Why don't you play worms armageddon anymore?

[sock]

Maybe we should sign a petition to ban Mole Shoppers?

Mole shoppa, like torn/ripped jeans on young women, is a mere fad and will disappear in a few years.

You mean yourselves.

Mole is the most strategy & tactical based game, just like chess. Everybody who doesn't enjoy it is simply a sub-human. Unless you play on a resolution higher than 1366x768. If so, then I feel sorry for you, cuz you probably suck at jumping from pixel to pixel. Streamed 1920x1080 looks like sh*t.

Bahahaha....

Mole Shopper is a joke, my friend. It is basically a noob version of regular shopper in which you don't even need rope skills, or one could look at it as a sort of dumbed-town Team17. Much of the game is total luck and randomness and requires very little strategy compared to, say, Elite or Intermediate at high levels. The reason why so many noobs play Mole is because it's so easy and basically anyone has a chance of winning regardless of personal skill.

Luck based scheme? Dude, I would easily crush you in this scheme 300x times in a row. Everything is a skill over there
- hiding
- mole as a bumerang
- knowing when to steal, when to invade
- sprint across the map + parachute jumps to extreme extent
- the best possible executions, even with the worst weapons that you've got

Dude, I mean it. I will pay you 40$ if you ever defeat me in 20 games. Do you accept the challenge? It's so annoying to have ignorants like you, calling everything they don't know "Luck-Based". It's just sh*t mentality.

what did you expect from skunk?

More than I expect from you.

[TheKomodo]

The only time like ever, pretty much everyone agrees with me, I wasn't even being serious 

Bwahahaha!

[Zalo]

Mole shopper is no more difficult to play at a decent level than any other scheme. It is incredibly basic, in fact. I would never play 20 games of mole shopper vs. anyone because it's boring and too lucky for my tastes. I've played plenty of mole shoppers, so it's not like I don't know the scheme and how it is played. I'm not ignorant and lacking the super duper moleshop secrets to winning. Hiding, stealing, invading, chuting, etc... all of this stuff is present in many other schemes. To say that mole shopper is the most tactical/strategic scheme is ludicrous and lots of people agree. Not trying to get you pissed off or whatever because clearly you love it but that's how I view it. To me, mole is just a funner scheme to play when nobody else feels like playing something more serious in AG. There's a reason why it is so popular amongst noobs... because it is very easy to play and almost anyone has a chance of winning, especially in 4-6 player games. Random luck plays a huge part in the game whether you can recognize that or not.

Ignorance part #2

I doubt I would even lose 1 worm out of 4 against you. You clearly don't know this scheme.

https://www.tus-wa.com/leagues/free-standings/Mole_Shopper/?s=overall
https://www.tus-wa.com/cups/cup-1035/
https://www.tus-wa.com/cups/cup-1051/
https://www.tus-wa.com/cups/cup-1052/

Nobody wins 1st out of 32 people, or wins 100x games in a row, or 3x cups in a row "by accident" or because of your imaginary "huge amount of luck". You are just an ignorant, Sir.

[TheWalrus]

You could train for a month and Zalo would still sweep you in a Bo11, it would probably take me a few months to even get on a competitive playing field with the good mole players.  The scheme is still boring (to me) but then again i love battlerace, which bores people to tears.

Mole shopper is not the most strategic/tactical scheme but it attempts to be, more so than roper or shopper or definitely t17. 

[MarianRV]

[skunk3]

Mole shopper is no more difficult to play at a decent level than any other scheme. It is incredibly basic, in fact. I would never play 20 games of mole shopper vs. anyone because it's boring and too lucky for my tastes. I've played plenty of mole shoppers, so it's not like I don't know the scheme and how it is played. I'm not ignorant and lacking the super duper moleshop secrets to winning. Hiding, stealing, invading, chuting, etc... all of this stuff is present in many other schemes. To say that mole shopper is the most tactical/strategic scheme is ludicrous and lots of people agree. Not trying to get you pissed off or whatever because clearly you love it but that's how I view it. To me, mole is just a funner scheme to play when nobody else feels like playing something more serious in AG. There's a reason why it is so popular amongst noobs... because it is very easy to play and almost anyone has a chance of winning, especially in 4-6 player games. Random luck plays a huge part in the game whether you can recognize that or not.

Ignorance part #2

I doubt I would even lose 1 worm out of 4 against you. You clearly don't know this scheme.

https://www.tus-wa.com/leagues/free-standings/Mole_Shopper/?s=overall
https://www.tus-wa.com/cups/cup-1035/
https://www.tus-wa.com/cups/cup-1051/
https://www.tus-wa.com/cups/cup-1052/

Nobody wins 1st out of 32 people, or wins 100x games in a row, or 3x cups in a row "by accident" or because of your imaginary "huge amount of luck". You are just an ignorant, Sir.

You can claim that I don't know the scheme and that I am ignorant all you want, but you're just looking like a self-important psycho in the process... like I am taking a bit, fat shit on your very soul for thinking mole shop is for the kiddies. I was talking about funner moles at first, and you're talking about ranked mole games. Okay, I'll go along with that. Even in a 1-on-1 ranked mole game luck still plays a huge factor due to random crate drops and random crate contents. I don't know if you get manual placement at the start of a ranked mole game rather than random placement (because I've never played a ranked match, why in the f@#! would I want to?), but if it is in fact random then there's even more luck involved. Obviously mole is going to be more strategic than, say, roper or shopper (because there isn't a ton of strategy involved in those schemes), but I think it is debatable as to whether it is any more or less strategic than T17 (I'd say they are about the same in terms of skill level), and it is most definitely far less strategic than Intermediate, Elite, Darkside, Strategic, etc.  Zalo, while you do have what appears to be an impressive record, where is your competition? There's a handful of skilled players in that ranking list but for the most part it's a bunch of noobs. Your record, to me, only signifies that you participated in a bunch of Asbest style ranked noob bashing and that not too many other players actually take ranked mole seriously because only 4 players out of 244 had a total number of games played in the triple digits, with yours being more than double the total of the next player with the most total games played. As I said - you basically grinded out a bunch of noob bashing games. Cool. 

[Chicken23]

kids, family life, when i find time outside of work and for myself its usually spent watching tv series if i'm not spending free time with my partner.

I'd like an hour or so a day/every other day if i knew i could come to ag and find tus games..

[skunk3]

kids, family life, when i find time outside of work and for myself its usually spent watching tv series if i'm not spending free time with my partner.

I'd like an hour or so a day/every other day if i knew i could come to ag and find tus games..

No TUS games but you can still play!

[j0e]

If mole is so luck-based, why don't you accept Zalo's challenge Skunk? Instead of playing 20 games, just play until you win. Should just be a game or two, right?

[TheKomodo]

Just to add to this.

I don't actually find anything in life hard, things can physically or mentally demanding but everything that ever exists is easy.

Nothing is hard lol, it's a question of whether I want to do it or not.

Because I understand how to understand things and realize where to begin and how to improve at anything because it's simple, learn maths and language, basic physics and science etc then take it from there.

[skunk3]

If mole is so luck-based, why don't you accept Zalo's challenge Skunk? Instead of playing 20 games, just play until you win. Should just be a game or two, right?

Because I'd rather spend my time available for gaming doing something fun rather than having a pissing contest playing a scheme that I don't really enjoy due to random luck. That said, if I was in AG and nobody else had anything decent hosted and friends weren't online I wouldn't turn down a game. Besides, even if he won 2-3 games in a row vs. me that wouldn't prove his point that Mole is the most strategic/tactical scheme of all time. My issue is with that claim. To me, the scheme clearly is not. On top of that, if he is claiming that Mole is the most strategic scheme of all time he is by extension claiming himself to be the #1 best player because wouldn't it stand to reason that whoever dominates the most competitive/strategic non-rope-based scheme is therefore the best player? If Mole is more strategic and tactical than say, Intermediate or Elite, then wouldn't that dominant player also dominate those schemes as well? The reason why all of this sounds absurd is because his original premise is absurd. Mole is not the most strategic/tactical scheme there is just as I said, and it is also a highly luck-based scheme, just as I said. Clearly Zalo is quite good at Mole according the rankings but he has played over 2x more ranked games than ANYONE else, plus out of the 200+ players who have ranked Moles recorded in that list, roughly 5-10% of them are truly high-level players in my opinion, and most of them have very few ranked games recorded. Anyway, I'm not trying to make anyone angry here; I'm just trying to interject with a bit of rationality. To me, bragging about being the best Mole player is no different than claiming to be the best at T17. I am certain that if more skilled players decided to start playing a bunch of ranked mole (for whatever reason) the rankings would look radically different.

[skunk3]

.

[j0e]

If mole is so luck-based, why don't you accept Zalo's challenge Skunk? Instead of playing 20 games, just play until you win. Should just be a game or two, right?

Because I'd rather spend my time available for gaming doing something fun rather than having a pissing contest playing a scheme that I don't really enjoy due to random luck. That said, if I was in AG and nobody else had anything decent hosted and friends weren't online I wouldn't turn down a game. Besides, even if he won 2-3 games in a row vs. me that wouldn't prove his point that Mole is the most strategic/tactical scheme of all time. My issue is with that claim. To me, the scheme clearly is not. On top of that, if he is claiming that Mole is the most strategic scheme of all time he is by extension claiming himself to be the #1 best player because wouldn't it stand to reason that whoever dominates the most competitive/strategic non-rope-based scheme is therefore the best player? If Mole is more strategic and tactical than say, Intermediate or Elite, then wouldn't that dominant player also dominate those schemes as well? The reason why all of this sounds absurd is because his original premise is absurd. Mole is not the most strategic/tactical scheme there is just as I said, and it is also a highly luck-based scheme, just as I said. Clearly Zalo is quite good at Mole according the rankings but he has played over 2x more ranked games than ANYONE else, plus out of the 200+ players who have ranked Moles recorded in that list, roughly 5% of them at most are truly high-level players. Anyway, I'm not trying to make anyone angry here; I'm just trying to interject with a bit of rationality. To me, bragging about being the best Mole player is no different than claiming to be the best at T17.

Well sure his statement that it's the most strategic scheme is obviously bullcrap. I don't think anyone took that seriously. I'm just saying that it's more skill-based and strategic than you give it credit for. I don't think it's boring at all. Talking about the TUS scheme here.

[skunk3]

If mole is so luck-based, why don't you accept Zalo's challenge Skunk? Instead of playing 20 games, just play until you win. Should just be a game or two, right?

Because I'd rather spend my time available for gaming doing something fun rather than having a pissing contest playing a scheme that I don't really enjoy due to random luck. That said, if I was in AG and nobody else had anything decent hosted and friends weren't online I wouldn't turn down a game. Besides, even if he won 2-3 games in a row vs. me that wouldn't prove his point that Mole is the most strategic/tactical scheme of all time. My issue is with that claim. To me, the scheme clearly is not. On top of that, if he is claiming that Mole is the most strategic scheme of all time he is by extension claiming himself to be the #1 best player because wouldn't it stand to reason that whoever dominates the most competitive/strategic non-rope-based scheme is therefore the best player? If Mole is more strategic and tactical than say, Intermediate or Elite, then wouldn't that dominant player also dominate those schemes as well? The reason why all of this sounds absurd is because his original premise is absurd. Mole is not the most strategic/tactical scheme there is just as I said, and it is also a highly luck-based scheme, just as I said. Clearly Zalo is quite good at Mole according the rankings but he has played over 2x more ranked games than ANYONE else, plus out of the 200+ players who have ranked Moles recorded in that list, roughly 5% of them at most are truly high-level players. Anyway, I'm not trying to make anyone angry here; I'm just trying to interject with a bit of rationality. To me, bragging about being the best Mole player is no different than claiming to be the best at T17.

Well sure his statement that it's the most strategic scheme is obviously bullcrap. I don't think anyone took that seriously. I'm just saying that it's more skill-based and strategic than you give it credit for. I don't think it's boring at all. Talking about the TUS scheme here.

I'm not saying that Mole is completely devoid of strategy and tactics. Obviously there is some degree of competency required to excel at the scheme, but I can't take any scheme super seriously if it has such a high degree of random luck involved. Mole can be fun to play as a funner, just not as a serious 1 vs 1 game IMO. I don't know if the TUS Mole scheme is any different than what I am used to. I'd imagine that it is probably the same except maybe it has manual starting placement?

[TheKomodo]

Skunk why don't you at least check the tus scheme before making accusations.

I am on your side but the fact you don't even wanna check the scheme first is ignorant.