Is it? i mean i don't think it shoudl be to trap a worm is a small spot in a shopper game and prevent him from getting a crate what do y'all think?

Good luck fighting your lone crusade Ghost, none but a few brave souls will dare side with you against tradition.

Sounds like someone got arrowed in a shopper recently ;)

I say yes, because you have to be Rambo to fight with a bow in modern combat.

I say no because it garentees a victory for those not trapped which is completely... just.... well not a good way to win. If your playing someone you dont know and they do that, dont play them again because its just not fun. If your with your clan and they do it just kick them in the balls or something :D

Ghost, it was completely against the rules in First Blood!, the league that recently closed. Also, it is standard for a permanent block to be grounds for disqualification from a shopper tournament.

Someone needs to write the Worms Knowledge Base Shopper article, linked to in the Schemes article (http://wiki.thecybershadow.net/Schemes). For writing guidelines, refer to the Rope race article (http://wiki.thecybershadow.net/Rope_race).

That's dumb.

Either the longbow should be excluded from the shceme or users should be able to trap a worm with the arrows.

It's rubbish saying "you can use this weapon but only if it doesn't actually give you any tactical advantage".

Edit: This post excludes cheap, straight, full-power bazooka shots. They're just lame.

Arrows can't be used from the rope anyway, which makes shopping a little more tedious.

I always play anything goes, no rules in shoppa or anygame, only rule "Start at Start"

I'm merely relaying the community-accepted standard. Even the rules page (http://armageddonleague.com/league/index.php?pid=25&) from Armageddon League, the current largest Worms Armageddon league, lists permanent blocks in shoppers as cheating.

Right. Well I'm relaying my personal opinion.

They should either exclude the longbow or allow blocking. Simple.

It is unfair, but when host says, that it is allowed, it is allowed.
If host says, it isn't allowed, it is not allowed. Simple as 1,2,3.

This is where having a referee comes in handy.

It should be the referee's decision. That way neither team are pulling the strings and have to adhere to the authority's decision.

It is unfair, but when host says, that it is allowed, it is allowed.
If host says, it isn't allowed, it is not allowed. Simple as 1,2,3.

The problem occurs if the host doesn't mention anything about it.
I can't expect a host to list the dozens of minirules before starting a game, so there should be some default assumptions.

It should be the referee's decision

Referee = host.

The host is playing, surely?

Next time there's a World Cup we'll make one of the teams in the final a referee. Yes. That would easily sort out any dispute. Easily.

The host also chose the mine settings, the crate settings, etc.

Surely those are built into the scheme?

That's what I mean. The scheme dictates a lot of the game's rules but a referee should be introduced to oversee the uncontrollable element of the game that is the player.

Either way this all very stupid. Longbows allow the user to trap an opponent. If you don't want that to happen in the game, exclude the longbow.

How is it any more compicated than that?

They should either exclude the longbow or allow blocking. Simple.
Somehow, I don't think people will be too keen on removing an entire weapon, especially one that can help mobility, just so that it'll prevent someone cheating on a rare event.
And please refraim from posting a reply of the uselessness of the longbow. There are many people that still like this weapon.

Surely those are built into the scheme?

That's what I mean. The scheme dictates a lot of the game's rules but a referee should be introduced to oversee the uncontrollable element of the game that is the player.

Either way this all very stupid. Longbows allow the user to trap an opponent. If you don't want that to happen in the game, exclude the longbow.

How is it any more compicated than that?You are hypocritical to say that blocking people in small spaces where they can't possibly get out from (due to indestructable terrain) should definitely be allowed (while insulting ("stupid") the idea of it not being allowed in the process), while firing bazookas straight at enemy worms with full power should not be allowed. I can use your own argument of weapon-inclusion against you for bazookas. I shouldn't be able to.

So, which is it? You're only allowed to have one view here.

Or, did you not know that shoppers use indestructable terrain? Have you played a (rope) shopper in the past five years? That's the scheme we're talking about here. Nobody plays Iron Duck shoppers any more, as far as I can tell.

My view is that if Ghost is so frustrated by something like that, why not eliminate it from the game?

It's never been illegal to use cheap bazooka shots but it is frowned upon. If it was made illegal then perhaps its inclusion in the scheme would be reconsidered.

I'm not being hypcritial. The two are actually very different things. If I use a cheap zook shot on someone it has the exact same effect as if it wasn't a cheap shot. It's only the fact that it takes so little skill that makes it frowned upon. It doesn't prevent anyone from moving or have any other major repercussions on the gameplay.

Anyway, who made you the boss of me? I can have as many views as I like.

Somehow, I don't think people will be too keen on removing an entire weapon, especially one that can help mobility, just so that it'll prevent someone cheating on a rare event.
And please refraim from posting a reply of the uselessness of the longbow. There are many people that still like this weapon.Who said anything about me not liking the longbow? It's a great weapon but it seems to be causing some people problems in this specific circumstance.

It's never been illegal to use cheap bazooka shots but it is frowned upon. If it was made illegal then perhaps its inclusion in the scheme would be reconsidered.You obviously haven't played in any (major) leagues or tournaments for the past few years. Those "cheap" bazooka shots (In BnGs, not other schemes. In other schemes, it is not "frowned upon" to fire a straight zook.) and "cheap" permanent longbow blocks are completely illegal in all of them.I'm not being hypcritial. The two are actually very different things. If I use a cheap zook shot on someone it has the exact same effect as if it wasn't a cheap shot. It's only the fact that it takes so little skill that makes it frowned upon. It doesn't prevent anyone from moving or have any other major repercussions on the gameplay.So, are you saying that, since this isn't nearly as bad as a permanent longbow block, it should be "frowned upon" while a permanent block should be completely allowed (i.e. not "frowned upon")? If so, I don't see your logic.Anyway, who made you the boss of me? I can have as many views as I like.True. I suppose my statement was meant to be advisory rather than commanding. Having contradicting viewpoints doesn't make a person popular.

I like a hearty debate. I don't mean offence. :)

So, are you saying that, since this isn't nearly as bad as a permanent longbow block, it should be "frowned upon" while a permanent block should be completely allowed (i.e. not "frowned upon")? If so, I don't see your logic.

Either that, the weapon should be excluded or a referee should be appointed.

longbow should be given a setting that makes the arrow disapear on collision. Both issues solved in one then.

That would eliminate the options of using arrows as steps, and such.

I guess arrows could be made destructible even with indestructible landscape. That way (unless the enemy did no damage), the most someone would lose is a turn.

That would eliminate the options of using arrows as steps, and such.
Still beats your idea to remove the weapon entirely.

I guess arrows could be made destructible even with indestructible landscape. That way (unless the enemy did no damage), the most someone would lose is a turn.
That would depend largely on if the opponent has any weapons. And on a shopper match, that's actually quite likely to happen.

Still beats your idea to remove the weapon entirely.
My point is that it should either be in or out. If it's in, trapping shots should be legal but frowned upon. If trapping shots are a big problem, remove them from the scheme.
That would depend largely on if the opponent has any weapons. And on a shopper match, that's actually quite likely to happen.
Hang on... you're saying that in a shoppa match, the chance of someone having a weapon and therefore being able to kill the enemy is slim?

Eh?

Hang on... you're saying that in a shoppa match, the chance of someone having a weapon and therefore being able to kill the enemy is slim?
Hmm... I should have used 'more likely than you think' there, shouldn't I have?

I'm confused; maybe I'm reading it wrong.

If the opponent is unlikely to have weapons, then by trapping you they have given themselves a temporary advantage.

Of course, that advantage would expire as soon as they tried to hurt you, as the arrow would be destroyed.

If you are trapped and the opponent has no weapons, it's frustrating but only temporary. Of course, you have the opportunity to trap them just as they did you.

If the opponent is unlikely to have weapons, then by trapping you they have given themselves a temporary advantage. Of course, that advantage would expire as soon as they tried to hurt you, as the arrow would be destroyed.
1: I presume you mean 'if you (the one being trapped) are unlikely to have weapons', otherwise this should be the same as your other point.
2: Yes, but it gives the opponent a grand oppertunity to reach an overkill weapon.

Oh, and looking back, I think the chances of both having no weapons, having one worm only, being blocked in somewhere by a small gap, and the enemy having a bow all at the same time is actually pretty too unlikely to happen.

if it's fair and tactical then why not just allow girders?

Girders take less skill to place correctly.

Anyway, I don't really care either way. I think you just just remove the bow from the scheme and have done with it. Try it and see how it plays, at least.

but other than the ability to trap people the bow is often a very good tool for hitting someone over something or down something.

Then it comes down to whether that particular use outweighs the disadvantageous use of trapping people or not.

just wait for a patch that allows the arrow and girders to be indestructible even when indestructible terrain is on.

I feel guilty when I block people or accidently use cheap tactics....I'd rather lose the game than win using a block.

So I reckon it should be illegal :D

I'm confused; maybe I'm reading it wrong.

If the opponent is unlikely to have weapons, then by trapping you they have given themselves a temporary advantage.

Of course, that advantage would expire as soon as they tried to hurt you, as the arrow would be destroyed.

If you are trapped and the opponent has no weapons, it's frustrating but only temporary. Of course, you have the opportunity to trap them just as they did you.

Except Arrows can't be destroyed.

Never had this problem myself. I take the view that the host has the only and final word.

If it is a real problem for you, remove the bow or specifically state: "No Blocking".

I tend to agree with Vader. Scheme rules should be as close to the engine's rules as possible, and where they do differ they should differ in clearly defined ways. This makes the rules much easier to list, easier to follow, and easier to enforce.

"No straight zook shots" is a very stupid rule: it's nothing like what the game allows, "straight zook shot" is poorly defined, and the rule is almost never explicitly stated. The Longbow thing is a bit better--a worm can either get out or it can't. It still differs from what the game allows though, and it still makes your ruleset more complicated (and it's apparently never stated). You have to weigh any advantages of leaving the Longbow in the scheme against these problems; I don't think it's worthwhile myself.

This sort of thing that makes me stay away from certain schemes and ask for the rules at the beginning of games.

Yeh. A REAL worms player would work around their worm being trapped by arrows. Its happened to me once. So I used one go to kill said worm with another. I lost, but with pride.

I'm not fond of people who make up extra rules because they think something is unfair. Yes, ok, there are a few really unfair advantages that are in the basic rules. But otherwise you should just find a tactical way around it and retaliate.

Propack Shopper rules have always been:

1. Attack From Rope (AFR)
2. Crate Before Attack (CBA)
3. All But Last (ABL)
4. Kill The Cow (KTC) - This should only be done if the host signals it and follows it.
5. Any other objectives the shopper may require. (Examples: FBA, wxw, surf, etc.)

6. No Nukes
7. No Girders
8. No Permanent Blocks - Worm blocks and freeze blocks are permitted.
9. No Cheap Glitches - Glitch walk is permitted. Girder kills are not.

These are the rules the community has learned to accept as the default rules. However, newage wormers seem to have accepted Kill The Leader (KTL) as the new default. I'm not sure what caused this change, it possibly came about from the mass confusion of noobs. KTL seems to be the new default and should be accepted unless otherwise stated.

The leader is determined by the order of the powerbars. If you cause damage to a team (shotgun, knocking, mines, etc.) and the game calculates the change in health, then the leader may change. There can be more than one leader if the total health values match.

Propack Shopper rules have always been:
8. No Permanent Blocks - Worm blocks and freeze blocks are permitted.


see i'm not asking for a new rule but blocking when it is impossible to get out is simply not fair. lets say my enemy only gets cluster bombs i'm stuck doing nothing while he grabs crate...

EDIT: i don't know i find it to be equal abl/ktl but i always use abl myself.

6. No Nukes
7. No Girders
8. No Permanent Blocks - Worm blocks and freeze blocks are permitted.
9. No Cheap Glitches - Glitch walk is permitted. Girder kills are not.


Those are generally forgotton. But why are there girders in a shopper scheme?

"No straight zook shots" is a very stupid rule.

I'd just like to clarify that "no straight zooks" has never been a rule in my book; however, firing short range, full-power, straight bazooka shots in a SheepBnG is frowned upon. It's not illegal but you essentially lose style points, the result being less respect from fellow players.

As it happens, people who really take the **** with it frequently end up not being invited to games and eventually the problem goes away all on its own. ;)

Those are generally forgotton. But why are there girders in a shopper scheme?

Girder Pack.

Girder Pack.

Why? What is that used for in a shopper scheme?

Why? What is that used for in a shopper scheme?

Girder pack is a super weapon...

Girder pack is a super weapon...

It can still be removed, so why is it included in standered shopper schemes?

It can still be removed, so why is it included in standered shopper schemes?

If you have super weapons enabled, you cannot disable girder pack.

If you have super weapons enabled, you cannot disable girder pack.

That's only if you use the scheme editor in the game. There are better ways to make a scheme.

Of course it is important to remember that, with the exception of league games, rules are only in a game to keep things in line. Personally, I play to have fun. I will usually do something that violates the game rules if I feel it is a creative and awesome move that others will enjoy seeing while not bothering anyone. Just use your discretion.

Example: In roper games, if there is no wind, I sometimes like to stand on my opponents head and shoot a zook straight up. The closer you can get the zook to the roof without hitting it, the cooler it is.

That's only if you use the scheme editor in the game. There are better ways to make a scheme.

Can you provide a scheme editor that restricts which superweapons appear in crates? Because I've not heard of one and that would be really useful.

Can you provide a scheme editor that restricts which superweapons appear in crates? Because I've not heard of one and that would be really useful.

Meh. Mabye there isn't one.

Just... Ignore everything I said.

I was pretty sure there was one...

Bollocks, you got me all excited and now i'm disappointed :p

now assuming you are joking when you say there isn't one.

Can you provide a scheme editor that restricts which superweapons appear in crates? Because I've not heard of one and that would be really useful.

There are scheme editors that do this. The problem is that w:a does not read the scheme data for Super Weapon power and probability.

so i'm not 100% an idiot good. only 50%

KTL is preferred because it greatly reduces the number of piles that would otherwise occur on abl and it forces a much more dynamic goal to kill.

Both of those rules are also rather difficult. Easy to define but not as easy as most to follow.

I don't understand why this argument is taking place.

Permanent blocks are not allowed, leagues go by these rules, official tournaments go by these rules, everyone who is half good at shopping goes by these rules.

I'd rather argue for allowing girders. I actually like having girderpacks to change the map configuration. As long as you don't trap with them, or in a larger sence make parts of the map inaccessible.

Girders are not allowed because of trapping, so why not make that the key issue instead of banning girders all together.

I'd rather argue for allowing girders. I actually like having girderpacks to change the map configuration. As long as you don't trap with them, or in a larger sence make parts of the map inaccessible.

Girders are not allowed because of trapping, so why not make that the key issue instead of banning girders all together.

Good call!

In an ordinary shopper game I don't think that would be a bad thing as long as no passages are blocked. However, in a wxw it can be a nightmare and shouldn't be allowed.

wxw ... shouldn't be allowed.

Quoted for truth.

Quoted for truth.

Quoted for confirmation of the truth-quoting. *Nods.*

However, in a wxw it can be a nightmare

I know, that's what i like about it :cool:. It's the weaker roper who has the disadvantage there, which i think can be a tacticle choice. Then again if yer a darksider on the losing end it might be that same tacticle choice to make the wxw beyond human skill. And thus force a draw.

I know, that's what i like about it :cool:. It's the weaker roper who has the disadvantage there, which i think can be a tacticle choice. Then again if yer a darksider on the losing end it might be that same tacticle choice to make the wxw beyond human skill. And thus force a draw.

There is no such thing as a better roper in WxW. WxW is all about two newbies (who can't rope nor rr therefore take the newbie hybrid) where the host selects his PlayThisAtLeast10TimesAday.BIT

There is no such thing as a better roper in WxW. WxW is all about two newbies (who can't rope nor rr therefore take the newbie hybrid) where the host selects his PlayThisAtLeast10TimesAday.BIT

:rolleyes: everybody just ignore the "shoppa takes no skill whatsoever" comments or this thread will just go straight to hell.

There is no such thing as a better roper in WxW. WxW is all about two newbies (who can't rope nor rr therefore take the newbie hybrid) where the host selects his PlayThisAtLeast10TimesAday.BIT

I suppose you also believe that shopper is a game totally lacking in strategy as well as skill.
How very wrong you are...

And now to comply with Run.

Of course it is important to remember that, with the exception of league games, rules are only in a game to keep things in line. Personally, I play to have fun. I will usually do something that violates the game rules if I feel it is a creative and awesome move that others will enjoy seeing while not bothering anyone. Just use your discretion.

Example: In roper games, if there is no wind, I sometimes like to stand on my opponents head and shoot a zook straight up. The closer you can get the zook to the roof without hitting it, the cooler it is. I like it. Its a game. You're supposed have fun with it.

I suppose you also believe that shopper is a game totally lacking in strategy as well as skill.
How very wrong you are...

And now to comply with Run. lol. Its very hard to ignore that sort of comment. Nevertheless i could swear that that post was loopholing everything that Run comanded:p

I suppose you also believe that shopper is a game totally lacking in strategy as well as skill.
How very wrong you are...

And now to comply with Run.

No, I actually believe shopping takes skill. I would love educating you in the art of shopping, or maybe teaching you why WxW is totally stupid in comprasion to other schemes. But I just don't care enough.

No, I actually believe shopping takes skill. I would love educating you in the art of shopping, or maybe teaching you why WxW is totally stupid in comprasion to other schemes. But I just don't care enough.

So, why do you believe that WxW is stupid.

Although yes, you are right about shopping.

If you're not unlucky enough to get your worms obliterated early, you can easily win most shoppa games by carefully planning to become the kingmaker in the end-game.

So, why do you believe that WxW is stupid.

Although yes, you are right about shopping.

It adds nothing. For instance, a player who is already good at other schemes, mainly RR and Shopping/Elite will be as good as an expert WxWer.

I have never played WxW on a constant basis, but even if I play my first game, taking into account i'm experienced in the other schemes I'd still beat Mr #1 WxWer in the universe. Why? Because the roping in it is easier than Roper and much easier than RR, the strategy of it is easier than in a Shopper, because maps are much more linear than in Shopper, so yeah, it adds nothing.

Providing Elite adds allaround default skill and general use of weapons from ground.
Roping adds Roping skill and speed.
RopeRacing also adds Roping skill and speed but in a totally different fashion than roping (hence there's people who are very good at roping but not so good at roperacing and viceversa)
Shopping adds Piling, knocking to a bigger extent than any other scheme and also general usage of weapons from the rope.
Etc

WxW adds nothing. Roping in it is **** easy, its like a super easy roperace. Weapon usage in it is not half as interesting as in shopper as there are generally no interesting kills and or ideas as most maps are linear. Hard WxW maps? Stupid, and mainly based on luck because you have virtually no time to show your creativity skill (knocks, piles, etc).

It's basically a stupid and retarded scheme. You can be super mega awesome at it, having pracitced it for ages, no problem, i'd still beat you on my first WxW game of the century, simple as. It adds nothing, it's as stupid as an Elite where you have to run from X to Y and then attack. Yes, it would remove strategy.

If you don't agree don't bother, consider this post the absolute truth, the worms bible volume 1.

If you don't agree don't bother, consider this post the absolute truth, the worms bible volume 1.

Heh.

Yes, I see your point. It focuses a lot onto roping back and forth and not enough on actually using the weapons you have.

...Because the roping in it is easier than Roper and much easier than RR, the strategy of it is easier than in a Shopper, ...

Hmm, I'd have to disagree with you on that. Though I can see why you would say that. RR takes a different roping style then propers do. The same goes for shoppa and for wascar. I would say w2w is often more like wascar roping then rr or proper. Though depending on the map. RR players aren't by nature good wascar players, because it requires different timing and different ways to get up to speed. In wascar, as in most wxw maps (depending on the map ofcourse) it is alot more about keeping your speed up. While RR is often more about performing your manouvers around tight spaces as in such a manner it will slow you down as little as possible.

They are too different things. I will defenetly not try to argue that it takes more skill to properly move around an rr or proper map is higher then to move around a wxw map. It's not hard to tell what some1's favo rope game is, just look at the moves they perform and the speed of there tapping. Shoppa and w2w players spike more, they make longer swings, perform fewer tricks, and have there ropes released longer. It's the thing that works slightly better on their maps. And the thing that works extremely poor on rr and ropers aswell.

Personally I prefer the maps that allow for the fastest roping. I find it to be less frustrating and more fun to do. And you could argue that's noobish because it takes less skill, but I'd say it's just stupid to not do the thing you like best, just because some1 else doesn't. I would ask u not to discard wxw as a noob's game for the same reason I don't discard rr and proper as a game for people with too much time on their hands. It's the age old stupid arguement that's on every game in every genre. Have respect for other people's likes and make sure you're doing the thing you like. That's what hobbies are for.

Heh.

Yes, I see your point. It focuses a lot onto roping back and forth and not enough on actually using the weapons you have. Nevertheless. Its still a scheme in its own unique right and gives a different kind of entertainment to the player. It dosn't particularly matter if it needs its own skill unless you are only playing it to win something...

...although that is what alot of people do.

Nevertheless. Its still a scheme in its own unique right and gives a different kind of entertainment to the player. It dosn't particularly matter if it needs its own skill unless you are only playing it to win something...

...although that is what alot of people do.

Indeed that is true. And EB gave some pretty good points too.

Ropa is actually basically right in saying that shopping / w2w are newbie hybrids of schemes. If you're smart enough to be good at a normal scheme like elite and you can rope then there's not the least added difficulty in shoppers. And if you can really rope, you'll have no difficulty on any terrain, certainly not on w2w maps, the widest maps possible. Nothing wrong with liking shoppers, but you can hardly compare the level of skill needed with most other schemes to shoppers.

WxW is just an easier version of roper... need i say more? and yes it hardly has tight spots to rope around... but who cares? if your only playing to relax then i see no point in playing roper. (lawl i mistook rr for roper)

Ropa is actually basically right in saying that shopping / w2w are newbie hybrids of schemes. If you're smart enough to be good at a normal scheme like elite and you can rope then there's not the least added difficulty in shoppers. And if you can really rope, you'll have no difficulty on any terrain, certainly not on w2w maps, the widest maps possible. Nothing wrong with liking shoppers, but you can hardly compare the level of skill needed with most other schemes to shoppers.

You are very wrong.

Some Schemes I can think of on the spot:


Normal - General Worm skills. Strategy and Weapon ability.

Roper - Focuses on your ability to rope well and drop mines, nades and bazookas well.

Shopper - Focuses less on your roping ability, but places greater emphasis on your ability to use many different weapons effeciently and has a greater strategy element.

BnG - Focuses on your ability to use the bazooka and grenade well.

W2W - Greater emphasis on roping than using weapons than what you find in a shopper game. Less strategy.

RR - Focuses completely on roping ability in tight areas.



Shopper games require skill. The fact you do not need amazing rope skills doesn't mean the game is lacking in a skill requirement. A roper game requires far more roping ability, but doesn't need the same amount of weapon efficiency or creativeness that you get in a shopper game.
The amount of skill is the same, just in different areas.

If you're talking about the time needed to gain skill in a scheme, which is basically the measure of how hard a scheme is, shoppers rank the lowest. RRing, warming, roping, elite, and BnG and maybe t17 all take at least 2 years to get even decent at by my standards, people become apt shoppers in months. :eek:

If you're talking about the time needed to gain skill in a scheme, which is basically the measure of how hard a scheme is, shoppers rank the lowest. RRing, warming, roping, elite, and BnG and maybe t17 all take at least 2 years to get even decent at by my standards, people become apt shoppers in months. :eek:

Is this just to become apt or good?

To basically master the scheme, although of course you can improve indefinitely in RR / warmers. And I'm only making that judgement since I have buttloads of experience in every main scheme, and have probably played more worms than anyone. Most people who think shoppers take as much skill as any other main schemes lack experience in leagues and/or in general, I just don't like people making generalizations when they can't support them first hand.

Listen to Mablak. He tends to get first place in any WA league which appears.