Well, that's just a different discussion then, I think. It then comes down to which of those changes you see as for the better and which for the worse, but that's personal opinion for the most part. So it's trickier (and less sensible and satisfying) to argue about than things more rooted in fact, like arguing about which skill sets the game of WA covers. But even there, you do eventually have to decide which of those it should cover and which it shouldn't, which veers into opinion territory again. My opinion there is pretty simple though, I think it should just cover as many skills as possible between all the different schemes. Why not? So obviously I'm going to worry about removing anything that players are already competing at, things that some are better at than others, things I'm maybe personally working towards getting better at because I currently suck at them, etc.
I just don't find the argument that quality of life improvements should all always happen convincing. Some of them, sure, but especially with things that affect gameplay at the competitive level, it makes sense to be extra careful. Because where do you draw the line once you do start changing these things on the level of the entire community? Once you give all the schemes more hot seat time so it's easier to see the wind, remove the water waves so it's easier to see terrain and mines, implement wkPin and wkWormOrder so we don't have to memorise things anymore... ehh. Seems pretty obvious to me that that would kill at least some of the variety that makes it so enjoyable and unique to compete at Worms of all games.
No worries about sounding aggressive, btw. Spicy discussions are my favourite! Though as I say, they're more fun and fruitful when it isn't just one opinion vs. another, but rather something that can in some way be verified or falsified.
