IIRC, the spear is indeed capable of popping balloons in Lemmings 2: The Tribes. I remember reading this in a spoiler tag somewhere here on the forums, where I first realised this was some sort of advanced / secret trick in Lemmings 2.

If a spear does pop a balloon, though, would that mean the spear already acts as terrain while in the air? Because obviously, the balloon would pop whenever hitting terrain of any kind. If the spear does act as terrain while in the air, though, then this could also be used to e.g. break the fall of fallers etc.

I don’t quite remember whether the spear already counts as terrain while in the air in the current SuperLemmix version; I guess the easiest way to tell is by looking at the Spearer in clear-physics mode.

I don't think there are one or two hard-and-fast rules on how to fix backroutes in general. It's specific to the level, the terrain layout, the number and type of skills provided.

I also struggle to understand your post in other ways. Among others, what do you mean by "enlighten the level"? Clear-physics mode?

Buttons can force the player to visit certain locations in a level, much like pickup skills. Pickup skills however additionally limit when a skill can be used (=not before you've visited location X), and are therefore better suited than buttons to enforce a specific order of events / skill assignments.

One-way arrows are a double-edged sword. Because while they limit the direction of destructive skills on the one hand, they can also provide hints from which side to approach an obstacle on the other hand - thereby actually making the level easier than if the one-way arrows weren't there.

A similar thing happened to me with a fire trap on a Lemmings: Hall of Fame level, where the trap being present would force you to dig at one point. Digging there is still necessary, in order to remove a chunk of terrain so that a Shimmier can continue through that section later on. But the fire trap made it obvious / inevitable to dig there, so I actually ended up removing the fire trap, in order to increase the entropy of the level.

The other thing with one-way arrows is that horizontal arrows are far less restrictive than vertical arrows. Because horizontal arrows can also be dug away from above, whereas vertical arrows can't be bashed away from either side. In other words, vertical arrows are "this direction only", whereas horizontal arrows allow all directions except the one opposing them.

The hint-giving aspect of one-way arrows can only be avoided whenever they are used as a fair version of manual steel. Meaning, you're not actually supposed to dig or bash through them in any way - they're merely trying to prevent you from going through chunks of terrain that can't be replaced by steel blocks (since steel often tends to be rectangular, and the level shape isn't always suitable for that). For the reasons just explained, whenever one-way arrows need to serve as pseudo-steel in this manner, vertical arrows are usually more effective, because they block more directions of destructive skills than horizontal arrows. But again, even that will depend on the level layout, and the skills provided.

It used to be the case that upward vertical arrows were the hardest to get through, but with the joint forces of Fencer and Laserer (especially the latter, since it can operate at a range) may have changed that.

No, I mean on the programming & graphics-maintaining side of things. Increasing the width of the Fencer tunnel isn't a simple case of changing a few numbers, it would mean completely re-drawing the sprite and the destruction mask to adapt to the change in the Fencing method (which itself wouldn't be trivial), and also re-programming the skill shadow. In other words, near enough rebuilding it to the point that it might as well be a new skill!

Since I'm now more aware of how much work this would be, it's something I'd probably only take on if people who were actually using SuperLemmix requested it.

Thanks for clarifying this point . Indeed, I had never thought of widening the Fencer tunnel at a game-mechanics level, and I wouldn’t advocate for it, either. If I talk about widening a Fencer tunnel to make it Shimmier-friendly, that’s an in-game action the player can perform, by merely sending a single Basher down a Fencer tunnel (the Basher continues automatically, due to the downward-sloped terrain). Since Basher tunnels are 9 pixels high, they are not only Shimmier-friendly themselves (something namida intentionally took care of when first introducing the Shimmier), but can also make Fencer tunnels Shimmier-compatible.

In short: Leaving the Fencer as it is should indeed mean less work for everyone.

And, in all honesty, it probably isn't a good idea to make any content for SuperLemmix during this transitionary period anyway. I'd advise people to hold off any big projects until I announce that a more or less stable version is on the way - and, I will absolutely make this clear when the time comes.

Yes, I thought of that yesterday, too — so thanks for confirming this.

I think my confusion arose from the simultaneous push by other SuperLemmix users to convert my packs to SuperLemmix — while at the same time, fundamental changes to the engine itself are still possible, due to that transitioning phase.

Specifically, jkapp76 reached out to me for that before I had even started using SuperLemmix at all. And jkapp76 isn’t “just a SuperLemmix player”, but someone who contributes to the development of the engine, too, by capturing sprites for it from Lemmings 2: The Tribes etc.

I guess what this demonstrates is that SuperLemmix players would already like to have something to play — whereas level designers can’t feel confident yet that any of the things they might create or convert will continue to run in the future.



That’s why NeoLemmix uses the distinction of “stable version”, “experimental version”, “release candidate”. I guess as long as SuperLemmix only uses regular version numbers (with the next being 2.5), players can easily assume it were a stable version.

Of course, “stable version” doesn’t mean “there will never be any changes again” (that would be the “final version” that NeoLemmix is currently working towards). Only that there most likely won’t be any fundamental changes, at least not frequently. Continuous maintenance, and possible updates going along with that, are of course still possible.

In NeoLemmix, content creation for experimental versions is clearly discouraged (aside from test levels). Hence, I haven’t created any levels involving e.g. portals yet.

With what you’re saying now, I take it that all of SuperLemmix is essentially still an experimental version. Rather than the current engine being stable, and version 2.5 being the next experimental version that might include some of the proposed new skills (like the Ballooner, potentially the Ladderer).

If that is indeed the idea, then it’s definitely too early to attempt converting any existing packs for it. In that case, I can only ask anyone who is already pushing for conversion of my packs to be patient.

Thanks a lot, eric! Can we add it to the NeoLemmix version, too? Since that’s an official style, I don’t know who is allowed to make modifications to it / how officially maintains it.

I’m fine with the Runner, too — the part of my that is currently focused on designing Tribes-like levels prefers it over the Hoverboarder anyway.

Also, standing by my principle that I favour established skills over new ones, I’d rather not see the Hoverboarder become a thing in the first place than to see the Hoverboarder make the Swimmer redundant (up to the point of the Swimmer’s potential removal) one day.

Having given the permanence-or-not aspect of this skill a lot of thought, it's my thoughts that the Runner should be Walker-cancellable - this further consolidates the purpose of the Walker as a "property/action-cancelling" skill, whilst also meaning that the Runner state can be more extensively managed by both player and designer.

Yes — if the Runner is non-permanent, then the Walker should cancel it, just like it cancels the Shimmier.

To turn a Runner, I'd suggest that assigning another Runner to the same lem ought to do this. Again, reinforcing that Walkers only turn already-Walking lems. So, then, do Runners turn already-Running lems. Thoughts on this?

And interesting idea I had never even considered so far. My only concern here is consistency: Wouldn’t we then consequently also expect it to be possible to turn a Shimmier around by assigning another Shimmier to it? Or turn a Jumper mid-air by assigning another Jumper to it? If we’re talking about the broader category of “non-permanent movement skills”. This would probably also include the Ballooner.

As for running-off-an-edge trajectory/action, I imagine that the lem ought to move at least a few pixels away-and-downwards from the platform's edge in a logarithmic arc before transitioning to Faller. This could potentially grant them a few extra pixels of fall distance - do we want this?

Yes, please! That’s precisely the behaviour I’d expect, based on what most of us are probably used to from Lemmings 2: The Tribes.

On an unrelated note, it would simply look weird to me if the Runner had to come to a “hard stop” at the edge of a cliff and lose all of its forward momentum in an instant, only to transition to a regular faller right away.

As someone who has been one of the few users somewhat fond of Zombies within NeoLemmix, I’ll have to say even I am confused by the strange priorities we’re currently setting. Zombies so far have been a fringe occurrence in any NeoLemmix pack, even those that featured comparatively many of them (like Paralems).

I’ll just say it out loud:
Why are we even having these fringe discussions about adding more and more features to Zombies, while simultaneously considering fundamental game-breaking decisions like culling a long-established skill like the Fencer?

Even after changes like this have been added to SLX, I doubt people will create that many more Zombie levels. In other words, this will only affect a handful of levels anyway. Whereas some of the other changes that are being considered right now would have huge ripple effects.

So frankly, while the suggestions you’re proposing here make sense to me (like subtracting 1 lemming from the save count for every Zombie that enters an exit ), I don’t really care all that much about what happens to Zombies in SuperLemmix vs. NeoLemmix. It’s at the bottom of the priority list. The much more important part is not to damage the game by removing far more essential features, such as existing skills, only to try and make up for that by adding things that are, with regards to the vast majority of levels, trivial.

And keep in mind this is coming from someone who has made a comparatively large number of Zombie levels. Some users on this forum have never made a single level containing them.

Hell no! I see the point with the Stoner vs. Freezer, but just because skills have a slight similarity, that doesn’t make them redundant.

This is precisely the kind of discussion that I feared — I jokingly teased it for Stacker vs. Freezer. But now you seem to actually mean it, and this could spread to any other skill.

We now have the Laserer, which is a much better way to create a horizontally-upwards tunnel through terrain.

I beg to differ. I actually consider the Fencer superior for that purpose.

Have you ever tried connecting several Laserer tunnels with Builders? I tried to make it work on a Lemmings: Hall of Fame level. I’ve found out the Laserer tunnels are too steep to be connected with Builders — there is remaining vertical height that only Climbers (perhaps Jumpers) can get over.

The Fencer is great because its angle is exactly the same as that of the Builder. This also enables solutions where Builders are used to make a single Fencer go through — much like the Miner can go down Builders, too.

The SuperLemmix Laserer, with its unlimited range, can also do a lot more “collateral damage” to terrain you don’t actually want to destroy, which the Fencer doesn’t do, and the NeoLemmix Laserer does to a lesser degree than the SuperLemmix one.

The Miner is not an appropriate comparison or replacement for the Fencer at all, since it obviously operates from the other direction than the Fencer. Worker lemmings would have to be sent on a completely different path in order to mine a crowd out vs. fence them out. Just compare the first two levels of Lemmings World Tour and then tell me again that a Fencer could be swapped out for a Miner.

That’s also why comparisons to Lemmings 2: The Tribes aren’t helpful here, because the steeper angle of the NeoLemmix Fencer makes it much more useful than the “glorified Basher” that is the Lemmings 2: The Tribes Fencer.

Furthermore, both Miner and Laserer tunnels are already Shimmier-compatible - the Fencer would require significant work to meet this same standard

By “work”, I assume you mean “for the player” — not for you as the programmer? What exactly has changed about the Fencer or Shimmier that would cause you additional work at the moment? I’ll also reiterate that skills are far more integral to the game than Zombies & Co.

The fact that the Fencer tunnel isn’t Shimmier-compatible from the get-go is precisely what can be used for interesting puzzles. In fact, I’ve done exactly that in Lemmings Open Air. Just like the fact that the Slider is more restrictive than the Floater, in terms of where it can get down safely vs. where it can’t, is an interesting restriction around which level solutions can be designed.



On a general level, though, I feel far less confident about creating any type of content for SuperLemmix (and yes, that includes porting my NeoLemmix packs over to SuperLemmix, which I’ve already started working on) as long as fundamental changes of long-established features are even just up for debate.

Where is this supposed to end? If “it’s always been this way” isn’t an argument, are we eventually going to consider culling the Blocker, because the Freezer might be considered “superior”? You might say this is an exaggerated example, because the Blocker is one of the classic eight skills — but by itself, that’s just as much an appeal to tradition as making the same defence for the Fencer (or any other NeoLemmix skill, for that matter).

The Culling Frenzy is the primary reason I refused to shift to NeoLemmix New Formats a few years ago. I only did once the first new skill (the Shimmier) had been introduced, which added so much to the game that I was ready to give up fairly fringe features like Radiation and Slowfreeze for it. But I can already say I won’t start giving up established NeoLemmix skills for other new skills like the Spearer, Grenader, Ballooner etc.

I’ve stated previously that I’d rather see no new skills added to SuperLemmix than to see any further old ones (i.e., aside from the Stoner) removed from it.

For this discussion, specifically, keep in mind that “we now have the Laserer” is an argument that could also be made for NeoLemmix. If the Fencer and Laserer were that similar, the Laserer wouldn’t have been introduced into NeoLemmix in the first place.



I think you weren’t around yet at the time, but during the shift to New Formats, Nepster proposed to cull the Disarmer (arguably the least-used NeoLemmix skill). Even that didn’t happen. So don’t expect to get a more positive response regarding arguably one of the most useful NeoLemmix skills, which is precisely what the Fencer is. And thus far, the poll results are in accordance with that perception.



Finally, another historical anecdote: During the shift to New Formats, Nepster once said that “existing content were irrelevant”. Granted, this was a more controversial statement at the time, since with the name “NeoLemmix” remaining, that of course comes with a stronger expectation that Old-Formats content should be made available in New Formats than SuperLemmix being an engine of its own. Then again, SuperLemmix is also still being referred to as a “fork” of NeoLemmix.

I still stand by what I said back then: I have yet to hear somebody convincingly explain to me the actual benefits of culling anything — aside from making programming easier. For the latter reason, I understand why e.g. the gimmicks were culled from NeoLemmix. But from both a player and level designer perspective, where’s the use in “taking some of people’s toys away”?

Culling therefore seems especially inappropriate for SuperLemmix, which so far prides itself of offering more options to players and level designers alike. If I recall correctly, you said that “more options” is the only main “philosophy” SuperLemmix has so far (rather than, as I initially understood it, “more of a mix between puzzle and execution difficulty, compared to NeoLemmix”).



I don’t like to escalate such discussions, since I honestly believe, with regards to culling, we shouldn’t be having them in the first place.
But precisely for that reason, as explained above, I’ll always side with the established skills over the chance to play with fancy new toys.
Therefore, I’ll make this as clear as possible:

If ANY further NeoLemmix skills are indeed removed from SuperLemmix for real, I’ll return to NeoLemmix and won’t look back.
Not as a “threat”, but simply because this will then be the only way to keep using those skills.
And because I cannot trust an engine enough to invest time and effort into it if it keeps changing in such fundamental regards. It’s one thing if the behaviour of an existing skill is changed (such as what we’re doing with Swimmers at the moment). But where changed skill behaviour might make replays breaking more likely, outright removing skills is guaranteed to destroy both existing solutions and existing levels. By that, I don’t just mean old converted content, but also any dedicated SuperLemmix levels that are created in the meantime.

If it ever gets to that point, I’d also request the removal of any unofficial conversions of my packs for SuperLemmix. Yes, that would be me “taking people’s toys away”, but only because I could no longer guarantee that my NeoLemmix levels ported to SuperLemmix (such as Lemmings World Tour) would continue to work. Fewer and fewer levels in these unofficial conversions would feature a solution I actually intended, so with two skills missing, I wouldn’t want those packs to keep running under the same names (and therefore also under my username) as the NeoLemmix versions.

As stated before, I’m working on an official SuperLemmix conversion of Lemmings World Tour, with modified intended solutions; so those I’d actually get to sign off on. However, that’s enough work with just one skill (Stoner vs. Freezer) being different. Swapping Stoners for Freezers often just requires the level designer to replay the level exactly as before, and manually assign Freezers in the spots where Stoners used to be assigned. After that, the majority of levels will play out the same way.

This would not be the case if Fencers had to be replaced with Laserers. GigaLem has already outlined a few differences, I’ve added a few more. I can think of a couple of my World-Tour levels just off the top of my head that would become completely unworkable with Laserers instead of Fencers. And that’s just the ones I can name by heart; most likely, there would be a lot more.



So, as you can see, I’m still willing and eager to commit and contribute to SuperLemmix, in parallel to NeoLemmix.
Both in form of original, dedicated levels and converted level packs.
But discussions like these don’t make it easier for me.