Nice run by Lukz at 10:54

Damn, wrong replay. The right one is here attached.

Ye, didn't notice until it was too late That would have been a cheap win, though..

An old topic but a current issue...

Anyone else think Free league should be made more attractive to players who play Classic schemes only? Players who are good at Elite, BnG and Hysteria probably like a league with Intermediate, Aerial, Forts and Abnormal. They just don't want to play the league because someone can pick Darts, Plop War or whatever. It's demanding enough to become good in all Classic schemes so you can't expect people want to learn another ten schemes that are very different.

Unwillingness to learn is a bad reason for removing schemes but a fact is majority of players rather avoid Free league and play just Classic/TEL. If you want to keep playing Free league with the same ten guys, fine.

I would divide Free league into two leagues, one with Classic-like schemes and one with the rest. I'm saying this because an alternative league with Classic-like schemes could keep people interested in WA. At least I get bored with Classic league at times, then play some TEL games and return to Classic league. A league with Classic-like schemes only would bring desired variation without requiring too much learning.

"Give a free win if someone picks Mole Shopper" is a bad solution for both sides.

https://www.tus-wa.com/leagues/game-177187/

Replay time 2:48->

dibz didn't touch left top wall and drowned my 185hp worm.. I asked if he touched that wall and he said yes. That turn pretty much decided the game so I think we should play rm, or?

Bruno?

Quote from: Tomi on September 03, 2014, 07:46 AM
The solution is so f@#!ing easy and it has been said about 28 times!

What TUS should do are:

- removing needed winning ratio more than 50%
- reducing  needed game number to play to qualify PO

Why are these needed?

Because no requirement was unfair towards active clans/players. We could keep it fair for active clans/players this way:

Clanner
- the minimum requirements for playoffs are 35 games and 40% winning ratio (max 8 clans)
- half of the PO spots are reserved for those clans that have played at least 70 games with 40% winning ratio

Singles
- the minimum requirements for playoffs are 40 games and 50% winning ratio (max 8 players)
- half of the PO spots are reserved for those who have played at least 80 games with 50% winning ratio

In singles season #39 we had playoffs for four players only. With above requirements it would have looked like this: (blue = 80 games requirement, red = 40 games requirement):

Berria would have made it to the playoffs even if two more players with less than 80 games had been ranked ahead of him.

-> Playoffs are guaranteed, semi-active clans/players can make it to the playoffs and the system is still quite fair towards active clans/players.

Just keep in mind tus needs more clans, not bigger clans!

Quote from: SPW on September 08, 2014, 03:50 PM
So my suggestion is very simple. Just 2 leagues, defaults and rope schemes splitted.

That would make it more difficult to find a match so dunno.. some players would be searching a default match and some players a rope match. In the end a roper would have to give up and play default.

I think we have a problem with the league system as well. We are now halfway through the season and some players have played 120-170 games already. How many players have time to play 240 games per season? This league system is built for active players only so semi-active players are gone. I just read some old topics and this was what the community wanted: semi-active players are not welcome. I would rather have 20 active and 50 semi-active players than 20 active players only.

Edit: The point calculation system itself seems quite ok since if you are pro, you can get ranked higher than a less skilled guy even if you play 200 games less. The only needed fix for this part may be to lower the required number of games like many have suggested.

Komito, I noticed that and I suggested about the same (Classic with 6-10 schemes). There just aren't many schemes you could select "carefully" from Free League if you want to keep Classic League competitive.

How about this..

Quote
Classic League playoffs: BnG, Elite, Roper, Team17, TTRR, WxW
Classic League season : BnG, Elite, Roper, Team17, TTRR, WxW, Hysteria, Shopper, Intermediate

TUS would provide these leagues:
Classic League
TEL (TUS Elite League)
TDL (TUS Darts League) <- The most popular scheme of Free League atm
AAL (Abnormal and Aerial League) <- Popular ground schemes and they are both tactical, aren't they?

Top clans/players make it to the playoffs anyway, with or without the less competitive schemes. The playoffs winner would be decided playing just the most competitive schemes.

As for TEL/Classic overlap, I think we should do this easy fix:
- If you play Classic and either player's pick (or 3rd pick) is Elite, that game can be reported for TEL also.
- If you play TEL, the game is reported for TEL only.

People would pick more Elite in Classic League as they could report it for TEL as well. Perhaps some TEL players would start to play Classic too as they could play both leagues at the same time. Any problem here?

Quote from: Komito on September 07, 2014, 01:08 PM
Classic League determines who the best player is at Classic League, nothing more.

The best "all-round" player should mean all-round, someone who can play exceptionally well with a huge variety of schemes, someone who has truly mastered the most aspects possible of the whole game, not a few select schemes out of what is available.

Your text is just hair-splitting and doesn't change the point: there is no sense running two leagues with similar purpose because the one is always more valued than the other. So can we just combine Classic and Free leagues together? No because 1) the number of schemes included must be limited so that players can master them all and 2) certain schemes just suit better for competitive gaming than others.

If you want to keep the Free league, at least reduce the number of schemes included and figure out a purpose for it other than finding out who can master a combination of rope and ground schemes the best. "Who can master a combination of technical ground schemes the best", for example.

We have Classic league for determining the best allround clan/player so what role is left for Free league? The only excuse for Free league seems to be arranging matches for specialists of non-Classic schemes. A darts specialist and jetpack race specialist meet in #AG and agree "you bash me in darts so I can bash you in jetpack race". Given the huge number of schemes included (21), people are not even supposed to learn every scheme. Thus someone may practice the least popular schemes and win the title that way. Winning such league is zero worth.

Imo TUS should provide leagues this way:

Classic league (6-10 schemes): BnG, Elite, Roper, Team17, TTRR, WxW, Hysteria?, Shopper?, ?, ?
TEL (TUS Elite League)
THL (TUS Hysteria League)
TDL (TUS Darts League)
etc

If a scheme is not popular enough to be played separately from other schemes, let it be so.

TEL is obviously played in the expense of Classic league. What if Elite games were reported for both TEL and Classic (as a 3rd pick for Classic)? Playing TEL would mean risking Classic points against a scheme specialist. Yet people already agree to play a lot of 3rd picks (= a scheme both players master) in Classic league so would this be that big issue?

Firstly, can someone explain the idea of Free league? There's 21 schemes in that league at the moment. Is the purpose seriously to find the player who can handle 21 different schemes the best? And who is considered the best allround wormer, the winner of Classic or Free league (the answer is obvious)? It's like running two separate decathlon competitions in athletics at the same time.

Secondly, many in this thread have questioned Hysteria's place in Classic league so I ask: does Hysteria have to be in Classic league or could it just have its own separate league like TEL?

Might be better to have own topic for each scheme discussion, or?

As for Team17:

Quote
15. There are probably at least a few players out there who perhaps feel that rope knocking wouldn't be such a bad idea in Team17.

I would consider allowing bungee knocks. According to http://worms2d.info/Team17_(scheme) :

Quote
Team17 is classically played with two rules:
No roofing
No rope knocking (Bungee knocks don't count).

Why is bungee knocking forbidden these days? If it was allowed, we would see some nifty moves by bungee specialists. Nothing wrong with that? I understand why rope knocking is forbidden, for it's easy to execute and you can't really avoid getting knocked. Bungee knocks you can avoid with positioning.

Quote from: DarkOne on August 26, 2014, 06:36 PM
Hmm, I wonder what that would do to server demands. After every season, the 9 months rating would have to be recalculated from scratch.

I don't know about server demands but they would decrease after 2nd season change because of this primary if-then rule:

Quote
If a player hasn't played for two seasons, make him unranked and freeze his points (so he can come back later with points from six/seven seasons).

So after the 2nd season change recalculations would be made for active players only.

There are more simple ways to get almost the same outcome:

1.
- Keep overall ranking system as it is
- Give three of the playoffs spots based on overall ranking. To qualify for the playoffs you have to play at least 40? games.
Pros: Encourage experienced players to keep playing. Cons: No effect on overall standings unless Random00 and some others start playing again.

2.
- Reduce the required number of games to 50? (seasonal requirement)
- Count points from 120? games only. Once you have played 120 games,
  - further wins will replace the smallest losses (+40 -> -9, for example)
  - further losses will replace the smallest wins (-40 -> +20, for example)
Pros: Encourage semi-active players to play. Cons: No direct effect on overall ranking.

There may be other ways too. As mentioned, the point is to attract players who don't have time or desire to play 80 games per season. Now there is no carrot (except ruined overall ranking) for playing 30-50 games per season, which is part of the reason why some players stop playing.