Lemmings Forums

Other Lemmings Projects => SuperLemmini => Topic started by: WillLem on October 30, 2019, 06:51:19 pm

Title: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
Post by: WillLem on October 30, 2019, 06:51:19 pm
Hi Tsyu,

I know I've already mentioned these in reply to a PM, but I thought it best to also post a topic on the main board as per forum etiquette.

Here's what I think would make SuperLemmini brill:

Backwards framestepping. A great feature which saves a lot of time replaying a level from the start each time you make a mistake.

User hotkeys/mouse button configuration. This would be a very welcome feature if possible.

A levelpack creator, right there in the levels menu. Since importing external levels is already possible, it would be even better if there were a way of compiling levels into a pack, complete with difficulty rankings, music selection, and other stuff generally associated with making a simple level pack. The current method for compiling levelpacks is way too difficult and frustrating if you don't know what you're doing (which I really don't!). The PackToolKit for NeoLemmix is kind of what I'm imagining, but integrated into the main GUI (I've attached a picture of what I mean - the creator itself could be a separate mini-application, but launched from within the level selector).

Compatibility with the latest NeoLemmix Editor, or - a SuperLemmini level editor capable of saving levels as .ini, .lvl and .nxlv. This might be a whole other project... I'm currently taking beginner lessons in Java so I might be able to get on this myself before too long. Maybe. :P

A "SuperLemmini" title graphic on the main menu screen, to distinguish it from the original Lemmini. I'd be more than happy to design one for you if you like.

That's it for now! Great to see you on the forum!

Best regards,

-WillLem 8-)
Title: Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
Post by: Tsyu on November 06, 2019, 09:35:12 am
Backwards framestepping. A great feature which saves a lot of time replaying a level from the start each time you make a mistake.
This is far from a trivial task, since it requires remembering the state of every frame, or at least the difference between each frame, which SuperLemmini does not do. Still, I will look into adding it, but don't expect it to be in the next version.

User hotkeys/mouse button configuration. This would be a very welcome feature if possible.
Yeah, I'll try to add this to the next version.

A levelpack creator, right there in the levels menu. Since importing external levels is already possible, it would be even better if there were a way of compiling levels into a pack, complete with difficulty rankings, music selection, and other stuff generally associated with making a simple level pack. The current method for compiling levelpacks is way too difficult and frustrating if you don't know what you're doing (which I really don't!). The PackToolKit for NeoLemmix is kind of what I'm imagining, but integrated into the main GUI (I've attached a picture of what I mean - the creator itself could be a separate mini-application, but launched from within the level selector).
I should be able add this.

Compatibility with the latest NeoLemmix Editor, or - a SuperLemmini level editor capable of saving levels as .ini, .lvl and .nxlv. This might be a whole other project... I'm currently taking beginner lessons in Java so I might be able to get on this myself before too long. Maybe. :P
NXLV level support is planned, but isn't guaranteed to be in the next version. I'm not quite up to speed on the format right now, but I'm pretty sure it references objects and tiles by name rather than number, so I would need to think about how to work with that.

A "SuperLemmini" title graphic on the main menu screen, to distinguish it from the original Lemmini. I'd be more than happy to design one for you if you like.
If you can make a new logo, I'd love to see it!
Title: Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
Post by: WillLem on November 06, 2019, 02:13:23 pm
Backwards framestepping. A great feature which saves a lot of time replaying a level from the start each time you make a mistake.
This is far from a trivial task, since it requires remembering the state of every frame, or at least the difference between each frame, which SuperLemmini does not do. Still, I will look into adding it, but don't expect it to be in the next version.

Fair enough, I'm very much a beginner (currently learning Java and Python) so I'd have no idea how to do this myself at the moment. How about, in the meantime, adding a restart button to the panel? Like in NeoLemmix, it could restart the level instantly into replay mode and save time having to nuke-then-view-replay when a mistake is made. I've attached graphics I made for this, including for the xmas mod, if it would be easy enough to implement (see attached PNGs).

User hotkeys/mouse button configuration. This would be a very welcome feature if possible.
Yeah, I'll try to add this to the next version.

A levelpack creator, right there in the levels menu. Since importing external levels is already possible, it would be even better if there were a way of compiling levels into a pack, complete with difficulty rankings, music selection, and other stuff generally associated with making a simple level pack. The current method for compiling levelpacks is way too difficult and frustrating if you don't know what you're doing (which I really don't!). The PackToolKit for NeoLemmix is kind of what I'm imagining, but integrated into the main GUI (I've attached a picture of what I mean - the creator itself could be a separate mini-application, but launched from within the level selector).
I should be able add this.

Great stuff! Looking forward to seeing these, particularly the levelpack creator. :thumbsup:

Compatibility with the latest NeoLemmix Editor, or - a SuperLemmini level editor capable of saving levels as .ini, .lvl and .nxlv. This might be a whole other project... I'm currently taking beginner lessons in Java so I might be able to get on this myself before too long. Maybe. :P
NXLV level support is planned, but isn't guaranteed to be in the next version. I'm not quite up to speed on the format right now, but I'm pretty sure it references objects and tiles by name rather than number, so I would need to think about how to work with that.

This would be great as it would be possible to effectively make NeoLemmix and SuperLemmini levels at the same time, plus the whole inventory of nxlv packs currently available in NeoLemmix would be available to play in SuperLemmini (well, those that use the standard graphics sets or that provide hi-res graphics, at least). Plus, Namida is planning a hi-res update for NeoLemmix which should mean that, in theory, more hi-res content will be produced.

I'm not really sure how any of it works at a coding level tbh, although I am willing to learn so that I can understand the magic a bit better and have a better idea of what it is I'm suggesting/requesting...

A "SuperLemmini" title graphic on the main menu screen, to distinguish it from the original Lemmini. I'd be more than happy to design one for you if you like.
If you can make a new logo, I'd love to see it!

See attached prototype! ;)

Thanks for considering my feedback and requests.

All best,

-WillLem 8-)
Title: Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
Post by: namida on November 06, 2019, 05:31:02 pm
Quote
This is far from a trivial task, since it requires remembering the state of every frame, or at least the difference between each frame, which SuperLemmini does not do. Still, I will look into adding it, but don't expect it to be in the next version.

Lemmix implemented this via the replay system. Let's say, for example, that a user is at frame #1000, and presses "back one frame". Internally, the game restarts from the beginning of the level, and (without rendering anything until it's done) executes the replay up to frame #999 then stops.

This does result in poor performance, so NeoLemmix improves on the above by using a combination of the "remember state" and "use the replay" system. Not every frame is remembered, but rather, the state is saved from time to time, and the replay method is used to cover the gap between the most recent save-state and the target frame. In the case of NeoLemmix, it saves every 10 seconds, and over time, discards some of the older states. The state at frame #0 is always kept; as is the state at every 1min interval. States at 30sec intervals are kept for about 3 minutes, while states at 10sec intervals are kept for about 1 minute. (All times here are in-game clock time, not wall clock time - no new states would get saved while the game is paused, for example. I might also be remembering the exact intervals / cutoffs wrong, but the general idea is right.)

Lix's system is similar, but with different timings, that were designed more with the multiplayer mode in mind. The basic idea is the same, though.

Quote
NXLV level support is planned, but isn't guaranteed to be in the next version. I'm not quite up to speed on the format right now, but I'm pretty sure it references objects and tiles by name rather than number, so I would need to think about how to work with that.

The best way would be to change SuperLemmini to also reference pieces by name. Such a system is a bit tricky to get backwards-compatibility with (though NeoLemmix has a way - will explain later in this post), but going forwards it makes things much tidier when pieces need to be added to or removed from a style.

However, if you're not willing to do that; NeoLemmix still supports older formats (for now - this is intended to be dropped in the near-ish future). These old formats, of course, reference pieces by index numbers still. In the "data/translation" folder of NeoLemmix, there's files that are usually called "translation tables", with an NXTT extension. These tell NeoLemmix how to translate the index-based scheme to the name-based one.

These tables are not designed to be used in reverse as-is (for example, modern NeoLemmix no longer has separate bodies and tops for exits, they're now one large object; so the translation table says "replace with this and move slightly" for the exit object, but "just delete this piece" for the exit top), but it could be done with slight modifications, or with some special logic on SuperLemmini's side. You're welcome to use the NXTT files, as-is or modified, if it helps.

You'll definitely want to read this: https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=4334.0

This explains the basics of how text-based NeoLemmix data files work. This is applicable to just about every text-based data file in NL, including both NXLVs and NXTTs. Pretty much the only exceptions are a few INI files used to save user configuration, which are just the basic "XXXX = YYYY" format you usually see in INIs.

This topic specifically explains the level format: https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=4336.0

There are a few tweaks to this format that are occuring with the next major update. The topic is already updated for this, and references to the old cases have been removed. Examine some existing level files or look at NL's source code (https://bitbucket.org/namida42/neolemmixplayer/src/master/) (Delphi) or the editor's source code (https://bitbucket.org/namida42/neolemmixeditor/) (C#) if you want to figure these out; I made an intentional choice not to keep them documented. Alternatively, you can simply tell people "NeoLemmix levels created for versions older than NL V12.7.0 need to first be run through V12.7.0's Cleanse Levels feature" (a feature that takes an existing level, and re-saves it in 100% up-to-date NL format; this can be used for just outdated NL levels, or for a few other formats including DOS, (Super)Lemmini and Lemmins).

If you're planning to make your own editor, you are more than welcome to use the NL editor's code as a starting point if it suits; it's under a CC-BY-NC licence (so is the engine's code). For the "BY" part, you'd need to credit both myself and Nepster, unless your starting point is commit 2a6218e or older (in which case only Nepster would need to be credited, as none of my code is in the editor prior to that).
Title: Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
Post by: namida on November 06, 2019, 05:41:03 pm
Quote
This would be great as it would be possible to effectively make NeoLemmix and SuperLemmini levels at the same time, plus the whole inventory of nxlv packs currently available in NeoLemmix would be available to play in SuperLemmini (well, those that use the standard graphics sets or that provide hi-res graphics, at least).

To some extent, although there's still the matter of feature mismatches. Going from NL to SuperLemmini, there's a whole lot that's not supported - most new object types (though SuperLemmini does support the force left / force right fields), all of the new skills, zombies and neutrals, lemming count limits on entrances and exits, etc. The other way around isn't nearly as severe, but there's still a few things that SuperLemmini supports that NL doesn't, such as invisible / fake terrain and objects, or various choices of how exactly steel works in a level (NL used to support many of these, but support was dropped either due to them causing coding mess just for situations that are very rare anyway, or because they had little use outside of the creation of troll levels).

In general - once you step outside of features that are supported by the official games (or direct clones thereof), there are very few features that are supported in the same way by both engines - only the one-way force fields (which technically aren't new - DOS Lemmings can do them too, it's just never used in any official style), infinite time / skill counts, and resizable levels (in both directions) come to mind, though there's probably a couple more.

Even when you stick to features that are supported in both, there's no guarantee that the level will work as intended on both sides. There's the subtle physics differences, and the not-so-subtle differences to how the release rate works. RR1 in NeoLemmix would be roughly equal to RR negative 99 in SuperLemmini; while RR1 in SuperLemmini would be equal to about RR50 in NeoLemmix. The only RR that would be identical (after adjusting for resolution / framerate differences) in both is RR99.
Title: Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
Post by: Tsyu on December 04, 2019, 10:03:12 am
Terribly sorry for neglecting to reply for nearly a month.

Fair enough, I'm very much a beginner (currently learning Java and Python) so I'd have no idea how to do this myself at the moment. How about, in the meantime, adding a restart button to the panel? Like in NeoLemmix, it could restart the level instantly into replay mode and save time having to nuke-then-view-replay when a mistake is made. I've attached graphics I made for this, including for the xmas mod, if it would be easy enough to implement (see attached PNGs).
You can use Level -> Restart Level to restart the level more quickly than nuking (although it doesn't currently run the replay; I will change this).

To be honest, I'm not sure about having a restart button next to the skill panel, since it's easy to accidentally click it. Still, your buttons look good, so I'll use them if I decide to implement it.

See attached prototype! ;)
Looks good! Remember that both the PNG format and SuperLemmini support translucency, so you can have antialiasing on the edges. Also, I can work with pretty much any animation that you want (and can produce); it doesn't have to flip like the current logo.

Lemmix implemented this via the replay system. Let's say, for example, that a user is at frame #1000, and presses "back one frame". Internally, the game restarts from the beginning of the level, and (without rendering anything until it's done) executes the replay up to frame #999 then stops.

This does result in poor performance, so NeoLemmix improves on the above by using a combination of the "remember state" and "use the replay" system. Not every frame is remembered, but rather, the state is saved from time to time, and the replay method is used to cover the gap between the most recent save-state and the target frame. In the case of NeoLemmix, it saves every 10 seconds, and over time, discards some of the older states. The state at frame #0 is always kept; as is the state at every 1min interval. States at 30sec intervals are kept for about 3 minutes, while states at 10sec intervals are kept for about 1 minute. (All times here are in-game clock time, not wall clock time - no new states would get saved while the game is paused, for example. I might also be remembering the exact intervals / cutoffs wrong, but the general idea is right.)

Lix's system is similar, but with different timings, that were designed more with the multiplayer mode in mind. The basic idea is the same, though.
Thanks for the technical info. I think I will still implement it as frame deltas, since it seems like it would use less memory.
Title: Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
Post by: namida on December 04, 2019, 05:31:43 pm
Quote
To be honest, I'm not sure about having a restart button next to the skill panel, since it's easy to accidentally click it. Still, your buttons look good, so I'll use them if I decide to implement it.

NeoLemmix has had such a button for quite a while now, and I haven't heard a single complaint about people accidentally clicking this. It is possible this isn't because it hasn't happened, but rather because due to it going into replay mode, nothing is lost so it isn't a serious problem. If I remember correctly, Lix has such a button too, and I haven't heard complaints there either.

Quote
Thanks for the technical info. I think I will still implement it as frame deltas, since it seems like it would use less memory.

The memory usage isn't really all that bad. I just fired up the final level of Lemmings Plus V (which if you haven't seen it, is a very large level - slightly more than 3 screens wide x 3 screens tall), in the work-in-progress high resolution mode of NeoLemmix (as SuperLemmini's resolution is the same as NL's high-res mode resolution), and used timeskips to jump to 20 minutes - this would mean about 25 ~ 30 saved states for a huge level in memory. Memory usage was just over 400MB, which is basically nothing these days. This fits with what I expected - I know memory use on such situations to be around 150MB in low-res mode, and the difference is that the visual terrain map (but not the physics map - that's still low-res) has double the resolution, so would take up 4 times as much memory.

I suspect that any device that can't afford to spare 400MB or so of memory, probably also won't have a powerful enough CPU to be running SuperLemmini anyway. (Although maybe that's not true - I don't know how CPU-intensive SuperLemmini is. NeoLemmix would defintely run into performance issues in high-res mode - and probably even in low-res mode - on any device where 400MB comes even close to being a problem.)

Now with that being said, there is one way in which your idea may make things tidier - when relying on saved states, it's a lot harder to make sure every important detail is saved and loaded. With frame deltas, it's probably a bit harder for this to happen.
Title: Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
Post by: WillLem on April 01, 2020, 09:34:30 am
Just to summarise a few feature requests that have recently come up on the main SuperLemmini topic (https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=1793.msg80861#msg80861):


EDIT - It's already been half-confirmed that the following list items may be implemented as a catch-all difficulty toggle, which is great, but I'd still suggest allowing the option to toggle them individually as well:

EDIT - How do we feel about Direct Drop? Could this be brought back as well?
Title: Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
Post by: Proxima on April 01, 2020, 04:14:53 pm
EDIT - How do we feel about Direct Drop? Could this be brought back as well?

I don't have a big stake in this as I don't and probably won't play SuperLemmini myself, but I want to add a word of caution.

It's not clear whether you're asking for a player-side option or a designer-side option, but both ways have their problems. If the player can choose whether direct drop is enabled, then designers can never make levels that rely on it, but still have to protect levels from direct drop backroutes, so you get strictly the worst of both worlds. If the level designer can choose, then the player has to check which mechanics are in play for every level, and will get stuck through getting the mechanics wrong.

This is why, in the debate over direct drop in NL (https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=2251.0), we agreed that we should make a firm decision one way or the other rather than having an option; then we voted over which way that decision should be. In particular, geoo's post on the last page (https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=2251.msg53658#msg53658) sets out clearly why this kind of option is bad. One game, one set of mechanics. (And yes, I know it's on record that I was on the side of having an option at the time, but I have very firmly changed my mind since then.)

The other options you mention are also problematic, because they don't just change how the player interacts with the level but actually create new possibilites for actions the player can take. Untimed bombers allow the player to explode lemmings in the first five seconds after they come out; directional select allows the player to assign to a single left-facing lemming in a right-facing crowd; assign while paused allows the player to assign two skills one frame apart. In short, these are actually game mechanics changes, not just UI options. Sooner or later, the player is going to run into a level that's impossible because they selected the wrong options; and bear in mind that there are more players than just the active forum community and they may not have the recourse of posting to ask for help.
Title: Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
Post by: WillLem on April 01, 2020, 08:31:23 pm
EDIT - How do we feel about Direct Drop? Could this be brought back as well?

It's not clear whether you're asking for a player-side option or a designer-side option... This is why, in the debate over direct drop in NL (https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=2251.0), we agreed that we should make a firm decision one way or the other rather than having an option... One game, one set of mechanics.

Ah yes, perhaps I should have made this clear - I wasn't so much referring to an option, when it comes to Direct Drop. I'm talking about bringing it back as a feature full stop. If implemented, it should of course be in affect at all times.

The other options you mention are also problematic, because they don't just change how the player interacts with the level but actually create new possibilites for actions the player can take... Sooner or later, the player is going to run into a level that's impossible because they selected the wrong options;

OK, fair point. But then... if a player encounters such a level whilst playing a particular pack, they can simply adjust the options accordingly.

If all player-assist tools are enabled by default (and I'd strongly suggest that they be so), then a player would have to consciously go in and change them to increase the game's difficulty: thus, they are likely to be a player who is aware that they could encounter a level which requires the assist tools to be enabled. Or, at the very least, savvy enough to know that if a level demands split-second skill assignments far apart from one another (for example), that they should probably turn the assign-whilst-paused on for that level, or maybe the whole pack.

I understand your caution regarding this, but I ultimately think it's best to offer these options. IIRC, even Windows Lemmings offers direction select as an option, maybe even assign-whilst-paused...

The bottom line under all this is that SuperLemmini seems to be most attractive to those who prefer the mechanics of the original game, or at least appreciate the option to have them there. It makes sense that SL would go in this direction and thus live side by side NeoLemmix in complimentary fashion.
Title: Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
Post by: Proxima on April 01, 2020, 09:47:31 pm
I understand your caution regarding this, but I ultimately think it's best to offer these options. IIRC, even Windows Lemmings offers direction select as an option, maybe even assign-whilst-paused...

I only played that version once and very briefly, but I think it had directional select as a game mechanic, not an option.

Quote
The bottom line under all this is that SuperLemmini seems to be most attractive to those who prefer the mechanics of the original game, or at least appreciate the option to have them there. It makes sense that SL would go in this direction and thus live side by side NeoLemmix in complimentary fashion.

But which original game? There were many versions and they all had different mechanics -- even just talking about control options, some versions allowed RR changes while paused, directional select, fast forward, walker-only select, hotkeys for next skill and previous skill, individual hotkeys for each skill....

I agree that it will be difficult for SL to find a niche at this point. NL is far ahead in terms of offering fine control, and for those who want the experience of playing the original game, they can get that at any time by playing the original game. If SL wants to survive, it will have to offer something unique, and at the moment I'm not sure what that could be.
Title: Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
Post by: WillLem on April 01, 2020, 10:54:51 pm
But which original game? There were many versions and they all had different mechanics

I'd say SuperLemmini has the look and feel of a graphically improved Amiga version. I wouldn't suggest that SL should be completely like the Amiga version, because that doesn't even have a Fast Forward button, and SL is capable of replays which is definitely a good thing. Also - as you've alluded to - if people want the Amiga version they can just use an emulator.

If SL wants to survive, it will have to offer something unique, and at the moment I'm not sure what that could be.

At the moment, I'd say it's fairly unique already: it looks great, it can be played on Mac and its various graphical nods to the Amiga version are pleasing for fans who grew up with that version.

If SL implements the various options I've suggested, plus a level editor, it'll be the only Lemmings clone that can perfectly replicate the experience of playing the game on the Amiga, but with a better graphical interface, the ability to create levels easily, and the option to tailor the playing experience to your desired difficulty level. That alone would more than justify its existence even alongside NeoLemmix.

Furthermore - as someone who enjoys the action-based execution difficulty offered by classic Lemmings, the Amiga emulators I've used have no way to adjust the mouse pointer speed and sensitivity from within a loaded ROM of Lemmings, which is absolutely crucial when playing the game this way. SuperLemmini doesn't have this issue, and so would be a better choice even for a reason that has nothing to do with the engine itself!

To be honest, the more I think about it, the more sure I am that having the choice of either engine depending on whether you want a more action-focused or puzzle-focused playing session will be very welcome, not just for me, but for fans of both classic and modern Lemmings in general.
Title: Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
Post by: ccexplore on April 02, 2020, 12:25:36 am
I'd say SuperLemmini has the look and feel of a graphically improved Amiga version.

If you are aiming for Amiga, note that direct drop does not work on Amiga Lemmings.  The reason it works in DOS Lemmings is almost certainly a bug when you examine what is actually happening in the game's programming.  Genesis Lemmings may be the only other version that it's known to work, most versions I believe don't support direct drop.

If SuperLemmini's current mechanics already has direct drop then fine, keep it so existing levels aren't affected, or maybe we can disable it anyway going forward if few enough existing levels used direct drop to matter.  If it doesn't already have it then I wouldn't entertain adding it.

The idea of forcing players to have to potentially tweak some random settings hidden away in some secondary screen, in order to solve a level, seems decidedly user-unfriendly.  Keep in mind that you don't start off knowing what the level solution is supposed to be.  Therefore to be conservative, the player would have strong incentive to pick the settings that maximize solvability (ie. not the problem of execution, but things like you can literally never explode anyone in first 5 seconds if bombers are timed, so objectively less levels are solvable with timed bombers even if you're god-like in your execution), which would mean untimed bombers, allow directional select, and allow direct drop, for example.

I actually don't feel like directional select is even in the same class as assign-while-paused, framestepping or untimed bombers.  It's also somewhat interesting that Lemmings 2, while still arguably retaining a lot of execution-style gameplay, does offer some form of support for both directional select and assign-while-paused:  at least on some versions you can right-click some lemming to lock the cursor to that lemming, and then the cursor will follow the lemming as it moves and you can then right-click a skill to assign the skill to that same lemming the cursor has locked to.  This is actually in some ways even more powerful than directional select.  As for assign-while-paused, it's available on most versions of Lemmings 2, the only difference is that the game immediately unpauses when you assign the skill.  That may be a decent compromise actually.
Title: Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
Post by: ccexplore on April 02, 2020, 06:26:51 am
(ie. not the problem of execution, but things like you can literally never explode anyone in first 5 seconds if bombers are timed, so objectively less levels are solvable with timed bombers even if you're god-like in your execution)

Maybe a better way is for untimed bombers (when enabled) to not be assignable to a lemming in its first 5 or so seconds after coming out of entrance hatch.  This would remove at least that difference that could affect solvability of level.  It doesn't completely remove it because depending on what other tools are available/enabled for skill assignments, and what other moves the solution requires and how precise they need to be, it may not be possible to assign skill to the lemming 5 seconds ago vs now, and vice versa.  But at least it closes an important gap where untimed bombers allow more opportunities to use them that timed bombers can't.
Title: Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
Post by: WillLem on April 02, 2020, 09:10:18 am
If you are aiming for Amiga, note that direct drop does not work on Amiga Lemmings.

As stated above, I wouldn't necessarily suggest that SL be exactly like the Amiga version, as the latter doesn't have a fast-forward button, or replay capability, or - indeed - direct drop. Besides, we have Amiga emulators for when we want that exact experience. SuperLemmini's strength is in its improvement and enhancement of the Amiga Lemmings experience.

I'd probably put direct drop mechanics forwards as one such potential enhancement: it opens up more possibilities for alternative solutions, and level designers can build levels with that in mind. At the moment, the only way to make it possible in SL is to provide floaters for every lemming, which is not ideal.

If SuperLemmini's current mechanics already has direct drop then fine, keep it so existing levels aren't affected... If it doesn't already have it then I wouldn't entertain adding it.

Why not? We already have NeoLemmix as a clone engine that doesn't include direct drop; why would you be against the possibility of it making an appearance in SuperLemmini?

The idea of forcing players to have to potentially tweak some random settings hidden away in some secondary screen, in order to solve a level, seems decidedly user-unfriendly.

Which is why such options are exactly that - optional. If all player assist tools are enabled by default, then a new SL player doesn't need to tweak any options, and all levels that they play will be possible. Those who do wish to tailor their experience accept the possibility that they may occasionally encounter a level that requires them to change their preferences slightly.

As for assign-while-paused, it's available on most versions of Lemmings 2, the only difference is that the game immediately unpauses when you assign the skill.  That may be a decent compromise actually.

Good shout. This is actually already possible in SuperLemmini - it has an option for "Unpause after assigning skill". I usually have this option enabled as it allows for precise skill assignments but also keeps the game flowing.
Title: Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
Post by: Proxima on April 02, 2020, 02:17:27 pm
I'd probably put direct drop mechanics forwards as one such potential enhancement: it opens up more possibilities for alternative solutions, and level designers can build levels with that in mind. At the moment, the only way to make it possible in SL is to provide floaters for every lemming, which is not ideal.

I respect that you have valid reasons for preferring direct drop, but bearing in mind that -- as you've said -- it should not be an option but enabled always if at all, you are very unlikely to get much community support for this move, considering how emphatic was the community support for removing it when it came to decision time in NeoLemmix.

Quote
Why not? We already have NeoLemmix as a clone engine that doesn't include direct drop; why would you be against the possibility of it making an appearance in SuperLemmini?

I take the point about it being a separate engine. But if SL is to thrive in a market already dominated by NL, it will have to attract some of the NL community, which has very firmly decided against direct drop. (That said, not everyone voted against it; and it was a couple of years ago and people have come and gone since then. I'm not trying to speak for the community, just giving an explanation based on my impression of what was said during the original discussion.)

As for why it's disliked: the possibilities opened to the designer are relatively small (you can add small mid-air terrain blocks if you want a drop to be survivable only at a precise point) but the possibility is always there for the player to exploit it in unintended ways. It's an unintuitive mechanic that would confuse new players (remember that not everyone grew up with a version of Lemmings where DD is possible; in fact it's possible on only a few versions) and lead to them getting stuck. It doesn't make physical sense that a fall could be survivable only if there's an exit at the bottom.
Title: Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
Post by: WillLem on April 02, 2020, 02:26:50 pm
I appreciate everything you're saying, and ultimately it will of course come down to community consensus and/or Tsyu's own preferences and whether or not he wants to implement it; I'm simply requesting the feature at this stage because I would like to see direct drop implemented as an officially intended game mechanic.

To address this point:

It doesn't make physical sense that a fall could be survivable only if there's an exit at the bottom.

I disagree: if you watch direct drop carefully, you can see that the lems never actually touch the floor. Instead, the exit's trigger gathers them up in midair and carries them safely through the exit door. The exit trigger is more like a portal or force field in that sense.
Title: Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
Post by: Proxima on April 02, 2020, 02:31:40 pm
And most exits look like a very mundane doorway, not a portal.
Title: Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
Post by: ccexplore on April 02, 2020, 03:24:22 pm
Which is why such options are exactly that - optional. If all player assist tools are enabled by default, then a new SL player doesn't need to tweak any options, and all levels that they play will be possible. Those who do wish to tailor their experience accept the possibility that they may occasionally encounter a level that requires them to change their preferences slightly.

Hmm ok, that was not clear to me, I was getting the impression you were suggesting to make the assist tools not enabled by default so that the default is closer to the original game.  As long as the defaults maximize solvability, then like you said, players that are unaware of the options will still be able to solve all levels that can be solved.

I disagree: if you watch direct drop carefully, you can see that the lems never actually touch the floor. Instead, the exit's trigger gathers them up in midair and carries them safely through the exit door. The exit trigger is more like a portal or force field in that sense.

That's not how the animation in the game looks like to me.  I see the lemming turning itself 90 degrees facing the exit, and then jumping into the exit, motions which imply the lemming is standing on ground.  I do not see the lemming getting involuntarily pulled or sucked into the exit like you are suggesting.  I don't see it as a kind of portal or teleport at all from the animation.  Lemmings 2's various different tribe animation makes the point even more clear, you see lemmings doing a bow or stumbling drunk during their exit, motions which don't make sense in mid-air.

Also, when you test it out in all the various versions of Lemmings 1 and ONML etc. (regardless of whether they support direct drop or not) by removing all the ground under the exit so that the exit sits in mid-air, you'll see that lemmings will then fall or float through the exit without exiting.  Seeing that, I don't think the game can be any more clear that the lemming needs ground to be able to exit, which kind of contradicts an intepretation of the exit being a portal or similar that can directly suck the lemming out of the level before they hit ground.

Why not? We already have NeoLemmix as a clone engine that doesn't include direct drop; why would you be against the possibility of it making an appearance in SuperLemmini?

Well, you can make that argument for any random behavior that isn't in the game or isn't in NeoLemmix.  DOS Lemmings has the nuke glitch where if you nuke before all lemmings have come out, it calculates the percent save based only on the lemmings that have come out so far, so on an 80-lemming level if you manage to nuke after just 1 comes out and that lemming makes it to the exit before exploding, the game thinks you got 100% saved.  Gee, let's make that happen in SuperLemmini too, even though this glitch doesn't even occur in almost any other ports.

While I'm not strongly against direct drop, this also isn't something that ever feels like a core part of the Lemmings playing experience for most people.  Many versions of the game don't even support it.  And even for the versions like DOS that does, I bet most players aren't even aware it's possible.  No levels in the official games require it, and even when you look into challenge solutions, very few levels use it.  There's also a good chance that sooner or later, you or someone will have to deal with direct-drop introducing backroutes in levels being created.

Given all that, I'd much rather have it made possible in a different way that is also a lot more clear.  For example, you can imagine introducing NeoLemmix-like antisplat fields or objects into SuperLemmini, and then a direct-droppable exit can simply be created by having the hitbox of the exit overlaps with the field, so that it explicitly immunizes the lemmings from splatting.  Players will learn it as a side effect of learning about the new anti-splat element rather than basing on their previous experiences about exit behavior in the original games they played, and level designers can have much better control over when exits can or cannot be direct-dropped into.
Title: Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
Post by: WillLem on April 02, 2020, 06:13:41 pm
And most exits look like a very mundane doorway, not a portal.

Portals can be disguised as mundane doorways: that's part of their mystique. ;)

by removing all the ground under the exit so that the exit sits in mid-air, you'll see that lemmings will then fall or float through the exit without exiting.  Seeing that, I don't think the game can be any more clear that the lemming needs ground to be able to exit

Hmm. The more I think about it, maybe if it would be very unlike how the game was originally intended, then for that reason it shouldn't be included, particularly in SuperLemmini.

DOS Lemmings has the nuke glitch where if you nuke before all lemmings have come out, it calculates the percent save based only on the lemmings that have come out so far... Gee, let's make that happen in SuperLemmini too, even though this glitch doesn't even occur in almost any other ports.

Haha OK, point made.

While I'm not strongly against direct drop, this also isn't something that ever feels like a core part of the Lemmings playing experience for most people... There's also a good chance that sooner or later, you or someone will have to deal with direct-drop introducing backroutes in levels being created.

OK, this seems like a good reason. However, is direct drop allowing backroutes that big a problem? i.e. more so than any other game mechanic allowing backroutes?

Given all that, I'd much rather have it made possible in a different way that is also a lot more clear.  For example, you can imagine introducing NeoLemmix-like antisplat fields or objects into SuperLemmini... Players will learn it as a side effect of learning about the new anti-splat element... and level designers can have much better control over when exits can or cannot be direct-dropped into.

To be honest, I agree with you on this. Given the reasoning you've put forward, this probably would be a better way to implement it. However, it would involve including elements that weren't part of the original game, which I feel would take some of the edge off what SL is currently about. Then again, direct drop itself would also do this if it was never actually intended as a mechanic in the first place.

I'm beginning to feel convinced that it doesn't belong in SuperLemmini any more than NeoLemmix. However, I would like to know why people are against it as an idea. Like... let's say it was something new that was being suggested as a game mechanic: what would your reasons be for not implementing it? Or - do you like the idea of direct drop? Discuss!
Title: Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
Post by: namida on April 02, 2020, 06:32:10 pm
Quote
(remember that not everyone grew up with a version of Lemmings where DD is possible; in fact it's possible on only a few versions)

And even those who did may not have been aware of it. I grew up mostly playing the DOS version, but I had no idea direct drop was a thing until much later on - even though I did discover several other glitches (such as steel glitches, although I didn't understand exactly how they worked).

Quote
However, I would like to know why people are against it as an idea. Like... let's say it was something new that was being suggested as a game mechanic: what would your reasons be for not implementing it? Or - do you like the idea of direct drop? Discuss!

If it hadn't been present at some point as a glitch, I very much doubt it would have ever come up for discussion full stop, unless it was specifically in the context of "what unexpected features can we put in that the player has to discover for themself, rather than figuring out logically?"

Think about it this way: Pretend no existing version of lemmings has / had direct drop. What might cause you to even think of it as a possible change in the first place, let alone to then think it's a worthwhile and logical feature? All arguments for direct drop seem to come from "some versions of the game already have it" and being used to that (aside from those which come from "I want to make levels that use it to obscure the solution", which is an argument that you already know few if any people here will even give consideration to). It's a behaviour resulting from glitches, not one that could possibly result from any (non-trollish) intentional implementation - other than one that's implemented solely "to replicate what another engine already does", which would be inaccurate in SL's case given that it cites Amiga as its primary influence. Lemmix is a case that indeed should (and does) have it - because Lemmix's entire goal is to accurately reproduce the DOS game, glitches and all.
Title: Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
Post by: WillLem on April 02, 2020, 09:25:40 pm
And even those who did may not have been aware of it. I grew up mostly playing the DOS version, but I had no idea direct drop was a thing until much later on - even though I did discover several other glitches (such as steel glitches, although I didn't understand exactly how they worked).

Thinking about it, I think my experience of DD came from WinLemm... it certainly won't have come from the Amiga, and I've only ever extensively played Lemmings on either Amiga or Windows (before discovering SL and NL, that is).

Pretend no existing version of lemmings has / had direct drop. What might cause you to even think of it as a possible change in the first place, let alone to then think it's a worthwhile and logical feature?

I think I discovered it from thinking "I wonder if I can drop them straight into the exit". I wish I could remember which level it was or how I discovered it.

It might even have been Feel The Heat - since that essentially is a DD solution, albeit at a safe falling distance. I think I then tried it elsewhere (where the falling distance wasn't safe), and it worked. It was a bit of a Jack Sparrow moment, I guess. ;P

It seems entirely logical to me, because the lemming is falling onto the trigger point. But then... my logic probably isn't anything to base the physical mechanics of a video game on. :crylaugh: :forehead: I can make cute looking characters and cool music though! That's where my thinking is best applied, it would seem.

EDIT: So, it turns out that Direct Drop is possible in WinLemm (https://youtu.be/V20NCuMzeRY)...! This is almost certainly how I discovered it; I wonder whether it was intended.

EDIT 2: This video (https://youtu.be/lKuFZhaliGI) perhaps shows WinLemm's Direct Drop mechanism a little bit better - I've set it up so that it's clearly an unsurvivable drop.

EDIT 3: I've made a level that's fun to play in NL, but in the context of an engine with DD and timed bombers, this would be a really decent challenge. It's called Direct Pop, see attached.
Title: Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
Post by: ccexplore on April 02, 2020, 10:05:23 pm
However, I would like to know why people are against it as an idea. Like... let's say it was something new that was being suggested as a game mechanic: what would your reasons be for not implementing it? Or - do you like the idea of direct drop? Discuss!

If we were creating the game from scratch and intend for this mechanic, I would make it much clearer to the players that it is possible as early as appropriate, and make sure all the detailed design of mechanics and animations etc. are consistent with this mechanic.  And probably make it happen a little more often in the levels so that it's more a core part of the gameplay.  So:

1) Exits in mid-air without any ground can still make lemmings exit.

2) The exit animation would be aware of whether the lemming was on ground vs in mid-air when exit is reached.  If desired, we can still retain the more fancy ground-based exit animations for the ground case, while the mid-air case features a different exit animation that is perhaps more teleporting-like.  This is not unlike how exploders do an "oh no" shrug on ground but skip that while in mid-air.

3) Make sure exit hitboxes extend sufficiently above ground level so that a falling lemming doesn't touch the ground when exiting from a fall.

4) Feature an early level where the exit is mid-air, and the level is constrained enough that the only reasonable solution is to create a path to drop falling lemmings into the exit (as oppose to say, building up to the exit's hitbox).

There are still some edge cases not addressed above, like what happens if the exit is buried enough that the lemming touches ground at the exact same moment it reaches the edge of the exit's hitbox, or what happens if the exit hitbox overlaps with a trap's hitbox.  In other words, multiple different, conflicting effects happening to the lemming at the exact same moment.  You could choose to either give priority to exiting so that the lemming doesn't splat or gets killed, or to give priority to the other effects so the lemming cannot successfully exit.  Either way, ideally maybe introduce a later level that teaches what happens here, although if there are enough other levels to make dropping into the exit relatively common, you could perhaps consider instead leaving it to the players to explore and discover the edge cases on their own.
Title: Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
Post by: Dullstar on April 03, 2020, 04:31:47 am
Within the current framework of Lemmings and the various engines:

Direct drop is bad, full stop. There is no reason to have an engine that supports it. Direct drop is a source of backroutes in well-designed levels and its puzzle potential is limited to misleading levels, because there is no reason for a player unaware of direct drop's existence to even think of trying it.

In any well designed level in any well designed game, the player loses because they messed up, not because the the game took something that should have worked and declared it doesn't work, or because the game expects the player to try something that absolutely should not work (which can lead the player to not bother trying it). Direct drop violates this principle and belongs in the dustbin. Acceptable misdirection is something like a red herring; not something like unexpected details of game mechanics that you'd probably never realize existed unless someone specifically told you they were there, or a level was specifically designed such that trying it would be the only possible move.
 
To make it not bad, you'd need to do as ccexplore says to design an exit from the ground up that establishes fallers are allowed to exit. The current engines give zero reason to believe this is possible.

SuperLemmini already suffers from competition from NeoLemmix and Lix. If SuperLemmini is to survive, it will need to provide a reason to choose it over NeoLemmix or Lix, and it needs to do this through worthwhile features, not through the introduction of features that were rejected from NeoLemmix and Lix due to being bad design.
Title: Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
Post by: WillLem on April 03, 2020, 12:43:13 pm
If we were creating the game from scratch and intend for this mechanic, I would make it much clearer to the players that it is possible as early as appropriate, and make sure all the detailed design of mechanics and animations etc. are consistent with this mechanic.  And probably make it happen a little more often in the levels so that it's more a core part of the gameplay.

This is a great idea, and I like the various steps you've outlined that could introduce direct drop as a valid game mechanic. This would definitely be a good way to do it. I'd probably add to that the designing of levels that show that it's also possible with an exit on terrain, not just in midair.

Regarding the animation: watch this clip (https://youtu.be/lKuFZhaliGI) of direct drop in WinLemm (most likely the platform where I discovered it was possible - through trying it out, I hasten to add). To me, this looks like they're bouncing in midair - they never actually touch the floor. Thoughts?

Direct drop is a source of backroutes in well-designed levels and its puzzle potential is limited to misleading levels, because there is no reason for a player unaware of direct drop's existence to even think of trying it.

See this post (https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=4488), above. The only reason I'm even aware of direct drop as a game mechanic is exactly that: I tried it out, and it worked!

Acceptable misdirection is something like a red herring; not something like unexpected details of game mechanics that you'd probably never realize existed unless someone specifically told you they were there, or a level was specifically designed such that trying it would be the only possible move.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. The very definition of a tutorial level is one that only offers one possible solution, and makes it very obvious (take any of the first 7 Fun levels as examples), thus teaching the player a particular skill application or game mechanic. By their very presence, they render any such game mechanics no longer misleading/unknown. You seem to be saying "don't have direct drop, because then you'll have to have a direct drop tutorial level." Well, yes, but surely that's acceptable.

SuperLemmini already suffers from competition from NeoLemmix and Lix. If SuperLemmini is to survive, it will need to provide a reason to choose it over NeoLemmix or Lix, and it needs to do this through worthwhile features, not through the introduction of features that were rejected from NeoLemmix and Lix due to being bad design.

I think that SuperLemmini's best chance of survival is to be different from those platforms, not more of the same. And features that some people consider to be "bad design" are preferred and sought out by others, so I'd say that looking at the possibility of implementing such features is a great place for SuperLemmini to start in its quest to stand out as a worthwhile alternative option.

As a better example of this than direct drop (because unfortunately direct drop was originally a glitch, so its detractors always have that to conveniently refer to when dismissing it), the re-implementation of timed bombers would be a very welcome feature for many players, myself included. Some consider it to be "bad design", others consider it to be a hallmark feature of the original game.

And furthermore, if SuperLemmini makes these things optional rather than forcing players to adopt a particular philosophy, then it becomes an even more attractive option to yet more players.
Title: Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
Post by: ccexplore on April 04, 2020, 10:36:19 am
Regarding the animation: watch this clip (https://youtu.be/lKuFZhaliGI) of direct drop in WinLemm (most likely the platform where I discovered it was possible - through trying it out, I hasten to add). To me, this looks like they're bouncing in midair - they never actually touch the floor. Thoughts?

Based on the video, it looks like WinLemm's version of direct drop is different, and so maybe in WinLemm the lemmings can even exit with the exit completely in mid-air, unlike other versions like DOS where the lemming still has to land but then exits instead of splatting (or if you can see the DOS game's programming, it is first turning the lemming first to splatting and then later to exiting, all before updating the display so you only see the exiting).

I'd love for you to test what happens with the mid-air exit in WinLemm.  Based on the video, it does look like WinLemm can suck falling/floating lemmings in mid-air, unlike most other versions out there.

It still doesn't change the fact that the game never made it any remotely a core part of the experience.  The fact that it never worked on so many other versions, including Amiga being one of the original versions, also shows that it wasn't something DMA intended.  Lemmings 2 also adds emphasize to the land being core to exiting by adding so many tribe-specific elaborate exit animations that only makes sense on land.

Direct drop is a source of backroutes in well-designed levels and its puzzle potential is limited to misleading levels, because there is no reason for a player unaware of direct drop's existence to even think of trying it.

See this post (https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=4488), above. The only reason I'm even aware of direct drop as a game mechanic is exactly that: I tried it out, and it worked!

That's also how most glitches are discovered.  Often even by accident as the player was doing something unrelated but managed to luck into some combination of circumstances and moves that were sufficient to trigger the glitch.  "Someone has discovered it" is by itself not a good argument for making something part of the game.

And in the case of direct drop, it's not even true--the people who only played the versions of Lemmings that do not support direct drop, would actually have come to the opposite conclusion had they tried out what you tried out.

And furthermore, if SuperLemmini makes these things optional rather than forcing players to adopt a particular philosophy, then it becomes an even more attractive option to yet more players.

You are oversimplifying the situation.  For what you are proposing to work out, SuperLemmini still needs to have enough levels that cater to the people firmly on the NeoLemmix philosophy.   If instead most levels are just about, say, timed bombers, without other redeeming qualities for example, then making them untimed just leaves boring levels.  In other words, you want to encourage levels that include things which are a positive for fans like WillLem but strong negative for the NeoLemmix fans.  Allow play assist tools like making bombers untimed, merely turn the negatives in the level into zeros, it doesn't automatically turn them into positives.  The net sum of the level's worth/enjoyment is still lower for the NeoLemmix fans compared to the WillLem fans.  And if the levels tend to lean heavily towards the anti-NeoLemmix stuff, then that resulting lower sum of enjoyment might just be too low for NeoLemmix fans.

Another thing to look at is how NeoLemmix and Lix fared.  In this case, both actually align a lot on most of the philosophies.  You don't end up with equal usage of both.

It's fine that you want SuperLemmini to go in a different direction than NeoLemmix, but it's naive to think that merely having settings to add back the play assist tools would suddenly make SuperLemmini also attractive to NeoLemmix fans.  It's going to be mainly down to the levels, and we know at least some of the levels will not be appealing to NeoLemmix fans, which doesn't exactly encourage them to commit very deeply to using SuperLemmini.  There's also the fact that NeoLemmix now has a greater variety of skills and elements, which may well be a turn-off for some, but it can also add more impediment for people creating SuperLemmini levels if some designs can only be implemented in NeoLemmix.  (Well, there's also the ridiculous fact that SuperLemmini still doesn't even have its own level editor, but let's forget that point and assume it will soon have one, for sake of its long-term survival.)

Realistically, if you want to use SuperLemmini to promote the stuff that turns off NeoLemmix fans, the outcome is that SuperLemmini will attract a different set of people than NeoLemmix.  I think that's fine.  It's good to have variety and just like Lix nowadays serves the niche of multiplayer, it's sensible to have SuperLemmini serves those who desire some of the gameplay aspects that NeoLemmix had moved away from.  Regardless, the people who are currently very happy with NeoLemmix will likely stay with NeoLemmix given that it is more familiar, supports more skills/elements, and the things you suggested so far to add to SuperLemmini are at best don't-cares and at worst turn-offs for them.
Title: Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
Post by: WillLem on April 04, 2020, 09:02:51 pm
I'd love for you to test what happens with the mid-air exit in WinLemm.  Based on the video, it does look like WinLemm can suck falling/floating lemmings in mid-air, unlike most other versions out there.

It is indeed possible to DD into a mid-air exit in WinLemm (https://youtu.be/KBbiavemiSQ)!

The fact that it never worked on so many other versions, including Amiga being one of the original versions, also shows that it wasn't something DMA intended.

Yes, and to be fair, this would be the only reason I wouldn't implement it in SuperLemmini, i.e. if the decision is to keep it strictly original-game-mechanics-only. That said, if Tsyu and others like the idea of making it an official feature of SuperLemmini, I'm still right behind it.

That's also how most glitches are discovered... "Someone has discovered it" is by itself not a good argument for making something part of the game.

Perhaps not, but my point here is that Dullstar was saying that "there is no reason for a player unaware of direct drop's existence to even think of trying it", and the only reason I even know that it exists anywhere as a game mechanic is because I thought of trying it. I accept that this isn't a reason to implement it, but it proves that a player might try something they are "unaware of" and thus discover its existence.

And in the case of direct drop... the people who only played the versions of Lemmings that do not support direct drop, would actually have come to the opposite conclusion had they tried out what you tried out.

Again, fair point. However, the possibility still remains to introduce such a mechanic: after all, there are ways to inform players of its existence (as you've already elaborated).

And if the levels tend to lean heavily towards the anti-NeoLemmix stuff, then that resulting lower sum of enjoyment might just be too low for NeoLemmix fans... It's fine that you want SuperLemmini to go in a different direction than NeoLemmix, but it's naive to think that merely having settings to add back the play assist tools would suddenly make SuperLemmini also attractive to NeoLemmix fans.

I'm not suggesting the presence of player-assist tools in SuperLemmini be solely for the benefit of NeoLemmixers. Indeed, I myself would likely enable them if I'm playing a custom pack, and I'm sure other players would benefit from them being there as well. The difference is that the tools would be optional. And yes - I know that it's possible to set up NeoLemmix such that there are no Hotkeys for framestepping, and you can choose not to assign skills whilst paused or use CPM, etc. but even I think that's kind of defeating the purpose of NeoLemmix as a platform. :crylaugh:

Ideally, I would prefer SuperLemmini to promote general inclusion: so, there'd be no reason a relatively even-minded player who may prefer NeoLemmix couldn't also play and enjoy a pack of levels in SuperLemmini occasionally. If it happens to allow the presence of features that the more strict NeoLemmixers don't like, so be it.

I for one will continue to use both platforms, hence why I'm suggesting that they remain different from each other. I'll help to boost the presence of SuperLemmini on the forum as much as I can, especially if Tsyu makes the developments that have already been half-confirmed (level editor, player-assist/difficulty options, etc). Something like direct drop is a feature which may be a welcome bonus, but I'd really like to hear from other SL users as to whether or not they'd also like to see it before I go any further with trying to get it implemented.

Please note:

In your above post, you quoted Dullstar as saying:

Quote
And furthermore, if SuperLemmini makes these things optional rather than forcing players to adopt a particular philosophy, then it becomes an even more attractive option to yet more players.

However, it was actually me that said this. Also...

The net sum of the level's worth/enjoyment is still lower for the NeoLemmix fans compared to the WillLem fans.

WillLem fans? Did you mean WinLemm? :lemcat:
Title: Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
Post by: namida on April 04, 2020, 09:20:38 pm
Quote
Ideally, I would prefer SuperLemmini to promote general inclusion: so, there'd be no reason a relatively even-minded player who may prefer NeoLemmix couldn't also play and enjoy a pack of levels in SuperLemmini occasionally

Jacks of all trades are generally masters of none. This would result in an engine not ideal for anyone, in a landscape where most preferences do already have an ideal engine.
Title: Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
Post by: WillLem on April 04, 2020, 10:07:02 pm
Jacks of all trades are generally masters of none. This would result in an engine not ideal for anyone, in a landscape where most preferences do already have an ideal engine.

OK, well then in that case I'd probably stand more firmly on the side of SuperLemmini being a genuine alternative to NeoLemmix, Lix, WinLemm and simply playing the original game on an emulator.

I feel a spreadsheet coming on... :crylaugh:
Title: Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
Post by: ccexplore on April 05, 2020, 06:50:39 am
Ideally, I would prefer SuperLemmini to promote general inclusion: so, there'd be no reason a relatively even-minded player who may prefer NeoLemmix couldn't also play and enjoy a pack of levels in SuperLemmini occasionally. If it happens to allow the presence of features that the more strict NeoLemmixers don't like, so be it.

That could happen from time to time just like I'm sure people play levels in Lix every now and then.  You could call that inclusion if you want.  Then again, you too are playing NeoLemmix levels right now, so there'd just be equally no reason for someone who prefer SuperLemmini (or more precisely, what you want it to evolve to) to not also play some levels in NeoLemmix from time to time.

Ultimately there is no argument against "inclusivity" per se; certainly it'd be helpful to have player-assist tools as an option, so that people like NeoLemmix fans who consider that essential would have at least one less disincentive in playing SuperLemmini levels.  I'm just pointing out that it's ultimately the levels above all that attract people to a particular game, and it sounds like SuperLemmini may end up with many new levels of the kind that wouldn't hold strong interest for the NeoLemmix fans.  The "inclusiveness" of having player-assist tool options is a fine idea but isn't going to make a difference there.

It also doesn't help that SuperLemmini has been a little behind in both levels and features.  If NeoLemmix were currently much closer to SuperLemmini's current state of affairs, then improving SuperLemmini even modestly could've made SuperLemmini more attractive to use even for the more puzzle-oriented people, and then having more "inclusive" options would be much more meaningful indeed.

In your above post, you quoted Dullstar as saying:

Quote
And furthermore, if SuperLemmini makes these things optional rather than forcing players to adopt a particular philosophy, then it becomes an even more attractive option to yet more players.

However, it was actually me that said this. Also...

Thanks, copy-paste error corrected.

WillLem fans? Did you mean WinLemm? :lemcat:

Nope.  I didn't know what to call it.  It would be some game engine that might be SuperLemmini in the future but isn't quite there currently.  But you seem to be the most passionate proponent so I just stick your name to it. ;)  Yes, I'm aware a normal reading of the English would instead actually mean "fan of the person". :-\
Title: Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
Post by: Tsyu on June 13, 2020, 05:48:54 am
Just so you guys know, SuperLemmini does not and will never support direct drop. (And if I somehow do add it by accident, I will remove it.)

Maybe a better way is for untimed bombers (when enabled) to not be assignable to a lemming in its first 5 or so seconds after coming out of entrance hatch.  This would remove at least that difference that could affect solvability of level.  It doesn't completely remove it because depending on what other tools are available/enabled for skill assignments, and what other moves the solution requires and how precise they need to be, it may not be possible to assign skill to the lemming 5 seconds ago vs now, and vice versa.  But at least it closes an important gap where untimed bombers allow more opportunities to use them that timed bombers can't.
You do have a point there. I could make it so that if a lemming is assigned the bomber skill during the first approximately 5 seconds of spawning, it won't start exploding immediately but instead get a shorter timer first based on the lemming's "age." Then again, this might irritate players who aren't expecting the timer (because it never appeared before, except when nuking). What do you think?
Title: Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
Post by: WillLem on June 13, 2020, 02:20:51 pm
Just so you guys know, SuperLemmini does not and will never support direct drop. (And if I somehow do add it by accident, I will remove it.)

Fair enough. I'm guessing this is due to it not being an official game mechanic?

Maybe a better way is for untimed bombers (when enabled) to not be assignable to a lemming in its first 5 or so seconds after coming out of entrance hatch.
You do have a point there. I could make it so that if a lemming is assigned the bomber skill during the first approximately 5 seconds of spawning, it won't start exploding immediately but instead get a shorter timer first based on the lemming's "age." Then again, this might irritate players who aren't expecting the timer (because it never appeared before, except when nuking). What do you think?

I think the simplest and best way around this would be for bombers to always be timed (with a full 5-second timer) for the first 5 seconds of any level, regardless of the chosen option. So - if someone has enabled untimed bombers, the bombers will still be timed for the first 5 seconds, and will then be untimed thereafter.

That way, level creators never need to worry about using bombers straight from a hatch because it essentially won't be possible, and it makes bomber behaviour more predictable for all players.

Great to hear from you again Tsyu. :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
Post by: ericderkovits on June 13, 2020, 02:58:41 pm
yes. great to hear from him!
Title: Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
Post by: ericderkovits on September 25, 2020, 05:19:26 am
Yes I would like to see backward framestepping as well as neolemmix has it. Not only Me and Willlem either. Also Ichotolot would like it I'm sure.

Having to replay a level from the start is very annoying when you make one tiny mistake. Especially in large levels. I know Icho get's frustrated at this replaying from the start when a mistake occurs, because I've seen him on his youtube channel get frustrated over this too.

Of course I would like to see these climber issues resolved, because climbers always get by one pixel terrain pieces, including crosses and wells. also climbers getting past 3 builder walls two it shouldn't have to take 4 to stop a climber getting past a builder wall. Then off course the external replay items where one can't always pass on replays when it's an external level. once in a while
I even can't see my own replay with an external level.