The upcoming update

[CyberShadow]

Hey guys,

As you may have heard, there will be several new major features in the upcoming Beta update. Until now, they were officially a secret, for reasons outlined below. But, since the cat is out of the bag, I might just as well spill it and fess up.

First of all, I'd like to say that we wanted the next beta to be released much earlier. We really did. I even added a small Christmas Easter Egg, hoping that it would be released before Christmas.

Unfortunately, this wasn't how it came to be. There are still some bugs with the large maps support we have to deal with before it is released. Not to mention that we can't work on the game full-time – this isn't our job, so some of our free time is all we can spare.

Also, I know that many of you are angry at us for keeping development plans to a group of restricted people. But, please understand – we aren't being selfish. We are trying to do what's best for W:A's development.

Not long after I joined the development team (which consisted of only Deadcode at the time), we created a secret "organization" with the purpose of creating a collective of productive minds aimed towards the game's development. Most of these individuals are either talented programmers, or trustworthy, important people in the W:A community. Please understand that we do not let people in depending on how much they deserve to be there! When evaluating someone's candidature for joining, three questions are asked: 1) how can he/she help with W:A development; 2) how much is he/she willing to help with W:A development; 3) is he/she trustworthy enough as not to leak out critical data/information, or misuse any of the material available for personal goals.

These people, among being informed of some things before the rest of the community, have access to alpha versions of the game – thus, they are in effect also alpha testers. There is a good reason for having closed alpha testing: the alpha versions often have bugs which impede compatibility with other versions – if the alphas were publicly available, it would cause us a lot of headache with compatibility problems and desynchronizations and corrupted replays and bug reports of outdated buggy versions and many other things the time dealing with which would be much better spent developing the actual game! Not to mention that some alphas are outright dangerous for the public to get – for example, an early version of my always-accessible weapon panel (http://forum.team17.co.uk/showthread.php?t=30698) had a glitch which actually allowed you to view the weapons of your opponent! (Rest assured; all official alpha testers are instructed to dispose of alpha versions after a newer alpha is released).

As for keeping the newer features hush-hush: the reasoning behind this decision was based on that when either me or Deadcode join WormNET, we are often flooded by questions like "when will the next beta be released?" or "what new features will the next version have?". Now, imagine what would it be like if people knew what was coming to them. When the rumour spread that there exists an alpha version which has support for large maps, someone even tried to (unsuccessfully) bribe an alpha tester into sending him the alpha! Trust me, you probably wouldn't want to be in our position, sorting out with people who are trying to satisfy their own curiosity at the expense of our time.

Well, since it's not going to get any better keeping our eyes closed at the information leak, here's a list of goodies awaiting you in the next beta:


As you may have heard elsewhere, the next beta update will support variable map sizes. Specific information can be found here (http://wiki.thecybershadow.net/Colour_map).
W:A no longer uses 100% CPU while minimized or in the front-end. It still uses 100% CPU in-game to assure maximum frame-rate.
As announced in this thread (http://forum.team17.co.uk/showthread.php?t=30698), you'll be able to access the weapons panel even when it's not your turn.
W:A now registers and handles wa://insert.ip.or.hostname.here style links, which means that snoopers will benefit from directly joining games without having the user log in to WormNET
Some stability improvements, which include fixing the infamous W:A-minimizes-but-won't-restore glitch
Many more smaller improvements here and there.


If you still think that any of the decisions we took outlined above are wrong, I'd like to hear your opinion, but only if you've thought them through fully, like we have. We are trying to serve the community, in the long run, and this includes actively preventing the community from preventing us from serving you.

Thank you.

[franpa]

FIANLLY, word of a new update, :P awesome bro thanks for the info.

edit: no new gui/interface/frontend/whatever in this upcoming beta?

[rednecks]

This sounds great and i hope you know how much the players of this game appreciate what you both do.

I think your 3 points are logical and spot on, id love to get a leaked version from a players pov but i fully understand your points on this.

I have an idea of who tried to make a bribe ;) and if you check torrent spy you will see our old friend will has released "some thing", not holding my breath or downloading it.

Again, thanks for your hard work

[StaTich]

Very nice cyber and deadcode, me and the whole community thank you guys for what you are doing.

[GrimOswald]

Rock on guys. :cool:

[Thrik]

Awesome stuff, although playing in a window would be the ultimate revolution. :D

[Melon]

Hooray! A new update! All I can say is don't worry about taking your time with the updates. We're all lucky that W:A is getting updated at all, as most games never get updated, especially not so long after it's initial release.

I'd rather wait a year for a bug-free update than a rushed one.

[AndrewTaylor]

I think he's just downloaded WA:CE and put his name on it :p

[DudexTm]

Sounds great, a 7/8 year old game and its possibly the best game ever invented :D .
Thanks to you guys its now set to improve again.
As said in a previous post, there is no rush to make this game better than it already is, any improvements will be greatly appreciated so take your time and lets all reap the benefits when its all running smoothly.

Thanks once again for the work you put into this.

[Glenn]

Dammit, you guys are going to make me install W:A again. >_>

Oh well, keep up the good work.

[Melon]

I couldn't help but notice this.
a cavern map may now be up to 32760 pixels wide and 32600 pixels tall;
That's unbelievably massive! And this is for colour maps and bit maps?

So if somebody makes a .png file that's of size 32760 x 32600, how big would that be? And more importantly, how long would it take to transfer that to each player over the internet? What if one player has a slow connection (say 56k/s)? Will all the other players have to wait ages for his to load?

What I'm saying is, will there also be a limit to the file sizes on a map? Because I can just imagine playing a game and sitting around a long time for it to start...

[bonz]

you guys are going to make me install W:A again
What? You uninstalled it?
Sacrileg! :eek:

[Run]

So if somebody makes a .png file that's of size 32760 x 32600, how big would that be?

Depends what it contains. It's a compressed format so if the map is mostly empty space then it won't be big.

I've seen it mentioned somewhere that filesize limits may be introduced.

[Metal Alex]

I just LOVE this notice. It's not that perfect, just for a liiiittle fact: no water color thing (I hope it's one of those little improvements :p). But, I prefer the bigger terrain thingy way more!!!

I think I'm starting to make a tower map...

Just a small question: How many colors do normal maps have? I mean, the mission ones. I didn't like the background thingies disapear in one of the patches. (if there is more than 64 colours, no thingies :p)

Just one little more thing: Good job, team. :D
(Uhm... Shadow Code seems a good name :p)

[Vercetti]

W:A now registers and handles wa://insert.ip.or.hostname.here style links, which means that snoopers will benefit from directly joining games without having the user log in to WormNET


Excellent. Will there be a command line option for hosting games (obviously there will be for joining)?

[Vercetti]

W:A now registers and handles wa://insert.ip.or.hostname.here style links, which means that snoopers will benefit from directly joining games without having the user log in to WormNET


Excellent. That takes care of joining. Will it also be possible to host games with a command line option?

[CyberShadow]

Thanks for all the positive feedback, everybody!

franpa: the new front-end is planned for 4.0 (which is already in the works).

Melon: while the game supports maps that are that big in one of those directions, we haven't really tried a map that's actually 32760 x 32600 - loading such a map would require a great amount of memory. And the dymensions don't have to affect file size - a blank 32760x32600 map can be stored in a file of just a few hundred bytes.
Before downloading and loading maps larger than a certain limit, the beta will warn the user about it, and will allow him to decline the map and leave the game. Deadcode said he wanted to make the limit adjustable in some way.

Metal Alex: check this article (http://wiki.thecybershadow.net/Colour_map) on the Worms Knowledge Base. The intrinsic maps used in the missions have up to 64 colours (excluding black).

Vercetti: Yes, it's /host ;)

[kikumbob]

Excellent stuff peeps. You're doing the surviving wormers an amazing justice.

[Muzer]

YAHOOOO! *fires off a dozen rounds of gun*


I'm not from texas :p

Or am I...

No, I'm from Hampshire, UK. I don't even know where texas is, just that they stereotypically shoot bullets when they're happy.

[Distrance]

What about Fiddler, will it be on 4.0 ( if it will ever be released )...was waiting for that so i could maybe install worms again :p

[[UFP]Ghost]

A few things to say then a question:

Although i don't think it's nice to have such a secret group it is what better for WA so rock on.

I would like to thank you and your "secret" community for all the testing and work that have been done. As best said in 1942 in Yankee Doodle Dandy by James Cagney (or the real George M. Cohan). "My Father thank you, My mother thanks you, My sister thanks you & I thank you".

question, will this affect grenade timing in the game because of larger maps, a very big bng could mean impossible to hit with a grenade.
-and is there any way, if agreed by the creator, i forgot whom. To add the random scheme generator into the game as just like a button that does it.

If i come up with anymore questions or concerns i'll be back. Audios Amigos

--------------
Edit, Could you release minimum and recommended requirement for full size maps?

[Glenn]

What? You uninstalled it?
Sacrileg! :eek:
No, it was never installed on this laptop.

[canofworms]

THIS IS JUST MY DAY TODAY!!!!

Shortly before, I recieved a very ammusing e-mail, that none of you would care about, but it was highly ammusing cause I know the name of the person who wrote the login scripts where I am based, and I think I have found on of his relatives (that guy was crazy, he left without leaving ANY documentation to the system).

Now this! Its great to see something getting done!

Kudos to CyberShadow and Deadocde

*starts prazing, and offering sheeps*

EDIT:

Wait! I posted someting to CyberShadow without something programming related at the end :O

Oh well!

*Goes off and write the INSERT INTO desk VALUES("head") module for something he is writing in PHP*

;)

Depends what it contains. It's a compressed format so if the map is mostly empty space then it won't be big.

I've seen it mentioned somewhere that filesize limits may be introduced.

An image in Paint of that size will cause the program to crash, unless you have tons of memory. Im going to try with Imagemagik next.

Ok, if anyone is interested:

Starting Image: http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/5825/untitledlx9.th.png (http://img406.imageshack.us/my.php?image=untitledlx9.png)

Finishing image (did a imagemagik scale, this took ages, and really taxed my CPU): I gave up rendering this, the resultant size would be stupid, it will have over 1,024,000,000 pixels, so may go into the gigs. If anyone is willing to donate a render farm, please do =) Fyre crashes when I tried to do it (and even then it was only 10000x10000), but memory consumption went over 512mb. So generally, dont bother with images of that stupid size, keep them sane, but thanks for letting us have bigger images.

EDIT:

My my, aren't I busy. I wouldnt like to have one of my Fyre maps that I am working on at massive sizes either ^^. My CPU will melt :P

[ShOwTiMe]

CyberShadow,first off I have to say you do really greate work to this game and keep on doing this as long as you can/want!
The only thing that the community needs is a lil' reply what is happening at the moment with the upcoming beta,like you did here!
That's pretty much all we "waiters" need,we know now you work on it hard with fresh,new and amzing ideas.
Now it's definetly coming and we just need to wait.
As I call it we got food now!

[Chip]

the next beta update will support variable map sizes



.................................................. .....................
.................................................. .....................
.................................................. .....................
.................................................. .....................
.................................................. .....................
.................................................. .....................
.................................................. .....................
.................................................. .....................

I honestly don't know how to respond to that, I realy don't.

Its one of the 3 things I've always wanted in WA.
As in the words of the Thespians - By God sir, a marvel!!!!!!!

[franpa]

how much memory are we talking? a gig? 2? i got 2 gigs of ram... approx 1.7gig free.

[bonz]

Ghost;553580']question, will this affect grenade timing in the game because of larger maps, a very big bng could mean impossible to hit with a grenade.
Oh, that's a very good question.
And it isn't limited to grenades. All weapons in Worms explode after a certain time if they don't hit anything or get triggered.
Ghost;553580']is there any way, if agreed by the creator, i forgot whom.
http://wiki.thecybershadow.net/Evz
Ghost;553580']To add the random scheme generator into the game as just like a button that does it.
This has been suggested, IIRC.
And it's not that hard to program that they would have to use Evz version.

[[UFP]Ghost]

Oh, that's a very good question.
And it isn't limited to grenades. All weapons in Worms explode after a certain time if they don't hit anything or get triggered.


also would not a sheep launcher become useless in fort and what about power when shooting.

And

you can't shoot a far grenade on a high angle with bigger maps?generally you cna far pretty far on a high angle with respect to the original map length.

EDIT:
FOr someone who has not yet mastered shooting is this gonna be bad?

[Metal Alex]

***OH!!! IMPORTANT!!!***

This is technically for the shotgun, or any other weapon like this:

the shotgun has a maximum distance. After it, the explosion is in mid-air. I'm sure, as I managed to find the exact place once... dunno the distance, though, but if it's lower than the map itself... we might have a problem.
Maybe for the bow, this could be taken in consideration, too...

Meh, This is all I can help with the patch, so I hope it helps :D

[GoDxWyvern]

Maybe for the bow, this could be taken in consideration, too...
The bow arcs downward after flying for a while, and I think it's alright this way. ;)

[Metal Alex]

The bow arcs downward after flying for a while, and I think it's alright this way. ;)

I also noticed it happened allways at the same height... I mean, from total terrain, after it had gone all the way out the map "perimeter"... (I'm not sure, it's what I remember...)

I just say: Be careful with that. Though, the curving bow sounds nice in huge maps...

[[UFP]Ghost]

I have another question that i hope you can answer if you see it while you answer the last will the map generator have some sort of type in amount of pixels or something because what size would it auto generate and stuff.

[franpa]

all that would be need is for the devs to add an extra attribute to all the weapons and call the new attribute "distance" or "toss power" or something..

and all of the problems with large maps will virtually disappear

[[UFP]Ghost]

yes but you have to keep it simple for those of us who aren't the smartest tools in the shed.

[Lex]

the shotgun has a maximum distance. After it, the explosion is in mid-air. I'm sure, as I managed to find the exact place once... dunno the distance, though, but if it's lower than the map itself... we might have a problem.This was fixed in one of the first alpha versions.

[Metal Alex]

This was fixed in one of the first alpha versions.

ok... Aw... I'll try to find more of this kind of details... though they must almost be fixed... :p

ONE LAST THING!!

I would like to remind that there was a small translation bug in spanish. The concrete donkey (Burro de hormigón) was typed as "Burro de hormigÜn" or something like that... I don't remember it exactly, but when I find my CD, I'll try to see if this wasn't fixed in previous patches...

Also, if you need any questions on spanish translation ingame, I'm here to help.

[franpa]

Ghost;553674']yes but you have to keep it simple for those of us who aren't the smartest tools in the shed.

what? just increase to increase the distance it can be thrown/shot or decrease to make it only possible to do lil shots/throws.

for 'nades etc. have it affect the max timer fuse or something. (wait if max distance is increased then you can throw it faster :P)

[[UFP]Ghost]

by simple i meant automatically done by size of map unless over-written by user.

[CyberShadow]

Hi!

Distrance: W:A 4.0 will me a lot more customizable than Fiddler. We might even add support for Fiddler schemes before 4.0 - Deadcode said it isn't a complicated task.

Ghost, bonz: Yes, good question - we plan to add a setting to increase the maximum throw power for such weapons - not sure whether it'll be here before 4.0, thoguh. Same for the maximum fuse. I don't think that making it adjust automatically by the size of the map is a good idea, because you'd have to re-adjust to it each time you play on a differently-sized map.

Ghost: currently, there's no support for BIT or randomly-generated maps of other than the standard size. Currently, the map generator (former Landgen.exe) would need some tweaking to generate playable maps larger than the standard size - but this is still surely planned for 4.0.

A random scheme generator isn't hard to make (a generator that makes balanced or even playable schemes is, however!) - but its place would probably be in 4.x.

[Melon]

While we're talking about changing the power/throw distance of weapons, don't forget the girder too. Maybe in v4.0 it should be possible to change the numbers of pixels away that they can be placed to accomidate for larger maps.

Although it isn't that important, some people may feel that it's too restrictive, just because the maps are bigger.

[M3ntal]

The bow arcs downward after reaching the borders of the map, doesn't it?

Anyway, all these weapon-maximum-time problems aren't really problems. They've made it so you *can* have huge maps, if you want. If someone were to make a 32760 x 32600 BnG, that'd be bad design on their part, not a reason to alter the weapon timings.

[Run]

Yeah exactly. Maps should be designed with the weapons settings in mind, not the other way around.

[franpa]

yea bow and arrow im pretty sure has no limit in distance... it only falls down when its outta the level.

[canofworms]

Yeah exactly. Maps should be designed with the weapons settings in mind, not the other way around.

And also be designed not to be a stupid size that will take hours to render and eat up all your RAM.

[[UFP]Ghost]

i agree but umm system requirements anyone? what di i need for the largest size and so on. cause i know that when my friends come over, i'd rathr play a fort with em where all 3 of us have a fort at a pretty good distance.

[bonz]

DC/CS, what about a minimap and/or a zooming feature?
Because on these giant maps you totally lose your orientation.

On Lex's giant rope race map I my first two worms got teleported in randomly because I couldn't find the start. :p

Not to speak of fireing and hitting worms at such distances.

[Metal Alex]

On Lex's giant rope race map I my first two worms got teleported in randomly because I couldn't find the start. :p

I need to see that map.

[Lex]

http://lex.clansfx.co.uk/requested/lexrrgiant01.png
http://lex.clansfx.co.uk/requested/lexrrgiant02.png
http://lex.clansfx.co.uk/requested/lexrrgiant03.png

The first one is the first above-normal-size rope race ever made! (Wyvern made the second giant rope race ever.) lexrrgiant02 and 03 are concept maps for fun and challenge.

[Evil Bunny]

Well, considering i've been one of the big nee sayers on the scilent treatment the community has gotten, and considering the direct comment on this perspective by CyberShadow in his announcement I think it's good to point a few things out.

First and formost i'm very excited to hear that another beta patch is near completion. The rumors had indeed increased so I was hoping we might be hearing something soon. It's deffintly great to see that a few major issues have been tackled. I'm gonna lay off the 'great job' comments untill i've actually seen it but; glad to hear.


I will hope replying in this post will get a response from the patch developement tean (i'll stick to calling them PDT since i'm lazy). I've always been a strong believer in keeping dialogue open. they keep brains active on both sides and tend to increase the flow of new or better ideas going, as well as improve evaluation of ideas which already excist. Which is what I hope to do here; evaluate the relationship between the community and the developement of the patches.

Involvement increases interest and inactivity decreases it.
This has been rather clearly visible on wnet over the past two years. With the stop of patch releases the interest of the community in it's developement has also decreased. Compare the activity on this forum now with how it was 2 years ago, and with the way it was before the PDT started their work. Quite clearly interest in WA increased when developement started. A large number of WWP players (myself included) migrated to W:A and started coming up with wild and imaginative ideas.

Community effort
The community has definitely done a great job on coming up with good ideas for the game IMO. Something that goes far beyond patches too. Consider the thousands of maps made, dozens of schemes and gametypes and all the countless soundbanks, flags, graves, tools, upgrades, front ends, fan art, etc. This creativity is what distinguishes the W2 series from the W3 and is what it has withstood the passage of time so well these 10 years. Unlike no other online commercial game, if I might add.

WA has been a community effort all the way. And it’s community has shown a grand creativity and interest in improving the game in every possible way imagineable. Consider also that WA’s communty has matured. Alot of the most noteable players have kept with it trough their study and have now got jobs. Picking up a good number of skills on the way, such as programming or designing.

Programmers are not managers
And now here comes the problem which CyberShadow also pointed out. With people bugging programmers for news alot more problems will arise. Problems which quite understandably shouldn’t be handled by the programmers, since the thing they should want to be doing is program. So response to the community was lowered to a minimum. Resulting in the situation w have been seeing for 2 years, or rather that we haven’t been seeing, where secret societies are formed to perform the dark arts of developement.

All thing considered
Change is never easy and rarely liked at the start. However I hope that the PDT will be open to consider the creativity that is out there, willing to help, waiting for a moment where they can do their part. I would hate to seem like I’m ignoring the problems that the PDT has come accross. But I think these things can be solved if some effort was put into it. And yes, effort by people who have the skills to do these things. Which reminds me of something Plato ones wrote: “Justice is when people do the job they are ment to be doing.”

Anyway, I’ve spend an hour writing this. I hope the idea will be picked up and considerd by the PDT. You all know perfectly well how creative this community is. So please consider finding a way that we too can contribute to this game we’ve come to enjoy so much.

[note] Since this is a reply to CyberShadow I’ll post it as such although it would probably deserve it’s own topic if a moderator would consider it as such.

[canofworms]

http://lex.clansfx.co.uk/requested/lexrrgiant01.png
http://lex.clansfx.co.uk/requested/lexrrgiant02.png
http://lex.clansfx.co.uk/requested/lexrrgiant03.png

The first one is the first above-normal-size rope race ever made! (Wyvern made the second giant rope race ever.) lexrrgiant02 and 03 are concept maps for fun and challenge.

HOW FAST IS YOUR MACHINE :O :O :O :O

Mine is very fast, and locks up when making massive maps in Imagemagik.

[[UFP]Ghost]

as most of you know i have like 20k maps which makes it kind of hard to find ones i like....... so 2 questions of things you could implement (probably been suggested)

1. Maps can be given ratings and ordered by so
2. I was playing Eminef's maps as well i located that those are almost exactly at the bottom so it's easy to find :P But most of his maps use to much color and make the background black, i am not one for backgrounds so ya, can you do this for like 4.0? (or not possible/easy)

[Melon]

Ghost;553775']2. I was playing Eminef's maps as well i located that those are almost exactly at the bottom so it's easy to find :P But most of his maps use to much color and make the background black, i am not one for backgrounds so ya, can you do this for like 4.0? (or not possible/easy)
I think version 4.0 is planned to be full-colour, rather than only 256 colours. So the loss of background problem should sort itself out when that is done.

[Chip]

I think that the matter of weapons not having enough range / fuse time on bigger maps is not important. It just means that you'll have to move your worms closer through the terrain before you can start shooting at one of those far away worms.

[Muzer]

Because everyone is in this thread, I thought I'd post it here:
BUG: When you have more than x graves, only the first x are displayed (I can't remember what x is). This is annoying because I downloaded a collosal-sized grave pack

I think it is the same for everything else but maps

EDIT: x It's less than 401, because that's how many I have

[bonz]

Because everyone is in this thread, I thought I'd post it here:
BUG: When you have more than x graves, only the first x are displayed (I can't remember what x is). This is annoying because I downloaded a collosal-sized grave pack

I think it is the same for everything else but maps

EDIT: x It's less than 401, because that's how many I have
IIRC, it was 128 or 127 graves.
Do subfolders work for graves/flags too?

[yakuza]

the secret society has never been secret has it?

[[UFP]Ghost]

now is it really a secret, no, is it really a society, no. so where do you guys get the term secret society?

and is there anyone that didn't know this?

[yakuza]

i think he ment group of friends

[[UFP]Ghost]

I know what he meant......... notice the word "term"

[Metal Alex]

I would like to know one more thing:

Considering the new map possible sizes, it would be perfect to be possible to have up to 48 worms... but there is a problem. between matches, if you pick a small map... there could be very few space...
So I have a few solutions:

-Make an option to enable more worms. If it is on, the maximum number of worms depend on the map chosen, from the original 16, but the scheme has the number of vixtories set to 1 only if this option is on.

-If there is not enough space for, say, 48 worms, then, teleport all in. But, it would take too long... I'm with my other solution :p

I would like to know this, because I made a "small" project (search for Worms World Map)... and seeing 48 worms battling there just fills my hearth with joy... (did I say that?)

[[UFP]Ghost]

see i'm tied between bigger maps a good think or a bad thing....

if we don't increases weapon sizes and don't use goverment super computers are such maybe maps shoudl have a reasonable limit, if weps will stay the same including power then other then certain games like an rr or any race could be gained?

[KRD]

Ghost;553863']if we don't increases weapon sizes and don't use goverment super computers are such maybe maps shoudl have a reasonable limit, if weps will stay the same including power then other then certain games like an rr or any race could be gained?

This is where the creative community Bunny's talking about comes in. Balancing schemes and maps has never been such a challenge. Inspire yourselves away!

[karseet]

Wow! A guy linked me to this thread!!! I'm so excited for larger maps; this is amazing!!!

Anyways, I want to thank everyone that helped this be possible. This obviously includes Deadcode and Cybershadow and as well the beta testers, and of course, the community itself.

[franpa]

Ghost;553863']see i'm tied between bigger maps a good think or a bad thing....

if we don't increases weapon sizes and don't use goverment super computers are such maybe maps shoudl have a reasonable limit, if weps will stay the same including power then other then certain games like an rr or any race could be gained?

shoppa's, wxw, chute race, battle race, bungee race, rr, and more all benefit from larger map support... and no you dont need freaky computers to use it.... just make sure you got ~ 2 gigs or more ram (only if you want to play it safe...) because rendering is always done by the graphics card not the cpu you wont need to improve your cpu for it.

only reason we'd need longer ranged weapons would be for schemes like BnG, forts, and maybe a few others im not aware of.

[[UFP]Ghost]

only reason we'd need longer ranged weapons would be for schemes like BnG, forts, and maybe a few others im not aware of.

1. all i have is 512 and i feel most people who don't surf this forum about 1/2 will have a good amount.

2. Those are my fav schemes Franpa so it makes a difference to me.

[franpa]

i have 256/64 and i wouldnt complain unless maps are 5+ mb's because then yea youd be waiting forever... HOWEVER these are less then 256 colour maps and there compressed in PNG format... so i doubt they would be that big in file size.

[Vercetti]

They need to make WA calculate a checksum of each of the maps you already have and compare that with the hosts current map, so you don't download the same map again everytime you join a game.

[Chip]

My solution for the problems encountered:

For weapon range and fuse limits:
Keep them how they are except increase the launch velocity of the morta so that it will be one of the few weapons that'll be able to strike long distances. Its better to try and make full use out of every weapon so make morta a long range weapon then I'm sure it'll encourage people to use it more.


Worms set for terrain:
Depending on the worms set before the match begins, changes the availability of the map size:
16 or under = X small, small, medium, large, X large (I don't actualy know the sizes we can make)
20 or over = small, medium, large, X large
30 or over = medium, large, X large
40 or over = large, X large

After the worms have been set, when you press the "start the game" button (or what ever it is) the game wont start the battle if you have too many worms in comparrision to the map size and it'll notify you.

[Muzer]

Hmm... My PC only has 512 meg. Does that mean I'll have to persuade my dad to let me use WA on the new PC?

[Vercetti]

It should still continue to work with 128MB or even less. 512MB is plenty for Worms.

[franpa]

yes Vercetti it will because it should use swapfile... however swapfile is tons slower then actual ram and as such youll most likely notice a performance hit.

chip, cybershadow links to a page containing map sizes.

[Seita]

For your performance issues: I have 512MB Ram on my computer, and I don't experience any problem on maps being 16 times the size of current ones (4 times in each dimension) which is already huge enough to get lost. So I'd say don't worry about the requirement. As long as nobody uses a ridiculously huge map (max dimensions should use up 7GB Ram from previous experiments) you can assume you're safe.

[franpa]

could someone just make a box set to the max size supported? id love to see how long i can fall for...

[franpa]

its sad that lex's tall map wont load in 3.6.27.0b

[[UFP]Ghost]

can you guys do a little testing ram wise and you know find out approx how much someone with 512,128,1gb,2gb ram can handle appropriately.

Joe
p.s. Lex, i loved that rr

[CyberShadow]

Hi,

I've done some experiments, and it seems that to play on a map smoothly, W:A will need about 30 MB of RAM + 1.5 bytes per square pixel (or 1.5 MB per megapixel). Note that W:A will use about twice as much during loading the map (almost 3 bytes per pixel).
Thus, to play on a 10240x10240-sized map (you could probably say that there won't be many playable maps out there with an area larger than 100 megapixels), W:A will need 30 MB + (10240*10240 * 1.5) = 30 MB + 150 MB = 180 MB of RAM (and about 330 MB to load the map in the map editor) - which should still play smoothly on a PC with 256 MB of RAM, despite some (few minutes of) swapping while loading the map.

I hope this clears up the question. For those curious how I got the results, I've attached the Excel spreadsheet.

[Metal Alex]

Ok, I have no idea of how to read that. Anyways, any word on the more worms at the same time?

I mean: for 4.0, 4.x...

[franpa]

yea, i noticed on lex's first map listed... only 70mb~ was used for the game... but it looked like it was unloading itself from memory each time i minimised... so i might have inaccurate results.

once it gets released... we can do some real testing for things like weapon distance etc. and in the next patch address them.

[CyberShadow]

Metal Alex: 3.x, more like even. Next beta, maybe even. ;)

[Qnick]

WHOA!


That would be just about the coolest thing ever.

[Metal Alex]

Metal Alex: 3.x, more like even. Next beta, maybe even. ;)

You are my new god.

[bonz]

You are my new god.
Blasphemy! :eek:
There is only one god and his name is Andy D.

[[UFP]Ghost]

btw what ever happened to our leader?

[bonz]

Ghost;554074']btw what ever happened to our leader?
http://www.slightlytwisted.co.uk

[[UFP]Ghost]

hasn't that site not been changed for a really long time?? Maybe he was planning to expose evil people and they ate him?

[franpa]

well duh ghost... whats the point in exposing a happy 100% normal person? theres not much choice except to expose evil people because they would generate the most attention :P

[[UFP]Ghost]

i say we all put together a world wide searching using people from every country and primarily lazy people will use Google Earth and we find him before it's to late so he can take the throne?

[bonz]

This could be a clue:
http://forum.team17.co.uk/showpost.php?p=516743&postcount=37

[D3v1L]

Hi

First i want to congratulate CS and DC for the effort they do to make this game even better that it is (wich is really hard)

I have no idea if its possible but it would be really cool if u can make some option to apply the rules of the scheemes, for example that u cant attack (but for real, not just a moral rule) if u dont got a crate in a shoppa... I repeat, i have no idea how much u can change the game, but it would be cool...

Another question, will the Batty Rope be able in Update 4?

[Lex]

I have no idea if its possible but it would be really cool if u can make some option to apply the rules of the scheemes, for example that u cant attack (but for real, not just a moral rule) if u dont got a crate in a shoppa... I repeat, i have no idea how much u can change the game, but it would be cool...I believe that sort of rule-setting is planned with the arrival of the worms scripting language, which will probably be based on xml.

[pipes100]

I'm very excited for this update. More stability would definetly be nice. Not too many games get updated 7 years after release. This is a very special game.

While we're on the topic of suggestions...are there gonna be any plans of having adjustable options in Single Player mode (Quickgame, Deathmatch...) similar to what the N64 version gives you, so you can adjust timer and worm settings? Just wondering...:o

[CyberShadow]

Hi,

D3vil: yes, this is planned to be done with scripts. The scripting language isn't based on XML, though, it'll be embedded in XML-based schemes.

pipes100: Well, the point in Deathmatch is to beat it with the settings the game has preset, as it's a challenge. If you could tweak the settings for Deathmatch, it would be cheating...

As for the quick game customization, you can achieve the same by configuring and saving a scheme, and instead of using Quick game you'd go to multiplayer, select your scheme, add your team and a CPU one, set the number of worms to 4, and click the map thumbnail once. It's only 7 more clicks! ;)

[ShOwTiMe]

I've got a question about the "new" gameplay so here I go:
Since you guys have planned humongius maps it will be crazy to play a game like "shopper" in 30 secs because you won't even see where you're opponent hides!
I mean like roping trough that huge map takes you time so I have a small suggestion:

How about a "mini map" in the upper right/left corner where you can see your enemy as a "dot",I mean like a "radar" or something,so you can act quicker in the huge maps,you should be able to enable/disable this "radar" of course!

[GoDxWyvern]

Has been suggested already. Either that or a zooming function. ;)

[CyberShadow]

Zooming might be possible if we "upgrade" from DirectDraw to Direct3D. That would certainly increase system requirements, though.

Adding a radar involves adding a significant element to the game's interface. So far, the latest W:A looks almost identical to the very first versions, and we hoped to keep it that way.

We'll think about it. It probably won't make it in the next beta, though.

[bonz]

Has been suggested already. Either that or a zooming function. ;)
Indeed.
DC/CS, what about a minimap and/or a zooming feature?
But wait! Wouldn't a zooming function first require the game to have anti-aliasing? Or vectorized graphics?

[AndrewTaylor]

Nope. W1 managed it with neither.

Looked a bit ugly, but it worked well enough.


Edit: Hang on, antialiasing? What the hell for? It's not something you have to add before zooming; it's utterly pointless without zooming. It's something you add after zooming to make the zoom look nicer.

[bonz]

Nope. W1 managed it with neither.

Looked a bit ugly, but it worked well enough.


Edit: Hang on, antialiasing? What the hell for? It's not something you have to add before zooming; it's utterly pointless without zooming. It's something you add after zooming to make the zoom look nicer.
I didn't mean the process of zooming when I said "first".
I meant that DC/CS should first make the graphics vectorized or anti-aliased before they start working on the zooming feature.

[CyberShadow]

Well, the front-end already does paletted smooth resizing. It's just about putting it in the game's interface in an elegant way.

[Evil Bunny]

D3vil: yes, this is planned to be done with scripts. The scripting language isn't based on XML, though, it'll be embedded in XML-based schemes.

Can you tell us something more about this scripting language CS?

[CyberShadow]

Yeah. Actually, I've been meaning to reply to your post for a while, but have been putting it off.

As contradictory as it may seem, I really wanted to get the community involved with 4.0. However, the truth is that, in the current (planning/very early) development stage, there isn't a whole lot the community can do.

Graphic artists/designers? We don't need them now, maybe later for the new front-end, when we have some code to make use of those graphics. Ideas? We have more than enough... Testers? Same. The one kind of people that we're short on are skilled programmers. I've started many really great side projects, such as wkMagic and HostingBuddy (http://forum.team17.co.uk/showthread.php?t=31424), but I'd have to choose whether to work on those or to work on W:A. There are more - First Blood, for example, could use some experienced PHP coders. Even though more than 75% of the alpha testers are also programmers in some way, they are mostly too busy with their own lives to get involved into something like that.

Anyway, we didn't really mean to hoard all the patches and information. The original idea was to add a few new features, test them for a few weeks, and then release a beta. It didn't really work out... I guess we should have taken some other action when we saw that this is getting delayed for too long. In the end, all this information+alpha leak was inevitable, and a question of time.

As for the development plans... when Deadcode told the community some of the things he planned for 4.0, the community ended up blaming him for taking too long to implement them. That wasn't very nice. Should I take the same route? I have no idea where will life take me in the future. Better safe than sorry? We shall see.

Now, back to your question.
Some kind of scripting is an irreplaceable item on 4.0's feature list. That's why I thought about making it not just a feature, but something the game would be based on. Basically, it's XML with scripting. We're going to base most of the file formats on XML (such as the new scheme format, or front-end layout, or language files) - and since the schemes and maps would have to contain scripts as well, we came up with a way to standardise it, and make it a part of the XML support - not unlike JavaScript and DOM, inline scripts can generate content on-the-fly, thus allowing to script repetitious settings.

As for the scripting language itself, it'll probably be something like a hybrid of C and JavaScript.

[ShyGuy]

Wait, I have always heard batty ropes, and the wwp modes will be in the WA patch. Lies?!

[franpa]

isnt security a main problem for adding scripting?

[MonkeyforaHead]

I'm amazed that you guys are still working on this in earnest, and you have my genuine thanks for doing so. Even though I played W:A so much back in the day that I pretty well completely burned out on it, you can bet I'll be popping back onto it briefly when 4.0 is released at the very least.

Only suggestion I can come up with is, perhaps some option to manually assign crate-spawn hotspots when editing a map? I can recall a few Shopper matches where a crate would decide to be a wiseass and situate itself on the single stray pixel outside of the walls. Happens rarely enough that it's worth a laugh when it happens, but even so.

Also, whenever 4.0 does make it out, you'd better include an option to revert to the classic frontend or there shall be severe amounts of nerdrage from a probably rather small but nonetheless nerdrageous group including myself. :p

One question too, I recall it being mentioned that ideally W:A would eventually be upgraded enough to implement Wormpot and be able to play online with people using WWP, is that still anywhere in the pipeline?

[CyberShadow]

ShyGuy: full WWP compatibility is planned for 4.0, since it'll be a merge of W:A and WWP actually.

franpa: it's only a security problem if we'll be sloppy enough for it to become one.

MonkeyforaHead: Yeah, I have a few ideas about making separate editors for separate schemes.

The problem with your second request is that the current front-end is currently W:A's weakest point. It's very unstable, unportable, and hard to expand - so the best we'll be able to do is to make a front-end which will look like the old one.

And, yes (see the reply to ShyGuy).

[AndrewTaylor]

I didn't mean the process of zooming when I said "first".
I meant that DC/CS should first make the graphics vectorized or anti-aliased before they start working on the zooming feature.

I know. What I'm saying is that vectorising the landscape would mean essentially rewriting the entire game, not to mention waving goodbye to almost all the custom landscapes, and that anti-aliasing something (like the W:A terrains) that is made out of pixels is a monumentally pointless thing to do, and converting all the Worms sprites to anti-aliased vector art would seem like a massive undertaking for no gameplay improvement at all, save a tiny, tiny indication of whereabouts in a pixel a worm was stood.

I don't see the point in either of these ideas, save having a couple of buzzwords you can apply to the game when it has them.

[CyberShadow]

Well, in the context of zooming, anti-aliasing is just taking a few more samples per zoomed-out pixel and taking the mean value of those colours. The resulting zoomed out image looks smoother - so it's not really something you apply after resizing either, it's just another way to do the resizing.

[bonz]

a massive undertaking for no gameplay improvement at all
Vectorized graphics can have a tremendous impact on the game physics. Realistic collisions would be possible then.
Right now a grenade has a tendency to bounce very erratically as every single pixel is taken in account instead of curve.

I've had a discussion with Deadcode about that in a game once and IIRC he intended to do something in that direction.
And I heard that Squiffel/Lyndon already works on vectorizing the sprites on behalf of DC/CS, I think.

[AndrewTaylor]

Vectorized graphics can have a tremendous impact on the game physics. Realistic collisions would be possible then.
Right now a grenade has a tendency to bounce very erratically as every single pixel is taken in account instead of curve.

I was talking about the sprites there. Vectorising those would affect the game only cosmetically.

I know all about the advantages of a vectorised landscape -- I had a crack at programming one myself a bit ago but my graphics library was having none of it. It just seems to me that you'd then have to rewrite all the deformation (which would be a pain) and then all the collision (which would be far easier) and the bouncing, and the worm movement, and the map generator, and put in something to stop tiny, sub-pixel invisible bits of land messing up the movement, and write a new map editor, and so forth and so on, which would seem like only very slightly less work than binning W:A and writing a vectorised game from scratch. But I agree that it would improve the physics were it done.

[CyberShadow]

Deadcode once said that the landscape, instead of being vectorised, can be made anti-aliased. Then, it would be pretty easy to calculate slopes by a few surrounding pixels.

Actually, it's possible to do it on the current pixelated landscape as well, but unless this slope calculation is very well done, the bounces would be quite erratic on a rough/jagged wall. Well, they already are, so I'm not sure it would get any worse...

In fact, this may be worth looking into. If someone can come up with a good algorithm to calculate tangents/normals at any point on the surface of a bitmap, this may end up as a game option.

[AndrewTaylor]

I had to do that for Gravity (http://apathysketchpad.com/index.php?id=code/grav05). The solution I eventually came up with was to pick a square of pixels around the impact site and see where the edge of the terrain crossed the boundary of the square. It wasn't very robust, though, and became unpredictable when anything bounced off small objects (which was almost never). I shall think on this, though. That kind of thing is practically by job, so you would think I ought to be able to do it ;)

Edit: I just realised that earlier this week I wrote a raster-to-vector converter that logic dictates (a modified version of) should solve this problem at a stroke. How well it will work I can't say, as I've not tried this at all. So: what if you first take a small patch of the terrain mask from around the impact point, then you run it through edge detection, then you filter it to remove any pixels of land not themselves surrounded by other pixels of land (i.e., edge detection), then you start at the impact point, and move n (say, about 5) pixels along the line you've created in both directions. You'll end up with two points, whence you can construct a line, which of course has a normal you can use to work out bounces. It'd go a bit mental on tiny objects, but I don't see that there's any way to usefully calculate a normal of a tiny object anyway; there's not enough information to do it accurately.

How are bounces worked out at the moment?

[bonz]

I was talking about the sprites there. Vectorising those would affect the game only cosmetically.
Well, no.
Worms also interact with with the landscape (bumps, slides) and certain weapons (mine).
If a worm's head would have a proper blob shape instead of bunch of pixels, you could predictably bounce mines off their heads too or manipulate weapons with jumping.

[AndrewTaylor]

I think that would cause more problems that it would solve, what with worms having idle animations. You'd have to make sure that every worm was in the same frame of the same animation on all machines in an online game, you'd have to have a contingency for what would happen if an idling worm nudged a dud mine, for what would happen if it got its head stuck in the ceiling while animating to itself... Stick with little masks; they're more than sufficient. I've no idea what you mean by "manipulate weapons with jumping".

Edit: Unless you just stuck a vectorised blob in instead of the mask, but then that's not really vectorising the graphics.

[CyberShadow]

bonz: Currently, all objects, aside from having a graphics sprite, also have a collision mask, which almost always doesn't correspond to the visible shape of the object. For example: bazooka shells, grenades, mines, even animals and old ladies have a collision mask in the shape of a 7x5 rectangle (7 pixels wide, 5 pixels tall). Worms' collision mask looks like a small vase. While the visible sprites constantly move, animate and make funny faces at you, the collision mask is constant - even with bouncing mines and roping worms! (That's right, when you spin around on the rope, your collision mask still remains in upright position). Thus, vectorising the sprites and collision masks are two independent tasks, one only being cosmetic, while the other affecting the game logic.

Andrew: the complex procedure you described in 2 posts above doesn't sound much revolutionary than the box method - in the end, we're finding two points at a certain distance from the impact point, constructing a line from them and considering that as a parralel to the tangent line at the impact point. I'm not saying that it's a bad method, though.

If we were to make the collision be as realistic as possible (or as much realism you can get in 2D), we'd have to vectorise the collision masks as well and add rotation. That's probably unacceptable, since it would lead to a rewrite of too many parts of the engine (although it would achieve the things bonz described). Probably the simplest way to do this is to assume that all bouncing projectiles are round, in which case the physics becomes much simpler.

[AndrewTaylor]

If we were to make the collision be as realistic as possible (or as much realism you can get in 2D), we'd have to vectorise the collision masks as well and add rotation.

I don't think it should be that realistic. It'd make a gorgeous tech-demo, sure, but if I was planning a complex grenade shot, I for one wouldn't want to worry about what angle it would be at when it reached a wall to make sure the pin didn't mess my shot up. It only really needs to be realistic enough that you can plan a shot and, assuming you do it right, the grenades will do what you expect them to do as often as possible. Next thing you know you'll be expected to add "spin" to grenades.

(The complex method I described three posts above has one huge advantage over the box method: it wouldn't go wrong anything like as often, say because another bit of land is in the box, or because a bit of land was smaller than the box and didn't go over an edge.)

[Melon]

I personally don't think that there's much wrong with the collision detection on Worms. When I throw a grenade, I know roughly where it will end up. Maybe that's because I'm now used to the physics, but it was never bad to begin with. Sure, there could be some impovements, like stopping mines from bouncing UPHILL that they do sometimes (I'm talking about steep slopes here) but I wouldn't change it too much. And pixel perfect collision would probably lead to loads of problems anyway.

But what do I know about collisions and physics? I've only tried to code a rubbish platform game in Game Maker.

[CyberShadow]

Well, we're not really trying to make it perfect. However, consider the following example:

http://thecybershadow.net/dump/b96c3154727746105870348e77444925/sample.png

A grenade flies towards a gentle slope (green line), and has near-0 vertical velocity when it hits the land. Since currently the collision detection is done only along the two axes, the engine detects that the grenade hits land while moving sideways - thus, it bounces it horizontally (and it flies back on a trajectory similar to the red line) - while one would expect it to bounce upwards the slope (yellow line).

Basically, currently all in-game objects can bounce either horizontally or vertically. Each bounce takes some of the object's velocity, but otherwise the angle is mostly the same.

[Melon]

So what determines the way mines bounce? Because I'm sure that most of the time they WILL keep going horizontally unless it's impossible for them to do so. Especially if they are moving quickly, e.g. from a mine strike.

So grenades always go down the slope, and mines only turn when they hit a wall, is generally the idea I have. I could well be wrong though, it just appears that way.

[Run]

So what determines the way mines bounce?

I'm sure CS can answer with much greater precision than I can, but I can say that the collision mask (or some other jargon word that is used to indicate the "true size" of an object) for a mine is much bigger than a grenade. I think a grenade is represented mechanically by only one pixel (despite hundreds of pixels visually) whereas with a mine, you can tell it's bigger because you can stand on it and go up a few pixels.

That's probably where it stems from but this is something of a guess.

[CyberShadow]

Actually, mines bounce identically to grenades with bounce=MAX. When they bounce down a slope, their horizontal velocity is decreased only by 4% every bounce - the vertical one depends on the angle of the slope. Their collision masks are identical as well.

And, well... you can't climb on a grenade just because worms don't "collide" with grenades - but grenades do collide with worms. Such one-way collisions may be confusing, but they have their advantages.

[ShyGuy]

So we can just put a slanted girder above our heads in a bng and throw the nade straight up and it won't bounce straight down? nice :cool:

[canofworms]

How much does the grenade Bounce setting affect this?

[CyberShadow]

ShyGuy: exactly.

canofworms: the bounce setting only affects vertical bounces - without it, the dampening of the Y velocity on bounce is 70%, and with it, it's 40%.

[KRD]

So we can just put a slanted girder above our heads in a bng and throw the nade straight up and it won't bounce straight down? nice :cool:

Not while I still have the mental strength to fight the whole idea behind it.

[bonz]

I've no idea what you mean by "manipulate weapons with jumping".
You can nudge mines with a forward jump. That could be expanded to some more weapons, like all the throw- and dropable weapons and even the animals that don't explode on contact.

These things could proabably already be implemented now with the simple collision masks.
I'm imagining a sheep jumping towards your worm and you do a forward jump and bounce back.

But you are right, changing the collision masks would completely change the feel of the game.

(Speaking of sheep, I think we definitely have to make them a bit smarter, so they don't stupidly jump against a wall, but rather turn around after a few tries.)

[Metal Alex]

(Speaking of sheep, I think we definitely have to make them a bit smarter, so they don't stupidly jump against a wall, but rather turn around after a few tries.)

nah, that's the best! "Use at own risk" should be printed on their whool.

anyways, if you "vectorise" (Or whatever) the masks...

[M3ntal]

From what i remember, the actual position of objects in the game is accurate to 1/65535th of a pixel. Could you not use this information to work out where abouts on a single pixel an object actually hits (may be hard due to collision masks being larger than one pixel - maybe use a centre point or something), treat the single pixel as a circle, and work out a tangent? Maybe use Andrew's suggestion for larger groups of pixels, otherwise a seemingly straight line would produce some odd bouncing.

Just an idea, my maths isn't spectacular so i dunno how well that'd work.

[CyberShadow]

I decided to play with vectorisation a bit myself, and came up with this (http://thecybershadow.net/dump/99df2f042b6156aa2e70348da5015195/VectorDemo.zip).

It's not perfect, but may be pretty usable.

[AndrewTaylor]

Looks good to me. There are a few glitches, but I can't see them making any significant difference unless you shoot things right into a corner, and that's asking for trouble anyway.

[CyberShadow]

Yeah, dense pixels can make it loop and never reach the start. But, we might be enlarging the impact area with the object's mask anyway, so we could consider the object as a single pixel - that will also grow any stray pixels into something easily vectorizable.

[franpa]

you just gotta be smart with your sheep drops... remember that they dont ever turn around when jumping into a 90 degree wall unless the roof is low enough to stop them from jumping.

[Dando]

I think you should also look into Hyper thread and dual core CPU issues. When I set affinity to use 1 CPU (1 physical 1 logical CPU pentium 4 prescott), the nuclear pie loads immediately. If they are both ticked, it goes much slower, sometimes up to 10 seconds to load game.

I will check this again to fully confirm but seems WA doesn't like Hyper threading

[Melon]

you just gotta be smart with your sheep drops... remember that they dont ever turn around when jumping into a 90 degree wall unless the roof is low enough to stop them from jumping.

The problem there is that you're having to change your game strategy to accomidate flaws in the engine, which I suppose is something that DC and CS are trying to prevent. In an ideal world, sheep should always turn around when they hit a wall. Not dropping a sheep in a certain location because you know it won't turn around is therefore reducing the effectiveness and purpose of the weapon.
Ideally, the game engine should be able to accomodate and mimic expected behaviour, up to an extent of course. Maybe the sheep not turning around isn't a bug at all, but people percieve it as one because they naturally EXPECT it to turn around.

Just my views.

[Run]

Well, for those who find the sheep dynamics annoying, they'll have the option to activate some sort of "animal control" feature that will allow them to turn the sheep on command. It was mentioned a while ago.

[CyberShadow]

While changing such aspects of the game may make the weapon less unfriendly for new players, it will be a great disadvantage for experienced players, who are already used to the weapon's quirks. If we follow this ideology of simplyfying each weapon just because it's hard to use, then we might just as well add trajectory lines to grenades and bazookas, so people wouldn't have to waste time learning how to aim them properly.

Personally, I believe that the sheep's stubbornness is a vital part of the comic aspect of the sheep. Animals are supposed to be dumb, and as thus you use them at your own risk.

Such changes will be unwelcomed by the majority.

Edit: in fact, now that I looked at the code, the code explicitely states that sheep-like animals (skunks, etc.) have a 1/16th (6.25%) chance of turning around when hitting a wall. So this is designed to be like this, and isn't an engine flaw.

[Gnork]

Edit: in fact, now that I looked at the code, the code explicitely states that sheep-like animals (skunks, etc.) have a 1/16th (6.25%) chance of turning around when hitting a wall. So this is designed to be like this, and isn't an engine flaw.


I really DON'T want to think about it: a noob with a sheep jumping through the map back and forth... oh it went over the pile.... back... oh again... (etc)
(ok, it MAY occasionaly look funny if ya do this but still...) On the other hand it might be usefull if you want to climb up a hill with the sheep - in a forest map it would be able to jump from tree to tree left to right upwards to the enemy.

But still, the sheep either produces plain shoarma or gyros with a juicy splashed worm topping if aimed correctly. The 'uh oh stupid sheep decided to miss and jumps off the hill towards a completely different pile with innocent worms in it now targeted as new enemy whose players suddenly get a pale face like aargh' effect more than once produced a hilarious situation which is so typical for this game. I'm glad its in the code on purpose and not a stupid bug :P

[canofworms]

While changing such aspects of the game may make the weapon less unfriendly for new players, it will be a great disadvantage for experienced players, who are already used to the weapon's quirks. If we follow this ideology of simplyfying each weapon just because it's hard to use, then we might just as well add trajectory lines to grenades and bazookas, so people wouldn't have to waste time learning how to aim them properly.

Personally, I believe that the sheep's stubbornness is a vital part of the comic aspect of the sheep. Animals are supposed to be dumb, and as thus you use them at your own risk.

Such changes will be unwelcomed by the majority.

Edit: in fact, now that I looked at the code, the code explicitely states that sheep-like animals (skunks, etc.) have a 1/16th (6.25%) chance of turning around when hitting a wall. So this is designed to be like this, and isn't an engine flaw.

In my opinion, 6.25% is WAY too small, you should at least make it slightly possible to turn ;)

[CyberShadow]

Hmm... no? ;)

[pipes100]

That might be the way it way designed 7 years ago, but in the new HD Worms, the sheep turns around almost all the time, which is how it should be.
Which means wormaholics are going to have to adapt to THIS game. So either way there's going to be some adapting.

So that means Team17 wanted the sheep to act like this in the new game. Just cause the guys who worked there years ago probably did'nt bother to look at this issue closely enough should'nt mean that we can't today. If Team17 changed animal dynamics and made it right, why should'nt we?:)

[Lex]

If you want to control a sheep, use a super sheep. That's what they're for. If you want a sheep to go to a particular place, walk your worm there.

[ShyGuy]

This nade bouncing idea will be an option in the menu right? or is it all changed now..

[canofworms]

Hmm... no? ;)

Really, this could be set as the sheeps power. The higher the power, the more likely it is to turn, so the more likely it is to hit better.

[Metal Alex]

That might be the way it way designed 7 years ago, but in the new HD Worms, the sheep turns around almost all the time, which is how it should be.
Which means wormaholics are going to have to adapt to THIS game. So either way there's going to be some adapting.

So that means Team17 wanted the sheep to act like this in the new game. Just cause the guys who worked there years ago probably did'nt bother to look at this issue closely enough should'nt mean that we can't today. If Team17 changed animal dynamics and made it right, why should'nt we?:)

As Lex said, use the Super Sheep for that. Since it's not in that game, it's that way to balance...

[KRD]

I just wish people could drop the suggestions involving screwing over the people who have spent 8 years getting used to the way the game works and moved on to discussing actual new ideas that haven't been mentioned a hundred times before.

Which should keep them busy until the next release, la la la. :p

Oh, while I'm on the subject. I suppose I don't a priori despise adding options such as realistic['ish] weapon bounces, scripts and other advanced features, but I do fear that the majority of WormNet will overuse them and there won't be many proper ["The way the game's meant to be played!"] games hosted anymore. Seeing as the exact same thing happened on WWP, and all they had were the Wormpot modes, I also fear my fear is just.

I'm pretty sure the present and future WA leagues will succeed in enforcing established variations of schemes, but if 50% of the community starts ignoring them because the shiny new controllable sheep are "just so adorable", the competition in the leagues may drop considerably. The activity and average skill aren't what they used to be as it is, mind you.

[Run]

KRD SMASH! http://www.nanacide.com/images/Emoticons/argh.gif

[Lex]

Gregor, you would make a brilliant lawyer.

[[UFP]Ghost]

if you want to change aspects of every weapon then it becomes more of a new game then a patch.

[Squirminator2k]

I have to ask this question, purely out of personal interest. I don't know if anyone else is interested in this but... well, I am. Nyerr.

I was told a while ago that Deadcode had access to sprites that had been originally been intended for use as part of a Sheep-On-A-Rope for the W2 engine and that the weapon could well be brought back in a future BETA update. I forget where this information came from - possibly I dreamt it - but I was wondering if there is any truth in this and, if so, how likely is it that we will see the weapon again?

[CyberShadow]

pipes100: what KRD said. We are not making a new game. We are writing software updates for Worms:Armageddon. If you don't like W:A because the sheep bounces not the way YOU want it to bounce, you're welcome to go play Worms:HD instead.

Either way, if we are to go with such minor gameplay changes such as the way sheep jump around, people will start demanding more and more such tweaks which (from their point of view) would improve gameplay. Even if these will be options, we'd end up having 20 options for the ways every weapon works. On the other hand, if instead of putting a "noob-friendly" / "classic behavior" switch on every weapon we'd allow the users to customize the weapons fully (like with the Fiddler), we'd probably then get a temporary explosion of all kinds of wacky schemes with unbalanced settings, but with time only a few of the best of these schemes would remain, together with the classic game modes. Hopefully, any potential player base growth caused by these new features will compensate for the relatively reduced usage of the classic schemes :)

S2K: there is a bit of truth in that... but I can't say a lot on the subject (mostly because I don't know much about it). I'm not exactly an
old-timer, so the idea isn't as exciting for me as for some other folks...

[franpa]

no melon, YOU drop a sheep in a bad place YOU will have to accommodate for it... YOU will have to put YOURSELF in dangers way to turn the dreaded sheep around thus destroying the evil bad guys.

i suggested changing the sheep a while back as well but was also shot down and later after hearing about this 90 degree wall limitation, started using the sheep much more skillfully.

maybe include a mission or something that requires you to drop a sheep against a 90 degree wall and force you to use your body while on a rope to turn it around? this would help increase the knowledge of the 90 degree limitation.

-----

edit: if anything... scripting will allow people to play it the way THEY want to play it... thus keeping noobs in a group away from the pro's/elite's. :) no offence anyone.

[pipes100]

pipes100: what KRD said. We are not making a new game. We are writing software updates for Worms:Armageddon. If you don't like W:A because the sheep bounces not the way YOU want it to bounce, you're welcome to go play Worms:HD instead.

Jesus Christ! Did I ever say that I dislike W:A because the sheep don't bounce the way I LIKE. I don't know how many times I got to say the W:A is my favorite game. Is it perfect? No.

I was simply disputing the fact that just because Team17 design something a certain way years ago doesn't make it right. My point was even Team17 did'nt necessarily like the dynamics and made them work better nowadays.

I've been playing worms for almost as long as you guys and I'm telling you the way the sheep works now is how it probably should have been in the first place. And, now that I think about it, really easy to start using, dispite you thinking that veterans would be at a disadvantage.

I don't think we should then have a volume bar in the pause menu because that was how it was originally designed. I don't think we should then support larger maps because that's how it was originally designed. The only thing we should be worring about then is stability and compatability, right? Nothing else, right? Logic people, logic...Look at the things you've already modified. Zooming? Your thinking about putting in zooming but noooo...having a sheep turn around; we can't do that. Only idiots would suggest that!

I could give less of a poop if this ever gets changes in W:A and I know it never will, I was simply making a point!

[[UFP]Ghost]

I was simply disputing the fact that just because Team17 design something a certain way years ago doesn't make it right. My point was even Team17 did'nt necessarily like the dynamics and made them work better nowadays.

I've been playing worms for almost as long as you guys and I'm telling you the way the sheep works now is how it probably should have been in the first place. And, now that I think about it, really easy to start using, dispite you thinking that veterans would be at a disadvantage.

I don't think we should then have a volume bar in the pause menu because that was how it was originally designed. I don't think we should then support larger maps because that's how it was originally designed. The only thing we should be worring about then is stability and compatability, right? Nothing else, right? Logic people, logic...Look at the things you've already modified. Zooming? Your thinking about putting in zooming but noooo...having a sheep turn around; we can't do that. Only idiots would suggest that!

I could give less of a poop if this ever gets changes in W:A and I know it never will, I was simply making a point!

map size has no bearing on the game itself. You can play original size, you can play larger. It isn't the same because thats an upgrade, what your doing is changing a key rule of a weapon. thats like saying all guns should have laser sight and you should be able to home a bazooka. if a sheep always bounced and turned it wouldn't be the same weapon. thats a key part of the sheep.

"even Team17 did'nt necessarily like the dynamics and made them work better nowadays. " whoever said that was probably drunk or high. you can't compare new games with old ones, new games are supposed to be more realistic like the shaky hand and sheep that turn.


"the way the sheep works now is how it probably should have been in the first place" Probably? do you not realize that the code was written that way because it's supposed to be like that?

[KRD]

I could give less of a poop if this ever gets changes in W:A and I know it never will, I was simply making a point!

And we're simply arguing your point. No need to get defensive; I like to think I understand your position just as well.

But previous threads on this forum, a lot of other forums [most of which were or are parts of leagues] and the common atmosphere on WormNet in the past few years indicate that most people are in fact against the brave new future. Even if the oldies could get used to the better sheep, they wouldn't want to. Out of principle. Or something.

On the other hand, there wasn't a single person that didn't approve of the volume slider. So yah, bad example. Large maps are yet to be released, so if there are any problems with them, I'm sure they'll be addressed by the coders. And the zooming idea is just an idea. My purist mind is against it, for the record.

Also, about your comparison of the XBLA sheep with the WA one. Team17 have always considered WA to be a hardcore player's choice. The XBLA and PSP versions, however, were made for a broader audience, so it only makes sense to have the weapons in them be easier to use; the sheep in those games isn't the only weapon made easier like that, either [see grenades practically sticking to worms and terrain as soon as you chuck them thereabouts]. Surely you can see how mastering a harder-to-use weapon is much more rewarding for someone that's actually invested time in the game. And a lot of people have done exactly that.

CS: I very much hope that'll be the case. The [scheme editor] interface better be a design miracle with all the options, though. :p

KRD SMASH! http://www.nanacide.com/images/Emoticons/argh.gif

Apparently I'll need all the help I can get this time around. Join the cause!

Gregor, you would make a brilliant lawyer.

Never!

[[UFP]Ghost]

o and a small little thing if you could add a button somewhere convenient thats big and noticeable that says something like: "can't host, click here" and lead to here or wahelp because that would solve a lot of peoples problems.

EDIT: i also believe it would be wise once later updates come to add to training all scheme types officially, maybe a contest where people submit missions for schemes and best are put into the game by CS and DC?

[D3v1L]

LET THE DUMB SHEEPS THE WAY THEY ARE... thats one of the funniest aspect of the game, and the famous phrase: "damn, stupid sheep"

[[UFP]Ghost]

LET THE DUMB SHEEPS THE WAY THEY ARE... thats one of the funniest aspect of the game, and the famous phrase: "damn, stupid sheep"

i couldn't count how many times i'v said that but it makes the game fun : o)

[pipes100]

Ok, ok. I think we see eye to eye. I am honestly not a purest. Although ironically I do like change. But I do like things to be as good as possible. Just cause it ain't broke, doesn't mean it can't be improved upon. I also am a perfectionist so I like things to be as perfect as possible. That's why I appreciate emulation, because it improves upon the original, breathing new life into these old games so we all can enjoy them again!

Change can be a good thing...but it can also be a bad thing. As I've mentioned before I am a game tester and have been lucky enough to be placed on the XBLA testing team. And these past weeks I've been playing the HD version and it is nice to test a game you actually enjoy, believe me. You also all can blame me for putting them behind schedule for finding hard locks and a really bad leaderboard bug.:cool: They wanted to get this out this week but that's not happening. Anyway, I don't think most of will like it from the sound of things around here. It's ok, I like the sheep ALOT and I can't wait to play it on my big screen, but it's no W:A. But you might already know that since it's basically a port from the PSP/DS version.

So in conclussion, Sheep are an awesome weapon that are very effective now and then and fun to use and lets leave it at that then. :-/

[l7cx1Cl]

didnt really have time to read all replies, if some1 else already asked this my fault xD but anyways, why dont u guys just make up the ranks again, and all these beta stuff u coming out with after? think alot of old skoolers wud come back if ranks came back, just a thoughtm its been wha nearly 10 years now?

[franpa]

first the game must be updated to support encryption then the ranks may come back and even then they would still need to update the game again to include a ranking engine... and why not just update most of the games other parts while where at it?

[AndrewTaylor]

Seems to me that if a sheep doesn't bounce, most likely thing it will do is have another go at bashing its head against that wall until it does bounce.

And since bouncing sheep rarely do anything other than come back on the attack against their user, I don't see how this could be of much use tactically.

[Melon]

I'm regretting ever posting about the way sheep work in the first place. It seems to have caused a large argument. Whoops.

Personally, I have NO problems with the way sheep work. Sure, it never usually does what I imagined that it would do and sometimes that annoys me, but it's something that I've gotten used to over time and now I make sure I only place it somewhere if I've got a high chance that it will end up where I want it to. While I initially argued up there that that was reducing the effectiveness of the weapon and forcing me to change my strategy, thinking carefully about it, if the weapon never behaved the way I imagined it would in the first place, then I never had a strategy to change.

So yeah, I'm all for keeping the sheep the way it is. Along with the way grenades bounce and so on. People have gotten used to it and wouldn't like it to suddenly change on them.

Does anybody remember the ridiculous amount of ways that you could alter the weapons in Worms 2? That was a bad move I think, and I could never go back to it. I'm all for keeping it simple, although maybe a "Wormpot" option to double the change the sheep has to turn when it hits a wall would be OK when (if) wormpot is implemented into W:A.

[AndrewTaylor]

The bounce thing is a little different; the way grenades bounce is, as it is, wrong. If an option existed to make it right that would be no bad thing. The current system is fine for most uses, but for advanced bouncing grenades off things it'd be far simpler for everyone involved if it worked as it does in real life, to some extent. Of course, the original has to remain an option; there's no question of that.

Who knows how exploding sheep are supposed to behave?

[xDMxUnit]

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmA

Nice to see you guyz are still puttin efforts in this game..all i can say is..Go for it dudes :] Cant wait to play it, and i hope you will be able to succeed in all the things you want to implement. :)
1 question tho, I didnt read all the articles n sry if any1 already said it, but I read you guyz want to work with anti-aliasing etc..Will this just be an extra option to put 'on' or 'off' or will it be standardised? Cuz i know most of the bo0nz on wn dont have ubermachines wich can run AA x2 or more..same goes for me..x2 max or i will be entering the matrix ;) lemme know, cheers !

PeaCe out and GL !!

:D

[CyberShadow]

l7cx1Cl: that's planned with the new WormNET server.

xDMxUnit: Any anti-aliasing mentioned in this thread has nothing to do with 3D AA done by video cards.

[franpa]

yea isn't AA done to the graphics included in the game? as in its not all applied on the fly? cause that would greatly improve performance because you wont be using AA :P

but yea i think i know what you mean, sorta, maybe, possibly...

-----

edit: wait... your just using AA to calculate the trajectory of weapons which bounce off stuff right? so your not using AA to render the graphics or anything correct?

[CyberShadow]

We will need software AA to display a minimap (if one will ever be implemented). There was a discussion some time ago to allow for anti-aliased landscapes (using full PNG transparency), but that would be limited because it would only work on specially designed landscapes.

[Muzer]

I really don't think grenade bounce or sheep should be changed, it would make the game less "random" because a grenade would always go where you want it to go.

[kikumbob]

...which is the problem they are trying to solve. Grenades, along with bazookas, are supposed to be the skilled weapons of the game. Really, you need as little randomness with them as possible. For example, you dont want have tactifully aimed at a slight incline on the ground and thrown your grenade just to have it bounced back in your face in an eye wrenching movement.

[pipes100]

Ok, its not logical to fix one weapon but be against changing another. It should'nt matter the degree of skill involved and how much of the worm community wants it, changing the grenades to work better IS NO DIFFERENT than changing something like say...a sheep. You say grenades should have a different bounce (a more accurate, real-world bounce), I say a sheep in real life would not keep on bashing his head into a wall, so who's right?

Every weapon can be a skilled weapon. With the sheep, you have to be patient, you only have usually one, you have to wait to get a couple enemy worms together, make it over there, pick a good spot nearby, release the sheep and activate it at the right split second before you lose it and have it get stuck or have it go after yourself and waste what could be upwards of a hundred points of enemy damage. I mean there is skill involved to utilize every weapon to its fullest. There all just different.

Again, I don't care about sheep. My point is changing one is no different than changing another. No different.:)

[bonz]

Ok, its not logical to fix one weapon but be against changing another. It should'nt matter the degree of skill involved and how much of the worm community wants it, changing the grenades to work better IS NO DIFFERENT than changing something like say...a sheep. You say grenades should have a different bounce (a more accurate, real-world bounce), I say a sheep in real life would not keep on bashing his head into a wall, so who's right?

Every weapon can be a skilled weapon. With the sheep, you have to be patient, you only have usually one, you have to wait to get a couple enemy worms together, make it over there, pick a good spot nearby, release the sheep and activate it at the right split second before you lose it and have it get stuck or have it go after yourself and waste what could be upwards of a hundred points of enemy damage. I mean there is skill involved to utilize every weapon to its fullest. There all just different.

Again, I don't care about sheep. My point is changing one is no different than changing another. No different.:)
As the game is made with raster image sprites the bounces are inherently flawed.
That's the only thing that is gonna be changed, if I got that right.
I'd think that it will affect all weapons that bounce, not only the grenade.

[AndrewTaylor]

Ok, its not logical to fix one weapon but be against changing another. It [shouldn't] matter the degree of skill involved and how much of the worm community wants it, changing the grenades to work better IS NO DIFFERENT than changing something like say...a sheep. You say grenades should have a different bounce (a more accurate, real-world bounce), I say a sheep in real life would not keep on bashing his head into a wall, so who's right?

Well, no, a sheep in real life would just stand still, do nothing, tower many, many times above the worms, and then obstinately refuse to explode. I think the Realistic Ship sailed on that one back in '95. Besides, the Sheep has to be a bit risky; it's a long-range dynamite. Can't have that in the game without it coming with a pricetag.

The point with the grenades, though, is that most people already understand how things in real life bounce. They've played pool, they've thrown balls at walls, and they've been taught in science class how light bounces off surfaces. They have a certain expectation of how a thing will bounce. The bounces in W:A don't work that way. They're different, and while you can work out what rules they follow and play accordingly I suspect what usually happens is that people sort of get used to the bounces, and they get a sort of feeling for what might probably maybe happen to any given shot. If you changed it so they obeyed the normal rules, which I'm sure many-if-not-most people already assume they do, then people would know how they would bounce, and they could plan their shots more by logic and cunning rather than by a mixture of gut feeling and caution.

The "randomness" Muzer mentioned would be there, but it would be there from people messing up shots, like it should be, rather than from the game sometimes arbitrarily meting out random violence.

The sheep issue is a matter of animal behaviour. The grenade thing is a matter of the physical laws of the universe. The latter is somewhat more fundamental. You approach a weapon like "The Incredible Exploding Sheep" with very few expectations about it beyond the fact that it is likely to be woolen and incendiary, but when you see an object bouncing off a wall you do have expectations about how that will end, and if it does something else that looks wrong.

[pipes100]

Ok, valid points. Physics, physics, physics. Your still changing the physics for one weapon type but not another. But I don't care, I understand from where your coming. Grenades and bouncy stuff probably should get priority if things like this ARE ever going to get changed.

But really the only point that matters, and has been backed up by what all of you have said, is that if you change the game like this, what people have been used to for years will be different. Everyone will have to throw out what they're used to, and learn the new physics. If you think everyone will sign off, then I guess its fine. But after throwing probably 97,569 grenades they might not...

[AndrewTaylor]

Ok, valid points. Physics, physics, physics. Your still changing the physics for one weapon type but not another.

No, the sheep is not physics. It's behaviour. That's the point. The sheep's physics are fine; it can't pass through walls and if it jumps it falls down. The rest of what you say is true.

[bonz]

pipes100, the thrown weapons in Worms also follow a ballistic, parabolic path.
You'd expect that from a game like Worms that is basically a Tanks clone.
So why shouldn't you expect correct bounces either?

[D3v1L]

the Sheep has to be a bit risky; it's a long-range dynamite. Can't have that in the game without it coming with a pricetag.

I totally agree to that

[D3v1L]

Instead of asking when the update is going to be ready i want to ask when are u going to play, i never c u or Deadcode in Wormnet and i would be proud to have a few games with any of u...
dont u play anymore?

[bonz]

Instead of asking when the update is going to be ready i want to ask when are u going to play, i never c u or Deadcode in Wormnet and i would be proud to have a few games with any of u...
dont u play anymore?
They work in the shadows. Invisible to the unilluminated minds.

[GrimOswald]

I see someone called CyberShadow in Wormnet quite a bit actually. Either someone's being very naughty and using his name or you just play at the wrong times to catch him D3v1L. (Having said that though, I've never actually seen him enter any games)

[franpa]

im pretty sure i played cybershadow recently... and yea he is/was in AG quite a fair bit.

-----

edit: why not add gravity? it would allow for better physics in sheeps and other animal weapons... because for instance... the higher the sheep is the higher it bounces due to less gravity when up high etc.

[CyberShadow]

Sometimes I hang around in WormNET with an IRC client, while I'm testing things (HostingBuddy's IRC functionality in particular). That would be why you'd see me with the UK flag. When I'm actually in-game (with W:A), I have a Romanian flag.

franpa: No one said that won't be added...

[GrimOswald]

Sometimes I hang around in WormNET with an IRC client, while I'm testing things (HostingBuddy's IRC functionality in particular). That would be why you'd see me with the UK flag. When I'm actually in-game (with W:A), I have a Romanian flag.

Ah, ok. Thanks for the explanation. :)

[Chip]

This question I ask realy isn't about the upcoming update but more about the whole updates in the future,


Basicaly will the AI ever been changed so that they can do any of the following:



Use more weapons such as blowtorch, ming vase, homing missile, dragon ball, Nuclear text etc....

Work out something better to do when they choose to "shoot the wall infront of me with handgun even if I have Uzi, teleport and other weapons"

Use weapons in a more cost effective way, so they wont use shotgun on someone near them with only 12HP but instead use Uzi or even handgun so they don't waste ammo. (I always play with super shotgun enabled where it can do 40x4 = 80 in one move (x2) which is a heavy waste.)

think twise before jumping off a cliff (Occasinaly I have seen some AI worms fall off the terrain after preforming an attack such as Fire punch or in some rare cases they just randomly jump off the cliff to their death with no explanation.)


I may think of more later on,

[AndrewTaylor]

(Occasinaly I have seen some AI worms fall off the terrain after preforming an attack such as Fire punch or in some rare cases they just randomly jump off the cliff to their death with no explanation.)
I've seen humans do that.

[Chip]

Even just randomly jumping off the terrain to their death?

[Alien King]

Even just randomly jumping off the terrain to their death?

Yes. It happens quite a lot.

[ShyGuy]

Damn, I didn't understand anything in Chip's post :(

Btw I heard patch is coming out August 2007? oO

[kikumbob]

I would be amazed if there was a date for completion at this time.

[AndrewTaylor]

Even just randomly jumping off the terrain to their death?

...in Worms. Not in real life.


I mean, I'm sure they do so from time to time, but not around me.

[ShyGuy]

And patch 4.0 will come out like 2008? D:

[franpa]

i'd rather AI that doesnt cycle through every single worm on his team then go OMG I AM TEH FUC*ED I AM GOING TO GO NEAR WALL AND BAZOOKA IT ! ! !

[adamantium]

1. Can animated .gif images be used as graves?
2. It'd be great if the weapons panel could be opened using a button on the keyboard. Could that be an addition in the next patch?

[Lex]

2. It'd be great if the weapons panel could be opened using a button on the keyboard. Could that be an addition in the next patch?There are already 13 keys dedicated to weapon selection. I'm not trying to deny that a 14th could be added, but I'm just pointing something out. Admittedly, it would be very easy to assign another key to opening the weapons panel, but I don't see the point if you're just going to have to put your hand on the mouse to select a weapon anyway.

Edit: Oh, I see. It could be used for quick weapon-checking.

[Chip]

When I play worms my hand is always on the mouse so I would only ever use the right click to open the pannel.


Btw I heard patch is coming out August 2007? oO


August?
I thought they said they just wanted to get a few bugs out before the next beta was released - does it realy take 7 months to fix a few bugs?

[franpa]

that release date was sarcasm.

[GoDxWyvern]

Btw I heard patch is coming out August 2007? oO
And patch 4.0 will come out like 2008? D:
No credible person has ever claimed either.

[Run]

I was just reading the BTP thread on this and noticed someone jokingly claiming it was 2008... maybe he read it there.

[kikumbob]

I wouldnt trust anything that is ever said on BTP unless it is to do with Pie or anything else "P" related.

[Run]

I wouldnt trust anything that is ever said on BTP unless it is to do with Pie or anything else "P" related.

What about "Patch" then http://www.nanacide.com/images/Emoticons/colbert.gif

[ShyGuy]

i just said that to get cs to tell us the release date :)

[Squirminator2k]

I'm going to say something that will make a few people's heads spin:

Keep.
The bloody weapons.
As they are.

No, I don't care if you don't think the grenades bounce correctly, or if you think the sheep doesn't quite jump as high as it should, or whatever. The fact is that this is the way these weapons have been for the past ten bloody years, since Worms 2 was released (the only weapon that had any sort of drastic change between W2 and WA was the Homing Pigeon, IIRC, which was made markedly stupider). Change the weapon behaviour now, change the type of bounce or the height of the jump and stuch, and you totally change the way a game plays. When MMOs do this they generally lose subscribers, and I suspect if changes were made in WA people would stop playing and find something else to play. Or they might switch to W2 or WWP. Or they might justr not patch at all, which would cause all sorts of problems on WormNET.

I do hate to whine, particularly as there is so much whining on this forum these days, but it has to be said. I can't get over how silly this argument looks. You don't ask a chicken to change the way she clucks.

[bonz]

I'm going to say something that will make a few people's heads spin:

Keep.
The bloody weapons.
As they are.

No, I don't care if you don't think the grenades bounce correctly, or if you think the sheep doesn't quite jump as high as it should, or whatever. The fact is that this is the way these weapons have been for the past ten bloody years, since Worms 2 was released (the only weapon that had any sort of drastic change between W2 and WA was the Homing Pigeon, IIRC, which was made markedly stupider). Change the weapon behaviour now, change the type of bounce or the height of the jump and stuch, and you totally change the way a game plays. When MMOs do this they generally lose subscribers, and I suspect if changes were made in WA people would stop playing and find something else to play. Or they might switch to W2 or WWP. Or they might justr not patch at all, which would cause all sorts of problems on WormNET.

I do hate to whine, particularly as there is so much whining on this forum these days, but it has to be said. I can't get over how silly this argument looks. You don't ask a chicken to change the way she clucks.
Noone is intending to change any of the weapons.
The only thing that will be done is fix the bounces of grenade-type weapons, which are inherently flawed because of the raster image sprites that the game is made of.

I doubt that T17 have intended to make bounces which generally behave correctly, but ocassionally do something unpredictible.
The flight paths of all the weapons also follow parabolic curves and don't start to go in circles suddenly.

When I first mentioned the sheep's idiocy when it comes to jumping against a wall, I didn't yet know that the probability for a sheep to turn around was made really low on purpose.

[CyberShadow]

And even that will be an option, turned off by default.

[AndrewTaylor]

Be that as it may, a more advanced bouncing algorithm for grenades would open up a world of new ways to play. You could combine it with the large maps and contruct elaborate "pinball" looking levels with grenade tracks though them and girders placed to deflect them. The current bounces don't allow that at all, because as often as not the grenade will just bounce back to your feet, or at least whatever passes for feet in Worms.

I'm fairly sure there's never been talk of making any changes non-optional.

[bonz]

In this case I would say to make it no-optional though.

I only know a handful of hardcore B'n'G players that can pull of precise bounces most of the time.
So for the majority of players the bounces are simply a random luck factor that they definitely have not gotten used to over the years.

[AndrewTaylor]

In this case I would say to make it no-optional though.

I only know a handful of hardcore B'n'G players that can pull of precise bounces most of the time.
So for the majority of players the bounces are simply a random luck factor that they definitely have not gotten used to over the years.

That's an argument for making it default to being turned on, not for removing the option altogether.

It makes very little difference, really. I'd say that any scheme saved with a version that doesn't support New Bounces should use Old Bounces, for the same reason it emulates old betas, and any scheme made with a newer version will have whatever option the scheme author prefers/thinks that scheme would be best with.

There's not that much "default" in W:A. Just schemes.

Whether you'd want to turn it on in the pre-made schemes is the real question.

[Squirminator2k]

In this case I would say to make it no-optional though.
Again, if you force a change onto a weapon that has been the way it is for ten years, you will alienate players who are used to it the way it is currently.

Another example: I constantly hop between playing the PC version and the PSone version. Aside from a few timing differences (and obvious graphical changes) the two are quite similar. If the weapon changes are imposed on the PC version without an option to use the original "style" then that buggers me up should I wish to play WA/WWP on the PSone, doesn't it?

[yakuza]

In this case I would say to make it no-optional though.

I only know a handful of hardcore B'n'G players that can pull of precise bounces most of the time.
So for the majority of players the bounces are simply a random luck factor that they definitely have not gotten used to over the years.

I like how you move from "I know" to "So for". Implying the people you know represent the majority of players.

I'm not debating if you're right or wrong, that doesn't really matter. The fact that matters is that there are players who have mastered the bouncing, and that makes them unique, and makes the learning curve way more interesting, long and challenging.

I don't care if the majority of wormers aren't able to master bouncing, because for those who can, it's much more rewarding as it is right now.

[AndrewTaylor]

I don't care if the majority of wormers aren't able to master bouncing, because for those who can, it's much more rewarding as it is right now.

But is it because they're not as good at it as the ones who have mastered it, or is it because the bounce physics are so far removed from what they're expecting? I played that game for years and never figured them out. I assumed it was just a defective version of the system being proposed, which in many ways it is.

I don't think it is "more rewarding" to figure out some arcane and obtuse algorithm and use it to my advantage than it is to get good at a predictable and logical system. To me, that's frustrating.

[yakuza]

I never had as many problems with the bouncing as people are describing. Most of the time it's not even as confusing anyway, are you talking about a specific kind of bounce? If so which?

[CyberShadow]

Actually, it's quite unpredictable.

Consider this situation:

http://thecybershadow.net/dump/4980c817a51c3b6318855deb67d1a01a/bounce.png

It is practically impossible to predict the trajectory of the grenade in this situation.
If the grenade were fired at this exact angle, it would bounce horizontally and go up-left - but if I were to change the angle by aiming just a bit higher or lower, the grenade would have bounced vertically as well as horizontally, sending it back into my direction.

[kikumbob]

When MMOs do this they generally lose subscribers, and I suspect if changes were made in WA people would stop playing and find something else to play. Or they might switch to W2 or WWP. Or they might justr not patch at all, which would cause all sorts of problems on WormNET.I'm sure thats an over exaggeration. All CS is attempting to achieve is to make the grenade bouncing angles a little bit more predictable. If people stop playing worms because of that...well thats just sad. In both aspects of the word.

[Run]

There seems to be enough controversy over it to warrant it being an option rather than mandatory.

[Metal Alex]

I think it changes something important of the game... so, this is what I say:

- It's a great idea, but remember that there are hardcore fans out there, so, if added as an option, make it VERY visible for online games. It can make you loose good turns, if you didn't know this...

- I'm for this, since it will enable true skill now, with the bounces... the only thing is: The holy hand grenade, for example, could be bouncing for years... until it gets to a V shaped part... So, my suggestion would be to add more friction for it...

- The bugs. I hope there aren't Cows-thru-map and those... with pixels, everything is easy, but "vectors" is quite different... practically a new engine. Will take a lot of time.

[AndrewTaylor]

- I'm for this, since it will enable true skill now, with the bounces... the only thing is: The holy hand grenade, for example, could be bouncing for years... until it gets to a V shaped part... So, my suggestion would be to add more friction for it...

I don't see what difference the changes would make to bounce elasticity, aside from making it infinitely more consistent.

To be honest, I don't see any collision problems either. The collision algorithm would presumably stay the same, and only the direction of the bounce will change. And since this sort of bounce by design gives the grenade speed going away from the wall I can't imagine there'll be any problem, unless someone just makes a plain old fashioned error, which is no more likely than with any other feature.

[[UFP]Ghost]

i was wondering since i know i'v suggested it before and i'm assuming it has been before. Is there ummm a plan for voice support like the chat thing where i can select talk to my team and talk to everyone?

ty,
Joseph

[bonz]

Ghost;555508']i was wondering since i know i'v suggested it before and i'm assuming it has been before. Is there ummm a plan for voice support like the chat thing where i can select talk to my team and talk to everyone?
Use a 3rd party VoIP tool like Teamspeak (http://www.goteamspeak.com/).
Much more versatile.

[Run]

I'm sure Deadcode said something about that being a vague possibility.

[CyberShadow]

I really think that building something like this in a turn-based game is a pointless effort. Good voice compression technologies are commercial, so even if this would get added, it would be significantly of lower quality than of programs designed for this, like TeamSpeak (http://www.goteamspeak.com/) or Ventrillo (http://www.ventrilo.com/). I have found Google Talk (http://www.google.com/talk/), although not aimed towards games and lacking conference calls, to have a superior voice quality, even compared to its eternal rival, Skype (http://www.skype.com/) (which supports much more features, like webcam conferences).

[[UFP]Ghost]

the main point of the talking is not for game play as much as i'v noted that games where i was on ts were so much more fun. Voice is just quicker, people say more if it's talking and don't fully think things out all the time. Anyone else noted that?

[CyberShadow]

What I said above still stands.

[Metal Alex]

I think I have a point: Open Skipe, then WA, then talk.

Sure, not able for people you don't know, but less gives a rock.

[AndrewTaylor]

Ghost;555561']the main point of the talking is not for game play as much as i'v noted that games where i was on ts were so much more fun.

That's really less of an issue with Worms, when you have a couple of minutes between turns with nothing else to do but type.

[bonz]

I can tell you from experience that the talking gets less and less the longer the game(s) last(s).
It tends to be only the cursing that is spoken. :)

[ShyGuy]

And us players in the 12-15 age range who don't have a ear phones will be scared to use team talk, cos if other player curses and family heres it, they can get in trouble.... At least it like that at my house >..<

[Alien King]

And us players in the 12-15 age range who don't have a ear phones will be scared to use team talk, cos if other player curses and family heres it, they can get in trouble.... At least it like that at my house >..<

Just turn the volume down and shut the doors. Easy.
Unless of course, it happens to be in a shared room...

Just buy a headset.

[[UFP]Ghost]

yes but CS that only works if you know the person.... which is what i want it to be implemented in the game for.

[bonz]

Ghost;555618']yes but CS that only works if you know the person.... which is what i want it to be implemented in the game for.
Well, if you use a service like www.no-ip.com (http://www.no-ip.com/services/managed_dns/free_dynamic_dns.html) for the IP address in W:A, players joining your server can also reach your Teamspeak server at the same address and join (if you don't password protect it and use the standard port).

And that practically works for all games.

Easy-peasy. Really.

[[UFP]Ghost]

OK...OK you guys win...but you never really answered me on my other post about how we should have a button on the screen before going on wormnet that says something along the lines of trouble hosting? and it linking to WA help or here.

[CyberShadow]

We will handle that another way - HostingBuddy will help people for now and 4.0 will have a real solution.

[ohms]

I've just started playing W:A again after I heard about the support it was getting (plus wwp was a bit iffy online). I was lamenting not being able to play the new Worms on XBLA, but W:A is much improved (and better than wwp), also 4.0 sounds like it will be fantastic, many thanks for all your efforts!!! :D

With the massive sized map support and now the ability to set the screen resolution much higher, wouldn't a zoom-in/zoom-out option be worth doing now?
Would it be too difficult to implement?

cheers! :)

[GoDxWyvern]

With the massive sized map support and now the ability to set the screen resolution much higher, wouldn't a zoom-in/zoom-out option be worth doing now?
Tadam! You are number three to mention it in this topic. ;) Something like it is planned, yes.

[CyberShadow]

Zooming in-out is not planned (at least as a mainstream feature); fluid real-time scaling operations would require us to use 3D acceleration. What has been suggested and might be implemented is a minimap.

[GoDxWyvern]

Hence my choice of words. ;)

[franpa]

a minimap is nothing like zooming either in or out tho.

[yakuza]

It kind of serves the same purpose though.

Be picky time it is.

[pipes100]

It kind of serves the same purpose though.

Be picky time it is.

Ummm...not to start an argument as usual but if you think ZOOMING and a minimap are basically the same thing because they do something kinda similar, then I think you're wrong. Zooming is what you can do on the PSP and the HD version, which is freakin' awesome and very useful. A minimap is what you get on the DS version which is also kinda handy but no where near as effective as zooming. But saying to differentiate between the two is being picky is like saying a sheep and a grenade are the same thing because they're both weapons (and yes it always comes back to the sheep:) ). But I would still really appreciate a minimap like the DS, it's a hell of alot better than nothing!

[ohms]

Zooming is what you can do on the PSP and the HD version, which is freakin' awesome and very useful. A minimap is what you get on the DS version which is also kinda handy but no where near as effective as zooming.

you can zoom in the XBLA worms?!
oh man, if that's true I feel even more gutted for not having a 360.

[Morgoth]

can anybody tell me whats the big idea with this upcoming release?Is there gonna be a jpeg quality platform for example?(what i would like of it,cos we could save images in high quality and not only a bitmap of 256 colours)

[yakuza]

can anybody tell me whats the big idea with this upcoming release?Is there gonna be a jpeg quality platform for example?(what i would like of it,cos we could save images in high quality and not only a bitmap of 256 colours)

Have you read the first post?

[Morgoth]

no i havent its too longand i am tired,and i am sure it doesnt really tell us something .So i ask of you to tell me if there is a real change in this update,except the choice of weapons when not your turn.

[Run]

no i havent its too longand i am tired,and i am sure it doesnt really tell us something.

http://www.nanacide.com/images/Emoticons/colbert.gif

Why not just skim it, then? You're gonna find it a lot more hassle asking someone to summarise the first post for you, because no one in their right mind is going to legitimise your laziness

[Morgoth]

http://www.nanacide.com/images/Emoticons/colbert.gif

Why not just skim it, then? You're gonna find it a lot more hassle asking someone to summarise the first post for you, because no one in their right mind is going to legitimise your laziness

nevermind _______

[Seita]

You were right, the whole topic does not tell us anything, so there is no answer to your question.

[bonz]

Ignorance is bliss :rolleyes:

[[UFP]Ghost]

Computer control?

Could you add the ability to place computers on placement as an option. BnG is my fav scheme and when the net is down i practise and i practise if no one wants to BnG online. I was wondering if this option could be added so i could anchor worms and give the apropriat weapons place the computer and then i could get good practice.

[SilPho]

Perhaps one way to practise that way would be to set god mode and practise using explosions to blow the CPU controlled worm into position.

Or just allow close combat weapons like prod or baseball bat that the computer won't use but you can use against them to put them somewhere better (note that they know how to use firepunch and dragonball so don't use those unless you want them to seek revenge).

Needs some fine tuning but you can probably find ways to practise given the current limitations.

[CaVeFiSH]

Wow mates, I'm very impressed of the features of this patch!

I think the commandline options to host/join and the wa:// links will be the best of all, because we could write some cool stuff :). May be more scriptable features on the next patch? ;) (what about a WA SDK for plugins? :D ok ok, this could be too much >_<)

Well, I was wondering if there was any way to contribute to the WA community. The current overview is: many scheme editors yet, snoopers,... but as far as I know there isn't many opensource projects for WA. So, what about making an a opensource community for WA? Some ideas could be:
-Third party frontend clients for online games.
-Opensource WA snooper (WWP support would require disassemble knowledge)
-Opensource scheme editor
-Loader: loads the game and also sends info to a web script (php). This could help to show information about the members of a clan connected (for showing in the clan website for example).
-League system: I'm developing one, can be considered a fb league system but with possibility of multileagues (great for a big clan :)). Althought its mostly done, I would only release it when completely finished.

Why opensource? because there's no need of making this kind of non-critical software closed. Advantages:
-Anyone will be able to modify the software, so... if a scheme editor its written on C++ and another needs it to be a web based app, he could rewrite it to PHP (& make this new version available for all?)
-No body depends on 1 programmer to realease new versions (if the project dies anyone interested can take it again).
-No 'black boxes', if anyone wants to know how it works he will be able to know.

So... where are the skilled programmers? anyone interested? ;)

[evilworm2]

... but as far as I know there isn't many opensource projects for WA. So, what about making an a opensource community for WA?
All my programs are open source. I hate don't like closed source and the guys who don't share their knowledge.
Opensource WA snooper
Here you are (http://wiki.thecybershadow.net/Caecilian)

[CyberShadow]

CaVeFiSH: take a look at the rest of this thread - especially this post (http://forum.team17.co.uk/showthread.php?p=554334#post554334).

Sometimes it may be unwise to give potentially dangerous information to the public. My rule of thumb is "don't release it if the community can hurt itself with it".

This is the reason why some of my projects, in particular wkMagic1, are partially closed source. We're still considering what to do with HostingBuddy.

[CaVeFiSH]

All my programs are open source. I don't like closed source and the guys who don't share their knowledge.

That's my opinion too ;), why making non critical software like a scheme editor closed? for example, althought is not the case, if any patch modify the schemes file format just 1 byte, no one could still use older scheme editors.

This is the reason why some of my projects, in particular wkMagic1, are partially closed source. We're still considering what to do with HostingBuddy.

Honestly, I agree with CS and I dont think releasing the source code of HostingBuddy would be a great idea... instead it may reveal sensible parts of the protocol.

For instance in old versions of the WA, a 'perverse' client could omit the 'kick' message from the server, obviously it denotes a lack of security on the protocol. Another example is the battyropes patch: how a client could modify the behaviour of the server? that's not serious... Before studying the possibility of releasing that source its more important to make an exhaustive revision of the protocol, otherwise anyone could code a 'join game flooder'.