2:1 in favour of no Spawn interval.
NL has implemented the choice already. You'd spend more time removing the feature than just leaving it in place.
You ask X if X wants Y, the answer is no, then you draw the conclusion that X wants Z to not have Y.
original game's aesthetics. RR is very much part of this.
I haven't asked anything about what people want for other users, that isn't part of the question. I'm asking X if they want Y; there is no Z in the equation.
Well, remember to revert to L1 RR then, where RR 1 is SI 53 and you have two RR values per SI value.
Options like this one (that we expect each player to set once and then stick for years with the setting) are always for other users (Z).
You can inflict the conversion of the spawn interval (what both the format explicitly and engine internally already use) to 107 − 2 × SI like L1 does, instead of showing the meaningful value as it is
I merely doubt I'll play SuperLemmix much with all the removed convenience.
it's a little silly to not get your voice heard because you were busy with something else when the poll happened
---
it's not like I knew it was coming ahead of time to be able to make time for it!
Simon has already touched on making sure you understand how you're interpreting "no" votes
---
I'd say 24 hours is a minimum time you should leave a poll open, and ideally probably a week
I could probably make a case that you closed the vote early because it showed the result that you wanted, and I'm not sure a reputation for biasing feature votes in your favor is something you want if you want your development journey to be relatively drama free.
It has previously been suggested that there should be as few as 5 speeds for RR: 1, 25, 50, 75 and 99 (which could be re-labelled as Super-Slow, Slow, Medium, Fast and Super-Fast, for instance). I prefer this idea to allowing the Spawn Interval to be displayed, because SI is too close to the inner workings of the game and not far enough removed that players are concentrating on the effect rather than the numbers.
The only reason I'd rather not implement the 5-speeds idea is because I do hold the OG as a standard to aim for rather than deviate from
current codebase only supports up to 32 options.
I'm genuinely interested to hear what people have to say
It feels odd that you should use that as an argument against the "5 speeds" idea.
---
Since ONML was designed second, this really looks as though the designers themselves realised that the game didn't need so many gradations in release rate....
During play, the displayed initial spawn interval is for eyeballing, and I have feelings for it. E.g., spawn interval 60 gets the second lix stuck in first lix's digger pit, but 50 is too quick.
I don't like levels with precision RR fidgeting. I'll solve those by trial-and-error, not by exact math, and they're annyoing.
It helps a little if I have a feeling for what the numbers mean
---
Thus, if WillLem wishes me to avoid exact math, then forcing RR over SI will not progress towards that goal.
I like to choose, during level design, an odd spawn interval (because the walker's animation cycle has 8 frames)
---
With L1 RR or NL RR, it's not immediately obvious which numbers will make odd intervals, and they obscure entirely which numbers make prime intervals.
One advantage of Spawn Interval is that the direct correlation of the values to the result makes quick estimation of the amount to change it easy. If I want to double the release rate, that's halving the time between spawns, thus I want to cut the spawn interval in half. When you think about it that way, you can take a lot of the trial and error out of reaching the number you're looking for.
And if you really want to do frame perfect SI/RR twiddling...
Since SL doesn't seem too concerned about existing NL content breakage, there may be an argument for reverting to the traditional RR scale.
I see no compelling reason not to offer SI as an option even in classic mode (particularly if you don't revert to the traditional RR scale as neither current option is really classic...)
You can do the same with RR, how is SI more helpful in this case?
Ultimately, though, it's necessary to learn which values are useful for either RR or SI. You've learned SI, hence your preference.
(https://i.imgur.com/QC96d2X.png)
It's merely easier to learn one scale than several
Yes, after explanation, it's understandable in either scale, but it's immediately obvious in SI even before explanation
The gut reaction is that I like this widget better than displaying 103 − SI and better than 107 − 2 × SI. This feels sufficiently far removed from the precise numbers, yeah.
Depends on how fine-grained that widget will react to mouse clicks. Will it inflict pixel-precise clicking on top of learning another scale?
Consider ditching variable spawn interval altogether. That will cut all annoying RR fidgeting and give you panel space to boost. An instant fix for all your problems!
how does SI translate to what's seen on-screen in a way that RR specifically does not?
I want to post an enumerated list. Instead of 1), 2), 3) as you did, I write 102), 101), 100), 99). Nobody bats an eye because these numbers are very useful.
New keyboards will be produced. Instead of the "1" key, they have a "102" key. If we don't want the two extra digits when we type, we can erase them afterwards every time. I'll buy this keyboard, I think that keyboard is as useful as the ones we have. 102 is a natural figure to type often; after all, most people start counting from here.
you make a symbol for fast and a symbol for slow, then you don't have to swap them