Difference between revisions of "Talk:Schemes"

Revision as of 15:04, 10 May 2011

First Talk

Yeesh, this page needs some serious work! Look at all those uncreated pages! I was kind of hoping I could get some info on some of the schemes, but no-one's given any yet. I'll try to put down some basic info on a lot of them, but there are so many people out there that know more about these schemes than I do. This place could be a gold mine of info. Let's make it happen!

Please....

Anyway, do people think that it would be a good idea to try and collect some schemes that are considered to be the "original" schemes and give a link to all of them for download? Because some of them have so many varitions. Try searching on somewhere like Blame The Pixel and you get about 15 types thrown at you.--Melon 21:23, 18 March 2007 (EET)

How do you decided what's original, though? League versions tend to have slightly modified settings to reduce luck; the 'first' versions sometimes have unpopular settings, and the most common versions still have several subtle variations. Consensus is really quite difficult to come by. Run! 21:22, 19 March 2007 (EET)

Well OK, maybe not 'original'. I mean perhaps a version of the scheme thats more of a general version. I understand that there are many slightly different variations, so maybe someone could put one up that could be classed as a 'standard' version of the scheme.--Melon 23:58, 19 March 2007 (EET)

Don't recognise all of these schemes

I've never even heard of some of these schemes before... does anyone know what Skunk17, AIDS War, Banana Zone, Bricks and Dice are? Run! 12:45, 20 July 2008 (MST)

Not me. Maybe there should be a notability requirement. Or, perhaps, a requirement to actually create a non-stub article if you're adding a new scheme to the list. --Vladimir 13:40, 21 July 2008 (MST)

What is "Worms: Total War"? Someone added Full Wormage as a separate game? Balee 19:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Fly Shoppa?

Where is Fly Shoppa? I can't see it in the list. Or did I just miss it because it has another name?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pac-Man (talk • contribs) 11:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Try looking for it in the Shopper article. ;) (Also, you might want to sign your posts, which you can do by writing ~ four times at the end of your post.) Balee 11:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Pac-Man 17:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for Unknown Schemes

Many unpopular schemes are appearing here. My unpopular schemes that i put here were very criticized, and you were right, it is not good for a person who want to see famous schemes here, see an Unknown and think that everybody plays it online. So, i suggest: Let's create a page or just a category on this page for Scheme Ideas and put those unknown schemes there, giving more importance to the famous schemes. Or maybe put something that anyone that opens this page put a mark if he or she knows the scheme and in the future, Intermediate would have millions of "i played" and some unknown games almost zero.--FoxHound 23:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted schemes

Trick Race is getting famous (wxw players love it). I already played it and i saw many times people hosting it. Power Prodder is already in one of the Rubber categories of WMDB. Sheep Glitch is famous game of WWP that can be played in RubberWorm and there is already 2 maps in WMDB. I did not put any schemes of my creation neither unknown schemes. Maybe i forgot some schemes that i added and CyberShadow deleted =/.--FoxHound 13:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"Sheep Glitch is famous game of WWP that can be played in RubberWorm" No. Sheep Glitch is a famous game on WormNet2, and yes, there is a remake of it called Sheep Glitch that can be played using RubberWorm, but they are not the same. Even the main idea is lost, which is (ab)using a glitch in the programming. WWP has that glitch, WA does not. RubberWorm only imitates it using sdet, but it's not as amusing, nor fun, as the original. I will probably rewrite that article when I have time and feel like it, if necessary. As for the other schemes removed, as far as I understand, the site currently has a policy to not list relatively unknown schemes. This list is not a collection of every scheme that ever existed or exists, but a list of schemes a new player will most likely encounter. If and when the list will be redesigned, there probably will be place for more uncommon, new schemes. Balee 21:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"This list is not a collection of every scheme that ever existed or exists, but a list of schemes a new player will most likely encounter." What do you think of these schemes?

1. Comet Dodging Race Wee / CDRW
2. Supersheeper
3. Russian Roulette
4. HominG
5. Jetpack BnG / JPBnG
6. Sheep Fort:AIDS War
7. Banana Zone
8. CrappyCr8s
9. Tube Trap
10. Big Knocker
11. Drown Syndrome
12. Worms: Total War
13. Bricks
14. Dice
15. Dominator
16. Axis vs. Allies / AvA
17. Mole Vaulting
18. Trench Warfare
19. Mine Runner / MR
20. Arrow Race
21. Shotgun Race
22. Battyrope Race
23. Clockworm Orange
24. Skunk17
25. One of Everything
26. Dabble and Fidget
27. Sheeper

I NEVER played or even saw people hosting or just talk about them. So i don't understand why i cannot add a "relatively unknown" scheme if this page has a lot of schemes even more unknown! This REALLY doesn't make sense. It's me, if i put a new scheme you WILL delete, that's the truth. I'm SURE you NEVER PLAYED "CrappyCr8s". The Sheep Glitch of the Rubberworm is not equal to the WWP. But it can do a VERY similar game. Will you rename to: Pseudo Sheep Glitch or maybe: Rubber Sheep Glitch? If you don't saw those schemes in WormNET, PLEASE DO NOT TELL AGAINST YOURSELF--FoxHound 22:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)!

Ooookay. Most schemes you listed: 1) Schemes that, while not really played on WNet nor famous, has been kept on this article for a long time now, partially because so far, there wasn't any need to remove them, since no new and unknown schemes were added, and partially because people believe that someone knowing these schemes might pop up and write at least a stub about them. 2) Are indeed played sometimes, especially during Worm Olympics, or by people who wish to get away from the boring monotonity of current WormNET. "shoppa", "wxw", "normal" rule #AG. Some other schemes are hosted as well, but these three outnumber all of them. Furthermore, if I intend to play Russian Roulette, which I do, sometimes, I don't open a game named "Russian Roulette", because then a lot of Russian people would join my game, who have never heard of this scheme. If I want to play this, I certainly have people I can play this with, so I can open a game named "Purple Flowers in a Forest" if I want, the name won't matter, the player(s) I want to play with will join. 3) Are old schemes, with a lot of history behind their backs, schemes that deserve their entry in this article even if they are not played anymore. Dabble and Fidget, One of Everything (although this was played once or twice during this year's WO), etc. Same goes for CrappyCr8s. I never played it yet. Why? If you read the article, you know that because it is a scheme that utilizes certain W2 features unavailable in WA. Simply put, a scheme can't be made crappy enough to fit the name. I'm trying to, but so far, no real success. However the schemes removed from the list don't have long histories, and are not known on WNet. Don't take this personal. Like I said, when a new method of categorizing schemes will be used, there will be place for those schemes as well. Until that, please be patient, and don't shout at me, because I don't like that.

As for Sheep Glitch, I think I had come up with a name during WO, but I'm too lazy to look back my logs for it, and also, I don't intend to rename the scheme, but note its incorrect name in its article - although I realized yesterday that it doesn't have any articles yet. Balee 20:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, i was angry when i wrote my last comment on this page, because all schemes that i added here were deleted. Your answer was really good, i recognize that you are right. Your comment opened my eyes: this page has old schemes that are not used anymore and this is why i never seen them in wormNET. But there are some schemes i still think that are very strange like "Tube Trap" (but i recognize now that they are important for the worms community). And i'm sure that Trick Race will be a very famous game in worms, because i often see people hosting it, and it's a perfect game for rope training. Thanks for the comment Balee, and sorry about the Caps Lock, i was really angry (for a stupid reason). --FoxHound 22:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

An idea that was thrown around a bit in IRC was that we should move the less-played schemes to a separate page or collapsible section, something like More schemes. However, I agree that the historical schemes that were played a lot in earlier days need to stay - they are part of W:A's history, and are much more versatile than the latest "new" schemes (which are mostly variations of the same cruft or rely on 3rd-party extensions). Few people listen to classical music nowadays, but you can't just erase Beethoven off the list of the greatest composers, no? --Vladimir 20:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree with Balee. This list is a collection of every scheme that ever existed or exists. At least, that's what it's intended to be. We wanted to have 0 bias when deciding what to put on here. It was meant to be a collection of all Worms Knowledge in one Base, without bias. That should not have changed. Sure, anyone can just think up a scheme and put it here, but that's perfectly acceptable as long as they're writing quality articles explaining the schemes and not expecting other editors to clean up after them. All schemes should be linked from this main page. There's absolutely no reason to have another page to make some schemes more popular and some schemes less. We're promoting creativity and knowledge here, not partial censorship.

I added Dice to this article in the article's second edit, intending to write about it some day when I got the time and inspiration. I may have never gotten around to it, but I can describe it in exact detail for those who are curious about it. That's why the link to it is still there, even though nobody plays it. My point is that notability is meaningless on this wiki. All of the major parent articles in the WKB link to articles which describe things with next-to-0 notability, but matter to some people, and could matter to more at some point. We're not Wikipedia. We don't care about notability or original content.

I was frustrated with FoxHound's articles because he's bad at writing and needs others to clean up his messes, not because of scheme notability. The Scheme ideas article should definitely be merged with this one. Jet Pack War has turned into a (mostly) quality article. There's no longer any reason to push it away from the proper parent article. Just because it's relatively unplayed doesn't mean it shouldn't be listed with the other schemes.

If you have further arguments for making notability a considering factor, see this page: People. -Lex 14:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

1. The Schemes page does need further clean-up. Some of those schemes are more obscure than some of the new schemes people are trying to push to this page. Unfortunately, there is no authoritative source using which we can decide which schemes get to stay. And if no one is playing it, it should go as well. I had wondered about the scheme's origins myself; now that you've confirmed its non-notability, I can safely remove it from this page.
2. The reasoning behind the above is that the purpose of this wiki has long changed from the original one. It is no longer an indiscriminate dump of information. As a website linked to from the official Beta documentation, sticky Team17 forum posts, and the WormNET Help bot's greetings, it is our responsibility to present information that is relevant to visitors, and not overflow them with obscure information.
3. KRD has been trying to push a new design of the Scheme page for a while now, however I don't entirely agree with its classification. If we want this page to be useful for most visitors, the primary classification must be by notability. I suggest: 1) Presently-common schemes 2) Previously common schemes, the popularity of which faded with time 3) Rarer schemes, which nevertheless have been e.g. played at competitive events 4) Scheme ideas (merging the existing page to a section). --Vladimir 21:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with Vladimir, these 4 sections should exist (good idea), but i think most of the actual sections should become sub-sections of each of the 4 new sections. I also think that "Weapon specific" should be a sub-sub section. I don't agree with many of KRD classification. Taxonomy (classification) is something that is always changing and is hard to reach a conclusion. Not only for this wiki, but for Biology and Music too. FoxHound 22:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: Another thing i think would be nice, is a definition for each category (the definitions should only be edited after a reached conclusion of the editors). This way wouldn't exist doubts when putting a scheme in a category. FoxHound 22:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I would very much like to hold a discussion on improving the scheme listing, but I would be a lot more comfortable having it in the #worms IRC channel (http://worms2d.info/Worms_on_GameSurge) than here, because that would make replying to individual ideas much easier. Here, all we can do is each present our optimal solution and hope that everyone else agrees with it, which doesn't seem likely to happen. In a live discussion, I think we would find it easier to agree on a final solution which would incorporate the best parts of what everyone has been able to come up with so far + perhaps benefit from opinions of players who aren't involved in this wiki enough to post on article discussion pages. --KoreanRedDragon 15:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

New schemes page

I've designed a new face for the Schemes page. It is in Sandbox (moved to User:FoxHound/Schemes). What do you think about it? FoxHound 02:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC) (comment edited by Explorer09 08:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC).)

And I've moved the page from Sandbox to your subpage. --Explorer09 08:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

(BTW, I've edited your comment. You should be able to understand why.) --Explorer09 08:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The suggested page looks too messy. It seems as though you're trying to streamline the way schemes are categorised, but it's overkill. The categorisation only needs to be rough at best, just to make the page a bit more pleasing to the eye (personally i think duplications - schemes that are in two categories - should be removed). People who view the page looking for new schemes are not going to be wholly interested in what specific category the scheme is in - they'll probably have a look at all the schemes. The exception, of course, is rubberworm schemes (and possibly roping schemes), but again: it's mostly to make the page look nicer. Run! 09:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether FoxHound will hear this or not, but I do have opinions about his suggested page:

• Do we need to know whether the scheme is "Famous" or not? The categorization of "Famous" and "Also known" is pretty useless (or at least I think so).
• Using bold text as "RubberWorm schemes" is a bad idea. Bold text in English is used to emphasize things, and what is emphasizing RubberWorm schemes for? (They're not more popular anyway.) --Explorer09 12:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• If WKB would be flooded with scheme ideas in the future, the whole new layout will be cluttered. I still believe separating scheme ideas from notable schemes is better.

These are just my opinions. --Explorer09 12:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Rubber Schemes are bold because they can be placed in a category and must be distinguished. They are emphasized for Rubber owners and the others that don't want Rubber schemes.
• The page is not pleasing to the eye too much, but it's well organized to people go exactly where the scheme is. Also, with the category "Famous", people will easily find the scheme they want.
• I think WKB will be flooded by scheme ideas one day, it's just a question of time. In my opinion, people should know new ideas, and also contribute with more. I don't think that it's better "hide" scheme ideas just with a link under the Schemes page. The "Ideas" category is showing to people that the schemes are not famous, are new. FoxHound 16:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the content of scheme pages is still a higher priority than how the list is organised. All this debate seems like nit-picking when there are still redlinks and stubs. There's no point making a scheme easier to find when there's bugger-all written about it. Run! 22:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking, this page is perfect to find schemes, the most famous schemes are already sorted above. I was looking my page and Run! is right, it's too messy and i can't do a better page, because this page is very good already. I just wanted to put scheme ideas here too, i don't like just a see also. I think they are schemes too, and must be with the other schemes. But they are not famous and if we mixture scheme ideas with the notable schemes the page would be too messy. So why not just put the ideas under the notable schemes? The notable scheme would still be perfect to be found. I already designed it and that's a new suggestion: User:FoxHound/Schemes_Scheme_ideas. FoxHound 16:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Scheme ideas is getting bigger and bigger and I think WSC schemes need articles here. Not only me, but also Pac-Man wrote that the ""See also" is too hidden (I don't understand why the Weapons page have a link to Weapons (Worms Unlimited) in the heading and the Schemes have a see also at the bottom for Scheme ideas. This is not fair). Not only me, but Fighter wrote about doing a page for Schemes and not for Notable schemes. What i'm insisting to do is edit the Schemes page putting three sections:

1. Notable (or famous) schemes, with subsections for the categories.
2. Worms Scheme Contest schemes, with subsections splitting the schemes that won of the others.
3. Scheme ideas, with subsections for variations and original schemes.

With these 3 sections on Schemes page, people would easily find and know schemes whenever they want to play something new or different and they don't look bad as I showed above with this example that I did last year. FoxHound 17:04, 10 May 2011 (CEST)

Screenshots from games

Are those screenshots really necessary? I mean, okay, the Walk for Weapons one is, but I don't see how, for example, Hysteria's screenshot would help further understanding a scheme that can be explained using four words: "One second turn time." Same goes for WxW - the idea of touching walls is pretty much self-explanatory, isn't it? -, CDRW - for Pete's sake, you only have to select a weapon and fire, what else do you need to know? -, "etc." Balee 12:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

IMO, those screenshots can let people understand the basic idea about a scheme (i.e. in-a-nutshell), without reading the entire article. --Explorer09 01:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

An ask about create a new page

Can i create a page for scheme ideas? On this page people could divulgate schemes, and trade ideas with each other. Maybe if possible add replays or pictures. Please, i will be waiting for an answer! --FoxHound 21:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

A Wiki is not a place to share ideas about things that are not existing yet, or at least not in a way you are suggesting it. If you want to do it, go open a forum. Balee 20:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with Balee's opinion. I created the Scheme ideas page for this purpose, feel free to dump your ideas there. --Vladimir 20:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Balee, Worms Unlimited is a very nice page. Would you put it in a forum? i don't think a forum is better then this wiki for this.--FoxHound 21:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

New Scheme must be added

As i said above, Trick Race would get famous. Today, in my opinion it is already famous. Just look: http://wmdb.org/maps/?map%5Btitle%5D=trick%20race there a lot of maps already and i saw the scheme many times in wormNET. May i add this scheme to this page? FoxHound 17:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

OK --Vladimir 08:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Why The full Wormage isn't here? FoxHound 03:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Do people actually play Full Wormage competitively? If not, then it's not in the list for the same reason that nearly other standard W:A scheme isn't in the list (Beginner, Pro, etc.). --Vladimir 22:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

May i add the scheme The One here? And maybe Zook training? I have info for them. Zook training is not much famous, so maybe it should be put in Scheme ideas. FoxHound 06:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think The One fits. Balee 12:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

More schemes

There are some schemes that often are hosted in Worm Olympics. May i add those to this page? For Exemple: Kami and Mine Madness. Also, i still think that Scheme ideas should be a section under notable schemes in Schemes page. Worms Scheme Contest already released the results and i think should be also a section for WSC's schemes in this page. A "See also" is good, but is not the same thing. FoxHound 18:48, 4 January 2011 (CET)

EDIT: Nobody answered my question. I'll add Mine Madness and Kami. Both of them are very common in tournaments, but they are not common with games "just for fun". If you don't want these schemes here on this page, please, remove them. FoxHound 04:30, 28 January 2011 (CET)

Hysteria in conventional gameplay

I think hysteria should be not in other schemes, because it is not like wfw that has rules and a specific map to play. FoxHound 11:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC) EDIT: I moved it. If you don't agree undo. If mole shopper is in convetional gameplay, why not hysteria?

Hysteria is played with a single second of turn-time - it's not exactly in the same spirit as a "conventional" game of worms (such as those schemes that come with the game) Run! 09:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's replied but I'm still unconvinced. The line between conventional gameplay and unconventional gameplay is very blurry, but with one-second turns Hysteria clearly stands out from the other schemes listed there. Moleshopper does indeed rely on a bizarre map, so perhaps it also should be moved, but I'm undecided. Run! 12:16, 14 January 2011 (CET)

This entire page is horribly broken in my opinion and every new edit made to it pains me a little. Half a year ago, I proposed meeting in #worms and deciding what to do with all the ideas that everyone's had for it, but nobody seemed too interested. Until we do that, the best I can do is simply link to my /Schemes draft again, in which Hysteria is classified as an artillery scheme, because that's what it is: http://worms2d.info/?title=Sandbox&oldid=12089 KoreanRedDragon 13:12, 14 January 2011 (CET)

Well I went away for a long time but I might be poking around here again, and I have something of a passing interest in the scheme content here :) So I'm definitely up for discussion. However, looking at your sandbox idea, I think we're probably going to have very different opinions: I think we should avoid trying to organise the schemes in too many categories, lest it become messy.

I think what it comes down to is: what do we intend to achieve by categorising them? My answer to this question is to provide users with an easy way of finding new schemes that they might like. I think the current categorisation serves this purpose: people who prefer conventional gameplay (i.e. not a fan of roping) know exactly where to look. Whereas with your sandbox idea, I find it unlikely that someone will think "I want to see other schemes that rely on a particular animal weapon" (for example). I also find it odd that Fort and CTF aren't grouped (when they are so similar).

But of course, it depends on what you see the purpose of the page to be. I get the impression you want to create a "periodic table" of schemes, where they're categorised according to particular attributes... but I'm not sure how doing so is useful to anyone (that sounds harsher than I mean it to be!).

(another big issue with this page is determining notability of schemes (ref. the kerfuffle with FoxHound that lead to the scheme ideas page) but I don't have any well-considered thoughts on that yet so I'm deliberately not addressing it) Run! 15:15, 14 January 2011 (CET)

I just can't discuss about Hysteria with the genius that created it. For me Run!'s opinion about Hysteria is a law, if he thinks Hysteria should not be with conventional schemes, he is right, we can put Hyst again in "Other" category or in another one. I think maybe Mole Shopper could be a kind of shopper the same way Crate Collector is. About KoreanRedDragon's scheme classification, i think he had good and bad ideas:

Good ideas:

• Artillery category instead of weapon especific (Like Run! said, people don't search for "weapon specific", people surch for artillery)
• 2 racing categories: with rope and without rope (no more conflicts about where to put rope race: race or roping?)
• Share notable from also known schemes. (I think "significant" is not a good word, "notable" and "also known" are better)

Bad ideas:

• Animalism category (people won't look for a scheme just because it has one specific animal)
• Sharing the "Other" category. There is too many categories for the schemes because of that. Also, i don't think that WFW is very tactical and people don't look for sport schemes.

I still think that Scheme ideas should be under the notable schemes, like this, because this page should be for schemes and not notable schemes.

About the red links in the new category "Unspecified", i am indifferent. FoxHound 17:16, 14 January 2011 (CET)

Well I'd rather my point be discussed on its own merits than simply accepted because I created the scheme, but anyway. I split the redlinks because - going back to the point I made above - I see this page as an index for people looking for new schemes to try (or info about schemes they've played) and since the redlinks offer nothing, they somewhat get in the way. I've kept them on the page though, as a reminder that they need writing. Run! 18:14, 14 January 2011 (CET)