Talk:Jet Pack War

In this scheme, why do you want to set the mines more powerful than the dynamites? --Explorer09 07:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Dynamite will always appear in the jetpack, without pressing any hot key. In this scheme, the unlimited weapon need to be the weakest, for better strategy. It will be much more difficult for the players to always press F5 to drop the mine, they could drop the 3 dynamites without intention. Another point: the mine with normal power has power enouth to launch worms easily to the water, so it would be much easy to make the worms drown. With dynamite power = 1, the worm cannot go to the water easily, even with the help of the low gravity. I think with dynamite power = 1 and mine's power = 14 the scheme is perfect. --FoxHound 12:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: Mines are more difficult to explode too; they need to be activated, so the player must aim perfectly; to do big damage, you have a price. --FoxHound 15:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I personally prefer dynamites being more powerful than mines. First, for consistency, the mines pre-placed on the map should have equal power to those laid by players. Second, people may often have "stereotypes" saying that dynamites are more powerful. Keeping it will reduce the time of learning the scheme. Third, it's not difficult to switch between as you think; just press an F5 and that's it. Players who have played Hysteria will think this is a "piece of cake" (very easy) - since there're 5 seconds instead of 1.

By the way, do you think mines are difficult to explode? Think again.

--Explorer09 06:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that mines are difficult to explode, i think they are more difficult to explode comparing with a dynamite, because they need to be activated, so if you drop a little far to the target, the mine will not blow. Thanks for the opinion anyway. FoxHound 02:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, what I mean is that even the mines need to be activated, the player doesn't need to worry about dropping too far off. The other players might help by "pushing" it to the position (see the picture above).

Thanks for your reply. --Explorer09 03:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Worms Scheme Contest

This scheme is great, but I wonder why FoxHound doesn't submit this to Worms Scheme Contest. (FoxHound, would you please tell me?) --Explorer09 13:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I stoped playing worms for a while. And my new computer has windows 7 and i need to kill explorer.exe to run worms well. I can't play with wormkit too. I was playing too much and the university is getting harder too. So i stoped for a while. But i wanted to try this contest, but if i need to play after, or be present in an especific hour in Worms, i don't know if i will put it there. FoxHound 05:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

And this rule: "The scheme has to be completely unseen by the public before and during the contest." May cut my scheme from the contest. Because i already put it here. I also tested it already in wormnet. FoxHound 12:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I sent the scheme to WSC. I'm praying to that Balee accept the scheme, because maybe the rule posted above block my scheme to be in the contest. FoxHound 12:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I Received the answer after my registration:

"Hey there!

I was just about to write to you. Thing is, we discussed your issue with the other jury, and decided that we shouldn't accept your schemes. The reasons are: 1) These schemes are public, even if they are not popular (yet). Thing is, someone just mentioned Jet for Boom on WormNET yesterday, totally unrelated to you. 2) The schemes were made in 2009, when WSC hadn't started yet, so they don't really count as new schemes. I'm really sorry to decline your submissions, if we were around the start of accepting registrations, we probably would have either bend the rules or make some exceptions so we can accept these three, but being just a few days before closing, it wouldn't really be fair towards other players. I'm sure you understand.

However, keep producing good ideas, because if this contest is succesful - and I don't see why it wouldn't be :) -, we'll hold one next year too. :)

Balee"

My Answer:

"I was afraid of that, but i'm not sad. I wish my schemes could be in this contest, but no problems. At least you gave me a very good new: my scheme is getting a little bit famous. Thanks for this e-mail. Maybe next year i will create another scheme good like this one. And actually i'm not playing worms (because of the university and the bad compatibility with windows 7.

FoxHound" FoxHound 00:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Unattractive scheme name

"Jet for Boom" is a very awkward and juvenile-sounding scheme name. If you talk to any native English speaker, they would likely tell you the same thing. As the name was my first impression of the scheme, I didn't even consider learning about the scheme until I had to research what it was about to properly write this paragraph. With an unattractive name, your scheme will likely not be acknowledged by most of the skilled online Worms Armageddon community, which is the opposite of your goals. "Boom" is an onomatopoetic word generally used to entertain infants, not something that would appeal to skilled gamers. You may want to consider "Jetpack War", "Jetpack Blast", "Jet Bomber", "Mines and Jetpacks", or many other more mature scheme names in order to get your scheme better-recognized by the community. I am trying to help you and I mean no offense. -Lex 12:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I will change the name. I was thinking to change it and when i read your comment i decided to change. I liked your exemples. But i will think well to the new name. You are right this name is too much "WORMS KIDS". FoxHound 03:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I need to choose 1 of these 5 names that i think that are nice. They are:

Bomber Jets, Air War, Sky Wars, Jetpack Battle, War Jets. FoxHound 04:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

None of those names are good. The closest one to being attractive is "Jetpack Battle", but "Battle" is overused in childrens' toy commercials and TV shows, and still gives an feeling of childishness. I wish I could explain it better, but it really just requires knowing English better. -Lex 04:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think about it, "Sky War" would be pretty cool. Just don't add the random pluralization on there. -Lex 04:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think about it even further, "Sky War" isn't exactly applicable, since most of the actual war takes place on the ground. "Jetpack War" would be a much better choice. -Lex 04:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, may I suggest a name here? I was thinking if it's possible to have a name of a bird that drop something bad when it finishes hunting. ("Bird of prey" of something? I'm not good at zoology.) --Explorer09 05:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that the term "bird of prey" only refers to carnivore (= meat-eating) birds, and that's it. Balee 12:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know any bird that drops something bad, and i think it would be better a name with something important of the scheme, like the jetpack. Ok Jetpack War is a nice name. I decided this one. Thanks for the opinions. Now will be a boring work to change all to the new name, but i will do it. FoxHound 22:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Weapon image

I think adding that image of the weapon panel is pretty useless - one can view the scheme settings with ease, that provides more information than a picture. And it also doesn't fit into the replaybox. Balee 12:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

(Removed image from the replay box) What I add the screenshot in the ReplayBox Template is for, of course, screenshots in the replay, so that people can have a brief image about what the replay is about. --Explorer09 13:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. No problems the page is nice already, i just wanted to make it perfect. FoxHound 03:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Readability Overhaul

I could no longer stand this article, so I decided to edit it. If you have any issues with my changes, please mention them here and I will either explain why I edited it or work with you to fix it to how you think is right. -Lex 12:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, thanks a lot for all your help here. I think your edit was great but i changed some things. I will explain all my changes:

• The dynamite's minimum power is not 1.
• The settings list of the scheme is already on the scheme box. And all the settings are already detailed on general session.
• I prefer the term drop-and-run weapons, because different weapons could be used well from the ground.
• No necessity to write that the name of the scheme was changed to Jet Pack War, because it is obvious.
• Dynamite is not the only unlimited weapon, jet pack is unlimited too.

I really liked the idea to move the scheme detailed description to general session. Thanks a lot, and if you think that more things should be changed or better edited, please do it! FoxHound 18:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

While I do agree with some of your fixes, others, I don't.

• "Unlimited" is the correct term. It implies there is an unlimited supply of that weapon. "Infinite" has other connotations.
• The Jet Pack is a utility, not a weapon. Dynamite is the only unlimited weapon in this scheme.
• "of the opponents" is non-native English. "opponents'" is correct. To change a plural to its possessive form, one adds an apostrophe to the end, as I have done here.
• My "Settings" section was meant to display an overview of the scheme from a neutral point of view. Are you sure you want people looking at the scheme page for the settings instead of a well-laid-out section of the main article? Nobody wants to work that hard to learn someone else's scheme. I haven't edited it back in, but it still seems like a good idea to me. I didn't want to read a paragraph or look through a million settings to figure out your scheme initially. I'm sure others would feel the same way.

-Lex 09:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for the help. I put some images and another things to display an overview of the scheme too, but they were removed. The editors would delete that edition too. Also, the information is already on General session. All of your other points are right. FoxHound 03:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Explain how can i not activate the fall damage

The article says: "Sometimes the fall damage is not activated, depending on the way that the worm fell."
, and I don't understand what this means, please explain how and why. --Explorer09 14:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It happens in WWP too (wormpot), i don't know exactly the reason, but when the fall damage is not 100% sometimes the fall damage is not activated. Usually when the worm don't fall close to 90º (based in the ground), sliding a little bit on the terrain. When the fall damage is 100% if the worm slides and falls with an angle not close from 90º the worm will normally loose damage due to the fall. FoxHound 14:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: For exemple: in this scheme, if you fell from the jetpack the fall damage is always activated, but when you blow an opponent worm and it fell from a good height, the fall damage often is not activated. FoxHound 14:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: Maybe the same problem happens with the normal fall damage and i'm just imagining things, but many times a proposital blow to do the opponent worm fall is done, but the 508% fall damage is not activated, this is fact.FoxHound 16:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a classic Alien glitch, FYI. --Explorer09 13:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not allien glitch. I don't know, maybe it's just my imagination. I think it's better remove the part that say that the fall damage may not work. (I'll do it) FoxHound 12:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit: more information: Talk:Fall Damage. FoxHound 21:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The "Map" section

Since your scheme is very picky about the map settings, mentioning that in a separate column (section) will better fit your needs, rather than the using the small image description text. --Explorer09 12:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok you are right. I just wanted to people view at the top of the article, to they understand the map, because they may read just the begining of the article, and don't understand the importance of the scheme right map. FoxHound 12:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit

Wow! I didn't realise there was so much discussion about this page already :P Anyway, I did a major re-write of the article. This was partly to remove excessive headings, partly to remove stuff that repeats what's on the Hysteria article (instead, a comment in the lead section will suffice), and partly to remove detailed scheme settings (the scheme file link will suffice for that, and it generally distracts from the flow of the words). I think it's more consistent with other scheme articles this way. I hope no one minds. Run! 23:37, 14 January 2011 (CET)

Oh, I also removed most of the strategies, because they seem patently obvious. "Collecting the health crates will make your worms stronger" (paraphrase) seems a sort of universal strategy for all schemes. Same for the others. Also, regarding the section which I have now renamed "backfacing weapon drops" - this doesn't happen for the weapons in this scheme, does it? Perhaps it ought to be moved to the Hysteria article. Run! 23:44, 14 January 2011 (CET)

First of all thanks a lot for your edit. I think that everything important of the scheme is now concise. I just think that maybe would be better to add a note for the activation "failure" of the Fall Damage that is very good to know in this scheme and that the cows are also useful for do not damage your own worms when the time is running out. About the "backfacing weapon drops", it happens often with the weapons of this scheme and the tip is very useful. It's not hard to do the tip in jet pack war because of the 4 seconds to attack. In hysteria it is hard to do it, because to press all the f-keys and move the jetpack requires already a good time, to use this tip would be very hard to do a succesful attack (can you imagine with the zook?). That's why i think that this strategy should be here in this article and not on hysteria page. FoxHound 01:50, 17 January 2011 (CET)

Good point, with only a second in Hysteria it would be nigh-on impossible to pull it off. And yeah I agree, the fall damage thing should go back in Run! 09:29, 17 January 2011 (CET)