I always made sure when designing triggers for my tilesets that I always made the trigger area go below the actual object by a pixel or two to allow for this.
I don't see the slight adjustments you have to make in placing as a big problem
Extra indicators
I should add, the issue that provoked me to abandon editing for today and post this topic was that the squisher trap in Marble doesn't work without being moved one pixel down, which means it no longer conforms to the grid and has a weird air pixel above it instead of hanging nicely from the ceiling.
Related: Display trigger areas offset by 1 pixel (https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=3553.0)For the record, I think this is a good idea as well.
My preferred fix is simply to move the trigger areas 1 pixel down (2 in a couple of cases). This would only disrupt levels where the trap is, right now, at the exact height where it looks deadly but is safe. In that case, either the designer intended it to be deadly and we'd be fixing the level, or they intended it to be safe even though it looks deadly. I won't be shedding any tears over such designers having to fix their levels.
Maybe an illustration would help, so here's a snapshot from a RockLems level.
Maybe an illustration would help, so here's a snapshot from a RockLems level.
Is it possible to see a screenshot of this in clear physics mode? I'm just curious how the trigger areas has been set currently that led to that setup as harmless. Is it fair to say maybe that particular trap was more problematic than other ones?
So I guess the placement of trigger area for that trap just never had been good; seems like it should extend down at least one more pixel to support the rather natural placement shown by Proxima.
(To be precise, this is tested specifically with DOS Lemmings/Lemmix; I don't know about any other ports.)
I now think that only two trigger areas need changing: the "ghostbuster" trap in the crystal style (which should be moved down 1 pixel), and the rope trap in the pillar style (which should be moved down 2, or maybe 1 -- and maybe also shrunk a bit).
plate for the marble squasher trap is 3 pixels tall;
[plate] for the 10-ton weight is 4 tall.
if the entire plate is above ground, it looks as if the lemmings are walking past it and it should be safe.
Simon and others supported my original proposal, I wonder what they think about these traps in particular.
these traps should be left as they are, which means that if the top 2 pixels of the plate are above ground, the lemming will step on it. As I said earlier, that's consistent with the height of the middle part of the "ghostbuster" trap (and also the bottom platform of the wheel).
Proxima's image of the 10-ton weight in reply #29 is inconsistent with Proxima's quote from reply #29:
The fire pit (top right in Proxima's image in reply #29), does it come with its own floor? When that own floor is visible by 2 pixels of its thickness (instead of buried in the ground as it is in that image), will the fire pit be peaceful?
- Why can I walk under the pit? (if we don't change it)
Furthermore, in the case of under the pit walking, I would consider it to be more expected by players as it is common knowledge that lemmings can squeeze through 1 pixel horizontal lines inside the terrain, therefore squeezing under the pit becomes more likely.
I would consider it very bad design if a level used a fire object perched on terrain, like the lower-right object in my picture, and expected the player to guess that it's safe for lemmings.
Perhaps we need to look at this from a different direction: Instead of expanding the trigger area, could we remove the sides from the graphic? (Without actually shrinking the object graphic's size; ie: it would just have a few pixels of empty space around it.) Or even move the sides inwards a bit?
In both cases we would need an animator for the fire and blue fire graphic though to make the case clearer.
It's possible we could animate the frame so it looks less like terrain, but I don't think that's necessary or a good idea.
If the solid-looking metal frame has a kind of glow animation (ie. oscillating slightly in lighting and hue), maybe that can help convey deadliness if we were to expand the trigger area accordingly? I'm picturing a red-hot iron rod basically (but maybe a bit more subtle than that in the proposed animation).
With all respect to namida as creator and maintainer of NL, I think it's abundantly clear we need more time to decide on this. We are as far from a consensus as ever, and several different ideas are being developed.
With all respect to namida as creator and maintainer of NL, I think it's abundantly clear we need more time to decide on this. We are as far from a consensus as ever, and several different ideas are being developed.
- For a deadly frame would either have to change physics+animation or the size of the general visuals+animation which would alter the apperance of levels. So here we have either a visual or physics change for sure.
- For a non-deadly frame only a animation change would be needed. Like cold coal falling out of the sides of the pit over the frame. So no 100% need for a visual or physics change here.
In both cases we would need an animator for the fire and blue fire graphic though to make the case clearer.
Incidentally, I also think this object might be a good candidate to make resizable in the horizontal direction (depending on how exactly the graphics for resizable objects work, as I haven't worked much with them), although it may take some work to create a tiling animation for it.
You make no statement on what feels correct with the fire pit re misleading. For consistency, this trap should be treated with the same rules as other traps.
Icho, your position on the firepit condenses to (deadly frame is a physics change or a graphics change, therefore it's worse than a pure graphics change).
Please go over other people's opinions and attack some specific ideas. I'd be really interested in your counterarguments to replies #52, #53, and #57.
trigger area for this object will not be changing
still open to changing the appearance of the object.
If we would go with 2 objects I think the new one should be the shrunken one, the visual breakage is much higher this time as the physical. I would rather take the trigger area change than the size change.
However, ultimately, this is an object with an effect, not a purely decorative piece. Concerns about decorative use come second to concerns about a good visual-physics correspondence.
As such - not only do I disagree that this breakage is important to consider, I disagree that this is actually breaking them at all - rather, it is fixing them, so the player is clearly aware that there is a safe space to pass under them.
As the objects were unreachable this is anything but not a fix. The change did not affect the level gameplay (no fixing) and broke the visual aspect.
IchoTolot suggested on Discord combining this with Dullstar's glowing frame idea. I like the concept, I'm not sure how well I feel it fits the style (especially in regard to limited colors), but maybe it can be done. I do feel that, unless the object still gets shrunken inwards horizontally, only the bottom part of the frame should be glowing; this would clearly distinguish the deadly bottom from the non-deadly sides.
Yes, but it's still a lot more extra work. I still consider a level with visual flaws a flawed level that critically needs fixing. It doesn't matter to me if it's only decorational it's still flawed.
For clarification, is the support beam example the same size as the original object horizontally? If so, I think it's a good solution.