Lemmings Forums

It's time to finally get this started. After consulting with WillLem, kaywhyn and mobius about our plans for the new version of Revenge of the Lemmings (and a possible sequel pack), I've been put in charge of level selection and ordering. However, I don't want to do this entirely on my own; I want this version to be, as far as possible, something that everyone's happy with, so that it can be the final version and we won't feel the need for another re-selection ten years down the line.

Firstly, I'll start with an outline of the current situation.

* There are two versions of RotL I'm working from: version 2 and version 4 (as well as the RetroLemmini version, which is based on v4).
* v2 has 210 (7 x 30) levels; v4 has 240 (6 x 40). There are 113 levels in common to the two versions, thus a total of 337 levels between them (plus four that are only in RL).
* There is also a compilation of "RotL Outtakes", 232 levels that were considered for v4 but didn't make it in. Because these levels were already examined and rejected, there's less reason to consider them, but they are available if we need to make up the numbers, or if any of them are especially good.
* My goal is to split the pack into two packs of 4 x 30 = 120 levels each. Since we have more then 240 levels to choose from, not all will be selected. (The rest can be released as a new "Outtakes" pack so they don't just disappear.)
* The main reason why the level selection changed so much from v2 to v4 is that mobius wanted to remove all levels that are also found in MazuLems, Clammings and Insane Steve's World.

We will need to make a decision on this last point, so I've opened a poll. Should we go along with the removal of these duplicated levels, or restore them to the level pool? I'll do my best to sum up the pros and cons of each choice:

* In favour of keeping them: RotL is meant to be a snapshot of the best of the levels produced by the community in the pre-NeoLemmix era. Removing levels by three specific authors (many of which are excellent levels) goes against that goal.
* Other authors may have similar compilation packs made for them in the future, which would make it even more arbitrary that just these three get excluded from RotL. (weirdybeardy already has such a pack; one for Ben Bryant is in development.)
* The v4 levels that replace these may include levels that are not as good, and bring the overall quality of the pack down. (I am in the middle of playing through v4 so that I'll be better able to judge on this question.)
* The duplication argument doesn't entirely apply to RetroLemmini, since Clammings and Insane Steve's World are not available for RL (though MazuLems is).

* In favour of removing them: MazuLems, Clammings and Insane Steve's World are all available as separate packs for NeoLemmix, so NL players would have to play the same levels twice to get full completion.
* Removing them has allowed v4 to introduce a bunch of new levels, some of which are very high quality.
* Keeping them removed would make my task as pack compiler shorter and easier  :P

Oh, and just to make things clear, while I will take the outcome of the poll into account, it is not binding.

As I mentioned, I am playing through RotL v4 so as to form my own opinions on which levels are worth keeping and which not. At this stage, I would rather not write comments on every single level, so for this post, I will just keep a list of levels that I feel should be removed. And again, while I am taking a leadership role on level selection, everyone is welcome to contribute, so please feel free to speak up if you want to advocate for keeping any levels I've listed, or removing any I haven't!

1-10 Surrealism (Pieuw). 10-of-all repeat of "Utopia". We are leaning towards removing 10-of-all repeat levels, since we have enough 10-of-all levels even without repeats; and this is one of the weaker ones, as the solution is a very obvious bash then build to the exit.

1-20 Minesweeper Lemmings (Proxima). Another 20-of-all repeat of a later level, but also problematic because it uses the Minesweeper graphics set and is taller than default. We might end up dropping the later repeat as well for those reasons.

(1-23 Canopy Lemmings is a 10-of-all repeat that I am considering keeping, because the 99 release rate and getting down from the high branches make this an interesting challenge.)

1-36 Through the Liquidizer (Conway). I hate this level. You have to spam bashers to clump lemmings to get through some traps; there's nothing interesting about the solution and it's really tedious. I can't see that this belongs in any kind of "best of" compilation.

2-5 Clever mining (Hubert & Bart). Really easy and uninteresting solution, probably unintended since it doesn't use all the skills, but I don't know what the intended solution is or how it could be fixed.

2-20 Blood Furnace (timfoxxy). Uninteresting solution that leaves a lot of skills over. The level could perhaps be retooled as a 10-of-all filler level, but even for that, it's very plain-looking and I'm sure there are better picks.

2-25 Theory of a Dead Lem (t3tesla). Banal solution where you just do the most obvious thing.

2-28 Martyrdom (TOG). Another uninteresting solution and very plain-looking level.

2-32 Where do I dig next? (Minim). This is just a remake of "Hello John! Got a New Lemming?" (which wasn't available in NL at the time, but is now in Lemmings Redux).

2-39 Everyone but the bomber (tumbleweed). Very bland-looking level, and it's another "split 1 of each skill between several trapdoors", like 2-14 "Eight Little Problems" earlier; we don't need both.

my thoughts on levels to keep/remove:
(I initially thought this would be difficult but I just went through the entire pack very quickly and here's a list, without a ton of explination, I can give more if needed)

The first two ranks: There's a big question as to how should the pack begin and how easy should it be at first? That discussion will factor largely into how many/which easy level to keep or not.
When putting this together at every stage; the easy ranks were the hardest to compile because finding a diverse and good set of levels that 'eased' a new player into the game was not easy.


REMOVAL:
Please note: These are not levels I *want to get rid of* more so; levels I wouldn't mind seeing go if they were chosen.

-the level design game levels-
I included these because 1) We needed some easier levels to fill in the early ranks and 2) I wanted to include this interesting piece of forum history.

-the repeats-

-the "ghost" repeats-
these were levels (example: The Hedonist) which are easy repeats of the harder version which actually never made it into the pack and another decision which seems out of place in hindsight. They might make interesting levels in themselves but it probably adds confusion to anyone that sees the original elsewhere.

-Mikau Schekzen's levels
-Mind the gap
-10 is a magic number
-except for stand outs I may mention below; levels by Isu and Conway
-Everyone but the bomber
-you have been fooled
-The Aperture Science (this one was never backroute fixed I think)
-The Big Drop
-Dilemma
-Lemming Cliche
-discipline is essential
-except for standouts I may mention; levels by -H0ru5-
-levels by Hubbart (Hubert and Bart)
-Wish you had them?
-The Necromancer
-The Great Divide
-Herculems
-Small Ham Cubes
-Twice The same
-Feel the Pressure
-Food for the Gods
-Locked and Loaded (regardless of Ben Bryant's pack(this level suffers from backroutes and is totally out of place as the only level in the pack with a pick up skill, which doesn't fit the theme of being old mechanics only)).
-Increasing Step Heights
-Magic the Bombering
-Tilt



KEEP:
These are stand out levels (imo) I'd be sad to see go:

-Eeny Meeny Miny OH!
-Little Miner Puzzle (at least the most difficult version, if not all of them)
-Unidentified Lemming Object
-Use the grey matter
-Eight little problems
-Messy Routes
-sculpture maze
-Petit Fours
-someone must help us!
-its a long way up (part 2) (by finlay)
-Snowhere
-Niche
-Land of Linebreaks
-Please Save Us
-Clockwork Pink
-Behind Bars
-Changing of the Guards
-Try Climbing That
-Waltz in C Sharp
-Mass Lemmicide
-Rhapsofy in Blue
-Hotel in Hell (I recommend adding a little decoration if possible? It looks sparse compared to the original, from what I remember)
-One Step Off
-Use Your Tools Wisely
-Stuff in the Way
-Out of the Frying Pan
-Fall Guy

Quote from: mobius on April 03, 2026, 04:19:20 PM-Hotel in Hell (I recommend adding a little decoration if possible? It looks sparse compared to the original, from what I remember)

The version of "The Hotel in Hell" in RotL v4 is a very old one with no backroute fixes, since the fixing work was done almost entirely in the Lix version.

I'm wrong; I was misled by kaywhyn's recent video of the SuperLemmini version, which has the old level for some reason. NL v4 does have the updated version, which is the same as the one I've attached here.

In any case, for this level to be included, we will have to decide what to do about the trap (the level contains a triggered trap I added to the Fire style, which doesn't exist in the original style; that will be a problem when porting it to RetroLemmini).

Quote from: Proxima on April 03, 2026, 04:32:30 PMThe version of "The Hotel in Hell" in RotL v4 is a very old one with no backroute fixes, since the fixing work was done almost entirely in the Lix version.

I'm wrong; I was misled by kaywhyn's recent video of the SuperLemmini version, which has the old level for some reason. NL v4 does have the updated version, which is the same as the one I've attached here.

The version you see in the video is based on the level in RotL v2.0 for Very Old Formats NL. Hence the 2.0 in the video title :P Currently, there's no easy and fast way to convert from New Formats NL to SuperLemmini, with the only way presently is to manually recreate the level in the editor, which of course we want to avoid doing! Not to mention that isn't my current focus, especially as that was working off of someone else's SuperLemmini conversion of a pack. However, it's apparently possible to backport from New Formats to RetroLemmini, but I haven't tried that yet, so I don't know if it works.

Anyway, I'll likely post my level list of which ones should and shouldn't make the cut for v5 of RotL, as well as my thoughts on yours and mobius' level lists, later on when I'm able to ;)

Just to add my own two cents to this, here are my favourite levels so far (which I'd be sad to see removed unless they're present in another pack somewhere):

NOTE: I'll update these lists later as I'm still working my way through the pack - when I do update them, I'll repost the lists for convenience.

WillLem's favourite ROTL levels

Rounds and swingabouts
Bat country
No loitering
Crystal caves
Lem dunk (a save all solution would be nice)
Brick City
Crossing The Chasm
Harder, Better, Miner, Stronger
Don't Leave Me Hanging!
Lempire State Building
Use the grey matter for this one
Think Again!
Betcha can't save just one! (a save all solution should be possible, though)
Fiery Depths
The Climbing Frame
A break in the pillar
Dilemma

And, some that I've identified as possible levels to remove:

Candidates for removal

Build it up with iron and steel - far too pixel-precise, at least in the RL version. If kept, it should be revised to allow more margin for error
Subterranean - this one look fairly ugly due to what I can only imagine are backroute-fixes which pretty much give away the solution. I'd suggest revising the backroute fixes or removing the level
Crossing Paths Part Two - not as interesting as part one, and easier. The two could swap places!

Quote from: WillLem on April 03, 2026, 11:28:22 PMJust to add my own two cents to this, here are my favourite levels so far (which I'd be sad to see removed unless they're present in another pack somewhere):

NOTE: I'll update these lists later as I'm still working my way through the pack - when I do update them, I'll repost the lists for convenience.

WillLem's favourite ROTL levels

Rounds and swingabouts
Bat country
No loitering
Crystal caves
Lem dunk (a save all solution would be nice)
Brick City
Crossing The Chasm
Harder, Better, Miner, Stronger
Don't Leave Me Hanging!
Lempire State Building
Use the grey matter for this one
Think Again!
Betcha can't save just one! (a save all solution should be possible, though)
Fiery Depths
The Climbing Frame
A break in the pillar
Dilemma

And, some that I've identified as possible levels to remove:

Candidates for removal

Build it up with iron and steel - far too pixel-precise, at least in the RL version. If kept, it should be revised to allow more margin for error
Subterranean - this one look fairly ugly due to what I can only imagine are backroute-fixes which pretty much give away the solution. I'd suggest revising the backroute fixes or removing the level
Crossing Paths Part Two - not as interesting as part one, and easier. The two could swap places!

Also, I voted for "keep them in the level pool". Reason: there seem to be other levels present in ROTL which are part of packs elsewhere (example: Think Again! by Wierdy Beardy), so it does seem a bit of an unfair reason to remove them. Perhaps instead of making "exists elsewhere" a criteria fr removal, choose some limit for how many of an individual author's levels can be present. This limit can be made less arbitrary by basing it on what's needed to actually fill the pack, of course.

I voted, but as stated elsewhere I don't really have strong feelings on the matter.

to respond to some of your comments:

Lem dunk -- I'm *pretty* sure saving 100% is possible, might be pretty tough though, its been a long time since I've played this level.

Betcha can't save just one! - as is; saving 100%, I wanna say somebody did it at some point but with a lot of trickery, maybe even glitchery. Saving 3 is at least doable considering there is the level (not included here) "Betcha can't lose just one!" which is essentially a repeat with the same skills.

Quote from: mobius on April 04, 2026, 01:53:01 AMLem dunk -- I'm *pretty* sure saving 100% is possible, might be pretty tough though, its been a long time since I've played this level.

Definitely impossible to 100% given the skillset and the level design. The middle hatch is second to spawn, after the left entrance, so even if you build as late as possible with the first Lemming, you won't be able to catch the first Lemming that spawns from the middle hatch before he lands in the water. So, you're guaranteed at least one loss on the level no matter what.

QuoteBetcha can't save just one! - as is; saving 100%, I wanna say somebody did it at some point but with a lot of trickery, maybe even glitchery. Saving 3 is at least doable considering there is the level (not included here) "Betcha can't lose just one!" which is essentially a repeat with the same skills.

The v2.0 pack has a talisman for saving 3 for "Betcha can't save just one!" This level is currently not in the v4.0 pack, so it sounds like WillLem wants it considered for inclusion for v5 ??? Unless he's simply stating the level as one of his favorites on his list.

Lem Dunk is possible to save all but one. It would almost certainly be possible to save 100% if the trapdoor order were 1 - 3 - 2, haven't verified this yet.

However, this depends on the RR being 25 in NeoLemmix, which is slower than the slowest possible RR in other engines, so that's something we would have to change anyway.

WillLem voted for keeping the Mazu / Clam / IS levels (and Betcha can't save is by IS) so I'm pretty sure he does want it considered for v5  :P

I managed save 3 on Betcha can't save just one!, save 4 seems impossible. Do we want to edit levels to make 100% possible? I'm 50/50 on whether we should tbh.

The lists I posted are just there to document my favourites, really. Of course I'd like to see them included, but I'm equally happy to leave level selection entirely up to Proxima; I'll ultimately back whatever he decides upon, even if it means some of my picks don't make the cut. I also strongly support Mobius' picks as well.

Good work so far, everyone, keep it up! :)

Quote from: WillLem on April 04, 2026, 01:44:58 PMI managed save 3 on Betcha can't save just one!, save 4 seems impossible. Do we want to edit levels to make 100% possible? I'm 50/50 on whether we should tbh.

The lists I posted are just there to document my favourites, really. Of course I'd like to see them included, but I'm equally happy to leave level selection entirely up to Proxima; I'll ultimately back whatever he decides upon, even if it means some of my picks don't make the cut. I also strongly support Mobius' picks as well.

Good work so far, everyone, keep it up! :)

If it helps (though it just might make decision more difficult actually) I can say that ISteve himself wouldn't care about this; he's stated both in regards to the Lix crowd and to myself when doing this; we could make edits to our hearts content. I'm not so sure about everyone else. For myself; like I stated before I was a bit more uneasy about this for myself. It's partly why I haven't been doing this anymore, and why for instance, when I do, if I still do Ben Bryant's levelpack, I'm probably going to leave the levels as is- with (alleged) backroutes and all (ISteve also said actually at one point "you can keep the backroutes in, either way" or something like this).

Maybe it's better to make this decision on a level-by-level basis? In the case of this example; Betcha can't save just one (or lose just one...): Personally I think altering things to make saving all 4 possible (especially the first "save" version) kind of spoils the concept a bit. Whereas other levels it can be plainly obvious something was a mistake on the author's part and they would overwhelmingly like that fixed. So I can't say I'm totally against that as well...

Proxima asked for these levels to be specified:

easy repeats of later level:
Snowy Caves
Surrealism
Pipe Dream [not to be confused with a level in the outtakes folder of the same title by Shvegait)*
Neighbors
Nothing Gold can stay
Himalayan Lemmings
Minesweeper Lemmings
Canopy Lemmings


"ghost repeats": (these were levels of which the original (harder "later" version doesn't actually appear in the final pack)
Lemmington Spa
Headonist
Biosphere
Paitence Young Grasshopper
The Fearsome Foursome
Vacuum



*that said level btw, I can say was removed for some technical reason I can't remember. I wasn't able to solve it quickly just now, so I remember the solution (or find a solution atm). Or it might've been because it was very similar to another level in the pack

Spoiler

quick and simple compression method solution

.

It's a very tricky question, exactly how far it's okay to change other people's levels. As mobius listed in his post above, in v4 he changed a few levels to 10-of-all that weren't originally, and on the one hand, that is changing them from the author's intent, but on the other hand, the pack benefits from having some easy levels to start with. So I'd love to hear more people's opinions on what to do with those levels, and with the start of the pack in general.

Of course, some levels are remakes of Cheapo or Lix levels, so the NL versions are already changed from how they were originally.

I am completely against changing levels just to make 100% possible. That you can't save 100% on every level has always been part of the game. "Betcha can't save" is designed so that saving even one is difficult, and that shouldn't be messed with.

Quote from: Proxima on April 04, 2026, 04:46:47 PMI am completely against changing levels just to make 100% possible. That you can't save 100% on every level has always been part of the game. "Betcha can't save" is designed so that saving even one is difficult, and that shouldn't be messed with.

Agreed.

Quote from: Proxima on April 04, 2026, 12:42:28 PMLem Dunk is possible to save all but one. It would almost certainly be possible to save 100% if the trapdoor order were 1 - 3 - 2, haven't verified this yet.

However, this depends on the RR being 25 in NeoLemmix, which is slower than the slowest possible RR in other engines, so that's something we would have to change anyway.

Ah, didn't notice the 25RR for the level in the v4.0 RotL pack.

Quote from: Proxima on April 04, 2026, 12:42:28 PMWillLem voted for keeping the Mazu / Clam / IS levels (and Betcha can't save is by IS) so I'm pretty sure he does want it considered for v5  :P

Quote from: WillLem on April 04, 2026, 01:44:58 PMThe lists I posted are just there to document my favourites, really. Of course I'd like to see them included, but I'm equally happy to leave level selection entirely up to Proxima; I'll ultimately back whatever he decides upon, even if it means some of my picks don't make the cut.

You were saying? :P

QuoteIt's a very tricky question, exactly how far it's okay to change other people's levels. As mobius listed in his post above, in v4 he changed a few levels to 10-of-all that weren't originally, and on the one hand, that is changing them from the author's intent, but on the other hand, the pack benefits from having some easy levels to start with. So I'd love to hear more people's opinions on what to do with those levels, and with the start of the pack in general.

This is a tricky one indeed. On the one hand, I definitely think the pack can do with having these easy X-of-everything levels at the start, but on the other hand, it does feel a bit strange to me with them being modified levels of the authors from their original intent. If the decision is fine for the pack to have repeats, then sure, keep the X-of-everything version of the harder repeat, I guess. If we don't want repeats, then I guess put the skill tutorial levels instead. It really can go either way quite honestly, and I don't have a strong preference for either one, though I think I'm leaning more towards the X-of-everything route, and I'm not saying that because I myself won't be making skill tutorial levels for my upcoming Lemmings Memories pack :P

QuoteI am completely against changing levels just to make 100% possible. That you can't save 100% on every level has always been part of the game. "Betcha can't save" is designed so that saving even one is difficult, and that shouldn't be messed with.

Completely agree here with both points, even the first one despite how I generally go for save all's as much as possible :P It's not L2 anyway, where it's been proven that it's possible to save all on all 120 levels of the game and even then it's still possible to get gold if you lose some depending on the level/tribe. I digress though.

My own level list and thoughts on the picks/preferences of those who posted still to come. Maybe at the end of the week or so. 

if a tie breaker is needed I could change my vote...

As I look over the levels I went through back then I'm reminded of how many good and how many not so good levels there were... as I mentioned before I initially was going to include levels that were present in other large packs but people at the time were against it. I feel like the pack should represent the best of the community, not sure it always does that based on some of the decisions I made; for example I wanted to get as many authors in the pack as possible. Which again seems a bad decision in hindsight, if some of those levels weren't quite as good as ones that got removed.

And as another example; Clam specifically made his 5th pack for this project [not this iteration of it but back in around 2008]. Of course I tried fitting those levels into the early rank of the first version and a lot of people said they felt wonky/too difficult for the first rank.

A tiebreaker will not be needed. As I said, the poll isn't binding, it's just to gauge where community opinion lies. If opinions are split, that just means I can follow my own judgement.

Voting has closed. Opinions are divided but slightly in favour of keeping Mazu/Clam/IS levels out of the pack.

Since starting the poll, I had two more thoughts myself. One is that the argument about RotL being a snapshot of the best of the pre-NL era doesn't really hold water; if it were, then it should include levels from DoveLems, PimoLems, Lemmings Plus I and other large packs of the era. These levels were never included -- precisely because they were already in other large packs. That suggests that if the RotL project had got started today with no previous versions, Mazu/Clam/IS levels would never have been considered.

My other thought is that it's over ten years since the pack was originally put together; we are now building for a new audience, one that is used to a world where the Mazu/Clam/IS packs are just part of the NeoLemmix universe. In producing a new pack for such players, a pack full of repeats probably isn't what they want.

So (although I didn't vote) I am mostly inclined towards excluding these levels. But I don't think we should just blanket ban them, in case they help to make up the numbers or smooth out the difficulty curve. Instead, I think what I'll do going forward is stipulate that for each author that has their levels in a separate NL pack, at most five may be repeated in RotL. That isn't set in stone, of course; we'll see how it works out going forwards.

The next task is to put together a proposal for the level selection and ordering for the first rank. I'll try to get that done as soon as possible.

Thanks to WillLem, my spreadsheet with the v2 and v4 levels is now hosted on Google Docs: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gSs0lsAdHntkJ8ffSTbwg2yBkmqZFFTNGA07KD9LjEI/edit?gid=874540697#gid=874540697

As I play through the levels, I am colour-coding the lines to make it easier to make the selection for the first draft of the new pack. Green indicates a level that's almost certainly in; yellow indicates one that's likely in but has some concerns (and I'm using the "Other comments" column to be more specific for these); pink indicates one that's very likely out (but of course, further feedback can always make us reconsider).

Feel free to add comments directly to the spreadsheet if that is easier!

Thanks for sharing the spreadsheet, Proxima! This is a great way for everyone to see what's going on with the pack in real-time.

After speaking with Proxima on Discord, it's become clear that Goal #1 is to curate the pool of levels.

The best thing anyone can do to help right now is to play through this version of RotL (https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?msg=95817) and provide feedback, share replays, list your favourite levels, list your least favourite levels, and comment either here in topic or directly on the spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gSs0lsAdHntkJ8ffSTbwg2yBkmqZFFTNGA07KD9LjEI/edit?gid=874540697#gid=874540697).

Keep up the good work! :)

Quote from: Proxima on April 10, 2026, 03:54:02 PMSo (although I didn't vote) I am mostly inclined towards excluding these levels. But I don't think we should just blanket ban them, in case they help to make up the numbers or smooth out the difficulty curve. Instead, I think what I'll do going forward is stipulate that for each author that has their levels in a separate NL pack, at most five may be repeated in RotL. That isn't set in stone, of course; we'll see how it works out going forwards.

I too didn't vote, but I had more or less the exact same thought as you in that I also lean towards not including the Mazu/Clam/IS levels in the v5.0 RotL but that they shouldn't be excluded entirely. So, nice to know that you and I had the exact same thing in mind here with including at least one of their levels if it's needed! ;) Just the ones in our opinion we think are their best levels of course.

Quote from: WillLem on April 10, 2026, 06:04:54 PMThanks for sharing the spreadsheet, Proxima! This is a great way for everyone to see what's going on with the pack in real-time.

After speaking with Proxima on Discord, it's become clear that Goal #1 is to curate the pool of levels.

Level selection is a very lengthy process, much more than you think, so I'm in agreement here with Proxima that rushing to get a first draft of level selection for Pack 1 isn't the way to go :P Especially for a project of a large size like this one. Hence I prefer that Proxima and anyone else who wants to help with level selection take time and not rush through it. Look at Lemmings Redux, for example ;) I didn't take part in any of the process while the pack was in development, but I know it took quite a while to decide on plenty of things, including what levels to put into the pack. As for why I wasn't involved, it was largely because I wasn't too well-known in this community yet at the time, but also I definitely remember I was still on my quest to solve all of Lemmings United and hence was busy with that.

At least personally, I rather do things right the first time around, and if it means taking the time to properly do stuff to minimize errors as much as possible, even if it means taking a while, then the wait was worth it. For example, any level pack conversions I do, I pretty much never release it unless and until I have solving replays for every level :P So yes, it does mean that it takes longer before pack release, but I'm ok with that ;) 

QuoteThe best thing anyone can do to help right now is to play through this version of RotL (https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?msg=95817) and provide feedback, share replays, list your favourite levels, list your least favourite levels, and comment either here in topic or directly on the spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gSs0lsAdHntkJ8ffSTbwg2yBkmqZFFTNGA07KD9LjEI/edit?gid=874540697#gid=874540697).

The ones who haven't played through it at least :P To my knowledge, probably mobius and I are the only ones who have played through the entirety of v4.0 RotL, though I know there were some levels where mobius couldn't find a solution to and hence why there was plenty of volunteer testers before release. I don't think the pre-testers did the entire pack before release and instead a handful of levels that mobius posted for testing. In my case, it's now been nearly 3.5 years since my LP of v4.0 RotL, so I will definitely need to skim through the levels again to refresh my memory. I will hopefully have my own list of which levels I think should be included and which can be excluded sometime this weekend, but the last several days/weeks have been quite rough for me with balancing everything I would like to or need to work on on top of extenuating circumstances.

Anyway, it's been wonderful working alongside members of the Lemmings community on this project! :thumbsup:   

I'm working through the Frenzy (rank 3 of 6) levels now, updating the spreadsheet as I go. I've had to increase the number of colours to indicate more possible degrees of satisfaction, and I'm also going back and adding new colours to earlier levels.

Bright green: a favourite level, definite keep
Green: good level, almost definitely staying in
Yellow: I like this level but it may have issues (see column H for details)
Blue: I like this level but not enough to make it a definite keep
Grey: I could take or leave this one
Pink: I want to remove this level

I also played through v4 in its entirety (last year) and whilst it's not fresh enough in my mind to comment on individual levels, I'll attach my replays - not sure how useful this is, but if you wanted to check specific levels for backroutes, there's a good chance I found some ;) I suppose the relevant level creator would have to verify that though.

FWIW, I voted to exclude levels duplicated in other packs from the new version of RotL. Personally, if I've played the level in another pack (which would always be the case for MazuLems, Clammings and Insane Steve's World), I'd rather not play them again in RotL - I feel it just makes for unnecessary bloat to an already sizable pack when these other NL packs are all readily available. Just my two cents. :)

Quote from: kaywhyn on April 10, 2026, 09:40:56 PMLevel selection is a very lengthy process, much more than you think, so I'm in agreement here with Proxima that rushing to get a first draft of level selection for Pack 1 isn't the way to go :P Especially for a project of a large size like this one. Hence I prefer that Proxima and anyone else who wants to help with level selection take time and not rush through it.

Maybe people are misunderstanding what I mean by "First Draft".

My suggestion is simply that we set up a framework on which to build. Levels can be swapped out, moved around, and we get a clear sense of cohesion and direction right from the very start. I'm not suggesting that the first draft be viewed as something that could potentially be released, which is what people seem to think. On the contrary, the first draft should really be nothing more than a list of placeholders. I mean, it could literally say "to be decided" for every entry at this stage!

With that said, the spreadsheet is providing real-time progress updates, which is great. And, Proxima's mentioned that he intends to draft the first rank fairly soon anyway. At that point, things will start to take shape and we'll have a clearer idea of what we're dealing with.

Quote from: kaywhyn on April 10, 2026, 09:40:56 PMAt least personally, I rather do things right the first time around

Impossible. That's why versioning is a thing.

As I am removing the poll and starting a new one, for the sake of transparency, here is a permanent record of the poll result:

What should we do with levels duplicated in other packs (e.g. MazuLems, Clammings, Insane Steve's World)?

Keep them in the level pool and just discard the less good ones - 2
Remove them all (maybe keep just one or two) - 3

New poll is up. At this point we need to decide what to do about 10-of-each-skill repeat levels.

We have a decent number of easy levels for early on, but, as the gap between 1-1 "9 ways to live" and 1-2 "Through Fire and Flames" suggests, if we don't allow 10-of-each repeats then even the early rank will get tough (from a beginner perspective) pretty quickly.

I also want to know whether people are okay with what mobius termed "ghost repeats" -- creating a 10-of-each skill repeat of a level without using the original level in the pack. On the one hand, that feels a little disrespectful to the original creator; but when we release the pack, we would include a list of such levels, so we wouldn't be misleading players into thinking they were originally designed as 10-of-each. We'd be honest about this being a version specially designed for RotL.

An example of a level we might want to do this with is "Lemmings on the Run", the first level of Ben Bryant's set (https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=7422.0). It's an easy level, suitable for an early slot, and the original and 10-of-each versions are close enough that we wouldn't want to include both. But I wouldn't include this and other similar levels unless I felt confident that the community was okay with it.

Quote from: JawaJuice on April 11, 2026, 07:48:13 PMI also played through v4 in its entirety (last year) and whilst it's not fresh enough in my mind to comment on individual levels, I'll attach my replays - not sure how useful this is, but if you wanted to check specific levels for backroutes, there's a good chance I found some ;) I suppose the relevant level creator would have to verify that though.

FWIW, I voted to exclude levels duplicated in other packs from the new version of RotL. Personally, if I've played the level in another pack (which would always be the case for MazuLems, Clammings and Insane Steve's World), I'd rather not play them again in RotL - I feel it just makes for unnecessary bloat to an already sizable pack when these other NL packs are all readily available. Just my two cents. :)

Honestly this is a good point and I can see people actually skipping over levels they've already played in another pack. It feels redundant. I know I'm totally going back on what I just posted the other day but well that's why you can see I shouldn't be in charge of things like this anymore  :XD:  :D

Same thoughts as in regards to X-of-each skill levels. Honestly that was the hardest thing with this pack (I've probably said this too many times already) but I know there were a lot of complaints about the difficulty curve but the fact was there just wasn't a huge selection of levels to make it a really smooth curve. But I mean, we know already have the NeoLemmix introduction pack and the a good selection of already easy levels/packs in the community in general now so I don't think it's bad if this pack doesn't have tons of easy levels.

I voted for no repeats at all. Not every pack needs beginner fare.

But Proxima knows that I don't like repeats in general, and I'm not necessarily the target audience here. Count vote as you wish.

I like how you're not re-packaging levels that already are in standalone author packs.

-- Simon

I'm not a big fan of padding packs with a bunch of 10-of-each levels at the beginning (regardless of whether they are repeats or not), especially if it's a long chain of them. I find them rarely interesting, and usually they are just work and become repetitive really fast. I guess talismans can sometimes spice them up, but I still think the fewer of these the better.

I think there's a difference between easy and beginner friendly. Sure, levels with lenient skill sets are beginner friendly as they allow players to explore mechanics. But similarly, levels can have a small set of skills (in particular few different skills) and only use straight-forward mechanics and thus be beginner friendly and yet not easy. For example, I wouldn't find it outrageous if "Eeny, meeny, miny... OH", "Little miner puzzle" or maybe even "The Placement is the Key" (https://lldb.camanis.net/level/24/2/The-Placement-is-the-Key) appeared in the second level slot. They are still accessible to beginners but arguably more interesting for the seasoned players. At least these could be interleaved between the 10-of-each levels.

Maybe this is moot anyway as I suspect pretty much anyone playing custom packs has enough familiarity with the game to be beyond "beginner" level anyway.

10-of-everything levels are not just for beginners. They make good warm-up levels to get the cognitive synapses firing ready for more challenging fare.

Above all, though, the most important thing a pack should have: variety.

So:

Quote from: geoo on April 12, 2026, 09:25:09 AMSure, levels with lenient skill sets are beginner friendly as they allow players to explore mechanics. But similarly, levels can have a small set of skills (in particular few different skills) and only use straight-forward mechanics and thus be beginner friendly and yet not easy ... At least these could be interleaved between the 10-of-each levels.

Yes, agreed - mix it up, give people a bit of everything.

The poll is still open (for another six days, in fact), but in a community this size, 8 votes means we can already draw some conclusions based on current standings. It's pretty evenly split between yes and no, but slightly favouring yes. A strong majority are not bothered by "ghost repeats". Also, I want to take into account that a recurring theme in previous feedback (e.g. Pieuw's spreadsheet and Flopsy's video) has been that previous versions of the pack get tough too quickly.

It's true that the pack is unlikely to be played by anyone as literally their first experience of Lemmings (which is why I didn't bother asking for opinions on skill tutorial levels; we are simply not bringing those back); but it should be approachable for players at all skill levels.

So, my inclination is to keep 10-of-all repeats but reduce their number, and in particular, I think we should add some new ones to help out the very beginning of the pack, while dropping some of the less interesting existing ones. I'll come up with more concrete suggestions for this around the time the poll closes.

geoo, given your stance, we can cut "Canopy Lemmings" (the 10-of-each repeat of "Stroke at Retirement Age") if you prefer, though I would like to keep that one as it's certainly one of the more interesting 10-of-each levels.

Quote from: WillLem on April 12, 2026, 03:13:03 PM10-of-everything levels are not just for beginners. They make good warm-up levels to get the cognitive synapses firing ready for more challenging fare.

Completely agree with this. I consider myself a fairly experienced player at this point, but I still enjoy X-of-everything levels. They can certainly be made more interesting with talismans (the recent Lemmings Faithful pack is a good example of this), but you can also set yourself challenges like always saving 100% wherever possible. It's just nice sometimes imo to not have an extremely limited skillset and a single intended solution that you have to find, as you can get creative with your solution and explore the open-endedness that affords.

On another note, I've spoken with Will and he's agreed to add the L2 Circus style to RetroLemmini. (It's used by three levels in RotL that we are probably keeping: Cry for me, Another Day at the Office, Getting a Cat Down from a Tree.) There are also some levels using the L2 Egyptian and Sports styles, which are already supported by RL.

As well as those three, RL supports the L2 Shadow style, and Will is considering adding Beach, but at the moment there are no plans to add all twelve. So, for the third pack of the RotL v5 project (the pack with new levels), allowed styles will be all the original and ONML ones, and the five L2 styles just mentioned.

Quote from: Proxima on April 12, 2026, 03:54:02 PMI think we should add some new ones to help out the very beginning of the pack, while dropping some of the less interesting existing ones.

You're definitely thinking along the right lines as far as pack approachability is concerned; your post above (https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?msg=108528) has my full support.

Two additional suggestions that might be worth considering:

1) When deciding which levels to feature as "X-of-each", look to the general layout of the level. The more detailed and featured it is, the more likely an X-of-everything version will work well in its own right. I'm sure you're already aware of this, but just thought it was worth mentioning in-topic. Also, I'm happy to post a list of possible candidates when the time comes (i.e. if you're taking suggestions on specific levels).

2) Consider that not all X-of-everything needs to be 10. For instance, 5, 3 and even 1 of everything can make for great quality accessible levels. I'd suggest adjusting X to suit the level layout being used. Again, I'm sure you're already aware of this anyways :)

Quote from: WillLem on April 11, 2026, 09:03:49 PMMaybe people are misunderstanding what I mean by "First Draft".

My suggestion is simply that we set up a framework on which to build. Levels can be swapped out, moved around, and we get a clear sense of cohesion and direction right from the very start. I'm not suggesting that the first draft be viewed as something that could potentially be released, which is what people seem to think. On the contrary, the first draft should really be nothing more than a list of placeholders. I mean, it could literally say "to be decided" for every entry at this stage!

Right, it's a first draft. A rough draft, so to speak, not a "final" draft. That's not the issue. Rather, the problem was with you suggesting it be done quickly, which Proxima and I think isn't the approach to take with this. There's a lot of levels to scrutinize here, and that will take a lot of time in general. Some have already put a bit of a list together and posted them, and I intend to do the same by providing mine. I know I said I would post mine at least a weekend ago or so but I haven't gotten around to doing so yet. I'll hopefully have it by this weekend. It's been a really hectic last several days/weeks for me. I'm intentionally ignoring looking at the spreadsheet for now in order to avoid any bias when I come up with my list. Once I have something, then I'll take a look to see where there's agreement on what levels should and shouldn't make the cut for the pack(s).

Of course, this taking time extends to all steps of the project, not just the first draft part of it.

QuoteWith that said, the spreadsheet is providing real-time progress updates, which is great. And, Proxima's mentioned that he intends to draft the first rank fairly soon anyway. At that point, things will start to take shape and we'll have a clearer idea of what we're dealing with.

Yes, having a great first rank is important for a community pack such as this.

Quote from: WillLem on April 11, 2026, 09:03:49 PM

Quote from: kaywhyn on April 10, 2026, 09:40:56 PMAt least personally, I rather do things right the first time around

Impossible. That's why versioning is a thing.

Not unless you're me who tends to be a perfectionist kind of person :P Semi-joking aside, I do consider myself one, even though I know I'm not perfect. Regarding getting things right the first time, it is possible, but it's extremely difficult, to the point that it might as well be considered impossible anyway, especially with multiple steps here.

To put it in a better way and that I should had said before, I rather do things slowly, carefully, and properly. Just the way I work and which works well for me. Everyone is free to work at their own pace, of course. In the same way everyone has their own ways which work well for them ;)

Quote from: kaywhyn on April 15, 2026, 12:34:53 AMthe problem was with you suggesting it be done quickly, which Proxima and I think isn't the approach to take with this. There's a lot of levels to scrutinize here, and that will take a lot of time in general.

There has definitely been a misunderstanding about what I mean by 'first draft'. Essentially, what yourself and Proxima want to do is skip what I'm calling the 'first draft' and go straight to sorting through the levels.

And that's totally fine, as I said previously I support whatever approach Proxima wants to take. If it doesn't help you guys to have a 'working playlist' (which is probably a better descriptor for what I'm referring to than 'first draft'), that's not a problem. Do what works best for you.

Anyways, take all the time you need with sorting through the levels. You're right, it's important not to rush that particular part of the project.

Quote from: WillLem on April 15, 2026, 02:27:23 AMThere has definitely been a misunderstanding about what I mean by 'first draft'. Essentially, what yourself and Proxima want to do is skip what I'm calling the 'first draft' and go straight to sorting through the levels.

Ok, I re-read the Discord discussion on this and I think I understand what you're getting at here. I'll see if I can interpret what you mean correctly. If you mean what I think you mean, essentially your approach goes like, "I choose this level, that level, etc." without needing to necessarily play the levels beforehand as your list we can analyze as a group to see what we can further cut down. Yea, this way of doing so would likely introduce arbitrary bias as Proxima mentioned. I'm definitely not in favor of randomly picking levels that should and shouldn't make the cut without properly analyzing the levels first, especially as we might miss out on a lot of great levels this way. As a reminder, it's been more than 3 years since I LPed v4.0 of RotL and hence a lot of the levels I have forgotten by now. I would definitely need to go through a lot of the levels myself again, which of course takes time.

Feel free to let me know if I'm still getting or interpreting any details of what you were proposing with what you envisioned with the "working playlist" incorrectly!

To be honest, the approach I likely would had taken had I made an update to RotL v4.0 a while ago would had been where I would mostly fix any backroutes for the current levels of the pack whose known intended solutions aren't enforced yet, swap levels around with one another to make the difficulty curve better, and for any authors who are around include updated versions of their levels that have been sent to me, while also being open to any level suggestions people post for possible inclusion to replace levels that end up being cut for the update. I know Crane sent me some stuff a while ago, but those were mainly levels of his that are currently in the v4.0 RotL pack that he updated for possibly the RotL update that I was going to do a while back. I'll also have to dig them up again, but I'm sure they're still on my hard drive somewhere.

At the same time, this Excel spreadsheet is definitely an excellent idea and I'm fine with going this route as well, particularly for the purposes of this community project.

QuoteAnd that's totally fine, as I said previously I support whatever approach Proxima wants to take. If it doesn't help you guys to have a 'working playlist' (which is probably a better descriptor for what I'm referring to than 'first draft'), that's not a problem. Do what works best for you.

Anyways, take all the time you need with sorting through the levels. You're right, it's important not to rush that particular part of the project.

Thank you. At least we agree there. Also as I previously mentioned taking time extends to all parts of the project so that we hopefully won't need to make many more updates later on once the pack(s) have been posted. I may still do some long-term maintenance in the form of updating the levels of the v5.0 RotL pack where needed if there's still backroutes, but I'll only make updates if they are necessary and after I post asking about the changes I'm thinking of making ;) Again, likely won't be needed once the packs are posted and hence considered "finalized" but I'm fine with doing post-maintenance of the v5.0 NL RotL packs.

Quote from: kaywhyn on April 16, 2026, 01:05:21 PMI'll see if I can interpret what you mean correctly. If you mean what I think you mean, essentially your approach goes like, "I choose this level, that level, etc." without needing to necessarily play the levels beforehand as your list we can analyze as a group to see what we can further cut down. Yea, this way of doing so would likely introduce arbitrary bias as Proxima mentioned. I'm definitely not in favor of randomly picking levels that should and shouldn't make the cut without properly analyzing the levels first

I've highlighted in yellow bold the parts that are being misunderstood.

The following is the approach I suggested, as clearly as I can make it. I've spoiler tagged it to make this post smaller as this part of the conversation has taken up enough of this topic already!

Suggested approach, and discussion thereof

(1) Make a list of 30 x 4 levels which will form the "working playlist" (Draft 1) - they can be any levels at this point, and have no priority over anything not on the list. We do NOT decide at this point which levels should and shouldn't make the cut.

(2) Play through every level in the total pool (i.e. all levels on the list, and all levels off the list). During this step, we make notes, update any levels that need updating, and identify which levels should and shouldn't make the cut.

(3) Having completed step 2, we should now have a more firm idea of which levels will actually make it into the pack. We go through the process of swapping, moving, and replacing all levels in Draft 1 until we have Draft 2, which will be much closer to what the pack will actually end up looking like.

(4) Play through Draft 2 as if it's the completed pack, making note of how well the levels flow from one to another, etc. to get Draft 3, which would likely be a release candidate by that point.

All that's happened is, Proxima doesn't think step (1) is necessary and so we're starting from step (2). And that's fine, level selection was delegated to him for a reason and I'm happy to support the approach he wants to take - he has my full confidence.

The only difference it will actually make is to step (3). I imagine that it might it take a bit longer or be slightly more difficult if we don't already have a working list at that point. Then again, it might not. I could be wrong. It's natural for me to want to refer to a method has repeatedly worked for my own projects when suggesting how to go about this particular project - but, of course, I'm always happy to try new ways of doing things! :)

Anyway - by now, I'm explaining this only because I dislike misunderstandings. I haven't suggested rushing anything; on the contrary, my suggestion was that we add an extra step, which would actually slow the process down initially, but (maybe) make a later part of the process quicker and easier.

Think of it like this: when you take your washing out of the dryer, do you first sort everything into piles by clothing type (shirts, t-shirts, pants, socks, etc) or do you sort through the whole pile one item at a time? Is that first step necessary? I'd argue it is. It makes it much easier to see what you're dealing with, makes the total task feel less daunting, and increases the chances that the task will get completed by > 0% ;)

---

Again, bottom line: I'm no longer making the case for my suggested approach at this point. We've already decided to do it Proxima's way and that's absolutely fine by me. Happy to leave it there and move on :)

OK, so Proxima mentioned on Discord that we can start suggesting levels for Pack 1 Rank 1, particurly those that might make good X-of-each repeats.

These would be my top picks:

9 Ways To Live - perfect start to the pack, an excellent take on tutorial levels in general
Over or Under - provides an interesting challenge, and multiple possible ways to solve it
Snowy Caves - snow levels usually aren't my favourite, but this one is very well put together. 20 of each is excessive though, 10-15 would probably be fine
Pipe Dream - this gets more interesting the more you look at it. I'd probably suggest reducing it to 3 or 4 of each
Lemmington Spa - presents multiple 'get down from there' challenges in a single level, but isn't too difficult for the first rank by any means
Surrealism - probably my favourite level visually, could be good as a 2 of each
Neighbours - rock levels usually put me off, but this one is very well done as a 'use this crowd to save that crowd' challenge
Let's Play Lemmings! - very good pillar level, well put-together and requires use of several different skills to get a basic solution. Shame it doesn't make use of the OWW, but other than that it's a decent candidate for inclusion
Crystal Caves - this one's a classic custom level, and makes for an interesting challenge given only 1 Basher
Lem Dunk - a favourite of mine, just a shame it isn't possible to save 100%! :(
Minesweeper Lemmings - include it for sure, maybe reduce the X to some amount that makes the level require floaters?
THE FEARSOME FOURSOME - excellent level, a great multi-tasker with many possible solutions, perfect for X of each

In general, my criteria for X-of-all repeats would be: how many different skills are needed to create a basic solution? If the level can be done with just one or two skills, it's perhaps either not worth including, or the X amount should be reduced so that other skills need to be used.

That's it for now, I'll report back more when I've worked through more of the pack.

Quote from: WillLem on April 16, 2026, 11:58:22 PM

Suggested approach, and discussion thereof

(1) Make a list of 30 x 4 levels which will form the "working playlist" (Draft 1) - they can be any levels at this point, and have no priority over anything not on the list. We do NOT decide at this point which levels should and shouldn't make the cut.

(2) Play through every level in the total pool (i.e. all levels on the list, and all levels off the list). During this step, we make notes, update any levels that need updating, and identify which levels should and shouldn't make the cut.

(3) Having completed step 2, we should now have a more firm idea of which levels will actually make it into the pack. We go through the process of swapping, moving, and replacing all levels in Draft 1 until we have Draft 2, which will be much closer to what the pack will actually end up looking like.

(4) Play through Draft 2 as if it's the completed pack, making note of how well the levels flow from one to another, etc. to get Draft 3, which would likely be a release candidate by that point.

All that's happened is, Proxima doesn't think step (1) is necessary and so we're starting from step (2). And that's fine, level selection was delegated to him for a reason and I'm happy to support the approach he wants to take - he has my full confidence.

The only difference it will actually make is to step (3). I imagine that it might it take a bit longer or be slightly more difficult if we don't already have a working list at that point. Then again, it might not. I could be wrong. It's natural for me to want to refer to a method has repeatedly worked for my own projects when suggesting how to go about this particular project - but, of course, I'm always happy to try new ways of doing things! :)

Anyway - by now, I'm explaining this only because I dislike misunderstandings. I haven't suggested rushing anything; on the contrary, my suggestion was that we add an extra step, which would actually slow the process down initially, but (maybe) make a later part of the process quicker and easier.

Think of it like this: when you take your washing out of the dryer, do you first sort everything into piles by clothing type (shirts, t-shirts, pants, socks, etc) or do you sort through the whole pile one item at a time? Is that first step necessary? I'd argue it is. It makes it much easier to see what you're dealing with, makes the total task feel less daunting, and increases the chances that the task will get completed by > 0% ;)

AH, thanks for the clarification! It makes more sense to me now where you're coming from with this explanation. A couple of remarks to some things of your reply:

Quote(1) Make a list of 30 x 4 levels which will form the "working playlist" (Draft 1) - they can be any levels at this point, and have no priority over anything not on the list. We do NOT decide at this point which levels should and shouldn't make the cut.

(2) Play through every level in the total pool (i.e. all levels on the list, and all levels off the list). During this step, we make notes, update any levels that need updating, and identify which levels should and shouldn't make the cut.

Yea, it still sounds like it's arbitrary bias as to what would go on the list for the first step and it's some kind of subset of the v4 RotL pack except for where the levels that didn't make it in the pack are concerned. If anything, I probably would had just said the first 120 levels of v4 for the first pack and then the remaining 120 levels of the v4 for the second pack :P There, done.

Joking of course, since it's definitely more complicated than that. As mentioned previously, the Excel spreadsheet is a great one and sure, it might take longer and make some things a bit harder later on than if there was a "working playlist" as you call it, but I think for the most part I would had done it the way Proxima is currently doing it as well. I think it's working fine for the time being ;)

QuoteAnyway - by now, I'm explaining this only because I dislike misunderstandings.

Right, understandable. I don't like being misunderstood either, and I'm sure there's plenty of others that don't as well, so we're far from being the only ones :P In fairness, I tend to be a slow learner and in understanding things in some areas, though definitely not as much of the former as when I was a youngster, but it's still there in me from time to time.

QuoteI haven't suggested rushing anything...

Well, you did suggest "a quick and dirty approach" for the first step on the list creation on Discord and that admittedly made me think you were suggesting rushing of some kind on the project, let alone possibly thrown in some confusion :P

In any case, at least we're in agreement with taking our time on all steps and processes of the community project.

QuoteAgain, bottom line: I'm no longer making the case for my suggested approach at this point. We've already decided to do it Proxima's way and that's absolutely fine by me. Happy to leave it there and move on :)

Agreed, it went on much longer than it should had due to my confusion and what was a misinterpretation on my part. I'm going to say no more of this and won't press for further clarification or anything on the matter. Let's shift the focus on doing what needs to be done and on our roles we been delegated to and helping each other out if needed.

Keep up the great work everyone :) 

Quote from: WillLem on April 17, 2026, 01:03:36 AMOK, so Proxima mentioned on Discord that we can start suggesting levels for Pack 1 Rank 1, particurly those that might make good X-of-each repeats.

Thank you -- although I was more looking to see if you had any suggestions for later levels that could have an interesting 10-of-each repeat, before we move past that stage of pack development and the opportunity is lost.

I want to clarify one thing. The vote (which ends tomorrow!) is currently strongly in favour of allowing both N-of-each repeats and "ghost repeats" (N-of-each versions of levels, without using the original level). That, of course, means that some of the existing ghost repeats can stay -- and this includes some on WillLem's keep list above, such as "Snowy Caves", "Pipe Dream" and "Lemmington Spa". Even so, for these levels, before making a decision, I intend to look at the original levels to see whether including the original level instead of the N-of-each version seems worthwhile, and I'll make a separate decision for each level on that level's own merits.

After all, even if we decide to start the pack with some N-of-each repeats, I don't think we want a first rank consisting entirely of these, so it would be good to trim the number down a little, and some of the original versions may be interesting in their own right.

This week, WillLem and I have played through the first rank of version 4 as a "Skills you can't live without" challenge, which is always interesting for N-of-each levels, and I am mindful that some of the challenge solutions we discovered may be lost if we replace these levels with their harder originals. Even so, most players will just be trying to solve the level with any solution rather than approaching them as SYCLW challenges, so how interesting the level is for a normal solution has to be the main consideration.

This is also how I (sort of) made easier repeat levels; I looked at levels from the pack that had interesting layouts which would still be interesting and not trivial when adding X skills to them. [this was easier said than done, but still managed to find more than a few]

Some of the original levels (The Fearsome Foursome is a good example of this); was in my folder of levels I looked at to include in the pack in the first place; only because I misread the skillset. The original level was described by Yawg as literally "this is payback for all the awful levels I've played through"; suffice to say, I never actually considered adding the original.

Snowy Caves isn't a ghost repeat; that's a repeat of "That Freezing Feeling" (presently in the Pain rank, which I forget why, it initially was ranked much lower).
Proxima and I talked about one of Ellischant's levels in discord; the miner/hell level (Harder, Better, Miner, Stronger) and Aperture science; but this kind of went for all of his levels; In testing I found multiple solutions for many of them but still felt them fun and worth including. Some had minor fixes but most of them were difficult to make any changes to. That freezing feeling has ice blowers that aren't present in the easy version; this was supposed to removed a backroute.

Anyways; here's some more quick feedback on my personal favorites and least favorites in the first rank.

Keepers
Little Miner Puzzle(s),
Lemtris (maybe not first rank worthy; depending on how the rest of the pack goes)
Access Denied
Eeny Meeny Miny
Crossing the Chasm
Most of Dragon's Lover's levels in this rank (they all have a good early first rank placement I felt, except maybe a few like Through Fire and Flames, which some said isn't that easy.
Lem Dunk

I also think (if Proxima is okay with it) we should keep levels like Minesweeper Lemmings (or the more difficult repeat if not both) if possible. This genuinely was always one of my favorites and the difficult version took me a long time to solve.


for removal:
I agree Liquidizer is not a good one. This is one of those where I assumed I just suck at the game and other people would have an easier time with it.

Magnetic Area:
this level is pretty similar to that Genesis level of a similar style but less interesting.

other considerations:
I personally find 10 is a magic number a more difficult level than first rank. It's not complicated but requires more thought then the average easy first rank level and multitasking.

Crystal Caves (the more difficult version): I was always on the fence with this level as when getting near the end I found the difficulties more frustrating then fun to puzzle out but the easier version was fun.

Blood Furnace:
If decoration was added to spruce it up I think this level would be more appealing. Might work as a [late] first rank level even, it has a variety of solutions.

Quote from: mobius on April 17, 2026, 04:23:26 PMProxima and I talked about one of Ellischant's levels in discord; the miner/hell level (Harder, Better, Miner, Stronger) and Aperture science; but this kind of went for all of his levels; In testing I found multiple solutions for many of them but still felt them fun and worth including.

Yes, I agree; backroutes / unintended solutions don't necessarily completely ruin a level, and it may still be interesting enough to include. "Harder, Better, Miner, Stronger" and "The Aperture Science" are good examples of this, and we'll almost certainly keep both.

QuoteMost of Dragon's Lover's levels in this rank (they all have a good early first rank placement I felt, except maybe a few like Through Fire and Flames, which some said isn't that easy.

Just to be completely clear, when I highlighted the difficulty jump between "9 ways to live" (level 1-1 in v4) and "Through Fire and Flames" (1-2), it isn't that TFAF is out-of-place hard, it's that 9WTL is a really easy level, similar to the skill tutorials from the original game, and then there's a jump and every level in the rest of v4 Picnic is more like late Fun to early Tricky. So for version 5, I'll be looking for new N-of-each levels to fill that gap a little (and I already have some in mind; I'm just waiting for the poll to close).

QuoteI also think (if Proxima is okay with it) we should keep levels like Minesweeper Lemmings (or the more difficult repeat if not both) if possible. This genuinely was always one of my favorites and the difficult version took me a long time to solve.

We are certainly keeping Minesweeper Lemmings and its hard version, Waltz in C Sharp Miner. The only reason I had doubts about this was that we need to be able to convert the levels to RetroLemmini, but I've conferred with WillLem and he's agreed to do the work to make this possible.

The poll has now closed. Results:

Should the pack contain any 10-of-each-skill repeat levels?

Yes, even if the harder version isn't used - 5
Yes but only if the harder version is also used - 1
Not at all - 3

Accordingly, we will keep 10 (or N)-of-each repeats in the pack. This doesn't mean we have to keep exactly the set of repeat levels we currently have; I plan to add some new ones and remove some existing ones, and I'll post a concrete proposal for the first rank as soon as I can.

Here's a first draft for what the first 20 levels of Picnic might look like. This is very rough, and I welcome all feedback for changes to the selection and ordering. Notes on my reasons for selecting each level, and any changes I've made:

1-1 9 ways to live: We agreed this was perfect as a first level.
1-2 Roadblock: From v2. Originally the blocker tutorial, repurposed as a 10-of-each.
1-3 It's a long, long way to fall: From v2.
1-4 Rise through the ranks: From v2, where it is the climber tutorial. Repeat of "A step too far" from Clammings (which I think is okay because I suggested a maximum of 5 levels from each of Mazu, Clam and I.S. could stay, and that was more because I wanted to keep those levels available for filling gaps like this, not because I want to keep the best five of each).
1-5 Lemmings on the Run: From Ben Bryant's pack, skillset changed to 10 of each. I shrunk the level to 160 pixels tall, which has meant that if the player lets the lemmings walk straight forward, they land on the rock instead of splatting; I think this is okay for such an early level.
1-6 Seeing red: From mobius's Outtakes collection.
1-7 The Small Jail: From v4. Should we cut out one group of lemmings?
1-8 Dig for Victory!: From v2, originally the digger tutorial. Placing it here makes it the trap introduction level (there is one in 1-5 but it's out of the way), and also means the first 10 levels include each tileset once.
1-9 Gotta Save 'em All!: From v2 and another Clam level. See above regarding tilesets.
1-10 Over or Under: From v4. Save requirement reduced to 15/20 (from 20/20) to make it more suitable for early placement; we could add a talisman for saving 20.
1-11 Through Fire and Flames: From v4. See above discussion for moving this later than its previous placement at 1-2.
1-12 In the cavern...: From v4.
1-13 Magnetic Area: From v4. Mobius didn't like this one much but I think it's an interesting way to get used to the mesh terrain and dealing with traps at RR 99.
1-14 Neighbors: From v4.
1-15 Somewhere Under the Rainbow: From v2. Easy repeat of Changing of the Guards. Since I haven't included Lemmington Spa (see below for why), I thought this could be a good replacement, as it has a similar "float down and build up" theme.
1-16 Nothing Gold Can Stay: From v4.
1-17 Let's Play Lemmings!: From v4.
1-18 The Fearsome Foursome: From v4.
1-19 Lem Dunk: From v4. Increased RR and lowered save requirement, since we can't use (NeoLemmix) RR below 50.
1-20 Minesweeper Lemmings: From v4.

The levels in v4's first 20 that are not included are:

Snowy Caves: Long and has more hazards, so it could come later in the rank.
Pipe Dream: Not sure about including this, but if we drop "Gotta Save 'em All!" this could replace it so we still have a bubble level in the first 10.
Lemmington Spa: Especially since we can only include five weirdybeardy levels, I favour keeping the original version of this rather than the 10-of-each version.
Surrealism: 10-of-each version is trivial. WillLem suggested making it 2-of-each, which is possible, but then it would come later.
Hedonist: Not sure about this one, still might include it.
Biosphere: Builder-heavy. Could still include it in the last 10.
Patience, Young Grasshopper: I need to solve the harder version before making a decision, and the 10-of-each version is not easy and would come later.
Himalayan Lemmings: Large and not very interesting.
Crystal Caves: I'm considering using the original (harder) version instead, in which case it would come later.

@Proxima The 1-20 draft is looking good so far. I have only these comments to add:

Quote from: Proxima on April 19, 2026, 02:03:20 AM1-7 The Small Jail: From v4. Should we cut out one group of lemmings?

I would say don't cut a group of lemmings. The level's symmetry is part of its aesthetic and appeal.

Quote from: Proxima on April 19, 2026, 02:03:20 AM1-19 Lem Dunk: From v4. Increased RR and lowered save requirement, since we can't use (NeoLemmix) RR below 50.

We can use RR <50 for the NeoLemmix version, no need to change it. IMO, the RetroLemmini version can be different in this regard.

Quote from: Proxima on April 19, 2026, 02:03:20 AMPipe Dream: Not sure about including this, but if we drop "Gotta Save 'em All!" this could replace it so we still have a bubble level in the first 10.

Of the two, Pipe Dream is easily the better level, but "Gotta Save 'em All!" has a better title. Feels like it (the title) should be used somewhere.

While I agree it's nice to have a selection of various styles all around, I would caution against making this a major concern. I did for a while and I think the pack overall suffered because I kept this in mind. There's simply way more quality levels of certain styles (marble and pillar for example) than others and trying to shoehorn in levels of other types may have hurt the overall quality.

I'd agree Pipe Dream is a better level than the "gotta save em all". This is a good level for very early on and very a pack that's intended to be *very* beginner friendly, which I'm not sure is the best fit for this pack? But if so, then it fits.
I can give more feedback later when I have time.

Oh BTW; did you guys already figure out which levels are going into which pack; is it based on age?

Quote from: mobius on April 19, 2026, 06:39:50 PMWhile I agree it's nice to have a selection of various styles all around, I would caution against making this a major concern. I did for a while and I think the pack overall suffered because I kept this in mind.

Don't worry, it's only something I thought of doing for the first 10 levels, and after that I won't think much about style balance (e.g. in the draft ordering, Levels 16, 17 and 19 are all Pillar). It might be something I consider as a deciding factor if I'm torn between two levels that could go either way, but that's all.

QuoteI'd agree Pipe Dream is a better level than the "gotta save em all". This is a good level for very early on and very a pack that's intended to be *very* beginner friendly, which I'm not sure is the best fit for this pack? But if so, then it fits.

It's meant to start easy and build up difficulty gradually. Yes, I'll probably put Pipe Dream back in in the next draft.

QuoteOh BTW; did you guys already figure out which levels are going into which pack; is it based on age?

No, that was just an idea Will had, but I think it's a non-starter; I have enough on my plate without having to sleuth out level release dates, and it's a really arbitrary way to split the pack anyway. Instead, I think that in terms of difficulty, if the levels we are using were rated from 1 to 10, pack 1 would include levels from 1 to 8, pack 2 would be 3 to 10. So there's a lot of overlap, but all the easiest levels should go in pack 1 and all the hardest ones in pack 2. When it comes to sorting out the middle ranks, I'll just go by feeling, although there will be some rules, such as: repeat pairs should stay in the same pack; levels with similar solutions should be split up.

Okay, here's a first draft for the complete Picnic rank (30 levels). I've made the N-of-each levels continue up to Level 25, then switched to a few of the easier levels with specific skills. At this point, it's pretty arbitrary which levels go in late Picnic, which in early Hootenanny, and which in early pack 2, so any levels I missed can go in one of the others -- and it's easy to switch levels around later if we want.

I must note at this point, we've had more discussion about the issue of levels duplicated with other packs, because this does not have an easy answer, so the best we can do is to try to find a middle ground. In addition to the Mazu, Clam and Insane Steve packs that were explicitly mentioned in the poll, weirdybeardy and Crane have both made their own packs that have a lot of overlap with RotL v4, and a NL conversion for Ben Bryant's levels is in progress. If we were strict about having no duplicate levels, we'd be down to 200 before cutting on grounds of quality; and while it's certainly a possibility to cut the project down to a single smaller pack, I don't think it's what anyone wants. Besides, this strictness would be self-defeating: what if someone makes a conversion pack for Ellischant's levels, for example, in the future?

mobius made a point on discord that I very much agree with: "If a level is well known, then chances are people have already played it and it may feel out of place in the pack. [...] Dodo's small pack levels weren't included in this consideration, so they're allowed. Why? Idk, at some point we have to admit we're just making up arbitrary rules here and decide what's best."

So (after talking with the others), what we've decided to do is basically a two-step process: first populate each rank with non-duplicate levels, then if it feels like a good idea, duplicate levels may be used to fill up the rank. This has the advantage of treating all duplicate levels the same (the Mazu/Clam/IS ones as well as the weirdybeardy/Crane/Ben Bryant ones; so it is possible that some Mazu/Clam/IS levels will be reintroduced).

With that said, my notes on the level selection for this draft of Picnic:

1-1 to 1-8: As before. 1-2 renamed to "Demon's Gate" since it's no longer a blocker tutorial.
1-9: Replaced "Gotta Save 'Em All!" with "Pipe Dream" as discussed above.
1-10 to 1-15: As before.
1-16: Snowy Caves. WillLem liked this level, so I included it, but that meant I was a bit stricter on other builder-heavy levels since we don't want to have too many.
1-17 to 1-20: As before.

1-21 Nothing Gold Can Stay: Moved from 1-16 as it's quite tricky for a 5-of-each.
1-22 Vacuum: A quite interesting Brick 5-of-each; including this makes up for dropping Hedonist.
1-23 Canopy Lemmings: Definitely a more interesting Rock 10-of-all than Biosphere. As mentioned above, since geoo was against 10-of-all repeats I will remove this level if he wants, though I would really like to keep it.
1-24 LEMTRIS: Down to 4-of-each, so this is more of a puzzle and serves as a transition out of the any-way-you-want levels. (If people feel it's too tough for this placement, we could move it up.)
1-25 It's eight-hero time: Cute 1-of-each level.
1-26 A Cold Day in Heck: Pretty simple puzzle level, although I'm not sure this is okay as the first limited-skills level. (But I'm saving "First Things First" to be the pack 2 opener.)
1-27 Brick City: Well-liked level, so we're obviously keeping this.
1-28 Emergency: A bit complicated, but each part individually is simple, and one group rescuing the other has already shown up in Neighbors, so maybe this is okay here?
1-29 Patience, Young Grasshopper: While this is a 10-of-each repeat, it is definitely the hardest of them, so putting it here at the end.
1-30 The Final Countdown: Feels appropriate for a rank closer. This is a Crane level, but it's surely one we want to keep.

Of the dropped levels, Hedonist and Biosphere won't appear at all, since we have enough N-of-each levels at this point. Same goes for the easy version of Crystal Caves, but we may use the original level.

For now, I have removed all talismans; we will decide on these later once the level selection is final.

Quote from: Proxima on April 25, 2026, 07:19:55 PM1-23 Canopy Lemmings: Definitely a more interesting Rock 10-of-all than Biosphere. As mentioned above, since geoo was against 10-of-all repeats I will remove this level if he wants, though I would really like to keep it.

If this level is one of the more interesting 10-of-each levels, feel free to keep it. I'm more concerned about keeping the 10-of-each levels to a minimum rather than explicitly avoiding repeats (and if we have to use many of them, at least interleave them with other kinds of levels).

<in replay to the comments on the google doc> :: also found here :: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gSs0lsAdHntkJ8ffSTbwg2yBkmqZFFTNGA07KD9LjEI/edit?gid=874540697#gid=874540697

I honestly agree with most of the decisions here and right now I'm leaning toward; "if we want more levels, bring old ones back/use them from the big packs (A notable example I'd propose is "Rhapsody" by ISteve. It's a great level on its own and fits with the harder "repeat" Rhapsody in Blue).
atm, I'm still on the fence about this. I'll give it more thought and review the pack.



notable disagreements/comments: (for now)

Crossing Paths: I agree to move it later but I'm as surprised as I was early on that so many people struggle with this level. Kaywhyn resorted to using a very advanced trick that is *not at all necessary* to solve it. If you look at my replay its actually quite simple...

10 is a magic number - this one looks simple but requires more than a little thought. I found it quite a challenge actually for it's placement and I think it might ought to be placed later.

Crossing Paths part 2 [likely be made part 1?] - imo this is one of Minim's best levels, its not difficult but fairly unique.

Stop look and listen [I don't remember finding this one too fiddly and I don't find multitasking a bad thing... (necessarily)]. But if it is fiddly it could probably be fixed?

Wing It: I also really like this one; maybe can be ranked lower a bit tho?

Ups and downs - I like these compact but non-trivial levels and this one has at least a few solutions requiring some mildly out of the box thinking.

Spoiler

making a faller a bomber isn't something newbies find obvious

There is also t3tesla's level original called "ice ice lemming" which is supposed to be a cheesy level

Spoiler

direct drop

but is solvable by normal means, and isn't even that precise on DOS, not a bad level imo, this could potentially replace it?

Let's Split - is it the multitasking you don't like? Again, I enjoy the unique challenge this level presents and it's not too difficult imo (good for an earlier rank placement)

A small problem: same comments about multitasking. I know it's builder heavy but it isn't a typical "L1 style long walk builderfest". Every level that's builder heavy (or involves multitasking) isn't necessarily bad imo. This one presents a bit of a unique (not super difficult) of splatform stacking/building challenges that isn't just "simply build over this pit). EDIT: This doesn't actually require any multitasking or timing what so ever. I actually forgot this re-watching my replay and I was reminded of some of Clam's amazing builder levels. (which of course if we ultimately decide to include levels by him there are several good candidates there as well)
I will add however; to make the final assignments to free the crowds less annoying; make the starting pits shorter to require fewer builders by adding steel there. I feel like I did this already or wanted to do this in 2022, not sure why its not already done.

EDIT: LIFE IN THE THIRD DIMENSION
-artistically unique and has an interesting solution as well, for an early game levle.

A quick comment regarding numbers.

I'd like us to aim for 120 levels (4 ranks of 30) for packs 1 and 2, but if push comes to shove I can concede that it might end up making more sense for one of the packs to have 100 levels. I'd probably suggest that we flip the script here, though, and make pack 1 the 100-level pack with 5 ranks of 20 levels. Reason: pack 2 is supposed to be the more difficult pack. There are more difficult levels than there are easy levels, and there will be less of an upward difficulty curve between ranks for pack 2. Ergo, it makes more sense for pack 2 to be bigger, and have fewer ranks.

The alternative is to keep RotL as a single pack, albeit with fewer levels than the existing version. This is the least preferable option IMHO. I'd rather source some duplicates from packs made around the same time as the original RotL (essentially making the 2-pack version something of a "best of" collection) rather than end up with what would essentially just be a slightly less bloated version of the existing pack.

It shouldn't come to that though. Hopefully, between myself, mobius and kaywhyn, we'll be able to re-approve enough of Proxima's shortlisted levels to make the numbers up without it feeling too much like we're keeping levels just for the sake of it. If at least one of us genuinely likes the level, that's good enough for me.

Things have been quiet for a while now, so I just want to post an update on current progress.

I've played up to 4-17 in version 4, and have been continuing to fill out the spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gSs0lsAdHntkJ8ffSTbwg2yBkmqZFFTNGA07KD9LjEI) with colour coding showing how much I like each level. Will has given his own feedback on the grey and pink highlighted levels in ranks 1 to 3, in addition to mobius's feedback above, so some of those I was unsure about are definitely staying.

I noticed that starting at the start of rank 4, nearly every level is getting rated highly, and looking ahead, I expect this to continue for the rest of the pack. So I think that at this point it's pretty safe to work on the assumption we will keep over 200 levels total, which means it makes sense to go ahead with the split pack.

I don't want to reply to everything said above, as I'll save most of my thoughts on individual levels for the round-up posts where I propose a selection for each rank. One thing I'll say now: while in most cases we are compiling existing levels and not changing them (other than to fix backroutes), we certainly can make changes if there is a good reason for it, and this can sometimes make the difference as to whether a level is worth keeping or not. For example, in 3-23 "A Small Problem...", the reason I rated this level low at first is that there are four groups of lemmings, each of which gets dropped into a narrow honeypot and has to be built out by stacking eight bricks from separate builders. The rest of the level is fine and (as mobius points out) interesting enough to keep; so the obvious solution is to make the honeypots smaller so that each crowd can be released with a single builder.

"Let's Split" is just not fun. Fifty lemmings must be saved by assigning every single one a climber, floater or miner; the bridge up to the top exit must be completed exactly after all the floaters have gone past, and there is no interesting puzzle in getting the timing right; it's just trial and error, with all that repetitive skill-assignment to be done again with each trial. Will rated this "Worst level so far"  :P

Since there hasn't been any feedback specifically on my proposed selection and ordering for rank 1, the next task will be a similar draft for rank 1 of the second pack. This does not mean the first rank is set in stone; when we have more of an idea of the shape of the pack overall, then we might end up making different choices there.

"The Necromancer" is backrouted pretty bad and I doubt it can be fixed easily if at all. It might be easier to remove it.

I assume you mean the solution in kaywhyn's video. It is a shame that that works, but it's also a really advanced trick that many players won't be able to pull off, so for most solvers, the puzzle is still intact. And the solution is really beautiful, and there is no way I would consider throwing out over this.

So I doubt if anyone agrees with me on this but I think my own consensus on the matter of which levels to include or not is as follows:
these are attempts to make some logical consistency to the rules;

-levels present in small packs such as Ben Bryant's, MazuLems, and Dodo's cachapacks; I think these should be allowed.
-levels present in large packs such as InsaneSteve's, GeoffLems, etc, shouldn't be included because: they are large packs containing many great levels. This project is a large pack the purpose of which is to consolidate levels not already in a large pack; into a large pack.
I too would love to include some levels by Clam or ISteve that used to be in the pack but it seems kinda wrong to do so, if we do then why not include dozens of other levels; such as those by Geofflems or DecietLems or PimoLem etc? those of which are also quite old.

A counterpoint I see being raised is: Clam and ISteve didn't actually consolidate their packs back then; that was done by myself and Wafflem more recently. (unless you count Lix, in which case, ISteve's levels are fair game but not Clam as he did make a large pack for Lix) Clam even specifically made his 5th pack for a project of this nature.

But I think the point still stands about people not wanting to play repeated levels and the pack being too large already, I think if ultimately you decide to include any of these from the larger packs they should at least be limited to a very small amount.

Also as just a side point; don't count on Ben Bryant's pack being released anytime soon; I kind of lost interest in putting it together atm. I needed a bit of a break from it.