Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Proxima

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 306
Anyway, back on the subject of toggling the silly view to show how many sausages we've used....

NeoLemmix Main / Re: [PLAYER] Side-quests in levels
« on: April 12, 2021, 03:37:50 PM »
In summary: We got talismans and those suggested side-quest should rather be their own level or a talisman.

As I see it, that's the point of the current discussion. How can a "get to point X" goal be made into a talisman? If we can come up with a satisfactory solution, then we (WillLem, ∫tan and those of us in favour of the proposed talisman object) have something we can use instead. If not, then maybe we should petition namida to say that we think this does come under the heading of "unresolved existing suggestion" rather than "new suggestion".

So let's talk about the "how".

Cloner pickup: As already mentioned, this allows saving one extra lemming, so there can be a talisman for saving R + 1 (where R is the original save requirement). The problem is that the cloner is a very powerful skill and could enable backroutes -- although with careful construction, getting to the cloner pickup could use up enough skills that the cloner can't be used to break the level.

Button: If the main exit is unlocked, you could have a button that unlocks an exit in an isolated part of the level, where there is a pre-placed lemming. The talisman would then, again, be for saving 1 above the normal requirement. The only drawbacks are that this can't be used if the level already has buttons and a locked main exit; and it requires a construction that's not at all typical of Lemmings levels and so draws attention to itself.

Walker pickup: If there is a pre-placed blocker or the main solution requires a blocker, a walker pickup could be used in conjunction with a talisman for (again!) saving 1 above the requirement. As before, this could potentially be awkward from the backroute point of view.

Limited-number exit: This seems to be maybe the "cleanest" solution. The level's main exit could have a limit of R, and there is a talisman for saving R + 1, requiring a lemming to navigate to another exit. To prevent backroutes, the second exit has a limit of 1. The only drawback I can see is that it doesn't allow the designer to require "get to point X and get back", which the talisman object would.

NeoLemmix Main / Re: [PLAYER] Side-quests in levels
« on: April 10, 2021, 07:01:42 PM »
I had completely forgotten this, but you're right about the suggestion being made. My apologies.

Still, after reading through the topic, I still don't feel that "shot down" is a good summary. Only a few people contributed to the discussion, but of those, all were at least somewhat in favour, except Nepster. Most likely, Nepster being against it is why it was allowed to quietly slip off the radar until it got forgotten.

NeoLemmix Main / Re: [PLAYER] Side-quests in levels
« on: April 10, 2021, 03:11:37 AM »
Incidentally, namida mentioned that ∫tan's suggestion is one that has been shot down previously. Whilst I am used to certain ideas not being popular within the community, this one surprises me - it seems an obvious way to build replay value/alternative solutions into a level whilst not necessarily opening up potential for backroutes...

I don't quarrel with namida closing the topic, because we've decided on "no new physics suggestions", but I do think that "this idea has been shot down in the past" is a misrepresentation of what happened.

Old NeoLemmix had secret level triggers, which were an invisible object that, if a lemming touched them, would immediately end play of the level and take you to a secret level. This concept had some good features -- the excitement of unlocking secret content, and the extra challenge of finding and reaching the triggers -- but they were rarely used; there was a general feeling against secret/locked content in general; and the triggers being invisible was an extra annoyance -- especially as you could think a level was solved and then have your solution invalidated by running into a secret level trigger.

At the same time as the gimmicks cull, namida asked whether secret level triggers should also be culled, and they went down without much of a fight.

How this links with the current discussion is that there could be talismans for finding a secret level. I did suggest that an obvious solution to the annoyance of invisible triggers was to make them visible -- but by then the cull was already decided. Also, I was mainly making the suggestion because I wanted to find a way to preserve secret levels -- the idea of keeping a (visible) trigger object specifically for talismans, entirely separately from secret levels, simply never came up in the discussion.

Prehaps we could add both my previous idea and also add: a 'skills used mode' button on the skill panel (like clear physics mode or fast forward) which changes the skills remaining to skills used.

While I'm absolutely in support of a hotkey for "skills used mode", it's far too niche a feature to justify a skill panel slot.

SuperLemmini / Re: [Superlemmini] Deceit's Lemmings
« on: April 02, 2021, 09:37:34 AM »
You thought I enabled all of those gimmicks just for Mayhem 22 during the conversion?

No -- the conversion to old-formats NL. I'm not sure who did that (maybe namida?) -- I did a forum search and the only other topic I found for Deceit's Lemmings is the one by Nepster you mentioned. In it, he says that he converted the pack to new-formats, but doesn't say who the old-formats conversion was done by.

It definitely makes sense that Deceit intended all those gimmicks to be enabled

It might make sense, but since the pack was originally for Lemmix, not old-formats NL, it's also impossible.

SuperLemmini / Re: [Superlemmini] Deceit's Lemmings
« on: April 02, 2021, 08:04:29 AM »
Mayhem 22 - It appears that the level originally intended to have the Superlemming gimmick enabled. Indeed, this took me by surprise when I loaded the level in Superlemmini. I think I remember the Lemmix version having the gimmick enabled, so I decided to leave it in for the level. Even then, the level's still very easy... if you pause! For those who want a challenge, you can try and solve it without using pause, which should still theoretically be possible. Indeed, according to the gimmicks list for the level, it had Superlemming, Frenzy (no pause), backwards walkers, lazy lemmings (builders and destructive skills only happen for a few bricks/strokes), non-permanent skills, disobedience, rising water, and clock gimmick enabled. However, in Superlemmini only the Superlemming one is supported. Maybe one of these days I will try it out in very Old Formats and see how very challenging it is. It makes sense, as otherwise it's an extremely easy level in both Old Formats and New Formats NL.

I don't know how the level came to have all the gimmicks enabled, but since the pack was originally for Lemmix, it seems that it probably wasn't intended by the original author. It may have been done in the conversion to make the level more challenging -- although the clock gimmick in particular makes me think it may have just happened by accident.

Challenges / Re: [NeoLemmix] Skills you can't live without
« on: March 31, 2021, 10:38:44 PM »
We did some results for Inverse Lemmings.


1 "Just dig!" - 1 digger
4 "Don't do anything too hasty" - 4 bombers
6 "We all fall down" - 40 jumpers, 2 bombers
All others: None

Site Discussion / Re: Tooltip Text for in-game levels
« on: March 30, 2021, 01:45:10 AM »
The functionality to have tooltip text may exist, but the functionality to automatically give the correct level name when a position is referred to (or vice versa) does not -- if we wanted to add tooltips to every mention of a level in Challenges, it would have to be done manually, and that would take up a huge amount of time that could be better spent on something else.

It's not really that hard to look up a level if you're not sure which one is referred to.

When I originally started this topic, it was to suggest that packs could do this.

I then realised that it may make more sense to link the custom sounds to a theme (such as Lemminas, Millas, or any other custom sprite set which may require their own sounds). That way, any levels or packs created using these sprites/themes would have the correct sounds.

Doing it by pack, on the other hand, means having to make sure the correct sounds are included with every release, which seems a bit more cumbersome. That said, it would certainly be a good enough way to do it, if it was the only way.

I have a different take on this issue, and I hope we can disagree amicably.

As I see it, the content of NeoLemmix is levels (and therefore packs). Styles are tools to create content.

That means it should really be the level/pack designer who decides which sound is "correct" for the content they choose to make -- although the end user is of course free to modify it on their own copy! I am thinking here particularly of a complaint I've raised before: some styles have a theme.nxmi prescribing a background colour I can't tolerate, so if I want to use those styles, I have to either select the theme of a different style (awkward because then one-way arrows, builder bridges etc will be in incorrect colours) or else set the level's background to a single-colour image. (Of course, now that proxima_tile contains several single-colour background images, the latter is a non-issue now, but this wasn't the case when I first started this discussion.)

Similarly, I'm worried that if custom sounds are tied to the theme.nxmi, this will create the situation where level authors who don't want the custom sounds (or don't want those particular custom sounds) will have to use the theme of another style -- again, messing up one-way arrow colours etc.

I can absolutely see that creators who both make styles and then use those styles in levels might want custom sounds that are tied thematically to the style -- Lemminas and Millas are examples, and my own Persia and Metroid styles are others. (Indeed, thinking of the Persia style in particular prompted me to vote "yes" in the current poll.) I also see that for such creators, having the custom sounds intrinsically tied to the style is more convenient. I am just not completely sure it's the right way to go.

What do people think of this as a possible "more-exit-looking" version of the Vortex?

I think it's too confusing for new players, who will just see an exit. A clear visual distinction makes it much clearer that it's a new type of object; and since the distinction from exits would be specifically that they work in mid-air, the grounded "building" graphic obscures that. After all, someone jumping past the front door of a building does not typically find themselves inside!

Contests / Re: [NeoLemmix] Save-'em-up Contest #2 (Open Choice)
« on: March 27, 2021, 07:43:45 PM »
I notice - far too late - that not only did I ultimately overlook including a "custom levels only" criteria, there wasn't even any rule against duplicates from the first contest (which to be fair, would not have been a concern if the "custom levels only" was not overlooked) - so one level that was also in the first contest ended up sneaking in. Here's hoping the RNG takes care of that.

I see two duplicates from the first contest, actually -- "Keep your hair on, Mr Lemming" and "Lemming Tomato Ketchup Facility".

The probability is 33/248 that neither one is selected.

Also, the workaround would fall apart if a lemming is falling into an exit from splat height - fall distance is carried over when going through a teleporter.

Yes, but do portals necessarily have to behave like teleporters?

On the one hand, I get the consistency argument -- if they behave alike (except for teleporters having the one-lemming-at-a-time behaviour) then there is less for a new player to learn. On the other hand, one argument for portals is that we can't remove one-at-a-time teleporters without breaking a ton of levels, so let's make a fresh start with a new object, and make portals into what teleporters should always have been.

From that point of view, I would definitely say let's get rid of the silly skills-continuing-through-teleporter behaviour and have the lemming pop out as if he'd just spawned. I'm not dead set that fall distance should also be reset, but it makes sense that it should.

Engine Bugs / Suggestions / Re: [DISC][PLAYER] Midair exit rules
« on: March 23, 2021, 09:06:15 PM »
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.

Engine Bugs / Suggestions / Re: [DISC][PLAYER] Midair exit rules
« on: March 23, 2021, 03:54:41 PM »
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.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 306