Lemmings Forums
NeoLemmix => Bugs & Suggestions => Closed => Topic started by: Strato Incendus on March 20, 2021, 08:13:30 AM
-
(Edit by namida: Topic split from [BUG][PLAYER] Using shimmier/jumper to let a normal lemming enter a midair exit. (https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=5492.0))
Shimmying into the exit should definitely be allowed, though, just like swimming into the exit ;) .
So the prevention of exiting needs to be specific to the Reacher state.
-
I feel like we need to do a much better job making a clean, easy-to-understand rule as to what states should and should not be allowed to exit. Right now, I really do feel like it's largely, "Some of them can and some of them can't, but there isn't really that much consistent logic between them so you just have to memorize them."
And I think breaking some existing levels to do this is totally okay. I don't think we should maintain unintuitive behaviors simply because someone's managed to create a level that uses them.
-
Gliders and Floaters can both exit, that is consistent and predictable and shouldn't be changed.
The Shimmier is very similar to the Swimmer in many regards, e.g. in terms of which skills you can and can't assign to it. Swimmers can exit if the exit is in the water, so Shimmiers should be able to enter an exit that is dangling under the ceiling.
Skills that allow movement as that skill for an extended period of time - Climber, Floater, Glider, Swimmer, Shimmier - are all able to exit and should be, because it's just a different form of regular movement, like the Walker.
That leaves short and temporary states like the Jumper and Reacher, neither of which should therefore be able to exit, in my view. ;) They belong in the same category as regular Fallers, I think, which aren't able to exit either.
-
Jumpers and reachers are Lemmings in mid air. No Lemming should be able to enter the exit in mid air with the exception of gliders and floaters. Period.
The Shimmier is very similar to the Swimmer in many regards
Totally disagree here: Swimmers are a completely different state - They are not in mid air. Yes shimmiers still have a ceiling above, but their feet are in mid air. Skills you can assign/not assign to them is not a good comparison.
I would tend towards shimmiers should not be able to exit as a result.
The mid air point is the critical thing in this matter.
In any case: Strongly advice towards a fix from my side - reachers and jumpers should not be able to exit.
-
I like Dullstar's push for rules that allow to infer such details from some general rules.
I feel that these rules will be very hard to make, even if we disregard any existing culture. I believe this difficulty is natural to Lemmings-likes, i.e., it's neither the fault of the cornucopia of skills, and neither the fault of never having thought about this from first principles either.
Possible obstructions to clear rules:
- Blocker can exit, even though it can't be assigned builder.
- Climber, can it exit? Has floor underneath (and really is inside the floor), can be assigned jumper, cannot be assigned builder. Climber may be assigned jumper, I deem this surprising to this day.
- Should all three of climber/slider/shimmier be treated the same w.r.t. exiting?
- Hoister/antihoister/dangler should probably be like climber/slider.
- Ohnoer can exit, even though it doesn't sit on anything and can be assigned nothing at all. Can ohnoer exit midair?
- Splatter cannot exit, even though ohnoer can.
- Swimmer can exit. Can drowner exit? How similar is drowner to swimmer? How similar is drowner to splatter? How similar is drowner to ohnoer?
Lovely thread. I am looking forward to serious hardcore popcorn.
For the record, I deem it an inconsistency that floaters/gliders can exit, but fallers cannot.
-- Simon
-
Fallers used to be able to exit, as far as I recall, but it was scrapped many years ago. So before we change that back again, we should probably look at the reasons again that were mentioned for culling it back then. ;)
-
Ohnoer can exit, even though it doesn't sit on anything and can be assigned nothing at all. Can ohnoer exit midair?
No, it can only exit after it landed on terrain.
Splatter cannot exit, even though ohnoer can.
A splatter is already dead. An ohnoer is still alive.
For the record, I deem it an inconsistency that floaters/gliders can exit, but fallers cannot.
It was discussed back then. I found it weird as well. But ultimately it was decided that they should be able to exit.
I still would say that all previous discussions and decisions should stand and the focus should lie on the jumper/reacher bug.
-
The discussion that resulted in removing direct drop (= fallers can exit). (https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=2251.0)
A summary:
* Direct drop was always enabled in early NL, by deliberate decision, rather than being a bug as it was in original Lemmings. In particular, namida's sky tileset was designed around the mechanic, with an exit that was intended to be placed in midair.
* In early NL, each pack was a separate executable rather than being run by a centralised engine. At some point, the option was added for pack authors to disable direct drop, after this was specially requested by some pack authors.
* When NL became more centralised, we had the above discussion on whether direct drop should be enabled or not; it was considered making it an option, but due to the desire for a single set of mechanics, this was taken off the table.
* Both the discussion and the voting showed an overall strong preference against direct drop.
* Namida, who was at the time strongly in favour of keeping direct drop (I believe he has since changed his position) insisted on keeping "floaters/gliders can exit" without any voting, even though the discussion showed that many of us preferred that this should also be scrapped.
-
It would be a pretty large breaking change, but I think the inconsistencies introduced by the floater/glider cases and oh noers are very weird (certainly, the sort of thing I was alluding to when I said "Some of them can and some of them can't, but there isn't really that much consistent logic between them so you just have to memorize them") and are worth reconsidering.
If I had to propose a specific rule, I would say that the exit should be usable by walkers and any state that can be cancelled by assigning a walker, and unusable by all others.
-
It would be a pretty large breaking change, but I think the inconsistencies introduced by the floater/glider cases and oh noers are very weird (certainly, the sort of thing I was alluding to when I said "Some of them can and some of them can't, but there isn't really that much consistent logic between them so you just have to memorize them") and are worth reconsidering.
If I had to propose a specific rule, I would say that the exit should be usable by walkers and any state that can be cancelled by assigning a walker, and unusable by all others.
Sorry, but I would be totally against that. The time for large game breaking changes was back when we transitioned to the new formats and I highly advice against another large stumbling block for content creators if is not 100% nessesary.
The only cases I find mildly weird would be gliders/floaters while the oh-noer case seems very natural to me. At this point I think it's way too late to change up the whole ruleset again and I already have quite a lot of levels that will break as a result in mind - an example would be that EVERY nuke-level would break. I won't destroy the content for this.
I also don't find the current ruleset very inconsistent to begin with.
On top of that the "any state that can be cancelled by assigning a walker" rule seems also very arbitary to me and not an improvement over the current situation.
Yes, feelings towards certain behaviors may change over time, but changing up the physics of established behaviors every now and then just results in instability, uncertainty and broken content and all that just for a potentional minor consistancy increase.
I rather have stable content than a POTENTIAL for a minor consistency increase for exiters.
Still, the reacher/jumper bug needs to be fixed.
-
For the record, I am very strongly in favour of keeping the behaviour that reachers and jumpers can exit.
Reasoning: a jumper/reacher is a lemming in an active rather than passive state. At the moment, fallers and splatters cannot exit (both are passive states), which prevents direct drop. Conversely, jumping into an exit feels like a perfectly acceptable and expectable game mechanic rather than a bug.
Keeping rules simple is important, sure, but if floaters and gliders can exit in midair, then jumpers and reachers should be able to as well. To my mind, this is keeping things simple.
It seems to me that this is one of those things that largely comes down to "what do users prefer" rather than it being an actual problem with the game. If one user makes a level which requires jumpers to be able to exit, and another user makes a level for which jumpers exiting would be a backroute, then it's just one user's preference against the other.
In response to comments:
For the record, I deem it an inconsistency that floaters/gliders can exit, but fallers cannot.
I want to agree because I like the direct drop mechanic, but - as stated above, I would deem floater/glider to be an active lemming state, and faller to be a passive lemming state.
A splatter is already dead. An ohnoer is still alive.
So is a jumper/reacher. Why should ohnoer be able to exit and not jumper/reacher?
If I had to propose a specific rule, I would say that the exit should be usable by walkers and any state that can be cancelled by assigning a walker, and unusable by all others.
Strongly against this idea.
If you want a simple rule: any lemming which reaches an exit's trigger area by any means should be able to exit. That's simple enough, and yet it has been rejected in favour of a more complex setup. Simplicity/specificity, therefore, isn't necessarily a good argument towards any behaviour being acceptable.
Side note: fallers can interact with traps. Everyone accepts this, so why not accept fallers being able to exit?
My point here is that, again, it comes down to preference and/or whether a solid argument can be made in favour of such behaviour. There is no "rule".
(https://i.imgur.com/GuCuLiS.png?1)
-
Side note: fallers can interact with traps. Everyone accepts this, so why not accept fallers being able to exit?
Simple:
The trap is the active part here. The trap simply kills every lemming entering its trigger area.
The exit is passive. It just allows the lemming to exit. The lemming has to do the work himself here.
Also, this behavior was just the pinnacle of annoying in the past: I had so many backroutes where you just could direct drop into the exit. So many ugly flamers and steel had to be placed just to avoid a lemming falling from the top of the screen into the exit. It just makes no sense. You cannot just fall out of an airplane and directly go into your own house!
A splatter is already dead. An ohnoer is still alive.
So is a jumper/reacher. Why should ohnoer be able to exit and not jumper/reacher?
An ohnoer still needs to have solid ground under his feet.
As I said earlier: The mid air point is the critical thing in this matter.
The lemming needs solid ground under his feet. A reacher or a jumper does not have solid ground under his feet therefore he should not be able to exit.
-
I kind of like WillLem's idea of "active" vs. "passive" lemmings. I'm definitely on board with IchoTolot in general, though, that we shouldn't risk a great amount of level breakage here. As far as I am aware, there are no levels yet requiring Shimmiers or Jumpers to exit while in that state, whereas this is the case for Floaters/Gliders as well as Swimmers.
The latter is important because Dullstar's suggestion would also prevent Swimmers from exiting if the exit trigger is inside a water area. And there are definitely levels which have an exit in water, too.
An ohnoer still needs to have solid ground under his feet.
As I said earlier: The mid air point is the critical thing in this matter.
The lemming needs solid ground under his feet. A reacher or a jumper does not have solid ground under his feet therefore he should not be able to exit.
I for one would also be fine with Shimmiers shimmying into the exit, just not the Reacher. The mid-air definition is somewhat arbitrary here, because if mid-air were the crucial criterium, then Floaters and Gliders shouldn't be able to exit either without any ground under their feet. You could also say "neither Shimmiers nor Swimmers have terrain under their feet as they exit". Therefore, because Swimmers can exit, Shimmiers should be able to do so, too.
Although it would be a little weird that a Shimmier can exit if his feet touch the exit, but not if he lets go of the ceiling and drops just 1 pixel as a Faller ^^.
Same for the Jumper: If he can exit at the very last frame of his arc, but not once he transitions back into a Faller, that might lead to some awful pixel precision.
-
Ohnoer can exit, even though it doesn't sit on anything and can be assigned nothing at all. Can ohnoer exit midair?
No, it can only exit after it landed on terrain.
Then the 12.11 exiting behavior splits into at least 3 groups of skills: Some can exit regardless of terrain (floater), some can exit only if on terrain and not in midair (ohnoer), some can never exit with or without terrain (faller).
lemming in an active rather than passive state. At the moment, fallers and splatters cannot exit (both are passive states)
Be careful that you're not merely introducing names for the existing (potentially completely arbitary) behavior in current 12.11, but that there is really a substance behind the naming. I believe there is substance to this, but it doesn't come through entirely yet. E.g., for a completely new skill, I would like to guess in advance what you deem active.
-- Simon
-
Then the 12.11 exiting behavior splits into at least 3 groups of skills: Some can exit regardless of terrain (floater), some can exit only if on terrain and not in midair (ohnoer), some can never exit with or without terrain (faller).
Groups don't really matter here in my opinion. You also got an error in there!
This is technically not correct: A faller is a special state that only exists in midair ---> The faller belongs/fits to the "can exit only if on terrain and not in midair" group. It just exists in midair only and therefore cannot exit.
Another example here would be the blocker: A blocker is a special state that only exists on terrain ---> The blocker belongs/fits to the "can exit only if on terrain and not in midair" group. It just exists on terrain only and therefore can exit.
-
Well, if you insist:
- Skills that can never exit in any of their 1 or 2 possible groundedness states (faller),
- skills that can exit in one groundedness state but not in another, and both can physically happen; they appear to check explicitly for groundedness (ohnoer),
- skills that can always exit in all 1 or 2 of their possible groundedness states (builder, blocker).
It's at least 3 groups no matter how you frame it. Exiting in 12.11 doesn't merely depend on skill. It depends on skill and groundedness.
-- Simon
-
I think there you are pulling groups apart for the sake of creating new groups to be honest. "Skills that can/cannot never exit in any of their 1 or 2 possible groundedness states" seems not like a good group class to me.
We can define a nearly endless number of groups if we want to.
Let me try to develop a definition:
- "A lemming can only exit if he has terrain under his feet" already covers everything except the swimmer, floater and glider special case.
We could even make it totally consistent:
- "A lemming can only exit if he has terrain under his feet or he is currently performing a permanent skill task" (If I haven't missed a case ???)
This would cover the glider, floater and swimmer case.
-
A lemming can only exit if he has terrain under his feet or he is currently performing a permanent skill task
Excellent direction, thanks.
There are corner cases for near-death activities: Drowner can exit but splatter/burner cannot. Well, one can argue that the splatter/burner is already unconcious.
The case for the permanent abilities even has a flavorful argument: The permanent ability makes the corresponding dangerous/uninhabitable situation just as comfortable as walking on ground.
Let's see how well the rule holds. Shimmier is not permanent. Are we fine that the shimmer is un-exitable, but the climber/slider can exit? Do we lump the hoister with the climber, and the dangler with the slider, and have both exit?
-- Simon
-
Well, one can argue that the splatter/burner is already unconcious.
I would argue that a splatter/burner is already dead and just plays out the fancy death animation. :P
Shimmier is not permanent. Are we fine that the shimmer is un-exitable, but the climber/slider can exit?
I would be fine with that, but I can see the shimmier being a skill that can be a bit closer to the permanent ones.
Do we lump the hoister with the climber, and the dangler with the slider, and have both exit?
For simplicity sake I would tend to yes.
-
"A lemming can only exit if he has terrain under his feet or he is currently performing a permanent skill task"
Attached replay (Lemmings Plus III, Timid 11) has a setup where a digger exits in midair. To be fair, digger in general has weird midair behavior.
This setup can also be adjusted slightly - by removing bricks after the builder places them, and timing the unlock well - to have a builder exit in midair.
However, a slight rewording: "A lemming can exit if it is on the ground, or is performing an action where it is not subject or only partially subject to gravity." I think this catches all cases, though it's questionable how the Reacher / Jumper fit into this wording so applying the instinctive result there (ie: don't let them exit) would invalidate this wording, or at least fuzzy it up a bit.
-
not subject or only partially subject to gravity
questionable how the Reacher / Jumper fit into this wording
That's fine: Gravity merely accelerates downwards; gravity doesn't imply that affected things are already moving downwards. Thus, albeit without sleeping over it, your idea appears to catch the essence even for a non-exitable jumper/reacher.
This direction has converged really nicely. Question is whether the jumper should exit in general, as WillLem proposes.
-- Simon
-
"A lemming can exit if it is on the ground, or is performing an action where it is not subject or only partially subject to gravity"
This seems like a good rule; it catches the floater, glider and swimmer, and also explains why a reacher and a jumper would be able to exit.
Both reacher and jumper are actions which a lemming is performing (hence my suggestion of "active" state) - it's absolutely feasible that a lemming could jump into a midair exit. Or, at the very least, it's as feasible as a lemming being able to float/glide into a midair exit. Therefore, keeping the behaviour maintains this consistency.
Personally, I would always expect a lemming to exit upon contact with an exit's trigger area, regardless of how they got there, and even more regardless of whether or not there is terrain beneath the exit's trigger. Of course, this is already not the case in most versions of Lemmings, so as a player I've adapted to the various other behaviours that the game presents.
Again, it ultimately comes down to preference (or, if you prefer, expectation); those who don't want the behaviour will find arguments against it, and those who want the behaviour will find arguments for it. What's needed is a clear rule which has everything covered, so it's good that this is the direction the conversation is going in.
It'll be interesting to see what prevails.
As far as I am aware, there are no levels yet requiring Shimmiers or Jumpers to exit while in that state
There is a level in Lemminas which requires a reacher to be able to exit. It's an easy enough fix if the decision is to disallow the behaviour though, and the solution will in fact be the same so replays won't break.
EDIT:
That's fine: Gravity merely accelerates downwards; gravity doesn't imply that affected things are already moving downwards. Thus, albeit without sleeping over it, your idea appears to catch the essence even for a non-exitable jumper/reacher.
This direction has converged really nicely.
I don't quite understand, please can you re-word this...?
-
I still think an exiting reacher/jumper falls to much into the staight up direct-drop corner.
We should be careful with allowing additional midair exit situations as I think they can get confusing very very rapidly.
Even if the digger midair edge-case is not covered here I would still advice towards the stricter "A lemming can only exit if he has terrain under his feet or he is currently performing a permanent skill task" rule.
Maybe another rewording:
"A lemming can exit if it is on the ground, performing a permantent skill, or is performing an action where it is not subject to gravity."
This should exclude reachers/jumpers.
-
For my part, I honestly think this is a good moment to stop and re-evaluate. The decision to allow floaters to exit was made for bad reasons, with no discussion, against the wishes of the majority. Sure, it's a couple of years on and changing it now would affect more content, but hardly very much more -- it's very much a niche rule.
The desire for simplicity and consistency dictates one of two solutions: either a lemming touching an exit trigger can always exit (WillLem's proposal), or a lemming can exit if its pin is both on an exit trigger and on terrain. Anything else would be an arbitrary dividing line that would require new players to remember exactly where the line is drawn. Why should permanent skills be on one side of the line and non-permanent skills on the other?
-
I am not in favor of re-evaluations. I think the desire for stability is more desireable in this matter.
Although if I absolutely need to choose: "a lemming can exit if its pin is both on an exit trigger and on terrain" would be the obvious choice.
Direct drop needs to stay in a pit. You don't jump out of an airplane and enter your house without even a parachute. :8():
Even back then there was a clear community vote in favor of ditching it and that decision was made with good reasons, with discussion and with the majority.
-
The desire for simplicity and consistency dictates one of two solutions: either a lemming touching an exit trigger can always exit (WillLem's proposal), or a lemming can exit if its pin is both on an exit trigger and on terrain.
Swimmer can exit. I feel this makes sense. Generally speaking though, water acts more like terrain (except for the special case of overhead slopes of actual terrain) than like air to a swimmer, so this may be a justifiable exception.
The wording "a lemming can exit if its pin is both on an exit trigger and on terrain", also has a direct drop bug (via the same mechanism as DOS's one) - lemming falls through trigger area, is not on terrain, does not exit. Then, lemming hits terrain, becomes splatter, at which point its pin is on both an exit trigger and terrain. (To be fair, this was quoted from a sentence, not put forward as an exact rule, so it can be taken that "and splatters / etc cannot exit" is implied by the context, just not the exact rule that excludes them.)
I think the simplest resolution based on this idea is, a lemming can exit if:
- Its pin pixel is on an exit trigger area
- Its pin pixel is on solid terrain; or it is a swimmer and its pin pixel is on water
- It is in a state from which it can transition to another state, rather than only to "no longer exists"
- Special edge case: Drowner cannot exit
The drowner edge case is necessary for the situation where a pixel is all 3 of exit trigger, water trigger, and solid terrain. This arises from that Drowner itself would usually fail the 3rd condition, but has its own edge case where it can be saved by assigning a Swimmer.
To be clear, this is just contribution to the overall proposal, and not a "this change is happening" decision.
-
personally I'm with willlem in that any active lemming should be able to exit I mean they are considered as 'athletes' what athlete cannot exit an exit lol
-
You don't jump out of an airplane and enter your house without even a parachute. :8():
Precisely why Floaters (and Gliders) can exit. This should definitely not change, there are far too many levels that would break as a result.
Even beyond level breakage, the fact that exits can exist in midair means that there needs to be more options for allowing lemmings to exit.
If the "pin on terrain" rule gets implemented, the only way to access a midair exit will be to build/platform/stack to its trigger. At the moment, there is also the option to float/glide/jump into it as well - all of which are reasonable to expect in the context of a video game.
It seems to me that since a Floater is a lemming in a slowed-down state, they have "time" to interact with the exit, whereas a faller simply falls past it. This makes sense, and also powers-up the Floater - a desirable game feature, IMHO.
Meanwhile, Jumpers are actively moving towards the exit trigger, rather than passively falling past it. Arguably, it's an even more deliberate action than walking into it!
That's why I'm strongly in favour of leaving things as they are; NeoLemmix would become a weaker game if these behaviours were to be removed.
More options is better!!! :lemcat:
Incidentally, Floaters can exit in midair on both SuperLemmini and Amiga. The following screenshot shows this on Amiga:
(https://i.imgur.com/IRq0UFb.png)
-
More options is better!!!
That isn't always the case. I see this false assumption so often! More options does not automatically mean better and can actually lead to a severe loss in quality.
While I am on your side in keeping the current floater and glider mechanic due to stability I still would consider jumper and reacher more a direct drop case and that it should be removed.
-
i kind of think if you allow it for gliders and floaters then you have to allow it for jumpers etc too. I don't see that it negatively affects game play just gives designers another tool.
-
I've slept over the gravity argument. Gravity will generate dangerous and unclear guidelines. Be really careful before settling on guidelines based on gravity.
Faller in updraft, gravity pulls less than usual on him. Shall faller in updraft exit, by principle? What is with other activities in updraft?
I think the simplest resolution based on this idea is, a lemming can exit if:
- Its pin pixel is on an exit trigger area
- Its pin pixel is on solid terrain; or it is a swimmer and its pin pixel is on water
- It is in a state from which it can transition to another state, rather than only to "no longer exists"
- Special edge case: Drowner cannot exit
According to this, floater and glider should not exit.
Unexitable midair would be OK with me, creators will put terrain under the flying exits whenever a level breaks in replay validation. But rule will break some levels across the board, see Icho's warning. Hard to scan for breakage other than ruthless replay validation. Any missed exit will immediately produce unsolvable level.
That's fine: Gravity merely accelerates downwards; gravity doesn't imply that affected things are already moving downwards. Thus, albeit without sleeping over it, your idea appears to catch the essence even for a non-exitable jumper/reacher.
This direction has converged really nicely.
I don't quite understand, please can you re-word this...?
Namida proposes rule that skills can exit whenever they're affected less than usual by gravity. Namida has fear that this rule means that jumpers shall exit. I explain that this rule means that jumpers shall not exit. "That's fine" means that namida can sleep well.
Direction is meant as in direction of attacking the problem, by gravity here.
-- Simon
-
I'm practically neutral on the jumpers/reachers/... midair stuff, given that (faller that has not yet fallen far) cannot exit but floater can. I still find this inconsistent, will be hard to make an obvious rule. You can drill it manually into pepole's skulls with the permanent abillity argument, but that feels further-fetched than I would expect for an exiting rule.
Shimmier feels like it should be treated like climber and slider.
There are leftover problems with all proposed rules so far. Permanent ability rule will lead to shimmier special case, and is hard to see. (Affected by gravity) has no meaning in Lemmings; it means something different for every skill.
The debate is highly enjoyable, and I'm not 100 % sure what I want. Very good input from everybody, thanks. Let's not hammer anything in stone before sleeping over it many times.
-- Simon
-
More options does not automatically mean better and can actually lead to a severe loss in quality.
Sure, but it depends entirely on context. In the context of "mid-air exit rules", my argument is that more options is better for both players and designers.
I'm glad you agree that Floaters/Gliders exiting should be kept :lemcat:
i kind of think if you allow it for gliders and floaters then you have to allow it for jumpers etc too. I don't see that it negatively affects game play just gives designers another tool.
Exactly. Why place unnecessary limitations on the game? Newcomers will either learn "Jumpers can exit" or "Jumpers can't exit" - either way, it's a piece of information. Why not choose the positive?
Faller in updraft, gravity pulls less than usual on him. Shall faller in updraft exit, by principle?
I would suggest yes, for the same reason that Floaters can exit, i.e. their slowed momentum allows them to interact with the exit rather than fall past it.
Unexitable midair would be OK with me, creators will put terrain under the flying exits whenever a level breaks in replay validation.
This does not fix levels where the intention is to fall past the exit in the first place.
Namida proposes rule that skills can exit whenever they're affected less than usual by gravity. Namida has fear that this rule means that jumpers shall exit. I explain that this rule means that jumpers shall not exit.
Thanks for clarifying :)
Permanent ability rule will lead to shimmier special case, and is hard to see.
Why? Shimmiers are not permanent abilities...
-
Sure, but it depends entirely on context. In the context of "mid-air exit rules", my argument is that more options is better for both players and designers.
More options for the player means more backroute options for the player. That was one of the biggest reasons for the very strong consensus for removing direct drop.
Exactly. Why place unnecessary limitations on the game? Newcomers will either learn "Jumpers can exit" or "Jumpers can't exit" - either way, it's a piece of information. Why not choose the positive?
Partly for the reason I just gave; also because the situation is not symmetrical. If jumpers can exit, there's another weird special case to be remembered; if they can't, you just things working as you'd expect for a "grounded" exit (as opposed to the "black hole" exit NL used to have).
I grant that the existing special case for floaters/gliders weakens this argument, in that if we already have two states with a weird special-case rule for exiting, it's not a huge leap to go from that to one more; but conversely, that strengthens the argument for taking that special case out. If newcomers discover "A, B and C can exit, while X, Y and Z cannot", then they have no way of knowing whether the special case will or will not apply to P, Q and R. Trying to solve puzzles without knowing the rules is a surefire recipe for frustration. And yes, the player can study and eventually learn the rules; but in order to help them get on to the fun part of playing the game, the rules should be kept simple wherever possible.
-
More options for the player means more backroute options for the player.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing; as a NeoLemmix challenger, I'd have thought you'd be very much in favour of backroute possibilities ;)
EDIT: I've created this thread (https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=5501.msg91106#msg91106) to more specifically address the ongoing and obnoxious notion that backroute avoidance should inform game design.
If jumpers can exit, there's another weird special case to be remembered
Not necessarily. I would expect Jumpers to be able to exit in midair, and would be surprised (and disappointed) if they couldn't. I'm sure I'm not the only player who thinks this way.
yes, the player can study and eventually learn the rules; but in order to help them get on to the fun part of playing the game, the rules should be kept simple wherever possible.
As has already been pointed out, simplicity is not necessarily a good basis upon which to make these sorts of decisions. For example, which of the following is more simple?:
A) Lemmings can always exit upon reaching the exit's trigger.
B) Lemmings can exit upon reaching the exit's trigger, but only if they're also standing on terrain, or if they're a Floater/Glider/Swimmer, not in a dying state (apart from ohnoers), etc, etc, etc.
This demonstrates that simplicity is not actually all that desirable: the simplest ways of doing things more often than not open up a smorgasbord of problematic use cases which then leads to more complex rules being created, as has happened (and continues to happen) with NeoLemmix.
Therefore, the debate must come down to whether or not we would prefer, as a community, Jumpers to be able to exit - or not. And "simplicity" cannot be taken as a strong reason either way, that's my point.
Personally, I would prefer Jumpers to be able to exit because it offers more options to both players and level designers. The more limitations there are in this regard, the more repetitive and samey levels start to become, to the point where every 100 levels or so someone might come up with some ingenious new way of using a Blocker (for example), but such cases are notable by their singularity/rarity.
I'm sure I can come up with other reasons, though, if the "more options" thing isn't flying for you.
A level exists with a midair exit. The level provides Jumpers.
Would you expect to be able to use the Jumpers to reach the exit?
-
Personally, I would prefer Jumpers to be able to exit because it offers more options to both players and level designers. The more limitations there are in this regard, the more repetitive and samey levels start to become, to the point where every 100 levels or so someone might come up with some ingenious new way of using a Blocker (for example), but such cases are notable by their singularity/rarity.
Lemming levels becoming repetitive because jumpers cannot exit. Please re-think this a little bit. :8():
I think we already have endless possibilities and options. So that is not really a factor.
If we assume that jumpers would be able to exit you gain the possibility to let single lemmings exit while the crowd still needs to build up - you can already simulate this with an exit on a hill and climbers / an exit in a pit and floaters....... the list goes on! The gain is not really there.
Also, ingenious levels do not need to rely on new tricks or so. Even with the most basic mechanics you can come up with the most insane levels. It all depends just on design.
As a result the only factors that really matter here are:
- Does it make sense in the game. (conistency)
- Does it overcomplicate the game. (simplicity)
- Does it break a lot of existing content. (stability)
We have enough possibilities and jumpers being able to exit is not really an incredible gain (and maybe not really a gain at all as the result can already be simulated) in that regard bur more just another extra rule to remember.
A level exists with a midair exit. The level provides Jumpers.
Would you expect to be able to use the Jumpers to reach the exit?
No. :8(): I would have to build a bridge to it first.
-
As has already been pointed out, simplicity is not necessarily a good basis upon which to make these sorts of decisions. For example, which of the following is more simple?:
A) Lemmings can always exit upon reaching the exit's trigger.
B) Lemmings can exit upon reaching the exit's trigger, but only if they're also standing on terrain, or if they're a Floater/Glider/Swimmer, not in a dying state (apart from ohnoers), etc, etc, etc.
This demonstrates that simplicity is not actually all that desirable
No it doesn't. It shows that simplicity should not be the one and only deciding factor -- which is a straw man, because no-one said it should be.
The very simplest option is, as you say, for lemmings always to exit. This is ruled out on other grounds -- being extremely prone to backroutes, leading to unintuitive consequences (direct drop), and being something the community clearly does not want.
The next simplest option is that lemmings should exit if the exit is on terrain and the lemming is not dying. This is much better than your option B, and it is better precisely because of simplicity. Simplicity is extremely important, and your silly straw man does not disprove that.
-
Lemming levels becoming repetitive because jumpers cannot exit. Please re-think this a little bit. :8():
Why? It's a valid argument. Please engage with it and respond to it rather than dismissing it.
Nice to see that you have done so, anyway... (i.e engage with it)
If we assume that jumpers would be able to exit you gain the possibility to let single lemmings exit while the crowd still needs to build up - you can already simulate this with an exit on a hill and climbers / an exit in a pit and floaters....... the list goes on! The gain is not really there.
Simulating one aspect of a skill's behavour disregards all other possibilities that may arise from that behaviour, particularly those which are unique to that skill. Jumpers are able to cross gaps, whereas Climbers are not. Jumpers are able to move horizontally as well as vertically, whereas Floaters are not.
Even with the most basic mechanics you can come up with the most insane levels. It all depends just on design.
I agree. My point is that Jumpers being able to exit adds to this.
- Does it make sense in the game. (conistency)
Yes, it does. A Jumper is an active skill which momentarily breaks gravity and allows it to interact with things in midair.
- Does it overcomplicate the game. (simplicity)
No, it doesn't. Most of us are more than capable of assimilating a wide variety of complex rules and interactions in our understanding of Lemmings as a game. This only tends to come up as a negative when people want to use it as a reason not to have something they don't want to see in the game, hence its use in this particular argument.
- Does it break a lot of existing content. (stability)
Granted, there likely aren't very many midair exit levels involving Jumpers. I have one such level, and it wouldn't be the end of the world if I had to fix it. However, I wouldn't like to see the possibility removed from the table altogether.
jumpers being able to exit is...just another extra rule to remember.
So is "Jumpers cannot exit".
No. :8(): I would have to build a bridge to it first.
Fair enough. I would expect to be able to jump into the exit.
It shows that simplicity should not be the one and only deciding factor -- which is a straw man, because no-one said it should be.
Haha - accusing someone of straw manning rather than engaging with what they've said is a neat way to deflect the argument, but ultimately doesn't further the discussion.
And - you're not entirely correct in what you've said. Simplicity may indeed not be the only deciding factor, but it has been used many times in this debate - by Dullstar, yourself, Icho - so I feel the need to call its validity into question.
Simplicity is extremely important, and your silly straw man does not disprove that.
Come on Proxima, you're an intelligent guy. Surely you don't need to resort to insulting the argument just because you disagree. You can do better than that.
I believe that my argument effectively calls the importance of simplicity into question. You yourself have actually proven this as well:
The next simplest option is that lemmings should exit if the exit is on terrain and the lemming is not dying.
Exactly: the more favourable option is one which is more complex. Sure, it may only be more complex by a degree or two, but it is more complex, and it is more favourable.
Anyway, Icho proposed two other arguments in favour of removing the Jumper-exit behaviour (i.e. stability and consistency) which are more compelling than "simplicity" as a counter-argument. I have already responded to these earlier in this post.
-
For the mere jumper, simplicity is a wash either way. The jumper feels both similar to a short faller and to a floater. You're bound to introduce a new rule given the 12.11 baseline. You can find more oddities in 12.11 base rules, or accept that you must hack.
Simplicity will come into discussion if other exiting rules are on the table. E.g., when you require ground under the exit at all costs, then the digger and builder will be affected.
Anyway, simplicity is super important in design. Whenever stuff is simple, we can focus on more interesting things. If complexity comes at all, we want to reserve the chance to introduce complexity for where it's most exciting/practical.
-- Simon
-
Lemming levels becoming repetitive because jumpers cannot exit. Please re-think this a little bit. :8():
Why? It's a valid argument. Please engage with it and respond to it rather than dismissing it.
Come on you are joking here! You are dramatising the loss.
But if you want an explanation: Jumpers being able to exit would still be an edge case which not really contributes to counter repetitiveness. An edge case in a came with tons of skills, behaviors, objects, and already near endless combinations .... it's absense won't lead to an era of repetitive levels and wouldn't leave a gaping hole.
Simulating one aspect of a skill's behavour disregards all other possibilities that may arise from that behaviour, particularly those which are unique to that skill. Jumpers are able to cross gaps, whereas Climbers are not. Jumpers are able to move horizontally as well as vertically, whereas Floaters are not.
With arranging the terrain you can exactly simulate the outcome in the case of the exit.
1 jumper really just allows 1 lemming to exit. It serves as 1 ticket to the exit.
You can simulate 1 ticket to the exit with floters,climbers swimmers,... you don't nessesarily need the jumper for that. You just have to rearrange the terrain acordingly.
For the jumper range: Set the resources needed for the crowd to get to the exit the same in both cases. Done!
That's why the gain in new possibilities is not there and you really only gain another method of accomplising the same thing other nearly identical set-ups can do. --> Not really a good addition, the jumper exit adds nothing new.
If you are still in denail over that I gladly build you examples in the editor and post the levels + pictures. :8():
Yes, it does. A Jumper is an active skill which momentarily breaks gravity and allows it to interact with things in midair.
This depends on the direction you are arguing from. If you choose the permanent skill definition it does not make sense anymore.
Also, I would argue that the jumper state is closer to the faller state which would make sense as the jumper even transitions into it.
No, it doesn't. Most of us are more than capable of assimilating a wide variety of complex rules and interactions in our understanding of Lemmings as a game. This only tends to come up as a negative when people want to use it as a reason not to have something they don't want to see in the game, hence its use in this particular argument.
I could simply negate and reverse that ("It's only not a negative whem people want it in the game!"), but that would lead to nothing.
Depending on where people see the jumper the interaction can be logical or illogical. For the people who deem it as illogical it is another unexpected rule they have to learn.
But you are still underestimating the creeping dread of overcomplication. Tagging more and more little rules onto something is a slow and painful death. I've seen it in too many games.
-
Haha - accusing someone of straw manning rather than engaging with what they've said is a neat way to deflect the argument, but ultimately doesn't further the discussion.
Come on Proxima, you're an intelligent guy. Surely you don't need to resort to insulting the argument just because you disagree. You can do better than that.
And you are an intelligent and mature guy -- you can respond better than this when someone calls you out on the flaws in your argument. :P
And - you're not entirely correct in what you've said. Simplicity may indeed not be the only deciding factor, but it has been used many times in this debate - by Dullstar, yourself, Icho - so I feel the need to call its validity into question.
So how does that make me "not entirely correct"? I said that simplicity is important but not the only deciding factor. You're citing other people who agree with me... to prove that I was wrong? ???
I believe that my argument effectively calls the importance of simplicity into question.
It does not, because your "argument" consisted of a mere two cases, and you got me to admit that the simpler of those two was worse. That does not in any way prove the generality "simplicity is not actually all that desirable", it just proves that one particular case, in which simplicity was allowed to be carried to an unhealthy extreme, would be a bad idea.
It's as if someone were arguing "There are very few even prime numbers" and you said "2 is an even prime, so that disproves it!" You cannot argue that a generality is true from single cases.
-
For the mere jumper, simplicity is a wash either way. The jumper feels both similar to a short faller and to a floater.
I have to confess, I don't get the comparison here. How is the Jumper similar to these states?
when you require ground under the exit at all costs, then the digger and builder will be affected.
How so?
we want to reserve the chance to introduce complexity for where it's most exciting/practical.
Such as being able to jump a lemming into an exit! ;P
Jumpers being able to exit would still be an edge case which not really contributes to counter repetitiveness .... it's absense won't lead to an era of repetitive levels and wouldn't leave a gaping hole.
Sure, OK. Fair enough. But, it's absence would remove one possibility as opposed to adding anything to the game.
So, the score would be:
Allow Jumpers to exit = 0, if you like
Don't allow Jumpers to exit = -1, whether you like it or not
With arranging the terrain you can exactly simulate the outcome in the case of the exit.
...
If you are still in denail over that I gladly build you examples in the editor and post the levels + pictures. :8():
That won't be necessary. I don't doubt that you can simulate the behaviour for one purpose (in this case, allowing 1 lemming to exit but not the others), my counter-argument here was that doing so ignores all other possibilies of said behaviour that are unique to that skill. For one thing, Jumping a lemming into an exit is a quick, easy manoeuvre - potentially great for multitasking, fast-solve times, speedrunning, and just plain good fun. You can't simulate that with a Climber!
Also, the "simulating the behaviour" argument ignores cases in which using the Jumper to exit is not intended, thus denying challengers of potential alternatives. Is this important? That's a whole other debate, but it is important to me personally, hence why I'm calling on it.
A Jumper is an active skill which momentarily breaks gravity and allows it to interact with things in midair.
This depends on the direction you are arguing from. If you choose the permanent skill definition it does not make sense anymore.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Jumpers aren't permanent skills...
Anyway, allow me to rephrase in case there's a misunderstanding. Jumpers can interact with things in midair - suspended platforms, traps, updrafts, pickup skills, teleporters, etc - that other lemmings cannot reach. They can also be assigned a Bomber to instantly explode. Allowing them to exit whilst in midair is, to my mind, merely another item on this list. If anything, removing the ability for Jumpers to exit from this list creates an unexplained gap in the skill's behaviour. As a player, I'd be thinking "why can't the Jumper exit?"
Also, I would argue that the jumper state is closer to the faller state which would make sense as the jumper even transitions into it.
This is a contradition. If a Jumper transitions into a Faller, then it is not a Faller, and does not have to behave like one for any reason. Jumpers can also transition into Gliders, Floaters, Bombers, Stoners, Climbers, Drowners, Swimmers, Burners, any given trap/object animation, and - lest we forget - Exiters ;P
Depending on where people see the jumper the interaction can be logical or illogical. For the people who deem it as illogical it is another unexpected rule they have to learn.
But you are still underestimating the creeping dread of overcomplication. Tagging more and more little rules onto something is a slow and painful death. I've seen it in too many games.
You're forgetting that the rule is not being proposed as an addition, but a removal. It's very possible that there are NL players out there who have already gotten used to the fact that Jumpers can, at present, exit.
Surely removing this possibility has far more chance of leading to that dreaded complication you're talking about ;P
And you are an intelligent and mature guy -- you can respond better than this when someone calls you out on the flaws in your argument. :P
Calling out the flaws in my argument is not the same as disproving the argument. And anyway, I am not a professional arguer, I am a gamer with an opinion. Give me a break! ;P
And - you're not entirely correct in what you've said. Simplicity may indeed not be the only deciding factor, but it has been used many times in this debate - by Dullstar, yourself, Icho - so I feel the need to call its validity into question.
So how does that make me "not entirely correct"? I said that simplicity is important but not the only deciding factor. You're citing other people who agree with me... to prove that I was wrong? ???
To prove that you were wrong about me straw-manning. I am calling the validity of the argument into question due to its frequency of use amongst multiple users - this is a valid course of action during a debate, i.e. examine whether a frequently-used argument actually has any substance within the topic at hand. I agree that simplicity is an important goal generally, but not necessarily in this case. That's what I was taking issue with, and so it's not straw-manning. Can we get back to the debate now please?
You cannot argue that a generality is true from single cases.
That isn't what I'm doing. I'm pointing out that, in this case, the "simplicity" argument doesn't fly, by specifically using this case as an example. On the other hand, you've had to rely on applying the argument to prime numbers, a totally unrelated and incomparable topic, to desperately try to invalidate what I'm saying.
Anyway, again - please can we stop talking about the way that my arguments are presented. I'm not perfect, and I'm doing my best to present my thoughts as clearly as possible. I've always been more of a creative than logical thinker, so I'm bound to get things wrong occasionally. But, we're all intelligent enough to either understand the essence of what's being said, or ask for further clarification in the absence of understanding.
I look forward to resuming the conversation without having to defend my presentation style as well as my argument. Thanks! :lemcat:
-
So, the score would be:
Allow Jumpers to exit = 0, if you like
Don't allow Jumpers to exit = -1, whether you like it or not
9999999999999999999999999999999999 - 1
An acceptable sacrifice.
doing so ignores all other possibilies of said behaviour that are unique to that skill.
Show me some exiting jumper behaviors I cannot simulate!
Otherwise I won't give in to your uniqueness statements.
Be careful though as I will try my best to simulate them. :devil:
For one thing, Jumping a lemming into an exit is a quick, easy manoeuvre - potentially great for multitasking, fast-solve times, speedrunning, and just plain good fun. You can't simulate that with a Climber!
Just because something is a few seconds faster doesn't mean the end result differs. Fast-solve times and speedrun possibilities are not really a relevant attribute for keeping game mechanics in a game not dedicated for speed. ---> The puzzles is the main focus of NL. A machanic should lead to unique puzzles and not just bring slightly faster solve times.
You can still try to solve the puzzle as fast as possible of course, it is a part of NL but not the main focus.
If the bahavior is a rarely used edge-case, can be simulated in multiple ways with already existing tools and is of questionable logic or even considered a bug, it can be fixed out.
Jumpers can interact with things in midair - suspended platforms, traps, updrafts, pickup skills, teleporters, etc - that other lemmings cannot reach.
Ok, at this point I begin to repeat myself and I really don't like repeating myself over and over:
Side note: fallers can interact with traps. Everyone accepts this, so why not accept fallers being able to exit?
Simple:
The trap is the active part here. The trap simply kills every lemming entering its trigger area.
The exit is passive. It just allows the lemming to exit. The lemming has to do the work himself here.
In each of those cases the jumper is just passivly affected by the object's effect.
This is a contradition. If a Jumper transitions into a Faller, then it is not a Faller, and does not have to behave like one for any reason.
And you are again not getting my point: I don't say it is a faller, but very close to one.
At this point it seems to me that I just repeat myself over and over again. It also seems like you won't change your mind anyway no matter the arguments are and my time is limited.
Therefore, I don't think any more usable results will come out of this discussion. At this point I think it's the best to list the arguments and then come to a decision.
In the end, these are my realizations:
1.) I still see no unique puzzles for exiting jumpers that cannot be simulated otherwise. I also don't see any proof that there are and as I result I don't see value in this behavior.
2.) The logic if jumpers belong to the class of lemmings that should exit is highly debatable. Currently only some permanent skills are allowed to exit mid air/water and the jumper/reacher. The jumper/reacher still looks like a unnessesary attachment to that rule. For me a jumper is closer to a faller than a permanent skill in action and therefore is a case of direct-drop that should be fixed.
3.) A case can be made to simplify the rule even further and only allow exiting on solid ground. This would break quite a bit of content though and thefore I am not in favor of this.
-
While we're currently under the impression that the Slider and the Laserer/Blaster will be the final new skills, there's no guarantee that we won't re-evaluate this decision to stop adding new skills in the future. I feel that if we do not create a proper rule for exiting behavior, this situation will only continue to get worse. I want to be able to look at a skill/state and determine from first principles whether or not it's likely to be able to exit, as opposed to the current situation of "Some skills can exit, some can't, but for each skill you could make some arguments as to why the trigger area should affect it and some arguments as to why it shouldn't, so the only way to figure out if it can exit or not is to try it and then memorize the result." This is needless complexity.
I grant that the existing special case for floaters/gliders weakens this argument, in that if we already have two states with a weird special-case rule for exiting, it's not a huge leap to go from that to one more; but conversely, that strengthens the argument for taking that special case out. If newcomers discover "A, B and C can exit, while X, Y and Z cannot", then they have no way of knowing whether the special case will or will not apply to P, Q and R. Trying to solve puzzles without knowing the rules is a surefire recipe for frustration.
Unfortunately, I don't think this is something that can be fixed without content breakage. I don't think that necessarily means we shouldn't address it, though.
I'd also like to add something that I think is a flaw in how we do these debates: we love talking about content breakage, but we rarely delve deeper than "some content will break." How much content, and what would be required to fix it? I'd be much more concerned about changes that completely break level concepts as opposed to inconveniences where the main correction difficulty is just in identifying the broken content.
I also think that allowing the jumper in the exit is likely to detract more than it is to add, and I will use the same reasoning I used for the spearer and the grenader. Levels where you just park your cursor in [spot] and then click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click like a hundred times are not fun to play. If I wanted a button masher I would play a different game. The grenader and spearer saw a ton of this usage, which IMO is even less interesting than "here's a giant gap and a bunch of builders, you know what to do." The jumper-into-the-exit also encourages this while not offering anything that can't already be done using the skills Icho describes.
-
Just wanting to make it very clear that what benefits / drawbacks any change might have for challenges - including speedruns - will not be a factor in any decision that is being made, and indeed, will not be a factor in any physics decision, ever. (Now on the other hand, UI decisions are another matter, and there could definitely be room for at least somewhat supporting challenges / speedruns there.)
but we rarely delve deeper than "some content will break."
I don't know how many people actually do so, but I have always encouraged using RC builds to test out these changes, because if the breakage would be too severe, that is the time to revert the change - before it goes stable.
Of course, if the change makes it to RC (or often, even to experimental), it's probably already past the point where "is it a good idea?" is the main question, and now it's "is there any last minute reason why we shouldn't go ahead with this?", so perhaps a special experimental build is in order... but that needs a defined rule, first.
-
If we could agree on a few rules to at least try in an experimental, that might be the way to go.
-
9999999999999999999999999999999999 - 1
An acceptable sacrifice.
Hilarious. I'm sure it's more like 9999999999999999999999999999999997 - 1, though.
Show me some exiting jumper behaviors I cannot simulate!
Here are 3. I could think of more, but the debate seems to be winding down now. Note that the following examples presume a midair exit, of course:
1) The quickness and simplicity of one lemming exiting almost immediately with a single click.
2) Jumping across a gap into an exit. Building across it doesn't count because that allows other lemmings to exit and/or other actions to either cancel the builder or destroy the bridge.
3) Jumping over a trap/teleporter and into an exit. This is not the same as jumping over a gap, for obvious reasons.
The puzzles is the main focus of NL.
Yeah, so I keep being told. I'm surprised the game even animates :eyeroll:
In each of those cases the jumper is just passivly affected by the object's effect.
How is that any different from being passively affected by an exit? I would genuinely like an answer to this question as, from my perspective, a Jumper being able to enter a teleporter and not an exit is potentially confusing (it's already confusing enough that Fallers can enter teleporters and not exits). What makes the exit any different from any other interactive object in this regard?
And you are again not getting my point: I don't say it is a faller, but very close to one.
This makes no sense at all. How is a Jumper even remotely similar to a Faller? It is moving upwards and horizontally, whereas a Faller is moving downwards and vertically. And it is only the state which follows a Jumper's arc when there is no terrain or object triggers at the other end of it. Your argument has no basis, that's why I'm not "getting your point". A convincing or compelling argument might help, rather than a loose, unfounded comparison between one state and another.
At this point it seems to me that I just repeat myself over and over again. It also seems like you won't change your mind anyway no matter the arguments are and my time is limited.
Yeah, I know the feeling. It's identical to the one I'm experiencing.
The logic if jumpers belong to the class of lemmings that should exit is highly debatable.
So, debate it rather than dismiss it!
I also think that allowing the jumper in the exit is likely to detract more than it is to add, and I will use the same reasoning I used for the spearer and the grenader. Levels where you just park your cursor in [spot] and then click... like a hundred times are not fun to play
Clickbait levels are possible with any of the skills. Should we not allow Climbers to exit in case people make levels where you have to make 100 lemmings climb up into an exit?
I want to be able to look at a skill/state and determine from first principles whether or not it's likely to be able to exit, as opposed to... the only way to figure out if it can exit or not is to try it and then memorize the result.
Again - "picture puzzle" mentality. Lemmings is a video game!!! :devil:
Why is everyone so averse to trying things out and seeing what happens? And please don't use the redundant "hours of trial and error" argument - it takes seconds to try something like this out in NeoLemmix.
So far, I haven't seen one good reason not to allow Jumper-exit behaviour. It's all the same generic stuff that usually makes an appearance in these sorts of debates: "might cause backroutes", "might be difficult for new players to learn", "might cause clickbait levels", "I won't know just by looking what the rules are." Whilst these may be good, well-established arguments in general, not one of them specifically addresses whether or not it makes sense for a Jumper to be able to exit upon contact with the exit's trigger.
Conversely, all of the arguments that I have put forward are specifically topic-relevant: "Jumpers can already exit, so people might be confused by the change", "Jumpers can interact with other midair objects, so why not exits?", "it's a quick, easy action which may contribute positively towards alternative/challenge solutions", "I would expect it to happen if I was a new player to the game" and all of these have been dismissed.
So much for logic! :lix-glare:
-
Simulations of WillLems supposedly unique behaviors:
1) The quickness and simplicity of one lemming exiting almost immediately with a single click.
2) Jumping across a gap into an exit. Building across it doesn't count because that allows other lemmings to exit and/or other actions to either cancel the builder or destroy the bridge.
3) Jumping over a trap/teleporter and into an exit. This is not the same as jumping over a gap, for obvious reasons.
All exits are assumedly in jumper range. If one is not feel free to think of it moved by a few pixels it is off.
1.)
As stated above it is not really a factor, but here it goes anyway. The exit can be reached with assigning just 1 skill to a lemming: A glider.
The normal lemmings can reach the exit with the same ammount of skill as in the jumper case.
2.)
First level shows that it can be done with a glider. Level can also be adjusted for the floater case.
Second level shows simulation through climber. For this the exit is at a wall, the result stays the same though.
Third level shows simulation through swimmer. For this the exit is inside water, the result stays the same though.
The normal lemmings can reach the exit with the same ammount of skill as in the jumper case.
3.)
Level shows that it can again be simulated using a glider/floater.
The normal lemmings can reach the exit with the same ammount of skill as in the jumper case.
How is that any different from being passively affected by an exit?
You need to actively enter an exit. A trap just kills everything it gets its hands on. No action required from the lemming.
This makes no sense at all. How is a Jumper even remotely similar to a Faller? It is moving upwards and horizontally, whereas a Faller is moving downwards and vertically. And it is only the state which follows a Jumper's arc when there is no terrain or object triggers at the other end of it. Your argument has no basis, that's why I'm not "getting your point". A convincing or compelling argument might help, rather than a loose, unfounded comparison between one state and another.
Both are moving through the air and are affected by gravity, that's why the jumper has an arc.
Appart from the intial start of the the lemming has no further control over the jump and can only passively interact like a faller. --> Cannot actively exit, but can passively be killed by a trap for example.
You could say the floater and glider also fall into this category but this rather hints at the oddness of the behaivor and why it should maybe be changed as well.
We could try out an RC build without glider/floater exiting and assess the breakage! If it's low I might change my stance here towards removing those 2 as well. :)
-
1) The quickness and simplicity of one lemming exiting almost immediately with a single click.
1.) The exit can be reached with assigning just 1 skill to a lemming: A glider.
Whilst simple, it does not have the same quick, instant effect as Jumping a lemming into an exit. This is 1 point to me.
2) Jumping across a gap into an exit. Building across it doesn't count because that allows other lemmings to exit and/or other actions to either cancel the builder or destroy the bridge.
2.)
First level shows that it can be done with a glider. Level can also be adjusted for the floater case.
Second level shows simulation through climber. For this the exit is at a wall, the result stays the same though.
Third level shows simulation through swimmer. For this the exit is inside water, the result stays the same though.
I will concede these. 1 point to you.
3) Jumping over a trap/teleporter and into an exit. This is not the same as jumping over a gap, for obvious reasons.
3.)
Level shows that it can again be simulated using a glider/floater.
OK, you win this round.
How is that any different from being passively affected by an exit?
You need to actively enter an exit. A trap just kills everything it gets its hands on. No action required from the lemming.
How is jumping towards an exit trigger, regardless of the effects of gravity that subsequently impact the Jumper's motion, not "actively entering" the exit?
Regarding the "no action required from the lemming" point - I assume you mean other than jumping towards the trigger in the first place?
Both are moving through the air and are affected by gravity, that's why the jumper has an arc.
Appart from the intial start of the the lemming has no further control over the jump and can only passively interact like a faller. --> Cannot actively exit, but can passively be killed by a trap for example.
You could say the floater and glider also fall into this category but this rather hints at the oddness of the behaivor and why it should maybe be changed as well.
I can see your point here, and I agree to some extent. However, I would argue that the Jumper only becomes passive at the point when gravity affects its arc. For the first part of the arc, it is active and should be able to exit.
If Floater & Glider exiting is kept, then Jumper exiting (regardless of arc position) should also be kept on the same basis. So, it now comes down to stability and whether we're happy to break existing content.
We could try out an RC build without glider/floater exiting and assess the breakage! If it's low I might change my stance here towards removing those 2 as well. :)
I can think of 2 levels in Lemminas, one of which is fixable and the other of which would be irreversably affected by such a change.
And hey - whilst we're at it - let's also throw the question of "should Ohners be able to exit?" into the equation if Floaters and Gliders are also being considered for removal.
No other dying state can exit - what makes Ohnoers so special? And, if you're happy to break existing content for the sake of removing Floaters/Gliders/Jumpers, then you don't get to make that case for Ohnoers. Maybe we could have an RC to see how much content is actually broken by removing this behaviour from the game. The odd nuke solution level here and there? A single level in LPIII?* We can live without that, surely! ;P :devil:
Sarcasm aside, I am very strongly against any of the exiting behaviours being forcibly removed from NeoLemmix.
*To be clear: I'm being ironic here; I absolutely love this level ;)
-
Something that's just come up on Discord which is probably worth adding to the conversation, since it's topic-relevant (i.e. specifically midair exit rules as opposed to skill-specific/more general exiting rules).
In the presence of a "must have terrain underneath to be interactable-with" rule, and coupled with further restrictions on which lemming states can interact with an exit's trigger in midair, midair exits become borderline unfair design. Or, if not unfair, then simply pointless: it would be obvious that constructive skills are required to get there, and there wouldn't be any challenge solution alternatives, so why even bother doing it?
Maybe that's not such a bad thing, thinking about it. Midair exits are generally a bit blah, and they'd become even more so in the presence of a "must have terrain underneath to work at all" rule.
So, I guess it comes down to either:
a) we want midair exits, in which case the better option is to present more possibilities for interacting with them.
Or:
b) we don't want midair exits, so make it more difficult/unfair/pointless to use them in a level.
-
Whilst simple, it does not have the same quick, instant effect as Jumping a lemming into an exit. This is 1 point to me.
The instant effect is not really a factor. The timing of the level can be adjusted for it anyway.
I would argue that the Jumper only becomes passive at the point when gravity affects its arc.
Gravity is always affecting the arc. Otherwise it would not be an arc. The arc exists because of gravity. That's why it is always passive and the jumper should not be able to exit.
No other dying state can exit - what makes Ohnoers so special? And, if you're happy to break existing content for the sake of removing Floaters/Gliders/Jumpers, then you don't get to make that case for Ohnoers. Maybe we could have an RC to see how much content is actually broken by removing this behaviour from the game. The odd nuke solution level here and there? A single level in LPIII? We can live without that, surely!
This seems to be written out of spite after the doctrine of "if this is taken from me this will be taken from you", but I will explain anyway:
The Ohnoer cannot exit mid-air. The Ohnoer is also still alive and even moving visible by the arm movement. And standing on solid ground EVERY lemming is able to exit. Ohnoers, Blockers, builders, stackers,... it doesn't matter. As a result the Ohnoer should exit as it would otherwise be an inconsistency.
It also seems like that you haven't played that many packs yet, as otherwise you would see that there are quiet a lot more nuke levels than you think and they are not that odd. ;) In contrast some of the best levels I've ever seen incorperate the nuke very creatively and unexpectedly.
I am not happy to break content, anyone who knows me here is familiar that I always try to keep the existing content in mind during physics discussions. In fact I am on the side of stabilty and prefer to keep non-bug mechanics, but the question was asked if an RC could be made to evaluate and I cannot argue for forbidding simple evaluation.
To avoid any doubt: I am still on the side of keeping the floater/glider exit rule due to stability and against allowing the jumper/reacher to exit. But I cannot dismiss the argument for an evaluation if the hassle of creating it is not deemed as to much.
So, I guess it comes down to either:
a) we want midair exits
Or:
b) we don't want midair exits
Midair exits cannot be avoided in general. You can create levels freely. Are are also created naturally by removing terrain during solving. They will always exsist even if in the vast majority of cases terrain will be built under them anyway.
Personally I would have to dig deep to see if I ever used them. I remember no, but if they would need to be build towards.
-
Whilst simple, it does not have the same quick, instant effect as Jumping a lemming into an exit. This is 1 point to me.
The instant effect is not really a factor.
Yes it is, because a) it's important to me as a player, and b) that was a proposed part of the challenge, which you accepted, and which your level failed to meet.
Gravity is always affecting the arc. Otherwise it would not be an arc. The arc exists because of gravity. That's why it is always passive and the jumper should not be able to exit.
We may be getting somewhere here. Yes, the arc exists because of gravity - good point, well made. However, the arc also exists because the lemming performed an action. So, it's a passive state resulting from an active spark. We get to decide which element of this is more important for deciding physics rules.
I will concede that your conclusion likely makes the most sense in this case.
This seems to be written out of spite after the doctrine of "if this is taken from me this will be taken from you"
Damn f*cking right! I love my Falling Forever level, and it's in danger of being rendered obsolete! The claws are very much out! :devil:
Incidentally, the aforementioned level from LPIII is one of my favourite custom levels (and I have played more than you probably think ;)) - so, I personally wouldn't like to see Ohnoers exiting being removed from the game either, of course. Just wanted to make that clear ;P
The Ohnoer cannot exit mid-air.
Fair enough, but that wasn't the question. The question was "why should it, and no other dying state, be able to exit?"
The Ohnoer is also still alive and even moving visible by the arm movement.
So is the Drowner, Burner, and arguably any of the other trap animations up until the point that the lemming is actually dead.
And standing on solid ground EVERY lemming is able to exit.
Apart from Burners and Drowners (water seems to be treated as "solid ground" in the context of an exit). So, the question remains:
What makes an Ohnoer different from the other dying states, which cannot exit?
some of the best levels I've ever seen incorperate the nuke very creatively and unexpectedly.
Hence your desire to defend the Ohnoer as an exitable state. How is that any different from me enjoying the fact that Floaters and Jumpers can exit?
I am not happy to break content... but the question was asked if an RC could be made to evaluate and I cannot argue for forbidding simple evaluation.
Fair enough. And, I agree that the argument should of course be tested to its limits before any decision is made.
Midair exits cannot be avoided in general. You can create levels freely. Are are also created naturally by removing terrain during solving. They will always exsist even if in the vast majority of cases terrain will be built under them anyway.
Fair point, and this does make it a somewhat unusual case in that it can happen unintentionally in any level which provides downwardly destructive skills. However, it doesn't necessarily refute the point that creating levels with midair exits will become as maligned/redundant/pointless/whatever as, say, creating levels with hidden exits. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, it's just something to keep in mind when making these sorts of decisions.
Personally I would have to dig deep to see if I ever used them. I remember no, but if they would need to be build towards.
I'd provide a bunch of Floaters and Jumpers, personally. Much more fun than Building ;)
-
So is the Drowner, Burner, and arguably any of the other trap animations up until the point that the lemming is actually dead.
What makes an Ohnoer different from the other dying states, which cannot exit?
For me a burner is already dead. It's just a fancy death animation like the trap activation animations.
The drowner I would say is also dead with another fancy animation, the fact that we can still assign a swimmer and save him I would count towards user friendlieness so that we get a few extra frames of assignment. Also it makes sense that when he suddenly gets the ability to swim he would save himself. Without that ability he is already dead.
The Ohnoer I would not count as already dead ---> What happens if you assign a bomber to a blocker? That's right the resulting Ohnoer continues blocking until AFTER he exploded! He is still alive as a result.
Another argument would be: The exit clausel could can be compared to the drowner case. The drowner gets saved by the swimmer, the Ohnoer with the exit.
-
For me a burner is already dead. It's just a fancy death animation like the trap activation animations.
By this logic, surely the Ohnoer is also effectively dead, and simply performing an animation before the inevitable explosion - it's not reversible in any way.
The drowner I would say is also dead, the fact that we can still assign a swimmer and save him I would count towards user friendlieness so that we get a few extra frames of assignment. Also it makes sense that when he suddenly gets the ability to swim he would save himself. Without that ability he is already dead.
If anything, this gives weight to the possible argument that Drowners, like Ohnoers, should also be able to exit. Yes, they're in water, but they're still alive and - in fact - able to transition to Swimmers! This makes it arguably a slightly less "dead" state than the Ohnoer.
The Ohnoer I would not count as already dead ---> What happens if you assign a bomber to a blocker? That's right the resulting Ohnoer continues blocking until AFTER he exploded! He is still alive as a result.
Another argument would be: The exit clausel could can be compared to the drowner case. The drowner gets saved by the swimmer, the Ohnoer with the exit.
Eeesh. So much for keeping things simple... ;P
EDIT: With all this said, I can think of a way in which the Ohnoer is different from all other dying states:
It is able to drop, and thus change position - all other dying states are fixed (the Drowner moves slightly side to side, but this is not as significant as the range of vertical movement that an Ohnoer has).
Is this a good enough case for its exitability? Sure, why not :lemcat:
-
After reflecting the options a bit I think I have a possible alternative suggestion on how to handle things which could be a compromise for all parties:
- To exit all lemmings should requite solid terrain underneath their feet. This addresses the simplicity concerns of Proxima and Dullstar.
- We discuss and flesh out the vortex object type WillLem proposed (https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=5504.0) so that it is clear and fair. This leaves the possibility of mid air exit open towards every type of lemming. May it be jumpers, fallers,etc. In fact it will just suck up and allow every lemming to exit regardless of the state. We will probably require a few visual variations of the final object to fit the tones of different types of terrain. This addresses the concerns of WillLem, mantha and others who prefer exiting jumpers or even fallers.
- An RC version will be needed with the new standard exit exiter rule (and the new object type) to assess breakage. Yes at first levels will still break, but the fix should be very simple and should even be possible to prepare in the final RC version.
- The list of broken levels that 100% need mid air exiters can then easily be fixed by using the new object type. Action will still be needed from the creator side, but it's an easy fix which still leaves the level intact afterwards. This case should supposedly be rare depending on the result of the RC candidate.
So how does this alternative proposal sounds like? ???
-
- To exit all lemmings should requite solid terrain underneath their feet. This addresses the simplicity concerns of Proxima and Dullstar.
To be clear, are you including "swimmer should not be able to exit" here?
I really do feel that Swimmer needs to be treated as a special case here, because water becomes a pseudo-terrain for a swimmer. In this case, I have no levels myself that rely on this behavior, so it's not a "preserve my own content" thing either. :P
-
To be clear, are you including "swimmer should not be able to exit" here?
My initial instinct would tend to not let them exit and let the vortex do the job as well. I see the point of the water being pseudo-terrain though!
But let's say the swimmer corner case could be discussed. I would not stand in the way of either possibility.
-
not trying to be argumentative but im not sure how lemmings have to be on solid ground to exit is a compromise
-
not trying to be argumentative but im not sure how lemmings have to be on solid ground to exit is a compromise
As the other cases will be covered with the new object type WillLem suggested:
- We discuss and flesh out the vortex object type WillLem proposed (https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=5504.0) so that it is clear and fair. This leaves the possibility of mid air exit open towards every type of lemming. May it be jumpers, fallers,etc. In fact it will just suck up and allow every lemming to exit regardless of the state. We will probably require a few visual variations of the final object to fit the tones of different types of terrain. This addresses the concerns of WillLem, mantha and others who prefer exiting jumpers or even fallers.
The standard exit will be solid ground only, but the new exit type will be an everything goes exit.
-
yeah except you did post this before willem suggested the vortex but yes that is a compromise
-
yeah except you did post this before willem suggested the vortex but yes that is a compromise
To be fair, Icho did post this after my suggestion (hence the link). Maybe you missed it in the Forum feed.
-
To be fair, Icho did post this after my suggestion (hence the link). Maybe you missed it in the Forum feed.
WillLems' suggestion was the reason I even thought of this. It made it possible in the first place. So of course I need to give credit to WillLem
-
ok i stand corrected it must not have shown up as quickly or i happened to read ichos message first
-
A vortex object would essentially be an exit but with pre-direct-drop-cull behavior.
Some concerns (my own / from Discord):
- How would it be visually different from a regular exit? Obviously styles make their own design, but what would the guideline be, especially taking into account the huge variety around what exits look like?
- Or if the idea is that it looks like an actual vortex, how would it be visually different from the proposed portal (which is a very strong contender to get into NL eventually)?
- And is this going to extend to wanting locked vortexes, or limited-lemming-count vortexes?
-
- How would it be visually different from a regular exit? Obviously styles make their own design, but what would the guideline be, especially taking into account the huge variety around what exits look like?
Initial graphic concept. (https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=5504.msg91156#msg91156)
The main thing I'd propose is that it be circular, with a circular trigger area intended to be positioned at its centre.
- Or if the idea is that it looks like an actual vortex, how would it be visually different from the proposed portal (which is a very strong contender to get into NL eventually)?
Portals could be smaller, and with no indication of what's on the other side. Vortexes should be bigger, with a "sunny meadow" (or similar) image on the other side of it, similar to a regular exit.
- And is this going to extend to wanting locked vortexes, or limited-lemming-count vortexes?
I'd currently vote no on this, as I like the idea that the Vortex should be an all-encompassing, unlimited exit type. However, discussion on this is currently being had here (https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=5504.msg91193#msg91193).
-
Giving consideration only to regular exits, and not to any potential future object that may act similarly - can anyone think of a case that this would not cover:
1. A lemming cannot exit if there is no terrain at its pin position. As a special case, a swimmer can exit if there is water at its pin position, even if there is no terrain.
2. A lemming cannot exit if it is splatting, burning or drowning.
-
Well, there is currently still the floater and glider case.
So if you want to formulate a rule that captures all I would epand the swimmer exception to permanent skills.
Otherwise I think it's fine.
-
Well, there is currently still the floater and glider case.
So if you want to formulate a rule that captures all I would epand the swimmer exception to permanent skills.
Otherwise I think it's fine.
Ah, right. I would rather make exceptions specifically for those skills if this edge case is to be kept (and as much as I'd like to see it go at this point, I think it'd be unnecessary breakage to actually do so), as there's no reason that weird edge cases with climbers / disarmers need to be able to exit.
-
Giving consideration only to regular exits, and not to any potential future object that may act similarly - can anyone think of a case that this would not cover:
1. A lemming cannot exit if there is no terrain at its pin position. As a special case, a swimmer can exit if there is water at its pin position, even if there is no terrain.
2. A lemming cannot exit if it is splatting, burning or drowning.
Well, there is currently still the floater and glider case.
So if you want to formulate a rule that captures all I would epand the swimmer exception to permanent skills.
I would rather make exceptions specifically for those skills if this edge case is to be kept (and as much as I'd like to see it go at this point, I think it'd be unnecessary breakage to actually do so), as there's no reason that weird edge cases with climbers / disarmers need to be able to exit.
I'm not sure I understand the initial question or the subsequent mini-discussion. If you're happy to elaborate/reword slightly I'd like to provide some input to the discussion, but I want to make sure I've understood properly what has been asked/said.
Specifically: does this mean Floater/Glider exiting will be kept or won't be kept?
Thanks :lemcat:
-
OK, so Proxima has explained on Discord that
"Namida is acknowledging that it would be preferable to remove floaters being able to exit, but saying that he probably won't change it because of existing content."
namida also confirmed that "whether or not a vortex is added will have no bearing on the exit's behavior."
With this being the case, I'm very much in favour of keeping Floater/Glider/Swimmer can all exit behaviour (i.e. regardless of terrain presence/absence). Also, if Jumper/Reacher exiting has not already been fixed, I'm still in favour of keeping that behaviour as well (ditto).
As for Vortexes (https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=5504.msg91149#msg91149), I guess they would only be desirable/necessary iff the current exiting behaviour is changed, but I'm still in favour of the idea generally.
-
Additionally, a point raised on Discord that's worth mentioning here since it touches upon midair rules.
In response to me asking why exits shouldn't act like vortices (and therefore not require terrain beneath them):
exits are designed to look like buildings, archways etc, and not like vortices
This can be reversed. Since exits are indeed often designed to look like buildings, and therefore usually appear to have steps and/or some sort of doorway, or at the very least a solid-looking "edge", it's conceivable that these features are indeed "solid" and "land-on-able", and so shouldn't require additional terrain to be placed beneath them.
Conversely, if this isn't the case (i.e. if an exit's appearance doesn't have any bearing on their behaviour/interactability), then the original question still stands: if their aesthetic is largely irrelevant, why shouldn't they act like vortices?
-
With this being the case, I'm very much in favour of keeping Floater/Glider/Swimmer can all exit behaviour (i.e. regardless of terrain presence/absence).
These will almost certianly remain as is. Although it would be good to get an idea of just how widespread breakage is; if it's pretty rare, perhaps it's better to change it. At any rate - swimmers will remain able to exit even if floaters/gliders lose that ability (which itself, probably won't happen), that part I consider to make sense (as water is like terrain to them, just with some slightly different properties).
Also, if Jumper/Reacher exiting has not already been fixed, I'm still in favour of keeping that behaviour as well (ditto).
These will not. To be clear - that is not "them being able to exit is an intended mechanic that we are debating a change to", that is "them being able to exit is a bug that will be fixed".
-
I'd say we should definitely look into the frequency (how often?) and severity (how difficult is to fix?) of breakage if we were to change floaters/gliders, as personally I consider them analogous to fallers, except they survive falls.
Just making up some numbers here, but if it was, say, 3 levels that were broken out of all existing levels (I suspect the true number would be higher), then it wouldn't be a severe change to clean up the rules even if the levels were very difficult to fix, while if it's very simple to fix (e.g. just needs some terrain under the exit and doesn't cause major backroute issues), then a much larger number of broken levels could be tolerated. I think we should find out this information before we commit to changing/leaving the behavior.
I also think the vortex is relevant to this discussion, as it could be a viable solution for fixing some of the broken levels, depending on how the floating exit is used in broken levels.
-
I have only 1 level whose intended solution would be broken by Floaters not being able to exit; however, it would be impossible to fix without using a lockable vortex in place of the regular exit, and would likely need to be replaced by a new level. I really do not want to have to do this, and would consider the change very disruptive.
Besides, the behaviour extends far beyond how many levels intentionally use the mechanic as part of the solution, as it could be that challenges/contests can make use of the behaviour. This is important, since NeoLemmix is a go-to platform for challenge play as well as custom levels.
-
Besides, the behaviour extends far beyond how many levels intentionally use the mechanic as part of the solution, as it could be that challenges/contests can make use of the behaviour. This is important, since NeoLemmix is a go-to platform for challenge play as well as custom levels.
I'll be sure to take that into account if NeoLemmix's target audience ever becomes challenge / contest play rather than custom levels. As it stands though, that is not what NeoLemmix is aimed at - it's merely something that, as a side effect of its primary intentions, NeoLemmix can also be used for. I consider this a strong enough argument to take challenge / contest considerations into account for UI features (hence, for example, the "show used skill counts" suggestion being accepted), but not even close to being relevant to physics.
however, it would be impossible to fix without using a lockable vortex in place of the regular exit, and would likely need to be replaced by a new level. I really do not want to have to do this, and would consider the change very disruptive.
Perhaps the setup in the attachment - or some variation thereof - would be able to fix the level? Portals, if and when they're introduced, may work better than teleporters for this.
-
Perhaps the setup in the attachment - or some variation thereof - would be able to fix the level? Portals, if and when they're introduced, may work better than teleporters for this.
Unfortunately neither that nor portals would help, since the exit needs to be accessible from the start and locked. The level in question is Sensational 12 "Falling Forever" from Lemminas (attached). In this particular setup, placing terrain beneath the exit would ruin the whole point of the level.
I guess this is the problem with using niche physics features as the basis for a level, but... well, that's a big part of my level creation style :P
Hopefully, if Floater/Glider exit behaviour is removed, we get the Vortex (https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=5504.msg91149#msg91149) object :lemcat: I'm suddenly back to thinking that would be the best solution for everybody.
-
I'd find it strangely limiting if vortexes didn't also support locking and lemming limits, personally.
-
I'd find it strangely limiting if vortexes didn't also support locking and lemming limits, personally.
Agreed. The level I've posted above (https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=5496.msg91861#msg91861) would need vortexes to be lockable in order to recreate the level.
Let's keep any discussion of the ins-and-outs of vortexes here (https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=5504.msg91149#msg91149) though, so as not to get the discussions confused.
-
Okay so - after some more thinking about this, while there are endless possibilities for what could be considered the best rule, I am going to make the decision from a different angle.
Nothing that is well-established will change. This means - floater and glider behavior will stay as is, as will other edge cases with existing skills (for example, a digger clinging on to some terrain at the side).
However, the recent skills will get changed to follow the spirit of the rules I suggested earlier. This means Reacher will not remain able to exit, and Jumper will stay unable to exit (with that last-frame-able-to-exit bug fixed).