Difference between revisions of "Talk:Burning Girders"

Latest revision as of 23:19, 15 August 2020

Relation to Holy War

Something I would like to know is: Holy War or Burning Girders, which one came first? In the 2006 Worm Olympics both appears, so both are very old. However, what I believe is that Holy War is older than Burning Girders, because it seems to be a bit more popular. Holy War may have been Burning Girders' inspiration, so BG might be a HW variation. This is just a hypothesis, though. --FoxHound 20:46, 26 July 2014 (CEST)

Do you mean Holy War with exactly the same scheme, or any scheme called Holy War in which the only weapon is the Holy Hand Grenade? Because if it's the latter, then Holy War dates back really far. I have a Holy War scheme dated 29 November 2000. —Deadcode 21:34, 26 July 2014 (CEST)

Wow, 2000! This is a relic! Yes, my intention was about the concept of Holy War, not necessarily the actual scheme being used. Thanks for the answer, only the elders of WA could know this! I think this information should be added to the articles. --FoxHound 22:51, 26 July 2014 (CEST)

I would argue that the two Holy Wars, the old one that Deadcode refers to and the one that's described on the Holy War page, are different enough to count as separate schemes, even if the latter was derived from the former and shares its name. In fact I recall listing them separately on my /Schemes page proposal. Certainly the two are much more closely related than Holy War and Burning Girders, so I'm not sure I would agree that it's necessary to list Burning Girders as a variation of Holy War here. It may very well have been inspired by the newer variant of Holy War, sure, but (especially unverified) that probably isn't quite enough to define it as a variant thereof. KoreanRedDragon 23:50, 26 July 2014 (CEST)

I think you are right. There is no true evidence about BG being a variation (I removed that variation indication from schemes page). I don't think it is necessary to create a new page for the old scheme, though. Maybe just a section in HW page (like the BnA Run version) or a History subsection. --FoxHound 02:39, 28 July 2014 (CEST)

Some ideas

This scheme might not be particularly popular but it is pretty well established, given its appearance in Worms Olympics every year with almost no variation (apart from, bizarrely, a couple of instances where the petrols were replaced with grenades). That said I have some ideas that would make the scheme a tad more interesting:

• Include low gravity, perhaps in limited quantity - in particular this would provide more scope for moving from one girder to another if you want to risk the jump, as well as making fire spread out a little more as it floats down, potentially being more destructive
• Drop the health to something really low. 200 is basically infinite as far as this scheme is concerned, but worms *can* sometimes survive a hit, so dropping the health to, say, 25 would provide the possibility of dying anyway. In the replay on this article, worms survived hits 8 times (!), with damage ranging from 1 to 15, so I'd say 25 health would be about right. It would also give players more to think about when planning a "fall to the girder below" retreat (since fall damage is enabled) and would give the teleport more tactical potential (as a telecide attack).
• Drop barrels to 4 - because 8 is far too many. I noticed that the scheme on WO consistently used 4 from 2011 onwards.
• A slightly more out-there idea: add flamethrower - it fits the theme, and adds way more strategic potential especially for propelling opponents (or your own worms!) and going for distance worm-knocks. Might be OP though. Limited range makes it good only for the early game, but it might just be *too* destructive (and easy to use) in the early game. Not sure if delay or limited quantity would help.
• I notice it's 2-rounds-to-win on the WO schemes, presumably because that's standard for tourney games, but what do you reckon to making that standard anyway? Are the rounds short enough? does it add anything? (probably not unless stockpiling or anti-stockpiling is used, and even that requires adding LG or flamethrower)

Run! (talk) 07:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree in everything you proposed. I would say that telecide would be nice only if teleport were with very few ammo, and it has only one single ammo, so I think it is great, since the player will have to choose to use it to move or attack wisely. About the Flamethrower, I think at least one delay, maybe two is needed. Even if its ammo was set to a single one, it could cause a huge impact to the game in the beginning due to the random positions. If unlimited, maybe some testing would be necessary for the scheme, to verify if it is really OP or not. However, I think something like x2 ammo would be fine for it. The rest surely will improve the scheme.

EDIT: now I noticed that the worm placement is not random, so I'm not sure if the delay is really needed, but maybe 1 delay to guarantee a bad choice start position does not cost too much. I think a single Worm Select might spice the game or help with a mistake. --FoxHound (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Could be worth experimenting with, maybe we can play a few rounds sometime :D. Run! (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

It would be an honor! :P I have freetime in this pandemic. So, whenever you prefer. --FoxHound (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)