Lix 0.10.33

I played a singleplayer level with save requirement 20/20. I put one blocker, saved the 19 other lix, then nuked the blocker and announced to the livestream viewers that I had won the level.

No! The end-of-level screen should look sufficiently different after a loss than after a win. Maybe winning needs a big green checkmark that flies into view and smacks onto the table of statistics. This is obviously kitsch, but it shows the degree of difference that we might want. Ideally, I'd show the button for the next level on the end-of-level screen, still. Or should there be an extra button first to click that makes the next level appear as a button on the end-of-level screen?

Or: Nuking a lost level shouldn't end the map. But how should people quit the level with the mouse then ...

Winning looks like losing, what an embarrasing UI fail. The most fundamental aftermath of a game (singleplayer or multiplayer) is immediate clarity of whether you've cut the mustard or not.

-- Simon

In Lix, since version 0.10.12 from June 2023, you can choose to always be in insert mode. (By default, you're only in insert mode when the tweaker is open.)

I configured Lix to always-insert. Then I played Flopsy's yet-unreleased levels (easier ones from SEBLems and Gotta Go Fast) for almost 3 hours on livestream. I got confused at least once, IIRC even a second time. Both times, I didn't have the tweaker open. How exactly did I get confused? I'll have to re-watch the 3-hour vod and tell you in detail. This is the playtest that I promised.

For now, I can't yet fully recommend to make it a single mode. I didn't change the Lix option defauls yet, either. In Lix 0.10.34 from yesterday, the default is still that you're in insert mode if and only if the tweaker is open.

I'll still have more to answer from all your posts.

-- Simon

Congratulations!

In DOS Lemmings 1's We All Fall Down, I now believe that digger-digger cancelling isn't possible in a way to produce a permanent staircase. Your 2-digger solution is thus NeoLemmix-only. The best in DOS is to send a few lemmings at once  through a single digger hole in progress. Some DOS releases have the wrong fall distance where the level becomes a 0-skill solve.

Yes, zoom into the relevant details as you explain them.

Scrolling was a tad wild. Consider to scroll ... hm, not necessarily less, but ... more peacefully and deliberately, overall. It can be hard to follow otherwise. Give the audience a second to catch up after scrolling and zooming. Explain during the stable view. Wild pointing with the mouse is perfectly fine during a stable view.

Looking forward to the show!

-- Simon

Lemmings was good in 1991 despite lack of action replay, not because of lack.

I'll rob you for $5000 and give you back $2000 as a reward for not telling the police. That's a good reward, $2000, it's a lot more than $1000. This is why I wrote: instead of punishing/locking. Different feeling.

Lemmings 3 happens to implement what you're considering. Solutions from an action replay don't count ("learner mode") for progression. Feature is meticulously implemented, but you're not supposed to use it until you've proven your worth. Reaction by Kieran:

Quote from: kieranmillar on July 17, 2023, 10:54:20 PMusing the replay feature makes the solve not count (why oh why did they do this? Idiots)

What I really hoped to see was a holistic argument. Why do all those design decisions make the best possible whole? I'm sure that, yes, you can continue to tell me nice stories about every individual choice however it turns out. X is easy to implement, Y easy to understand, Z is already implemented so it would be more work to cut it and some users would act up, W is optional control feature and we'll continue to support both yes W and no W, ..., but why is this exact collection of choices/features the overall best-suited?

I'm not even arguing that you have to implement rewind at all costs. Maybe drudgework is exactly the right cost for what you envision. Unlikely but possible. Unlikely enough to seek alternatives.

-- Simon

Quote from: Simon on August 23, 2026, 07:20:26 PMIf this means backward and forward skips (+1/−1 physics update, staying paused): You'll have to remove some cheating features from RetroLemmini. As-is, you can click to advance by 1 physics update during pause.

Yes, as I said, it's unfortunate that this is already a part of RL. It won't be getting removed, but it has been made optional by another user/developer (Charles) who seemed to have a similar opinion.

Quote from: Simon on August 23, 2026, 07:20:26 PMthe difference between cheating and not cheating ... is drudgework. This is Mindless's "It's just tedious, and that doesn't make for a good game."

Hm. Maybe I disagree that it doesn't make for a good game. If that's true, why are we all here? The vast majority of original Lemmings ports don't even have a replay system, let alone per-frame control over the gameplay. It can't be that bad a game if there's an entire Forum dedicated to it...

Quote from: Simon on August 23, 2026, 07:20:26 PMYou can design the game like this. But is that good?

Maybe this is a question to which I don't think the answer should automatically be "no". If the player is punished for making a mistake, the real-time gameplay stakes are higher. Some players genuinely enjoy this. Lemmings itself was more or less built on this very principle.

And yes, it has evolved - and that's good. But, we have engines with player assists which we all (myself included) enjoy; we should also have one that presents the more traditional gameplay style.

Quote from: Simon on August 23, 2026, 07:20:26 PMDon't punish/lock X, instead reward Y.

Reward pause-free playing.

Yes, this could work. The Talisman system in Neo/Super is good; both players and designers benefit from it. I thought about implementing a challenge/trophy system in RL but realised how complicated it would make everything and so abandoned it (for now). I think it would only be worth the effort if it were a somewhat online feature, where players could see which trophies they (and other players) had achieved.

Counter-point, though: offering 'modern' features after a successful 'classic' playthrough is 'reward' rather than 'punish', is it not? We're saying: "well done, you completed the level without player assists, now they're unlocked for this level". Maybe it is a bad idea, I'm not 100% convinced of it myself. I'm just exploring the possibilities at the moment.

QuoteDirection-select and assign-whilst-paused are arguably QOL features.

Directional select can allow extra things. In a sufficiently stone-aged engine, you can't assign to certain lemmings in a dense pack unless you force direction. It would enable new things in L2.

Quote from: WillLem on August 23, 2026, 06:25:19 PMFramestepping, on the other hand, is tantamount to cheating

If this means backward and forward skips (+1/−1 physics update, staying paused): You'll have to remove some cheating features from RetroLemmini. As-is, you can click to advance by 1 physics update during pause.

If this means rewind only: Then the difference between cheating and not cheating is that the non-cheater must mind-numbingly fast-forward to get where he wants, and the cheater may skip this fast-forwarding and immediately continue where he wants. Both end at the same game situation. The only difference is drudgework. This is Mindless's "It's just tedious, and that doesn't make for a good game."

You can design the game like this. But is that good?

QuoteA player must complete the level at least once in 'Classic Mode' before the modern controls are unlocked for that level.

Don't punish/lock X, instead reward Y.

Reward pause-free playing. Framestepping enters pause and therefore disqualifies you from winning pause-free, you'll only get a normal win. That would directly support what you seem to want, and it would be a fresh take on the whole matter.

-- Simon

It's IN!
Sunday 4.10.26, 11:43 am UK time!

Quote from: Simon on August 23, 2026, 06:30:22 PMOkay, the typo in "Introducing" is now clear, that came from old level files. What's best for the colon though? Lix 0.10.30 renamed "Introdicing: Miners" to "Introducing Miners" (fix typo, remove colon) to align it to the colon-less "Introducing Climbers". Now both levels lack a colon.

Do both of these two have a colon in NL NepsterLems?

Yea, both level titles contain a colon in NL NepsterLems.

Agree that we can leave the level ordering untouched for now until I get through all of NepsterLix

Okay, the typo in "Introducing" is now clear, that came from old level files. What's best for the colon though? Lix 0.10.30 renamed "Introdicing: Miners" to "Introducing Miners" (fix typo, remove colon) to align it to the colon-less "Introducing Climbers". Now both levels lack a colon.

Do both of these two have a colon in NL NepsterLems?

Well done on Study in Scarlet! I haven't touched the ordering/ranking yet. I'd like to revisit this with you when you're further through NepsterLix. You'll then have experience of both NepsterLems and NepsterLix. We'll have a clearer picture before be break the equal orders between these two.

Colored Boxes: Maybe a backroute, hard to tell. Several skills left over, but about as hard as the route in Nepster's reference replay.

Blockers Forever: Backroute. I don't see an easy fix.

Lix UI: I'll continue this in a separate thread in the future.

-- Simon

Quote from: Proxima on August 23, 2026, 05:53:28 PMIf the purpose of adding a feature is to improve quality of life, then it should not be locked.

Admittedly, I'm struggling to think of examples of games that provide QOL features as rewards, but I'm sure they do exist. One that springs to mind is Super Mario Sunshine, which allows the player to use Fludd on subsequent plays of the 'platforming challenge' levels once the main quest is completed. In this context, Fludd can absolutely be seen as a QOL feature, because it makes these levels significantly easier to traverse.

I'll come back later with better examples.

Quote from: Proxima on August 23, 2026, 05:53:28 PMYou wouldn't have attempted it if it were impossible.

Have you met me?? Attempting the impossible is my jam!

Quote from: Proxima on August 23, 2026, 05:53:28 PMAre you going to set up a vetting system so that levels by other designers must pass this threshold before they're allowed to be published?

Definitely not. Anybody is welcome to make any levels for RetroLemmini that they wish. We could even put the decision of whether or not to lock the player-assists in the hands of the level designer. I did originally think that, and now regret not including that detail in the idea suggestion.

My 'standards' are not so unique, either; they reflect the strong opinions of other Lemmings players. However small, there will always be a group of players who want the game to be presented more or less as it was originally. RetroLemmini is for that group.

Quote from: Proxima on August 23, 2026, 05:53:28 PMlevels that don't meet your standards will continue to be made, and "I'd rather they didn't get made" isn't a good answer to the question of whether the engine should have better quality-of-life features.

I never said I'd rather those levels didn't get made. This is more a question of which gameplay style we want to support than a comment on level design (the original levels are, of course, an exception to this because they are the original levels, and this Forum wouldn't exist without them).

I should probably take issue with framestepping being described as a 'quality-of-life' feature here. Direction-select and assign-whilst-paused are arguably QOL features. Framestepping, on the other hand, is tantamount to cheating in a game like Lemmings. We all agree that the ability to framestep backwards immediately renders most of the original levels (which is what many players come to the Forums looking for) obsolete. We have to be careful not to do the same in RetroLemmini - that's the bottom line here as far as I'm concerned.