Know what, Worms had all sorts of themes. I mean, Classic, Wild west, Robots, Medieval, Combination of Medieval and Modern, but you know what it never had? MAGIC! Exact, Magic. This whould be cool. Instead of having the same old, boring weapons, worms each team could have its own spellbook. There could be five spellbooks: necromancy, pyromancy, geomancy, hydromancy and herbology . Each could have similar spells. A missle (bazooka) spell, a blast (homing) spell, a ball (grenade) spell, a bomb (cluster) spell and many more. Each spellbook could have its own pros and cons. For Example:
Necromancy:
Pros: Poison
Cons: small explosion radius.
Pyromancy:
Pros: Large explosion range
Cons: Lower Ammo
Geomancy:
Pros: High Knockback
Cons: Bad agains floating islands
Hydromancy:
Pros: Slows enemies' movement speed
Bad Knockback
Herbology:
Pros: Has healing
Cons: low damage
Of Course, each skillbook could have two own meele weapons ,the first weapon should have inf ammo, the second just one in the basic scheme.
Each spellbook should own its own minion. The minion should be a special worm wich should depend on the spellbook. You should be able to name it, but not to start with it. Instead, there should be a spell which should summon/heal it. Each minion should have a special skill. The minions should not be customisable, but should be made of a diferent element (zombie, rock, water, fire, roots). They should own melee (inf ammo), missle (the basic bazooka spell of the spellbook) and a self destruction spell. If all other worms should be dead, the minnion should just surrender, becoming neutral.
Sheeps, old grannys should be the same for all spells, just that they should have a diferent outlook.

And we could call it World of Worms

We already have the Worms games, WOW and WOW2. I don't want WOW3 if it's going to be like this. :rolleyes:

No, but worms 5 could be like this. It could be called Worms' Magic

This does sound sort of fun, come to think of it.

Different classes for your teams, which changes the style of the standard weapons.

And then worms level up and fight dragons in World of Worms Spellcraft edition.

Different classes would be pointlessly complicated and unbalanced.

Different classes would be pointlessly complicated and unbalanced.

Not really no. WWP had them. And WA will have them eventually, except they won't be based on D&D.

WWP had them.
I meant ones where you choose your team's class, not where certain worms have only certain weapons.

I meant ones where you choose your team's class, not where certain worms have only certain weapons.

Fine I guess, but just because you have different teams doesn't mean it'll be unbalanced. Starcraft.

Fine I guess, but just because you have different teams doesn't mean it'll be unbalanced. Starcraft.
Counterpoint: Zerg rush.

Counterpoint: Zerg rush.

I don't think you quite grasp the concept of balance. Providing equal skill and different teams there will be balance. Just because you can beat a newbie with ease with a particular strategy (zerg rush) doesn't mean it's unbalanced.

Different classes would be pointlessly complicated and unbalanced.

Not really no. WWP had them.And they were hopelessly unbalanced.

Grenadier: I have grenades :3

Engineer: I have dynamite, mines, air strike, ninja ropes, blow torches, girders...

I don't think you quite grasp the concept of balance. Providing equal skill and different teams there will be balance.

What? How does that work?

If two people of equal skill have a game, but one gets to play as a far more effective team then there isn't balance. Symmetrical balance, where everyone gets the same set of stuff to work with, is easy to produce compared to asymmetrical balance, beloved of RTS games, where everyone has different stuff but hopefully it's roughly as good. That's where you get stuff like zerg rushes from: even in WWP the points for weapons mode didn't really work because you could afford infinite jetpacks and grenades (or something like that) and basically cheap-dynamite your way to victory. If both players have different stuff to work with you double the odds of a trick like that creeping in, and it means that probably only one player has access to it.

It's hard to get asymmetrical balance right, and it's harder still when you don't know what level you'll be playing on or with what weapons. I think the turn-based nature would make it a bit easier, though, and I expect that eventually it'd be down to the players to balance it in the options menu. That'd be a nightmare online, though...

Saying that, though, it's generally agreed that Starcraft is balanced despite Zerg Rush (haven't played it myself unfortunately, but this is going on what people I know have said) because a competent player can defend against it and then counterattack (it's the same with most rushes, e.g. the Flash rush of Total Annihilation).

What? How does that work?I think what yakuza meant was "if two players of roughly equal skill end up playing a closely-fought game with certain settings, then those settings are balanced".

Balance is a funny thing, though. For example, symmetry doesn't imply balance in a turn-based strategy game (such as Advance Wars) because of first turn advantage. And if you make arguments that you can overcome such balance issues by playing a certain way, then people can argue that all you've done is prove that you're more skilled/tactically aware/strategically aware than your opponent (either because you're good or your opponent is poor enough to fall for your supposedly suboptimal strategy). I've been on the receiving end of that argument a few times myself (sometimes I haven't been on the receiving end when I should have been, like that time when I took Flak through to the semi-final of a Defend Your CO tournament).

Saying that, though, it's generally agreed that Starcraft is balanced despite Zerg Rush because a competent player can defend against it and then counterattack.
While that is correct, it requires significantly more skill to counter it than to use it.

While that is correct, it requires significantly more skill to counter it than to use it.

Nah. I used to play it a lot long time ago and Zerg rushes weren't all that bad.

What? How does that work?

If two people of equal skill have a game, but one gets to play as a far more effective team then there isn't balance. Symmetrical balance, where everyone gets the same set of stuff to work with, is easy to produce compared to asymmetrical balance, beloved of RTS games, where everyone has different stuff but hopefully it's roughly as good. That's where you get stuff like zerg rushes from: even in WWP the points for weapons mode didn't really work because you could afford infinite jetpacks and grenades (or something like that) and basically cheap-dynamite your way to victory. If both players have different stuff to work with you double the odds of a trick like that creeping in, and it means that probably only one player has access to it.

It's hard to get asymmetrical balance right, and it's harder still when you don't know what level you'll be playing on or with what weapons. I think the turn-based nature would make it a bit easier, though, and I expect that eventually it'd be down to the players to balance it in the options menu. That'd be a nightmare online, though...

I don't really know what you're on about, or what you're arguing about. Plasma said that different classes aren't balanced and I answered they can be if they're done correctly, I put Starcraft as an example and the counter to that was a old common Starcraft strategy using one particular team (or race), said strategy is very effective against newbies but that doesn't mean that particular team is unbalanced since if both players have similar skill then there's equally easy counters to that strategy using different teams.

Fighting games is another example. In the highest level of Street Fighter competition, and whilst many people use Ken, you still see tournament finals with completely different characters depending on the day.

While that is correct, it requires significantly more skill to counter it than to use it.

If a Zerg rush fails the Zergs are dead my friend. Have you played the game? I mean, other than 5 years ago when people Zerg rushed?

I don't really know what you're on about, or what you're arguing about. Plasma said that different classes aren't balanced and I answered they can be if they're done correctly, I put Starcraft as an example and the counter to that was a old common Starcraft strategy using one particular team (or race), said strategy is very effective against newbies but that doesn't mean that particular team is unbalanced since if both players have similar skill then there's equally easy counters to that strategy using different teams.
Actually, like I said, it requires a lot more skill to pull off the counterstrategy than it does to pull off the rush.

If a Zerg rush fails the Zergs are dead my friend. Have you played the game? I mean, other than 5 years ago when people Zerg rushed?
That doesn't mean it's any easier to counter it though!

Actually, like I said, it requires a lot more skill to pull off the counterstrategy than it does to pull off the rush.




Yay, let's go in circles shall we?

I just told you, that while a Zerg rush used to* be easy to pull and effective, it took a little bit extra effort to stop if, but if you did then you had a very easy path to winning the game, so it balances out.
We can argue all day here about how little you know about Starcraft. And since you won't trust my input no matter how much logical arguments I present you how about you go surfing around the internet, ask the general public and then come down to the conclusion that Starcraft is considered one of the most balanced games in history, hence it's incredible popularity and proffesional sponsored competition (specially in Korea). You see, when there's thosuands of dollars given out to players of this game, and you see finals of tournaments constatly featuring different teams calling something unbalanced just because an internet meme (zergrush) just shows how little prespective you've got.

Seriously, "Starcraft is not balanced Zerg rush lol" is really a stupid argument even for your standards.

*Yes, we're not in 2001 anymore. There's been patches, shocking I know.

isn't the idea in this thread exactly the same as the idea for classes that I suggested, just more watered down and crap? (worse due to the fact that it restricts you to a small amount of customization and only with a specific theme)

for reference, I'm referring to this thread. (http://forum.team17.co.uk/showthread.php?t=36714)

isn't the idea in this thread exactly the same as the idea for classes that I suggested, just more watered down and crap? (worse due to the fact that it restricts you to a small amount of customization and only with a specific theme)
Two differences:
1: This one's got more blunt differences.
2: This one has the whole team as one type, rather than individuals.

1: This one's got more blunt differences.what do you mean?
2: This one has the whole team as one type, rather than individuals.fair enough. though I'd be happy enough with whole teams being more customizable.

i think I should mension that there is a game soughta like worms, but with little dudes, magic, but you only control one guy.