Quote
Unless you want to call ghosts a gimmick, too, because they were part of the list, but the same is true for zombies (these two gimmicks were activated by default). So in that case, we could be nitpicky and say gimmicks were never fully removed, becaues zombies are still around

Then let's call zombies a gimmick. They were used by quite a lot of people and were generally accepted (that was the main reson we wanted to keep them), ghosts saw only use in very very few levels (namida and Giga were the only ones with ghosts levels I recall).

Quote
Ghosts, in contrast, actually do less than regular lemmings, but precisely in that lies their strength.

That still doesn't reduce the actual clutter they are going to add.

Quote
So if Lemmings were programmed in Python and I wanted to add ghosts, I'd simply copy and paste everything I need for normal lemmings, and then delete everything that defines an interaction with an object. Done!

That is exactly what you should not do! Things like this make your code a total mess!

Copying a huge code chunks over and over is not good, you really want to avoid that in large programs.

Quote
I think it's just pretty plain to see that ghosts are in many ways strictly more versatile than disarmers

That is not a clear reason to add a skill. Let's propose a teleporter skill that teleports a lemming, as it is way more versatile than a climber!

Also less versatile skills are often easier to learn for players. This can be a double edged sword. Disarmers are easy to understand, ghosts not (also I wouldn't call them intuitive).

Furthermore I wouldn't call the non-interaction with objects a huge pool for extra level ideas and really mostly just an addition of extra game rules. There are enough ways to go around objects.

Because of things like this we had 20+ gimmicks back in the days. Also there is already a huge list of things we want to implement. We had resons to burry our past sins and we should not open the old graves again.

You won't convince me for the ghost case here really. I disliked them back then and my mind hasn't changed.

Quote
While only the first assignment should be applied, the others should be queued instead of being ignored.

Totally fine with that.

I didn't like ghosts back then and that pretty much has not changed.

They just introduce a whole new set of behaviors to the game and as a result making it a lot more complicated. The lemmings fear ghosts thing also can lead to a ton of fiddly stuff.

The shimmier as an example doesn't require to learn a lot of new behaviors, so it's a rather simple skill compared to the ghost mess.

I still support the gimmick and ghost culling back then with all my heart, it was nessesary to remove this clutter and I am a very careful person when it comes to culls.

I solved a certain old format contest level exploiting this behavior. This is still possible in new format NL though as the replay format didn't change.

Reproducing:

- Load a level.
- Assign a skill to a lemming.
- Assign a 2nd skill on the very next frame (for simplicity purposes) to another Lemming.
- Save the replay.
- Close NL and open the replay file with a texteditor.
- Look at the 2 skills assigned and change the frame of the 2nd skill to the frame of the first, while updating the 2nd Lemming's position to the position the Lemming had on the frame before:

Example:

Original file:

$ASSIGNMENT
  FRAME 85
  LEM_INDEX 1
  LEM_X 111
  LEM_Y 135
  LEM_DIR left
  ACTION builder
$END

$ASSIGNMENT
  FRAME 86
  LEM_INDEX 0
  LEM_X 209
  LEM_Y 151
  LEM_DIR right
  ACTION basher
$END

After editing:

$ASSIGNMENT
  FRAME 85
  LEM_INDEX 1
  LEM_X 111
  LEM_Y 135
  LEM_DIR left
  ACTION builder
$END

$ASSIGNMENT
  FRAME 85
  LEM_INDEX 0
  LEM_X 208
  LEM_Y 151
  LEM_DIR right
  ACTION basher
$END

(I've attached an example file where the first 2 assignments are a double assign)

NL will accept and load the edited file and assign both skills in the same frame to their respective Lemmings.

Fix proposal:

If we have multiple assignments in the same frame in a replay file: Only execute the first assignment, while all other assignments in the same frame will be ignored.

This fix will therefore trigger no NL error and it won't be noticable. This is only discovered anyways if a user deliberatly edits a replay file to do this, as double assignments are otherwise forbidden in the player.

I still think only showing the skills that are actually used in a level is the right way. Showing a few more skills that are not used is just extra clutter in my opinion.

Also as namida said it makes sure that the correct skills are enabled.

Quote
the lack of a skill is just as important

Yes and that's why it is not in the skillbar. If you really want to have that skill in a level, players will notice the lack of it immidiatly.

If you want to extra highlight the fact that a skill is missing, the level name could also be used.

Quote
causing the occasional lemming to fall through a trampoline and die.

There is the rule that trampolines only can handle 1 lemming at a time (at least I think), like a fast trap that can only handle up to a certain density of lemmings before letting some past. That is also the reason why you can have problems on Sport 1 getting a gold standard.

This should be it. 

I've found 2 possible solutions. One is quite timing dependent though.

I feel this gets a bit closer.

Maybe this is more likely to be intended.

I solved the level. I still see elements of the original version coming through as well.

The new update wasn't released yet. So the change still needs to be implemented.

Generally, I think there is no 100% right answer and it depends from case to case. Even inside a case you often could make arguments for both sides.

The most general thing I might state is that I usually want to increse entropy (sometimes in the form of tempting, but wrong ways) in levels of higher difficulty, while levels that are supposed to go into easier ranks shall focus more on the actual solution with it being the main challenge.

So I would say for your specific case: Do you want your level to be more difficult or easier?

I also think frustraition can be specific from person to person. I am less talking about precision or fiddly things which are generally more frustraiting. It's about getting into an idea for quite some time, refusing to let it go, only to realise in the end that it doesn't work. Sometimes this situation can lead to anger instead of simply accepting that you have to go another way. This is amplified if the wrong way you tried was very close to beating the level. This anger is different from person to person and can be near to non existent to quite vulgar.

I still would raise the question here: Is the level intended to be difficult, or rather easy? For a difficult level these wrong ways can be very helpful to increase the challenge and some people crave these challenges (others not). But that's where I think sorting levels into difficulty ranks come into play.

Also in most cases you can't cover all dead ends and users will always find new ways to make their lives more difficult. In the long run it is unavoidable.

So I would say be careful with entropy in easier levels and be more willingly to let it be in harder stuff.

Quote from: Strato Incendus on October 18, 2018, 01:59:07 PM
Thanks for the info regarding Clammings! I tried to figure this out via SEB Lems, which had one of namida's custom skill panels in Old Formats, but resorted to the standard green again in New Formats.

I could offer you, after I'm done with creation and stuff, a tester version of United. It will use custom panels, rank signs, menu signs and logo. So you could see how I've done it as well.

Also Reunion has the LP IV panels again, if you want even more examples.

So I don't remember if I reported this, so here it goes.

As I finished the custom rank signs for my United test pack a few weeks ago, I tried to insert them into the pack toolkit and it gave me an error that something with the path format is wrong, in fact it was the same error Giga posted here: https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=3991.0

So it seems like maybe the toolkit wants to save the rank signs in a wrong location or something like that (the correct thing would be putting the pngs into the respective rank folders). Or maybe can't handle different file names/ can't recognise the png's format....

After manually renaming my ranksign images to the used naming format and putting them into the right folders it worked anyway, but it seems inserting via toolkit is bugged. Prior I named them rankX_sign.png (X stands for the rank number) instead of the used name in the folder, but I expected the toolkit would rename the file properly and put it into the right position inside the pack.

I didn't checked, but this problem could also affect some other custom images, although I remember inserting the menu signs worked.