Why a NEW worms game?

[[UFP]Ghost]

I've always wondered why they don't just pay DC, CS and a bunch of other guys to basically update the game to this "4.0" and release that. Not only would current payers buy it but seeing as it is a good game, and if it was given the right publicity it would sell quite well....quite well indeed. I mean they would have to add more features or something so they wouldn't be releasing the same game...but ya.

[Etho.]

Worms Armageddon needs a complete rewrite. It's outdated. Team17 wouldn't be able to sell it seriously unless they were to have recoded for our modern computers. Since it needs a complete rewrite, I'm sure Team17 would rather do it on their own, in a way that they feel would bring in the most money.

I suggested to CyberShadow a few months ago that they try recoding it using C#.NET & XNA so that it could be recoded quickly, easily, and finished sometime in our lifetime. However, they had other plans that have since fallen through. Now I don't know what their plan is. It seems like a bit of a waste to spend time adding features and fixing bugs to W:A in the state it's in when many of these could be fixed with little effort if it was reprogrammed.

[Plasma]

Worms2 was released ten years ago. Releasing a game that's quite distinctly made off of that as a full game now would make people think T17 have gone insane.
If they changed the grapics completely, then mabye it'd stand a chance...

[[UFP]Ghost]

Worms Armageddon needs a complete rewrite. It's outdated. Team17 wouldn't be able to sell it seriously unless they were to have recoded for our modern computers. Since it needs a complete rewrite, I'm sure Team17 would rather do it on their own, in a way that they feel would bring in the most money.

I suggested to CyberShadow a few months ago that they try recoding it using C#.NET & XNA so that it could be recoded quickly, easily, and finished sometime in our lifetime. However, they had other plans that have since fallen through. Now I don't know what their plan is. It seems like a bit of a waste to spend time adding features and fixing bugs to W:A in the state it's in when many of these could be fixed with little effort if it was reprogrammed.

I always thought the same to be honest (can't say I know much about programing if any at all (other then on my ti-84 ;) ).

Worms2 was released ten years ago. Releasing a game that's quite distinctly made off of that as a full game now would make people think T17 have gone insane.
If they changed the grapics completely, then mabye it'd stand a chance...

I'm not saying release it as it is now. Release it recoded with ranks and possibly the server hosting the games (so anyone can host). Add the features of wwp, add more features and customizability of all non-pirating files. (like water color without using the outside utility and wormkit and the worm sprites). Add all the features of wormkit as options. You know put on bells and whistles and I'm sure it would sell.

[SupSuper]

Rewriting from scratch is never the way to go. (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html)

[redwraith]

Rewriting from scratch is never the way to go. (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html)
Interesting article!

[Akdor 1154]

Though the article makes a lot of fair points, doesn't the specific code rewrite it's *****ing about now form the basis of that incredibly unsuccessful, slow, boring browser, Firefox?

[Muzer]

What you said is correct, because it is very slow in comparison to Opera, and it has few default features and a **** default skin, unlike opera.

[Akdor 1154]

Do you see me arguing (http://i25.tinypic.com/2a5yceo.jpg)?

I have to admit the new FF3 beta runs very, very nicely though.

I think there is a new companion to Godwin's Law - as the length of an online discussion increases, the chances of a browser-based flame war in said discussion increase proportionally (possibly exponentially).

[BonusLevel]

Ghost;645341']I've always wondered why they don't just pay DC, CS and a bunch of other guys to basically update the game to this "4.0" and release that. Not only would current payers buy it but seeing as it is a good game, and if it was given the right publicity it would sell quite well....quite well indeed. I mean they would have to add more features or something so they wouldn't be releasing the same game...but ya.

Then it would seem like a whole new... Worms: World Party.

[KRD]

Then it would seem like a whole new... Worms: World Party.

And we'd be fine with it because we aren't Graphics Whores™. The physics are perfect in WA as it is if you ask me and so the extra features would merely be used to attract new people to the game. WormNet, the only aspect of the games that really matters, would flourish. Happy end.

[lorenzo37]

lolwut
why recode an old game
worms 5 plz.

[Run]

scathing critique from lorenzo37 ITT

[jsgnext]

lolwut
why recode an old game
worms 5 plz.

agree....or at leat a new worms game for PC....2d or 3d i dont care about that anymore....i just want another worms game for pc.

[yakuza]

agree....or at leat a new worms game for PC....2d or 3d i dont care about that anymore....i just want another worms game for pc.

Try WA, the community reinvents it every year.

[quakerworm]

Worms2 was released ten years ago. Releasing a game that's quite distinctly made off of that as a full game now would make people think T17 have gone insane.
If they changed the grapics completely, then mabye it'd stand a chance...
i don't know. locomotion got published despite looking almost identical with the transport tycoon. sometimes, not breaking something that works is the best strategy.

of course, a good re-write is even better, but it's often hard to guarantee that the re-write will actually work even remotely as good as the original.

[poninja]

how about Worms world War? like WWP but better storyline etc, (no its not rewritting)

[b1llygo4t]

this is what i think.

the physics of wwp and wa are what its all about, keep that.

otherwise, itd be nice to see the little worms and weps 3d modeled, and have the view zoom in and out (like smash brothers) but still keep it simple, neat and tiny like it is now. and lots and lots of different animations. mabe introduce an enemy to the worms, kinda like the teddy bears and squirrels in conkers bad fur day, that you could play with. same gameplay more neat little animations and visual variety. chat emoticon activated worm animations would be sweet!

itd also be nice if worms supported using 2 laired maps, one destructable(the top one) and the other not(the bottom one)

mabe add some vehicles like a mech, chopper, tank, ect. with apropriate mobility, range, and vulnerability.just think, with batty rope, worm select, using wep doesn't end turn and a chopper...

add multi player event weps. so its a turn based game, but when a player uses certain weps other players select a worm on their team and can react or even counter

add player controled objects like pinball flippers,

built in updater and a standardized webservice for downloading/uploading maps, schemes and content.
new content keeps games alive

total player control of settings like in test stuff, fiddler, rubber worm.

wep editer

also all the ideas everyone has already seen

we need a game to take the place of WA, not something new, just waaaaay better
so long as it feels the same playing the game. let the current community have what we have earned..... 10 years... if that isnt classic, i dont know what is

[quakerworm]

b1llygo4t speaks sense. except for pinball flippers, that's a bit crazy.

[[UFP]Ghost]

b1llygo4t speaks sense. except for pinball flippers, that's a bit crazy.

not really (in my opinion) I think vehicles, pinball flappers, non-worms, multi player weps, and "all the other ideas" are a bad idea to add into the game.

[Plasma]

and have the view zoom in and out (like smash brothers)
I.. don't know how thats supposed to work. As SSB is played on small arenas with a max of 6 players, the camera has no trouble encompassing all characters, but in the Worms games the arenas are too big to be able to do that.

and lots and lots of different animations. mabe introduce an enemy to the worms, kinda like the teddy bears and squirrels in conkers bad fur day, that you could play with.
Note: the name of the series is Worms and the characters have always been Worms and the battles between each other in the same way humans do.; introducing other creatures would be foolish. Humans never had wars with lions or elephants.

mabe add some vehicles like a mech, chopper, tank, ect. with apropriate mobility, range, and vulnerability.just think, with batty rope, worm select, using wep doesn't end turn and a chopper...
No, it's been discussed several times over. It wouldn't work at all.

add multi player event weps. so its a turn based game, but when a player uses certain weps other players select a worm on their team and can react or even counter
That both removes strategy from the game and makes it too real-time.

add player controled objects like pinball flippers,
That certainly wouldn't work. And wouldn't even make sense.

built in updater
Newer games do have that.

total player control of settings like in test stuff, fiddler, rubber worm.
Too much work for the programmers, too little impact on the game itself.

wep editer
I'd pass on that. Worms4 did, and it led to a craptacular lack of weapon balance in their games.

so long as it feels the same playing the game.
The only way to have it so that it feels the same as WA is for it to actually be largely based on WA in the first place. In other words, just let WA be updated and leave the newer games for people who actually want newer games.

[bonz]

Zooming (although with only two steps) worked very well in W1/R/U, even without 32bit colours or 3D graphics.

[Akuryou13]

Note: the name of the series is Worms and the characters have always been Worms and the battles between each other in the same way humans do.; introducing other creatures would be foolish. Humans never had wars with lions or elephants. I agree that adding a new species would be really foolish, but I DO think there needs to be a more defined "faction" in the game. it would be ridiculously easy to spoof real wars and the like in a worms game, and it could make for a story that's actually entertaining to play through rather than just a pointless jumble of random maps tied together with a nearly-nonexistant story line.

give us a story set up sort of like the advanced wars games or something, I say. would make for an interesting game.

aside from that, though, I think W:A was pretty much the perfect worms game, so just make a new games nearly identical to that one with some newer graphics and some new settings. look at the Disgaea series, or Diablo. they use out-dated view points and graphics, but they claim them as their own and really define their respective genres for it. worms has already been done to the best it can be and there are tons of copy cats. instead of re-inventing everything, just update the graphics, add some customizability to the worms like has been done in recent games, give us some gameplay options to toss in (no-gravity zones, springs in the terrain, land that resist certain types of damage, chunks of indestructable terrain in a level that's mostly destructable, and an infinite number of other options that just make the games more varied).

just take what they've already done and add on to it rather than trying to change things wildly to make them better.

[quakerworm]

people who think you cannot put vehicles into worms without ruining the game have no imagination.

[yakuza]

Diablo. they use out-dated view points and graphics, but they claim them as their own and really define their respective genres for it.



What the huh?

[No1Patman]

i thought there was a zoom in/zoom out on xbox live arcade version?

[quakerworm]

i'm pretty sure there was. worms open warfare had zoom, and xbla version was derived from it.

my guess is that one reason zoom worked well on these is because the worm sprites are vectored, rather than bitmapped.

[yakuza]

With today's resolutions and the fact computers have mouses I don't see the zoom being useful for anything else than looking at the worms closer just because you can.

[Akuryou13]

What the huh?in the case of diablo I meant the perspective. when it was released a 3rd-person top-down view was essential because graphics weren't at the level they are now, so in order to make the game look and feel as good as possible despite the lack of technology they used and old throw-back 2D view-point and just updated it into 3D. now, there's no reason for that viewpoint. look at Hellgate: London. it does the same things as Diablo but in a different view. Diablo, however, decided against changing and really claimed the isometric view for themselves and said "screw you" to anyone who thought it should change.

I suggest similar for worms. go back to the 2D art style but really define a specific art direction and claim it as wormy.

[b1llygo4t]

I.. don't know how thats supposed to work. As SSB is played on small arenas with a max of 6 players, the camera has no trouble encompassing all characters, but in the Worms games the arenas are too big to be able to do that.

hyrule castle. also you dant have to have all th worms onscreen, just so that when they are close together it zooms in.


Note: the name of the series is Worms and the characters have always been Worms and the battles between each other in the same way humans do.; introducing other creatures would be foolish. Humans never had wars with lions or elephants.

it doesn't have to be a whole other animal, it could be another species of worms, or yeah like Akuryou13 said, add factions. worms lacks background conflict, its almost like a sports game in that aspect


No, it's been discussed several times over. It wouldn't work at all.


you have no imagination



That both removes strategy from the game and makes it too real-time.


im not talking about every single weapon, jsut certain things, like air strikes, the victim could have a split second to jump, stuff like that


That certainly wouldn't work. And wouldn't even make sense.


im sure someone could say the same thing about putting bowling pins in crazy taxi but i played the hell out of that mini game, and you obviously havnt played with the rubber worms module





Too much work for the programmers, too little impact on the game itself.


none of the guys who aren't getting payed to update wa seem to be doing it just fine. i disagree on the impact that the cool new "options" have added to the game.


I'd pass on that. Worms4 did, and it led to a craptacular lack of weapon balance in their games.


just like everything else you would pass on you wouldn't have to use it, just like i don't have to play on destructible terain



The only way to have it so that it feels the same as WA is for it to actually be largely based on WA in the first place. In other words, just let WA be updated and leave the newer games for people who actually want newer games.

thats all you had to say, naysayer, go sit in your tower

[Akuryou13]

you have no imaginationthe idea has been discussed to death and back again. not one person has ever come up with an idea that would work even remotely well.

im not talking about every single weapon, jsut certain things, like air strikes, the victim could have a split second to jump, stuff like thatyes, but even on that scale it would make the game far more real-time than it needs to be. it's sort of like pressing buttons to interact with a cutscene on a game. sure, it SOUNDS neat, but it almost always gets you killed.

im sure someone could say the same thing about putting bowling pins in crazy taxi but i played the hell out of that mini game, and you obviously havnt played with the rubber worms moduleyes, but terrain objects that allow for interaction just wouldn't work in a worms game. if not for the ridiculous amounts of programming it would take to allow free control of an object by someone who's turn it isn't, then for the fact that the object would have to be considered part of the terrain, but would have to be placable by the player and would have to be mobile. I'm sure any 2 of those would be fine but add in the third and you've got serious issues. plus, it would also work towards making the game far more real-time than it needs to be. basically, it would be a TON of work for the programmers and it would take away from the feel of the worms series as a whole. at very least it's unnecessary fluff that doesn't help anything at all.

[[UFP]Ghost]

just like everything else you would pass on you wouldn't have to use it, just like i don't have to play on destructible terain

That has never been a good idea to add in things and say you don't have to use it. It's like hwo the highest percentage of game hosted is shopper, well it will end up being shopper with some sort of crappy new weapons. A game doesn't work on the principle of adding all the shiny bells and whistles and saying use what you want. That's why when you make a good game you have the smart guys behind the counter rejecting ideas. With all the ideas you've come up with, why not just make real-time optional...you know why? because it's a bad idea.

[quakerworm]

the idea has been discussed to death and back again. not one person has ever come up with an idea that would work even remotely well.
that's because you have some sort of an a preori idea of what a vehicle should be like. if you constrain a vehicle to follow rules of the worm, for example, it will work, because all you get is a different sprite for the thing that already works. of course, you don't want to call it a vehicle. but the fact is, there are plenty of other constraints you can pick in order to add vehicles to the game without ruining game mechanics.

you need to make sure there are drawbacks for using a vehicle that balance out the benefits, limit the mobility of the vehicle, and make it behave right between turns. a jet fighter would be a bad pick, for example, because it can't behave well between turns. while a small army jeep could be more limited in mobility than a worm, yet provide some mobile cover, making it an option for an in-game vehicle that doesn't break game mechanics.

[Muzer]

that's because you have some sort of an a preori idea of what a vehicle should be like. if you constrain a vehicle to follow rules of the worm, for example, it will work, because all you get is a different sprite for the thing that already works. of course, you don't want to call it a vehicle. but the fact is, there are plenty of other constraints you can pick in order to add vehicles to the game without ruining game mechanics.

you need to make sure there are drawbacks for using a vehicle that balance out the benefits, limit the mobility of the vehicle, and make it behave right between turns. a jet fighter would be a bad pick, for example, because it can't behave well between turns. while a small army jeep could be more limited in mobility than a worm, yet provide some mobile cover, making it an option for an in-game vehicle that doesn't break game mechanics.
I agree with that, nice idea quakerworm.

[Plasma]

you need to make sure there are drawbacks for using a vehicle that balance out the benefits, limit the mobility of the vehicle, and make it behave right between turns. a jet fighter would be a bad pick, for example, because it can't behave well between turns. while a small army jeep could be more limited in mobility than a worm, yet provide some mobile cover, making it an option for an in-game vehicle that doesn't break game mechanics.
Question: how on earth are you supposed to be able to drive a jeep with Worms terrain? I mean, you'd go about 2 seconds before you bump into a wall or a slope to steep to drive up.
Plus, a vehicle would provide very little cover against Worms weapons because it'd be way too small (keep in mind that a bazooka explosion is several times the size of the worm, and is more than likely to end up hitting the worm on the head); and the guy with a vehicle would have a distinct advantage as it'd be too hard to get to his spot and take the vehicle from him, meaning he'll pretty much always start with a vehicle before it's destroyed.

[KRD]

But WA already has sort-of vehicles that improve a worm's mobility. It has Bungee that allows you to lower yourself from a platform otherwise too high, it has Parachute with which you can traverse great canyons when the wind is right, there's the Jetpack and Ninja Rope that can be tweaked to be anywhere from handy to all-mighty...

If it's more cover for your worms that you people are after, why not come up with shields or terraforming utilities? I'd much rather see a funny way of doing that implemented than have them slap vehicles into an aspect of the game that's already balanced extremely well. Or at least can be with the right scheme settings.

[Akuryou13]

that's because you have some sort of an a preori idea of what a vehicle should be like. if you constrain a vehicle to follow rules of the worm, for example, it will work, because all you get is a different sprite for the thing that already works. of course, you don't want to call it a vehicle. but the fact is, there are plenty of other constraints you can pick in order to add vehicles to the game without ruining game mechanics.

you need to make sure there are drawbacks for using a vehicle that balance out the benefits, limit the mobility of the vehicle, and make it behave right between turns. a jet fighter would be a bad pick, for example, because it can't behave well between turns. while a small army jeep could be more limited in mobility than a worm, yet provide some mobile cover, making it an option for an in-game vehicle that doesn't break game mechanics.but if you limit it to those then they become redundant. why use a vehicle that can't move as far, can't navigate the terrain, etc when I can just use the worm? if the vehicle does enough damage to compensate for the lack of movement then the damage would be overpowered. the only things the worms could use other than damage would be mobility or defense. if you want defense you have the bubble or the turret, if you want mobility then you have the jet pack and ninja rope. those are the vehicles that are actually useful in a worms game and they've already been used. any other forms of vehicles would either be a programming nightmare, useless or both.

if you disagree, post an example to persuade me to believe as you do.

[Shadowmoon]

I'd love vehicles in worms. Ufo's, motorbikes, land-rovers and boats and WW2 planes would be a great idea.

[[UFP]Ghost]

I just can't see that being a good idea. All it is useless additions, we have good vehicles, what other vehicle do we need? If it's something along the lines of a jeep it's useless unless it's good speed, but we have fast-walk...If it can fly, we have the jet pack...we don't need useless things added to the games. Like it was said earlier a few posts ago, worms is well balanced, why screw with it just to screw with it. If you want your car then just edit your sprites for fast-walk into showing a worm in a car. It gives you your car and me not a car.

[quakerworm]

first of all, there is no reason to improve mobility. the biggest problem of worms is excessive mobility. in order to have vehicles that improve mobility, you first need to cut back mobility of the worms, which i think would be a good idea.

plasma, as stated, limited mobility is a good thing. the extra protection can be in form of "armor". simly let the worm take a fraction of the damage. perhaps, have the vehicle to take the rest at expense of its own hit points.

krd and akuryou13, yes, it is a bit redundant. but that isn't the point, is it? there are already plenty of almost redundant weapons in the game. having vehicles modify mobility and armor would be adding variation to the gameplay. sure, you can get armor with bubble. but bubble can't be moved the next turn. is it really different? not so much. but then, a grenade and bazooka aren't all that different either, are they? one is not effected by wind, the other explodes on impact.

variations on the same kind of basic "idea that works" is what has been making worms fun compared to any other artillery game. vehicles can be introduced as a new kind of variation without breaking the game.

[Akuryou13]

krd and akuryou13, yes, it is a bit redundant. but that isn't the point, is it? there are already plenty of almost redundant weapons in the game. having vehicles modify mobility and armor would be adding variation to the gameplay. sure, you can get armor with bubble. but bubble can't be moved the next turn. is it really different? not so much. but then, a grenade and bazooka aren't all that different either, are they? one is not effected by wind, the other explodes on impact.eh, I guess... that way of doing it seems a bit overly-boring to me, but I can't argue against your point at all.

[yakuza]

first of all, there is no reason to improve mobility. the biggest problem of worms is excessive mobility. in order to have vehicles that improve mobility, you first need to cut back mobility of the worms, which i think would be a good idea.

plasma, as stated, limited mobility is a good thing. the extra protection can be in form of "armor". simly let the worm take a fraction of the damage. perhaps, have the vehicle to take the rest at expense of its own hit points.

krd and akuryou13, yes, it is a bit redundant. but that isn't the point, is it? there are already plenty of almost redundant weapons in the game. having vehicles modify mobility and armor would be adding variation to the gameplay. sure, you can get armor with bubble. but bubble can't be moved the next turn. is it really different? not so much. but then, a grenade and bazooka aren't all that different either, are they? one is not effected by wind, the other explodes on impact.

variations on the same kind of basic "idea that works" is what has been making worms fun compared to any other artillery game. vehicles can be introduced as a new kind of variation without breaking the game.

there's not too much mobility in the game per say. It is the Scheme that states how much there is. If you play with infinite ropes and jetpacks then yeah, it's not going to be easy to make use of good positioning.

[quakerworm]

i feel you can move entirely too far without any utils at all. occasionally, you get stopped by a vertical wall, but more often than not, your cover means zip because a skilled player will get to you in one turn anyways. and that, of course, takes the edge of the tactics of the game, and makes it more of a game of skill.

back when i and my friends weren't very good at the game and we only played off line, it seemed more fun, because we didn't know how to chain various jumps, use parachutes and ropes to get just about anywhere, and overall were forced to fight from a distance.

no need to say, the situation is far worse with the 3d titles, where it is almost impossible to find a spot not reachable in one turn.

one solution is shorter timers, but i never liked that. it doesn't give you any time to think, and again, makes it a game of reflexes, rather than tactics.

that's how i feel about it all, anyways.

[Kelster23]

If they put vehicles they should be minigames or missions.

[b1llygo4t]

the way id do vehicles is like this

*vehicles would start as weapons in your arsenal that are like aerial strikes, but are called (vehicle name) strike (except for spider bot) but dont end your turn when fired. you select a spot with your mouse and it gets droped by parachute from a jet jet. wind would effect the chute
*all vehicles would have health, ammo if noted, and fuel
*all health, ammo, fuel settings could be adjusted
*health = health crates
*fuel = util crates
*ammo = ammo crates
*there would be settings for wether entering a vehicle or exiting a vehicle activate retreat time. or if worm select can be used. or if attacking activates retreat time. these settings would be for each vehicle
*if a vehicle is flipped it must be flipped upright to be used again.
*each vehicle would have its own physics for weight and viscosity. you could mabe prod a chopper if it is on its side to upright it, but you couldnt do it to the tank.




chopper

* worm takes full damage
*it would work like a jetpack but wouldnt fall, and could stay in the air like batty rope
*wind would effect movement
*other worms could rope from it
*if the chopper dies it crashes , along with the worm. the worm would take fall damage, damage from whatever killed the chopper, and dameage from the chopper explosion
*chopper would have a chain gun with ammo fixed to the front that you couldnt aim.
*it would have fuel, like the jetpack, but that still went down during others turns while in flight
*would take damage if it bumped into something other than with its landing gear

mech

*has jetpack with fuel count
*moves faster than worm
*can jump higher than worm
*takes up more space than a worm so it cant fit in rly small spots
*provides %75 cover to the worm
*mech could not linger in the air like the chopper
*mech has a chain gun and has a zook with a set range, both with ammo
*ammo crates add random chaingun or zook ammo
*if the mech is destroyed the worm takes alot of damage
mabe even just kill it.
*can be used even if flipped

tank

*tank has zook that can only fire 45 deg into the air and has a set range
*tank gives full cover to the worm
*tank is very limited in movement
*if destroyed the worm takes half its life in damage and is stuck in the vehicle and cant move, only shoot from the worm arsenal
*could drive over fire

jeep

*jeep gives no cover to the worms
*if flipped cant be used till it is upright
*jeep will climp anything till it is in excess of 90 deg then it tumbles backwards
*jeep can be ramped off of hills
*jeep would have a bounce effect like in rubberworm but set rly low
*at a 90 deg angle the vehicle couldn't power itself and would only be moving on momentum
*the larger the angle it is driving on the less power it can add to its momentum
*one other worm could ride in the jeep
*if there is a passenger you could shoot restricted weapons from the worms arsenal
*if jeep is destroyed the worm takes holy nade tworth of damage
*if the jeep runs into an ammo crate, it gets put in the back of it instead of going into the arsenal(later to be shot at by enemy worms or collected by any worm)
*could drive over fire

boat

*no cover to the worms
*can hold as many worms as you can stack on it
*one worm has to be "in" the boat to drive it
*boat can slide across land but could get stuck
*you could drive another vehicle onto it
*stacked worms could get blown off if you went to fast
*if hit only the worm driving doesnt get sent flying
*if sunk the worms of course drown
*no weapons for driver (mabe torpedo to blow through land scape)
*no way to get fuel so i don't know if it would have fuel or what
*couldn't be flipped

spider bot

*worm stops and drops a spider, then controls it from his position
*player controls spider during that worms turn
*can walk on any angle
*can hold one weapon, including weapons from crates
*can bring weapons back to worms to add to arsenal and swap out
*to use a weapon you select it from the arsenal then walk over one of your worms to get it
*all weapons used are like they are used from rope, except that you can use and aim guns
*if spider is destroyed control goes back to the worm
*if worm is destroyed the spider acts like a mine with heath containing whatever weapon it had like a crate
*couldn't be flipped
*takes up very little space, like an animal weapon
*could only use resricted arsenal
*could use rope but could only attach it to its position. the rope would have fuel that decreased as you repelled and increased as you realed in, and could be as long as you have fuel for. if you detach from the rope that fuel is lost

thats just me, i see it feasible, while they wouldn't be suitable for every scheme, they would add new strategy aspects to the game. and like i said their options not stuff like physics changes. i dont see what is wrong with having options that certain people dont want to put up with on wormnet, host if its that big of a deal, i always host cuz i hate inf zooks and ktl, its not like this is halo and your stuck with random schemes

[Akuryou13]

I'm going to take one major point of problems with each of these ideas.

*other worms could rope from itthat's the main problem with flying vehicles. they'd be nearly impossible to program. terrain can't move and anything that CAN move can't be terrain. programming both in a world with deformable land-scapes would be a nightmare.

*takes up more space than a worm so it cant fit in rly small spotsthen what's the point? a big noticeable target for everyone to bombard with weaponry? if it can survive all that then it's overpowered and if it can't it's useless. I guess you could just distract people with it, but a sentry gun and bubble do that extremely well as is and are both balanced.

*tank has zook that can only fire 45 deg into the air and has a set rangeso it's a tank that can only drive on very small parts of the terrain, can only shoot at very small parts of the terrain and makes for a big target. it wouldn't matter what this thing had for defense, everyone would just avoid it anyway. it wouldn't be mobile, even, so the sentry gun would do nearly the same thing but THAT would work on an opponent's turn.

*jeep will climp anything till it is in excess of 90 deg then it tumbles backwardsso that means it's basically useless, as is anything else a worm could drive. the reason worms work on a limited terrain like they have is because they have the mobility of the ninja rope and jet packs. failing that they have blow torches and drills. these vehicles are stripped of those options.

*stacked worms could get blown off if you went to fastanother complete programming nightmare. not only that, but it's a boat, anyone knocked off is dead, and anyone standing on top of it is an open target begging to be killed. the idea of boats have been the most soundly argumented against since the beginning of worms.

*to use a weapon you select it from the arsenal then walk over one of your worms to get it
*all weapons used are like they are used from rope, except that you can use and aim gunswell this thing is completely useless. now, if it were a walking mine that you could place manually anywhere it could walk and it would stick to any surface, that would be friggin awesome. your version of the idea, however, is not.

[quakerworm]

that's the main problem with flying vehicles. they'd be nearly impossible to program. terrain can't move and anything that CAN move can't be terrain. programming both in a world with deformable land-scapes would be a nightmare.

void copySprite(int** terrain, int **sprite, int tx, int ty)
{
for(int x=0;x<w_sprite;x++)for(int y=0;y<h_sprite;y++)
{
if(sprite[x][y])terrain[tx+x][ty+y]=sprite[x][y];
}
}

void removeSprite(int** terrain, int **sprite, int tx, int ty)
{
for(int x=0;x<w_sprite;x++)for(int y=0;y<h_sprite;y++)
{
if(sprite[x][y])terrain[tx+x][ty+y]=0;
}
}

void moveChopper(int dx, int dy)
{
removeSprite(terrain, chopper_sprite, oldx, oldy);
removeSprite(terrain, chopper_sprite, oldx+dx, oldy+dy);
}

i'm making it slightly simpler than it really is*. but the point is such. if you have a chopper at <oldx,oldy>, you know there isn't terrain there. so when you move it to new location, you simply "destroy" any "terrain" under a chopper, and then copy the chopper sprite as terrain to new location.

* you'll really have a 1D buffer, a bunch more variables, and rotation transforms. they'll add up to about a page worth of code, unless there are some existing util functions to simplify it, which there probably are.

[Akuryou13]

i'm making it slightly simpler than it really is*. but the point is such. if you have a chopper at <oldx,oldy>, you know there isn't terrain there. so when you move it to new location, you simply "destroy" any "terrain" under a chopper, and then copy the chopper sprite as terrain to new location.

* you'll really have a 1D buffer, a bunch more variables, and rotation transforms. they'll add up to about a page worth of code, unless there are some existing util functions to simplify it, which there probably are.and this allows the player to move and control the chopper with free movement in an online game of multiple teams with fully destructable land scape? only during their turn? while their character is within the craft? and also allows others to interract with the terrain object as if it were normal terrain, such as walking on it and roping off of it?

T17 have said before they'd considered moving terrain objects and different types of terrain but the programming of it all was a nightmare. for some reason I doubt your "1 page of code" estimation is going to be quite right, and even if the length of code IS correct, I doubt the simplicity.

[b1llygo4t]

3 things

1 we can make our own schemes, with whatever objective we want

2 we can make our own maps, with whatever terrain we want

3 we are talking about a new worms game with developer support, not guys doing it as a hobby

[quakerworm]

and this allows the player to move and control the chopper with free movement in an online game of multiple teams with fully destructable land scape? only during their turn? while their character is within the craft? and also allows others to interract with the terrain object as if it were normal terrain, such as walking on it and roping off of it?

T17 have said before they'd considered moving terrain objects and different types of terrain but the programming of it all was a nightmare. for some reason I doubt your "1 page of code" estimation is going to be quite right, and even if the length of code IS correct, I doubt the simplicity.
code i demonstrated already takes care of all the interactions. it lets worms walk on it as if it is terrain, rope off of it, etc. it does not take care of indestructibility. the hack-way of doing that would be to simply update the sprites after every explosion, thereby rendering each vehicle indestructible.

the movement for the vehicle would have to be separate code. you asked for terrain that can be moved, and i gave you the code for it. the code to make this movement come from user interactions is separate, but by no means exceeds the complexity of adding an extra weapon at any point.

i really don't know why t17 can't code moving terrain. i've been able to move terrain in w3d by simply taking over some memory addresses, and they said that can't be done either. basically, almost everything that t17 said can't be done has been done by community. be it the patches for wa, map editors for w3d, or any of the other countless community created tools for a number of their games.

[Plasma]

Making an object terrain is the easy part, and Team17 already did that in WASO. Everything else, from making sure that worms stay on while the terrain to making sure there's no bugs when the vehicle hits another worm, is not so easy.

map editors for w3d,
Yes. I'm sure Team17 totally said that wasn't possible. While at the same time saying they'd make one themselves.

Also, I'd like to see the full results of that moving terrain thing. Including interacting with Worms. Because if it can't do that, then it certainly doesn't count.

[quakerworm]

t17 stated that their editor is too complex to use, and won't be any good to community. community has managed to make descent maps with tools far more crude than that. there were also some statements about it being impossible to auto-generate certain things which have been done using the editor.

by the way, having worked with the map files, i have another good reason to bash t17's capabilities. the format is absolutely horrid. why? because t17 simply used a 3rd party container structure. there is a lot of memory being wasted, no optimization for duplicate objects (one of the hackers, same one working on the wysiwyg editor, managed to compress some of the maps by removing duplication by hand!) and half of the data in the height maps is junk! how do you manage to miss the buffer boundary on hmap dump by 100% and not notice a leak?

and honestly, i don't remember what happened with the worms. i'll have to check that again and see. but seriously, if you can't add collision check during frame generation to make sure that the worms stay put or get squished, you need to find a different job.

[b1llygo4t]

shoop dah whoop!!1!!1!1!

anything is possible in the digital realm, but just like all things, it comes down to funding




srsly tho, how hard would it be to add duel layered maps to wa???? 1 destructible and one not....

[quakerworm]

while you are writing it, not hard at all. best way to re-do the engine right now would have been to put in a 32 bit alignment, use 24 for color, and reserve 8 for various flags, including destructibility, material types, etc. if you throw in a stress layer, you can do some really neat things, like collapsing terrain, different damage to different terrain types, and all that cool stuff.

retrofitting the existing code to support this would be significantly more complicated. adjusting the buffer, by itself, isn't tough. what would cause problems is trying to make everything work with the existing code and more importantly existing data.

[b1llygo4t]

there should be fish in the water that swim around, and group together near worms that are close to the water,. they should violently rip the worms apart when they plop

duel layered terrain would be the one thing i would stress. collapsing terrain would be too cool and my head would splode

[Shadowmoon]

Fish in the water? maybe Sharks, that eat any worm that goes in?

can't see that been a good idea.

[_Kilburn]

I don't think that's a good idea, Worms isn't meant to be extremely violent, and adding gore will not really help.
I think community work is what Worms needs the most, and well, Team17 hasn't really been helping. I didn't know they had a map editor but never released because they thought the community would never know how to use it, and I think they should stop underestimating us and give us an opportunity to do some proper community work.

[Akuryou13]

there should be fish in the water that swim around, and group together near worms that are close to the water,. they should violently rip the worms apart when they plopwhy? that's pointless extra processing power that could be spent on AI or terrain effects or other such things people care about. worms die in water anyway, why make it more complicated?

[Shadowmoon]

It would be pretty funny.:cool:

But only the first few times, or maybe the first time.

Perhaps if the worm goes in the water, or falls, a shark pops up and eats them up.

But then again, its also pretty pointless, and definitely not something Team 17 should add. It would be funny when people first see it, but then it will start to get very boring:p

[quakerworm]

balloon fight had something like that. when you went too close to the water, a fish came out and ate you. it's been over two decades since that game got released, and it still hasn't gotten old.

as for "waste of processor power", since when have worms been processor intensive? not to mention the fact that something like this requires almost no processing, when you compare it to processing that goes into terrain.

lastly, gore. there are worms being blasted with grenades, land mines, exploding animals, and heavy objects. and you are worried about 'gore' of the fish eating a worm? it would probably end up being the least graphic death of them all.

[jsgnext]

Try WA, the community reinvents it every year.

i play WA... =/

I don't think that's a good idea, Worms isn't meant to be extremely violent, and adding gore will not really help.
I think community work is what Worms needs the most, and well, Team17 hasn't really been helping. I didn't know they had a map editor but never released because they thought the community would never know how to use it, and I think they should stop underestimating us and give us an opportunity to do some proper community work.

agree.....when they create the "map editor" page in the downloads section i was so exited,i wanted to c that editor,and then months later they deleted it(i already mapped with the k^2 and the alexbond map editors but i wanna c a official one)

[Akuryou13]

balloon fight had something like that. when you went too close to the water, a fish came out and ate you. it's been over two decades since that game got released, and it still hasn't gotten old.

as for "waste of processor power", since when have worms been processor intensive? not to mention the fact that something like this requires almost no processing, when you compare it to processing that goes into terrain.

lastly, gore. there are worms being blasted with grenades, land mines, exploding animals, and heavy objects. and you are worried about 'gore' of the fish eating a worm? it would probably end up being the least graphic death of them all.waste of programming time, then. they could do something that would actually add to the feel of the game rather than adding a different graphic for the same thing that happens already. worm touches water, you die. what's it matter if a fish is involved?

[b1llygo4t]

i thought we were talking about a new worms game. not adding to wa. itd be cool if there were whole underwater and background packs that you could select from, that were all animated and themed.

on a "lets talk about updating wa" note, i think the map shouldn't disappear when the water rises (or it shoud be a setting), for aqua sheep purposes. i dont wanna hear any of that "the worms wouldnt sink right" crap, cus ther are plenty of animations that cover the terrain at dif points in the game

[quakerworm]

waste of programming time, then. they could do something that would actually add to the feel of the game rather than adding a different graphic for the same thing that happens already. worm touches water, you die. what's it matter if a fish is involved?
fair enough. though, if it is developed from scratch, it shouldn't take up more time to develop than drowning. you'd just pick one or the other to be coded in to conserve time.