Quote from: AlTarf on June 05, 2016, 10:33 PM

Quote from: TheWalrus on June 05, 2016, 08:44 PM

Quote from: Aerox on June 05, 2016, 08:40 PM

Quote from: TheWalrus on June 05, 2016, 08:15 PM

Quote from: skunk3 on June 05, 2016, 08:12 PM

Quote from: TheWalrus on June 05, 2016, 07:58 PM

Quote from: skunk3 on June 05, 2016, 03:42 PM

Quote from: Anubis on June 05, 2016, 03:40 PM
TLDR: They both became crazy, exaggerating weirdos. If that's what they were back then, you can welcome them back with open arms but most of us would rather not see them back.

hmm. that sucks. :/

yeah toxic was my buddy from back in the day, but ive since disowned him, booted him from bfw and nbr.  he seems to be a lunatic megalomaniac now:

https://www.tus-wa.com/forums/off-topic/check-out-the-shoes-i-have-made-)-28764/

also:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e4t6NSA1_M

It always bums me out when people are generally decent, and then through some circumstance manage to get a comfier life and then talk shit to other people like they're dumb because we aren't all doing the same thing. I still have a lot of DJ and producer friends who are always talking shit about people who work regular jobs and don't make that much money, and it's super annoying. Toxic's always been good to me, and I know he likes to troll, so I dunno. Some people just get off on crapping on others.

I dunno if any of the stuff he told me is true, but it does sound like he is living the good life right now.

hes been proven over and over to be a compulsive liar about many things, he seems like a lost soul.  the guy does not resemble the person he used to be.

skunk or?

toxic.  read the thread i posted a link to ropa, its hilarious.  He pretended a famous artist's designs were his own, and was talking crazy shit about opening shoe stores worldwide, hes f@#!ing delusional, and an asshole to boot.

Hi wally

You're on my list 

I'm glad to see you back, AlTarf. We used to play a lot a few years ago and these big rr's we've been playing have been competitive! I like it!

Quote

skunk or?

lol

Quote from: TheWalrus on June 05, 2016, 07:58 PM

Quote from: skunk3 on June 05, 2016, 03:42 PM

Quote from: Anubis on June 05, 2016, 03:40 PM
TLDR: They both became crazy, exaggerating weirdos. If that's what they were back then, you can welcome them back with open arms but most of us would rather not see them back.

hmm. that sucks. :/

yeah toxic was my buddy from back in the day, but ive since disowned him, booted him from bfw and nbr.  he seems to be a lunatic megalomaniac now:

https://www.tus-wa.com/forums/off-topic/check-out-the-shoes-i-have-made-)-28764/

also:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e4t6NSA1_M

It always bums me out when people are generally decent, and then through some circumstance manage to get a comfier life and then talk shit to other people like they're dumb because we aren't all doing the same thing. I still have a lot of DJ and producer friends who are always talking shit about people who work regular jobs and don't make that much money, and it's super annoying. Toxic's always been good to me, and I know he likes to troll, so I dunno. Some people just get off on crapping on others.

I dunno if any of the stuff he told me is true, but it does sound like he is living the good life right now.

No drill = bullshit. You can't just remove an item that's been in basically every single Worms game ever.

I just noticed that I don't see a drill anywhere in that scheme loadout.

Quote from: Anubis on June 05, 2016, 03:40 PM
TLDR: They both became crazy, exaggerating weirdos. If that's what they were back then, you can welcome them back with open arms but most of us would rather not see them back.

hmm. that sucks. :/

Quote from: Anubis on June 05, 2016, 03:29 PM
Many go way back with Toxic, but something has happened. Chip has also changed, you can ask Komo about that. ;P

I know what happened with Toxic... he got in 'legal trouble' and had to flee the United States. He's living in Guatemala now, or some shit like that. As far as Chippy goes.. what happened? D:

Quote from: Anubis on June 05, 2016, 03:26 PM
Trust me you don't want toxic back, unless there are multiple ones. . And neither chipmunk for that matter.

Yeah I do

ToxiC and I go way back. And Chippy was always a cool dude

In no order:

robone4
fizixwee (seriously, the funniest f@#!ing guy to have ever played worms, hands down)
kron
chipmunk
link
bathtubgin
drunkenryu
magicalhobo
toxic
wargod
volrin
goaty
erod
novicaine
theone

+1 bonus: oijogja

Quote from: goom on June 04, 2016, 01:20 AM

Quote from: WTF-8 on June 03, 2016, 06:51 PM

Quote from: Jonno_Team17 on June 03, 2016, 02:58 PM

hmmm, ammo and delay numbers got same color... ?

Quote from: StepS on June 03, 2016, 11:19 PM

Quote from: WTF-8 on June 03, 2016, 06:51 PMmmm, ammo and delay numbers got same color... ?

I think it'd make sense to make the delay blue colour, yes.

I was going to make a long post about this, but decided to do a picture instead.

thoughts?

i was considering using a 'clock/timer' instead of a lock symbol, but the numbers seemed much more legible on the latter.

Thumbs up.

Quote from: nino on June 03, 2016, 05:34 PM
Jonno could you guys build a worm with a crown?

That would be my custom worm player 

There's been crown hats before.

Quote from: Anubis on June 03, 2016, 04:13 PM
Skunk3 is right, when I am rank 2 I should not be able to be get matches vs. rank 10,9 etc. It should be +/- 1, maybe +/- 2. So as a rank 2 player I would only play vs. rank 4,3,2 and 1.
I hope you don't just throw noob vs. pro into ranked matches and call that good match making.

What I'm saying is that wins should be worth a certain amount of points, not just +1 if you win and -1 if you lose.

If you play a bunch of rank 10 people as a rank 2 player (if that is even possible), you should get very little boost to your score/rank. (If anything.) However, if you're a rank 10 newbie player and beat someone who is a rank 1, you should get a ton of points. Otherwise the noob only gets +1?? That's dumb.

As far as the range in which you can play others in ranked matches, I dunno. I imagine that as you go higher in rank it would be harder and harder to find a match, so keeping it to +/- 1 or 2 might not work, depending on how many people actually decide to purchase and seriously play WMD.

This is why an ELO system would work so much better. There's no real incentive for a high-ranking player to play a low-ranking player, aside from a very marginal increase that goes down every time you play that person within a certain period of time. This would prevent noob bashing and present a much more accurate representation of who actually has skills and who doesn't. One should only be able to progress in rank by earning it by beating decent players, not by mowing through noobs or setting up dummy accounts and faking wins.

If it is just +1 if you win and -1 if you lose, I won't even play ranked. There's no incentive because that ranking system means nothing for reasons I already illustrated. It'd just be a boring, meaningless grind.

Quote from: Jonno_Team17 on June 03, 2016, 03:55 PM

Quote from: skunk3 on June 03, 2016, 03:48 PM

Quote from: Jonno_Team17 on June 03, 2016, 02:58 PM

Quote from: skunk3 on June 03, 2016, 02:50 PM
I just hope that the pro scheme in WMD is better than the pro scheme in Clan Wars. In CW there was too much mobility for a 'pro' scheme. Ropes, jetpack, teleport guns, etc. Granted, the ropes aren't as 'powerful' in CW as they will presumably be in WMD, but still. The ranked clanner scheme was even worse. The ranking system should be more in-depth than just one scheme, and you said that depending on performance, your rank can go both up AND down. What exactly does this mean? What metrics are being reviewed?

@Jonno - I want in on that 3v3!

The Jetpack has 50 fuel in this scheme fyi.

This is the pro scheme as it stands, of course subject to potential change before launch.[attachment=1]

Regarding rank, if you keep winning you go up, consistently lose and you'll lower in rank.

So the ranking system is basically just wins vs. losses? I've always wanted to see an ELO system instead, and more stats than that come into play, such as:

Win rate %
Accuracy
# of worms/HP left at end of match
multi-kills
damage taken

etc, etc

We considered many things when thinking about ranked, but ultimately in a competitive game there are two possible outcomes. You win, or you lose.

How you win, whether by crushing victory or the narrowest of margins what matters is the big W.

I edited my previous post.

Yes, I do agree that you either win or you lose (or draw), but ranks shouldn't be calculated as a simple number like wins over losses. Things need to be considered, such as the rank of the other person you're playing, how many times you've played them, frequency of games vs. that person within a particular time frame, etc. In Clan Wars some player could keep getting fed wins by a noob trying to play ranked and get several wins in a row. To me, that doesn't seem very fair. I know because I've played ranked in all of the newer games. The system used in those games simply isn't good enough. Also, stats *need* to be viewable by other players when joining a lobby, ranked or not. I want to be able to see stuff like win rate %, and total wins/losses/draws at the *very* least. I'd prefer to be able to access in-depth stats on anyone that is online, in a global lobby or game lobby.

A modified ELO system is the only ranking system that makes sense for Worms IMO. Otherwise the ranking system is completely meaningless. A mediocre player who wins 55% of the time and plays a lot outranking a player who wins 95% of the time, but doesn't play as many games total just doesn't make sense. 

Quote from: Jonno_Team17 on June 03, 2016, 02:58 PM

Quote from: skunk3 on June 03, 2016, 02:50 PM
I just hope that the pro scheme in WMD is better than the pro scheme in Clan Wars. In CW there was too much mobility for a 'pro' scheme. Ropes, jetpack, teleport guns, etc. Granted, the ropes aren't as 'powerful' in CW as they will presumably be in WMD, but still. The ranked clanner scheme was even worse. The ranking system should be more in-depth than just one scheme, and you said that depending on performance, your rank can go both up AND down. What exactly does this mean? What metrics are being reviewed?

@Jonno - I want in on that 3v3!

The Jetpack has 50 fuel in this scheme fyi.

This is the pro scheme as it stands, of course subject to potential change before launch.[attachment=1]

Regarding rank, if you keep winning you go up, consistently lose and you'll lower in rank.

So the ranking system is basically just wins vs. losses? I've always wanted to see an ELO system instead, and more stats than that come into play, such as:

Win rate %
Accuracy
# of worms/HP left at end of match
multi-kills
damage taken

etc, etc

The problem with the ranking system in the games since Reloaded is that it is based on simple wins vs. losses, so as long as someone plays a lot and wins more than they lose on the whole, they will consistently go up in rank. In other words, whoever plays the most will be the highest ranked. (Plus if you look at the leaderboards, people clearly cheat...) In Clan Wars/BG I stopped playing ranked a while back for just that reason. The ranks mean nothing if that's all it's based on. I went like 126-7-2 and stopped playing ranked because there's no incentive when your actual stats aren't publicly viewable. The highest ranked CW/BG players are average players who just so happen to play a lot.

tl;dr - the ranking system needs to be in-depth and based around an ELO system at its core, not just simple wins vs. losses in 1 scheme. I don't care if it is something that would need to be implemented post-launch just so long as it does get implemented.

I just hope that the pro scheme in WMD is better than the pro scheme in Clan Wars. In CW there was too much mobility for a 'pro' scheme. Ropes, jetpack, teleport guns, etc. Granted, the ropes aren't as 'powerful' in CW as they will presumably be in WMD, but still. The ranked clanner scheme was even worse. The ranking system should be more in-depth than just one scheme, and you said that depending on performance, your rank can go both up AND down. What exactly does this mean? What metrics are being reviewed?

@Jonno - I want in on that 3v3!