The Lemmings Remake Level List Order

[STT]

Okay, I think its time we really got this show on the road. This thread is for the discussion of the levels to be placed into the remake. Antythig else should go in the other thread to avoid being cluttered.

Below is the list and order the of levels to be placed in the lemmings remake. Each level is abbreviated using the first three initials of the author, and then a number, eg STT00 or STT01. There are links to these levels at the bottom of this post. Each level is a single .DAT lemedit levelpak level (so it is easier to cram together when the game is assembled, and easier for someone to look at, just rename to levelpak.DAT and whack it into Custlemm).

A guide to the table:
LvNo. - The level of the set.
ID. - The id of the level there, eg STT00.
Save - The number of lemmings to be saved eg. 60/65
BR - Backroutes - How many backroutes have been found and not delt with (some might be perserved as "alternate routes".
Updated - The date it was last updated (please use dd/mm/yy to avoid confusion.)

This table is currently "Dibs". Levels will be swapped later when we get more or less a comlete set..
This table assumes that graphic sets 0-8 are DEFINATELY going to be used. Also assuming 26 levels in a set (i know I'm wrong with this, please edit instead of commenting if you are mod/admin), and six sets in total. The last 3 levels are reserved for now, as are the first eight for training levels.

Some misc. things you should know:
1. Fall distance is 66 pixels.


The table is now on wiki format, so that everyone can edit it. - (Thanks Mindless)
http://it.travisbsd.org/lemmings/lemmingswelt/wiki/doku.php?id=remake:levels

EDITS:
11/10/06: Fixed links, fixed misc spelling errors, added note about fall distance, added special level table, shifted level category names (eg, BASIC, ect.) to middle colum, cut number of training levels to 6, adjusted number of levels/set.
12/10/06: Removed table, added three glitch training levels.

[tseug]

Great idea!

However I'd like to point out: berserk is spelled wrong. None of the links work (they all have quote marks at the end). There are 10 links and you only made 9 levels...

Also I don't think OS BR should apply to levels before cunning. Since at that level it doesn't really matter.

[STT]

Fixed links + spelling. OS BR will stay for those levels though (no real point removing them as they may be nescessary somethime). I will put up a tenth level, and leave it at that for me so it doesn't become Twigger Lemmings.

Shall we call the fall distance 63 pixels?

[tseug]

Shall we call the fall distance 63 pixels?

We should use the same distance as custlemm (66) because most levels are made for it.

[Shvegait]

I'd also like to point out that "training" is spelled wrong  :tongue:
I don't think we really need 8 training levels. After all, if you are playing the Lemmings Remake, you have probably played Lemmings before. We could do it more compactly with 4 levels (2 skills per). Might also help to make them not quite as boring!

The numbering is wrong beyond #130. (Goes to #141 next.)

I'm not sure that we decided on 6 ranks of 25 levels each (maybe I missed it?)
And I thought that the glitch-required levels were going to be a Lemmix-only extension, thus the last few levels of the non-glitch-required levels should be --RESERVED--, as they will be the end of the DOS version.

(Or something? Was a decision on this made? I protest them being in the core version on grounds of continuity, but as an optional extension it could work. I know there are people who enjoy the glitch-required levels... I enjoy them on occasion too, but in my humble and obviously subjective opinion, the satisfaction at completing a (blatant) glitch-required level is not quite the same as solving one based on "reasonable" rules. That is, if you don't know the glitches. If you do know the glitches, then the added complexity can be interesting. But remember who we are making this for. In any case, if we are to include the "training" levels for the glitches, it does not make sense to include those after the "very hard but glitch-free" levels in the same package. It breaks the continuity. It would make more sense, in my opinion, to go straight into the glitch-required levels (this approach is obviously problematic) OR to separate out the glitch-required levels.  Then our two remakes would not be Lemmings vs. ONML, but non-major-glitch-required Lemmings Remake vs. ONGL, Oh no! Glitched Lemmings! Then these extra levels would be a separate download, and the players would know what they are getting into. And if they don't, they will surely find out right away :smiley: )

I do think we need a system like this in order for determining what levels go where, and for keeping track of them. However! more important is deciding what levels go in the game at all. Of course everyone could just claim dibs on their favorite levels, and we'll eventually populate the list, but is that how we want to do it? I envisioned a system where you would nominate levels to be added to the remake, then other involved members could second them or veto them (with reasoning of course!) Instead of assigning a specific number, just nominate it for a difficulty rating. Then when we have about enough for each difficulty rating, we can order them in a way that makes sense (mixing up levels from different terrain sets, separating levels that focus on the same skills, etc.). Then we can decide what levels would be the ideal "level 1" and "closing level" for each difficulty, as those are obviously important decisions. Hmm, we would need a programmed system for managing the nominated levels and allowing votes. Maybe I will look into learning how to do that if people are interested...

[Tim]

My pack of levels I have posted onto the file portal includes 8 training levels put into Tame, as my set of levels had replaced all of the Oh No! More Lemmings levels, a total of 100 levels with graphics from the original game, oh no and holiday lemmings.

I dont know if that is going to work for the lemmings remake, though.

Tim.

[STT]

However! more important is deciding what levels go in the game at all. Of course everyone could just claim dibs on their favorite levels, and we'll eventually populate the list, but is that how we want to do it? I envisioned a system where you would nominate levels to be added to the remake, then other involved members could second them or veto them (with reasoning of course!) Instead of assigning a specific number, just nominate it for a difficulty rating. Then when we have about enough for each difficulty rating, we can order them in a way that makes sense (mixing up levels from different terrain sets, separating levels that focus on the same skills, etc.). Then we can decide what levels would be the ideal "level 1" and "closing level" for each difficulty, as those are obviously important decisions. Hmm, we would need a programmed system for managing the nominated levels and allowing votes. Maybe I will look into learning how to do that if people are interested...

Fixed spelling + reduced no. of trianing levels to 6 as comramise, reinserted levels.

I took the initative of 26 levels/set, as it was decided to be 160 levels and 6 sets -> 26 each.

This is a rough list that is to be swapped and changed pretty often. I shouldn't really call it "dibs", but the basic process works like this:
1. You post a link to your level and desired place for it.
2. I put it on the list.
3. People test it. If they don't like its placeing, it gets moved, if it is a really bad level then it is cut.

So its sort of the way you've just described.

The reason why the last there levels are reserved is so that noone tries to claim one just yet.  I'm thinking we place the last three levels using a poll or a vote.

[Mindless]

Treat this as a wiki.

I can set up a wiki quite easily if we want one.

[chaos_defrost]

Wiki is good for this, actually.

Wouldn't it be better overall if the other players were to select which of an author's levels are to be used in this remake? I mean, generally your viewpoint of your own levels may be skewed a bit by your design processes. Hard to describe.

[Mindless]

http://it.travisbsd.org/lemmings/lemmingswelt/wiki/doku.php?id=remake:levels

[geoo]

In my opinion, the glitches and non-glitches levels shouldn't be mixed together. I'd rather prefer, as already said, to make two extra stages, maybe as a kind of 'extension'.

[...]
I do think we need a system like this in order for determining what levels go where, and for keeping track of them. However! more important is deciding what levels go in the game at all. Of course everyone could just claim dibs on their favorite levels, and we'll eventually populate the list, but is that how we want to do it? I envisioned a system where you would nominate levels to be added to the remake, then other involved members could second them or veto them (with reasoning of course!) Instead of assigning a specific number, just nominate it for a difficulty rating. Then when we have about enough for each difficulty rating, we can order them in a way that makes sense (mixing up levels from different terrain sets, separating levels that focus on the same skills, etc.). Then we can decide what levels would be the ideal "level 1" and "closing level" for each difficulty, as those are obviously important decisions. Hmm, we would need a programmed system for managing the nominated levels and allowing votes. Maybe I will look into learning how to do that if people are interested...

That's also how I'd do it. For each rating, a list is set up which everyone contributes to by adding unlisted levels or approving ones already in the list (with at most 12 levels or something like that per rating, and overall at most e.g. 50). Then the multiply selected ones get in, and over the rest is decided via a separate voting (perhaps 0 - 5 points) or something like that, perhaps allowing shilghtly shifting levels between the ratings to make sure that no better ones are sorted out while worse ones from other ratings are left in. And then doing the ordering by discussion perhaps, or again voting (1 - 20/30). Just my thoughts.

[Shvegait]

I took the initative of 26 levels/set, as it was decided to be 160 levels and 6 sets -> 26 each.

26 is a very awkward number to end on. I don't see why we can't just round up to 30 levels per set. This is not a technical constraint...

This is a rough list that is to be swapped and changed pretty often. I shouldn't really call it "dibs", but the basic process works like this:
1. You post a link to your level and desired place for it.
2. I put it on the list.
3. People test it. If they don't like its placeing, it gets moved, if it is a really bad level then it is cut.

So its sort of the way you've just described.

My issue is with the way in which levels are presented and requested to be removed. Your way is more like... "I want this level in and I want it here..." then that stands unless someone says "I don't think the level should be in" or "I think it should be moved here...". The nomination way is more like "What do you all think about this level?" and finally "Now that we have the levels, how should we order them?" At the core, it's not very different, but the way the communication is handled is different.

Difficulty rating and level number are relative. But you are requiring people to nominate levels for an absolute position. It makes more sense to have a system where you say that a level should come after another level, or before a certain level. If you are familiar with databases, state diagrams, graphs, etc., it would be like you have some dependencies. For example, some levels might require a similar trick to another level. It wouldn't make sense to have the more complex level first and the simpler level later; that would be redundant. You get a more logical ordering when the simpler level comes first. Then, the more complex level would build off of the trick that you hopefully learned in the simpler level. A very trivial example is that "We all fall down" with 80 lemmings should come after "We all fall down" with 60 lemmings, and so on. So you'd wind up with a list of levels and these dependencies, which would help to come up with a logical ordering and eliminate redundant levels. Then, only at the very end, when you have the list of 120, 150, 160, or however many levels we have, divide them into difficulty ratings, and assign them numbers. Maybe swap a couple of positions at this stage to configure the "Level 1" and last level for each rating.

To me this method is more logical and more structured, with less potential for argument over individual level positions--maybe someone's favorite number is 23 so they try to claim all the level 23s, even though this wouldn't make sense in the overall structure. Now I'm not saying people will act like that, however, analyzing where the levels should go based on some criteria would make more sense than just guessing where they should go and changing it later... If you are going to have to change it later, anyway, why bother setting it in the first place?

[ccexplore]

Maybe it's instructive for me to talk about the system the Chip's Challenge community used to create remake levelpacks.

Basically they hold a huge vote where people give each level a "fun" rating and a "difficulty" rating.  The "fun" rating actually measures, essentially, "how worthy is this level to be included in the remake levelpack?".  The "difficulty" rating of course measures the level's difficulty.

In the case of Chip's Challenge, the original game has 149 levels, so naturally, after the voting/ranking finished, we pick the top 149 levels as determined by the total "fun" (or maybe it was average, I forgot exactly) value of each level.  Then the level ordering is based on the total "difficulty" values for each of the 149 chosen.

Actually I wasn't around back when they applied the process, so the details might be slightly off, but you get the basic idea.

A web-based voting website was created to keep track of the voting data.

==============

I believe a similar process can be carried out for the Lemmings Remake.  The only major difference is that since we're having four glitch-free ratings and two glitch-ful ratings, we probably need to apply the process separately for the glitch-free and glitch-ful levels.  Or something like that.

There's also the fact that we've been talking about possibly creating a few new levels specifically for this remake (no such precedence exist for the Chip's Challenge remakes which are strictly on already-seen levels).  Say we decided for N of the total T number of levels to be new levels.  Then we'd apply the above process, but keep T - N "most fun" old levels and N "most fun" newly created levels, and then rank the resulting set of T levels by difficulty.

Hope this is of interest and helpful.

[STT]

The big thing is, that there has been a lot of talk and not much being decided  :winktounge: .

I'm simply taking the initiative here. I'm thinking we use this to get a rough bunch of levels together and then we switch them around and cut them, whetever. Just because there's only 160 slots, doesn't mean we can have more than those levels on the page.

There a few things I am confident on though:
+ Each level should be submitted as a single level in dat format - this makes it easier to cram into levelXXX.dat and to test in cutemlemm.
+ We need to get a bunch of levels together, even if roughly.

Once we get the levels together, then we can vote or whatever our way is to sort them out. We've  got a wiki now, so anyone can edit it.

I took the initative of 26 levels/set, as it was decided to be 160 levels and 6 sets -> 26 each.

26 is a very awkward number to end on. I don't see why we can't just round up to 30 levels per set. This is not a technical constraint...

I agree, 26 is very awkward. I thought there was and that was why it was decided that there would be 160 levels. IMHO, 180 levels would be nicer ==> 30 per set.

And for the matter of to make levels or to include pre-done ones. I see no reason why people should be prevented from including their favourite levels, but i think there should be a ratio of, say, 1:3 (Favourate:Custon Made). I dunno, we should hold a poll on this.

[Shvegait]

I've already stated my reasons on why I think most of the levels should be existing favorites, so I will ask you then: What is the purpose of the remake in your mind, and why should the large majority of levels be newly created?

[STT]

I've already stated my reasons on why I think most of the levels should be existing favorites, so I will ask you then: What is the purpose of the remake in your mind, and why should the large majority of levels be newly created?

A large majority of new levels so that it isn't just a craming together of heaps of old ones. But, I really am not fussed about it the ratio, just so long as its not completley old levels.

To tell you the truth, I'm not completly fussed which levels go in, and what order, etc., let the majority decide that. Just so long as there's some from everyone and some of those are fresh ones.

The purpose of the remake is to be a fresh lemmings game, differnet from Orig and Ohno, and not mearly a ramming together of levels that have been floating around since the creating of lemedit.

This thread is mainly to start the putting together of levels. If we start now, I rekon we could be done by christmas.
BTW I've got a new level to add, and that'll be all from me (I know you guys have heaps of better ones):
STT09
Mind you, it is a glitch one.

[Tim]

Even though I am a recent member of the forum, Im not sure if any of my levels in my pack should go into the lemmings remake at all. Maybe?

I guess that since I uploaded my pack in the past week, they shouldnt be on there, and most of you wouldnt have even started trying out my levels yet.

Ok I guess i have answered my own question.

Tim.

[EricLang]

I think the actual starting of STT is very important. There has been a lot of talk.
What I am confused about: is it a CustLemm project or is it a LemmixPlayer project?

[Tim]

Ok, I shouldnt really be trying to participate in this remake. It looks like I wont be able to play the finished pack or contribute any levels, as all of my levels are created from LemEdit using Windows 98, and are all clean levels (no glitched ones).

Plus I have no idea what the LemmixPlayer, LemmixEditor or Cheapo Packs are at all.

Dont worry about me then, everyone. Im just a new member lost in space

[EricLang]

LemmixPlayer is a Lemmings clone for Windows.
LemmixEditor is a leveleditor which could replace LemEdit.
I wrote these programs to avoid using dos-box or using dos-mode while keeping all Lemmings-fun.

[Fleech]

Tim, check out this thread for info on the Lemmix editor. I've no idea if it runs under Windows 98, but it's certainly worth looking at if it does.

Regarding what levels get used, I don't think any set ratio needs using. If a level is good enough it should be considered, new or old. The whole point of this is to provide people who have no idea what LemEdit, Lemmix, .dat packs etc are with an easy way to play some new levels, isn't it? People will create new levelpacks whether this gets done or not, so IMO it makes no sense to shove in a load of new levels just because people here may have already played many of the old ones. If you're on this forum the chances are you're going to play any new packs that get released anyway, so including loads of them just for the sake of it seems pointless to me.

It seems no-one is really sure who this is intended for. People who already play custom lemmings levels, or people who don't but might like to if they had a nice, shiny, best-of package to play with (which may very well include several newer levels)? It's surely the latter? :huh:

In either case, nice one STT for getting this all up and running. I'll start playing through a few packs and see what I can find.

[Shvegait]

The purpose of the remake is to be a fresh lemmings game, differnet from Orig and Ohno, and not mearly a ramming together of levels that have been floating around since the creating of lemedit.

Well, if someone has never played these "old" levels before, then they are "new" to them, right? There are a lot of great levels out there, and I'm sure the community would be able to find some great ones that are "old" but that even you haven't played yet :tongue: If the purpose is to distribute this is a package for people who have never tried customized Lemmings, I don't see how using "old" levels is bad.

This thread is mainly to start the putting together of levels. If we start now, I rekon we could be done by christmas.

Sorry I've been sounding antagonistic, it's great that you are taking this initiative. I was just trying to point out some potential problems and help iron those out before we get too entrenched in the selection process.

[STT]

Well, if someone has never played these "old" levels before, then they are "new" to them, right? There are a lot of great levels out there, and I'm sure the community would be able to find some great ones that are "old" but that even you haven't played yet :tongue: If the purpose is to distribute this is a package for people who have never tried customized Lemmings, I don't see how using "old" levels is bad.

Yeah, I kind of relised that when I was typing it...  :tongue:.

Sorry I've been sounding antagonistic, it's great that you are taking this initiative. I was just trying to point out some potential problems and help iron those out before we get too entrenched in the selection process.

How about a different selection progress? The current system (1. Upload and ask for aplace, then 2. Move/Cut) does has its flaws, and I concur with that.

I propose another one. You nominate the levels you want it. They are then rated by someone else in a similar fashion to the Custlemm Level List Game. It is also rated out of difficulty (out of 8) for both glitched/normal levels. Then the levels are grouped according to their difficulty, (i.e, 1/8 -> early BASIC, 2/8 -> late BASIC), and so on. Same with the gliched ones. (1/8 -> early WHACKY, 8/8 -> final               
ABSURD). Then we assign level numbers to them. You like?

An example (though you shouldn't do your own levels!)

STT05: Killer Bubblebath
(screen maybe?)
Save 77/80  (can't remember)
Tools: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 (now I know I've got alzimers)
Good: Not immedatly obvious solution, not extreamly long either. Fair share of each tool is used.
Bad: Loots of building.
== Overall dificulty rating 4/8

So this level would go into late PUZZLING.

[Shvegait]

Yeah, now we're talkin  :wink:

Oh, and you raise a good idea with the Level List style reviewing. As a starting point for the old favorites, we already have reviews for so many levels in the old Custlemm Level List thread (in the archive). Since these packs were chosen mostly based on community interest, it should be a good place to start, though of course there are many levels worthy of consideration that were not reviewed during that time (also including selected levels from authors with many packs). But it could be a good place for people to look for nominations at this early stage. Just a reminder that Mindless is preserving those posts!


There's one other thing I thought I'd bring up before we get too far in. What will be the rules for nominating and incorporating levels from authors who do not or no longer frequent the forum? Transplanting them directly should be no problem, as of course credit would be attributed and that's it. However, it is a tricky situation if some of these levels are high-quality minus some backroutes. I don't think it would be right to modify these levels. Of course they could be left as they are if the backroutes are not blatant, or they could just be rejected if so. I don't expect this to be a huge issue, but it is something to consider...

[STT]

I'm thinking we reanylise each level as several have/will be been altered for the remake.

And I'm also thinking we each nominate our own levels. That way he have no issues with people not wanting their levels in, modifications, etc.

[TOG]

Perhaps this has already been stated, but I didn't see it.

In what manner are we supposed to nominate our levels?

[Shvegait]

The wiki is a nice idea, however it's a bit unorganized to use.

I'm working on a little database to manage nomination. Basically how it works is to nominate a level you would post the level in .lvl format. You don't need to post the name, number of lemmings, etc. as this can be easily parsed from the .lvl file (also minimizes errors). Although it doesn't have the ease of use of .dat files (being able to just rename them to try out the levels), it makes more sense from the point of view that one level = one level file... since DATs can have many levels in them...

When posting a level, you will have to provide some data though, such as the author's name, and the source (meaning where you originally got it from, if it's a DAT pack. e.g. "Garjen00.DAT Level 1"). If you don't know how the author wants to be credited, just use their handle; it can be changed later. But keep it consistent how any one author is credited. For multiple authors, list them all.

You can also, if you wish, post a picture of the level (.PNG). Or maybe just a link to the picture. Since the level pics are hosted on the same server that the database would be, it would make sense just to link them than to re-upload them. Or maybe use the URL when the picture exists on the server, and upload the file when it doesn't.

Each level will have an associated number of nominations and vetos (or thumbs up, thumbs down, yes or no). Posting a level means you automatically give it a thumbs up. (Else, why are you posting it?) You can also, of course, view other posted levels and give them a thumbs up or a thumbs down.

You can also vote on each level for the difficulty rating. We can use STT's idea of 1 to 8, where each rating spans 2 difficulty points (for non-glitch levels). The average difficulty rating is used.

For glitched levels, there would be a flag you can check for specifying "glitch" so that it keeps the levels separate. Of course this can be hard to determine in some cases, but use your judgment.

Oh, and most importantly, each level will have an associated space for making comments. Please justify your choices, especially vetoes.

Most of the data can be edited after being input. So you could update the .lvl if a backroute was removed, then update the picture, change your vote, change your vote on the difficulty, etc.

Finally, there would be a bunch of queries you can perform, such as sort by # nominations, sort by # of comments, sort by difficulty rating, sort by author, simple data compilation (# levels per author, # levels in each graphics set, # levels in each difficulty rating if the numbers are used as appropriate), etc.


Would people use such a system? It won't be very difficult to set up, but I don't want to force this method on anyone. I think we need a little more organization than we currently have, though.

[geoo]

That comes pretty close to my imagination. In fact, I just was going to post my suggestions when I read your posting.
I quite like the idea of adding *.lvl files for each level, despite this taking quite some time to do when adding the levels; but I see the advantages. Of course, it's also eaier then to check for double entries, and new levels can be easily submitted.
For the source of a level, I'd say that the pack and the number should be entered in separate fields, that way, pictures could be assigned automatically if already existent on your server. Alternatively, 'raw level file' could be checked.

Except for the automatic approval when adding the level, I would make adding and voting two separate procedures. That way, it would be more clear and levels you didn't vote yet could be marked somehow. For points to vote on, the difficulty 1 - 8 is of course very important; additionally the complete approval/disapproval as deciding factor which levels get in as you already said, and I'd suggest a separate voting on 'how much do you like that level overall', in case there are far too many levels for one ranking on the difficulty scale tied with approvals, to determine which levels have to be put out if they cannot be shifted just one difficulty ranking lower of higher either.

For authors, I'd prefer a dropdown list to choose the author instead of manually typing in the name. That way, there won't be any problems with multiple names; if an author is missing, he could simply be added to the list. Also, there couldn't be fake authors then as the added authors can easily be verified. A problem would be more than one author then, but this is a rather rare case and could be handled individually I think.
For adding levels, I'd also like to see an option 'all added levels by author: ' then, that way you can add many levels from the same author without having to select the author every time.
For glitches, apart from yes/no there could also be an option 'borderline case' if it is abiguous.

For safety however, to avoid double (dis)approval or voting, it seems to be necessary to create sort of accounts which have to be verified first; having accounts like this one the other hand would also have some other advantages: possibility to change votings and entries again, displaying already voted levels...

Other than that, I obviously really like that solution as it gives a much better organized method to suggest, vote and order levels. And after all, depending on the total amount of submitted levels, we could decide whether to make separate Lemmings/ONML remakes or only one with all styles.

I'd btw like to make a special graphics (Pushover) level for whatever difficulty rating as I really like the graphics and they'd be not too hard to apply for lemmings.
I've btw looked through a good load of levels already and not even having checked all levels, I'm already at about 60 levels which I find quite good for the remake. Maybe I should increase my criterions, but there are just so many good levels out here...

[Shvegait]

Hey, great points. Yeah, there will definitely be an account system. I wasn't going to get into all the details unless people are interested. It will probably be set up where you register, similar to on the forums, but then you need to be approved by an admin before getting access.

Adding and voting will be separate. That would be a good query to add, see all levels you haven't voted for yet.

Separating pack name and level # and using them in conjunction to find a picture on the server if available is a great idea.  :smiley: (Of course if the level didn't come from a pack, you can leave these fields blank.)

How much you like the level overall, hmm... This seems redundant with the Yes/No vote. It makes sense to use one system, either Yes/No or a rating system, but not both. I feel that there might be a bit of tension if we open it up to a rating system, as more subjectivity is involved (I mean, it's easy to have a reason for Yes vs. No or No vs. Yes, but for a "4" vs. a "5"?). Keep in mind that you can like a level but still vote No on it, if you don't think it would fit well in the remake, or for other reasons (one example, the level is redundant, meaning it is solved in a way similar to another level, but the other one is maybe better. This is of course mostly for the higher difficulty levels, as many easy levels can be solved in multiple ways, but I think you see what I mean). We have the comment section to discuss the levels, and I think on the borderline cases we will be able to come to a consensus through discussion. We can also use other factors if need be, such as how many levels an author would have if a level were accepted (for example, if an author only has one level nominated, all things being equal theirs should get priority over an author who has ten levels nominated, for variety), graphics set balance, etc.

The authors dropdown is a nice idea. I actually considered it for consistency, but wasn't sure about how to handle multiple authors. But as you said those are rare cases and can be handled individually.

Glitch: Yes, No, Maybe - sounds good.

I'd btw like to make a special graphics (Pushover) level for whatever difficulty rating as I really like the graphics and they'd be not too hard to apply for lemmings.

Something to bring up here. We need a convention for determining which level will use which special graphics set. Makes sense to do #0 for the first difficulty, #1 for the second, etc. #4 for the first glitch set, #5 for the second glitch set. I think we decided on one special graphics level per rating, so this should work. Anyway, this is a detail that can of course be easily changed as needed.

I've btw looked through a good load of levels already and not even having checked all levels, I'm already at about 60 levels which I find quite good for the remake. Maybe I should increase my criterions, but there are just so many good levels out here...

Wow, nice. The more, the merrier.  :smiley: Don't worry about refining your criteria at this point, that will happen when we really need to narrow down the levels and will be heavily based on the context of the levels in relation to other levels, rather than maybe how one level stands on its own. The first stage is just to build up the pool of levels that we can pick from.

Knowing that you are working through this already, I'll try to get this up as soon as I can. It won't have any frills, and will still take a little to get up and running, but I'll be working on it.

[STT]

Shvegait, have you started on making this system yet? If so, then two thumbs up. (if not then one up anyway for working on it.)

I've converted my levels to .lvl format and ironed out quite a few errors. I've even added two more levels.

STT00
STT01
STT02 - Tweeked Skills
STT03
STT04 - Tweeked Skills
STT05 - Tweeked Skills + Raised Save Rq.
STT06
STT07 - Tweeked Skills
STT08 - Tweeked Skills
STT09 - New (glitch level)
STT10 - New

[geoo]

How much you like the level overall, hmm... This seems redundant with the Yes/No vote. It makes sense to use one system, either Yes/No or a rating system, but not both. I feel that there might be a bit of tension if we open it up to a rating system, as more subjectivity is involved (I mean, it's easy to have a reason for Yes vs. No or No vs. Yes, but for a "4" vs. a "5"?). Keep in mind that you can like a level but still vote No on it, if you don't think it would fit well in the remake, or for other reasons (one example, the level is redundant, meaning it is solved in a way similar to another level, but the other one is maybe better. This is of course mostly for the higher difficulty levels, as many easy levels can be solved in multiple ways, but I think you see what I mean). We have the comment section to discuss the levels, and I think on the borderline cases we will be able to come to a consensus through discussion. We can also use other factors if need be, such as how many levels an author would have if a level were accepted (for example, if an author only has one level nominated, all things being equal theirs should get priority over an author who has ten levels nominated, for variety), graphics set balance, etc.

Hmm, you're right, the additional voting system would leave out other factors which are important to decide whether the level should be kept in or not. A discussion should be much better in this case. I think we should stay with the Yes/No system with approval/disapproval for major reasons for a level to be kept in/out, and a neutral vote (to distinguish from 'unvoted').

EDIT: I think I didn't mention it yet, or maybe I did, anyways, for the level entry, maybe an option could be added to select between Lemmings and ONML/Christmas for a level. That way, if we decided to make two remakes because of the high amount of levels, it would be easier to sort them out into two categories. Although, hmm, just thinking of it, that work could also be done easily with a script as the *.lvl files are submitted. That's fine.

Knowing that you are working through this already, I'll try to get this up as soon as I can. It won't have any frills, and will still take a little to get up and running, but I'll be working on it.

Nice to know. I'll continue now on my list a little...

[Shvegait]

EDIT: I think I didn't mention it yet, or maybe I did, anyways, for the level entry, maybe an option could be added to select between Lemmings and ONML/Christmas for a level. That way, if we decided to make two remakes because of the high amount of levels, it would be easier to sort them out into two categories. Although, hmm, just thinking of it, that work could also be done easily with a script as the *.lvl files are submitted. That's fine.

Simple query on the Graphics Set #  :tongue:
But I will note to add one on that.


On a side note, this week is kind of busy for me as far as school goes, but after Thursday I'll be home for fall break, with plenty of time to work on this. Setting up the database is easy, I have the tables all basically prepared, and the queries are rather basic. PHP makes certain things easy (like session ids for user tracking), I just have to look up how to do it. It won't be hard once I get a little bit of time.

[Tim]

Ok the one thing I want to know is, will this all be done with lemmix or lemedit? if it is lemmix, im out.

Tim.

[Shvegait]

Ok the one thing I want to know is, will this all be done with lemmix or lemedit? if it is lemmix, im out.

It won't matter what editor is used. The only thing that matters is the file format, and for that we are using .lvl and the compressed version .dat. Both LemEdit (and Lemmings, and ONML, and CustLemm, ... ) and Lemmix use the same file formats so you can use whichever editor you want. A level edited in LemEdit is openable in Lemmix and vice-versa. There are no conflicts here...

An analogy: do you care what text editor someone uses? or what image editor (using a standard format like .jpg)? No, because you can open them in any text editor/viewer or any image editor/viewer without problems.

[STT]

So Shvegait, how's the PHP coming along?

[Shvegait]

Sorry about the delay, school is just taking up so much of my time... I should have some time to work on this in the near future.

[STT]

I can sympathise....