For the mere jumper, simplicity is a wash either way. The jumper feels both similar to a short faller and to a floater.
I have to confess, I don't get the comparison here. How is the Jumper similar to these states?
when you require ground under the exit at all costs, then the digger and builder will be affected.
How so?
we want to reserve the chance to introduce complexity for where it's most exciting/practical.
Such as being able to jump a lemming into an exit!
Jumpers being able to exit would still be an edge case which not really contributes to counter repetitiveness .... it's absense won't lead to an era of repetitive levels and wouldn't leave a gaping hole.
Sure, OK. Fair enough. But, it's absence would remove one possibility as opposed to adding anything to the game.
So, the score would be:
Allow Jumpers to exit = 0, if you like
Don't allow Jumpers to exit = -1, whether you like it or not
With arranging the terrain you can exactly simulate the outcome in the case of the exit.
...
If you are still in denail over that I gladly build you examples in the editor and post the levels + pictures.
That won't be necessary. I don't doubt that you
can simulate the behaviour for one purpose (in this case, allowing 1 lemming to exit but not the others), my counter-argument here was that
doing so ignores all other possibilies of said behaviour that are unique to that skill. For one thing, Jumping a lemming into an exit is a quick, easy manoeuvre - potentially great for multitasking, fast-solve times, speedrunning, and just plain good fun. You can't simulate that with a Climber!
Also, the "simulating the behaviour" argument ignores cases in which using the Jumper to exit is not intended, thus denying challengers of potential alternatives. Is this important? That's a whole other debate, but it is important to me personally, hence why I'm calling on it.
A Jumper is an active skill which momentarily breaks gravity and allows it to interact with things in midair.
This depends on the direction you are arguing from. If you choose the permanent skill definition it does not make sense anymore.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Jumpers aren't permanent skills...
Anyway, allow me to rephrase in case there's a misunderstanding. Jumpers can interact with things in midair - suspended platforms, traps, updrafts, pickup skills, teleporters, etc - that other lemmings cannot reach. They can also be assigned a Bomber to instantly explode. Allowing them to exit whilst in midair is, to my mind, merely another item on this list.
If anything, removing the ability for Jumpers to exit from this list creates an unexplained gap in the skill's behaviour. As a player, I'd be thinking "why can't the Jumper exit?"
Also, I would argue that the jumper state is closer to the faller state which would make sense as the jumper even transitions into it.
This is a contradition. If a Jumper
transitions into a Faller, then
it is not a Faller, and does not have to behave like one for any reason. Jumpers can also transition into Gliders, Floaters, Bombers, Stoners, Climbers, Drowners, Swimmers, Burners, any given trap/object animation, and - lest we forget - Exiters
Depending on where people see the jumper the interaction can be logical or illogical. For the people who deem it as illogical it is another unexpected rule they have to learn.
But you are still underestimating the creeping dread of overcomplication. Tagging more and more little rules onto something is a slow and painful death. I've seen it in too many games.
You're forgetting that the rule is not being proposed as an addition, but a
removal. It's very possible that there are NL players out there who have already gotten used to the fact that Jumpers can, at present, exit.
Surely removing this possibility has far more chance of leading to that dreaded complication you're talking about
And you are an intelligent and mature guy -- you can respond better than this when someone calls you out on the flaws in your argument.
Calling out the flaws in my argument is not the same as disproving the argument. And anyway, I am not a professional arguer, I am a gamer with an opinion. Give me a break!
And - you're not entirely correct in what you've said. Simplicity may indeed not be the only deciding factor, but it has been used many times in this debate - by Dullstar, yourself, Icho - so I feel the need to call its validity into question.
So how does that make me "not entirely correct"? I said that simplicity is important but not the only deciding factor. You're citing other people who agree with me... to prove that I was wrong?
To prove that you were wrong about me straw-manning. I am calling the validity of the argument into question due to its frequency of use amongst multiple users - this is a valid course of action during a debate, i.e. examine whether a frequently-used argument actually has any substance
within the topic at hand. I agree that simplicity is an important goal generally, but not necessarily in this case. That's what I was taking issue with, and so it's not straw-manning. Can we get back to the debate now please?
You cannot argue that a generality is true from single cases.
That isn't what I'm doing. I'm pointing out that,
in this case, the "simplicity" argument doesn't fly, by specifically using
this case as an example. On the other hand, you've had to rely on applying the argument to prime numbers, a totally unrelated and incomparable topic, to desperately try to invalidate what I'm saying.
Anyway, again - please can we stop talking about the way that my arguments are presented. I'm not perfect, and I'm doing my best to present my thoughts as clearly as possible. I've always been more of a creative than logical thinker, so I'm bound to get things wrong occasionally. But, we're all intelligent enough to either understand the essence of what's being said, or ask for further clarification in the absence of understanding.
I look forward to resuming the conversation without having to defend my presentation style
as well as my argument. Thanks!