I've read through the titles of every thread started under the "Worms 2: Armageddon (XBLA)" category, hoping that I wouldn't have to start this topic myself--alas, it seems, I must.

Am I the only Worms player who's bothered by the fact that W2A only allows two-player ranked matches? Anyone? Bueller?....

Seriously, though--why did Team17 do that?! I mean, its a HUGE difference between the first and second installments, and I'm just mystified about the decision! Why aren't players even given the option of playing against more than one person? It doesn't make sense to me.

Unfortunately, as a result of this change, I am not interested in playing W2A... like, not even remotely.

Why not? Ok, here's the main reason: the dynamics (& consequently, the challenge) of playing against 3 or 4 players is no longer possible. Everyone must at least admit that a two-player match requires a completely different strategy, than playing against 3 or 4. I never liked two-player Worms matches, to begin with--the game becomes more about simple mathematics, than it does about plotting and strategizing you way to victory. In other words, it is a lot more difficult to make a comeback, or change the course of victory, against the player who inflicts damage first, in a two-player match. This makes the rest of the game a lot less interesting, and (incidentally) a lot more likely to see the losing player quit early. And quitters suck (I think we can all agree on that).

Am I the only one who thinks this is a big deal??

It was likely done to prevent friend+friend Vs. enemy scenarios.

I've read through the titles of every thread started under the "Worms 2: Armageddon (XBLA)" category, hoping that I wouldn't have to start this topic myself--alas, it seems, I must.

Am I the only Worms player who's bothered by the fact that W2A only allows two-player ranked matches? Anyone? Bueller?....

Seriously, though--why did Team17 do that?! I mean, its a HUGE difference between the first and second installments, and I'm just mystified about the decision! Why aren't players even given the option of playing against more than one person? It doesn't make sense to me.

Unfortunately, as a result of this change, I am not interested in playing W2A... like, not even remotely.

Why not? Ok, here's the main reason: the dynamics (& consequently, the challenge) of playing against 3 or 4 players is no longer possible. Everyone must at least admit that a two-player match requires a completely different strategy, than playing against 3 or 4. I never liked two-player Worms matches, to begin with--the game becomes more about simple mathematics, than it does about plotting and strategizing you way to victory. In other words, it is a lot more difficult to make a comeback, or change the course of victory, against the player who inflicts damage first, in a two-player match. This makes the rest of the game a lot less interesting, and (incidentally) a lot more likely to see the losing player quit early. And quitters suck (I think we can all agree on that).

Am I the only one who thinks this is a big deal??

No, you aren't. There have been questions like yours, either here or on the facebook page. Most of the answers have been like the guy below you-they don't know why, so they make up a reason. Halo has ranked matches where you can have a friend sitting next to you join in, or where you can invite your party to a ranked match. I don't think I'm alone in wanting to play ranked matches just so you play with similarly skilled opponents. Though really, I have the saved game glitch, so I haven't been playing it at all because I can't save my custom team. However, you seem intelligent and have a grasp of the English language, so if you'd like to add me we could play...something. I'd like to say Worms 2, but not until the patch. Maybe the first Worms. I'll go make a comment about this on the facebook page. They were replying to my criticisms regularly the other day.
It was likely done to prevent friend+friend Vs. enemy scenarios.

That is not a good reason. You know it and so does everyone else. Gang-ups happen occasionally in every ranked game ever.

That is not a good reason. You know it and so does everyone else. Gang-ups happen occasionally in every ranked game ever.

Sounds like a good reason to me. Common or not, the forum was packed full of people whining about gang-ups, and this totally eliminates them. Can you explain why that's not a good thing?

Personally I do think it's a bad idea as suggested for reasons already mentioned.

However, I see no harm in having an official ranked 2v2 teams match.

Just make it legit and even.

Then you and a friend can play and team up against someone else and there friend in a manner that would be rather cool and not nasty!

The Halo comparison, or nearly any other major online game, doesn't apply here. There's a huge difference between two people teaming up in a game with loads of people playing (Halo), and two people teaming up in a three or four player game (Worms).

Personally I do think it's a bad idea as suggested for reasons already mentioned.
However, I see no harm in having an official ranked 2v2 teams match.
Just make it legit and even.
Then you and a friend can play and team up against someone else and there friend in a manner that would be rather cool and not nasty!
That would either have two results.
1: It would be restricted to teams composed of friends only. That... would mean the server would see one, maybe two matches a year, not including pre-organised matches.
2: It wouldn't be restricted to friends, meaning you can team up with strangers. Nobody actually good would play it though, because no matter how good a player you might be, your rank still goes down if your random team mate has all the style and skill of a Koala Bear. Sure, it won't happen often, but when it does people sure do get a really rotten feeling.

There's a huge difference between two people teaming up in a game with loads of people playing (Halo, real time), and two people teaming up in a three or four player game (Worms, turn based).

fixed. in turn based games friends can have a gargantuan effect.

Having your friend join up to 2v1 is highly unlikely. Howver it doesn't matter, since three complete strangers, doing arbitrary decisions can still give an unfair outcome.

opponent A can hit B and C by equal difficulty, chooses to hit C because he feels like it.
opponent B can hit A and C by equal difficuly, chooses to hit C because he feels like it.

And this goes on an on an on until C dies.

C would have beaten A and B on a 1on1 match.

Oh come on, do we really have to go through this?

1: It would be restricted to teams composed of friends only. That... would mean the server would see one, maybe two matches a year, not including pre-organised matches.


How do you come to this conclusion?
Have you not got any friends in real life and online or something?

If I am sitting with a friend on a sofa playing xbox360 (as many do) than why can't we play 2v2 teams? because YOU say no one else would do it? because they have no friends sitting on a sofa beside them either? lololololz.


Also, Yes I do have friends on my list I can team up with too, who are not actually sitting beside me, and I'm sure most others do too (you heard of a friends list before right?). Jeez me and my friends usually buy the same games at the same time and want to play them at the same time too!

You most live in a very strange enclosed world to think.....


1: It would be restricted to teams composed of friends only. That... would mean the server would see one, maybe two matches a year, not including pre-organised matches.


I think that statement is hilarious, and worth posting twice, Mr billy no mates!

How do you come to this conclusion?
Have you not got any friends in real life and online or something?

If I am sitting with a friend on a sofa playing xbox360 (as many do) than why can't we play 2v2 teams? because YOU say no one else would do it? lololololz.


Also, Yes I do have friends on my list I can team up with too, who are not actually sitting beside me, and I'm sure most others do too (you heard of a friends list before right?). Jeez me and my friends usually buy the same games at the same time and want to play them at the same time too!

You most live in a very strange enclosed world to think.....




I think that statement is hilarious, and worth posting twice, Mr billy no mates!


Team based games would make sense to be allowed in ranked matches, like you said, 2v2.

Exactly, there are plenty of co-op games out there. Even more now then ever before.

For some Muppet to suggest not many games will get played in this style is crazy.

As I say, it would be 2v2 teams (two teams of red V two teams of Blue) and no random hooking-up with strangers for a partner (either local play co-op or online buddy-list co-op), because as previously said, if not and is random, 3 weak players could gang up on the strongest person/team to take them down (as I think has previously in complained about in other versions).


P.S. Although even if you did allow to get hooked up with a random person, you just have to put your faith in them that they are not going to screw you over or be a crap player/partner (jeez, Left 4 Dead can do it - I'm sure Worms can).

If they restrict it so that each pair of players on each team are from the same IP (so that it is, and only is, player+friend Vs. player+friend) then I don't see too much of an issue.

If they restrict it so that each pair of players on each team are from the same IP (so that it is, and only is, player+friend Vs. player+friend) then I don't see too much of an issue.


Are you kidding me? Why would you do this? Random 2v2 works, you're talking nonsense and making up innecesary limits to a system that works in many games, random team vs team encounter, or creating a room for strangers to join in for a team based ranked game has no issues.

no matter how good a player you might be, your rank still goes down if your random team mate has all the style and skill of a Koala Bear.
..........

Do you like playing with a complete newbie as your team mate?

..........

Do you like playing with a complete newbie as your team mate?

Do you like playing against a super pro as your opponent? <<< satire of being dumb and making dumb comments on the internet lol

These are things we take for granted, it's the beauty of the world, you can take a dump and it might smell like roses or it might smell like **** you never know but you take the risk because the risk makes you feel alive. If you create a room for a 2v2 ranked match you get to censor your opponent basing your choice on signs like his nationality: "is he from portugal? then he most likely sucks!" Or his nickname, or his behaviour. It doesn't matter. If you choose to go through the match making automatic process based on rank or otherwise then it's your choice and you know that anything can happen. And the third option is to invite friends to play a ranked team game. And maybe it's the first time you play with a friend of your youth cricket team, and he turns out to be a newbie, but that's okay because he's your friend but OH GOD IF IT WERE A STRANGER I'D BE SO MAD RIGHT NOW.

Okay, these are the three ways to handle ranked team encounters, people were paid to come up with these and you should THANK THEM and pay more attention to the gaming community before coming up with design opinions on the GAMING COMMUNITY.

if you face a pro player in a 1vs1 game that whoops your butt, chances of facing them again would be slim because they would soon have a rank substantially higher then you. I assume you are restricted to playing against people of similar rank to yourself?

if you face a pro player in a 1vs1 game that whoops your butt, chances of facing them again would be slim because they would soon have a rank substantially higher then you. I assume you are restricted to playing against people of similar rank to yourself?


okay vey good, now apply this to what I have just said, wait, don't, because I already applied it for you in my explanation. Question time, are we on the same page here? Are you understanding what I'm trying to say? Do you have any real arguments against what I've just said? Am I talking to a wall here?

It makes sense to a point but, it seems odd to choose not to have a 2v2 option and like some other games that offer ranked mode, give no option for friends to join the game when it's a FFA.

Although, there is nothing you can do to stop random players ganging up together, in any game. It's all part of worms but, you just have to adapt your tactics to those situations or try not to appear a threat.

I... have no idea what point Yauhui is trying to make now. He apparently fluctuates being sarcastic and making a proper point at a rate on par with a 16-year-old girl deciding what to wear. So I'm gonna go ahead and ignore him for now...

How do you come to this conclusion?
Have you not got any friends in real life and online or something?

[cut summary: I do. Let me boast while insulting you, because that's a great way to make my opinions seem worthwhile listening to.]
I base it on two things,
1: Getting into a 4-player ranked match in previous Worms games was a real bast to do. We've got loads of threads complaining about that here.
2: Making it so that both sides need a pre-designated friend playing too only makes it worse.

If I am sitting with a friend on a sofa playing xbox360 (as many do) than why can't we play 2v2 teams? because YOU say no one else would do it? because they have no friends sitting on a sofa beside them either? lololololz.
...the game doesn't have the ability for two people to play online on the same console.
Something tells me that you didn't actually sit down with a friend playing this game...

P.S. Although even if you did allow to get hooked up with a random person, you just have to put your faith in them that they are not going to screw you over or be a crap player/partner (jeez, Left 4 Dead can do it - I'm sure Worms can).
Umm... L4D doesn't have a ranking system, y'know.

Although, there is nothing you can do to stop random players ganging up together, in any game.
Except cut out multi-player matches.

I... have no idea what point Yauhui is trying to make now. He apparently fluctuates being sarcastic and making a proper point at a rate on par with a 16-year-old girl deciding what to wear. So I'm gonna go ahead and ignore him for now...




I assumed my prose would be easy to understand for a normal person, and I later confirmed it, that makes you a mutant *******.

But thanks for the troll friend, but it was so obvious you even let slip you acknowledge I'm making a proper point.

So hey, here's a tip, try reading my post three times until you get your head around it, it's not complex science, it's just a bunch of really simple examples anyone with any, no matter how basic knowledge on multiplayer game design should understand in 2 seconds.

edit: you're really not saying anything here, you basically struggle to realize that multiplayer ranked team games can work, practically and in theory, as proven in many other games, and for some reason you refuse to acknowledge this fact

you basically struggle to realize that multiplayer ranked team games can work, practically and in theory, as proven in many other games
How many of these "other" games are turn based?

How many of these "other" games are turn based?

Why should that matter?

On Pro Evolution Soccer, NBA 2k9, FIFA, Marvel vs Capcom, from the games I actually play, you go to the internet mode in your PS3, right? Okay, then you can create a game and filter peopel who can join by rank, and you can set it up to be a 2v2, and then 3 other people join and tada it's a 2 on 2. FIFA brings this further and allows two players on the same PS3 to play in the same team online, because EA really tries hard nowadays you know. Or you can (in some of these games) have the system automaticaly find people for you to play against and team up with!
And there's more! You can even play 5vs5 in NBA 2k9 in which every player in the field is controlled by a human, all of this automaticly! Wanna know what else? In FIFA you can play with 20 people at the same time (sorry, cannot use the goalkeepers), and the system will pick the players for you! And and and...
These are just examples of games which I'm aware are for a different market, system and have a different budget, but we're arguing the logistic behind team games in worms, in the internet, and you're saying they wouldn't work.

You guys basically come up with no reasonable argument against this yet still argue for hours, it's so stupid.

"2v2 on the internet in Worms - there's no reason why it shouldn't work"

I still don't understand why Franpa is asking so many questions about this simple concept or why Plasma is sharing so much worthless information with us all.

because EA really tries hard nowadays you know.
I don't think anyone should listen to you anymore. In a turn based game, ganging up has a much more drastic impact then in a real time game such as quake 3 or Starcraft etc.

Except cut out multi-player matches.

So, you're solution to prevent players ganging up on each other is to remove multi-player? That's ridiculous!

Why'd they block it? To prevent matches in where players, by choice, team up together and bully the odd-man out into defeat. Don't give me this crap "oh but you get ganged up in every match". There's a difference between ganging up and strategy. I mean some games you are just stuck with this enemy and you have to kill him, or that you are the better and they take you out first. The others are in which by default, they gang up on you. It doesn't matter if they are winning or losing. Also, they are most likely french (in my experience, all gang ups in Worms were by french speaking people).

What will work:

1. Multi-player FFA matches in which the only amount of players is 4.
If someone wanted to gang up by choice, they'd have to get three people in the same game. Still do-able, but more repelling to evil-doers.

2. 2v2 matches
Why not, it wouldn't hurt. You can't possibly check for "is friend" in this match simply because some people have their friends list full of worms junkies. They are likely to match up, which will probably have this "is friend" system, screw up.

I say put it in anyway

3. Post-game reporting system
This is what you do when you face someone who you think is ganging up on you in the game. After the game, you can choose to report the players you played against. Now team 17 could have a simple group system which adds reports and the groups they were against. Enough reports, and bam you're gone.

This would be slightly harder to implement, but it's the best option to rid of it all.

So, you're solution to prevent players ganging up on each other is to remove multi-player? That's ridiculous!
Yes. It works, after all. And if you have a better solution, go ahead and say it.

3. Post-game reporting system
This is what you do when you face someone who you think is ganging up on you in the game. After the game, you can choose to report the players you played against. Now team 17 could have a simple group system which adds reports and the groups they were against. Enough reports, and bam you're gone.
That would definitely be more helpful. But it would also take a notable amount of programming for something with a little effect. It would have made more sense to cut the entire element and put the resources into something else in the game.

That would definitely be more helpful. But it would also take a notable amount of programming for something with a little effect. It would have made more sense to cut the entire element and put the resources into something else in the game.

Like bug testing and fixing. Or filling out the extra weapon slots. Or a landscape editor. Or putting in the same number of items and options as there were in the original game ten years ago.

Oh. Snap.

I don't think anyone should listen to you anymore. In a turn based game, ganging up has a much more drastic impact then in a real time game such as quake 3 or Starcraft etc.

Can you explain what kind of ganging up would you expect in a 2v2 team game? And what does impact have to do with anything? In Fifa per example, if you're assigned a team mate for a two vs two and you decide to play in favour of your opponents, you can run straight to your goal and start scoring own goals. This would lower you rank and have users smite you. I talk from experience as opposed to talking from my **** here, I have played a bunch of multiplayer games in which random team based games occur and I've never experienced any problems. Why are you people so stubborn? It's ridiculous.

But as I expected, the only reason we're having this argument is because you're unable to read properly. It's as if you skip my posts completely and then just come up with whatever you feel like I said. Ganging up in a 2v2, when does this ever happen? I have loads of faith in people's intelligence but this forum is like BANG back to reality everyone is an idiot.

and just because I reckon your problem is your struggle to read non bolded text, here:

I'M TALKING ABOUT 2 AGAINST 2 FRANPA. I AM NOOOOT TALKING ABOUT RANDOM 1V1V1V1 DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU?


edit: you know what a team is, right?

Yes. It works, after all. And if you have a better solution, go ahead and say it.

I just accept that it is inevitable that some people I play against online are going to be unsporting but, I have never played any game where it completely ruins my experience of a game. To completely remove multi-player in order to prevent these situations, means removing the main reason for playing a game like worms because, playing against other people is always more enjoyable than playing against the AI. No matter what measures you apply, you cannot prevent players doing something that the game allows them to do and if you can't handle people playing in a manner that you don't enjoy or approve then, online multi-player isn't for you. When players do gang up, while it may seem unsporting, I just view it as an extra challenge which, I'm more than willing to tackle and if I lose, well, at least I tried.

But, I think, you're just playing devils advocate here or you just can't handle it when players adopt an approach which, you don't like.

To completely remove multi-player in order to prevent these situations,
Hold on, they didn't completely remove multi-person matches, they just removed ranked multi-person matches. This thread is only about whether or not there should be a ranking for them, where losing does make a difference!

Hold on, they didn't completely remove multi-person matches, they just removed ranked multi-person matches. This thread is only about whether or not there should be a ranking for them, where losing does make a difference!

I think something is getting lost in translation here although, the original thread had nothing to do with players ganging up on each other directly.

I'd rather have more than 2 players in a ranked match and accept the extra challenge of players who do decide to gang up. The review system is more than adequate for dealing with players who play in a way that you don't enjoy. Such issues don't need to be dealt with by a restriction in the game design.

To the best of my experience, Worms has always limited itself to two players in ranked settings. The randomosity of a 2P match can be killer enough as-is, adding more players would only...yeah.


Halo has ranked matches where you can have a friend sitting next to you join in, or where you can invite your party to a ranked match.

Not for FFAs, it doesn't.