Because it requires another skill that needs to be given to non-Climbers, or because it is an exit that Climbers (instead of non-Climbers) can't reach. (This latter case of course can only really be done with Climbers, Gliders or Sliders.)
How can there be an exit that Climbers can't reach, but non-Climbers can? Same question for a skill that "needs to be given to non-Climbers" - why can't it be given to the Climbers as well?
It's not all that common that a single argument determines the entire decision ... it becomes about not just what can be done or is marginally beneficial, but what's really worth putting the time and effort into, and expecting the players to also put their time and effort into learning to interact with
Of course I'm aware of the hard work and effort that yourself (and others) have put into NeoLemmix over the years, that's never in doubt. NeoLemmix is nothing short of a marvel at this point, and we as Lemmings fans are lucky to have it. One of the reasons I discuss these things so extensively and passionately at times is
precisely because I think NeoLemmix is worth discussing!
Regarding feature bloat and players having to learn new stuff, I guess I'm unlucky to have missed out on the
really experimental phase of NeoLemmix's development in the past, because I likely would have benefitted a lot from seeing some of that stuff in action and being part of the discussion around it at the time.
Having said that, I have seen
some features get tested and dismissed (such as Spearers {yuck!} and Grenaders {yay!}), and so I have seen some "good idea in theory, not quite so good in practice" stuff which has helped to contextualise this concept for me; it's become very clear that even if an idea
kind of works and is generally good, it can open up a massive can of worms when it comes to physics, UI and player interaction, for sure.
I've also had a chance to play around with SuperLemmini's code a bit recently, and I tried out an idea I'd had for a while regarding
the status display (IN/OUT/HOME); it became clear very quickly that this idea wouldn't work in quite the way I had imagined, and in fact needed an extensive re-think.
For me personally,
seeing the idea in practice is often the only satisfactory way to make or break it; theoretical talk around it, particularly that which seems to repel the idea, often seems like nothing more than a hinderance to getting it done and tested (which, of course, is not always possible). I've said many times that we're lucky to have an active developer who's prepared to even listen to and
consider ideas, let alone implement and test them. Make no mistake -
I'm grateful for this! I guess it does mean, though, that I'm always likely to push for ideas to at least
be tested before any decision is made one way or the other. I sometimes forget that a lot of the "learning" has already been done.
Since no one's brought it up, you can further enforce the whole exits thing with lemming limits
Sure. But, again, it's more stuff instead of less stuff for the player to worry about.
In any case, it's off topic. This thread isn't about exits.
Good shout
My thoughts on the permanent skill assigner:
It should be visualised as some sort of archway that the lems walk through, with a clear indication of which skill will be assigned to them (maybe have something similar to a pickup graphic above the archway, requiring space for this in any custom designs). One-skill-per-archway seems the best way to go to keep this easy and simple for the player to see what's going on.
The archway could have an animation, but (as is being discussed for the Portal) it should ideally still allow multiple lems to pass through and gain the skill assignment (i.e. infinite rather than triggered, which already seems to have been decided upon anyway).