G'games, Camper. Should have been 3-0 to you here, so unlucky with the shotgun at the end of this round. But fun games, looking forward to more in the future!

Nice games Jago, very tense all three rounds!

I was just saying on IRC, this may be the luckiest I've ever been in a round of Worms Armageddon. Counted something like 13 separate instances of either something positive going my way, or something negative going against Dibz. Some minor and some major, but the crate sheep at 6:20 was the cherry on top.

Life is good when you're on a hot streak!

Oh yeah also, very happy with the sheep drop at 3:10 in this one. It's coming back to me!

What's this and why?

I believe that one of the most important aspects of keeping competitive Worms Armageddon alive and thriving for generations to come is for our community to agree on standard variations of the game types that appear commonly in serious play, whether in leagues, tournaments, challenges or even random casual games in #AnythingGoes. For aspiring new players and returning old ones to feel motivated to continue honing their skills, it really helps if they're able to easily find out precisely what scheme file they're supposed to be using when practicing each scheme, what sort of maps they're supposed to be practicing on, what standard rules they're expected to follow, whether the scheme works only as 1v1/2v2 or in a free for all setting too, etc. This of course doesn't mean that nobody should ever host a game on WormNET using a scheme file or a set of rules that differs from what the community has agreed on, only that their modifications to the core should be explained in relation to what the standard is, making life easier for everyone involved.

How are we going to do this?

To that end, I have decided to come up with an overview of all the competitively played schemes, so that we can gradually fill things in as we agree on them and always know what still needs to be looked at. This information is listed in the Modes, Maps and Rules sections under each scheme title, with all three of these sections very much still open for debate; think of their current contents as just my personal best guesses, don't take something being present or not present there as a sign that the matter has already been decided. I'll upload the scheme files themselves onto TUS so everyone can easily see the individual settings as they are being discussed, or download them and give the proposed standard schemes a try. For each scheme, a link will be provided in the Scheme file section and the files will then be periodically updated to reflect community opinion on what the standard schemes should look like. To help get the ball rolling, I have also attempted to list most of the historical disagreements that have kept this standardisation from happening sooner in the Pointers for discussion section under each scheme, then spiced the section up with some suggestions for improvements and simplifications. Note that these are biased toward how I would personally handle each individual detail, but at least some attempt has already been made to represent general community opinion too, which will only become truly apparent through active debate in replies here. And perhaps elsewhere, if we decide to advertise this attempt at scheme standardisation on Reddit, Steam and a potential new T17 forum. It's of course going to be almost impossible to get the entire WA community to agree on every little aspect of every scheme, but that doesn't mean that the situation can't be improved at all. We can keep this project going for as long as it takes, there's no need to rush any decisions or ever stop debating the proposed standards. As long as this platform for discussion exists, it will at the very least serve as a way for interested players or league staff to measure the current atmosphere in the WA community regarding these matters.

Where are we going with all this and how to help?

If we do end up coming up with a solid set of standard schemes, if community leagues do start adopting the resulting scheme files and rulesets, that's great. But the primary focus and ultimate goal of this project is supposed to be more far-reaching than that. What we want is to eventually end up with something so widely accepted that the WA developers will be able to confidently include it with the game via an update, even base the mythical 4.x version's ranked play around these standardised scheme variants. That's the plan, and the way in which we attempt to agree on these issues should reflect it. Let's get as many people as possible to look at this and state their opinions, really ensure that we're doing our best for the future of the game. Only through compromise, through seeking solutions that benefit everyone, that aren't rejected by any particular group of players, can we hope to achieve a truly long term effect and settle these questions once and for all.

Feel free to not only share your views (and the views of any of your friends who might be too shy to speak up for themselves) regarding the scheme files, scheme rules, map recommendations and so on, but also to propose new dilemmas that you think need to be addressed or talked about. If you believe the format of how we're handling this in the first place could be improved, let me know too and I'll do my best to edit the post with your suggestions in mind. Remember, nothing is set in stone, we can flexibly evolve the process of seeking consensus over time as the attitude of the community shifts, or in case future WA updates change the landscape of what we have to work with (new scheme format with togglable rules is on the horizon). With that out of the way, let's get to work!

Team17 have someone new in the position of community manager. He goes by the nicknames MusterBuster and now Mike_Team17, has a history of doing this for big companies like Sony, is passionate about gaming and just generally seems like a cool guy who wants to achieve something for the WA community too. He's only just starting, of course, and says he has a lot to learn about how Team17 function as a company as well as about the various communities across the many Worms games. But a little surprisingly perhaps, he seems to have started his office by approaching the WA player base and introducing himself on the game's Steam discussion forum, specifically asking for suggestions on what he could be doing to make us happy:

http://steamcommunity.com/app/217200/discussions/0/522730700441976868/

He then also visited us in the #worms IRC channel, asked a bunch of questions and said he'd be back for some games over the weekend. Here's the log of that in case anyone wants delicious details:

http://krd.clansfx.co.uk/dump/10ea14e42214455eaca553fca5d19813/0000005C.txt

Now, I don't think either gushing optimism or overwhelming negativity are in order here, we just don't know enough yet to be able to say how much of an impact he'll have in the grand scheme of things or whether this means Team17 are turning a new leaf as far as communication with the players of their games goes. But I do think it's obvious Mike has good intentions and, well, he's looking for suggestions on how to proceed. I see no reason for us not to share our opinions with him. At the very least, T17 will see there's still life in good old WA, right?

I really.



Really.



Like flowers.







Seriously.

Recently, Team17 have been a little less quiet about their relationship with Worms Armageddon and the plans that they may have for it. BillT17, the community manager, has gone on record saying that releasing their older titles on Steam is something that they're looking into. Furthermore, Worms Ultimate Mayhem (the rerelease of Worms 3D and Worms 4: Mayhem in one game) is a sign that doing more than just selling the exact same game, without updating anything, is also an option.

Obviously, this is an opportunity for many of those shiny 4.0 features to make it into WA sooner than 479327 years from now, because it opens up the possibility of Deadcode and CyberShadow being hired to work on it full-time and get, you know, paid for it. If such a rerelease did happen, the game we've been so engaged with for many years now could stand to gain a lot of exposure, resulting in a bigger, different WormNet for us all. But there's not much point thinking about all of this just yet; there are far simpler questions and dilemmas that need to be worked out first...

Whether this 4.0-on-Steam scenario actually plays out is something the Team17 management will have to agree on with Deadcode and CyberShadow, and is not something this poll has anything to do with directly. But one thing we know now is that T17 are concerned about how the community would react to such a rerelease. In the first forum post I linked to up there, Bill admits that when it comes down to it, they are a business and in order for them to commit to something, it has to be profitable. Are we hardcore WA fanatics a strong enough market to be worth selling the game to? Is it realistic to expect that we would be able to spread the word of WA's awesomeness by ourselves? Would we see 4.0 happening as a positive enough event to stand together and defend T17 from angry idiots on the Steam User Forums accusing them of being money-grabbing bastards? Bill's words, not mine, heh.

I've tried to keep this post (and the poll options above) neutral so as to not influence the outcome, but I suspect that the results themselves won't matter much in the end anyway. A discussion on the matter might prove a bit more insightful, though, and give those of us pushing for 4.0 to happen a better idea of how the current community would like things to be dealt with. Also maybe some ammunition with which to persuade T17 to finally do the right thing!