I know you Team17 people said that players are going to have an impact on updates for W:R, so this thread is my attempt to try and change the current 4-worms 4-teams limit that exists at the moment (obv. I don't know for sure because the game's not out yet).

I've read a few responses from Team17 members over on the Stream W:R forum, and when someone else asked why the 4:4 limit may be in place, a rep said that it was because they found 4:4 was optimum for multiplayer experience.

However, I strongly suggest you increase these limits and let the PLAYERS decide how many worms and teams they want to play with (I believe that W:A allowed 8 worms and 6 teams?) within reason.

Anyone else agree that we should push for more worms if this 4:4 is indeed accurate? It should be up to the players to decide how many worms there are, otherwise for me it will feel like a step backwards from WA, no matter how great the rest of the game may prove to be.

I don't agree.

I think you should play the game first, and then decide whether it would be a good idea to have more worms.

I disagree with you, whato1986.

Why don't you wait to play the game before you start judging it?

But what's the harm in them giving us an option to choose for ourselves how many worms we want to play on a multiplayer games?

ok, so if for internet stability reasons they need to limit it to 4:4, that's ok, but why reduce the amount of worms when compared to WA? I'd much rather like the option to choose for myself.

However all this might be premature, as perhaps there won't be such a limit when the game actually comes out.

I do agree with whato and I don't get your point either,

I'm a long time worms player and enjoyed W:A the most of all games, but since W:A doesn't work that well at my pc anymore plus the steamfriends support made me preorder this game.
However after preordering I find out that:
-This game has less weapons then W:A
-This game has no costum soundbanks/gravestones and whatnot
-This game supports a max of 4x4 games

I understand why 4x4 online on smaller maps would be the smarter thing to do, but I got the most fun out of worms playing with multiple friends behind ONE pc. We made crazy teams and had a lot of fun doing that now you have little teams and you can't even have additional CPU players to ramp up the killing....

Team17 have said they are going to support this game, but we'r going to have to wait and watch how much of that happens, specially because for starters the PC version is nothing more than a upgraded console port :(

I disagree, for me it even feels a number of 8 worms per team is too high. If at all I think 5 to 6 worms each would be alright, but no more.

I played those 4 worms only games and I can tell you it's fine, it works out perfectly.

Also, if you want to change it really I'd recommend you writing this on facebook since it's unlikely Team17 is gonna read this.

Team17 have said they are going to support this game, but we'r going to have to wait and watch how much of that happens, specially because for starters the PC version is nothing more than a upgraded console port :(

Yes it is a console port, but it bears a hell of a lot less red tape from 2rd party companies then the console versions so I would side with Team17 when they say they will support it.

I don't agree.

I think you should play the game first, and then decide whether it would be a good idea to have more worms.

I disagree with you, whato1986.

Why don't you wait to play the game before you start judging it?

I disagree, for me it even feels a number of 8 worms per team is too high. If at all I think 5 to 6 worms each would be alright, but no more.

I played those 4 worms only games and I can tell you it's fine, it works out perfectly.

Also, if you want to change it really I'd recommend you writing this on facebook since it's unlikely Team17 is gonna read this.
It's not like you'll be forced to play with 8 worms, you turds. I get that the majority of you casual players like to keep things short, but there are some of us who would like to actually spend more than 10 minutes in a match, and like the added challenge and strategy of larger teams, and it would be very nice to have the option included.

Yes, with the "option" you can lower and raise the number of worms/team so both factions are pleased. Only people who are mentally inept and can never figure that out, will have trouble.

I agree. There should be at least 6 worms per team. Those who want 4 worms could just set it with options.


Also, if you want to change it really I'd recommend you writing this on facebook since it's unlikely Team17 is gonna read this.
Team17 reads Facebook but not their own forum ._.

I agree. There should be at least 6 worms per team. Those who want 4 worms could just set it with options.


Team17 reads Facebook but not their own forum ._.

Team17 does read the forum.

I'm an 8 player supporter and I've played W:A so my opinion is based on something. Clans and friends loved the 8 player limit while random players 'chose' to join shorter games for faster play.

As another person said, it's all about having free will.

Seriously how naive are you?
Whenever one joins a game who doesn't want a huge number of worms and host sets up 8 worms per team one had to leave, join another game and so on. Or one had to host every single game one plays.

Seriously how naive are you?
Whenever one joins a game who doesn't want a huge number of worms and host sets up 8 worms per team one had to leave, join another game and so on.

I don't see where naivety comes into this discussion?

Personally I'd much rather have the 'problem' of the occasional player leaving a hosting room than the limitation of 4:4.

Or, just make it so it tells you how many teams the host intends to play with in the lobby so you don't have to join games until you find one with the amount of teams you desire. Anyways it was never a problem with W:A which doesn't give any hint as to the number of teams in games, for the lobby to view.

Yo, agreeing with more players please!

Yes it is a console port, but it bears a hell of a lot less red tape from 2rd party companies then the console versions so I would side with Team17 when they say they will support it.

We will see, don't get your hopes too high.

And to all asking for more players, have you seen map sizes of W2:A, In all probability Worms Reloaded will have the same map sizes, so where do you think is the space for more Worms??

How about an option for variable map sizes, would that be so terrible?

Seriously how naive are you?
Whenever one joins a game who doesn't want a huge number of worms and host sets up 8 worms per team one had to leave, join another game and so on. Or one had to host every single game one plays.

That's what filtering is for you brailnless zealot.

I agree. There should be at least 6 worms per team. Those who want 4 worms could just set it with options.


Team17 reads Facebook but not their own forum ._.

That's pretty far from the truth.

Also, 6 teams is too much. We thought about this and decided 4 was best all round. Same goes for worms in a team.

That's pretty far from the truth.

Also, 6 teams is too much. We thought about this and decided 4 was best all round. Same goes for worms in a team.

What are the chances that both the map size and worm-count per game may be increased in later updates? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure I'm going to enjoy this new game (grovel grovel grovel), but larger maps and larger worm-count choices would definitely be welcomed by many players I believe.

Such option settings would allow those who want smaller 4-worm teams to be happy, and would also make happy those who want larger teams.

6 teams is too much. We thought about this and decided 4 was best all round. Same goes for worms in a team.

I'm sorry if I sound rude, but who is this "we" you're talking about?

If anyone makes this a proper petition, I'll gladly sign it.

That's pretty far from the truth.

Also, 6 teams is too much. We thought about this and decided 4 was best all round. Same goes for worms in a team.

It's seriously not about what is BEST for online play, it's when I just want to have some fun with some friends over at my place and we want to play with more worms or more team that we CAN'T and that's what's bugging me.
Sure on RANKED ONLINE stuff you can have the 4x4 max, but if people just want to fool around why won't you let them?

I'm sorry if I sound rude, but who is this "we" you're talking about?

If anyone makes this a proper petition, I'll gladly sign it.

Considering Kel works for Team17 as one of their producers, I'd guess the "we" he's talking about is Team17.

Considering Kel works for Team17 as one of their producers, I'd guess the "we" he's talking about is Team17.

I think what the user was meaning was it's the community that buys the game in the end, not the developer. If 99% of the community want a Worm with 3 heads then it should be seriously considered as good business sense. Remember you're not selling to yourselves after all. It's like when some developers force local servers onto PC gamers who love dedicated servers. We always want dedicated servers as an option!

What's wrong with having an 'option' that works outside of ranked games (local games, friend games, etc)? Seems harmless to me.

xXx

That's pretty far from the truth.

Also, 6 teams is too much. We thought about this and decided 4 was best all round. Same goes for worms in a team.

Wait, we can have 4 teams with 4 worms each. Then why not set the max worm count to 16? That way you can have two teams with 6-8 worms or 3 teams of 5.

That's pretty far from the truth.

Also, 6 teams is too much. We thought about this and decided 4 was best all round. Same goes for worms in a team.

I appreciate that's how you, the developers, personally feel about the game, but most people seem pretty ****ed off about that you're enforcing a limit upon us, when anyone who wants to play with a fewer number of worms per team could easily do this if you gave them the option to set a maximum.

This would be greatly assisted by a custom game browser with filters.

I also appreciate that given the last Worms game I played was W:A a decade ago, I may have nostalgia glasses on but hey, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, mirite?

I think they should change it to a max of 16 worms on the field that can be played as 4 players with 4 worms, or 2 with 8 worms, or 16 players each with 1 worm.

I think this would satisfy everyone to some extent.

I think they should change it to a max of 16 worms on the field that can be played as 4 players with 4 worms, or 2 with 8 worms, or 16 players each with 1 worm.

I think this would satisfy everyone to some extent.

Not really no. It should remain optional to the player to choose, and just give the appropriate filters to the game browser so that people can look for whatever kind of game they want.

Lets see what happens after launch and subsequent updates *fingers crossed*.

Filters sound a good compromise.

But having less than 4 teams is entirely missing one of the many points of Worms at what I percieve to be its height (the second generation) - to be an amazing game to play with friends at parties! Even I have more than 4 RL friends who would gladly play Worms all night at a party. Just another reason why I'll stick with W:A, thank you very much all the same.

Not really no. It should remain optional to the player to choose, and just give the appropriate filters to the game browser so that people can look for whatever kind of game they want.

I would also like the option but i'm saying now that there are already 4 teams of 4, why not give us the option to have like 2 teams of 8?

Have to say I strongly agree with this. Team17 may be the best people to make the decision that 4 teams is best, but in the past you've always been so good at letting the user decide exactly how they want everything. That's one of the things that makes you such a great company. I remember how pleased I was when you removed the maximum worms per game limits on WA, even though I knew full well that I'd very rarely want a game with 6 teams of 8 worms.

On handhelds, and perhaps consoles, I can see the benefits of a simple layout, but the fact is the majority of PC gamers - certainly the majority of PC Worms fans - enjoy customising their games. I don't see how it would affect the game for those who want to play smaller games if you just included the option.

Well, they could say "If you want to enjoy multiplayer, play with 4 worms against 3 opponents", and then give us 6 worms and 6 players per match. It worked in WA quite well, I mean, everyone is hosting games with 4 worms per team.

A bit off topic, OpenTTD (you SHOULD know that game) is based on infinite possibilites and features that can be adjusted by player. If you don't like one feature, you turn it off, if you like it, you turn it on. If you like, for example, big cities, you increase their growth rate. If you don't like replacing trains manually, you can turn autoreplace on. If you like it, turn it off. That makes game more interesting, because you can play it your way without any restrictions you don't like - or you can make game harder if it's boring.

That was main point of Total Wormage scheme - if you like massive destruction, play it. But I've never seen anyone hosting it on Wormnet. There are too many ways to kill the opponent, and that makes game boring - there's no challenge in beating your opponents.

I just want to say that there's no reason to not let players play with 5 other people with 8 worms per team. Could be useful in some schemes, and most of players will play with 4 worms anyways.

Have to say I strongly agree with this. Team17 may be the best people to make the decision that 4 teams is best, but in the past you've always been so good at letting the user decide exactly how they want everything. That's one of the things that makes you such a great company. I remember how pleased I was when you removed the maximum worms per game limits on WA, even though I knew full well that I'd very rarely want a game with 6 teams of 8 worms.

On handhelds, and perhaps consoles, I can see the benefits of a simple layout, but the fact is the majority of PC gamers - certainly the majority of PC Worms fans - enjoy customising their games. I don't see how it would affect the game for those who want to play smaller games if you just included the option.

Exactly, couldn't have said it better myself. I am pretty sure that the reason for the current 4:4 limit is basically because W:R is a tarted-up Worms 2: Armageddon console port :(

That was main point of Total Wormage scheme - if you like massive destruction, play it. But I've never seen anyone hosting it on Wormnet. There are too many ways to kill the opponent, and that makes game boring - there's no challenge in beating your opponents.

This would rather be a very good example why developer setting limits is absolutely necessary. In Worms Open Warfare 2 (Nintendo DS), there was no lobby, just a kind of matchmaking system. anyway, if you found an opponent, both were able to choose schemes, landscapes etc. and afterwards one of the settings was chosen by random.

Anyway, every fourth game you play is a stupid Total Wormage one, because half of the players you meet choose it. I don't know why they do so, but they do it. Everything was fine if Two Tribes didn't include it. Worst thing is, it was even available in ranked matches.

This would rather be a very good example why developer setting limits is absolutely necessary. In Worms Open Warfare 2 (Nintendo DS), there was no lobby, just a kind of matchmaking system. anyway, if you found an opponent, both were able to choose schemes, landscapes etc. and afterwards one of the settings was chosen by random.

Anyway, every fourth game you play is a stupid Total Wormage one, because half of the players you meet choose it. I don't know why they do so, but they do it. Everything was fine if Two Tribes didn't include it. Worst thing is, it was even available in ranked matches.

It's always fun in hot seat though. :D

I never really liked it, only for practising :confused:

In fact, it's way more fun to win by being the toughest and taking down enemies (and friends) with a good use of strategies :)

To be honest, TW is nothing but really, really boring. Except if you play in caves, because then it becomes a very strategic game.

long time worm fan. Loved worms 2. Played armageddon in college all the time. When world party came out, we had worms parties where we plugged a computer into a projector and played hotseat--always more than 4 players. I ended up giving out world party as Christmas gifts that year and everybody loved it.

There are many things to like about the new version but some of the limitations are dragging it down. I think I can live with the smaller maps but would want full sized ones! Without knowing what's missing--I probably can live with a few different weapons.

But only up to 4x4? When I played with my wife, we always played 6x6 or 8x8. I think in bigger groups we played with 6 on a team. If the worms don't bunch up, you can't go for the bigger kills. If you only have 4, you can move worms to safety faster which reduces the tension of having worms out in the open. And being able to give yourself 4 worms and them 6 or 8 really helps when playing against newbies.

Every online multiplayer game I play allows for more than 4 players, which is great because I know more than 3 people to game with. I really don't understand why the number of players is so limited.

1. Performance issues? Does a turn based, 2d game really have more demanding hardware specs than a real time FPS or MMO with 6-8+ players?
2. Gameplay? The key word here is "optional." Supporting more than 4 players / worms wouldn't necessarily mean the host has to allow them.

I'm kinda bummed that I'm having compatibility issues with my new PC running W:A. This player limit is one of the reasons I feel like I'd be settling for Worms Reloaded.

Every online multiplayer game I play allows for more than 4 players, which is great because I know more than 3 people to game with. I really don't understand why the number of players is so limited.

1. Performance issues? Does a turn based, 2d game really have more demanding hardware specs than a real time FPS or MMO with 6-8+ players?
2. Gameplay? The key word here is "optional." Supporting more than 4 players / worms wouldn't necessarily mean the host has to allow them.

I'm kinda bummed that I'm having compatibility issues with my new PC running W:A. This player limit is one of the reasons I feel like I'd be settling for Worms Reloaded.

You can't compare Worms with a MMO or a FPS.
I personally think, if you would be with more then 4 players, it would take way too long to wait for your turn. And all of your worms might be dead before you even had your first turn.
And if you die first of all 6 players, you're going to be spectating a long time.

I'm kinda bummed that I'm having compatibility issues with my new PC running W:A. I get tired of saying this, but you should check out the W:A Troubleshooting FAQ (http://worms2d.info/Troubleshooting_FAQ) and the W:A support forum (http://forum.team17.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=68), I'm pretty sure you'll find a solution to your problems.

You can't compare Worms with a MMO or a FPS.
I personally think, if you would be with more then 4 players, it would take way too long to wait for your turn. And all of your worms might be dead before you even had your first turn.
And if you die first of all 6 players, you're going to be spectating a long time.

Soooooooo you wouldn't want to play that mode, but I would... Tbh I would LOVE it. So why let it out? For some reason people think that when they would allow more teams/worms they are forced to play it.
The fact is that I CAN'T play with more then 4x4 even if I wanted to, but if there was a greater max everyone could still play 4x4 but if they wanted to they could go up higher...

I get tired of saying this, but you should check out the W:A Troubleshooting FAQ (http://worms2d.info/Troubleshooting_FAQ) and the W:A support forum (http://forum.team17.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=68), I'm pretty sure you'll find a solution to your problems.
Thanks, I'm aware of them. I've got the colors working in Windows 7, but I still get some screen lag when roping around, even after the front-end workaround / registry change. I also can't play through HDMI on my TV as I was hoping to do. I've only put a couple days of effort into this so far, so maybe there is a solution I haven't found yet. I'm assuming I wouldn't have these issues in Worms Reloaded... then I'd be really upset. I don't want to hijack the thread though so please PM if you have any specific suggestions.

Edit: W:A issues resolved. But I'd still like to try Reloaded and play with > 3 friends.

How about creating a new thread in the W:A support forum? I'll try to help you there. (You don't need to reply here, I'll see your thread when you create it.)

You can't compare Worms with a MMO or a FPS.
I personally think, if you would be with more then 4 players, it would take way too long to wait for your turn. And all of your worms might be dead before you even had your first turn.
And if you die first of all 6 players, you're going to be spectating a long time.

As the other guy said, you wouldn't be forced to play with more than 4 teams/worms if you don't want. It's a simple as adding a filter for max number of worms for you to find a game you like.

Exactly !

+1 for more teams, most of the games I play these days are with 6 players and would be more if there was the option. I'm not so bothered about worms per team but it still nice to be able to have the option.

I'm confused. Is it 4 players max as in 2vs2 or is the maximum amount of players you can have 4vs4vs4vs4 as in 16 players?

The second one, the max is 4v4v4v4, but if you have 2 players the max is 4v4 and if you have 6 players then you can't all play.

I have a lot of people I talk to on skype and we used to play WA all the time. A bunch of them outright refused to buy the game due to the 4 worm + 4 team limit. I have already pre-ordered it and I'm hoping to see good things.

Like stated multiple times earlier, it's not hard to filter games and change options for those that don't want to have larger games with more teams or worms.

Well it's probably too late a change at this point, if they increase the limit they also have to increase the maps, objects, editor, etc to properly support it.

I'm actually not that bothered if they made the team and worm limit match WA matches. Seriously, everytime I play forts on W2A It usually takes over half an hour for the game to finish, so it won't be new for me

Well it's probably too late a change at this point, if they increase the limit they also have to increase the maps, objects, editor, etc to properly support it.

Not if you allow manual worm placement, I believe W:A never originally supported 6 teams of 8 and the chances of the auto-placement failing was high yet support for 6 teams of 8 was added anyways and there has been no (massive) complaints about it.

The very first Worms game had only 4 worms per team (and 4 teams in play), and it was a skyrocketing success.
It's more "pure" to have 4-per-team. I always used to play with four on WWP and W:A. Too many worms made it too easy to get huge killing sprees with fairly little effort (since they all knock into eachother).

The very first Worms game had only 4 worms per team (and 4 teams in play), and it was a skyrocketing success.
It's more "pure" to have 4-per-team. I always used to play with four on WWP and W:A. Too many worms made it too easy to get huge killing sprees with fairly little effort (since they all knock into eachother).
I fully agree to that.

The very first Worms game had only 4 worms per team (and 4 teams in play), and it was a skyrocketing success.
It's more "pure" to have 4-per-team. I always used to play with four on WWP and W:A. Too many worms made it too easy to get huge killing sprees with fairly little effort (since they all knock into eachother).

I agree as well.

The very first Worms game had only 4 worms per team (and 4 teams in play), and it was a skyrocketing success.
It's more "pure" to have 4-per-team. I always used to play with four on WWP and W:A. Too many worms made it too easy to get huge killing sprees with fairly little effort (since they all knock into eachother).

Sounds good, however if someone WANTS to play with more, doesn't care about the longer waiting, likes getting easy killings sprees then he can't be able to do that... because it's REMOVED from the game.

I'll say this again and I will keep saying it, it's not about what some people think is the best experience for a game, because there is always people that would like it differently and by making it less changeable you are going to have more people that want to play it differently then it is.
There is nothing wrong with playing a 4x4 match but if I wanted to play a 5x3 or 6x6 match why shouldn't I be able to? I might even have more fun then a 4x4 game.

because it's REMOVED from the game
That's were your logic is failing.
This feature isn't intended to be in WR, thus, it can't get removed.
This game will not be a WA remake or a sequel to WA, it's a new game.

It's not as if the game had already been released with more players, then being cut down to 4 max.
People can and will adapt to only 4. If they want easy killing sprees and long waiting, they can play older titles.

And FFS, even the original Worms from 1995 had only 4 teams with 4 players maximum, and it became a huge success.

That's were your logic is failing.
This feature isn't intended to be in WR, thus, it can't get removed.
This game will not be a WA remake or a sequel to WA, it's a new game.

It's not as if the game had already been released with more players, then being cut down to 4 max.
People can and will adapt to only 4. If they want easy killing sprees and long waiting, they can play older titles.

And FFS, even the original Worms from 1995 had only 4 teams with 4 players maximum, and it became a huge success.
That's not the point at ALL. You're just arguing semantics there, so what if removed is the wrong term. The thing is there are a lot of us who would like to be able to play with more worms and more players, and giving us the option to do so would not take away anything from you guys who do not like to play with more than 4 of both.

It's just not very nice for you naysayers to show up and say "Nah, keep it the same" when it wouldn't really affect you if it was changed, whereas we would really appreciate the change.

Not if you allow manual worm placement, I believe W:A never originally supported 6 teams of 8 and the chances of the auto-placement failing was high yet support for 6 teams of 8 was added anyways and there has been no (massive) complaints about it.That's because they also increased the map size to around 32600x32600. Nobody plays with 48 worms on a default map because it's a massive cluster**** and it takes forever to manually place them.

In any case Team17 can't afford such fallbacks. The WA beta patches are pretty much distributed on a "if something goes wrong, tough luck" basis. WR can't get away with that. If a feature is in, it has to be fully supported, they can't just go and tell their customers "well you can place up to 48 worms but depending on various algorithmic circumstances the auto-placement might fail and you'll be forced to manually place your worms even though you didn't enable it".

This doesn't bear any fruits, Team17 isn't going to change it anyway, for a good reason: 4 worms per team works and it's fine. Adding two more worms to a team seems to be something like a superfluous option people barely use (which I can confirm from playing Worms Armageddon).

This doesn't bear any fruits, Team17 isn't going to change it anyway, for a good reason: 4 worms per team works and it's fine. Adding two more worms to a team seems to be something like a superfluous option people barely use (which I can confirm from playing Worms Armageddon).

You can't really confirm that. There's a lot of people who play offline or even online with friends only, and the majority here have stated precisely that as the scenario when they really feel more teams/worms per team to be better. In such case you wouldn't really have played with them now would you?

I'm also certain T17 won't change it. People have been asking for this since the Xbox versions and T17 has never really showed any interest in the subject. Still, one couldn't possibly expect things to change without voicing one's opinion.

This doesn't bear any fruits, Team17 isn't going to change it anyway, for a good reason: 4 worms per team works and it's fine. Adding two more worms to a team seems to be something like a superfluous option people barely use (which I can confirm from playing Worms Armageddon).

I played W:A with more then 4x4 exclusively... Also there's people that don't care for the competitive part, hell not even the online part.
I just like playing hotseat with a bunch of friends, but apparently people like me are the minority and should therefor be forgotten. Thanks for the answer.

That's pretty far from the truth.

Also, 6 teams is too much. We thought about this and decided 4 was best all round. Same goes for worms in a team.
4:4 is a great default game mode. Its a great base game mode. I think most of us fans understand this, agree or not. Your team found it to be the sweet spot. That's great.
But many of us fans often have say, a 5th friend who wants to play too. And in WA this was no problem. Sure the game balance is a little less perfect... But honestly in these instances this is a casual game. And heck, this is worms. Balance. Lol. Also oftentimes we get bored and want a massive 1v1 slugfest with extra worms. Were not saying that we want these to be the defaults--we're saying we want to be able to do this. Which honestly shouldn't be a huge demand on PC(I can see how it MIGHT be on console due to very limited ram)... Unless this somehow renders the engine massively unstable... Which I somehow doubt. Ya folks at team 17 are much better programmers than that. ^.^

We just want the option to play bigger games... Is that too much to ask really? It's one of the things that make Worms such a great party game. A max of at-least 6 teams, preferably 8 would be extremely useful to said. Now. I can understand keeping max total worms around say, 32 or maybe 24... There is only so much that can fit on a map even stuffing it.

But these are just the ramblings of a fan of Worms 2, Worms World Party, Worms Armageddon... who took the time to register and post JUST for this subject.
Because seriously, I've been in a lan party with people who most of which ~claim~ to not like worms, we all couldn't agree on a fps to kill each other at, so I started a few rounds of worms... and in short order we had two games going hot-seat on separate computers with 11 of the 13 of us playing between the two. With the restriction of 4 teams this simply would not have worked.

This doesn't bear any fruits, Team17 isn't going to change it anyway, for a good reason: 4 worms per team works and it's fine. Adding two more worms to a team seems to be something like a superfluous option people barely use (which I can confirm from playing Worms Armageddon).

I'm not sure what you play because every fifth/sixth match I play is with six teams and 3+ Worms per team.

Like someone already pointed out on this page, it's unfair for those of you who are against it to voice a no when you can't possibly be bothered by the change. A lot of people like playing with more than four teams and it wouldn't have an effect on those of you who don't like 4+ team matches - you could just filter the games.

And even though the game is too far into development, I don't think it would take long to implement a 6 team limit. And even if WR is getting final polish now, it could be easily implemented in an update, methinks.

I'm not sure what you play because every fifth/sixth match I play is with six teams and 3+ Worms per team.

Like someone already pointed out on this page, it's unfair for those of you who are against it to voice a no when you can't possibly be bothered by the change. A lot of people like playing with more than four teams and it wouldn't have an effect on those of you who don't like 4+ team matches - you could just filter the games.

And even though the game is too far into development, I don't think it would take long to implement a 6 team limit. And even if WR is getting final polish now, it could be easily implemented in an update, methinks.

Making changes is never that simple. If you want that feature that's fine, maybe it'll come out in a future update, just don't make it out like it's just flicking a switch that they so obviously missed or something. :p

This doesn't bear any fruits, Team17 isn't going to change it anyway, for a good reason: 4 worms per team works and it's fine. Adding two more worms to a team seems to be something like a superfluous option people barely use (which I can confirm from playing Worms Armageddon).

Me and my friend always use 8 worms per team :|

But anyway if they don't change it, I don't buy it. Nice deal. It is their fault.

That's because they also increased the map size to around 32600x32600. Nobody plays with 48 worms on a default map because it's a massive cluster**** and it takes forever to manually place them.

In any case Team17 can't afford such fallbacks. The WA beta patches are pretty much distributed on a "if something goes wrong, tough luck" basis. WR can't get away with that. If a feature is in, it has to be fully supported, they can't just go and tell their customers "well you can place up to 48 worms but depending on various algorithmic circumstances the auto-placement might fail and you'll be forced to manually place your worms even though you didn't enable it".

I'm pretty certain it took a few years after the beta update that introduced support for 6 teams of 8, for large map support to be made public. During that whole time complaints was minimal to non-existent.

They can simply show a warning message whenever the host chooses to play with a total number of worms greater then 16.

I really doubt people who want larger teams, will be ticked off by manual placement, especially if there is a "teleport in 1 by 1 at random locations" feature (Much like W:A's /AFK behavior when manual placement is on).

I'm not sure what you play because every fifth/sixth match I play is with six teams and 3+ Worms per team.

A-ha. Well there you go. 3+, not even 4+! lol. I don't know what you want to tell me there.

I also barely play any games online with more than 4 worms, so what's your point?

A-ha. Well there you go. 3+, not even 4+! lol. I don't know what you want to tell me there.

I also barely play any games online with more than 4 worms, so what's your point?

Clearly you just missed it, he said 6 teams...

Thurbo :
http://www.caribbeanedu.com/images/icons/obtuse.gif
You should use this as your avatar.

However you missed I only talked about worm limits, no team limits.

This doesn't bear any fruits, Team17 isn't going to change it anyway, for a good reason: 4 worms per team works and it's fine. Adding two more worms to a team seems to be something like a superfluous option people barely use (which I can confirm from playing Worms Armageddon).I'm not sure what you play because every fifth/sixth match I play is with six teams and 3+ Worms per team.



http://www.caribbeanedu.com/images/icons/obtuse.gif <--- What's so fun about this you annoy me.

http://www.caribbeanedu.com/images/icons/obtuse.gif <--- What's so fun about this you annoy me.
A triangle that has one angle that measures more than 90° is an obtuse triangle
Check out that image's filename!

Well probably MtlAngelus and SupSuper are a little obtuse. Avatar size limits are 100x100 pixels you blockheads :p

Well probably MtlAngelus and SupSuper are a little obtuse. Avatar size limits are 100x100 pixels you blockheads :p
Yes, because every image one might intend to use as an avatar should always exist under the size of the given limit because otherwise it is impossible to use because the concept of resizing images oneself is PREPOSTEROUS.

However you missed I only talked about worm limits, no team limits.

Yes, but this whole thread is about both the team limit and the worm limit.

Some people lime to play 4 teams of 4, some like to play 2 teams of 6 and other like to play 6 teams of 2. It doesn't matter which, the point it we chould have the option to play it how we enjoy.

This doesn't bear any fruits, Team17 isn't going to change it anyway, for a good reason: 4 worms per team works and it's fine. Adding two more worms to a team seems to be something like a superfluous option people barely use (which I can confirm from playing Worms Armageddon).

Are you sure you didn't merely miss the fact that the most default of default intrinsic schemes in WA, Intermediate, can not be played with fewer than 8 worms a side on a random map of standard size? It's at the same time one of the most competitive schemes there now and also a big favourite among casual players and newbies, second only to Shopper.

Also, I don't remember seeing you on WormNet1 before... what's your nickname there?

The lack of 6 teams of 8 limits fun things like Minefield, Plopwars, Beef Race and a bunch of other game modes (Of which I can't remember off the top of my head). It also simply prevents some nice carnage that is normally associated with large teams.

Yes, but this whole thread is about both the team limit and the worm limit.

You quoted my post, so I thought you were referring to it. Quite simple.

Are you sure you didn't merely miss the fact that the most default of default intrinsic schemes in WA, Intermediate, can not be played with fewer than 8 worms a side on a random map of standard size? It's at the same time one of the most competitive schemes there now and also a big favourite among casual players and newbies, second only to Shopper.

Strange, I can play it with one single worm, too.

You'll be feeling right at home in Reloaded, then. Good for you.

But if you don't understand why Intermediate needs 8 worms a side, you probably shouldn't try to sound like you speak for the WA community next time.

But if you don't understand why Intermediate needs 8 worms a side, you probably shouldn't try to sound like you speak for the WA community next time.

Why "understand"? You said "Intermediate can not be played with fewer than 8 worms a side". Does can not mean the game doesn't allow you to do so or WA players want it?

You should consider not to buy WR if you can not play default schemes with less than 8 worms. Because WR only got 4 worms per team.

Can WR place different teams of worms on the same team (use the same colour)? That gets around the worms per team limit to a certain extent. It's not ideal but it's a start.

Why "understand"? You said "Intermediate can not be played with fewer than 8 worms a side". Does can not mean the game doesn't allow you to do so or WA players want it?
KRD meant in the context of professional/competitive games.
You should consider not to buy WR if ...
I don't think you should worry about that one ;)

KRD meant in the context of professional/competitive games.

So WR isn't professional because it's only got 4 worms?

I played hundreds of really professional and challenging games in OW2. 8 worms aren't necessary for the game to become professional.

So WR isn't professional because it's only got 4 worms?I meant what I said.I played hundreds of really professional and challenging games in OW2. 8 worms aren't necessary for the game to become professional.Ahem.

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22worms+open+warfare%22+clan+OR+league+O R+ladder

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22worms+armageddon%22+clan+OR+league+OR+ ladder

I think our definition of "professional" differs substantially. (I'm not sure I used the right term anyway.)

WA has been around a lot longer than WOW though.

WA has been around a lot longer than WOW though.

Aren't the servers for one (or both?) of the PSP versions of the game dead already? :p

That only shows that the console target audience is not a professional/competitive one.
WR is a PC release. On Steam.
Can WR place different teams of worms on the same team (use the same colour)?
Yes.

If I were to wager a guess, I'd say it's because Team17 intentionally don't want people to have a choice. I mean it's all nice and well to say that "Only people who want to use this option will", but that depends on people knowing what they want. A regular person would instinctively believe that 8-a-side would be better than 4, and keep using 8, but if it's usually not...
The other problem is cases like this:
Are you sure you didn't merely miss the fact that the most default of default intrinsic schemes in WA, Intermediate, can not be played with fewer than 8 worms a side on a random map of standard size?
In other words, where the metagame practically forces them into using twice the recommended daily allowance of worms in a match, and a game that should be about quick matches gets a lot more drawn out because of it.
...alright, it might be a bad example - it's hard to tell if this refers to that the competitive community has 8v8 as the regular or if it's because it's just far more fun. But I think it still gets my point across.


Of course, it all depends on, in the general case, that it IS more fun on a 4v4 than an 8v8... but I hardly think any of us would know beter than Team17 themselves here.

It's not about 8 worms a side being more fun or about it being the standard in at least somewhat serious games [which it is]... It's that Intermediate as a scheme, on Worms Armageddon, breaks unless it's played with 8 worms a side. It doesn't work, the balance just isn't there. Against a good enough player, you'll lose two, three, sometimes more worms before getting a turn in. And that's even on a complex, well-balanced random map, in case the automatic placement gets evil and screws you over. Starting with 8 worms makes comebacks in such games possible and worth going for. Starting with fewer worms takes away that basic motivation to even play the scheme.

In actual league and tournament games, Intermediate players in fact go even further and enforce playing the scheme to 2 wins or more whenever possible.

Now, I can understand that with the different physics, weapons, proportions and possibilities on Reloaded, this might not apply anymore and I accept that Team17 simply felt that the game's standard scheme played better with only half that many worms a side. Maybe it's optimised for 4-player games as opposed to 1v1 duels, despite the vast ladder system it's shipping with. But I can't stand by idly as someone wrongly uses WA as an example to excuse this reduction in customisation, when the actual state of affairs on our game tells a very different story.

Of course, it all depends on, in the general case, that it IS more fun on a 4v4 than an 8v8... but I hardly think any of us would know beter than Team17 themselves here.Actually, it is the complete opposite of that. Worms fans (and not just them) have a history of taking the game and playing it how they want it, and not how the game creators intended (see e.g. the Ninja Rope). Just because you created the game, it is impossible to fully imagine and evaluate all possible ways that the game can be played, and decide if a placing an artificial restriction will do more good than harm in the long run. Of course, what do I know :rolleyes:

This doesn't bear any fruits, Team17 isn't going to change it anyway, for a good reason: 4 worms per team works and it's fine. Adding two more worms to a team seems to be something like a superfluous option people barely use (which I can confirm from playing Worms Armageddon).

When was the last time you played WA? I think I can consider myself a PRO level (or at least pretty good) player at 1vs1 intermediate at WA and, FOR SURE, the balance only can be found at 8 worms per team. The most popular and competitive, with the best and more addicted players, of playing intermediate in WA, is in the 1vs1 mode. And this mode just don't has sense without 8 worms per team. 4 worms per team? Well will be annoying rounds take 2, 3 minutes, or even less, durations!
There is some cases, depending on the worms positions, where we can make 3 or 4 kills in the first turn!

Thurbo, please don't take WA intermediate 1vs1, as example to agree with 4 worms, you are just shooting your foot! What is your nick at WA??? :rolleyes:

In WR, 8 worms would just take up more time instead of make it more "professional" or whatever because it just doesn't work as WA. My friend and I each teamed up two teams to play an 8vs8 match in W2A. Felt the same as a 4vs4 game, just more boring since it took more time to kill 4 hostile worms to get to to the exciting part of the match.

Actually, it is the complete opposite of that. Worms fans (and not just them) have a history of taking the game and playing it how they want it, and not how the game creators intended (see e.g. the Ninja Rope). Just because you created the game, it is impossible to fully imagine and evaluate all possible ways that the game can be played, and decide if a placing an artificial restriction will do more good than harm in the long run. Of course, what do I know :rolleyes:Every player thinks their way is the best/only way to play the game though, so the developers have to find a happy middle-ground.

Every player thinks their way is the best/only way to play the game though, so the developers have to find a happy middle-ground.

I always liked to play worms at parties with friends and family. It's not only about playing over Internet. Whatever...it doesn't take much time to find your favorite setup. Then you can put simple filters and enjoy game modes, maps etc you like. That's how server browsers work in most of multiplayer games. I've been playing worms since mid 90s and I don't think limiting options is good way. It's not only about having more than 3 friends ;) After many hours spent with game we gained more skills and we were looking for something more. For example during one long boring summer with my family we found some crazy game mode like playing on islands in the air with grenades and parachutes only. Limitations in wwp allowed to start that. Anyway wasn't one entry in wormpedia about doing weird things? Come on Team17!

Ahh 4 of my friends already pre-ordered WR, so there are 5 of us...

Every player thinks their way is the best/only way to play the game though, so the developers have to find a happy middle-ground.

Or, they can, you know, give people options! And filters! Preposterous, I know. But back in the day, giving options to users was all the rage, not like today where everyone just wants to streamline everything to "protect" their customers from the dangers of complexity.

Well I was also shocked when I heard about the 4 players limitation. But we should still play it first, then maybe they can add 6 to 8 players with a patch :)

I don't see why the option can't be built in. If people feel locked out of customizations they will likely just go back to W:A.

Every player thinks their way is the best/only way to play the game though, so the developers have to find a happy middle-ground.Or just offer more choice...

From what I see the only reason of not including the option of more teams/worms is that the current console focused GUI does not support it. It happens everywhere, just look at how WA development has moved forwards, many of the new features have ended up in text commands or regestry files because editing the GUI is a bigger task than the feature itself.

WR is just a PC tweaked and extended version of W2A on XBox, and I'd bet a fair amount on the GUI being identical.

Actually, it is the complete opposite of that. Worms fans (and not just them) have a history of taking the game and playing it how they want it, and not how the game creators intended (see e.g. the Ninja Rope).
...keeping in mind that the majority of Worms fans for this game will be people who aren't dedicated to the game and don't regularly keep up with the community?

Think of it like this: the players/fans/community of every Worms game after W4. That's the basis here.

Just because you created the game, it is impossible to fully imagine and evaluate all possible ways that the game can be played, and decide if a placing an artificial restriction will do more good than harm in the long run.
Did you really just imply that it's wrong for a developer to have any restriction if they don't know with absolute certainty that it'd be a good thing?

From what I see the only reason of not including the option of more teams/worms is that the current console focused GUI does not support it. It happens everywhere, just look at how WA development has moved forwards, many of the new features have ended up in text commands or regestry files because editing the GUI is a bigger task than the feature itself.
That suggestion... is so ridiculously flawed:
1: WA Beta has less dependency on GUI elements half because it doesn't need to, appealing to the kinds of people that would be dedicated enough to the game to not need simplistic interfaces, and half because DC/CS aren't dedicated artists. WR does need the GUI, and does have the resources to design them.
2: The argument would only apply in the first place if it was, like the Beta, constantly being built upon irregularly. With a properly-planned development, where only the final version is released, the GUI should only need to be built once.
3: There's pretty much no chance they're going to keep the GUI the exact same in the first place.
4: This is all aside from the fact that to add 8 worms on a team would mean nothing more than fitting in an extra four textboxes, or a "next page" function for names. There'd be pretty much no effort in putting them in.
5: It doesn't explain why W2:A would have only four worms in the first place. Your suggestion results in the exact same question but with a different game.

...keeping in mind that the majority of Worms fans for this game will be people who aren't dedicated to the game and don't regularly keep up with the community?

Think of it like this: the players/fans/community of every Worms game after W4. That's the basis here.That's not what Team17 seems to be aiming at. From what I understood, the target audience is new players and old fans alike.Did you really just imply that it's wrong for a developer to have any restriction if they don't know with absolute certainty that it'd be a good thing?I meant what I said :rolleyes: To rephrase, you can not be certain that a restriction is good without evaluating all possibilities.

Regarding the W:A UI: it's not really as much regarding the UI design, but the amount of work required to edit the interface. Adding a button or checkbox is a lot of work, due to how the front-end is written. We aim to remove these limitations when the front-end will be rewritten in 4.0.

Or, they can, you know, give people options! And filters! Preposterous, I know. But back in the day, giving options to users was all the rage, not like today where everyone just wants to streamline everything to "protect" their customers from the dangers of complexity.
I saw this coming a mile away the minute I posted that, but:

That is not how options work. Customization is all well and good, but you can't just let people make every decision for you and hope everything turns out alright. If that was enough we would all be game designers that could just be handed engines with options from which we would just customize perfectly-tailored games for us and be done for it. But no, there is a reason there are game designers.

Yes maybe some people turn out to be designers of their own, and some people will do with options as they see fit and everything will be happy and perfect. And some people won't and just want the game to work and be fun out of the box. And some people will probably be utterly confused and displeased with the game if all these options keep popping up prominently on them. Some people will think it's the developer's job to make the game fun, not them. Some people don't wanna check every game's options to ensure it's still fun for them. Some people will probably try to change options when they shouldn't and wreak havoc and be worse off. The developer has to cover all the odds. After all, we all saw how fun Worms 4 multiplayer became once people figured out how to change every option (insert your jokes about Worms 4 never being fun to begin with here)! But hey, you can just avoid the games that didn't have the options you liked, right?

If WA had never allowed you to have 8 worms per team this argument wouldn't even exist. It could just as well allowed you to have up to 10 worms, 50 worms, 100 worms per team, who knows? Would that have made it better? After all everyone can just pick what they prefer, why even limit it? You never know what those crazy players will come up with next!

WR does have options. You can customize your teams, your schemes, your maps, your matches, probably more than most games. Every single Worms game has always limited you to 16 worms per match. WA might've stretched this to 18 to allow 6 players, but with balanced teams you could still either have 2 teams of 8, 3 teams of 6, 4 teams of 4 or 5-6 teams of 3. Just because the beta patches changed that doesn't mean that was ever the developer's intent.

But why am I even bothering to show the logic behind Team17's decision, everyone just wants WA over and over and over. Why bother making anything else? Once WR is out people will just complain that the physics are all wrong and that the new weapons suck and that the editor is too limited and that there's not enough options and that the lobby is crappy and whatever else, because they know better, like they have done over every single new Worms game. And they'll just go back to pining over the next WA beta patch. And nothing will have changed. Until the next Worms game is announced and the cycle starts anew.

I generaly prefer the--up to 4X4 games..... BUT really, I can't see how it will reduce the fun...

As said before by others...."there is the free will issue".

If I don't like big games' so I won't enter a room that big..
All I'm saying is: If it did well on WWP & WA so I can't see how it possibly make any falw now.

I saw this coming a mile away the minute I posted that, but:

That is not how options work. Customization is all well and good, but you can't just let people make every decision for you and hope everything turns out alright. If that was enough we would all be game designers that could just be handed engines with options from which we would just customize perfectly-tailored games for us and be done for it. But no, there is a reason there are game designers.

Yes maybe some people turn out to be designers of their own, and some people will do with options as they see fit and everything will be happy and perfect. And some people won't and just want the game to work and be fun out of the box. And some people will probably be utterly confused and displeased with the game if all these options keep popping up prominently on them. Some people will think it's the developer's job to make the game fun, not them. Some people don't wanna check every game's options to ensure it's still fun for them. Some people will probably try to change options when they shouldn't and wreak havoc and be worse off. The developer has to cover all the odds. After all, we all saw how fun Worms 4 multiplayer became once people figured out how to change every option (insert your jokes about Worms 4 never being fun to begin with here)! But hey, you can just avoid the games that didn't have the options you liked, right?

If WA had never allowed you to have 8 worms per team this argument wouldn't even exist. It could just as well allowed you to have up to 10 worms, 50 worms, 100 worms per team, who knows? Would that have made it better? After all everyone can just pick what they prefer, why even limit it? You never know what those crazy players will come up with next!

WR does have options. You can customize your teams, your schemes, your maps, your matches, probably more than most games. Every single Worms game has always limited you to 16 worms per match. WA might've stretched this to 18 to allow 6 players, but with balanced teams you could still either have 2 teams of 8, 3 teams of 6, 4 teams of 4 or 5-6 teams of 3. Just because the beta patches changed that doesn't mean that was ever the developer's intent.

But why am I even bothering to show the logic behind Team17's decision, everyone just wants WA over and over and over. Why bother making anything else? Once WR is out people will just complain that the physics are all wrong and that the new weapons suck and that the editor is too limited and that there's not enough options and that the lobby is crappy and whatever else, because they know better, like they have done over every single new Worms game. And they'll just go back to pining over the next WA beta patch. And nothing will have changed. Until the next Worms game is announced and the cycle starts anew.

Oh come on. Now you're just exaggerating everything to ridiculous proportions. You know perfectly well none of the people in this thread are asking for too much. 4/4 really is as low as they could go. They basically went with the lowest ammount possible withouth making the game utterly unplayable. I don't see why making that choice was necesary at all, they could have worked 8/8, or at the very least 6/6 and just let players choose their sweet spot, and it wouldn't hurt the game at all.

Pretty sure if W:A had never supported more than 4 teams/worms people would still ask for it in subsequent games. There's a reason the feature was there, and there's a reason it was even expanded with the subsequent patches. It doesn't take a genius to realize that more stuff on screen can offer more compelling gameplay.

I don't really want W:A over again, I don't think anyone does. We just want T17 to make something that actually expands on what they achieved over ten years ago.

I don't get it. Why do You think that WWP limits are too much for WR? 8 worms per team, 6 team and 18 worms max in game is ok. Are new worms designed for mythical casual gamer that is so silly that can't choose what she/he wants to play? Tony Hawks games were designed with that philosophy (ignoring all voices from community), because devs said that casual players are 99% of players that play those game and community are hardcore players. You know what? Everyone moved to harder ea skate when it came out.

But the problem here isn't that it's just shunning the more "hardcore" community, but that it's something that would, if added, result in detracting from the people who don't play on a regular basis.


Again, I'd also like to re-iterate that I'm not saying that 4v4 is better myself, but that if Team17 decided that it's better then I'm taking their word for it.

That's not what Team17 seems to be aiming at. From what I understood, the target audience is new players and old fans alike.
But the new fans and friends of fans are GUARANTEED to vastly outnumber the old die-hard fans.

To rephrase, you can not be certain that a restriction is good without evaluating all possibilities.
Okay maybe I jumped the gun last time. Maybe you're just saying that sentence for the sake of having something to say and don't mean it to have any relevance to this discussion whatsoever. Or maybe you should just say exactly what you're referring to already!

mythical casual gamer
For as we all know, everyone who buys a Worms game finds it their most fun game of all and plays it forever. And have no friends whatsoever.

Personally, I am fine with 4x4 options. 6x6 might not hurt though.

Personally, I am fine with 4x4 options. 6x6 might not hurt though.

Neither would 8x8.

Or how about 16x16 now? That would be a real improvement!! Playing uber-boring super lame games taking more than an hour (or not, due to sudden death - also, then it would be easy to kill all worms in few turns, especially cause of those small maps :))))

But because you can chose you can also chose not to play the ''uber-boring super lame games''
That is something I don't get you seem to think that when T17 would implement a feature you suddenly HAVE to play with it? If you really don't like to play with more then 4x4 then DON'T, but if you are like me or a lot of other fans of the older worms and you DO want to play a... let's say a 6x4 match then we can't and we are limited by the restriction in this game.

Really is it so hard to understand that some people want to have the option to play with a little bit more worms/players in one match? It could've been the other way around as well... W:R only supporting 6x8 and not less (unlikely) and then it was you guys screaming for a ''less worms'' option.
The thing is giving players an option to play with more then 4x4 would not hurt your gameplay at all it would be OPTIONAL.

But because you can chose you can also chose not to play the ''uber-boring super lame games''
That is something I don't get you seem to think that when T17 would implement a feature you suddenly HAVE to play with it? If you really don't like to play with more then 4x4 then DON'T, but if you are like me or a lot of other fans of the older worms and you DO want to play a... let's say a 6x4 match then we can't and we are limited by the restriction in this game.

Really is it so hard to understand that some people want to have the option to play with a little bit more worms/players in one match? It could've been the other way around as well... W:R only supporting 6x8 and not less (unlikely) and then it was you guys screaming for a ''less worms'' option.
The thing is giving players an option to play with more then 4x4 would not hurt your gameplay at all it would be OPTIONAL.

Totally agree with you Pino!
Defend the 4x4 limitation, IMO, is a selfish opinion! Who don't want to play with more worms/teams, just don't play it! Let give the others players the opportunity to choose.
I recall that at Intermediate 1vs1, only 4 worms for each team is ridiculous and the game will have, in many cases, only 2 or 3 turns!!

Really is it so hard to understand that some people want to have the option to play with a little bit more worms/players in one match? It could've been the other way around as well... W:R only supporting 6x8 and not less (unlikely) and then it was you guys screaming for a ''less worms'' option.
The thing is giving players an option to play with more then 4x4 would not hurt your gameplay at all it would be OPTIONAL.

I can understand it, but I kinda think it's an odd demand of you people to beg Team17 all the time to add stuff the game simply does not feature.

Alright, you want to get this game similar to WA - but it is, technically, a sequel to third generation 2D Worms series.

If W2/WA/WWP hadn't existed, nobody would complain about this.

Also I'm sure if T17 added 8 worms per team (unlikely), most of you would realise this number isn't suitable for this different-from-WA-in-many-parts game and T17 added it for nothing.

Or maybe you should just say exactly what you're referring to already!I considered not replying to this post, seeing that conversations that degrade to this tone usually go nowhere and end up as a waste of time on everyone's account. However, you asked a valid question (sort of).

In the very same post, you wrote:Again, I'd also like to re-iterate that I'm not saying that 4v4 is better myself, but that if Team17 decided that it's better then I'm taking their word for it.I explained why Team17 can't know for sure that such a limitation is good, they can only make a fair estimate and hope that it holds true for most cases.

Clear enough now?

Or how about 16x16 now? That would be a real improvement!! Playing uber-boring super lame games taking more than an hour (or not, due to sudden death - also, then it would be easy to kill all worms in few turns, especially cause of those small maps :))))

Patronizing us doesn't do anything helpful towards the community, all it does is show you for your true colours.

That, and a lot of good normal games take more than an hour. All you need is tactics and an attention span to match.

I'd like all games to allow full customization and be mod/tweak friendly. It's fine as long as it's made obvious to the players if they are joining a game with non standard settings. That being said, only having 4 worms on your team still makes for fun games.

W2A games often last until sudden death, especially Crazy Crates since you can pickup a lot of health crates.

You can also extend the game by using lighting strike to revive worms that haven't drowned. Rope knocking is way too hard to be useful now, so it's rare for multiple worms to die on the first turn.

Yes, most games are better with that amount of worms in play, but with time comes the fun of seeing how far you can take the game. I'm not a game designer, but I do know the games I've played and loved for years are because I could customise the hell out of them. Case in point, overpowered as hell weapons with 6 teams of 8 is hysterical, and doubly overpowered weapons with 6 teams of 16 would probably be even more hysterical.

It just seems silly to me to not take advantage of something your game is capable of for no discernible reason. In short: if you're putting it to a vote mark me down for a yes.

I can understand it, but I kinda think it's an odd demand of you people to beg Team17 all the time to add stuff the game simply does not feature.
They mentioned earlier in this thread that WA originally didn't support 6x8. So here's the same request again.
Alright, you want to get this game similar to WA - but it is, technically, a sequel to third generation 2D Worms series.
I'd like to to be better than WA. With this limitation, it isn't to me.
If W2/WA/WWP hadn't existed, nobody would complain about this.
But they did, so we are. If WR wasn't created, then we wouldn't complain about this either.
Also I'm sure if T17 added 8 worms per team (unlikely), most of you would realise this number isn't suitable for this different-from-WA-in-many-parts game and T17 added it for nothing.
I guess we'll see when the game comes out. Maybe I'll find other reasons I won't like it like all of the other games since WA. I'll try the demo and decide then, but I doubt they're getting my $20 until they add options so I can play with *all* my worming friends.

Ahh 4 of my friends already pre-ordered WR, so there are 5 of us...
Sorry Diz, but the developers think your games would be better with one of you sitting out each match. If it's really unplayable with more than 4x4, then I guess this isn't the game for you, your friends, or I.

I'd like to to be better than WA. With this limitation, it isn't to me.

But they did, so we are. If WR wasn't created, then we wouldn't complain about this either.

I wonder how much people had complained about Open Warfare which was the most limited Worms since the very first one :rolleyes:

Sorry Diz, but the developers think your games would be better with one of you sitting out each match. If it's really unplayable with more than 4x4, then I guess this isn't the game for you, your friends, or I.

However if Team17 adds six players, he will have found even more friends - eight or so, and another thread will be created called "Petition to raise the team limit to at least nine players".

W2A games often last until sudden death, especially Crazy Crates since you can pickup a lot of health crates.

You can also extend the game by using lighting strike to revive worms that haven't drowned. There's no rope knocking, so it's rare for multiple worms to die on the first turn. There's also no worm select, so you still have a chance if you are out numbered.

See, games are good enough with four worms. BTW, worm select is in (I was against it since it adds too much unfair advantages imo... meh, now we got it).

I wonder how much people had complained about Open Warfare which was the most limited Worms since the very first one :rolleyes:
I wonder what that has to do with this thread.
However if Team17 adds six players, he will have found even more friends - eight or so, and another thread will be created called "Petition to raise the team limit to at least nine players".
Maybe, maybe not. Let's try and focus on reality.

I don't see why you're so opposed to adding an option you won't use. All you would need to do is not use it. It's like saying "I personally think that X is useless in the game and I won't use it, so I don't think anyone else should be able to use it either."

I wonder what that has to do with this thread.

OW reduced almost every game element that occured in WWP but nobody cared and just played it. I wonder why people can't do so with WR? It's a completely different game though some people expect it to become similar to WA.
It's as if you went to Nintendo and complained about Super Smash Bros Brawl featuring only four players, or to Telltale games and moan about a co-op limit of two players in Lego Star Wars. And finally you lament that a lot of single player games are missing multiplayer at all.
Take it as it is! Developers can't change all their games because you got one more friend than the game features players.

I don't see why you're so opposed to adding an option you won't use. All you would need to do is not use it. It's like saying "I personally think that X is useless in the game and I won't use it, so I don't think anyone else should be able to use it either."

Well it's just that I'd possibly run into trouble finding games with 4 players only, and the fact I'd still use the 6 player option from time to time because something told me "Otherwise yer missing something, dude!"

If you wish I could stop but complaining about complainers is just so much fun. Sorry :D

OW reduced almost every game element that occured in WWP but nobody cared and just played it. I wonder why people can't do so with WR? It's a completely different game though some people expect it to become similar to WA.
It's as if you went to Nintendo and complained about Super Smash Bros Brawl featuring only four players, or to Telltale games and moan about a co-op limit of two players in Lego Star Wars. And finally you lament that a lot of single player games are missing multiplayer at all.
Take it as it is! Developers can't change all their games because you got one more friend than the game features players.



Well it's just that I'd possibly run into trouble finding games with 4 players only, and the fact I'd still use the 6 player option from time to time because something told me "Otherwise yer missing something, dude!"

If you wish I could stop but complaining about complainers is just so much fun. Sorry :D

Because it's not a completely different game, it is the sequal to a game that has stayed popular for over 10 years, and has stayed popular for the fact that it is so versatile.

When you start removing the features that kept it alive before, people are always going to be scepticle of everything else.

And yes, if Super Smash Bros Brawl was released with only 2 players, people would complain. I dont see how this is any different.

Because it's not a completely different game, it is the sequal to a game that has stayed popular for over 10 years, and has stayed popular for the fact that it is so versatile.

And yes, if Super Smash Bros Brawl was released with only 2 players, people would complain. I dont see how this is any different.

That's the point, it's no sequel to WA. It's a sequel to Open Warfare 2, technically, and these series began with Open Warfare. So they didn't remove anything, they only added features. So I wonder why people didn't complain about 4 player limits in W2A, OW2 and OW but suddenly do now? Because they think it's a sequel to WA. Dang. No it isn't, and six players were an exception, in three Worms games out of more than ten.

I meant nobody complains about SSBB doesn't feature six players, btw.

OW reduced almost every game element that occured in WWP but nobody cared and just played it. I wonder why people can't do so with WR? It's a completely different game though some people expect it to become similar to WA.
It's as if you went to Nintendo and complained about Super Smash Bros Brawl featuring only four players, or to Telltale games and moan about a co-op limit of two players in Lego Star Wars. And finally you lament that a lot of single player games are missing multiplayer at all.
Take it as it is! Developers can't change all their games because you got one more friend than the game features players.
OW wasn't available on a platform I use, so I didn't care that it was limited. I was fine with Super Smash Bros Brawl only featuring 4 players because it was a completely different game. Again, let's focus on WR. And when did I say anything about single player games not being multiplayer?

"Take it as it is!" Are you saying that player feedback doesn't and shouldn't have any impact on how games are created? If companies want to make and sell games, then they absolutely must listen to player feedback. They need to make us want the game and enjoy it in order to buy it.

This thread is about us saying "Hey Team17, you'd make a lot of us happier and sell more copies of WR if you made this one change."

If not, then I'll just stick to WA, thanks.

That's the point, it's no sequel to WA...

"Ten years on from Worms™ Armageddon and the turn-based comic mayhem continues in Worms™ Reloaded" - From the WR page at t17 site!

Thurbo, why are you so against a - almost everybody - wish? As so much people said, if don't want to play with more than 4teams/4worms, what is your problem about others can if they wish?

WA had this level of polish and charm that they haven't captured since. I keep wanting new worms games to replace the old WA as my default worms experience, but they just don't stack up...

It wasn't just in the game and it's mechanics, but the level of cohesion and detail in their inspired design aesthetic. It didn't just feel like one toddler-colored cartoony bubble-screen after another. While obviously cutesy, the game seemed like it actually had some adults in mind...From all the hand drawn maps, the terrific moody music, the vast customization options, a rich single player with unlockable rewards, and the awesome online multiplayer, it really felt like a lot of effort went into expanding Worms2 into something that felt like a cohesive polished game. It's like comparing Starcraft II to the original - it's the same basic game but with a vastly expanded sense of purposeful design.

It would seem pretty simple to keep on this path, but somehow Team17 have backtracked. Their recent 2D games have gotten less detailed, more bland, less original, less rewarding, and, by far, less expansive than this high water mark. While I commend them for attempting to enter the third dimension, there was still plenty of room to expand in the two they were using. Why don't we have awesome Worms games with branching campaign modes where you take over the world through a series of skirmishes? It's easy to imagine some world map that you have to keep under control, with borders to protect, resources to gather, upgrades to purchase, etc. Modern game mechanics, like multi-player coop, and a fully featured weapons editor would make a lot of sense. I just thought of that off the top of my head, surely they can do better considering they've had over a decade?

All of this brings me to the subject at hand, which is their consistent watering down of the series through a process of simplification into cheap, feature-light games. Worms for the PSN is so bare bones, it's hardly even fun. Why not take the high road instead, and try to win people over to your series by creating a really polished effort a la WA, instead of trying so hard to suck up to the casual crowd? I don't know where WR stands on this scale, as it seems they want to try and do both somehow...

Certain people really like customization and complexity, and they do make up a decent portion of people that like to play worms games. Entire games are built around these principles, and many of them are played by a more casual crowd (the uber-customizable "The Sims" is by far the best selling PC game of all time...). It would be trivial to have a single switch in some launch menu to permanently lock/unlock a mode of complexity for things like team sizes, custom weapon damage, game physics, etc. Anyone that wanted a casual experience would never bother looking for this option in the first place, and just play the game with it's default options and menus. Anyone that wanted to fine tune their games could change a setting once, and tweak to their hearts content. Everyone's happy! I don't really see any rational reason why they wouldn't allow you to increase you team sizes above default. It seems like such a trivial feature for them to implement, and would make a lot of sense for a game series that has mined so much of it's diversity from people unpredictably playing around with the customization tools. Why they would want to stifle this creative environment, thus hurting the replayability of the series in the long run, is beyond me. Maybe they should pay attention to the fact that people still play WA...there's a lesson to be learned there...Short term benefits I suppose. WA is one of the best games of all time. I really hope Team17 can pull of another game of this quality someday.

"Ten years on from Worms™ Armageddon and the turn-based comic mayhem continues in Worms™ Reloaded" - From the WR page at t17 site!

Thurbo, why are you so against a - almost everybody - wish? As so much people said, if don't want to play with more than 4teams/4worms, what is your problem about others can if they wish?

Exactly, it is a sequel to W:A built on the foundations of the Worms 2: Armageddon engine.

Homer Simpson:

Exactly, it is a sequel to W:A
Woo-hoo!
built on the foundations of the Worms 2: Armageddon engine.
Ah, crap!

Exactly, it is a sequel to W:A built on the foundations of the Worms 2: Armageddon engine.

This. The engine used does not determine what it is the sequal too. It is the next 2D worms game on PC, that makes it a sequal to WA/WWP. Nothing else comes into account here.

Chronologically Worms Reloaded is a "sequel" to Worms 2: Armageddon.
As far as platforms go, it's the first PC installment since Worms Forts: Under Seige, though in 2D it's the first on the PC since Worms: World Party.

Spiritually, the game is taking cues from all over the history of the franchise, so lets just be happy that we are not only getting a new 2D Worms game for the PC but that Team17 have also promised future support for the game. Even if that future support isn't what you want then it should help to pass the time before WA 4.0.

Anyway, back on topic. This would be a good idea for a poll but I'm not going to start a new thread for it. Let's say that, hypothetically, you could choose to raise the worms per team limit or the teams per game limit. Which would you choose? Are teams of 8 more important or would you just prefer more competitors? (For the sake of argument let's assume both limits are raised to 8)

It could be a prequel. Star Wars Episode 1-3 were released after episodes 4-6 and were in some ways better looking but not as good movies as the originals. It was missing some things that the classics had but contained some new stuff, much like Worms Reloaded vs WA.

That was supposed to be amusing logic, not real logic. We don't actually know what year these games are set in, seems they travel through time judging by the radically different maps.

New Starwars had pretty CGI with everything else crap.

As much as I see your point, developing and releasing a prequel after the item it is a prequel to only works when storyline is involved.

This. The engine used does not determine what it is the sequal too. It is the next 2D worms game on PC, that makes it a sequal to WA/WWP. Nothing else comes into account here.
Ehrm, no.
It is a successor to WA/WWP, because those were the previous 2D Worms games on the PC platform.
A sequel would be a direct continuation of the predecessor, the opposite of a prequel.

A comparable example:
Battlefield Bad Company 2 for the PC isn't really the sequel to Battlefield 2/2142, yet a lot of people complained about the lack of many features and missing the same feel.

Of course, rising the number of worms per team, IMO, is much important than rising the number of players. Currently, at WA most important schemes, I don't see a strong reason to have more than 4 players (rope schemes start to get boring with more than 4 players) because of the time to wait. Of course I'm not against it!! As much options to customize, better!

Thus the limitation of 4 worms per team, is a critical aspect. One of the most important scheme of WA, is Intermediate and it is played mostly, on 1vs1 basis. (At least for best players). And, Intermediate 1vs1, with only 4 worms per team, (I never played worms 2: armageddon) but I imagine that, with 2 good players, would be pretty annoying, with very short round length! It's the worst aspect of the game, so far, that I'm noticing.

Very nice post and I agree completely with you. I also have the feeling they did a step backwards instead of forwards with this new worms game, graphic-wise the games feels less ''warm'' it misses it's charm it's more computerized-feeling. For instance in W:A everything was in 2d in W:R the backgrounds and some of the weapons are models. If you look at the new HHG that thing surely doesn't look as good as the old one (also they changed the hallelujah... for the worse)

This coupled with less features then it's predecessors give me the impression that this game is going to be a slight let-down... Something that makes me sad since I had high hopes (and I already pre-ordered it)

Earlier this week I was defending this game for someone I know who writes for a gaming magazine who is going to do a article about the new worms and all he could bring were negative points and while I was defending the game in the back of my head I knew most of his points were valid... I hope the updates/patches will help this game to survive his ancestors and will not be forgotten...

I challenge you all to survive a game of 1995 Worms. I bet you can't. You'll be whining that there is only 4 players, and 4 worms. There is no Holy Hand Grenade. There is no Super Sheep. There is no Napalm Strike. There is not even a baseball bat.
It's a lot harder. And ninja roping has very limited uses.
Want to play?

I challenge you all to survive a game of 1995 Worms. I bet you can't. You'll be whining that there is only 4 players, and 4 worms. There is no Holy Hand Grenade. There is no Super Sheep. There is no Napalm Strike. There is not even a baseball bat.
It's a lot harder. And ninja roping has very limited uses.
Want to play?

What was the point that post?
Was the 1995 game, massive played at 2005? Hmm, no.
Is WA massive played at 2010 (much more than all fancy worms releases after 1999)? Hmm, yes.

So what? Everybody here who wants 8 worms and 6 players is massively/only playing WA/WWP. My point is that this game doesn't work properly with these high numbers, because apart from worms and weapons there's barely anything in common with Worms Reloaded and Worms Armageddon. WR's based on Open Warfare engine and it's a sequel to W2:A.

Also guys... I'm allowed to say my oppinion, like you. I think 6 players would unbalance the game. I'm not sure what your arguments are... you want more players? Well that's alright.

As I said, I'd like to have more players in SSBB since I certainly got more people to play with, too... mais c'est la vie.

So what? Everybody here who wants 8 worms and 6 players is massively/only playing WA/WWP. My point is that this game doesn't work properly with these high numbers, because apart from worms and weapons there's barely anything in common with Worms Reloaded and Worms Armageddon. WR's based on Open Warfare engine and it's a sequel to W2:A.

Also guys... I'm allowed to say my oppinion, like you. I think 6 players would unbalance the game. I'm not sure what your arguments are... you want more players? Well that's alright.

As I said, I'd like to have more players in SSBB since I certainly got more people to play with, too... mais c'est la vie.

You don't know our arguments? Well it might be time for you to actually start reading post before answering then... About the unbalanced stuff... it's not about balance only it's about fun and preferences. People dont want to play with more players and more worms for more balance they just want the option to have total chaos all over the map.
I mean sometimes I could entertain myself just piling up loads of worms in one place and then throwing some heavy duty explosives in there to see the result.
I mean sure you can have the official ranked online matches limited to certain settings but when you are just by yourself or with a couple of friends behind a single PC why shouldn't you be allowed to goof around a bit and change some settings to super weird proportions...

And about SSBB isn't it so that it was never playable with more then 4? So you're not missing out and while this is a ''sequel'' to WA2xbla it's still part of the worms series...

Yeah I'd like 8 Worms 6 Players too.

Also guys... I'm allowed to say my oppinion, like you. I think 6 players would unbalance the game. I'm not sure what your arguments are... you want more players? Well that's alright.


Yes, but your opinion is pointless. If the limit was raised, you could still only play 4/4 games. How many times are we gonna have to repeat that to get it into your thick, thick skull?

And when will you understand Team17 is never going to add that, never, never, never? (because they also think it unbalances the game and I'm absolutely with them :p)

My oppinion isn't pointless. Simple example: Imagine a racing game would release featuring eight players split screen mode. The game features list "eight players on one console".
Now critics and other customers play and see this mode ain't properly playable (screens are obviously not big enough for this number) and complain about it. It can be deadly if you integrate a lot of multiplayer stuff that simply doesn't work, even if players don't HAVE to play it. But they think they payed for it and therefore wanna play it, too.

Maybe not best example but if Team17 says 6 players just doesn't work out (and I'm sure they are right, due to plausible reasons like players could be wiped out quickly, before they even get a turn or like too small maps for that amount), then why don't you accept it?

Actually i did play W2:A, quite a bit. And we ended up playing WA instead because we had more than 4 people that wanted to play.

I had 5 friends invited to my home when we were playing Smash Bros recently. Instead of complaining about the limits we took turns or played turnaments. Simple eh?

However, please for the love of god answer me: What do you do if there are seven of you?

However if Team17 adds six players, he will have found even more friends - eight or so, and another thread will be created called "Petition to raise the team limit to at least nine players".

lol

There were already ppl sitting when we used to play WWP. However 4x4 is defiantly step back, it's not what I expected. Now it's too late to change anything. T17 can't make bigger maps, balance weapons etc. I'm sure next Worms will feature:

Bigger maps More worms per team More teams





WOW ;)

And when will you understand Team17 is never going to add that, never, never, never? (because they also think it unbalances the game and I'm absolutely with them :p)

My oppinion isn't pointless. Simple example: Imagine a racing game would release featuring eight players split screen mode. The game features list "eight players on one console".
Now critics and other customers play and see this mode ain't properly playable (screens are obviously not big enough for this number) and complain about it. It can be deadly if you integrate a lot of multiplayer stuff that simply doesn't work, even if players don't HAVE to play it. But they think they payed for it and therefore wanna play it, too.

Maybe not best example but if Team17 says 6 players just doesn't work out (and I'm sure they are right, due to plausible reasons like players could be wiped out quickly, before they even get a turn or like too small maps for that amount), then why don't you accept it?
That example just doesn't work at all. The limitation is clearly the size of the screen. There is no physical reason why worms cannot have more than 4 players/teams. Furthermore, we know this doesn't break the game because, well, previous games in the series have done it.

T17 made a choice, yes, but it does not mean it is the best choice and I'm pretty cetain it's not because it breaks the balance of the game. If you can choose how many teams/worms you have in your game then it cannot possibly break the balance because you are going to choose what you consider best. T17 just wants to offer a streamlined experience to capture the casual market, but as pointed out before, this can be done while you also offer an extended experience to more "hardcore" players all through the magic of advanced settings and matchmaking filters.

I had 5 friends invited to my home when we were playing Smash Bros recently. Instead of complaining about the limits we took turns or played turnaments. Simple eh?

However, please for the love of god answer me: What do you do if there are seven of you?
Smash Bros is a completely different beast to worms, stop trying to compare them.

If there are seven people and the limit is six then one gets to watch and then takes the place of whoever is last in the previous match. Now imagine if you had 7 people and the limit was 4. How sucky would that be?

There obviously has to be a limit, the point here is that 4 is too low. By your argument then they might as well make it 2 because, hell we can just take turns.

Btw Thurbo are you just trolling or?

I mean you don't even try to react to responses directed at you, you just ignore them and repeat the stupid argument that were responded to in the first place...

His head has a hole in it, a great big empty chasm.

The physical limits are too small landscapes and teams dying quicklier, SSBB and WR = same case and I'm not trolling, my argument is more valid than yours. Because you don't even have one but "make more players able to be in the same game".

WA had this level of polish and charm that they haven't captured since. I keep wanting new worms games to replace the old WA as my default worms experience, but they just don't stack up...

It wasn't just in the game and it's mechanics, but the level of cohesion and detail in their inspired design aesthetic. It didn't just feel like one toddler-colored cartoony bubble-screen after another. While obviously cutesy, the game seemed like it actually had some adults in mind...From all the hand drawn maps, the terrific moody music, the vast customization options, a rich single player with unlockable rewards, and the awesome online multiplayer, it really felt like a lot of effort went into expanding Worms2 into something that felt like a cohesive polished game. It's like comparing Starcraft II to the original - it's the same basic game but with a vastly expanded sense of purposeful design.

It would seem pretty simple to keep on this path, but somehow Team17 have backtracked. Their recent 2D games have gotten less detailed, more bland, less original, less rewarding, and, by far, less expansive than this high water mark. While I commend them for attempting to enter the third dimension, there was still plenty of room to expand in the two they were using. Why don't we have awesome Worms games with branching campaign modes where you take over the world through a series of skirmishes? It's easy to imagine some world map that you have to keep under control, with borders to protect, resources to gather, upgrades to purchase, etc. Modern game mechanics, like multi-player coop, and a fully featured weapons editor would make a lot of sense. I just thought of that off the top of my head, surely they can do better considering they've had over a decade?

All of this brings me to the subject at hand, which is their consistent watering down of the series through a process of simplification into cheap, feature-light games. Worms for the PSN is so bare bones, it's hardly even fun. Why not take the high road instead, and try to win people over to your series by creating a really polished effort a la WA, instead of trying so hard to suck up to the casual crowd? I don't know where WR stands on this scale, as it seems they want to try and do both somehow...

Certain people really like customization and complexity, and they do make up a decent portion of people that like to play worms games. Entire games are built around these principles, and many of them are played by a more casual crowd (the uber-customizable "The Sims" is by far the best selling PC game of all time...). It would be trivial to have a single switch in some launch menu to permanently lock/unlock a mode of complexity for things like team sizes, custom weapon damage, game physics, etc. Anyone that wanted a casual experience would never bother looking for this option in the first place, and just play the game with it's default options and menus. Anyone that wanted to fine tune their games could change a setting once, and tweak to their hearts content. Everyone's happy! I don't really see any rational reason why they wouldn't allow you to increase you team sizes above default. It seems like such a trivial feature for them to implement, and would make a lot of sense for a game series that has mined so much of it's diversity from people unpredictably playing around with the customization tools. Why they would want to stifle this creative environment, thus hurting the replayability of the series in the long run, is beyond me. Maybe they should pay attention to the fact that people still play WA...there's a lesson to be learned there...Short term benefits I suppose. WA is one of the best games of all time. I really hope Team17 can pull of another game of this quality someday.

There's not a lot that can be added to that, great post. The industry would be a better place if publishers and developers thought along those lines, there's no doubt in my mind that this is the case. Team17 really do seem convinced that the approach isn't feasible anymore, but luckily there are people out there who haven't given up yet, not least of all those responsible for helping WA become a prime example of the mentality. Makes me proud I'm part of it all. :o

teams dying quicklier
None of us (afaik) said that it would result in anything other then more carnage.


Carnage = a form of fun, let people have fun at none of your expense by you ending your 2 person crusade (you and Kel though admittedly Kel hasn't said much for a while now) to prevent what has been a staple in the single most popular game out of all of the 2D perspective ones.

6 teams of 8 worms each was introduced to W:A before large maps and no one complained about it, why? because the ones that would, simply have a smarter brain then you and choose not to play games involving options they don't like.

T17 can further enhance the experience by adding a visible filter so you have GAME NAME, HOST NAME and # OF WORMS.


It is choice that makes things great, otherwise we wouldn't be were we are today, with this argument were you choose to go on a crusade and attempt to drown out every other person who tries to make there opinion heard with clear, well thought out logic. Are you enjoying your choice to do this? I assume so else you wouldn't still be doing it. What if you had no choice and was stuck with agreeing with whoever last spoke? would be a pretty dull world then wouldn't it?

Stop drowning out people who want choice to be added to the game, you've told us how you feel around 30 times now and you've received around the same amount of different views all wanting what W:A had. You've ignored them all so far or countered with the exact same thing you said the first time, we get whow you feel, shutup and let others post there opinions, we have heard yours enough to drive people insane, go sit in the corner and wear a dunce hat and **** off.


I probably make no sense since it's 3AM but yeah, whatever, he'll ignore me like he did to everyone else anyways and repeat his opinion yet again.

(In case your thick like a certain person whose name starts with T, this post is directed mostly at Thurbo and no one else.)

Really why is this so hard to understand?

I can't get around the issue, I just would be confronted with it. Like rejoining constantly because the host starts with six players. Unless Team17 adds an option thus I'm able to see how many players the hosts allow.

Before large maps, six players were only allowed to have three worms per team (a total of 18 worms in a game). In this game 3 worms and 6 teams should work as well, if you want only 3 worms per team, why not?

There's no way I'd play such a game though. It just happens too often teams get stumped out before they even made their first turn. Happened once to me in WA, I don't think I played six players three worms matches very often.

I can't get around the issue, I just would be confronted with it. Like rejoining constantly because the host starts with six players. Unless Team17 adds an option thus I'm able to see how many players the hosts allow.
They'll probably use matchmaking instead of a game browser, but just like you choose what type of game you want to play, you could as well choose many worms/player you want to play with, and the matchmaking service would find you an appropriate game. So you woudn't really run into games with six players/worms per team.

Also further confirmation that you don't even bother reading what you reply to, because this has been suggested pretty much since the thread started, and has been repeated consistently.

I read all other posts. Does it seem as if I didn't? Didn't find a post that confirmed they'd use such a matchmaking system then at least.

I have to say I agree with franpa a little - Some players want random mayhem and as many worms on the battlefield as possible. For the main gameplay it's useless though, or it even impedes it.

WA had this level of polish and charm that they haven't captured since. I keep wanting new worms games to replace the old WA as my default worms experience, but they just don't stack up...

It wasn't just in the game and it's mechanics, but the level of cohesion and detail in their inspired design aesthetic. It didn't just feel like one toddler-colored cartoony bubble-screen after another. While obviously cutesy, the game seemed like it actually had some adults in mind...From all the hand drawn maps, the terrific moody music, the vast customization options, a rich single player with unlockable rewards, and the awesome online multiplayer, it really felt like a lot of effort went into expanding Worms2 into something that felt like a cohesive polished game. It's like comparing Starcraft II to the original - it's the same basic game but with a vastly expanded sense of purposeful design.

It would seem pretty simple to keep on this path, but somehow Team17 have backtracked. Their recent 2D games have gotten less detailed, more bland, less original, less rewarding, and, by far, less expansive than this high water mark. While I commend them for attempting to enter the third dimension, there was still plenty of room to expand in the two they were using. Why don't we have awesome Worms games with branching campaign modes where you take over the world through a series of skirmishes? It's easy to imagine some world map that you have to keep under control, with borders to protect, resources to gather, upgrades to purchase, etc. Modern game mechanics, like multi-player coop, and a fully featured weapons editor would make a lot of sense. I just thought of that off the top of my head, surely they can do better considering they've had over a decade?

All of this brings me to the subject at hand, which is their consistent watering down of the series through a process of simplification into cheap, feature-light games. Worms for the PSN is so bare bones, it's hardly even fun. Why not take the high road instead, and try to win people over to your series by creating a really polished effort a la WA, instead of trying so hard to suck up to the casual crowd? I don't know where WR stands on this scale, as it seems they want to try and do both somehow...

Certain people really like customization and complexity, and they do make up a decent portion of people that like to play worms games. Entire games are built around these principles, and many of them are played by a more casual crowd (the uber-customizable "The Sims" is by far the best selling PC game of all time...). It would be trivial to have a single switch in some launch menu to permanently lock/unlock a mode of complexity for things like team sizes, custom weapon damage, game physics, etc. Anyone that wanted a casual experience would never bother looking for this option in the first place, and just play the game with it's default options and menus. Anyone that wanted to fine tune their games could change a setting once, and tweak to their hearts content. Everyone's happy! I don't really see any rational reason why they wouldn't allow you to increase you team sizes above default. It seems like such a trivial feature for them to implement, and would make a lot of sense for a game series that has mined so much of it's diversity from people unpredictably playing around with the customization tools. Why they would want to stifle this creative environment, thus hurting the replayability of the series in the long run, is beyond me. Maybe they should pay attention to the fact that people still play WA...there's a lesson to be learned there...Short term benefits I suppose. WA is one of the best games of all time. I really hope Team17 can pull of another game of this quality someday.

Good post mate.

Here, thurbo, I compiled the posts that make specific mentions or just hint of game filtering.

Or, just make it so it tells you how many teams the host intends to play with in the lobby so you don't have to join games until you find one with the amount of teams you desire.

Not really no. It should remain optional to the player to choose, and just give the appropriate filters to the game browser so that people can look for whatever kind of game they want.

As the other guy said, you wouldn't be forced to play with more than 4 teams/worms if you don't want. It's a simple as adding a filter for max number of worms for you to find a game you like.

Then you can put simple filters and enjoy game modes, maps etc you like. That's how server browsers work in most of multiplayer games.


If I don't like big games' so I won't enter a room that big..

But because you can chose you can also chose not to play the ''uber-boring super lame games''

To be honest I don't know if it will use matchmaking like in W2:A or a game browser like in W:A. Most likely scenario is a matchmaking service, it's the latest fad. But either way, it would be fairly simple to add a filter so you could only find games you are actually interested in, including the ammount of teams/worms.

There is both. You can use a matchmaking service, or see a list of open games.

I just read the entire thread again and I'm pretty sure Thurbo gets Amnesia every 15 minutes or so.

To be honest I don't know if it will use matchmaking like in W2:A or a game browser like in W:A. Most likely scenario is a matchmaking service, it's the latest fad. But either way, it would be fairly simple to add a filter so you could only find games you are actually interested in, including the ammount of teams/worms.

Which of these posts prove it now?

I quoted myself a lot, possibly, but it's not as if they didn't confront me with the same gist in their posts, again and again :p.

Seriously, now: What's the main, relevant reason to increase amount of teams?

Which of these posts prove it now?
Prove what? That filtering as an option was mentioned before? Pretty much all of them.

I quoted myself a lot, possibly, but it's not as if they didn't confront me with the same gist in their posts, again and again :p. But you never gave proper arguments against what people told you. You keep repeating the same nonsense, people will keep replying to it. Your argumenting skills are very poor, it's pretty obvious you are defending your side just for the sake of defending it as you can give no valid reasons that support your side, all you do is post ridiculous barely related examples full of loopholes.

Seriously, now: What's the main, relevant reason to increase amount of teams?

Because there is a large enough ammount of people that would like to play the game with more teams/worms every now and then. I thought that was fairly obvious since the very first page?

I just read the entire thread again and I'm pretty sure Thurbo gets Amnesia every 15 minutes or so.
15 minutes? You're giving him too much credit.

Case in point:
Seriously, now: What's the main, relevant reason to increase amount of teams?

Prove what? That filtering as an option was mentioned before? Pretty much all of them.

No, that T17 would add filtering for sure.

But you never gave proper arguments against what people told you. You keep repeating the same nonsense, people will keep replying to it. Your argumenting skills are very poor, it's pretty obvious you are defending your side just for the sake of defending it as you can give no valid reasons that support your side, all you do is post ridiculous barely related examples full of loopholes.

But the fact with six players this game doesn't work is the easiest argument ever! And btw, all what people told me as an argument was they got more friends than three. So...

Because there is a large enough ammount of people that would like to play the game with more teams/worms every now and then. I thought that was fairly obvious since the very first page?

So that's what we are at? I mean, this is interesting and the worst argument ever, too. In one of my posts I said you could say that to any developer (Eh dudes! I got more friends than your silly game allows me to play with! How dare you releasing this s**t?) and wouldn't get anywhere with them.

I hope I stated on which side I am with which arguments clearly now. I'm not really against all this, it's just that I find it so rediculous that I keep posting here. Do you really think T17 are gonna change anything because of this? Come on! Oh and btw, again:

Sorry Diz, but the developers think your games would be better with one of you sitting out each match. If it's really unplayable with more than 4x4, then I guess this isn't the game for you, your friends, or I.

However if Team17 added six players, he will have found even more friends - eight or so, and another thread will be created called "Petition to raise the team limit to at least nine players".

I'm serious. What did you do if there were more friends at home than a game allows you to have? Any random game, like WA? Would you really go create a thread about that, hoping developers add more players to it?

This is why I've been thinking, from the first post on, that this thread is pure nonsense, and that's why I'm still here.

No, that T17 would add filtering for sure.
Can you offer evidence that they won't? We're not predicting the future here. We are just suggesting a simple enough way for the to offer a streamlined experience for the average joe while also supporting more players/teams for more dedicated fans.

But the fact with six players this game doesn't work is the easiest argument ever! And btw, all what people told me as an argument was they got more friends than three. So...
And you know this because you have played this game with six players, right? No wait, is it because W:A is oh-so-broken when you play with more than four players? Or what, current gaming rigs cannot handle more than 16 worms on screen at the same time? What is the source behind this incredible insight of yours?
I have played W2:A, and I can honestly say it's not as well balanced as W:A was. When playing with 4 players, it's way too easy for one to be eliminated early because 4 worms is actually too low. You cannot really make a comeback if two of your worms are poorly positioned at the start of the game. I've seen the map sizes, and they aren't that small. Personally, my interest is playing 1v1 games with more worms. How exactly would both teams having eight worms break the game if it's the exact same amount as four players with four worms?
See, it's not the easiest argument ever because it's absolutely unfounded.


So that's what we are at? I mean, this is interesting and the worst argument ever, too. In one of my posts I said you could say that to any developer (Eh dudes! I got more friends than your silly game allows me to play with! How dare you releasing this s**t?) and wouldn't get anywhere with them.
It's not the worst argument ever, it's the only argument that can be made in a case like this. People like variety in games.

I hope I stated on which side I am with which arguments clearly now. I'm not really against all this, it's just that I find it so rediculous that I keep posting here. Do you really think T17 are gonna change anything because of this? Come on!
How is it ridiculous? The feature being requested is not something crazy completely out of the left field, it's something that was already there in a previous iteration of the series and has proven to work well.
It is a feasible change. Might require additional changes to the way maps work and what not, but if T17 decided to go for it they could add this in a future update. So yes, it is up to them, but if no one asked for it then there wouldn't really be any chance of it happening now would there?

I'm serious. What did you do if there were more friends at home than a game allows you to have? Any random game, like WA? Would you really go create a thread about that, hoping developers add more players to it?
Nope. It's just that in this case, the limit they chose is the lowest common denominator. Basically, they couldn't go any lower than that without the game sucking. All we want is a more reasonable limit. We basically disagree with what they find to be the sweet spot.

This is why I've been thinking, from the first post on, that this thread is pure nonsense, and that's why I'm still here.
Yet you haven't been able to make any valid point on why it's nonsense. It's not nonsense, it's something that would improve the game for some people without affecting other players. How is that nonsense?

Personally I think people give WA too much credit, it would've been as inactive as every other if it weren't for the beta patches (WWP was pretty much WA 1.1 and look at it now).

P.S. None of you are actually making well-founded points towards your sides so just let other people show what they want (this is a petition, is it not?) instead of arguing why you want/don't want it with lame excuses like "it's easy to implement" (which it never ever is) to attempt to back you up.

Personally I think people give WA too much credit, it would've been as inactive as every other if it weren't for the beta patches (WWP was pretty much WA 1.1 and look at it now).Well, of course. You cannot expect people to keep playing a game that doesn't work with their current OS. :P

P.S. None of you are actually making well-founded points towards your sides so just let other people show what they want (this is a petition, is it not?) instead of arguing why you want/don't want it with lame excuses like "it's easy to implement" (which it never ever is) to attempt to back you up.
I'm making the only point I can really make towards my side. It's something I would like to see in the game because, well, I would. What else am I supposed to say, that it will help prevent cancer and global warming? It's a feature I want, it's a feature other people want, it's a feature that wouldn't harm other users who do not care about it and finally, it is doable.

Also, feasible, not easy. And it wasn't an attempt to back up or justify this change. It was a direct reply to thurbo saying this request is pure nonsense, which it's far from.

I'm arguing with Thurbo because he is here, posting nonsense, I'm not trying to demonstrate anything other than his reasoning being complete baloney.

it's just that I find it so rediculous that I keep posting here.
I find it pretty ridiculous that you keep posting here too.

Zing!

I'm making the only point I can really make towards my side. It's something I would like to see in the game because, well, I would.That is my point, that should be enough. At least it's sensible. :p

So far every single other defense has just devolved into people pretty much calling WR one of the worst games to join the worst game movement that is hopelessly reversing evolution in gaming as we know it, or something, and they haven't even tried it yet. If that's the way to make a point, this forum will be razed in flames when the game is out (and I know that'll happen, so if anyone asks, I called it).

The only real problem l see is that gaming in general is becoming more focused on multiplayer. lf Call of Duty only allowed 4 player (even 8) l doubt it be the same online sensation. (4 being the max back in the day split screen was still used.) Sure it was fun, but it got boring very quickly. By adding more player, you get more variety in each mach up, different strategies, and you have to adapt.More worms allows for even more strategies, like baiting, but with a max of 4 baiting becomes much to risky.

They'll need to perfect the 4 player code first. Some players on W2A 360 can only successfully join 2 player games.

I did not say Worms Reloaded was going to be a bad game, I also am well aware T17 did not make W:A what it is today, however they did make the foundation for it to become what it is today.

Here are some facts, that nicely summarize this thread:

4 worms & 4 teams plays fine in WR
more worms = more customization
T17 decided on using only 4*4


Now, considering the third one, this whole discussion should be stopped until the game has launched, because prior to that, nothing will change anyway.
That's from the T17 community manager on the Steam forums:
4 Worms per team and 4 teams is what the game will launch with.
http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1389100
I did not say Worms Reloaded was going to be a bad game, I also am well aware T17 did not make W:A what it is today, however they did make the foundation for it to become what it is today.
Well, then let's wait several years after WR is dying, some hackers officially get the code and start making beta updates! :rolleyes:

Yet you haven't been able to make any valid point on why it's nonsense. It's not nonsense, it's something that would improve the game for some people without affecting other players. How is that nonsense?

I haven't, huh? Why don't you take a look at earlier posts, if you are so kind?

Here are some facts, that nicely summarize this thread:

4 worms & 4 teams plays fine in WR
more worms = more customization
T17 decided on using only 4*4


Now, considering the third one, this whole discussion should be stopped until the game has launched, because prior to that, nothing will change anyway.

Awesome, this is really just what I mentioned several posts ago. I don't see any invalid points there.

I'm making the only point I can really make towards my side. It's something I would like to see in the game because, well, I would. What else am I supposed to say, that it will help prevent cancer and global warming? It's a feature I want, it's a feature other people want, it's a feature that wouldn't harm other users who do not care about it and finally, it is doable.

You call THIS valid and say my arguments aren't?

Seems you have to keep the triangle avatar for yourself.

Well, then let's wait several years after WR is dying, some hackers officially get the code and start making beta updates! :rolleyes:

Yeah, because the developers nowadays are more graphical artists than real programmers. They are more concerned about graphical aspects of the game, than real and (much more important) gameplay, customization, physics, etc. I mean, I already pre-ordered this game but only because I'm worms fan. I don't have much hopes that it will be a good game, at least to steal people to the current WA and be played for many years. For me, it's clear that when they decided to develop a new 2d game for PC community, they wanted to replace WA. They wanted to steal their players. They wanted that WR had success and, than, people stop playing WA and swap to WR. The reason is simply because, nowadays, the majority of WA play it, online, for free and with WR everyone need to buy their copy.

A game better than WA, would have some new and better graphics, but with all the good that WA has. Their physics are so perfect and would be very hard to better it. Possibly but with very subtlety. And of course, the full customizations and all features that WA already has! Thanks to CyberShadow and Deadcode. If they developed a lot of good features for WA, it was not only because they thought would be better...
Only 4 worms per team? No replays? Only because of "yes"?! Shame! With worms different hats, what will happen with the dyna or mine in the different parts of worms head - to be able to get different blast jumps angles? Nah, they think the hats are more important!

At my view, T17 are wasting a good opportunity to release a game that will be a good replace to WA. When they will understand (if not already understood), that they failed in this intention with WR, they, certainly, will try again with more hard (I hope) in the future. Why? Because WA simply will not be stop to play. But this WR release will make people get more suspicious and think that would be another console game for pc (with the target to litle kiddos and not creative people who really think the game). My advice to do that is, wire CyberShadow as first step. And of course, try to understand every little detail that makes WA a so huge success, instead of present "worms victory dance" as a great feature!
LOL!!!

P.S. None of you are actually making well-founded points towards your sides so just let other people show what they want (this is a petition, is it not?) instead of arguing why you want/don't want it with lame excuses like "it's easy to implement" (which it never ever is) to attempt to back you up.
It's because it's a mix of that:
1: the points are unarguable (eg: "It boosts customisability" is an absolute truth here), but people generally aren't used to having debates without... the debate. So since their points aren't argued against - or even referenced - the person with the point thinks the other person/people just missed their point and try say it again.
2: all the points are very... minor. Things like "some schemes in W:A don't work with anything less than 8v8" and "newbies will instinctively play with the more generally worse option if it's included" are really not going to convince people straight off. The only points that don't really seem minor are the point the person themselves make, because they're especially opinionated about them. Thus, for that person, it seems like the opposition barely have a case.
3: Thurbo suddenly dropping 80 points in IQ.


You call THIS valid and say my arguments aren't?

Seems you have to keep the triangle avatar for yourself.
Seriously, dude, stop talking!

Yeah, because the developers nowadays are more graphical artists than real programmers. They are more concerned about graphical aspects of the game, than real and (much more important) gameplay, customization, physics, etc. I mean, I already pre-ordered this game but only because I'm worms fan. I don't have much hopes that it will be a good game, at least to steal people to the current WA and be played for many years. For me, it's clear that when they decided to develop a new 2d game for PC community, they wanted to replace WA. They wanted to steal their players. They wanted that WR had success and, than, people stop playing WA and swap to WR. The reason is simply because, nowadays, the majority of WA play it, online, for free and with WR everyone need to buy their copy.

A game better than WA, would have some new and better graphics, but with all the good that WA has. Their physics are so perfect and would be very hard to better it. Possibly but with very subtlety. And of course, the full customizations and all features that WA already has! Thanks to CyberShadow and Deadcode. If they developed a lot of good features for WA, it was not only because they thought would be better...
Only 4 worms per team? No replays? Only because of "yes"?! Shame! With worms different hats, what will happen with the dyna or mine in the different parts of worms head - to be able to get different blast jumps angles? Nah, they think the hats are more important!

At my view, T17 are wasting a good opportunity to release a game that will be a good replace to WA. When they will understand (if not already understood), that they failed in this intention with WR, they, certainly, will try again with more hard (I hope) in the future. Why? Because WA simply will not be stop to play. But this WR release will make people get more suspicious and think that would be another console game for pc (with the target to litle kiddos and not creative people who really think the game). My advice to do that is, wire CyberShadow as first step. And of course, try to understand every little detail that makes WA a so huge success, instead of present "worms victory dance" as a great feature!
LOL!!!
Thank you, Ivo, for your very informative and highly accurate piece of advice. I'm sure this discussion will benefit greatly from your piece.

Whoa, just came back to this forum, didn't realise how fat this thread has got. I hope Team17 get the hint and let us customise our games more.

Honestly I think it's a matter of supply & demand(shell I call it?),
plus we need biger maps for that to happen, otherwise enough one granade to make an achievement....lol

But we can only be clever in retrospect ,so lets be more patient for the game to be released..

Thank you, Ivo, for your very informative and highly accurate piece of advice. I'm sure this discussion will benefit greatly from your piece.

It's still more important than the topic of this thread. Should get an own one though.

3: Thurbo suddenly dropping 80 points in IQ.

OH NOES! I got infected by the stupidness of this thread!
Thread... attracts... me...
need to... get... outa here... argh!

I haven't, huh? Why don't you take a look at earlier posts, if you are so kind?
Valid points.


Awesome, this is really just what I mentioned several posts ago. I don't see any invalid points there.
Those are not points, those are facts, none of which supports any of your retarded arguments. Also the last part is wrong, I don't see any reason not to discuss this until the game is out.


You call THIS valid and say my arguments aren't?
How is it not valid? Why else would people suggest something to be added to a game other than wanting the option to be in because it would improve their enjoyment of the game?
Your arguments pretty much have been: trying to prove why this feature would be wrong ,which cannot be proven, much less by your nonsense examples; that if it was T17's choice then it couldn't possibly be wrong, which is moot because this thread wouldn't be here if we shared that thought; that this suggestion is nonsense, which it is not, it's nothing T17 couldn't do and it's nothing that would break the game.

There is literaly no valid reason why we shouldn't be able to request this. It's something we want that T17 could change if they wanted to, so asksing for it is all we can do.


OH NOES! I got infected by the stupidness of this thread!
Thread... attracts... me...
need to... get... outa here... argh!
The other way around actually, you are the one infecting it with stupidity.

How can it be proven 6 players would improve gameplay either. Eh?

Here's a tip: Why don't you go put this on facebook or anywhere Team17 actually would react to it if you can't play a Worms game without 6 players and 8 worms? Also, try to threaten them you won't buy WR if they don't obey your order, and bandy about invalid reasons like "we want six players because we want it". Surely you will achieve they change the whole game balance, level size and other options 'n tweaks only for you. Good luck

hopeless cases

Awesome, this is really just what I mentioned several posts ago. I don't see any invalid points there.

Considering this thread is about a petition for it and not against it, you should never have posted in this thread as your opinions and views are unrelated to the petition.

The petition aims to give people a chance to have there voices heard and to hopefully have change occur at some time in the games life, if you actually read what billt17 said then you would realize that it won't be changed when the game is launched however the way he worded it hints at there being a possibility of it changing after the game has launched. I assume that after enough feedback has been gathered, they may change it.

Well isn't it better to argue in the very same thread about it instead of creating a new one?

You know, like, if you want something to be changed you must accept there may be people who disagree.

Well isn't it better to argue in the very same thread about it instead of creating a new one?

You know, like, if you want something to be changed you must accept there may be people who disagree.

I think no one would have minded you not being in this very same thread.

Well isn't it better to argue in the very same thread about it instead of creating a new one?

You know, like, if you want something to be changed you must accept there may be people who disagree.

Except you disagree for the sole reason of disgreeing, you really have no reason against this change because it wouldn't affect you.

I love to have a lot of options in my games, mostly when those are simpler in gameplay terms, so you can never get bored. WA it's very complete in that sense, and while WR bring new options to the table, it leaves out some difficult to ignore tweaks in comparison with previous PC titles.
However, I think we should still wait to have the game in our hands, because it's a different game (It wasn't meant to be a sequel, rather a console spinoff) with a complete new engine, wich also seems to render smaller maps. So, I need to "feel" how it plays with less worms. Maybe it will suck, or maybe it feels just right like that because of the new map size, and more worms might be innecesary/chaotic.
I'll give T17 a chance here to show me how they reworked the gameplay. Limiting the worm count it's a big change for PC wormers, so I'm assuming there's some serious balance behind it.

Good lord there's still hope! Someone who actually understood how this game isn't based on WA and isn't designed for more than four players!

Dear god, thank you (and thanks to MRSAMPLE as well :p)

Well, I know the game it's designed to have a max of 4 Worms per team, but I don't know how it works in the practice... If it doesn't feel right for me, I'll be the first bashing it right here xD....
We'll see WR, we'll see....

i agree too. correct me if im wrong, but if im right there are only worms armagedon and world party with more teams? i never play them so i dont know :) im only used to worms with 4 teams and 4 worms in a team so i dont know how it is with more.
yes so if you ask me it is a little strange to make a thread where you ask for more worms and teams although it is not planned, and the last worms with more teams is 10 year old.

BUT if you want real more players would you like a tournament mode? i think thats a good idea becase team 17 dont have to change the game really. my thread for this request:
http://forum.team17.co.uk/showthread.php?t=41790

for the more worms request, i dont think it hurt anyone. maybe a good idea.

Yeah the option for more worms would be great.

I can't believe how many people are against even having the option. Why do you want to limit how you can play?

i also want more worms per team.

some people state that the maps are very small, if this is the case, i also want bigger maps, but i cant be sure about this untill i play the game.

please team 17, make it so we can have more worms pero teams, lots of people moan about this, and it would only make more players happy about the game, no one loses anything.

Asking for more worms per team wouldn't hurt anyone either, only that is kind of early to ask for it, especially when the game is about to get released and T17 already published the game features incluiding the 4 worms limit, I don't see them retreating 3 days before launch.
Let's see how WR plays first, then we can argue T17 about how the new game failed or succeded on this matter, and then, ask for a patch if needed, or maybe modders themselves might do it...

Why I find this thread null and invalid?

1 : The game is not out yet.
2 : People : You gotta, U N D E R S T A N D , that this is a new worms therefore you gotta leave the other worms games behind. All of you are talking about increasing the teams/worms because that's how you got used in the previous worms and now you are like " That's not RIGHT" while you didn't even play the game.
3 : Stop acting so offensive. Wait for the game to release, play it then ASK. IF they'd make 6 teams / 10 worms a team, every server will be like that, making it misserable for new people and those that want to really ENJOY the game and not see a worm massacre. So this way it sounds great. Leave the previous worms, accept the new worms.

Why I find this thread null and invalid?

1 : The game is not out yet.
2 : People : You gotta, U N D E R S T A N D , that this is a new worms therefore you gotta leave the other worms games behind. All of you are talking about increasing the teams/worms because that's how you got used in the previous worms and now you are like " That's not RIGHT" while you didn't even play the game.
3 : Stop acting so offensive. Wait for the game to release, play it then ASK. IF they'd make 6 teams / 10 worms a team, every server will be like that, making it misserable for new people and those that want to really ENJOY the game and not see a worm massacre. So this way it sounds great. Leave the previous worms, accept the new worms.

1 Game is being played at this very moment.
2 It's not only about previous worms it's about limiting options in general because it's a console port
3 Why would every server be like that? Take tf2 you have everything from 2 to 32 man servers and they are all populated, and if theres so many people that don't want to see a worm massacre then they can simply play with less worms...?

1 Game is being played at this very moment.
2 It's not only about previous worms it's about limiting options in general because it's a console port
3 Why would every server be like that? Take tf2 you have everything from 2 to 32 man servers and they are all populated, and if theres so many people that don't want to see a worm massacre then they can simply play with less worms...?

I think it's funny that you use TF2 as an example, given that 32 man servers aren't officially supported, and in fact now a message comes up when you try to join one advising you that the game wasn't balanced for such and that it might result in a suboptimal play experience (I'm not sure exactly how the message goes, but something like that). I'll also point out that on the Steam TF2 Forums there are frequently people complaining about how hard it is to find games that aren't "32 man instant respawn 2fort spamfests," so the idea that everyone can play the way they want doesn't always work out that way in practice.

Players aren't game developers. They're not thinking about balance when they play 32 man servers or 6 team 8 worm games. They just want to be able to play a particular way. Which is fair enough, but you can't expect the developers to put a feature into the game that they don't think is good for it. T17 obviously don't want people playing the game that way as they think it doesn't play as well, and as the creators of the game it's only fair they make it the way they think is best. Ultimately they want to make the finest, most fun game they can (Relative to what they're aiming for), and regardless of whether people can choose to play with or without the option, it still results in a "worse" game overall.

Oi Luke, git lost -_-"

If you add a /afk command that behaves exactly like W:A's in every way, then it doesn't matter how small the maps are as they can switch between instant placement of every worm to a 1 by 1 placement system and if both systems fail, fall back to manual placement. This won't affect league games as they will be played with a limited number of worms and teams anyways.

That's pretty far from the truth.

Also, 6 teams is too much. We thought about this and decided 4 was best all round. Same goes for worms in a team.I don't like to question people who have brought me so many hours of entertainment... but while I've been waiting for a new 2D worms I've been waiting for expanded gameplay... not a new 2D worms that's more limited than the originals.

I honestly and truly believe there should be a limit of worms per team that's about 32, and you can customise it higher with mods or something. Make it only playable like this through LAN or hotseat if you have to... but seriously... you're taking away from the game, not adding to it.

I've been waiting for years for MORE worms to put on BIGGER maps. This is going to kill the game.

I do agree

Oi Luke, git lost -_-"

Maybe I'll face --> and backflip. :p

Also, additional teams and worms is probably more work than it might seem. Lots of changes would have to be made, particularly interface wise.

II honestly and truly believe there should be a limit of worms per team that's about 32, and you can customise it higher with mods or something.
Presenting: a man who wants to have 128 worms in a match at once.


Can we officially declare this thread redundant yet?

If those people that last played Worms Armageddon/World Party realise Worms Reloaded, the game they waited ten years for, is nothing but an advanced version of Worms: Open Warfare series, they'll totally freak out and create thousands of threads like this one, while the complain about less worms/teams than in WA is rather harmless compaired with those that will probably follow. I don't even expect them to actually test what this game is like, they'd most likely bombard this forum immediately.

If those people that last played Worms Armageddon/World Party realise Worms Reloaded, the game they waited ten years for, is nothing but an advanced version of Worms: Open Warfare series, they'll totally freak out and create thousands of threads like this one, while the complain about less worms/teams than in WA is rather harmless compaired with those that will probably follow. I don't even expect them to actually test what this game is like, they'd most likely bombard this forum immediately.You mean they haven't already? :p

Expecting the feature set to change with not even two weeks to release is nuts, but I am curious what Team17 will do for updates.

Presenting: a man who wants to have 128 worms in a match at once.
Can we officially declare this thread redundant yet?I didn't say 128! You're putting words in my fingers. You probably mean the total of worms but I only said 32 as an arbitrary example. The point is that the engine should have the capacity to support however many worms the computer that's running it can handle. Obviously an infinite slider bar or something in game is absurd, and on the face of it the idea itself is nonsense, but the thing that's given this franchise its devoted fanbase has been the ability to customise.

Putting a hard limit on the number of worms (particularly one that's less than the previous numbers) is simply restricting the possibilities of the game. I don't necessarily think the game should ship with a default of 6 or 8 worms or teams, but I do sincerely believe increasing the default number - even through modding - is imperative.

But okay. For the sake of argument, I'll take your 128 worms (you did mean per team, right?), or your 256, or any power of 2 you can suggest until I run out of RAM - because when I get bored of playing with only a couple of worms using the same few weapons in the same few landscapes, I'll be customising the hell out of my game to turn it into something refreshing and novel.

Of course, all of this really is redundant if Reloaded imposes genuine restrictions on potential map sizes.

No one here is expecting T17 to suddenly go mad adding in more teams/worms support this close to release.

They could, as it's a steam only release and as such only they only need to update the steam depot, but if they have a stable build now they won't risk ruining that for the launch day (and if they don't they will be working like mad to get it that bit more stable!).

Also, they will take our oppinions into account, but any such changes won't be made untill the game is live and real bugs (the evil ones that only poke their heads out once a couple of thousand people are trying to play) have been resolved. To do anything else would be madness.

But the point of this thread isn't people shouting at T17 to sort it out now, it's a request that once the game is out and stable that the option is stongly considered.

Why dont T17 RESPOND TO THE PLAYERS....?

Theres 1 post from "Kel" in this enitre thread. Its two lines long and he adresses nothing. GREAT WORK GUYS, GREAT WORK, KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK

That's pretty far from the truth.

Also, 6 teams is too much. We thought about this and decided 4 was best all round. Same goes for worms in a team.

Why don't you answer anyones questions?

Why did you decide that?

What about schemes that are played with 8 worms, and wont WORK with less?

Intermediate cannot be played with 8 worms. THIS SUCKS!

www.normalnonoobs.org

These guys know inter the best, they won't be able to play inter on WR, as will any of us. As has been said before in order for certain schemes to "work", the number of worms needs to be right. What a stupid thing for T17 to do. All T17 have done by making this game is shown how LITTLE consideration they've given to WA players. As IVO said... WHO WANTS TO SEE A VICTORY DANCE FFS...??? Just do what you did with WA and improve everything, offer MORE customabilty not less.... gah T17 are a waste.

People like thurbo saying you dont need to play certain shemes with 8 worms really have no clue whatsoever about this game and the community. There are so many people on this forum who really just dont have a clue! Its so frustrating! Worms Armageddon is the most played game in the series and has the best online community. Its so annoying reading these posts from people who dont understand how the game is played, they have nothing to base their opinions on and assume they know best, without any real experience of how WA is played, IDIOTS!

KRD did a good job of explaining how im feeling, its so frustrating how many people there are that like "worms" enough to join this forum, yet just have no understanding or experience with Worms Armageddon to be able to talk about it the way they do.

And TEAM17 pull your finger out and start RESPONDING to players questions, why is that so hard to do...

NAiL, I can really sympathise with where you're coming from. Even though I haven't played massive amounts online and only just signed up to the forums, I can really relate to your position: you just want a new worms with more options.

And while I can completely understand your frustration with the lack of response from Team17 and us noobs invading your forums, you have to remember not to be too angry with the devs. They (hopefully) just want to create something we'll really enjoy, but if you **** them off too much they might reduce it to 3 worms per team just to spite us!

I think the best we can do - my plan, at least - is try convey our meager opinions to the glorious developers who bring us the games we love, and hope that they hear our gentle suckling and bestow upon us the options we so desire.

NAiL, I think Plutonic hit you on the head with this post:
But the point of this thread isn't people shouting at T17 to sort it out now, it's a request that once the game is out and stable that the option is stongly concidered.

Please, Team17: we just hope that the option is STONGLY CONCIDERED.

Had to.

I don't think there's much more to say.

Why don't you answer anyones questions?

Why did you decide that?

What about schemes that are played with 8 worms, and wont WORK with less?

Intermediate cannot be played with 8 worms. THIS SUCKS!

www.normalnonoobs.org

These guys know inter the best, they won't be able to play inter on WR, as will any of us. As has been said before in order for certain schemes to "work", the number of worms needs to be right. What a stupid thing for T17 to do. All T17 have done by making this game is shown how LITTLE consideration they've given to WA players. As IVO said... WHO WANTS TO SEE A VICTORY DANCE FFS...??? Just do what you did with WA and improve everything, offer MORE customabilty not less.... gah T17 are a waste.

People like thurbo saying you dont need to play certain shemes with 8 worms really have no clue whatsoever about this game and the community. There are so many people on this forum who really just dont have a clue! Its so frustrating! Worms Armageddon is the most played game in the series and has the best online community. Its so annoying reading these posts from people who dont understand how the game is played, they have nothing to base their opinions on and assume they know best, without any real experience of how WA is played, IDIOTS!

KRD did a good job of explaining how im feeling, its so frustrating how many people there are that like "worms" enough to join this forum, yet just have no understanding or experience with Worms Armageddon to be able to talk about it the way they do.

And TEAM17 pull your finger out and start RESPONDING to players questions, why is that so hard to do...
Yeah, flinging insults at T17 is surely a good idea. Keep going! :rolleyes:

How about you stick to WA and don't buy WR then?
They're not forcing you to stop playing it and switch to WR.

for all of you who argue that we will not know how the game works untill we play it...

its a 2D Worms game, how much different can it be to previous installments? will the game mechanics change so much?
PLUS maybe some of us have tried out the beta, or Worms 2 Armageddon.

i really think this game is going to be fun and i once i try it out i might love it, issues that need to be fixed such as bugs might pop up, but sureley, i will miss more worms per team.

i have played several worms games and i really like it when you are able to use more than 4 worms per team. and the new worms game isnt going to be such a different game for me not to know this.


PS: im not asking team 17 to go on and work on it right now, of corse not.

im asking them to take it into consideration what lots of people are asking for, and if they find a way to implement it, without "hurting" anyones game experience, to do it as soon as possible. which may well be after all other "issues" with the game have been sovled.

BTW: on the steam forums "billt17" did answer lots fo questions, maybe you should pop up there to ask certain things.

enough walls of text.

it wont hurt if it is optional.

signed

How about you stick to WA and don't buy WR then?
They're not forcing you to stop playing it and switch to WR.

Good argument. Probably best yet.

Why don't you answer anyones questions?

They do, not in their very own forum though. I'd be interested in knowing the reason, too.

Why did you decide that?

Team17 mentioned that 6 players are too much for WR since players may be killed before their first turn, or too much time between a player's turn thus he gets bored of staring at his screen. Not sure about worm limits but probably cause of level sizes which aren't big enough. I personally agree with them.

What about schemes that are played with 8 worms, and wont WORK with less?

I've never seen any schemes since Open Warfare that didn't work with only four worms yet. Probably don't even exist.

Intermediate cannot be played with 8 worms. THIS SUCKS!

I got question there: You most likely didn't play WR yet, so how do you know?

People like thurbo saying you dont need to play certain shemes with 8 worms really have no clue whatsoever about this game and the community. There are so many people on this forum who really just dont have a clue! Its so frustrating! Worms Armageddon is the most played game in the series and has the best online community. Its so annoying reading these posts from people who dont understand how the game is played, they have nothing to base their opinions on and assume they know best, without any real experience of how WA is played, IDIOTS!

This game isn't Armageddon, it's not an extended version of Armageddon, it's not a sequel to Armageddon, it's not even based on Armageddon. This game isn't "Worms Unlimited" (read about that on "Worms2D.info"). You'll have to wait another few years for it as it seems.

Why dont T17 RESPOND TO THE PLAYERS....?
There's a good reason for that. Here, I'll give you a hint:
THIS SUCKS!
What a stupid thing for T17 to do.
All T17 have done by making this game is shown how LITTLE consideration they've given to WA players.
As IVO said... WHO WANTS TO SEE A VICTORY DANCE FFS...???
gah T17 are a waste.
There are so many people on this forum who really just dont have a clue!
IDIOTS!
TEAM17 pull your finger out



...that, and they don't frequent the forum enough to keep up with every thread here.

T17 reply to posts on the Steam forum here (http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=941).

Yeah, flinging insults at T17 is surely a good idea. Keep going! :rolleyes:


Licking T17s ass is surely a good idea. Keep going!

@ Fluck, glad you see where im comming from. If you check the TUS league froums you'll see that all WA players want is a bigger and better version of WA. T17 don't seem take into consideration the thoughts of people who actively play WA, the most popular of all their games. They don't seem to care about what WE would like to see in a future game, they just STEAL the modes we invented and then slap us in the face by saying we cant have more 4 worms in a team!

We've got a couple of people who keep updating WA and they've really radically changed they ways in which worms can potentially be played. Take big maps for example, being able to play on maps of unlimited size offers brand new ways of creating and interacting with the game and can be very enjoyable. It goes to show just how little some of you know about how the game is played online to think that "big maps are unessecary". If you actually played this game you'd know that almost every other game hosted in wormnet is on a big map. Big bow n arrow, Big RR, Tower race... all popular games amongst newer and more experienced players alike.

And what do T17 do.....?
Thats right, NO BIG MAPS FOR YOU.

@ Thurbo, thanks for replying at least.

The fact of the matter is, you cant play intermediate without 8 worms. The scheme doesent WORK without 8 worms. Its unbalanced without 8 worms, to say it one more time, it DOESNT WORK, without 8 worms. Without 8 worms, it becomes a DIFFERENT SCHEME, ITS NO LONGER INTERMEDIATE.

Now, they may have made something simillar for WR, but it ISNT intermediate. It can't be intermediate seeing that all of the weapons that make up the intermediate scheme are not in WR. It ISNT intermediate, seeing as you don't have 8 worms. It may be CLOSE to intermediate, but it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to be the same thing when the weapons and worm numbers are DIFFERENT. FACT!!!

Licking T17s ass is surely a good idea. Keep going!

@ Fluck, glad you see where im comming from. If you check the TUS league froums you'll see that all WA players want is a bigger and better version of WA. T17 don't seem take into consideration the thoughts of people who actively play WA, the most popular of all their games. They don't seem to care about what WE would like to see in a future game, they just STEAL the modes we invented and then slap us in the face by saying we cant have more 4 worms in a team!

We've got a couple of people who keep updating WA and they've really radically changed they ways in which worms can potentially be played. Take big maps for example, being able to play on maps of unlimited size offers brand new ways of creating and interacting with the game and can be very enjoyable. It goes to show just how little some of you know about how the game is played online to think that "big maps are unessecary". If you actually played this game you'd know that almost every other game hosted in wormnet is on a big map. Big bow n arrow, Big RR, Tower race... all popular games amongst newer and more experienced players alike.

And what do T17 do.....?
Thats right, NO BIG MAPS FOR YOU.

@ Thurbo, thanks for replying at least.

The fact of the matter is, you cant play intermediate without 8 worms. The scheme doesent WORK without 8 worms. Its unbalanced without 8 worms, to say it one more time, it DOESNT WORK, without 8 worms. Without 8 worms, it becomes a DIFFERENT SCHEME, ITS NO LONGER INTERMEDIATE.

Now, they may have made something simillar for WR, but it ISNT intermediate. It can't be intermediate seeing that all of the weapons that make up the intermediate scheme are not in WR. It ISNT intermediate, seeing as you don't have 8 worms. It may be CLOSE to intermediate, but it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to be the same thing when the weapons and worm numbers are DIFFERENT. FACT!!!

Jesus Christ man, calm the hell down.
It's a game. Damn. :eek:

Just enjoy Armageddon the way you want and then live with it. If you don't agree with Worms Reloaded's gameplay system-kind-of-thing then simply don't play it.

It's not like Armageddon will be abandoned forever or something.

Licking T17s ass is surely a good idea. Keep going!
Awesome! Now you're insulting me too. :rolleyes:

You totally lost any last respect I might have had.

I really hope that no one thinks you're an example of the average Worms veterans.
they just STEAL the modes we invented
Hahaha!
No, really, HAHAHA!

Of course, it all depends on, in the general case, that it IS more fun on a 4v4 than an 8v8... but I hardly think any of us would know beter than Team17 themselves here.

stick to your pokemon games mate, your also needlessly licking the ass of T17.

Who do you think knows best... The community took worms armageddon where it is now, not the developers. The community knows best, anyone who has any knowledge of how WA is played, would want to see no less than 8 worms be playable in WR, period.

You totally lost any last respect I might have had.


I dont even know you, ive never played a game with you, I couldnt care less

I dont even know you, ive never played a game with you, I couldnt care less
Yep, and exactly that is your problem.
Knowing people and playing games with them has nothing to do whatsoever with the fact that they might be complete a*sholes.

Your attitude is really saddening.

I dont even know you, ive never played a game with you, I couldnt care less

If you think that Team17 stole these gamemodes, you're evidently not old enough to have played with Bonz.

Protip: a lot of people here were born before the first Worms game. It pays to remember that when you try to push your opinions.
As for Intermediate "herp derp I need 8 worms for intermediate" I suggest you play the original 1995 Worms. You'll find that Intermediate works very well with only four.

Not to mention, I've been around since before the first W:A beta update. After a while, the novelty of 6x8 games wears off and you find yourself playing 4 (or sometimes 3) worms more often.

Also your grammar is atrocious. See me after class.

Who do you think knows best... The community took worms armageddon where it is now, not the developers. The community knows best, anyone who has any knowledge of how WA is played, would want to see no less than 8 worms be playable in WR, period.

So basically you're saying that the community and only the community can find ways to improve the game and make decisions in order to keep the game playable?

I'm not picking sides here, just asking.

Yep, and exactly that is your problem.
Knowing people and playing games with them has nothing to do whatsoever with the fact that they might be complete a*sholes.

Your attitude is really saddening.

The fact is we dont know each other at all... Ive never spoken to you before, you've never spoken to me. So why would I care if you lose respect for me when we've never said a word to each other right until now?


they just STEAL the modes we invented

No, really, HAHAHA!

Whats so funny?

RR, Shopper, Roper, WxW and all the other schemes we have today were invented by the W2 and WA communities. "Roping" as we know it was even invented by the players, not by Team 17.

Protip: a lot of people here were born before the first Worms game. It pays to remember that when you try to push your opinions.
As for Intermediate "herp derp I need 8 worms for intermediate" I suggest you play the original 1995 Worms. You'll find that Intermediate works very well with only four.


Its funny that you oldschoolers are happy to try and pick holes in my opinion, but KRD has also said exactly the same as I have about intermediate not being intermediate if it doesnt have the same weapons and the same number of worms, its impossible. Do you think that KRD is wrong as I am?

Are you sure you didn't merely miss the fact that the most default of default intrinsic schemes in WA, Intermediate, can not be played with fewer than 8 worms a side on a random map of standard size? It's at the same time one of the most competitive schemes there now and also a big favourite among casual players and newbies, second only to Shopper.

Im not saying that WRs version will not be enjoyable and playable, im saying it will not be intermediate as it is played in WA.

Also, intermediate today is played on a far higher level than when you oldschoolers were playing, its evolved since the times you were actively playing WA online. Its played far more online than it ever has been before. Dont just take my word for it, ask Mablak or someone else you you do "respect".

The fact is we dont know each other at all... Ive never spoken to you before, you've never spoken to me. So why would I care if you lose respect for me when we've never said a word to each other right until now?
Well, I treat everyone with a certain level of respect, which may even rise.

Whats so funny?

RR, Shopper, Roper, WxW and all the other schemes we have today were invented by the W2 and WA communities. "Roping" as we know it was even invented by the players, not by Team 17.
You obviously don't know what the term "stealing" means.

Besides that, T17/Andy D. invented "tarzaning" in Worms 1 in 1995.
Thus, "roping" would be a rip-off of that. :D

Im not saying that WRs version will not be enjoyable and playable, im saying it will not be intermediate as it is played in WA.

Sure, to achieve this WR had to be exactly like WA. To be honest, That's not really what I want.

As far as I know "Intermediate" is nothing but a standard scheme, present in all versions of Worms, only adjusted to each version. You can be quite sure they added an "Intermediate" scheme which fits to 4 players.

Besides that, T17/Andy D. invented "tarzaning" in Worms 1 in 1995.
Thus, "roping" would be a rip-off of that. :D

Thats a cheap shot, well then theres no question its thanks to players from the W2 and WA communities that we have the varied and broad range of schemes we have today. They also took roping to where it is today and you know that.
I don't know what tarzaning is but I can imagine it doesnt involve any shadows or spikes.

I hope your joking, you know that "roping" was invented in W2, I probably did a bit of trazaning when I used to play Worms 1 at my child minders house. You cant even shoot the rope more than once in Worms 1, you cant call that roping...

And of course I know they can't "steal" our ideas considering its their sandbox we're playing in, it wasnt meant to be taken literally. They have however "taken" our ideas and used them in WR (i dont care), the only thing being they've made the game a whole lot worse for people who wanted something better than WA. Which it won't be for 99% of WA players.

Ive already said I accept that this game might be a fun game to play, but for seasoned WA players, its ALREADY evident from FACTS already released about the game that there will be no major shift to WR.

Allthough I want more then 4 players and more then 4 worms per player, larger maps, more weapons... The way you are presenting your opinions is almost as stupid as Thurbo does... So Nail calm down...

Not to mention, I've been around since before the first W:A beta update. After a while, the novelty of 6x8 games wears off and you find yourself playing 4 (or sometimes 3) worms more often.

This is the most important post in this 225 post long thread.

After a while the novelty of the standard default for the game wears off and you find yourself diverging from what the gameplay was 'designed for'. Fortunately, you have the option of adjusting certain parameters to spice things up a bit. To add new novelty.

If W:A forced players to have 8 worms on their team always, I have no doubt it would not have been as successful. In an era when the success (or failure) of a major game title can literally be entirely due to its capacity to be customised by the end-users, Team17's decision to apparently restrict us more than their earlier games is going to be a very, very costly mistake. There are 23 million sim- and -tycoon games that sell solely based on the idea of giving the player a game to customise and make their own.


I'm really starting to think that this game is just going to be a 2D Worms 3D: another bad, cheap console port being pushed out the door by a studio eager to capitalise on the remaining community's support for a waning franchise.

We've got this really underwhelming graphics update to the Armageddon engine on consoles, and even though we had to remove a lot of the stuff that made Armageddon so popular to bring the engine onto consoles, it's too much work to put those things back in if we port it back over to PC. So, instead of working on that new 2D worms game that our devoted fans have been waiting to open their hearts and wallets for... I don't know, about a decade now... let's just get this thing on sale ASAP and hope our devoted fans will just pour money in with pre orders before realising how asinine this whole situation is and how little we actually care about what they want. :o

Phwoo. That was intense, I'm sweating after that rant. I'm not even morbidly obese. And fair enough, I know that's the most sinister and malicious scenario conceivable, but this release really is looking like just another banal console port that adds barely anything - and removes earlier game functionality - to a franchise that a lot of people have been hoping to see expand.

I'm hoping it's not the case, but Team17 is a business and what I've just described makes a lot more business sense than building a new engine or updating the port to take advantage of the platform and integrating all of the various wishes of the community... At least, in the short term... until the whole idea of essentially giving the finger to the hardcore fans causes the company to be abandoned by the people who were most likely to help it succeed...

Allthough I want more then 4 players and more then 4 worms per player, larger maps, more weapons... The way you are presenting your opinions is almost as stupid as Thurbo does... So Nail calm down...

Aw seriously, man... It's just that I can't take it serious if people complain about a game which is not released and they haven't even played yet. They don't know anything and try to list "valid arguments"... which actually all refer to WA, not WR.

This is dull. Wait until this game releases and you tested it out at least!


In fact, what you want is a game that works exactly as WA with a few improvements, that's not what WR is going to be.

You didn't complain about that when Open Warfare released.
Neither when Open Warfare 2 did. Or Space Oddity... or Worms 2: Armageddon.
And now there releases a game that builds up on the ones I listed, and suddenly you start complaining. Why? Because it's imported to PC this time? You must be joking!

Aw seriously, man... It's just that I can't take it serious if people complain about a game which is not released and they haven't even played yet. They don't know anything and try to list "valid arguments"... which actually all refer to WA, not WR.

This is dull. Wait until this game releases and you tested it out at least!Should I pre-order so I can be disappointed in advance, or should I wait for the demo so I can save some money on something I'll get bored of before my demo time is up?

I think Team17 can honestly stick their preorder where they know it belongs, because as a fan of the franchise, I know this game won't appeal to me, and refusing to give me a couple of hats unless I buy it before I can see how terrible it is was in the opening paragraph of the Scam Book in Scam School in Scam City.

I'm starting to feel a crazy amount disillusioned from the more I read and see and I'm really starting to feel a little offended that Team17 is clearly pushing the hard sell on this game despite the devoted fans and community and not for us.

Well you are disappointed.
Most of the WA players stopped buying Worms with W3D series probably because it wasn't as strategic and all that, I dunno.

You didn't care or even hear of the console 2D versions from 2006 till 2009. Now there releases another 2D Worms for PC and you expect it, of course, to be a sequel to Armageddon.
But actually Team17 build up on their new versions started in 2006, which is also more logical. Think about it.

You didn't complain about that when Open Warfare released.
Neither when Open Warfare 2 did. Or Space Oddity... or Worms 2: Armageddon.
And now there releases a game that builds up on the ones I listed, and suddenly you start complaining. Why? Because it's imported to PC this time? You must be joking!

This is the point you're missing, Thurbo. People who are upset about the direction Reloaded seems to be facing are people who have played the other 2D worms games on PC. The console games are irrelevant to these people - like me.

The only relevance any of them have to me - the only possible reason I could care in the slightest about what happens on lamebox or achestation - is when cheap game companies start porting their hacked up versions of former computer game engines from the consoles they were rewritten for back to the computer where they started, and then try to sell those games to a community of loyal fans who have been waiting ten years for a decent new game with the threat of missing out on items if they distrust the corporate hacks and don't want to preorder something that's looking like it's going to be far worse and more restricted than the technology these same devoted fans were using ten years ago.

That's the only time consoles are relevant in this discussion. I think if you're going to continue talking about how all these overpriced plastic pseudo-computers contain alien software that we should discuss and consider, I'm afraid your opinion is no longer required. We're going to have to let you go.

Sorry buddy, you had a good run though! Your final trollcheque should arrive shortly.

Well you are disappointed.
Most of the WA players stopped buying Worms with W3D series probably because it wasn't as strategic and all that, I dunno.

You didn't care or even hear of the console 2D versions from 2006 till 2009. Now there releases another 2D Worms for PC and you expect it, of course, to be a sequel to Armageddon.
But actually Team17 build up on their new versions started in 2006, which is also more logical. Think about it.

DUDE. You just CANNOT write a post like that and then tell a guy to THINK ABOUT IT. You actually nearly completely exploded my brain while I was trying to understand that... there's a mess of tense there that even my genius can't begin to untangle.

Okay that's probably not just egocentric but also harsh. I better go. No hard feelings though Thurbo; I respect your opinion and you are continually provoking discussion which is never a bad thing.

I only listed facts, truth, just how things are my last two posts. It's also understandable, I think - why am I getting your brain exploding with them? :p

Since this thread has now turned into petty arguments, I'm locking it and dishing out the infractions. At least try and argue like mature people without flinging childish insults around.


*Thread closed*