I stand by what I said: SuperLemmix provides a Classic Mode, and my advice would be to make sure your levels can be played and completed in that mode.
However, to make it very clear -
it will never become an outright requirement for designers to ensure "Classic Mode playability". It's purely advisory, in the same way that "don't hide the Exit" is advisory in NeoLemmix - people still can, and do, release levels with hidden Exits!
To address some of the individual points:
this rule would effectively force everyone to play in classic mode who chooses to design levels
Again,
it's not a rule. I'll never bother to do anything to enforce Classic Mode in any way, shape, or form. The option is there and that's as far as it goes, engine-side.
However, it still seems worth expressing that designers may want to ensure that their levels can be solved in Classic Mode, both for the player's sake, and as an
optional layer of quality-checking.
It may depend on your viewpoint whether designing levels is a service to the community, or playing the pack a favour the community does the level designer.
Personally, and from experience, I'd say it's very much a two-way street.
if this becomes an official requirement for packs to be released
It won't.
Most importantly, it requires that all levels be solvable (in a reasonable amount of time) without any skill shadows whatsoever.
If there is a "SuperLemmix Philosophy" (and I hope there isn't!), it would be that all levels should be able to be played, and completed, without the player-assists - no exceptions. That's something I feel strongly enough about that Classic Mode exists in the first place!
But again, it will never become a
requirement - note that
SuperLemmix still provides every player-assist tool that NeoLemmix does, with the exception of Skill Projection shadows, which I've always felt are taking the concept a step too far.
But, it also provides a button which says "I dare you to turn them off!"
That is simply not something NeoLemmix level creators ever had to work with over all the years I’ve been on the forums
Just because something has or hasn't been done a certain way for a long time doesn't make it good, or right. Ideas and concepts need to be able to stand up to scrutiny away from any notions of "it's the established way things are done". And I mean that generally, not just in the context of the current discussion topic.
Every miner or builder assignment now becomes up for debate whether it qualifies as “too precise for classic mode”.
And so it should - does anyone really want to play a level where
every Builder assignment must be placed on one particular frame, with absolutely no leeway? I definitely don't!
I don't want to get bogged down in examples, but I feel the need to illustrate a point here. Imagine a level where you have to build across a large gap, but in order to make it to the other side, each Builder must be placed at the absolute extreme tip of the previous Builder bridge. Now, in order to make it across, it's necessary to framestep back and forth a the end of each bridge until you find the very last pixel.
Classic Mode is a good way to discourage this sort of fiddliness away from the game with one broad brush-stroke. Another way would be to implement block-based physics rather than pixel-based, and those games that do so (
L3D,
Revolutions and the 2018 mobile game) do benefit from a reduction in this sort of gameplay. However, I personally find that they become a bit too paint-by-the-numbers as a result, and it's not as possible for players to be as inventive with a level's solution as they could in the earlier games.
Similarly, over-reliance on player assists actually has the same effect on the game in NeoLemmix - levels become solvable only by their intended solution, and designers can make sure that this is the case down to the very last pixel. With Classic Mode, I'm aiming to help strike a balance and provide a platform that allows
players (as well as level designers) to get a bit more creative again.
What about certain skill tricks, like the Miner-Miner-cancel trick, or even just stopping a Basher mid-stroke to create a ramp? What about six-pixel Digger-Basher staircases? All of these are difficult without framestepping, too.
If I never see another six-pixel Digger-Basher staircase level as long as I'm playing custom Lemmings, I'll be a very happy WillLem
With that said, such tricks may be difficult without Framestepping, but they are still
possible. Some tricks and skill interactions are simply
not possible in real-time, and if they aren't, then by necessity they require the player to pause, framestep, check the skill shadow, etc, etc, repeat ad absurdum.
What's better is a level that might take a bit of brainpower to find the solution, and a bit of eyeballing to get the correct placements, but that can then be executed with a minimum of player input
per-action (ideally, 1 click). Enter Classic Mode.
Classic mode, in my view, is about players who choose to bring higher (potentially unintended) execution difficulty on themselves
It's been said a number of times now that SuperLemmix is "an execution-difficulty-focused" engine, and I suppose that perspective on the project is inevitable. But, what's closer to the truth is that I'm trying to
strike a balance between puzzle difficulty and execution difficulty. When you have too much of one or the other, it's not a good thing.
One of the reasons I decided to start work on SuperLemmix is because I encountered one too many custom packs that was essentially a series of impenetrable picture puzzles that leave nothing to the imagination, and expect the player to perform the exact series of actions necessary to piece together the designer's idea of how the level should be played.
In my humble opinion, the best level packs are those which present variation across the board, in terms of level design concepts, puzzle difficulty, execution difficulty, skill types used in each level, map design, etc, and which often present a number of different possible solutions to any given level. There are, thankfully, plenty of examples of those on the Forums - but, I'd say they're in the minority, from what I've seen. With SuperLemmix, I'm aiming to encourage more of these!
classic mode creates a “general suspicion” of execution difficulty, holding level designers to a standard of leeway with regards to skill assignment that was never imposed on them in all of the years of NeoLemmix’s existence.
Again, just because something has been a certain way for years doesn't mean it's been the
right way for years. And, NeoLemmix has imposed
plenty of its own restrictions on level designers "over the years", as I'm sure you're aware
Anyway, as I've now said several times, Classic Mode is not being imposed on anyone in any way, shape, or form - it's an option, and it wil always remain so. If "SuperLemmix philosophy" ends up becoming a thing, then that's really a different matter. I'd personally rather it didn't, but I suppose it is inevitable given its history.
All I can do, then, is aim to shape it into something which helps define a more balanced and varied style of level creation. By recommending that designers verify the "Classic Mode playability" of their levels, my hope is that it will help to highlight the designer's more playable, enjoyable levels - which I'm sure it will.
This requirement would make what is currently a player choice — classic mode — mandatory; not for the players, but for the level designers ... if it does become a requirement, I’m out.
Again, it will never become a requirement, either on the player's side or the designer's side. Designers won't be able to force it on the player, and players will have to accept the possibility that any custom level they play might not be possible in Classic Mode. The advice I've given in this topic is to help mitigate the latter of these two scenarios.
I’ve come to realise how often puzzle difficulty and execution difficulty / pixel precision can go hand in hand at higher ranks
Two things here:
1) Execution difficulty and pixel precision are
not the same thing. I wouldn't even count them as being on the same side of the coin. Maybe different sides of the same dice.
2) Indeed,
NepsterLems is a great example of a levelpack which manages to find that balance between what's hard to figure out and what's hard to execute. Other examples are
GeoffLems and
Lemmings Plus I, which are amongst my favourites. Perhaps it's no coincidence that all of these were made in the days before the abundance of Player-assists!
the level designer cannot allow for more leeway with regards to the position of the skill assignment, lest that leeway will introduce backroutes
If I had to add further definition to "SuperLemmix philosophy", it would be to say that backroutes are OK, as long as they're interesting
TL:DR;Classic Mode is optional, and always will be, on both the player's side and the designer's side. I will make no move whatsoever towards making it anything more than advisory.
I'll add to that - in terms of said advice, I'll only likely give it outside of this topic if it's asked for, and even then I'll probably simply point the person towards this topic so they can read the discussion and make their own mind up about it.
"SuperLemmix philosophy" isn't something I really like the idea of, and I've said so elsewhere. But, if it has to exist, then I hope it does so in the form of encouraging a move towards greater variety in level design and an increase in enjoyable, playable levels which strike a balance between real-time playability and puzzle difficulty. One of the best ways I can think of to achieve this is encourage the use of Classic Mode, which will help designers to consider the real-time playability of their levels and hopefully promote a move away from over-reliance on player-assists.
Oh, and backroutes are OK as long as they're interesting