One of the things that I have always enjoyed in physics based games like worms is when objects and weapons work together in unexpected ways to create an even better situation. Like when a mine blows up near another mine and launches it across the screen towards the enemy. And I would have liked to see Team17 spending more time finding ways to create such interactions.

Which brings me to the suggestion. In one of my first plays in Reloaded I saw a Sheep run through a patch of fire, and I was disappointed when it didn't catch on fire. Animals that catch fire would of course spread fire more fire where they explode, and possibly even leave a burning trail. This is a good example of features working together to create rare and amusing situations. Also you would have to think strategically if it's worth spending an extra round and a petrol bomb to create a flaming sheep on the next.

So what does everybody think?

I think that idea is fantastic! we could also see other various interactions possible and weapons based on those interactions, even in future games. the flaming sheep strike was a wonder to behold, so it would be interesting to be able to recreate the flaming sheep.

perhaps further uses could involve something like a glue bomb to keep worms/objects in place from a distance, but where the glue also ignites if burned. or we could see other elements coming into play, such as electricity. heck, I've disputed it in the past, but maybe T17 could find a way to add in a water bomb or something.

either way, I definitely vote towards interesting weapon interactions.

I would like a "Duck Tape" utility than when used would allow you to... well... duck tape two weapons/utilities togheter. Like attaching a jetpack/rope to a sheep, or attaching a petrol bomb to a dynamite to create a firey explosion, etc. :cool:

ooh ooh ooooh

clothes please!111

oooh oooh ooooh

ooh ooh ooooh

clothes please!111

oooh oooh oooohwe've begged for that for years. too hard to animate.

I would like a "Duck Tape" utility than when used would allow you to... well... duck tape two weapons/utilities togheter. Like attaching a jetpack/rope to a sheep, or attaching a petrol bomb to a dynamite to create a firey explosion, etc. :cool:
I can see more than a little problems with this one.

I can see more than a little problems with this one.but. how could ANYONE have ANY issues with a Holy Hand Grenade/Earthquake weapon?!

Lol, you fire a holy hand grenade and when the the timer runs out, the holy hand grenade explodes and makes everything shake in its blast radius.

So what does everybody think?

That's a brilliant idea.

This sounds great. Environmental effects on weapons - this could open up a whole new avenue of strategy for worms! For example, bouncing a grenade into and out of a puddle of water may let it be soaked in water, and so when it explodes it does a nice little particle effect of some water droplets and the terrain just around the blast area is now lower-friction - allowing you to use this technique to make slippery slopes.

That's a bit far-fetched, and doesn't make much sense either, if you dip a metal ball into some water, that won't turn it into a water bomb. :p

The sheep-on-fire idea is absolutely brilliant, there is only one minor problem with the idea, if the entire game follows that logic, dynamites should almost instantly detonate when they fall into flames. And I'm not sure that is a good idea.
But heh, if it applies only to animals, it's perfect, just wanted to point that little detail out.

rope to a sheep

:(

That's a bit far-fetched, and doesn't make much sense either, if you dip a metal ball into some water, that won't turn it into a water bomb. :p

The sheep-on-fire idea is absolutely brilliant, there is only one minor problem with the idea, if the entire game follows that logic, dynamites should almost instantly detonate when they fall into flames. And I'm not sure that is a good idea.
But heh, if it applies only to animals, it's perfect, just wanted to point that little detail out.well if you're complaining about realism, then dynamite would still take a second or two to explode even when in full flame, but come on. what's wrong with instant detonation? if you're that close to fire and you're dropping a stick of dynamite, you've obviously missed any worms around and you're just being stupid anyway.

Nah, I'm not complaining about realism at all, just trying to point out the most extreme situations which might make players confused. After all, Team17 has been trying to make newest Worms games idiot friendly, right? :p

But yeah you're probably right, no one would really want to drop a dynamite right into a patch of fire.

But yeah you're probably right, no one would really want to drop a dynamite right into a patch of fire.

Unless it's next to a worm on a cliff. That way you can push the fire into the worm and send him off. Hopefully.

Unless it's next to a worm on a cliff. That way you can push the fire into the worm and send him off. Hopefully.ever tried fire manipulation like that on Reloaded? worked great in armageddon, but that technique is hopeless this time around.

we've begged for that for years. too hard to animate.
I wasn't beeing serious at all, have a glimpse at the post icon I used :) Clothing on worms is rediculous...
The first suggestion absolutely makes sense, I predicted the rest of the topic would not. I'm quite right if I may say so myself :)

I wasn't beeing serious at all, have a glimpse at the post icon I used :) Clothing on worms is rediculous.......that post icon just looks tired. and clothing on worms is ridiculous? http://forum.team17.co.uk/showthread.php?t=19879

ever tried fire manipulation like that on Reloaded? worked great in armageddon, but that technique is hopeless this time around.

Fire manipulation worked...? Well... maybe. It wasn't really effective though.

and clothing on worms is ridiculous?
Yes!

Or do you think it makes sense on a worm with a size of about 2*4 cm. Everything would end up looking like a sock, now wouldn't it.

This topic should be about the fire-discussion....

Fire manipulation worked...? Well... maybe. It wasn't really effective though.well no, but it did what DrMelon talked about well enough.

Or do you think it makes sense on a worm with a size of about 2*4 cm. Everything would end up looking like a sock, now wouldn't it.http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm232/mintkiller/facepalm.jpg

well no, but it did what DrMelon talked about well enough.

http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm232/mintkiller/facepalm.jpg

What you're asking for is polish. Sometimes it can be that unexpected interaction you talk about, other times it's just something that is appreciated over a long period of time. There is none of that unfortunately in the game.

I would like to add a few to the list

1) Add movies similar to Open Warfare 2 or inject some humour somewhere. Even worms animations on menus or mock battles taking place in the background

2) When I jump onto a weapon/crate and my time ends whilst I'm mid air, but I land on the weapon. Don't make the weapon go into the background. I occupy the space that weapon is in. If I land on it, I shouldn't go in front of it once my turn is finished (allowing somebody to steal it or blow it up with me on it) I should obtain it.

3) Bring back wind backgrounds to make it easier to tell how a bazooka will react when fired into/against the wind.

4) Do to Worms what Windows did to 7. Make it sleeker, and even if not much faster, make the interface feel quicker. E.g. Less waiting times, better synchronisations in multiplayer games. If FPS can sync thousands of changes per second for dozens of players and keep up with the action, why can't worms ensure a smooth multiplayer experience for 4 players?

What you're asking for is polish. Sometimes it can be that unexpected interaction you talk about, other times it's just something that is appreciated over a long period of time. There is none of that unfortunately in the game.

I would like to add a few to the list

1) Add movies similar to Open Warfare 2 or inject some humour somewhere. Even worms animations on menus or mock battles taking place in the background

2) When I jump onto a weapon/crate and my time ends whilst I'm mid air, but I land on the weapon. Don't make the weapon go into the background. I occupy the space that weapon is in. If I land on it, I shouldn't go in front of it once my turn is finished (allowing somebody to steal it or blow it up with me on it) I should obtain it.

3) Bring back wind backgrounds to make it easier to tell how a bazooka will react when fired into/against the wind.

4) Do to Worms what Windows did to 7. Make it sleeker, and even if not much faster, make the interface feel quicker. E.g. Less waiting times, better synchronisations in multiplayer games. If FPS can sync thousands of changes per second for dozens of players and keep up with the action, why can't worms ensure a smooth multiplayer experience for 4 players?ok, either you misinterpreted my statement or you read into it more than I did. either way, I'm not entirely certain why MY comment made these suggestions come to mind.

GRANTED! I'm glad something did because these are all EXCELLENT points! W:A pretty much nailed worms. What we need now is some polish. maybe some new weapons (the sentry, magnet, bubble trouble, boomerang, etc are very welcome additions), maybe some customization options, but mostly just a level of refinement. This is exactly what all the complaints are about Reloaded. Armageddon was AMAZING, so why isn't Reloaded just a more refined version of that? Team17 took SO many steps back with reloaded. We all just want similar gameplay with similar set ups, just all more refined. Animals lighting on fire? hardly necessary, but it's FUN! more of that, please!

ok, either you misinterpreted my statement or you read into it more than I did. either way, I'm not entirely certain why MY comment made these suggestions come to mind.

GRANTED! I'm glad something did because these are all EXCELLENT points! W:A pretty much nailed worms. What we need now is some polish. maybe some new weapons (the sentry, magnet, bubble trouble, boomerang, etc are very welcome additions), maybe some customization options, but mostly just a level of refinement. This is exactly what all the complaints are about Reloaded. Armageddon was AMAZING, so why isn't Reloaded just a more refined version of that? Team17 took SO many steps back with reloaded. We all just want similar gameplay with similar set ups, just all more refined. Animals lighting on fire? hardly necessary, but it's FUN! more of that, please!

Lol. I had no idea what I quoted. Accident. Thought I clicked on quick post.... :D I was basically answering the original poster. Sorry for the confusion.

Lol. I had no idea what I quoted. Accident. Thought I clicked on quick post.... :D I was basically answering the original poster. Sorry for the confusion.ah ok. simple mistake. I was just confused as I tried to find some relationship to what I posted in what you posted. I was completely baffled, and I guess understandably.

regardless, great points you made!

Are you sure with that W:A nailed Worms thing?

I mean, you kinda seem to think complexity makes games better. This is just so damn wrong. Often even games with a less complex structure are better ones, like Bomberman, just for example. It intends the same as Worms does: Some quick multiplayer fun to play with your friends or A.I. players. Anyway Bomberman didn't grow to such an extensive game like Worms did with Armageddon but still makes fun.

If I compare Worms Armageddon to the very first Worms, or, in my case, to Worms Open Warfare 2 DS, which is my favourite, I realize I'm not having less fun because there's a lack of features. Maybe it's even the simplier, more accessible gameplay that attracts me (or it it's because I barely find any standard matches anymore when I play W:A on-line, which are why I actually play Worms, but let's leve that out :p).

Nothing against these suggestions, which are great. Just wanted to say why W:A isn't necessarily the best Worms ;)

Are you sure with that W:A nailed Worms thing?

I mean, you kinda seem to think complexity makes games better. This is just so damn wrong. Often even games with a less complex structure are better ones, like Bomberman, just for example. It intends the same as Worms does: Some quick multiplayer fun to play with your friends or A.I. players. Anyway Bomberman didn't grow to such an extensive game like Worms did with Armageddon but still makes fun.

If I compare Worms Armageddon to the very first Worms, or, in my case, to Worms Open Warfare 2 DS, which is my favourite, I realize I'm not having less fun because there's a lack of features. Maybe it's even the simplier, more accessible gameplay that attracts me (or it it's because I barely find any standard matches anymore when I play W:A on-line, which are why I actually play Worms, but let's leve that out :p).

Nothing against these suggestions, which are great. Just wanted to say why W:A isn't necessarily the best Worms ;)
You can't just compare two wholy different games like that. Just because Bomberman is a better game due to simplicity doesn't mean it's the same case with any other type of game. Besides, you completly ignore the fact that a game can retain simplicity on the surface while still being deep for anyone interested in exploring that depth. Take fighter games, for instance. The average player might just button mash their way to victory against his equally unexperienced friends, and have a ton of fun that way. That does not mean the game should just encourage button mashing by completely removing any kind of combo system or complex moves. Worms Armageddon nailed the ammount of depth and complexity necesary for the game. Right now it may lack more casual players, but you can't blame it's complexity for this. The game is very old and relatively hard to get for the average person, not to mention it's no longer marketed at all so there's not really a stream of new users to keep the more casual aspect of the game alive.

Just wanted to say why W:A isn't necessarily the best Worms ;)oooooh. so because your opinion is different, everyone else is wrong. alright! I'll just ask you before I post in the future.

seriously. shut UP! once AGAIN you post an argument without putting even the SLIGHTEST bit of thought into it. Armageddon is WIDELY, WIDELY regarded as the best worms game. Open Warfare 2, I've been told, is also very very good. However, the general consensus is that Armageddon did it best. You can needlessly argue the point all you want, but all you're doing is being contrary so that you can voice your own opinion. I didn't say Armageddon is the perfect game. I didn't say making it simpler couldn't have made it better (or worse, for that matter). ALL I said is that Armageddon got the formula right. The BASIC workings of the game were perfected with Armageddon. The way weapons work in relation to other weapons, the variety of strategies present, the way the landscapes were built and the ability to customize them, the customization of the weapons and the schemes. These were the things that were perfected in Armageddon. That doesn't mean they were perfect for everyone. I actually rather liked how W2 allowed more customization in weapon strength, for instance, and I like some of the weapons available in Reloaded. But the point is, those are all DETAILS. No game, movie, song, book, meal, table or anything else ever crafted by a human being has ever once in any way, shape or form EVER perfected the details involved.

ALL I said was that Armageddon perfected what worms should be, and that it is widely regarded as the best Worms game. Yes, your opinion is different, but last I checked, you're just one more person. One more person with an EXTREME ego who likes to think his nonsensical or irrelevant opinion is always the correct one, regardless of the situation involved.

now do me a favor please and sit down, shut the hell up and quit arguing pointless semantics until you learn to read english and discern when you're even arguing a point that matters to the subject at hand!

oooooh. so because your opinion is different, everyone else is wrong. alright! I'll just ask you before I post in the future.

seriously. shut UP! once AGAIN you post an argument without putting even the SLIGHTEST bit of thought into it. Armageddon is WIDELY, WIDELY regarded as the best worms game. Open Warfare 2, I've been told, is also very very good. However, the general consensus is that Armageddon did it best. You can needlessly argue the point all you want, but all you're doing is being contrary so that you can voice your own opinion. I didn't say Armageddon is the perfect game. I didn't say making it simpler couldn't have made it better (or worse, for that matter). ALL I said is that Armageddon got the formula right. The BASIC workings of the game were perfected with Armageddon. The way weapons work in relation to other weapons, the variety of strategies present, the way the landscapes were built and the ability to customize them, the customization of the weapons and the schemes. These were the things that were perfected in Armageddon. That doesn't mean they were perfect for everyone. I actually rather liked how W2 allowed more customization in weapon strength, for instance, and I like some of the weapons available in Reloaded. But the point is, those are all DETAILS. No game, movie, song, book, meal, table or anything else ever crafted by a human being has ever once in any way, shape or form EVER perfected the details involved.

ALL I said was that Armageddon perfected what worms should be, and that it is widely regarded as the best Worms game. Yes, your opinion is different, but last I checked, you're just one more person. One more person with an EXTREME ego who likes to think his nonsensical or irrelevant opinion is always the correct one, regardless of the situation involved.

now do me a favor please and sit down, shut the hell up and quit arguing pointless semantics until you learn to read english and discern when you're even arguing a point that matters to the subject at hand!

THIS.

Worms Armageddon was truly THE worms game. The fact that team 17 removed so many features is only because they want to milk the franchise for all its worth. Many major gaming industries remove features while adding new ones in order for their customers to continue buying their product. If Worms Reloaded had everything Armageddon had and more, then no one would be buying their future games because Reloaded would've been perfect.

Bomberman

It's all a matter of point of view. Personally I find Bomberman pretty boring and repetitive when you have nothing else than simple bombs and the standard powerups, it's a lot more fun when you have a variety of overpowered bomb types which you randomly find. And even with all of that, it still gets repetitive as hell in multiplayer, and that's where the singleplayer mode becomes interesting because you have boss fights and all that stuff.

In this thread, Aku makes a completely startling revelation that a €18 game has less polish than what was a similar, properly funded €50 game + expansion that was constantly updated for a decade now. Truly, his insight is amazing.

I mean yes, there are some features that should be very easy to implement that weren't added (such as the wind indicator in the background), but you really can't say that it should've been a "more refined version of W:A". The work that went into each is simply uncomparable!

In this thread, Aku makes a completely startling revelation that a €18 game has less polish than what was a similar, properly funded €50 game + expansion that was constantly updated for a decade now. Truly, his insight is amazing.

I mean yes, there are some features that should be very easy to implement that weren't added (such as the wind indicator in the background), but you really can't say that it should've been a "more refined version of W:A". The work that went into each is simply uncomparable!

Considering it's the same freaking game as W2:A for XBLA, I'd say they had plenty of time to refine it, not to mention several of it's flaws were by design.

In this thread, Aku makes a completely startling revelation that a €18 game has less polish than what was a similar, properly funded €50 game + expansion that was constantly updated for a decade now. Truly, his insight is amazing.wow. not only are you insighting yet ANOTHER stupid argument, you're doing so by, once again, being an incredible moron.

Armageddon was $50 a decade ago. if the EXACT SAME GAME were released today, you can't POSSIBLY expect it would be $50. that style of game has gone down in price since then, and I would find it difficult to believe that even you haven't noticed that by now.

and even discounting that. let's assume that W:A WOULD still be $50. Reloaded doesn't have the writing for the missions, doesn't have the same level of customization, etc. there's not as much GAME to reloaded as there was to armageddon, and that's ok. it's cheap. but polish should be consistently high on every game no matter who makes it. a good game is a good game is a good game. Braid was amazing and worth $50 much less $5, but there's less game to it, so it's less expensive. Reloaded has no excuse at all to be less good than any other indy game that's come out recently.

You can't just compare two wholy different games like that. Just because Bomberman is a better game due to simplicity doesn't mean it's the same case with any other type of game. Besides, you completly ignore the fact that a game can retain simplicity on the surface while still being deep for anyone interested in exploring that depth. Take fighter games, for instance. The average player might just button mash their way to victory against his equally unexperienced friends, and have a ton of fun that way. That does not mean the game should just encourage button mashing by completely removing any kind of combo system or complex moves. Worms Armageddon nailed the ammount of depth and complexity necesary for the game. Right now it may lack more casual players, but you can't blame it's complexity for this. The game is very old and relatively hard to get for the average person, not to mention it's no longer marketed at all so there's not really a stream of new users to keep the more casual aspect of the game alive.

Means Team17 decided to make Worms Reloaded not as complex as Armageddon was. It's still a rather complex game and it costs 20 bucks, so is there a reason to complain about it that way?

Considering it's the same freaking game as W2:A for XBLA, I'd say they had plenty of time to refine it, not to mention several of it's flaws were by design.
Well it was really just meant to be a little-bit-more-elaborate PC port, it's not like they were going to brainstorm over the loads of things they could add. You can't say they really had the budget for that.

Except for the things that they could have added/fixed easily. But I'm already with you on that one.

wow. not only are you insighting yet ANOTHER stupid argument, you're doing so by, once again, being an incredible moron
Nice.

Hmm.. this thread sure got out of hand quickly.

It's easy to come up with crazy ideas, but most of them are unreasonably complicated. For instance I would love dynamic water that can run across the terrain and create puddles which worms can drown in, and of course that requires levels where it rains. But that's an extremely complex feature and will probably never happen.

I agree with Darkspot that the menu system should feel quicker. I should be able to access anything in the menus immediately. Why not have a toolbar at the top so you can always access your team, look at the shop, play matches. Then the menu opening in a frame bellow. Yes I've been playing lots of Starcraft 2, but if there's something Blizzard knows how to do then it's making everything feel polished. Even the menus are fun to use. You should always steal ideas from games that solve problems well :)
The Worms 2 Menu was great. Ugly, but very simple and easy navigate. Plus you could edit every weapon to crazy degrees which was awesome. (You could tweak the uzi to blow away the entire map in one shot!)

The Worms 2 Menu was great. Ugly, but very simple and easy navigate.

Ugly? It looks quite pretty compared to WR's one :p

Plus you could edit every weapon to crazy degrees which was awesome. (You could tweak the uzi to blow away the entire map in one shot!)

Worms 2 was my first game of the series and now I remember I used to tweak it a lot... Of course, this "blow up the whole map with a single shotgun shot" was totally useless but fun :P
IIRC, you could even tweak the wind thus it blows only to one side throughout the whole game, or exactly adjust the friction (how sticky the landscape was). Worms 2 really was innovative.

Do you also want to hear about new weapons/tools ideas here? I'd like to see a boat which you could use to cross water, instead of using chutes, jet packs or ropes. How about a bridge which can only be placed horizontally and on the spot your worm is, but therefore is way longer than a normal girder?

Ugly? It looks quite pretty compared to WR's one :p



Worms 2 was my first game of the series and now I remember I used to tweak it a lot... Of course, this "blow up the whole map with a single shotgun shot" was totally useless but fun :P
IIRC, you could even tweak the wind thus it blows only to one side throughout the whole game, or exactly adjust the friction (how sticky the landscape was). Worms 2 really was innovative.

Do you also want to hear about new weapons/tools ideas here? I'd like to see a boat which you could use to cross water, instead of using chutes, jet packs or ropes. How about a bridge which can only be placed horizontally and on the spot your worm is, but therefore is way longer than a normal girder?

Bridge construction kit already covers the "longer than a normal girder" need. :p

I think the molebomb needs to come back, perhaps take the place of the incredibly useless termites. :-/

Heh, everytime I look in a suggestion thread I see somebody wanting boats. :p

Moles were great, but you would not be able to walk up their tunnels in Reloaded due to how extremely hard it is to move around now with the new physics. Maybe that's why they got removed.
Also why the hell do mines always rotate to face up? It makes no sense >:C

Heh, everytime I look in a suggestion thread I see somebody wanting boats. :p

Moles were great, but you would not be able to walk up their tunnels in Reloaded due to how extremely hard it is to move around now with the new physics. Maybe that's why they got removed.
Also why the hell do mines always rotate to face up? It makes no sense >:C

I liked them because they could be used as an attack where the drill would take too long to position.

I can see that the only reason all these weapons were left out was because of laziness. For every weapon left out, there is a loss of strategy. The new ones whilst good, like the magnet, do not make up for the hilarity and brilliance of some weapons such as scales of justice, which I would much prefer over worship.

For instance I would also swap the useless ferrets which are near identical to the buffalo for the salvation army...

Bridge construction kit already covers the "longer than a normal girder" need. :p

Bridges wouldn't have a range limit, that could be pretty useful to pass long distances

Maybe that's why they got removed.

There's nothing removed actually, they're only adding stuff. That's because the first 2D worms after the 3D series was based on new physics and meant to be sorta a remake of the first worms so it only got old weapons (plus jet pack, without bungee, mole bomb and drill)
Worms: Open Warfare 2 and Worms 2: Armageddon/Worms Reloaded are based on Open Warfare and therefore you can't say they removed any items that occured in Armageddon. Mole bomb already was removed in 2003, to be exact.

Also why the hell do mines always rotate to face up? It makes no sense >:C

lol.

For instance I would also swap the useless ferrets which are near identical to the buffalo for the salvation army...waaaait. how are the ferrets almost identical to the buffalo?! the buffalo goes straight forward. the ferrets follow the wall, allowing you to attack at awkward angles, even directly above you, without destroying any land that's protecting you.

For every weapon left out, there is a loss of strategy.

[...]

such as scales of justice
Can you see what is wrong with this picture?

Can you see what is wrong with this picture?nothing? there was strategy involved in using the scales. plenty of it. No skill involved in it, but strategy aplenty.

I liked them because they could be used as an attack where the drill would take too long to position.

I can see that the only reason all these weapons were left out was because of laziness. For every weapon left out, there is a loss of strategy. The new ones whilst good, like the magnet, do not make up for the hilarity and brilliance of some weapons such as scales of justice, which I would much prefer over worship.

For instance I would also swap the useless ferrets which are near identical to the buffalo for the salvation army...

Oh god, I'd totally agree with you if you didn't mention the Scales of Justice and Sally Army as "strategical weapons". Scales of Justice is a cheap weapon, and even if it's extremely satisfying, it's really not fun at all when you are on the receiving end.
And Sally Army is just a walking banana bomb on steroids.

The main problem is that most of the weapons Team17 added in the "battle pack DLC" are really cheap, not satisfying, and not as strategical as they might seem. Ferrets are almost identical to the Bunker Buster, they both allow for an easy 30 damage, Steal is just cheap, not satisfying, and not fun to use, Marked for Death is also horribly cheap, even though it's a quite interesting strategical tool, and honestly, I don't find Worship very useful either, 2 health per turn is just not significant at all.

Super weapons might be horribly unbalanced, but at least they gave the game that satisfaction factor. You'd be all excited whenever you pick up one of them in a crate, and go all "HAH guess what I got, you're doomed".

Steal, Marked for Death and Worship are extremely strategic. Guess you never played Warzone?

Also why do you compare ferrets with other weapons as there are no weapons similar to it?

Oh god, I'd totally agree with you if you didn't mention the Scales of Justice and Sally Army as "strategical weapons". Scales of Justice is a cheap weapon, and even if it's extremely satisfying, it's really not fun at all when you are on the receiving end.
And Sally Army is just a walking banana bomb on steroids.

The main problem is that most of the weapons Team17 added in the "battle pack DLC" are really cheap, not satisfying, and not as strategical as they might seem. Ferrets are almost identical to the Bunker Buster, they both allow for an easy 30 damage, Steal is just cheap, not satisfying, and not fun to use, Marked for Death is also horribly cheap, even though it's a quite interesting strategical tool, and honestly, I don't find Worship very useful either, 2 health per turn is just not significant at all.

Super weapons might be horribly unbalanced, but at least they gave the game that satisfaction factor. You'd be all excited whenever you pick up one of them in a crate, and go all "HAH guess what I got, you're doomed"......really?!

Scales are EXTREMELY strategic. you COULD use them at any time and it's an easy benefit. or you could wait until the time is just right and completely flip the game from totally in your opponents' favor to totally in your's.

Bunker Buster is a cheap 30, I give you, but the Ferrets aren't that common, so they really should be a little cheap.

Marked for Death isn't cheap AT ALL. you use a whole turn to double damage the next turn. Use that at the wrong time and you may as well have marked YOURSELF for death.

Steal is there for hilarity's sake, I think. And using a whole turn to get another shotgun really isn't that amazing, if you think about it, but using that turn to nab their concrete donkey definitely is. it's interesting.

and Worship? not a huge fan of that either, but instantly poisoning your entire opponent's team and giving that health to your own worms? yeah. how is that NOT awesome?!

Also why do you compare ferrets with other weapons as there are no weapons similar to it?
They're not in regards to mechanics, but functionally the only place Ferrets beat out Bunker Busters is if the opponent is really far down* or if the map is a cavern.


*I can't say how useful that does make it because I can't remember how deep the Bunker Buster goes, at all.


Scales are EXTREMELY strategic. you COULD use them at any time and it's an easy benefit. or you could wait until the time is just right and completely flip the game from totally in your opponents' favor to totally in your's.
Point me at a situation where the best use of them isn't "Wait for as late as you can to use them and don't use any limited-ammo weapons beforehand".

Point me at a situation where the best use of them isn't "Wait for as late as you can to use them and don't use any limited-ammo weapons beforehand".I said they were strategic, not versatile :p

I said they were strategic, not versatile :p
There's as much strategy involved as there is in having a boxing match against a man in a coma. The only other strategy is, at your last chance to use it, use a bazooka instead and hope the physics bugs out and erases the opposing team!

Scales are EXTREMELY strategic. you COULD use them at any time and it's an easy benefit. or you could wait until the time is just right and completely flip the game from totally in your opponents' favor to totally in your's.

Mmh, yeah, from that point of view, they can be tricky if you really want to take maximum benefit from them. But in most situations, I'm pretty much sure you'd simply use them as a last resort when things get hot, not really a huge matter of strategy.

Bunker Buster is a cheap 30, I give you, but the Ferrets aren't that common, so they really should be a little cheap.

Cheap isn't really the main problem, they just aren't rewarding or satisfying at all. You drop 3 ferrets, there is no real way to stop them, and they all do a tiny explosion which deals 10 damage. There is no skill involved, there is no way to make it more efficient than it already is, it's just one of those "low risk, low reward" weapons.

Marked for Death isn't cheap AT ALL. you use a whole turn to double damage the next turn. Use that at the wrong time and you may as well have marked YOURSELF for death.

The way it is activated seems cheap to me. I don't know, you just click an enemy worm and BAM, marked for death. Not really fun. :(

Steal is there for hilarity's sake, I think. And using a whole turn to get another shotgun really isn't that amazing, if you think about it, but using that turn to nab their concrete donkey definitely is. it's interesting.

Still not cool. Most of the times, it's useless, and if you use it at the right time, it's just not nice at all for the other guy. It's a bit similar to the Scales of Justice, only efficient when used at the right time, and very rage-inducing for the other team if used well. It just feels like you have been ripped off and that your master plan has been ruined by one single utility. It can't get any more strategical, but I'm not sure it fits the game.

and Worship? not a huge fan of that either, but instantly poisoning your entire opponent's team and giving that health to your own worms? yeah. how is that NOT awesome?!

In theory, it's good, but it's only 2 health per turn, it seems really tiny to me. And from what I've seen, a single bazooka shot destroys it, so you really have to hide it well.

I don't know, I didn't really have the opportunity to play online since I bought it, so maybe they are more interesting when used against human opponents.

Cheap isn't really the main problem, they just aren't rewarding or satisfying at all. You drop 3 ferrets, there is no real way to stop them, and they all do a tiny explosion which deals 10 damage. There is no skill involved, there is no way to make it more efficient than it already is, it's just one of those "low risk, low reward" weapons.

The way it is activated seems cheap to me. I don't know, you just click an enemy worm and BAM, marked for death. Not really fun. :(

Let's consider Worms is not only a slowed down action game but also contains a fair bit of strategic potential. Do you complain it's too easy to move a chessman across the field? Probably not.

See, it's a completely different state of affairs. If you use the bunker buster on a full health worm standing somewhere in the battlefield as soon as the delay disappears, you are a total idiot. If you use it on a worm that can be killed or killed in the following turn, that has a good position or that would be able to kill an important worm of yours in the next turn, you quite did a good, "skillful" job.

In theory, it's good, but it's only 2 health per turn, it seems really tiny to me. And from what I've seen, a single bazooka shot destroys it, so you really have to hide it well.

I don't know, I didn't really have the opportunity to play online since I bought it, so maybe they are more interesting when used against human opponents.

That must be your problem. To be honest, I also thought 2 wasn't much but...

Warzone get's extremely strategic in the final phases. You only have two ropes and no jet pack but 2 termites, masses of blowtorches as well as sentries. It's not difficult to hide worship well enough at all.

Furthermore... 2 points is not much? Well the final phases in Warzone usually consist of a lot of turns. Also, from a strategic point of view: 52 points to 50 is a huge difference. You can now kill your foe in one turn using weaker weapons like uzis and shotguns. If three more turns pass (happens quickly if you play a 4 players match) the worm can suddenly be killed using a simple bazooka! Think hard!

(Not even considered that an (also well-hidden) worm can be healed easily without health crates. Slowly, but it is efficient, for the same reasons I just mentioned, only the other way around :p)

Edit: Additionally, if two players got a worship on the field, you'll suddenly find yourself struggling in a "defend your statue" deathmatch. It's really fun :P

_______________
Double Post Edit

Not a new feature but I'm seriously missing the option to turn on/off worm names/health. Look here (http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt52/Thurbo1/Screen052.jpg?t=1284780805): With "Colin" I tried to shoot the enemy in that small cave. There was actually a small gap between the flag and the landscape so I thought I could hit him with the uzi. Unfortunately his health/name bar caused a poor visibility of the action. I shot a pixel next to me, the pixel transfered its pain to my worm and my turn ended. Awesome :p

If you zoom out, names are turned off and you only see their health.

Yeah, but zooming out in Thurbo's case doesn't really help.

Double Post Edit

Not a new feature but I'm seriously missing the option to turn on/off worm names/health. Look here (http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt52/Thurbo1/Screen052.jpg?t=1284780805): With "Colin" I tried to shoot the enemy in that small cave. There was actually a small gap between the flag and the landscape so I thought I could hit him with the uzi. Unfortunately his health/name bar caused a poor visibility of the action. I shot a pixel next to me, the pixel transfered its pain to my worm and my turn ended. Awesome :pwait. did they change something since release? there WAS a button to turn off worm health. Home I believe. or perhaps End. either way, it was something on that little 6-button-section.

wait. did they change something since release? there WAS a button to turn off worm health. Home I believe. or perhaps End. either way, it was something on that little 6-button-section.

Oh. Well there's a manual missing. I didn't see that option before and during the beta it wasn't possible at all, so I didn't notice it...

Oh. Well there's a manual missing. I didn't see that option before and during the beta it wasn't possible at all, so I didn't notice it...lol. yeah. the game IS sorely missing a few instructions.