When his turn comes, he could swim back to the ground and continue the game? That's the big difference, you can't kill 200hp worm with a plop, that worm would still have i.e. 156 hp left when he swims back to the ground in his next turn... And if it's not his turn, they could shoot at him too while he's floating on the water..
Am I fantasizing too much? That's too complicated?  

What about the ability that a worm can "float" on the water if he's ploped?
That would make a huge difference, plop would not mean instant death..

I had this same idea! And I'm happy to see that I'm not the only one who have thought of it. In every old game entering water would mean instant dead, same as in w:a. Later (with better engines) they have added the swimming and diving possibility.. i.e. Half Life 2, GTA San Andreas...

Dunno if it's possible to make a difference between floating on water and diving underwater, 'cause in that case, if someone plops your worm and he had enough health to live, he could float on the water until his turn comes and then swim back to the ground or w/e.. And when they're under water, there could be a timer of how long they can "hold their breath", like fuel on the jet pack, i.e. they can dive for 10 secs and then must come out to "take a breath"..

I believe that this feature would bring a lots of new ideas for some new ways of playing, new tactics etc..

Might be cool if worms had a diving equipment like Aqua sheep, diving mask and a breathing pipe.. Tho it's not necessary..
Good one Steps!  

p.s. I agree they're diving too fast on that video example, it must be slower..

Weeeeee, worms learning how to swim!

Applause for the reading Cueman! 

Just realized that this is my 666th post! 

No reminders, no advertisers, no propaganda, FFie you're lazy as a (wo)man can be! 

Beep-beep, Worms Olympics 2012 have started! http://wormolympics.com/

Quote from: Mablak on July 30, 2012, 12:14 AM
.....
Ahem Ramone, Dario and I are pretty closely matched, for example I beat him in the finals of both the last two ONL playoffs, and in the finals of the Jakka's recent cup, though he's beaten me plenty before.

Yeah dude, I know that it's a "photo-finish" between you and Dario in inter, it was just a friendly provocation to elicit your reaction on the subject..     

And I'll use this occasion to say that I'm your fan and that you're one of my favorite wormers of all the time.. 

Even if someone beats his time on few maps, it doesn't mean that they've took his crown.. Someone would have to beat at least half of those 51 challenges to make him the second best..

On the other hand, don't make a "god" out of him, he's not "the best in every scheme" as avirex says, Dario owns him in inter, Komo owns him in bng, Cueshark owns him in SSR.. 

Still, Mablak is the top when it comes to the best all-rounder wormers, which reminded me, there was some talking about Mablak vs Random00 in all schemes content about half a year ago or smth? Whappen' with that? Never happened?

4D my ass.  ;x

I think that this discussion got stuck on misunderstandings of what we're talking about. Are we trying to reach the truth about the subject and conclude "this is a truth, and this is not" or we're trying to explain that everything is possible?

I already tried to explain and I think it's quite simple and that we could all agree on that at least: There is no "your truth" and "his truth", truth is one and universal. Although, there is "your belief" and "his belief", beliefs are individual.

What is universal truth? It's that 1+1=2, it's that Earth is round and not flat, etc.. It's anything that has been scientifically proved with conventional scientific methods. Therefore, can we agree that we can call "truth" only those things and "beliefs" everything else that has not been proven? Are we that sane?

Free, if you want a backup and support on your opinion that "remote viewing" or telepathy is possible, then fine, we agree that it's possible. But then again you have to agree with Cueshark that it is not the truth, because it has never been scientifically proven.

Inside our brains/mind everything is possible. It's possible that 1+1 is not equal 2 but 3, it's possible that Earth is not round but banana shaped. It's possible, but not true.

There's a well known border line between facts and assumptions. And that border line sets the difference between knowing something and supposing something, between common sense and delusion.. It's simple as that, there's Cue and D1 on the one side of the border, talking from scientific point of view about facts, while on the other side of the border there's Free and Abnaxus who's talking about their beliefs based on their personal experiences, in other words speculates.

I wonder that Doc1 haven't mention the term "psychosis" already to you Abnaxus. And don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to mock or insult you, but that's like the default diagnoses for your case. Psychosis means that a person has trouble telling what is real and what isn't, as you do.

Hallucinations are very realistic to the people that have experience them and that's why they can't figure out if they're real or not. Here's a quote from the dictionary: "Hallucinations are false or distorted sensory experiences that appear to be real perceptions. These sensory impressions are generated by the mind rather than by any external stimuli, and may be seen, heard, felt, and even smelled or tasted."

Your examples are not unique and lonely, there's thousands and thousands of people that have experienced this or that. But you have to be aware that it is only your subjective trip, it all comes from your personal experience, from your own brain. And that cannot be real for anyone except for you until there's proofs and facts. Now, there's been thousands and thousands of subjective telepathy experiences, don't you think it's a bit strange that no one ever got to prove any? After so many years of testing with all the modern scientific methods? Same as in Free's example, there's thousands of people that have used this ayahuasca, how come that no one have a single evidence or proof about "remote viewing"? Doesn't that explain things by itself?

And if we talk about possibilities, yes, there's endless possibilities philosophically speaking, but that has nothing to do with the reality. If it comes to philosophy, it's possible that we're all in matrix, that there's a life after death, that the aliens rules the world, etc... but what are we talking about? Or I should better ask, what are you talking about?   

Quote from: Free on July 23, 2012, 12:37 AM
It's just my experience, not the "ultimate truth".. I sincerely hope that anyone of "you" will "understand" this.
...

When you were explaining it you were talking about "ABSOLUTE CORE TRUTH" and few posts later you say that it is not the "ultimate truth" but just your experience... So you're not sure yourself is it truth or not, right?

As I've seen on Google, that Ayahuasca stuff is well known in the whole wide world.. There's a medical and scientific researches, there's forums of ppl that's trippin' on it, there's a whole lot of stuff about it.. Must be thousands of ppl that's using it or had experience with it.. That makes me wonder, how comes that no one has ever got to the idea to make an experiment with it and prove its "powers"?
Simple, get the trusted commission/jury that would be witnesses, a guy that use Ayahuasca and make him guess what's behind the wall. Make a video of that and BAM! - there's a scientific proof that "remote view" exists! That the "soul" can "see with it's own eyes" independently outside of the body! That would (figuratively) show the middle finger to all the science that has been comprehended by this day.
But you can't do that. No one can.
And that's the difference between facts and assumptions, between science and beliefs..

Still free, if you think that you can do that experience again, lets crash some science together? We could gather some trusted jury like Cueshark, ropa, DarkOne and Rok and we could do it. I have a camera. We would become world famous mofos and not to mention that we would take a bunch of money out of it! 
Hawaii here I come!!!

Quote from: Abnaxus on July 21, 2012, 10:13 AM
@Ramone: If you're that dumb, then I'll satisfy myself by ignoring you mate.
...

A guy that doesn't know half about science as I do is telling me I'm dumb because I told him to inform himself before he post speculations about things he don't know..
Same pattern as always..
OK! Cool then, big accelerator in Asia in 5 years, right! What else is new, tell me more, feed my dumb ears with your knowledge! 

pffft..

Quote from: Abnaxus on July 21, 2012, 01:04 AM
.....

Quote from: Ramone on July 20, 2012, 11:08 PM
"Look at what we don't know" in combination with "what if.." Yeah, it's hard to communicate with those ppl.. It's like those astrology guys/chicks.. Hard to explain anyshit and after some time U give up and let them be.

And just for the record, there's three of "what if" in Abnax 1 simple question..  .. .
There's a saying here about those "what if's"... says "If grandma had a dick she would be grandpa!" ;x

Don't take hasty conclusions. Especially cause you're digging yourself in the pit (cause most of the time, you don't understand me and so you start spreading stupid conclusions).
You don't like me, I don't like the way you're argumenting/talking, that's fine. Just shut up together.

Chill out tough guy, no need to insult me and call my conclusions stupid without even a simple explanation why would you think that. I'm not the one who wanted to ask "simple question" and ended up with three "what if" in that question.

And I won't "shut up together", I'll say what I wanna say whenever I want. If you tell me to shut up I'll tell you to f@#! off or something even worse and that doesn't lead to anywhere, does it? An easiest and stupidest thing to do is to insult like that..
Your reply says a lot about your consciousness, I'm sure you can't even see that..

Quote from: Abnaxus on July 21, 2012, 01:04 AM
PS: I heard a scientist found a particle which could go faster than the light (which is supposed to be the fastest, and almost every researches and the physic is based on so: which would lead to a total remake of physic if it was false), and they are making a particle accelerator big enough to proove so (in asia if I remember well).
I heard that on a scientific documentary, so except if I missunderstood some things, you can't tell I dreamed it. 

Again, you don't know what you're talking about, there's a proof right there. You don't have a will to go and spend some time on internet to find out more about that particle, you'd rather just speculate about it and interpret it in a way to suit your own needs*.

Quote from: sock on July 20, 2012, 11:17 PM
Sure it's in context, if you see it just as a reply to abnax 

Dunno how do U see it, but we're both out of context after Free's post..   
And where have U find the context at the first place? It's a God/religion debate, can't expect any context there, can U? ;x