I wish it was earlier,but I'll try to make it.

Sorry if it is a little late for you, I was trying to pick a time to accomodate as many people as possible. Figured most of us would be playing in the evening. Next time I could perhaps make it an hour earlier, we'll see.

I will decide close in time. It looks not bad for tmrw, shoulda rain and temps lower. I didnt play worms for more than half a year. So it will be funny how my games will run 

Would love it if you joined! Long time.

---

So far, we have a quite good expected turnout.

Expected people:

• VoK
• Dead
• style
• Korydex
• Ray

Possible parttakers:

• Senator
• Berria
• SPW
• Csongi

Also, a little change: games are going to be played Best Of 3! Final and bronze match should be Best Of 5! I realized that if someone won 3-0, but on the other end, 2 players go 3-2 with a tie, winner of the other game would be waiting for an hour possibly and we don't want to put people through that.

Also, if you are waiting for other people to end their games, feel free to play some more Elites against other people who are waiting, just make sure you leave a snooper in the channel. This Tournament is all about playing a lot of Elite games against good opponents, so go ahead.

Would love to join. But dont have time this saturday.
Have fun!

We actually have an open thread for anyone to suggest dates for get-togethers or tournaments! Feel free to contribute, would love to play with you too!

Quote from: Ray on July 22, 2015, 07:49 AM

In case you'd want to get in shape, there is TEL, but we all know it's difficult to find a game.

It will become easier when u show example and go to AG and write "TEL any1?" I see hussar, style, spoon_head, vesuvio looking for TEL often. lales also started to play TEL recently.

It becomes even easier once you start contributing to the topic. I don't have the time nor the patience to sit in a chatroom and wait for someone to maybe show up to play a game - and I am convinced many of us are on the same page here - and the fact that you see some people sometimes asking for games is not enough for me, sorry.

However, if we pinned down a time and date when 4-6 people I know are likely to show up for a couple of hours, then I'm in. And again, I am pretty sure many of us would agree with me.

Are you interested Senator? Give us some possibilities and let's start organizing!

I cannot believe this is already the 5th time EAC is organized! Time is flying by really fast.

Nice! Another EAC! Unfortunately, I am going to have to sit this one out most likely... I will consider it, but most likely I cannot play.

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

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

This discussions from ropa and D1 at this stage arn't really adding value to the problem. Its just discussing the the trends in who was better in certain era's compared to others. Obviously the game will evolve tho and people have naturally created new schemes, probably because classic never appealed and the activity of classic leagues has decreased, you'd naturally try something new. I used to enjoy the odd BR or CTF or that scheme cueshark made with cows and how far you could blast your worm. But i wouldn't join a BR and CTF league.

Anyway, this thread should be about what we can do to get more people back into classic and playing clanners and as Tomi and others have said, just reducing the limit for playoffs and winning ratio will make a difference.

Go look at season 1, and season 2 of tus. There was playoffs and some clans made less than 20 games. The games increased because the activity of tus increased, as the activity decreases, so should the PO requirements to reflect this. Unfortunately MI hasn't had time to code and make these updates when it was suggested a few times before this season and the fact there's been no playoffs for 4 seasons is what has demotivated players to search... I'd say thats the biggest thing compared to what type of schemes you like playing... there's enough people who like classic, they just don't have the time to find 70 clanners in a season and not enough clans to have 4 with 50% winning ratio. Addressing this will prompt people to play again and its already a plan that is in motion. Chill out and see if it works.

I would like to see the results of what you are suggesting Chicken, I really do, but I believe it would only serve as a temporary solution.

The discussion that's going on here is just really two different views on what's important in order to keep something enjoyable that we are all very much passionate about. Very simply put, one side prefers quality over quantity, because good quality bring more quantity over time. The other side, is the exact opposite. You can keep pointing fingers and play the game of "Who f@#!ed it up?" for years, but we are all mature enough and have experienced this on these exact forums many times, that pointing fingers does not result in solutions.

How about we focus on our problems, break them down to smaller pieces and try to solve each of those individually by providing some points from each side and try to come to an agreement? We will never be able to pleasure everyone, but f@#!, with so many experienced and may I say smart, bright people, we sure as hell can come up with ideas, come to an agreement and execute them in order to tackle the problems, not to tackle individual taste.

Ray, I am not against going on ventrilo for a discussion. Nevertheless, I wonder if we won't have some timezone issues.

I doubt that's something we couldn't solve.

Well, you can all have whatever opinions and standpoints about our clan, but the most important thing to me is that we had an awfully great time playing with each other and competing with everyone, one that I would never trade for anything else. Hell, if I spent all that time with studying I would have a PhD by now... But we are also proud of our results, and that was mostly due to strict management. But anyway, I think we discussed this enough, I would love to continue this conversation with anyone, just let's try and keep it out of this thread.