact that the scheme would possibly target random people at WormNet's ranked play one day. Time has shown that even if a round of BnG can last 5-10minutes on average between scheme specialists, it can also last uncomparably longer between people not specialised with the scheme. And we know that there is not too many bng scheme specialists anyway. Also, BnG doesnt look slow/fast in comparision to other schemes on average, and remember that a game of RR lasts much shorter, no matter if you are good or bad at it. On top of that, some people simply get frustrated playing BnG and being unable to hit eachother - while its not a good excuse for old players, new players might find having to play even longer BnG as a waste of time (50hp difference can be too huge for them).

Thanks for writing my thoughts down! Agreed.

2. Should there be rules preventing straight Bazooka shots and the use of Shotgun to damage enemy worms? I feel it's cleaner not to have them because these things can very easily be countered by hiding intelligently and only agreeing to play on at least somewhat complex (not completely flat) maps. It's also somewhat optimistic to hope that everyone's personal definition of what a straight Bazooka shot is would be the same, and I'm not sure an objective definition is even possible to put forward. Can it be and what would it sound like, in terms that the game could enforce on its own, objectively?

I dont like the idea of overly complicating BnG rules, so it might be a good idea to not include these at all. But imagine a situation like this: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43525724/straightshot.PNG That, imo, isnt the spirit of BnG. However the problem is that not every zook aimed straight can fall under this category, for example a zook that does a gentle curve, shooting an opponent's worm who is standing way below your worm's level is legit. So i'd say that rule needs a better explanation, but still even the best written rule will have a loophole that eventually people will take advantage of, sooner or later, not necessarly often.

Perhaps a rule that clearly defines what a straight shot is and limits it's usage to situations where there wind is opposite to the shot's direction could do the trick, without overcomplicating, as you pointed out.

3. Should Blow Torch, Girder and Pneumatic Drill be part of the scheme? Having infinite Fire Punch, Shotgun and Teleport seems to replace these in most real life situations almost completely, while keeping scheme rules simpler (no grey area Girder rules, fewer darksiding situations). Currently, only infinite Blow Torch remains in the scheme, largely for reasons of tradition, but I guess it doesn't break anything if the darksiding rule is kept simple and easy to agree on. Torch tunnels are kind of fun to try and aim into (and out of) as well, so I'm inclined to keep Blow Torch in there.

I have no problems with Blow Torch, it can even make the game even more interesting as there are more fancy passages for grenade to bounce through. Drill can be useful in a situation where you can be easily pushed down to a ditch, so using it will put your opponent in advantage anyway. Also I dont see it being abused - if you dig yourself too deep, you wont be able to hit eachother with a grenade. Teleport can be used for similar purposes as well. Girders are completely gamebreaking though. It should be taken down long ago. The most basic example is that sometimes part of bng is about making your opponent run out of hides, so even if someone uses a girder for bounce, later into the game it WILL be used as an additional hide or obstacle, no question about it, even if not done on purpose. The shot which should normally hit you will hit girder. You push your opponent under a girder and then what. There is only 1 map and it shouldnt be modifed in anyway, other than weapons.

Completely agreed.

Sorry if some points I missed in this thread. I also think that maybe reorganizing these discussions into separate topics for each scheme would help this keep less mad.

[Aerox]

Notchers can notch any shot guys.

[lacoste]

Well, allowing straight bazooka shots isnt the end of the world, thats for sure. If it was allowed for the sake of having nice and clean bng rules, without complications, id totally back it up. I dont see a big deal in having a bit different approach to how you play, where you hide and what should you expect from opponent in a given situation, that would only make things not that simple. Plus, considering new players, that only makes more sense. Why would you spend so much time on teaching them what shot is considered legit, or confuse them saying that 1 thing is lame and the other is not. The more i think about it the more im in favor, really. Long time no bng.

About TS: I dont know which genius came up with this idea, circular aiming doesnt do anything other than annoy you. If your single keyboard taps are good enough to notch, they are also good enough to just turn your worm around and then go back to position 0 with 1 or 2 taps. The power thing, on the other hand, forces you to play worms differently, unlike any other scheme. Just a confusion with a silly mechanic. Feels desperate to use it just to disallow easy full power, lol.

[Xrayez]

The point of using /ts features is to encourage people to use intuition rather than logic. (Logical things are: measuring angles with number of taps, notching). Put away all the logical techniques, and you'll get gameplay where one can have fun and not doing math  /ts isn't perfectly implemented though, agreed

People who use logic will have to do a bit of work, while skills based on intuition require just a single will 

But yeah, most people use logic (I hardly ever use it (in W:A)). If /ts gets removed, that would be really sad news

[Aerox]

Why wasn't b2b consulted about a change in Bng?

There was your one chance at making actual good use of the communities feature, TUS, and you let us all down.

edit: sorry if they were, I really don't know; if they were, I strongly recommend putting Komo back in charge because those muppets need an actual leader

[KoreanRedDragon]

Okay so since it seems like BnG is the main focus of debate right now, I'll try to flesh out my views on the specifics of it some more, get them added to the pool of opinions.

This one is simple. There is a number of players who are able to finish a round of BnG very quickly, but how many of them? The standard scheme variant should be satysfying for both sides, veterans and mediocre/newbie players, especialy considering the fact that the scheme would possibly target random people at WormNet's ranked play one day. Time has shown that even if a round of BnG can last 5-10minutes on average between scheme specialists, it can also last uncomparably longer between people not specialised with the scheme. And we know that there is not too many bng scheme specialists anyway. Also, BnG doesnt look slow/fast in comparision to other schemes on average, and remember that a game of RR lasts much shorter, no matter if you are good or bad at it. On top of that, some people simply get frustrated playing BnG and being unable to hit eachother - while its not a good excuse for old players, new players might find having to play even longer BnG as a waste of time (50hp difference can be too huge for them).

I agree with lacoste here. A lot of players doesn't like this scheme, I would avoid stretch their suffering.

Some relevant chat from IRC on this topic (I think it's fairly readable, didn't really feel the need to retype it):

<OutofOrder> but honestly, something that concerns me for choosing anything above 200 is the lack of consideration for the non bng'ers
<OutofOrder> i'd say most players would like to play shorter games, not longer ones
<OutofOrder> every single hp you add will extend the average game time
<KRD> That's only true if you assume identical playstyles.
<KRD> More HP could also encourage players to play more boldly, hiding in almost impossible to hit hides less of the time.
<KRD> Such a playstyle is, I think, more viable if getting hit for 40+ damage once isn't the end of the world.
<KRD> But anyway, there's a bunch of other factors that determine average round length.

<OutofOrder> playstyles are irrelevant to what i said. statistically, games are bound to last longer in average with each additional health point
<KRD> Um, no they aren't irrelevant, not if the HP increase changes the way people play the scheme.
<KRD> *After* the HP change takes place and results in a shift in playstyles, then sure, lowering it back down to 200 would temporarily reduce game length again.
<KRD> Before people would again get used to playing the scheme in a more darkside way, i.e. what they consider optimal under those circumstances.
<OutofOrder> so you're saying that with higher initial HP, people are going to forget they're losing health as the game goes on?
<OutofOrder> mind you, if they lose health, they'll be like they just started a lower-initial-hp game
<KRD> No, not necessarily.
<KRD> If the game is *started* with the players hidden in more lightside hides, by the time they get down to 200 HP each, the map will be more open as a result of terrain damage.
<KRD> And the totally darkside hides will less likely still be available.
<KRD> I'm not saying average round time would necessarily go down if we started playing with 250 HP right now, mind you.
<KRD> Only that it wouldn't necessarily increase linearly with the starting health increase.
<KRD> Especially combined with the other changes that are being proposed for BnG (like playing on maps that aren't completely flat stretches of trees and floating dots).
<KRD> And I think we should, for now, compare round length time between BnG as it is today and what we would end up with after the whole standardisation process.
<KRD> If it's not drastically increased as a result of the standardisation, there's probably nothing to worry about.
<OutofOrder> so you're saying, screw people who don't want longer games
<KRD> Only the ones who don't want them for false reasons.
<KRD> Like reading on a forum that BnG is boring.
* Wyv|work has joined #worms
<OutofOrder> Wyv: longer BnG games or shorter BnG games?
<KRD> Decide now!
<Wyv|work> longer
<KRD> Win.
<KRD> Good game, well played.
<OutofOrder> KRD just PM'ed you
<OutofOrder> confess
<KRD> No re.

<KRD> I'd say it's probably good enough to aim this competitive scheme standardisation at the type of player who actually wants to play these schemes competitively.
<KRD> If a scheme is appropriate for that type of player, complete newbies will eventually follow.
<KRD> If we continue on the path of everyone just wanting BnG games to end as soon as possible so they can play real competitive schemes, we're dooming BnG to failure.

<KRD> Intermediate gets more fun and more intense the longer it lasts.
<KRD> And such long games of it reward different sets of skills (for example focus and consistency) in the top Intermediate players, they broaden the definition of what it means to be good at the scheme.
<KRD> So to sacrifice that variety because TUS forums say BnG lasts too long as it is would be premature, I feel.
<KRD> Especially since (like in Hysteria) their beliefs are based on playing the scheme ALL WRONG.

Where do I get this crazy idea that people would start picking early game hides that aren't as darksidey and offer more than just one or two shots if health values in BnG were increased? Well, I'm judging mainly by myself here, I definitely feel like I can go on the offensive and try to aggressively push my opponent around or destroy the hides on their side of the map (and so try to gain a decisive early advantage) if I have slightly more room for comeback thanks to the 250 starting health in the scheme I've been using. Incidentally, this more open style of play also lets me handle (heavily) notching opponents better because of the increased variety of hides (and thus both vertical and horizontal distances between my worm's and my opponent's worm's position) that I feel comfortable taking. So yeah, I just don't feel that this is a black & white thing, that BnG would only get longer and more boring with more starting health. Like in most cases we've touched upon so far, there's potential positives and negatives, and we'll have to figure out which ones outweigh the other. I'm totally up for some 1v1 BnG with 250 health worms if anyone wants to try it out in practice, though. Beep me on WormNet!

I would just add a word: "direct" nade. It's too easy to stay hidden and use bank nades for whole game. Opponent should be able to hit you with a direct nade otherwise it would be too difficult to hit the one who decided to hide.

BnG should not allow hides that can't hit be directly with a nade because... well there are some hides that can't be hit at all... and you can still bank nades.

Is it really that much of a problem that hides exist which allow relatively easy bank shots, while worms in them can only be reached through harder bounce shots? I find that it's because players are so used to considering such evil bank hides "lame" that they often don't even bother to try and bounce their shots into them or use zooks to destroy them (perhaps first teleporting to a safe hide where they can't be hit with a banked nade easily). Throughout the years, this has definitely been a legit part of BnG and I do feel a little bad that in so many cases, this aspect of the scheme has disappeared. Shouldn't finding (or destroying if you're the opponent) these hides be part of what defines a highly skilled BnG player?

On a related note, hasn't the single biggest problem that BnG has faced during the TUS era been the paranoia surrounding notching, with many players completely discouraged to even practice the scheme because they hear of this mythical system of aiming that's essentially like having an aimbot? If that has been the case (and I think it has, to a totally unreasonable degree compared to previous WA leagues), do we really want to make the single most effective tactical approach against a notching opponent, good hides that require bounce shots from both players for substantial damage to be done, illegal? Can we really say that we're doing everything in our power to make BnG a relevant competitive scheme again, but at the same time make it mandatory for everyone to always stay in a hide where notched 4s or 5s LG grenades stand a great chance of hitting them in the face? BnG loses so much if we take away the creativity of hiding well, and on the other hand the efficiency of destroying the best hides on the enemy side of the map...

I have no problems with Blow Torch, it can even make the game even more interesting as there are more fancy passages for grenade to bounce through. Drill can be useful in a situation where you can be easily pushed down to a ditch, so using it will put your opponent in advantage anyway. Also I dont see it being abused - if you dig yourself too deep, you wont be able to hit eachother with a grenade. Teleport can be used for similar purposes as well. Girders are completely gamebreaking though. It should be taken down long ago. The most basic example is that sometimes part of bng is about making your opponent run out of hides, so even if someone uses a girder for bounce, later into the game it WILL be used as an additional hide or obstacle, no question about it, even if not done on purpose. The shot which should normally hit you will hit girder. You push your opponent under a girder and then what. There is only 1 map and it shouldnt be modifed in anyway, other than weapons.

I agree with these assessments, although I guess I do feel that keeping Pneumatic Drill in the scheme risks confusing players even more than having Blow Torch and Shotgun in there. In the grand scheme of things, it might be cleaner and simpler to leave it out, but it's true that it really doesn't bother me at all when it's there. I just practically never use it myself.

And yeah, having Girder rules has never ever worked in BnG, they're just too muddy and impossible to consistently follow. But the solution of giving players a single Girder (maybe two in 2v2 games) and then having no restrictions on its use is also a mildly interesting one to me, I can't think of too many real problems regarding it. Except perhaps that in 2v2 games, the closest enemy worms could sometimes Girder block each other, which would look totally idiotic in streamed pro competition with commentary. But I guess a future WA update could restrict Girder use to only your team's half of the map, similar to how the game will someday be able to restrict where you can and can't teleport to. But until then, I do think it's probably safer to simply not have them in the scheme at all.

I think the usage of Shotgun to damage your opponent sounds very weird. At least to me. The name is Bazooka and Grenades. I see very little situations where that could be used, but still, that shouldn't be allowed.

Right, the scheme is called BnG, but to a new player, would it be less intuitive that the scheme includes a weapon that isn't mentioned in its name... or that the weapon is there, but when after a thousand games they finally get to use it on an enemy worm because of something extraordinary that happened to make the shot possible, their Shotgun simply does no damage because WA 4.x says you can only use this weapon to dig? As a newer player, I'd be pretty pissed off if that happened to me, I think.

In case straight Bazooka shots rise to be a problem - although I think that rule was only included for so long due to tradition - then the aim of the Bazooka could be limited the same way Ninja Rope is in Elite, if that's even possible. Otherwise I don't think that should be an issue.

While I think such a solution would be sufficiently simple (if not exactly intuitive), would it even come close to covering 50% of the cases where straight Bazookas are an option? In practice, in a situation where two enemy worms are eyeing each other with nothing between them, this would only prevent the one with a higher hide from straight zooking, while the worm with the lower hide would even be encouraged to do it. I'm not sure that'd be an improvement at all, so I'm still leaning toward simply allowing straight zooks myself. It even encourages people to hide smartly, which is totally a bonus in my book!

Perhaps a rule that clearly defines what a straight shot is and limits it's usage to situations where there wind is opposite to the shot's direction could do the trick, without overcomplicating, as you pointed out.

That sounds really complicated to me for a solution that doesn't want to overcomplicate things, hehe. What would the clear definition sound like? Is it something that WA 4.x could translate into other languages without the meaning getting almost totally lost? Dunno, I'm really still not convinced that straight zooks are bad, much less bad enough to warrant jumping through hoops like these. But maybe a single scheme league like a2b could get away with something like this...

[lacoste]

Can we really say that we're doing everything in our power to make BnG a relevant competitive scheme again, but at the same time make it mandatory for everyone to always stay in a hide where notched 4s or 5s LG grenades stand a great chance of hitting them in the face? BnG loses so much if we take away the creativity of hiding well, and on the other hand the efficiency of destroying the best hides on the enemy side of the map...

This. Everyone who thinks that adding TS, filling a flat map with trees and dots is limiting notchers and nothing better can be done should read it again. Theres much more to bng than just 3 types of a grenade and 4 types of wind. Predicting all kind of bounces with or without low gravity is the best part of bng which needs time to learn, theres barely a situation where its impossible for both players to hit themselfes, unless its obvious darkside, like hiding in a closed spot.

And yeah, having Girder rules has never ever worked in BnG, they're just too muddy and impossible to consistently follow. But the solution of giving players a single Girder (maybe two in 2v2 games) and then having no restrictions on its use is also a mildly interesting one to me

This is a whole different story then and indeed looks interesting. We should talk about it more.

[Korydex]

Intermediate

4. Anything else?

Talk about jetpack delay 2 or 0, OIL and TNL SD variants.

[lacoste]

Talk about jetpack delay 2 or 0, OIL and TNL SD variants.

Wasnt SD health reduction a long forgotten drama? Havent seen anyone complaining about it since like 2 years, at least. And was it ever a thing for jetpack on 0 delay vs 2? Well, maybe at first when we newschoolers were sceptical about the change or we had hard time adopting "new", but it allways was supposed to have delay, just the scheme didnt allow it. Anyway as for me, i now like the delay on jetpack; while in theory it reduced the possibilities on turn 1, the majority of the matches were consisting of early jetpacks, which in the long run were making matches less interesting.

[Korydex]

Some ppl still love 0 delay. xd

[KoreanRedDragon]

Ah yeah, I forgot about that 0/2 turns of Jetpack delay thing. I'll add it to the Intermediate post. How's this?

4. Is there anyone left who prefers 0 turns of Jetpack delay instead of the currently widespread variant with 2 turns of delay on this utility? The reason players from the NNN clan and their league got used to 0 delay was that many updates ago, WA didn't allow you to keep the delay on utilities in custom schemes, so when they powered down the Mortar/Cluster Bomb and took the crates out of the intrinsic [ Intermediate ] scheme to create their "luckless" variant, they had no choice but to change the Jetpack delay to 0 turns. When the WA update arrived that made it possible to set utility delay in custom schemes, the NNN/ONL community decided to vote about whether to go back to the 2 turns of delay or keep playing with 0 in a forum poll, but I'm not really sure what the results of that were. I do know that both Darío and I were hugely in favour of going back to 2 turns of delay at the time, though. It doesn't really make sense to me not to do it, the scheme was obviously designed with this delay in mind, but it'd be interesting to hear the reasoning behind making the delay 0 turns instead of 2. I guess first turn mine pushes can be pretty cool, but that's a pretty clear advantage to whoever gets first turn, so I'm not at all convinced it'd be a net positive change.

If there's anyone around who still genuinely wants to get rid of the HP reduction on sudden death in Intermediate, speak up and I'll add that in there too. But I think that's maybe borderline not worth discussing, it would change the scheme so, so much, and be very hard to convince the general community about. Also, Inter is the only scheme that actively discourages playing for SD because it's so reliant on luck, so I'd feel really bad about destroying that uniqueness (compared to other competitively played ground schemes).