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 - ∫tan x dx

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
1
Is there an online Worms multiplayer anywhere? I’ve always thought it’d make an excellent online game, just realised I’ve never actually looked into whether one exists!

Worms Armageddon is your best bet for that one. The steam version is fully multiplayer capable, with a reasonably active community.

Worms World Party works similarly, but it's much clunkier than Armageddon and much quieter too.

2
Lemmings Main / Re: Lemmings Scoring System
« on: February 29, 2024, 08:05:13 PM »
I've given this a bit more thought, and I have to ask a question:

What use is there in counting skill assignments?

Think of an arbitrary lemmings level, a level can be put into two distinct categories:
- Type A: There are exactly enough skills given to solve a level
- Type B: There are more than enough skills given to solve a level

Type A levels are simple enough, and they are plentiful in number; this is the default approach to creating a puzzle that is intended to be difficult.
Type B levels encompass levels such as the classic "20 of everything" style level. Sometimes a level might contain a minimal skillset, while still giving some extra superfluous skills - These levels are also type B.

My point is this:
For type A levels, all solutions will contain the exact same number of skill assignments, since that is the way the level is intended to be solved (backroutes notwithstanding). Thus in regards to score, the skill assignments will not play a significant role at all in determining which replay is "better".
For type B levels, it is highly likely that a solution will not use all of the skills provided. Therefore, in my opinion, the lemming saved count and the time taken would be better metrics for determining score.

Certainly, there is something to be said for a solution that uses minimal skills, but would this not be better suited for a talisman challenge instead of a score metric?

I find replays that save the most whilst also being very fast are more fun to watch. If a replay manages to save a builder, or basher, or whatever, this seems less impressive to me, unless doing so is very challenging. Again, I would consider such a challenge to be better suited to a talisman.

So, of the three obvious metrics - lemmings saved, time taken, skills assigned - should we discard skills and only focus on lemmings and time? If so, this certainly simplifies matters in regards to a scoring algorithm, and for many type A levels the skill assignments would make no difference to the score anyway.

3
Lemmings Main / Re: Lemmings Scoring System
« on: February 25, 2024, 02:46:29 PM »
There's also the issue of a positive reward, versus a negative penalty.

It seems logical that each lemming saved contributes positively to the player's score. But what if each lemming lost instead contributed negatively?
For example, each lemming lost is 100 subtracted from the score. Perhaps if the lemming is explicitly killed by the player (like a bomber) the penalty is only -50?

Likewise, should the player be rewarded with points for skills not used, or penalised for skills used? The same goes for time taken.

Regarding the time factor, longer levels are always going to be lower scoring than shorter levels. There's also the issue of proportion:
For a longer level, suppose solution A takes 5 minutes, whereas solution B takes 4 minutes, 55 seconds.
For a shorter level, solution C takes 30 seconds, whereas solution D takes 25 seconds.

In each case, the difference in time taken is only 5 seconds, but that is a much larger proportion for the second pair than the first.
Should scores reflect this?


Please elaborate!

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/69uv3sgsfg

The graph in the above link is an example of a "diminishing returns" function.
If the input (x) is taken to be the number of frames of a solution, then the output (y) is the score calculated.
There are a few extra variables at play here: (a), (b) and (c).
The value of (a) comes from taking an arbitrary baseline of 2 minutes for an average solution time, we get (2 minutes) * (60 seconds/minute) * (17 frames/second) = 2040. This variable denotes the "max value" of the function.
Variable (b) is a vertical scale factor. Set (b) = 1, to see more clear behaviours of the function
Variable (c) is a kind of "drop off" factor - how quickly the function diminishes
Note that this function yields a higher score for shorter replays, while tapering off for longer ones.
Regarding the note on proportionality above, this kind of function gives a greater score difference for shorter replays than for longer ones.

5 minutes -> 6039 score
4 min 55 -> 6075 score
(36 point difference)

Whereas:

30 sec -> 11643
25 sec -> 12096
(453 point difference)

Of course, this function is merely an example, and I'm not suggesting this particular function even be used at all. My point is, that there can be many "clever" functions out there that take in the information and do wonderful things with it.

That said, however: do we even need to be "clever"?

What if each level starts out with some base score of say 50,000 and actions taken in a solution either add to it or subtract from it? This base score could differ from level to level, allowing users to set their own value for the base score.

4
Lemmings Main / Re: Lemmings Scoring System
« on: February 23, 2024, 10:43:47 PM »
See here for an example of the score system in SNES: https://youtu.be/byC680Jde1g

The score seems to be based on the following:
(Saved% * 1000) + (number of skills remaining)

If we wish to expand on this, then I agree that a percentage based system should be in place for the lemmings themselves.
Regarding the conundrum of a level with minimal skills, versus a level with 50 of many skills (or even infinitely many skills available), surely the only metric worth measuring is "how many skills did the player use?"
It does not matter if the level provides infinitely many bashers. High scoring replays should be the ones where minimal skill usage occurs.
Similarly for time limits; it doesn't matter if a level has one minute or infinite time. A solution that takes 30 seconds is a better solution than one that takes 50 seconds.

What is something that needs to be taken into account is the relative weighting of all of these factors.

Suppose we have two replays, both save 100% of lemmings.
 - Case A: This replay uses only 3 skill assignments, but takes 5 minutes to complete.
 - Case B: This replay uses 25 skill assignments, but is completed in 45 seconds.

Which of these should be awarded more points? Which is more impressive?

Consider the following formula, with arbitrary constants inserted for example:

Score = (%Lemmings saved * 1000) - (Number of skills used * 10) - (Number of frames elapsed in replay)

Number of frames taken covers both time limit and infinite time levels. This also works in the case where a level is extremely minimal - taking less than one second. Negative scores are clamped at a score of zero.

Thus, players are incentivised to save as many lemmings as possible, whilst minimising both skill usage and time taken.
We can generally assume the frame count to be somewhat large in the case of an average level, though this particular metric is heavily biased in favour of shorter levels over longer ones.
Perhaps we could take the square root of the number of frames? Or apply some other kind of function that gives diminishing returns?

Alternatively, consider the following:
Upon spawning into a level, a lemming has a hidden "score count" variable that starts at 1000, and decreases by 1 each second that passes.
This score count decreases by some fixed amount each time a skill is assigned to that lemming. It could be something like -10 points per skill, -20 if a permanent skill is assigned.
When a lemming is saved, its score value is added to the total.

Thus each lemming contributes a different amount to the score, based on its age. Players are therefore incentivised to save lemmings as soon as possible - hastening their solutions.
This also favours solutions with fewer skill assignments too. Since these scores and their penalties are additive, then it does not matter which lemmings receive which skills.
This means that the classic "worker lemming" style levels are not penalised for having one lemming do all of the work.

There are many possible avenues for exploration here.

5
Interesting thought, but I don't like this as a replacement for the splat ruler, because it's very often useful to know whether a particular fall will be fatal or not when planning a route, whether or not you have a lemming nearby.

Why not have both? The splat ruler could be changed to remove the climber/window behaviours, and the skill shadow system would cover those cases by itself.

6
From my personal opinion, the only useful part of the ruler is the regular splat marker. I have never used the climber fall marker, nor the window fall marker.
Similar to others in this thread, I cannot even remember what those other markers do, and have to be reminded.
The fact that these other markers are present, and the USEFUL marker is in the middle of them, makes judging fall distances very irritating.
I would very much prefer if the other markers were removed.

Consider also that NeoLemmix has rewind capabilities. Suppose a lemming falls from a window and splats. This usually happens immediately at the beginning of the level, and so the player thinks "aha - need to fix that". Usually this is part of a level's puzzle anyway. In this case, the window splat marker is useless, since the player can simply rewind a few frames and assign a floater, or whatever.
There are less common cases where a level's solution involves digging directly beneath a window. In this situation, the window fall marker may be useful. However, since these kinds of level are very uncommon, this is not helpful in the majority of gameplay.

The climber fall marker seems even more useless. Suppose a climber falls from a wall. If he survives - so what? The fall marker is useless! If he splats, then the player needs to find a way to prevent that.
Most levels do not rely on the few extra pixels granted by the climber fall. It's usually the case that a "significant" safety net is required - like the full height of a builder or stacker. In this case, those few extra pixels rarely come into play, and thus the climber fall marker is utterly useless!

All in all, the specific differences in survivable fall distance do not, in my opinion, warrant the extra fall markers. The general fall distance marker is the most prevalent by a huge margin, and use cases for the other two are simply too infrequent. They just get in the way.



I've had some ideas regarding alternatives to this system: Use the skill shadow system instead.
Suppose the player places their cursor over a falling lemming. What about a shadow that traces out the path of the falling lemming, starting out grey before turning red after splat fall distance is reached?

7
General Discussion / Re: LF meetup, Leeds, Sat 5 August
« on: August 04, 2023, 03:17:11 PM »
I'm not sure this has been discussed elsewhere, but shall we meet outside of the WHSmiths in the train station?
For those not familliar with Leeds, it's just on the right after the ticket barrier - you can't miss it :)

And what time do people expect to be arriving, trains permitting?

8
General Discussion / Re: LF meetup, Leeds, Sat 5 August
« on: July 31, 2023, 08:38:37 AM »
This sounds fine to me! I'm one of the Leeds crew, so it's easy for me regardless :P

9
I'm one of the Leeds guys!

A weekend would be best for me - but I can't do the weekend of 17th June - apart from that, I'm most likely available! :)

10
I've always thought that a better way to show this would be to use the blocker's tapping foot.

The head would shake left and right as it did classically, and the left foot would tap for a left facing lemming, and the right foot for the right.

11
Contests / Re: Level Design Contest #27 - Playing Phase (Discussion Topic)
« on: February 24, 2023, 09:52:02 PM »
@ericderkovits

I'm going to accept this as intended! :thumbsup:

I see you saved an extra lemming and a bomber, but I think that's close enough to my solution!

Nicely done! :thumbsup:

12
Contests / Re: Level Design Contest #27 - Playing Phase (Update Topic)
« on: February 24, 2023, 06:47:47 PM »
V4 of my R1 level - Garden of Love

- Modified terrain
- Somebody must have given that guy a spicy pepper or something.

13
Contests / Re: Level Design Contest #27 - Playing Phase (Discussion Topic)
« on: February 24, 2023, 06:46:47 PM »
@ericderkovits

D'ohhh! Another backroute! :forehead:

V4 has been uploaded! :P

14
Contests / Re: Level Design Contest #27 - Playing Phase (Discussion Topic)
« on: February 23, 2023, 06:02:32 PM »
@ericderkovits

Nice solution, and getting very close to what I intended! :thumbsup:

I've uploaded V3 in the other thread

15
In Development / Re: Random level sharing topic!
« on: February 15, 2023, 05:07:01 PM »
@Armani

Perfect solution!

And yes, the extra climber is superfluous. It seems I've missed the obvious once more! ;P

I've updated my previous post to remove that climber

Nicely done! :thumbsup:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6