Things Needing Fixing [Archive] - Team17 Forum

PDA

View Full Version : Things Needing Fixing

dachewster
14 Mar 2007, 04:11
Jetpack Glitch - Fall Damage from just hovering and deactivating jet pack, can be upwards of 15 from a fall of 1/2" with no momentum
Ninja Rope Sucking - Ninja rope USED to be a great thing in the game getting you anywhere you want to go, now its lame and unless your in a cave its pretty unuseful. Now everybody just plays with unlimited jetpack and takes away from the play of the game.
Girder - Should only be allowed to be played near own worm. Anywhere is cheap. Takes away from the game. Is meant for defence or movability, not for an offensive trap.
More Customization of matches - Need to be able to set number of worms, and maybe a handycap. Also allow more then 4 worms. I like the good old days where it was like 6/6 or 7/7 matches. Those kicked butt.
Needs more weapons and superweapons. You got rid of so many of the fun weapons that made the game great.
Bazooka, why only 45? Its always been 50 for a dead hit
Dynamite, 75 isnt too much.
Barrels, NEED to be toxic or NAPALM, otherwise they are just lame.
Molitov Cocktail and Flamethrower, please bring them back.
Superweapons, YES PLEASE
Parachute? Is that so much to ask?
Its a Ninja Rope, not a Rope.
Hari Kari/Kamikaze, when you select it, its hari kari, but when you pick it up, its kamikaze.
I am sure there is more, this is just off the top of my head.

MBison
14 Mar 2007, 04:20
No.
No. And more no.

Siege88
14 Mar 2007, 04:25
^^ Agreed. If you read other posts, many people have made polite requests, suggestions, even a fair share of complaints. But your list of Demands is a little ridiculous.

Spadge
14 Mar 2007, 07:27
Jetpack Glitch - Fall Damage from just hovering and deactivating jet pack, can be upwards of 15 from a fall of 1/2" with no momentum
Ninja Rope Sucking - Ninja rope USED to be a great thing in the game getting you anywhere you want to go, now its lame and unless your in a cave its pretty unuseful. Now everybody just plays with unlimited jetpack and takes away from the play of the game.
Girder - Should only be allowed to be played near own worm. Anywhere is cheap. Takes away from the game. Is meant for defence or movability, not for an offensive trap.
More Customization of matches - Need to be able to set number of worms, and maybe a handycap. Also allow more then 4 worms. I like the good old days where it was like 6/6 or 7/7 matches. Those kicked butt.
Needs more weapons and superweapons. You got rid of so many of the fun weapons that made the game great.
Bazooka, why only 45? Its always been 50 for a dead hit
Dynamite, 75 isnt too much.
Barrels, NEED to be toxic or NAPALM, otherwise they are just lame.
Molitov Cocktail and Flamethrower, please bring them back.
Superweapons, YES PLEASE
Parachute? Is that so much to ask?
Its a Ninja Rope, not a Rope.
Hari Kari/Kamikaze, when you select it, its hari kari, but when you pick it up, its kamikaze.
I am sure there is more, this is just off the top of my head.
These aren't fixes, you're asking for Worms Armageddon/Worms World Party. This is a retro update of the original Worms title for a more casual gameplay space (live arcade).

vgslag
14 Mar 2007, 09:25
One thing there is a bug and it would be nice if it was fixed. It's the "Glitch - Fall Damage from just hovering and deactivating jet pack, can be upwards of 15 from a fall of 1/2" with no momentum".
I've been trying to pinpoint it exactly but am having some trouble. I thought it was when the jet pack was activated after falling for a distance but can't seem to replicate it with any consistency. To me it seemed like their falling momentum wasn't reset upon using the jetpack so whenever you deactived the fall "carried on" from the previous one, resulting in worm damage.

Luther
14 Mar 2007, 09:30
One thing there is a bug and it would be nice if it was fixed. It's the "Glitch - Fall Damage from just hovering and deactivating jet pack, can be upwards of 15 from a fall of 1/2" with no momentum".
This has already been mentioned on the forum and so is already being investigated.

egg
14 Mar 2007, 10:05
The jet pack 'fall damage' occurs when jumping and then activating the jet pack. If after doing this you jet pack to a position lower than you were you will encounter the apropriate amount of fall damage when you deactivate.

Lagster
14 Mar 2007, 10:57
i also kinda agree with the girder point, was it always able to be placed anywhere on map? its kinda funny blocking in another worm with a girder miles away but not sure how productive to gameplay having no limit on it is.
As said they're looking into jetpack. rest of the things you mention i dont think need touching.
Ropes fine, if your playing with unlimited jetpacks its you loosing out. this games always been about artillary not getting within an inch of target then shotgun/sheep/dynamiting them.
with the rope being slower and worms being heavier and also limited or inddeed no jetpacks, you have to use some skill to hit your enemies be it with baz's, grens or whatever - not every kill needs to be from an inch away and i think the games far better for it.

quakerworm
14 Mar 2007, 18:14
The jet pack 'fall damage' occurs when jumping and then activating the jet pack. If after doing this you jet pack to a position lower than you were you will encounter the apropriate amount of fall damage when you deactivate.
wow. this is just sad. very, very sad. the fall damage in previous games was impulse based. that's why they couldn't screw it up if they tried. if they programmed this game the same way, the jet pack bug would not exist. it should not exist. of course, when you try to guestimate the fall damage on where the worm was, and were the worm ended up, you will likely mess something up. which is why you never program game mechanics that way in the first place. great job.
i saw many other bugs, but i could understand them. there were a bit too many of them, but i could pretend that the reasons for that were time limitations, or something of that nature. but i can't do that anymore. the jet pack bug should not exist in a well programmed game. if you guys coded the rest of the game the same way, there is absolutely no surprise that there are bugs. it's a hack job, and it breaks.
i'm sure you have some competent programmers on the team, but they let some idiots get to the code, so it's obviously not enough. if you want this franchise to work, you need to make sure that your games work. that means making sure that there is at least one real programmer overlooking production of each part of the engine. hiring some people who got their cs degree because "games are kind of cool, and i want to make them" and hoping they can figure it out, is not going to cut it. a person doing the core game engine must know physics, a person responsible for graphics must be an expert in 3d geometry, and a person who does the net code must understand topology. you settle for less, and you get what you got.

Spadge
14 Mar 2007, 19:02
Up until a point, I could put up with your posts. However you've just gone and blown it.
Programmers are human too. We're a reasonably successful independent games studio who have ridden 4 industry transistions, developed award winning games and still tried to be close to the gaming community. You come on here and tell us we employ people not fit for the job? Bugs happen, things get overlooked, it's a complex business and developed to time pressure, with a large team. I'd go try it for yourself - talk is cheap. You post is arrogant and totally wide of the mark, without any clue of the process of modern development, our structure or the way we develop games.
Go teach your grandma to suck eggs, don't try it here. Get out in the real world and put into practice what you preach.

quakerworm
14 Mar 2007, 19:39
no. bugs happen when you make an error in game logic. when you mess up the design on a fundamental level, you are asking for it. there are many things in game development that i'm poorly familiar with, like networking. that's why when talking to parsley i was trying to be careful with my arguments. there was a real chance that i did not understand something. in fact, i'm pretty sure i was missing something. but that's why i never said that any of the networking bugs are parsley's fault. i can't make that judgment.
graphics and physics, on the other hand, are a home turf for me. i know what's going on with that. i am currently on my second programming job that has to do with 3d graphics. yes, i am programming in the real world. i might be just starting out, but i am out there. now, again, i don't know how the management for the game works, and how you chose who does what code, but the fact is, whoever was responsible for the core of the wow, and subsequently wxbla, engine, screwed up. and that's me putting it softly.
i've been writing code and running physics simulation for a better part of a decade. i know what a hack job is. i've done plenty of them myself when i did not need a good, clean, stable code. that's what i see with the jet pack behavior. whenever you put together a simulation, and a game with any amount of physics is essentially a simulation, you want it to be based on the minimum amount of simple rules. anything else, and things fall apart. when you put in fall damage, you base it on the collision speed. that's a simple rule, and no matter what you do, it will work. if you try to base fall damage off of anything else, you get yourself into a mess, like you did with a jet pack. it's not just a bug. it's a major design flaw. and it's an obvious one, to anyone who has ever attempted to write any kind of the most basic simulation/game. when your coders mess up something like that, you question their competence. there are no two ways about it.

PabloCreep
14 Mar 2007, 19:39
Does the occasional bug really **** people off this much?? It's a GAME... it cost you less than you probably earn in an hour. If it really bugs you that much don't ****ing play it! This forum's flooded with people whining about the same bloody things day after day. The game's fun, ffs. I'm bored of reading these threads. It's really not such a big deal, and if you think it is then you've got your priorities wrong. I wish people would just quit moaning and lighten up a bit.
excuse the stars, sorry

quakerworm
14 Mar 2007, 20:08
i don't mind occasional bugs. the rope glitch (see other thread) is actually kind of fun. i have a problem with game design flaws, because they aren't just mistakes that can be made by anybody. they stem from either from lack of experience or from plain stupidity, and that's not something as easy to ignore.

WildDog9
14 Mar 2007, 20:11
I didn't even make this game but I am getting sick of this guy..

Spadge
14 Mar 2007, 20:16
i don't mind occasional bugs. the rope glitch (see other thread) is actually kind of fun. i have a problem with game design flaws, because they aren't just mistakes that can be made by anybody. they stem from either from lack of experience or from plain stupidity, and that's not something as easy to ignore.
You, however, are.
It was nice knowing you.

Siege88
14 Mar 2007, 20:21
i don't mind occasional bugs. the rope glitch (see other thread) is actually kind of fun. i have a problem with game design flaws, because they aren't just mistakes that can be made by anybody. they stem from either from lack of experience or from plain stupidity, and that's not something as easy to ignore.
So essentially, what you're saying is that a bug that lets you cheat by firing two weapons per turn is a "fun" glitch, but fall damage from a jetpack that can easily be avoiding by simply not jumping first (seriously, who jumps before using the jetpack anyway?) is a major bug that implies designers are stupid? "Plain stupidity" to me is someone who writes paragraphs trying to insult someone else without bothering to use correct grammar and capitalization. What exactly did you hope to accomplish by insulting the designers/programmers instead of politely pointing out a bug and asking them to look into it, other than being a troll?

worMatty
14 Mar 2007, 20:40
The game franchise has worked for 14 years up 'til now. Criticism is acceptable if it's given in a positive light along with a helpful suggestion.

quakerworm
14 Mar 2007, 21:10
So essentially, what you're saying is that a bug that lets you cheat by firing two weapons per turn is a "fun" glitch, but fall damage from a jetpack that can easily be avoiding by simply not jumping first (seriously, who jumps before using the jetpack anyway?) is a major bug that implies designers are stupid? "Plain stupidity" to me is someone who writes paragraphs trying to insult someone else without bothering to use correct grammar and capitalization. What exactly did you hope to accomplish by insulting the designers/programmers instead of politely pointing out a bug and asking them to look into it, other than being a troll?
what i'm saying is that i can understand a rope glitch, as a programmer. yes, it seems obvious in retrospect, but it could have been easily an oversight, as it is a part of the game-flow logic. i make mistakes like that all the time. i know that if i was working on something like that, there is a chance that i'd make a similar error. most of the errors like that get caught in the testing stage. some slip through. understandable.
jet pack glitch is just a symptom of a much deeper problem. a problem with the way the game works overall. yes, i know that the glitch can be avoided easily. i do jump before activating jet pack often, but i can easily keep something like that in mind. but while the bugs like the one with the rope just happen, the jet pack glitch should not have existed. i can't say that it would have been easy to predict such manifestation of the bug, but when you code it the way it had to be coded for such bug to occur, it takes no genius to predict that there will be problems.
in simple terms, think of it this way. is it easier to tell the game to compute damage from speed of the worm at collision OR to consider every possible combination of jumps, falls, detonations, rope/jet pack usage and heights at which these events occurred to compute damage? which do you think will result in bugs? is it just a human error to chose the wrong one of these two, or do i have a warrant to call that incompetence?
as for my grammar, english is not my first language. i'm sure there would be a bucket full of spelling errors as well if it wasn't for spell checker. if you see any particularly bad grammatical errors, feel free to pm me about them, and i'll try to avoid them in the future. lack of capitalization is just an old habit. i suppose, i should try getting rid of it.

Haoshiro
15 Mar 2007, 00:54
quakerworm has definitely gone too far this time.
As a programmer myself, I understand that it's often the simplest things that can slip by, especially when there is a lot of "bigger" things to be focusing on. Like its said, the hardest things to find are often right in front of you.
The Jet Pack glitch likely has absolutely nothing to do with the Jet Pack itself.
It seems pretty obvious there is likely a variable tracking where you jumped from that is used to calculate possible fall damage after you land. You have to do this, because the worms actual position (x/y) will be constantly changing during the jump.
Chances are there is also a toggle variable, such as "is_jumping" that gets flagged to true when you jump, along with saving the originating position - and the flag just isn't getting reset if you active the Jet Pack mid-jump. It's getting down for the Rope, just not the Jet Pack.
And that's likely the extend of the bug, a single flag isn't getting reset. One small line like "is_jumping = 0;"
quakerworm acts as if its some horrible sign of bad design and inexperienced programmers, and that is just ridiculous.

DanTycoon
15 Mar 2007, 01:59
Which would make sense, seeing as people do go down when on a jetpack. So the game calculates the distance of the height the player jumps from (OR the tallest height the player achieves when jet-packing) to the height the player lands at. If it's lower, some damage will probably be given. This is my two cents. Being an ameature programmer (working on my own game), I can see where quakerworm is coming from, but I can't say I agree with 'em.

quakerworm
15 Mar 2007, 05:13
It seems pretty obvious there is likely a variable tracking where you jumped from that is used to calculate possible fall damage after you land. You have to do this, because the worms actual position (x/y) will be constantly changing during the jump.
no, you don't have to do this. have you even read what i wrote? just like in every worms games before (so it's not like it's a new concept) all you need to do is compute fall damage from the speed at collision. that is all. you don't need to know where you jumped from. you don't need to know if you even jumped. all you need is how fast the worm is moving when he hit the ground. anybody who cannot understand such a simple concept, should not be programming. period.

poep98
15 Mar 2007, 09:29
All those complaints.... instead of releasing you anger on the devs release it somwere else these guys did a great job.
turn those almost flaming posts into suggestions and that will help them.
i know enough people(around 80 people) who like this game in my local area it might seem that more people hate it than love it, but that isn't true people who love it dont post here:p

DanTycoon
15 Mar 2007, 10:32
no, you don't have to do this. have you even read what i wrote? Did you even read what HE wrote? He didn't say "They must have done this because it's the only way." He said "It seems pretty obvious." Which leaves one to think that there could have been other methods for Team 17 to take. One is what you said (Which makes sense for what they should have done, if they didn't) and another one is what he said (Which makes sense for what is happening).

Metal Alex
15 Mar 2007, 10:55
quakerworm, shut up. If the only thing you know is to flame, go talk a torch.
Yes, you could introduce a new variable, speed, to be detected... BUT THE GAME HAS TO FIT INTO A FRIGGIN 50MB LIMIT. You need to do things as simple as possible. -I don't know a crap about programming, so I'm not 100% sure- BUT my point is, that if the thing would work the same, why would you choose the bigger one?
People like you, that doesn't care about what others think or do, and however goes and criticise it all, is the kind I hate most. So, first, go get a bit of sense, then, come talk to people. Meanwhile, stay with the torch.

poep98
15 Mar 2007, 11:30
Metal i think we share 2/3 things
1) we both think quakerworm doesn't make any sense at all and has to stay with the torch
2)we don't now anything about programming but we both understand it had to be within 50mb
3) we like the game

AndrewTaylor
15 Mar 2007, 11:50
Yes, you could introduce a new variable, speed, to be detected... BUT THE GAME HAS TO FIT INTO A FRIGGIN 50MB LIMIT. You need to do things as simple as possible. -I don't know a crap about programming, so I'm not 100% sure- BUT my point is, that if the thing would work the same, why would you choose the bigger one?
In fairness, the difference would be a handful of bytes -- you could even just check the vertical speed, which is stored for each worm anyway. Then it would probably take less memory than the current method.
That method wouldn't quite work the same, though -- it would be more realistic, but it would also mean that your fall damage was a much more complex function of the distance you fell, which might not be desirable. It also means people get massive amounts of fall damage if they're blasted into the ground by a well-placed bazooka, even if they only move half a millimetre, which again might not be desirable.
The way I see it, the only glitch is when the player does something fairly complex that there really isn't any good reason for them to do -- after all, apparently none of the testers thought to do it -- so it's perfectly understandable that the programmers might not have thought to programme it in as a special case.
The fact that there is a fairly obvious way of making 100% sure it couldn't possibly happen is probably a bit of an embarrassment, yes, but that's not to say it proves there are any idiots involved.
Ninja Rope Sucking - Ninja rope USED to be a great thing in the game getting you anywhere you want to go, now its lame and unless your in a cave its pretty unuseful. Now everybody just plays with unlimited jetpack and takes away from the play of the game.
Whatever happened to the rope being a skill you had to learn instead of "a thing in the game getting you anywhere you want to go"? We have the teleport for that.

Haoshiro
15 Mar 2007, 13:13
no, you don't have to do this. have you even read what i wrote? just like in every worms games before (so it's not like it's a new concept) all you need to do is compute fall damage from the speed at collision. that is all. you don't need to know where you jumped from. you don't need to know if you even jumped. all you need is how fast the worm is moving when he hit the ground. anybody who cannot understand such a simple concept, should not be programming. period.
Well, should I just take your word for it that this is how it was done in past games? Did you have a look at the source code and therefor know for a fact it used speed to calculate fall damage?
While we obviously don't have a debug console or any method to look at the actual numbers, when I play Worms XBLA I don't notice a speed increase during jumps/falls. If they aren't adjusting speed that much for simulated gravity then it wouldn't make sense to use it for fall damage. Sure they could have, but no, there is no reason someone has to do it that way.
You talk awfully conceded for someone who has nothing to show for it and nothing to actually back it up.

Melon
15 Mar 2007, 14:21
What quakerworm seems to be forgetting is that worms generally reach a terminal velocity, and in WA they don't actually start getting fall damage until they reach a speed close to this. Now try to make it so that the height they fall changes the damage done when the worm falls at the same speed between a low drop and a high drop. All of a sudden the speed isn't changing any more, so you need another method, and checking the position it was at when it started falling seems fine.

quakerworm
15 Mar 2007, 14:45
Well, should I just take your word for it that this is how it was done in past games? Did you have a look at the source code and therefor know for a fact it used speed to calculate fall damage?
ever heard of reverse engineering? in previous games, if you shot a worm point blank in the head with bazooka, the worm was launched downwards, hitting the bottom of the crater hard enough to cause fall damage. there wasn't enough height to cause fall damage. only way it could work is if fall damage was computed from velocity.
What quakerworm seems to be forgetting is that worms generally reach a terminal velocity, and in WA they don't actually start getting fall damage until they reach a speed close to this. Now try to make it so that the height they fall changes the damage done when the worm falls at the same speed between a low drop and a high drop. All of a sudden the speed isn't changing any more, so you need another method, and checking the position it was at when it started falling seems fine.
what you seem to be forgetting is the basic course in physics. objects don't damage any more from a fall from 10km than they do from a fall from 200m because they reach terminal velocity. so that's to be expected. if you want height to have more effect, increase the terminal velocity a bit. the distance traveled is proportional to a square of time when objects undergo constant acceleration, so if you merely double the terminal velocity, you have 4x the height to play with.
and are you sure that there is a terminal velocity? ai likes things to travel in nice parabolas.
but it would also mean that your fall damage was a much more complex function of the distance you fell
a simple piecewise function. zero, square root, constant. it would have been quite a bit worse if t17 simulated drag, but they don't. too much work for ai. so the terminal velocity, if one actually exists, would simply be introduced via a sharp cutoff.
The fact that there is a fairly obvious way of making 100% sure it couldn't possibly happen is probably a bit of an embarrassment, yes, but that's not to say it proves there are any idiots involved.
you know, if this was the first game, i would have agreed. but after all the talk about how t17 have looked over w2-wwp codes to make wow, i really don't see how this can be reduced to a simple oversight.

AndrewTaylor
15 Mar 2007, 14:59
you know, if this was the first game, i would have agreed. but after all the talk about how t17 have looked over w2-wwp codes to make wow, i really don't see how this can be reduced to a simple oversight.
That's true, but then, do you know that they calculated fall damage from speed in any of those games? They might have done it exactly the same way as they did in the XBLA version, except setting the initial-height variable at a slightly different time that didn't result in this problem.
If that's the case then having looked over the old code makes this kind of error more likely.

quakerworm
15 Mar 2007, 15:01
in previous games, if you shot a worm point blank in the head with bazooka, the worm was launched downwards, hitting the bottom of the crater hard enough to cause fall damage.
so yeah, i pretty much know that they used to do that.

Luther
15 Mar 2007, 15:03
Keep this discussion civil please. You're all welcome to speculate about how things are done here. Remember it is speculation unless the guy who wrote the code comes on and tells you the otherwise.
Also remember that a portfolio of published games carries a lot of weight in an argument about game code.

Spadge
15 Mar 2007, 15:36
For the record, the rope-thing and the jet-pac thing have already been fixed along with a couple of other oddities and of course the 4 player problem in the lobby. Hopefully the new code will be good to go soon (i'm not sure of the turn-around time).

DarthSmurf
15 Mar 2007, 15:44
For the record, the rope-thing and the jet-pac thing have already been fixed along with a couple of other oddities and of course the 4 player problem in the lobby. Hopefully the new code will be good to go soon (i'm not sure of the turn-around time).
Don't fix the rope thing yet... I have to beat Challenges 19 and 20 with it first. :)

poep98
15 Mar 2007, 15:48
im sorry i can't check for myself now but do you mean when i boot worms a update will be available???

Luther
15 Mar 2007, 15:49
No he does not.

quakerworm
15 Mar 2007, 16:31
im sorry i can't check for myself now but do you mean when i boot worms a update will be available???
from what i gathered, they have to run the updated code through the certification process again. probably will be faster this time, though.

Haoshiro
15 Mar 2007, 16:44
so yeah, i pretty much know that they used to do that.
Well then its good they changed it, you shouldnt get fall damage in such scenarios. Which makes it a good change, not bad... although I'm sure that is a matter of opinion. You just happen to state your opinion as factual enough to judge a programmers skill based on theirs, which is still ridiculous.

quakerworm
15 Mar 2007, 16:54
if you get thrown by a blast wave at a wall, you will get hurt more than by a blast wave alone. as such, it makes perfect sense for worms to get additional "fall" damage if they are pinned against something in the explosion.

SpaceInsom
15 Mar 2007, 20:13
For the record, the rope-thing and the jet-pac thing have already been fixed along with a couple of other oddities and of course the 4 player problem in the lobby. Hopefully the new code will be good to go soon (i'm not sure of the turn-around time).
This is great to hear. Any chance "wind indicator is visible at all times" is on that list?

worMatty
15 Mar 2007, 22:07
That would be nice, though not a bug, probably.

SpaceInsom
15 Mar 2007, 22:13
That would be nice, though not a bug, probably.
No, it's more of a poor design choice, well intended though it might have been. A couple of Team 17 staff members have already said as much, but Spadge so far has yet to comment on the matter. I hope it gets changed.

worMatty
15 Mar 2007, 22:15
It was probably done to prevent the wind meter obscuring worms and objects on the landscape.

SpaceInsom
15 Mar 2007, 22:19
It was probably done to prevent the wind meter obscuring worms and objects on the landscape.
Yep. They did it to clean up the hud. But once again, at least two Team 17 members already said something to the effect that they didn't think about having to switch to the Bazooka to see if it was worth using, and they agree that the game shouldn't work like that.

Spadge
15 Mar 2007, 23:59
We'll have a look, no promises - it's lower priority compared to fixing the other stuff - which is mainly done now. Am waiting to see when we'll submit new code, which will need a certification etc again :-/

worMatty
16 Mar 2007, 19:32
The thing is with Worms, there are so many variables that affect strategy it must be an incredibly difficult job cataloguing them all and their effects. Things like this will have been done for some benefit but only after a bit of playing will the disadvantages become apparent. Scrutinising every decision made would slow down development somewhat.

Spadge
16 Mar 2007, 19:36
We're committed to a TU (title update) now and are working towards that. We'll go for the main problems (some connectivity issues) and also clean up a few of the irritating little bugs (there are no real "show stoppers"). I'll update when we have an idea when it'll be available, but the new code will require testing and re-certification.

worMatty
16 Mar 2007, 19:40
Good news. Thanks for your continued reassurance, Martyn. And for coming out here and being told how to do your job. Great stuff.

vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.