Schemes > Schemes

Scheme #3814, Supermarket Shopper(SMS) submitted by crmm1792

(1/4) > >>

Lupastic:
fun scheme, discovered it today (: I like it a lot.
one thing worths mentioning, why is it called "supermarket shopper"? it's because ur picking up like 5-6 crates per turn..? :D this is totally like a kaos mod shopper/chaos shopper would be a much appropriate name.

another weird thing about it, why do we have one ammo of "mine strike" aerial weapon in a shopper based scheme? oO it's basically just a filler there. other than those, everything's great about it.
you have to be fast and accurate here, while also paying attention to what weapons you're picking up : ]

crmm1792:
the name "Supermarket Shopper" was a friend´s idea, exactly that its because u pick up 7 crate max.
mine strike is a non-rule weapon(no cak rule applied it) the idea is basically is make a random damage and full the field, giving funnier moments

FoxHound:
It's a good scheme, well balanced, well thought. However the description is in blank, there is no detail about the rules or authorship of the scheme, no ideal number of worms, etc. It is still a RubberWorm Shopper variation like many I've seen before, so nothing very unique, but it is fun to play and it is different from the others I played. I like the Fall Damage values, the fact there is no ldet (with sdet on) and there is only one single zook as starting weapon. Many mines, so players must be careful with that. Good to see people are playing and creating new schemes.

Lancelot:
I would ask the author to provide a detailed description of the scheme, despite its obviousness.
Something like “standard shopper rules, number of worms, number of victories and also the peculiarity of this type of shopper.”

Personally, I don’t really like this scheme, I prefer the classic shopper, but this type of shopper differs from other types in the presence of rubber functions, therefore, most likely, this scheme will end up in the next Wheel of Fortune cup

 :)

FoxHound:
IIRC, the author initially created it without rules, then he added a big description with detailed rules, but for some reason he erased the rules, maybe he preferred to make it simple with multiple interpretations instead of dictating rules that not everyone agrees or that are complicated. The concept of the scheme is simple, but I understand that it is not easy to stablish rules of a new form of gameplay that you can attack multiple times in a turn.

In my opinion if the idea is to make it simple and open to multiple interpretations and gameplay forms, this should be written to make it clear, but sometimes when there is a big wall of text people don't play because they are lazy to understand all the rules. So, maybe just a short description would be better than simply erasing all the information about the scheme.

The author has proven to be a creative scheme maker, as you can notice (his creations). Not sure if he is the kind of person that credit others so much, though. His other schemes have detailed rules. This one he decided to erase the rules.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page