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 - ccexplore

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 369
I've been playing around with the Spear Thrower a little yesterday, and here's one interesting thing I've found out about how it behaves in L2:

- if you throw a spear into a wall and then climb it up, the lemming will actually climb through the spear from the bottom; but when he hits the ceiling and falls back down, he will walk on top of the spear

That's a bit surprising.  Are we talking regular climber or rock climber?  Any way to see some screenshots or a video (eg. angle of spear)?

With a rock climber and a suitably angled spear, I could see the rock climber climb around the angled underside of the spear to reach the top side, but that's quite different from literally going through the spear.

If the spear touches the wall low enough, I can see a regular climber ignoring that low point of intersection when it started climbing (ie. its head is already above the spear when it started climbing), but that also doesn't sound like what you are describing either.

I think most people would likely consider the described Lemmings 2 behavior unexpected and buggy.  The only way it makes sense is if in Lemmings 2 and unlike Lemmings 1, they more generally added some overhang tolerance for the regular climber so that it doesn't fall as easily.

If all of these answers are no, however, that would reduce the versatility of the Spear Thrower - and therefore its range of applicability - drastically.

Maybe, but it doesn't really need all those extra corner cases to be useful IMO.

But it's interesting you point that out.  Even in Lemmings 2 there is at least one interesting interaction I know of, that makes sense in real life but might not be necessarily expected by the player:

Challenges / Re: [AMIGA] Pause-free Playthroughs
« on: April 05, 2020, 08:39:55 am »
The Fast Food Kitchen is an obvious one to see.  I guess it's not completely unreasonable since you can still rely on the minimap to quickly jump back and forth between the 2 sides and even roughly see what's happening on the side otherwise currently offscreen.  But clearly will be an interesting challenge when you can't pause.  Bonus if you can't use the keyboard either and have to actually click on the skills icons to pick the skill you want to assign.  If you do decide to do that level, I'd ask to see the whole take and not just the final successful attempt.

[edit: extra bonus if you manage a 100% solution without pause for that level]

The Crossroads would be a fun quick one to see, probably not too difficult with some practice.  The level is always already all about execution, but normally you can still pause to adjust your bearings and pacing as needed.

NeoLemmix Main / Re: Hidden objects in NL, part 2
« on: April 05, 2020, 08:23:47 am »
a puzzle game isn't really a good match for exploration/hidden stuff mechanics.

Why not?

You can't plan a route ahead of time effectively if the level is actively misleading you or withholding vital information.  I mean, you can try, and then the game would punish you when your lemmings finally get to the location where the hidden hazard lies.  Gee, how fun it is to have wasted N minutes of planning, now I had to start over because turns out this entire route actually can't work with that hazard, it's not just a small tweak to get around it, I now actually need to find and plan a different route altogether so even with all the player assist tools in the world, it is still effectively a restart.

For games that don't allow you do much planning (eg. you can't see very far ahead of where you are at) so that it's much more about exploring and reacting to what's coming, hidden stuff is only slightly more surprising than the many other things you already don't see ahead of time, things that you'd have to react to anyway as you get there.

Lemmings also tend to move too slow and indirectly to encourage effective exploration.  Sonic or Mario can cover a few gaps in seconds of running and jumping.  A lemming often takes a bit longer even with fast forward.


I'd actually like to turn things around and ask:  maybe let's look at examples of hidden stuff in other games very different from Lemmings.  Let's get a sense of what they are doing that perhaps make them work there.

It's quite common in game to have hidden stuff that's optional but either increases your score, or opens up some secret route that unlocks new levels or maybe let you warp to some levels much further ahead.  So we're clearly talking about games that have heavy emphasis on exploration.  Note also that you can completely be unaware of such things and still pass the level, the hidden stuff being optional.

I'm curious about cases where the hidden stuff is not optional and directly in the primary path the player must progress through.  I feel such cases are far less common even in most non-Lemmings games  And when they do occur I'm suspect they are still more controversial, with some people not liking them as much as others.


It seems like a lot of people here had been burned by "bad" hidden-stuff levels in the past apparently, and so hidden stuff had gotten a pretty bad rap around here.  WillLem mentions in good taste but we know also tastes will differ from person to person--for example, WillLem also mentioned at one point he likes Amiga's multi-colored texts in the level preview screen, while Dullstar found the same colors there too much and too childish-looking.

In the end, different people like different things, and it seems like a fair number of people here had turned to mildly or strongly dislike hidden objects.  If you've tasted fish and don't like fish, further repeated exposure to fish dishes isn't likely going to change your mind on it, you'd prefer to just order other things on the menu instead.  And I don't think you'd be too amused either if the chef tries to hide the fish underneath a piece of lettuce or something. :P

SuperLemmini / Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
« on: April 05, 2020, 06:50:39 am »
Ideally, I would prefer SuperLemmini to promote general inclusion: so, there'd be no reason a relatively even-minded player who may prefer NeoLemmix couldn't also play and enjoy a pack of levels in SuperLemmini occasionally. If it happens to allow the presence of features that the more strict NeoLemmixers don't like, so be it.

That could happen from time to time just like I'm sure people play levels in Lix every now and then.  You could call that inclusion if you want.  Then again, you too are playing NeoLemmix levels right now, so there'd just be equally no reason for someone who prefer SuperLemmini (or more precisely, what you want it to evolve to) to not also play some levels in NeoLemmix from time to time.

Ultimately there is no argument against "inclusivity" per se; certainly it'd be helpful to have player-assist tools as an option, so that people like NeoLemmix fans who consider that essential would have at least one less disincentive in playing SuperLemmini levels.  I'm just pointing out that it's ultimately the levels above all that attract people to a particular game, and it sounds like SuperLemmini may end up with many new levels of the kind that wouldn't hold strong interest for the NeoLemmix fans.  The "inclusiveness" of having player-assist tool options is a fine idea but isn't going to make a difference there.

It also doesn't help that SuperLemmini has been a little behind in both levels and features.  If NeoLemmix were currently much closer to SuperLemmini's current state of affairs, then improving SuperLemmini even modestly could've made SuperLemmini more attractive to use even for the more puzzle-oriented people, and then having more "inclusive" options would be much more meaningful indeed.

In your above post, you quoted Dullstar as saying:

And furthermore, if SuperLemmini makes these things optional rather than forcing players to adopt a particular philosophy, then it becomes an even more attractive option to yet more players.

However, it was actually me that said this. Also...

Thanks, copy-paste error corrected.

WillLem fans? Did you mean WinLemm? :lemcat:

Nope.  I didn't know what to call it.  It would be some game engine that might be SuperLemmini in the future but isn't quite there currently.  But you seem to be the most passionate proponent so I just stick your name to it. ;)  Yes, I'm aware a normal reading of the English would instead actually mean "fan of the person". :-\

SuperLemmini / Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
« on: April 04, 2020, 10:36:19 am »
Regarding the animation: watch this clip of direct drop in WinLemm (most likely the platform where I discovered it was possible - through trying it out, I hasten to add). To me, this looks like they're bouncing in midair - they never actually touch the floor. Thoughts?

Based on the video, it looks like WinLemm's version of direct drop is different, and so maybe in WinLemm the lemmings can even exit with the exit completely in mid-air, unlike other versions like DOS where the lemming still has to land but then exits instead of splatting (or if you can see the DOS game's programming, it is first turning the lemming first to splatting and then later to exiting, all before updating the display so you only see the exiting).

I'd love for you to test what happens with the mid-air exit in WinLemm.  Based on the video, it does look like WinLemm can suck falling/floating lemmings in mid-air, unlike most other versions out there.

It still doesn't change the fact that the game never made it any remotely a core part of the experience.  The fact that it never worked on so many other versions, including Amiga being one of the original versions, also shows that it wasn't something DMA intended.  Lemmings 2 also adds emphasize to the land being core to exiting by adding so many tribe-specific elaborate exit animations that only makes sense on land.

Direct drop is a source of backroutes in well-designed levels and its puzzle potential is limited to misleading levels, because there is no reason for a player unaware of direct drop's existence to even think of trying it.

See this post, above. The only reason I'm even aware of direct drop as a game mechanic is exactly that: I tried it out, and it worked!

That's also how most glitches are discovered.  Often even by accident as the player was doing something unrelated but managed to luck into some combination of circumstances and moves that were sufficient to trigger the glitch.  "Someone has discovered it" is by itself not a good argument for making something part of the game.

And in the case of direct drop, it's not even true--the people who only played the versions of Lemmings that do not support direct drop, would actually have come to the opposite conclusion had they tried out what you tried out.

And furthermore, if SuperLemmini makes these things optional rather than forcing players to adopt a particular philosophy, then it becomes an even more attractive option to yet more players.

You are oversimplifying the situation.  For what you are proposing to work out, SuperLemmini still needs to have enough levels that cater to the people firmly on the NeoLemmix philosophy.   If instead most levels are just about, say, timed bombers, without other redeeming qualities for example, then making them untimed just leaves boring levels.  In other words, you want to encourage levels that include things which are a positive for fans like WillLem but strong negative for the NeoLemmix fans.  Allow play assist tools like making bombers untimed, merely turn the negatives in the level into zeros, it doesn't automatically turn them into positives.  The net sum of the level's worth/enjoyment is still lower for the NeoLemmix fans compared to the WillLem fans.  And if the levels tend to lean heavily towards the anti-NeoLemmix stuff, then that resulting lower sum of enjoyment might just be too low for NeoLemmix fans.

Another thing to look at is how NeoLemmix and Lix fared.  In this case, both actually align a lot on most of the philosophies.  You don't end up with equal usage of both.

It's fine that you want SuperLemmini to go in a different direction than NeoLemmix, but it's naive to think that merely having settings to add back the play assist tools would suddenly make SuperLemmini also attractive to NeoLemmix fans.  It's going to be mainly down to the levels, and we know at least some of the levels will not be appealing to NeoLemmix fans, which doesn't exactly encourage them to commit very deeply to using SuperLemmini.  There's also the fact that NeoLemmix now has a greater variety of skills and elements, which may well be a turn-off for some, but it can also add more impediment for people creating SuperLemmini levels if some designs can only be implemented in NeoLemmix.  (Well, there's also the ridiculous fact that SuperLemmini still doesn't even have its own level editor, but let's forget that point and assume it will soon have one, for sake of its long-term survival.)

Realistically, if you want to use SuperLemmini to promote the stuff that turns off NeoLemmix fans, the outcome is that SuperLemmini will attract a different set of people than NeoLemmix.  I think that's fine.  It's good to have variety and just like Lix nowadays serves the niche of multiplayer, it's sensible to have SuperLemmini serves those who desire some of the gameplay aspects that NeoLemmix had moved away from.  Regardless, the people who are currently very happy with NeoLemmix will likely stay with NeoLemmix given that it is more familiar, supports more skills/elements, and the things you suggested so far to add to SuperLemmini are at best don't-cares and at worst turn-offs for them.

NeoLemmix Main / Re: Hidden objects in NL, part 2
« on: April 04, 2020, 09:23:29 am »
I'd say the biggest irony of the NeoLemmix philosophy is that, via its player-assist tools, it makes things like precise skill placement and hidden objects a complete non-issue, and yet it still vehemently rejects these things as being an occasionally valid part of the game.

It's not entirely accurate to say the tools make precise skill pacement and hidden objects completely non-issue.  While framestepping can make precise skill placements easier to achieve, it still takes effort to press the key multiple times to move to the precise time/position, not to mention sometimes needing to retry multiple times just to discover/work out the precise correct location.  And with the tools available, you can't even argue that the precision is enhancing execution aspect of gameplay either.  So it's still quite fair to demand an avoidance of unnecessary precision.  Even with all the tools available, it's still possible to create a level where the pixel-precise location you need to assign some skill can be some random unremarkable point on a platform (rather than some more obvious locations like the endpoints of the platform), and even with all the tools available, it's not hard to see how such a case of finding that one random magic location can still become a chore and is literally precision for precision's sake.

Occasionally, the precision may come about more as a side effect of the puzzle idea rather than intentionally inflicted.  The tools may make it more forgivable, but it's also fair for the level designer to worry that it unnecessarily frustrates the player when they're still trying to find the right solution.  When you don't know what the solution looks like, there will be times where you can get stuck not knowing whether this solution idea that just doesn't quite seem to work out is perhaps failing merely due to imprecision, versus just the wrong idea altogether.

The bottom line is, one of the popular philosophy leans towards no unnecessary precision.  The tools may make violations and the occasional necessary precision less painful than otherwise, but that's quite different from saying the philosophy no longer matters (for the people who believe in it).

As for hidden objects, let's just turn things around and ask, if nothing's truly hidden anyway given clear physics mode exist, what's the point of still insisting on hiding it?  Why not just make it obviously outright being there?

I'd generalize people's philosophy around no hidden stuff as more an express desire to not be visually misled or surprised.  Perhaps you don't agree or don't feel as strongly about it as others, sure that's understandable.  Clear physics mode will definitely take away the lie or the surprise, but then whatever you wanted to accomplish by hiding the thing, you are not accomplishing it anymore since it isn't hidden anymore.  So what exactly did you accomplish?

NeoLemmix Main / Re: 3 things I don't like about neolemmix
« on: April 03, 2020, 07:43:28 am »
If you're just going to play the official levels, I'd suggest either using an emulator (eg. DOSBox, WinUAE, etc.), or to use the LemmixPlayers that replicate all the original behaviors (in DOS) of the games down to glitches.

SuperLemmini / Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
« on: April 02, 2020, 10:05:23 pm »
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 we were creating the game from scratch and intend for this mechanic, I would make it much clearer to the players that it is possible as early as appropriate, and make sure all the detailed design of mechanics and animations etc. are consistent with this mechanic.  And probably make it happen a little more often in the levels so that it's more a core part of the gameplay.  So:

1) Exits in mid-air without any ground can still make lemmings exit.

2) The exit animation would be aware of whether the lemming was on ground vs in mid-air when exit is reached.  If desired, we can still retain the more fancy ground-based exit animations for the ground case, while the mid-air case features a different exit animation that is perhaps more teleporting-like.  This is not unlike how exploders do an "oh no" shrug on ground but skip that while in mid-air.

3) Make sure exit hitboxes extend sufficiently above ground level so that a falling lemming doesn't touch the ground when exiting from a fall.

4) Feature an early level where the exit is mid-air, and the level is constrained enough that the only reasonable solution is to create a path to drop falling lemmings into the exit (as oppose to say, building up to the exit's hitbox).

There are still some edge cases not addressed above, like what happens if the exit is buried enough that the lemming touches ground at the exact same moment it reaches the edge of the exit's hitbox, or what happens if the exit hitbox overlaps with a trap's hitbox.  In other words, multiple different, conflicting effects happening to the lemming at the exact same moment.  You could choose to either give priority to exiting so that the lemming doesn't splat or gets killed, or to give priority to the other effects so the lemming cannot successfully exit.  Either way, ideally maybe introduce a later level that teaches what happens here, although if there are enough other levels to make dropping into the exit relatively common, you could perhaps consider instead leaving it to the players to explore and discover the edge cases on their own.

SuperLemmini / Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
« on: April 02, 2020, 03:24:22 pm »
Which is why such options are exactly that - optional. If all player assist tools are enabled by default, then a new SL player doesn't need to tweak any options, and all levels that they play will be possible. Those who do wish to tailor their experience accept the possibility that they may occasionally encounter a level that requires them to change their preferences slightly.

Hmm ok, that was not clear to me, I was getting the impression you were suggesting to make the assist tools not enabled by default so that the default is closer to the original game.  As long as the defaults maximize solvability, then like you said, players that are unaware of the options will still be able to solve all levels that can be solved.

I disagree: if you watch direct drop carefully, you can see that the lems never actually touch the floor. Instead, the exit's trigger gathers them up in midair and carries them safely through the exit door. The exit trigger is more like a portal or force field in that sense.

That's not how the animation in the game looks like to me.  I see the lemming turning itself 90 degrees facing the exit, and then jumping into the exit, motions which imply the lemming is standing on ground.  I do not see the lemming getting involuntarily pulled or sucked into the exit like you are suggesting.  I don't see it as a kind of portal or teleport at all from the animation.  Lemmings 2's various different tribe animation makes the point even more clear, you see lemmings doing a bow or stumbling drunk during their exit, motions which don't make sense in mid-air.

Also, when you test it out in all the various versions of Lemmings 1 and ONML etc. (regardless of whether they support direct drop or not) by removing all the ground under the exit so that the exit sits in mid-air, you'll see that lemmings will then fall or float through the exit without exiting.  Seeing that, I don't think the game can be any more clear that the lemming needs ground to be able to exit, which kind of contradicts an intepretation of the exit being a portal or similar that can directly suck the lemming out of the level before they hit ground.

Why not? We already have NeoLemmix as a clone engine that doesn't include direct drop; why would you be against the possibility of it making an appearance in SuperLemmini?

Well, you can make that argument for any random behavior that isn't in the game or isn't in NeoLemmix.  DOS Lemmings has the nuke glitch where if you nuke before all lemmings have come out, it calculates the percent save based only on the lemmings that have come out so far, so on an 80-lemming level if you manage to nuke after just 1 comes out and that lemming makes it to the exit before exploding, the game thinks you got 100% saved.  Gee, let's make that happen in SuperLemmini too, even though this glitch doesn't even occur in almost any other ports.

While I'm not strongly against direct drop, this also isn't something that ever feels like a core part of the Lemmings playing experience for most people.  Many versions of the game don't even support it.  And even for the versions like DOS that does, I bet most players aren't even aware it's possible.  No levels in the official games require it, and even when you look into challenge solutions, very few levels use it.  There's also a good chance that sooner or later, you or someone will have to deal with direct-drop introducing backroutes in levels being created.

Given all that, I'd much rather have it made possible in a different way that is also a lot more clear.  For example, you can imagine introducing NeoLemmix-like antisplat fields or objects into SuperLemmini, and then a direct-droppable exit can simply be created by having the hitbox of the exit overlaps with the field, so that it explicitly immunizes the lemmings from splatting.  Players will learn it as a side effect of learning about the new anti-splat element rather than basing on their previous experiences about exit behavior in the original games they played, and level designers can have much better control over when exits can or cannot be direct-dropped into.

SuperLemmini / Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
« on: April 02, 2020, 06:26:51 am »
(ie. not the problem of execution, but things like you can literally never explode anyone in first 5 seconds if bombers are timed, so objectively less levels are solvable with timed bombers even if you're god-like in your execution)

Maybe a better way is for untimed bombers (when enabled) to not be assignable to a lemming in its first 5 or so seconds after coming out of entrance hatch.  This would remove at least that difference that could affect solvability of level.  It doesn't completely remove it because depending on what other tools are available/enabled for skill assignments, and what other moves the solution requires and how precise they need to be, it may not be possible to assign skill to the lemming 5 seconds ago vs now, and vice versa.  But at least it closes an important gap where untimed bombers allow more opportunities to use them that timed bombers can't.

SuperLemmini / Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
« on: April 02, 2020, 12:25:36 am »
I'd say SuperLemmini has the look and feel of a graphically improved Amiga version.

If you are aiming for Amiga, note that direct drop does not work on Amiga Lemmings.  The reason it works in DOS Lemmings is almost certainly a bug when you examine what is actually happening in the game's programming.  Genesis Lemmings may be the only other version that it's known to work, most versions I believe don't support direct drop.

If SuperLemmini's current mechanics already has direct drop then fine, keep it so existing levels aren't affected, or maybe we can disable it anyway going forward if few enough existing levels used direct drop to matter.  If it doesn't already have it then I wouldn't entertain adding it.

The idea of forcing players to have to potentially tweak some random settings hidden away in some secondary screen, in order to solve a level, seems decidedly user-unfriendly.  Keep in mind that you don't start off knowing what the level solution is supposed to be.  Therefore to be conservative, the player would have strong incentive to pick the settings that maximize solvability (ie. not the problem of execution, but things like you can literally never explode anyone in first 5 seconds if bombers are timed, so objectively less levels are solvable with timed bombers even if you're god-like in your execution), which would mean untimed bombers, allow directional select, and allow direct drop, for example.

I actually don't feel like directional select is even in the same class as assign-while-paused, framestepping or untimed bombers.  It's also somewhat interesting that Lemmings 2, while still arguably retaining a lot of execution-style gameplay, does offer some form of support for both directional select and assign-while-paused:  at least on some versions you can right-click some lemming to lock the cursor to that lemming, and then the cursor will follow the lemming as it moves and you can then right-click a skill to assign the skill to that same lemming the cursor has locked to.  This is actually in some ways even more powerful than directional select.  As for assign-while-paused, it's available on most versions of Lemmings 2, the only difference is that the game immediately unpauses when you assign the skill.  That may be a decent compromise actually.

Lemmings Main / Re: My Introduction and my Lemmings History
« on: March 30, 2020, 10:55:29 am »
Welcome Ky!  And thanks for sharing your personal experiences with the games and custom levels!  You might have possibly created the longest post ever on the forum :XD:, but still, pretty interesting read for me. 8-)

Finally, sorry to disappoint everyone here, but don't expect any levelpacks from me. Personally, I'm good at solving puzzles, but when it comes to making them, forget it. I just don't have the skill to make puzzles. I don't know if this is common, though, where there's people who are good at solving puzzles but not making them like me, or vice versa.

I totally get it!  Although I did wind up creating a few odd levels over the years in various clones (CustLemm, Cheapo, Lix, Clones) and a few better levels in Lemmings 2, I do find myself usually better at solving them than making them.  Although nowadays I haven't done much of either, so I suspect I might have gotten a little rusty at solving them too. :XD:

I had a look and managed to use 8 builders, it requires the no-basher start that Clam found (which requires assigning builder on very next frame after assigning miner, before it has a chance to remove any terrain), this way you can use the spare basher to later turn the lemming around some steel instead of building to do so.

7 builders seem unlikely and will require a replay proof.  Updating the results from 7 to 8.

[edit: I see that Clam's no-basher start (as seen in the replay he attached in his post) wasn't quite what I did here, so a quick note below about what I did here, for people who can't watch my replay:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Level Design / Re: Immediate turn-offs
« on: March 28, 2020, 08:35:49 am »
Ok, I've tried those 3 levels in the original game (but PC DOS version) to refresh my memory.  My findings:

Every Lemming For Himself:  yes, it looks like with the normal solution, you will need to release the lemmings quite a bit before finishing all the building.  That said, on DOS Lemmings, if you put the blocker at the right tip of the "ship" instead of the more usual location, and okay with losing 2 instead of just 1 lemming, that puts the waiting crowd closer to the exit such that even if you release them only after the final builder finishes, you still have about 20 seconds to spare.  That won't work on the Amiga though because with its faster timer, you will still run out of time.

But bottom line, although I didn't recall this, I expect running out of time to indeed be a common experience for most people on this level.

The Ascending Pillar Scenario:  I did a fully normal solution and started releasing the crowd only after the final builder reaches land, and ends up with 1:10 on the clock.  On Amiga that translates to about 0:47 on the clock.  So not a generous time limit by any means, but certainly not down to the wire like "Every emming For Himself" is.

Hunt the Nessy:  this is interesting.  On DOS with its slower timer, I ended up with 1:05 on the clock when sticking to only releasing the crowd after the hero finishes.  On Amiga's faster timer, that does translate to only about 0:09 left on the clock, so definitely a bit tight there.

Using the blockers/bombers (ie. forgo 100% saved) shouldn't affect the timing much for most people?  Most people would probably still be keeping the crowd just on the starting island, just using blockers instead of a digger or similar to hold the crowd.  You could imagine holding the crowd twice (ie. release them way early to get them to an island closer to the exit, and then hold them there again to wait), but that's a bit involved and implies some multitasking, so I don't see that being something people would likely try on this level.

The DOS version also has all water removed.  So there are maybe 2 or so gaps that you could get away with using just 1 builder instead of 2, which I guess further makes the timing less tight on DOS compared to Amiga.

I will say one thing, this is probably the worst kind of level for a tight time limit.  At least "Every Lemming For Himself" can't take more than 3 minutes.  Here each time you run out of time, it means you lost 8 freaking minutes of your time, most of which was spent waiting for the builder to build faster, dammit.  (And then later cursing at the crowd of lemmings to walk faster for pete's sake. ;))

SuperLemmini / Re: SuperLemmini 0.104
« on: March 28, 2020, 04:14:03 am »
I was wondering, is there a way to enable the timer for Bombers? I know that a lot of Lemmings players dislike it but I really want my levels to feel like the Amiga version...

Note that some levels may be affected due to requiring a bomber to explode within the first 5 seconds of the lemming coming out of its entrance, which can't be done when there's a 5-second delay from the timer.  Probably not common, but you need to be prepared with needing to turn off timed bombers anyway occasionally for such levels.  At least the original levels (not sure if SuperLemmini came with those or not) are not affected since they were designed with timed bombers in mind.

I'd also suggest an option for no assigning skills whilst paused.

It's already optional--no one says you have to assign skills whilst paused if you don't want to do so. ???

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 369