Me and my gf recently grabbed a couple of Worms games off Steam. We're already familiar with the series in general (we've got Battlegrounds on PS4 via PS Plus and we play it every now and then), but we grabbed two - the newest one (Worms WMD), and the newest 3D one (I forget the exact name but it had "Mayhem" in it).

WMD is very good - it seems to take the general gameplay of Battlegrounds and improve on it well; although I do have to say I much prefer Battlegrounds' UI. On the other hand, I wasn't so impressed by the 3D one - definitely got to give them credit for trying, and some impressive technical achievements to make it work, but ultimately I just feel Worms doesn't translate very well to 3D in practice - as much as it sounds like "Worms 3D" would be an awesome idea in theory.

I don't see them as an "avoid at all costs" thing, although they can be annoying.

The "no issue" type can also be combined - perhaps you need to let the first lemming go ahead as a floater, then the second one becomes a stoner, so that the third doesn't walk off a bridge before the first one finishes building it (which if there wasn't that gap via the 2nd being the stoner, he would). This could turn into a larger puzzle because the next question is how to get that floater to somewhere (maybe near another entrance) where it looks like the floater would be needed. etc.

"Floater frenzy" type levels should be avoided as much as possible, or if they can't be avoided or turned into a "low save" (because the "floater frenzy" setup is also important to the level in other ways - as in, important to the puzzle working, not just "I feel this should be part of the level just because I say so"), the lemming count should be kept to to the minimum that makes it still work. Alternatively, if the only reason is "I want to force all lemmings to be floaters / gliders from the start", just pre-assign the skill in question.

If dealing with the fatal fall is limited to "assign floater to first lemming (or first two lemmings, one blocks), and build", outside of easy open-ended levels, it's pointless - not to mention potentially a backroute risk due to the extra skills - and the entrance should be lowered. The fatal fall should in some way play into the overall puzzle (or alternatively, dealing with it - in and of itself - should be a puzzle) rather than just being there "for the sake of it".

Open-ended levels that include a splat / danger start as one of their obstacles is fine, IMO.

For #1, the sides used to be solid (and steel), but it was decided, after much debate among the community, that this should change. IIRC, for a while this was even a mixed case, where the top of the level was solid, but the left and right were not, but eventually it was decided that no - it's preferable that all four edges work the same way. The conversions of the official levels generally add terrain at the edges in cases where it was critical to the solution, though not in cases where it wasn't (such as that one, where you can easily use a blocker or just go left). I'll definitely concede that there are valid arguments for either behaviour, but ultimately, this is just what was decided for NeoLemmix. FWIW - I'll note that "the edges are solid" is not true for every original version of Lemmings. On DOS, the left and top are solid but the right is not (but the left also behaves a bit differently to a normal wall). On Amiga, the left and right are both solid. On Win95, the edges are nonsolid.

For #2, NeoLemmix's design philosophy is that the difficulty should come from the puzzle, not from execution. SuperLemming mode is not consistent with that; as it only adds fake difficulty by speeding up the gameplay; there's nothing new you can do, or anything normal you can't do, as a result of it. Therefore, SuperLemming mode has no reason to exist in NeoLemmix. (In the past, SuperLemming mode - along with several other, NeoLemmix-specific, gimmicks, did exist, but it was decided not to keep them.) EDIT: And regarding your note about timed bombers, exactly the same thing applies there too. It's just execution difficulty, it doesn't add anything to the puzzle (in fact, it takes one possibility away: with timed bombers, you cannot explode a lemming in the first 5 seconds after he spawns; which you can do with instant ones). It should also be noted - I'm not particularly worried if it harms the experience of playing the original levels, because NeoLemmix's focus is on custom content; being able to play the official levels on it is just a bonus.

I'm not sure what you mean by #3.

Styles updated since last update of all-styles download:
- proxima_tile

(remember that not everyone grew up with a version of Lemmings where DD is possible; in fact it's possible on only a few versions)

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

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

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

Think about it this way: Pretend no existing version of lemmings has / had direct drop. What might cause you to even think of it as a possible change in the first place, let alone to then think it's a worthwhile and logical feature? All arguments for direct drop seem to come from "some versions of the game already have it" and being used to that (aside from those which come from "I want to make levels that use it to obscure the solution", which is an argument that you already know few if any people here will even give consideration to). It's a behaviour resulting from glitches, not one that could possibly result from any (non-trollish) intentional implementation - other than one that's implemented solely "to replicate what another engine already does", which would be inaccurate in SL's case given that it cites Amiga as its primary influence. Lemmix is a case that indeed should (and does) have it - because Lemmix's entire goal is to accurately reproduce the DOS game, glitches and all.

Replaced with a useable link. Basic Git knowledge (probably) required to get to specifically V1.43n-C's code, rather than the last old-formats editor version (10.13.13).

Also, what program would you recommend for writing in Delphi 7?

My suggestion would be Delphi. In terms of which version, try 7.

This is probably not a good project to start with. The editor is firstly, very complex, and secondly, very poorly written in parts (because I didn't really know what I was doing during the early stages of modifying it from Lemmix, either).

Uploaded an update that fixes both the shadow bug and the error message.