lol

Again, most people don't do this, but it's incredibly disrespectful to the two players involved in the game. The hope is that Prof learned from this, but people may want further action done to prevent this from spreading (worst case scenario).

ANO most people are willing to play all schemes. this is just advice for people who may be a bit stubborn.

well maybe a punishment is needed, just enough to prevent this from happening. even a ban? few days or week even?

what punishment for this would you want that you think is reasonable Husk?

I argue we already know of a 'better' Roper right in front of us that's not being fully used.

2 worms per team in 1v1 as an option.

-Since 1999, W:A has been successfully playing 2v2 Roper with 2 worms per team
-I don't think it's a coincidence that fewer people complain about crates in 2v2 Roper
-More strategy: piling most importantly, adding an extra skillful element in deciding games

Sure 'easier maps' and 'just rope faster' and 'dont make mistakes' are suggestions, but they've been said before, and yet we still have these roper discussions every few months.

Unfortunately though, W:A since 1999 has been playing 1v1 Roper with 1 worm per team, so the natural reaction likely is 'this change is radical/unnecessary/stupid/etc', but I argue this isn't that far-fetched considering it's just an extension of what we already play in 2v2 Roper.

How could it be implemented? Well if both players still like 1 worm per team, that could still be allowed. But I think if even 1 player wants to play with 2 worms, it should be possible to enforce it when requested, even if they're not the host or it's not their pick. [Reason being: It's really just an extension of what we already know through 2v2 Roper, so it really shouldn't be seen as radical.]

Any agree? Would you vote this in as a rule?

People can hate certain schemes, and it seems deejay really hated to play bng then.

Sometimes it can be better for all to play something everyone likes, but there is also the alternative: report that free win to get the points, forcing them to arrange and play it or lose the points.

Look at it as a trade off: play for points but risk an unpleasant game --> or play a scheme for less points that both sides enjoy.

woot ^^

try hosting them yourself, helps 100% yours get used, and maybe ppl like them and get them too

(I've done this with my own roper maps  )

Quote from: Breeze on October 11, 2012, 11:57 PM
Does that test switch require a modified version of worms?

No,  /ts /test have been available since 2010 when 3.6.31.0 was released. I only found out about it now though. And I still think in a league game you should be allowed to force /ts /test if requested. Seems fair to me, and allows current Bng to continue if both like it together.

I think you should be allowed to force /ts /test if requested. No real argument has been made against it, other than "I dunno"

bonhert you have 1 week to replay this game or it's deleted

replay and post it here

I also was surprised to hear HHC's post start like that. I assumed if there was any one player from here to give W:Rev a decent chance, it would be HHC, and now I'm glad I didn't purchase it. Any money they receive related to this game will just send them the wrong message that what they're doing is progress.

Alternatively, I will still gladly purchase W:A if/when they release it by itself, if anything just to show them even a little bit where they should really be looking.

Quote from: Husk on October 10, 2012, 02:02 AM
why did my post get deleted O=

nice games mates

MI say ;x

"Whenever you fix a game, delete the comment if it could make confusions."