Lemmings Forums

Lix => Lix Levels => Topic started by: Simon on February 10, 2018, 05:54:36 AM

Title: Fixed: Triangle Inequality, backroute & wrong approach
Post by: Simon on February 10, 2018, 05:54:36 AM

Hi geoo,

Forestidia found the attached backroute to Triangle Inequality.

Proxima found this almost-solution that looks like some wiggling will make it work, but it needs a conceptual difference. Merely re-timing some assignments will not fit this one in. Do we accept this dead end as part of the map, or should this be forcefully removed? It's OK if Triangle Inequality is hard. I'm merely worried that this dead-end looks too promising, will induce a lot of trial-and-error, and ultimately result in frustration.

-- Simon

Title: Re: Triangle Inequality, backroute & wrong approach
Post by: geoo on February 10, 2018, 07:50:28 AM

I think Forestidia's solution should be eliminated somehow,

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I think the level is better if it's clear that bombing is the only way to release everyone.

As for Michael's solution, I kinda wish it worked.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I think this is what I originally had in mind,
but the solution only worked with the slightly different builder placement.
One way to make it work would be making the triangle bigger.
I think I didn't do that because I wanted to keep the level on one screen,
but considering there's no standard screen size anymore, maybe
there's not much to be lost by extending the triangle.

What do you think?

Title: Re: Triangle Inequality, backroute & wrong approach
Post by: Proxima on February 10, 2018, 03:56:49 PM

After some sleep, I solved the level immediately.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

My solution is exactly the same except I build left to right, creating an extra fall off the end of the bridge. I'd actually tried this yesterday but I'd only tried building from the very edge, which lifts the miner enough that he doesn't turn round. Of course, with less tiredness it's obvious that the bridge doesn't need its top step under the drop to prevent splatting.

If that's intended, then I think the solution process, from my dead end to realising how to adjust it, is fair enough for the player to work out and doesn't need changing. It would be nice if we can prevent the backroute though :P

As for difficulty, I'm fine leaving the level where it is, considering it was one of my last four Vicious levels left to solve. Possibly, we could downrank it and uprank Ring of Fnargl, as has been suggested; I'll have another look at that level to see how I feel about it now. It's definitely not a candidate for late Vicious, so this would involve shuffling several levels around.

Title: Re: Triangle Inequality, backroute & wrong approach
Post by: Forestidia86 on February 10, 2018, 04:57:13 PM

Yeah, now I have it solved myself as well with the massive hint of Simon.
But nevertheless I didn't get it to work this morning, so it seems to be quite precise. It seems very obscure or subtile (how you want to see it) that way.
I've attached a failing replay to demonstrate that.

Title: Re: Triangle Inequality, backroute & wrong approach
Post by: Proxima on February 10, 2018, 06:24:35 PM

A possibility for removing the backroute:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The backroute depends on the fact that the lix can non-splat onto the bridge before it's complete, so wouldn't moving the entrance widget a little up and right fix this?

Title: Re: Fixed: Triangle Inequality, backroute & wrong approach
Post by: Simon on October 13, 2020, 08:22:36 PM

Fixed in 0.9.34.

-- Simon