I plan on joining this time.

my personal biggest concern is that this arbitrarily allows for you to cancels other skills with a fencer; in a way you can't necessarily do with most other skills of its kind. It reminds me of the Lemmini bug/feature of canceling miners with a blocker, which always felt kind of hackish to me.

[not solved] 12-3 All-in comes so close. Only one spot where my solution requires a lemming to use two skills, I can't atm see a way to get any other non-workers over on that side to bash this pillar or to somehow turn the other around without building or assigning any skills.

11-3 Bash Street Kids

screen cap indicates all the important parts. Not super challenging; but a lot of precise time bombing. This saves exactly enough!



my last post was in 2014! Indeed last post of any kind in this topic! Feels good to get back to it.

An even better solution imo is to have decorative terrain specifically made for and only for steel. This should look at least subtly different from ordinary terrain.

Or to take this idea even further except this is outside the scope of this topic sort of; you could have a class of terrain that's entirely decorative and can or doesn't necessarily have to be used over steel. So that it essentially has no physical effect in game; is purely decorative. Outside of steel Lemmings would pass right through it.

[everybody's angry response at this idea so they don't have to]:
That would lead to lots of confusion and angry ranting; what's walk-able terrain and what's not??? I don't want to play guessing games! The game should be always clear what's terrain and what's not. This would just add clutter and unnecessary complexity.

Just as an aside; NL currently has lots of graphical content, imo that is VERY confusing, to the point of me completely losing interest in playing. When I see certain tilesets or graphics used I simply pass without even attempting said level. And this is with the "optimal" steel features NL has and all the other stuff "true physics mode" and what not.

IMO steel should always be on top of terrain or else clear that it's steel somehow. If I was making a game I might just be tempted to enforce that steel is always on top at the sacrifice of being able to make "misshapen steel".

It's already too late but I would appreciate the saving of the whole thing as I didn't even know about this session until now.

imo this is a decision up to the game designer. Good arguments could be (and have been) made for all cases. Particularly with the jumpers and throwers, this is a case imo where the ceiling being open or deadly makes equal sense to me, so I would have no strong opinion in the matter at present.

Also Idk if I ever said this elsewhere but I always found the "lets design our game in such a way to discourage bad level design" frankly a bit of a weak argument for anything. Only to a point does this work. People will and can always find a way to make bad content. People aren't forced to play their content. Content makers should not be the major deciding factor for how the game is designed imo.

----more notes on my plans for a game---

Block based physics.

I will try this and see how it goes in early testing. My initial thoughts are:

-should blocks be large or small? That is; a Lemming could be about the size of two blocks (two vertically placed). Or they're smaller so a Lemmings takes up more than that horizontally. With the former the position of each lemming is easier(?) to determine. Smaller blocks however may be easier to deal with the destructive skills and would look smoother.

Here's what chat GPT had to say about it (better than I could)

Pixel-Based Physics:
Pros:

    Precise Placement: Pixel-based physics allow for fine-grained control and precise placement of objects and characters. This can be useful for creating intricate levels with detailed designs.
    Smooth Movements: Since the physics are calculated at the pixel level, the movements of the characters can appear smoother and more fluid, resulting in a visually appealing experience.
    Detailed Interactions: Pixel-based physics can enable detailed interactions between objects and characters, allowing for more complex gameplay mechanics and puzzles.

Cons:

    Performance: Calculating physics at the pixel level can be computationally expensive, especially for large numbers of objects or complex interactions. This can impact the game's performance, particularly on lower-end devices.
    Limited Block-Based Mechanics: Pixel-based physics may not lend themselves well to block-based mechanics where objects interact at a higher level, such as pushing blocks or creating structures.

Block-Based Physics:
Pros:

    Simplified Interactions: Block-based physics simplifies the interactions between objects, allowing for easier implementation of mechanics like pushing or stacking blocks. This can lead to more accessible and intuitive gameplay.
    Performance Efficiency: Calculating physics at the block level can be more computationally efficient compared to pixel-based physics, particularly when dealing with larger levels or numerous interacting elements.

Cons:

    Reduced Precision: Block-based physics can lack the precision and fine control of pixel-based physics. This may limit the complexity and intricacy of level design and gameplay mechanics.
    Visual Limitations: Block-based physics can result in less visually detailed movements and interactions, as objects are constrained to block-sized increments.

Ultimately, the choice between pixel-based and block-based physics depends on the desired gameplay experience and the specific mechanics you want to implement in your Lemmings-style game. It's worth considering the trade-offs between precision, performance, and visual fidelity to determine which approach best suits your game's design goals.

@namida I'd love some more thoughts on this; or is there plenty of it in your threads on the matter (regarding L3D)? I haven't followed those closely until now.

--------------

Some other topics:
I agreed with Nester's view, when he was still around, that the game design and integrity should take precedence over "existing content" which can and should change if the need arises.

I decided to completely cut time limits and changeable RR/spawn interval from the game like Simon did with Lix (except maybe in a few edge cases but that remains to be seen).

carrying on from my first post:
The reason I don't believe in "true physics mode" is because I think the game should be designed such that it isn't necessary. Skill shadows are in a similar vein but a bit different but I'm not in a hurry to implement this; Lix doesn't have it after all and I never felt that I missed it terribly.

More generally; I honestly feel that both games (NL and Lix) have too much complication in their "ease-of-use features". This is just my personal preference yes. I think the game (level design in large part) should be simple enough that the magnitude of features we have in NL today aren't really necessary. Of course I want the game to lack the dullness and tedium that L1 had. But a lot of this can be mitigated by level design. For example you wouldn't rely so much on fast forward if your level simply didn't have a pointless long walk to the exit. My game will likely still have a fast forward, fyi. Although playing the game Temporal gave me the idea of having instead a "speed setting"