Thanks for the replay, getting a better picture now... although i must say that i don't really see the decrease of crate luck in this scheme, u still can get some pretty lucky crates and be able to attack + grab a crate frequently while ur opponent gets hard crates. Edit: Of course you always can interspere a turn in which you pick up the left alone crates, seems to me more like a synthetic extension of the game time though. This would imo more even out the difference in skill between 2 players than to profit the better player.... From what i see is that it'll add some tactical elements which the actual roper scheme doesn't have. Gotta get used to the not being able to hide properly with 5 sec retreat time tho also.
Summary for me: Looks interesting but i guess i need to play a few games to judge if it's rly superior to the "standard" roper scheme...
chakk, as you see in the game with avi and I, avi got a lot more harder crates than I did.. avi wrote the stats in his last post... yet he still kept the game close and tight due to tactics... you can lure someone by hiding closer to the far crate, and they might try to take it and fail, and then you get 2 crates... there are a lot of tactics you can use...
EDIT: I shall also ask the people of worms this... In the league scheme now, you can get a crate on the far side of the map, impossible to rope even with perfect roping and every rope connection the best, get the crate, and attack. Why, I ask, do you accept a scheme where you have a chance to not be able to attack at all depending on where the game engine decides to put the crate? How does anyone see this as good? Stop letting the game engine decide the outcome of the game!