It lasted a while because it was somewhat intense! Avi and I talked about the + 50 thing you talk about Monkey... but we agreed it isn't a problem.  It is much better to get 1 crate and attack than to just go for the two crates for 50.  1 crate and attack = 25 + 47 or so in health difference... getting 2 crates would give you + 50, but the other worm would still get a 22 or so hp difference, assuming he can get a crate and attack (when you go for 2 crates, with 13 seconds with 5 sec retreat time, your hide will usually be bad, so it is easy for someone to get crate and attack after).

Agreed (agreeing on people picking hysteria part)! And trust me, when you play w2 roper and understand it, it is so much funner than regular roper.

Quote from: chakkman on July 17, 2010, 07:12 PM
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!

Quote from: NAiL on July 16, 2010, 08:13 PM


When I was young and I got my first BB gun, I used to load it, cock it, then put the barrel right up to my eyeball and squeeze the trigger, daring myself to see how much pressure I could apply to the trigger before I chickened out!

woah!! holy shit! I cringed just reading that 

Quote from: Uber on July 17, 2010, 03:06 AM
I have never tried this scheme, and im not the best roper exactly, so for me its the same basically.. BUUUT imo the "crate raped" thing is sometimes a good thing for this game. I mean, if not the best player will win like 90% no matter what. I mean its exciting 2 know that eventho ur a worse player u still have a chance. AAANNND if u got a bad start, u wont lose 100% cause anything can happen. I mean if u get a bad start, u most likely have v small odds getting back in the game with this style.

Anyways, this is NOT a "no ffs dont change roper" at all

Btw, i think in normal roper the w2w in sd should be forced each round tho, i really hate that some ppl just wait for the other one 2 fail..

But uber, the lesser player always has a chance to win if the more skilled player does a major f@#! up.. so there is the chance for a lesser player to win... why pad f@#! ups with chances of getting shitty crates on top of it?  This gets rid of the unnecessary luck factor and adds in tactics and real skill

I agree with dark! it is time for a progressive worms era!

Angus, I watched your replay but you guys were still pretty much playing like it was a normal roper... the point of the scheme is to prevent crate rape luck. When you have a crate that is far away, you shouldn't try to get it, especially if you are leading... it is better to leave the crate and attack your opponent... this way, you get the important hit, the crate luck didn't rape you... if your opponent wants to get the far crate next turn, let him.. but he probably won't be able to attack

seriously, the wind luck argument for ttrr is ridiculous... different winds can help you at different parts of the map IF you fall there... how about just not fall? or take chutes out of rr?

this is a video of the lead singer of the band I posted earlier swinging from the scaffolding at a concert... these guys are crazy insane good! I encourage everyone to go back and listen to that song I posted! just give the chorus a chance and you will be hooked!

100% agree with avi.  I always thought the roper scheme was ridiculous... crates can really make someone losing get a big break and screw over the better player... this w2 scheme is absolute skill... I've played it many times with avi, and I know a lot of other wormers out there prefer this scheme over the current one because this scheme is tactics in skill.... tactics in roper?? how can this be?? with this scheme it is possible! Like avi said, it is best if you do collect the crates and attack, but if you get a shitty crate, it is more tactical to just hit your opponent and not get the crate... with 13 second turn times, you have to think and decide if you are SKILLED enough to get the crate AND attack.  The time to change is now! please try this scheme and I bet you, if you use your human logic and reason, you will find this scheme to be a better assessment of your roping skills and knowledge.

The chorus will be popping in your head at all times! Best up and coming alternative metal band!

happy birthday smok

Alright cool though at least i sparked some sort of discussion. yeah. YEAH!!! LOST!!

Not sure if this would apply here, but I thought of something a long time ago but was never put into practice. 
Right now, you could win a game and gain 40 points and your opponent loses 40 points...
My idea was to have it so you could win a game and gain 40 points and your opponent loses 20 points... exactly half of whatever you gain...
This does a few things...
1. It could raise activity.  I know for CKC, when chicken is on, he likes to have a 3rd clan member on because he can't rr very well... well with this system, you wouldn't lose as much points for a rr.  You would lose half of what the other clan gained.  So perhaps people would be willing to clan more knowing they won't lose a barrel full of points because the two members online can't cover a certain scheme.
2. I think it shows a true reflection of the clans abilities.  You could have really strong ropers playing in the clan and get a good roper rating, but sometimes you have a true defaulter on that can't rope well. Well, losing that roper with that nice big rating wouldn't put such a large hole into the rating after all. In other words, you don't get terribly punished for losing schemes your clan would normally win.
3. It helps with the higher ranked clans.  Right now, if a high ranked clan did 1-1, usually it would be a loss for them. For example, right now, if higher ranked clan A wins 25 points the first game, and loses 50 points the second game, they are down 25 points even though they made it even.  The system I proposed would mean clan A would have broke even at gaining 0 and losing 0.  Of course, the numbers won't be so exact all the time, but that is just an example.  When you do 1-1 in a clanner, it seems logical that you would end up at around the same rating you started as, give or take a few points... with the system now, it is a bit more punishing for higher ranked clans.
4. It doesn't create such a huge gap between clans.  I know in CKC's case, we tried to make a run for the playoffs the last day.. we went 5-1, but the one loss came from the clan who we were trying to knock out of the playoffs... we lost 59 points that game, they gained 59 points, and right there they bolstered their lead by 118 points just for winning one game... that pretty much ended any hopes of making the playoffs. The system I proposed would have only given them a 88.5 point gain for one game... at least it turns into something less devastating for 1 simple loss.  Basically, I guess this system would reduce blowout leads in the standings.

Of course with this system comes a lot of points generated from nothing, but idk what to tell you about that.  It could determine better candidates for the playoffs, or it could not... you never know without testing.  that's all I've got to input... peace yall................................  LOST IS THE BEST SHOW EVER!

it's all in your head! laptop keyboard has been the best thing i've ever played on. not joking